| |
| Join Our Newsletter |
 Please Select sub-criteria |  |
|
|
|
|
| |
| Integration Disintegration |
02 |
|
|
| |
| |
| |
The Multicultural model had arisen in response to the persistent demand of activist groups working within and alongside nonwhite communities that their communal identity be validated by the state and protected from discrimination or attack, whether verbal or physical. It aimed to achieve intercultural, interracial harmony by recognising different identities and values as equally valid. Both state and society had to refrain from expressing preference or disdain for any of these various identities, and moreover, this entailed that an individual's membership of a particular community was an essential element of their individual identity.
Importantly, for critics of this view, this led to group identity taking precedence over the individual, a form of reverse racism and stereotyping. Rather than viewing Ahmed, Joe or Sofia as an individual, interacting with them on the basis of what I perceive to be their personal merits or faults, I treat them as a member of a 'community'. So without taking the person in front of me into account, I should treat them in line with what I have been told are the particular habits and outlook of a member of their 'group'. Critics argue that this is precisely the sort of prejudice that was supposed to have been eradicated by Multiculturalism. Furthermore, the political correctness this outlook obliges hinders the openness and honesty that should characterise interaction in the public sphere. Its end product is artificial and uncomfortable contact between people of different backgrounds, where fear of causing offence means we sacrifice the kind of honest contact with others that would actually contribute to cohesion in society.
The other danger of the Multicultural approach in the eyes of its critics was that it promoted a 'rights' culture that didn't recognise responsibilities. In the Muslim, immigrant context, that people constantly talked of how society had to give them more, with no sense that they had a duty to give something back to the society that had offered them so much. These fears were amplified in recent times following the rioting that took place in the towns of northern England in 2001. Across Europe, in the Netherlands, Denmark and elsewhere, parties of the right gained ground by promising to correct government policy gone mad.The bombings in London and the death of Theo Van Gogh in the Netherlands have of course magnified the tension surrounding the debate exponentially.
In the face of all of the problems the Multicultural approach is blamed for, many commentators have thus looked at the French approach as a potential saviour of Europe's identity.The key marker of France's current position in Europe's social cohesion debate is its decision in 2004 to ban the Islamic hijab and other 'conspicuous/ostentatious' religious symbols. The decision of France's parliament to support a formal ban on such symbols, gained support across the continent. Such proponents argued that these measures were essential to safeguard Europe's future, particularly to combat the threat of Islamic fundamentalism, whether in a politically active or violent manifestation.They encouraged all European countries to undertake similar powerful assertions of liberal,secular values.
The riots should thus serve as an indication of how ill-founded such hopes were. The high-blown rhetoric that marked the debate on the hijab has been proved utterly irrelevant to the situation on the ground. It is clear that France has not been successfully at establishing a cohesive relationship with her minorities, and the blame cannot be attributed to the multicultural agenda. Suddenly the French establishment has rediscovered how serious the problems of discrimination and neglect are that affect the banlieues surrounding it towns and cities. One of the few studies of French unemployment that included information on ethnic groups found that the average level of unemployment for immigrants of African origin was 27.38%, against an average of 8.8% for immigrants from the rest of the EU. [1] Even when youths from minority communities are successful academically, they still face discrimination and are unable to advance in the job market.
The rioting was brutal and counterproductive, and the youths destroying public buildings and attacking people only harmed their own communities. In most of the areas hit by violence and destruction of property, the victims were fellow residents of the suburbs, living through the same problems as their attackers. As is usually the case in such incidents, while a minority may think they are protesting to get their voices heard, a significant number will simply take advantage of the situation to engage in meaningless acts of violence.
Many commentators have found it easy to restrict themselves to condemning the youths who caused the disorder, and refuse to engage in any further analysis of the situation. For instance, right-wing politicians attacked the role of rappers in inciting anti-French sentiments, and in effect laying the groundwork for the rioting; over 200 members of parliament signed a petition calling for the prosecution of seven rap groups and musicians.The MP Francois Grosdidier who led the petition claimed that such music incited violence, "When people hear this all day long…it is no surprise that they then see red as soon as they walk past policemen or simply people who are different from them." [2]
Other more paranoid observers saw the long, sinister hand of Al-Qaeda at work in the suburbs, kicking off an intifada on French soil. According to this version, the riots were the first stage, or perhaps a dry run, for serious attempts at overturning the democratic order in Europe.
No matter how outlandish the claims are, the real issue the French elite have to address is why such massive numbers of youth are so disaffected from the rest of society. Why it is that such large numbers of people, in the thousands, could be mobilised on such a scale, regardless of how it was organised. It is abundantly clear that French society has not been able to offer these youth the kind of values or vision that would dissuade them from being involved in such actions.
| |
| |
| |
| |
< 1 2 3 >
Page 2 of 3 pages
| |
|
|
