contexploration

Within the European nation states the version of multiculturalism adopted is a miniature model of Europe itself. Thus, when immigrants move to a European nation state, they are more or less encouraged to maintain their own cultures in the name of multiculturalism. This is distinctly different from the American version, where the power of American patriotism is supposed to be hegemonic and replace competing cultural fetishisms. Americans still hold on to the pledge of allegiance in public life, to the rhetoric of national patriotism, to the sacredness of the flag – symbols that are controversial in Europe today.

Still, the official demand from European politicians is that immigrants must integrate in society. But what should they integrate into? The answer is mumbled. Words like ”the nation” and “nationalism” create ghastly associations because the history of Europe is written in blood. Actually, many immigrants coming to Europe are bewildered when they find that there are no fundamental disavowals of loyalties to the traditions of their countries of origin required to become a citizen. They sometimes feel that they are never, truly able to gain access to the society into which they have moved. They are not able to, and they are not asked to.

The reason why immigrants feel that they are not allowed an “emotional” access to the ideological metaphor of society is a highly complex one. What they have identified is that although no serious mainstream politician would talk with ease about the “nation”, Europeans still hold on to the view that they do live in a society. In contrast, when coming to America, you immediately understand that you are on your own. The United States of America communicates an intense message that you have a fresh start: You are responsible for your own fate. In Europe, however, your fate is seen as the responsibility of society as a whole.

The politics of social equality is economic and rational, even though you benefit from them, you don’t necessarily feel like a member of society. Social equality was achieved through a strong sense of national unity, but when nationalism no longer is valid, there is no clear symbolism available to provide an outline - or symbols - of what society is. In Europe, the historical paradox is the following: Immigrants coming to Europe want to integrate “into” something, while the internationalist politicians in Europe are doing their best to emigrate “out of” it.

If this sounds slightly occult to you, then you are spot on.

The idea of equality still exists in Europe. The majority of Europeans live in societies with committed welfare policies providing such goods as free education, free health care and generous unemployment benefits – public goods that are lacking in the US. So, as immigrants coming to Europe soon find out, there certainly does exist a notion that there is a society – even if this insight is more subconsciously communicated than explicitly stated in pompous ceremonies. Of course, the welfare policies of European states are for all citizens, including immigrants, regardless of emotional attachment to the society that the policies serve to uphold.

In my opinion, the fundamental principles of Europe today are: The importance of science and knowledge, democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the principle of social equality. Essentially, this is a heritage from the Enlightenment. You may ask yourself: Well, what is particularly European about these principles? The answer is nothing.

These principles are the essence.

The principles are at work daily, at every level of the European societies. The essence is rational, judicial and bureaucratic. Although some people have a demand for “occultism,” such as nationalism, religion or Euro-chauvinism, Europe should not provide it. European politicians ought to do their utmost to avoid engaging in emotional witchcraft. I hope we never will see the emergence of a European patriotism. If Europe must adopt an ideology of its own, it should be that of disillusion.

Political scientists and sociologists ask: So who is going to provide the symbols required to uphold social equality in Europe? Doesn't this vacuum of symbol-politics open up a space for right-wing populists - or for fundamentalist religion? Even leftist populists claim that “if we, the Left, ditch the national flag, others will pick it up.” But what does the European political and academic leaders’ angst say about their view of humanity? I’m all in favour of disillusionment when it comes to utopian ideologies or the power of collective identities. But I have faith in the people of Europe. The idea that the masses are bewildered and in constant need of brain-dead symbols of unity seems awfully frail and elitist to me.

Maybe the citizens of Europe are capable of discovering for themselves what the essence of Europe is?

Why all this disbelief? Europe is changing fast. This has partly to do with globalization, and partly to do with the slow-moving experiment of the European Union. The introduction of the Schengen accords and the Euro were milestones. Today, intra-European migration is a powerful, radical new force. Europe is transforming itself, seemingly without much fuzz. Students, labourers and hipsters crisscross the continent thanks to an internationalism introduced by European political leaders and anonymous Brussels bureaucrats. In addition, this union of liberal democracies is the only organisation on earth experimenting with the concept of democratic supranationalism.

The Copenhagen criteria regulate the conditions for new member states in the Union. The criteria are maybe not as detailed as they might have been, but they are specific enough to exclude many other civilised countries. (For example, a country like the USA would fail to qualify on the human rights criteria because of the death penalty and an unwillingness to yield to international institutions, i.e. The International Criminal Court.)

In the north of Europe, Scandinavian social democracies have managed to combine low unemployment, social equality, global competitiveness and higher fertility rates than most Western societies. In addition, a Scandinavian country like Sweden has a higher percentage of foreign-born residents than the US, both when you compare naturalized citizens and the total household population. Integration in Sweden is taking place without major violent clashes or race riots. And there is no demand that all citizens must succumb to a constructed “Swedishness.”

In face of new, international challenges posed by globalization - and the fear produced by counter-globalization in the form of terrorism - it is always tempting to return to the safe havens of collective identities. In the UK, after the London bombings in July 2005, there was a renewed focus on loyalty to "our British values." But today nationalism - and religion - are useless points of reference if you want to promote the rule of law, pluralism and participation in globalization. Many Norwegian citizens live and work in London, in business and academia. Should they be obliged to swear loyalty to "Britishness"? In cities like Madrid and Barcelona, one estimates that more than ten thousand British citizens live. Should they be forced to declare their loyalty towards the Spanish - or perhaps the Catalonian - nation?

After the London bombings, the political response should have stressed how religious fanaticism represents an attack on modernity itself. With its self-centred response, widely reported in the European press, British politicians missed an opportunity to help create an understanding of global interconnectedness. This hampered Civilization’s ability to create the consensus necessary to defend itself.

Likewise, concerning multiculturalism and the challenges posed by immigration, one should avoid the reactionary rhetoric of assimilation, and instead emphasize the idea of pluralistic democracies consisting of individual identities. One should cherish rule of law's protection of freedom of belief, but one should be willing to confront the forces that oppose this pluralism, whether the challenge comes from right-wing or left-wing populists, or from "holy" warriors. The necessity of indifference towards other people’s belief systems is of fundamental importance in liberal democracies. It should not mutate into an indifference towards cultures that want to forbid dissenting faiths.

The universal gains of such a shift in approach are self-evident: It is applicable in every corner of the world. Instead of competing, monocultural symbolisms, one would raise awareness of the real interconnectedness of societies, cultures and individuals. One could more easily discover the essence of Civilization, and one could better expose its adversary ideologies. If this doesn’t excite you, you can always pick up the flag from the ditch.

DISSENTING OPINIONS:

“The most vital difference between Muslims in America and their brethren in Europe is American emphasis on religious liberty, not secular values,” claims Peter Skerry in Time Magazine.

American economic brutality is what creates successful integration in America as opposed to Europe, writes Clive Crook in The Atlantic: “By insisting that immigrants work, the host country attacks the incumbents’ intellectual and emotional resistance to immigration.”

CONCURRING OPINIONS:
Amartya Sen: “The determinism of culture is increasingly used in contemporary global discussions to generate pessimism about the feasibility of a democratic state, or of a flourishing economy, or of a tolerant society, wherever these conditions do not already obtain.”

Tropical Truth by Caetano Veloso

Cosmopolitanism by Kwame Anthony Appiah

Discussion: "The Limits of Tolerance: Multiculturalism Now!" Pascal Bruckner, Necla Kelek, Richard Rodriguez, Kwame Anthony Appiah at the New York Public Library.

Amartya Sen [Word-file]:: “The disastrous consequences of defining people by their religious ethnicity and giving priority to the community-based perspective over all other identities, which Gandhi thought was receiving support from India's British rulers, may well have come, alas, to haunt the country of [the British] themselves.”

Read The Euston Manifesto - a new democratic progressive alliance [UK].

[A version of this text was first posted in august 2006]