J u l e s B o o g S t u d e n t I D : 6 0 6 9 1 2 6 M a s t e r ' s t h e s i s S o c i o l o g y S u p e r v i s o r : D r . M a r t h a M o n t e r o - S i e b u r t h
Ethnic Categorization in
Social Science on Integration
This paper has studied the ethnic categorization of migrants and their offspring as it has been present in research on immigrant integration in the Netherlands in the past five years. The theoretical framework used for studying the process of ethnic categorization was that of the established/outsider-dynamics most prominently used by Elias (1994). Bourdieu’s (1989) concept of capital was added to this theoretical framework. Discourse analysis was used as a research method in this study. Because of the power relations between the field of power and the field of research, social science scholars have come to acknowledge the policy problem of integration as important and do research about its consequences. The existence of this problem justifies the ethnic categorization process. In the current discourse on integration, being categorized as nonintegrated has become synonymous to being categorized as ‘non ethnically Dutch.’ If social scholars really want to solve the integration problem, they should disconnect it from the notion of ethnicity.The Established and
the Outsiders in the
Field of National
INHOUDSOPGAVE
1. Introduction ... 2
1.1 History ... 2 1.1.1 1945 - 1960 ... 3 1.1.2 1960’s-1970’s ... 3 1.1.3 1980’s-1990’s ... 4 1.1.4 2000’s to now ... 5 1.2 Critiques ... 61.3 Research questions and justification ... 8
2. Theoretical Framework ... 10
2.1 Ethnicity ... 10
2.1.1 Definitions ... 10
2.1.2 Ethnicity as a perspective on the world, not as a thing in the world ... 12
2.1.3 Ethnicity as a process of categorization, not a category in itself ... 13
2.1.4 Dynamic ethnicity ... 14
2.2 Processes of ethnic categorization ... 15
2.2.1 The established and the outsiders: social processes of ethnic categorization ... 16
2.2.2 Seeing like a state: State Processes of categorization and state interest in categorizing ... 19
2.3 The role of integration research in government policy making. ... 21
3. Methodology ... 24
3.1 Research perspectives ... 24
3.2 Research design & process of data collection ... 26
3.3 Limitations & Delimitations ... 28
4. Results ... 30
4.1 Name-giving in the categorization process ... 30
4.2 Ethnic categorization in research. ... 35
4.3 The research-policy nexus: empirical results. ... 41
5. Conclusion & Discussion ... 46
5.1 Research question and research methods ... 46
5.2 The ethnic categorization process ... 47
5.2.1 Established/outsider-dynamics in the field of national belonging. ... 48
5.2.2 The research-policy nexus ... 49
5.2.3 Consequences of categorization ... 51
5.3 Discourse and counter-discourse ... 52
1. INTRODUCTION
Integration has been a hot topic within public debate in the Netherlands for quite some time now.1 Since the end of the seventies, policymakers began to realize that the temporary ‘guest
workers’ that were living in the Netherlands could no longer be considered as temporary guests. This lead to the idea among the members of parliament that policy was needed to deal with the integration of these ‘guest workers’ in Dutch society. From this moment on, integration as a political issue was born. It was not until the turn of the century, however, that political debates on integration really started to take a central role within the public and political debates in the Netherlands. Politicians Pim Fortyun, who was assassinated in 2002, and later Geert Wilders both have formed very successful political parties mainly revolving around the issue of integration.
One term that has been very important in the public debate on integration in the
Netherlands is the term ‘allochtoon’. Academic literature states that the term first came into use in 1971, in a report written by Hilda Verweij-Jonker and others (Geschiere, 2009; Groenendijk; 2007; Yanow & van Der Haar, 2013 and others). Since the turn of the century the category of ‘allochtoon’ has been used in official statistics used by the government. It also has been used as a research category. The exact meaning of this term will be elaborated on below. The use of this term is part of an ethnic categorization process in the Netherlands in which migrants and their offspring are categorized as ‘allochtoon’, or any other term meaning the same thing.2 Lately, this
categorization has received criticism among Dutch scholars (De Zwart, 2012; Groenendijk, 2007; Paulle & Kalir, 2013; Yanow & Van der Haar, 2013). Below, a historical overview of migration to the Netherlands and the policy related to this migration will be given. After that, an overview of the current critiques on the ethnic categorizations of migrants and their offspring will be given.
1.1 HISTORY
In this short historic overview two things will be discussed. First of all, a history of international migration to the Netherlands from after World War II until now will be given. Secondly, this history will be intertwined with the history of migration and integration policy. This research will mostly focus on the migrant groups that became relevant from a policy perspective. In the period discussed, the Netherlands have always received a steady stream of migrants from
1 I kindly thank Rinus Penninx and Han Entzinger for the fact that they were prepared to give me some of
their time so that I could interview them. I learned a lot from both of the interviews. I also kindly thank Martha Montero-Sieburth, my thesis supervisor, for her helpful comments.
2 The fact that multiple terms mean the same thing in this case will be discussed in the results section
Germany and other West European countries. These groups of migrants never became part of the debate on integration in the Netherlands and thus are not discussed.
1.1.1 1945 - 1960
In 1949 the former Dutch colony of Indonesia gained independence. This created a large stream of migrants to the Netherlands. People that belonged to or were associated with the former Dutch ruling elite migrated to the Netherlands (Doomernik, 2013). These were the so-called ‘repatrianten’ (repatriates) (Geschiere, 2009: 138; Doomernik, 2013). The fact that these migrants were called ‘repatrianten’ shows that it was suggested that they were born in the Netherlands and returning to their home country (Doomernik, 2013). This left no doubt about their belonging to Dutch society. (Doomernik, 2013). According to Penninx (1978: 163), the government performed a policy of “active integration” with regards to repatriates. But it seems that during this period no general immigration or integration policy existed. Another important immigrant group during this period were ‘Moluccans.’ Most of these immigrants migrated to the Netherlands in the hopes of soon returning to an independent republic of the South-Moluccans and were thus considered temporary residents.
At this time, the Netherlands were still an emigration country. Despite the large influx of ‘repatrianten’ and ‘Moluccans’, there were still more people emigrating from the Netherlands than immigrating to it (Geschiere, 2009: 139). Dutch people mainly migrated to Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand (Geschiere, 2009: 139).
1.1.2 1960’S-1970’S
In the 1960’s the economy recovered more rapidly from World War II than expected. This led to the recruitment of ‘gastarbeiders’ (guest workers) from Mediterranean countries (Geschiere, 2009: 138; Doomernik, 2013); first from Southern European countries like Spain and Italy and later, most importantly, Turkey and Morocco (Geschiere, 2009: 138; Zorlu & Hartog, 2001). These guest workers were expected to return to their home countries after some time. Penninx (1978: 163) points out that until the end of the 1970’s the idea of temporariness of immigrants prevailed. Because of this, no efforts were made to promote their integration (Entzinger, 2006). The migrants were encouraged to retain their own culture, so that returning to their home country would be easier (Entzinger, 2006). During the 1970’s, however, policymakers started to realize that the presence of the guest workers would not be temporary and that some sort of policy to deal with these migrants was needed. Also, the South-Moluccan state the Moluccans wanted to return to was not founded, which meant the Moluccans had nowhere to go to. In the mean time, immigrants kept coming.
Recruitment of guest workers stopped during the first oil crisis in 1974 (Zorlu & Hartog, 2001). The migration from the guest worker countries did not stop at that time, but continued through chain migration. Chain migration was caused by processes of family reunification and family formation by former guest workers that were now settling permanently in the Netherlands. Another large stream of immigrants during that same period came from the former Dutch colony of Suriname, which gained independence in 1975. Citizens of Suriname got the change to
migrate to the Netherlands and obtain Dutch citizenship. This stream of immigrants from Suriname also challenged the idea of temporariness of immigrants in the Netherlands.
1.1.3 1980’S-1990’S
In the 1980’s the processes of family reunification and family formation continued among the group of former guest workers and their offspring. From the second half of the 1980’s the number of asylum seekers rapidly increased (Zorlu & Hartog, 2001; Geschiere, 2009: 138). This led to a diversification of the countries of origin of migrants in the Netherlands (Doomernik, 2013). Asylum seekers first came from Eastern European countries during the cold war. In the 90’s, the collapse of Yugoslavia and the subsequent civil wars created a large stream of
immigrants to the Netherlands, just as civil wars on the African continent did.
The discourse on migration in 1980’s and 1990’s was influenced heavily by two reports written by the scientific council for government policy (WRR). The first of these reports was published in 1979 and was called ‘ethnische minderheden’ (ethnic minorities). In this report, migrants were no longer defined as temporary guests, but as minority groups within Dutch society. The report states that Dutch society looks more and more like a “multiethnic and multiracial society” (WRR, 1979: X). It seems that the way in which the Dutch society dealt with migrants was based on the Dutch tradition of ‘verzuiling’ (pillarization) (Vasta, 2007).
Pillarization meant that various societal subgroups could have their own state-sponsored institutions like schools and welfare programs. Immigrant groups were seen as societal subgroups that should be allowed to create their own institutions. This is clear from their framing as ‘ethnic minorities’ (Vasta, 2007). There was no policy of integration into mainstream culture. The ethnic minority policy could be seen as a policy aimed at the welfare of certain segregated groups (Vasta, 2007). Immigrants could retain their own culture and create their own institutions on the basis of this. However, according to Duyvendak & Scholten (2010), this connection between Dutch ethnic minorities policy and pillarization should be put in
perspective. First of all, society had been de-pillarizing since the 1950’s and 1960’s. Secondly, migrants groups were never able to organize themselves as well as the former pillars had been (Duyvendak & Scholten, 2010). The policies in this period often get described as the “ultimate multicultural model” (Duyvendak & Scholten, 2010: 43). However, according to Duyvendak &
Scholten (2010: 43) “Many practices were actually not inspired by a normative belief in multiculturalism, but by a more pragmatic concern about “keeping things together.””
Ten years after the first report, in 1989, a second report on migrants by the WRR was published. This time it was called ‘Allochtonenbeleid’ (‘allochtonen’ policy). In this report the WRR decided to drop the term ‘ethnic minorities’ and reintroduce the term ‘allochtoon.’
Academic literature states that the term first came into use in 1971, in a report written by Hilda Verweij-Jonker and others (Yanow & van Der Haar, 2013). The WRR defined an ‘allochtoon’ as a person not born in the Netherlands, their children and their grandchildren (Groenendijk, 2007; Geschiere, 2009: 150; WRR, 1989: 61). The first reason given for dropping the term ‘ethnic minorities’ is that this would entail lesser socioeconomic standing3, which was seen as not being
the case for every migrant and their offspring. This would make it harder to study the effects of migration. The second reason is that Native Dutch people would also fall under the definition of ‘ethnic minority.’ The third reason was the stigmatizing effect of the term ‘minority.’ (WRR, 1989: 160). The reason why the term migrant was not chosen as an alternative was because not all people that integration policy was to be directed towards could be seen as migrants, namely the second and third generation (WRR, 1989: 61). Entzinger (interview) adds to this by saying that the term migrant would also suggest that the Netherlands was an immigration country, something politicians were not yet willing to admit.
1.1.4 2000’S TO NOW
From the turn of the century, immigrants kept coming to the Netherlands, mostly from African countries and from eastern European countries like Poland, Romania and Bulgaria. Around this time, the way in which politicians looked at immigrants changed considerably.
At the end of the 1990’s some first policies aimed at “mainstreaming” immigrants in the Netherlands took place, most notably Dutch language courses (Zorlu & Hartog, 2001; Vasta, 2007), but these policies were inefficient and of low quality (Zorlu & Hartog, 2001). After the turn of the century the idea of mainstreaming immigrants started to take more root. The most important shift in the framing of integration of immigrants was a focus on the cultural
integration of immigrants. Also, the responsibility of the ‘failure’ of migrants to integrate was put primarily on the migrants themselves. Geschiere (2009: 135) describes this change in thinking about integration very aptly.
“It was not their socioeconomic marginalization but rather their “refusal” to be culturally integrated that was now seen to be at the heart of immigrants’ problems”
3 Currently, socioeconomic standing plays a role in the definition of ‘allochtoon.’ The distinction between
‘Western’ and ‘Nonwestern allochtoon’, which will be discussed below, is based on the perceived socioeconomic standing of the migrant and their offspring.
Migrants were considered not to be culturally integrated because their cultural values were seen as not compatible with mainstream Dutch values. This frame of cultural incompatibility is a dominant frame, but also a highly contested one (Entzinger, interview; Roggeband &
Vliegenthart, 20074). After the year 2000, the word ‘allochtoon’ became a popular term within
the political and public debate. Before, the term was mainly used in research and official
documents as a statistical term. The central bureau for statistics had adopted the term with one important change: they only encapsulated two generations in the term, instead of three.
After the elections of 2002 migration policy became more restrictive. Minister of integration and migration, Rita Verdonk launched a “drastic program for the extradition of illegal migrants” (Geschiere, 2009: 145). Integration policy became focused more on the cultural integration of the migrant. A mandatory citizenship test was instated for all immigrants that wanted to settle in the country. This citizenship test contained questions about the history of the Netherlands and also about cultural practices and values. Anti-immigrant sentiments started to play an important role in Dutch politics. Dutch politician Geert Wilders has been the leader of a very successful political party in the Netherlands (his party was the shared 3rd biggest party at
the 2012 elections) that is for a large part based on anti-immigration sentiments.
It thus seems that since the turn of the century a switch has taken place in the way in which integration gets framed in the public and political debate in the Netherlands. This switch has gone from the immigrant as a part of a minority group that needs help to get equal chances in society, to the immigrant as a nonintegrated individual that challenges Dutch norms and values
1.2 CRITIQUES
What is clear from the historic overview above, is that immigrants have always been categorized on the basis of their ethnicity. This ethnic categorization process has not gone without critique. In this section an overview of these critiques will be given.
One way in which the ethnic categorization of migrants gets critiqued is by pointing out the discriminatory practices this categorization has effectuated. Groenendijk (2007) points out how ethnic categorization in the Netherlands has been used for targeting policies at specific ethnic groups. This is allowed under the European laws of racial discrimination when this policy entails affirmative action (Groenendijk, 2007; De Zwart, 2012). The problem, according to Groenendijk (2007), is that the ethnic categorization has made it easy for the Dutch government not only to grant organizations rights to help ‘ethnic minorities’ but also to implement restrictive
4 Roggeband & Vliegenthart talk about the ‘Islam-as a threat’ frame as being dominant but also contested.
Although culture is broader than just religion, in the Dutch context, when people talk about the culture of ‘allochtonen’, they mostly refer to religious culture, equated with Islam.
measures for people based on their ethnicity. This is in conflict with constitutional
antidiscrimination laws, according to Groenendijk (2007). It is thus the consequences of the ethnic categorization of migrants and their offspring that make the categorization undesirable. De Zwart (2012) points out how it is not just the consequences that make the ethnic
categorization of migrants and their offspring by policymakers undesirable, but the fact that these consequences can exist. It is the categorization itself that is the problem. This
categorization creates an “institutionalized acceptance of difference” (De Zwart, 2012: 314). It is the potential for negative effects that make the ethnic categorization undesirable. No
categorization would mean no potential for negative effects.
Paulle & Kalir (2013) also point out that it is the categorization itself that forms the problem. They believe that ethnic categorizations make ethnicity into a primordial, essential quality of people. This essentialism is bad, because it creates the possibility to link ethnicity with negative behavioural traits. The place where your parents are born becomes a benchmark for the way you act. This can lead to stigmatization since all people that are categorized as ‘allochtoon’, the most important name for the ethnic category of migrants and their offspring, can come to be seen as behaving in a certain way. For example, being an ‘allochtoon’ often gets linked with criminal behaviour (Paulle & Kalir, 2013). Most politicians and newspapers never fail to mention it was an ‘allochtoon’, ‘Moroccan youngster’ or a ‘dark skinned individual’ who committed a certain crime.
A great deal of the critique on the ethnic categorization of migrants and their offspring in the Netherlands is directed specifically to the word ‘allochtoon.’One important critique is that using the word ‘allochtoon’ is detrimental to the integration process of migrants and their offspring (Yanow & van der Haar, 2013; Groenendijk, 2007). Even if a person has passed the mandatory citizenship test and has obtained a Dutch passport, that person is still called an ‘allochtoon.’ There is nothing a person can do to become an ‘autochtoon,’ a ‘true native.’ If someone always continues to be labelled as ‘ethnically different’, than how is it possible for this person to ever become fully integrated into Dutch society? If Dutch politicians believe that integration of migrants and their offspring is vital, they would do better no longer using the word ‘allochtoon’, since only then, every migrant truly has a chance to fully integrate into Dutch society.
A last critique deals with the fact that ethnicity as a predictor for behaviour is not necessarily a very sound one. Paule & Kalir (2013) explain how ethnicity is often used as a predictor for criminal behaviour. This is because ‘allochtonen’ are overrepresented in crime rates. But this overrepresentation has never been proven to be caused by ethnicity, or the ‘culture’, of ‘allochtonen’ in the Netherlands. A popular alternative explanation for the overrepresentation of migrants and their offspring in crime rates is migrants’
overrepresentation in the lower socioeconomic classes. Ethnicity is also used as an explanation for the fact that migrants and their offspring are on average less successful in education. The dropout rates of migrants and their offspring are higher than those of ‘native Dutch’ and they are also overrepresented in lower vocational tracks of the educational system. The lower
educational outcomes of migrants and their offspring can also be explained by their
overrepresentation in the lower socioeconomic classes (van de Werfhorst & van Tubergen, 2007). If there is a purely ethnic effect on educational outcomes, it seems more likely it is a positive effect (van de Werfhorst & Tubergen, 2007; Modood, 2010). Although ethnicity is used as an explanation for certain behaviour and also educational outcomes, it is hard for Dutch scholars to prove a purely ethnic effect on behaviour and educational outcomes, as the above two examples make clear.
The ethnic categorization of migrants and their offspring is not limited to political debates and state institutions. Ethnic categorization of migrants and their offspring also takes place in social science. As was already made clear above, more and more scholars have begun to voice their critique on this practice. Even though critique on the ethnic categorization of migrants in the Netherlands is thus gaining more ground, the categorization still takes place within social
science research on integration on a large scale. The question that remains is: why? What are the reasons that researchers choose to engage in the ethnic categorization process even though its aforementioned downsides? What are the perceived benefits of the categorization process?
1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND JUSTIFICATION
The purpose of this study is to deconstruct the rationale that guides the ethnic categorization process of migrants and their offspring in the Netherlands. This study hopes to learn what the perceived benefits of this ethnic categorization are. The study also has the purpose to combine the current critique of Dutch scholars on the existence of the category of ‘allochtoon’ in the Netherlands with the broader social science debate on what is called ‘groupism’ (Brubaker, 2002; Brubaker, 2009; Brubaker, Loveman & Stamatov, 2004).
The main research question of this study is: What is the use for social science scholars studying integration of ethnic categorization of migrants and their offspring within the current discourse on integration within the Netherlands in the past five years? The main question is posed to look at the ways in which social science scholars working on integration in the Netherlands in the past five years use the categorization in their research. This gives us insight in the reasons why this categorization process is being continued, even though downsides of it exist. Based on this, the first sub question of the research question is: How is the ethnic categorization of migrants and their offspring employed by social science scholars working on integration in the
Netherlands in the past five years? This sub question looks at the way in which the categorization process is used. There are two main aspects of this sub question. The first aspect is the perceived benefits of the categorization. What moves researchers to use it? The second aspect is the
critique is gets. Some of the critique on the ethnic categorization of migrant and their offspring, mainly through the use of the word ‘allochtoon’, has already been discussed above. The way in which the process of categorization gets critiqued in research can say something about the reasons why this process prevails. What are the things that do not get critiqued? What does that say about the underlying assumptions about the legitimacy of the ethnic categorization of migrants and their offspring? This question gives us insight in the perceptions of scholars about the categorization process. These perceptions are used as a proxy to study the social relations that have influenced them.
This research focuses solely on the social science community. Other stakeholders, like the media or the migrant and their offspring, are not discussed as thorough. Policymakers play an
important role in this research but mainly in the sense of their relation to the field of social science research. The reason why only the field of social science is chosen is because a broader focus would make the research unmanageable.
The reason why the study is relevant for the scientific community is first of all because it forces scholars to critically asses the categorization process used within social science research on integration within the Netherlands. It also links this critique to the broader social science critique of ‘groupism’, which seems to be geared more towards finding solutions for the problems of categorization and thus forms a logical next step after the formulation of the critique that pointed out the existence of these problems. This research also hopes to gain some more insight in the relationship between social science scholars and broader society. That is why the second sub question to the main question has been formulated. This question is: How does the ethnic categorization of migrants and their offspring by social science scholars working on integration in the Netherlands in the past five years play a part in the categorization process in broader Dutch society, as mentioned in the problem statement?
2. THEORETICAL F RAME WORK
This theoretical framework exists of theories that are important for this research. First it will be explained what is exactly meant by ethnicity. The next part is about the process of ethnic
categorization. Lastly, the relation between research and policy on immigrant integration will be theorized and also the relevance of this relation for the categorization process.
2.1 ETHNICITY
In this section, the perspective on ethnicity that is held in the paper will be discussed. It is important to know this perspective. First of all, because it makes it more understandable why the research methods, which will be elaborated on below, are chosen. Secondly, this perspective also explains why ethnicity is not taken for granted but instead is questioned. This chapter thus also provides the theoretical basis for the aforementioned critique on essentialism that was present in process of ethnic categorization of migrants and their offspring. Apart from
presenting this paper’s perspective on ethnicity, this chapter will also explain why we can speak of ethnic categorization of migrants and their offspring in the Netherlands. Why can this paper speak of a process of categorization and why can this categorization be seen as ethnic in the given context?
2.1.1 DEFINITIONS
Before looking at the process of ethnic categorization it is important to know what is meant by ethnicity. Wimmer (2008: 973), gives a useful definition
“I define ethnicity as a subjectively felt sense of belonging based on the belief in shared culture and common ancestry. This believe refers to cultural practices perceived as “typical” for the community, to myths of a common historical origin, or to phenotypical similarities”
Ethnicity also has to do with other things like nationality, language and religion (Wimmer, 2008). Race is considered to be a form of ethnicity by Wimmer (2008), as is clear from the mentioning of perceived ‘phenotypical similarities’ as being part of ethnicity. Race can be seen as a specific type of ethnicity. Wacquant (2010) calls it “a form of ethnicity that pretends not to be ethnic.” Race is a form of ethnicity that claims to be grounded in nature, to exist independently from social constructions of ethnicity (Wacquant, 2010). An ethnic category is bound up with certain behaviours that are considered to be typical for the members of that ethnic category (Barth, 1969; Jenkins, 1994). Ethnicity is a set of behaviours, appearances and other things that are perceived to be typical for a certain category of people. These behaviours and characteristics are linked with and explained by perceived ancestral commonalities between people. As will be
explained below, the set of characteristics deemed typical is variable over time, place and social context.
The categorization of migrants and their offspring taking place in the Netherlands can be seen as an ethnic one. ‘Allochtoon’ is the most important term used in this ethnic categorization process. As will be shown in the results section, even though other words are used besides ‘allochtoon’, these words are just substitutes for the word ‘allochtoon’ that mean the same thing. The Dutch statistical category of ‘allochtoon’ can be seen as an ethnic category (Jacobs & Rea, 2009). An important aspect of this categorization is that the people in the category are
categorized on the basis of their ancestry. It is not someone’s own birthplace that is important, but the birthplace of someone’s parents. The official definition of the central bureau for statistics of the Netherlands (CBS), which can be found on their website5, is “a person of whom at least
one parent is born outside of the Netherlands.” This means that the nationality of your parents is the defining principle. If you are born outside of the Netherlands, but both of your parents are born in the Netherlands, you are not considered to be an ‘allochtoon’ (Keij, 2000).
Within the definition of ‘allochtoon’ further distinctions are made between first and second generation and western and nonwestern ‘allochtoon’ (Keij, 2000). A first generation ‘allochtoon’ is someone who was born in a different country and who migrated to the
Netherlands (granted at least one of this person’s parents was born outside of the Netherlands). A second generation ‘allochtoon’ is, as opposed to the first generation, born in the Netherlands. The distinction between ‘western’ and ‘nonwestern allochtoon’ is based country of origin. Western countries are “all European countries except for Turkey, North-American countries (Canada and the US), Oceania, Japan and Indonesia” (Keij, 2000: 24). The inclusion of Indonesia in the ‘western’ group has to do with the fact that most Indonesian migrants are perceived as being from Dutch descent due to the colonial history of the Netherlands and Indonesia. Nonwestern countries are “Turkey, all countries in Africa, Latin-America and Asia (with the exception of Japan and Indonesia)” (Keij, 2000: 24). The stated reasons for this distinction are the “different socioeconomic and cultural position of western and nonwestern ‘allochtonen’ in the Netherlands” (Keij, 2000: 24, Translated from Dutch). As Jacobs & Rea (2009: 8) rightly point out “The classification thus links up with two stereotypical ideas about the immigrant: ethnic origin and inferior social origin.”
Geschiere (2009) and Geschiere & Nyamnjoh (2000) state that ‘autochthony discourse’ is an ethnic discourse. It is the discourse itself, which makes a distinction between ‘allochthony’ and autochthony, that is ethnic, not just the definition in the Netherlands that is part of this
5
http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/themas/dossiers/allochtonen/methoden/begrippen/default.htm?ConceptID=37 (Accessed 25-9-2014)
discourse. What makes autochthony discourse special is that it propagates a new, emptier form of ethnicity (Geschiere & Nyamnjoh, 2000; Geschiere, 2009: 28, 230).
“In principle, ethnicity evokes the existence of a more or less clearly defined ethnic group with its own substance and a specific name and history… Notions of
autochthony have a similar effect of creating an us-them opposition, but they are less specific.” (Geschiere & Nyamnjoh 2000: 424)
Because of its emptiness, the ‘others’ created in this discourse can constantly change dependant on time and place, without the discourse losing its power. This idea on autochthony discourse fits well with the perspective on ethnicity that is held within this research that will be elaborated upon below.
In this research a cognitive, processual and dynamic view on ethnicity is held. This means, first of all, that ethnicity is not seen as a thing in the world, but as a perspective on the world. Secondly, ethnicity is seen as a social process of categorization and not a category or a group in itself. Thirdly, the process of ethnic categorization is seen as a process that changes over time and place. This perspective explains the critique that was given above on the essentialist nature of the ethnic category in which migrants and their offspring are placed. Categories are not things, that exist independently of social context, they are instead consequences of social acts. This shows why it may be hard to use social categories as explanatory variables.
2.1.2 ETHNICITY AS A PERSPECTIVE ON THE WORLD, NOT AS A THING IN THE WORLD
Ethnicity is not a thing in the world, but a perspective on the world (Brubaker, 2009; Brubaker, Loveman & Stamatov, 2004). Brubaker (2009) talks about a ‘cognitive turn’ within social sciences when it comes to thinking about ethnicity. Ethnicity is a way of understanding the world. It is a way of categorizing people. Categorization is a universal feature of human cognition (Brubaker, Loveman & Stamatov, 2004). Still, this ‘cognitive turn’ does not mean that
sociologists should turn solely to neuropsychological perspectives on cognition to explain ethnic categorization processes. As Brubaker (2009: 12) explains:
“But the cognitive turn, as I understand it here, is concerned not only with ways of seeing and thinking determined by universal features of our cognitive architecture, but with culturally specific ways in which persons, institutions, organizations, and
discourses make sense of experience and interpret the social world.”
Ethnicity becomes a way of understanding the social world. Individual people use ethnicity to delineate social boundaries. People are put into different categories that have a certain social meaning. Not only individuals use ethnicity for this, but also states. States categorize people and form their policy based on these categorizations (Scott, 1998). The process of state
and others, they are a way of classifying behaviour, of creating senses of belonging, of demarcating different interest groups and more social acts (Brubaker, 2009).
Important to note is that just because ethnic categories are cognitive categories, this does not mean that they are not consequential outside the realm of cognition. Ethnic categories do more than just making the world understandable for the people in it. Ethnic categories become consequential because people that belong to a certain category act in a certain way. This is because they want to designate to others that they are part of that category. Also, people treat each other in certain ways because they perceive each other to be part of a certain category. For example, adolescent men in the Netherlands who are considered to be ‘allochtoon’ are often treated differently by police officers than people who do not belong to this category because the category of ‘allochtoon’ amongst adolescent men is often linked with criminal behaviour (Paulle & Kalir, 2013). Furthermore, categories are not just created and then acted upon, categorization in itself is a social act and is thus consequential on a social level, not just a cognitive level
(Anthias, 2001; Elias, 1994). A category is thus more than a perspective on the world, it is also a social act. It is thus better to speak of ethnic categorization instead of ethnic categories. This processual understanding of ethnicity is elaborated on below.
2.1.3 ETHNICITY AS A PROCESS OF CATEGORIZATION, NOT A CATEGORY IN ITSELF
In 1969, Barth pointed out that we should no longer see ethnic groups as bounded groups with a specific culture that developed independently of other bounded groups. Instead, we should see ethnic groups as originating from social relations between groups of people (Barth, 1969). He explains how the personnel of a certain ethnic group constantly changes, while the ethnic group still remains. This shows, according to Barth (1969), that ethnic distinctions do not depend on “absence of mobility, contact and information” (9), but instead entail “processes of exclusion and incorporation” (10). Ethnic boundary making is not based on some essential innate cultural qualities, because that would mean that the flow of people in and out of a certain ethnic boundary would not take place, people would bring their ‘ethnicity’ with them wherever they would go. Instead, ethnic categories are empty vessels, that have a constant change of personnel. Barth (1969) explains that ethnicity is not innate but ascribed and that this ascription takes place through a social process. This ascription takes place through internal definition – certain people say “I am part of group X” – and through external definition – certain people say that other people are part of group X (Jenkins, 1994). It is important to note, however, that in reality this distinction between ascription through internal and external definition is not always very clear (Jenkins, 1994).
The perspective of Barth (1969) created a more processual and dynamic view on ethnicity but it still saw bounded groups of people as relevant actors (Brubaker, 2009).
According to Brubaker (2002; 2009) it is important to look beyond groups when it comes to talking about ethnicity. Although Barth (1969) does recognize the fact that the ethnic groups are dynamic, he still considers them to be groups. Other writers (Jenkins, 1994; Brubaker, 2002; Brubaker, 2009) have pointed out that there is a difference between a category and a group. A group is a bounded collective of people that seem to share the same characteristics and strife towards the same goals. There is at least some form of cohesion within a group. A category does not have to be a group. An individual can be put into a certain category without feeling any type of connection with the other people that make up the category. According to Jenkins (1994), a way to look at the distinction between a category and a group is through the difference between internal and external definition. A group is, according to Jenkins (1994), a self-defined collective of people. People feel the need to identify themselves with a certain group because they feel connected to that group in some way. It would be very strange if people would put themselves in a category they do not really feel any connection, or sense of belonging to. A category, on the other hand, is externally defined (Jenkins, 1994). A category has a certain purpose for the categorizer, for example trying to distance yourself from a certain category of people that act in a certain way. Often this can go hand in hand with ethnicity. People from a different ethnic category can considered to be dirty or of loose morals. Also states can use categories of people as targets for certain policy. For example people of a different ethnicity can be seen as having a language disadvantage and being in need of help through state policy.
Important to note is that the distinction between categories and groups is seldom very clear (Jenkins, 1994). Most times a collectivity of people is both internally and externally defined, as already mentioned above. Besides, putting people in a certain category can also lead to creating a group consciousness among the people within this category. If people within a certain category are always treated the same way by outsiders this can lead to shared
experiences. These shared experiences can create a sense of belonging among people with the same experience and thus create a sense of ‘groupness’ amongst them.
Lastly, it is also important not to see groups as homogeneous collectivities. Even if there is a sense of belonging to the group, not everyone in the group has to have had the exact same experiences or act in the exact same way. ‘Groupness’ is a subjectively felt sense of belonging (Brubaker, 2009), that can be independent of behaviour or individual experience.
2.1.4 DYNAMIC ETHNICITY
Besides being a method of social cognition and being a part of a social process, ethnicity is also very dynamic. This was already implicit in the discussion on ethnicity above. Ethnic groups can change over time and place (Barth, 1969). The same person can belong to different ethnic
groups depending on where he or she is and depending on his or her relation to the people around him or her (Edheim, 1969; Barth, 1969).
A good example of the variability of ethnicity over time is given by Roediger (2005). He uses the case of migrants in the united states. In the nineteenth and early twentieth century in the US, immigrants from Ireland and Italy where considered to be ethnically different from the ‘white Anglo-Saxon’ ‘natives’ (although the true natives were, of course, the Native Americans). During the second half of the twentieth century this started to change and nowadays people from Irish or Italian descent are considered to be part of the ‘white mainstream’ (Roediger, 2005). The new ‘ethnic minorities’ are the Latinos and the blacks (Roediger, 2005). This shows how ethnicity of people can change over time.
2.2 PROCESSES OF ETHNIC CATEGORIZATION
Above, the meaning of ethnicity was elaborated upon. This next part will look more into the process of ethnic categorization. Firstly, categorization taking place at the level of the individual within society will be discussed. Secondly, the categorization as it is done by state institutions is discussed. Thirdly, the influence of categorizing by state institutions on the ethnic categorization process between individual actors will be talked about.
What the above discussion on ethnicity made clear is that ethnicity is not something in itself. Instead, ethnicity is one of many axes of boundary making that is present in the social world. It is better not to talk about people being ethnic but about people becoming ‘ethnicized’ through a process of ethnic categorization. The question remains: what is a good way to research this process of ethnic categorization? Paulle & Kalir (2013) extend on the ‘groupism’ critique, as formulated by Brubaker (2002; 2009), and use it as a starting point for a new way of researching ethnic categorization.
The ‘groupism’ critique entails that social scientist should not use ethnic groups as explanatory variables in their research (Brubaker, 2002; Paulle & Kalir, 2013). People often see ethnic groups as bounded, homogeneous blocks. The people in these blocks are considered to have the same needs or the same characteristics that warrants using belonging to a specific block as an explanatory variable. Paulle & Kalir (2013) use the example of research on criminal behaviour amongst Moroccan youth. It is assumed in the research that something about being Moroccan causes criminal behaviour. The ‘groupism’ critique states that it would be more fruitful for social science researchers not to use ethnicity as an explanatory variable but instead research processes of group-making that legitimate this use of ethnicity in other fields outside of social science (Brubaker, 2002). Based on this critique, Paulle & Kalir (2013) state that research on processes of social categorization, as described by Elias (1994), should be used as a starting
point for doing research on these processes of ethnic group-making. This will be discussed below.
2.2.1 THE ESTABLISHED AND THE OUTSIDERS: SOCIAL PROCESSES OF ETHNIC
CATEGORIZATION
Elias sees the need to create ‘us’ and ‘them’ groups as a fundamental human need. He does not explain where this need comes from exactly. Although explanations for this need might exist, they do not fall within the realms of sociology, let alone within the realms of this paper.
“Food, the gratification for material needs is indeed basic. But if the quest for the satisfaction for this type of human goal predominates to the exclusion of all others, humans are likely to lose some of the specific characteristics which distinguish them from other animals.” (Elias, 1994: xxxiii)
In the above quote, Elias explains that if satisfying our basic human needs, like food and shelter, was the only thing we would be doing (predominating to the exclusion of all other things) we, as humans, would regress to the level of all other animals. The fact that we also have social needs, makes us human. Group making processes are an important part of these social needs
Very important to note about Elias’ analysis is that he uses the figuration of power dynamics as the starting point of his analysis. He does not, as Barth (1969) seems to do, analyze groups doing things, but instead analyzes the configuration of social relations in which group-making and categorization processes take place. This is important since this type of analysis seems to go together well with Brubaker’s (2009) perspective on ethnic categorization in which he criticizes Barth (1969) for seeing ethnic categories as internally bounded, although
processual and dynamic, groups. Elias does not use the subjectively felt sense of belonging to a group as the starting point of his analysis, but instead the more objective (Paulle & Kalir, 2013) figuration of power dynamics in which this sense of belonging is taking place. As Paulle & Kalir (2013: 12) say:
“Here we see researchers basing their analysis not on their informants’ own (essentialist) categories but, rather, on their own highly objective account of the distribution of, and means of further appropriating, scarce material and symbolic resources.”
The analysis that Elias uses thus gives us the possibility not only to go beyond critiques of ethnic essentialism, but also to go beyond the critique of ‘groupism’ and actually research processes of ethnic classification.
An important aspect of Elias’ theory is power. One group has the power to define themselves as the ‘established’ group in relation to the group of ‘outsiders.’ Elias sees this power differential as influencing superiority and inferiority between groups. The most powerful group can make
themselves get defined (by established and outsiders) as the superior group. Being considered as being a part of a superior group is what people most likely want to achieve, that is why they create categorization to signify that they are the superior people.
In the case of Winston Parva, as Elias called the English neighbourhood he researched, the group of ‘established’ consisted of the ‘older’ inhabitants of the neighbourhood, who’s families had been living there for two or three generations. The ‘outsiders’ in Winston Parva where what the ‘older’ inhabitants considered to be the ‘newcomers’, who lived in the
neighbourhood for one generation or less (Elias, 1994). The ‘established’ group is the group that has the most definitional power when it comes to the categorization process. This power entails that not only the ‘established’ consider the social boundary they have the power to define as legitimate, but that also the ‘outsiders’ see it as legitimate (Elias, 1994). The ‘outsiders’ start to see themselves and define themselves as ‘outsiders’ (Elias, 1994; Paulle & Kalir, 2013). Jenkins (1994) already nuanced his distinction between internal and external categorization and stated that in reality this distinction is not that clear. Elias (1994) shows how power can explain who has definitional power. No matter if the definition is done internally or externally, the definition of the most powerful group is most likely to be adopted by other people, even if the way they get defined is not in their own best interest. This means that internal and external definitions are likely to overlap.
This does not have to mean that everyone always just sheepishly follows the same categorization as the most powerful actors, other factors also play a role. According to Wimmer (2008), also the “institutional order” and the “network of alliances” play a role in the process of what he calls “ethnic boundary making”. The institutional order has to do with the constraints on ethnic boundary making. The presence of some institutions makes it more attractive or salient to draw certain boundaries (Wimmer, 2008). The network of alliances has to do with the political interest a certain person has and what categorization fits best for achieving his or her political goals (Wimmer, 2008). Counter categorizations can also exist. People try to redefine themselves to achieve their political goals (Hooker, 2005; Wimmer, 2008; Safran, 2008), or just to no longer having to be part of an ‘inferior’ group.
Although Elias’ method does not specifically deal with ethnicity, as opposed to other writers mentioned above, it can very well be applied to ethnic categorization processes. Elias himself even mentions ethnic categorization processes in his text. He argues that ‘ethnic’ or ‘racial’ categories spring forth out of power differentials between groups. The creation of boundaries along ethnic or racial lines, originates from the power struggle between actors in a social situation.
“Therefore, even where differences in physical appearance and other biological aspects that we refer to as “racial” exists in these cases, the socio-dynamics of the relationship of groups bonded to each other as established and outsiders are determined by the
manner of their bonding, not by any of the characteristics possessed by the groups concerned independently of it.” (Elias, 1994: xxx, xxxi)
Elias’ concepts of ‘figuration’ and ‘power’ are very similar to the concepts of ‘field’ and ‘capital’ theorized by sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (Paulle, van Heerikhuizen & Emirbayer, 2012).6
Bourdieu sees the social world as consisting of fields. The actors within those fields occupy certain positions within the field. Between these positions there is a constant struggle for dominance within the field. Being dominant could be seen as having the same effect as having the most power in Elias’ figuration. It leads to definitional power of who belongs to what category and what the place of that category is in the field. What is important about Bourdieu’s theory for this paper is his concept of ‘capital’. According to Bourdieu there are four main types of capital (Bourdieu, 1989). The most important of these is symbolic capital. Symbolic capital is the capital that creates a beneficial position in a field for the person who holds it. The other three forms of capital are economic capital, social capital and cultural capital (Bourdieu,1989). These forms of capital can be converted to symbolic capital.
Bourdieu’s conception of capital can be applied to the specific context in the Netherlands. As was explained above, the definition of ‘nonwestern allochtoon’ has to do with the
socioeconomic and cultural position of a person thus categorized. This means that position a migrant will likely take within Dutch society plays a role in the categorizing process. From a Bourdieusian perspective you can clearly see how economic capital, in the form of the
socioeconomic position of the migrant and cultural capital, in the form of the cultural position of the migrant, play a role in the categorizing process.
The concept of capital can also be applied to ethnic categorization in more general terms. Hage (2000) uses the Bourdieusian conception of capital when it comes to ethnic classification of individuals by other individuals (the role of the state as an actor in the categorization process will be discussed below). For this, he uses the term ‘national capital.’ Within a nation, some people are considered to be less part of that nation than others; they do not fully belong to the nation (Hage, 2000). This is very clear in the case of the Dutch ‘allochtoon’. As will be seen below, the ‘allochtoon’ is considered as a ‘nonintegrated individual,’ someone who has not yet become a full part of society, a ‘true native.’ Within the field of national belonging, as Hage (2000) calls it, there is a struggle going on about who belongs to the nation and who does not. As explained above, nationality can be seen as a form of ethnicity. In the case Hage (2000)
examined, terms like ‘white’ or ‘white-Anglo-Saxon’ were used to categorize people as fully belonging to the nation. Being called ‘white’ created the most national capital. Hage (2000) thus
6 For more about the similarities between Elias and Bourdieu see Paulle, van Heerikhuizen & Emirbayer,
gives a good example of how to use the Bourdieusian conceptions of field and capital when it comes to ethnic (national) categorization. Hage (2000) also shows, although not deliberately, how the concept of capital can be used in analyzing established/outsider-dynamics. Indeed, having the most national capital created the possibility to decide who belonged to the nation, who was established in the nation, and who did not belong, who was actually an outsider.
When researching processes of ethnic categorization it is thus important to map the configuration of power within the social field in which this categorization takes place. This mapping can then be used as a starting point for the explanation of these processes of categorization between individuals in the relevant social field.
2.2.2 SEEING LIKE A STATE: STATE PROCESSES OF CATEGORIZATION AND STATE
INTEREST IN CATEGORIZING
Next to individual people being involved in a process of categorization, the state also categorizes people. In this section the interest the state has in categorizing will be discussed briefly. The process of state categorization will also briefly be described. Then we will move on to the way in which these state categorization practices influences social relations.
States strive to make society ‘legible’ (Scott, 1998). Scott (1998) describes, for example, how states needed to have extensive population registers to be able to collect taxes. One other important task of state institutions is to conduct policy. This policy must be directed to people that are seen as suffering from or causing the problem the policy is trying to solve. This means that the state needs to have categories of people that are recipients of a certain policy. For example, if a state wants to conduct a policy to increase literacy, this implies that the government assumes that a portion of the population is illiterate and that this should be changed. The state needs to know who these illiterate people are to make sure that they will be the target population of the policy. This category of illiterate people can be as large as ‘all school-going children and adolescents’ and as small as ‘Moroccan second generation migrants from a disadvantaged socioeconomic background living in Amsterdam.’ The main point is, that the state needs these types of categorizations to make the population ‘legible’ so that they can see easily see where they need to implement their policy.
This is also something that is present in integration policy. When you perceive
nonintegrated people in your society as a problem and thus want to make sure that they become integrated through policy, you need to first make sure who these ‘nonintegrated’ people are so that you know which individuals the policy should target. It would probably be very inefficient if you would let every person in the country do an integration course. This also counts for the literacy policy. If you would install programs to increase literacy in all schools and it turns out most school going children and adolescents did not need these programs, this would be a waste
of money and could be detrimental to other subjects also taught at school. Governments strive for efficiency when they conduct policy (Scott, 1998). Making sure clear target-populations for policy exists increases efficiency of the policy tremendously.
The process of state categorization when it comes to policy is thus based on the fact that that a certain category of people is perceived to be having or causing a certain problem that should be solved by a certain policy. The way in which these problems are assessed by the government is often connected to the same established and outsider dynamics described by Elias (1994). This is especially true for integration policy. Hage (2000) states that the ‘national elite’, who has the most national capital, also has the most state power. This is the case because it is the ‘national elite’ who has the most definitional power within the process of ethnic categorization, as already explained above. Although most scholars do not explicitly explain how the national elite
influences state categorization practices, it seems likely that this happens by means of a
democratic process. The difference between the state and the individual person is of course not a clear cut one, there is mutual influence. Through the democratic process, state and individual influence each other. The state influences society through policy. But the state gets its legitimacy from the bottom up. This makes the state more likely to use categorizations that are widely accepted to gain legitimacy for its policies. Also, representatives of the state get chosen because people agree with them, which means that they are often the representatives of a dominant discourse. Migrants might be seen as ethnic ‘outsiders’ by the people within the nation. Often, the idea of the national established group is reinforced by invoking ideas of national unity and a shared national culture (Hage, 2000).
As explained above, it is often the ‘established’ group that gets to decide what criteria a person should meet to become part of the ‘established’ group. A good example of this with regards to ethnic categorization on state level is given by Hooker (2005). She explains that in Latin America indigenous people are better able to gain equal rights as the majority population than that ‘blacks’ are. This is because the national elites in these countries are more susceptible to narratives of having a distinct cultural group identity, which the indigenous people where able to put forward, as opposed to narratives of racial discrimination and exclusion (Hooker, 2005) that were used by the black population. This example doesn’t show how the indigenous people became part of the mainstream established groups, but it does show how different arguments for group rights do not all resonate equally well among the national elite. This means that in situations where a minority group member tries to claim membership of the established group, the biggest chance he has to be successful in this is to use the terms favoured by the established groups.
States try to solve perceived problems through state policy. To solve a certain problem a category of people causing or suffering from the problem must also be determined. This is why states engage in a categorizing process. The state is not independent from the
established/outsider-dynamics. The state becomes heavily influenced by the national elite it represents (Hage, 2000). This means that the categorizing process is influenced by
established/outsider-dynamics. The example by Hooker (2005) shows how the implementation of state policy to include certain minority groups is dependent on the receptivity of the
established group to certain narratives. In this way, state categorization is thus influenced by established and outsider dynamics.
But the relation between state and citizen when it comes to the ethnic categorization is not only a matter of bottom-up influence, the influence also works the other way around. What is clear from the Dutch case is how state categorizations can have an effect on everyday
categorization taking place in people’s day to day life. The category of ‘allochtoon’ has evolved from a category used only in statistics to a term with a great deal of political meanings (Jacobs & Rea, 2009; de Zwart, 2012). The term has become used outside of the statistical realm within the political debate, the media and everyday conversations. It has come to denote something like “non-white non-European other” (Jacobs & Rea, 2009: 7). It is thus also used in day to day life as a categorization that could be linked to established and outsider dynamics.
2.3 THE ROLE OF INTEGRATION RESEARCH IN GOVERNMENT POLICY
MAKING.
In this section the role of social science research on integration in government policy making will be discussed. To use more Bourdieusian (See Bourdieu, 1983) terms, this section will look at the place of the field of migration research within the ‘field of power’ of integration policy. This is because most policy is informed by research, albeit in different ways. An important task of researchers is what Entzinger & Scholten (2013) call knowledge production. The field of knowledge production has developed in tandem with the field of policy making. It was the need for policy that also warranted the need for knowledge on the topic of immigrant integration. The categorizations present in research on immigrant integration have been influenced by policy and the other way around. When focusing on the field of research on immigrant integration, it is important to study it in relation to the field of policy making because studying it in isolation would overlook a big part of the power relations that relate to the discourse on immigrant integration within the field of research on immigrant integration.
The role of research within the making of integration policy has changed considerably in the past decades (Penninx, 2005; Scholten, 2009; Entzinger & Scholten, 2013). In the 1970’s politicians started to realize that the integration of immigrants was a problem (Penninx, 2005;
Scholten, 2009; Entzinger & Scholten, 2013). There was no consensus about what exactly constituted the problem. Politicians collectively turned to the scientific community to search for an answer. During this time, the scientific community had a great deal of freedom and also a great deal of power in defining the problems linked up with integration of migrants. The government saw a problem that they did not know how to solve, so research was to be conducted to find the answers they were looking for (Penninx, 2005; also from the expert interview).
Nowadays, things have changed considerably. The most important change is the role of migrant integration within politics. As was explained above, since approximately the beginning of the new millennium the integration of migrants has become a lot more politicized (Penninx, 2005; Entzinger & Scholten, 2013; expert interviews). The subject of integration policy has become a very prominent and controversial topic of political debate, whereas in the seventies there was much more consensus (because of research that was conducted) about what the integration problem was and how to solve it. Because of this politicization, the defining primacy within integration policy has shifted from research to politicians (Penninx, 2005). Research has become much less legitimate as a source of information for policy and is in some cases even treated with suspicion (Entzinger & Scholten, 2013). Politicians tend to make use of a ‘pick and choose’ strategy when it comes to research informing their policy ideas (Entzinger & Scholten, 2013). It thus seems that the position of power of research within the research-policy nexus has declined considerably. The field of research or, as Entzinger & Scholten (2013) call it, ‘the field of knowledge production’, has become less significant within the field of policy making, or the field of power. Research still plays an informing role when it comes to politics, but the use of the information generated by research is much more selective.
The change in the role of research in defining integration policy does not mean that research is completely powerless. Researchers can still participate in the public debate and try to inform the voters and maybe some politicians about the situation regarding immigrant integration
(Penninx, 2005). Another way in which the social science community can still hold influence over policy making is through the so-called ‘boundary organizations’ (Scholten, 2009; Entzinger & Scholten, 2013). These are organizations that bridge the gap between science and
government, between research and policy making. There are multiple scientific councils that work together with or are commissioned by the government, either to inform policy or to evaluate policy. Most of the researchers working at these places have been trained at
universities. This means that the knowledge they have gained at universities can, through these boundary organizations, ‘trickle down’ to the government and to government policy. Research
can thus be more than a convenient legitimating tool for policy that a politician can pick from a selection of other researches whenever he feels like it.
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES
This research has been conducted from a qualitative perspective on research. A qualitative research perspective was suitable for this research because the research did not look for causality between a number of different variables. Instead, this research has looked at the process of ethnic categorization in the Netherlands. The research was mainly set out to study the underlying power structures that lead to this ethnic classification. It did not use categories as variables, but insteadtried to get at the reasons why researchers use these categories as variables. Understanding the categorization process from the viewpoint of the people engaging in the process was an important part of this research. Qualitative research is best suited for understanding people’s views and understanding behaviour from the perspective of the study population themselves (Hennink, Hutter & Bailey, 2011: 10). Qualitative research is also very well suited for giving context to research issues (Hennink, Hutter & Bailey, 2011: 10). The context in which this research takes place is also very important to this study.
For this research a discourse analysis has been used. Because there are “probably at least 57 varieties of discourse analysis” (Gill, 2000: 173) the view on discourse analysis in this research will be elaborated upon below. After that, the reason why discourse analysis is a suitable way of answering the research question will be discussed.
Discourse analysis is a method of studying text. It does not take the text for granted as a way of communicating a truth, but sees the text as part of a discourse: a set of social relations, ideas or identities (Gill, 2000: 174). Discourse analysis does not look simply at what a text signifies, but at what are the underlying social realities that have given this text meaning. Two important conceptions of language that are present in discourse analysis have formed the basis of the analysis in this research. These are that language is seen as an action and that language is seen as constructed and constructive (Gill, 2000: 174). The first one means that using language is seen as a social action. People use language to ‘do’ things (Gill, 2000: 175). As Gee (2013: 1) says: “…the details of language get recruited, “on site,” to “pull off” specific social activities and social identities.” The second perspective on language, that it is constructed and constructive, entails that language represents and creates some sort of reality. Language is part of social politics (Gee, 2013: 2). Through language people try to create a certain version of the world, a version they believe is best (Gill, 2000: 176). The use of certain language can have specific political consequences. Language is part of a discourse, if a discourse is successful and becomes
widespread, it can create a reality. The way in which people use language, is constructive of a social reality. On the other hand, language is also constructed by a social reality.
There are two reasons why discourse analysis has been used to answer the research questions. The first reason comes from the recommendations given by Paulle & Kalir (2013). Paulle & Kalir (2013) extend the ‘groupism’ critique and give a theoretical model of how to deal with this critique in research. As already mentioned above, the ‘groupism’ critique calls
researchers to go beyond the use of ethnic categories and instead research the way in which these categories are created. Paulle & Kalir (2013) suggest Elias’ (1994) theory of
established/outsider-dynamics as a theoretical basis for studying this ethnic categorization process. The processual and active vision on language that is part of discourse analysis in this research fits the ‘groupism’ critique well. To understand this better we should recall two things said above about ethnic categories. First of all, categories are the consequence of a social process, as was explained by Elias. A good analytical tool for researching this social process is the concept of capital, most famously used by Bourdieu. The second thing said about categories is that they are cognitive tools. Categories are a way for people to understand reality. Categories are thus a socially constructed tool for people to understand reality. Discourse analysis has a perspective on language that makes it possible to look beyond the things language signifies, the reality the language presents, and thus beyond the thing categories signify and the reality these categories present. Discourse analysis makes it possible to look at the social construction of language, and thus the social construction of categories. Discourse analysis makes it possible to thus take into account the dual role that categories have, they are a product of social reality and they are constitutive of that same social reality by making it legible for the individuals involved in the social reality. This dual role of categories is what the ‘groupism’ critique amounts to. This critique is based on both the idea of ethnic categories as being constructed and as being
cognitive tools. It argues that it is social scientists duty to deconstruct a reality that does not have to be. Since the reality that ethnic categorization presents is socially constructed, it could theoretically be different, it is not created by a force external to us, like nature. The view on language that is part of the discourse analysis in this research also lines up with the Elias’ concept of established/outsider-dynamics in which categorizations are the consequence of a social process, but also constitutive of a social reality; people start to see themselves and others in a certain way based on their categorizations as members of either the established group or the group of outsiders.
The second reason why discourse analysis was used has to do with the goal of this research. Apart from simply researching the power dynamics that underlie the ethnic
categorization processes within integration research in the Netherlands this research also had a moderately ‘activist’ goal. In this research the categorizing process was seen as a problem. A goal
