Halleh Ghorashi became the first holder of the prestigious
PAVEM chair in Management of Diversity and Integration
on 13 October 2006. Princess Máxima is on the PAVEM
committee and attended the inauguration ceremony.
The Text Consulted translated Professor Ghorashi’s Inaugural Address.
Paradoxes of Cultural Recognition: Management of Diversity in the New Netherlands
Professor Halleh Ghorashi
Rector Magnificus, Your Royal Highness Princess Máxima, Ladies and Gentlemen,
In this inaugural lecture, I would like to show that the current cultural diversity in the composition of the population in the Netherlands raises new challenges and, hence, requires new
perspectives on our future coexistence. Before we can venture to understand the present-day
issues in the Netherlands, however, we need to gain an understanding of the historical roots
of contemporary processes. In the extended version of my inaugural lecture, which will presently be distributed, I present a brief historical overview of the ways of thinking about migration and integration issues as these have evolved in the public domain over the years. In
summary, I show that, with reference to new migrants, the dominant discourse in the Netherlands has been strongly categorical right from the start. This categorical kind of thinking
consists of two components. The first component is that, from a socio-cultural point of view,
migrants always deviate from Dutch norms by definition. This is founded on a static and essentialist approach to culture, in which cultural content is considered to determine all actions
of individuals. Such an approach leaves little space for individual interpretations and creativity with regard to cultural background. The second component is that, from the very start,
migrants are at a socio-economic disadvantage. Jan Rath (1991) uses the term ‘minorization’
to refer to categorical thinking about new migrants.
The dominant discourse – as expressed in policies, political debate, and public discussion
– has shifted several times in recent decades. In the seventies, it focused on migrants’ preserving their own cultures. Later, it shifted to migrants’ integration while preserving their own
cultures. At present, the central idea is that attacking so-called ‘culture-based crime’ and
making civic integration mandatory would be conducive to integration. It would seem, therefore, as if the dominant discourse has made a complete changeover in terms of content. It is
widely believed that the noncommittal outlook of the 1970s and 1980s has been abandoned
and that a shift has taken place from socio-economic to socio-cultural aspects of integration
issues.
As I will argue here, however, despite all shifts within the dominant discourse relating to migrant issues, its content has hardly changed at all. This is because categorical thinking, with
its powerful socio-cultural and socio-economic components, has remained a crucial feature of
thinking on migrant issues in the Netherlands. The paradox here is that, even when policies in
the 1980s focused explicitly on socio-economic aspects, assumptions about socio-cultural differences remained an inseparable part of these policies. In addition, while the focus of policies
tended to shift from groups to individuals, these policies were designed, paradoxically, on the
basis of cultural groups (Entzinger 2003). This means that the various policy shifts have never
called into question or exposed the basic assumptions underlying these policies.
Minorization, Pillarization, and the Welfare State
In order to be able to understand minorization as a dominant discourse in Dutch society, it
needs to be situated in the context of two historical phenomena: pillarization and the welfare
state.
The construction of pillars – closed worlds – along lines of religious denomination and political
ideology has long been the dominant framework for thinking about differences in the Netherlands. The dichotomy between us and them, with its emphasis on group boundaries, has latently shaped the ways in which new migrants have been approached in the Netherlands. The
consequences of this history of pillarization for migrants are most evident for those from Islamic
countries: they were mentally fitted into a new kind of Islamic pillar.
This has caused new migrants from Islamic countries to find themselves in a confusing field of
tension. As the old habits of thinking in terms of pillarization were translated into those of minorization, this left – and even created – space for these migrants to preserve their cultures in
a Netherlands where the traditional religious and socio-political barriers had meanwhile been
removed. This thinking in terms of pillars has had a much wider effect than on Islamic migrants
alone. To a certain extent, it has demarcated thinking about cultural differences and ethnic
boundaries. This has led to the creation of cultural contrasts that make it virtually impossible to
consider the individual migrant as separate from his or her cultural or ethnic category.
Another development that has served to make the component of socio-economic disadvantage
more pronounced in categorical thinking is the rise of the welfare state. With its emphasis on
equality in combination with the routine modus operandi of the whole system of welfare agencies, the welfare state has had the unintended effect of rapidly reducing even active and capable people to a state of helplessness. This means that, despite the positive significance of the
welfare state for individual space and for the struggle against the social divide, it has also been
a major breeding ground for categorical thinking about migrants as groups that are socially
disadvantaged.
So What Has Changed?
In the era that is now commonly called the post-Fortuyn period, we have seen new modes of
categorical thinking arise. We see, for instance, that the emphasis on the negative consequences of cultural contrasts or culturalization has gained much greater prominence and is now
much in evidence as the ‘Islamization’ of discourse. Right from the 1970s, thinking about migrants in the Netherlands has been alert to the possible threat cultural differences might pose
to society. And yet, the most conspicuous feature of this period was its emphasis on socio-economic disadvantage and the optimistic view that the integration of migrants would eventually
succeed, as it had done with other groups of migrants.
What has changed considerably, however, since 2000 is a shift in tone, demanding that ‘we
must be allowed to say what we think.’ Baukje Prins (2004) calls this period the era of ‘the new
realism’. The new realist is someone with guts; someone who dares to call a spade a spade;
someone who sets himself up as the mouthpiece of the common people and then puts up a
vigorous fight against the so-called left-wing, ‘politically correct’ views of cultural relativism.
This taboo-breaking attitude also has a historical situation, called the ‘ideology of discussability’ by James Kennedy.
In retrospect, the statements made by Frits Bolkestein in the early 1990s can be seen as the
start of the period of new realism. Pim Fortuyn took it to the next level by radicalizing the new
realism into a kind of hyperrealism in which ‘the guts to tell the truth’ became an end in itself,
irrespective of the consequences (Prins 2004: 43). The dominance of this hyperrealism, combined with the 11 September attacks and the assassinations of Fortuyn and Van Gogh, has
caused thinking in terms of cultural contrasts to be linked to feelings of fear and discontent. As
a consequence, migrants and, hence, migrant cultures are now viewed with aversion and mistrust, and these views are being translated into policy and public debate. It is my argument that
this hyperrealism in the Netherlands would never have acquired such a following if the basic
assumptions of categorical thinking had not already been present in the dominant discourse on
migrants for many years. This means that, despite its tough language on the integration efforts
of the past, in its substance, the new realism is entirely in line with the categorical thinking of
recent decades. Both are rooted in thinking in terms of cultural contrasts and in the conviction
that migrants are at a disadvantage and need to be rid of this disadvantage. There have been
shifts in tone (from soft to harsh), in focus (from socio-economic to socio-cultural), and in outlook (from optimistic to pessimistic). These shifts, however, have had little bearing on the substance of the matter. As long as categorical thinking itself is not called into question, thinking in
terms of us/them in the Netherlands will continue to be fed and reinforced. This means that, in
the long term, we cannot give an adequate answer to the question, ‘How can the Netherlands
deal with the challenges ensuing from the arrival of new migrants?’
Beyond Categorical Thinking
My main criticism of categorical thinking does not concern the categorizing itself. It is impossible to conceive of life without categories. My criticism is about categories being made into
absolute contrasts. In the social sciences, this type of conception of culture has been criticized
since the 1960s, when the anthropologist Fredrik Barth (1969) argued that ethnic boundaries
are not created and preserved by cultural content, but that these boundaries are constructed in
order to pursue a ‘political’ goal. Cultural characteristics are thrown into sharp relief precisely
when they can be used to mark a difference between us and them. This means that ethnic
boundaries between groups should chiefly be considered constructions that are situational,
contextual, and changeable, rather than entities that are inherent in the essence of different
cultures.
This non-essentialist approach to identity leaves greater scope for analysing individual action
with regard to the individual’s own culture. The ways in which individuals perceive their culture
and give meaning to it are diverse and variable. People are capable of criticizing their cultural
habitus and opening themselves up to innovation and supplementation with new cultural elements. This often leads to diverse forms of connections. What is needed, however, for such
reflection and innovation to be admitted is a feeling of safety. The general precondition for
reflection, therefore, is a safe space. When people feel threatened and coerced, they generally
respond reactively. This considerably narrows down people’s space for making connections,
for it causes them to cut themselves off from rather than open themselves up to potential new
contacts and combinations. For people to open themselves up to new ideas and connections,
they need to feel recognized in who they are: social recognition is of paramount importance for
human development (Taylor 1995). What, then, is needed and what are the preconditions for
such cultural recognition?
Shaping a Democratic Culture
What is mainly needed for cultural recognition is a democratic culture. Democracy goes far
beyond people’s liberty to go to the polls. In contrast to what is often maintained, democracy
is not just about the majority, but it is particularly about space for the minority. This is exactly
what constitutes the difference between a constitutional democracy and a populist democracy:
in the latter, the voice of the majority is given a relatively free reign but the voice of the minority is not secured. Democracy without opposition is not a democracy.
IJsseling argues, following Lefort, that democracy is not primarily about similarity but rather
about the recognition of difference or being different (IJsseling 1999). This important aspect
of democracy requires a democratic culture that creates space for being different. And yet it is
precisely this aspect of democracy that is often in danger of being overlooked by predominating economic interests. This is why Giddens (1999) advocates the ‘democratization of democracy’, in which greater attention is paid to a democratic culture. According to Tocqueville, democracy is not only a form of government but also a way of life. This implies a change in social
relations. Proponents of ‘deliberative’ democracy underscore the public forum, in which citizens
are empowered, in a free and open dialogue, to translate their personal preferences into more
public objectives (Janssens & Steyaert 2001: 204). Critics of this approach feel that democracy,
in such a conception, is reduced to being a dialogue and that it fails to take into account power
relations and their impact on people’s access to the major public platforms. Democracy is more
than simply a dialogue: it comprises a culture, an outlook, and a way of life. A democratic
outlook implies that you accept from the very start that another person may be different. A
democratic structure does not amount to much without a democratic culture, and a democratic
culture is only feasible if it takes not the I but the other as its starting-point.
This basic precondition for a democratic way of life requires tolerance as an important democratic virtue. Tolerance served as the basis for maintaining unity in diversity when the Netherlands was a pillarized society. Experiences in the 1980s, however, have demonstrated that tolerance conceived as leaving space – which may involve indifference – has not been enough to
enable migrants to make an emotional commitment to Dutch society. For the new Netherlands,
therefore, we need to take an additional step: not only leaving space but also making space.
This is about the will to meet the other, which, over and above a convincing plea, especially
requires the ability to make space or to step aside. Therefore, this step is inevitable for connecting and meeting in the new Netherlands, so that the other is admitted and wants to step into
the common denominator of Dutch-ness. Only by taking this step can a culture of democracy
fully develop in the new Netherlands. This step aside is an important and inevitable move in
creating a common interspace in the new Netherlands, in which we can admit, meet, and connect with the other and invite him or her into the common space of Dutch nationals. The next
step in a democratic outlook would then be to guard space, that is, to be prepared to make an
effort to guard and, if necessary, defend another person’s liberty and space.
The Netherlands already has experience with the kind of tolerance that leaves space, but what
does making space concretely entail?
1) Making Space for Cultural Hybrids
Every society has groups that are antagonistic and prefer to remain marginal. Nonetheless, a
society must create conditions that are favourable to those who do not wish to seclude themselves and who do opt for change. In concrete terms, I am referring to the group of new Dutch
nationals who have the potential of being hybrid or hyphenated Dutch and position themselves
as Differently Dutch. These ‘cultural hybrids’ make a conscious choice in what they do or do
not wish to cherish in their own cultures. Such people symbolize what modern societies embody – liberty – because they are capable of preserving the best of both worlds without getting
enmeshed in the givens of their own culture. By making space for these new Dutch men and
women and by making sure they receive the recognition they need to shape their identities
in liberty, it will be possible to marginalize radical groups. These new hybrid Dutch men and
women are not enemies of Dutch society and its future, but allies of the ‘native’ Dutch, who
also need to have the courage to change.
2) Making Space for Social Dialogue and Encounter
The major conditions for social encounter proceeding from difference are openness and curiosity (Tennekes 1994). In the Netherlands today, it takes a lot of nerve to run counter to the
dominant discourse of categorical thinking and to convert abhorrence and fear of the other
into curiosity and openness. For a more profound encounter with the other, however, yet another step must be taken. This is the step that philosopher Theo de Boer (1993) considers a first
prerequisite for intercultural dialogue. This step is called epochè, which is a temporary suspension of the truth of one’s own judgement. We cannot listen to another person without temporarily putting a question mark over our own conviction. This does not involve casting doubt on
our own ideas but rather creating a common space in which we can listen to the other and get
closer to him or her. What is salient in De Boer’s view is that, without suspension, discussion is
pointless; without conviction, there is nothing at stake.
3) Making Space for a New Kind of Dutchness
The idea of the migrant as a guest has long since lost its currency in the Netherlands, but an
idea that is persistently dominant is that migrants’ most ‘natural’ link is the one they have with
their country of origin. You may be familiar with the often-told joke by Ulrich Beck. A black
man in Germany is asked: ‘Where are you from?’ He answers: ‘From Munich.’ Q: ‘And your
parents?’ A: ‘Also from Munich.’ Q: ‘And where were they born?’ A: ‘My mother in Munich.’ Q:
‘And your father?’ A: ‘In Ghana...’ Q: ‘Ah, so you’re from Ghana.’
The point of the joke being that the only obvious tie migrants have is the one with their country
of origin, even if they were born here. This is evidently an either/or mode of thought: in order
to become the one, you must renounce the other. The recent debate on double nationality is
a clear example of such an either/or way of thinking in which a set of basic assumptions leave
little space for newly created identities that hold out possibilities for new combinations and new
ways of being a Dutch national.
Another telling example is the striking remark with which my Dutch friend Ellen confronted
me when I caught up with her after a five-year interval. She said to me: ‘Halleh, in the time I
haven’t seen you, you’ve really changed: you’ve become both more Dutch and more Iranian.’
I was flabbergasted. I could not grasp her observation. What was she getting at? The observation bugged me for years, and it was only later that I understood it to be the perfect and/and
scenario or example of hybridity. If people feel safe, they can gain from a diversity of cultures
by selecting the choice elements from those cultures.
The dominance of the either/or scenario in the Netherlands is related to the construction of the
Dutch national identity. In my earlier work, I have shown that the Dutch national identity is too
‘thick’. This renders it not comprehensive enough to be able to embrace the diversity of cultures present in the Netherlands. Until recently, the Dutch national identity was barely explicit,
though there were implicit and unspoken notions about codes of conduct and appearance that
established who was and who was not a ‘real’ Dutchman or Dutchwoman. The Dutch citizen
has a body, which is white, and a religious background, which is Judeo-Christian. In line with
categorical thinking, it has become self-evident that migrants, with their ‘deviating’ cultures, do
indeed live in the Netherlands but can never be ‘truly’ Dutch. At the very most, they can hope
to be assimilated into the community of ‘solid citizens’ that the Netherlands will tolerate.
This unspoken but all the same ‘thick’ notion of Dutch national identity has become more
explicit over the past few years, recent debates about the Dutch canon being a case in point.
These developments might mainly serve to further the assimilation of difference rather than
help to open up a space for creating the kind of unity in diversity that does justice to a democratic culture. All this is not about preserving culture or creating a new pillar. In the new
Netherlands, with its traditional barriers broken down, it is about creating a space where connections can be made between diverse cultures, a space in which cultural innovation and experimentation will be able to flourish.
In order to create a new unity in the Netherlands, it is essential for the Dutch national identity to be constructed as ‘thinly’ as possible, which would allow for differences to be included.
This requires a redefinition of the Dutch national identity in which identity can function as a
web that ties differences instead of excluding them. The main condition for establishing such
a common basis in the Netherlands is to take steps to create interspaces and, subsequently,
to redefine what it means to be a Dutch national. These attempts at stepping aside and making connections would have to come from various sides. The new Dutch nationals will need to
step aside and partly recognize the cultural patterns of their new country and make them their
own; the ‘native’ Dutch will need to make space for a new definition of Dutch national identity
that will encompass the cultural diversity existing in the Netherlands. This is the only option for
shaping a diverse society within a democratic and unequivocally constitutional state.
What Does such an Inclusive Society Entail for Various Domains?
In the spoken version of this inaugural lecture, I limit myself to the domain of emancipation. In
the written version, I also deal with the domains of labour organizations, academia, and the
media.
Emancipation
In categorical thinking in the Netherlands, the position of migrant women was invisible until recently. This invisibility has lately changed into extreme visibility. This means that current
emancipation policies focus expressly on the emancipation of women of non-Dutch origin and,
within this group, mainly on Islamic women. In late 2005, the conclusions of a European study
into the emancipation of women in several European countries were presented (http://www.
mageeq.net). One conclusion is that, in contrast with other European countries, emancipation
in the Netherlands tends to be culturalized, meaning that emancipation issues are often linked
to cultural/ethnic groups (Roggeband & Verloo 2007). In addition, increasing attention is being
paid to the disadvantaged position of migrant women. Both components of categorical thinking, therefore, are prominently present in this domain.
In a culture-sensitive approach to emancipation, there ought to be much more scope for the
strategies of women themselves. Space should be made for people’s stories and perceptions
instead of the imposition of several emancipation models. The first precondition for emancipation is a ‘culture of recognition’. If we construct an ‘emancipated us’ over and against a ‘suppressed them’, there will be little opportunity for creating an interspace in which connections
can be made between experiences and possibilities. People need to have the feeling they are
valued for what they are before they will be prepared or able to break out of unwanted cultural
patterns. It is important, therefore, to make space for the way in which diverse groups of wom-
en shape their emancipation process starting from their own cultural backgrounds.
Emancipatory Power as Future Potential
Owing to the implicit and explicit force of categorical thinking, there is in the Netherlands a
kind of blindness to the positive developments regarding new Dutch nationals. An increasing
number of young people have moved into positions of prominence in a variety of social domains, such as politics, journalism, and art. Enrolment figures of young new Dutch nationals in
college and university programmes are on the up. Many of these young people display a vigour
and eagerness to emancipate that makes them very upwardly mobile. Many children of loweducated first-generation migrant parents have proved to be able to participate in higher education. Many first-generation refugees have succeeded in obtaining eligible positions in Dutch
society. The children of these refugees, who have not had to experience their parents’ setbacks
themselves, may manage to find their niche in society even sooner. Every day, I see many such
examples in the lectures and debates in which I take part. I sense an enormous emancipatory
power in these young new Dutch nationals.
I do not mean to play down the hazards of possible disadvantages, radicalization, and criminality. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the causes of these problems are again and again
traced back to migrants’ native cultures. On the basis of the argument outlined above, however, I tend to look for the causes of these problems in contextual and situational factors rather
than in the cultural backgrounds of ethnic groups. In previous work, I performed comparative
research among left-wing Iranian women activists in the Netherlands and in the US (Ghorashi
2003). All of these had similar cultural, political, and social backgrounds, but they positioned
themselves in totally different ways in these two countries. In the Netherlands, where they met
with forceful processes of exclusion, they tended to position themselves as exclusively Iranian,
without managing to make any emotional connection with the Dutch national identity and
Dutch society. In the US, things were different: ‘the old enemy’ changed into their new home.
These women, who had formerly fought against American Imperialism, started to feel IranianAmerican and to position themselves accordingly. By way of this contextual comparison, I undertook to show how important social factors are for the way in which new migrants engage
with their new country and position themselves in it.
Focusing on culture to explain problems and crime in society will not do. The main explanation
for this is that, if culture is presumed to be a problem, predicated on the idea of cultural contrasts, this may increasingly cause migrants to regroup within their ethnic boundaries to defend
their culture. Feelings of social insecurity and lack of recognition tend to encourage radicalization. When people feel threatened, they will go to extremes to defend their boundaries. The
growing threat of extreme Islamic and extreme right-wing groups is a case in point here.
In my argument so far, I have advocated making more space for culture and I have criticized
categorical thinking. This may seem paradoxical and highly complex: how can we make space
for cultural differences without lapsing into categorical thinking? The answer to this question is
not unambiguous and certainly not simple if we remind ourselves that categorization is inextricably bound up with thought and action. Nevertheless, we must guard against making categories into dichotomies that are mutually exclusive. I wish to realize a process of change in our
way of thinking, a process of trial and error.
In summary, I have undertaken to show in this inaugural lecture that categorical thinking, combined with the new attitude that allows ‘everything to be said, never mind the consequences’,
has reached the point where it is beginning to erode the most valuable foundations of Dutch
society. Many have already jettisoned one of the most important Dutch virtues, tolerance. The
Dutch ‘ideology of discussability’ has also been downgraded by hyperrealism into a licence to
insult and give offence. The paradox, then, is that, at a time when it is being attempted to construct an essentialist Dutch identity with canonization and morals and values at its core, important historical Dutch virtues, such as openness and tolerance, are being violated. The breaking
of taboos has tipped to the point where Dutch communities find themselves pitted against each
other. This is where I see the danger for the future of the Netherlands. It is imperative, therefore, for the new Netherlands to prioritize the development of a perspective that seeks to promote new sources of communality and conditions for encounter and openness.
For a start, we should take as our starting-point not the constructed difference between cultures, but those situations and realms in which people actually meet and in which cultural
differences play a part. When culture-sensitive behaviour is our goal, this means we must first
of all create an interspace for people to meet and recognize and acknowledge their similarities and differences. In a proper balance between being similar and being different, dialogue,
encounter, and innovation may arise. In the awareness that culture is only one aspect of our
being together, working together, and living together, ethnicity-transcending connections can
be made.
I have shown that it is impossible to establish long-term views on diversity issues in the Netherlands without involving ‘native’ Dutch people and the construction of the Dutch national identity. In doing so, I have attempted to get a handle on ‘community proceeding from difference’. I
also hope that my new chair will allow me to make a diversity of contributions to this topic.
The Role of this Chair
From a scholarly point of view, I intend to carry out research that will contribute to an understanding of the social world of migrants and the diversity of their choices in the Netherlands.
This chair was founded particularly to promote the study of women from ethnic minorities. In
addition to its focus on the life stories of these women, the research will deal with the role of
self-organizations and other social agencies that play a part in the course of their lives. Research so far has indicated that self-organizations may be significant for some of these women
as a safe space and as an interspace. For others, such organizations hold opportunities for
building useful social networks that foster their development and improve their access to the
labour market.
Besides enabling me to carry out my own research projects, this chair will also allow me to establish research positions that aim to map out the world of migrants in the Netherlands. I consider it my modest task to record and publicize some of the drive and energy that is manifest
in various migrant communities. This does not mean I will only be on the lookout for success
stories and be indifferent to problems. I know that, in spite of their vigorous emancipatory drive
and convictions, many are unable to turn this potential force into an accomplished reality for a
variety of reasons, such as obstacles thrown in their way by their own community or society at
large. In order to flourish, apparently, they need more than just their conviction and strength. It
is important, therefore, to investigate what conditions are lacking for those people who wish to
emancipate themselves.
In this inaugural lecture, I have mainly outlined the Dutch context. Nonetheless, this chair will
certainly be dealing with international relations and transnational networks. Comparative and
interdisciplinary international research is of the essence to gain a new understanding of diversity and migration issues in the Netherlands. Together with James Kennedy of the Arts Faculty
and Thomas Spijkerboer of the Law Faculty, I have already explored several initiatives in this
area.
The chair currently involves a team consisting of my first PhD student, Melanie Eijberts, post-
doctoral researcher Connie Roggeband, and research and teaching assistant Ismintha Waldring. Within the Faculty, my research will link up with the ethnographic research tradition of
the Department of Culture, Organization, and Management, which deals with processes of
signification inside and outside organizations. Various forms of collaboration with integration
and migration experts at the Faculty will also be pursued.
Starting in November of this year, a Management of Diversity Masterclass will be launched for
students and migrant women in the field.
In addition to research and teaching duties, I intend to use the chair to make social contributions to debates on diversity and integration. By giving public lectures and making appearances
in the media, I have recently made much effort to profile the objectives of the chair. Moreover,
through my membership of several advisory bodies and organizations and my involvement in a
number of projects, I will undertake to make a modest contribution to developments and decision-making processes in society.
In addition to my background in Anthropology, Women’s Studies, and Organizational Anthropology, I regard my personal background of the greatest relevance to this chair. With passion,
enthusiasm, and great dedication, I will continue my work, for I know that dreams do not come
true of their own accord. I will be pooling my weak and strong networks, therefore, to bring a
diversity of worlds together as much as possible.
Thank you very much.