Ten years from now we'll be forced to worship with them, and I'll be forced to wear a headscarf. That's the future of our country'.”This is from a piece by Frans Timmermans, the Dutch minister of European affairs, (Newsweek June 1, 2009) on how Dutch society is coping with pluralism. In essence, Timmermans calls for embracing the reality of other cultural traditions and identities in Europe. He rejects systematic and structural isolation on the one hand, and self-imposed ghettoes on the other. He advocates open and integrated societies. This is all fine.
The problem begins when we begin to define what exactly an integrated and open society means. Pluralism is raised as an issue mostly in relation to Muslim communities in the West. Different cultural and historical traditions in European societies are seen as part of a pluralist West; they are part of the mainstream tradition. Muslim culture is singled out as utterly different and alien. Pluralism runs into problems when it is linked up with the reality of Muslim communities.
To flesh out his vision of social integration, the Dutch minister favors establishing some specific ground rules for everyone to abide by. He says, for instance, that “all people [should] feel at home in their country, without being forced to give up their identity, but in full knowledge of what is expected of them in Dutch society. The rules of behavior therefore need to be made far more explicit, and legal norms need to be better enforced, regardless of people's background.” This sounds like a reasonable proposition. The only problem is that when we get down to the nitty-gritty of the “rules of behavior” and “legal norms”, things get a little murkier.
In 2002, the British Home Office produced a document on the “fundamental tenets of British citizenship,” defined to “respect human rights and freedoms, uphold democratic values, observe laws faithfully and fulfill our duties and obligations.” Another report seeking to identify the “common elements of nationhood,” again in Britain, came up with the following: “(A) more visible support for anti-discrimination measures, support for women's rights, a universal acceptance of the English language … and respect for both religious differences and secular views.” In Germany, the experts ended up with an almost identical statement on “German-ness,” which the immigrant communities are expected to internalize. Like the idea of British-ness, German-ness was defined as accepting liberal democratic values. Anything more would be regarded as open discrimination and latent racism.
Most immigrant and minority communities accept these principles at an abstract level. Putting aside specific cultural differences which are to be seen in all societies anyway, the values of justice, equality and freedom carry weight with all societies immigrant or not. The problem arises when we translate them into specific policies. The reason is that neither abstract democratic values nor universal legislative principles function in a cultural and political vacuum. They are shaped by culture, politics, law, governance, economy, society, and ethnicity all at once. Real integration is possible when all of these factors are managed properly.
The problem with the current models of integration is that minority communities are invited to an already framed notion of social cohesion and expected to follow pre-figured social norms and cultural behaviors. The sense of alienation begins when people are first left out and then brought in only to change themselves without the possibility of affecting the processes of which they are asked to be part. Minority communities need to be included and engaged at the beginning of the process, not at the end.
