Swedish public service TV gathered experts and politicians for a debate on integration politics the other day. Blogg commentators seem particularly pleased by the statements of Sakime Madon, who is regarded as an expert on the field by many. She criticizes what she lables "identity politics" - i.e. the tendency for Swedish governments to devote special attention and programmes to interventions targeted at immigrants specifically and even argues that they do more harm than good by singling out immigrants as particularly helpless.
While some of her arguments are sound - the programmes have indeed had little effect - her analysis still falls short in some respects. For instance, she fails to recognize that long-term unemployed immigrants do often face more barriers to employment than the average unemployed person would. Indeed, it is an inescapable fact that the Swedish labour market, like in so many other entrenched democracies, is strongly ethnically segmented, where clearly the most racialized minorities are to be found at the bottom of the socio-economic hierarcy (in Sweden, this will often be Somalis). Instead of getting hung up on the percieved evils of identity-politics (critiquing identity politics and multiculturalism seems quite fashionable in Sweden now), maybe experts should ask themselves why these quite substantial government programmes have failed....
On a brighter note, Pernilla Ouis writes an quite sound analysis of the typical ideological pitfalls in the Swedish political debate on islam in all ideological camps.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Friday, February 12, 2010
Heartwarming Canadian multicultualism
I'm watching the opening ceremony of the Olympics, and the speaker just told a heartwarming story of Canadian multiculturalism. Apparently, the Indian Olympic team wasn't particularly well funded, and when the Indian community of Vancouver, some 300 000 strong, heard about this, they pitched in and raised funds to provide the team with new uniforms, coaching etc. Or so the story went. I did bring a smile to my face...
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Debate on multiculturalism in Sweden
A court verdict giving a Muslim man a $ 10 000 compensation for having been subjected to discrimination is stirring up a lot of controversy in Sweden. If I understand the verdict correctly, he was given this recompensation because the Swedish Public Employment Service cancelled his Employment Insurance, EI, when he refused to great a female manager with an employer that was offering an internship for him with a handshake.
What is so disconcerning is that most commentators seem to believe that the scandal of the situation is that he was given the componsation at all by the court, seeing as he had refused to shake hand with a woman - which itself can be seen as offensive treatment of the woman in question. The problem is that, to my knowledge, that is not what the court has been discussing. Even if we accept that his refusing to shake hand with a woman is insulting to that woman, the problem was that the Public Employment Service cancelled his EI on this ground. By this rationale, the Employment Service is in its right when it cancels EI on the grounds that the client acts in a socially inacceptable manner, and that seems rather different than cancelling the EI on the grounds that the client is refusing to accept an internship position.
The kneejerk reaction of most commentators, which automatically seem to assume that the court was wrong and that it would now be acceptable to discriminate women and get paid for it, is also deeply troublesome, and often involve some hyperbole. Indeed Kjöller's editorial is one of the few more nuanced pieces so far. It bears witness to the state of the Swedish public discourse, in which "the other" is automatically the one to blame. One commentator have even used it to question multiculturalist policies in general. That's the second time in a very short span of time that such policies are coming under fire. If this continues, will we see the same renaissance for assimilationist policies that we have seen in other European countries with backlashes against multiculturalism?
What is so disconcerning is that most commentators seem to believe that the scandal of the situation is that he was given the componsation at all by the court, seeing as he had refused to shake hand with a woman - which itself can be seen as offensive treatment of the woman in question. The problem is that, to my knowledge, that is not what the court has been discussing. Even if we accept that his refusing to shake hand with a woman is insulting to that woman, the problem was that the Public Employment Service cancelled his EI on this ground. By this rationale, the Employment Service is in its right when it cancels EI on the grounds that the client acts in a socially inacceptable manner, and that seems rather different than cancelling the EI on the grounds that the client is refusing to accept an internship position.
The kneejerk reaction of most commentators, which automatically seem to assume that the court was wrong and that it would now be acceptable to discriminate women and get paid for it, is also deeply troublesome, and often involve some hyperbole. Indeed Kjöller's editorial is one of the few more nuanced pieces so far. It bears witness to the state of the Swedish public discourse, in which "the other" is automatically the one to blame. One commentator have even used it to question multiculturalist policies in general. That's the second time in a very short span of time that such policies are coming under fire. If this continues, will we see the same renaissance for assimilationist policies that we have seen in other European countries with backlashes against multiculturalism?
Monday, February 8, 2010
Been published...
On the Swedish debate site newsmilll. It's a piece summarizing the Canadian public and scholarly debate on multiculturalism for Swedish readers (so it's only available in Swedish, I'm afraid)...
Friday, February 5, 2010
The debate on collective rights continues....
Now, it is Halldorf, Ph.D. Candidate in theology at the University of Uppsala, who chimes in. He argues that the majority culture can be in the wrong and that it is important to remember that dominant points of view are not neutral just because they are dominant. This is, of course, quite correct, and a welcome reminder in the debate. It is also key to understand how ethno-centrism can shape the public discourse, and it is only when this is recognized that such phenomena can be properly taken into account.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Debate on collective rights in Sweden
A new doctoral dissertation is sparking a new debate on collective vs. individual rights in Sweden. The dissertation itself, Sayed "Islam och arvsrätt i det mångkulturella Sverige" [approximately "Islam and inheritance rights in multicultural Sweden", my translation], shortly argues that the cultural background of those who stand to inherit should be taken into account in the legal practices that governs the process, which in some cases could mean that a person with multiple citizenships should be able to refer to the laws of the other country. At least, that's how I've come to understand the argument, but I haven't read the thesis, so this is really my account of what others have said about it.
Anyway, the notion that some groups, notably Muslims, should be given the opportunity to inherit according to Shariah law has not been welcomed. One notable critic is Dilsa Demirbag-sten, a reputable journalist and commentator on matters of immigrant integration in the country. She writes that this is another example of how multiculturalism undermines democracy by effectively priviledging special groups with special rights based on identity politics. She considers identity politics the new political platform of the left, and as ostensibly raises group rights over individual rights, she warns that the basic liberal platform of democracy is in peril. Multiculturalism, in her reading, has been co-opted by a collectivist political elite and as a result, individuals within the minorities that are granted special group rights run the risk of oppression. In this case, she is thinking specifically about women.
Her piece reflects several conundrums that contemporary democracies face, namely the inherent difficulties in dealing with individual rights and group rights. Unfortunately, her article also reflects the conceptual confusion that prevails in this debate, in Sweden and elsewhere. This issue has also been discussed in Canada, particularly during the late 90s, and often informed by the same concern - can a multiculturalism that recognizes group rights be reconciled with the principle that all individuals are equal?
Will Kymlicka provides an interesting answer and separates group rights that are internally restrictive (and thus limits the power of individuals within the group) from group rights that provide external protection (from majority discrimination). The latter, he argues, is clearly possible to adopt within a liberal framework, while the former is not. I believe that the public debate on these issues would benefit greatly from this kind of clarification, both in Sweden and elsewhere. Demirbag-sten's piece, by comparison, comes across as rather sweeping, precisely because it lacks precision in terms of the plurality of forms that group rights can take.
More seriously, however, Demirbag-sten’s piece comes across as a frontal assault on multiculturalism as a political framework, carelessly labeling as some form of leftist collectivist project. The problem with this is that most contemporary democracies are poly-ethnic and so needs to find some way to negotiate between majority and minorities. However, in most cases where multiculturalism has been derided as a detrimental elitist project (along the same line of reason as Demirbag-sten engages in), the result has been a backlash of assimilationist policies, as have been seen in the Netherlands, France and Denmark. I doubt that this is where the author wants to go with her piece, but it is, in this respect, dangerous grounds she treads. Multiculturalism is broader than the vision of a single political clique, but if the term itself becomes too negatively loaded, there is a real risk that the reality of a poly-ethnic society itself will come under attack, and that would be a tragedy. Instead, it would be wiser, I think, to discuss how the multicultural society should manifest, and how the dialogue between majority and minorities should be conducted to be as inclusive and respectful as possible. That would, ultimately, be more constructive for the public debate.
Anyway, the notion that some groups, notably Muslims, should be given the opportunity to inherit according to Shariah law has not been welcomed. One notable critic is Dilsa Demirbag-sten, a reputable journalist and commentator on matters of immigrant integration in the country. She writes that this is another example of how multiculturalism undermines democracy by effectively priviledging special groups with special rights based on identity politics. She considers identity politics the new political platform of the left, and as ostensibly raises group rights over individual rights, she warns that the basic liberal platform of democracy is in peril. Multiculturalism, in her reading, has been co-opted by a collectivist political elite and as a result, individuals within the minorities that are granted special group rights run the risk of oppression. In this case, she is thinking specifically about women.
Her piece reflects several conundrums that contemporary democracies face, namely the inherent difficulties in dealing with individual rights and group rights. Unfortunately, her article also reflects the conceptual confusion that prevails in this debate, in Sweden and elsewhere. This issue has also been discussed in Canada, particularly during the late 90s, and often informed by the same concern - can a multiculturalism that recognizes group rights be reconciled with the principle that all individuals are equal?
Will Kymlicka provides an interesting answer and separates group rights that are internally restrictive (and thus limits the power of individuals within the group) from group rights that provide external protection (from majority discrimination). The latter, he argues, is clearly possible to adopt within a liberal framework, while the former is not. I believe that the public debate on these issues would benefit greatly from this kind of clarification, both in Sweden and elsewhere. Demirbag-sten's piece, by comparison, comes across as rather sweeping, precisely because it lacks precision in terms of the plurality of forms that group rights can take.
More seriously, however, Demirbag-sten’s piece comes across as a frontal assault on multiculturalism as a political framework, carelessly labeling as some form of leftist collectivist project. The problem with this is that most contemporary democracies are poly-ethnic and so needs to find some way to negotiate between majority and minorities. However, in most cases where multiculturalism has been derided as a detrimental elitist project (along the same line of reason as Demirbag-sten engages in), the result has been a backlash of assimilationist policies, as have been seen in the Netherlands, France and Denmark. I doubt that this is where the author wants to go with her piece, but it is, in this respect, dangerous grounds she treads. Multiculturalism is broader than the vision of a single political clique, but if the term itself becomes too negatively loaded, there is a real risk that the reality of a poly-ethnic society itself will come under attack, and that would be a tragedy. Instead, it would be wiser, I think, to discuss how the multicultural society should manifest, and how the dialogue between majority and minorities should be conducted to be as inclusive and respectful as possible. That would, ultimately, be more constructive for the public debate.
Monday, December 7, 2009
A comparison of public discourses on citizenship
Here comes a quite belated, but maybe more exhaustive, comparison on the two debates on what it should take to become a citizen that have been unfolding in the two countries that I am most heavily involved with - Sweden and Canada - during the past months. In Sweden, the debate centered on the proposal by the Minister of Integration, Nyamko Sabuni, to introduce citizenship classes for those who aspire to become citizens. This suggestion was later defeated by a vote on the Liberal Party convention, effectively stopping the Minister from implementing it. In Canada, the debate is a result of the new citizenship guide introduced by the Conservative government. There are interesting similarities between the two debates, but also some important differences that are noteworthy.
In Sweden, the idea of a citizenship course was first publicly discussed by the minister in an article in late March of this year. Here, Sabuni mentions that the course should both "inform about how the Swedish society works, what rights [a citizen] has, but also explain and inform about responsibilities" as well as include "a discussion about the value ground society is based on." Over time, it was the latter component that became the focus of the debate, addressed repeatedly in the media, mostly because critics wondered what "Swedish values" actually consist of. At these occaisions, the Minister tended to frame it in terms of respect of for democracy and democratic procedures. As many mentioned, this is a highly problematic approach.
On the one hand, there are native born Swedes who are engaged in extreme political movements that express disdain towards democracy, both on the Left and on the Right, but the idea that these movements or expressions of opinion would be outlawed in anyway seems quite foreign to the Swedish public discourse because of how freedom of speech is framed in this context. This makes it very questionable to argue that immigrants in some fashion should be limited in this regard, however problematic their potential involvement in anti-democratic movements might actually be. In that sense, there is a hint of the Islamophobic atmosphere to this discourse in the sense that immigrants are, once more, framed as a problem in some fashion, this time insofar as they might be seen as undermining democracy, which understates the extent to which immigrants, particularly refugees, are actually migrating to get away from dictatorships and highly conscious about the freedoms that are available in democracies. It could, of course, be argued the precise practicalities that are involved in the manifestations of a particular nation's democratic procedures are probably unknown to newcomers, but this is probably true for all new citizens at least to some extent, regardless of whether they come from dictatorships or democracies. For instance, I have no idea about what I should actually do when I enter a Canadian polling station the first time, even though I grew up in a democracy, since Swedish voting procecures are arguably different from the Westminster model.
But on a larger level, this debate has been remarkably similar to the ones taking place in Great Britain and other European nations. There, too, the debate seems to be centred on issues of common values and social cohesion tends to be framed in this way. But when it comes down to how such courses would manifest, the advocates tend to end up with general statements about the importance about democracy and human rights, referring sometimes to European human rights codes, and these are, of course, not anything that is particular to British values, as opposed to French or Swedish. In this sense, I'd argue that it probably was a good thing that the proposal was defeated - as it stood, it was simply to vague in terms of content to be productive in any significant way, and it might even have become counter-productive, as it risked becaming another symbol of how the immigrants somehow are "deficient" and in need of "adjustments" in some fashion to properly fit in. In that context, I'd have to argue the Swedish have been generally very passive with regards to suggestions for how discrimination and such obstacles to integration that could be seen as originating in Swedish mainstream society should be addressed.
What about the Canadian debate, then? Well, the new citizenship guide has been addressed both in the printed media and on TV during the Fall. The similarities with the Swedish discourse are best summerized by Jhappan, who strongly questions some of the formulations about "barbarian" cultural practices in the guide. It is an interesting argument about how "others" might become (possibly unintentionally) ostracized, or even demonized, in such texts, and taken in the context of rising Islamophobia, any author should rightly be cautioned in this respect.
But the differences are more interesting. More questions have been asked about the content with regards to Canadian history and civics. CBC, for instance, discussed if the demands on new citizens with regards to learning history and civics are excessive - could native born Canadians pass the test? This has been asked about the old test, too, by the way. While the question certainly is valid, I'm wondering if it possibly should be reframed in terms of making increased demands on history and civics as part of elementary education in Canadian schools. Indeed, Canadian citizenship guide seems to devote much more space to these subjects, and discussions about common values seem to comprise at most about a page or so (though I have yet to examine it in great detail, please correct me if I'm wrong). In this respect, I have to say that the Canadian way of discussing citizenship seems much more focused on those common points of reference that a newcomer might actually find useful for easier orientation in the new country (i.e. history, both in terms of politics but also scientific landmarks and even sports could be relevant in this regard, as well as civics), and rather less imposing in this regard than a course that would focus only on "democratic values" in the way that seems to have been predominantly proposed in the European debates.
The Canadian guide might still suffer from flaws in many regards, but it seems much less problematic than what has suggested in Sweden, at least as far as processes of otherization are concerned.
And I'll try to keep next post shorter, so thank you very much for bearing with me on this rather lengthy spiel...
In Sweden, the idea of a citizenship course was first publicly discussed by the minister in an article in late March of this year. Here, Sabuni mentions that the course should both "inform about how the Swedish society works, what rights [a citizen] has, but also explain and inform about responsibilities" as well as include "a discussion about the value ground society is based on." Over time, it was the latter component that became the focus of the debate, addressed repeatedly in the media, mostly because critics wondered what "Swedish values" actually consist of. At these occaisions, the Minister tended to frame it in terms of respect of for democracy and democratic procedures. As many mentioned, this is a highly problematic approach.
On the one hand, there are native born Swedes who are engaged in extreme political movements that express disdain towards democracy, both on the Left and on the Right, but the idea that these movements or expressions of opinion would be outlawed in anyway seems quite foreign to the Swedish public discourse because of how freedom of speech is framed in this context. This makes it very questionable to argue that immigrants in some fashion should be limited in this regard, however problematic their potential involvement in anti-democratic movements might actually be. In that sense, there is a hint of the Islamophobic atmosphere to this discourse in the sense that immigrants are, once more, framed as a problem in some fashion, this time insofar as they might be seen as undermining democracy, which understates the extent to which immigrants, particularly refugees, are actually migrating to get away from dictatorships and highly conscious about the freedoms that are available in democracies. It could, of course, be argued the precise practicalities that are involved in the manifestations of a particular nation's democratic procedures are probably unknown to newcomers, but this is probably true for all new citizens at least to some extent, regardless of whether they come from dictatorships or democracies. For instance, I have no idea about what I should actually do when I enter a Canadian polling station the first time, even though I grew up in a democracy, since Swedish voting procecures are arguably different from the Westminster model.
But on a larger level, this debate has been remarkably similar to the ones taking place in Great Britain and other European nations. There, too, the debate seems to be centred on issues of common values and social cohesion tends to be framed in this way. But when it comes down to how such courses would manifest, the advocates tend to end up with general statements about the importance about democracy and human rights, referring sometimes to European human rights codes, and these are, of course, not anything that is particular to British values, as opposed to French or Swedish. In this sense, I'd argue that it probably was a good thing that the proposal was defeated - as it stood, it was simply to vague in terms of content to be productive in any significant way, and it might even have become counter-productive, as it risked becaming another symbol of how the immigrants somehow are "deficient" and in need of "adjustments" in some fashion to properly fit in. In that context, I'd have to argue the Swedish have been generally very passive with regards to suggestions for how discrimination and such obstacles to integration that could be seen as originating in Swedish mainstream society should be addressed.
What about the Canadian debate, then? Well, the new citizenship guide has been addressed both in the printed media and on TV during the Fall. The similarities with the Swedish discourse are best summerized by Jhappan, who strongly questions some of the formulations about "barbarian" cultural practices in the guide. It is an interesting argument about how "others" might become (possibly unintentionally) ostracized, or even demonized, in such texts, and taken in the context of rising Islamophobia, any author should rightly be cautioned in this respect.
But the differences are more interesting. More questions have been asked about the content with regards to Canadian history and civics. CBC, for instance, discussed if the demands on new citizens with regards to learning history and civics are excessive - could native born Canadians pass the test? This has been asked about the old test, too, by the way. While the question certainly is valid, I'm wondering if it possibly should be reframed in terms of making increased demands on history and civics as part of elementary education in Canadian schools. Indeed, Canadian citizenship guide seems to devote much more space to these subjects, and discussions about common values seem to comprise at most about a page or so (though I have yet to examine it in great detail, please correct me if I'm wrong). In this respect, I have to say that the Canadian way of discussing citizenship seems much more focused on those common points of reference that a newcomer might actually find useful for easier orientation in the new country (i.e. history, both in terms of politics but also scientific landmarks and even sports could be relevant in this regard, as well as civics), and rather less imposing in this regard than a course that would focus only on "democratic values" in the way that seems to have been predominantly proposed in the European debates.
The Canadian guide might still suffer from flaws in many regards, but it seems much less problematic than what has suggested in Sweden, at least as far as processes of otherization are concerned.
And I'll try to keep next post shorter, so thank you very much for bearing with me on this rather lengthy spiel...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)