Lecture 5 Flashcards
Jennie-Keith Ross writes about how diversity is defined socially:
She shows that, many social scientists’ treatments of diversity assume that underneath all that makes us different, we share a common humanity, one that unites us and one that has a bigger impact than that which makes us different from one another. If we follow that logic, then diversity are the various forms through which we differently express things which are common to all of us. Take the example of a sudden unfortunate death. Both witchcraft and life insurances may be ways of coping.
The classic anthropologist Evans-Pritchard who did research on Azande witchcraft analyses the following scene: a man seeks shade under a granary, but when he sits under it the granary collapses and kills the man. What happened? He shows that the Azande call it witchcraft. Neither do they deny that termites may have eaten away at the poles of the granary nor that people may look for shade under granaries, but the fact that the granary collapsed at the exact moment when a specific person was underneath, that they call witchcraft. Hence, witchcraft may be a way to cope with what is uncertain, with that which cannot be controlled and which must be lived with. In an ongoing research project carried out in the Netherlands and elsewhere, called “Moralising Misfortune”
What makes persons, groups, or nations?
To position ourselves we draw boundaries. We align ourselves with some things and not others and this takes place in units as small as two people or as big as a global community. Groups don’t just exist, they are formed. Without something that holds them together, they are merely a random assortment of individuals. Imagine you throw a ball into the void, if it does not bounce against something, if it is not contained, stopped, or directed by something it will just go on rolling. Indeed, undistinguished things become a contour when they meet upon something else.
To become a community, groups thus need two things: an inside and an outside.
Erik Bähre and his colleagues study life insurances as ways for people to gain at least minimal control over the uncertainty of death. Here we have different ways of coping with death. One being a way of explaining it the other a means of shaping it.
Inside: something they have in common, they include (hobbies, ideals, dreams, visions about a future, shared goals, a shared history, outlook etc.)
Outside: something they reject, that is external to them that they exclude. This rejection may be neutral, it can simply be something they do not identify with like say a group of hairdressers that is uninterested in volleyball. It can also be emotionally loaded for instance the political left which rejects the political right.
Individuals seldomly belong to only one group and a mixing or diversifying of groups away from one common denominator to many can also occur.
Ross’s text shows how such borders and boundaries become defined, under which circumstances they are simply there and under which they become very starkly felt.
If for instance we share a common age, or profession, or believe with someone we may just acknowledge this and also acknowledge that others have other professions and so on. Then we see ourselves as an individual just as we do the other person: two individuals who have something in common.
If, however, we then feel like we in our profession are unfairly treated whereas others have it better than us then this border becomes stronger. This happens partially because we then stop thinking I and you but we begin to think of an us, a we against a them. We begin to think in collectives, in group dimensions. We think of garbage collectors versus nurses for instance.
This, Ross shows, has to do with emotion and with actions. The ideas of the group must be embodied and performed. A we only comes into existence if that which makes up the we is performed. It is not enough to simply think that kindergarten teachers should earn as much as high school teachers do, but this must be demanded, voiced, shown. Now collectivity results from shared interest, shared passions and also shared pains.
Groups can form
To share a passion. Ross shows how based on this we may form formal associations, organizations etc. These can be simply to share that passion (like a boulder group), - To claim/demand something.
To defend something (like certain ideas the association shares but others feel ambivalent or negative about)
To erase borders that make up certain groups (This can happen in two ways: like when feminists argue that female genital cutting shall not be allowed because it undermines women’s rights everywhere, or when pro-life activists argue that a child’s life must be protected at any cost. In these two examples, one group is prioritized over another. Another way in which this can happen with the aim of tearing down group bonds or boundaries for instance when people argue against the recognition of Palestine).
The emphasis of the border, its location shifts depending on who we address. A good example of this is how many people use different examples to explain where they are from depending on who is asking them. Deconstructing these differences is not possible simply by ignoring them but by making them visible so that, in a next step they can be torn down. So they point out boundaries in order to forge a path to eventually overcome them; to forge a way to take them down building block by building block rather than simply ignoring them or painting over them.
Power is an important factor in the formation of groups and of identities. Here the article by Suvarierol & Kirk (2015): on Dutch civic integration courses as neoliberal citizenship rituals is important.
It shows us how identities are produced through the relations between migrants, teachers, institutions and state demands. Through their interaction these groups form.
However, this does not happen on a level playing field but within a power asymmetry.
States and institutions have much more power over shaping these dynamics than migrants do. In fact the article shows how civic integration has been restructured and how now it is focused on social knowledge and on languages. They show us how the privatization and fragmentation of the courses which can be taken in preparation for the exam gives institutions the power to shape them with migrants having little say in demanding a different, more appropriate content. What is more, the way the relationship between these groups is shaped responsibilises migrants. It puts all responsibility for successful integration on migrants who must pass the test in order to pass one important rite: the passage towards integration. The pressure is not so much on the institutions since they are not tasked to provide appropriate content which actually allows migrants to learn things about Dutch society and to learn the language in a way that helps them beyond the test they must pass. This then shows us how if groups form across different political layers, power can be very unequally divided. It also carries with it a particular idea of Multiculturalism where diversity is appreciated but social unity created through rituals like civic integration tests which ask questions about the local culture and society and demand language proficiency. This also shows that through such tests an idea of a society and culture is created and constantly recreated which is just that: an idea not necessarily a lived reality.
Neoliberal citizenship rituals
How identities are produced through the relations between migrants, teachers, institutions and the state
Asymmetry of power
Responsibilisation ideology: success depends on migrants
Rite of passage towards belonging
Specific idea of Multiculturalism where diversity is ok, but national unity created through proficiency in local language, culture and society.
Eriksen (2006): Diversity versus difference: neo-liberalism in the minority debate
While Ross shows us how groups form, how borders develop or are erased between groups. Suvarierol and Kirk show how uneven this can be between differently positioned groups in a neoliberal landscape. Eriksen’s focus is even more on the effects of neoliberalism for how we treat diversity and difference
He is interested in how nations, states, and their respective political agendas treat human diversity.
In contemporary neoliberal society, a lot of emphasis is put on individual freedom and choice. From this a differentiation results between diversity and difference.
Diversity describes all those things which are aesthetic, politically and morally neutral expressions of cultural difference like a certain cuisine for instance or specific jewellery, a song or dance. By contrast difference is something that relates to group identities and to notions and practices which differ and often conflict with that of the majority society like different marriage practices or religious practices and beliefs.
Diversity: aesthetic, politically and morally neutral expressions of cultural difference
Difference: relates to group identities/practices which differ from that of the majority society
While most European states celebrate diversity, they feel ambivalent and often threatened by difference. They fear that such practices may:
(i) create conflicts through direct contact with majorities who hold other notions,
(ii) weaken social solidarity in the country and thereby the legitimacy of the political and welfare systems (Goodhart 2004)
(iii) lead to unacceptable violations of human rights within the minority groups.
Eriksen says that while there is considerable support for diversity, difference is increasingly seen as a main cause of social problems associated with immigrants and their descendants.
→ main cause of social problems associated with immigrants and their descendants
→ often rejected + trigger quests for integration
Now these fears are of course simplifications
They are based on generalizing assumptions about groups. One key problem with these simplifications is that we tend to look at others through such lenses but not at ourselves. Culture for instance functions in racist ways if we use it as a model we apply to “them” but not to ourselves and when this model implies a derogatory view of the Other.”This happens for instance if Norwegians regard other Norwegians as individuals with a unique character and the ability and will to think for themselves, but perceive migrants as products of culture, as products of a specific group. These ideas are based on imagination and abstraction much more than on fact and reality. These imaginations can be positive or negative but whether we admire or reject,love or hate, they are always essentializing. We operate reductive images that suit what we try to achieve.
This form of multiculturalism with its one-sided focus on culture, reduces the Other to someone to be understood only as a member of another group, leaving no space for the individual and hence practices which are based on group norms are seen as threatening the individual and the majority group.
All that threatens a societies ‘core values’ is problematized.
This is because such practices and beliefs are seen to cause a potential threat to the ‘core values’ of society. These core values are centered firmly around individual agency and freedom and hence, all practices which point to strong group identities that may override the individual’s freedom to choose are treated with ambivalence.
Core values are often automatically attributed to majority group even if this is inaccurate
It is often assumed that the majority group in a society automatically adheres to these core values whereas migrants do not. Even if this is not true in reality.
Focus on individual human right
Hence, difference is rejected based not on what a group consists of in reality, but based on generalizing assumptions about this group. And this we can see in statements like Muslims are or migrants are or feminists are.
This situation sets the stage for a kind of xenophobia which is based on individual human rights and values associated with freedom and choice. This is then based on the assumptions that groups either do not exist (‘There is no such thing as society’) or that they hinder the individual’s freedom. Yet we have seen that belonging is always relational and identity always constructed in relation to other identities to differentiations and identifications. It is not that either individuals exist and groups don’t or that groups are so pronounced that no individual position is possible. By contrast we become persons in the nexus between that which we want and that which we identify with and oppose, and we always dance between individual and group demands. And this is precisely what Eriksen’s article shows us too.
Multiculturalism
Stratton and Ang (1994) show goes for the political project of multiculturalism which has the task to create national unity out of a diverse group of people.
In the article they distinguish between two different forms of multiculturalism that are based on two different ideas of national unity and humanity in general: the mosaic idea and the melting pot.
What underlies the mosaic idea and which is the melting pot?
The mosaic idea which Australia practices celebrates cultural variation and seeks to uphold it. It accepts people’s societies and cultures and finds ways to preserve them. The idea is not assimilation but rather integration while accepting that Australia in and off itself is a product of this diversity and that different social and cultural trends shape it. In so doing it does however also essentialize difference. It is as if Chinese people for instance carry a particular form of religion in their bags which they practice in the new country as they have done before. Australian national unity is then one of cultural diversity but the fact that these cultures are also always changing is often blended out. In some ways the civic integration multicultural idea we have spoken about in relation to the Netherlands is also an example of a mosaic however one which allows cultural practices to be upheld only so long they do not threaten the ideals of the majority society and only if individuals also partially integrate by learning the language, the culture and society.
The United States of America chose a different path. They created the American dream, the American ideal which is based not on culture but on a specific idea of humanity. On ideological universalism:
Ideological universalism
With the American dream they seemingly made culture irrelevant. This has, however, made it so much harder for people to demand their rights and to speak out against oppression. Within a framework where everybody is said to be able to make it irrespective of where you are from and what you have been through, now you are all American, then failures becomes a matter not of structural discrimination but individual failure. With this notion the USA has made it that much harder to address inequality and systemic racism and to move against it because in a unified America it seemingly does not exist.
