So, as the group is the relevant political unit in our societes (if only because of voting rules, but also with media power), the state needs as little groups it needs to take care of. This is why it refuses to discuss rights within a religious or ethnic framework and instead focuses on framing claims as universal ones.
The french state has been pretty successful at that: in the banlieues, as Margouillat pointed out upthread, the cohesiveness of the gangs doesn't find its explanation in ethnic ties. Another, more 'universal' factor in the eyes of the French gets precedence: poverty, disenfranchisement, joblessness (I'm uneasy with unemployment here, because black markets are present and help generate income; not having an official job is more important in that it secludes people, more than in that it makes them poor).
But the problem with this approach is that it doesn't create the political actors neede to resolve why the problem arose in the first place. While the French state broke down the ability of people to make claims on the basis of ethnicity or whatever, it has yet to take care of why they would have resorted to that to start with. In essence, it lacks the political incentives to finish what it has started -- integration -- because it has been too successful.
But of course, that ability is constrained. At some point the situation is unworkable: on the one hand the non integrated people are refused any way to voice their demands, and on the other hand nothing is done to respond to those demands. (so I guess that makes the situation unworkable in two ways). This situation is clearly schizophrenic. This is the point where 'radicalization' is most likely to happen.
As to the reason for the original tension... probably the reason rests into the cultural massacre that changing societies means. You may want to check Emmanuel Todd's the Fate of the Immigrants... note that this also explains why some groups integrate more easily that others.
Todd was somewhat reassured, and not alarmed, during the riots in France: rioting is a typically French way to make demands on the state, according to him. So the riots must mean that the banlieue youth have integrated much more than we think, and that things will calm down of themselves... I don't quite agree with the conclusion. Rien n'est gratuit en ce bas monde. Tout s'expie, le bien comme le mal, se paie tot ou tard. Le bien c'est beaucoup plus cher, forcement. Celine
One thing that is failing right now with regards to the integration of people of African immigrants is indeed a way to have their voices heard ; most anti-racist groups with a reasonable immigrant membership have been coopted by the PS as a way to raise a few "Arabe de service" politicians, to the point that one of them has been hired by Sarkozy...
Compare with the jewish community, which had the advantage of being well organised before the 1905 laws ; and of retaining a certain unity (despite the facts that many of its members are very thoroughly integrated in French society). It was able to mount a very impressive campaign showing that indeed, antisemite violence was on the rise. Many jews aren't actually active participants in the community, except in such cases.
There is no such path to reach the media for the African or Maghrebian communities, or, more pointedly, the banlieues community, that would be able to create the kind of media storm against, say, police racism and police violence that is sorely needed.
One thing that wasn't noticed enough in the riots is that the participants were very young. Teenagers. I am quite optimist in that many of them will find a way into membership of society. Imprisonment rates remain well below those of African Americans, for example. We don't hear much about these youth when they reach their thirties. Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
Yes, they lack channels, as their members get co opted... and the PS, supposedly the party that is ready to do the most, has been quite blind to the consequences of making 'politics' a dead end for minorities. They have neither people to talk to or political incentives to do anything... paving the way for a police answer.
There is one thing that makes me feel uncomfortable about universality though: literally, it shouldn't connote any set of rights, just the idea that demands for rights should be justified by pertaining to all (applicable to whomever) but also furthering, or at least not endangering, the cohesiveness of 'all'. But even by defining universality so broadly, it remains a specific vantage point on what creates societies (granted maintaining them is an objective at all, which can be doubted these days) and what strengthens them. In a way, universality can be applied, ironically, only because it is enforced. It doesn't take into account the voices of those whose ways it rejects... and rejects only because they are on French soil. That the limits to universality would be the Alps or the Mediterranean is ironic at best.
I didn't know about the imprisonment rates, but indeed it's a good thing, along with exogamy. Pied noir racism will also diminish soon... Rien n'est gratuit en ce bas monde. Tout s'expie, le bien comme le mal, se paie tot ou tard. Le bien c'est beaucoup plus cher, forcement. Celine
The PS is way too bourgeois and power oriented to successfully cater to the banlieues.
Universality is indeed a specific vantage point, but it seems required if societies are to last ; Canada, the poster child for multiculturalism, still has Quebec not that far from voting for independence ; and I won't get into Lebanon, which is an example of what happens when community bonds become stronger than the bonds to the State.
As for the geographical limits of the French universalism, weren't the limits of Europe supposed to be the Urals and Tamanrasset, according to De Gaulle ?
I don't have particular ethnic statistics on imprisonment rate, but it would require way more people in jails to reach the statistic that between a third and half of adult African American will end up in jail at some point - I suppose drug trafficking, etc... may indeed be run partly by the thirty something, but I bet many more have found some kind of place in French society - they are not rioting...
Also, yes, the pied noir and Algerian soldiers are moving into retirement, which should diminish their contribution to institutional racism. They'll still vote for Sarkozy for quite some time though. Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
The state appears after the group, not before: so in the case of Lebanon, we see the story of a state which fails for whatever reason to break down communal and religious bonds. This is why I'm slightly worried about the US. Bonds to a state can be of different natures, but in practice two are really important. Either one identifies with it, and sees no difference between the nation and himself, or one sees the state as a provider of goods and services, with a feeling of belonging to a subgroup of the citizenry. In the US -- I don't know about canada -- Multiculturalism does smoothen integration, but whether it breaks down communal bonds is doubtful. A lot of the success in American integration might be due to the state's success in providing job and social climbing. The main consequence, in that light, of an economic crisis becomes an ethnic crisis... with, say, latinos and blacks competing for the same jobs.
All I mean with the limits to universalism was that it required a bigger group which has already internalized these values -- not to say that all french think like that -- and that group is in france, no? Rien n'est gratuit en ce bas monde. Tout s'expie, le bien comme le mal, se paie tot ou tard. Le bien c'est beaucoup plus cher, forcement. Celine
As usual, the "richer" part of that population didn't have too much problems !
On another set of thought, we started to get used to "terrorist bombing" at that time with the OAS, a bit like the Irish's... We tackled it without having to impose laws on foreigner's identity laid bare ! "What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman
I think it has drawn out both the positives and negatives of both of these approaches. Certainly in the UK, we do not have any great expertise in how to work under a human rights framework. We are beginning to develop that but even if it is influenced and led properly I could see it taking at least 2 or 3 generations to embed itself.
It's so interesting that the core values in France accept universality as the way to go, and I think this must make a large difference to the successes of the approach (with there still being the potential downsides as you've pointed out). The core values in the UK are to embrace difference (at least within those familiar with equality discourse) and to allow communities to keep their identities.
The aim is to foster good relations so that communities live side by side, and 'integrating' into society as communities that live harmoniously. ie the diversity is good mantra.
If we tried to bring in the principle of universality tomorrow, it would jar so much with the values we are used to working with that it would further marginalise ethnic groups.
There is a lot of resent and racism at a local level because native 'communities' see themselves being invaded by foreign 'communities' - especially around the issues of migrant workers, refugees etc. If we left these people to it, telling them to integrate, it wouldn't happen because those are not the core values of British people in the way that they are for French people.
Very interesting. Ad astra per aspera
Also : what happen when the Deaf, or orthodox muslim, or rich white, communities reject you ? If you have no community, do you get your voice heard ? Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
But I agree with you. I would far rather just be seen as me. As an individual, as different to everybody else, and for people to get to know me without making assumptions because I am deaf or a woman or white.
With communities, we are talking about what identity that people buy into (or have ascribed to them). I don't consider myself to have a 'white' identity therefore I do not belong to a white community. I consider myself to be Welsh but I identify with my country in that respect, it being my home and the place I live and work and feel proud to be part of. I consider my local area to be my community - that includes all the white people, the black people, the Welsh people, the British people, the Somalians, the Poles, the Italians, the wide mix of other people who live in this area. I don't have any issue with people being proud of their national origin or identity.
I've discussed before how exclusive the Deaf community is, and indeed how exclusive any community can be based around identity and rules of who is in and who is out. I don't find this constructive in any way for those in or out of that community. And this 'tribal' thing as you point out is the real problem in preventing integration because those identities are expressed in such a way as to create divisions. In these cases, groups do not wish to interact with society around them or make any contribution to society - but still expect to have their demands met. I don't consider this to be acceptable, but racism in the UK reinforces the attitudes of these groups to remain exclusive. Ad astra per aspera
It seems to me a pretty logical consequence. If services cater to the "Deaf community", then the Deaf community will exist ; and once it exists, it will expel people out, all communities do that.
And if the State recognises publicly the importance of catering to communities, of contact with communities leader, then the same communities see themselves reinforced. This isn't about being proud of one's origin ; this is about the social network people create and maintain.
If most members of a community have most of their network inside their communities, they see their opportunities diminished because they do no have access to the wider social capabilities of their country ; and diminished social capital is an important reason for inequalities, and indeed the glass ceiling. Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
I've been on the receiving end of 'tribal' community exclusiveness enough to not be surprised by it. But there are some examples where I do think it is important to allow people to retain a sense of identity and belonging. I am about as mainstream/integrated as a deaf person can get but I don't 'belong' anywhere and I feel that acutely at times. There is a need for d/Deaf people to be represented and to have their needs met because I would have absolutely no access to society otherwise because service providers just don't think about deaf people. they think about audio based stuff because that is how they work. That excludes me.
The downside of integrating individuals and removing community identity is that 'integrated' individuals become isolated. Still different enough from the rest to get marked out but then not having contact with anyone else who is similar. I survived that approach but many do not and become lost to having any useful function in society.
linca:
If most members of a community have most of their network inside their communities, they see their opportunities diminished because they do no have access to the wider social capabilities of their country ; and diminished social capital is an important reason for inequalities, and indeed the glass ceiling.
Really good point and I agree, but I can't see how we can easily instill that attitude in the UK. Not that it shouldn't be an aim, but it is very difficult to get from where we are now to that vision of people mixing fully within society.
Also when I talk about service provision a lot of resources are put in to try to encourage these closed communities to be more involved and integrated in wider society. But I don't think there has been enough of a consistent, sustained effort at supporting integration in the UK, so people keep reverting back to their communities because they are not safe or experience racism or discrimination outside of those communities.
Whenever there have been regeneration schemes or interventions of any kind that seek to break up (or to have a side effect of breaking up) ghettos or to integrate communities, there is so much backlash that it doesn't often succeed. Majority and minority communities themselves want to stay as they are. Hence we are talking about the need for very persuasive and strong leadership to create change here. Ad astra per aspera
As I've already said, I don't think the case of ethnic communities and disabled are identical. Obviously, the disabled's particular needs need to be catered for ; but I believe the ideal solution is to avoid catering to the Deaf rather than to the deaf. The ideal solution would be that everybody would also speak sign language, that kind of things, but we're obviously far from such a well-educated society... (just a question that popped in my mind ; is there some kind of Deaf cinema/video with people speaking in sign language ?)
Community identity is supposed to be replaced by the larger, State-based identity ; and indeed individuals are not supposed to lose their own identity completely, ideally, only their children would, over time. (And I'm not advocating for kidnapping aboriginal children either, just to make that clear ; that's a clear limit of the concept).
Eventually skin color would become similar to being red-headed ; once discrimination subsides, need for meeting people with similar marks would disappear. Of course, it works less well with deaf people. But still, I believe the ideal solution would be an integrationist approach, with services provided to deaf people within the service provided to the rest of the population. No to deaf-only schools, but more schools with classes with an interpreter, and those classes with interpreters not only made up of deaf people. You probably have better ideas on how to make this work...
Really good point and I agree, but I can't see how we can easily instill that attitude in the UK. Not that it shouldn't be an aim, but it is very difficult to get from where we are now to that vision of people mixing fully within society. Also when I talk about service provision a lot of resources are put in to try to encourage these closed communities to be more involved and integrated in wider society. But I don't think there has been enough of a consistent, sustained effort at supporting integration in the UK, so people keep reverting back to their communities because they are not safe or experience racism or discrimination outside of those communities.
I am repeating myself, but I believe the French way of not accepting the notion of ethnic communities help on that point. Once the service providers accept the notion of catering to ethnic groups, the cat is out of the bag, so to say. The concept is thus widely accepted in UK society ; eg in France a fairly large share of the population rejects out of hand the concept of race, which I believe isn't as true in the UK (and I don't mean accepting the concept of race implies racism. I have noticed that now that I live in Paris, and have regularly worked with people of Arab origin, and married one, I have ceased to identify people as being "of Arab origins". It would only dawn on me when hearing the name of the person ; a visual process that I had when I was a teen has more or less disappeared.)
Leadership is not alone in applying a human rights based approach. I think the UK faces a particular problem ; it is itself based upon four communities that make the notion of "communities" inherent to the UK state.
A condition for the French approach is that the regional identities which use to be quite strong in the 19th century ended, with at times quite violent suppression - it may not have been able to work if there were still real Britons, Occitans, etc... in France. Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
