Integration In Society

As members of modern societies, cosmopolitan societies, integration is a much-discussed idea.  Throughout history there have been multicultural societies, with varying levels of durability and success in absorbing "outsiders", that is, the ones who have to be integrated.  From one perspective, integration is something that is dictated and bestowed by the absorbing community.  It is the newcomers who have to adapt and learn new ways, and the "natives" who decide who has become enough like them to be considered one of them.  From another point of view, however, it is the newcomers themselves who decide when they are integrated.  When they feel accepted by their neighbors, when they know they have the same rights and privileges, when they are not second class citizens based exclusively on their geographic origin, then they can say they have (been) integrated.

The word integration by itself refers to forming a substance of unseparated particles, so we were told.  Each part forms a bit of the whole, an entire piece, rather than a collection of components or ingredients.  This points to the idea that for integration to be successful, there has to be a common feeling, a shared identity among the people making up the community.  For this identity to exist, the common and non-negotiable values have to be made plain and public.  With the variety of cultures that exist around the world, it should not be hard to see that very little in the way of values or morals is objectively correct, so it is up to the admitting society to make sure that its values are clear to those who would join it.

On one hand, the resident Doctor reminded us that a healthy body does not willingly accept foreign particles that are not of the most benign nature, a phenomenon mimicked in societies; outsiders are accepted with little difficulty only if they are "necessary".  Our Bold Leader, however, remarked that there is no such thing as a closed society in the context we were discussing.  There are two competing needs for the continuation of a society: stability and innovation, which is best achieved with "new blood".  Another thing to consider, per our Tireless Organizer, is the money held and produced by a newcomer in a society.  Those with money will not put an undue burden on their hosts, and therefore will be more easily accepted.  There is also the question of socioeconomic values, since the wealthy in different societies may well have more shared values than people in the same society but at different economic levels.  Later, it was mentioned that even the rich are not completely accepted, but only tolerated, just barely, although this could be a matter of envy rather than culture clash.

The True Philosopher among us brought up the fact that some groups can exist within a society without ever truly becoming part of it, giving us the example of the Amish.  It is true that there are some "foreign bodies" floating around within some societies, but this probably goes back to the issue of necessity.  To continue with the Amish example, they do not provide much competition to the surrounding communities in terms of work or wealth creation.  They produce some specialized items and otherwise keep to themselves without any egregious rule-breaking that can be seen from society at large.

One thing was never quite put to rest to my liking was the question of partial integration, or a warping of the values that are supposed to be shared among old and new members of society.  For example, there are women in European societies that choose to wear a burka.  For most of us, the burka represents a repressive and misogynist society, and we imagine that no woman would freely choose to identify herself with it.  However, some women do this, because their religion is an important part of their identity, and one of the values of Western societies is freedom of choice and, to some extent, freedom of religion.  They are exercising the values imparted by their society.  But, the mainstream of that society sees more threat in their expression of identity than they do.  As our Leader said, in many cases practicality has to be the stick by which we measure.  In quite a number of situations it is simply not the best choice to cover oneself with a sheet.  There are many populations in many countries now that face this seeming dilemma of identity, having parents from one place but growing up in another.  Some try to insert themselves completely in the host culture, others try to maintain as much of their roots as they can, and some try to work out some kind of balance.  This goes back to the beginning though, with the question of how much variation among its members a society can stand.

That comment leads to another thought, which is: what about the integration of the native born?  No child comes programmed to fit in exactly with any society, rather with the tools to learn the values and behaviors that are expected.  There are always "weirdos", "freaks", individuals that never quite fit into their own community, whether because of the clash of values (hate gays vs. who cares?) or because of personal issues (emotional problems, social prejudices, personal grudges between families, etc.).  The answer probably lies in the realm of necessity again, necessity for variation to avoid social stagnation versus the need for group identification to protect and preserve the group.  The amount of difference allowed depends on the security each member feels in society, so that the differences do not create distrust and rejection.

The last comment of the evening was an interesting one.  The participant had been a member of the armed forces of his country, and his observation was that integration of foreigners, members of different social strata and religions was extremely rapid in a military context.  His reasoning was that each soldier depended on the others for safety, and that dependence overrode any distrust that might have stemmed from the other differences.  He also presented us with an anecdote picked up in England.  At a pub he met a woman - the wife of the owner - who had a different accent than the other people in town.  He asked her about it, and she replied that she was from Wales, but had lived in that town for more than 20 years.  Then she said she still didn't feel accepted after all that time, which was an amazing thing to the man telling the story.  His conclusion, then, was that civilian integration was a more superficial thing, since there was no real threat to life and limb by not building a sense of trust in your neighbors.

The issue remains open, really.  This is a world of movement and constant change.  How much responsibility does each individual have to blend into the background?  How much oddity can a community stand?  How much of a right is it to be yourself?  Unanswered questions...