26 | 160 Saba Golchehr IS INTEGRATION AND EMPOWERMENT OF THE EXCLUDED NEEDED?
Scientific relevance
Societal relevance
The Netherlands is a society which has a wide range of different cultures among its citizens. Like a growing number of other (European) countries, we live in a multicultural society. The growth in diversity of cultures has had a lot of effects, not only socially but also spatially. The different cultures in the Netherlands bring their own habits with them from their country of origin (van Dorst, 2008). We can also see these differences in habits in the use of the public space.
From the year 2000 the debate about integration and migration has hardened. This has led to an extreme attitude change towards the migrant. A solid approach was introduced with far-reaching obligations in terms of integration, as the coalition of the parties CDA and VVD shows. Culture and religion are interpreted as causes for violation and isolation of women from Islamic countries (Ghorashi, 2010). We take the example of Muslim women. The image that is created around them, that they are mostly suppressed and isolated, is quite stigmatizing. It sharpens the separation between us and them.
Socio-spatial integration is necessary because in a great number of (post-war) neighbourhoods in cities like Amsterdam, The Hague and Rotterdam, there is a high degree of social segregation of the inhabitants. The neighbourhood should be a domain where citizens of different backgrounds get to know each other, and learn how to interact with the ‘other’ (Janches, 2011). Social or ethnical segregation deprives the citizen of these opportunities. The literature of Peter Marcuse (1998) shows that a lot of the sociological research about segregation is determined by the stereotype of the ‘American ghetto’. This negative image is also found in the debate on segregation and integration in the Netherlands. In this debate about the spatial segregation, the fear of certain cultural groups lacking behind plays the leading role. In the Netherlands we are too much focused on finding the insufficiencies of these groups, which leads to the bias perspective of lifting the differences being the right solution (Lindner, 2002). Instead what we should be looking at is how we can create possibilities that enhance the social integration of these groups. One way to enhance this social integration is through public space. Leisure in public space is of great importance for social integration, because integration demands a certain amount of respect which can only be gained if one has knowledge of the behaviour of others (Jókovi, 2001). By creating a platform where this interaction can take place, a possibility is created for an informal integration. But to create this platform, we need an understanding of the spatial demands on these places have which are needed to attract different cultural groups. In order to find a new strategy for urban renewal projects of deprived neighbourhoods, we need to focus on the ‘specificity of place’ (Janches, 2011). Social circumstances and conflicts in the project area can be common on the national or even global level. The proposals for these projects should however be specific to the area.
The Dutch policy of recent decades has inadvertently led to marginalization, and the labeling of migrant women as problem cases. They are not regarded as individuals who in spite of the dependence of their abilities try everything in their power to increase their freedom of movement. Something that emerges clearly from the research of Ghorashi (2010) is that the current context of the Netherlands, especially with its negative stigmas, forms a rather limiting role in their fight for more space of development. Therefore it is time for a policy that recognizes diversity. This requires space for a broad approach for talent and quality, which is ‘diversity-inclusive’. This will take the place of the current fixation on cultural differences and deprivation. As stated the current coalition is based on an old-fashioned image of diversity policies. A diversity and preferences policy is deemed unnecessary because the selection ought to be focused only on quality. This is a simplistic view that goes against the conclusions of the most relevant international studies. This diversity-blind approach enables quality as a neutral term, when this is certainly not the case. Many studies show exactly how a quality assessments is formed through visible or less visible bias. The most important evidence of the effect of such bias is the current homogeneous composition of most organizations and companies. This bias is constantly fed by the dominant thinking in society. The government carries the task to ensure that individuals, whatever their cultural background, gain sufficient opportunities and recognition for their efforts. This calls for a diversity policy, giving individuals the proper recognition for what they do and who they are. A government without a diversity sensitive mindset cannot meet this new challenge. It only strengthens the existing ‘us vs. them’-way of thinking, which augments the fragmentation in society.