Procrustean rulers

In my last post in this section (“Let me be multidimensional”), I addressed the issue of the alleged unidimensionalism that characterizes human beings, according to certain proponents of multiculturalist worldviews. Now I would like to take on the governmental attempts to diminish social pluralism. In principle, the fragmentation of societies in a myriad of unidimensional groups I refered to in my previous post seems to be the opposite of the efforts to end up with diversity, but we shall see how they share the same underlaying mechanism.

By and large, political and social leaders do not like pluralism for, on the one hand, it erodes the foundations of their power; that is, their ability to present themselves as embodying or guaranteeing certain core values of the group or nation they lead. Achieving this goal is difficult if the group is very diverse -as the values and traits of its members are likely to be as diverse as them-, and less so if it is more homogeneous. On the other hand, and this is perhaps more important, political leaders whose aim consist mainly in helping guarantee the highest possible freedom to their fellow citizens in every possible realm are the exception and not the norm. Most governments exercise power with a precise agenda inspired by a particular notion of what is morally good or desirable. Bringing about this political agenda -encouraging or even imposing a specific notion of the good- requires a certain degree of moral conformity, something that, in turn, leads to an increased social uniformity. This phenomenon is all too apparent in dictatorial regimes, and much more so in those labelled as “leftist” or revolutionary, and in those based on some kind of religious fundamentalism. The Ukrainian author Adam Zagajewski captures magnificently this idea when describing the efforts of the former Eastern Europe socialist dictatorships to wipe off social heterogeneity:

«The aim of this coup was the complete and ultimate making over of the human collective, also made up of types and forms constantly modified but appearing anew with each generation, as in Tarot cards: we will always find a Cheater, Globetrotter, Gafdy, Drunkard, Proprietor, Tenant, Seducer, Seduced, Pawnbroker, Priest, Artist, etc. Thus the social upheaval planned by the communists assumed that there was something evil and sinful in this variety of types that has existed since time immemorial and the authorities strove relentlessly to produce only three types of man: Functionary, Worker, Policeman». [1]

However, not only dictatorships abhor moral and social diversity. Those of us living in democratic regimes are constantly bullied into behaving in virtuous ways not chosen by us but by our rulers. Democratic governments almost never resist the temptation to remain neutral among different conceptions of the good -thought this should be a central tenet of liberal regimes- and, as a result of this “Fatal Conceit” (in the words of Friedrich Hayek), of this belief that goverments can and should change the world with their actions, we endure ceaseless campaigns prompting us to eat certain food, wear certain clothes, avoid certain lifestyles, and so on. This would be not more than another example of the annoying public intromission in our private lives if it was not by the fact that most of them are mandatory and carry serious sanctions for the law-breachers, distort markets in very important ways and nearly always try to control choices whose consecuences affect no other than the individual making them. The list of examples is never-ending, from governmental attacks on fast food chains to the absolute prohibition to produce, distribute and consume recreative drugs or even take our own life; from which languages we should speak or avoid and what exact words should we employ to refer to other people or describe a variety of social conditions (think of the epidemic of political correctness), to who are we allowed to buy certain services from in basic realms as health, education and labour, and in which terms.

Governments will always try to do away with diversity and pluralism and impose their own moral agendas, and the huge differences existing in this sense between dictatorships and democracies should not conceal the fact that those are of degree and not of substance. [2]

Where is the link here with my previous comments on the purported unidimensionalism that, according to most communitarian theories, defines our social beings and renders our belonging to identity-based groups an ineluctable reality? Both -though not all- governments and identity groups seek to impose homogeneity to a certain degree; both -though not all- usually rely on the belief that there are essential traits in us that makes us natural members or a group or a nation and disciplinedly share a common set of values in its entirety.

Ultimately, these attempts to wipe off the personal qualities that diferentiate us from others and -contrary to what collectivist thinkers seem to believe- allow us to relate to others as free, responsible individuals and bring society into existence-, amount to no more than a strategy to acquire, exercise and maintain power on the part of those social and political elites, rendering us as means and not as ends in ourselves, worthy of respect, privacy and free rein. And it is precisely this procrustean endeavour to make everyone fit in the same bed, at the price of amputating our legs, streching out our arms, or getting rid of our brains altogether, what Stefan Zweig, praising the works of the French philosopher Michel de Montaigne, has masterfully labelled as an error and a crime:

«Il n´est qu´un erreur et qu´un crime: vouloir enfermer la diversité du monde dans des doctrines et des systèmes. C´est une erreur que de détourner d´autres hommes de leur libre jugement, de leur volonté prope, et de leur imposer quelque chose qui n´est pas en eux. Seuls agissent ainsi ceux qui respectent pas la liberté, et Montaigne n´a rien tant haï que la “frénésie”, le furieux délire des dictateurs de l´esprit, qui veulent avec arrogance et vanité imposer au monde leurs “nouveautés” comme la seule et indiscutable vérité, et pour qui le sang de centaines de milliers d´hommes n´est rien pourvu que leur cause triomphe». [3]

Notes:

[1] Adam Zagajewski, 1995, Two cities. On exile, history, and the imagination, New York, Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1995, pp. 37-38, trad. Lillian Vallee, originally published in Polish under the title Dwa Miasta in 1991.

[2] For those of you who find it difficult to read between the lines, my argument does not criticize governmental intervention per se, but only in relation to wholly private affairs and in particular realms of social life.

[3] Stefan Zweig, Montaigne, quoted in the introduction to the 2002 edition of Les essais, by Michel de Montaigne, Paris, Arléa.

Photo: George Grosz, The City, 1916/17, Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection, Madrid @ abcgallery

Happy birthday, my friend

Today my friend Tom turns eighty-eight. For a variety of reasons, I have seldom contacted him lately, but I did not want to miss out the chance to express publicly my respect, my admiration and my personal gratitude to him. Tom is probably not only the world´s most important expert in psychiatry, psychoanalysis and personal and social behaviour, but also the person who has had the most significant impact on worldwide generations of social researchers, politicians, physicians, and scholars worried about the increasing medicalization of society and the progressive loss of our basic liberties on the medical-political Establishment´s hands. However, forgive me if I do not devote this space to praising his public figure right now. Check out any of the two-million Google search references with his name, or, better still, visit his website, The Thomas S. Szasz Cybercenter for Liberty and Responsibility, if you want to know about his intellectual stature, his dozens of books, and hundreds of articles and speeches. Read his texts. You will realize that, the number of his works being almost immeasurable, what makes a difference is what he says, rather than how many times he says it. I am not going to talk about his magnum opus either. There are many studies, articles and reviews on The Myth of Mental Illness (New York: Paul B. Hoeber, 1961) and the importance of this paramount work in the medical, social, political, and philosophical fields. What I really want to do is to talk very briefly about the Tom I had the pleasure to meet some years ago. Actually, I ‘met’ him before actually meeting him, when I read for the first time Our Right to Drugs: The Case for a Free Market (New York: Praeger, 1992), and became fascinated by the logical strength of his arguments. Then The Myth of Mental Illness, The Meaning of Mind (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1996), and many other of his books contributed to change the way I had thought about personal freedom issues for good. Since I started reading him and, later on, communicating with him, I have never come accross a single book, article, letter or piece of text that has not left me thinking, reflecting, and later wondering how on earth someone could possibly write such a number of masterworks. In 2001, I had the honor of translating into Spanish his book Fatal Freedom: The Ethics and Politics of Suicide (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1999), and a year later I visited him in his hometown in upstate New York. I will never forget how nicely and kindly he greeted and showed us around the amazing national park surrounding Syracuse, his brilliant reasoning in our conversations, and the peaceful atmosphere of his beautiful house in the middle of a forest in the town of Manlius. I have never meet anyone with such intelligence and mental strength, and, at the same time, equally high principles, decency, kindness, and sense of humour.

Dear Tom, I hope you have had the best of birthdays, full with the love of your family, and surrounded by the Spring colors of the amazingly beautiful trees of your place. We do not forget you in this side of the Atlantic.

All the best,

Photo: Thomas S. Szasz, Syracuse, New York, 2002 © www.szasz.com

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

Want to join the club? Then do not criticize our rules

One catholic priest in a village near Toledo declared yesterday he will not admit children at the rite of confirmation (in the Christian Church, this is the rite at which a baptized person is admitted as a full member of the religious community) unless their parents withdraw them from a forthcoming course called ‘Education for Citizenship’, which will be mandatory for all children in Spain beginning next academic year. This new subject was incorpotated to the core national curricula by the Spanish parliament this year, and, among other things, explains how our democratic institutions work or how our society is formed by people of very different ethnic backgrounds, religious beliefs and sexual orientations, all of them deserving respect. The Spanish Catholic Church considers it to be inmoral and against traditional values. Amid the fuss generated by the priest intentions, the local Church hierarchy has backed down from its initial plans. Why all this uproar? Because of the pressure the Church wants to exert on a democratic government to withdraw the law by means of its followers. I see things rather differently. First, the Catholic Church, as any other sect, should be a fully private institution, not receiving a single cent from the state or using any public facility. Obviously, it should have nothing to do with the public education system, thought it ought to have the right to set up private schools, which would receive no public funds. Second, as a private club, it should be allowed to fix its own rules, provided they do not go against the laws. If an adult voluntarily wants to join a religious group, she should be aware of its rules, and abide by them, period. All this reminds me of another example in which the current epidemics of political correctness also plays an important role. A few months ago, a girl was dispossessed of her newly won crown at a Spanish beauty contest because she hid to the jury she had a son, something strictly forbidden according to the rules. Since those rules applied only to women and not to men, the organization´s decision triggered wide spread complaints, amid accusations of sexual discrimination. Yet beauty contests are among the most stupid and prejudiced inventions of humanity. If an adult voluntarily wants to take part in them, she should be aware of its discriminatory rules, and abide by them, period. What is not fair is acting as if you did not know where you were getting into, especially when things are not going your way. The Church has never been a democratic or egalitarian institution. Why asking it to become one now? Because the political correctness climate demands so. The state has no right to force private citizens or institutions to behave in a particular way. However, the Spanish Constitution establishes the separation between Church and state, and it is high time our governments live up to that principle.

Photo: St. Mary’s of the Assumption Catholic Church, Rocklin, CA, 2008 © Encouragement