Living 1 together in GENEVA a socioLogicaL STUDY by antoine maurice the observatory of the fondation pour genève "impact" – booklet nr 4 1 LIVING TOGETHER IN GENEVA BOOkLET "ImpAcT" Nr 4 A SOcIOLOGIcAL STUDY BY antoine mAURIcE Antoine Maurice is a journalist, solicitor and sociologist, Professor Emeritus of Communication Science at the Universities of Neuchâtel and Geneva, former editor of the Journal de Genève and served as a diplomat for the Confederation between 1969 and 1976. 3 Summary Foreword 6 By Ivan Pictet, Chairman, Fondation pour Genève Introduction 10 By Antoine Maurice The diversities of Geneva 14 Migration maps by continent 18 Living in Geneva: Taking our place on the world map 28 Living in Geneva: A short history of the territory 32 Living in the canton 38 Living in the canton: circles and communities 48 Living in the canton: migrants and refugees 58 Living in the canton: Working together 68 By way of conclusion: common values and identity 78 Appendices Tables of migrants in Geneva (by nationality and residence permit) 86 Acknowledgements 92 5 foreword by Ivan pIctet 6 ForEword The Portuguese of Geneva welcomed the victory of Portugal at Eurofoot 2016 with “Long live the homeland”. They have been living in the city for one or two generations. For the most part they have no thought of returning to Portugal. They are at home here, even though Geneva is not their “homeland”. Not any more than it is that of the Italians, Spaniards, French, Germans and Americans or all those who have established their residence here. Their “homeland” remains in their hearts; it provides them with valuable emotions tied to their original affiliation. In a way, it’s a portable homeland that can be hung up in windows anywhere when some sporting or cultural event call for it. Geneva is a place where many people from elsewhere, either from the near vicinity or further afield, settle down. It has always been thus. The mixture is its great historical experience. we’re proud of it. But what is not taught in school, what has so far seldom been the subject of studies, hence the idea of it, is the daily lived experience: the practical arrangements for sharing space and property, and jobs in particular; the friction of cultures, the misunderstandings, suspicions and conflicts; but also, the reconciliations, the encounters, the more or less explicit agreements, the small solutions which ultimately overcome the differences because it is in everyone’s best interest. All this work of accommodating each other has made the Geneva we know. It is also this work that is at the heart of the activity that the Fondation pour Genève pursues to the extent of its modest means. Yet today there are officials from multinational companies or international organisations in Geneva who see a negative trend in the state of mind of the local population. There are also “real or fake refugees” to suspect or reject when circumstances call for an exceptional show of hospitality, as is the case today. overall, however, the difficulties of coexistence happily fade quickly, judging them by history. And it is good to remember the work of our country’s fathers to face and resolve current issues that irritate and disorient our small population, difficulties seen as new, if not insurmountable, even though they are the cut from the same cloth that created the tradition of Geneva. Foreigners welcomed in the past in times of uproar or controversy, today happily forgotten by history, have contributed greatly to the development of the city and the region through their work, their reputation and their personal commitment. High-flying internationals or simple political refugees, or workers in search of jobs: the examples abound for centuries of groups or individuals, which, by their presence, have made their mark on the memory of Geneva. A foreign community of more than a third of the population today contributes to its high reputation, as they do to that of Switzerland as a whole. without this community, such a small city would not have the image Geneva projects in the world. with this fourth impact study booklet, initiated by the Fondation pour Genève, dedicated to “Living together” in the enlarged area of our region, I invite you to take note of what has been accomplished. I invite you to trust this place, made stronger by inclusion rather than exclusion. The appeal of Geneva gives those living here a duty of hospitality, social intelligence and resistance to simplistic rejection. ForEword 7 The Geneva region has become international through a chain of on balance advantageous circumstances. Its internationalism now demands it. This calls for a more fluid relationship with each other. whether in the office, on the street or in a tram, at every moment you are struck by impressive diversity of the people that you come across. Everyone has a mobile phone, connected to their family, their friends, their work colleagues, away from here, sometimes far away. The fate of these people is not written anywhere. only their present is in Geneva. For how long? which of these foreigners here will find “a reason to live here”? what will we do for them to find it? This is the challenge we face if, as I believe and hope, Geneva will continue to build on its values as a land of welcome in harmony with its expansion. It was Antoine Maurice who took on the challenge of writing the fourth booklet on “Living together”. It concludes a comprehensive study conducted at the request of the Fondation pour Genève by the Universities of Geneva, Lausanne, the IHEId and the EPFL, on the impact of International Geneva on the Lake Geneva region. The first three booklets, of which we can only recommend a careful reading, clearly demonstrate the convergence of material interests between locals and internationals. The latter significantly contribute to more than half the Canton of Geneva’s added value. As to defining the “feel” of living together, it’s difficult to quantify this element on which Antoine Maurice’s study brings to bear, in this “melting pot” that represents our Lake Geneva region. Ivan Pictet President Fondation pour Genève NTroductioN 9 IntroductIon by antoIne maurIce 10 INTroductioN IntroductIon: a defInItIon The term “living together”, in the sense of harmonious cohabitation in the city or the country, dates back to the 1950s, although the expression itself is actually older. Before world war II, this would have been referred to as “social cohesion” but this sociological term has been supplanted since by “living together”, used as a noun. The current success of the expression is probably related to globalisation, insofar as it forms both a mould for the cohabitation within societies, largely driven by technological factors, and an opportunity for societies to fragment into more tenuous components than the global and nation-state. Thus with everyone no longer automatically having their place within stable political structures, the institutional order is threatened. what is needed is a rethink of the social contract of the cities and territories, their living together. Just look at the resurgent independence movements in our countries, in Catalonia, Scotland, Corsica or at times in the Italian Northern League. Not to mention the nationalist outbursts of the post-Yugoslav Balkans and post-Soviet Caucasus. All express an identity crisis that tilts towards a change in scope of living together, either by the total or partial rejection of the usual national framework. Add to this the growing importance of cities in the international order, especially the largest of them. Living together is thus based on three pillars: the geographical territory, the population whose composition varies with time, and power: institutions and politics. Culture, identity, or as we might say, mores and attitudes, are all results of this three-way dynamic. Culture, in the broadest sense covers the effective forms of living together. For example, the amicable settling of neighbourhood incidents or the rules of the road. These factors are objectives to the extent that, although they are incommensurable, culture in particular, they have a factual basis. Territory is measured in space and is divided administratively. The demographic composition: nationals/foreigners, residents/immigrants, is divided into categories and is subject to updated statistics (see full tables in the appendices). The collective culture, for its part, is based on objective parameters such as level of education and group behaviour, including that of politicians, of traditions and of foreign cultural contributions to the host country. we see that living together, in addition to its objective basis, is also a question of representation, i.e., of the look that everyone casts upon on the entire society, provided that it is shared by the majority. we are living together when a large part or all of the population feels (represents itself) in unison with the values and behaviour of a particular community in a particular territory, administered by recognised authorities. Living together therefore consists – in all geographical areas and categories of the population – in habits, social practices and behaviours inspired by a set of shared values. This process results in a feeling of a possible or even peaceful cohabitation, in tune with the political authorities and powers. In this sense, living together also becomes a representation for most or all of the affected population. This representation determines the general and mutual acceptance of one and all. In this fragile and changeable representation, politics plays a critical role. It would be simplistic to define living together as the simple allocation of a place to everyone, through land and spatial planning. what is needed a strategic vision on the part of the authority and the promise of a policy to achieve that vision.