The Concentration of Migrants in the Million Programme Areas

There are of course different sides, and in particular chains of events, to everything. When those who speak for us in the public sphere are mostly dramatic and alarmist politicians and journalists, it becomes even more important to differentiate between and find the true causes things.

That there are many migrants or people with "foreign heritage" living in the Million Programme[1] areas has now been a part of the Swedish discourse for nearly half a century. And that this is something negative has almost become an axiom. But why? And is it so? And if so, why? This is just a brief input made to lift a broader conversation on this topic.

Concentrations of populace are in themselves by definition not a problem. The problem is that certain "concentrations" are not reached by the same information as other concentrations, such as information about available jobs. Information about which schools are good, how to quickly receive care and other things that are essential in our lives, is also missing or scarce.

With this information deficit, many in the concentrations of immigrant and million programme populace (migrants + traditional working class) end up in unfavorable situations. The reason then for these unfavorable situations is not the concentration itself but primarily that our public sector has failed and is failing to provide information to all citizens equally well. The objective to get information out to "everyone" is often formulated in government agency directives, and it is also a prerequisite in order for the "market" that the public sector provides (the school market for instance) to work. It is a pillar of market economy that everyone know the supply available so that they can demand it.

The prime example of this failure can be found in jobs and public sector recruitment: today the majority of workers in the private sector are recruited through informal recruitment, and a very large part similarly in the public sector (according to the Swedish Agency for Government Employers (SAGE) around half of the people employed by government authorities, for example). Only a few years ago virtually no jobs offered through informal recruiting went to immigrants,  presumably because these jobs never become visible to the target group and so cannot be applied for – those who can demand the supply do not see it.

Another drawback with the concentrations as they operate without proper information is that research on empathy, for example that of Ervin Staub, provides much evidence suggesting that we care less about people we do not deal with. On this topic there is a good short Ted talk which shows how voters in the U.S. reason. This makes it a problem having concentrations who live separate lives and who also, because of information deficits, do not meet on the platforms (jobs, events, associations) which are available outside of work for people to meet. However, all of that is mostly due to external factors and not due to the concentration in itself being bad. In theory, we would not live apart if information availability was the same for everyone and we met on other platforms. How often is it that one’s neighbors or those who live in one’s area are the ones one has the most exchanges, meetings, and relations with?

If you were employed, knew the same schools as the majority, and so on, and so on, your contact with mainstream society would happen that way, just like for most people. Compare – just to illustrate the point – how many people that ever date a neighbor to how many people ever date a colleague. What you have right in your neighborhood becomes a safety factor, but not what gives you an "in" into society or social situations, which of course is also the prerequisite for new opportunities to open up in our lives.

---

[1] Swedish nationwide building projects for affordable housing in the sixties and seventies.

Being a ‘second generation’ immigrant, I

These last few days I have been thinking about sharing my experiences of being “second generation”, that is the son of immigrants. The other day, during my landing in Geneva, the wires between my sentimentality and my intellectuality suddenly got disconnected. Beneath me I saw a rather normal city laid out – just like my own – Stockholm. This is one of the many cities where cousins of mine have settled and where second generations of cousins are now being born. While we were descending I was thinking that they must feel the same way I do when I land in Stockholm and see this familiar view in front of me. They must feel it is their city as well as one of the many places in the world where they belong; perhaps the most reliable one of them all.

I know I feel something similar but not quite the same when I land in Barajas or Alicante. I have lived there many times and periods of my life fully knowing that these places are also my home, my comfort zones in the world. Little by little throughout the years I have also added cities like Barcelona to my list where I decided to live for a while in 2011.

Once in an article I started to play with the idea of reuniting with a brother who had grown up in another family. The contextual background was that we both knew we belonged, we both shared the same roots, but we did not share the same lives. On the contrary, we lived and led very different lives in very different places. We were formed by: different movements, different circumstances, different background stories, and even different rules of democracy.

But I will talk more about this in time because I notice that in a lot of countries where the second generations (the children) are still not that many, they view these issues with interest and worry, and a lot of times I receive questions about this. In Sweden for example the immigrant population is currently peaking at 1, 4 million. These immigrants have in turn given birth to one million children – we ‘the second generation’, who almost reach up to their level now. If we include my kids (the third generation), than we have already passed the first in numbers. But then we stop counting right? Or do we continue? This spring I plan on developing these lines of thoughts and more so stay tuned for more updates.

No community has ever actively chosen to become an “immigrant community”

No city or municipality has ever willingly chosen to become an immigrant community. I find that interesting. There are however a few examples of communities that have actively decided to embrace their conceptuality as an immigrant community. However, they all have done so posterior to finding themselves in an altered demographic situation where they simply had to conclude the obvious.  

The situation has led the communities to stand between two choices: either counter the situation and reduce the proportion of immigrant residents, or embrace and develop the situation as well as become better at introducing those who have and those who are on their way of becoming immigrants. Naturally, they have gone with the second option, although initially nobody has actually made this kind of active choice before. Nobody has stood there with two immigrants and thought: “Alas, it is better to be a community with cultural plurality than a feeble-minded one so let us bring people over here from all over the world!”

It is important to keep that in mind when we hear politicians and officials glorify immigration in their communities/municipalities. They are absolutely right in that it is something to glorify – but the fact remains that there are currently no examples of homogenous communities that have actively chosen to become “immigrant dense”. There is also the question of whether keeping this in mind is important or not, but it is interesting nonetheless.

How many communities would for instance take the “trouble” necessary in order to become a culturally diverse municipality? How many would provide the plurality required in order to achieve excellence and become something special? So far, all of those who have had the option, have chosen mediocrity instead of defiance and brilliance. 

Interculturalism will require a bigger effort from the majorities

I like the discourse that has been held for a few years now, about moving on from the concept of multiculturalism to interculturalism. Even though i find what you do and why you do what you do more important than what you chose to call it, it is always interesting when we make the effort of gathering and reaching consent.

There is something though, that i miss in the discussions and in the intelectual interchange about this progression. The Intercultural cities network, that is an important platform for this, explains how the european cities developed from a guest worker/transit mentality, to a assimilation mentality, from there to a mentality of multiculturalism and now to the state of mind of interculturalism. The leap between multi- and interculturalism consists of developing from coexistance of cultures in multiculturalism, to interaction between cultures and cultural groups in the intercultural mindset. Very good.

From my point of view, it is important to have in mind that all people that have migrated or changed their home territory have had the natural instinct of the interculturalism. You have gotten to a place and wanted to both interact and coexist. The migrant have always looked for the possbility to share, trade and build relationships with the people in the new homeland. The reason why interculturalism didn't occur or become the natural state of things from the beginning, is that the people in the country of reception always have tended to reject this intent of interculturalism. Instead of welcoming, embracing and meeting up with a positive feeling to integrate - they have treated the new members of the territory with suspicion and rejection. Sometimes subtile, sometimes explicit. This created the state of multiculturalism that we have been in for several decades by now.

The irony of it is that it also has created a dynamic of blaming that is absurd: in almost every city with 10%+ of migrant community, you will hear people from the majority population saying that the migrants segregate themselves, don't want to integrate with the majority and want to stay by themselves in their "ghettos".

What i am missing in the discourse of interculturalism, is that we are returning to the natural and instinctive behaviour that was sabotaged by the majority population - the majority population whos' representatives are now trying to switch to normal again, instead of continuing to act in the destructive ways that led away from interculturalism, and settled with an approved multiculturalism.

Why is this an important nota bene? Because as for now what i see is representatives from the majority population talking as if they invented this concept that now will be implemented if everyone in an equal effort. Minority-groups and majority-groups are supposed to agree on this idea and implement it. But the thing is - the minority groups always agreed, always wanted this. It is by far a bigger responsability and a bigger effort required from the majority group than for the minorities.

What we are doing now is repairing something we broke, not inventing a spectacular new way of thinking.

The power of cities with short history

This January I was spending a few weeks in Las Palmas in the Canaries, where I started getting to know a culture I was not familiar with but that is turning out to be very welcoming. I was in the northern port area far away from the mass tourism in the south, and after having experienced all those foreign complex of soulless “plastics”, this was super interesting to me.

While looking around, reading and listening to stories about Las Palmas a few thoughts have crossed my mind. One thought especially encircles my mind this evening while I’m doing the dishes. Just before leaving Sweden I had a meeting with my editor concerning an informative I am planning about myths in Sweden related to the “million program”. The concept refers to what in Sweden is known as the living areas where all the immigrants have been accommodated since the sixties-seventies. For those of us who grew up there, these areas represent something completely different than the medial image of them that is manifested to the world.  I’m going to tell you more in general about that shortly. Returning to my meeting, one of the things that struck me during our conversation was a comment made about the myth concerning the people who want to integrate. Just to point out, in the world of myths nothing is crystal clear seeing as amongst the myths we discussed, some are pure myths and some are reality as well. Nonetheless, the comment my editor made was that in modern “nature-made” cities, there are living areas dominated by one ethnical or cultural group (whichever you want to call it) which emerge and survive incessantly.  Chinatown, Little Italy etc etc in the States are a few examples of this my editor brought up, who also happens to be an architect that works for a foundation that researches architectural issues and the physical planning of our global world.

Las Palmas, where I find myself for the time being, is a city founded relatively not long ago as well, although older than the States. There I witness the same kind of phenomenon reappearing, principally in the Korean and Indian areas. I find that interesting because in Sweden, I have always felt that I partly miss the people who claim that segregation is not dangerous to them in that sense. The many investigations that have been performed in Sweden and other countries furthermore demonstrate precisely this; that there are areas dominated by an ethnical group, where that group progresses better on their own. As such, this kind of demography is by itself not a problem. An interesting investigation from last year in Sweden also addressing the issue, coincidentally demonstrated that a group of immigrants by themselves do not generate/perform better/more positive results, but a group of immigrants from the same background do. We have a few examples of this in Sweden with the Kurds in Dalarna and the Syrians in the south of Stockholm, but not too many of them. The Swedish mentality has always taking it for granted that integration and happiness are obtained by placing everyone in the same IKEA-box and letting them put the pieces together.

My opinion on this has always been very clear: it doesn’t matter where people live. Although the media easily fabricates powerful images of segregated living areas, it doesn’t necessarily imply that their impact is real. It’s not just a question of dividing areas in two parts  where on one side a majority of immigrants live, “and on the other side of the highway/river etc” a complete opposite relation presides.

What matters are two things: For one thing that people, wherever they may live, have equal access to information about their rights and the services that belong to them as citizens. For instance, a good public service should be equal everywhere. Also, the possibilities of getting an employment should not be dependent on whether you have the right zip code or not; a crucial factor in the quest for the infamous integration. I find it self-evident that one’s connection to the world is established at work through the relationships one might find there. It is therefore at work where it becomes so important that people blend and mix with each other, and not solely in the backyard of one’s home. Wherever you as a citizen then may be forced or choose to live is an entirely different matter to me, one of much less importance.

Despite what seems only logical to me, the issues I have brought do exist: living in an area with a mixed demography or a high percentage of immigrants might imply that your public service is of less quality. It might additionally imply that a lot of the residents are uninformed about the most basic things. But what is worse of all: your zip code might deprive you of many jobs and opportunities. This is a disaster and something we must work on solving as soon as possible. Forget the baby steps and go for the giant ones instead. We are after all in the 21st century already, vamos!

Why are chinese spaniards speaking spanish fluently exotic?

Two summers ago a friend of mine from Alcorcon, suburb of Madrid, whom I met on the Spanish southern beaches of Murcia where we used to spend the summer as kids, told me about a guy she met while she was out one night. Apparently, she came across a guy from her neighborhood that was “Chinese but born in Spain and more Spanish than anyone of us”. I listened to her and replied that I honestly did not understand the “strangeness” of the matter. We started discussing the topic – and why it was still so strange and somewhat exotic for her to meet a man with this background, while it was so obvious and natural for me who had grown up with this kind of multiplicity in Stockholm, ever since I was born there in 1983.

My reaction has a logical explanation though; great waves of immigrants started coming to Sweden a long time ago as “more immigrants arrived in a decade than throughout the entire history”. This phenomenon started occurring during the seventies and eighties, and continued to overflow during the nighties and the “zero zeros” as well. Almost all of my childhood friends are born in Sweden or came here when they were really young, and are therefore just as neutralized as me, the “Chinese man” in Murcia or the former Barca Bojan. 

During our conversation we also talked about the Swedish friends that I have brought along on other occasions to spend the summer in Murcia.  Many of them have apparently caused somewhat confusion amongst the locals. For instance: “Aren’t all Swedes supposed to be tall, blond, and blue-eyed?” This preconception always amuses me. At least “my Swedes” aren’t, especially not considering that they have Latin-American or Persian roots, and as such not too many blue eyes or height to extract from them. But this is only part of the truth. In reality, it is nowadays no longer possible to claim that Swedes have blond hair, blue eyes or considerable height. Let me give you an example; sometimes when I give public speeches in Sweden, I ask the audience to raise their hands if they have blue eyes or blond hair. Unsurprisingly, not too many do. This is because a few centuries ago the migration currents from Belgium and Holland left very few people with blond hair and blue eyes amongst those who “look Swedish”, irrespective of them having been born in Sweden to Swedish parents and ancestors or not. This re-defining process of identity has continued to develop slowly, but just imagine: if it is running slowly within the Swedish borders, how is it running outside of them?

Yet this is the current situation. Sweden has 9.5 million inhabitants, and almost a million and a half of them are immigrants. Around a million of us Swedes are the fruit and loins of these 1, 5 million immigrants, not counting those who like my parents have emigrated again. This is also an issue I will address more thoroughly later on - I am referring to those who after immigrating decide not stay after all.

  

One thing for sure is that something similar to what I just described is going to happen in Spain. Considering it has one of the smallest populations in Europe, more immigration is in order unless you want a population with a median age of 60 in no time at all. And this is where the topic with which I started gets serious: if you insist on treating the Spanish with darker skin or bigger eyes as strange or exotic, you are going to end up  creating a society that is neither up to date with reality nor necessity. Naturally, a short time-period of admiration or interest might perhaps be inevitable in this case, but my advice is to avoid differentiation as much and as soon as possible.

For example, it should be natural for me in the Sweden of today to consider myself and my friends as Swedish. However, many of us are still seen and treated as exotic and strange, and what is worse – a danger in the eyes of the majority. We are consequently and ridiculously excluded from employment, studies and from many of the plenty of services that the Swedish society supposedly offers. I mean, isn’t it ridiculous that I have friends whose children are considered a problem to solve already as preschoolers because they have a Kurdish or Spanish name? That they are regarded as the grandchildren of immigrants? Nobody wants that society but many insist on reproducing it. The best thing is to stop it at once!