oliveri fair multiculturalism 2008

8/6/2019 OLIVERI Fair Multiculturalism 2008

1/34

23

PART I MIGRANTSANDSOCIALCOHESION:APROBLEMOF CULTURALDIVERSITY?

I. Policies for a fair multicultural society.

On the use and abuse of culture

in relation to migration issues1

Federico Oliveri, University of Pisa (Italy)

1. Migrations and integration through the mirrorof cultural diversity

a. The special nature of migration-related differences

Among the key factors in promoting a society that is capable of ensur-ing the well-being of all who live in it, as emphasised by the Council ofEuropes Revised Strategy for Social Cohesion (2004), are respect for,and recognition of, everyones differences.

This commitment seems to go beyond the prohibition of discrimination inrespect of differences of culture, language, religious belief, colour, gen-der, age, national origin, sexuality, ability, etc. The particular features ofeach individual are regarded as a central dimension of life with whichpolitics, aware of the sensitive nature of the issues at stake, has to cope.And the very idea of social cohesion, which lies at the heart of the revisedstrategy should not be seen as the result of an absence of differences oras the complete harmonisation of the various social and cultural intereststhat exist within society: rather, it lays the emphasis on non-violent pro-

cesses, which enable the highest possible number of different concepts ofwell-being to coexist and even to converge (Council of Europe, 2005).

1. This paper reproduces, with some modifications, the final report on the Forum 2006

Achieving social cohesion in a multicultural Europe, presented at the EuropeanCommittee for Social Cohesion (CDCS) of the Council of Europe on 30 March 2007.


2/34

24

The implementation of this project for a pluralist society does, how-ever, come up against sizeable challenges, both conceptual and prac-tical: what differences improve peoples well-being and which of themshould, by contrast, be minimised because they threaten social cohesion?

Is social progress an increase in our ability to see more and more differ-ences among people as morally irrelevant (Rorty, 1998: 11) or ratheran increased attention towards diversity of populations? How and towhat extent should the pluralism pervading society be institutionalised,in terms of tolerance, respect, protection or active recognition of culturaldifferences? What suitable role might be played by diversity in the reformof social policies, employment and public services, aimed at reducinginequalities and giving everyone broader access to fundamental rights?

These questions, always hard to resolve, are further complicated whenthe differences at issue derive from migration, or when the debate onforms of modern pluralist democracy becomes entangled with the issuesarising from migratory and integration processes with whose manage-ment Europe is confronted today, more than ever before. An additionaleffort seems to be required in order for the value which Europeans usuallyattach to diversity, and especially to the heritage of their own cultural andnational differences, to be extended also to the demands for recognitionfrom immigrants and their descendants born in Europe. Generally, suchdifficulties have proved themselves quite transient in the case of intra-European migration flows, which have come throughout the 20th cen-tury, first from the south of the continent and later from eastern Europe.By contrast, cultural diversity may give rise to lasting social exclusion inthe case of people from non-western countries, especially those with aMuslim majority, with whom the European population feels, rightly orwrongly, that the cultural gap is harder to bridge.

b. Excessive diversity or a crisis of cohesion capability?

While public authorities and civil society organisations throughout Europeannounce their willingness to overcome barriers between countries, socialgroups and ethnic communities, and while sound common sense acceptsnon-discrimination and anti-racism as key elements of the European life-style, one may legitimately ask: where do the problems of acceptance,which accompany migration-related differences, come from? Are thesedifficulties the result of excessive migration in recent times, both qualita-tive and quantitative, or are there other possible explanations? Is therean ancestral, almost natural, fear of others that returns in cyclical fash-ion with each wave of migration, or are tendencies at work in European


3/34

25

societies which, despite all the positive attempts to integrate immigrantsand their descendants on an equal basis, prevent the value of diversityfrom being extended to them? And, if so, how can we move beyondthese trends, avoiding an identity trap and instead highlighting the

positive contribution that cultural differences can make to the develop-ment of social cohesion and mobility in Europe?

The crisis of identity, from which Europe sometimes seems to suffer,often rebounds on the presence of immigrants. Nevertheless, this is alsorelated to the profound changes at work since the 1980s in the labourand consumer markets, in political life, the role of the state, public serv-ices, schools, the family, the media and, more generally, in the machineryof belonging and collective responsibility. Migration and diversity issuesform part of this scenario: moreover if not properly managed, these trans-formations are likely to weaken democratic citizenship and encourage areturn to ethno-nationalist forms of identification and solidarity in oppo-sition, firstly to others, and then to aliens (Oliveri, 2004 and 2005).

c. The resistance to multicultural society, betweennon-discrimination and racism

The political value of migration-related differences is underlined by cer-tain studies carried out by the Eurobarometer and the European SocialSurvey between 1997 and 2003. The EUMC Report (2005), Majorities

Attitudes towards Migrants and Minorities, which analyses the resultsof these studies, records a enduring resistance of people, albeit a minor-ity, to multicultural society: about one quarter of the EU-15s populationdoes not share the notion that the diversity of a country in terms ofrace, religion or culture is a positive element and a strength. The samereport also notes a significant increase in the number of Europeans (abouttwo-thirds of people interviewed in 2003 as against half in 1997) whoare convinced that multicultural society has reached its limits. For theirpart, the former EU candidate countries show similar resistance to theoptimistic picture of a multicultural society as enhanced by their dif-

ferences, but are far less convinced that the capacity to accept furtherdiversification has now been exhausted (EUMC, 2005: 11 ff.).

A comparative analysis of the data makes it possible to question theexistence of automatic links between the diversity rate, represented byimmigrants in terms of stock and flow trends, and the hostility rate orrate of distrust, towards that diversity and the people in question. As thereport says, the presence of outsiders in the form of nationals of non-


4/34

26

western third countries seems to exert a certain influence on attitudestending to exclude immigrants, but cannot in itself explain the levels ofsupport for such exclusion (EUMC, 2005: 22). Neither the countries withthe highest levels of foreigners present nor those with the highest growth

rates of foreigners coincide exactly with higher rates of resistance tomulticultural society or of collective perception of a particularly acuteethnic threat (EUMC, 2005: 18). The same is true of the converse rela-tionship generally observed between a high concentration of migrantsin the urban environment and the higher resistance rate in rural areas

(EUMC, 2005: 22-23).

If this is true, then other explanations seem to be necessary. A coun-trys general situation, and in particular concerns about peoples livingconditions and prospects in terms of employment, economic growth,

confidence in politics, society and the future, feelings of insecurity, etc. appear to play an important part in the manner in which the presenceof immigrants even if this is not necessarily increasing is perceived. Thefact that high levels of unemployment or low incomes do not automati-

cally spark feelings of hostility either, nevertheless points to the impor-tance of peoples perception of the phenomena in question. The reportshows quite clearly how certain individual characteristics (age, educa-tional level) or national characteristics (political and social penetration ofxenophobic statements outside of far-right groups, the influence of the

media especially if they prefer to convey information which reinforces

the image of immigrants as a problem the impact of the internationalsituation, attitudes to European integration) affect resistance to migra-tion-generated differences and feed a sense of ethnic threat (EUMC,2005: 17 and 24).

Comparing these results with those obtained from another Eurobarometersurvey (2003) on non-discriminatory attitudes and on racism, eitherdirectly experienced or perceived, we may confirm that cultural dif-

ferences lie at the heart of deep-seated tensions within contemporaryEuropean society. These kinds of differences seem to be the area in which

hostility towards immigrants can be more openly expressed, neutralis-ing the interdiction of discrimination and the self-censorship of racism.Thus, resistance to multicultural society manifested by a large section of

the population coexists with a quite unanimous rejection of discrimina-tion, including discrimination based on racial grounds, but this rejectiondoesnt correspond exactly to the level of experienced or perceived rac-ism, which is still quite high.


5/34

27

d. Why should migration-related differences be taken seriously?

Faced with this very ambivalent situation, we may advance fourhypotheses:

A divide is growing in Europe between a normative awareness basedon non-discrimination, democratic feelings and favour for immi-grants to have access to equal rights and social opportunities, anda tendency for insiders to exclude outsiders. This divide influencesimmigrants living conditions, often marked by disadvantage as com-pared with the native population in terms of economic status, accessto services of quality, security of livelihood, prospects of mobility,social recognition, political influence and participation, etc.

The otherness of immigrants, which cultural differences help

to stress through their public visibility, plays an important part inthese exclusion mechanisms. Defined without the agreement orinvolvement of the people concerned, this diversity may easily resultin stigmatisation, which may be used to demand more controls onimmigration or the assimilation of immigrants into the dominantculture, to justify inequalities and antagonism between nationalsand non-nationals and to neutralise the divide between democraticawareness and exclusion of immigrants, etc.

Some migrant communities give political relevance to cultural dif-

ferences, either because of their internal tensions, or as a reactionto the experience of second-class citizenship. Culture, as a humandimension other than work, may help to reject utilitarian argumentsthat justify the presence of immigrants only if it produces a gain forthe country. Nevertheless, this may take the form of identity-basedwithdrawal, something that, in the absence of other viable alterna-tives to social assertion, ends in imaginary opposition cultures.

All these ideologies of diversity may conceal the structural natureof the challenges facing European societies today in renewing their

cohesion: it posits an a priori opposition between the well-being ofmigrants and the public interest, which impedes the identification ofshared solutions to problems.

These hypotheses on the use and abuse of culture in relation to migra-tion help us to analyse the overlaps between two issues, both critical tothe future of our pluralistic democracies. On one hand, they clarify thesocio-economic and political conditions which enable immigrants and


6/34

28

their descendants to be recognised, and to recognise themselves, as hav-ing the right to have rights (Arendt, 1986: 295) like every other mem-

ber of the society. On the other hand, they address the question of the

heterogeneity of the nation that migrations contribute to stress, that

is, the question of the basis for solidarity between citizens who haveexperienced an increase in inequalities and who do not necessarily share

the same traditions, the same history, the same language, or the same

ideas about life and values.

As a starting-point for this study we have chosen multiculturalism. Despiteall its limitations, it remains the main discourse that European societies

use when they represent themselves as facing migrations and internal

diversification processes. Thus, the assessment of the most questionableapproaches to multiculturalism will result in a fair multicultural society,

based on 10 methodological criteria (see 2 below). A consequent politicalagenda will be sketched out by developing each of these criteria (see 3

below).

2. Critical paths through multiculturalism(s)

A portmanteau word like multiculturalism covers an extraordinary variety

of domains, attitudes to immigrants, notions of cultures (ones own and

that of others), theories about cultural and social conditioning and theoverlaps between all these ideas. We ought openly to inquire what kind

of multiculturalism best meets the needs of migrants themselves and thecohesion requirements of the receiving societies.

It is possible to distinguish between four fundamental types of multicul-turalism depending on whether their advocates:

believe the different cultures to be the very essence of the groups

and individuals making up the society, excluding or monopolising

any other dimension in human relations;

fear cultural difference and consider it to be a problem, either forthe host society (crisis of identity, fear of others) or for immigrant

communities (backwardness of civilisation, difficulty in or rejection

of being integrated);

recognise the importance of cultural belonging but disregard thematerial and social conditions that enable individuals to construct it

autonomously;


7/34

29

base their political action on the struggle for full citizenship, as wellas fighting social injustice and cultural disqualification.

a. Assessment of essentialist multiculturalism

The term essentialist may be applied to any approach to multicultural-ism which:

attributes to each culture essential, homogeneous features that arenon-modifiable, non-negotiable and impermeable to criticism frominside or outside;

naturally assigns each group or individual to such a monolithic cul-ture, considering its members as faithful representatives, or even aspassive vehicles or victims, in the case of non-modern cultures,

having simply to accept or refuse it in toto;

uses culture as a perfect synonym for identity, which fully explainsthe social and political relations of groups (ethnicisation) and thusmakes it possible to differentiate, to place in a hierarchy (racialisa-tion) and to oppose (conflict of civilisations) countries, communi-ties and individuals;

emphasises the cultural differences of other groups in comparisonwith the assumed centrality of its own cultural models (ethnocen-

trism), not recognising the differences and potential for changewhich also affect the latter.

The first and most important objection to this description of contem-porary societies concerns the actual idea of culture that it employs, andwhich seems to ignore the fact that:

cultures are mobile, flexible, pluralistic entities, subject to challengefrom subgroups and to contamination from other cultures;

no individual is part of a single group or refers to a single cultural

model, but is rather the result of variable choices and circumstances,the migrant being by definition between two worlds and betweentwo cultures;

culture does not reproduce an identity or a difference that existsin nature, because it itself introduces differences, erecting bordersbetween the inside and outside of the group, between us andthem.


8/34

30

There are other objections to the political implications of this approach todiversity. The first is that of premature normativism (Benhabib, 2002:viii) which recognises that a group has collective rights to exist based ona necessarily fixed idea of it, often through the recognition of traditional

standards and the funding of community activities. While these meas-ures seek to secure the right to preserve ones own identity (EuropeanCommission, 2003: 45), they may, on the other hand, limit freedom insidegroups, and primarily the possibility of criticism from minority or domi-nated subgroups; a classic in this connection is the example of womenand their problematical situation in patriarchal groups (Okin, 1999).

Other critics accuse this essentialist approach to diversities of giving riseto:

ecological (Habermas, 1992) or museal multiculturalism,

because it has the effect of preserving certain features of a culture,which are judged essential at a given point in time, while freezingpossible internal changes;

corporative multiculturalism (Benhabib, 2002: 72) because ofthe risk of bureaucratisation of differences caused by public fund-ing mechanisms or ethnic quotas and because of the competitionengendered with other communities for access to these resources;

mosaic multiculturalism because of its effect of intracultural isola-

tion of the different groups, who are not motivated to build bridgeswith other groups or work out a shared political culture with them.

To these risks is added that of an essentialism with a stereotyping orstigmatising effect. In this case, the groups characteristics are not chosenby its internal majority but are selected and ultimately imposed by thedominant group in society. This version of multiculturalism may take onthe relatively harmless, but nonetheless disturbing, character of folklor-ism, reducing the history of other groups to festive, religious or consum-erist events. Furthermore, at a time when biological racism is outlawed

but xenophobic sentiments are still nurtured, essentialism may also giverise to a new kind of culturalist racism (Taguieff, 1997) which allowsrejection of immigrants to be justified in the name of incompatibility oflifestyles and a wish not to assimilate, manifested by populations who arethe product of immigration.

This assessment of the essentialist versions of multiculturalism results inthree criteria of value in devising alternative policy, namely:


9/34

31

immunity from stereotypes and prejudices;

awareness of dominant cultural models, often implicit, and havinggreat discriminatory force;

sensitivity to all individual diversity, whether chosen (culture, religion,traditions, beliefs, world view) or given (gender, age, abilities).

In general, the guiding principle for these criteria is that an individualshould not be assigned to a cultural, religious or linguistic group by rea-son of birth [or origin] alone (Benhabib, 2002: 19): the widest possiblemargins must be left for self-attribution of identity and cultural self-deter-mination, and also for criticism and the rejection of self-images that areimposed, unilateral, or carry scorn or stigmatisation.

b. Assessment of frightened multiculturalism

The word frightened may be applied to any approach to multicultural-ism that regards cultural differences, whether essentialised or not:

as a principal source of the sense of insecurity felt by part of theEuropean population, thus justifying the xenophobic sentimentswhich continue to be observed (EUMC, 2006);

as the principal or even sole source of the difficulties of fair integra-tion of immigrants and their children in the host societies, in par-

ticular on the labour market and in urban, social and political life ingeneral.

In this connection one might refer to the culturalisation of the social causesof insecurity and inequalities. This often implies a tendency for host soci-eties to deny responsibility for the absence of integration and the culpabi-lisation of immigrants themselves, who must take at least indirect respon-sibility for their plight because of the cultural backwardness of whichthey are victims and from which they are unwilling or unable to escape.

The first and most important objection to this description of reality con-cerns the link that exists between cultural poverty and social inequalityin general, and in particularly in groups that derive from migration. If oneignores this link, one cannot reflect on:

the depth and complexity of the causes of poor economic and inte-gration performance by certain immigrant groups, which also feed adiffuse state of social anxiety;


10/34


11/34

33

rather than cultural rights (Habermas, 2003). Nevertheless, the capabilityto enjoy these rights of belonging (Sen, 1992), especially in a very inega-litarian and politically very weak context, still remains unclear.

There are other objections to the legal and political translation of thisview of cultural differences. The first is that, unless the actual conditionsin which the right to be different is exercised are taken into account, theresult may be elitist multiculturalism (Bauman, 2004), the possibility ofdeveloping a rich, chosen cultural allegiance being limited to those withsufficient resources. Likewise, unless the question of leadership is posedin a democratic way, there is a risk that the needs of poorer, dominatedgroups may remain marginal and that the recognition granted in the cul-tural sphere may be paternalistic. By contrast, political participation andnegotiation appear to be the key factors in giving substance to the formalrecognition of a right of belonging and well-being, including questionsof material and cultural justice. Further, an integrated notion of well-being ought to become mainstream in every area of policy and be theshared responsibility of all the players concerned, and even the focus ofco-ordination efforts on the part of the various players with competencein migration and integration.

In terms of alternative models, the assessment of the abstract versionsof multiculturalism leads to three criteria of value in devising policy,namely:

coherence; activism;

co-responsible co-ordination.

d. The alternative of a fair multiculturalism

An assessment of these questionable approaches to multiculturalismyields 10 methodological principles or criteria that are useful in examin-ing the state of current policies and the degree of commitment to a fair

multicultural society.2 Moreover, it is worth noticing that the 10 criteria

2. We suggest that fair can describe each policy that considers legal discrimination,

social inequalities and cultural subalternity as three sides of the same system of in-

justice to be challenged. This kind of policy aims therefore to articulate rather than

muddle, split or oppose demands for redistribution and recognition raising in amulticultural context (Frazer, 1997).


12/34

34

that articulate the practice of a fair multiculturalism correspond (see Table1) to the four dimensions of social cohesion, according to the Council ofEurope definition applied in the Methodological Guide for the concerteddevelopment of social cohesion indicators: equity, autonomy, dignity and

participation (Council of Europe, 2005).

Table 1 Correspondences between fair multiculturalism and socialcohesion

Fair multiculturalism (criteria) Social cohesion (dimensions)

Depth

of policies AutonomyCoherence

Globality

Immunity to stereotypes and prejudices Equity

Account of implicitcultural models

DignitySensitivity to differences

Valuation of diversity

and competences

Activism

ParticipationSolidarity

Co-responsible co-ordination

An approach based on this parallelism, between the criteria of a fair mul-ticulturalism and the dimensions of social cohesion, could help every deci-

sion maker and any interested party to measure the degree of responsibilityhe bears in relation to the well-being of migrants and their descendants,and to reconcile that well-being with collective interests.3 The ultimateaim will be to assess, within a given context, the extent to which:

3. These criteria could in principle be applied to every sector of politics and society. In

this paper, we shall indicate for each criterion the problems that it may address, theprincipal contexts within which it may be employed and some priority ideas for ac-

tion. Migration and integration being among the most complex processes with which

any society is confronted, the range of institutional, political and socio-economicplayers involved is particularly wide. Consequently, when the term responsible play-

ers is used here, we shall suggest that the criteria listed should be adopted by public

authorities and institutions of every kind (legislative, governmental, administrative,judicial, police, champions of human rights and equal opportunities, etc.) and at eve-

ry level (international, European, national, regional, provincial, local and municipal);

all private sector firms and players; non-governmental associations, including political

parties and movements, media, churches, trade unions and all other civil societyplayers.


13/34

35

immigrants, with their cultural differences, are recognised as beingequal in rights and duties and consequently neither stigmatised norignored nor simply tolerated;

everyone from a migrant background has the material and non-material wherewithal to choose and pursue wholly autonomouslyhis course in life, including his more or less critical stance on thesociety of origin and the host society;

the specific needs, skills, values, etc. of immigrants are recognisedas an integral part of the host society, preserving their dignity and atthe same time contributing to the collective well-being;

the content of policies relevant to them, and in particular provisionsfor recognising differences, are decided on through participation of

migrants themselves in discussion and decision making.A fair multicultural society is then called upon, through its policies anddaily practices, to give everyone the right to live well with his own culturalspecificity, within a framework that offers real equality of opportunity,and an underlying democratic culture affording mutual respect, negotia-tion in the event of conflict and continuous development of the initialcultural models.

In this context, one could speak more generally of a right to feel like andbe recognised as a person, including everything that guarantees integrity

of life and makes voluntary self-ascription (Benhabib, 2002: 21) pos-sible. This would ward off the risk of failure to recognise, only in abstractterms, the right to non-discrimination on racial or cultural grounds andnot to develop policies (economic, social or other policies) enabling thatright to be fully exercised. On the one hand, integrity of life cannot ignoregeneral conditions in a given society, such as those safeguarded by tra-ditional civil, political and social rights. On the other hand, the practicalexercise of these rights makes it necessary to take account of the culturaldifferences of each individual. So the aim must be to provide, on thebroadest possible base, the same opportunities and the same entitlements

in terms of rights in full awareness that, in order to be effective, theseopportunities and entitlements must be compatible with individuals owncharacteristics, and indeed with the differences of culture, religion, gen-der, age, ability, etc. which people themselves regard as essential featuresof their personality (Facchi, 2006).

Finally, in a fair multicultural society, differences of every kind are neitherabsolute nor exploited as means of stigmatising and excluding: rather,


14/34

36

they are turned to account in order to open up areas for dialogue wherethe conflicts on socio-economic and political issues, thrown up by thechanges stemming from globalisation, can be managed collectively. Suchareas for negotiation are indeed essential in understanding that migrants

demands for diversity, rights and well-being are not opposed to, butdeeply correlated with, those of nationals.

3. The agenda for a fair multicultural society

a. Depth of policies

This criterion answers one central question: do migration and integrationpolicies, including those to combat racial and ethnic discrimination, man-age to reach the most profound causes of exclusion of immigrants in the

host societies?

The difficulties experienced in implementing the different European inte-gration models from the 1990s onwards cannot be understood withoutreference to the major transformations that have affected the produc-tion system, labour markets, the role of the state, families and socialinstitutions such as schools. The depth of policies promoting inclusionand equality of opportunity is measured by this yardstick. For example,the extent to which anti-discrimination measures succeed in changingexclusion mechanisms rooted in the current apportionment of resources,

opportunities for social mobility and the skills required by the labour mar-ket, has to be verified a whole series of conditions in respect of whichimmigrants, and often their descendants too, are at a disadvantage ascompared with nationals.

From this standpoint, the familiar problems of immigrants (employment,housing, education, access to social rights) are not tackled as being intrin-sically linked to immigration but instead as the result of historical causesand systems that reproduce disparities. The resulting political choices aretherefore not simply altruistic or humanitarian with regard to vulnerablegroups. While striving to minimise their social unease and inter-ethnichostility, one is also aiming at general social issues, such as the increas-ingly pronounced dualism of the labour market; wage polarisation; socialmobility deficits that burden the younger generations; difficulties in find-ing a property to rent or purchase except in certain districts; difficulties inhaving access to rights; difficulties experienced by schools in teaching skillsthat are useful to a rapidly changing labour market; the distance betweena large proportion of the population and political life; lack of confidence


15/34

37

in institutions and society, and absence of genuine places for negotiationin order to cope with conflicts of distribution and recognition.

In the employment field, for example, the priorities relate to the questionof over-exploitation in underground economies, recognition of skills andinvestment in education and vocational training (see also Valuation ofdiversity and competences, below).

With regard to combating over-exploitation, one might: experiment withmore efficient machinery for detecting undeclared work (congruity indexbetween quantity/quality of production and declared working hours,encouragement to self-reporting by victims); provide sufficient resourcesto combat illegality (strengthen inspectorates); develop incentives (taxbreaks and public contracts for firms regularising employment on a last-ing basis) and deterrents (monetary and criminal penalties for employers,

exclusion from public tenders); minimise other factors which sustain illegalmigration (existence of sufficient legal channels, more realistic and flex-ible conditions of access to countries, combating trafficking); guaranteesocial minima for all workers, and promote public and trade union aware-ness of the convergence of interest between national and non-nationalworkers in terms of protection and labour costs.

In the field of access to housing, whether rented or owned, one could:develop concerted public/private strategies to broaden access to the pub-lic and private housing markets in terms of cost, availability, allocation

criteria, fair ratios between prices, wages and allowances; implementprogrammes of public construction; and promote redevelopment andmodernisation of certain urban areas directly involving the populationsconcerned (in respect of housing needs but also of skills and labour).

If they are to be effective, however, these measures have to be incorpo-rated into a long-term vision of sustainable development, aimed at com-petitive production/consumption in terms of quality and inclusive of socialand environmental considerations, instead of tending to regard protec-tion as a cost and certain fundamental assets like housing only as a sector

for speculation.

b. Coherence of policies

This criterion provides answers to two questions:

to what extent do policies on migration and integration succeed inmanaging the multiplicity of fields, competences, players and levels


16/34

38

of action that enter into the definition and implementation of meas-ures concerning immigrants?

how do the various players prevent incoherence between their dif-ferent arrangements, negating the hoped for inclusion effects andactually producing a form of systemic exclusion?

The latest International Labour Migration Surveyedited by ILO explainsthat, in the 90 countries which took part in the survey, provisions affect-ing immigrants (immigrant workers) are to be found in 11 different typesof legislation, from constitutions to codes of employment, from codesof social security to criminal codes, from immigration laws to bilateralagreements between states (ILO, 2004: 146). The same report highlightsthe fact that jurisdiction in this sphere is usually shared among variousauthorities and ministries (ILO, 2004: 147). While immigrants are also

part, at least initially, of a different legislative and political system thatof the country of origin policies concerning them ought to be ableto manage judicial pluralism, and even resolve conflicts between differ-ent systems of legislation, especially in the fields of family, property andnationality law and the transfer of acquired social rights.

Furthermore, given their status with regard to access and residence (con-ditional on work and sometimes even illegal) and their actual living condi-tions (usually worse than in the rest of the population), immigrants oftenbecome the prisoners of a network of intersecting conditions between

the different policies and legislative programmes concerning them (inte-gration, the labour market, access to housing and schools, social ben-efits, naturalisation). With the failure of these policies to actively takeinto account the cultural differences they wish to preserve, there is a highrisk of exclusion, which will negate the efforts made to secure equality ofopportunity as the foundation of lasting integration.

All the responsible players should check whether or not there is coher-ence between:

general principles and specific legislation (for example, in the caseof disparity between constitutional rules and international undertak-ings setting certain standards on human rights and non-discrimina-tion, and ordinary laws or administrative implementing mechanisms,which in fact suspend those same rights);

declared aims and actual conditions of implementation (for example,in the case of long-term residence permits which, on the one hand,


17/34

39

seek to give a series of rights to lawful immigrants but, on the otherhand, lay down access criteria which are in fact impossible for a large

proportion of the people concerned to meet);

existing laws and the institutional structures intended to implementthem, and the financial and human resources needed for the effortto succeed;

the measures taken in the various fields (for example, interacting

exclusion effects which operate when the rules governing entry and

residence, employment, non-discrimination, access to rights and citi-zenship, public order, etc. are not properly co-ordinated).

In particular, it might be useful to check whether certain conditions attach-

ing to integration programmes actually produce the expected results or

whether they cause unexpected negative effects. Such conditions mightinclude: obligatory frequency; high cost; legal consequences that mayeven entail non-renewal of the residence permit; a mandatory procedure

for access to work and training; measures governing access and residence

in the country (testing of skills, prior contract with an employer, high costand length of procedures, income level required, housing subject to high

standards, difficulty of regularising ones situation); access to the labour

market (educational qualifications, access to banking services, housing);

social benefits (length and lawfulness of stay, advance contributions) andnaturalisation (level of income and living conditions, test of language and

culture, length and opacity of procedures, denial of dual nationality, loss

of acquired nationality in exceptional cases).

c. Globality of policies

This criterion answers a twofold question:

do immigration and integration policies target the whole of the

population or, in spite of the global dimension of the phenomena

concerned, are they still sectoral policies which are not at the heartof public action in the long term?

do these same policies comprise mechanisms that make it possible

to detect and treat as fairly as possible all the subgroups (in particular

by age, sex, training, legal status, waves of belonging) which goto make up the populations of immigrant origin, or do they in fact

operate selectively within those populations?


18/34

40

For some time, the receiving countries of migratory flows tended totreat the integration of immigrants as a residual issue, separate from thecentral channels carrying social cohesion development policies. Thus,employment policies (aimed at quality jobs, particularly for women and

the younger generation, worker adaptability to change in terms of train-ing and flexibility/security, certain levels of income and protection in allsectors, etc.), social policies (aimed at a fairer distribution of fiscal costsand resources, pension and social security reforms, creation of more effi-cient and sustainable tools for combating poverty, availability of part-timecontracts and services such as child-minding to enable women to work,etc.) or education policies (improving the quality of education, accessibil-ity irrespective of family income, the link between skills and labour mar-ket) should systematically include immigrant populations and those offoreign origin in their intended areas of action.

Finally, there should be awareness that the problems of immigrants are notsubstantially different from those of the rest of the population, includingthe negative effects of a lack of qualifications and skills, often interpretedin terms of foreigners cultural backwardness. Likewise, a balance mustalso be struck between these global strategies for the development ofsocial cohesion and the specific needs and living conditions of variousgroups of immigrants women, young people, irregulars, newcomers,those who have been present for longer, those who have been natural-ised, nationals of foreign origin, etc.

In particular, it might be useful:

to consider migration and integration issues as a part of all policiesaffecting a countrys social cohesion, at all decision-making levels;

to finance multicultural innovations in public services through struc-tural funds and in the framework of general reform programmes;

to devise tools for gathering relevant information on different sub-groups using certain legal provisions or certain services, while guar-anteeing respect for privacy and non-discrimination with regard to

the people concerned, in order to evaluate reforms.

d. Immunity from stereotypes and prejudices

This criterion answers truly preliminary questions:

to what extent are the policies and behaviour of the responsibleplayers immune from stereotypes and prejudices?


19/34

41

to what extent do they themselves contribute, albeit involuntarily, to

creating a stereotyped image of immigrants?

Despite the efforts made by integration and non-discrimination policies

to ensure that immigrants and their descendants can participate fully andfairly in the life of the host country, the possibility still exists that certain

public choices and certain social behaviours may, more or less uncon-

sciously, incorporate stereotypes or prejudices about people of foreign

origin. This would effectively negate efforts at inclusion, because any cli-

ch, even when positive, causes distortion in public action and in social

life. Furthermore, in the case of prejudices that grow into actual stigmati-

sation of foreigners, the foreseeable effect is to rob people and groups of

foreign origin of the capability of enjoying those rights and opportunities

in life to which they are entitled. In these processes, the emphasis on

diversity, including cultural and ethnic diversity, plays an important part,which may go so far as to justify differences of treatment by implication

and consider this diversity as the sole cause of social exclusion.

The most common categories of stereotype portray immigrants (or, quite

simply, those one regards as such) as: a threat; too numerous; the sole

source of problems or profit; culturally backward; suspect and antisocial

people; and, as such, requiring only extraordinary measures and treatment.

All responsible players ought regularly to check that they are immune to

this kind of stereotype. This check means, in the following order:

analysing the substance of common perceptions that may stigmatise

immigrants;

assessing their negative effects, for example in terms of greater dis-

crimination, exclusion and hostility to immigrants;

reflecting on the root causes of clichs, and motives which foster

their spread.

For this reason, it might be useful to check whether certain measures,

in particular the most restrictive ones, are really justified in the collective

interest or whether they stem from a stereotyped image of immigrants.

For example, is there any connection between:

conditional access for foreigners to national social and health services

and the perception of immigrants as coming here to take advan-

tage of our welfare system?


20/34

42

limited access for foreigners to some jobs, in particular public-sector

and high-level ones, and the idea that immigrants lack loyalty to the

destination country or are generally less educated than us?

entry and residence restrictions and the notions that we have toomany immigrants, they steal our jobs and they help push wages

down?

special or punitive measures as regards civic rights and the quite

common perception of immigrants as criminal or antisocial elements

or a threat to law and order and the national interest generally?

e. Taking implicit cultural models into account

The question at the heart of this criterion is the following: are the hostcountries conscious of incorporating into their policies cultural models

that may involuntarily constitute obstacles to users with different refer-

ence frameworks?

Most European countries are already making considerable efforts to accul-

turate immigrants, and even to assist them in discovering the countrys

institutional machinery and give them the keys to a better understanding

of the social and economic dynamics into which they must fit. Classes in

language and civilisation, together with reception and information serv-

ices, training and advice on finding a job or housing for newcomers, allgo to meet these requirements. In the long term, and for succeeding

generations, these functions are performed in a more systematic way by

the national education system at every level.

Likewise, the rules of the game in a complex society are learnt quite slowly,

and the price of incomprehension may be high in terms of exclusion or

deviance. This process of learning, which is a key aspect of integration,

would perhaps be facilitated and speeded up if it were not just unilateral

but if it involved a real two-way process between the political and

institutional culture of nationals and that of newcomers. For the policies,procedures and public services which govern and ensure the exercise of

civic rights and duties in European countries are not neutral: they often

embody cultural models (in terms of objectives, target groups, legal prin-

ciples, values, ideals, national history, etc.) which are more or less implicit

for nationals but which, for newcomers, constitute a major barrier, all the

more insidious because invisible, to access.


21/34

43

All the responsible players should try, as far as their knowledge of othercultures allows, and applying criteria of effectiveness, to detect the poten-tial for involuntary discrimination which lies hidden in these implicit cul-tural models, where they may not tally with those of immigrants or their

actual living conditions. Access to social benefits or to the health-caresystem, or the question of performance at school, represents the idealterrain on which to implement this approach.

For example, as failure at school is recognised as one of the most impor-tant causes of inequality of opportunity, it might be useful to give morethought to the reasons for it. While endeavouring to deal with the socio-economic problems of families through specific policies (family allow-ances, flexible rules on choice of schools, broader involvement of parentsin school life, availability of out-of-school activities and help with studies,language classes for parents, etc.), intercultural changes in teaching prac-tice make it possible to unblock children, and even allow them to escapefrom their feeling of foreignness in a setting perceived as too remote fromtheir own values and frame of reference, with the result that they excludethemselves even before they are excluded. This change entails not onlyintroducing new content (historical, geographical and ethnological mate-rial relevant to pupils differing backgrounds) into the subjects taught orby adding new subjects (different languages and religions): it comprisesturning pupils intercultural skills systematically to account, starting withbilingualism and the ability to be a translator between different cultural

systems and traditions, with lasting benefits for the entire class (Mano,2006). Teacher training in turn, for those in post and for future teachers,should incorporate this kind of approach more often. Furthermore, otherprofessions, such as cultural mediators or psycho-linguistic facilitators,could usefully be involved in school innovation.

f. Sensitivity of policies and services to cultural differences

This criterion enables the following question to be addressed: to whatextent do integration policies and services include cultural differences as

a key factor in the success of their action?The receiving countries of migratory flows have increasingly set in placespecial services dealing primarily with newcomers. Sometimes theseservices provide key support in immigrants lives long after they arrive.They obviously play an important role in the initial stages, together withnew integration programmes offering language courses and informa-tion about the country, the labour market and the legislation in force.


22/34

44

Likewise, it is on access to public services in general, in particular thoserelating to health and social welfare, that the success of equitable inte-gration depends, and this is also true for immigrants who have not hadaccess to integration programmes or who have lived in the country for

a long time. The link between these two types of service is crucial: if thetransition takes place fairly quickly and efficiently, the autonomy of themigrants using them and their self-inclusion capability increases substan-tially. Otherwise, the fact of being confined to special services for too longmay result in a kind of dependency, poorer in quality than other services,producing inequalities, stigmatisation and exclusion.

The experience of the countries with the longest history of immigrationhas revealed that obstacles to quality services, in particular where there isa universalist and largely free system, are other than monetary in charac-

ter: a whole series of more or less invisible barriers have been suggestedas the explanation for certain asymmetries. The concepts of culturallydiverse population or universal services sensitive to differences havebeen developed and applied in response to these problems. In a concernfor equality which goes beyond formal non-discrimination and active oreven special measures, the main point of this approach is to make serv-ices compatible with the constituent features of individuals cultural,religious, gender-related, etc. differences which the people themselvesregard as essential to their well-being and which, if they are ignored, maynegate the effectiveness of the service. The best example of this type

of initiative is the hospital that tries to be as immigrant-friendly as pos-sible. Linguistic initiatives are just the more obvious, albeit primary, obsta-cles to be overcome: a major effort of cultural interpretation, prospectmediation, and effective communication between doctors and patients isneeded if treatment is to be effective, with lasting results.

Over and above the benefits to the groups directly concerned, these ini-tiatives often yield an overall improvement in services, which then tend tobecome more sensitive to the requirements of dignity and autonomy, andeven to the different needs and particularities of every individual.

Generally speaking, special services reserved for immigrants should beas temporary as possible. So, it will be helpful to invest in the trainingof public service staff with skills (linguistic, human, sector-specific) thatenable them to respond to the requirements of immigrant populations. Itwould also be helpful, in all public services, to encourage recruitment ofpersonnel who have experience of migration, something that encouragesemployment and constitutes a strategy for diversification and innovation


23/34

45

in the service. Given their importance, private sector services should beencouraged to pursue similar processes aimed at open-handedness,innovation and diversification: banks and other financial services, privateemployment and rental agencies, company consultancies, etc. should be

among the first to move in this direction. As regards the health-care sys-tem in particular, the following initiatives could be tried out in a growingnumber of hospitals: multilingual information, translation and culturalmediation services; staff training, including for nurses and administra-tors; construction of special units to monitor diversity questions, fromplanning to evaluation of services; channels of communication with usersof foreign origin concerning their satisfaction levels; extension of thesepractices to the entire health-care system, including GPs.

g. Valuation of diversity and competences

This criterion answers the question: do integration policies and pro-grammes make use of differences to empower and motivate immigrants,overcoming their reluctance to recognise their capacity for initiative, theirvalues, and their competences in short, their present and potential con-tribution to the collective social well-being?

The condition of under-employment or poor employment (low added-value, minimal career prospects, low pay) suffered by immigrants andtheir descendants in most of the host countries not only imposes a social

cost in terms of exclusion and unease for part of the population: it alsoconstitutes a major economic and cultural cost which bears especiallyheavily on any society that seeks to be innovatory, open and democratic,as European society does. The economic costs are obvious when oneconsiders the waste of human resources that lies behind the figures forimmigrant unemployment, in particular for certain groups and subgroups(particular nationalities, women, young people, etc.). No less serious,though receiving less media attention, are the cultural costs arising fromthe discouragement of immigrants intercultural and community skills,which are actually two key factors in a global society that is increasingly

interconnected and diversified.In order to implement these observations, we might support: methods ofrecruitment, which set value on the potential skills of immigrants derivingfrom their migratory background and cultural differences, either in thepublic sector (pluralism of services) or in the private sector; recognition ofskills and qualifications acquired abroad; recognition of the social valueof certain work more or less left to immigrants, such as child-minding


24/34

46

and care of the elderly, in terms of better social protection and trainingopportunities in the field of personal care.

h. Activism

This criterion addresses the following question: to what extent do thepeople concerned have an opportunity to voice their opinions and toorganise themselves in order to promote their needs and conception ofwell-being, including the need for recognition and cultural diversity?

In democratic societies, the people affected by a law or by its effects havethe opportunity to influence it through the exercise of political rights andrights of association, or through voter representation and various formsof active citizenship. This is a general principle, but it is nonetheless at

odds with the situation of immigrants: prior to naturalisation they areexcluded from political rights proper (the right to vote and to stand forelection to the national parliament or other political bodies); but evenafterwards immigrants may be inclined to abstain through mistrust of thepolitical system, by lack of leadership or the absence of arenas in whichthey can autonomously voice their interests. However, in many Europeancountries immigrants are very active: almost half of them living in urbanareas participate in associations and do voluntary work, despite havingliving conditions seemingly not very compatible with this type of commit-ment as regards time and resources. Religious organisations and churches

play an important part here in offering a welcome, recognition and aplace to meet other fellow nationals.

Associations are often driven by a desire to provide mutual support, main-tain allegiances and protect rights; this is especially the case in placeswhere the public authorities have not set up information and guidanceservices. Having satisfied everyday needs, associations set themselvesother aims, such as promoting political mobilisation (on questions ofsocial justice, combating racism, recognition of rights, emancipation ofwomen), the fight against social exclusion, the development of active tol-

erance and intercultural and inter-religious skills. Moreover, in countrieswhere political participation via the right to vote has produced the mostpromising results (such as in the Netherlands), associative activism is oftenthe first step towards joining a party and then going on to stand for elec-tion (Bozkurt, 2006).

It is hard to overestimate the contribution which participation can maketo integration processes, in particular as an instrument for learning how


25/34

47

society functions and as the vehicle for a real sense of belonging. Itsimportance suggests that the right to vote should no longer be regardedas the end result of a process, but as an important factor in activation,which can motivate and give a sense of responsibility to newcomers at

an early stage. Similarly, there are two major obstacles still to be tackled,namely:

the fact that mobilisation is limited de facto to the micro-level (jointmanagement of public services, local committees, advisory bodies),without real, effective bridges being built towards the national andEuropean levels of decision making;

the fact that formal rights of participation are not actually exerciseddue to lack of places for action, either autonomous or inside politicalparties and trade unions, which have difficulty in coping with thedemands of people of foreign origin.

The fact is that, despite their contribution to feelings of belonging andconfidence and to the development of immigrants organisational anddemocratic skills, the associations in question are often small, with limitedresources and focus almost exclusively on local issues (CEMVO, 2005;Beauftragte, 2002; CODRES, 2000). Consequently, the chance of influ-encing the general, national or European framework in which politicalchoices about immigration and integration matters are made is fairlyslight. A change of scale is therefore a real priority for immigrants asso-

ciations and their members.

In particular, where political rights are concerned, their acquisition shouldbe made easier (more flexible conditions and faster processing of natural-isation applications) and their exercise could be separated, at least at thelocal and regional levels, from nationality (as called for in the ConventionNo. 144 of the Council of Europe). As regards conditions that allowactive participation in elections and political life, consciousness-raisingcampaigns could be run, so that party and union members realise theimportance of articulating immigrants requirements, together with those

of the rest of the population. As for the construction of an autonomousleadership capable of broadening the scale of action of existing associa-tions and becoming an interlocutor vis--vis the public authorities, con-sideration should be given to forms of public support targeting informa-tion, acquisition of organisational skills and lobbying, reinforcement andnetworking of existing associations at regional, national and foreseeablyalso at European level.


26/34

48

i. Solidarity and a platform for dialogue

This criterion throws light on three questions of crucial importance in

building a fair multicultural society, namely:

do migration and integration policies nurture the idea, even uncon-sciously, of a radical conflict of interest between immigrants and the

rest of the population, thus undermining the possibility of intercul-

tural and inter-ethnic solidarity?

in which particular areas could intercultural alliances aimed at collec-

tive well-being come about?

how can awareness that the aspirations to well-being, the demands

for rights and the claims to diversity that are advanced by immigrants

and by nationals, are not, in fact, in conflict, but rather closely inter-lock with each other, be brought into the development and imple-

mentation of policy?

One of the most deeply negative effects of multiculturalist discourse,

which emphasises the cultural and other differences between nationals

and non-nationals, is that it thwarts all serious efforts at intercultural dia-

logue that are not abstract but concrete, and focuses on the underlying

issues and conflicts of present-day society. This kind of discourse rein-

forces an idea and one that is gaining ground of rights, especially

social rights, as a fixed set: according to this view, whenever rights areextended to newcomers, the rights acquired by others would necessarily

be curtailed. This overlooks the fact that, in recent times, the recognition

of claims and needs previously excluded from the public sphere (a typical

example being women and the working classes) constituted an important

factor for social progress (Bobbio, 1990). If one accepts that migration is

an irreversible fact in European societies, it will be helpful to tackle it by

increasing the resources available and reviewing the criteria for allocation

and distribution rather than by waging silent war on insiders as against

outsiders.

If it is not to remain pure theory, intercultural dialogue should reach out

beyond religious differences or customs and take the form of platforms

for social and political dialogue, collaborating in a sustainable manner

with all concerned decision makers. In this quasi-institutional context, it

would be possible to build alliances between national and non-national

workers and consumers on questions of collective interest such as:


27/34

49

maintaining high standards of legal protection for all workers, avoid-ing both social dumping and exploitation of the most vulnerablepeople;

combating tax and contribution fraud and undeclared work moregenerally; this would make it possible to reduce opportunities for theexploitation of national and non-national workers and the relatedmagnetic effect on illegal migrants, and to recover large sums ofpublic money;

wider access to housing, whether rented or owned, fostering accessto the property markets and urban mobility and countering tenden-cies towards involuntary ethnic concentration;

intercultural reform of public services (see Sensitivity of policies and

services to cultural differences above).

It is nonetheless necessary to be aware of the difficulty of creating bod-ies representing all sectors of groups and populations, especially if onewishes to avoid a situation in which political or religious elites controlthese representative bodies, promoting their own interest and lifestylesto the detriment of internal pluralism. It will thus be crucial: to devisemechanisms for the democratic, transparent selection of participants andmember organisations, providing for accountability to the communitiesconcerned and collective evaluation of results; to create awareness of

this kind of initiative among the general public and the media and, moregenerally, awareness of the value of intercultural solidarity rather thancompetition among the various groups.

j. Co-accountable co-ordination

This last criterion answers two questions that are crucial to so complex asubject as migration and integration policies:

do the various players involved, in developing and implement-

ing these policies, manage to co-ordinate their activities, from theobjectives to the legal/political instruments employed and the actualapportionment of competences, while avoiding duplication, conflictsof authority, administrative vacuums and contradictory procedures,which cancel each other out?

do these same players have the means of monitoring and solvingthis kind of problem in the framework of clear co-accountability in


28/34

50

relation to a shared objective, that is, the well-being of migrants andof the entire population?

The ILOs International Labour Migration Survey, mentioned earlier in con-nection with policy coherence, also highlights the fact that competencesin this field are usually shared between different authorities and ministries(ILO, 2004: 147). The need for co-ordination of initiatives is more andmore clearly felt, at every level of public action. It is useful to point outthe recent change in Community institutions in this connection. Movingbeyond the simplistic image of integration as a local issue, the EuropeanUnion is also beginning to see it as having global implications, especiallyin the event of failure: the inability of a single member state to imple-ment successful integration policies may have negative consequences forthe Union as a whole (European Parliament, 2006).

In order to stress the co-accountable co-ordination of the actors con-cerned, it will be crucial: to broaden institutional opportunities for con-certed co-ordination between the various players concerned by migrationand integration questions; to assess the usefulness of joint committees orother mechanisms for monitoring co-ordination and solving any problemsand to accelerate the convergence of systems for gathering and analys-ing the relevant data, including the construction of shared indicators andguidelines for developing and evaluating policies.

ConclusionDeveloping ideas and policies for a fair multicultural society entails somesignificant changes of perspective, which should be highlighted in theconclusion.

What integration?

We should begin by giving a clearer and more substantial social andpolitical content to the very vague and highly ambiguous word integra-tion. So-called integration policies are usually concerned with reception

of new migrants, especially in the matter of language, guidance or evencivilisation courses and help with day-to-day acclimatisation, as well asvocational training courses geared to the labour market. This aspect isuseful for migrants, because it offers minimum frameworks within whichto find ones bearings in a new context. Nevertheless, the introductory,preliminary character of these measures and the philosophy that under-lies them, together with the sometimes compulsory nature of the courses,


29/34

51

with consequences for residence and working conditions (Carrera, 2006),has often been described as a limitation that should be removed.

In the broad sense of the term, any policy aimed at the well-being ofimmigrants and their descendants as part of a collective European interestin social cohesion, should actually be defined as a policy of integration.4This view corresponds to the desire to move on from a definition focusingon sectoral policies or on the intention which guides their implementa-tion (assimilation, acculturation, learning the local rules, transmission ofmeaningful information for a new life, etc.) to the expected effect, oreven the result for the whole of society. Taking cultural differences intoaccount is part of that effort.

The question of cultural differences is a political one

We should finally come to consider differences whether cultural or other,whether migration-related or not as a key element for everyones well-being that does not, in itself, pose a problem, but that can do so throughthe manner in which it is understood and institutionalised. To repeat whatwas said earlier: what can influence social cohesion positively or nega-tively is the political use that is made of it; or even the manner in whichdifferences are incorporated into various political measures and into thebuilding of the national community, into the collective perception andinto the specific historical context in which this process takes place, andthe social position of the people and groups who are its main force. So itmay be said that we are all multicultural, in the sense that we are awareof living in a pluralist social setting: it is different, and far more important,to decide what conclusions we draw for politics and everyday life. Thepurpose here is to produce a change in the use made of migration-relateddiversity, so that from being an obstacle and a threat to social cohesion, itbecomes a key factor in the well-being of immigrants and the success ofpolicies, fully in accord with the common interests of the host society.

4. The Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, which from the very outset has paidconstant attention to the social inclusion of immigrants, has reaffirmed its vision of

Europe as a multinational and multicultural society, where immigrants take part

as equal members, on the basis of equality of rights and opportunities in return for

equality of obligations, whilst respecting the rules of democracy, cultural diversity andthe rule of law (Recommendation 1625, adopted on 30 September 2003).


30/34

52

We are talking about ourselves

It should also be borne in mind that the changes witnessed do not comefrom outside; we are also faced, perhaps as a matter of priority, with theinternal problems of European societies transformations in the labourmarket and prospects for social mobility, reforms of the state, demo-graphic imbalances, the changing role of families, obstacles to democraticparticipation (Sassen, 2006). If cultural differences, whether perceived asa fact of nature to be brought under control, a resource to be explored ora threat to be contained, are at the heart of Europeans preoccupations,it is also because they are seen as an issue that transcends migrationalone and this raises the question of the kind of society Europe wantsin future; one based on what values and what rights, built around whatidentity, united by the strength of what cohesion and what solidarity,etc. Moreover, it is also true that the treatment we accord to foreigners

and others among us offers a splendid testing-ground for checking themoral conscience and capacity for political thought of liberal democra-cies (Benhabib, 2002: 178). Awareness of this veritable mirror effectis one of the fundamental conditions for achieving a new citizenshippact including nationals and non-nationals, locals and people of foreignorigin, etc.

We and the others

What is needed is a gradual change in our perception of others and ourrelationship with them; moving from the rhetoric of competition towardsa more mutually supportive, cosmopolitan view, which replaces the strug-gle for what are imagined to be increasingly scarce resources by a muchmore co-operative attitude, one more geared to the building of alliancesand aimed at a society that is more welcoming and more civil towardseveryone. The case of employment rights is quite paradigmatic and willrecur in the following pages: instead of regretting unfair competition overcosts and wages, a commitment to universal levels of protection wouldlikewise be helpful to everyone. This also presupposes that we do notregarding immigrants as targets or passive recipients of our politi-

cal initiatives but rather that we allow them to become full partners inmatters of more direct concern to them, and ultimately also in all soci-etal questions. Basically, the change required is to move away from astereotypical image, which sees the interests of immigrants and those ofnationals as essentially irreconcilable, instead of waking up and cultivat-ing their profound inter-relationship.


31/34

53

Bibliography

Arendt, H., The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951), Andre Deutsch, London,1986.

Bauman, Z., Identity: Conversation with Benedetto Vecchi, Polity Press,Cambridge, 2004.

Beauftragte, Migranten sind active. Zum gesellschaftlichen Engagementvon Migrantinnen und Migranten, Beauftragte der Bundesregierung frMigration, Flchtlinge und Integration, Bonn-Berlin, 2003.

Benhabib, S., The Rights of Others. Aliens, Residents and Citizens, PressSyndicate of the University of Cambridge, Cambridge, 2002.

Bobbio, N., Let dei diritti, Einaudi, Turin, 1990.

Bozkurt, E., How can the right to stand for election improve social cohe-

sion in a multicultural Europe?, in Council of Europe, Achieving socialcohesion in a multicultural Europe. Concepts, situation and develop-ments, Trends in social cohesion, No. 18, Council of Europe Publishing,Strasbourg, 2006, pp. 193-201.

Carrera, S., A Comparison of Integration Programmes in the EU. Trends

and Weaknesses, Challenge Papers, No. 1, March 2006.

CEMVO, The Black and Ethnic Minority Voluntary and Community Sector.A Literature Review, CEMVO, London, 2005.

CODRES, La rappresentanza diffusa. Le forme di partecipazione degliimmigrati alla vita collettiva, CNEL, Rome, 2000.

Council of Europe, Concerted development of social cohesion indica-tors Methodological guide, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg,2005.

EUMC, Majorities Attitudes Towards Migrants and Minorities: Key

Findings from the Eurobarometer and the European Social Survey,Summary, EUMC, Vienna, 2005.

EUMC, The Annual Report on the Situation regarding Racism andXenophobia in the Member States of the EU, EUMC, Vienna, 2006.

Eurobarometer, Discrimination in Europe, Eurobarometer, No. 57.0,

Brussels, 2003.


32/34

54

European Commission, Communication from the Commission to theCouncil, the European Parliament, the European Economic and SocialCommittee and the Committee of the Regions on Immigration, Integrationand Employment, No. 336 final, 3 June 2003.

European Parliament, Report on strategies and means for the integra-tion of immigrants in the European Union, Committee on Civil Liberties,Justice and Home Affairs, initiative by Stavros Lambrinidis, Strasbourg, 17May 2006.

Facchi, A., Citizenship, equality and social rights in a pluralist society,in Council of Europe,Achieving social cohesion in a multicultural Europe.Concepts, situation and developments, Trends in social cohesion, No. 18,Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, 2006, pp. 101-112.

Frazer, N., Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflexions on the PostsocialistCondition, Routledge Press, New York, 1997.

Habermas, J., Struggles for Recognition in the Democratic ConstitutionalState, in Gutman, A. (ed.), Multiculturalism and The Politics ofRecognition, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1992, pp. 107-148.

Habermas, J., Dalla tolleranza alla democrazia, Micromega. Almanaccodi filosofia, No. 5, 2003, pp. 311-328.

ILO, Towards a fair deal for migrant workers in the global economy,

International Labour Conference, 92nd session, International LabourOrganization, Geneva, 2004.

Mano, A., Young people of immigrant origin in Europe: how can wemake the school an instrument for social mobility and acquisition of inter-cultural competences?, in Council of Europe,Achieving social cohesionin a multicultural Europe. Concepts, situation and developments, Trendsin social cohesion, No. 18, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg,2006, pp. 155-166.

Okin, S.M., Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?, in Cohen, J. andHoward, M. (eds), Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?, PrincetonUniversity Press, Princeton, 1999.

Oliveri, F., Introduction, in Council of Europe, Security through socialcohesion. Proposals for a new socio-economic governance, Trends insocial cohesion, No. 10, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, 2004,pp. 15-31.


33/34

55

Oliveri, F., Introduction, in Council of Europe, Security and social cohe-sion. Deconstructing fear (of others) by going beyond stereotypes, Trendsin social cohesion, No. 11, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg,2005, pp. 13-32.

Rorty, R., Truth and Moral Progress: Philosophical Papers, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, 1998.

Sassen, S., Situating migration in the context of global transformations:what kind of European governance do we need?, in Council of Europe,Achieving social cohesion in a multicultural Europe. Concepts, situationand developments, Trends in social cohesion, No. 18, Council of EuropePublishing, Strasbourg, 2006, pp. 41-60.

Sen, A., Inequality Re-examined, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1992.

Taguieff, P.-A., Le Racisme, Flammarion, Paris, 1997.


34/34

oliveri fair multiculturalism 2008

Documents