Matthias NienkämperEuropean Policy and Practice towards Ethnic Minorities

AQCI No. 2Professor: Laura Laubeova

PLEASE DO NOT PUBLISH ONLINE!!!

Anthony Birch’s “Nationalism and National Integration”

1.) CENTRAL QUOTATION: “What is involved is the replacement of a large number of folk cultures by a much smaller number of high cultures, embracing a larger population...area…this process can be admired or regretted…the change of emphasis in recent thinking makes it appropriate…to break down the concept of integration into smaller categories. Irrespective of personal values, it was clearly to simple to equate integration with assimilation, just like that.”[1]

2.) ARGUEMNT: Birch labels national integration as a process common to virtually all national states, as few are culturally homogeneous. He then lists four theoretical and historical arguments for this process, summarizing each concept which would always lead to some form of assimilation. Perhaps pointing out the main idea, many of measures portrayed were seen as “the only secure basis of political authority”. These arguments would have great validity up until the 1960’s. Birch then continues by pointing out the means of nation building which he divides into two categories, namely direct initiatives, and reactive measures. Furthermore Birch keeps on giving examples pro/contra of what he is discussing, such as in large countries with integrated communities, poorer regions benefit from fair fiscal redistribution, etc. However, he also points out that in this view (the extreme possibly being J.S. Mill), “there is no consideration of what might be regarded as collective interest of the minority, to preserve a distinctive culture and way of life”. Finally he gives the possible results of contra integration or resentment of such, by pointing out the conflicts in Northern Ireland or the Basque and Breton nationalist.

3.) QUESTION: From reading Birch’s text, and having been given many examples for and against integration, I would like to know which concrete measures are deemed to be most effective to sensitively and successfully integrate different peoples of different ethnic/cultural/religious backgrounds in many of the larger European countries, such as Germany or France. For I find the text very valuable to read, however lacking valid tools to implement such a process.

4.) EXPERIENTIAL CONNECTION: I find myself trapped between two extremes perhaps. Possibly being labeled on the far right now/or extreme conservative, I do find some value in the argument for example, that “national integration is the only secure basis of political authority”. Surely I find it valuable that parts of a culture are preserved, however (in the case of my native country Germany) I also find it important that immigrants of different cultures get accustomed to the main values of my country and obey the so called “rules” by which we live. We cannot accept (as was the case some months ago) that some minorities still practice the custom of “honor killings” in our society, surely we weren’t any better some hundred years ago with prosecuting so called witches, but then again that was in the past. Having lived in many different countries, all I know is, that if I was to disobey the laws (for instance in Egypt), I would be sitting on the next plane home, or in prison where I wouldn’t get out. Therefore I find that a certain level of respect has to be paid for the host countries culture.

5.) TEXTUAL CONNECTION: “The active involvement and participation of immigrants in civil life and particularly in sports and other clubs is an important step in adapting. Promoting a generally positive attitude in the public towards immigrants requires strong political leadership in order to avoid resentment and the rise of racism.”[2] I just find that this quote confirms my earlier arguments that integration is a process which has to be heavily encouraged by both the public and politics. If we are not actively promoting the process, we will find ourselves/our countries divided in many sub levels. Such a scenario for instance can be found often in Germany, where some immigrant families have been living for decades in the country, however, parts of the family not being able to speak the language or leaving their immediate neighbourhood, which in return hinders the process of successfully integrating these people into our nation.

6.) IMPLICATIONS: I think the main implications of Birch’s argument are, to possibly find the right mix between an encouraged national integration with aspects of social pluralism. Actively involving minorities in projects where integration takes place, observing if these measures bear fruits, but also allowing these peoples their own distinctive culture and way of life, however, always in accordance to the perhaps traditional culture of a given country.

[1] Birch, Anthony (1989) Nationalism and National Integration, London: Unwin Hyman Ltd, Chapter 4: National integration, pp. 36-51, Quote from pg. 49

[2] Web source: