Liberal Quaker communities aren't usually terribly
representative of the communities in which they are situated. Here in
Britain, we tend to be white, culturally middle class,
English-speaking (particularly noted in Wales), and
educated.
There's lots of theories about why this is; I tend to subscribe to
the idea that a non-representative community is more forbidding and
less welcoming to those who do not already fit into it than those who
immediately “fit in”. A black, Asian or other minority ethnic
(the currently most acceptable term in this country, abbreviated to
BAME) person, in a town that is ethnically diverse, will react the
first time they go to a group based on what they see – just as a
white person would, but with very different dynamics of social
history behind it. If they see 40 people in a room, all white, they
will feel that this group is not for them. It may be subconscious,
and it may be counterbalanced by other factors (and we'd better hope
it will be), but it will be there; none of us is “colour-blind”,
however much we might have a misguided aspiration to be so.
Similarly, when a person who is culturally working class finds
themselves in a room full of middle class accents, when they come to
a shared meal and find half the contributions based on couscous and
quinoa, they feel that this is a group that is not for people like
them.
I emphasise
“educated” in this list because it is, in one important way, not
like the others. It is something that each of us can potentially
change about ourselves, and it is seen as a positive by even the most
enlightened social egalitarian. It is not hard to argue that that is
it is a good thing that we are mostly quite educated, provided that
we include those who are educated by less formal means. We might
believe that we are mostly educated because those who join our
community who are less educated become more educated in part because
of their exposure to Quakers and their living out of Quaker values.
