Stop speaking about "immigrants"?

The discussion on the debate site Newsmill continues, today with a piece by Nima Gholam Ali Pour. He argues that the Swedish discourse has been focused on solutions that assume that immigrants is a homogenous collective that can be integrated through collectivist policy measures, for instance the "Sweden contract" proposed by the conservative party wherein immigrants would promise to follow Swedish laws (as if people residing in Sweden were not obliged to do so anyway). He goes on to state that a fundamental flaw of the discourse is a lack of definition of the term "integration" itself, and this is of course an important observation: if the end goal of a policy has not been properly defined, then how can it ever be achieved?

However, his own piece also lacks clarity in this regard. For instance, he notes that there are many reasons for why "people have not become integrated". The sentence structure itself is quite revealing. The people he is talking about - immigrants - are to "become integrated". By whom? Who is doing the active work? Strictly speaking, integration is a process of negotiation whereby two (or more) bodies, institutions or systems unite, wherein all the concerned parties are subjects and contribute. Agency is available and required for all parties for integration to succeed, otherwise it is probably more appropriate to speak about assmiliation, where one dominant party defines the terms and conditions to which the weaker party has to adjust.

Finally, he reaches goes on to state that Sweden has become divided into "Swedes" and "immigrants"  as a result of the collectivist approaches and policies that lay the burden of adaption on "immigrants", and concludes that it is time to stop speaking about "immigrants". While it is true that terms like "immigrant" can easily become loaded with negative meanings and lead to collectivist treatment of ethnic "others", the solution is hardly to do away with the term itself. This denies the rich and often formative experience that is a part of changing country of residence. I can't see any reason why the people who went through this process should be denied the possibility of drawing upon this experience as they enter public space. Moreover, only in a social context that views difference as something negative can this experience be seen as problematic or even threatening the collective identity of the community.

It seems to me that it would be more prudent to pursue a policy framework where difference is accepted and respected, instead of trying to ban terms like "immigrant" from the public discourse.

Swedish views on integration

The Swedish political right and left have entered into polemics on the debate site Newsmill. Nisha Besara is concerned about the direction the political right seems to be taking, noting that making demands on immigrants to adjust (i.e. assimilate) is becoming increasing acceptable in this camp. Her main concern is that the politics of integration will become a battering ram for dismantling the Swedish welfare state.

This causes Markus Uvell, of the right-wing think tank Timbro, to retort that the political left is more concern with maintaing outdated welfare systems than finding real solutions to integration issues.

Both make some interesting points. Beshara points out that the notion that the majority is always right (and thus immigrants, always in the minority, has to assimilate without any quibbles) is hardly a very liberal stance. This is a good point, but then the political right also consists of many conservatives, for whom this kind of collectivism is hardly incosistent with core ideological commitments.

Uvell's points that the entrenched last-employed-first-laid-off rule does have significance for the exclusion of new arrivals on the labour market (i.e. newcoming immigrants) also has some potency.

Both sides also have one fundamental weakness to their argument, as well. Both discuss immigrants as objects for the, albeit well-meaning, attention of primarily Swedish public actors. In neither the right wing or the left wing discourse are the immigrants entrusted agency or competence of their own.

Indeed, the only policy solution that might address this is the one proposed by then-integration Minister Nyamko Sabuni (replaced after the election by Erik Ullenhag) by in late 2009, where the civil society will get an increased role during the introduction to the labour market. Its outcome will, of course, depend greatly on how it's actually implemented but it is noteworthy that its potential have been quite overlooked in the Swedish public debate, which remains quite state-centred.

A retort to Angela Merkel

The German chancellor recently commented that Multiculturalism had been a failure in Germany. In this piece in the major Canadian daily the Globe and Mail, associate professor Irene Bloemraad rebuffs that claim. She simply argues that Multiculturalism cannot have failed in Germany since the country has never genuinly adopted such policies. She goes on to state that the countries that have been the most multicultural, Canada and Australia, generally also have been the most succesful in terms of rates of naturalization rates and sense of belonging.

This is a very interesting argument. It reminds the reader that multiculturalism consists of fairly particular set of policies that not all countries have adopted to the same extent. This is often forgotten in the public debate, where it is simply assumed that the rhetoric of Multiculturalism (which has been more widely adopted than the actual set of policies) somehow reflect political practices as well. The vagueness of the debate in this regard not doubt facilitates populist clamour for increased assimilatory alternatives, since multiculturalism tends to become a catch-all phrase for any type of policy that is perceived as too generous towards the "others".

Calgary elects a Muslim mayor

Mr Naheed Nenshi was elected Mayor of Calgary last night. The CBC News headline points out that he's the first Muslim mayor of a major Canadian city. In the (linked) webcast Mr Nenshi himself says that people in Canada can wake up and say that in Calgary "...I can be anything", and, indeed, symbolically, his victory is significant in a time when there is so much suspicion directed towards Muslims worldwide. Hopefully, it can contribute to the de-politicization of Islam in Canada. It's also interesting to note that he won in Calgary, rather than Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal, which are the cities that are otherwise most famous for ethnic diversity in Canada....

The Globe and Mail explores Multiculturalism

In a series of video features, the first one available here, the major Canadian Daily discusses Multiculturalism and immigration. It's an interesting talk, and to at least some extent revolves around the same topics noted in previous posts on this blog, i.e. the dilemma of groupism, the problems of discrimination and essentialization and the challenges ahead. For those not familiar with the Canadian debate, it could be an interesting example of the public discourse. For those familiar, some of the questions and answers might contribute to further thought on the subject.

Pay special attention to Mr. Tarek Fatah. In the videos, he claims that Multiculturalism has failed in Canada, and that a shift is necessary towards a focus on race instead of culture. Some of the points he raises seem quite poignant to me, for instance the tendency for dominant groups to consider the most different practices of 'others' as cultural markers, as opposed to "eating ice cream and watching the ball game", which can result in segregation rather than integration. This observation forces us to ask how 'cultural difference' is defined, and who gets to define cultural difference.

Still, I'm not convinced that a shift to a focus on race will be the solution. Culture and ethnic heritage does matter, and the right to self-expression should not be underestimated. I feel that Mr. Fatah in this case builds something of a false dichotomy, where culture and race, which can both become grounds for objectification, discrimination, exclusion, or otherness (whatever you want to call it), somehow stand against each other. Indeed, he uses the modern connotations of race when dismissing that Ukrainians or other groups experienced discrimination when entering Canada in the early 20th century, omitting that Italians, Eastern Europeans and even French were, indeed, discussed in terms of their "racial difference" from the British. "Race", like other markers of identity, is not static.

It seems that Kymlicka's notion of building self-protection rights for individuals which allows them to retain cultural differences while not allowing groups to oppress individual members remains a potent idea. Alas, it was absent in this debate.

Scepticism towards scholars...

On the heels of the nationalist Sweden Democrat party entering the Swedish parliament, issues of immigration and multiculturalism have been given more attention in the press. DN, major Swedish daily, recently published a letter to the editor arguing that "four out of ten" respondents in a survey claim to be sceptical towards researchers and scholars studying matters of ethnic relations and integration. That those who support a populist nationalist party would be sceptical towards such research when it does not support their agenda is hardly very surprising. However, the notion that 40 % of the population (provided that the survey is valid, which I cannot speak to) also is sceptical towards the results of academic research is quite alarming, particularly for those who think that enlightment is the primary means by which to create more understanding, tolerance and respect in society.

At the very least, this might be a reminder that we who engage in this kind of research must devote some time to sharing and explaining the results of our work with a wider audience...

Beyond multiculturalism?

In two recent articles in the Globe and Mail, here and here, it is argued that the term multiculturalism might have outlived its usefulness. In the first, Malik argues that the concept has led to a thinking where people are put in "ethnic boxes" and treated exclusively according to their heritage, reduced simply to being representatives of their ethnic groups. This is critique that is fairly common now, and it's certainly been voiced in Europe as well (as has been stated on this page before), for instance in this piece on the Swedish debate site Newsmill.

The second piece argues that Canada should adopt more rigorous language testing and credentials recognition using the Australian model, which allegedly is smoother (though I have to admit that I have seen no studies on the Australian case). It also states that citizenship entails responsibilities as well as rights.

There are important points made here, but also room for raising some caveats. First, while group-think is all too common in the public (and sometimes even academic) debate, it is worthwhile remembering that Multiculturalism was introduced to counter the strong policies of assimilation that preceeded it. Therefore, any replacement of multiculturalism must include a recognition that a) ethnicity is an important marker of identity for many people and that there should be room in public space to recognize that for each individual, b) that immigration in itself often is a fundamental formative moment in the life of the migrant and that this important experience should not be neglected in the public discourse and, c) that also the dominant "mainstream" population has an ethnicity and that practices informed by this ethnicity (involuntarily) can become discriminatory against minorities.

The risk is that the critique against multiculturalism becomes a backlash, leaving the space open for assimilatory policies. It is interesting, for instance, to note that the Globe and Mail editorial feels that specifically new citizens must informed of citizen obligations, which to some extent implies that this segment of the citizenry cannot be entirely trusted with doing their duties, which leaves a lot of questions open, such as what duties? Immigrants to Canada generally do not vote to a lesser degree than the native born population, and if immigrants lack jobs or are under employed, it might have to do with the Canadian immigration policy, rather than the immigration population, which the editorial itself points out.

If it is time to move beyond multiculturalism, and it might be, then care has to be taken so that the embraced alternative does not result in further alienation of the ethnic "others"...