Multiculturalism or Civic Integration Policies: Which One Is Better for the Immigrant Women?

Multiculturalism or Civic Integration Policies: Which One Is Better for the Immigrant Women? Deniz Genç PhD Candidate in Marmara University CRONEM 6 th Annual Conference 2010 Living Together Civic, Political and Cultural Engagement Among Migrants, Minorities and National Populations: Multidisciplinary Perspectives

Table of Contents Abstract. 3 Introduction...3 1. What is Multiculturalism? 4 2. Multiculturalism and the Immigrant Women in Europe 4 3. Civic Integration Policies and Immigrant Women.7 Conclusion..9 References.10 2

Abstract In the late 1990s European governments which have employed multiculturalism as an immigrant integration model have moved away from it and they introduced civic integration policies. According to academics, multiculturalism has entered into a crisis both at the level of theory and practice and this crisis has been influenced by the circumstances of immigrant women and gender equality under multiculturalism. On the other hand, civic integration policies have been criticized for their illiberal and repressive practices. This paper tries to discuss that despite their illiberal and repressive natures, civic integration policies might provide immigrant women and girls a venue for individual emancipation. Introduction In the 1980s multiculturalism as a world trend surrounded almost all states. While some of them declared official multiculturalism and cherished their society s multicultural character by governmental policies, in others multicultural practices were employed without the introduction of an official policy. Differently from the new world, the addressees of multiculturalism and multicultural practices became immigrants in Europe 1. As a result, multiculturalism as an immigrant integration model kept academics busy in the last decade. Two issues; immigrant women s rights and gender equality have been debated thoroughly in the publics of the European countries where multiculturalism has been employed and they have become influential issues in both pushing multiculturalism into a crisis and affecting governments for moving away from it. In the late 1990s, European governments have started to give up multiculturalism and they have adopted civic integration policies for their immigrants. Strengthened by civic integration courses and integration tests, civic integration policies are obligatory and it is discussed that they are getting more and more illiberal with every amendment. In general lines, it is believed that after multiculturalism, they point to a backtracking of immigrant rights. In trying to discuss multiculturalism and civic integration policies and what they offer to the immigrant women, this study starts with introducing multiculturalism. 1 As Central and Eastern European Countries had been countries of emigration, multiculturalism has become influential in Western European countries as they have been the countries of immigration in the continent. Therefore, throughout the study, the words of Europe and European countries mean the countries in the Western Europe. 3

1. What is Multiculturalism? In general lines multiculturalism is about accommodating cultural differences in a multicultural society 2. It aims to establish a mosaic society in which majority and the minority cultural communities are able to live side by side peacefully. In such a society, multiculturalism promises recognition and emancipation for the minority cultural communities. According to the model, this recognition entails group rights for the emancipation of the cultural communities. Exemption from certain legal standards and duties, self government, special representation rights, having bilingual education programmes are among the rights that multiculturalism offers. Furthermore it is materialized by official multicultural policies that target these cultural communities. In its strongest form, cultural differences are recognized and institutionalized in the public sphere by granting formal and constitutional recognition to the culturally different groups. Furthermore, these groups are allowed to govern their members according to the norms of their cultures 3 (Shachar, 2002). Multicultural policies generally include dual citizenship, government support for newspapers, television and radio in minority languages, support for minority festivals, holidays and celebrations, acceptance of traditional and religious dress in schools, in the military and in society, support for arts from cultures around the world, programmes to encourage minority representation in politics, education and the work force (Multiculturalism; Encyclopedia Britannica, 2005). 2. Multiculturalism and the Immigrant Women in Europe Unlike US, Canada and Australia, where multicultural practices targeted minorities and natives, in Europe, multiculturalism has been employed as an immigrant integration model making immigrants the addressees of multicultural policies (Glazer, 2002). Without officially declaring, Sweden, Netherlands and United Kingdom have adopted multiculturalism to 2 Multiculturalism is a governing method of administration for states with various minorities and ethnic groups. Radtke (2003: 55) says that it is a globally diffused blueprint, an institutional pattern to define and manage increasing ethnocultural polity and according to Kymlicka (1995: 10) it is the challenge posed by minority groups for the recognition of their identity and accommodation of their cultural differences. Although all the identity based struggles are placed under the title of multiculturalism, in reality it is the rhetoric of people who face exclusion because of their cultural differences. Therefore in the words of Parekh (2003: 3) multiculturalism is about cultural diversity or culturally embedded differences. 3 Supporters of this model want culturally different groups to be freed from the rule of constitution, which, they believe, serves only to the dominant culture. They also think that the state should help these groups in creating their own of self-governments. 4

integrate their immigrants (Rex and Singh, 2003). In addition to these, multicultural trend was felt almost in every European state and multicultural practices have emerged in many of them in the 1980s. However, multiculturalism has had many criticisms 4. One of the most important criticisms has been about the gender equality under multiculturalism. The circumstances of immigrant women in the European societies where multicultural practices gained root have been discussed heavily in the public and together with the findings that multiculturalism was not giving the results it had been aimed for, the rights of immigrant women led the fire for a retreat of multiculturalism in these states (Phillips & Saharso, 2008). Since the beginning of the 1990s, most of the European states have left their multicultural practices and introduced civic integration policies for their immigrants. Today it is widely accepted that multiculturalism is in a crisis both at the level of theory and practice (Joppke, 2004; Phillips & Saharso, 2008). The literature on multiculturalism and its probable side-effects on women and their rights discuss that multicultural policies strengthen the power base of the older men within the community and encourage public authorities to tolerate practices that undermine women s equality (Phillips & Saharso, 2008: 294). Following this argument the main criticisms about women rights argued that delegation of powers to groups for self-governance in certain areas like family law under multiculturalism has rendered individuals, especially women and youth vulnerable 5 (Schachar, 2002). It is told that family law is a realm that generally men have had the unquestioned supremacy, leading to the subordination of women in most of the times. According to feminist political theorist Susan Moller Okin, the multicultural rhetoric to respect all cultures, conflicts with the liberal values of freedom and gender equality as some 4 The main criticisms targeted its relativistic nature, its rejection of universal values and norms and its accommodation of rights on the basis of groups not individuals (Hollis, 2002). Another criticism put forward by the academics has been about its focus on culture, it is told that by culturalizing every issue and highlighting cultural differences in every aspect of the society, multiculturalism deepened the dividing lines between the majority and immigrant communities rather than blurring them. Following these lines it has been argued that it could lead to the ghettoization and balkanization of the societies in which it is employed (Parillo, 1996; Wieviorka, 1998). 5 Generally this kind of delegation of powers is accompanied by a non-intervention policy and this makes the situation more complicated. The areas that are not intervened are mostly the ones that have family privacy and when the state does not intervene, it renders individuals vulnerable and it provides room for the tyranny of the community over individuals (Schachar, 2002). 5

practices and values of cultural minorities are reinforcing inequality and violating the rights of women (quoted in Roggeband & Verloo, 2007: 272). In explaining her arguments Okin mentions cultural practices of some communities such as clitoridectomy, child marriage, coerced marriage, polygamy, asymmetrical divorce and property laws, and responses to rape, veiling and murder all of which clash with a humane democratic society in her view (quoted in Bickford, 2000: 712). In addition to these, it has been witnessed that in explaining their violent behaviour against the women of their community, community males have relied on the defence that these behaviours are part of their cultural practices (Hellgren & Hobson, 2008). Unfortunately, these concerns have not been unfounded. In the European societies that adopted multiculturalism, neglected immigrant women and their suppression have become more and more visible with the cultural practices that do not fit with the universal values and norms, human rights, women rights and gender equality. Four main issues have been discussed in this context; forced marriage, honour killing, female genital mutilation and women s Islamic dress (Dustin & Phillips, 2008; Hellgren & Hobson, 2008). According to prominent women rights organizations and many health care specialists, female genital mutilation must be treated as a child abuse, on the other hand it is argued that together with the Islamic dress code, they can be chosen and practiced by the immigrant women and girls voluntarily as their community s cultural practice (Dustin & Phillips, 2008). Although a person can try to convince and relieve herself with this explanation for these practices, it is impossible to find a reasonable explanation for the honour killings and forced marriages, which obviously show the subordination of women, the violence and suppression they face within their communities. Numerous cases of honour killings have taken place in the European countries in the last decade and hundreds of young women in all European countries have been forced to marry with the men they barely know. Although the cases of forced marriage do not often become public, the cases of honour killings have been widely told by the media in the European states. The media gave the story of the failed young immigrant women who tried to resist their families and their cultural practices (Siim & Skjeie, 2008; Hobson & Hellgren, 2008; Roggeband & Verloo, 2007). Upon the stories of these girls, European publics have debated multiculturalism and the conflicts its practice puts forward for the women rights and women s emancipation (Siim & 6

Skjeie, 2008; Phillips & Saharso, 2008). As it is told above, in addition to the shortcomings of multiculturalism in integrating immigrants through cultural recognition, the circumstances of immigrant women and their suppression by their communities by the help of multiculturalism, have affected European publics and policy-makers for moving away from it. One by one European states have started to move away from multicultural practices and tend to adopt civic integration policies for their immigrants 6 (Joppke, 2004). 3. Civic Integration Policies and Immigrant Women Having been introduced since the end of the 1990s, civic integration policies have been strengthened by integration programmes that include compulsory language courses as well as the information about the history and cultural and political values of the host society 7. In most of the European states these programmes are compulsory, they last for 2 to 3 years and it is told that they have been prepared according to the special needs of the immigrants. Generally the programmes have three key elements: language training, introduction courses and professional labour market training (Commission of the European Communities, 2003: 36). In addition to these intensive courses, which have been designed to improve the language skills and the occupational capacity of the immigrants, introduction courses about the culture, legal system and the history of the host society are also given to facilitate their integration. In general lines, when they were introduced, the civic integration policies in the European countries were mild and they aimed to faciliate the migrants participation in mainstream institutions. Although there were punitive sanctions for the non-compliant newcomers, they were not enforced strictly (Joppke, 2007). In the course of time, the policies were amended 6 Finland, Denmark and Netherlands have adopted legislation on integration in 1998 and 1999. Austria and Germany are preparing to follow the lead. Besides the Netherlands, Sweden has also left multiculturalism and decided to focus on integration more in 1997. Greece has started to implement and Integration Policy for the social integration of all immigrants in 2003. Spain has adopted a national plan for integration in 2001. Portugal established a High Commission for Immigration and Ethnic Minorities, a national body that will work for the integration of immigrants. Luxembourg introduced Integration of Aliens Law in 1993. Since 2003, France has also had an integration policy, which prioritizes the efforts of teaching French to immigrants and of making them more educated rather than introducing them to the labour market in the first place (Entzinger and Biezeveld, 2003). 7 Civic integration policies were pioneered in the Netherlands, which has always had multicultural practices. According to 1998 Newcomer Integration Law (Wet Inburgering Nieuwkomers, WIN), newcomers have to participate in a 12-month integration course, which consists of 600 hours Dutch language instruction, civic education and preparation for the labour market (Joppke, 2007: 6). France initiated its civic integration policy (Contrats d accueil et de l integration) in 2003, it consists of 500 hours of French language instruction. Germany has adopted Integrationkurse in the 1990s. Besides 600 hours of German language instruction, 30 hours of civics introduction courses are given in the programme. 7

and their lenient and mild nature gave way to a more coercive and punitive one. For instance in Netherlands, Denmark and Austria, the grant of permanent residence permits has been tied to the successful passing of the integration tests. Furthermore, in many European countries, governments have given up state sponsored integration courses and immigrants are paying for the integration courses themselves. For now, the integration courses are for the newcomers, but it is thought that many governments think to extend integration tests to the established and naturalised immigrants as well, by not extending residence permits or turning them to temporary ones for the former (ibid: 7). A controversial rule among these integration policies is the one devised to tighten family unification. In 2002, Danish government introduced a rule to tighten family reunification by adopting a mandatory age of 24 for couples wanting to marry a foreign citizen (Siim & Skjeie, 2008: 335). This practice was followed by Britain in 2003, when the government introduced a rule saying that minimum age for marriages with overseas partners must be 18 for both parties (Dustin & Phillips, 2008: 411). It is believed that many other European governments are thinking to introduce similar rules for family unification. Another practice that is becoming widespread in the continental European countries is integration from abroad. According to this new policy, applicants for family unification have to take integration tests in Dutch and German embassies abroad as a precondition to acquire temporary residence permits in order to unify their spouses in these countries. These two policies and the coercive nature of integration policies are criticized heavily by the academics. It is told that these policies are practiced in the name of integration but the agenda behind them is to control and end family migration, which is presented as a source of low-skilled immigrants. Therefore it would not be wrong to say that there is a tendency in European governments to connect separate agendas of integration and migration control. In the light of these arguments, it can be said that the restrictive and obligatory nature of civic integration policies point to an illiberal and repressive tendency in immigrant integration (Joppke 2007). State involvement to the marriage choice of a person, denying the right of family unification for persons who have already married, taking back the rights that have already been acquired by the established immigrants, to urge these people to take courses and tests can be humiliating and alienating. These are all illiberal and repressive practices and they are unacceptable in immigrant integration. However, the author of this paper thinks that they can be rethought for the immigrant girls and women. Despite their illiberal and repressive nature, 8

civic integration policies might not be that bad for them and they might facilitate their emancipation. Firstly, civic integration policies do not target only the males of the immigrant communities but also the females of them. In that case, without being subject to the consent of the men in the immigrant community, the immigrant women and girls will have to take integration courses and they will have to learn the language of the host societies, besides getting information about the society. Language skills will strengthen them, they will be able to communicate and their chances to participate in the mainstream of the society will increase. They will be able to ask for help and seek refuge when their lives are in danger. Secondly, the integration courses will definitely provide a platform of socialization for them, they will get out of home and the family encircles and will have the opportunity to meet people like themselves. Making acquaintances and friends is a very important step in getting used to a new society. This might provide new opportunities to them. Thirdly, the author of this paper thinks that the restrictive rules on family unification and marriage age might have positive effects on immigrant women and girls as they might work as blocks against forced marriages. Fourthly, increasing the occupational capacity of the immigrant women and girls through vocational training can open a new page for them. They will acquire skills to enter to the labour market and have the chance to earn their money, which will give them the most important strength in emancipation. As a result, for all these reasons, civic integration policies might provide a venue for emancipation to the immigrant women and girls. Conclusion Having been a very influential immigrant integration model in Europe during the 1980s and 1990s, multiculturalism has retreated in the countries it has been employed because of its shortcomings in integrating immigrants and the conflicts it puts forward for the women rights and gender equality. It is believed that multicultural practices have given way to civic integration policies in these countries. Accompanied by civic integration courses and integration tests, these civic integration policies are believed to have illiberal and repressive natures and it is understood that they denote a backtracking in immigrant integration and immigrant rights. With acknowledging the illiberal and repressive nature of the civic integration policies, the author of this paper does not want to rule them out. That is because unlike multiculturalism, which has not been able to prevent the suppression and subordination of immigrant women within their communities, civic integration policies might provide a venue of individual 9

emancipation for the immigrant women and girls through language instruction, civics courses and occupational training. In sum, with the education and skills they will acquire by the help of the civic integration programmes, immigrant women and girls might have more opportunity for emancipation than they did with multiculturalism. References Bickford, Susan (2000). Review; Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?, Susan Moller Okin (ed.), 1999 New Jersey: Princeton University Press, American Political Science Review, vol.94, no.3, and pp.711-713 Commission of the European Communities (2003). Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Immigration, Integration and Employment (COM (2003) 336): Brussels. Dustin, Moira & Anne Phillips (2008) Whose Agenda Is It? Abuses of Women and Abuses of Culture in Britain, Etnicities, Vol. 8 (3), pp. 405-424. Entzinger, Han & Renske Biezeveld (2003). Benchmarking in Immigrant Integration. Report prepared upon the request of European Commission: Rotterdam. Glazer, Nathan (2002). Multiculturalism and American Exceptionalism in Christian Joppke and Steven Lukes (eds.), Multicultural Questions, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 183-199. Hellgren, Zenia & Barbara Hobson (2008) Cultural Dialogues in Good Society: The Case of Honour Killings in Sweden, Ethnicities, Vol. 8 (3), pp. 385-404. Hollis, Martin (2002). Is Universalism Ethnocentric? in Christian Joppke and Steven Lukes (eds.), Multicultural Questions, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 27-44. Joppke, Christian (2004) The retreat of Multiculturalism in the Liberal State: Theory and Policy, The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 55 (2), pp. 237-257. Joppke, Christian (2007) Beyond National Models: Civic Integration Policies for Immigrants in Western Europe West European Politics, Vol. 30, No.1, pp. 1-22. Kymlicka, Will (1995). Multicultural Citizenship, Oxford: Clarendon Multiculturalism, Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved January 15, 2005 from http://www.britannica.com/wwwinfo/index.php?title=multiculturalism Parrillo, Vincent (1996). Is Multiculturalism a Threat? Retrieved February 1, 2005 from http://www.wpunj.edu/cohss/sociology/soc399/multi.htm Phillips, Anne & Sawitri Saharso (2008) The Rights of Women and the Crisis of Multiculturalism, Guest Editorial, Ethnicities, Vol. 8 (3), pp. 291-301. Phillips, Anne & Moira Dustin (2008) Whose Agenda Is It?: Abuses of Women and Abuses of Culture in Britain, Ethnicities, Vol. 8 (3), pp. 405-424. Radtke, Frank - Olaf (2003). Multiculturalism in Germany: Local Management of Immigrants Social Inclusion International Journal on Multicultural Societies (IJMS), vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 55 76. Rex, John & Singh, Gurharpal (2003). Multiculturalism and Political Integration in Modern Nation-States, International Journal on Multicultural Societies, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 13-119. Shachar, Ayelet (2002). Multicultural Vulnerability in Christian Joppke and Steven Lukes (eds.), Multicultural Questions, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 87-112. 10

Siim, Birte & Hege Skjeie (2008) Tracks, Intersections and Dead Ends: Multicultural Challenges to State Feminism in Denmark & Norway, Ethnicities, Vol. 8 (3), pp.322-344. Wieviorka, Michel (1998). Is Multiculturalism the Solution? in Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 890-907. 11