Search results

Samuel Huntington’s vision in the early 1990s of a “clash of civilizations” struck a chord to such an extent that his core theme was reignited after the attacks of September 11th. International migration seems to be viewed as an issue that signifies this so-called clash (Bade & Bommes, 1996). Migration, culture, ethnicity and conflict have become linked. The result is that conflicts arising from migration are more likely to be seen as an outcome of the multiplication of different cultures within one country. Germany, the U.K., the Netherlands and Switzerland have all been described as multicultural societies and advised to pay attention to this “fact.” This has been combined with the view that even if there was no road to multiculturalism without social conflicts, there was also no viable alternative to tolerance as a device for the interaction of cultures (Leggewie, 1990).

“Multiculturalism” is a troubled concept, in a political as well as in a scholarly sense. What has triggered this paper is the authors’ experience of the hardships involved in understanding the power structures embedded in societies termed “multicultural”; we find ourselves equipped with a set of conceptual tools that are confusing, and with policy makers that compound that confusion. This presentation takes as its point of departure the tension engendered at the interface between popular democracy ground rules and minority rights, and turns in its second part to current political vocabulary in Norway. Thematically, the discussion moves from the intricacies of “cultural rights” to a closer look at the bias implicit in the benevolent phrase “fair terms of integration.” The suggestion is that hidden underneath the niceties, we find the unavoidable and seemingly unspeakable dilemmas of a welfare state confronted with non-economic, humanitarian principles. Let us be clear about one thing, however; the aim of this presentation is not to solve problems, but to face them.

Despite its somewhat old-fashioned, functionalist air, “integration” is still the most popular way of conceptualizing the developing relationship between old European nation-states and their growing non-European, “ethnic” immigrant populations. It is also widely used to frame the advocacy of political means for dealing with the consequences of immigration in the post-World War II period. Many similar, difficult-to-define concepts can be used to describe the process of social change that occurs when immigrants are “integrated” into their new host society. But none occurs with the frequency or all-encompassing scope of the idea of integration across such a broad range of West European countries. This fact continues to decisively structure policy research and policy debate on these subjects in Europe.

The structuration model linking macro‐ and micro‐level societal structures and individual actions in a reciprocal causality is applied to the analysis of the relationship between immigrants' transnational entrepreneurship and their assimilation to the host society. Depending on immigrants' economic and sociocultural resources and their location in the economic and political structures of the host city/country where they reside and the home‐country/region they originate from, their transnational business engagements may combine with assimilation and ethnic entrepreneurship may not lead to integration into the host society. This argument is empirically illustrated by comparing three kinds of entrepreneurship and the (trans)national/ethnic commitments they generate. These three types are represented by New York Chinese global traders, Jamaican ethnic entrepreneurs, and Dominican small‐scale investors in home‐country businesses. Although these entrepreneurial activities do not exhaust the types of business pursued by these immigrants (there are also in New York local Chinese and Dominican entrepreneurs, and Jamaicans involved in business in their home‐country), they have been recognized and investigated in each group.