Some interesting new developments in the Canadian debate on immigration and integration. Canadian Press has a piece about Kenney's visit to Calgary earlier this month. He says that the federal government's new focus is on integration:
"We don't want to create a bunch of silo communities where kids grow up in a community that more resembles their parents' country of origin than Canada."
He also talks about the dangers of immigrants developing an new identity which would somehow be at odds with their Canadian identity if they lived in such communities.
These comments are somewhat obscure, but ominously echo Bisoondath's critique of multiculturalism from back in the '90s. The real problem is how the Conservative seems to dichotomize between multiculturalism and integration, and between maitaining your cultural heritage and being Canadian. These two will only be at odds if politicized. Indeed, since integration by definition is a process that takes place between two (or more) equal partners in mutual dialogue and negotiation, it seems to me that multiculturalism is a necessity to be able to achieve ethnic integration. Anything else risks leading to assimilation, where the minorities are forced to abandon certain legacies or parts of their identity in the process of becoming Canadians.
The second piece is more recent and discusses how immigrants are hard hit by the recession. What surprised me here is that Canadian employers seem to rely on the last hired, first fired principle. Unlike in Sweden, where it is the law of the land, this rather seems to be a practice of convenience. If anyone could enlighten me further with regards to its status in Canadian working life, I'd be most grateful. But even when the news are these grim, I still have to say that Canada appears relatively succesful in comparison to my native Sweden, because over there, I doubt very much that Mr. Lobana or Mr. Muqtadir would have found any employment in jobs on their own competence level in the first place...
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Rest in peace, professor
It had completely passed my by that one of the truly great philosophers of our time passed away on Friday, July 17 at age 81. Leszek Kolakowski was a Polish thinker whose work Main Currents of Marxism must be seen as one of the most important contributitions to political theory during the 20th century. It constitutes the most thorough and relentless analysis of Marxist thought. Covering the development from the beginnings in the late 18th century to its later incarnations in the 1970s, it clearly exposes fundamental weaknesses in the ideology. In my comprehensive examination paper on comparative politics, I summarized some of his points like this (p. 17):
"My critique is that several central operative terms of these [Marxist] approaches suffers from X-and-Not-X-problems, including ‘human dignity’, ‘higher forms of culture’ and in some cases the use of the term Capitalism itself. Thus the central claim that Capitalism is the historically most dehumanizing mode of production rests on a particular framing of human dignity. This, as Kolakowski argues, can only be substantiated if it has been conceptualized (Kolakowski, 2005, 217). Since this has not been done, the project of its restoration is impeded. The same reservations can be made regarding Marcuse’s higher forms of culture."
In other words, Marx claimed that Capitalism was dehumanizing without ever defining what he meant by human dignity.
The work is a must for anyone interested in political theory in general or Marxism in particular and the significance of this contribution can hardly be over-estimated.
Rest in peace, professor.
P.S. Wolodarski has a good note in Swedish on Kolakowski's contribution here
"My critique is that several central operative terms of these [Marxist] approaches suffers from X-and-Not-X-problems, including ‘human dignity’, ‘higher forms of culture’ and in some cases the use of the term Capitalism itself. Thus the central claim that Capitalism is the historically most dehumanizing mode of production rests on a particular framing of human dignity. This, as Kolakowski argues, can only be substantiated if it has been conceptualized (Kolakowski, 2005, 217). Since this has not been done, the project of its restoration is impeded. The same reservations can be made regarding Marcuse’s higher forms of culture."
In other words, Marx claimed that Capitalism was dehumanizing without ever defining what he meant by human dignity.
The work is a must for anyone interested in political theory in general or Marxism in particular and the significance of this contribution can hardly be over-estimated.
Rest in peace, professor.
P.S. Wolodarski has a good note in Swedish on Kolakowski's contribution here
Monday, July 20, 2009
Extreme right wing gains in Sweden
Swedish public radio discussed the possibility that the extreme right wing populist party The Swedish Democrats might succeed to enter parliament next election (2010). Sweden is traditionally seen as something of an exception in Europe in that such parties just never seem to be very succesful at the polls. An optimistic reading of this history is that Swedes simply are much more tolerant, democratic and respectful to minorities - as indicated by its status as a country with a long history of multiculturalism - which is seen as the explanation for their lack of electoral success. In that respect, it is often compared to Canada, which invented multiculturalism and from this point of view, the growth of a party like the Swedish Democrats must be seen as deeply troubling sign that Sweden is becoming more racist and less tolerant.
However, I have a lingering feeling that this interpretation might be an overly generous reading of Swedish political culture. It seems to me that the cause should rather be sought elsewhere, and I think I would begin my search in the entrenchment of the Social Democratic People's Home, Folkhemmet, and its highly paternalist construction.
Historically, Sweden embraced the nation-state concept vigorously and was one of the countries that chose to pursue eugenics, racial hygenie, with substantial government funding back in the early 1920s. This was not right wing politics back then, but supported by all parties across the political spectrum. I think a fair case could be made that the notion that Sweden has historically been a homogenous nation comes from this time. That notion is, of coures, false. There have always been minorities in Sweden - Finns, Sami, Jews and others, but part of the nation-state policy included the suppression and assimilation of these minorites in the pursuit of "racial purity".
By the end of World War II, "racial hygiene" lost its appeal as a science for obvious reasons. But the Social Democrats were in power, and expanded the centralist Swedish state with the aim of building the People's Home, Folkhemmet. This was a highly hierarchist and paternalist state, based on the notion that enlightened rulers could engineer society to more evolved state, as it was. The Myrdals were very influential in this project, and part of their ambition was to create the "A" Class human. Therefore, eugenics remained as a political tool to "enhance the gene pool" and to "remove degenerative elements" from the popular body. Those "degenerative elements" included the disabled, as well as categories of people who could be argued to have been the Swedish equivalents to "visible minorities" in the Anglo-Saxon world, particularly the Roma and the Travelling People (commonly known as "Tattare" by Swedes). Meanwhile, other minorities, like the Sami, were forbidden to speak their language and express their diversity in public.
Thus, for several decades, the People's Home was not only a Social Democratic project of class equality, it was also a very ethnically Swedish project, and its face embodied features that are characteristic of Swedish ethnicity, complete with blond hair and blue eyes. In that context, I do not consider it very remarkable that right wing populist parties would find it very difficult to win votes. Their potential supporters - working class Swedes - were already highly mobilized by the Social Democrats who were pursuing a political agenda of homogenization, ethnically or otherwise, an agenda that was not challenged until the 1970s with the adoption of multiculturalism (which was adopted, it is interesting to note, when Sweden closed its borders to labour force immigration).
A counter argument would be that other countries also had implemted homogenizing policies. This is true, and the Canadian residential schools for aboriginals are a good example. What I think might be the difference is that the Swedish state has been a highly centralist and paternalist one, with a clearly hierarchical structure (unlike, for instance, the highly fragmented Canadian polity). This has acted as a very powerful conduit for homogenizing policies at the same time as it has effectively obstructed the expression of diversity by the subaltern groups in society. And this pattern persists today, as seen when high Social Democrats, like those leading in Malmö, advocates with such force in favour of restricting the freedom of movement for a particular category of people (immigrants). Moreover, in public space this is seen as a legitimate political tool, notwithstanding its clearly authoritative implications.
Against this history, I can't say that I am surprised that the extreme right wing populists have found a new niche as "defenders of the People's Home" - after all, since the discourse has shifted from one of homogenization towards one of multiculturalism and respect of diversity it is very difficult for mainstream politicians to pursue the old type of policies while at the same time speaking in favour of multiculturalism. The problem is, of course, that they try (as seen in the Malmö example). This creates exactly the kind of contradictions that the right wing extremists thrive in and it is deeply troubling that there is no reason to believe this trend will lose its momentum.
However, I have a lingering feeling that this interpretation might be an overly generous reading of Swedish political culture. It seems to me that the cause should rather be sought elsewhere, and I think I would begin my search in the entrenchment of the Social Democratic People's Home, Folkhemmet, and its highly paternalist construction.
Historically, Sweden embraced the nation-state concept vigorously and was one of the countries that chose to pursue eugenics, racial hygenie, with substantial government funding back in the early 1920s. This was not right wing politics back then, but supported by all parties across the political spectrum. I think a fair case could be made that the notion that Sweden has historically been a homogenous nation comes from this time. That notion is, of coures, false. There have always been minorities in Sweden - Finns, Sami, Jews and others, but part of the nation-state policy included the suppression and assimilation of these minorites in the pursuit of "racial purity".
By the end of World War II, "racial hygiene" lost its appeal as a science for obvious reasons. But the Social Democrats were in power, and expanded the centralist Swedish state with the aim of building the People's Home, Folkhemmet. This was a highly hierarchist and paternalist state, based on the notion that enlightened rulers could engineer society to more evolved state, as it was. The Myrdals were very influential in this project, and part of their ambition was to create the "A" Class human. Therefore, eugenics remained as a political tool to "enhance the gene pool" and to "remove degenerative elements" from the popular body. Those "degenerative elements" included the disabled, as well as categories of people who could be argued to have been the Swedish equivalents to "visible minorities" in the Anglo-Saxon world, particularly the Roma and the Travelling People (commonly known as "Tattare" by Swedes). Meanwhile, other minorities, like the Sami, were forbidden to speak their language and express their diversity in public.
Thus, for several decades, the People's Home was not only a Social Democratic project of class equality, it was also a very ethnically Swedish project, and its face embodied features that are characteristic of Swedish ethnicity, complete with blond hair and blue eyes. In that context, I do not consider it very remarkable that right wing populist parties would find it very difficult to win votes. Their potential supporters - working class Swedes - were already highly mobilized by the Social Democrats who were pursuing a political agenda of homogenization, ethnically or otherwise, an agenda that was not challenged until the 1970s with the adoption of multiculturalism (which was adopted, it is interesting to note, when Sweden closed its borders to labour force immigration).
A counter argument would be that other countries also had implemted homogenizing policies. This is true, and the Canadian residential schools for aboriginals are a good example. What I think might be the difference is that the Swedish state has been a highly centralist and paternalist one, with a clearly hierarchical structure (unlike, for instance, the highly fragmented Canadian polity). This has acted as a very powerful conduit for homogenizing policies at the same time as it has effectively obstructed the expression of diversity by the subaltern groups in society. And this pattern persists today, as seen when high Social Democrats, like those leading in Malmö, advocates with such force in favour of restricting the freedom of movement for a particular category of people (immigrants). Moreover, in public space this is seen as a legitimate political tool, notwithstanding its clearly authoritative implications.
Against this history, I can't say that I am surprised that the extreme right wing populists have found a new niche as "defenders of the People's Home" - after all, since the discourse has shifted from one of homogenization towards one of multiculturalism and respect of diversity it is very difficult for mainstream politicians to pursue the old type of policies while at the same time speaking in favour of multiculturalism. The problem is, of course, that they try (as seen in the Malmö example). This creates exactly the kind of contradictions that the right wing extremists thrive in and it is deeply troubling that there is no reason to believe this trend will lose its momentum.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Currently watching the quite long video from Fores' presentation of its project on how immigration can be succesfully managed, with cases from the UK, Germany, Canada and Sweden. The whole report is of quite some interest for my work, but this is particularly of the reports from Canada and Sweden. So far, it seems to me that the researchers are looking at this issue with too much focus on systems issues, i.e. to what extent does public policy choices affect outcomes. As often is the case, there is little attention paid to issues of social capital, agency and how the administration of public policy is organized. Still, interesting material for anyone who pays attention these questions...
The role of associations gains unexpected attention
The traditional political seminars in Swedish Almedalen produced an interesting discussion on integration, with panelists Martin Ådahl, Sakine Madon, and well known journalist Maciej Zaremba. The latter has produced the until now best journalistic effort on the quite problematic Swedish immigrant introduction system (the series is available in Swedish only here).
The discussion is the first instance in Swedish public space where people of reknown pay attention to the contributions that civil society actors could provide that I am aware of. The suggestion was made by Ådahl who recommended that the State channel money to civil society actors that can provide introduction services. This is quite welcome, and one can only hope that the Swedish integration debate might be widened to include a discussion beyond the traditional state centred remedies. The question is of course what civil society actors Ådahl has in mind. The big Swedish government oriented associations are already involved to some extent without making much of a difference in terms of empowerment and agency.
Madon's counter-argument, that grants to associations are not working and therefore should not be developed is at best ill informed, as far as I am concerned, at least as far as immigrant associations are concerned. In my experience, it is true that those systems are not particularly impressive, but the problem lies mainly in the system, not with the associations themselves. Or more precisely, many associations do have problems that obstruct their capacity as competent providers of social services, including lack of administrativce experience and even some opportunistic individuals. But the way the system is structured, it dissuades serious actors, who are never given sufficient funds to work on a long term basis, focusing instead on micro grants for short term projects, which to some extent encourages those opportunists.
It will be interesting to see if this discussion made any impact over longer term.
The discussion is the first instance in Swedish public space where people of reknown pay attention to the contributions that civil society actors could provide that I am aware of. The suggestion was made by Ådahl who recommended that the State channel money to civil society actors that can provide introduction services. This is quite welcome, and one can only hope that the Swedish integration debate might be widened to include a discussion beyond the traditional state centred remedies. The question is of course what civil society actors Ådahl has in mind. The big Swedish government oriented associations are already involved to some extent without making much of a difference in terms of empowerment and agency.
Madon's counter-argument, that grants to associations are not working and therefore should not be developed is at best ill informed, as far as I am concerned, at least as far as immigrant associations are concerned. In my experience, it is true that those systems are not particularly impressive, but the problem lies mainly in the system, not with the associations themselves. Or more precisely, many associations do have problems that obstruct their capacity as competent providers of social services, including lack of administrativce experience and even some opportunistic individuals. But the way the system is structured, it dissuades serious actors, who are never given sufficient funds to work on a long term basis, focusing instead on micro grants for short term projects, which to some extent encourages those opportunists.
It will be interesting to see if this discussion made any impact over longer term.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Paternalism is the problem, not the solution
Today's article in the Swedish major daily DN discusses the unrest in Herrgården in the distrcit Rosengården in the city of Malmö, Sweden. The area is closely follows the pattern that is familiar in discussions about social exclusion and have also grabbed the spotlight in the national media because of the violent outburts of disaffected youth. The article discusses the counter measures taken by the seemingly desperate public decision-makers, primarly in the form of an increased police presence.
What really caught my eye was the suggestions made by Dr Carlbom, anthropoligist. He solution to the segregation is to "...stop the in-migration of immigrants to Malmö." For some reason, he does not agree with the dominant analysis which suggests that uneployment is a prime cause, saying only that he has difficulties seeing that as a cause: "There are many unemployed, but very few who throws rocks".
His solution is highly problematic, though.
While stopping immigration might go some way to address the rise in the rate of overcrowded apartments, a phenomenon that is generally associated with the area, but it will hardly address the reasons for such overcrowding, which, it seems to me must be attributed precisely to the high very unemployment rates that Carlbom discounts as relevant. To put it bluntly, I believe that people don't live in cramped up spaces because it is fun, but because they can't afford anything else.
More importantly, however, stopping immigration is questionable since the measure would constitute a highly paternalist approach to integration. It basically entails adopting the principle that certain people in society (namely immigrants) don't have the freedom of movement that everybody else has. That is, if anything, highly disempowering. If there already is a siege-mentality (and the article certainly suggests this), then it will only be strengthed by such quite draconic measures, further fuelling frustration and antagonistic us vs. them feelings.
It seems to me that in a situation where disempowerment and social exclusion is so prevalent, such paternalist measures will only make things worse.
What really caught my eye was the suggestions made by Dr Carlbom, anthropoligist. He solution to the segregation is to "...stop the in-migration of immigrants to Malmö." For some reason, he does not agree with the dominant analysis which suggests that uneployment is a prime cause, saying only that he has difficulties seeing that as a cause: "There are many unemployed, but very few who throws rocks".
His solution is highly problematic, though.
While stopping immigration might go some way to address the rise in the rate of overcrowded apartments, a phenomenon that is generally associated with the area, but it will hardly address the reasons for such overcrowding, which, it seems to me must be attributed precisely to the high very unemployment rates that Carlbom discounts as relevant. To put it bluntly, I believe that people don't live in cramped up spaces because it is fun, but because they can't afford anything else.
More importantly, however, stopping immigration is questionable since the measure would constitute a highly paternalist approach to integration. It basically entails adopting the principle that certain people in society (namely immigrants) don't have the freedom of movement that everybody else has. That is, if anything, highly disempowering. If there already is a siege-mentality (and the article certainly suggests this), then it will only be strengthed by such quite draconic measures, further fuelling frustration and antagonistic us vs. them feelings.
It seems to me that in a situation where disempowerment and social exclusion is so prevalent, such paternalist measures will only make things worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)