The rise of modern liberalism in the 21st century became a catalyst for the amplification of globalism. The mass influx of migrants throughout western Europe has made immigration a major issue in European politics. Yet, because each country adheres to a distinct set of ideologies and policies in regards to how they interact with migrants, having an international solution is impossible. For example, the United Kingdom follows a multiculturalist approach, while France vouches for assimilation. Additionally, there are countries such as Germany that fall somewhere in between the two. Both systems are systematically different which leads to vastly different consequences. For example, the definition of freedom in education is interpreted in a very different manner between such countries. However, they do share one major similarity; both multiculturalism and assimilation fail to develop a common identity which leads to violence and seclusion.
National identity has always been a key point in European policy-making. Choosing between multiculturalism and assimilation is primarily an effort to protect such an aspect of society. For example, although nationalism is encouraged in Britain, migrants are not expected to give up their culture, religion or language. That is because “liberal states have multiculturalism, because they have given up on the idea of assimilating their members beyond basic procedural commitments” (Joppke 449). In stark contrast, the French identity is protected and immigrants must assimilate into their culture, secularity, and language. Although assimilation has changed over time, the “final goal was still absorption into the dominant culture” (Castles 268). Lastly, Germany is one of the only European countries that embrace aspects of both systems. For example, after World War II, Germany enabled the migration of “guest-workers” into their country. Such migrants were “to be temporarily incorporated into certain aspects of society (above all the labor market) but denied access to others (especially citizenship and political participation)” (Castle 266). The German identity was now directly correlated to one’s citizenship and political participation regardless of one’s time, experiences, and family in such a country.
Modern liberal countries still use antiquated principles to define a country’s identity. The belief of Jus sanguinis (right of blood) and Jus soli (right of the soil) are still the most influential ideas regarding citizenship. For that reason, both multiculturalism and assimilation fail at developing a national identity. In fact, since multiculturalism divides the population into cultural “boxes” instead of uniting the population, it only emphasizes their differences. Additionally, politicians “tend to assume minorities’ true loyalty is to their faith or ethnic communities” (Malik 16). The purely political relationship created between the state and minority communities creates a sense of hostility and distrust between them. Furthermore, many minority groups in England fear reaching out to the government, as multicultural policies have made other minority groups their opponents and therefore enemies. For example, in the late 1970s, Ugandan Asians were allocated public-sector housing which led to “racial hostility […] at a time where 10,000 people on the city’s housing waiting list […] fear of physical attacks also deterred many from seeking council accommodation” (Marett 7). Germany, on the other hand, uses their multicultural policies to avoid calling immigrants their equals. This was especially clear with the introduction of the Gastarbeiter system (guest-workers) as migrants were allowed access to the labor system, but not granted citizenship. Consequently, the emergence of parallel communities arose in Germany. The Turkish community was especially ignored even though many of them consider Germany their true home. The national identity that Germany has constructed forces Turkish individuals to feel like outsiders. In fact, “out of the three million people of Turkish origin in Germany today, only some 800,000 have managed to acquire citizenship” (Malik 22). Lastly, assimilation in France not only leads to seclusion for minorities, but it also causes violent revolts. Such struggle dates back to the colonial and post-colonial relationship between “secular” France and “Muslim” Algeria. The French state has not allowed proper sociopolitical integration to occur due to the historical tendency of labeling north African communities as Muslims instead of “true” French citizens. Such mislabeling has led to a series of revolts in France. For example, in October of 2005, “a series of riots broke out in the suburbs of Paris […] sparked by the death of two young men being chased by the police [they] had become increasingly angry at the police presence in their neighborhoods and frustrated by the lack of opportunity and stifling conditions [caused by the] “xenophobic rhetoric of conservative politicians” (Fellag 5). As such, although multiculturalism and assimilation are entirely different political systems, the negative consequences that arise from them are quite similar. The state’s inability to create a uniting national identity forces an individual to revolt against the government.
The importance of education in liberal democracies is crucial in the development of children and teenagers. Yet, in an increasingly globalized world, the importance and purpose of education can be unclear; especially, in determining what freedom is in the classroom. The United Kingdom emphasizes the importance of a multicultural society by allowing citizens and immigrants to preserve their cultural identity. Yet, in their public-school system, many disregard such policies and teach only what they believe fits with their national identity. For example, Maureen Stone is a school teacher in Leicester who said that “supplementary education should be devoted to basic skills and not to education in different cultures” (Rex 8). The undermining of globalization in her statement suggests that learning and appreciating different cultures is irrelevant for children in the United Kingdom. Therefore, the extent to which they can exercise their cultural identities in the classroom is highly questioned. Students are allowed to exercise freedom of religion in the classroom yet, many of them are unable to study different cultures, ideologies, and mindsets that may go against traditional British values. However, they are not the only European country that struggles with the concept of freedom. In Germany, their multicultural policies allow freedom of religion to occur. Yet, all public schools in Germany have “compulsory religious education […] which has to be paid for by the state” (Muehlhoff 439). The separation of Church and state in Germany is not as drastic as other European countries and therefore, Christianity is still part of the curriculum. Although students can opt out of taking such class, a public school in Cologne last year, punished a child named Paul for doing homework during this class even though the law allows children to have “free time” if they wish to not partake in such course. This case is not uncommon either, in fact, there’s “10, 12 cases [like Paul’s] each year, different cases, some which stretch over years […] it begins in primary schools and continues into the secondary level” (Isenson 13). Therefore, although the law explicitly allows freedom of religion to take place in school, students are still being punished by their professors. France however, has a very distinct set of laws against religion in public schools. The definition of freedom of religion doesn’t fit well with their secular state. For example, “in October 1989 three teenage girls, two of Moroccan and one of Tunisian descent, were suspended from school because they refused to take off their head scarves” (Lucassen 171). Their inability to freely wear such clothing goes against any multicultural policy in both Germany and the UK. As such, these countries have major ideological differences in regards to how they deal with freedom in education. The United Kingdom allows students to practice their religion freely at schools but they refuse to study all globalization has to offer. Germany has compulsory Christianity classes in every public school which can lead to segregation for individuals who don’t wish to comply. Lastly, France doesn’t allow freedom of religion to take place in their secular state as religious practices such as the hijab are banned in public schools.
The inclination to justify the political system in every state has led to the development of obstructive conservative ideals. Globalization is now an essential and natural aspect of every society in the world. Therefore, systems such as multiculturalism and assimilation need to be reevaluated and improved. Their inability to produce a national identity will create more violence and parallel communities in European countries. Additionally, although their ideologies regarding freedom are undeniably different, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany have not created a positive, accepting environment for minorities in their communities. Embracing, learning and encouraging diversity in a modern liberal state is the foundation for a united group of citizens.
2019-3-10-1552246734