It seems Dilsa Demirbag-Sten has decided to make Multiculturalism her target in the debate on integration in Sweden. In her piece in DN she argues that this "-ism" focuses on differences rather than similarities and thus risks segregating society rather than integrating it. This effect, she goes on, comes from the "isms" way of essentializing immigrants as different from Swedes, forcing them to become group represenatives rather than individuals.
This is almost verbatim the same type of argument that Neil Bissoondath launched against Multiculturalism in Canada about 15 years ago, which should allow Demirbag-Sten, and others interested in the tension of identities to look to Canada to see whether these kinds of fears are actually warranted.
My answer would be: no. Canada might also negotiate identities in public space, but the fears of fragmentation that Demirbag-Sten voices are, as far as I can tell, widely overstated. And there are some problems with her arguments: first of all - what is her alternative? Assimilation? In any given contemporary society today, people of a plurality of ethincities coexist in some fashion, and this is constantly evident in public space, not only in terms of languages and religions that people speak, but even in so trivial things as food. Is the Chinese restaurant on the corner, with the storefront sign in Chinese, a threat to Swedish commonality? While this might seem like a banal example, it does underline that there is more than one ethnicity in Sweden.
I think Demirbag-Sten and others who worry about the potential for individuals to reach their full potential in society should rather be concerned with processes of racialization; Why are immigrants treated as a homogenous group in Swedish public space? Why is an individual reduced to a group identity? And more importantly, why does this group identity obfuscate the capacity and competency of the individual (who might very well be proud over this identity, and don't want to deny it, but might also wants to be seen as more than just that identity)? These are all questions that can be answered by studying how identities are constructed in public space, and how the images of those identities becomes guiding for public policy and political action, and manifests as discrimination, potentially on a structural level.
Attacking Multiculturalism will likely draw attention away from these questions and therefore do more harm than good...
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Thursday, March 18, 2010
More confusion on Multiculturalism in Sweden
It looks like the backlash trend against multiculturalism in Europe continues, as is evident from these comments Selimovic, a liberal candidate for Parliament. He argues that multiculturalism, as a political ideology, cements identities and encourages differences, leading to extremists becoming seen as the "proper" spokespersons for different ethnic communities (he's actually thinking about Muslims here). Thus, moderate forces are marginalized, he concludes. The critique is very similar to Neil Bissoondath's critique of Canadian multiculturalism in the mid -90s.
But I feel that Selimovic is a series of incorrect assumptions that finally leads him to flawed to conclusions. First of all, the reason that moderate forces within ethnic communities (in this case Muslims) have been marginalized, is not because of multiculturalism as a political ideology, but rather because who the gatekeepers to access to public space are. In this case, we're talking about the Swedish media and the Swedish political parties, both of which are dominated, in the higher echelons, but ethnic Swedish middle class people who know very little about the ethnic communities around them. I would hypothesize that they have invited whomever they think fits their own stereotypes about the ethnic "others", people who can be visibly easily identified as not ethnic Swedes and (preferably) have opinons that also come across as fairly foreign. To what extent such people actually represent the points of view of the people they are supposed to represent is never investigated properly, at least this is my impression.
I'm also kind of curious about how multiculturalism forms a coherent "political ideology". While it is true that many in public space, both politicians, scholars and others, too often engage in essentialist assumptions about identity, there is really nothing in multiculturalism itself that makes this a requirement, as far as I can tell. Rather, it simply recognizes that contemporary societies are ethnically diverse, and that this matters in politics.
I'm also kind of curious about what policy alternative Selimovic and his Liberal party sees to multiculturalism? The article speaks about emphasizing "commonalities, dialogue and expectations", but say little about any practical policies. And why areethnic differences seen as so problematic? They exist, why shouldn't they be acknowledged and accepted?
But I feel that Selimovic is a series of incorrect assumptions that finally leads him to flawed to conclusions. First of all, the reason that moderate forces within ethnic communities (in this case Muslims) have been marginalized, is not because of multiculturalism as a political ideology, but rather because who the gatekeepers to access to public space are. In this case, we're talking about the Swedish media and the Swedish political parties, both of which are dominated, in the higher echelons, but ethnic Swedish middle class people who know very little about the ethnic communities around them. I would hypothesize that they have invited whomever they think fits their own stereotypes about the ethnic "others", people who can be visibly easily identified as not ethnic Swedes and (preferably) have opinons that also come across as fairly foreign. To what extent such people actually represent the points of view of the people they are supposed to represent is never investigated properly, at least this is my impression.
I'm also kind of curious about how multiculturalism forms a coherent "political ideology". While it is true that many in public space, both politicians, scholars and others, too often engage in essentialist assumptions about identity, there is really nothing in multiculturalism itself that makes this a requirement, as far as I can tell. Rather, it simply recognizes that contemporary societies are ethnically diverse, and that this matters in politics.
I'm also kind of curious about what policy alternative Selimovic and his Liberal party sees to multiculturalism? The article speaks about emphasizing "commonalities, dialogue and expectations", but say little about any practical policies. And why areethnic differences seen as so problematic? They exist, why shouldn't they be acknowledged and accepted?
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Forum on integration on Swedish TV
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)