What Do We Mean by ‘Integration’?
The modern world is the world of emigrations and immigrations. They happen due to different reasons including social, economical, political issues, and personal circumstances but are always attended by such essential social process as integration. Generally, integration means combining of separate things or people into an integral system. It is a complicated action that has a lot of problems and unsolved questions. According to Favell, immigration “conceptualizes what happens after [migration], conceiving practical steps in a longer process which invariably includes the projection of both deep social change for the country concerned, and of fundamental continuity between the past and some idealized social endpoint”(Favell, 2003, pp. 14). In other words, it is the idea of how the society should look like and how the newcomers should behave. The aim of this paper is to explain the major approaches to immigrant integration and their positive and negative aspects in European countries with regard to the social, economic, political, and cultural spheres of society.
For a start, it is important to note that integration has three different approaches that include assimilation, multiculturalism, and interculturalism. Assimilation means the adaptation to attitudes and culture of the new country of living. Multiculturalism implies to acceptance of multiple cultures within the boundaries of the one country. Interculturalism implicates the communication between social groups with different cultural patterns. The bright example of the country with the assimilative model is France, while Great Britain exemplifies multiculturalism, and Ireland uses intercultural approach.
Indeed, multiculturalism seems to be the most loyal approach of integration. It has a significant impact on the population of the country as enriches its culture and teaches people to be tolerant. However, alongside with positive social and cultural influence, multiculturalism negatively affects the political sphere. It celebrates the cultural difference of people, but at the same time, makes them equal in the eyes of the law. As we know, every culture has its own rules and laws, and multicultural judicial equality mothers the crisis of the multicultural approach that centres on the strength of the political ideology of the country. For instance, talking about British political ideology, Einry quotes Malik and writes that it “has helped create a tribal Britain with no political or moral centre” (Einry, 2007: pp. 217). Furthermore, quoting Jacoby, he states that multiculturalism “has become . . . the ideology of an era without ideology” (Einry, 2007: pp. 217). It is also worth noting that the impact multiculturalism has on culture is also double-sided; together with its enrichment, the major values of the dominant culture become more vague. The crisis of multiculturalism makes British people to review their process of integration and to cross over to the countries as the United States of America that uses the multicultural approach but quizzes American knowledge of the newcomers, highlights the central American values, and holds “American-style citizenship ceremonies” (Einry, 2007: pp. 217).
The French model of integration also has several issues. It seems to be the cruellest approach as requires immigrants to assimilate, or distinct their culture from society with the permission to follow it only on an individual level. This maintains the strength of the dominant culture and political ideology that automatically exclude the political problems of multicultural countries. At the same time, France does not officially have ethnic minorities as all people are divided only into two categories, French and foreign. Thus, all cultures except the dominant one are considered to be foreign cultures without any distinctions between them. This approach results in the marginalisation of some ethnic groups and their exclusion from the French society, as it is too difficult for the poor foreign category to assimilate. In France, ethnic discrimination is an essential part of the society. As Einry states, “people are regularly described as ‘immigrants’ even though they may be second- or third-generation French citizens of ethnic minority origin” (Einry, 2007: pp. 219). Discrimination and exclusion mother social and cultural conflicts, non-admission of ethnical groups distinct from the dominant one, and racism that is one of the crucial problems of the French population nowadays.
Ireland entered upon the path of integration later than its European comrades and got a chance to remark the failures of multicultural and assimilative approaches. Quoting Yudice, Lentin states, “The horizon of cultural theory and activism is inescapably institutional” (Lentin, 2012: p. 230). This institutionalism is double-sided. On the one hand, it allows welfare state to become a market state, but on the other hand, it highlights social inequalities caused by EU immigration policies. As the result, Ireland decided to follow the middle way of integration that was called interculturalism. Irish need in migrants and its integration policies arise both from economic needs of the country and mistakes of the European neighbours. Quoting Lenihan, Lentin states that 90% of immigrants make a contribution to economics of the country (Lentin, 2012: p. 233). The Irish government allows migrants to live and work in the territory of Ireland but does not grant all of them Irish citizenship. Ireland advocates anti-racism and cultural diversity but does not let migrants be fully integrated into the Irish society. In other words, it is not as strict as assimilation and as loyal as multiculturalism.
Probably, one of the most global consequences of migration and integration is terrorism. After 9/11, EU started “a security-driven agenda in matters of immigration” (Einry, 2007: pp. 229). At the same time, it became clear that terroristic attacks all over the world mothered conflicts with Islamic communities in several European countries and the increase of racism. Europe tried to solve this problem and in 2004 established the “common basic principles” of integration that, however, were hardly implemented in reality. At the same time, there was a threat of “home terrorism” among the descendants of European Muslims sympathised to their brothers from the Middle East.
Currently, the European Union tries to apply a unified approach to integration that combines features of assimilation, multiculturalism, and interculturalism. The problem of racism, discrimination, and xenophobia can be solved only involving both the state and the society and including social policies, legislation, education, etc. However, this complex approach requires clear policies and laws that it is hard to establish. Immigration and integration are essential parts of the modern world that could not be avoided.
References
Favell, A. (2003). Integration nations: The nation-state and research in immigrants in Western Europe. In Brochmann, G. (ed.). The Multicultural Challenge. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 13-42.
Lentin, R. (2012). Turbans, hijabs and other differences: ‘Integration from below’ and Irish interculturalism. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 15(2), pp. 226-242.
Mac Éinrí, P. (2007). Integration models and choices. In B. Fanning (ed.) Immigration and Social Change in Ireland. Manchester: University Press, pp. 215-233.
