How is society possible?
Welcome to a culturally polarized world
This was the question raised by Georg Simmel one of the most influential sociologists of the 20th century. I was reminded of his pathbreaking essay ‘How Is Society Possible’, published in 1908, when a few weeks ago I read an account of a report, The State Of Us, which described The United Kingdom as a ‘powder keg’ of social tensions[i].
The State Of Us warned that a year on from last summer’s riots, there was a risk of unrest being reignited unless urgent action was taken to address issues of polarisation and division. The Forward to this Report stated that ‘the bonds that hold society together – civic participation and a shared sense of belonging – are under growing pressure’. It claimed that ‘this is leaving our society more fragmented, fragile and less resilient to internal and external threats’[ii].
A few days after the publication of The State Of Us a protest outside the Bell Hotel in Epping, where illegal migrants have been housed since 2020 turned into a riot[iii]. Frustrated residents indicated that they were no longer prepared to put up with their neighborhood becoming a dumping ground for the latest boatload of illegal migrants. Typically, the media promoted the myth that this protest was the work of far-right outside agitators. But as Sky News reported this was a protest of local people[iv]. It noted that ‘families sat on the grass, multi-generations of them, kids playing in the sunshine - tradesmen brought their lorries; a large "Protect Our Kids" sign fixed on the back’.
Since the upheaval at the Bell Hotel protest have spread to Diss in Norfolk and to Canary Wharf in London. It feels that one more sexual assault on a local by an illegal migrant may well serve as a spark for the outbreak of a new cycle of community protest.
With such intense level of polarisation, the question of ‘How is Society Possible?’ raised by Simmel 117 years ago has become disturbingly pertinent. When Simmel explored this problem, his focus was on the problem of what allows society to become a cohesive entity when it consists of people with very different individual egos. He noted that society is a ‘structure of unlike elements’ where through the interaction between individuals who maintain their distinct identities a collective unity is formed[v].
In the contemporary world the problem that confronted Simmel is complicated by the fact that society’s cohesion is not simply challenged by the individuality of its members but by a fragmented cultural landscape bereft of a sturdy social bond between citizens. There is little that holds the different cultural communities together leading to a society that is according to The State Of Us, ‘more fragmented, fragile and less resilient to internal and external threats’.
The UK like most western nations have become highly polarised along political lines. Thanks to the addiction of their elites to the cause of diversity and mass migration they are also divided along cultural lines. The elite project of constructing a multicultural society wedded to the principle of diversity – which is another term for cultural heterogeneity – and inclusion; which in practice meant eroding the distinction between citizens and newly arrived migrants – was responsible for unleashing an unprecedented degree of cultural polarisation.
It is important to realise that the devotion of the political and cultural elites to multiculturalism was not simply motivated by the exigency of managing the impact of mass migration on British society. Advocates of diversity also believed that a multicultural society was superior to one that was entirely based on British traditions. In effect the implicit message conveyed by the diversity enthusiast was that compared to a truly multicultural community a traditional English one was clearly inferior.
In the past the advocates of mass immigration argued that the influx of migrants would not alter the character of British society. Today this argument has lost its credibility and supporters of immigration now accept the argument that mass migration will change the character of their society – but now insist that this transformation is on balance a step in the right direction.. From this standpoint immigration is perceived as positive and a welcome instrument of social change. The widespread promotion of this outlook has infuriated many British citizens who are fed up with seeing every culture celebrated but their own.
Whether or not it is done consciously the different manifestation of Britishness and particularly its patriotic expression is frequently ridiculed in the media. Britishness is also frequent target of contempt within the institutions of culture and education.
That is why a 12-year-old schoolgirl could be humiliated by her teachers for wearing a dress featuring a sequinned Union Jack. Courtney Wright was unceremoniously hauled out of her lesson at Bilton School in Rugby on Culture Day and placed in isolation for daring to wear such ‘unacceptable’ clothes[vi].
It is worth noting that a circular issued by Bilton School encouraged children to celebrate Culture Day by wearing their traditional cultural dress to school. It stated that ‘this is a fantastic opportunity for pupils to proudly represent their heritage and learn about the cultures of their peers and staff’. The circular should have also added that there would be no opportunity for pupils to proudly represent their British heritage.
Courtney Wright penned a letter, which sums the feelings of hundreds of thousands of people who feel that Britishness has been assigned an inferior status by their nation’s cultural institutions. This 12 year-old wrote:
‘Today I want to talk about my culture — British culture — and why it’s important to me.
In Britain, we have lots of traditions including drinking tea, our love for talking about the weather and we have the royal family.
We have amazing history, like kings and queens, castles, and writers like Shakespeare. It's also modern, diverse and always changing - with music fashion and food from all around the world blending into daily life. And let’s not forget fish and chips!
Its also the way we speak, our humour, our values of fairness and politeness, and the mix of old traditions and new ideas
But sometimes at school, we only hear about other cultures — which is great because learning about different countries is interesting and important. But it can feel like being British doesn’t count as a culture, just because it’s the majority.
I think culture should be for everyone — not just for people from other countries or backgrounds. Being British is still a culture, and it matters too. It’s part of who I am.
So let’s celebrate all cultures — whether they come from far away or right here at home."
No doubt this letter will resonate with the feelings of millions of British people who see every culture celebrated but their own.
What is tragic about this incident is not only the mistreatment of a 12-year-old child, who had no idea that her school looked upon her manifestation of patriotism as a cultural crime. What is really disturbing is that many of those in charge of our schools simply lack any empathy for the people for whom their national identity really matters.
A Second- Rate Social Engineering Project
In effect Britain like many western societies has become a target of an ill-conceived social engineering project. There is now considerable evidence that shows that the British State has been complicit in the project of reorganising society as a de-nationalised multicultural community. To realise this objective it has created an environment where immigration became a taboo subject. For example, Tony Blair’s Labour Government commissioned research that could be used to promote and normalise mass migration. A Home Office strategy document ‘Having A Sensible Conversation About Migration – dated 25 March 2004-sought to improve the public’s ‘understanding’ of migration and ‘correct public misconceptions about the scale, nature and potential benefits of managed migration’ and “open the way for a more sensible conversation on immigration”[vii].
The document recognised that ‘people feel they do not have permission to freely express their fears’. When it came to the issue of immigration self-censorship was the norm as far back 2004. This culture of silence has made it easier for the British State ignore the sentiments of most people in British society. Behind this wall of silence, the programme of re-engineering British society could proceed with pace.
The cumulative outcome of the promotion of multiculturalism is cultural fragmentation and segmentation. It is possible that Tony Blair and the political leaders that followed him were not aware of their complicity in the balkanisation of Britain. But whatever their intent they bear responsibility for the spectacular weakening of the social bonds that hold society together. They deprived the nation of a common focus of loyalty necessary for the maintenance of social solidarity. That so many people feel that they no longer belong to the society inhabited by their ancestors speaks to a fundamental rupture in cultural continuity.
And without cultural continuity and the sense of meaning it provides a cohesive society is simply not possible.
PS
During the months ahead I will be embarking on my How is Society Possible Project. My aim is to explore what solidarity can mean in an era where technocratic-managerial solutions continually undermine the spontaneously generated social bonds that is necessary for the conduct of community life. I hope that some you can participate in some way in this project.
I wrote this for The Daily Mail: one spark and tinderbox Britain will go up in flames
https://x.com/Furedibyte/status/1948270425605099683
one spark and tinderbox Britain will go up in flames: FRANK FUREDI
[i] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jul/15/social-tensions-british-people-polarisation-research
[ii] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jul/15/social-tensions-british-people-polarisation-research
[iii] https://news.sky.com/story/epping-protests-are-just-the-latest-flashpoint-of-frustration-13399441
[iv] https://news.sky.com/story/epping-protests-are-just-the-latest-flashpoint-of-frustration-13399441
[v] Simmel, G., 1910. How is society possible?. American Journal of Sociology, 16(3), p.387.
[vi] https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/uk/schoolgirl-12-punished-for-wearing-union-flag-dress-to-school-culture-day/
[vii] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/07/22/blair-considered-secret-scheme-immigration-more-popular-uk/
I was walking around a couple of local seaside towns and the prevalence of middle eastern dress was depressing...walking around the cliffs in Dover I felt like the crowds of our recent 'citizens' were there as a 'show of strength.' How many are on visas and how many were citizens? What skills do they have - and why am I suddenly seeing so many elderly third world people who clearly seem alienated?
This feels deliberate and against the will of us 'legacy' British. Europe is very careless of what we have built and our education tells them we are tainted. We feel powerless, and unlike a recession, there is no coming back from this political disaster.
The State of Us: "‘the bonds that hold society together – civic participation and a shared sense of belonging – are under growing pressure’....‘this is leaving our society more fragmented...."
This is the wrong way round. The fragmentation of society from mass immigration and multiculturalism is why a shared sense of belonging is "under pressure". And the growth of Islam and its increasing colonisation of public space is one of the reasons why a shared sense of belonging is 'under pressure'. British Future, which ought to be called British Fabian Future, goes through all sorts of gyrations in its reports to obscure and deny one of the main causes of the collapse of a shared sense of belonging, the end of a "we" as a nation.
For example, in parts of London you need to speak Arabic to have any sense of a shared belonging. There are whole streets of shops and cafes with signs in Arabic, mosques proliferating, and Muslims praying outside of mosques in public which has included in Parliament Square and College Green (despite over 400 mosques in London). The message to those of us born English is clear and the denial by our political class is alienating.
In Bradford a conservative candidate in 2017 reported that the main question on the door step was about his position on Kashmir. (Today it would be Gaza and coded enquiry as to whether you support killing Jews.) They have their own banks, financial and loan systems, schools where teaching is not in English, money is sent overseas to support interests of another country, their own ethic shops containing only foods lablled in Urdu contrary to law not that our government would enforce it). They do not patronise Western cinemas but have their own. Marriage outside their communities is forbidden (on pain of death). In short, a very large swathe of Bradford is effectively Kashmir with a Yorkshire postcode. Bradford is increasingly replicated in northern towns where council opening prayers are now in Urdu.
I did laugh when I read about the cohesion enquiry, task force or whatever. I think they and British Future should be moved to terraced i accommodation in Bradford, Burnley and Bolton while working on their reports. The cogntive dissonance required to maintain their stance - spend more - would be entertaining. British Future recommend "...more schools where people regularly meet and interact with others from different background". Good luck with that in Bradford. The time when that might have worked has long passed.
Renaud Camus, French novelist, essayist and occasional political activist, was recently denied entry to the UK. He is mild mannerd and non-violent, but he was somehow not "conducive to the public good'. Perhaps it was this that troubled the Home Office:
“Individuals who so wish can always join a people out of love for its language, literature, its art de vivre or its landscapes. But, he argues, you can’t do this at scale forpeoples who remain peoples cannot join other peoples. They can only conquer them, submerge them, replace them.” He also said, in a French context: “if a veiled woman with a shaky command of our language, entirely ignorant of our culture can say to a native Frenchman with a passionate interest in Roman churches, the finer points of vocabulary and syntax, Montaigne, Jean-Jaques Rousseau, Burgundy Wine, and Proust and whose family has for several generations lived in the same little valley of the Vivrais […] 'I am just as French as you are', it follows that being French is nothing”.
Abedi, the Manchester bomber, lived in an area known as "Little Libya" and his 'refugee' family would take holidays in Libya, the country they were supposedly escaping from. Join a people they had not.
At my school in the sixties we had our first Nigerian join us. At the end of that classic English education he was as British as the rest of us, with the same cultural feeling, dispositions and instincts. He had joined us. But, as Camus, notes this cannot be done at scale.
There is a large Somali community in Streatham. Anne-Marie Waters reported that her friend had left her phone on a bus. She called it for her and a Somali, who had found it, answered. He would not "return to a woman".
In 1966, responding to race riots, Roy Jenkins dismissed "flat assimilation" on the grounds that parallel socities would live in "peaceful harmony and mutual respect". Delusional then and delusional now.