Let me be multidimensional

As any other higher education institution in North America, the university that currently harbors me is swarming this week with thousands of new students arriving for the start of the academic year. A walk around the crowded campus allows one to perceive the multicultural, multiethnic nature of this country, as young individuals of all races, languages and cultural backgrounds move around getting ready for classes and the needs of student life. All over the place, one may find official university posts or companies offering a variety of administrative or commercial services or organized groups of students trying to get fellow students involved in a wide range of voluntary activities. Among these, I have not failed to notice an extraordinary profuseness of groups basically defining themselves by means of one communitarian trait or another. Let´s see… we have religious groups (”Ambassadors for Jesus”, “Christian Students Association”, “We are Jewish”, “Korean Campus Mission”, “Muslim Students Association”, “Sikh Students Association”…), national origin groups (“African Awareness”, “Asian Canadian Cultural Organization”, “Bangladesh Students Association”, “Gado-Gado Indonesian Student Association”, “Kababayan Filipino Students Association”, “Persian Group”…), sexual orientation groups (“PrideUBC”, all kinds of GLBT groups…), disability groups, and so on. It is quite common some (though not all) of these groups try to appeal to students as if they were essentially unidimensional beings, whose life lacks any meaning if their overriding characteristics -ideally only one per person- are not nurtured. In other words, what some of these groups are saying is “We are Catholic, or Gay, or Jewish, or Chinese, or disabled, or Muslim, or women, or African Americans, or conservatives, or progressives, or Canadian… and only that. So, if you are like us, you necessarily see the world through that specific trait, and it is only natural for you to join us. We are your (homogeneus) community”.

Somehow, we humans have always tended to surround ourselves with people like us. This seems to be a natural -that is, instinctive- trend. However, it is paradoxical that nowadays that we human beings have cut ourselves off so much from the restrictions of nature (instinct) to embrace a dynamic social life (culture), are lately strongly reproducing those restrictions to an open and fruitful interaction among us by stressing that which is suposedly distinctive in us and that fundamentaly differentiates us from others. It is a sign of our communitarian times that we apparently are valuable as humans by means of belonging to a group (and to that group only), as if one of our many attributes as individuals was clearly predominant over the rest of them. Thus, according to this widespread view, it is nearly unnatural, for example, to be feminist and not to hate men; to be gay and Republican; to be Jewish and support Palestinian demands; to be an intellectual and enjoy American Idol; to be progressive and firmly defend free markets; to simultaneously love haute cuisine and McDonald´s burgers; to be a devout believer but favour a radical separation between church and state; to love your mother tongue and the landscapes that saw you growing up and not being a nationalist; to be Chinese and Spanish and black… In other words, it is unnatural to act differently than the group you supposedly belong to and which gives meaning to your existence.

Why, nowadays that freedom is the paramount social value, cannot we have multiple affiliations and unlimited contradictions? Why -what a truism- cannot we be valued just as individuals, regardless of the many families we may belong to in a given moment? Why is it so difficult to be naturally multidimensional?

Photo: ‘The flickr portrait gallery hall of excellence 2007′ © amsterdamned

Lontano da dove?

Lately, my family and some friends have been asking me on a regular basis: Why do you have to go so far away? There wasn´t any closer place to move to? I am often tempted to answer the same way that character did in the Jewish story giving its title to Lontano da dove, the amazing account by Claudio Magris of the Jewish cultural legacy after the fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.[1] Facing all sorts of difficulties in the country he is living in, a Jewish man plans to move away, and visits a rabbi to get his blessings before the trip. When the rabbi learns where the man wants to travel to, he asks: ‘Why so far?’. ‘Far from where?’‘, replies the man, touching on the errant condition of the Jewish people.

Sometimes, we take for granted we know where our home is, and even where it is natural to feel ourselves at home, and perhaps this is true for most people. However, some of us are not so sure our place ought to be close to where your ancestors lived and died, where your mother tongue is spoken, where most of your family lives, where you were born. Some of us are voluntary expatriates, still looking for the landscape, faces, sounds and atmospheres that may help us to recognize a spot as our own. In particular, we do not care about the nationalities or ethnic origin of the people surrounding us, working with us, or where the food, the films, the music we consume comes from. We are promiscuous, culturally promiscuous. We see as a positive thing to be constantly borrowing items from different cultures -as much as possible- to contruct our own. We are post-national in our minds. We abhor cultural endogamy. Actually, we value the availability and interaction of all this diversity in the same place. Therefore, paramount to us is to be surrounded by heterogeneity, and to be able to thrive there where a given ethnicity, culture, religion, skin colour or family name do not imply any advantages or disadvantages from the outset, where opportunities are there if you are determined enough, where every possible path in life is not already set, where choosing your own way does not raise eyebrows in disapproval.

Lontano? I will be closer to myself.

[1] Claudio Magris, Lontano da dove. Joseph Roth e la tradizione ebraico-oriental, Torino, 1971.

Photo: Shadows and reflections, 2007 © Eric Flexyourhead

Identity and immigration priorities

1

The Spanish opposition conservative Popular Party (PP) made public last week its proposed measures on immigration policy as part of its program towards next month´s general election. As it is usually the case in Spain, these propositions were welcomed not with the ensuing debates and discussion such an important issue deserves, but with a cacophony of accusations and contempt from the leftist parties, which in turn triggered new accusations and contempt from the PP. Nothing new under the sun…

The new measures proposed by the PP are twofold. First, a legally binding ‘Integration contract’, whose signature will be mandatory for all new immigrants. Among other prescriptions, this integration contract stipulates immigrants will have to respect the law, pay taxes, and find a job -all of this being already in effect-, but also to learn Spanish and abide by the Spanish customs, without further specification on the latter, though party officials hinted at the prohibition of genital mutilation and the equality between sexes, both of which are already enforced. Failure to comply may result in the immigrant being expelled from the country. The party justified the measure on the need to ameliorate the integration of immigrants by way of them adhering to core Spanish values -”which must be clearly stablished by society as a whole”-, thus improving social cohesion. The need for society to decide in which cases should we all be morally and legally bound and when differences and diversity should be respected was also mentioned.

The second measure consists in the introduction of a new scheme to give out temporary visas and working permits based on a ‘points system’, aiming at facilitating the arrival of high skilled and experienced workers. Along with prioritizing immigrants possesing certain skills or having the high capabilities the Spanish labour market is in need of, those individuals coming from countries “with which we may have special or historical links” would also be favored. According to one leading Spanish newspaper the PP would actually like to toughen immigration policy giving preference to foreigners arriving from Latin America -catholic and Spanish speakers- over those coming from the Maghrib -muslim and Arab speakers-. Also, temporary and working visas would be awarded according to the following criteria: (a) Knowledge of Spanish; (b) Professional skills; (c) Knowledge of the Spanish legal system; and (d) Knowledge of the Spanish culture.

On the left camp, the governmental Socialist Party (PSOE) deemed the announced proposals xenophobic, reactionary and discriminating; the socialist Vicepresident considered they favor rejection and racism, and showed contempt for immigrants, for equality and for diversity; and the post-communist United Left (IU) added they were racist, classist and islamophobic, and that the PP abhors diversity and religious pluralism.

Do measures like those proposed improve immigrants integration and social cohesion, as the PP claims, or else they embody racism and contempt for other cultures, as the left asserts? At this point it would be interesting to look at how other countries are coping with immigration and diversity, and one such interesting comparation, if not the most appropriate, is the Canadian case.

Canada has, right after Australia, the highest proportion of foreign-born population in the world (19,8%). In the five years preceding 2006, the year for which we have the latest available figures, Canada’s foreign-born population increased by 13.6% (the equivalent rate for the Canadian-born population was 3.3% for the same period. Immigrants born in Asia and the Middle East made up the largest proportion (58.3%) of newcomers, followed by those born in Europe (16,1%), Central and South America (10,8%) and in Africa (10,6%). In 2006, just three metropolitan areas -Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver- were home to nearly 70% of all recent immigrants. 70.2% of the foreign-born population is allophone, that is, has as mother tongue neither English nor French. If aboriginal languages are included, one out of five Canadians does not have any of the official languages as mother tongue. Regarding religion, in 2001 Catholics and Protestants made up nearly 70% of the population; another 15% has no religious affiliation, the rest was Othodox, other types of Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh and other, in varying percentages.

Commensurately with this astonishing level of diversity, Canada faces enormous integration challenges, and the country has engaged itself in a ceaseless debate on the core values of its social and political system, trying to stablish what being Canadian really means and what this notion of citizenship, if any, implies for the Canadian legal system. Both liberal institutions granting rights and freedoms, the rule of law, and multiculturalism play a relevant role in this debate, the most important one Canada faces nowadays as a nation.

The current Canadian immigration policy is based on the idea that immigration prompts the country’s growth, its prosperity and its cultural diversity. The system also aims at families´reunion and the protection of refugees. Permanent residence is usually granted according to a point system based on several selection factors, such as educational level, abilities in English or French, working experience, age, arranged employment in the country, or potential adaptability (having studied in Canada, having relatives or having previous work there). Immigrants are also subjected to a proof of funds, that is, they must show they are not going to be dependent on the state after their arrival. Residents and citizens may sponsor relatives to immigrate in the country, and it is worth noting that -on a very progressive note and besides dependent children, grandparents, siblings and other relatives- not only spouses but also common-law or conjugal partners are eligible. Finally, let us mention language proficiency and knowledge about Canadian culture plays an important role, but only when applying for citizenship. Broadly speaking, the system aims both at matching the needs of Canadian labour market with both the skills and flows of newcomers, and at facilitating integration by means of a non-restrictive, non-ideological and objective set of selection criteria, and also helping families reunite.

The Canadian immigration system has worked reasonably well, is the result of successive approaches to immigration and integration policies throughout decades, and commands a high degree of approval among the Canadian population and the agreement of all political parties. Sure, there are challenges and integration issues in Canada, as mentioned before, such as social tensions regarding some cultural practices or the consecuences of a certain degree of permanent low income among recent immigrants, but, overall, the system has worked efficiently and allowed for the great numbers of newcomers mentioned above to settle successfully in the country -access to citizenship is easy, in international terms, as permanent residents may apply for it after three years, and about 85% of those eligible get naturalized- and share the wealth its arrival has contributed so much to trigger.

Going back to Spain, what does the Canadian experience tell us?

It is strongly advisable for a country subjected to high immigration rates to open a public debate on identity issues, as comprehensive as possible and including immigrant groups. Our society, as those of many other countries, is becoming increasingly multicultural, and cannot do without trying to stablish which is our minimum set of core values, those our legislation must embody and protect, and citizens and residents comply with. However, this is not an easy task, and different parties in the debate may feel the temptation to try to impose their views, resorting either to an elusive concept of ‘ancestral national culture’ -empty and dysfunctional in the face of accelerated social change- or to a multiculturalist notion of citizenship, which relativizes values and may lead to a ghettoization of certain groups and entrenched discriminating practices inside ethno-cultural communities and among them.

When making public their immigration policy proposals, the Popular Party spokesmen mentioned the need to address this debate on core values, and rightly so, but perhaps an electoral campaign is not the best moment to raise the subject, which calls for a quiet, comprehensive and long-term reflection, nor political parties should be its (only) stirring agents, as many other social forces, institutions and individuals ought to have a say in the disscusion.

By choosing to bring up immigration and integration issues just before a general election, the Popular Party looks like he is not so much interested in opening a debate on these extremely important questions but on gaining some political advantage by means of playing with the emotions of voters. Also, the criteria it advanced for stablishing priorities among residency claimants seem to be very subjective and hastily assembled, though consistent with a certain conservative notion of Spanish culture, as if its definition enjoyed an overwhelming consent and needed no further discussion, which is just the contrary of the non-biased reflection mentioned above. Whereas having certain professional skills and at least a working command of Spanish may increase immigrants´chances of finding a job and integrating, it is difficult to grasp how favoring certain countries of origin over other countries or regions -out of culture, religion or historical links- will benefit the Spanish economy. This arbitrariness also reveals an static idea of Spanish culture, insusceptible to change and frozen in time, and it sends the message as well that Spain is an open country not for those wanting to come here to live, respect the laws, progress and contribute to its wealth, but only for the ones who will not challenge the supposedly immutable essence of Spanish ‘culture’.

On the other hand, the socialist government and the rest of the leftist parties are wrong in criticizing the stablishment of priorities in the immigration policies and of certain rules newcomers must observe, since it is perfectly legitimate governments choose which people are entitled to form part of their societies, and doing so in a non-discriminating, open-to-all and reasonable manner is a proper way of conducting public policy.

The reaction of the left lays bare the fact it does not really know how to address the identity and multicultural issues we are facing. Or else, worst still, as in the case of post-communist or post-marxist parties and movements, they know perfectly well, following their desire of detonating the pivotal institutions of our open societies. Regarding integration and identity, it is worth recalling cultures are dynamic and are subjected to constant change; they are not ‘stock’ but ‘flow’, to borrow the language of the economic science. However, we must give sound arguments and reasons to defend or criticize the elements making up a culture and, if we care at all for human rights, rule out any relativist temptations, which prevent us from exercising a rightful critique of cultural practices. Let us not fool ourselves: criminalizing genital mutilation and arranged marriage but leaving intact many other forms of abuse in the name of diversity -something post-marxist movements and even a part the socialdemocratic left support- only shows our selfishness and our disdain for the fate of the individuals we supposedly care for. Avoiding a debate on what constitutes the foundations of our freedom -those deserving uttermost respect on the part of citizens, residents and visitors alike- and, moreover, doing so out of a supposed ‘respect’ for the customs dear to minoritarian ethno-cultural groups also being a part of our society, only demeans our legitimacy to speak for the oppressed and the abused in those groups, and exposes the degree towards which we yield to a sort of post-colonial remorse -conveniently transmited through generations-, and also the fact that we are paradoxically shameful about the accomplishments of our civilization.

Far from being an exercise on ‘neo-colonialist’ imposition and ‘contempt’ for diversity and pluralism, to judge by the left´s initial reaction to the Popular Party immigration measures -the point not being how good or ill-conceived they are-, vindicating the very values and institutions that make us all equal before the law and grant us, among many other things, the freedom to engage in the cultural practices of our election or the abandonment of them, is the only way of organizing a multiethnic, multicultural and diverse society for the good of its members. For all of them, current and prospective.

Photo: School friends, 2007 © Woodleywonderworks

The convictions of a libertarian candidate

Reading some of the opinions about a variety of issues of one of the American presidential candidates, you may think we are no longer living in the 21st century and travelled back in a time machine to the age of the American founding fathers. You cannot accuse Republican congressman Ron Paul of flip-flopping or dithering about his principles. However, in the words of this Texan libertarian, Thomas Jefferson and Ronald Reagan become strange bedfellows. Paul claims governments are the biggest threat to freedom, thus the need to reduce their size as much as possible and devolve decision powers to citizens in nearly every realm of social life. This includes upholding the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which allows American citizens to keep and bear arms, and reapeling every single piece of legislation devised to put into effect that right in the case of assault weapons or psychopaths. What Paul eschews to acknowledge -it would go against its libertarian beliefs-, and many other libertarians as well, is that the sole purpose of arms is to kill or wound, that we no longer live under tyrannical regimes -though far from perfect, we have devised institutions to help us have a say in what is being done to us and in our name-, that we no longer require armed militias to defend ourselves from our own government, that modern, functioning democracies are not just examples of ‘majoritarianism’, and that if we want to keep social order we better grant the state the monopoly of violence and then try to control it with reasonable checks.

Paul makes sharp and appropriate comments regarding government´s meddling in our private affairs (i.e.: the war on drugs) and, as other libertarians and classic liberals before him, the limits and failures of government intervention in many areas of public life, but fails to identify the present and future challenges to our freedom and our welfare, which do not come from democratically elected governments whose actions are subjected to the rule of law. Also, he does not recognize we may not fight many forms of discrimination in our modern societies with liberalization and free markets alone, and that some sort of government action is needed. True, governments may end up worsening the very problems they tried to solve -for instance, he is right at stating governments are exacerbating the problem of ethnocultural relations with their notions of ‘multiculturalism’-, but that is not an argument per se against public policies -to follow with our example, doing nothing will not improve social and economic integration-. Those challenges and threats -global terror, climate change, mass migrations, AIDS and other diseases, failed states, some forms of discrimination or how to bring the benefits of globalization to many world regions, to name but a few- are best meet with a flexible combination of private entrepreneurship and the accompanying role of a limited, effective government constrained by national and international laws (Paul is a self-proclaimed and extreme isolationist who advocates the U.S. withdrawing from or opposing institutions such as the UN, the NAFTA Agreement or the International Criminal Court).

Our libertarian candidate makes yet other remarks (i.e: against abortion, against federal funding for stem cells research and other comments on religion) that have nothing to do with liberalism. I am interested in knowing about his ideas on gay marriage or euthanasia, though I may easily guess at them. I claim these particular views make him a conservative, like scores of others who purport to be (classic) liberals but actually defend the status quo and despise certain lifestyles they dissaprove.

Ron Paul´s official website

Photo: Ron Paul © The Ithacan

Mongrel fate

To the outrage of racists, xenophobes and ethnic nationalists, it is a fact individuals tend to mix, if they are not prevented from doing so. And even if this is the case, the political and social obstacles must be very important, and be accompanied by serious punishment, for the inclination of human beings to intermix is unavoidable. Therefore, hanging on to unrealistic beliefs of cultural, ethnically homogeneous peoples cannot produce but anger, violence and resentment. However, this does not imply ethnic nationalist and extreme right forces will easily vanish from the political landscape, since they articulate many interests besides being a receptacle for social frustration. As both curiosity in every realm, from culture to sex, along with the capacity to adapt to a changing enviroment, are basic traits of human nature, given optimal conditions -that is, individuals being free to move spatially and settle at will- (at least the most prosperous) peoples tend to lose their ethno-cultural homogeneity -if there ever was one- to be composed of increasingly diverse generations, as a growing proportion of our already varied offspring will be inclined to mix. It is also true that the absence of those optimal conditions does not avert the mingling process, though it surely affects its pace. In turn, all this blood-mixing cannot bring but new energy and prosperity to those multiethnic societies. In short, we may well speak -fortunately, indeed- of a ‘mestizo’ or mongrel future awaiting the human race.

Photo: Portraits from Part Asian, 100% Hapa, by Kip Fulbeck, San Francisco, Chronicle Books, 2006.