Nermin Aydemir JTW Columnist printable version send your friend message to author add comment ()

Friday, 9 January 2009

"…Mutuality requires abandoning both native preconceptions of who has first call on the label “European" as well as easy labeling of immigrants, travelers, ethnic minorities, third world country settlers, Muslims, cosmopolitans, dissidents as "non-European". Mutuality implies that European-ness is not about possessing a pre-defined cultural identity, but about becoming European through active engagement with negotiation of difference…" (Amin, 2004: 4.)
  Europe has encountered large amounts of migration flows since the middle of 1940’s. People with the same ethnical backgrounds “returned back home”, in the British and German cases when the borders were drawn once again in this decade. These migrants were the most favored ones since they were regarded as people returning home (Pettigrew, 1998: 80). Also people from former colonies migrated to the lands of their “ex-lords” in those years. Ex-colonial peoples usually had the citizenship of their new countries or at least could stay without strict restrictions of residence. Nevertheless, Europe needed more human power for reconstruction and guest-workers came from Mediterranean countries in late 1960’s. In the beginning, they were usually single males, coming with the intention of returning back after making some money. However, things tackled unexpected down and the migration population grew further and further with family unifications; arriving spouses, children and marriages from home countries. Actually, host countries had quite moderate policies towards the change of the demographic structure because there was a need of soft power in industry after the heavy task of reconstruction was completed. Factories needed female workers as well and this had an explicit impact on the tolerance of increasing migration of guest workers in the following years. On the other hand, problems increased with the growth of foreign population and migration became one of the core issues in political agenda, particularly after immigrants lost the myth of returning back.  The migration issue became the migration problem with the increasing unemployment rates and other (economic) difficulties, especially with 1990’s and reached the top in recent years with the increase of nationalism.

Today, 16.258.032 people live in the Netherlands. More than 3 millions of them, % 19.2 of total population, have a foreign background. Nearly 1.7 millions are non-Western. According to calculations of the official Dutch statistical bureau, one in three pupils will have a foreign background in 2020. Foreign population in four large cities is about 25% according to the numbers of 2003 and is increasing dramatically.[1]

The situation is not different in the other European countries. Although OECD figures give the foreign originated population rate as 3.8 % in Britain, it does not count naturalized ones. Foreign originated people actually construct the 8 % of total population of this country (Castles, 1995: 300). Germany has 4.5 million non-natives and the people with foreign backgrounds build up the 8.8 % of the society. [2] More than 3 millions of foreigners live in France and non Western migrants construct the about the 65% of this number.
Even though many Europeans still claim purity, the figures above obviously show the multicultural nature of Europe. To tell the truth, it would be highly illogical to expect a decrease in these figures since globalization and pluralism have become the manifest features of modern life (Koopmans & Statham, 1999: 653). People no longer live in a world of separated borders, but in a much more integrated world whether people accept it or go on pretending not to see.
It does not seem a realistic attitude to persistently disregard the Muslim aspect of Europe while 17 Millions Muslims live there (Amin, 2004: 10). Slowly Europe is becoming Chinese, Indian, Albanian, Turkish, and Islamic as well.  A unified culture existed once but left its place to an identity of plural belongings since long ago (Amin, 2004: 2).  In other words, no matter how much the issue of migration is disregarded, it is one of the most crucial issues and its implications are growing dramatically. It is by no means an easy process but pretending as if everything goes well does nothing but makes the situation much worse.

One of the determining factors of the national state, the concept of nation itself, is under a multicultural threat. “…A multi culture that tries to create a society with several distinctive cultures deeply threatens citizenship” (Spinner-Halev, 1999: 65). But how long can we continue shutting our eyes wide? How can Europe deny its Islamic side despite 17 millions of Muslims living there? Denying the existence of the Islamic identity is denying the Muslim people living in European countries. Trying to identify societies in pure ethnical manners excludes “the other” elements of these societies. It is a worthless attempt to expect solving the problems in France without including the Algerian, Moroccan, Turkish, etc aspects to the French population. Thanks to God, rebels in France are put down and did not spread to other countries, except a few cases. Nevertheless, these happenings give serious alarms of further conflicts and unfortunately seem to be only the beginning of a further turmoil rather than things done by a few naughty, unsatisfied children of the ghettos. Although headscarves, ghettos, poor living conditions, unemployed immigrant groups are the aspects of the restlessness in the West, they are only the visible sights of a more general problem. The issue is not only allowing the girls with headscarves to schools but having the courage of discussing whether the headscarf is a part of the France identity or not. The issue is much more complex than giving better accommodation; it is a matter of providing equal standards for natives and non-natives. In other words, the problem lies in accepting these, who are labeled as the other for a very long time. Citizenship does not provide the sense of identity even if it contributes much. Denying the existence of different elements leads marginalization and creates serious threats to a peaceful co-existence. It is really hard to accept such a thing but are any other options possible at this stage? When people are not adequately represented in legal platforms, the politics of the excluded comes into scene.

Things change dramatically, but we still go on thinking in the same way. Does the pure identity still exist or do different cultures mix and build up multi identities? In other words, who is the other and what defines being the other? Once, it was possible to regard guest workers as the others but it does no more seem possible to label the 3^rd generation like this. Despite these people keep their ties with their origins; they are born in Europe, grown up in the European culture and in many cases fail to build up a life in the country of their grandparents. The difference between the home and the host has been blurred considerably.  It is really hard to answer what defines the home. Is Europe the home or the host of “immigrants”? Where is home, is it really the place of grand parents; or is it the place, where they settle down? Which one does prevail if the answer is the both? 
Identity and its cultural background need to be discussed. Traditionally, culture refers to a highly integrated and grasped static “whole”, which is largely shaped by territorial and ethnical factors. However, the traditional definition fails to comply with the realities of the contemporary era.  It is an outcome of a constant process of becoming rather than a heritage from former generations. In fact, cultures have become more and more detached from territories and hybrid in a global world (Kaya, 2002: 43; Kearney, 1995: 552). Ethnical background and territorial origin have considerable effects in shaping the identity, but they are by no means the only actors of building up identities, particularly in the contemporary era.  
According to a study on Turkish migrants in Europe, in 2005; 50.7 % of Turkish originated migrants defined themselves as first being Turkish and then European and 9.4 % of them said that they are First European and then Turkish. Only 35.5% of them identified themselves solely as being Turkish (Kaya & Kentel, 2005: 58).  Muslim migrants are no more Muslims in Germany, France, Britain, the Netherlands, etc. but rather Muslims of these countries (Amin, 2004: 10).
Nevertheless, such a social context is highly vulnerable and prone to serious conflicts. On this point it is worth accusing neither the host nor the home country. Actually migrants should also interrogate how much they try to integrate to the new culture. Re-defining the identity is a really problematic process.  It is really hard to accept, but a de facto situation already exists. Are the immigrants of Europe still Turks, Moroccans, Algerians or are they different elements of their new country. People have no longer myth of returning back in many circumstances however things become complicated as their “otherness” is persistently underlined. Bibliography: Ash, Amin. Multi-Ethnicity and the Idea of Europe, Theory, Culture & Society 2004. (SAGE, London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi). Vol. 21 (2): 1-24.
Chambers, I. (2001), Culture after Humanism. London: Routledge.
Castles, Stephen. “How Nation-States Respond to Immigration and Ethnic Diversity”, New Community Vol.  21, No. 3, 1995. 293-308.
Kaya, Ayhan. The Hyphenated Germans, German Turks, Private View, spring 2002, 36-43.
Kaya Ayhan, Kentel Ferhat. European Turks, a Bridge or a Breach between Turkey and the European Union, Centre for European policy Studies, Brussels, 2005.
Kearney, M. The Local and the Global: The Anthropology of Globalization and Transnationalism, Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 24 (1995), 547-565.
Koopmans, Ruud & Statham, Paul, Challenging the Liberal Nation-State? Postnationalism, Multiculturalism, and the Collective Claims Making of Migrants and Ethnic Minorities in Britain and Germany, The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 105, No. 3 (Nov., 1999), 652-696.
Pettigrwe, Thomas F. Reactions Toward the New Minorities of Western Europe, Annual Review Sociology, Vol. 24:77, 1998, 77-103.
Spinner-Halev, J., Cultural Pluralism and Partial citizenship, in C. Joppke and S. Lukes (eds) Multicultural Questions, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.