The challenge of immigration
|
The challenge of immigration
|
ARTICLE
Diversity and Citizenship in Europe
Sami Naïr
Article / February 15, 2010
Sami Naïr, one of the most outstanding voices in Europe in terms of migratory movements, reflects on the concepts of homogeneity and diversity within the current context of globalisation.
The issue of diversity, as well as that of homogeneity, is closely related to the issue of social ties. No society can be based on a totally open conception of diversity nor can, or must, it be based on a closed conception of homogeneity in the establishing of social ties. Homogeneity and diversity exist in every society; the question is how to manage these two dimensions.
We are living at a time of economic, commercial and financial globalisation that is resulting in the globalisation of cultures and the convergence of identities on a worldwide level. Such convergence of identities can be focused either on dialogue or on the clash of cultures or civilisations. "Clash-based convergence" implies the rejection of diversity, conflict between identities and, ultimately, a struggle for dominance, while "dialogue-based convergence" is far more complex. Firstly, it entails an agreement on the very conditions of the dialogue, i.e. on what is at stake: human rights, respect for real gender equality, the rights of minorities, the right to a private life and to professional equality, and also on the formulas for transforming formal rights into real rights (parity, etc.). While secondly, it entails agreement on the purpose of the dialogue. This must not be limited to accepting allegedly unalterable differences; there must also be a desire to build a common space of values, i.e. of adhesion to these common principles and norms.
For me, the meaning of all of this is that diversity is only of interest if it leads to universality. Nowadays both societies and individuals are perforated by multiple identities and the crux of the issue lies in knowing how these identities can cohabit. In this sense, if we take the example of confessional identities, there are two ways of handling these positively.
On the one hand, social ties are officially based on belonging to a dominant religion or faith. This is the case in most Catholic societies and all Muslim societies. Under these conditions, any new religions that appear, in particular those related to migratory flows, are considered as minority faiths and their rights are never equivalent to those of the majority faith. For example, using campaigns to call the Christian faithful to prayer will be considered normal, where the amplified calls of the muezzin, aimed at Muslim believers will be banned. This situation stresses the approach to diversity from the majority/minority viewpoint and, more fundamentally, within a society that is both religious and that identifies itself as such.
On the other hand, the values that structure societies go beyond religious values; they are the human values of citizens that recognise equality of rights and duties, for all faiths, on the same plane. This represents the privatisation of faith, which then becomes limited to the private sphere, within the framework of civil society. Under these conditions, society will recognise the same rights for all religions but will require all of them to respect common social values of a public nature that go beyond religious beliefs, while also respecting non-believers. Churches and mosques will therefore have the same rights and the call to prayer will become not an issue of rights but of tolerance. Each society strives for agreement in order to deal with this tolerance in a secular manner. To put it another way, diversity is managed within the framework of a secularised society based on the separation of public and private space.
This situation is not an abstract one; it has been highlighted by the Swiss referendum on minarets. And the truth is that Europe does not have (and will not be able to achieve) a common position with regard to this issue. Each European society must handle the challenge of integrating Islam within the framework of a society in which the basic confessional culture is Christian. But Europe, which has inherited the values of freedom and tolerance, will find a solution. Because, if we wish to continue living within the context of the rule of law, there is actually no solution other than respect for tolerance.
We are living at a time of economic, commercial and financial globalisation that is resulting in the globalisation of cultures and the convergence of identities on a worldwide level. Such convergence of identities can be focused either on dialogue or on the clash of cultures or civilisations. "Clash-based convergence" implies the rejection of diversity, conflict between identities and, ultimately, a struggle for dominance, while "dialogue-based convergence" is far more complex. Firstly, it entails an agreement on the very conditions of the dialogue, i.e. on what is at stake: human rights, respect for real gender equality, the rights of minorities, the right to a private life and to professional equality, and also on the formulas for transforming formal rights into real rights (parity, etc.). While secondly, it entails agreement on the purpose of the dialogue. This must not be limited to accepting allegedly unalterable differences; there must also be a desire to build a common space of values, i.e. of adhesion to these common principles and norms.
For me, the meaning of all of this is that diversity is only of interest if it leads to universality. Nowadays both societies and individuals are perforated by multiple identities and the crux of the issue lies in knowing how these identities can cohabit. In this sense, if we take the example of confessional identities, there are two ways of handling these positively.
On the one hand, social ties are officially based on belonging to a dominant religion or faith. This is the case in most Catholic societies and all Muslim societies. Under these conditions, any new religions that appear, in particular those related to migratory flows, are considered as minority faiths and their rights are never equivalent to those of the majority faith. For example, using campaigns to call the Christian faithful to prayer will be considered normal, where the amplified calls of the muezzin, aimed at Muslim believers will be banned. This situation stresses the approach to diversity from the majority/minority viewpoint and, more fundamentally, within a society that is both religious and that identifies itself as such.
On the other hand, the values that structure societies go beyond religious values; they are the human values of citizens that recognise equality of rights and duties, for all faiths, on the same plane. This represents the privatisation of faith, which then becomes limited to the private sphere, within the framework of civil society. Under these conditions, society will recognise the same rights for all religions but will require all of them to respect common social values of a public nature that go beyond religious beliefs, while also respecting non-believers. Churches and mosques will therefore have the same rights and the call to prayer will become not an issue of rights but of tolerance. Each society strives for agreement in order to deal with this tolerance in a secular manner. To put it another way, diversity is managed within the framework of a secularised society based on the separation of public and private space.
This situation is not an abstract one; it has been highlighted by the Swiss referendum on minarets. And the truth is that Europe does not have (and will not be able to achieve) a common position with regard to this issue. Each European society must handle the challenge of integrating Islam within the framework of a society in which the basic confessional culture is Christian. But Europe, which has inherited the values of freedom and tolerance, will find a solution. Because, if we wish to continue living within the context of the rule of law, there is actually no solution other than respect for tolerance.
