Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
FINAL PAPER:
Migration and diversity:
how multiculturalism is lived and (re)defined in Argentina
Table of Contents
1.
Introduction......................................................................................................p. 3
2.
3.
4.
5.
Conclusions.....................................................................................................p. 14
6.
Bibliography....................................................................................................p. 17
1.
Introduction
In the last decades, cultural diversity has been receiving an increasing attention both at
the academic and the political level, and not only in Western countries but also in
regions such as Latin America. According to Banting & Kymlicka, many Western
democracies have abandoned earlier policies that discouraged ethno-cultural diversity
and have turned to a more accommodating approach, which was reflected by the
adoption, in their terms, of multicultural policies for immigrant groups, national
minorities and indigenous peoples (2006:1). In the Latin American context, which is
essentially different to the one analyzed by the authors, the attention has been put
mainly in the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples, that for centuries had been
either marginalized or assimilated to the main population.
In particular concerning my country of origin (Argentina), it can be noticed that a
growing scholarly discussion on the relation between multiculturalism and migration
has been taking place since the turn of the century. With regards to immigration, the
recent legal framework and the current political discourse have marked a rupture with
past visions based on national security and control in the sense of restriction, which
used to portray immigration as a problem or even a threat. In an innovative way if
compared to the contemporary context in developed countries, Argentina has started to
shift towards an approach that considers the state as responsible for all its residents and
guarantor of their human rights, while also broadens the notion of citizenship and
moves from an assimilationist to a cultural pluralism perspective in the formulation of
public policies (Domenech, 2007:2).
Yet, in the last few years some debates have been arising within the academia on the
actual effects that these changes may have had in the treatment of cultural diversity
resulting from immigration to the country. It has been affirmed by some authors that the
adoption of a cultural pluralism discourse has not implied a corresponding abandonment
of historical assimilationist assumptions (Courtis, 2010:5; Domenech, 2007:7;
Domenech and Magliano, 2008:424-5). Thus, some limitations can be found within the
2.
The development of this final paper is based principally on the review of literature on
the issue under examination, which was performed between late-April and May 2013.
In what concerns the conceptual frame for the subject of multiculturalism(s), and
specifically its interaction with that of immigration, I resourced to the literature we
worked with during our modules lectures. In particular, I consider necessary to bring
up: on the one hand, Luki Hacins To Think and Live Multiculturalisms in Various
Migration Contexts of European Union Member States (2007) and Multicultural
citizenship and multiethnic patriotism? (2009), while, on the other hand, Kymlickas
Multiculturalism: Success, Failure, and the Future (2012) and Banting and Kymlickas
Multiculturalism and the Welfare State: Recognition and redistribution in contemporary
democracies (2006). At the same time, additional literature was suggested to us, among
which I paid special attention to Parekhs Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural
Diversity and Political Theory (2000).
For the purpose of this paper, and among the various views on multiculturalism(s), I
position myself closer to the critical one, as I share with it the perception of differences
not as an aim but as a given fact, and of existing relations and subordination of
ethnically and culturally different as historically and culturally/socially conditioned
and mostly dependant on the division of power (Luki Hacin, 2009:154). Nevertheless,
this does not exclude that I might take into consideration some aspects that I consider
useful in the analysis done by authors that have extensively worked on multiculturalism
issues, though from a different stance.
At this point, I should specify what I understand by such a root concept as culture. In
line with Parekh (2000:2-3), it consists in the body of beliefs and practices in terms of
which a group of people understand themselves and the world and organize their
individual and collective lives. According to Luki Hacin, cultures are neither fixed
conditions nor absolute, but processes which change, come into contact with each
other, and overlap or diverge (2009:9). This way, cultural differences are to be
considered relative and as dynamic interactions.
bearers. Yet, in Domenechs analysis, although the model of society that lies beneath
this law is a multicultural and inclusive one, where the rights of newcomers are
respected while their cultural contribution is esteemed, this model is not exempt of
contradictions and ambiguities (2007:8-9).
Therefore, for this paper I will examine the text of the new migration law and other
relevant legislation in their reference either literal or through other terminology to
multiculturalism. Through secondary sources review and the examination of online
official documents and websites, I will also explore if any multicultural policies
addressed to the immigrant population have been set up, contrasting this to the current
official discourse in favour of multiculturalism and cultural pluralism. The research
undertaken by local scholars will also provide me an interesting material to analyze how
the country lives migration and diversity in daily life.
Among the academics who have extensively worked on the subject of multiculturalism
in the country, focusing especially on its link with migration, I should highlight:
Domenech (2003; 2005; 2007), who examines from a critic point of view contemporary
discourses on cultural diversity, while pointing out the maintenance of assimilationist
assumptions; and Bonilla (2008a; 2008b), who favours an intercultural perspective and
supports the notion of emerging intercultural citizenships as a basis for policy
development. From their part, Soria (2009) explored the current changes towards a
multi/intercultural perspective within policies and discourses, while Montesinos (2005)
analyzed the complexities of the relation between migrants and the Argentinean state
and society in the historical approach to socio-cultural diversity. Finally, more specific
works were developed by authors such as Courtis (2010) and Caggiano (2005), which I
nevertheless consider rich in their assumptions as well as in the conclusions they arrive
at. The former studied Argentina as a migratory context from an ethno-linguistic look,
and the latter contrasted the applicability of the idea of crisol de razas to the actual
situation of migrants from neighbour countries.
Finally, I should acknowledge that the scholarship production on the subject under
analysis is even richer than the above-mentioned, but I deem that taking into account the
whole of it would somehow exceed the possibilities of the present paper. The abovementioned scholars are all from the region and come from humanistic and social
disciplines such as sociology, political science, anthropology and educational sciences.
This choice was motivated basically by two factors: firstly, I tried to examine the
relation between multiculturalism and immigration in the country from (as much as
possible) a local context perspective; and secondly, while conducting a preliminary
literature review and contacting some researchers for guidance on the issue, I faced a
sort of snowball effect through which I came to discover the relevant amount and
quality of work that is being carried out.
3.
Since the beginning of the 90s, the Argentinean state policies and discourse anticipated
some cultural pluralism elements. In particular, the Constitutional Reform of 1994
established the recognition (and historical reparation) of the rights of indigenous
peoples. Within the educational sphere, the multicultural, multiethnic and multilingual
condition of the country was recognized in the Resolution 107/99 of the Ministry of
Education and later the 2006 Law of National Education, although the focus was put
only on the indigenous peoples with no further reference to the immigrant population 1.
For Domenech and Magliano, this implied in some way the recognition of those who
still were Argentinean nationals and the exclusion of foreigners, who, apart from putting
into question the idea of cultural unity, could potentially jeopardize the notion of
national unity (2008:438).
As previously mentioned, with the turn of the new century, the introduction in
Argentina of new norms and regulations based in a human rights perspective have
started to revert the past situation of stigmatization and lack of recognition that used to
affect part of the immigrant population (Pacecca and Courtis, 2008:8). Domenech and
Magliano explain that, historically, the discourses and policies of migrant exclusion and
inclusion were developed through two main perspectives: migrants either as a
contribution or as a problem or threat, drawing a line between those considered
desirable or admissible for entering and being part of the country and those who were
not
(2008:427).
In
Sorias
view,
the
current
use
of
concepts
such
as
For further details, please refer to the text of Law No. 26,206, especially its Chapter XI: Bilingual
Intercultural Education (pp. 11-12).
I am referring to the General Law of Migration and Fostering of Immigration (Law No. 22,439), also
known as Videla Law, which was established in 1981 during the last military government.
Besides, the authors suggest that the model of integration only includes a partial range
of practices, which are embedded in the cultural comprehension perspective, while
multicultural practices are limited to what is not deemed to put any element of the
Argentinean nation into risk (2008:435). This contradiction is expressed in the fact that
national identity is defined in exclusive terms: immigrants are obliged by the law to
respect the cultural identity of Argentineans (Art. 125).
This way, the measures do not go beyond the liberal approach on tolerance, cultural
comprehension and respect of diversity, being far from the critical multiculturalism one.
In the educational sphere, the teaching of only Spanish language to immigrants in
schools and foreign institutions (Art. 14) can lead us to infer that the integration strategy
is still rooted in a monocultural or assimilationist model. Furthermore, the requirement
of linguistic skills for accessing rights, which is expressed in rules that have not been
harmonized yet with the legislation in force, usually puts the non-Spanish speaking
immigrants in disadvantage3 (Courtis, 2010:11-2).
With the sanction of the Migration Law, the recurring idea of a new migratory
paradigm started to appear in political discourses. Soria observes that this law was
described as part of a new perspective on cooperation and solidarity, in line with an
international context characterized by globalization and regional integration processes,
which replaced that of conflict and control that had prevailed during the military
dictatorship and previous democratic periods (2009:120). The author smartly points out
that what is not mentioned in the discourse is that this perspective is sustained in a
naturalized and invisibilized hierarchical order between the us and the others. This
hierarchy is manifested in the unequal definition of who the others are, in which
categories they are to be placed, and under which parameters and criteria their
integration should take place (2009:125).
Nowadays, in Domenech and Maglianos view, the public discourse would be closer to
a pluralist multiculturalism, which allows the combination of cultural recognition
with assimilationist practices. They state that recent multicultural integration strategies
do not actually constitute an alternative to monocultural integration. Firstly, they resort
to an essentialist multiculturalism in which cultures are represented as static and
differences are portrayed as folkloric or exotic, not only by locals but also by
3
Nonetheless, the author points out that, for accessing rights, the situations where Spanish competences
are mandatory in practice while not in the norm are even more widespread.
10
4.
Among the three different forms of cultural diversity in modern society considered by
Parekh (subcultural, perspectival and communal), he defines a multicultural society as
one that includes two or more cultural communities (Parekh, 2000:3-4). In his
4
5
11
analysis, the society may either welcome and value its cultural diversity, making it
fundamental for its self-understanding, and respecting the cultural demands of its
communities; or seek to assimilate them into its mainstream culture. In both cases the
society is multicultural, but in the first case it is multiculturalist and in the second
monoculturalist in its orientation and ethos. [...] The term multicultural refers to the
fact of cultural diversity, the term multiculturalism to a normative response to the
fact. (Parekh, 2000:6) Following this line of thought, the Argentinean context can be
defined as one of factual multiculturalism, even if this condition can be acknowledged
in almost every contemporary society (Bonilla, 2008:773).
Montesinos points out that, within the socially and culturally diverse Argentinean
context, immigrants have played a key role since the beginnings of the nation-building
process, and especially in the formation of one particular (hegemonic) type of national
identity. This identity was materialized in the idea of the country as a crisol de razas
(equivalent in English to the melting pot6), which consisted in a mythical construction
aimed at the cohesion of groups with diverse origins, who had to blend together as a
requisite to be part of the nation7 (2005:46-7). This way, the inclusion of immigrants to
the Argentinean society was historically based in an assimilationist approach, which
tended to suppress their cultural identities.
Since the foundational period of the Argentinean nation, the state became, in Courtis
terms, an efficient machine to level differences: any ethnically labelled person, either
due to belonging to a defeated ethnicity (indigenous and African peoples) or to an
immigrant group, was pushed to leave his/her identity behind in order to be able to exert
full citizenship. Various mechanisms of cultural vigilance were activated, in which
the educational institutions, the public health system and the military service were key
for the homogenization project (2010:1).
Bonilla specifies that there are three modes in which diversity and pluralism have been
thought and addressed in contemporary nation-states: the mirror, the melting pot
and the mosaic. The three of them configure the modes of inclusion and exclusion
from citizenship and define who are accepted as political and social subjects, along with
The American melting pot model had a great influence in the first Argentinean political generations,
who elaborated the National Constitution of 1853/60, and later in the Generation of the 80s, who
promoted European immigration in the late 19 th century. (Bonilla, 2008b:31)
7
The translation of the citation is of my authorship.
12
those who are to remain subordinated and excluded, or against whom the state should
exert its sovereignty8 (Bonilla, 2008b:29-30).
Among the successive immigration flows to Argentina, the European one tended to be
favoured above other origins, which had a correlate in the perception of who deserved
to be considered as part of the crisol de razas. Therefore, this myth, instead of
representing the blend of all the possible origins, only considered as eligible the
contribution and integration of Europeans to the building of the nation (Soria,
2009:109-10). In Bonillas view, the metaphor has proved to be untruthful due to
discriminatory practices and to the recent presence of immigrant groups who exert their
social and political agency in unpredictable ways (2008a:774). Specifically, internal and
Latin American migrants, given the implicit association of their physical characteristics
to indigenous or Afro-American peoples within the collective imaginary, have not been
included in the crisol de razas metaphor (Bonilla, 2008b:30-1). Additionally,
Caggiano affirms that this selective openness also manifests in the way in which social
interactions are conceived and take place, and ties between excluded groups and
individuals are understood (2005:18).
In contrast to the former desired immigrants arrived in the late 19th century and the
early 20th one, foreigners in the last decades have come mainly from neighbour (Bolivia,
Paraguay and Peru) or Asiatic countries (Korea, China)9. During the 90s, along with the
general increase of unemployment and social fragmentation, the presence of these
immigrants was overstated not only by the official discourse but also in the media and
public opinion. They were put in the role of scapegoats and stigmatized as the other,
equated to invader, criminal, illegal, undocumented, usurpers of work,
among other labels (Montesinos, 2005:57).
Still nowadays, there persists a socially internalized and shared stratification which
places former European immigrants upper in an imaginary scale, in the middle of which
exotic Orientals are placed, while Latin Americans are mistreated and placed in the
lowest part10 (Montesinos, 2005:58-9). Through a process of othering11 that has
Idem.
A new migration trend that can be observed in the last years is the arrival of migrants and asylumseekers from African countries. I will refer to it in my upcoming paper for the module on African
perspectives (MM22-3).
10
I found an example of this socially internalized segregation in a case cited in one of the main
Argentinean newspapers: while visiting a school with a high proportion of immigrant students, a
9
13
5.
Conclusions
Through the review of the current scholarly production on the issue of diversity and
migration in my country of origin, while taking into account the conceptualizations on
multiculturalism and related terms elaborated by Parekh, it can be affirmed that, as in
the case of most contemporary societies, the Argentinean one can be considered
multicultural from a factual point of view. Conversely, the matter of the extent to which
it can be deemed multiculturalist instead of monoculturalist is still arguable and can
open the space for different levels of analysis. In my view, and as I came to notice
during the elaboration of the present paper, the examination of the political and
institutional spheres should not be separated to the one of the social processes that the
country has been experiencing in the last decades, nor if we look at its history since the
period of the nation-state foundation.
The past and the present of Argentina are closely intertwined and marked by the mix of
different nationalities and cultures, whose composition kept changing throughout the
decades. As previously mentioned, the cultural reality of the second half of the 20th
century differs in various aspects from that of the late 19th century. In those days, there
was a determined political project for building the Argentinean nation, which
encouraged European immigration while excluded other groups of the population, such
as the indigenous peoples. During the second half of the last century, in parallel with the
decrease of European immigration, that of Latin American origin increased its
philosopher and civil servant noticed that pupils spontaneously distributed their seats rows in the
classroom according to their condition of either blond or dark-skinned, which are the local terms for
designing white and non-white (De Masi, 2011).
11
For referring to othering I take the conceptualization elaborated by Holliday et al. (2010:23-7).
12
The translation of the citation is of my authorship.
14
15
in a model that addresses social, political and cultural inequalities, instead of merely
accepting the existing order as unquestionable. Working towards such a model would
imply actions such as: the thorough search of gaps in legislation, the opening to debate
of those norms and practices where inequalities are (re)produced, and the proposal of
paths for harmonization (Courtis, 2010:17).
Recalling what Soria maintains, a strategy for legitimization that replaces the one of
visibilization would allow us to approach multiculturality as a field of dispute, which
means a space to be constructed where other forms of existence can find their own
possibility of being14 (2009:132). This would make possible what Bonilla calls, from
her intercultural philosophy perspective that can be considered closer to the critical
multiculturalism one, a polylogue among cultures (2008b:37). Here, immigrants
would be able to become interpreters of themselves (the others), as well as of the
us, not being just objects of the discourse anymore but fully dialoguing subjects. An
approach like the above-suggested would be more in line with and embrace the vision
according to which, in the end, people are the same only in the way that they differ
from each other. (Luki Hacins, 2007:167)
14
16
6.
Bibliography
Banting, Keith and Kymlicka, Will, eds. (2006). Multiculturalism and the Welfare
State: Recognition and redistribution in contemporary democracies. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, pp. 1-92.
Courtis, Corina and Pacecca, Mara Ins (2007). Migracin y derechos humanos: una
aproximacin crtica al nuevo paradigma para el tratamiento de la cuestin migratoria
17
De Masi, Victoria, 2011. Aulas multiculturales: Cada vez hay ms hijos de inmigrantes
en
las
escuelas.
Clarn.
[online]
12
September.
Available
at:
18
Held, David (2004). El estado de la democracia en Amrica Latina. In: United Nations
Development Programme. La democracia en Amrica Latina: hacia una democracia de
ciudadanas y ciudadanos. 2nd edition. Buenos Aires: Aguilar, Altea, Taurus, Alfaguara,
pp. 127-129.
Holliday,
Adrian,
Hyde,
Martin
and
Kullman,
nd
John
(2010).
Intercultural
Routledge.
Ley de Educacin Nacional 2006 (Law No. 26,206). Buenos Aires: Honourable
Congress of the Nation.
Ley de Migraciones 2003 (Law No. 25,871). Buenos Aires: Honourable Congress of the
Nation.
Luki Hacin, Marina (2007). To Think and Live Multiculturalisms in Various
Migration Contexts of European Union Member States. In: Drnovek, Marjan, ed.
Historical and Cultural Perspectives on Slovenian Migration. Ljubljana: Zaloba ZRC,
pp. 137-172.
Luki Hacin, Marina (2009). Multicultural citizenship and multiethnic patriotism? In:
Gaber, Slavko, ed. Za manj negotovosti: aktivno drzavljanstvo, zdrav ivljenjski slog,
varovanje okolja. Ljubljana: Pedagoka fakulteta.
Meer, Nasar and Modood, Tariq (2012). How does Interculturalism Contrast with
Multiculturalism? Journal of Intercultural Studies Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 175-196. London:
Routledge.
19
Resolution No. 107/1999: Federal Council of Culture and Education. Buenos Aires:
Ministry of Education.
20