Both the right and the left are wrong

Most people, regardless of their political affiliation, seem to agree that Swedish integration policy has failed.  But what is the reason for this? This is where opinions are divided into two factions and two explanatory models. One, found especially on the political left, maintains that Swedish society is steeped in structural discrimination against people from an immigrant background. The reason for the integration problems is found in the majority society and its racism, ethnocentrism, its “us and them mentality.” Had we just tried harder, searched our hearts and become free of prejudices, immigrants would have entered society and become upstanding citizens.

The other faction, which is represented by right-wing populism, obviously has another view. It is “them” – immigrants – who are the problem. After all, they do not want to fit into our society. They are ungrateful, finagle themselves welfare benefits, and are criminal. The reason for this can be part of their culture. We knew this to be a common attitude. Sweden Democrats is a growing extreme-right party today that to a large extent has taken the initiative in the debate on integration.

The discussion is thus about whose fault it is: the majority’s or the minority’s? This question tends to put a lid on the integration debate. Every time someone gives their opinion on integration, it is interpreted as an either/or position. For instance, when I have argued that there is an honour culture, I am categorised as a racist, like someone who blames immigrants; it is said I do not see the discrimination and ignore the abuse of women that is found among Swedes. This is a tiresome categorisation and position.

I would instead like to consider the problems connected with the two positions, and begin with structural discrimination, a concept introduced and made popular by the sociologist Masoud Kamali in the commission report Power, Integration and Structural Discrimination (2004). The commission has produced a number of reports on this subject. Kamali defines structural discrimination as: “when the institutional order, norms and organisational forms of society indirectly and usually unintentionally discriminate against people and groups from a different ethnic background than that of the majority society.”

Structural discrimination makes discrimination “systematic, normal and everyday” (SOU 2005:41, p. 32, in Swedish). He argues that Sweden denies the existence of discrimination on every level: historically, scientifically, politically and in everyday life. Despite these serious accusations, Kamali provides few examples of how structural discrimination is manifested, but he believes it is found in the labour market (immigrants do not get the jobs they are qualified for), in the educational system (problem students from immigrant backgrounds are expelled or forced to drop out of school) and in the media (the media characterised the murder of Fadime Sahindal by her father as an “honour killing”). He therefore excludes the possibility of there being other explanations for why immigrants have difficulties entering the labour market or why their level of education is lower or the idea that the media think it is important to report on honour-related violence.

I also think that we are to a large extent unaware of racism in Swedish society. There is a trend of xenophobia on the rise and becoming increasingly palatable. After all, what else does it indicate when the Swedish police called young people “fucking apes” during the December 2008 unrest in the Malmö suburb of Rosengård if not a clearly condescending attitude to non-ethnic Swedes? But is that an expression of deeply rooted structural racism? There are other problems with the term “structural discrimination.”

The anthropologist Aje Carlbom offers a number of important observations in his article “Idén om strukturell rasism döljer det verkliga integrationsproblemet” [‘The Idea of Structural Racism Conceals the Real Integration Problem’] (Röda rummet, no. 2, 2005). In the first place, one might wonder where the actors, the various individuals, are if discrimination is located in the structure. The structure then becomes both the cause and effect of discrimination. How can a person act outside the structure when most discrimination, in fact, is done unconsciously by individual actors?

Who is it that is really racist when everyone in society is considered racist? One consequence is that when everyone is racist, then no one is racist. When everyone that is critical of immigrants in some way (for instance, someone like me, who criticises the honour culture) is classified as racist, than real racism is trivialised. Who is racist, who is prejudiced in Sweden and what measures should be taken against discrimination? These are important questions that must be explored. But structural thinking means that they become irrelevant and even a little petty, because from this perspective a fundamental change in society is needed in order to deal with racism.

Carlbom further argues that when the political establishment takes up the idea of structural discrimination in its ideology, anti-racism is no longer a resistance movement. Just like with the criticisms of the environmental movement criticism and feminism, the criticism of resistance movements is incorporated into the government and thereby rendered harmless. The idea of structural discrimination nowadays has an official, state-sanctioned position. If someone criticises the concept of structural discrimination, that person is also considered an advocate of discrimination, the historian Ola Fransson argues in his article “Så blev vi alla rasister” [‘How We All Became Racists’] (Sociologisk forskning, no. 3, 2006). So no one is allowed to criticise the establishment’s integration ideology.

Ibelieve that every term and concept that in some way indicates there are differences between people based on their ethnic, cultural or religious background must be questioned. We lack nuanced terms for what we want to talk about because every term quickly becomes loaded with various negative meanings. Neutral terms like “immigrant,” “other ethnic background” and “non-native born” are not considered to denote objective facts, but are instead seen as expressions of structural discrimination. In one research project, I had designated immigrants as “new Swedes.” A young man from a Turkish background, my informant, expressed himself scornfully in an incisive observation: “So now we’re new Swedes.

First we were foreigners, then immigrants. Now it’s new Swedes. You Swedes get nicer and nicer. Do you think we’re stupid?” In Lena Andersson’s novel Var det bra så?  [‘Was Everything OK?’] (1999), the class is supposed to work together with the Turkish teacher. They are told in advance not to mention the word “Turk” to him. But the teacher calls himself a Turk and does so with pride – he says the forbidden word over and over again – the class discovers, horrified. Such examples pinpoint how it often seems to be Swedes who have problems with words that indicate a different background, not those the term applies to.  Those designated by such terms load the word with positive values. It is not obvious, for instance, that people from a Turkish background would prefer to be called Swedish instead of Turkish. Our own ethnocentrism is playing a practical joke on us here.

The other attitude is just as upsetting: that it is the immigrants’ cultures that are to blame for the lack of integration. Simply focusing on the violence of honour cultures tends to blind us to the violence against women in our own culture, which is both clearly based on a patriarchal norm and has cultural causes. It is not just “the others” who link violence and honour to culture; “we” do too in the form of criminal motorcycle gangs and football hooligans.

Xenophobic groups focus solely on the wrong cultural traditions of “the others,” but not on the fact that government’s sanctioned interpretations mean that various “truths” about immigrants must be concealed in order to avoid undermining the official explanatory model. They see themselves as victims and martyrs, for instance, when they protest against crime among different immigrant groups. A critical element in their ideology is that the media and the establishment systematically disguise and distort facts about the negative consequences of immigration.

When we compare ourselves to another group, we always base this on our own group’s ideal or the best individuals in our group, and compare this with the practice in the other group or the worst in their group. This phenomenon has been described by the sociologist Norbert Elias. When one’s own, best ideal features are compared with the worst individuals in the other group, one’s own group always comes across as superior. Swedes can compare their own ideal of gender equality, in which both partners are active parents, with a patriarchal, honour culture that condones violence.

Representatives for a “culture” like this could in turn compare their own ideal of a harmonious family, with a benevolent father who provides for his family, with dysfunctional Swedish families with, for instance, substance abuse problems and paedophilia. This psychological manoeuvre is made by every group and creates contempt for all “other groups.” It is not just Swedes who are prone to being xenophobic. Racism and suspicion between different immigrant groups are great, and against ethnic Swedes as well.

Xenophobia thus means that it is immigrants’ “culture” – and often their religion – that is the cause of failed integration. People especially dislike Islam and think that Muslims have values that are irreconcilable with Swedish values. Democracy, human rights, active parenthood and solidarity are seen as Christian, Swedish norms that are not shared by Muslims. These Islamophobic assumptions include at least two false inferences. First, what we call “good” values in Sweden are in many ways secular values that grew out of the labour movement and the development of the welfare state. Second, these values are shared by almost everyone in Sweden – both Christians and Muslims.

Culture, religion, ethnicity are categories that serve as slop buckets for undesirable behaviour in the xenophobic explanatory model. Is the person in question criminal because he is a Muslim, or despite the fact that he is? What is the cause and what is the effect? Outsiderness and marginalisation are typical consequences of migration. Add to that traumatic war experiences and divided families. With that in mind, I am actually surprised how so many immigrants manage not to end up committing a crime or suffering other social problems.

But culture is not just something positive like good food, colourful traditional costumes and exciting dances. Cultural values can stand in opposition to the values of the majority. This includes honour cultures, where the family’s honour, that is, their social status, stands or falls with the sexual morals of its women. Honour violence affects someone who goes against the collective will and “brings shame” to the group. This violence is distinguished from “typical” male violence against women because it is planned and carried out by a collective (not an individual perpetrator in the heat of the moment), women and men are both victims and perpetrators, and honour violence is encouraged and demanded by the group, whereas men’s violence against women is condemned by Swedish society. There is also “typical” male violence against women in honour cultures, alongside honour violence.

When Gudrun Schyman says that “all men are Taliban,” she not only assigns the blame to the Swedish majority, but at the same time also reduces “the other” women’s problems. How can they claim that they have a specific problem based on their culture? Every woman, after all, is oppressed, Schyman argues. As a result, she ignores the gains made in the Swedish struggle for women’s rights, as well as how gender equality and non-violence have made advances both in people’s consciousnesses and in Swedish laws. It is a superior, presumptuous attitude, in which she piggybacks on those who really are oppressed.

There is thus a cultural difference that has to be acknowledged, not so that Swedes can feel better, but in order to protect the victims and put an end to violence. Cultural values are deeply rooted and would not automatically change if immigrants entered the labour market and moved out of segregated areas. At the same time, culture is something that is changing. So why shouldn’t it be possible to criticise and thereby change negative aspects of cultures in Sweden?

The root of the problem of integration is that integration policy in Sweden is based on two principles that are admittedly hard to reconcile: the right to be the same and the right to be different. It is not just xenophobes who use the argument of being different; so do many different ethnic, cultural and religious groups in order to get backing for special needs. This is called strategic essentialism. Maintaining that one is different is also an important strategy in a society that embraces diversity. But the state’s diversity ideology must also be challenged, including the idea that individuals that are part of different, clearly defined groups have something in common. We thereby create many different cultural, religious and ethnic enclaves with this view of diversity. In Britain, there is now a debate on whether Islam sharia laws should be introduced alongside the British system of justice. We may find this development foreign, but it is really simply a logical extension of this argument of being different.

The right to be the same has to mean that everyone has the right to equal treatment and the right not to be discriminated against regardless of their background. But this also means that we cannot accept cultural and religious considerations, if these considerations mean that some individuals do not enjoy the same rights as others simply because they belong to minority groups. Honour-related violence is sometimes excused by cultural considerations, even though this violence is both racist and homophobic. Cultural relativism is often blamed as the reason for this point of view.  But according to Mikael Kurkiala – in his book I varje trumslag jordens puls: Om vår tids rädsla för skillnader [‘In Every Drum Beat the Pulse of the Earth: On Our Era’s Fear of Differences’] (2005) – cultural relativism “is not a moral stance but a method” for understanding other cultures from the inside.

Showing understanding for a cultural phenomenon does not mean that the phenomenon is excused or accepted. Schools make this confusion and exempt students from activities that their parents think go against their religious faith.

Researcher Sara Högdin has shown that children born outside Sweden are kept out of important educational activities to a high degree. For instance, 18 percent of girls and 17 percent of boys from a foreign background do not take part in sex education. Six percent of girls born outside Sweden do not take part in sport or swimming instruction, 14 percent are not allowed to join class field trips and 62 percent of them are not allowed to have boyfriends.

Many parents associate sport, sex education and class trips with sexual immorality in children. When does the right to be different cross the line and become discrimination? If we accept that children are to be exempted from these educational activities, then at the same time we accept a patriarchal, traditional interpretation of religion. It is not the rights of children that are mainly protected when schools exempt children from these activities; rather, the schools are protecting themselves from charges of racism and competition from independent religious schools.

Being able to criticise one party means both parties are equal. When I criticise honour-related violence, it means that I take my fellow humans seriously. I am defending both victims and perpetrators in honour cultures. To embrace diversity without reflection is, for me, an arrogant stance. Cultivating a kind of self-loathing, as in Sweden, is hypocritical.

In ecology, but also in anthropology, the term niche is used. It does not really signify a physical space but instead rather denotes how claims have been staked for opportunities to provide for oneself. Different social conditions create opportunities for a kind of metaphorical “space,” for certain actions and strategies.
The segregation, outsiderness and marginalisation of immigrants create a niche for them to develop a completely different culture than the one found in their former homelands. Radical Islamism is commonly found in Europe but is limited in many ways in Muslim countries. This Islamism seems to have found a niche here, perhaps because the majority society does not care enough and does not react.

In most Muslim cultures, the face veil and the refusal to shake hands with the other sex are very unusual phenomena, but have been established in Sweden as being representative of an Islamic way of life and must be respected in the name of diversity. The honour culture has developed and flourished in Sweden. Young men from immigrant backgrounds are more concerned with their sisters’ honour here than in their parents’ home country. It may provide them the self-esteem and sense of meaning that they lack in the majority society. In their home countries, there is no such idea of sacred cultural differences; instead, norms of honour are allowed to be criticised both from within and without.

To summarise: the question of blame has blocked a constructive discussion on the problems of integration. The “right to be different” in Sweden’s integration policy has created niches for eccentric forms of “immigrant culture”. Structural discrimination reinforces the tendency of immigrants to turn inward. If that is the case, then it is the fault of the majority society that integration has failed. On the other hand, reinforcing this tendency to turn inward and promoting a distanced “own culture” can undermine opportunities for integration. In that case, then, it is the minorities’ own fault. But the question of blame is and remains irrelevant and prevents one from seeing the dialectic between the actions of the minority and the majority. A nuanced view of the complexity of integration has certainly not found a niche in the Swedish integration debate.