Political Debates on Islamic Headscarves and Civic Integration Abroad in France and the Netherlands: What Can Models Explain?

Abstract

This paper evaluates the explanatory capacity of 'national models' of migrant integration, through a comparative analysis of the regulation of Islamic headscarves on the one hand and civic integration abroad policies on the other hand in France and the Netherlands. It argues that 'national models', defined as historically rooted conceptions of nationhood, polity and belonging, matter because they enable and constrain the framing of policy problems.However, the impact of 'national models' on the policy outcome is determined by the political and institutional context in which decision making takes place. IntroductionA few years ago, Christian Joppke provocatively announced the end of 'national models' (2007: 1-2). In doing so, he launched a frontal attack on a well established theoretical field, in which national regimes of citizenship and church-state relations are used to account for country specific policies regarding immigrant integration (Brubaker, 1992; Castles, 1995; Entzinger, 2005; Favell, 1998; Koopmans e.a., 2005) and, more specifically, Muslim immigrants (Fetzer & Soper, 2005; Koenig, 2003 Koenig, , 2007 Modood & Kastoryano, 2006). In view of the current convergence of migrant integration policies in Europe, Joppke argues that 1 The authors are endebted to the anonymous reviewers, Ines Michalowski, Claudia Finotelli, and Karin Schönwälder for their constructive comments on earlier versions of this paper. 2'the notion of national models no longer makes sense, if it ever did ' (2007: 2). Other scholars have also criticised the 'national models' approach for being too normative, for providing teleological explanations, and for being unable to account for change, or contrasting opinions or policies, within countries (see Michalowski & Finotelli, in this volume).In this paper, we endeavour to explain the different policy responses to two issues related to (Muslim) migrant incorporation, in order to assess the value of these model theories. These issues are, first, the donning of the headscarf by Muslim women and, second, civic integration abroad policies that require immigrants to integrate before they are granted permission to enter a country. The Netherlands and France introduced such integration requirements in 2005 and 2007 respectively. The Dutch government requires migrants to pass a test, and offers neither courses nor learning material. The French government, by contrast, requires only that migrants participate in an evaluation and course, not that they achieve a certain result, and offers the courses for free. Thus, while both countries have felt the need to design civic integration abroad programs, the French program is much more lenient than the Dutch one. At first glance, this appears to contrast sharply with the classic 'national models' approach, which would lead us to expect that the 'multiculturalist' Netherlands would accommodate ethnic and cultural differences, while 'assimilationist' France would push migrants to adapt to the French mould.By comparison, the current French and...

Beyond Ethnic Stereotypes – Identities and Outdoor Recreation Among Immigrants and Nonimmigrants in the Netherlands

“…Ascriptions by others, and particularly ethnic discrimination, have been suggested as a constraint to outdoor recreation for immigrants (Gobster, 2002;Kloek, Peters, et al, 2013;Stodolska, 2005). Bonjour and Lettinga (2012) mentioned that in the Netherlands, nonimmigrant Dutch tend to see traits of migrants as determined by their membership in a specific ethnic group. Also, nonimmigrant Dutch are inclined to see group differences as essential, lasting, and irremediable.…”

Reflections on Measuring Discrimination: The Case of Outdoor Recreation

“…Discriminatory, excluding acts could be construed as ‘just the way things work in the Netherlands’. This may be strengthened by the tendency of native Dutch to perceive social attributes of non‐natives as determined by their ethnic identity, and to see ethnic differences as essential, lasting, and irremediable (Bonjour & Lettinga ). As such, the results of this questionnaire might be a striking signal that discrimination has become normal and accepted, to the extent that what might previously have been considered acts of discrimination, with concomitant effects of decreasing diversity of participation in public parks, are no longer ‘reportable’ as such.…”

Theorizing national models of integration: An ideational perspective

“…In particularly Britain, Sweden, and the Netherlands, immigrant integration is often said to be structured by a multiculturalist variant of civic nationhood (e.g., Borevi 2014;Koopmans et al 2005;Meer and Modood 2009). This latter model differs from the 'French' civic assimilationist model by promoting equality through the public recognition and accommodation of cultural differences instead of stressing the ethno-cultural and religious neutrality of the public sphere (e.g., Brubaker 1992;Bonjour and Lettinga 2012).…”

“…Since the 1990s, many mainstream political actors have grown highly skeptical of existing immigration policies resulting in rather restrictive integration policies, e.g. regarding family reunification and citizenship, which appear inconsistent with being formerly categorized as a model of multiculturalism (see e.g., Bonjour and Lettinga 2012;Joppke 2007).…”

“…2; Østergaard 1992)? ; is it to explain the actual policies implemented (e.g.,Bonjour and Lettinga 2012;Favell 1998;Jensen, Fernández and Brochmann 2017), i.e., what the public policy literature terms policy output (Schmitt 2013: 30-31)? ; or is it to test whether a national model of integration affects policy outcomes (Schmitt 2013: 30-31), i.e., the socio-economic, cultural and political integration of immigrants and the majority population (e.g.,Kesler and Safi 2018;Reitz, Simon and Laxer 2017)?…”