Category: Mark

Having read the Finnish Medical Association’s working group report on circumcision and its subsequent opposition on the grounds of ‘medical ethics’, I wish to present a critical view of their position, and hopefully to broaden this debate a little more. Their statement can be found here.

I will group my main criticisms under five separate points.

1) Their objection is based they say on ‘medical ethics’ alone. In other words, the broader ethics of ‘religious freedom’ carries little weight in their deliberations. Indeed, they specifically cite the WWII Nuremberg trials and the subsequent World Medical Association’s right to follow medical ethics at all times even when in conflict with local laws and customs, which was an attempt to avoid medicine ever again being used to experiment unethically on humans, as was done by the Nazis.

By medical ethics, they mean to consider the issue entirely from a strict appraisal of any potential risks to the child and any well proven health benefits. As the evidence on health benefits is not conclusive, they cannot be taken into the ethical considerations, while the risks will include also those risks were the practice to be done in a backstreet barber’s shop with a filthy shaving blade.

I think Lääkäriliitto have made an unusually narrow interpretation of medical ethics and indeed of ‘health’. Health should and normally does include mental health, though this aspect is only considered by them from the point of view of the potential negative experiences (ill-health) of living with male circumcision and not from any positive social aspects such as identity and familial affirmation. While they are right to be concerned with negative effects, they must on the same grounds (mental health) give due consideration to those who consider it essential to their identity.

It’s worth pointing out that medical ethics in the general sense seeks to establish whether there is sufficient justification for a procedure or experiment involving humans, but they are not always justified on the basis of ‘additional’ health benefits alone. Social and economic aspects are quite normally part of the deliberations of ethics committees. A new drug that replaces an existing drug may bring no greater expected health benefit, but is either a cheaper drug (or often more expensive) or has a different mode of action. Likewise, an ethics committee may give consent for a clinical trial in order to establish ‘no significant risk’, while itself being a risky endeavor for the participants. It is clearly misleading to give the impression that medical ethics starts from a position that ‘no health benefit’ requires there to be ‘no risk’ for a procedure to be sufficiently justifiable, at least in principle. Let’s at least make that point clear.

2) although they claim to approach the matter purely from the point of view of medical ethics, they do seek support from the Finnish constitution and various other international rights frameworks. They therefore interpret the right to ‘integrity’ to mean physical integrity in a very strict sense, and interpret circumcision to be a violation of that integrity.

However, I would say that it is stretching the concept of ‘integrity’ to suggest a smaller foreskin constitutes a breaking of the fundamental integrity of the human form. At the very least, we would say that the issue of ‘integrity’ here is open to debate. It surely lies in the grey semantic area that comes with a word like ‘integrity’. For me, removing a leg, maybe, or an eye, or a clitoris would compromise integrity.

That it is a permanent alteration of the body is clear, but as the length of foreskin is subject to natural variation, from very little to very excessive, I would say that it is in medical terms a cosmetic alteration and therefore not a gross violation of the basic integrity of the body. Indeed, doctors have no instrinsic objection to doing cosmetic surgery on aesthetic grounds alone, although the issue of consent remains. The issue of ‘integrity’ is perhaps less significant than it’s made to sound, though.

If however we take their strict definition of integrity to its logical conclusion we would reveal serious inconsistencies with current practice. In many ‘cosmetic’ surgeries, carried out legally on children by health professionals, healthy flesh or body tissue is likewise removed, in procedures such as octoplasty (ear pinning), which involves general anaesthetic, orthognathic surgery (removal of health jaw bone), adenoidectomy (involving full anaesthesia) with all the attending risks. Even giving a blood sample can, using the same strict criteria, be considered to be a similar unjustifiable risk in some instances, if the worst case scenarios are brought into play and any uncertain health benefits are ignored.

Most significantly though, under this criteria, abortion would be condemned as unethical.

In abortion for social reasons (approximately 9000 a year in Finland, 90% of all abortions), perfectly healthy tissue is removed from the woman without the ‘consent’ of the fetus at the sole request of the parent.

If the lääkärilitto wish to go down this road in their strict interpretation of medical ethics, then it should surely come out in opposition to abortion? Indeed, the ethical implications are far more serious, in that an embryonic life is ended in the procedure.

The Finnish Medical Association’s stance on abortion is far more lenient (or should we say more cognizant of the social aspects).

The physician respects all forms of life. Different societies have in laws or otherwise defined at which stage the life of an embryo or foetus is protected like the life of a new-born baby. From the medical point of view this stage is at latest reached when the foetus could continue life outside the mothers womb.

This wording leaves the door open for abortion, although many pro-life campaigners cite the Finnish position as being fundamentally pro-life. But specifically, the Association does not call on doctors to not perform abortions, and neither do they tackle the issue of abortion as being the removal of healthy tissue at the request of the parent and without consent to the living embryo thus affected.

So, given the much more grave implications with abortion, why does the Association decide on balance to come out against circumcision in such strong terms while leaving a large degree of margin in dealing with abortion? Institutional racism? God forbid!

This glaring inconsistency in its position might well come back to haunt the Lääkäriliitto.

3) part of the objection is that medical procedures should not be part of religious ceremonies. That argument in itself is circular, as it automatically precludes circumcision regardless of any other considerations.

4) they are concerned that allowing the practice to be done under a medical jurisdiction implies the doctor has called for the procedure and the parents are merely consenting, and also, importantly, that the costs (and insurance I imagine) of the procedure are therefore borne by the health care system. Clearly this is not so much a question of ethics but of economics.

5) They suggest religious communities be persuaded to abandon the practice, but that in the meantime, a compromise may be to postpone the procedure until the boy is able to give consent. A difficulty with this though is that the older the boy, the more expensive the procedure and also the more necessary it will be for the procedure to be done within a health setting. Likewise, clearly compared to infants, young boys are much more likely to find the procedure distressing, both through anticipation and possible discomfort. Likewise, the psychological impact could be far greater if carried out under social pressure when the boy is in the 6-10 age range.

I do think that one argument that lääkäriliitto bring up has some merit to it. They call for further study into the social effects, particular negative, for men who have undergone the procedure. I think that if there is a debate to be had, and if religious communities were to develop some flexibility over this practice, then it will perhaps find its social justifications through the testimonies of the men affected by it. It is interesting that lääkäriliitto point out that by allowing the practice to be performed within medical settings will likely lead to further entrenchment of the practice. Indeed this is the case with secular circumcision in the US.

What also needs to be considered within the ethical debate, in addition to any strict or loose interpretation of medical ethics (and I don’t blame doctors for erring on the side of strictness, especially in this day and age of medical costs and medical insurance) is a fuller debate about the ethics of religious freedom, as and of itself in today’s society. Doctors, as justifiably respected ‘experts’, should not however by viewed as having a complete picture of the ethics involved. As JD rightly points out, a doctor seeks to diminish risks to health, while much of society seeks to experience risk for entertainment value alone. Issues of identity should not always be considered to be subsumed to medical ethics. It’s not about closing our ears to what doctors have to say, but rather, opening our ears to what the people affected by any such proposed change also have to say. At some point we have to balance the right of one portion of society to tell another portion of society how they should act.

What I absolutely object to in this debate is that it’s often championed by political activists on the Far Right who also happen to have, as if by accident, an anti-Muslim, and historically, an anti-Semitic agenda, both of which groups would most obviously be affected by any change in policy. An accident? Yeah, right….

We have to be extremely skeptical towards such manipulations of this debate. Indeed, if these parties or individuals are going to be consistent, then I suppose they will also oppose abortion on the same grounds. Let them come out and say exactly that in black and white, if it’s merely a matter of being consistent in our medical ethics and not part of their broader anti-multicultural agenda.

Note: this is reproduced in large part from a comment to an earlier post on this topic. Apologies if you have read both expecting a lot of new material. Likewise, if any parts of my portrayal of the Medical Association’s stance appear incorrect, I would appreciate being corrected.

A commentator recently asked us here at MT whether pointing the finger at racism will ever make it disappear. It’s a fair question and deserves a good answer.

Other ideas that came up in the same comment thread discussed people’s reasons or justifications for not liking immigrants. The suggestion was that the reason for racism is basically grievance, that [some] native Finns see [some] immigrants getting special treatment or simply ‘leeching off welfare’ and that this creates bad feeling which in turn means people are negative towards immigrants and then indulge in what comes across as ‘racism’ by way of expressing that grievance.

It is all too easy to confuse justifications (grievances) as the cause of racism. And by buying into the justification all too easily, people fail to consider the very real possibility that there may be other ‘reasons’ for this grievance towards immigrants. In other words, people justify ‘racism’ by saying that immigrants behave badly.

Let me give more detail. The most obvious fact when it comes to immigrants and their entitlements is that they are set out by the laws and rules of the public administration in Finland, decided not on the basis of comfort, but against very strict criteria designed to facilitate reasonably normal living and integration. Extremely poor immigrants do not have good prospects of integration, after all. This work to tailor the system effectively is done by Finns, with long experience of a Welfare State behind them. Immigrants are treated like any of the millions of persons in Finland that receive public support at different times in their life, on the basis of need.

Everyone, if you can forgive the generalisation, wants more than they need. Whether they try to get more and whether they get more is down to those same rules, which seek to give EQUALLY to all based on their specific needs. I.e. the principle of equity. Thus, comparing immigrants, whose needs have been clearly decided to be different, with other people requiring support is pointless. You might as well compare someone with a cold to someone with heart disease and then complain that the person with heart disease is gettting more in the way of treatment and services.

Second, if for some reason, immigrants get more than they would normally be entitled to because they are immigrants and because of the fears or opinions of the individuals working in the public administration (Finns I assume), then again this is not a matter for immigrants, but a reflection of the unprofessionalism of those individuals, a matter that should warrant investigation if it were to come to light.

So that is the system – designed by Finns and largely administered by Finns.

Next, the need for services is by no means unique to immigrants. Every man, woman and child in Finland receives State services at some point in their lives. Some receive considerably more than others. Many receive more services because of their own poor decision-making, e.g. obese people/smokers/alcoholics/addicts require more health or welfare services as a result of poor lifestyle choices. Young Finns are supported from the womb to the day of graduation and even beyond in their long journey to becoming productive citizens themselves, by their parents and to a large extent by the State. Many people fall ill or fall on hard times and the State is once again there to support them.

So if it was merely a matter of immigrants being in need of support that is the ’cause’ of grievance, i.e. the reason for the grievance, then those unhappy complainers would easily find a lot more to complain about in Finnish society. So why do the immigrants come in for so much special attention?

Further, the grievance centres on the feeling that there are ‘problems’ in immigration, and that if people are not allowed to express that sense of grievance, whether it is overt racism or mere skepticism, then the problems of immigration have been ‘shoved under the rug’, as they would say. But notice how the ‘problems’ are presented as a given. They are not a given, and we are right to question whether the problems are legitimate in scale and kind to warrant such a strong sense of grievance.

Something in this defence of grievance doesn’t add up:

1) The reasons for grievance are not unique to immigrants, so why focus on immigrants?
2) Grievance assumes something is unfair, and yet the system has been designed by Finns and almost certainly designed to be fair.
3) Grievance assumes that immigrants have done something wrong merely on the basis of needing State services, while such criticism is totally indefensible in a so-called ‘Welfare State’.
4) The grievance is based largely on myth and gossip and is not supported by State-gathered data.

So if the grievance is not justified, then why do people have such strong grievances towards immigrants? “I’m unhappy because they are getting more than me! How come I’m not worth as much? That feels like a kick in the teeth! What’s wrong with me? Am I not good enough? Of course, I deserve more than them – I’m actually better than they are. I was born here, my family built this place etc.!” Notice how superiority creeps in as a function of ‘compensation’ for insecurity.

It is no accident that those that complain about the welfare needs of immigrants also complain about the threat to Finnish cultural identity, even though Finland has much more existing cultural diversity than the additional diversity brought by immigrants. E.g. The cultural diversity between religious and non-religious Finns is far greater than the diversity between Christian and Muslim Finns. But the cultural self-defence that we see points to what seems to me a much more plausible reason for these ‘grievances’, that is, psychological insecurity. There is something about this need to bash immigrants that suggests it is almost a rite of passage for some, but passage into what? And why all the anxiety?

It has been said of male gender that you are not born a man, but that you have to prove you are a man somewhere in your teen years. Manhood is a prize, not a birthright, in the world of gendered society. Odd, really, because biologically speaking, ignoring complications, if you have a penis and testicles, then you are a man. But socially, it’s not so straightforward, and especially if you are not straight!

The same applies (by no accident) to the notion of national identity. Some Finns are not happy to accept themselves as Finns simply because ‘they were born and bred in Finland’, but rather have to ‘prove’ their Finnishness by claiming and holding to an identity, and a contested identity at that. In other words, if you say you hate hockey, sauna, makkara, beer, war, forests, lakes and snow, then chances are other Finns would not think you were very Finnish! Of course, that’s rubbish to demand such prerequisites to being Finnish, but that doesn’t stop it being in some way true of people’s attitudes.

Finns argue amongst themselves (like all peoples) about what is best for Finland, and what best represents Finnishness. National identity is something of a project, after all.

And it’s because of this, and the insecurity perhaps of not belonging to the world’s most obvious power hiararchies, that many people become a bit insecure about their Finnish national identity. It is no accident that those that complain loudest are also those that are otherwise the most powerless and in need of proving themselves – i.e. often young, unemployed, single men. And one thing that proves you as a Finn more easily than anything else is to point at a foreigner and say ‘hey, we are better than them, we are FINNS! Long live Finland!’. There you go, signed up member of Finnish society, give the guy (and it usually is a guy) a medal and tell him he’s served his country well (and who cares if he doesn’t have a job!).

Now this free and easy access into Finnish national identity is none other than using racism (or overt cultural superiority) to gain membership of an exclusive and insecure club! However, doing this openly smells too much like sabre-rattling machismo, so it obviously has to be dressed up as something else. Hence the long hunt and search (typical masculine pursuits) for negative info (meal prize?) about the foreigner to ‘prove’ Finland’s superiority by way of facts, though the conclusion was, of course, always a foregone conclusion.

Funny how you never really hear Finns saying that other people’s cultures are superior! That’s a bit surprising given the great number of other cultures in the world, don’t you think? Well, that would be an obvious no-no and would lead to automatic excommunication from the Finn club!

Now back to our commentator’s most important point, which is, what to do about it, apart from wave the finger and accuse the numpties of racism? Indeed, we cannot merely point the finger at racism, and hope it goes away. We have to give people a genuine reason to not want to be racist in any way. We have to show clearly how it reflects on something rather pointless and futile, and how there are much better alternatives out there. There are alternative ways of creating national identities, without getting caught up in pointless comparisons and proving who is superior.

The problem with nationalism is that it can create as many problems as it solves. We do need some national cohesion and, in that, states and nations function very well as ways of ordering the complexity of human society. However, when the sabre-rattling, initiation rites and national celebrations that come with that nationhood start to overdo the ‘we are superior’, all sorts of potential conflicts begin to arise. The problem is then one of any masculinity/hegemony allowed to run riot – destruction. Destruction of trust, of understanding, of knowledge (real knowledge), of security, of freedom, of tolerance, of diversity (natural), of hope.

In condemning the cultural inferiority of outsiders, we systematically work to undermine any semblence of our own state of cultural advancement. It is no accident that the more the Far Right have gained in political power historically, the more society as we know it has changed for the worse. For all the happy justifications and talk of the glorious ‘community’, the reality is something else, as it would be when it’s driven by insecurity, manufactured hatred (gentle or otherwise), fear of not belonging, fear of change, or fear of being ‘too different’.

To sum it up – we become a neurotic and paranoid entity. Do we just wag the finger at this entity? No, we must call out this near-insane, childish, macho, power-mongering neuroticism for what it is. And hope that people stop for just a second to ask if it’s really all worth it, i.e. trying to belong by proving we are superior! There are other ways to create belonging, that are far less neurotic, after all. There are human values that absolutely transcend national identities, and which make life between people and nations more or less civilised.

What the original commentator, who I mentioned at the start, was saying or was saying other Finns were saying in as many words, is that:

Finland needs better immigrants to better fit into its better society

Now, let’s strip out the ‘superiority’ built into that for a second; let’s take out the ‘better this’ and ‘better that’ and see what we have left?

Finland needs immigrants to fit into society.

I have no problem with that. And that really is the difference between a racism-fuelled debate about immigration and a normal debate about immigration.

Just to reiterate an important point from the analysis, it is my belief that with racism, superiority gives rise to the need to find grievances as a form of justification. Anger against immigrants is largely manufactured, as a justification for the implied superiority of the host nation, and as a means of belonging and a short-cut to building a sense of nationhood. But it comes at a price.

So it’s not just about pointing out the racism – it’s about understanding it and not letting the fears that drive it become the norm in our society. Let’s not be paranoid. Let’s not seek to be superior when building our sense of nation and of self.

Migrant Tales is under attack. The blog’s founder is receiving threats of violence, is being defamed and ridiculed in public forums, is being harassed even to the point of having his workplace invaded by defamatory communications. It is not an easy time for Enrique or his family and I feel compelled to say something about this situation.

Migrant Tales is very clear about its purpose: It aims to be a voice for those whose views and situation are understood poorly and heard faintly by the media, politicians and public. This generally refers to immigrants and their descendents in Finland.

It is no surprise perhaps that immigrants are often poorly portrayed or represented in the Finnish media and public fora, as they are a small number, and are often considered and painted in single brush strokes that take little account of individuality, of cultural diversity or even of cultural history.

Add to this the rise in popularity of a Far Right political party whose members have been very outspoken against immigrants, even to the point of being prosecuted for hate speech, and it’s not surprising to see that the atmosphere is sometimes characterised by suspicion and even hatred. Finland, as well as the rest of Europe, is portrayed as being under threat.

And then, in recent months, there have been several deaths of immigrants in violent circumstances, the motives for which are unclear, but where hate crimes could very justifiably be suspected. It was following one of these incidents that a PS councillor of some years standing made a public comment about giving the murderer of an immigrant a medal because, as he said, Finland was at war.

The immigrant communities in Finland are fully justified in asking what the hell is going on! While there have been some attempts in Oulu to reassure local communities, there has also been a significant silence from politicians and from the media on the issue. It seems the concerns are not given any credence. That is a shame.

Against this backdrop, Migrant Tales has been very critical and vocal in challenging the rhetoric coming out of the Far Right of politics and in publicising the antics and extremism that taints Perussuomalaiset as a party. And so, in return, Migrant Tales has come under attack.

Part of that attack has been to distort what Migrant Tales is about, though of course the critics will not see it as a distortion. Nevertheless, several criticisms have been repeatedly made that simply do not stand up to any kind of scrutiny. However, throw enough mud, and the hope is probably that some of it sticks – that seems to be the general rule of thumb.

I think some of these accusations need to be tackled very strongly, so I will take a few of them below and comment directly.

Our critics say:

We are attacking Finns and Finland’s reputation!

This is simply not true. Migrant Tales opposes racism, discrimination and misrepresentation of immigrant groups. It does not oppose Finland or Finns. One of the difficulties in this debate is how people take up a position that places others into a ‘natural’ grouping – that of native Finns, and that of several other foreign nationalities. Once put into these groups, the narrative of war, of incompatibility, of superiority and inferiority plays out.

It is all too easy for those foreigners criticized as being rapists, violent criminals etc., that they respond to this criticism by hitting back. It is understandable when 20% of the Finnish electorate vote for a party that is openly hostile to immigrants, or particular immigrants, that they would ask ‘what do Finns really think?’ or ‘Is Finland a racist country’. These are not questions that will necessarily reveal a useful answer.

The debate is all too easily polarised into those that will answer yes or no. But they are understandable questions. Paranoia in this kind of atmosphere is understandable. However, even the smallest lumping of Finns into one basket with a label of ‘racist’ on it brings a vehement response, from the very same people who are very happy to stick Somalis into one basket and write ‘rapists’ and ‘robbers’ onto it. The hypocrisy of it stinks, frankly.

Nevertheless, let’s make it clear, Migrant Tales does not think of Finland as a ‘racist’ country. Racism is to a large extent an individual issue. Finland has very good laws against discrimination. At the national and regional level of governance, one question is how this is implemented through services. There are issues that relate to how institutions and public authorities in Finland approach and understand the specific needs of immigrants groups, and if they are to fulfil their public obligation to provide services for all, then further study and adaptation is necessary. In some cases, inertia towards change in this respect is clearly going to be due to the racism of individuals within those services, racism I directly and unequivocally saw in officials on my very first visit to the Labour Exchange in Finland ten years ago. Anyone that denies that it can exist, I would call them extremely naive.

We tell lies

For some, lies implies saying that Finland is a racist country. As I’ve already said that that is an unhelpful question, it also goes without saying that Migrant Tales is not in any way trying to talk about Finland ‘as a racist country’, but simply about racism in Finland. This is the very starting threshold of the debate: before we even enter the door, we must have at least some basic agreement that there is racism in Finland and what can be done about it.

However, for many of our critics, we do not even get through this door. There is not much to be said about this, really. However, many things can and will be discussed under this subject. Some of it will be objective, some of it will be subjective. If it is merely a matter of a difference of opinion, then labelling your opponent as a ‘liar’ is just provocative and defamatory. At the same time, too much of the debate is done with very little accurate or reliable statistical evidence. The lack of such evidence is itself regrettable considering how much use is being made of statistics to degrade and denigrate certain immigrant groups.

We are the racists

Some people, when they hear us talking about an incidence of racism or a crime against an immigrant imagine that because we are focusing on their ethnicity or colour that we must be the racists. This accusation is based on a half understanding and it is always made by people who in turn think it’s perfectly acceptable to talk about the crime statistics of particular ethnic groups. Again, hypocrites.

Migrant Tales focuses on these crimes not because we think immigrants are of more value, but because the mainstream media typically will only give quite small column inches to these stories while talk of ‘hate crimes’ is all too easily dismissed when there is no evidence one way or the other that would dismiss it. It is incumbent on Migrant Tales to pursue the issue. It is also the case that many of the issues highlighted are where immigrants have claimed racism. In these cases, the focus on race or ethnicity comes from the nature of the crime, not from a desire to ‘put people into groups’; that that has already been done is the nature of the problem under discussion.

We are the extremists

I have never met an extremist (and I’ve met many through my studies) yet who actually thought they were an extremist. This is not surprising. In fact, extremism is a relative perspective. For the majority looking upon the ideas of radicals and extremists, it is clear that their views of society and how it should be organised depart significantly from the views of the majority. For those on the extremes, the belief they have in their own sense of truth, their own view of reality means that they are happy to accept that the majority do not know ‘what is good for them’. That’s how it is. So I’m not surprised that we appear as extremists to the extremists visiting this blog. However, it cannot be stated enough that this blog stands for tolerance, acceptance, human rights and a world free of discrimination.

The issue for me looking at these topics is that immigrants’ problems and perspectives are dismissed, ridiculed and denied. This really is unacceptable. Those that make any claims are immediately attacked, in the same way this blog has been attacked. Let’s make no mistake, this is not the approach of an open or a modern society.

While the comments on this blog represent only a small ecosystem of opinion within Finland and beyond, they nevertheless highlight at least a part of the reality in regard to immigration debate in Finland.

Perspective is always hard to maintain in these issues. Some people will defend Finland’s reputation blindly, without necessarily giving any depth of thought to their stance or their claims. Any criticism is taken to heart, and criticism by foreigners is all too easy to dismiss as ill-informed and biased. However, we are not just foreigners. We are Finns too in this blog.

Any group of people that are subject to pressures or a unique and marginalised position within society will find it hard to make their experiences known and felt. Marginalised people typically suffer from a lack of voice, a lack of public visibility, except that drawn according to the rules and prejudices of the majority. In any situation where problems and tensions arise, the key to resolving them is dialogue. Concerns from both sides need to be aired, dealt with openly and honestly and a willingness to show goodwill. This is an absolute prerequisite, but one which is on the whole completely denied us by those criticising Migrant Tales. The feeling really is that we are not even allowed to debate…

This is a forum of sorts and we do invite discussion by allowing comments on the articles, although the speed with which comments typically go ‘off topic’ is surprising and sometimes even a bit suspicious.

The lack of goodwill has meant that that forum has descended often into threat, slander, and mischief. My strongest concern is that this detracts from the real debate, and from the real stories and experiences of immigrants here in Finland. This blog is supposed to be a voice for immigrants, not for critics of immigration. They have their own blogs and forums in which to make their points.

The time has come to impose some order and civility in this discussion. My suggestion is that this blog follows the rule that when debating, all commentators must stick to playing the ball and not the ball player. If an argument appears stupid or dishonest, then the challenge is to demonstrate why you think that, not to take the short cut route of insulting the other commentator. This should apply to all sides equally. Then at least this atmosphere of bitterness that has grown here can give way to an atmosphere of constructive discussion. At least, here’s to hoping!

Migrant Tales was taken down by a terms of service complaint made to WordPress.

We will be back and immigrants in Finland WILL find their voice on the internet. This time, we’ll take steps to make sure this cannot happen again.

– the Migrant Tales team.

Them and Us? It could be kids talking about their parents, it could be groups of friends talking about each other, it could be one team talking about another team, one work department about another, workers about managers/owners, citizens about politicians, Leo’s about Virgo’s, the employed about the unemployed, the old about the young, city dwellers about country folk, the rich about the poor, the religious about the non-religious, the clever about the not-so-clever, the ugly about the beautiful, the conceited about the humble etc.

This phrase is not merely a marker of endless possible diversity; that phrase would be something like ‘these and those’. No, there is a sense of inside and outside with this phrase, of good and bad, of those who are with you and those who are against you. This phrase must have been in use since the dawn of civilizations.

Nowadays perhaps, most of us would likely see potential problems with this kind of phrase. Them and Us gives rise to Them vs. Us, which in turn gives rise to Them or Us. Even for the latter, with its sinister overtones, one could easily argue for a moral rightness. Indeed, it’s a slippery slope: from team games, to war games, to genocide! And, regrettably, it’s a well-worn path in terms of human history.

In debates about immigration and the value of immigration, assimilation etc, the issue of ‘them and us’ is an ever-present force. Indeed, the willingness with which those opposing immigration latch onto the ‘them and us’ argument as a means to denigrate and degrade people only goes to show that we must be extremely cautious in buying into any narrative that it generates.

Narratives can be beguiling, narratives can bewitch, narratives can raise the sense of threat to significant levels only on the basis of fear and hearsay. With this discourse, the emphasis is clearly put on the negatives attached to ‘them’. And the response must equally forcefully be to attempt to drag the debate back to the ‘us’. Take that beam out of your own eye, and all that.

In these debates, the ‘us’ becomes homogenized all too easily; it becomes the hidden, undeclared norm against which all other things are measured. This is not a new phenomenon. If we look back to the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries in Europe, you see that Europe considered itself anything from mildly to vastly superior to the rest of the world.

This superiority only became intensified with the first blossomings of science and technology. There was a sliding scale of superiority, with the scale of the inferior beginning usually with one’s neighbour and stretching all the way down the tree to the level of ‘savage’ and ‘barbarian’. Without question, this national, cultural, racial and even ‘European’ superiority fed into the rise of fascism and nationalism in the first half of 19th Century Europe.

However, the ethnocentric view was challenged, especially post-WWII and even overthrown for a view that showed that all societies reflect similar internal dynamics of culture, of conflict, of inequality, and of power struggle, even if they are different relative to each other in terms of wealth and technology. Indeed, one of the key insights of the last century has been that all societies function equally through complex systems of signs, symbols and signification (see semiotics).

Today, however, I clearly see the same old narrative returning. Today, the emphasis has shifted to speaking in terms of an ‘economic superiority’, which is unsurprising given that it’s easier to defend than a laid-bare cultural superiority.

So, citizens of some countries are portrayed as ‘welfare shoppers’, while the suggested response has been that the West should also shop around for the best immigrants: “Are you an immigrant bargain? Do you already have a paid-for education, have you been fed and watered up to the age of productive self-sufficiency? Great – we’ll have you, thank you very much!”

However, behind the economic argument is the thinly or sometimes not-so-thinly veiled cultural superiority argument. And this cultural superiority is, alarmingly, further disguised as a human-rights concern. Any lack of human rights in some other countries is used to justify a new kind of cultural (and moral) superiority. Without the human rights shield, this age-old superiority claim would be utterly indefensible in the modern world. Talk about stealing the clothes of one’s opponents!!

From this ‘human-rights standpoint’ there emerge some very bizarre and contradictory statements in regard to immigration: We cannot accept women from these countries because their culture denies them rights; We cannot accept refugees of war because these are citizens that have failed to stop the wars in their countries; we cannot allow them to enjoy the justice of Western democracy because they have either been the victims of injustice and persecution in their own country or they have failed to stop it.

While the arguments are rarely put so baldly, this is what they amount to: A person who is fleeing insecurity, persecution, corruption, extremism etc., is held to be responsible for the very things they are fleeing.

Europe must not be allowed to slide back into this kind of cultural superiority. The way it was overcome previously was to understand our own cultures more critically, to understand that the ‘Us’ is not homogenous, that the ‘Us’ contains both good and bad, both cultured and uncultured, and that if all the citizens of our countries had to be responsible for all the misdeeds of all the other citizens, for all of our history, then NONE of us would come out smelling of roses.

So, let’s be aware in our understanding of diversity, that understanding must begin at home; it begins with a truer understanding of the ‘us’, even before we begin to pass judgment or be critical of the ‘them’.

And let’s be aware that ‘Them and US’ is a natural enough stance of strangers before they have properly got to know each other. However, sometimes our belonging to one group blinds us to things we have in common with other groups.

If we start down the path of Them vs. Us, then we will never get to know the Them, and if allowed to go unchecked, we will almost certainly perish, one way or another, in a Them or Us.

For really, there is no sane denial of the extraordinary evil wrought by mankind in the name of Them and Us. I wonder, have we really grown up or not?

Too many words and not enough understanding. That’s my assessment. And words can surely divide us. “I’m for this and against that…” sprinked with a dash of integration, assimilation, multiculturalism, and discrimination. And where does that leave us? Forget the debate for a moment, where does that leave us as people? Arguing, and ever more bitter it seems. There needs to be more agreement, and less getting bogged down in definitions, hypotheticals, generalizations, and population statistics. Still, that IS the world of politics for you.

One argument that tends to define the debate centres on who should change when it comes to immigrants living a new life in a new country. There are those that say immigrants should become as much like the original inhabitants as possible (assimilation), and those that say they should be allowed to hold onto their own cultural identity (multiculturalism).

An argument put up against multiculturalism is that it leads to segregation, with the historical Chinatowns being augmented by new Pakistantowns, Somalitowns, Afghanistantowns, Romatowns etc. The problem is then perceived to be that the immigrants’ descendents may not even make the effort to learn the national language, which is probably seen as one of the most publicly tangible manifestations of non-integration. Some forget perhaps though that we have lived with this kind of phenomenon for millennia – is it not time that we made ourselves more comfortable with the idea? Also, Chinatowns can be very productive economically.

Multiculturalism openly invites communities to establish their own institutions which reflect their cultural heritage, their faith, and their cultural preferences. In a weakly multicultural society, that might entail multifaith schools, culture-sensitive public institutions, culture-specific civic organizations, and culture-specific political advocacy.

The new communities operate like communities within communities, with civic engagement geared to developing and protecting the specific interests of the minority community. As multiculturalism becomes more established, stronger forms show up in the form of faith-specific schools and new places of worship being built that better reflect the new demographics as individuals practice their freedom of religion.

One known effect of this changing diversity is that people of ALL groups can start to feel ‘lost’. Visible differences can make people feel defensive, more specifically, on the outside of their society. That is an uncomfortable feeling that is seen to drive people more towards the inside. For that reason, it’s unsurprising that studies therefore show that people living in the early stages of diverse communities can withdraw from society in general, including from their own communities.

Nevertheless, this is only part of the picture. A lack of complete trust does not mean that there is no trust, nor does mistrust towards a community mean that there is the same level of mistrust towards known individuals from that community. In fact, this is intuitively observable: one can have a negative view of a group but a positive view of individuals from within that group. Contradiction? That’s human beings for you. For that reason, a community-level analysis (see Robert Putnam) is likely to give an overly pessimistic picture. It really ain’t that black and white, figuritively or literally.

For integration (whichever form, multicultural or assimilation) to be successful it requires that there would be no obstacles to immigrants acquiring an education and occupations, that they are free to live where they want without fear of discrimination, that they are able to speak the language of the natives, and ultimately that they are able to intermarry without fear of excommunication or stigma, from any of the communities affected.

The reality can sometimes be quite far from this, though. Locals who witness this diversification but do not feel part of it can be most affected, as the roots of their own identity disappear in front of their eyes: a particular area may have had a very different recent and ancient history. Nevertheless, the incessant march of history can leave any one of us feeling that we have been left behind, and one should be sensitive to that. But really, there are meaningful opportunities in the ‘new world’, and people should be encouraged to reach out to others who are entering the community, who may also feel disorientated by the whole thing.

Of course, we cannot ignore that there are problems with immigration. Two solutions have been put forward by those somewhat to the right of the Maypole. The first is simply to avoid immigration: Close the doors and baton down the hatches! Some might go so far as to say “let’s make the place as unpleasant as possible and then maybe they will all go home!”

This solution will clearly fail. For a start, it’s giving in to a kind of superstitious fear of that which lurks beyond the horizon. And second, arguing that one is skeptical towards immigration is about as sensible as arguing that one is skeptical towards childbirth. It’s a fundamental feature of human populations that we move and that we intermingle and intermarry. How much that happens has depended on many factors: economic, cultural, geographical. But it happens. Likewise, adopting this ‘bunker approach’ when a community is already diverse and has significant 1st, 2nd, 3rd …. and 20th generation immigrants is rather like closing the barn door after the horse has long bolted. It is a fundamental misperception of the current state of reality. No wonder it leads to so much anger.

The other solution put forward has been assimilation, as already mentioned. Usually it is meant in the strong sense, though I will refer to both a strong and weak form. The thinking goes that immigrants are like visitors, i.e. guests or tourists. They are expected to behave as such and not let the ‘team’ down. Also, when in Rome, do as the Romans do. In the weaker sense, assimilation is expected to bring new aspects to the native culture, and so the final culture will be some kind of amalgamation of the two (e.g. the national food of the UK could easily be said to be a good old curry! ..and notice that ‘good old…’ doesn’t even sound out of place!).

More effects of weak assimilation are that notions of justice, social participation, the role of the family, free speech, etc will become more nuanced and diverse, while public institutions will also have learnt to take account of the greater diversity of the citizens that they serve.

In the strong sense, assimilation means that descendents of immigrants are indistinguishable from the old inhabitants, but this ignores that cultural effects work in many directions. Neither the descendents of the original population or the immigrant population will be exactly the same as their parents, and many of the reasons for this will have absolutely nothing to do with immigration (think Facebook, The Bold and the Beautiful, Ipad etc.).

Following a maturing of the process of assimilation, a new and more diverse identity emerges that is able to bring together the majority of the inhabitants in a strong and shared identity, regardless of their origins. Looking at the UK, which is further down this path that many countries, this is absolutely the case for very many natives, immigrants and descendents of immigrants. It is more obviously the case in the cosmopolitan cities and to a larger extent too in the rural areas close to those cities. In other areas, where contacts have been more sporadic or where immigrants are yet to achieve equality, then the effects of the early stages of ‘diversification’ still hold true, i.e. a degree of mistrust, some withdrawal, and as Putnam would probably predict, higher levels of political engagement (as we see in Finland currently with the rise of PS).

So of all these possible directions for the future, which would be best? Strong assimilation, weak assimilation, weak multiculturalism, segregation? What should be our expectations or even our aims?

The answer in my view is both obvious and yet overlooked. Why do we expect or desire only one kind of outcome?

It seems perfectly reasonable to me that we should expect degrees of all these things, as part of an ongoing processes that individuals react to differently and at different speeds. Not only that, but there really is space in our society for a little of everything!

So what can we expect? We can expect more new immigrants who are likely to set up in the cities and then gradually progress from the cities to the regions, though this is complicated by existing problems of regionalisation, with high rural unemployment, especially among the young, and so a slower process of assimilation would be expected to that found in the cities.

We can expect multicultural threads in our society, where people identify through their faith and their community. In that sense, they are expressing their freedoms and these are not generally speaking incompatible with those of natives. We can expect 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants to identify both with their parents ethnic identity and the national identity, to varying degrees and not necessarily with any great conflict, though sometimes there will be.

We can expect areas of some cities to become segregated areas, simply because this has always happened, and in many ways, it can be one of the charms of city life or larger towns – they allow the world to come to you rather than you having to travel to meet the world. We must avoid ghettos (deprivation) and ensure that segregation doesn’t mean isolation. Chinatowns are really a very good model for how those who choose to retain stronger links with their ethnic culture can engage economically with the surrounding economy.

We can expect to see more diversity in what is seen to constitute justice, what our roles are in society and our relationship to the rest of the world. But this diversity will not be a completely new thing, because the fact is there already exists a vast diversity within cultures, so that diversity between cultures is all too easily overemphasized, sometimes purely on the basis of a different colour of skin. Bear in mind that when put in new words, old ideas may indeed seem very foreign. It is always a good idea to ask whether new customs are related somehow to existing customs.

So in sum, we can expect something of each of the ‘solutions’ put forward in the debate on immigration. Immigrants or their descendents will be steered in different directions: some towards strong assimilation, some towards weak assimilation, some towards multiculturalism, and some towards cultural self-defence, some towards completely new identies that unite around the greater diversity. Those living out this integration are as diverse as those looking for the best method of integration. But a little less ‘this way, folks’ and a recognition that there are several ways ahead that can and will exist together would go a long way to taking some of the heat out of the situation: Unless it was never really about integration in the first place!? That’s a challenge to those that say it’s not about racism….

In that sense, what might appear like a broken society to many of those looking for a single solution is not actually broken. It might be a truism to say that the biggest enemy in all of this is not diversity, but that old enemy of all good civilisations – poverty!

Finally, a note of caution. The history of every single nation on Earth reveals that ‘groups’ have come to blows over what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ about how we should organize our society. Politics has the power to truly divide, to literally split our heads open. Finland is no stranger to this kind of conflict. So, when considering how to deal with the extremes within and without our communities, the important thing is to maintain a policy of tolerant engagement with those who seek moderation – i.e. always pull towards the middle and we will all be safer and closer, for sure.