nrc.nl
Integration: A Two-Way Process, Not Just a Program
Professor Peter Scholten advocates for a nuanced understanding of "integration," distinguishing between the social process of becoming part of society and the political programs aimed at managing it, highlighting that both established residents and newcomers are affected by the degree of societal openness and that discriminatory programs harm everyone.
- What are the key distinctions between integration as a process and integration as a program, and how do these distinctions affect social cohesion?
- Professor Peter Scholten argues against discarding the term "integration," emphasizing its role in promoting social cohesion for everyone, not just newcomers. He distinguishes between integration as a process (socialization into society) and as a program (government policies). The process involves learning a common language, laws, and norms, facilitated by institutions like education and the job market.
- How have historical examples of exclusion, such as those faced by Jews in the Netherlands or immigrants in other countries, shaped current understandings of integration?
- Scholten's argument highlights that integration is a two-way process affecting both established residents and newcomers, influenced by societal access to key institutions. Historical examples, such as the exclusion of Jews in the Netherlands, illustrate that limited access hinders integration for all, not just immigrants. The speed of integration depends heavily on the society's openness.
- What are the long-term consequences of focusing primarily on the program side of integration, and how can a more holistic approach that considers integration as a two-way process be achieved?
- The article warns against the dangers of focusing solely on "integration as a program," which can lead to discriminatory policies. Examples like the stigmatization of Muslim immigrants in the Netherlands, resulting in systematic discrimination, demonstrate the negative impact of such programs on integration. This limits social cohesion and harms society as a whole.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the discussion around the problematic nature of focusing solely on the 'programmatic' aspect of integration, implicitly criticizing policies that emphasize specific assimilation programs. This framing directs the reader to view such programs as potentially harmful and counterproductive to genuine integration. The use of examples like the treatment of immigrants in New Zealand and Australia, and the US's Americanization programs further reinforces this negative perspective.
Language Bias
The article uses strong language in describing certain policies and attitudes towards integration, such as "extreme," "dwangmatige," and "racistische." While these terms might reflect the author's perspective, they lack neutrality. More neutral alternatives would enhance the objectivity of the analysis.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the integration of immigrants in the Netherlands, but omits discussion of the integration challenges faced by other minority groups within the country. While acknowledging some historical examples (Joden in Nederland, Dalits in India, Afro-Americans in the US), a more comprehensive analysis of diverse integration experiences within Dutch society would provide a more balanced perspective.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a dichotomy between 'integration as a process' and 'integration as a program,' but this framing might oversimplify the complex interplay between individual agency, societal structures, and government policies. The reality likely involves a nuanced interaction rather than a strict separation.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights how systematic discrimination and stigmatisation, particularly against minority groups, hinder their integration and perpetuates inequality. Examples cited include the historical exclusion of Jewish people in the Netherlands, and the ongoing discrimination faced by Muslim immigrants, impacting their access to employment and fair treatment by the government. This directly contradicts the SDG target of reducing inequalities within and among countries.