Posts
In the first post of this series, I argued that – rhetoric suggesting the contrary notwithstanding – the ideological core of the new European political racism is actually about neither race biology, nor ethno-racism (or -centrism). Instead, it is about what I called Nationism; roghly, the idea that there is of some value in itself for a nation state to apply lower standards of treatment to people who are not born by citizens of this state (or who do not meet some similar condition for immediate citizenship, ICC). I contrasted this idea with the notion of applying such lower standards for pragmatic reasons connected to the fact that the world happens to be organised into a multitude of nation states, and held out the lack of understanding of the difference between this latter idea and the nationist one as a crucial factor for explaining the recent success of the new racism.
Now, even if I am right about this analysis, it would be foolish to think that such an explanation is to be found only in the ideology of the new racism and the inability of people and other political parties to spot it in time. For sure, the rhetoric employed by the new racists also plays a part. In the first post, I described how this rhetoric wields familiar ethno-racist elements, where socio-cultural signifiers (such as language, clothing, traditions, mores) are allegedly associated with features that many people would indeed find to be reasons for less favorable treatment (criminality, cruelty to others, general antiociality, blameworthy costliness for society, and so on). Moreover, I pointed to how the introduction of the nationist ideology actually has helped this rhetoric to function more effectively: whenever an alleged link between a socio-cultural signifier (e.g. "muslim" or "gypsy") and some feature held to be morally important is questioned – factually or morally – the new racist campaigner can simply drop it and retreat into the nationist position. This since the latter is, as a matter of fact, not dependent on any ethno-racist arguments or assumptions, neither factually, nor morally. So, summing up, while nationism is the ideological core of the new racism, its success is best explained by the combination of (1) an initial rhetoric making use of classic ethno-racism, and (2) an ideological core of pure nationism and political suggestions built on that.
What I want to point to now is that this combination, while indeed helping to explain the recent success of the new racism, is in fact also its Achilles' heel. For hidden inside this seemingly clever politico-tactical set-up lurks a bona fide paradox. This paradox, I suggest, is what must be exposed in a serious and convincing way by politicians, journalists and others, for the electoral support of the new racism to start to falter.
This is the paradox:
The ethno-racist rhetoric is about the idea that national states should apply lower standards of treatment to people who don't sufficiently conform to a "national culture". This is not to be confused with the idea that a nation is permitted to enforce its own laws - culture is not the same as actual single behaviors or actions, culture is composed by things like languages, worldviews, traditions and mores). Applied to the issue of what conditions for citizenship to apply (a favorite issue of the new racists), this idea implies that it should be more difficult to be awarded citizenship of a country, the more a person deviates from this country's (supposed) national culture or "identity". In contrast, the nationist ideology pays no attention to cultural belonging or identity. Its sole center of value is the distinction between those who are born by (or connected by lineage to) people who are already citizens of a country and those who are not. Applied to the issue of conditions for awarding citizenship this means that people who are born by citizens receive immediate citizenship (what I called the ICC), while people who are not need to perform according to additional requirements (what I called ACC) in order to be awarded citizenship. Now, as briefly pointed out in that context, the nationist idea implies no ideas whatsoever about the citizens of a country conforming to any particular culture or having a certain "national identity". Quite the contrary! By the awarding of citizenship via ICC, the nationist model leaves the country wide open to limitless cultural variation among citizens. In addition, people who do not meet ICC, but who indeed have the sort of national culture or identity that is valued by the ethno-racist are met by extra difficulties should they desire to receive citizenship. In short, nationism is open to awarding citizenship to exactly such people that ethno-racists want to deny citizenship to, and is open for impeding citizenship for exactly such people that ethno-racism want to award citizenship. Thus, ethno-racism and nationism are not only different, they are incompatible and, in combination, inconsistent.
This incompatibility or inconsistency appears just as clearly if we instead proceeds from a basis where the ethno-racist position is the starting point. From this point of view, then, only people who can demonstrate (sufficient) conformity to a national culture or possession of a national identity are to be awarded citizenship. That is, the fact that you are born by (or can demonstrate lineage to) a citizen is of no concern whatsoever. On the contrary, regardless of your heritage or where you come from, if you meet the ethno-racist culture/identity condition, citizenship is within reach. In other words, the ethno-racist citizenship idea will both block citizenship for people who, according to nationism, should receive automatic citizenship, and award citizenship to people, who nationism would want to impede from receiving citizenship.
Thus, combining the ethno-racist idea with nationism leads to a paradox. The message is that some people both should and should not be awarded or impeded from receiving citizenship. This paradox is built into the totality of the ideas conveyed by the new racist political movement. If the rhetoric and the ideological core is taken together, the result is a state of deepest confusion. Exposing this confusion, I suggest, is a powerful political and rhetorical weapon.
This leaves the question what wielding that weapon will result in. Hopefully and presumably, weakened electoral support of the new racism, of course – after all, voters are as a rule not prone to subscribing to obviously idiotic ideas. But where will that move the racists – those who have been engaged in these sort of parties or movements for decades? That will be the subject of the third, and last, posting in this series.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Is this a confusion of your own?
ReplyDelete"From this point of view, then, only people who can demonstrate (sufficient) conformity to a national culture or possession of a national identity are to be awarded citizenship."
Why is this 'ethno-racist'? On that reading, every republic since Rome is 'racist', including France and the USA, where patriotism remains a virtue and where you are further expected as a good citizen to 'possess national identity' by identifying with certain core values and ideas, and a shared history forming the basis of these. One of the leading liberal philosophers on multicultural citizenship (Kymlicka) even takes it as self-evident that immigrants have chosen to adopt the culture of their new countries (whereas refugees who do not choose to leave their countries on their own must be protected from undue influence until they can return). There is too little here to differentiate between an organic nation state and a philosophically constructed republic, and why solutions to culture clashes, and causes for culture clashes, are different in the two cases. It is ridiculous to say that David Miller for instance is a racist because he, like Machiavelli or Rousseau, thinks that nationality ought to be tied to citizenship to facilitate a functioning democracy (by providing a demos). My hunch is that you do not wish to say this, but you also seem to fall in with too many Swedes by almost automatically assume that nationalism and patriotism is inherently 'racist', and even more unfortunately seem to share their perceived superiority by assuming this.
Hi Daniel, obviously you didn't see the distinction (made in part 1 of this series) between the idea of having ethnic/national lineage criteria for citizenship for pragmatic reasons (which is, for instance, Kymlicka's and most other liberals'idea), and the idea of having it for its own sake. And, sorry to say, I fail to grasp the comment on Miller,et.al. since I have not claimed that nations do not need to apply the concept of citizenship. neither here, nor in part 1. On the contrary, I have affirmed the pragmatic need for that in a world with a multitude of nations.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, the point made in this blog is merely about the plausibility of combining national lineage and ethnic criteria for citizenship when the reason for selecting the criteria are not purely pragmatic.
The point that the new European racist ideology is clearly not based on pragmatic reasoning is made in part 1.
Oh, and I forgot, in part 1 I clearly distinguish both nationism and ethno-racism from nationalism and patriotism. So, what you say about those is simply not applicable to the argument I make.
ReplyDeleteI saw that distinction, however, this sentence is still not clear to me:
ReplyDelete"The ethno-racist rhetoric is about the idea that national states should apply lower standards of treatment to people who don't sufficiently conform to a "national culture". ... culture is composed by things like languages, worldviews, traditions and mores). Applied to the issue of what conditions for citizenship to apply (a favorite issue of the new racists), this idea implies that it should be more difficult to be awarded citizenship of a country, the more a person deviates from this country's (supposed) national culture or "identity""
It seems you are saying here that if one requires adherence to a national culture or identity in order to become a citizen of a nation, then one is an 'ethno-racist'? But just such adherence is required in e.g. Miller et al, albeit with all the caveats of the demands being inclusive in the sense that as long as people conform, they are welcome, of course.
By "ethnic/national" you mean "ethnic and/or national"?
Concerning the overall analysis, would it not be more reasonable to say that these nationalist movements are reactions to subtle culture clashes and clashes of value, in society but more importantly within persons, in organic nations which were until recently homogeneously liberal Christian (in public forums and parliaments), and therefore naturally tolerant, and what is perceived as different values that can nevertheless not be confronted head on since a salient feature of ones own culture is to be tolerant? To call it racism is merely for those who are more enmeshed in the tolerant culture (ironically) to project their own understanding, or half of it as it were, on the other cultures, whereas the 'racists' (unwittingly ) take the other part -- ie the homogeneous culture makes us tolerant in the first place -- as being more urgent.
re. no. 1: no, that's not what I want to say - thanks for pointing out the unclarity! The ethno-racist values treating people differently due to what socio-cultural group they belong to for its own sake. So, for instance, my own country requires of immigrants who want to become citizens that they have been staying in the country for a number of years and not misbehaved too much (e.g., felony crimes makes it very difficult to become a citizen). That's pretty common, I reckon, and can be motivated by the sort of purely pragmatic reasons I touched on in part 1 (that Miller and others like him endorse). As I pointed out in part 1, however, applying harsher conditions than necessary to be able combine immigration (which is in general very favorable for countries) with a manageable social development.
ReplyDeletere. no. 2: First of all, I don't see that these movements have much to do with nationalism in the sense of holding out love and fidelity for one's country as a virtue. They rather seems to me to be expressing a discontent with their country (whichever it is), and wanting to change it. As for the cultural clashes, I tried addressing that issue in part 1. The problem is that there does not seem to be much of that, unless the ones either being (falsely) alleged, or being created by the new racist parties. So, that analysis, makes these parties claims into self-fulfilling prophecies.
In any case, as I argued in part 1, the new racists don't see to care much about culture or identity. If they did, they would want to apply the same conditions for citizenship to everyone - not just immigrants. I'll be coming back to that in part 3, which I'm working on now.
Just noticed the last sentence of the first paragraph missed its ending. It should read like this:
ReplyDeleteAs I pointed out in part 1, however, applying harsher conditions than necessary to be able to combine immigration (which is in general very favorable for countries) with a manageable social development is not supported by such pragmatic reasons.
"the new racists don't see to care much about culture or identity. If they did, they would want to apply the same conditions for citizenship to everyone - not just immigrants. "
ReplyDeleteI agree, however, the movements arise because there is no 'love of country', ie nationalist, alternative available that is inclusive. Just as Dominique Schnapper commented on the French debate, 'If the mainstream politicians avoid the hard core issues, Le Pen will make the most of them', one could comment on the Swedish debate (or lack thereof) that, as long as mainstream politicians avoid talking about a distinct Swedish culture and Swedish values (that one can become included in and conform to), extremist parties will arise. They will furthermore attract votes from people that *are not* racist (I sincerely doubt that over 300000 Swedes are racist in any meaningful way) because of the internal clash of values I tried to argue for above; there is something distinctly Swedish that makes Sweden open and tolerant, yet that very Swedishness precludes us from forcing people to conform (it would be intolerant). That is, I believe, the real paradox.
Thanks for you clarification btw. There will always be a tension between what is required from people born into a country vs people moving there. How do you feel about the requirements for adoption vs having a child naturally, for instance? I personally think that it would, for pragmatic reasons, be better to require more from people in general rather than "levelling down". To demand citizen virtues or minimum education in order to vote is reasonable. I recognise that this is contentious and problematic of course, however, if we want a functioning democracy that is not dictated solely by sectional interest and self-interest, this would be a much better solution.
ReplyDeleteApart from the republican literature in general, an interesting article you may want to have a look at (if you haven't already) is Chris Shore's "Whither European Citizenship?
Eros and Civilization Revisited", European Journal of Social Theory February 2004 vol. 7 no. 1 27-44
Daniel: I guess what you describe is the "tolerance paradox", as it's sometimes called. But, in fact, there seems to be little of that paradox in actual policies, since we are still lucky enough to reserve legislation for actions plausible to ban in laws rather than putatively unnational activities, beliefs, attitudes, etc.
ReplyDeleteWhat you write re. a lack of discussion of what a "Swedish culture" is. Well, there's been some of that actually - e.g., just the other day in the parliament, when several party leaders made exactly the point about what "real Swedishness" is about that you mention. And I agree that probably most of those voting for the Sweden Democrats are not convinced ethno-racists or nationists. But I do believe, that they have been seduced by the mix of ideology and rhetoric - partly since the other parties have been responding so lamely to it. actually, this is what motivated to write this blog series.
And, as you say, requiring some form of citizen education is not wrong in any way - we do that for the children of citizens who become citizens just because of that, so it's only reasonable to do the same re. immigrants who want to become citizens. The problems start when you apply different criteria and, e.g., deny citizenship if you don't pass the exam only for one of the groups. I'll be getting into these matters in part 3.
Thanks for the reading tip, btw.
I don't understand this sentence at all I'm afraid:
ReplyDelete"But, in fact, there seems to be little of that paradox in actual policies, since we are still lucky enough to reserve legislation for actions plausible to ban in laws rather than putatively unnational activities, beliefs, attitudes, etc."
Actual policies and the sociology underlying beliefs are growing ever more apart; that is the cause of the paradox (and the paradox is not just that it is difficult be tolerant to intolerant people, I hope you did not understand it that way). Since Sweden is almost entirely organic and we never based legislation (or philosophy, which is why utilitarianism, dependent as it is on a rejection of pluralism, can still be argued for here) in historically informed moral philosophy like the common law countries, policy only reflects sociology as long as society remains homogeneous. As society is growing more and more heterogeneous, policy needs to be based in an idea of what Sweden is. This has not been debated in parliament, and the current parliamentarians are not well suited to debate this anyway. Only a few ethnologists, such as Arnstberg, has given this a try. Berggren and Trägårdh's book is also a commendable effort.
It would be 'unSwedish' to swear allegiance to the Swedish flag in school every morning, and recite reasons to love and protect one's country and the values upon which it was founded (and Sweden, unlike the republics, was not 'founded' at all, on values or otherwise). That is central to this distinctively Swedish paradox (the Swedish movement does not compare well with other extreme right movements in Europe, another point that needs to be made. See for instance Theda Skocpol on this point, or the strangeness of the Swedish case in general rather, in her review of Barrington Moore's Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy).
However, such values may have to be spelled out, no matter in what forum they are eventually made public: "we are Swedes, this is what we believe. We believe this for historical reasons and because we believe these values have served Sweden well. They are based in a free peasant society and half a millennium of Lutheranism. Central to Swedish beliefs are therefore the twin pillars of autonomy and tolerance, and of empathy and equality.." Etc, or something much along those lines. Once that has been done, it should be understood that if one is Swedish one holds those values dear. They are tolerant and liberal, but they are liberal in a very thick sense. It could perhaps also be worth spelling out -- although this may be a bad idea too, for pragmatic reasons -- the fact that freedom of religion worked fine in America because there people were from the beginning free to pursue various branches of protestant Christianity; very different animals from the Islam after al-Ghazali, for instance, or Christianity before the reformation, for that matter (it matters here that there was a Christian reformation -- see MacIntyre's God, Philosophy and Universities for an interesting discussion on how Catholicism evolved philosophically). The idea that the state can be 'value-neutral' must be abandoned entirely; a catastrophic idea, as many have come realise across the continent by now.
On another note, I am pleased to be debating the issue at least with someone again, even though you will probably disagree with me on certain issues (until I sway you, or you me). I had the opportunity to research these matters from London with people of very different historical and philosophical outlook (GA Cohen, Ronald Dworkin, Richard Bellamy, Jo Wolff, Mike Otsuka, Cecile Laborde etc), and the debate there was very different from the one here. But Cecile in particular, who supervised me, struggled with much the same issues, on a higher level of course, and with more success, only applied to the French case. Her 'Critical Republicanism: The Hijab controversy and political philosophy" may also be worth a browse through.
Lots of names there, Daniel, very impressive....
ReplyDeleteAnd, mind you, I know of most of the work you refer to, also Cecile Laborde. However, naming names and stating opinions about the work of the people thus named is not much of an argument I'm afraid. And just holding out the general idea of republicanism does not advance the analysis much as far as I can tell. All countries are republican in some sense, although, as you note, what is found important to emphasise in the spelling out of what is held to be desirable virtues of citizens will relieve national differences. When it comes to the methods of promoting these virtues, though, the methods applied are rather similar: some elements in obligatory elementary education and legislation with regard to prohibited actions. That is, people are left free to think, value and believe as they want.
One thing, though, I'm not sure that I am at all preoccupied with the same issue as, e.g., Laborde. My topic, is the ideology of the new European political racism, that's all. You seem to think that we have a disagreement on the issue to what extent it is desirable that states try to have their citizens embrace certain values, behavior patterns, etc. Since, I have not advanced any particular opinion on that subject in this blog series, I don't see any disagreement.
In any case, I acknowledge, of course, that there are differences between countries with regard to details. However, there are also striking similarities - and I do claim that the nationist streak of the new racist parties/movements is one such similarity. The nationism becomes obvious through the same sign as in the Sweden Democrats case: the notion of a need to make a difference between those that are born by citizens of the country and those that are not that goes far, far beyond what can be justified from a pragmatic point of view.
A couple of points here then. I agree that namedropping, as you (I think rather understandably) think I am doing here, does not advance an argument. However, in the UK it is common to give a list of one's teachers since this gives an indication of why one argues as one does; what perspectives one brings to an argument. This is why Jerry Cohen came from a poor, Jewish-Marxist background and studied under Isaiah Berlin and Gilbert Ryle. It matters to his arguments. I am Swedish, but studied under various well-known philosophers, historians etc in the UK (I also did fil.kand in practical philosophy at Lund once upon a time). But I do not want to turn into Amartya Sen here..
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, one's background matters and that is to the point here. Sweden is the way it is -- its laws, political system, norms (Cecile suggested it resembled what Brenner and Pettit called an Economy of Esteem; perhaps) -- because of its history. No other country can lay claim to such a unique history. No feudalism, independent since at least 1523, people just lived their lives, on their own land (at least over half the population managed that). The idea that "people are left free to think, value and believe as they want" is based in this history, and quite often simply projected on the world. Ie, the mere fact that people move to Sweden is thought enough, magically, to make them Swedish, live and let live kind of people. That seems to me clearly mistaken, and I am tempted to quote George Orwell here:
"Also, one must admit that the divisions between nation and nation are founded on real differences of outlook. Till recently it was thought proper to pretend that all human beings are very much alike, but in fact anyone able to use his eyes knows that the average of human behaviour differs enormously from country to country. Things that could happen in one country could not happen in another." (The Lion and the Unicorn)
Perhaps you can give better 'evidence' of this, but using one's eyes seems like the best argument here. Otherwise Michael Mann's two books Fascists and The Dark Side of Democracy: explaining ethnic cleansing provides a thought-provoking argument. One has to take into account the differences between the countries that evolved fascist movements though, and Sweden, where fascism never materialised in the same way.
My disagreement here is about the idea of a 'New European racism', at least one aspect of which is, as I have understood you, "the notion of a need to make a difference between those that are born by citizens of the country and those that are not". This doesn't seem to need a terribly advanced reply -- why would anyone want to make that difference? I agree that is not thought through. Unless they by 'citizen' really meant, which is more likely, 'ethnic and culturally Swedish'. That makes sense, even though they conflate ethnicity and culture which is unnecessary. Everyone with eyes, again, can see that an ethnically Chinese or African person who was adopted and brought up in Sweden is as Swedish as anyone.
So I guess what I really wanted to do was to take some of your points and try to steer you in a what I thought of as a more interesting direction.