Essays by Language:
Dilemma: Cultural Clashes
An essay in the context of GroenLinks' discussion on party fundamentals.Translated from Dutch in 2016; the original essay is from April 2008.
From the discussion paper “GroenLinkse idealen” (Green-Left Ideals)
Cultural clashes
Since 9/11 and the assassination of Theo van Gogh, globalization and migration have triggered political debates on cultural differences and our national identity. GroenLinks (the Green-Left party of the Netherlands) has refurbished its ideal of cultural openness by shifting its former plea for integrating while keeping one’s identity towards integrating by emancipation. Is integration as such primarily a cultural or a socio-economic issue? Our goal has always been to give newcomers and their children the chance to fully and equivalently participate in society. Until September 11, we mainly observed socio-economic barriers and solutions. But to what extent can cultural differences block integration? How will we deal with such barriers? Which demands will we subject newcomers to; which obligations will we put on them; which rights will they get in return? Is radicalization just a reaction to exclusion or injustice, or are there other causes in cultural and religious opinions that contain a political agenda (which could lead to violence)? Should we counter such opinions by political means? How tolerant should we be towards intolerance?In a globalizing world, there is a growing need for authenticity, for a definition of identity, because both indigenous and new Netherlanders feel alienated in a society in which a growing number of cultures, behaviors, values and religions coexist. How does this need relate to our cosmopolitan outlook and our values of diversity and tolerance? Do we need a sense of national identity for our values of community and solidarity? What is the rightful place of religion in our society? Why do we finance religiously affiliated education? What does the separation of church and state mean to us? Are there limits to diversity? For example, can you wear a head scarf while working in the civil service?
Analysis of the subject
The introduction is aimed quite accurately at the major issue of our time. It concerns the relation between identity and solidarity, and the role of the nation state and religions in this area. Generally, the concept of culture plays an important role in these questions. If we are to accurately discuss these topics, it is paramount to define the terms used.
At first, the term identity. This is a hybrid concept, that can be applied at different levels: to individuals, to groups and to peoples.
At the individual level, one speaks of one’s own identity. Most often, it is not as equivocal as it is made out to be. Your own identity is mostly a matter of feelings: which are the groups you feel at home in, or to which you want to belong? Personal identity is often related to groups, but can also be connected to personal traits that hardly form a basis for comparable people to form groups or networks.
At the group level, identity is usually that which binds people, and on which networks are based. These networks can be of many types, varying from sports associations to local church communities, and from internet forums to groups of friends. Since an individual can belong to many groups, group identity is a markedly different concept from the individual’s own identity.
At the peoples’ level, identity is mostly created and cultivated by top-down governance; it is a way to create a sense of “us” based on (mostly) cultural and ethnic common properties, that can then be used to legitimize governments. This concept mostly manifests itself in the term national identity. The Dutch national identity can be seen as a set of properties that a model Dutch citizen will boast, which can serve as an example to all other Dutch citizens. In discussions on national traits, negative common properties will also often come up (for example the Dutch are known for their directness, which is often perceived by foreigners as rudeness or impertinence). When we speak in terms of adaptation to the national identity, the least we expect from newcomers is for them to accept these characteristics, regardless of whether they incorporate them. On the other hand, national identity is a stereotype that many Dutch do not conform to; mostly the properties involved will be overrepresented among the general population compared to citizens of other countries. In the Dutch case, the national identity is probably dominated by characteristics that are predominantly present among the city population in the western part of the country.
Another term that deserves to be defined before we start the discussion is solidarity. What are its defining characteristics? I’ll make a serious attempt at an answer. Solidarity is anonymous: one supports an entire population, regardless of the personal characteristics of individuals. Otherwise we’d be dealing with discrimination and exclusion. Solidarity is reciprocal: one supports a population, and will receive support in return when needed. Otherwise we’d be speaking of charity. Solidarity is broad, it encompasses income support, defense from external and internal threats, education, health care and others. Solidarity is organized: in order to safeguard the anonymous character of solidarity, a system of rights and obligations is created. Without it, we’d suffer from arbitrariness.
Since solidarity puts high demands on people (a duty to pay taxes, military conscription service, compulsory education, lifestyle regulations), there must be a strong willingness among individuals to support the community. This requires a strong sense of belonging (to “us”). Because of the organized nature of solidarity, it needs to be linked to a form of government. Only then can the rules and regulations that are necessary for insuring solidarity be decided upon, maintained and executed. As long as government remains territorial, so will the common identity need to be, if there is to be a sufficient basis for solidarity.
Culture is the third relevant term in the discussion. The word “culture” is used in different contexts. The non-relevant contexts are: agriculture (“monoculture”, “grape culture”) and art (“high culture”, “cultural institution”). In the discussion about cultural clashes, the relevant context is sociology and anthropology: civilization. The relevant definitions in Merriam-Webster: “a particular form or stage of civilization; also: a society characterized by such a culture”. Just like identity, culture can be applied at different levels, connected to the scale of the community or society. Relevant related terms are “cultural history” and “cultural revolution”.
Culture is about human interaction and the results that this interaction leads to. As such, culture is mostly a group phenomenon – each group develops its own interactions. These interactions are strongly related to the norms and values of that group or community. Norms and values are shaped by interactions and, vice versa, interactions are influenced by norms and values. This mechanism can be observed on the level of family and friends, as well as on the level of organizations and national societies.
The problem of cultural clashes manifests itself when interactions take place between individuals that do not participate in any shared communities, which means the mode of interaction is as yet undefined. One can thus be confronted with new types of interactions that are unfamiliar. Especially when these interactions are also hampered by language barriers, this can result in confusing communication and misunderstanding. Group dynamics often escalate the fear of the unknown (or xenophobia) in such cases. The challenge we are then faced with is how to initiate the process of community building. This process amounts to a joint search for modes of interaction, norms and values that people from both cultures can feel comfortable with.
Religion is a phenomenon that can be approached in different ways. I think it is important to distinguish personal religion from institutionalized religion. Personal religion is primarily concerned with moral dilemmas and choices, and the motives that drive these choices. Institutionalized religion, or the community of belief, is more about prescribing norms and values to the members of the community; here, religion is an alternative source of solidarity in addition to the nation state. In case of non-adherence to the norms and values of the religious community, most church communities use a form of excommunication as ultimate punishment. Among communities, the level of strictness may vary. The influence of the religious community is not always confined to the community itself. Some religious movements actively recruit new members, some actively oppose or hunt down infidels. As for the latter, it is questionable if this can still be considered part of religion. When new members are converted, that is in essence a voluntary decision due to persuasion. When fighting non-members, these people are forced to conform, or are locked up or killed, because of their faith – or lack thereof. The first problem with this type of fight is that religious communities tread on the exclusive authority of the territorial government, thereby casting doubt on its legitimacy. Secondly, it denies non-members of the community the freedom to choose their own faith, which makes the religious community a totalitarian movement that only allows one way of thinking.
The separation of church and state means first of all that both have legitimacy. On the one hand, it limits the authority of the religious community to the members of that community. Outside the religious community, it is the state’s prerogative to safeguard the freedom of religion. Therefore, it is forbidden for the religious community to set rules for individuals outside the community to follow. This also applies to individuals who have left the religious community. On the other hand, the state has to respect the internal functioning of the religious community. Within a community, members may strictly enforce norms and values among each other (as far as they concern behavior). Of course, there are some limits that have to be obeyed here, such as restrictions on the use of violence. Religious communities must operate within the laws of the state, both with their behavior and their sanctions. As long as they do so, they may prescribe strict norms and values to their members.
The final term that I want to explain before starting the discussion is integration. The basic question that accompanies this term is: integration by whom and into what? Let us first take the most common approach to this question: integration of migrants into Dutch society. The next question is whether we’re talking about individual migrants or about migrants as a group. The answer to that is not difficult when you think about it, because “migrants” do not form a group. Still, the discussion tends to move in this direction sometimes. When that happens, the perspective is one-sided, because migrants will then be defined as everyone that doesn’t belong to “us”. From that perspective, all talk of integration will turn into a demand for assimilation, a process in which all responsibility lies with the migrants.
The next question is: what does integration of an individual migrant into Dutch society mean? Here the discussion gets murky, because it is virtually impossible to delimit Dutch society. Which groups can be counted as such? If we use the territorial aspect as the criterion, then any group belongs to Dutch society if its interactions take place on Dutch territory. The problem is that, most of the time, when the term integration is used, one means to address integration into Dutch culture. When we look back at the description of cultural clashes, “integration into Dutch culture” amounts to the adoption of a migrant community as part of the Dutch community, with a jointly redefined set of norms and values. This process does not take place at the individual level. One cannot ask much more from an individual than having an open mind when interacting with persons from other communities, coupled with a sense of potential differences in norms and values. Such an open mind needs to be present on both sides, if one is to come to interaction based on equivalence, with no party dominating the other. Another problem with seeing integration as a purely cultural phenomenon is that “Dutch community” is very hard to define. The nation is not really a community, there is segregation, and cross-boundary networks exist.
A sharper definition can be obtained when integration is viewed as reducing segregation (in other words: integration is the opposite of segregation). Segregation is somewhat easier to define. Segregation doesn’t take place at the individual level, however, and neither does it at the group level. It manifests itself as networks of groups that, as a whole, have hardly got any contacts with the rest of society. I would therefore define segregation as the formation of clusters of groups of people with strong mutual bonds, but hardly any relations with the rest of society within a geographical territory.
In this definition, the “verzuiling” (literally: pillarization) of Dutch society in the early twentieth century can be characterized as a form of segregation. Each pillar had its own associations, broadcasters and even neighborhoods or villages. The interaction between pillars primarily took place at the top, within the various geographically oriented governments and parliaments. In this way, the “verzuiling” allowed for a form of peaceful coexistence of several religions and political movements within one country, where in the past there had been plenty of violent conflict, especially between Catholics and Protestants.
Segregation is a process in which a certain population separates itself from the rest of society, and thereby excludes people. The separation is voluntary, but the exclusion is not. Opposing or reducing segregation means breaching the exclusion, either by insiders who start networking with the rest of society, or by persistent outsiders who make contact with the separated population. Only when these contacts become widespread, effective integration is taking place.
In this definition, integration doesn’t take place at the individual level, but in the forming of networks across population boundaries in society, leading to interactions between groups of people that have had the tendency to live completely separate lives. In crossing these barriers, there will be some individuals who play the role of trailblazer, but one cannot expect, let alone demand, such an attitude from everyone.
The word integration is also often used at the individual level (“someone has integrated well into Dutch society”). It is not always clear what is meant by this; possibly, one means to say someone speaks excellent Dutch, or one speaks of someone having plenty of indigenous Dutch friends. Personally, I tend to talk about the problems you face as individual when you migrate. Migration means that on the one hand, you are rooted in the culture of your country of origin, and on the other hand, in your country of destination, you interact with a different culture and start participating in new groups. The main question is whether you can, as an individual, combine these two cultures into a newly formed personal identity, that respects both cultures, and whether you can control the tensions between these two cultures. If you can’t, you may be forced to choose one culture and turn your back on the other. This process, the individual search for balance between different cultures and group communities, is something utterly distinct from integration as I have just defined it. The two processes are, however, related. The more a society is segregated, the more the individual will be pressured into choosing one side. And the more difficult it will be for the individual to find a balance between cultures.
I would call this process to find balance, experienced by an individual migrant (or its child), something other than integration. It is not even true that this process is limited to migrants; non-migrants experience something very similar, although not nearly as intense, in the confrontation between the culture of groups of friends versus family culture, which could plausibly be termed a clash between generations. I think the term personal identity building reasonably explains what it’s about (I’m still searching for a better term). The stability of one’s own identity indicates the level of success of this process. The more pressure is applied on an individual to distance himself from one of the cultures in which he participates, the more difficult it will be for the individual to find a stable identity which is composed of a combination of these cultures and yet is sturdy enough to resist outside pressure.
Problem analysis
The nation state and national identity are mutually dependent – the one phenomenon is based on the other. One of the characteristics of national identity is exclusivity; a form of exclusion takes place, for one because this signifies that not every world citizen belongs to the nation, and on the other hand because this strengthens the mutual sense of “us” among the “real” members of the people. Nationalism has added a link between peoples and the territory they occupy, thereby creating a stronger basis for territorial government. This principle has been coined “self-determination” of peoples, and is still being used by peoples to claim their own state.
When migration leads to the mixing of peoples, the connection between territory and peoples becomes less and less clear. This is one of the main developments of the past decades. The mixing of peoples has led to uncertainty about the composition of peoples: in the past, peoples were mainly defined by ethnic and linguistic properties, but currently citizens of nations no longer form an ethnically and linguistically homogeneous group. The concept of “the nation”, being the combination of people and territory, therefore comes under attack, and consequently so do the nation state and national identity.
National identity is mostly discussed by national politics, and the most obvious reason for that is the questioning of the legitimacy of nationwide government, of the nation state. This is not a typically Dutch phenomenon, but it appears in different ways throughout the world, depending on whether a society is mostly attracting immigrants or producing emigrants. Globalization is the driving force behind migration flows, and globalization is in turn caused by developments in information technology. The decline of “the nation” is therefore an inherent effect of autonomous developments (at least in the sense that they cannot be directed by nation states).
In current society, questioning the legitimacy of the national government doesn’t yet happen manifestly. But chances are this discussion will at some point break through on all levels. It is not in the best interest of national politics, nor of government, that this discussion is started. This explains the preventive attention that is being paid to restoring national identity.
Solidarity also depends on identity. Especially in welfare states like The Netherlands, in which the nation state organizes most forms of solidarity, the dependence on national identity is major. When the national sense of belonging is being undermined, this also reduces one’s willingness to be supportive of compatriots. This doesn’t necessarily amount to a reduction of all sorts of willingness to support people, since it may also mean a shift in solidarity towards other groups with a much stronger sense of unity.
As an illustration, the fact that many states have abolished conscription signifies that national identity is no longer a sufficient basis for the sacrifices that are being asked of people in the name of solidarity. Most people are less and less willing to risk their lives for serving their country. This erosion of the power of a national sense of unity is likely to continue under the influence of globalization. Neo-nationalist parties like “Trots op Nederland” and “Forza Italia” are movements that try to counter this trend.
The international type of solidarity GroenLinks stands for is much less dependent on national identity, because it is mostly concerned with solidarity with human beings in general. However, due to the broad definition of the population with which GroenLinks-members want to show solidarity, the level of potential solidarity is reduced. This can be fully explained by two characteristics of solidarity. At first, solidarity is organized, but the world lacks a credible global form of government that can provide solidarity for all. Secondly, solidarity is reciprocal, which means we should be willing to make ourselves dependent on the entire rest of the world, including the poor – which seems unrealistic. Our sense of solidarity with human beings in general is therefore primarily translated into charity, for which we demand nothing in return, and into international cooperation between nation states aimed at development of poor countries. At this point I feel I start to transgress into the themes of the fourth dilemma from the discussion paper: “World-wide disorder”.
I think the best way to discuss identity and integration is to define several dimensions. These can then be used to describe scenarios.
Dimension 1 = integration: moving towards integration versus moving towards segregation
Dimension 2 = national identity: a trend towards diminishing versus a trend towards resurgence
The first problem immediately surfaces, because these dimensions are not truly independent: segregation undermines national identity, because in a segregated society, the identity of the subpopulation will be more important than national identity. Especially when certain segments of the population are excluded by the ruling elite, due to discrimination, integration is virtually impossible. Fighting discrimination and thus aiming at creating opportunities to participate in the ruling elite’s communities is currently often called emancipation. Integration by emancipation, GroenLinks’ slogan, is therefore a noble and reasonable cause.
However, integration needs to be viewed as an opportunity by both integrating segments of the population; both sides need to really commit to it. Failing integration, or continuing segregation, cannot simply be blamed on one of the groups. A better approach is to avoid the blame game, to recognize integration is difficult, and to look for common ground. National identity could be part of this common ground, but this requires the elite to be willing to define this identity together. Which means reinventing it. Taking into account the dynamics of society and the number of population groups and cultures, this seems an exceedingly difficult task.
The alternative scenario is to just let segregation happen as it comes, and to adapt to the dwindling of national identity, for example by reducing the level of solidarity organized by the nation state. I think that the autonomous development will allow for some integration at the level of the elite of talented people. Meritocracy will be the leading principle here – and one which can be ruthless. In broad terms, this means that society (world-wide) will evolve into a combination of a multicultural cosmopolitan elite and a large number of segregated underclass communities. Those who don’t feel at home in a culture of openness and curiosity, will be excluded by the elites. This autonomous trend has considerable impact on those who are attached to the comfort of traditions and who perceive the import of new cultures as threatening. The less talented indigenous people and the less talented migrants appear to be destined to becoming members of an underclass. The distinctive talent for determining one’s position in society will be the ability to gain an overview over developments in society (at various levels). Or: the talent for gathering and sorting out information. Since this a talent very different from the ability to make a lot of money, the new informationalist class structure will be entirely different from the old capitalist one.
Conclusion 1: the call for integration and national identity is a movement that is primarily opposed to the autonomous trend towards the formation of a new type of society, in which a multicultural elite will be formed which has superior ability to gather, process and structure information, and which will be complemented by a large number of underclass communities that lack overview, and which will therefore mostly be led by whatever is offered to them. The question is whether this opposition movement can be effective.
Between the underclass communities, tensions may arise. The tensions between locals and migrants in mixed working class neighborhoods illustrate this. For the elite, being no party to these conflicts, the challenge is to control these tensions. Mutual discrimination also plays an important role between these underclass communities.
Having an ideal of cultural openness, as GroenLinks does, amounts to declaring the elite model an example for the rest of society. Of course, this is quite an elitist point of view. One of the main aspects is that GroenLinks does have an ambition to reduce tensions between various communities. In that respect, integration is a possible solution, though probably not the most successful one. Talents from the underclass can always be incorporated by the elite. The new elite doesn’t discriminate. Tensions can be controlled by permanently draining the underclass of talent, by incorporating talents into the elite.
Politicians are no players in this game. Or more strongly put: democracy is not in the interests of the elite, other than as a distraction for the underclass. The new elite isn’t active in parliament or government, but has the lead in the media industry and in the distribution of information over the internet. Politicians who behave in ways that are contrary to the elite’s interests, will be slaughtered in the media, with or without evidence. For instance, this happened to Adri Duijvestein, municipal executive councillor in Almere (who, by the way, saw through this mechanism perfectly, though only after he’d been subjected to it).
Back to the original questions
In the introduction of the GroenLinks-dilemma, a number of questions have been posed and theses put forth that I want to come back to one by one. In the back of my mind, I will be keeping the definitions and problem analysis that I have just described.
GroenLinks (the Green-Left party of the Netherlands) has refurbished its ideal of cultural openness by shifting its former plea for integrating while keeping one’s identity towards integrating by emancipation.
The shift GroenLinks has made shows the party has adopted a different view towards integration, and that it now comprehends integration is not a matter of individual behavior, but of different segments of the population forming cross-barrier networks. Breaking through barriers is a defining characteristic of emancipation. Pleading for integration by emancipation is therefore consistent with viewing integration as the counteraction of segregation.
Is integration as such primarily a cultural or a socio-economic issue?
Whether integration is primarily a cultural or a socio-economic issue, depends on what type of barriers separate population segments (in other words: along which barriers does segregation occur). Mostly, this has to do with groups of people who, for some reason, regard themselves as superior compared to other groups, and who therefore avoid contact with outsiders. This avoidance of contact has a primarily cultural background: they’re not “our kind of people”. Socio-economic background can be a determinant in this, but doesn’t need to be. Prejudices could play a role here as well. Moreover, classes in society are becoming less dependent on economic circumstances.
A more interesting question might be whether this question is still relevant. The only relevance I see is whether GroenLinks should relinquish its former focus on the capitalist class struggle (Marxist thinking) entirely. Considering the current problems I am inclined to answer affirmatively. The cultural aspect is key, and the socio-economical aspect is only a (small) part of that.
Until September 11, we mainly observed socio-economic barriers and solutions. But to what extent can cultural differences block integration? How will we deal with such barriers?
Given the definition I proposed earlier, I will translate “block integration” into “cause segregation” here. Which makes the question a lot less abstract and easier to answer. Mutual aversion exists between, one the one hand, the ultra-liberal, hedonist culture we see in many places in the Netherlands, and on the other hand, religious conservative culture. This aversion appears to be stronger among Muslims than Christians, which can be partly attributed to having had less time to get used to it. The aversion of conservative Muslims to hedonist Western culture (which is regarded as decadent and vulgar) could evolve into fanaticism, which denies the right of such a culture to exist. Such an attitude goes further than just avoiding contact with this culture (which could lead to segregation) and could potentially lead to eruptions of violence that could escalate into civil war.
There’s a sharp demarcation between, on the one hand, distancing oneself of another culture and avoiding contact with it, and on the other hand, denying the legitimacy of another culture and actively resisting it. I would draw the line at the point where the choice of means of opposing another culture is no longer justified ethically. Here I distinguish between activism and fanaticism. Activism makes a carefully weighed, moral choice for certain ways to resist, while fanaticism doesn’t, but instead supposes the goal justifies all means.
Segregation may be dissuaded gently (integration by emancipation), activism should be respected (within the law), but fanaticism should be combated fiercely. And this applies to both sides of the debate, both to Islamists who aim to destroy Western civilization and to a neo-nationalist like Wilders who denies the legitimacy of Islam, sees all adherents to Islam primarily as Muslims, and actively encourages discrimination of Muslims.
Which demands will we subject newcomers to; which obligations will we put on them; which rights will they get in return?
To these questions I would counter: who are “we”? Are we GroenLinks-members, are we Dutch, or are we Dutch GroenLinks-members? From what point on do those newcomers belong to “we”? How do “we” distinguish between “we” and “them”? I purposefully create confusion here, followed by the statement that as long as those questions haven’t been answered, there can only be one reply to the original question: we demand of them exactly the same as we demand from ourselves, and then they will have the same rights as we do. Next, we can turn our attention to the question which demands we, GroenLinks-members, will pose on every inhabitant of this country, including ourselves.
Is radicalization just a reaction to exclusion or injustice, or are there other causes in cultural and religious opinions that contain a political agenda (which could lead to violence)? Should we counter such opinions by political means?
Unfortunately, radicalization is not just a reaction to exclusion or injustice. In order to reach this conclusion, one only needs to notice that radicalization takes place on both sides, both on the Islamic side and on the nationalist side. On the nationalist side, one can hardly speak of exclusion or injustice. Since both radical movements are countering each other, it’s hard to ascertain what behavior counts as action or reaction. The fact of the matter is both opposing radical movements are causing escalation.
Radicalization always has a reactionary component in it, in the sense that it opposes the dominant power. The trigger for radicalization isn’t always exclusion or injustice. Other credible reasons for developing an aversion of contemporary society are present, such as fear or disdain. In the case of radical Islam, disdain appears to be the main reason, while in radical nationalism, fear seems to be more prominent, although disdain is also a factor (“Islam is a backward culture”). Thus, unfortunately, there are cultural and religious political agendas.
How tolerant should we be towards intolerance?
I think the demarcation I have proposed should point out how far our toleration should go. For us GroenLinks-members, the essence should be not how much we tolerate as individuals, but how tolerant the state should be towards intolerant opinions.
When human beings are being solely identified by the culture of a group they participate in, or when the existence of cultures is declared illegitimate, the demarcation is being crossed and therefore a reaction is imminent. Individuals may distance themselves from other cultures, and they should be allowed to avoid contact with them. The same holds for questioning norms and values. For organizations (especially employers) this is more tricky, because employers should be prevented from letting opinions and behaviors influence selection or valuation, if those opinions and behaviors have no relevance to job performance.
In addition, our tolerance should distinguish between thought and behavior. It is not punishable to think a group of people has no right to exist, but putting that thought into action is. In other words: we are tolerant towards intolerant opinions, but we are intolerant of illegal expressions of those opinions. The boundary is to be drawn at defaming groups of people, actively promoting discrimination, calling for violence and using violence.
In a globalizing world, there is a growing need for authenticity, for a definition of identity, because both indigenous and new Netherlanders feel alienated in a society in which a growing number of cultures, behaviors, values and religions coexist. How does this need relate to our cosmopolitan outlook and our values of diversity and tolerance?
In a globalizing world, personal identity becomes more important, though it needs to be said that personal identity can also grow to contain more diversity. Personal identity building and, in relation to that, the development of a sense of belonging (feeling at home) becomes a more complex process.
Feeling alienated is mostly related to being confronted with people who behave in ways that you consider strange. Is developing a common identity, leading to some sense of connection to these strangers, the solution to this problem? Is that the goal of redefining national identity? If so, that national identity will be a weak one, since it will hardly be exclusive.
Another option is that people who want to avoid contact with strange cultures will retreat from the rest of society, leading to segregation. Segregation can bolster group identity and the sense of feeling at home.
As a cosmopolitan member of GroenLinks, you’d rather avoid this process, but it would be unwise to deny the presence of a desire to segregate among a major part of the population. Not everyone is as cosmopolitan as we are.
In this regard, the cosmopolitan outlook of GroenLinks appears to be elitist, painfully enough. Is that a bad thing? If you believe a cosmopolitan outlook and our values of diversity and tolerance are superior to the narrow-mindedness of others, and if this results in attempts to raise the populace to our level of thinking, you need to be alert not to be trapped in fanatical thought (i.e. denying the legitimate existence of these people). As long as you avoid that, it’s not so bad to recognize your own stance as elitist and still defend it (and to view raising the entire population to elite level as your ideal).
Do we need a sense of national identity for our values of community and solidarity?
A sense of community doesn’t require a national identity. Solidarity does, because it supposes a level of organization that requires at least some form of territorial government. The legitimacy of such a territorial government is founded on a collective sense of belonging among the inhabitants, and on trust that territorial government will rule in the best interests of the people. This is only possible if there are only limited conflicts of interest among the people. Solidarity could be organized at a level different from the nation (municipality, for example), but the territorial identity should then shift towards that same level (or the other way around). In order to counteract nationalism, it might not be such a wrong idea for GroenLinks to emphasize a more local sense of identity (i.e. being more of an Amsterdamer or Twent than a Dutchman, and being so regardless of your ethnic or national background). Such a shift would fit the trend of decentralization of public solidarity services (e.g. the welfare provisions of the ‘Wet Maatschappelijke Ondersteuning’).
What is the rightful place of religion in our society?
Religion is the basis for taking on ethical questions, that cannot be answered using scientific methods, because they do not manifest themselves in the world observable to humans. During the twentieth century, a shift has taken place in Holland from institutionalized religion towards personal religion. Secularization and enlightenment have increasingly moved moral questions into the private domain, and also into public debate outside of religious institutions. People don’t let the church prescribe right and wrong to them as readily as they did in the past. That said, there are still large groups of people who still recognize the authority of religious institutes, and who derive solace from prescribed religion. Institutionalized religion is legitimate, especially as long as people voluntarily commit themselves to the rulings of church, mosque or synagogue. Added to that is the sense of community that these institutes still bring. This way, religious institutes cater to present demands.
Why do we finance religiously affiliated education?
Religiously affiliated education is simply a form of education, in which the school works from a certain religious background (with a matching set of norms and values). This seldom means pupils are being indoctrinated with a single set of norms and values. Therefore religiously affiliated education can be financed in the same way as normal, public education, if the schools meet the quality standards. One of these standards should be that pupils are taught to think critically. That would leave little room for indoctrination.
A school’s religious affiliation may, for example, show in the way people interact, but not in the content and learning goals of the education itself. A school may set itself additional goals and tasks regarding the nurture of its pupils, which will mostly show in the way teachers and students interact, as well as students among themselves.
What does the separation of church and state mean to us?
Separation of church and state designates that each has a distinct responsibility. The state is responsible for setting and maintaining rules for all its citizens. The church has the opportunity to inspire its members into living according to certain values, as long as these are within the law.
In essence, the separation works two ways. It protects the state from intrusion by the church regarding the common set of rules and regulations that everyone should obey. The church may not interfere with behavior of non-members, including those who have left the church community. The maximum penalty a church may put on its members is excommunication.
Conversely, the separation protects the church from intrusion by the state regarding the norms and values that the church community lives by. The state cannot prescribe any norms other than the laws that apply to every citizen. The state should restrain itself turning norms and values into laws, if those norms and values should not be viewed as universal.
Are there limits to diversity? For example, can you wear a head scarf while working in the civil service?
The difficulty with the above question is that the example is much more specific than the general question. Moreover, wearing a head scarf in public service is a suggestive example. It implicitly designates the head scarf as a religious (Islamic) symbol and confronts this symbol with the separation of church and state. It denies the fact that the head scarf has been a normal clothing article in the Netherlands, albeit thirty-five years ago (and just for the outdoors). It is a clothing article sensitive to fashion trends, not just a statement of religious affiliation.
This being said, there still are positions in the civil service that require a representative and neutral appearance. In those situations a dress code or a uniform is acceptable or even appropriate. In other situations, where you can function while dressed casually, additional rules on clothing are undesirable. Here, you can dress according to your own style (and hence, also with a head scarf). Still, a clothing style or appearance too informal or too deviant may have detrimental effects on job performance. This may occur whether one is covered too little or too much. It is up to the individual to make such style judgments, and the employer should judge the employee by his performance. Organization culture is a major factor in these judgments.
Regarding the private sector: here it is possible to introduce dress codes as well, and the same principles apply. Only here it’s the private company that sets the rules, not the government.
Viewed this way, I would advise GroenLinks to start from a position of diversity, and to only allow dress codes in situations where a neutral appearance is essential. This dress code preferably describes how you should dress (not how you shouldn’t). In the most sensitive job positions, it is better to prescribe a uniform: that is a generally applicable rule.
Summary
The Green-Left, cosmopolitan ideal of cultural openness is an elitist ideal. That is not so bad, as long as GroenLinks is conscious of this and recognizes that there are – and will remain – groups in society that do not share this ideal. For communities that feel more comfortable with a more homogeneous makeup of the population, it might be appropriate to allow some segregation, while simultaneously trying to raise these groups’ cultural level by showing them the value of a multicultural society.In the long term, having a common identity is a prerequisite for solidarity, because a legitimate government is necessary to organize this solidarity. For GroenLinks, a relevant discussion is to redefine the right geographical scale for organizing various forms of solidarity. Perhaps some aspects can better be organized at the municipal level, while others could better be elevated to European (or even global) level. The chosen level needs to correspond, however, with the level that people base their territorial identity on.
Given the leeway for the selective formation of segregated and multicultural communities, chances are that territorial identity of residents will gradually transform to a local level such as city or neighborhood.
Integration can best be regarded as the opposite of segregation. This is a primarily cultural phenomenon, that could be based on socio-economic factors – but doesn’t need to be. More factors play a role in it. For GroenLinks, this could be a reason for ignoring Marxist thought in terms of socio-economic classes in this context. Integration takes place between parts of the population that have the tendency to avoid each other; in this process, only a limited number of individuals will play a trailblazer role. Integration by emancipation is a fitting description of this process. Integration is not something that can be demanded from every individual. At the individual level, the challenge is to build a balanced personal identity, that respects the diversity of groups one participates in.
Intolerance between citizens is allowed, as long as it is restricted to distancing oneself from other cultures or parts of the population. Segregation could be a result of this. Intolerance can no longer be accepted when other cultures are denied the right to exist, and when it amounts to stigmatization, discrimination or incitement of violence. A possible indicator of unacceptable intolerance is when individual persons are equated with the culture of a group they are part of.
Institutionalized religion still has its rightful place in society today, as a moral guide to people who prefer to regard ethics as something collective, or to those who have difficulty making moral choices autonomously. On top of that, institutionalized religion offers an alternative basis for identity and solidarity. The separation of church and state protects institutionalized religion from state interference with its internal functioning, and protects citizens of the state against intrusion in their lives by religious congregations that they are not part of.
Appendix I: Glossary of Political Terms
RadicalismA qualification of a political movement, signifying it strives for reforms that fundamentally change the order of society. This term is used to place political movements outside of the acceptable order, similarly to extremism.
Fundamentalism
A label that should be regarded primarily in a religious context: fundamentalism attempts to attain a lifestyle based on some fundamental principles of a religious movement. Usually it is an application of one specific interpretation of religious writings.
The term fundamentalism in itself doesn’t imply anything about how a movement deals with people with different beliefs.
In modern-day (Dutch) language, fundamentalism is increasingly used to designate the denial of the right to think or behave in ways deviant from the religious norm. It is unfortunate that an existing word has been given a new meaning in this manner.
For the latter phenomenon, I have been looking for a different term (or pair of terms). At the moment, I prefer to use the terms activism and fanaticism, where activism aims at promoting a way of thinking, while fanaticism denies the right of deviating thought to exist, is aimed at the eradication of evil and, while it does so, does not respect any moral boundaries.
Fascism
A political movement in which the nation state is the center of existence, and individuals are subservient to the state. Fascism always limits individual freedom. Fascism has an economy that is directed by the state. Fascism usually exerts power using violence or the threat of violence (via military or police force).
Nazism was a special brand of fascism, in which the nation state in Nazi-Germany was subordinate to the idea of a pure Aryan people.
Islamism
A political movement based on Islam, whose goal is to promote Islamic rules and principles to the status of national law, or to otherwise subject everyone to these rules. This is not the same as fundamentalism; Islamism takes things much further. Aiming for the enforcement of religious rules and principles, based on a single interpretation of religious writings, does have a basis in fundamentalism.
Islamism can be viewed as a fusion of Islam, fundamentalism and fanaticism.
I think the term Islamism should not be used to designate all political movements inspired by Islam.
Fanaticism
A primarily religious, uncritical way of thinking, in which the world is divided into two camps: “good” and “evil”. It counts itself as good and justifies the use of all means to fight evil and attain the ideal society. Fanaticism is based on belief in the truth of certain thoughts, and is characterized by:
Fanaticism can grow from any train of thought that is elevated to a form of religion.
Activism
A political movement aimed at calling attention to a specific issue by organizing and carrying out ‘actions’. Activism is distinguished from fanaticism by a sense of ethics, meaning the end doesn’t justify all means. Activism is less extreme in its use of means when performing its actions. Activists are more willing to debate than fanatics (attaining the status of a respected stakeholder is an important sub goal).
Activism is often linked to emancipation. If the activist group is not respected as a legitimate stakeholder, e.g. because of discrimination, there is a risk of the group becoming fanatical.
Michiel van de Sande, April 2008