European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

Community vs collectivity?

by In Wales
Thu Feb 14th, 2008 at 10:17:37 AM EDT

The discussion on census information brought up some points around ethnicity which then lead to an interesting comment from Margouillet about community vs collectivity.

If I understand the point - we are effectively looking at two different constructions or discourses around citizens and equality.

In the UK, discourse is developing in such a way as to say that individuals are not equal, we are have different needs and face different barriers in terms of accessing society and exercising our rights. Therefore, when planning services and public policy, the demographics of the local population must be known in order to allocate resources and make services accessible to all.

My understanding of Margouillet and Linca's points is that public policy and planning is done collectively not taking into account demographic differences in populations.

Both discourses in my view aim to seek integration of minorities but go about it in a different way.

Does collectivity as an approach bring about real integration or is it forced assimilation that then hides the disadvantages and inequalities faced by minority groups?

In the UK, the citizen centred model seeks to support integration by ensuring that barriers to accessing healthcare, education and so on are understood and eliminated by designing services that meet individual needs, rather than telling individuals they must fit in with the majority.

But there is only so far that each model can go and both have their flaws.

So, I'm interested to know why in France, minority religions aren't expressed comfortably and everyone has to fit with the majority - whereas in the UK, religious minorities are accommodated to the point that the courts have to decide whether the human rights of one group can over-ride those of another (eg sexual orientation vs religion).

Feel free to correct any misunderstandings I may have and please throw your own thoughts into the mix.

. Home
. About
. Contact
. Advertise
. New User Guide
. FAQ
. Search
. Search (Google)
. Archives (Wiki)
Art, Economics, Energy, Environment, EU Politics, Mech & Tech, By Country

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Community vs collectivity? | 70 comments (70 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Tip Jar (4.00 / 5)

I like exploring how different discourse develops and the set of values that go with it.

One thing I have heard a lot lately - there is no shared understanding of equality or equal opportunities, therefore no common approach to tackling inequality or having a vision of what an equal society would look like.

Ad astra per aspera

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Thu Feb 14th, 2008 at 10:53:40 AM EDT

Re: Community vs collectivity? (4.00 / 4)

As Clermont Tonnerre said in front of the National Assembly in 1791, everything must be given to the jew as an individual ; nothing must be given to the jews as a collective group.

It doesn't prevent from adapting to various beliefs ; and non-pork meat is served in public schools, etc... Making sure that all individuals have access to services is important ; making sure that those services don't discriminate, too.

But once you recognise ethnic groups - that have special needs, special rights, not as a bunch of individuals, but as a group - how do you avoid ghettoisation ? How far are you from "separate but equal" ?

And we're not talking about not taking into account "demographic" differences. Counting the proportion of children, elderly, men and women, etc... is done and obviously important. But why should "ethnicity" be a criteria for the public service ? How does that not lead to various discriminations ? Once you decide the services should be specifically designed to accommodate a particular ethnicity, does the inevitable local minority not feel disenfranchised ? Should we have women-only swimming pools, forbid the sale of meat on Fridays ?

Hey, I've never understood why religion should be seen by the state as more important that, say, football fandom, knitting, stamp collecting, or whatever hobby one practices. Why should it get a special status ?

The whole French way of seeing this subject is that there are human rights for individuals, but not for groups. The French republic is one and indivisible. At least until Sarkozy attempts to change it (which he is trying to do.)

The concept that socialisation has to be linked to business relationships is a great victory for business relationships, not for socialisation...

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Thu Feb 14th, 2008 at 10:57:24 AM EDT

Re: Community vs collectivity? (none / 0)

That approach isn't a different as I first thought then. The aim is to understand individual needs to be able to meet them. But some areas will have a higher population of individuals with broad similarities.
eg where you know that there is a higher muslim population it makes sense to allocate resources to ensure that muslim women can have access to, women only swimming sessions once or twice a week, for example. Not women only swimming pools but a compromise that allows muslim/any women to swim and feel comfortable and safe.

Knowing where there are higher populations of older people or children ensures that enough care homes or schools are available in an area - as you mention, it's important to know these such demographics.

Knowing ethnicity profiles allows service planning to avoid disadvantaging minority ethnic groups - this does not amount to discriminating against majority groups though, just ensuring that access is available for all. This is easier done if you know where and how many in terms of ethnicity, because there could be a higher demand for a certain type of service provision as a result.

The right to practise ones religion is a fundamental human right. It isn't in the same league as expressing one's preference for a football team. I'm not a religious person and I often think the world would be a much better place without religion but the bottom line is that there are a number of religions and it wouldn't be a fair point for me to say that people always have a choice about whether they practise a religion or not, any more than people have a 'choice' about what age or gender they are. These are all characteristics that affect how people live their lives and the way in which they can access society.

But aside from all of that, European legislation protects people form being discriminated against on the grounds of religion and belief and ethnicity - this includes unintentional and indirect discrimination through not making adequate provision in service delivery.

Ethnicity can also be separate from religion. Where you have communities with a higher proportion of black people for example, evidence suggests that they are less likely to be employed (a number of factors, expectations and poor educational performance, discrimination from employers). So it may be that these communities would be targetted to encourage them to seek employment or go back to college or do skills training to improve their chances of gaining employment.

I suppose another point to bring into the mix is how do public services genuinely manage to offer individual access? I believe that would be the ideal but the resources aren't there to allow for every possible choice an individual would wish to make. The political will in the UK isn't there to offer that despite banging on about customer care and citizens as consumers of services (taking over from citizens receiving services without much choice or where, when and how.)

So we aren't that far apart in believing that human rights are for individuals, but how can that most effectively be put into practise?

Ad astra per aspera

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Thu Feb 14th, 2008 at 11:43:19 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (4.00 / 2)

eg where you know that there is a higher muslim population it makes sense to allocate resources to ensure that muslim women can have access to, women only swimming sessions once or twice a week, for example. Not women only swimming pools but a compromise that allows muslim/any women to swim and feel comfortable and safe.

You don't put women only hours because there are muslims in the area ; you put women only sessions(if at all ; if, say, the white people tell you they are uncomfortable with seeing black people in the swimming pool, do you arrange white-only sessions ?) when many individuals are demanding such possibilities.

You'd be surprised that many "muslim" women (as religion and ethnicity are often confused) would like to go to the swimming pool at all hours. Of course, when there are women only sessions, it means those women of the targeted religion that will go to the non-women only session will be seen as disrespecting their religion. And indeed, may more or less lose the ability to go to the swimming pool at all hours.

This is easier done if you know where and how many in terms of ethnicity, because there could be a higher demand for a certain type of service provision as a result.

Are the African American that get into Harvard on affirmative action those from the 'hood, or those of middle class origin that would have gotten there anyway ?

Targeting policies on ethnicity is often less efficient than targeting them on socioeconomic class, or on need. You put services based on actual need, not because there's a correlation between ethnicity and need (and correlation isn't causation).

The right to practise ones religion is a fundamental human right. It isn't in the same league as expressing one's preference for a football team. I'm not a religious person and I often think the world would be a much better place without religion but the bottom line is that there are a number of religions and it wouldn't be a fair point for me to say that people always have a choice about whether they practise a religion or not, any more than people have a 'choice' about what age or gender they are. These are all characteristics that affect how people live their lives and the way in which they can access society.

No, sorry, people don't have more or less a choice about which football team they support than which religion they practice. And many people care much more about that team than about any religion.

Putting the "religion" tag on a hobby doesn't make it untouchable. Or do I get to fund my theft-practising religion of cocain-sniffing nudists ?

But aside from all of that, European legislation protects people form being discriminated against on the grounds of religion and belief and ethnicity - this includes unintentional and indirect discrimination through not making adequate provision in service delivery.

What happened to the normal, democratic cycle of asking what people want, letting them vote for the people who will decide what to do, etc... ? Why the shortcut of "ethnicity" ?

Ethnicities, religious groupings, aren't even homogeneous.

And again, why the emphasis on ethnicity rather than, say, social class ? If an ethnicity is 'disenfranchised', it is most of the time because its members are poor.

Italian, Spanish, Auvergnats, all those immigrants to Paris were disenfranchised right after the time of their immigration. An ethnicity based approach would have concluded they had specific need... But those communities have now merged into the Parisian population. Their problems were economic, not ethnic. Pointing out their ethnic particularities slowed their integration.

So we aren't that far apart in believing that human rights are for individuals, but how can that most effectively be put into practise?

Human rights are universal. Don't depend on groups. If you decide to create a ticking box for saying "I am this or that" and decide to provide services based on the answers, you have given up universality.

And, worse, you reinforce the subgroups. It becomes important that everyone who might belong to the subgroup check the box - the services provided depend on it.

The concept that socialisation has to be linked to business relationships is a great victory for business relationships, not for socialisation...

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Thu Feb 14th, 2008 at 12:54:42 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (none / 1)

You don't put women only hours because there are muslims in the area ; you put women only sessions(if at all ; if, say, the white people tell you they are uncomfortable with seeing black people in the swimming pool, do you arrange white-only sessions ?) when many individuals are demanding such possibilities.

But having evidence to show that there is a higher muslim population, therefore a higher chance that this provision may be needed or requested, allows the need to be anticipated and provided for. It does not equate to assuming that groups are homogenous and in previous diaries I have discussed how groups are totally far from homogenous.

It's easy enough to monitor and review how services are used. So it may be that only 4 women a week turn up to women only swimming sessions. Maybe 70 turn up, therefore review and decide whether to keep the service or not. But not providing the service at all, you do not know whether women are NOT turning up because of it. It could be the only form of exercise some women do, so it has health implications.

I am not saying that ALL people from a particular group will want to make use of a certain provision. Services need to be planned and probability derived from the demographics can help to anticipate demands on services.

Not all individuals feel empowered to complain or request something. They may not know what could be made available to them. I stopped going to the cinema because adequate provision was not made for me. I've given up requesting loop systems that work or asking why they don't put on more subtitled films. The same analogy can be made to public service provision. People can be ignored, people may not see the point in complaining or requesting provision. It is the responsibility of service providers to try to anticipate need. If there is no take up, then it can be removed.

What happened to the normal, democratic cycle of asking what people want, letting them vote for the people who will decide what to do, etc... ? Why the shortcut of "ethnicity" ?

We can take all politicians at their word then? they say they will do x,y,z means that they will? Even so, the politicians themselves do not design the services at local levels, really. Ethnicity, and gender and age and disability demographics help to anticipate what the needs and demands may be.

I do not dispute the importance of social class/wealth to all of this. That remains a crucial factor in access to opportunities and life chances. But other characteristics also play their part.

Institutionalised racism exists in public services, in employment, in education, in healthcare - and only by acknowledging this can it be tackled properly.

Migrant communities from the A8 countries (or areas such as Somalia) in the UK are given support to integrate by provision of language lessons, by employing people from these minority groups to ensure that information is going out to these communities, by trying to promote good relations between different groups. We can only do that when we know where these people are and how many of them there are. Leaving them to fend for themselves doesn't work, they become ghettoised far more that way. It's far easier for immigrants from countries like Italy, France, Spain etc to 'integrate' into the UK.

And when we've seen the riots around race issues in Paris, I don't really see how I can believe that France has been successful with integration.

Ad astra per aspera

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Thu Feb 14th, 2008 at 01:38:12 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (none / 0)

Another Murdoch's alert !

Read E.T. archives abut those riots, they never were about race or ethnicity but about economy and state care!

"What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman

by margouillat (hemidactylus(dot)frenatus(at)wanadoo(dot)fr) on Thu Feb 14th, 2008 at 01:52:43 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (none / 1)

But the way it was dealt with, racism played it's part. Do you not see institutionised racism play any part in all of that?

Ad astra per aspera

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Thu Feb 14th, 2008 at 02:35:33 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Regarding the political aspect... (none / 0)

Market-provided services have a mixture of advantages and disadvantages that varies from case to case. In this context, an advantage is that their provision is largely de-politicised and tends to be responsive to minority preferences. Where applicable, this tends to decrease contention, presumably promoting social harmony. At the margin, of course.

Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.

by technopolitical on Thu Feb 14th, 2008 at 07:19:07 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (none / 1)

But having evidence to show that there is a higher muslim population, therefore a higher chance that this provision may be needed or requested, allows the need to be anticipated and provided for. It does not equate to assuming that groups are homogenous and in previous diaries I have discussed how groups are totally far from homogenous.

One big problem I have with this attitude is that in essence, you consider the State should concern itself with the specific needs of some (potentially very closed) groups of people. I am not talking about providing services to disabled people : that I have no problem with, it is indeed very important.

The French objection is only about ethnicity. The swimming pool case, for example, is pretty much about providing a muslim-specific service. Once again, there may be people who are deterred from going to the swimming pool because there are black people there. A white only or black only session should still not be provided.

The French nation recognises, constitutionally, no ethnicity. Providing ethnic-only services, even though those are not explicitely segregated, raises a lot of alarm bells. Do you provide separate gym lessons for the muslim pupils, with a female teacher ?

We can take all politicians at their word then? they say they will do x,y,z means that they will? Even so, the politicians themselves do not design the services at local levels, really. Ethnicity, and gender and age and disability demographics help to anticipate what the needs and demands may be.

That's a very technocratic approach. And it shows a problem in the local feedback loops of the UK ; the municipalities are way too small in France, but one of the definite advantages is that the mayor will be a close by person. It definitely won't be hard to approach him on a specific request, or to tray and get somebody else elected.

Migrant communities from the A8 countries (or areas such as Somalia) in the UK are given support to integrate by provision of language lessons, by employing people from these minority groups to ensure that information is going out to these communities, by trying to promote good relations between different groups. We can only do that when we know where these people are and how many of them there are. Leaving them to fend for themselves doesn't work, they become ghettoised far more that way. It's far easier for immigrants from countries like Italy, France, Spain etc to 'integrate' into the UK.

Firstly, I want to point out I'm not talking about Italian immigrants now going into the UK. I'm talking about, say, a Italian farmer emigrating to Paris in the 1920's. The culture shock was similar as that of people immigrating from Morocco in the 70's, if not stronger. They were violently harassed for quite some time. And indeed, at first they behaved as communities. But the French state didn't really treat them as such. It idn't try to provide Italian-language swimming lessons or special school sections, to employ community leaders. And yet, there is no Italian ghetto right now in Paris, but many people of Italian origins. They may go to Italy see the family and eat the food twice a year, but they are fully integrated into French society.

Considering immigrants as groups helps them remains grouped and potentially ghettoized.

And when we've seen the riots around race issues in Paris, I don't really see how I can believe that France has been successful with integration.

Yes. Especially in the suburbs of Lille where the great-grand children of Polish and Portuguese and Belgian immigrants rioted along the chtimi's.

Institutionalised racism exists in public services, in employment, in education, in healthcare - and only by acknowledging this can it be tackled properly.

There's no need of race statistics to know the French police is racist. There's a need of a government willing to stand up to the police.

There are other ways to demonstrate that instutitionalized racism - such as "testing". That's how it's done in France.

Note that the only "communautarian" statistics - it's possible to ask nationality at birth of parents, etc..., tend to show that place of origin plays a relatively small role in socio-economic status ; much less important than parental socio-economic status.

The concept that socialisation has to be linked to business relationships is a great victory for business relationships, not for socialisation...

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Thu Feb 14th, 2008 at 09:02:33 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (none / 0)

The right to practise ones religion is a fundamental human right. It isn't in the same league as expressing one's preference for a football team. I'm not a religious person and I often think the world would be a much better place without religion but the bottom line is that there are a number of religions and it wouldn't be a fair point for me to say that people always have a choice about whether they practise a religion or not, any more than people have a 'choice' about what age or gender they are. These are all characteristics that affect how people live their lives and the way in which they can access society.

I think you underestimate how seriously some people (mainly men) take football:

"Football is not a matter of life and death, it's far more important than that!" Bill Shankly

But, more seriously, just because some people take their beliefs seriously, this does not mean that the rest of us must do so. Nor does the state have to do so, apart from allowing freedom of belief - except where this has a negative impact on others. Must we really take the idea of teaching creationism seriously, just because some people take it seriously?

The current republication of the Danish cartoons which upset some Muslims is an example. Free speech, even when it offends others (in fact especially then) is a vital freedom. Religious people ought not to be able to limit this right, especially not by threats of and actual violence, even murder. Learning to deal with feeling offended is an important requirement of living in a tolerant, civilized society. If everything is the will of Allah, as some believe, presumably it was his will that they were published - perhaps to test the faith of Muslims (cf. a Christian argument for the reason for evil in the world).

There is also the problem that there are so many religions, are you going to try to accommodate the wishes of all of them, sometimes conflicting with each other?

Also it's not like age, about which one has no choice; people can and do choose to leave a religion, join another one, or manage without one. The fact that someone might feel they have no choice about their beliefs and feel unhappy that the state does not accommodate those beliefs - e.g. that abortion, divorce, etc. should be banned and that the stoning of gays and adulterers, etc. should be enforced - is their problem.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice. Blog - Nice Experience

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Thu Feb 14th, 2008 at 12:51:07 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (none / 0)

I am not saying that religion is more important than anything else that has an impact on an individual's life.

I have not been trying to dissect my own views here but to look at UK/European discourse around equality.

Personally, I do not believe that giving people the right to express their beliefs or follow a religion in any way should over-ride the rights of any other person to have freedom and safety in how they live their life. Yes, some people take religion very seriously but I think it is a private matter for them and should not interfere with anybody else's life. Just to make that clear.

I also do not believe that religion should have any place in dictating public policy. ie public policy to say that christian values should be upheld according to so and so's interpretation of the Bible - where gay people are sinners and women must be meek and mild and children must not know anything about Darwins theory of evolution.

I'm talking here about service provision. Someone who has been brought up within a strict religious environment is not going to be empowered or may not wish to ignore their upbringing. So a muslim woman will not allow herself to be examined by a male gynacologist - what if she has cervical cancer? She'll die if she isn't accessing services due to there not being a female doctor. The same provision can be given to a woman who won't allow a male doctor to examine her because she has been abused or raped. It benefits more than one to put further thought into delivery of services to accommodate individual needs rather than a one size fits all model. But equally, there are not the resources to completely individualise the service, so, understanding demographics and the associated characteristics allows services to be planned to meet as many needs as possible, effectively.

But the key point I am trying to make is that legislation says that individuals should not be discriminated against on the basis of having - or NOT having - a religion or belief. And the question is around how do service providers ensure that needs are met and that they do not indirectly discriminate against certain groups because they have failed to take their needs into account?

I am also not just talking about religion but ethnicity also - the two can be completely separate.

Ad astra per aspera

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Thu Feb 14th, 2008 at 01:07:38 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (none / 0)

I do understand what you're saying (and appreciate the diary, apart that it's not the best day for me, work wise :-) )!

Let's have a look at your example, the women that doesn't want to be seen by a male gynecologist... See I don't even say she "could" be muslim, some women disliking males as a generality (and no, it's not a sexist remark :-) ) or simply some old spinster quite shy !

If you allow such attitude in a given society, you state that men and women are not equal... And if you search work it's just natural that you won't bee paid in a similar manner!

If on the contrary you state that men and women have equal rights, that means that you'll have male and female doctors everywhere. If you state that medical examination is a right for all (male, female, old young, rich, poor), then you have a social security system that allows for a given women to "choose" the doctor she want's to see - either on a qualification basis (he's the best!), sexual one (he's cute), or whatever goes by one 's mind (he has seen a flying saucer!).

Which one is the best service ? the one that fits all or the one that has "tagged" waiting lines (men, women, children) - Uh oh... The little green one there from Mars hasn't a chance ! -

"What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman

by margouillat (hemidactylus(dot)frenatus(at)wanadoo(dot)fr) on Thu Feb 14th, 2008 at 02:08:54 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (none / 1)

I can cope psychologically with being examined by a male doctor. But many women cannot because it would be too traumatic or it would violate a belief, for example.

I agree there should be choice, but the system as it is does not offer that full choice and is a long way from doing so.

Given various inequalities in society, there are fewer women doctors available, especially in certain fields. So it takes thought in the planning process to ensure that some clinics will have female doctors available, which may require extra resources to be put in to achieve that.

I'm not saying I disagree with choice to access the services as, when and how ANY individual wants to - I'm saying that services (in the UK at least) are not delivered that way, therefore thought must go into the planning process to make sure that groups are not being missed off or disadvantaged.

I'm NOT saying that minority needs should be prioritised over majority needs, but they must be considered and attempts made to remove any barriers to access - which the majority do not face.

If you can plan services to provide good access for minorities and therefore catering for diversity, then the side affect is that it will benefit the majority because service delivery has become more diverse, therefore meeting more needs whether people can 'tick a box' or not.

Ad astra per aspera

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Thu Feb 14th, 2008 at 03:00:21 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (none / 1)

Not so... As in your example, you would have to provide several women doctors... One for each faith, ethnicity or even region (as a welsh minority you might want a welsh speaking doctor ?)... There's no limit ! And of course we all know that having one doctor at the right time (as the plumber) isn't so easy whether it's a he or a she ! :-)

Another example in the same style would be the "Jehovah" followers. They don't allow for blood transfusion... Does the doctor let the kid die to respect the faith of his parents ? Do you allow for excision on young girls, because it's "tradition"?

The point is not that such country, faith, ethnic group, old lore, is "bad" per se... But you can't believe in human rights at the same time then closing eyes on their regular violations on "cultural" pretexts ...

It's not without analogy to "systems", when you start with one, you usually have to go all the way...

It's also about "private" rights, space, liberty, etc. A full dose of liberty and you can kill who you want (no laws, what for ?), a full dose of restriction of liberties and you have totalitarianism (there's only one law, me - the chief).

The there is the "public" part - how much of it? Is it an "in-between" that would allow for some to "breathe" and link the myriad's of minorities, or is it the major space of our societies ?

It's like rope walking... Not easy and a fragile imbalance (not balance) or you fall !

"What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman

by margouillat (hemidactylus(dot)frenatus(at)wanadoo(dot)fr) on Thu Feb 14th, 2008 at 05:16:31 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (4.00 / 2)

"A full dose of liberty and you can kill who you want (no laws, what for ?), a full dose of restriction of liberties and you have totalitarianism (there's only one law, me - the chief)."

There is a crucial distinction between law and orders. One definition of "liberty" is freedom from control by another person, that is, freedom from commands. Law may be restrictive, but isn't inconsistent with liberty.

A chief's will isn't law, because it isn't a rule intended for universal application to unspecified persons. (A chief may make laws, of course.)

There are good, practical reasons for using this definition of liberty. For one, it makes "liberty" an ideal that can be approached by a civil society, rather than being recipe for anarchy that must be avoided by a wide margin. Many libertarians misunderstand the concept of liberty, and their misunderstanding gives it a bad name, which, of course, undermines liberty.
-------------

In the present context, I'd argue that there should be a framework of universal law, grounded in a concept of human rights, and that within the broad limits of that law, groups should be able to make more specific law applicable to their members. This principle, applied geographically, is an aspect of federalism. Why must it be based on (coarse-grained) geography?

Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.

by technopolitical on Thu Feb 14th, 2008 at 08:32:42 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (none / 1)

The thing is, how do you avoid people switching groups when the timing suits themselves ? Do you intend to force people to stay within one group ? We are already reaching the limits of federalism, seeing corporations playing the tax rates of one EU country against another.

"personal laws" bring back the idea of casts. In Europe we moved out of it quite some time ago.

The concept that socialisation has to be linked to business relationships is a great victory for business relationships, not for socialisation...

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Thu Feb 14th, 2008 at 09:20:01 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (none / 1)

There is much to dislike about the idea, but the question is whether some well-crafted version would be better than the alternatives.
----------

Regarding exiting a group, I think this must be a universal right, but not timed so as to escape an acceptable punishment for an offence (the meaning of "acceptable" here is in need of crafting, and the boundary would surely be fuzzy). The analogy here is emigration, only not necessarily geographical in nature.

Regarding corporations and taxes, as you say, this is already a problem; non-geographical (or fine-grained geographical) law does not change anything essential. (As for corporations, there is no reason to regard them as having rights in the first place, which provides considerable latitude for applying restrictive laws.)

Regarding castes, freedom of exit makes an enormous difference. Membership in a restrictive group would be optional, reversible, and not necessarily hereditary.
----------

The alternative, it seems to me, is to pit groups seeking order and decency (by their standards) against those seeking a different sort of order and decency. Or, to put it concretely, indigenous peoples (e.g., those of Europe) have more reason to fear immigrants if those immigrants may eventually establish noxious laws that are universally applicable throughout their ancestral homeland. They would have less reason to fear if groups could get most of what they want without forcing it on others.

Note that the world is becoming saturated with surveillance systems, and that this will change possibilities for law enforcement in relevant ways. In particular, it will likely make restrictions more effective and potentially personalised. All the more reason to be able to opt out of other people's offencive notions of right and wrong -- and to opt into a context that enforces one's own enlightened standards.

Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.

by technopolitical on Fri Feb 15th, 2008 at 03:01:56 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (none / 1)

technopolitical:

They would have less reason to fear if groups could get most of what they want without forcing it on others.

Really interesting point. I think the UK approach tries to provide for the needs and wishes of different communities but not to the extent that it forces this on any other individual or community. So the balance is continually being struck sometimes with success and sometimes not.

Ad astra per aspera

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Fri Feb 15th, 2008 at 03:15:16 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (none / 1)

How does a community express its wishes?

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Feb 15th, 2008 at 03:27:02 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (none / 0)

Partly through research and stats (including focus groups, surveys etc) and also through the usual means of elected representatives, local councillors, representative organisations seeking feedback from communities.

But the UK has been through various models of 'public engagment' or consultation over the years.

The approach is to accept that information will not get out to everyone and even when it does, not everyone will know what alternatives they could ask for or to be empowered to ask for that. So services have a responsibility to anticipate need based on good practice elsewhere, and research findings on the needs of different communities and successful interventions.

Ad astra per aspera

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Fri Feb 15th, 2008 at 03:49:39 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (none / 0)

I'm not fully grasping what is meant by 'universality' and as such not seeing how it works in practice. So when I get that, I will have a better understanding of where you are coming from.

I have no dispute with you saying fundamental human rights to each and every person but I'm not seeing how that is implemented in practice in France.

Human rights should quite rightly over-ride religious or cultural traditions that cause oppression or indignity to individuals - the UK does not attempt to turn a blind eye or allow violations of human rights such as the examples you offer. So we are saying the same thing about human rights but go about implementing that in different ways.

Ad astra per aspera

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Thu Feb 14th, 2008 at 05:27:45 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (none / 1)

I f we really knew how to work it in practice... The whole world would be aware of the fact :-)

It reminds me of an Indian cartoonist book on the "third eye's view" :-)

Human rights were designed by occidental prone people - in enlighten times - The Afghan problem diary, here on ET, mentions that "viewpoint" siding... And that's the trouble. You can live well in a completely different cultural world, if you believe fully in it, in it's goals (religious or not). The everyday emotions would be the same... So why should we change them???

Is it because of immigration overload? Why is there in the first place? Why would I go to another country, live there, take the nationality ? Surely it must be, because either I feel it's freer system then mine, or it's because I'll have more money...
In one case I came for the values in the other for the value... Maybe not exactly the same thing! :-) (ok, it's late)!

It is really an important but difficult point... And it's hard to have an external viewpoint ! :-)

"What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman

by margouillat (hemidactylus(dot)frenatus(at)wanadoo(dot)fr) on Thu Feb 14th, 2008 at 07:30:22 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (none / 1)

Marx started with pretty much the same argument in 'on the jewish question'. Emancipation is not done through recognizing people as a member of a group, but as people. Otherwise, you are forced to recognize the rest of the people as a group too (in his time, the christians.. and probably still today, although white is probably better now.) And as a group with a collective social arrangement they may want to impinge on other people's rights... Which courts then prevent by calling upon 'higher rights'... of man, that is, individuals taken as humans.

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

by UnEstranAvecVueSurMer (holopherne ahem gmail) on Thu Feb 14th, 2008 at 11:49:37 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (none / 1)

I agree with recognising people as individuals and I'm not trying to say we shouldn't. People are people and everyone is different. But demographics combined with limited resources to allocate requires planning of service provision and delivery.

Fluctuation in demand for certain types of provision can be anticipated by knowing the demographics. This can then be reviewed as services are delivered to see if all people are accessing the services without facing any disadvantage or exclusion.

Where people can't access services they are often not empowered to complain or request something better, or may not know how to exercise their rights. I still think there is a big question mark over how you provide individualised services? The UK utterly fails on this one.

Ad astra per aspera

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Thu Feb 14th, 2008 at 12:42:11 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (4.00 / 2)

I have expanded on my views downthread a little bit.

I'm not quite sure what the contention is here. I gathered that you were talking about how to provide individuals services tailored to their needs, with the implication that some people's need weren't mainstream enough to be provided as part of a general social consensus (say one soccer field for every 500 kids). More particularly, some needs have a religious, ethnic, or sexual basis that aren't easily used to justify special provision. The channels to express such need may be lacking, social stigma may hinder demands, which calls for public assessment of the situation by other means that what's currently in place.

You've mentioned a more precise census, but the recipients of censuses are state organizations.. are they supposed to decide both what public amenities are required and at which density threshold they should be provided? If I assume not than you fall back on the channel of demand problem...

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

by UnEstranAvecVueSurMer (holopherne ahem gmail) on Fri Feb 15th, 2008 at 12:28:27 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (none / 1)

I still think there is a big question mark over how you provide individualised services? The UK utterly fails on this one.

You provide universal services. France used not to fail so much at that. Now it has changed a bit.

The concept that socialisation has to be linked to business relationships is a great victory for business relationships, not for socialisation...

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Thu Feb 14th, 2008 at 12:56:29 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (none / 0)

What do you mean by universal services? One size does not fit all and treating everybody the same way hides and further reinforces inequality.

Ad astra per aspera

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Thu Feb 14th, 2008 at 01:11:09 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (4.00 / 2)

Sorry, but there's only gonna be one law for all. No special family or property laws for specific subgroups. (That doesn't imply disabled don't get specific compensation ; but ethnicity, religion are out of the question)

And, well, a lot of what the French government, regions, departements, etc... do is decided upon various forms of law.

What is meant (or more precisely used to be meant) by universal service is that the State (or local community) provides a basic form of public service everywhere and for everyone. This includes schooling, police (a big problem is that in some parts the police is acting in quite non-normal ways), postal service, health, etc...

This means that even in the farthest corner of the Guyana jungle a stamp to Paris will cost the same as if bought in Paris.

"treating everybody the same way" doesn't imply not looking at what influences success, and trying to correct the causes of it ; indeed some schools in the suburbs have (supposedly, as this is not done correctly) better financing. But the criteria for determining those problem schools are only actual lousy results or school violence... If it was found out a state agent considered putting a school in this category because the neighbourhood had lots of Arabs, the scandal it would launch would be quite impressive...

The concept that socialisation has to be linked to business relationships is a great victory for business relationships, not for socialisation...

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Thu Feb 14th, 2008 at 09:12:22 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (none / 0)

Inequalities in what ? If you're supposed to know a given amount of knowledge to pass an exam, will you apply a moderating ratio following whatever weird categories ? You know or you don't, you've studied or you haven't...!
Even Imam's allow for not respecting ramadan for students if they can't do otherwise !

We have here the "tiers temps" for exams, allowing people with disabling problems to have more time (one third more) and the possibility to pass the exam alone in a room (with an examiner). It works for physical disabilities (big face lupus, leper, blind, deaf and dumb, etc...) as it works for people having some rare mental disabilities and being as a result a bit more slow but not dumber !

When we have the problem of religious days (friday, saturday, sunday), we don't say that such religion goer can miss a day, we find a system that allows everybody to miss a day, chosen by him in the week... The young mothers are just as happy as the poor student who can finance part of his studies...

This is more about universality (it's for everybody alike) then for "tagging" people "Oh, he's a ... (fill the blank)"! You never have to say why you miss a day to your fellow students nor the administration, as the system allows for it !

Asking about rights for such or such group is the best way I know for injustice... Thinking it over and finding a solution that fits all makes everyone happy !

"What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman

by margouillat (hemidactylus(dot)frenatus(at)wanadoo(dot)fr) on Thu Feb 14th, 2008 at 01:48:58 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (none / 1)

Do you not believe that institutionalised discrimination exists? Glass ceilings for women or disabled people?

Religion I think is slightly different in some ways since methods can be found to allow different religions to co-exist - you gave an example of people choosing which day of the week to take off.

But ethnicity is different, so is gender and disability, and also age, because prejudices and stereotypes exist that marginalise those groups.

If no data is collected then this cannot be monitored for patterns to emerge. eg very, very few women are Chief execs compared to men. Is this because women are lazy, or because they have chosen to take time off for children or because they choose to paint their nails and dress up instead of working hard? Or are there other factors that are causing disadvantage and preventing women from reaching senior positions? We can only look into these trends when we have the data to show that there is some anomaly. Same thing applies to ethnicity but the causes are much more subtle.

If men and women, and black people and white people are so equal - why are there such big differences in outcomes?

I'm intrigued as to why the British approach is to gather data and find out more about why and how differences occur and the French approach is to treat everyone the same and not monitor anything.

Ad astra per aspera

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Thu Feb 14th, 2008 at 03:24:38 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (none / 1)

It's not because we don't monitor that we don't get the feedback... :-)
From associations to city halls to state it can get done !

My very own mother, had a problem with some medical alarm at night (we wanted it for her) and her free bus pass for elderly ! The rules were so well done that she couldn't have the two... So before tossing over the alarm she went to see her deputy ( all free, no lawyers, just the classical way ) stated the problem - he told her about getting some commissions on the study- so she wrote and went to see the mayor of Paris - she did see him - he stated that this would change if he was re-elected - so... It finished in the PM cabinet with all those guys looking at a 95 years old woman arguing about injustice for the elderly ! This time she didn't win and tossed the alarm (she didn't care, it was for the fun of being a "citizen")

Twenty years ago she had a law passed "for her", meaning for all the people in her situation at that time (obscure thing about retirement points when abroad). She had made about the same trip around the different representative and the proposition was presented to the assembly and voted (maybe there was nobody as usual) :-)

This is what Habermas calls the integration by individual of society...

Or something not very different :-)

"What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman

by margouillat (hemidactylus(dot)frenatus(at)wanadoo(dot)fr) on Thu Feb 14th, 2008 at 06:59:30 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (none / 0)

Europe was the first immigrant. If we Europeans, we have to be land of welcome.

When Procrustes looks after you, you're sure to fit in.

by PerCLupi on Thu Feb 14th, 2008 at 07:34:26 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (4.00 / 3)

There is an aspect of the issue of individuals and groups that hasn't been touched upon yet I think.

From the point of view of the state, claims can be made only when they represent concerns or interest of a group, for the group is the relevant political unit in our societies. See Margouillat's grandma's experience.

For the state, it make no sense to foster groups which can then become platforms for more radical or demanding changes. This is why, I think, the French state refuses to discuss anything in terms of 'freedom to be a member of a group' (the veil in school) and instead focuses on those rights which can be given a universal, broad basis (the right to religious belief).

Of course, on the one hand this approach minimizes tensions within political discourse. One ..oops being kicked out of the philosophy building. coming back later

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

by UnEstranAvecVueSurMer (holopherne ahem gmail) on Thu Feb 14th, 2008 at 08:52:59 PM EDT

Re: Community vs collectivity? (4.00 / 3)

So, yes... I was saying that it is irrational for a state to foster groups that it then needs to answer to. It has to deal with those who are already there, but certainly doesn't want to increase the number of groups it has to answer to. Linca has been pretty close to the true French ideological position on these matters, but I think that state based approach helps too.

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

by UnEstranAvecVueSurMer (holopherne ahem gmail) on Thu Feb 14th, 2008 at 10:01:18 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (4.00 / 3)

Putting up the true French ideological position TM is what I'm trying to do in this thread - its universalist aspects make it theoretically very tenable.

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.

The concept that socialisation has to be linked to business relationships is a great victory for business relationships, not for socialisation...

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Thu Feb 14th, 2008 at 10:24:04 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (4.00 / 2)

I didn't actually quite think about what it means in practice that the participants were very young. For sure one thing is that there couldn't be very strong ideological discourse...

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

by UnEstranAvecVueSurMer (holopherne ahem gmail) on Fri Feb 15th, 2008 at 12:17:45 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (4.00 / 2)

Historically the party that was catering to the proletarian suburbs was the PC, not the PS. The "Red Belt" around Paris was indeed quite successful at integrating the poor immigrants of the suburbs into French society. But around 1980 it took to a bit of a racist bent for a few years, and with the failure of the USSR lost the motivation and militancy required to do its work there.

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.

The concept that socialisation has to be linked to business relationships is a great victory for business relationships, not for socialisation...

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Fri Feb 15th, 2008 at 03:02:42 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (none / 1)

Thanks for the review.

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

by UnEstranAvecVueSurMer (holopherne ahem gmail) on Fri Feb 15th, 2008 at 08:56:01 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (none / 1)

Pieds Noir racism is quite different.
Many of them were civil servants, having state paid jobs being felt easier "there" then "here".
When they came back because of the war of independence, they kept their jobs and were resented for that by the ones who wanted those jobs!
The fact that they some were of a mixed ethnic group and that they symbolized the loss of Algeria didn't help either !!!

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

by margouillat (hemidactylus(dot)frenatus(at)wanadoo(dot)fr) on Fri Feb 15th, 2008 at 04:36:34 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (none / 1)

Many excellent comments and points, thanks. Also thanks to everyone else who has contributed to the thread.

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

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Fri Feb 15th, 2008 at 03:11:47 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (none / 1)

This is what worries me: "communities living side-by-side". So if, you're part of the (white? white+young? white+young+female? white+young+female+Welsh?) deaf community (and I do recall your issues here, which are also illuminating, but let's just pick an example) and I'm part of the rich white male community are we both part of the same community? Substitute 'tribe' for 'community' and you start developing real problems.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Feb 15th, 2008 at 03:25:47 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (none / 1)

You're concisely summing up the "French" objections to the communitarian viewpoint.

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 ?

The concept that socialisation has to be linked to business relationships is a great victory for business relationships, not for socialisation...

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Fri Feb 15th, 2008 at 03:31:51 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (none / 1)

In my reply to Linca below, I talk a little more about communities.

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

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Fri Feb 15th, 2008 at 03:41:40 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (4.00 / 2)

You talk about "helping communities live side by side" but are amazed when these communities turn tribal ?

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.

The concept that socialisation has to be linked to business relationships is a great victory for business relationships, not for socialisation...

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Fri Feb 15th, 2008 at 04:00:03 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (none / 1)

I'm not just talking about my own views but I'm discussing the UK discourse.

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

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Fri Feb 15th, 2008 at 04:19:59 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (4.00 / 3)

Sorry for mistaking your view with the UK's, this often happen in these kind of discussion when discussing models...

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.

The concept that socialisation has to be linked to business relationships is a great victory for business relationships, not for socialisation...

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Fri Feb 15th, 2008 at 05:11:17 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (none / 1)

Mother... Not Grand'ma !!!!!!! Yes I'm not so young ! :-)
And while I'm at it , it's Margouillat for In Wales, not Margouillet though it has definitely a french ring to it :-) :-) :-)

"What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman

by margouillat (hemidactylus(dot)frenatus(at)wanadoo(dot)fr) on Fri Feb 15th, 2008 at 04:19:31 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (4.00 / 2)

I noticed I'd made a mistake and intended to go back to correct it but got all involved in the discussion! Sorry!

Ad astra per aspera

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Fri Feb 15th, 2008 at 04:21:51 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (none / 1)

No need, I thought it was funny :-)

"What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman

by margouillat (hemidactylus(dot)frenatus(at)wanadoo(dot)fr) on Fri Feb 15th, 2008 at 04:40:15 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (4.00 / 2)

ooppss my bad !

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

by UnEstranAvecVueSurMer (holopherne ahem gmail) on Fri Feb 15th, 2008 at 09:06:22 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (4.00 / 3)

One thing you're missing is that the French people (including many from "ethnic minorities") refuse a communitarian model where you'd get Algerians living with Algerians and "whites" with whites and people from Mali living together, for generations and generations.

It seems from my point of view that ethnic communities are much more prevalent in the UK than in France. I think intermarriage rates (statistic obviously made on "immigrants" and "son of immigrants", not actual "ethnic community membership") are pretty high in France ; Dodo pointed out in his diary that he noticed a rather high proportion of multiracial couples.

"Communities" are not supposed to last in France. After a couple generations of immigrants, they are supposed to vanish or become more or less anecdotal.

The State using ethnic statistics, providing services based on this, means reinforcing rather than avoiding such communitarian tendencies, even if this reinforcing is not an explicit goal ; recognising ethnic groupings, constantly calling them by their names, such as Sarkozy is doing right now, can only reinforce such identities. Not that they need active suppressing ; but eventually they just disappear without such reinforcement.

One of the problem in the French suburb is that parts of the current French society isn't ready to accept, nor has properly taught the rules of society, to many inhabitants of these suburbs. These inhabitants have lost for all practical purpose their "former" ethnic identities. What's left is skin color, which causes discrimination, and thus a real lack of identity. This strange situation is the current failure of the French model.

Those "ethnic minorities" that don't grow up in the lousy suburbs tend to absorb and integrate French identity much more easily, and don't face the same problems. See my point upthread about those immigrating straight into a relatively high social status have much less problems at integration.

The concept that socialisation has to be linked to business relationships is a great victory for business relationships, not for socialisation...

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Thu Feb 14th, 2008 at 09:48:55 PM EDT

Re: Community vs collectivity? (4.00 / 3)

Interethnic marriage rates are especially high in France , compared to other countries. The ratio is markedly high for second generation magrehbin girls, which is positive. Girls are the hardest to let go when the family is essentially patriarchal.

I don't quite agree that immigrating in higher classes makes integration easier though: I would say that in those cases a sense of freedom ofchoice facilitates absorbing new norms.

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

by UnEstranAvecVueSurMer (holopherne ahem gmail) on Thu Feb 14th, 2008 at 10:05:48 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (4.00 / 2)

I think this shows the biggest different between France and the UK. We aim to promote integration but we do not have any emphasis on removing ethnic identities over time.

I've expanded on this in another post. We encourage sharing of different experiences and to embrace different cultures and communities, living alongside and with each each other.

And you are absolutely right about higher social status enabling easier integration. We see large ethnic communities in poor areas, and in these cases there is minimal integration and also minimal communication between groups and this isn't acceptable. The answer in the UK to tackling these situations is to provide services for these groups in order to reduce marginalisation, improve English/Welsh language skills and ensure good access to education, healthcare etc, so that in the longer term these communities should be less exclusive and less marginalised.

This isn't being done very well at the moment though and we are seeing very large areas of ethnic communities of increasing size and number, staying trapped in poverty and crime and further hindering any integration of either individuals or communities.

Ad astra per aspera

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Fri Feb 15th, 2008 at 03:26:23 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (4.00 / 3)

There is no emphasis on removing individuals' ethnic identities. Those more or less wither away, with some marks left ; but they wouldn't be stronger for a Malian immigrant than for a Parisian whose family comes from Brittany.

But you can't integrate groups. I'd like to see a really successful example of such a case. You can only integrate individuals.

As long as the technostructure providing services conceptualise their jobs as serving groups, maintaining those groups' identities, and reasons for self-cohesion (membership in group being important for access to group-catering services), you are building a separate but equal framework. Eventually, a segregationist one. That's the real problem I have with addressing minorities as "groups" .

And indeed, those communities aren't homogeneous, but such policies mean a stronger incentive for intra-group cohesion and homogeneity ; which means that instead of helping people to get easier access to the social tools for participation in mainstream society (which aren't only language and education, but an integrated socialisation for kids, for example), children grow up in a community-oriented environment, and thus socialise towards their community rather than the general society.

One of the big problems for African Americans in the US isn't only facing discrimination but that many grow up in an environment were drug dealing is a standard means of income and gang membership is normal. This is an extreme example of what socialising in a minority community means : an harder access to the social tools, assumptions, etc...of wider society.

The concept that socialisation has to be linked to business relationships is a great victory for business relationships, not for socialisation...

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Fri Feb 15th, 2008 at 03:44:52 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity? (4.00 / 3)

This is the problem that we are beginning to face in the UK - sleepwalking to segregation - were the recent headlines.

But because those community identity values are so ingrained in the UK, we can't make an easy switch to an approach such as you discuss.

But discourse is changing in the UK, and we are talking more about fundamental human rights that apply equally to everybody and recognising that where there are groups, there is conflict and segregation and one group's rights trumping another's. There is a move within the equalities field to a human rights approach but we are only at the beginning of the thought process.

Thanks for such a good discussion, it has been really useful.

Ad astra per aspera

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Fri Feb 15th, 2008 at 04:03:09 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Community vs collectivity?