Social Cohesion Research and Early Warning
Social cohesion is said to be difficult to achieve in a multicultural Europe, or a Europe of migrations, and yet we have been living in such a Europe for decades.
What changes have taken place to justify such an assertion? What allegedly makes new migrants and, more generally, people of foreign origin “different” from “nationals” to the point of impeding them from access to well-being and full membership of European societies? How can a Europe which bases its political legitimacy in both the domestic and the foreign spheres on the rule of law, democracy and human rights tolerate (and sometimes even foster) this kind of structural discrimination without losing its credibility?
These questions, among others, are the starting point for the Forum hosted by the Directorate of Social Cohesion of the Council of Europe in 2006. By exploring the complex links between migration, social and employment policy reform, acknowledgement of diversity and migrants' presence in the public arena, the papers to be presented at the Forum first and foremost seek to understand collective fears in the face of change and the doubts raised by “integration” policies in many European countries. At the same time, the Forum aims to encourage a critical attitude towards the prevailing rhetoric and practices: its objective is to avoid any kind of over-simplistic approach - whether in economic, cultural or ethnocentric terms - to questions of migration and diversity. These one-sided perceptions can indeed be manipulated and serve as a basis for adopting contradictory legislative measures, which merely help to exacerbate the problems.
As pointed out on a number of occasions during the preparatory work for the Forum, the dichotomy that migration engenders in advanced industrial societies should not be underestimated. The “right to flee” exercised by migrants and indeed their quest for a more equitable distribution of global opportunities and wealth clash with an economic system which, here as elsewhere, is reorganising itself to become more competitive in terms of costs, notably labour costs. In addition, migrants' access to the rights granted to them under international conventions and many constitutions constitutes a challenge for welfare and social security systems, which are still strongly national in nature, and for any national concept of “citizenship”. This is also why the change of attitude to which the Forum aspires entails many successive steps, which cannot be transformed into policies without the backing of the operators concerned (whether political or institutional, social or professional) or, of course, migrants' commitment to playing an active, organised role in public affairs.
Firstly, the aim will be to focus on the issue itself and the reasons why it is so pressing. Affluent societies tend to stereotype migrants in terms of the problems they pose or the costs/benefits they generate. Themes such as growing unemployment, social dumping, the crumbling welfare state, the aging of the population, loss of control over borders, increased crime, the "excess of cultural differences" and so on dominate debate, although no attempt is made to confirm the underlying assumptions through closer statistical analysis. People thus tend to forget that, at the same level of qualification, migrants and their descendants generally suffer a significant socio-economic disadvantage compared with “nationals”, a disadvantage which can make them vulnerable, as in the case of citizens of certain countries, women or irregular migrants. These inequalities, and their implications for effective access to rights, autonomy, dignity and the capacity to participate, pose a general problem of social cohesion. If it is borne in mind that, in many cities and regions of Europe, almost one-quarter of the inhabitants have a personal or family background linked to migration, the vast scale of the question becomes apparent: to paraphrase a report submitted to the European Parliament, it could be said that a 47th Council of Europe member state is still waiting for full recognition.
Secondly, more open discussion of the real origins and extent of the situation is needed. The prevailing rhetoric and institutional practices often treat migration (including by “irregulars”) as an exogenous trend, divorced from the host societies. It would accordingly be useful to view the social inclusion problems of migrants and their descendants, and the conflicts their presence engenders, in the light of the structural transformations of advanced societies and indeed the attendant internal contradictions and disruptions. A close analysis of the changes taking place in labour markets, industrial relations and manufacturing sectors in Europe, not least growing job insecurity, the multiplication of dead-end jobs and the expansion of the underground economy, could offer explanations for both the demand for migrant labour as an “available” workforce and the crucial role that porous borders play in this competitive economy.
Thirdly, it is imperative to differentiate between appropriate and inappropriate interpretations of “cultural differences”. This distinction may indeed have an impact on explaining certain situations and on policy-making. Instead of supporting cross-cultural exchange and reciprocal adaptation processes within the population, or denouncing the possible overlaps between diversity and social exclusion, some integration policies seem to consider that the cause of migrants' difficulties lies in “distances” or “cultural incompatibilities”. This does not just reflect the impact of a narrow, immutable perception of cultures as something to which individuals and groups simply belong exhaustively and with no possibility of critical development, but even seems to be an avoidance of the real causes of the inequalities suffered both by migrants and by other groups in European societies. The education system offers a telling example here: young migrants' educational underachievement is usually ascribed to a cultural deficit instead of being interpreted and regarded as the outcome of their families' social hardships.
Lastly, the conclusion might even be reached that modern migratory movements cause such concern because they coincide with a period of regression of rights and a crisis - material and ideological - for citizenship: the threatening presence of “the other” thus paradoxically helps to reunite western societies. It will also be necessary to deconstruct the multicultural mainstream where it contributes to processes of this kind rather than raising awareness of the fact of pluralism.
Starting from these considerations, what new policy approaches and attitudes can be envisaged to promote the well-being of migrants and their families? What instruments and areas are available for a negotiated solution to the conflicts? Which social and political operators will be capable of linking their interests in this field and sharing responsibility for it?
The situation of irregular migrants, who usually enjoy no rights or protections and are particularly sought after by employers in the underground economy, offers a fairly good illustration of the pressing need for clearer, more consistent legislative and administrative frameworks. Clear policy objectives and coherent action would make it possible to avoid a situation where integration in fact equates with migrants' acceptance of conditions of social inferiority that are hard to change. With a view to social cohesion, it will not be possible for much longer to separate integration and reception policies - going well beyond teaching of the host countries' languages and cultures - from immigration and asylum policies, and the latter from social, employment and nationality policies. Conversely, it will be necessary to develop mechanisms to counteract the exclusion cross-effects generated by the numerous measures concerning migrants. It is for decision-makers and administrative officials to launch harmonisation processes aimed at fostering easier, and above all more equitable, access to labour and social rights.
A second possible area of innovation concerns the general scope and depth of policy measures: the integration difficulties, socio-economic inequalities and obstacles to upward social mobility encountered especially by migrants and their descendants constitute internal problems for advanced societies, which must be approached in a structural way. European countries must give more thought to the consequences of the current development model, not least the decreased space for negotiating wages and employment conditions, and to the part played in it by labour flexibilisation and intensification, competitiveness at all costs, the spread of the informal economy and so on. From this standpoint even corporate social responsibility programmes and legislation prohibiting discrimination on ethnic grounds should be re-examined to ascertain their effectiveness.
A third line of innovation is also necessary regarding recognition of cultural and gender differences when translating rights into services. In a multicultural society, state social services and, more generally, public authorities have to contend with a genuine paradigm shift: as the health care sector clearly shows, the legibility of procedures, the removal of information and communication obstacles and the development of “cultural competencies” by professionals are becoming key success factors. For similar reasons, ensuring migrants' access to housing, albeit essential, requires the public authorities to assume broader responsibilities and indeed to adopt town-planning policies that take account of issues linked to diversity, mobility and the reappropriation of public space for all. At a more general level recognition of migrants' needs should lead to the establishment of “special” services only as a temporary measure (for instance to cater for the needs of new immigrants). The emphasis should rather be on developing services which are sensitive to any kind of difference.
If they are to be implemented to the full, these novel approaches in turn necessitate that two other conditions be met: the redevelopment of genuine negotiating spaces in all key venues of society and the presence of migrants themselves in the European public and political arenas. These are prerequisites for the emergence, in the best European democratic tradition, of cross-cultural, transnational ties of solidarity and of a concept of “citizenship of residence” cutting across the many other allegiances or statuses. There is a great need for mediating institutions, such as schools but also perhaps churches and religious communities, to open their doors so they can become fora for debate and places where individuals progress towards integration. With their specific skills and resources, public authorities on all levels can also play a key role in these processes of re-opening society to difference - local and regional authorities at grassroots level and national and supranational authorities in a networking and monitoring capacity.
Lastly, any form of participation - membership of associations or NGOs, presence in the media, movements or political parties, representation within trade unions or elected assemblies, co-operation with the public authorities, etc. - constitutes a vital tool for fostering migrants' well-being. Apart from the most obvious considerations of justice and effectiveness of policy measures, the capacity for public action is in itself a powerful factor of inclusion, since it simultaneously allows the linking of conflicting interests and a collective assumption of responsibility. It is naturally for decision-makers to review their practices, so as to treat migrants as partners rather than the “targets” of their policies. Similarly, it is only in the areas opened up by sharing of responsibility that intercultural competences can develop, preventing identities from constituting stigmas, but attempting to make them a component, albeit mutable, part of all human beings.