NORWEGIAN
integration politics are an ongoing public debate theme. The statements
and the
feelings provoked in discussions show that we have a very long way to
go before
we can accept the definition of Norway as a multicultural society.
Plurality,
culture and belief in an earlier culturally homogenous society lead us
into new
challenges. Norway is still a homogenous society compared to other
European
countries, this being a result of among other things Norway’s
geographic
position as well as very strict asylum and immigration politics.
Anyhow, an
increase in the flow of people, due to wars or poverty increase in the
rest of
the world, led to a view of Norway as the only way to survive.
TODAY,
Norway as multicultural society is a fact that has to be accepted
without
exception. This development, with all of its advantages as well as
disadvantages led us into new challenges which need to be dealt with in
a way
that includes new countrymen with their ways of living in the current
social
and political context without depriving them of their identity. The
conditions
for successful integration have to be adapted to creation of better
cohabitation of new countrymen and Norwegians, where integration
politics
should make cohabitation possible and conflict free.
NORWEGIAN AUTHORITIES are faced with the problems usual for any process
of
integration, “a lack of willingness” amongst some
immigrants, as it is
presented in the media, to access the Norwegian society. They do not
speak the
language, they are long-term receivers of social benefits and they are
overrepresented in certain criminal statistics. These are the
challenges or
tendencies that authorities have to deal with by cutting them at their
roots. One
way would be by creating a goal oriented integration politics in the
future, in
contrast to what has been practiced in the past.
THE FIRST STEP for the authorities would be to work out a set of
instructions
addressed to both, to authorities for meeting challenges in a
multicultural
society and to immigrants for gaining access to the Norwegian society.
Two
procedures I shall comment on in this article are meant as measures
against
discrimination of immigrants and measures for immigrant’s
participation in
their own integration process. Storting’s (The Norwegian
Parliament’s)
announcement nr. 17 on integration states that the government’s primary
goal
for creation of policies for multicultural Norway (to mention a few)
are “a)
all citizens, independent of background, shall have possibility, rights
and
obligations in relation to society, b) integration and emancipation are
conditioned by adaptation and will to dialogue and unity from the
entire
population and public authorities, c) all independently of their
background
have the same right to be seen as individuals, and not as only a part
of a
certain group, culture and religion, d) there are many ways to be
Norwegian. By
actively stressing that all citizens have an equal right to bring with
them
their own values and traditions into community, the basis for unity is
only
improved.” These instructions should open society for a different
way of being
and better inclusion of everyone. One of the conditions often mentioned
in
discussions is that the cultural and religious background of immigrants
is an
obstacle for successful integration. The way that Norwegians relate to
foreigners is connected to Norwegians expectations of immigrants’
behaviour and
looks. This way of seeing relations should not have any influence on
integration.
THE
SECOND STEP would be making it easier for immigrants to enter the job
market.
In the introduction law, as government introduced it in December 2002,
the
authorities created conditions for a more active and individually
adapted
introduction program which will help immigrants to get a better view of
the
Norwegian society and job market. We were longing for such a turn in
Norwegian
integration politics, including foreigners more actively in their own
integration process is very positive and this can open the door for
more
goal-oriented activity in the daily struggle for a better life.
THE
QUESTIONS we need to ask ourselves here are: To what degree are
integration
politics grounded in reality? How are all these goals and laws
implemented in
Norwegian daily reality?
THE PUBLIC ENEMY of successful integration processes in Norway is a
systematic
stigmatisation of the entire groups. This is clearly demonstrated in
the media
and daily attitudes of the “ordinary Norwegians”.
Stereotypical views always
stress aspects and characteristics used to stigmatise a group that have
nothing
to do with reality. The possible reasons for this are two: either
Norwegians
have the need to show their superiority over others or there is a
general fear
of the foreign and unknown. The biggest worrying is that the
authorities are
not making any effort to fight these prejudices, as they should. They
do not
seem to understand that prejudices and expectations are created out of
frustration caused by changes resulting from the process of becoming a
multicultural society. They do not seem to understand that it is not
always
possible to demand or deliver results measurable in
‘kroner’ and ‘øre’. Up
until now too much it has been expected of immigrants, since they have
become used
to living in a society where the social aspect of their integration is
left to
the public system. After some years of living this way, it cannot be a
surprise
to us that some of them developed an attitude of not having to take
responsibility for their own life situation. It is authority’s
task to catch
these developments and solve them so that society does not end up in a
conflict.
ANOTHER
OBSTACLE that stands in the way of integration, as it is presented, is
the
immigrant’s cultural and religious background. How else can we
interpret
repeated “attacks” on entire groups where religious belief,
lifestyle and
tradition are placed on “bench for the accused” in media
and other public
instances? Where did we get the idea that the integration of the same
group
could be easier after it was stigmatised publicly?
One
of the government’s announced goals is that independently of background
one has
right to be seen as an individual and not only as a member of a group,
culture
or religion. The problem is that in practice we do not see any
indication of
this happening. The discussion about the need for modernisation of
Islam, as a
base for the integration of Norwegian Muslims in Norwegian society
makes this
challenge even more complicated. Could it be that the Norwegian
authorities
also suffer from the global-political and religious tendency to
hostility
towards Muslims as result of the 9/11-2001? “War against
terror” very quickly
can be an obstacle for integration, a cause of immigrants with Muslim
background feeling marginalized. These days Muslims are almost a
synonym for
potential terrorists. These types of descriptions of a certain group
can give
opposite results than desired, an honest wish from authorities to help
the
integration of immigrants who suffer the most.
THE ATTENTION MUSLIMS in Norway get in the media is mainly negative. It
is
about Muslim family culture, their social habits and their bad habits.
Cultural
conditions and their relationship to the state are taken out of a big
context,
or their natural habitat, and shown as something old fashioned and
incompatible
with modern western society. This is done without scientific comparison
with
similar situations that appear in the Norwegian society. This is how
the nasty
images are created and hate is accumulated in the public room which
makes
integration even more difficult. Respect and tolerance for other’s
beliefs,
lifestyle and worldview can disappear due to manufactured fear of
possible
“terror action”, even though this is a problem most people
meet when confronted
with other culture. The issue here is how to present another culture
and
another religion without falling into a populist demonising of
something
unfamiliar and therefore dangerous. This reminds me of Edward W. Saids
“Orientalism” where he describes Western created images
about Arabic and Muslim
cultures. He refers exactly to those Western created images that have
responsibility for presenting the Orient as something despotic,
primitive, and
therefore exotic in the West. Being different from the majority does
not mean
that communication between the two is therefore impossible.
ANOTHER
QUESTION we need to ask ourselves is whether we expect that the media
can
release itself from a progressing political ideology. It is not easy to
eliminate the picture in today’s global political reality, where
“war on
terror” is the absolute worst due to number of innocent victims.
I am afraid
that that “war on terror” divided the world further as West
versus East, us
versus them, Islam versus Christianity, rich versus poor. The cold war
is over
and instead of building bridges between the worlds we are divided
further and
further. This unfortunate view of reality cannot be corrected by simple
solutions, especially not with intellectual lack of responsibility and
populist
statements that caused intensification of the division of the world
into
becoming a lasting problem. The world’s view of reality does not
necessarily
have to become a Norwegian view of reality. Mutual respect and lasting
dialogue
between different religions should be the goal for Norwegian
authorities so
that it can stand a chance of winning a battle against a growing
stigmatisation
of singular groups. The discrimination against Muslim immigrants in the
job
market, the property market and in schools, and their “lack of
will» to be
integrated has had an effect on the Norwegian view. It resulted in
dividing the
society in “us/them” and “rich/poor”. It
created a feeling of alienation and
distance between Norwegians and immigrants. It appears as if we loose
rational
thinking on the way and uncritically accept the ideas and worldview of
the
authorities.
ANOTHER VERY OBVIOUS PROBLEM for the authorities’ integration policies
is that
they in their action against integration problems reduce immigrants to
a
statistic, an inhuman instance. It is so much easier to relate to a
problem
without “living” human beings that can make a difference.
It so much easier to
“attack” their religion, use it as an explanation for
unsuccessful integration.
In this case it is for example belonging to Islam as a possible cause
of
resistance. Islam is show as a specific case because it follows its
course
without connection and comparison with other religions, modernity or
any of the
changes every society has to go through. Then it is easy to present
Islam as an
inhuman, authoritarian religion. It is wished for and demanded by many
that
Islam should be modernised. Unfortunately we see that western
countries, Norway
also, accept modernisation only on its own premises, set conditions for
modernisation
in their own way. Our Western world is of course viewed as developed,
humane,
democratic, rational and superior while “they” are viewed
as underdeveloped,
undemocratic and less valuable. One thing that needs to be understood
here is
that not all Muslims in Norway come from one single homogenous group.
They do
not necessarily have the same cultural and religious assumptions. One
must
understand that even though a large number of immigrants are coming
from rural
areas and have low education, a big number of them have higher
education and a
secular background.
PREJUDICES CREATED through mismanagement of integration led to
“ordinary”
people’s fear of Islam and Muslims and a strong desire to control them.
We
think we know what is best for them, and this is why we are ready to
strongly
underestimate all those adults, those free thinking individuals.
Muslims are
usually viewed in frustrating environments, without any possibility or
hope for
progress or better life. All the time their family structures are
targeted as
obstacles for humanism and human rights. Men’s dominance in the
family, how it
is reflected socially is one of the primary areas of demanding
modernisation as
the only right thing, as the only solution. “Mis-habits”
(bad habits) in family
relations, such as women’s circumcision, abuse of women and
arranged marriages
are not conditioned by religion. Instead they are cultural and social
phenomena
that deserve scientific examination and not pretensions statements. The
fact
that all of them take place “between four walls” and that
they are not
discussed outside of one’s family is not a phenomenon we meet
only with
Muslims, in Islam. Violence against women and children is not an
unknown
element in Norwegian society. Even though the same phenomenon appears
in
certain other religious environments, we do not pinpoint them as
elements of
religion, quite the contrary, we immediately classify them in media as
family
tragedies, isolated singular appearances.
CONSISTENCY COULD SOLVE a lot of the immigrants’ frustration. Everybody
should
understand by now that these social phenomena take place in certain
immigrant
environments. Authorities should react in cases of “bad
habits” with very
strict jail sentences instead of observing things that take place from
a distance
and handling the situation with policies which do not solve anything
but only
worsen the problems. Immigrants are colourful groups, they are people
with
different backgrounds, and the assaults something that appears in all
societies
independently of their religion or culture. Creation of myths about
immigrant
groups does not give us the opportunity to analyse and understand the
problems
we are facing. Myths only make finding good solutions for satisfaction
all the
parties involved even more difficult.Making
myths more or less always results in a fight
between the strong
superior state and a weak less valuable, loose group.
IS THE DISCOURSE created by cultural and religious differences or
social and
economic elements?
An
invitation of immigrants with Muslim background to a dialogue as equals
could
also solve a lot of problems. The authorities need to come with clear
demands
about measures against “mis-habits” and with suggestion of
laws for protection
of all their members, because we all agree that no cultural tradition
or belief
can justify acts against Norwegian law. Up until now we could only see
the
authorities’ hypocrisy. We have to take as a starting point that the
whole
immigrant group consisting of people with different cultural conditions
and
work out integration politics accordingly. One cannot demand from
immigrants
that they abandon their own identity and cultural traditions for the
purpose of
“smooth” integration.
DURING THE LAST TEN YEARS Norway received a big number of refugees.
This policy
had no cynical agenda behind it, picking out resourceful individuals
with
higher education, as in some other western countries (USA). This is
what
Norwegian society has to get a credit for. Their doors were open for
all those
who needed help and protection. At the same time this does not justify
a clear
lack of insight and knowledge of how to create a functional integration
politic.
THE INTRODUCTION LAWS are well on their way towards elimination of the
hindrances immigrants meet when competing in the job market. These
policies can
function only if the authorities go first and set an example for others
involved. The need to see a number of immigrants in state positions is
bigger
than ever. The new generations have to see some proof that it is also
possible
for immigrants to climb up in leading positions of Norwegian society.
Currently
there are very many resourceful immigrants who are unemployed, or even
worse,
who are doing jobs typical of immigrants, professions such as cleaning,
services and alike. In these cases accepting their education,
recognising the
job experience they have got from their native country would give them
back the
dignity that all people have and wish to keep. In exchange they can
offer a lot
to Norwegian society. First and foremost they can function as bridge
builders
between two realities that exist in Norwegian society.
TO AVOID PREJUDICES, generalisations of whole groups without having a
real
insight in their culture, religion and lifestyle, and at the same time
seeing
their daily obstacles on their way to a better life can prevent future
problems. To use the concept of “immigrant” for those who
are born and raised
in Norway is not a sign of welcome in any way. For many of them this
means
closed doors to one’s own society. It is time to change the
starting point and
open the society towards different societies and different values that
do not
necessarily undermine Norwegian traditions or values. One may be
surprised what
developments in a modern and democratic society can bring. Immigrants
do not
want to be assimilated; they want to be a part of society, which is
also
theirs.
