Integration and tolerance: Difference between revisions

When speaking about European identity, one really important question arises. How should it be defined? The first soliciting definition is geographical. But European Union contradicts this by incorporating some countries and rejecting others. These proceedings suggest that the concept of modern Europe is not supposed to be based on geographical aspect. It has been tried to characterize Europe on the grounds of Christian roots. Nowadays it is just an example of wishful thinking. Despite the role of Christianity in the history of Europe was significant, now there are many religions in this area and the count of atheists and seculars is also rising. The language criterion does not come in question either because of many different languages in use. Quite an universal characteristic gives us “Charter of European Identity”, which Zemni cites in his essay: “Europe is above all a community of values. The aim of European unification is to realize, test, develop and safeguard these values. They are rooted in common legal principles acknowledging the freedom of the individual and social responsibility. Fundamental European values are based on tolerance, and fraternity. Building on its historical roots in classical antiquity and Christianity, Europe further developed these values during the course of the Renaissance, the Humanist movement, and the Enlightenment, which led in turn to the development of democracy, the recognition of fundamental and human rights, and the rule of law.” Zemni comments on the mentioned ideals rather sceptically: “This normative definition of the European identity is used to mask the uttermost economic logic behind the Union and its extension. After the breakdown of communism, it was the economically interesting countries (e.g. Hungary, Poland, Slovenia) that were eligible for inclusion in the Union.” The description of the ideals in the Charter might be supposed to mask something, but there is no reason why it should not work, if honestly practised.  

What is also important is to apply the universal concept on a concrete situation. “It is nearly impossible to say anything on 'Islam in Europe' without taking into account the structural context of the debate. (...) Simultaneously, this context is, in a period of globalisation, breaking out of the geographical boundaries of the European Union. With the advent of Islamist movements in the Arab world and the synchronicity of Muslim demands in Europe, several observers have concluded that we are witnessing a worldwide 'resurgence of Islam'.” (Zemni 1-2) Europeans should understand that an Islamist does not equal an extremist. The problem is that mainly the loudest and most extreme voices are being heard, but these are only a few percent of the whole and they are by no means typical representatives. Therefore the loudest voice is usually not the one that should be listened to. In a similar manner, if you say that Christians burn the Harry Potter books, it is not true. It was only one preacher on the other side of the world. The problem is that almost everyone knows about that and those who do not think it through carefully could easily generalize and make a snap judgement about all the confessors. Some cherish a paranoid scheme that if an extremist leader commanded, the European Muslims would come out of their homes ready to fulfil his orders. When you think it over it is a nonsense. “It is misleading to see these (Muslim) communities as unified, single and homogenous entities that are trying to secure their rightful place within a seemingly monolithic European Union. (...) In overemphasizing communities, and in our case Muslim communities, the danger subsides that some sort of 'communitarian cage' is built in which all Muslims have to fit. The thousand and one ways to be a Muslim can clearly be integrated in the framework of a pluralistic multicultural project as long as the communication between persons and within communities and institutions is based on mutual understanding that bypasses feelings of superiority.” (Zemni 13).

Another subject to be mentioned is the conflict in France considering Muslim girls wearing a scarf on their heads at schools. Realizing there has been said a lot about this issue, let me try to be brief. Despite our not knowing the local mood and situation, the core question might be whether they demand wearing it because of some respect to their traditions and endorsing to it or to separate themselves from the rest. While the first mentioned does not seem so wrong, the second actually contradicts the endeavours to integrate. Nevertheless, it seems undesirable to wear a veil that covers a face in contact with a non-Muslim. However it may appear a violating personal liberty, hiding one's face would be violating the right for a decent communication of the other.

So what is to be done, so that Europeans would be more disposed to accept individuals from a totally different social background? To learn more about the regularities and values of this background might be a step in the right direction. Most of people would not be able to tolerate anything without knowing it properly. Of course that a commoner has neither time, nor sources to study the immigrants' way of life after coming home from work. There should be some kind of discussions and meetings with Islamists so that people could learn about their attitudes and ask a real person about something they are interested in. Also some programmes on TV or radio exploring another cultures would be helpful. The problem of intolerance is not a one shot event, neither is it caused only by one factor. It is a complex issue without a swift solution. European identity in fact does not consist of something that can be stolen or destroyed, so there is no need to use it as an excuse for breaking the laws established by ourselves. One of the crucial things is to realize, that in a democracy the same rights and commitments are intended for everyone, otherwise it is not a democracy. The Europeans should admit their xenophobia and try to do something about it and internalise immigrants whenever circumstances allow it. In this case a hint of idealism and altruism cannot do any harm. On the other hand, all the immigrants should try to assimilate as much as possible without exploiting their own identity and beliefs. If a high degree of equality is achieved, there is no need to blame cultural or racial differences for our own problems.