“Gender, Religion and Ethnicity: Intersections and Boundaries in Immigrant Integration Debates” (co-authored with Anna Korteweg). Social Politics VOL. 20, No. 1 (2013): 109-136.

Please download to get full document.

View again

All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Share
Transcript
  Gender, Religion, and Ethnicity:Intersections and Boundaries inImmigrant Integration Policy Making  Anna C. Korteweg 1,* and Triadafilos Triadafilopoulos 2 In this paper, we analyze Dutch policy debates that focused on the developmentof a distinct program to advance the social and economic participation of ethnicminority women (where this label captures immigrant women from non-Westerncountries). Drawing on intersectional analysis and theories of ethnic boundary for-mation, we argue that the parliamentary debates surrounding this policy programframed the social problems of these women to effectively reduce a diverse rangeof ethnic minority women into a narrowly defined group of Muslim women.Referencing multiple axes of difference, the adopted policies encouraged womento overcome ethnic distinctions and gender inequality by abandoning their(imputed) religious practices. Parliamentary debates on these policies generatedbright boundaries and assimilationist approaches to the integration of ethnicminority women. In our conclusion, we suggest how our framework might beapplied to inform analyses of integration policy making and boundary construc-tion in other countries. The postwar period witnessed the movement of large numbers of immigrants into Western Europe. Although most are by now settled intheir respective receiving societies, their integration is often deemed incomplete.Perceptions that long settled immigrants, their descendants and newly arriving cohorts have problems integrating led to the creation of a new policy fieldfocused on newcomers and “old-comers.” Over the past decade-and-a-half,many Western European countries have engaged in such immigrant integrationpolicy making (Jacobs and Rea 2007;Joppke 2007;Scuzzarello 2008;Goodman 2010;Kostakopoulou 2010). These policies often construe immigrants’ gender relations as problematic and evince a tension between seeing immigrants asdefined by their religion or their ethnicity.In this article, we combine intersectional theory and theories of boundary formation to analyze how these policies construct immigrant as subjects in 1,* Department of Sociology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, anna.korteweg@utoronto.ca 2 Department Political Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, t.triadafilopoulos@utoronto.ca Socpol: Social Politics, Spring 2013 pp. 109–136doi: 10.1093 / sp /  jxs027 # The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press.All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com Social Politics 2013 Volume 20 Number 1   b  y g u e  s  t   onM a r  c h 4  ,2  0 1  3 h  t   t   p :  /   /   s  p . oxf   or  d  j   o ur n a l   s  . or  g /  D o wnl   o a  d  e  d f  r  om  ways that define the conditions for their membership in receiving societies.We focus on Dutch parliamentary debates surrounding the Plan to Address the Emancipation and Integration of Women and Girls from Ethnic Minorities  (the Integration Plan). Developed by the Ministry of Social Affairs andIntegration, in conjunction with the cognate standing parliamentary commit-tees, the Plan’s target group consisted of long-settled first generation andsecond-generation immigrant women. The Commission [on the] Participationof women from ethnic minorities (PaVEM Commission) implemented thePlan. Our analysis focuses on how this integration policy specifies the neces-sary prerequisites of membership and was thus productive of particularsubjects. We employ feminist intersectional theory to analyze how multipleaxes of difference came together to produce particular understandings of whatit means to be an ethnic minority or immigrant woman in the Netherlands(see alsoYuval-Davis 2006). We then show how intersectional subjectconstructions inform understandings of the social problems that integrationpolicies are meant to address.Theories of ethnic boundary formation shed light on how these processesinform the ways in which politicians understand the prerequisites of belong-ing: either fluidly, allowing for an expression of multiplicity in identity for-mation, or rigidly in ways that privilege an imagined “native” subject.Furthermore, theories of boundary formation allow us to better understandhow integration policies can belie their apparent objective of enabling partici-pation by  deepening  , rather than ameliorating, distinctions between individu-als of particular immigrant backgrounds and host societies. The usefulness of linking feminist intersectional and boundary theories lies in the way inwhich they inform each other: whereas the boundary literature tends to focuson the boundary inducing (or reducing) qualities of culture or ethnicity,intersectional theory allows us to better understand how the (imagined) sub- jects of these boundaries are complexly constituted. The integration of inter-sectional theory with theories of boundary production enables an analysis of the type of subjectivity and the conditions for membership that politiciansgenerate when they engage in policymaking.Applying this framework to these Dutch parliamentary debates, we show that parliamentarians redefined diverse identities in narrow terms to cohereto specific conceptions of self and other, with the category “Muslim women”emerging as a particularly salient subject position. Participants in thesedebates did so by, first, starting from the highly gendered assumption thatwomen are key to the successful integration of entire communities becausethey parent the next generation. Second, they positioned an iconic downtrod-den Muslim immigrant woman to represent what it meant to be an ethnicminority woman. The consequent narrowing of a wide range of differentethnic minority women into this singular category informed Dutch parlia-mentarians’ narrow conception of belonging and support of assimilationistintegration policy approaches. 110 Korteweg and Triadafilopoulos   b  y g u e  s  t   onM a r  c h 4  ,2  0 1  3 h  t   t   p :  /   /   s  p . oxf   or  d  j   o ur n a l   s  . or  g /  D o wnl   o a  d  e  d f  r  om  An alternative understanding of immigrant integration focuses on labormarket participation rather than immigrant subjectivity. During the period of the PaVEM debates, the Parliamentary Inquiry Committee on IntegrationPolicy presented its conclusion that immigrant integration in the Netherlandshad been relatively successful. The Commission, however, also found that inte-gration policies had no impact on integration itself. This Commission’s centralfinding stood in stark contrast to the Integration Plan’s approach, suggesting that obstacles to labor market participation, rather than gender relations andethnic religious practices, were at the root of immigrants’ integration chal-lenges. While labor market participation was a topic of the PaVEM debates,we show that the PaVEM discussions turned away from the suggestion thatintegration required changes in the practices of receiving society members,placing the onus of change on ethnic minority women alone.Our primary focus is on the how, rather than the why, of such policy making. Nonetheless, our analysis of the specific case of the PaVEM debatessuggests that at least three factors can play an explanatory role in the con-struction of immigrant subjectivity: continuities in the framing of socialproblems and policy responses, public opinion regarding immigrant integra-tion, and the dynamics of the political field, in particular political party andelectoral politics. While our primary focus is on showing how theIntegration Plan generated a certain subjectivity, we refer to these explanatory factors throughout the paper.We begin by outlining how religious, ethnic, and gender differences haveinformed Dutch integration politics and policies over the last 40 years (theperiod during which immigration increased sharply). We then develop ourtheoretical framework and briefly discuss our methodology before analyzing the parliamentary debates regarding the work of the PaVEM Commissionbetween 2003 and 2005. We conclude with suggestions as to how ourapproach might be extended to inform analyses of integration policy making and boundary construction in other cases and countries. Immigrant Integration and Women’s Emancipationin the Netherlands Since the 1960s, the Netherlands has seen the influx of four major groupsof immigrants from non-Western countries—Surinam, the NetherlandsAntilles, Turkey and Morocco—that now together make up a little over 10percent of the Dutch population (Dagevos and Gijsberts 2007). Approximately a third come from Surinam, a former Dutch colony that achieved independ-ence in 1975, and the Netherlands Antilles, which continues to be part of theDutch kingdom. Large numbers from predominantly Turkey and Moroccoentered the Netherlands as guest workers starting in the 1960s. More recently,migration streams from these countries often result from family reunification Gender, Religion, and Ethnicity  111   b  y g u e  s  t   onM a r  c h 4  ,2  0 1  3 h  t   t   p :  /   /   s  p . oxf   or  d  j   o ur n a l   s  . or  g /  D o wnl   o a  d  e  d f  r  om  and marriage. By the time PAVeM was developed, Turkish and Moroccanfirst- and second-generation immigrants made up 4.3 percent of the total pop-ulation in the Netherlands (Dagevos and Gijsberts 2007). In the four largestDutch cities, a third of the population was designated “non-Western,” with 50percent of youth under 20 of non-Western descent (Dagevos and Gijsberts2007). This concentration of “non-Western” immigrants and second-generation youth in cities such as Amsterdam and Rotterdam heightened the salience of the Dutch integration debates.Particular understandings of religion, ethnicity, and gender have all playeda role in the political responses to large-scale immigration. 1 Religious differen-ces have historically been addressed through pillarization, or the institutional-ized recognition of different forms of Christianity through the establishmentof Protestant and Catholic schools, political parties, and social welfare organi-zations (Lijphart 1968). Policies targeting immigrants grafted Muslim new-comer organizations somewhat uncomfortably onto this institutional structure.For example, the National Minorities Consultation Organization (Landelijk Overlegorgaan Minderheden or LOM), which includes representative groupsof all main immigrant groups in the Netherlands, has mandatory bi-annualmeetings with the ministry housing the immigration portfolio, a consultativemechanism that some argue mimics the institutionalization of Dutch pillars(but seeVink 2007). This has led some to argue that the Netherlands pursueda policy of multiculturalism (Entzinger 2003,2006;Joppke 2004), though others are critical of equating pillarization with multiculturalism (Duyvendak 2006,2011;Vink 2007;Schrover 2010). Second, in the Netherlands, ethnicity, unlike religion, has historically notbeen a key concept in political struggles or policy making. Rather, in this his-torically diverse country adherence to civic and then liberal democraticvalues allowed for relatively large variation in cultural practices among groups in the Netherlands (WRR 2007). However, in the contemporary era,civic and liberal democratic values have been used to construct a relatively more exclusionary notion of Dutch identity (Jacobs and Rea 2007;Joppke 2007). Many date this trend to the early 1990s, when the leader of the Dutchright-Liberal party, Frits Bolkestein, argued that integration—defined inopposition to the segregation associated with the formation of distinctethnic, religious, and cultural sub-national communities—should be manda-tory to safeguard the achievements of Dutch culture and politics (Bolkestein1991;Prins 2004). While Bolkestein’s argument was perceived as fanning the flames of a troubling ethnic nationalism (Entzinger 2003,2006;Prins 2004), during the following decade his analysis of the integration problem gainedincreased acceptance, from the right to the left of the Dutch political field.By 1998, a coalition government of right Liberals and Social Democratsadopted Europe’s first official integration law, albeit one still marked by adegree of voluntarism and lacking the more aggressive sanctions that wouldcharacterize later iterations (Wet Inburgering Nieuwkomers or WIN). At this 112 Korteweg and Triadafilopoulos   b  y g u e  s  t   onM a r  c h 4  ,2  0 1  3 h  t   t   p :  /   /   s  p . oxf   or  d  j   o ur n a l   s  . or  g /  D o wnl   o a  d  e  d f  r  om  point, ethnicity had become a salient category in Dutch politics, in that theattributes of an “integrated” immigrant were based on a particular understand-ing of “Dutchness.” Put differently, immigrants were asked to adopt certainmanners of being that were associated with a (newly) coherent Dutch identity.The publication of Paul Scheffer’s full-page newspaper article condemning multiculturalism in 2000 marked an important moment in the ascendance of integration as a desired aim and the related ethnicization of Dutch identity.From this point onward, integration into Dutch society became defined assharing in a common Dutch history, demonstrating competency in theDutch language and, perhaps most importantly, internalizing the liberal-democratic values and orientations that were increasingly seen as marking the essence of a distinctively Dutch way of life (Entzinger 2006;Bjornson 2007). In 2005, the Dutch government charged a specially formed committeewith identifying key moments in Dutch history to help teach the meaning of Dutch national identity in school curricula and immigrant integrationcourses (WRR 2007).Attempts to articulate a shared history rooted in distinctively “national”practices marked an important break with preceding Dutch approaches tothe regulation of difference. Unlike pillarized minorities, immigrants were now expected to integrate into a distinctively Dutch society—a concept left unde-fined in the past. As students of ethnicity suggest, “Dutchness” was being defined by demarcating characteristics of the group in contrast to putativecharacteristics of non-Dutch groups (Barth 1969;Brubaker 2004). In this way  “immigrant” and “ethnic” were rendered synonymous, shedding some light onthe use of terms such as “ethnic minorities” to refer to second-generationimmigrants born and raised in the Netherlands, as the Integration Plan did.Third, the increase in immigrant-related diversity coincided with a rapidtransformation of gender relations in the Netherlands (Roggeband andVerloo 2007;Prins and Saharso 2008). By the mid-1970s, government policy  and practice had come to identify gender inequality at work and at home asa major social problem. The Dutch welfare state reflected a strong malebreadwinner social policy model, leading to low levels of labor market partic-ipation among women and low levels of engagement with unpaid care work among men (Knijn 1996;Knijn and Kremer 1997). Since the 1970s, Dutch emancipation policies have primarily targeted women’s labor force participa-tion, paying limited attention to inequities in unpaid care work (Roggebandand Verloo 2007;Prins and Saharso 2008). Despite the persistence of consid- erable inequality between women and men with respect to hours worked forpay and participation in household labor, by the time the Integration Planwas being discussed gender equality was much greater than in the past( Emancipatie Monitor  2004, 110, 118). Certain politicians took to explaining persisting gender differences in employment and care as reflective of choicesmade by non-immigrant women and men, rather than as the result of sys-temic gender oppression (Prins and Saharso 2008). Gender, Religion, and Ethnicity  113   b  y g u e  s  t   onM a r  c h 4  ,2  0 1  3 h  t   t   p :  /   /   s  p . oxf   or  d  j   o ur n a l   s  . or  g /  D o wnl   o a  d  e  d f  r  om
Related Search
Similar documents
View more
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks
SAVE OUR EARTH

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!

x