Nationhood, Migration and Global Politics an Introduction
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Nationhood, Migration and Global Politics An Introduction Raymond Taras Edinburgh University Press is one of the leading university presses in the UK. We publish academic books and journals in our selected subject areas across the humanities and social sciences, combining cutting-edge scholarship with high editorial and production values to produce academic works of lasting importance. For more information visit our website: edinburghuniversitypress.com © Raymond Taras, 2018 Edinburgh University Press Ltd The Tun – Holyrood Road 12(2f) Jackson’s Entry Edinburgh EH8 8PJ Typeset in 10.5/12.5 Goudy by Servis Filmsetting Ltd, Stockport, Cheshire, printed and bound in Great Britain. A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978 1 4744 1340 4 (hardback) ISBN 978 1 4744 1342 8 (webready PDF) ISBN 978 1 4744 1341 1 (paperback) ISBN 978 1 4744 1343 5 (epub) The right of Raymond Taras to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, and the Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 (SI No. 2498). Contents List of boxes, figures and tables viii 1. Reinventing nationhood 1 From nation to nationhood 1 A non-Western critique of concepts 4 Eurocentric bias 6 The cornered state 7 Nation branding 10 Which immigrants? 12 Which refugees? 13 Who gets what, when, how 14 Typologies of the nation 17 Kulturnation and nationhood 19 Minorities into majorities 22 Nationhood summarised 24 2. Prejudices and partialities 30 Confronting bias 30 The secular clash with religiosity 31 Attributing racism 34 Religious intolerance 39 Language prejudice 42 Comparing biases 46 3. Who belongs 51 Migration rising 51 Belonging: elusive or illusionary? 52 First Nations 54 Nativism and nationhood 60 nationhood, migration and global politics Not belonging 63 Propositions 75 4. ‘Imperial’ Russia 82 Federalism and ethnicity 82 The imperial idea 84 Eurasianism to the rescue 86 Multinational or multicultural? 87 Nationhood in flux 89 Migration in Russia 91 Russification without nationhood 96 5. Multiculturalising Britain 102 A devolved unitary monarchy 102 Hyper-diversity and Brexit 103 Britishness explained 105 God’s treasured first-born 108 Nationhood exemplified: Race Equality Acts 112 Attitudes towards minorities 115 British Muslims 116 After Brexit 119 6. Immigrant America 125 How new a way to nationhood 125 A national dialect 129 Manifest destiny and exceptionalism 130 Elitism and exclusion 132 Immigrant Americans 137 Immigration writ large and small 139 Identities and divisions 142 Race and anxiety 144 Has America lost its mind? 146 7. Multinational India 151 Majority and majority 151 The British Raj and Indian nationalism 151 Mutiny and nation 154 Towards partition 157 Famine 158 Hindu nationalism triumphant 159 Flawed nationhood 161 vi contents Climate refugees 163 BJP rising 168 8. Multiracial South Africa 174 Troubled legacy 174 The violence of colonialism 175 Identity obsession 177 Elections and nationhood 181 Zulu as historic nation 183 Xenophobia without racism 186 Not belonging – again 190 Of kings and presidents 192 9. Peru – Indígenas, Mestizos, Criollos 197 Migration and social class 197 Indigeneity 200 Casta representations 201 March to the cities 204 Integrating into urban culture 206 Extranjeros 208 Untying the Gordian Knot 209 Select bibliography 212 Index 215 vii who belongs Chapter Three Who belongs Migration rising This chapter connects nationhood to the processes of social integration and social cohesion. If homogeneous nations are disappearing and migrants with their often far-flung networks are replacing them, how does nation- hood take on the bounded form that it does? How is it able to incorporate millions of migrants over the decades, successfully integrate them, convince them they belong, and create socially cohesive communities that constitute nationhood? In 2017 there were 258 million international migrants making up 3.4 per cent of the world’s population. Since 2000 migrants have increased by 85 million, or 49 per cent. Women account for nearly half of the total, giving short shrift to the impression that they are the ones invariably left behind.1 Approximately one-third of migrants were under the age of 30. More than 150 million were workers. Asylum seekers represented just a small propor- tion, 15 per cent in Europe and 10 per cent globally. In 2017, Asia hosted the largest number of migrants (80 million), edging out Europe (78 million) and well ahead of North America (58 million).2 Integration has been watered down in the twenty-first century. Zygmunt Bauman noted that ‘unlike the now abandoned postulate of “assimilation”, the policy of integration does not require of the newcomers the renuncia- tion of what they are’.3 Integration means that migrants do not need to sell their souls when moving to another country, but expectations are that they will adapt and adjust to changes in their social lives. They need to take steps to learn a foreign language, if not because of its intrinsic value then for its practicality. This chapter examines processes of integration that are sometimes suc- cesses and other times failures. Here is a general definition. According to the Migration Policy Institute, 51 nationhood, migration and global politics immigrant integration is the process of economic mobility and social inclusion for newcomers and their children. As such, integration touches upon the institutions and mechanisms that promote development and growth within society, including early childhood care; elementary, postsecondary, and adult education systems; workforce development; health care; provision of government services to com- munities with linguistic diversity; and more. Successful integration builds commu- nities that are stronger economically and more inclusive socially and culturally.4 As discussed already, immigration gives a country the opportunity to broaden the nation and make it post-ethnic. The first step involves making immigrants feel they belong to the receiving society and affirming that nationhood encompasses immigrants. This is a departure from the narrower understanding of nationhood as comprising on the one hand a group of nativists and assimilated immigrants, and on the other a peripheral ‘waiting room’ accommodating peoples viewed as not yet belonging, even being excluded. When we introduce the term super-diversity to apply to contemporary nations with complex demographic makeups, the situation becomes even more complicated: ‘The concept of super-diversity to some extent comple- ments the notion of transnationalism which highlights that migrants often maintain relations with two or more countries and live in transnational social spaces.’5 Rethinking immigrant integration in terms of the multidimension- ality of the migrant experience can become unmanageable, inadequate and often flawed. It can be a cosmopolitan experience that transcends a number of countries. I limit this discussion to migrants from a sending society seeking to integrate into one receiving society. Belonging: elusive or illusionary? When we speak of a German nation, it may be more accurate to talk of dif- ferent peoples in Germany that make up its nationhood. More politically contentious is identifying other states in which, for example, ‘Turkish Kurds’ would more precisely be called Kurds in Turkey – an important component of Turkey’s nationhood. The same may apply to Catalan speakers in Spain in spite of the Madrid government insisting that there is but one Spain. In 2017 German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel spoke out about Turks in Germany: ‘one thing is clear: you, people of Turkish roots in Germany, belong here with us, whether you have a German passport or not’. Germany acknowledges that the 3 million individuals of Turkish descent belong to the country, form ‘part of the fabric of the nation’ and represent ‘a great treas- ure’.6 This is the definition of nationhood. It is futile to determine where people naturally belong. In the first instance, belonging may occur in the place where people are born. But others claim 52 who belongs they belong where they have chosen to settle. In order to contrast aspects of belonging, let me examine an intriguing, perhaps unwitting, debate that took place between two Jesuit intellectuals who head the Catholic Church. Chosen by Pope Francis to be new Undersecretary of the Section for Migrants and Refugees in the Vatican department for the Promotion of Integral Human Development, Father Michael Czerny stressed that ‘no one should ever be forced to leave his or her home due to lack of development or peace’. Rather than view that person as a prospective emigrant to a safer country, he underscored that The right to remain helps to focus the international community’s efforts on its prior obligation to ensure the sustainable and integral human development of all people in their place of origin and to enable them to become active agents of their own development.7 Speaking to a UN symposium studying the linkage between migration and development, Czerny expressed concern that migrants might be pressured to leave their country of origin rather than remain, in this way raising the social, economic and cultural costs to the country being abandoned: ‘It is by ensur- ing the conditions for the exercise of the right to remain, then, that makes migration a choice, not a necessity.’ This logic is more than Jesuitry. For his part, Pope Francis, a powerful advocate for migrant rights, under- lined other priorities for migrants. The Migrants and Refugees’ Action Plan published in 2017, titled Responding to Refugees and Migrants: Twenty Action Points, emphasised respect for migrants’ dignity and rights. The task of governments was to ‘welcome, protect, promote, and integrate’ them so that the ‘ultimate goal is the building of an inclusive and sustainable common home for all’. Welcoming ‘the rejected strangers of every age’ was an obligation. Pope Francis went further, convinced that personal safety was a greater priority than national security. Border guards should be trained to protect migrants.