The Concept Of Parallel Societies And Its Use In The Immigration And ...

Transcript

Page 1 of 12 University of Helsinki The concept of Parallel Societies and its use in the immigration and multiculturalism discourse Course: Current Research in the Field of Ethnic Relations Student: Nadezda Gorchakova MA Examination November 2011 Page 2 of 12 Abstract The sociological term ‘parallel societies’ has been gradually entering the lexicon of politicians and opinionmakers in their debate about failing multiculturalism and migrants’ social isolation in Germany since it was first coined in 1996. The concept was redefined after it had entered the public discourse and has come to denote segregated communities of immigrants, mostly of Islamic or Turkish background, that are believed to voluntarily abstain from social and political participation in the mainstream society. The adherents of the ‘parallel societies’ theory maintain that social networks which are developed by ethnic minorities do not, as a rule, intersect with social networks of native Germans. It is also claimed that the concurrent segregation within the educational institutions and in the labour market as well as spatial segregation eventually develop institutions that reproduce a socioeconomic isolation of migrant communities. key words: multiculturalism immigration parallel societies Parallelgesellschaften integration Introduction The sociological term ‘parallel societies’ has been gradually entering the lexicon of politicians and opinion-makers in their debate about failing multiculturalism and migrants’ social isolation in Germany since it was first coined in 1996. The concept was redefined after it had entered the public discourse and has come to denote segregated communities of immigrants, mostly of Islamic or Turkish background, that are believed to voluntarily abstain from social and political participation in the mainstream society. This self-imposed exclusion is believed to produce residentially segregated areas in the inner-cities where the prevailing number of residents are of immigrant background and belong to a particular ethnic group. The adherents of the ‘parallel societies’ theory maintain that social networks which are developed by ethnic minorities do not, as a rule, intersect with social networks of native Germans. It is also claimed that the concurrent segregation within the educational institutions and in the labour market as well as spatial segregation eventually develop institutions that reproduce a socioeconomic isolation of migrant communities. It is maintained that ‘parallel societies’ have its roots in the German heritage of ‘gastarbeiter’ labour immigration that commenced in the early 1960s. The guest-workers, who were predominantly of Turkish origin, were meant to stay in Germany only temporarily and special ‘rotation principles’ were implemented in order to ensure a constant turnover of foreign labour. Lucassen (2005) argues that the German state has been continuously reluctant to undertake decisive actions regarding the newcomers’ integration as their presence in the country was viewed as a temporary phenomenon. Notwithstanding the fact that many guestworkers chose to settle down in Germany permanently, it is not until recently that the German officials rejected the idea of Germany being a country of immigration. These policies of noninterference are believed to be one of the explanations as to why the segregation of Page 3 of 12 immigrants along the cultural and religious lines in Germany has developed into a social problem (Lucassen, 2005). But is the claim that there are ‘parallel societies’ which oppose the German ‘mainstream’ society legitimate? In order to answer this question I structure my argument as follows. Firstly, I outline how the advocates of the aforementioned neologism argue in favour of its legitimate status with empirical evidence. Then, I present critical arguments against the concept, followed by an outline of the neologism’s place in the multiculturalism discourse and a brief conclusion. 1. The reality of ‘parallel societies’ Micus and Walter (2006) argue in favour of the scientific legitimacy of the neologism by embedding it into the sociological and political theoretical framework. They refer to the original work done by the German political scientist Thomas Meyer who in 2003 conceptualized the term ‘parallel societies’ by marking out what ‘parallel societies’ is and what it is not. According to Meyer, a social group must fulfil a number of criteria in order to be classified as a ‘parallel society’. The requirements include five positions which are: ‘ethnic cultural or cultural-religious’ homogeneity; almost complete everyday civil, societal and economic segregation; almost complete duplication of the institutions of the majority society; formal, voluntary segregation; and segregation in living quarters or social interaction (Meyer, 2003). The scholars develop the idea saying that, due to failed interaction with the host society and decreased life chances, even the third generation of migrants in Germany face the so-called ‘partial’ or ‘incomplete’ integration into the society. Their main argument seems to be that the resulting poverty culture in the inner-city quarters dominated by migrants indicates that the problem lies not in ‘parallel societies’ themselves but rather in the lack of institutional structures in this societies that would connect them to the ‘mainstream’ society. Analysis of the connotations of the term ‘parallel societies’ suggests that it has come to be a synonym of integration-resistant elements in society, lawlessness of foreigners and, in general, radical thinking. Micus and Walter (2006) argue that the term has ultimately crossed the German border and is now being applied in other West-European countries of immigration as well. Germany, however, constituted a special case from the outset as selfsegregation of minority groups in German cities is tightly interconnected with the role of Muslims. Extreme piousness of Muslim communities is looked upon as a major disincentive for integration. Moreover, the focus on Turkish communities has been so strong due to the fact that Turks show three times higher unemployment rates than native Germans and two Page 4 of 12 times higher rates compared to other immigrant groups, for instance, Spaniards. They, more than any other population group, suffer from pervasive poverty and become eligible for state welfare benefits, for which, however, they normally don’t apply out of fear to lose the residence permit. It is needless to say that foreigners in general are perceived to have an inferior status as opposed to the natives owing to the widespread perception of the German culture as a leading one (Leitkultur). They concede further that the recent hype surrounding the term of ‘parallel societies’ in Germany has not helped to clarify and define the term but has rather served as mainstreaming of the ethnocentric thinking. Furthermore, Micus and Walter (Ibid.) maintain that ‘parallel societies’ are capable of endangering liberal democracy in the long run. It is taken for granted that members of democratic societies are supposed to share common values, norms and points of reference while simultaneously valuing trust and cooperation as foundations of social solidarity. The secluded ethnic minorities are, therefore, believed to facilitate disintegration of societal structure based on democratic freedoms and social solidarity At the same time, however, the scientists warn against jumping to conclusions as the contemporary democratic societies are characterized by growing tendencies for pluralism and individualism where everyone claims his or her right to an individual lifestyle. More importantly than just acknowledging the existence of the phenomenon and its scientific authenticity, Micus and Walter (Ibid.) go beyond that by arguing that voluntary segregation of immigrant communities in self-contained ‘ghettoes’ might be even beneficial for their self-identification and integration in the mainstream society. Self- contained immigrant communities are believed to stabilize identity of recent migrants and facilitate their integration process. In contrast to the widespread opinion that thick internal networks of ethnic minorities cause delineation and, ultimately, retreat from the mainstream society, the scholars suggest that, ‘ethnic’ social networks provide its members with better access to employment opportunities, as well as information about the German society. They cite scientists from the Chicago School of Migration who in the 1920s came to the conclusion that initial ethnic segregation of migrants is good for the integration process. According to their line of thinking, segregated ethnic communities provide newcomers with necessary information about the rules and norms in the mainstream society, help them to avoid an identity crisis and reduce the effects of ‘negative individualism’ in the short run. Moreover, self-organised migrant communities have more bargaining power in the mainstream community to advocate for their rights and combat racism against its members (Ibid.). Page 5 of 12 2. Challenging the concept of parallel societies The concept of ‘parallel societies’ has attracted a lot of attention in the ongoing discourse on multiculturalism in Western Europe and is interchangeably used by politicians, academics and journalists. What stands behind the idea and how it has evolved, therefore, is a question that deserves some attention. The critics of the concept refer to it as a ‘neologism that has gone bad’ and argue that this loose and allegedly unscientific term has been adopted, mainly, by right-wing anti-immigrant activists. It is Hiscott (2005) who refers to ‘parallel societies’ as a ‘neologism gone bad’. He maintains that picturing immigrants as deviant elements who are unwilling to integrate and, as a result, self-impose segregation is being extensively used by far-right but, of late, also by mainstream politicians and opinion-makers. The concept of ‘parallel societies’ is on many occasions being misused as the main substantiation behind the claim that immigrants pose a threat to the liberal democratic foundations of the German state (Ibid.). The answer to the question whether or not the usage of the term is justified and necessary might require going back in history to the point when it was first coined. The connotations of the term have changed dramatically since it was applied by the German social scientist Wilhelm Heitmeyer in 1996. Since then the meaning of the term has changed repeatedly so that to fit into the current context and to accommodate the goals of opinion-makers that employed it in their argumentation in the immigration and integration discourse. The original meaning of ‘parallel societies’ implied a national threat from within coming from the Islamic fundamentalist groups. They were said to promulgate voluntary segregation among the Turkish migrant youth. Heitmeyer, whose main field of academic expertise is right-wing extremism, group-focused enmity, violence and xenophobia, started the discussion about ‘parallel societies’ in 1996 by making a contribution to the Die Zeit magazine which, consequently, had a lot of repercussions in the political as well as academic circles. Heitmeyer (1996) drew attention to the statistics of crime rates among the German Muslims, one third of which was believed to have religious grounds. With this hard data at hand he developed the argument that Islam continues to play a deciding role for Turkish immigrant youth. He also voiced a warning against the ‘disintegrating society’ and of ethnic communities gravitating towards the margins of the ‘majority’ society (Ibid.). As noted in the previous section, the neologism ‘parallel societies’ was some years later caught up by the political scientist Thomas Meyer who in 2003 provided a scientific definition to the term. According to Meyer, a social group must fulfil a number of criteria in order to be classified as a ‘parallel society’. The requirements include five Page 6 of 12 positions which are: ‘ethnic cultural or cultural-religious’ homogeneity; almost complete everyday civil, societal and economic segregation; almost complete duplication of the institutions of the majority society; formal, voluntary segregation; and segregation in living quarters or social interaction’ (Meyer, 2003). Hiscott (2005) views this definition rather critically as, in his opinion, Meyer fails to understand the complexity of the Turkish community in Germany and considers it as a homogenous social group when in reality it is not. Social scientists working in the field of media studies suggested an alternative application of the neologism. They have been using it to mark the bottom end of the scale to measure the extent of non-German media circulation in Turkish communities. Thus, in media studies, the term came to denote the usage of a language other than German in everyday practices of migrant communities living in Germany. As Hiscott (Ibid.) interestingly points out, the older term ‘state within the state’ (Staat-im-Staate) is conceptually very close to ‘parallel societies’ but used to relate to a different social group. It used to refer, among other things, to the Jewish community in Germany, which was commonly described as a ‘state within the state’. Due to its strong connotations with the Nazi regime the term has been avoided ever since and as Hiscott (Ibid.) claims it was replaced at some point by the concept of ‘parallel societies’ which is less politically laden. I would argue that since it was first introduced in 1996 the neologism has gradually evolved to become associated with socioeconomic segregation of migrants and the formation of a new underclass. At the same time, the political connotations of the term as a synonym of the national threat have lost some of its prior significance along the way. The global financial crisis has added a new dimension to the discussion. A number of studies showing that certain migrant groups are exhibiting zero or even downward social mobility contributed to the public concern about less well-off migrants coming down to the margins of the society. Moreover, the nature of the perceived ‘threat’ they supposedly pose has shifted to the labour market domain. Far-right minded public figures, but also mainstream politicians, have turned to migrants as an easy target for accusations for lowering wages, and even more so, for standing in the way of native citizens seeking employment. As Cashmore and Troyna (1990) suggest, there might be a causal relationship between the severity of economic downturn and the intensity of the anti-immigrant sentiment in society. A research dating back to the times of internal slavery in the United States find that lynching of black AfroAmericans followed the trajectory of economic cycles so that the amount of people of colour being lynched significantly increased during the times of an economic downturn. Even though being an extreme case, this academic inquiry sheds some light onto the already tense Page 7 of 12 ethnic relations which are further aggravated by dire economic conditions (Ibid.). In order to illustrate the current stress on the socioeconomic dimension of the notion ‘parallel societies’, I examined ‘Life in a Parallel Society’, an article published in Spiegel Online International (2008). The discussion in the article revolves around the Neukölln neighborhood in Berlin that has been hailed as a Turkish ‘ethnic colony’. Pötzl (2008) concedes that there is ‘something oppressive and ghetto-like’ about this district, where half of the residents are unemployed and the crime rates have tripled since 1990. It is also of concern, the author continues, that migrant families have predominantly male-dominated structure and the birth rate of immigrants exceeds the average. The main argument ultimately seems to boil down to the debates about the outcomes of multiculturalist policies. The main conclusions that one can draw from this article may be, firstly, that the neologism ‘parallel societies’ has firmly entered the mass media discourse on integration. Secondly, it signifies that the term is being associated not only with the threat of fundamentalist Islam but also with socioeconomic segregation, marginalization of migrants and, eventually, a debate about the failings of multiculturalism. I have gathered some additional insights supporting the argument that the term ‘parallel societies’ might be an overgeneralization. Firstly, according to Castles and Miller (2003), self-containment of ethnic minorities can be understood as the product of the ‘selfdefinition’ as well as ‘other definition’ by the mainstream society. In contrast to the mainstream understanding of the concept of ‘parallel societies’ as a product of self-imposed segregation, this line of reasoning suggests that segregation is not entirely voluntary but is also a result of negative labelling by the majority of the society. Secondly, in the opinion of Bade (2004), ‘parallel societies’ do not exist in Germany because housing policies of ethnic mixing prevent from the clusterization of migrants around certain areas. Moreover, there is a lack of autonomous and steadily functioning institutions within migrant communities that would dub the institutions of the mainstream society (Bade, 2004). Another point against the adoption of the concept of parallel society is that the term suggests that there is a mainstream homogeneous society already in place into which the members of the ‘parallel society’ fail to integrate. The ‘mainstream’ society is silently agreed to be a society of middle-class, educated and mainly white individuals. However, the receiving society is in a permanent state of flux as it is incorporating newly arrived immigrants along with the distinct cultures they ‘import’ from their native countries. If the mainstream society is constantly changing can it still be considered as mainstream and homogeneous then? Following this logic, the question of how the parallel societies can enter Page 8 of 12 the mainstream society, which does not exist in practice, is a challenging one. Christian Joppke (2008) points out that some policies have recently been initiated in order to redirect the prevailingly Muslim immigrants from the so-called parallel to the mainstream society. What he argues, however, is that the term ‘parallel society’ is ‘sociologically unhelpful as it is based on the presumptions that there exist a fully integrated and unproblematic ‘mainstream society’, including, as he puts it, ‘hookers, brokers and hooligans’. He claims that such a society is an imaginary concept and does not exist in reality. On the said premises, the concept of ‘parallel society’ has to be abandoned as well (Joppke, 2008). Joppke’s (2009) argument suggesting the relativity of mainstream society made me reflect about the myth of the nation’s homogeneity in the first place. According to Hutchinson (2000), nations are not homogeneous societies but rather dynamic historical collectivities. Nations differ in many ways from ethnic groups which are ‘maintained by myths of common descent, a sense of shared history, and distinctive culture’. Nations should be understood rather as political organizations which sometimes may selectively use some ethnic symbols (Ibid.). If to extrapolate this argument onto the case of Germany, where the term ‘parallel society’ was originally coined, it would be a very loose presumption to maintain that ‘parallel societies’ is a segregated formation that exists in the context of the homogenous German nation. It should not be overlooked that Germany is a federal republic consisting of varying in culture and feelings of national belonging constituent states. Furthermore, the Western-Eastern divide was for years reproduced by opposing ideologies creating divergent sets of values and norms. Even after the reunification the modified version of this ideological and cultural divide is still present in the contemporary German society. This line of reasoning can be continued by drawing on other examples from the history of the German nation building. Therefore, I would argue, it is inaccurate to construct the idea of ‘parallel societies’ as a segregated and alien societal unit because the German mainstream society and its homogeneity is highly contestable. Those parties who insist on the existence of the ‘mainstream’ society are seeking to reinforce the ‘pre-modern’ institutions and values and as a consequence to redefine the modern state and the conception of citizenship. 3. Parallel societies’ and multiculturalism The term ‘parallel societies’ has ultimately found its way into the debate on the presumed failure of multiculturalism. Europe has seen an emergence of counter-narratives with regard to multiculturalism and a subsequent retreat of many European member states Page 9 of 12 from the liberal and progressive vision of multiculturalism. In turn, assimilationist policies have lately been enjoying more attention as a more plausible alternative to the ‘flawed’ and ‘failing’ political initiative of multiculturalism. Thus, the notion of ‘parallel societies’ seems to be one of the instrumental tools of the counter-narrative arguing against multiculturalism. Counter-narrative can be employed as a tool in narrative research in order to put forward a liberating and emancipating agenda. Civil activists and scholars who aim at asserting rights and freedoms of ethnic minorities can, for instance, use counter-narratives in order to contest racist assumptions proliferating in society. The strategies vary and can include, among others, deconstruction of the conventional ‘myth’ and subsequent creation of the alternative one. On the other hand, counter-narrative can also serve in political discourse as a tool to oppose the ideas and agendas not desired by an actor initiating counter-narrative. In the counter-narratives produced not only by far-right political entities, but also by ‘concerned’ liberals it is asserted that minority ethnic communities allegedly abuse the tolerance of the ‘majority’ society. As a result, repressive anti-immigrant and asylum policies are enacted. In this manner, in Germany, the notion of ‘parallel societies’ has been instrumental in creating the public opinion that immigrants, mainly of Turkish origin, represent a major concern to the ‘homogeneous’ German society. It has, therefore, become part of the counter-narrative promoting assimilation as a substitute for the seemingly failing multiculturalism. Since that, some German politicians have been looking for a remedy to tackle and eliminate the unwanted phenomenon of ‘parallel societies’. The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, for instance, officially acknowledged that multiculturalism turned out to be a dismal failure in Germany. She has been promoting the idea that ‘migrants should be given a possibility to identify themselves with German institutions’ with an ultimate goal to reverse the creation and reproduction of ‘parallel societies’ ever since. One of the practical implications of this discourse has been the establishment of the ‘Social togetherness’ Integration summit, the main idea behind which is the pulling of immigrants out from the margins of the society (Reimann A., 2010) . From the very outset, the term of immigrants’ segregation in urban realities has been intrinsically connected with the policies of assimilation, whose main masterminds are believed to be the scholars from the Chicago School of Sociology (Massey S. D., 2004). There seems to be a tight interrelation among the concepts of ‘parallel societies’, claims about pervasive segregation of immigrants and the assimilation theory in the original definition of the Chicago School. While the multiculturalism policy has been recently falling Page 10 of 12 into disgrace, the assimilation theory, on the opposite, has been witnessing a revival not only in Germany, but worldwide. A book co-authored by Richard Alba and Victor Nee Remarking the American Mainstream: Assimilation and Contemporary Immigration (2003), shows, in this fashion, how the counter-narrative of assimilation has been brought from the backstage back into the centre of attention and how the postulates of the Chicago School have been vindicated. One of their lines of reasoning is that rejecting assimilation as racist and discriminatory has been a mistake and that, in their words, assimilation critics ‘threw the baby out with the bath water’. In short, the book seems to construct a counter-narrative against multiculturalism with the authors eloquently claiming that ethnicity as a group as well as boundaries between different ethnic groups will be soon redefined in a way that is hard to imagine (Massey, 2004). Finally, a public lecture by AbdoolKarim Vakil (2011) at the University of Helsinki ‘Dream of Europe without Muslims’ got me thinking about the nature of Islamophobia and the ways in which it might be related to the discussions surrounding the concept of ‘parallel societies’. As he was deconstructing the notion of Islamophobia I got to realize that the perceptions of collective identities of Muslims as being oppressive and dangerous and viewing Islam as a ‘strong’ religion compared to the principles of secularism in Western Societies might be equally applied to the notion of ‘parallel societies’. However, the differences between the ‘parallel’ and ‘mainstream’ societies are at times very relative in nature. For instance, what do we understand by secularism? And may a country where Christmas is a public holiday still be considered as secularized? (Vakil , 2011). To conclude, in the words of a migration researcher Klaus Bade (2004), ‘parallel societies’ exist in the heads of those who fear them’. The situation can hardly be improved by talking about the danger of societal disintegration that ‘parallel societies’ came to symbolize. The idea of ‘parallel societies’ seems to constitute part of the problem itself. As the term enters the debate on immigration and integration among German politicians and opinion-makers, which got quickly caught up by the media, it is capable of framing attitudes of the population. It is creating a social image of immigrants of mainly Turkish descent as aliens and as a threat. Instead of taking this path, the parties involved in the multiculturalism and failing integration discourse could be working towards participatory methods of integration where everyone is involved in building an integrated and cohesive society. References: Page 11 of 12 Bade, K., 2004. Zuwanderung wird als Bedrohung empfunden. Speigel Online Kultur, (online) 24 November. Available at < http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/gesellschaft/0,1518,329285,00.html> ((Accessed 23 October 2011); Castles S. and Miller M.J., 2003. The Age of Migration: International Population Movements in the Modern World. 3rd edition. New York: The Guilford Press; Cashmore E. and Troyna B., 1990. Introduction to Race Relations. 2nd edition. London: The Falmer Press; Joppke, C., 2008. ‘Civic Integration’ to Beat the Parallel Society? In: The Decline and Rise of Public Spaces, International Hertie School of Governance Conference. October 2008; Heitmeyer, W., 1996. Fuer tuerkische Jugendliche in Deutschland spielt der Islam eine wichtige Rolle. Die Zeit, (online) 23 August. Available at: < http://www.zeit.de/1996/35/heitmey.txt.19960823.xml> (Accessed 29 October 2011); Hiscott, W., 2005. ’Parallel Societies’ – A Neologism gone Bad (pdf). Prague: Multicultural Centre Prague. Available at: (Accessed at 28 October 2011); Hutchinson J., 2000. Ethnicity and Modern Nations. The journal of Ethnic and Racial Studies, 23 (4), 2000, pp. 651–669; Lucassen, L., 2005. The immigrant threat : the integration of old and new migrants in Western Europe since 1850. Urbana : University of Illinois Press; Massey, S. D., 2004. Revenge of the Chicago School. Contemporary Sociology, 33 (4), pp. 408-410; Meyer, T., 2002. Parallelgesellschaft und Demokratie (pdf). Friedrich Ebert Stiftung. Online Akademie. Available at: < http://www.foruminterkultur.net/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/19.pdf> (Accessed 29 October 2011); Micus M. and Walter F. (2006), Mangelt es an „Parallelgesellschaften“? Der Bürger im Staat, Heft 4 2006: Zuwanderung und Integration, accessed via http://www.buergerimstaat.de/4_06/integration.pdf#page=17 pp. 215-222; Micus M. and Walter F., 2006. Mangelt es an ‘Parallelgesellschaften’? Der Bürger im Staat, (online) Available at (Accessed 14 November, 2011); Pötzl, N. F., 2008. Life in a Parallel Society. Speigel Online International, (online) 16 April. Available at: < http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,547717,00.html> (Accessed 23 October 2011); Page 12 of 12 Reimann, A., 2010.German Integration Summit Delivers Little. Speigel Online International, (online) 11 April. Available at: (Accessed 15 November 2011); Vakil, A. (2011), ‘The Dream of Europe without Muslims’, Lecture, University of Helsinki, unpublished.