“It is not culture, but the absence of a cultural identity that causes radicalisation”

French islamologist and author of a.o. “Islam face a la laïcité” Olivier Roy disagrees. “It is not culture, but the absence of a cultural identity that causes radicalisation,” he said recently in a debate at the Institut Néerlandais in Paris. He opposes thus to the Dutch sociologist Paul Scheffer, whose essay « The Multicultural drama », published in 2000 declared the failure of the multicultural society and pleaded for a critical examination of Islam, that he thought responsible for the problematic integration if migrants in the Netherlands. 

“Radicalisation is not a matter of the immigrant who clings to the norms and values of the culture he brought with him form his country of origins”, says Roy. “Society has no problem with the old lady who ward a veil and who had never learned to speak the language of her new country. Nor with her husband, former ‘guest-worker’ or ‘travailleur invité’. The group that creates problems consists of a few second-generation immigrants. Young, well educated people, who speak Dutch – or French for that matter – who work, go out, smoke and drive a car.” According to Roy the second- and third-generation immigrants are in an identity crisis. “It is not their culture, but the absence of a cultural identity that leads some of them in the arms of fundamentalist Islam. The fundamental salafist movement gains from this situation. They preach a culture less, pure Islam. Religion is not culture, is their doctrine. Religion (read: Islam) is the one and only Truth. 

“But you have to acknowledge that Islam has got problems adapting from a majority religion in the originating countries, to a minority position in an individualist and secular society”, says Scheffer. Muslims feel victimised. They claim rights such as religious freedom and acceptance of their identity for themselves, but deny those rights to others. They do not respect other religions - or atheism, for that matter.” 

Today’s problems derive from immigration, says Scheffer. “In Amsterdam 40 percent of the unemployed are first generation immigrants. In New York, 90 percent of the immigrants work. I remember an anecdote the deputy mayor of Amsterdam Mohammed Aboutaleb told me. When in the late sixties and early seventies companies came to Morocco and Algeria, the recruiters would ask the applicant a question in French. If he replied in French eh was sent home. Overqualified. Today we’re facing the consequences. Normally the completion integration takes 3 generations. Today, 95 percent of immigrants marries a person from the country of origins. This is a huge set-back in the integration of the children that come from this marriage. The Netherlands have not benefited from the immigration from Mahgreb-counties – instead we’re facing nothing but problems.” 

In the audience, journalist with Le Monde Diplomatique Marie Claire Cecilia stands up. “That’s such nonsense. What do you mean, the Netherlands have not profited? The immigrants came to your country to do the work that the Dutch did not want to do. There was a huge shortage of labourers, that the immigrants filled under deplorable conditions. They were never supposed to stay, so nobody bothered to integrate them, or at least to offer them language courses. When in the eighties  the economy collapsed, they were the first to be fired. Today Dutch politicians make it seem as if the Muslims refuse to integrate and place all the responsibility on their side.” 

Dutch society has avoided the subject of integration for too long. Partly due to lack of interest, partly out of misplaced political correctness. Cecilia: “When in the mid-eighties France was discussing the issue of the headscarf, the Netherlands were the first to say that France was xenophobe, that France paved the way for  the Front National. But at least there was a debate in Fance. The Netherlands were also confronted with problems of unemployment, discrimination and racism. But politics kept silent. Now that the pressure is off the kettle, opinions are voiced with an enormous fervour and ‘tolerance’ has become a ‘gros mot’. 

The Dutch system of ‘pillarisation’ (dated back to the fifties till the seventies and in which catholic, protestant and socialist communities were all self sufficient and completely separated form each other) does raise a few eyebrows in France. “Communautarisme” is very badly viewed in France”, says Olivier Roy. “In France the ‘assimilation model’ is preferred. Everybody equal, everybody part of ‘La Republique’. Group forming is considered a threat to the unity of the republic.  Laïcité is an important element here. Originally inherited form the French Revolution, when the political power of the Roman Catholic church was taken away, and confirmed in 1905 by a law that separated church and state.” In short: religion is considered a private matter that has no place in the public space. For a while it was even forbidden for the clergy to wear their robes in public. Today civil servants as well as school youth are not allowed to wear religious symbols. 

According to Roy the French model in its current state is no longer the people’s movement it was before. “Laïcité is forced upon people by law. That is typically French – if  we see a problem, we make a law to solve it, whereas the Dutch prefer to attain a certain a consensus. The French government does not practice laïcité. It is not neutral towards religious movements. The ‘good’, that is the liberal are favoured. This is based on the false assumption that liberalism is a condition for integration. It’s more the other way around: a successful integration can lead to religious liberalisation. The French government also makes a difference between religions. If the bishop of Paris calls abortion a sin and a crime, or when he disregards homosexuality, we can all live with that. When Muslims say the same, thing get a lot more complicated. Another example is the French Council of Muslim Cults (CFCM), a government initiative to force the creation of one representative body for the Islam. An artificially created ‘unity’ between totally different Islamic movements. Why not work with different existing organisations like the Turkish Milli Görush, that actually represents the Turkish community?” 

According to Roy, both the Dutch and the French model are in crisis. This is not solely due to immigration, though immigration has functioned as a mirror. European unity is an important factor as well. Member states have given up a large part of their sovereignty. The meaning of national identities is changing rapidly, leading to an existentialist fear – especially in the founding states. They in particular need to adjust their models to the current reality.” 

- Radiodebateerlandais at France Culture with Olivier Roy, Marie Claire Cecilia and Paul Scheffer  prior to the debate at the Institut Néerlandais
- Olivier Roy and Tariq Ramadan in  “Tegenlicht”, Dutch television 
- The Institut Néerlandais in Paris

Christine de Vos
Paris

{moscomment}