Integration
Hey collabloggers,
I know I haven't been so disciplined to write everyday... it's mostly due lack of time (work consumes a lot!). But I've been indeed having lots and lots in mind these days to share with you and I'd like to start by dedicating a whole week for talks about a theme that has been very much in the news, both in and out of organizations, having much more impact in our lives than we think. Are you curious about the theme? Well... the post title said it all: INTEGRATION!
I hope we can have a seven days (at least, but not limited to that) of discussions about this topic that seems to be one of the biggest issues now in our world. We turn on the TV and we hear: knowledge integration within and across organizations, business integration (i.e. merges creating huge corporations) , integration of imigrants in their living countries, European Union integrating more countries, economies integration (or globalization), etc... So, it is natural that we start asking ourselves: why is integration important? why can't things/people/companies remain separated? What has changed in the world to motivate all this fuss about integration? And, while reasoning about these motivation issues, we also question: what is the 'nature' of integration processes? How does integration happen? Which conditions need to be met in order for integration to happen? Are there any requirements that are specific for each context? And these questions go on and on in our minds...
Well, we hope to answer some of them during our discussions, not with the purpose of providing a 'final answer' or the 'truth' about the theme, since I DO NOT BELIEVE there is only ONE UNIQUE ANSWER for any COMPLEX QUESTION like the ones posed above. My main aim with this is to motivate critical thinking and 'intelligent' debate about the theme, as I think it is just too dangerous to let only the established media guide our thoughts about important topics such as this one.
Anyway, enough with introductory remarks, let's get to the debate... in the next post, of course. : ) Or... do any of you would like to start by posting some comments here? I'd love that! Come on and please give it a shot on answering the previous questions.
I know I haven't been so disciplined to write everyday... it's mostly due lack of time (work consumes a lot!). But I've been indeed having lots and lots in mind these days to share with you and I'd like to start by dedicating a whole week for talks about a theme that has been very much in the news, both in and out of organizations, having much more impact in our lives than we think. Are you curious about the theme? Well... the post title said it all: INTEGRATION!
I hope we can have a seven days (at least, but not limited to that) of discussions about this topic that seems to be one of the biggest issues now in our world. We turn on the TV and we hear: knowledge integration within and across organizations, business integration (i.e. merges creating huge corporations) , integration of imigrants in their living countries, European Union integrating more countries, economies integration (or globalization), etc... So, it is natural that we start asking ourselves: why is integration important? why can't things/people/companies remain separated? What has changed in the world to motivate all this fuss about integration? And, while reasoning about these motivation issues, we also question: what is the 'nature' of integration processes? How does integration happen? Which conditions need to be met in order for integration to happen? Are there any requirements that are specific for each context? And these questions go on and on in our minds...
Well, we hope to answer some of them during our discussions, not with the purpose of providing a 'final answer' or the 'truth' about the theme, since I DO NOT BELIEVE there is only ONE UNIQUE ANSWER for any COMPLEX QUESTION like the ones posed above. My main aim with this is to motivate critical thinking and 'intelligent' debate about the theme, as I think it is just too dangerous to let only the established media guide our thoughts about important topics such as this one.
Anyway, enough with introductory remarks, let's get to the debate... in the next post, of course. : ) Or... do any of you would like to start by posting some comments here? I'd love that! Come on and please give it a shot on answering the previous questions.
posted by Renata S. S. Guizzardi at
05:23
2 Comments:
For those interested in the discussion of the integration of foreigners and natives check out:
http://www.cre.gov.uk/media/nr_arch/2004/s041116.html
It is a speech given by Trevor Phillips to the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, the day before yesterday. He is chair of the British Commission for Racial Equality.
I quote part of it, which is particularly interesting for The Netherlands:
"
When we look at how other countries are addressing their diversity I think that whatever our shortcomings – and I intend to return to some of those – we can thank our lucky stars that we are not American, French or Dutch today.
In America, the one aspect of what defines American freedom has been the right to live in exactly the way you choose, in an enclave of your own. In short, the USA is a segregated society.
In the USA nine out of ten African American children study in black majority schools. Nine out of ten whites live in all-white districts. You don’t have to be a genius to see whose schools are better and whose districts are crime-ridden.
To separate communities in this way may offer the illusion of a multicultural paradise, with every community secure in its own fortress; but in reality it breeds inequality, incomprehension, fear and hostility, and a society in which white, Christian Americans have no reason to care what may happen to their black or Muslim neighbours since the fate of one has no impact on the other.
In France, the truly repressive decision to ban the headscarf, the yarmulke and the turban is being greeted as a partial success, because most Muslims have complied.
This is a massive miscalculation based on prejudice. Because French politicians fear what they think is Islam – they regard compliance as a surrender.
In truth it is merely the tradition of Muslims who observe the law and who would rather seek a compromise to a dispute of this kind. However, the danger is that should the French state not recognise the crucial difference between acquiescence and agreement, the eventual outcome will be the detachment of substantial numbers of Muslim children into private Muslim schools, which would lead to their long-term separation from non-Muslim French children.
Instead of making France more Muslim and Muslims more French, M. Chirac is in the process of creating a disgruntled nation within a nation – a five million strong community of Muslims who live in France rather than are of France.
Holland
Finally the Dutch, most tragic of all – and given the two high profile deaths which have occurred, of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh, I mean the word tragic literally. Both killings were ghastly, vicious murders, and in both cases all those involved deserve the worst punishment that can be meted out by the courts.
But it does not in any way excuse these crimes to point out that the Dutch political classes have chosen the worst possible way of avoiding the potential violence. We think of Holland as secular and liberal. We could not be more wrong.
This is a society of that is both religiously divided and utterly repressive, with most people corralled into schools, districts and civic clubs defined by their religious heritage. Dutch politicians have tried to apply this policy of segregation to Muslims and it has blown up in their faces.
In the Netherlands, the policy has been to combine both American segregation and French authoritarianism in one toxic recipe. As in France, the policy has been driven by a fear of being seen as "soft" on Muslims. It is a policy of appeasement of the far right. And it is beginning to bear its bitter fruit.
Nine months ago, I took part in a debate in Amsterdam with the liberal Dutch-Somali MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Ayaan is one of the producers of Theo van Gogh’s final film, Submission, which attacked Islam for its allegedly repressive attitude towards women. As a result she is now in hiding, but I pray that her voice is not stilled.
Ayaan made a spirited case against the actions of some Muslim men and the actions of some communities, and given her own experience as a young woman it would be utterly wrong to brush her views aside.
But where I disagree with her is this: because the practice of some Muslims may be cruel and misogynist, we must not brand the entire faith unacceptable. Doing so will lead to only one result : divided communities in which many Muslims feel forced to choose between their faith and their country.
Back in February, I criticised proposals which would discriminate against Dutch Muslims, and said this:
"In France, and now in Holland we can see that the desire to accommodate [the far right] leads to disaster… in this Dutch auction, [we] will never keep pace with the [far] right... We do have a serious job to do in making integration work. That task will not be made easier if migrants are held responsible for problems over which they have no control, blamed for failures that took place before they even got here and told that they are threats to the values they believe in... We have more to do to prove that we do want integration. Otherwise, by treating migrants as unwelcome strangers we risk turning people who came to us desperately wanting to be friends into the enemies we fear."
Now, less than a year later, the grim news from the Netherlands shows that the Dutch have succeeded in doing exactly that.
"
By
Anonymous, At
November 18, 2004 at 6:35 AM
Olá, Renata
A small comment on this integration theme: it seems to me that the globalisation process is restricted to products and money. It was not extended to people.
Beijins, Luiz.
By
Anonymous, At
November 19, 2004 at 11:29 AM
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home