Weird Al Yankovic (see the original images here).
Nicholas Cage (for the source click here).
Dutch Present-Day Society: home assignment
The Netherlands: A Multicultural Society?
Tolerance, in the sense of ‘peaceful coexistence’, often characterizes the Netherlands and automatically dubs it as ‘multicultural’. However, for some scholars that very idea is incorrect. Bax was among the firsts who noticed some failures of the (supposedly) multicultural society in which an underclass took shape with overrepresentation of migrants (1995: 21, 27). Besides, Paul Scheffer’s article gave momentum to the discussion about those failures, and so did the 9/11 attacks as well as Pim Fortuyn and his assassination (Bendrif & Haney [B&H] 2006: 3). Minorities-related problems were rarely debated due to a culture of tolerance (i.e. indifference). All this further hindered the migrants’ integration and alienated them from society, possibly leading to social unrest (Scheffer 2000: 9). In this essay I discuss how the Dutch society has failed in its multicultural orientation, but also show that, although the situation is far from being idyllic for the immigrants, positive developments are observed.
First, let us draw a terminological frame: what does ‘multiculturalism’ entail? Originally the authorities had a goal of peaceful coexistence of communities in mind. However, that is just the narrow sense of a multicultural society, namely a ‘multi-ethnic society’, i.e. ‘a society which encompasses different minority groups who are the result of individual and familial immigration, and distinguished by cultural differences related to language and national origin’ (Spiecker & Steutel [S&S] 2001: 296). True multiculturalism is actually about interacting, participating in and contributing to society, all that on the basis of equality for everyone and their right to follow own religious practices, as long as the latter do not interfere with the core values and laws of that society.
Second, let us have a look at the history of post-War migration in the Netherlands to see why so many ethnicities are present. A first factor was the establishment, but especially the decline of the Dutch colonial empire in the so-called West and East Indies: many people from the former colonies came to the Netherlands and assimilated to the population, like Indonesians (Shetter 2002: 151-155). A second factor, definitely more crucial, was the Dutch policy in the 1950s and 1960s consisting in ‘importing’ people mostly from Morocco and Turkey as ‘guest workers’ temporarily providing work force in the time of economic growth. However, when recession occurred the guest workers stayed since they were well settled in the Netherlands and benefited from the Dutch social care system (Shetter 2002: 156; Bax 1995: 13). Later, several other smaller groups immigrated to the Netherlands, such as Chinese and Pakistanis. A last (and recent) factor is political migration: as of the mid-1980s lots of people have sought asylum in the Netherlands; most of their applications are rejected, but the people stay as illegal immigrants, though (Besamusca 2008). According to the Central Bureau of Statistics, some 1.7 million migrants would live in the Netherlands today.
The Dutch society adopted bills to deal with minorities, supplying them with a status, rights and duties. Throughout the years the government policy concerning migrants changed from ‘indifference’ to ‘integration’. In the 1970s the Netherlands did not want to become home to migrants, which is why guest workers were helped maintain their home culture (Bax 1995: 13). The 1983 Minorities Policy strove for formal integration so as to allow for a permanent stay while preserving the home culture (B&H 2006: 2). The Integration Act of 1994 shifted the emphasis to the Dutch culture in order to enable migrants to fully participate in society (Besamusca 2008). Under the influence of Pim Fortuyn’s success (Driessen & Merry 2006: 214), more right-wing ideas recently resulted in laws expecting migrants to have a standard knowledge of Dutch language and culture (Dagevos & Gijsberts [D&G] 2007: 4). In the following paragraphs I discuss the formal (work, housing, education) and informal (cultural) aspects of integration.
The position of migrants on the job market is far from ideal. As mentioned above, Turk and Moroccan guest workers and their families became permanent residents. Economic recession, structural unemployment and marginalization of certain kinds of low-skilled labor contributed to the formation of an underclass with a ‘strong ethnic component’, meaning that socio-economic cleavages coincide with ethnic or cultural differences, hence discrimination (Bax 1995: 21-22, 27; Scheffer 2000: 1). The unemployment rate among migrants is higher than the Dutch average, especially among the young (S&S 2001: 299). Roelandt established that there is a ‘partial intergenerational reproduction of social inequality’ (1993: 263). The situation has improved, though: unemployment rates are ‘substantially lower’ among ethnic minorities than about ten years ago, which might be related to them starting businesses. Only better education and command of Dutch will improve the situation (D&G 2007: 6-7).
As far as housing is concerned an important fact is that the vast majority of migrants live in the Randstad, an area regrouping the four major Dutch cities. This reduces the chances of contact with the indigenous population. However, a ‘suburbanisation’ process takes place, with migrants moving to the suburbs. Migrants concentrate in cheaper ‘black’ neighborhoods where they feel less safe and complain about nuisance, although people living in new-build developments are more satisfied. Interaction will enhance contacts, hence quality of * (D&G 2007: 7-9).
As to education, dropout rates are much higher among minorities who also show lower levels of schooling, notably in the command of Dutch (S&S 2001: 299). Scheffer considers that resources should be spent on the perfect acquisition of the Dutch language instead of promoting ‘education in one’s own language and culture’ (2000: 7). Bax (1995: 26) argues that not only socio-economic discrimination but also language problems and a low level of education are factors contributing to the ethnic underclass formation. However, some report that the education level of migrants is slowly improving and the language gap is reducing, which allows more ethnic students to participate in society, including higher education (D&G 2007: 4-6). All that should increase opportunities to integrate in society and allow for more liberal conceptions of Islam (Entzinger, Phalet & Van Lotringen [EPVL] 2000: 3), even though Islamic schools (Driessen & Merry 2006: 212).
Culture as the informal aspect of integration is undoubtedly most at stake to find a place in society. Let us first discuss culture in general, and then particular issues regarding religion (being a component of culture). As Scheffer (2000: 3) points out that many thought ethnic minorities would go through a process of pillarization in order to emancipate and integrate the Dutch society. However, due to the lack of elites and of cohesion within the immigrants this proved unsuccessful. Spiecker & Steutel (2003: 301) argue that re-pillarizing the Dutch society in order to accommodate immigrants is not only unfeasible, but if most of the migrants could gathered to form a Muslim pillar, then it would be ‘incompatible with the demands of liberal civic education’. Apart from that, the absence of a definition for ‘Dutch culture’ is problematic: with no common background in history, language and legal culture, autochtonen and allochtonen just coexist but do not interact since they do not ‘share the same roof’ (Scheffer 2000: 5-6; S&S 2001: 296-297; B&F 2006: 2). Hence the importance of getting acquainted with Dutch language and culture, and especially abide by its societal and legal rules.
However, some migrant groups, most often tied by the Islamic religion, have shown reluctance to basic legal rights** like the separation of church and state, and to the equality principle between men and women (Scheffer 2000: 7) and brought with them other Islamic conceptions about marriage, family life and sexuality, for instance. Some argue that some cultural aspects of Islamic identity should be given up in order to diminish these inconsistencies between Islamic and Dutch culture, especially so as to maintain the fundamental idea of everyone being equal in this liberal democracy (S&S 2003: 297-301). The Dutch authorities adapted laws to pragmatically frame some Muslim practices like circumcision, all this stemming from the tradition of religious freedom and of equal treatment for all religious groups, as long as the practices do not ‘conflict with other constitutional rights and obligations’ (Landman 2001: 1,9). Nowadays the issue focuses on the disadvantaged position of Muslim women as to education, work and language due to traditional religious views (D&G 2007: 9). The headscarf symbolizes that oppression of women***, but this religious choice is unreasonably politicized to point at other Islam-related issues and to condemn its ‘backwardness’ and especially its difference (B&H 2006: 4-5, 7). Finally, a more individualized and pluralistic interpretation of Islam develops, especially among the higher educated (EPVL 2000: 1).
All in all, multiculturalism in Dutch society (as defined earlier) has shown some failures. Indeed, as Shetter writes: ‘Ethnic minorities entered a society that was not prepared to become multi-cultural and multi-racial at quite the pace that events have required of it’ (2002: 157). Insufficient political attention to the migrants, thinking they would adapt smoothly while preserving their identity, triggered problems like criminality, lack of participation in society and conflicts opposing ethnic cultures to the rather liberal Dutch culture (S&S 2001: 297-298). While ‘equality’ and ‘tolerance’ famously characterized the Netherlands, negative feelings about migrants and discrimination appeared (D&G 2007: 10), bearing the germs of a potential radicalization of minorities if stuck in the economic underclass (Bax 1995: 28, S&S 2001: 298). Pointing at the problems contributed to start debating migrants-related issues and to adjust policies. Improvements are slowly but surely taking place, for instance on the job market, education level and Dutch proficiency; integration takes time, certainly more than a single generation (D&G 2007: 1, 4-6). Some successful examples are worth mentioning: the second generation of Antilleans (D&G 2007: 3), Ahmed Aboutaleb, recently elected mayor of Rotterdam (Wanders 2008), and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who chose enlightened thinking to give an insider’s critical look at Islamic cultural practices and works to improve women’s situation by calling them to emancipate from oppression (Caldwell 2005: 6-7; Hirsi Ali 2008). The cultural side of integration is most essential (Scheffer 2000: 4) but also very difficult to apply, but with time and especially education it will lead to more interactions between migrants and the Dutch, as well as a full assimilation in the long term (EPVL 2000: 3). Mutual understanding, respect, acceptance and cooperation will make of the Netherlands a truly multicultural society in a near future.
Sources
• BAX, E.H. (1995). Cleavage in Dutch Society: Changing Patterns of Social and Economic Discrimination. Paper presented at the Conference on Political, Economic and Social Racism, Thessaloniki, Macedonia, Greece, May 14-18, 1995, pp. 1-12.
• BENDRIF, A. & M. HANEY. The politicization of the headscarf in the Netherlands. Downloaded on [http://www.mijknsluierenik.nl/essaybendrif.html] on 30 March 2006.
• BESAMUSCA, E. (2008). A Multicultural Society? Dutch Present-Day Society lecture, Utrecht, Netherlands, 10 October 2008.
• DAGEVOS, J. & M. GIJSBERTS (ed.) (2007). SCP Integration Report 2007. Summary.
• DRIESSEN, G. & M.S. MERRY (2006). ‘Islamic schools in the Netherlands: expansion or marginalization?’ In Interchange, vol. 37, n°3 (2006), pp. 201-223.
• ENTZINGER, H., PHALET, K. & C. VAN LOTRINGEN (2000). ‘Summary of the report Islam in the multicultural society: The view of young people in Rotterdam’. Utrecht/Rotterdam.
• HIRSI ALI, A. (2008). Blind faiths. Downloaded on [http://www.aei.org] on 10 September 2008.
• LANDMAN, N. (2001). Dutch responses to Muslim religious practices. Utrecht. Dowloaded on [http://euro-islam.info/pages/landmandutch.html].
• ROELANDT, T.J.A. (1994). ‘Verscheidenheid in ongelijkheid. Een studie naar ethnische stratificatie en onderklasse-vorming in de Nederlandse samenleving’. In BAX, E.H. (1995). Cleavage in Dutch Society: Changing Patterns of Social and Economic Discrimination. Paper presented at the Conference on Political, Economic and Social Racism, Thessaloniki, Macedonia, Greece, May 14-18, 1995, pp. 1-12.
• SCHEFFER, P. (2000). ‘The Multicultural Drama’. In: NRC Handelsblad, 29 January 2000.
• SHETTER, W.J. (2002). The Netherlands in Perspective. Utrecht. Chapter 15, pp. 151-161.
• SPIECKER, B. & J. STEUTEL (2001). ‘Multiculturalism, pillarisation and liberal civic education in the Netherlands’. In: International Journal of Educational Research, n°35 (2001), pp. 292-304.
• WANDERS, J. (2008). Aboutaleb burgemeester Rotterdam. NRC Handelsblad, 17 October 2008. Downloaded from [http://www.nrc.nl/binnenland/article2027934.ece] on 20 October 2008.
* ? --> A word was missing; I guess it was 'living', simply.
** principles
*** at least, to many westerners
--> Final comment by Mrs Besamusca: "Well argued, presenting a broad range of evidence in different domains to support the argumentation"
Result: 9
Today let's devote some time to commemorate an actor whose name is probably unknown to most of you, although I'm sure you did see him in a movie. Michel Modo passed away on 25 September 2008 in a great indifference from the media — I even heard about his death just a couple of days ago, as I was on my way to Belgium, my mum telling me about news I could perhaps not heard of. Michel Modo was a comedian who formed a duo with (the late) Guy Grosso to become "Grosso & Modo"… Louis de Funès noticed them and gave them roles in the Le Gendarme… series from 1964 to 1982; they played Tricard and Berlicot. Michel Modo notably starred in On a retrouvé la Septième Compagnie as a German soldier ordering Tassin (Henri Guibet) and Pitivier (the late Jean Lefebvre) to "rester groupir":
