Race, Class and the Shaping of a Policy for Immigrants: The Case of the Netherlands
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2435.1987.tb00122.x |
| Date | 01 March 1987 |
| Published date | 01 March 1987 |
| Author | H.B. ENTZINGER |
Race, Class and the Shaping
of
a
Policy
for
Immigrants:
The Case
of
the Netherlands
‘There is
as
much injustice in the
equal treatment
of
unequal cases
as
there is in the unequal treatment
of
equal cases’
Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachaea.
V(3)
H.B. ENTZINGER*
THE EFFECTS
OF
IMMIGRATION: TWO MAJOR APPROACHES
In
sociology, the debate
on
the social position of immigrants often focusses
on
the ‘race-
or-class’ issue. Is it their racial (ethnic, cultural) background or rather their weak socio-
economic status or class position that drives many immigrants into marginality? The
terms ‘race’ and ‘class’ are quite common in American and British literature. Elsewhere,
particularly in continental Europe, a major distinction can be drawn between ‘culturalist’
and ‘structuralist’ approaches of interaction processes between immigrants and their
social environment. In spite of these differences in terminology, however, there are strong
similarities in the nature of the debate. Authors like, for instance, Rex
(1
983), Richardson
and Lambert (1985) and Stone (1985) all give an overview of the current state
of
that
debate.
In the culturalist approach, differences in race, culture or ethnicity are seen as the major
determinants of lacking interaction and failing integration. Here I will not evoke the
debate whether it
is
race or culture or ethnicity or any combination of these that is the most
crucial factor, a debate
on
which numerous books have been written (e.g. Kinloch 1979;
Unesco 1980; Miles 1982; Banton 1983). In this article I will opt for ‘ethnicity’ and ‘ethnic
group’ and I will define the latter, in accordance with Schermerhorn, as a ‘collectivity
within a larger society, having real or putative ancestry, memories of a shared historical
past, and a cultural focus
on
one or more symbolic elements defined as the epitome of their
peoplehood‘ (Schermerhorn 1970: 12).
*
Professor of studies of multi-ethnic societies, University of Utrecht and
staff
member
of
the
Netherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy
(WRR).
The Hague. This article is based
on
a
paper presented to the
XI
*
World Congress of Sociology, New Delhi, August
1986.
5
The culturalist approach has its strongest roots in studies of non-western societies by
social anthropologists (e.g. Furnivall 1948
;
Smith 1965). It has gradually become accepted
as a major focus for the analysis ofwestern societies as well, in particular, as far as Western
Europe is concerned, after the arrival of large numbers of immigrants with highly different
ethnic backgrounds (Roosens 1982). It has been argued, for instance, that ‘categorised
ethnic distinctions do not depend on an absence ofmobility, contact and information, but
do entail ethnic processes of exclusion and incorporation whereby categories are main-
tained despite changing participation and membership in the course of life histories’
(Barth 1969: 9). Some consider ethnic differences to be
a
major cause of social conflict,
more important, for instance, than unequal status attribution in the socio-economic
system (Lambert 1981
:
195). Many scholars have observed a clear link between ethnic
differences and differences in power. This is the idea behind the concept of racism: the
sense of superiority of one ethnic group
(or
‘race’) over one
or
more others, which often
leads to exclusion and oppression (Elich
&
Maso 1984:
5).
Blauner, for instance, considers
this form of oppression to be much more pervasive and encompassing than class oppres-
sion (Blauner 1972
:
146). Thus, differences in race
or,
in
our
terms, ethnicity are seen by
many as the major cause of the marginal position of immigrant groups.
Advocates of the structuralist approach consider
a
society’s class structure and the
unequal distribution of the means of production as a major reason why most immigrants
have found a place only at the bottom of the social hierarchy. This is reinforced by the fact
that many of these newcomers are characterised by a low level of education, a weak legal
status, lacking skills and language abilities
or
any combination of these.
Interestingly enough, such views are shared by both Marxists and liberals (e.g. Burgess
1978; Stone 1985). The former, many ofwhom have studied post-war labour migration to
Western Europe as an example, argue that immigration has enabled the capitalists not
only to continue their exploitation of the working class, but also to split up that working
class (e.g. Castles and Kosack 1973
;
Miles 1982). Here, of course, the ethnic factor creeps
into their argument, although in these views class oppositions remain of ovemding
importance. Liberal students of immigration often base themselves on Weberian ideas on
social inequality, considered to be the outcome of accumulated differences in social status
between individuals within a system that is largely dominated by consensus (e.g. Hoff-
mann-Nowotny 1973; Rex
&
Tomlinson 1979). In their approach there is not much room
for the ethnic factor either: processes of modernization and industrialization would lead
to the dissolution of ‘primitive’ ethnic affiliations, as people adopt a more rational and
individualistic approach to life. This development is largely in accordance with Tonnies’
views on the evolution from
Gemeinschaft
to
Gesellschaft
(Van Doom 1985: 77).
In this article
I
will not attempt to give a Solomonion judgement on the predominance
of any one of these two major approaches over the other.
As
I
see it, it is impossible to
argue whether ‘race’
or
‘class’, whether ethnicity
or
the position in the socio-economic
system is the major determinant of ethnic stratification.
As
many others have observed,
the two factors operate simultaneously, and both appear to
be
highly relevant (e.g. Wilson
1978; Rex 1986). They tend to influence and often reinforce each other, to the extent that
in all immigration countries in the western world
-
and also in many non-western coun-
tries
-
the least privileged categories of the population comprise relatively many immi-
grants whose ethnic background differs from that of the original inhabitants. This phe-
nomenon tends to perpetuate itself into following generations. This explains why ethnic
stratification may also
be
found in many societies with old traditions of migration and
even in societies where multi-ethnicity does not result from immigration at all. In this
article, however, we will mainly deal with recent immigration and with the way its
consequences are being handled.
6
To continue reading
Request your trial