Strengthening Social Cohesion

Abstract

The increasing diversity of the Dutch population is making conviviality more complicated. Not only in the big cities and their suburbs, but also in medium-sized cities, expat and horticultural municipalities (see Chap. 3). Moreover, modern migrants do not stay in the Netherlands as long as they used to; half have left again after 5 years. This places considerable demands upon schools, for example, which have to deal with pupils arriving and leaving throughout the course of the year. For voluntary associations, too, a high turnover of members is not conducive to cohesion. And the same applies to neighbourhoods where much of the population is just ‘passing through’.

The increasing diversity of the Dutch population is making conviviality more complicated. Not only in the big cities and their suburbs, but also in medium-sized cities, expat and horticultural municipalities (see Chap. 3). Moreover, modern migrants do not stay in the Netherlands as long as they used to; half have left again after 5 years. This places considerable demands upon schools, for example, which have to deal with pupils arriving and leaving throughout the course of the year. For voluntary associations, too, a high turnover of members is not conducive to cohesion. And the same applies to neighbourhoods where much of the population is just ‘passing through’.

6.1 Diversity and Transience Put Social Cohesion Under Pressure

Whether a lack of social cohesion is regarded a problem is, ultimately, a political consideration. Whilst certainly important, it is not the only thing that counts in life. Many people regard personal freedom and self-fulfilment as equally valuable, and not everyone needs close contacts with their neighbours. After all, an absence of social obligations can also be liberating. Ever since Max Weber and Georg Simmel, social scientists have pointed out that urban environments offer their residents greater scope to shape their own identity and individuality. In a certain sense, therefore, a relatively low level of social cohesion and security are the price the inhabitants of a city pay for the freedom and privacy it also offers. These observations call for a certain degree of caution in the policy arena. Moreover, the ways in which people coexist are not set in stone. Social cohesion evolves and takes on different forms over time.

Nevertheless, a great many people view lack of cohesion as one of the most serious issues in Dutch society today. Four times a year the Netherlands Institute for Social Research (Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau, SCP) polls public perceptions of the main problems facing the country. Figure 3.1 (in Chap. 3) shows that the subjects ‘immigration and integration’ and ‘conviviality’ have long been high on this national list, and in recent years have consistently topped it – beating even concerns about incomes and the economy. According to the SCP, approximately 40% of adults agree with the statement that the Netherlands would be more pleasant as a country if it had fewer migrants¹ and more than half believe that the nation is in danger of losing too much of its distinctive identity because of immigration and open borders.² Furthermore, almost half (45%) of respondents without a migrant background have concerns about increased diversity.³

If these widely held apprehensions are not taken seriously, they have the potential to fuel social discontent and reinforce political polarization. When not everyone feels sufficiently heard and represented, their dissatisfaction can lead them to drop out of the mainstream political process and reject democracy.⁴ In this chapter, therefore, we discuss what the government could do to strengthen the cohesion of a society in which both diversity and transience are on the increase.

6.1.1 Issues Around Social Cohesion

In the Netherlands, the topic of social cohesion encompasses a whole gamut of more specific issues. Traditionally, particular attention has been paid to those arising out of the deficient social integration of certain groups with a migrant background. This is a compositional effect. Some groups have been a source of concern because they display relatively high rates of antisocial behaviour. One example is young men of Moroccan origin, who are overrepresented in the crime statistics.⁵ The causes of this lie in both their upbringing and their living environment, and tackling the problem requires constant, targeted action on the part of local authorities. This is the classic ‘integration agenda’ aspect of social cohesion, about which much has already been written, not least by the WRR, and we have little to add about it in this study.⁶

Instead, we home in on another issue: the social unease caused by the increasing diversity of the population as a whole. A result of different groups living side by side, this can be observed across all groups. This is a diversity effect and involves what the American political scientist Robert Putnam has called ‘hunkering down’. As diversity and transience increase in a neighbourhood, so too do social diffidence and mutual incomprehension, leading residents to retreat more and more behind their own front doors. This is a ‘diversity agenda’ aspect of social cohesion.

That agenda is linked directly with contemporary migration patterns. Moreover, it is relatively new and unexplored. Local authorities these days are asking themselves how they can facilitate conviviality between different groups and in so doing create a new sense of community. It should be noted that these two issues, deficient integration and social unease, are increasingly coinciding so that many neighbourhoods now face general diversity effects on top of long-standing problems associated with specific groups. Some of the measures we propose are therefore derived from research into the traditional integration agenda or may be relevant to it.

In compiling our proposals, we have looked at findings from Dutch and international literature and considered whether there are lessons to be learnt from other countries. We do this at three different levels.

• 1. Local authorities: neighbourhoods and districts.

• 2. Social institutions: schools and voluntary associations.

• 3. Central government: national rules and unifying stories.

In 6.2 we discuss the neighbourhood as a place where social ties are forged, in particular considering its physical configuration and social infrastructure, in which public spaces serve as meeting places. In 6.3 we examine how diversity has impacted two important types of social institution: schools and voluntary associations. And in 6.4 we discuss whether cohesion also needs to be strengthened at the national level, and how this could be done. Finally, 6.5 outlines our main conclusions.

6.2 Strengthening Neighbourhood Social Cohesion

What can local authorities do to maintain, and perhaps even strengthen, social cohesion in neighbourhoods in the face of increasing diversity and transience? Below we discuss some possible policy directions, based upon experiences in our own country and abroad. In so doing, we distinguish four broad categories of mechanism at work here.⁷ The first is social-interaction mechanisms aimed at strengthening contacts between members of different population groups – a policy approach tried and tested in the United Kingdom and Canada in recent decades. Secondly, environmental mechanisms focus upon the configuration of public space. We discuss how projects in this domain have enhanced so-called ‘public familiarity’ in the Netherlands and Germany. Our third category is institutional mechanisms: how local institutions such as libraries, housing corporations and community-building organizations can contribute towards greater cohesion. Finally, we look at cultural mechanisms, paying attention to the importance of local identities for social cohesion.

6.2.1 Strengthening Social Interaction: Experiences from the United Kingdom and Canada

The Netherlands is not the only Western country struggling to manage increased diversity. For its 2018 exploratory study The World in a City (De wereld in één stad), the WRR collected lessons from research into the experiences of various European cities in dealing with this phenomenon. Their social problems are sometimes of a different order, and the administrative scale also varies, but it is clear nonetheless that cities across the continent face much the same problems and that there are no simple solutions. Everywhere there is a pattern of trial and error, and everywhere we see attempts to promote social contact between residents through small-scale local initiatives. The Netherlands is no exception in this respect. Such initiatives seem to be most successful when they are rooted in common goals or interests. It is worth noting, though, that there has been little in the way of reliable evaluation research into them.⁸ Almost everywhere, at home and abroad, good impact studies and policy evaluations are lacking. This makes it very difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff.

For this report we have looked mainly at cohesion policy in the United Kingdom. After riots between various migrant groups in a number of cities in 2001, the British government set up a Community Cohesion Review Team (CCRT) to talk with local residents, policymakers and other leaders and to collect good practices. The resulting report centred on the key concept of ‘community cohesion’ as an alternative to the multiculturalism model, which was revealed as having led to groups with different cultural backgrounds leading separate, parallel lives.⁹

The CCRT report prompted the development of community cohesion programmes, which sought to encourage interaction and mutual understanding between groups with different origins. The term ‘intercultural interaction’ soon came to be used by some advocates of the new cohesion-based policy.¹⁰ Following the report’s publication, community cohesion became an important aim of British national and, especially, local policy.¹¹ This approach is based largely upon Gordon Allport’s contact theory,¹² which states that, subject to certain conditions, direct contact and interaction between people with different backgrounds and lifestyles can increase tolerance and reduce prejudice.¹³ Through a whole raft of initiatives, policy in the UK¹⁴ over the past two decades has therefore sought to improve relations between groups.¹⁵ But what has it delivered? From the few, often unsystematic evaluations available, three things emerge.

First, facilitating intercultural contacts at local level appears to have had some favourable effect in increasing mutual understanding and weakening stereotypes. At the same time, it has proven difficult to find common solutions to shared problems and many groups have shown little interest in co-operating further. Whilst a local intercultural approach can have some positive impact, then, expectations should not be set too high.

Secondly, it seems that a national discourse stigmatizing and excluding certain minorities – such as Muslims or central and eastern Europeans in the case of the UK – undermines an effective local approach. That discourse has exacerbated tensions between groups at the local level and so impeded intercultural interaction. For a pragmatic local approach to be effective, it helps if central government encourages a discourse on ‘national identity’ that is open and inclusive.

Thirdly, the research suggests that the promotion of contacts at the local level should go hand in hand with action to tackle deep-rooted inequalities, such as economic disparity and discrimination. A pragmatic approach aimed at forging contacts ‘on the ground’ is not a panacea but must be part of a broader policy. Isolated initiatives with no overarching plan are of little avail. This finding is echoed in research into the social integration of minorities in Canada,¹⁶ which also revealed that they experience wide-ranging discrimination. Moreover, it was found that the social integration¹⁷ of immigrants with a non-European background is slower than for those with a European background.¹⁸

According to the researchers, one major shortcoming of the Canadian policy is that although many broad goals and ideals have been formulated, such as ‘equal opportunities’, few firm and explicit targets have been set. Also, Canada’s policy of multiculturalism has been insufficiently evaluated. In this respect it resembles British cohesion policy: there are plenty of noble objectives, but these have not been built upon in a concrete and consistent manner. Nor has the policy’s impact been assessed.¹⁹

These findings underline the importance of an integrated cohesion policy which seeks not only to improve intercultural relations but also to address discrimination and economic disparities and to provide a policy idiom that works for all migrant groups, not just some of them.²⁰ It also shows that far more attention needs to be paid to systematic evaluation based upon clearly defined objectives.

6.2.2 Promoting Public Familiarity in the Neighbourhood

Social interaction between neighbours is in part a product of the way their shared living environment is configured. Intuitively, we often think that it is necessary to forge close ties between them in order to achieve social cohesion. The academic literature, however, indicates that interactions at this level are in fact so-called ‘weak relationships’, and that this also has advantages. Not everyone has a need to maintain intensive contacts with the people living around them.²¹ Moreover, encouraging strong feelings of belonging can lead to some residents appropriating public space. For others, though, that can undermine their sense of familiarity and safety, intensify conflicts and even cause some to withdraw from that space.²² Communities that are too tight-knit can exclude ‘outsiders’, even if they are neighbours.²³ Bonding – forging close contacts between people from the same social group – may thus form an obstacle to bridging, building contacts between different groups.

Sociologists like Talja Blokland and Jan Willem Duyvendak have therefore argued that governments should focus upon promoting what they call ‘public familiarity’. By this they mean that residents of a neighbourhood recognize each other in public space, even if they have no personal contact.²⁴ This concept assumes that people who cross paths on a regular basis develop a form of ‘passing acquaintance’, even though they are otherwise complete strangers who have nothing to do with each other.²⁵

Public familiarity enhances the experience of social safety. It provides people with a framework to ‘place’ themselves and others in a social context,²⁶ which in turn makes it easier for them to call each other to account – in the event of disruptive behaviour, for instance.²⁷ People also feel more at home in a neighbourhood when they have a reasonable idea of the social codes and unwritten rules applicable in its public domain.²⁸ Finally, public familiarity is a precondition for the emergence of mixed social networks: stable, diverse neighbourhoods with a certain degree of public familiarity provide a good basis for people to connect in a positive manner.²⁹

Local authorities can promote public familiarity in various ways. In the first place, through the configuration of the physical environment.³⁰ Safe, clean public space is essential for successful public familiarity and for social cohesion in general. In many deprived neighbourhoods, litter and derelict buildings are a major source of irritation.³¹ People are more likely to engage in antisocial public behaviour if they see others already doing so by, for example, littering.³² As certain physical signs of neglect, such as broken windows or graffiti, become more common, so do behavioural transgressions like fly-tipping and petty theft.³³ Visible signs of decay thus lead to a weakening of social norms, which in turn spreads delinquency. This makes it important that the authorities intervene early when deterioration occurs.

Box 6.1: Rotterdam: People Make the City

People Make the City (‘Mensen Maken de Stad’, MMS) is a municipal project to improve the sense of community on residential streets in Rotterdam. It backs grassroots initiatives in streets where residents have little contact with each other. MMS has adopted an assertive approach, in the belief that people want a safe, clean and pleasant living environment but often have no idea how to go about creating it. Social professionals go door-to-door to ask about the street’s particular problems and find out who might be willing to help solve them. Then, together with a group of active residents, they draw up a so-called ‘street agenda’ and work with council services and housing corporations to agree a set of rules for its implementation. All concerned commit themselves to goals such as organizing an event or renovating a playground. The agenda is officially adopted when at least a third of households in the street sign up to it. Once implementation begins, the professionals increasingly step back and let the residents take charge.

Justus Uitermark and Jan Willem Duyvendak have studied the impact of MMS in 40 Rotterdam streets³⁴ and found that it succeeds in overcoming residents’ reluctance to take responsibility for the living environment beyond their own front doors, increases their mutual trust and reduces feelings of insecurity. Neighbours become more likely to speak to each other and to engage with the community. Trust in professionals and organizations also increases. And in streets where the active resident ‘teams’ are very mixed, there is less thinking in terms of groups and more recognition of people as individuals.

Once the basic condition of a safe and clean environment is met, the local authority can promote public familiarity by encouraging people to meet regularly in the public space. Recognition from earlier encounters, however superficial, can contribute towards feeling at home, safe and connected. If its configuration invites people to linger in public space, there is a greater chance that residents will meet each other. Well laid-out and maintained parks, public gardens and playgrounds play an important role in this respect.³⁵

An ethnographic study of parks close to highly diverse urban neighbourhoods in the UK shows that they provide the setting for contacts between a wide variety of groups, and that people thus become accustomed to each other there.³⁶ The encounters might only be perfunctory, in playgrounds, at picnic sites and on walks, but it can also be more intensive. For example, at boot camps, on playing fields and at festivals. Pleasingly designed and recognizable parks also contribute directly to feelings of being at home because residents develop a bond with them.

Dutch research reiterates the importance of the informal appropriation of open spaces, playgrounds and public gardens.³⁷ When residents gain a sense of co-ownership of their immediate living environment, informal social control increases, as do feelings of belonging and connection with the neighbourhood. This sense of ownership can be stimulated by, for example, allowing residents to participate in the maintenance of green space. Previous interventions have demonstrated that community gardens attract a broad range of residents, both with and without a migrant background.³⁸ In neighbourhoods with a high degree of diversity and little social capital, however, it is often necessary for the local authority or some other institution to take the first step in facilitating contact between residents.³⁹ It is also important that community projects (see Box 6.1) be supported by migrant and non-migrant groups alike.

6.2.3 The Importance of Good Semi-public Facilities

There is a considerable body of research indicating that public and semi-public facilities reinforce the social resilience of a neighbourhood.⁴⁰ Where there is a good range of amenities like schools, playing fields, playgrounds, shops and community centres, there is a greater sense of community and there are more social contacts between residents.⁴¹ A good sociophysical infrastructure also contributes towards the emergence of productive grassroots initiatives.⁴² In this context, Joke van der Zwaard and Maurice Specht⁴³ refer to places where “public familiarity can arise so that mutual prejudices are broken down and people know what they can expect from each other”.⁴⁴ Ethnographic research in south Rotterdam, for example, suggests that public libraries are a forum for everyday encounters that help people feel more at home in their very diverse neighbourhood (see Box 6.2).⁴⁵ Likewise, international studies highlight the great importance of local libraries for cursory forms of social bonding.⁴⁶

Box 6.2: Libraries: Silent Places of Meeting and Bonding

Between six and seven million people in the Netherlands visit a library on a regular basis. There are 770 branches in total and the average person lives 1.9 km from the nearest one. In 2017 they lent out a total of 67.3 million physical books. But libraries today perform many more functions. For example, the director of Eindhoven’s public libraries, Albert Kivits, states that they play an important role in connecting the city’s international community with the local population.

The modern library is a meeting place for a highly diverse group of users. In Eindhoven, for instance, so-called ‘language cafés’ are held for anyone wanting to practise their Dutch in an informal setting. Expats can also find help to understand official documents such as letters from the tax authorities. And many also bring their children to Dutch reading sessions or take part in the library’s live ‘travel book’ project, at which international residents talk about their country of origin, language and culture. As well as catering for Eindhoven’s large expat community, the library is a ‘living room’ for other groups. Schoolchildren from cramped homes do their homework there. And people in need are welcome, too: the libraries operate a so-called ‘suspended coffee’ scheme, where visitors can buy a drink or even a meal in advance for someone unable to afford it themselves.⁴⁷

Local community centres can also contribute towards public familiarity, with the potential to forge deeper and more lasting contacts. But to achieve this it is important that they organize activities open to all and not limited to one group, otherwise there is a risk that they actually intensify segregation, competition for hegemony and feelings of exclusion.⁴⁸ These centres do not need to be expensive purpose-built buildings: the literature on self-organization and grassroots initiatives contains many successful examples of residents converting vacant property – disused schools, historic buildings, churches, shops, business premises or offices – for community use.⁴⁹

Housing corporations, too, have a role to play in enhancing social cohesion. In the Netherlands, social housing traditionally has been provided by large, publicly funded housing corporations. These semi-public bodies have traditionally taken on civic responsibilities above and beyond their core task of building and managing social rented housing, such as enhancing the general liveability of neighbourhoods in which they are active.⁵⁰ Following amendments to the Housing Act (Woningwet) in 2015, however, their activities in this domain were restricted to housing-related social work, the development of small-scale infrastructure around their own properties and the promotion of a clean, safe and nuisance-free living environment. Since these changes, their spending on liveability has fallen well below the statutory maximum. Almost four out of ten local authorities find that the corporations are now doing less in this field than they used to, and indeed less than is necessary.⁵¹ In 2019 the Minister of the Interior announced her intention to relax the rules to allow housing corporations to conduct activities on a small scale to promote encounters between residents.⁵²

Housing corporations can reach agreements with residents to promote social safety in their living environment; for example, in the form of codes of conduct or ‘city etiquette’ rules. These give everyone, whatever their background, a better idea of what is expected of them and what they can expect from others – something often much needed in socially diverse neighbourhoods.⁵³ They also encourage public familiarity.⁵⁴ When undertaking initiatives of this kind, though, it is important that the residents involved receive institutional backing or professional support.

Social initiatives by housing corporations, community centres, libraries and so on have no chance of success without proper funding. The Council for the Environment and Infrastructure (Raad voor de Leefomgeving en infrastructuur, Rli) therefore advises that all towns and cities draw up an investment strategy for provision of this kind.⁵⁵

6.2.4 The Importance of New-Style Community Work

A public infrastructure is important to achieve public familiarity and social cohesion, but this alone is not enough. Dedicated professionals are needed to ensure that people use the infrastructure or contribute towards its creation. In the past, this task was assigned to community or neighbourhood workers. After the abolition of the government support scheme for community work and the decentralization of welfare responsibilities to local authorities, however, the number of professionals active in this domain fell sharply. In part, their place has been taken by specialists in specific policy fields such as child protection, youth work, home care, disability care, nursing care and mental healthcare. In recent years, though, the number of dedicated community workers has begun rising again – often under new titles such as ‘quartermaster’, ‘neighbourhood co-ordinator’, ‘social co-ordinator’, ‘district coach’ or ‘area broker’.⁵⁶ There has also been an increase in the number of social enterprises developing cohesion-related initiatives of various kinds.⁵⁷ But many of these come from outside the area, are contracted only temporarily or depend upon project subsidies related to new policy priorities, such as combating loneliness.⁵⁸ Such arrangements are generally unsatisfactory, because the problems in vulnerable neighbourhoods are so deep-rooted that they demand a systematic and long-term approach, such as that provided by the National Programme for South Rotterdam (Nationaal Programma Rotterdam Zuid).⁵⁹

For this category of professionals, it is particularly important to possess a thorough knowledge of a neighbourhood’s social fabric, demographic make-up and population turnover. Their role encompasses providing residents with guidance and support, encouraging the various origin groups to make use of the established sociophysical infrastructure and galvanizing them to develop community initiatives of their own.⁶⁰ According to social research institute Movisie, community-building requires active input from professionals to make full use of the resources available to forge contacts between residents. Diffidence and embarrassment often stand in the way of spontaneous encounters, especially in a ‘superdiverse’ community.⁶¹

6.2.5 Strengthening Local Identities

Finally, to strengthen solidarity within communities or regions, it may make sense to focus upon reinforcing local identities. A study by I&O Research shows that many people in the Netherlands feel a strong connection with their place of residence, province or region.⁶² Residents of Friesland, Groningen and Limburg identify more strongly with their province than with the Netherlands as a whole, whilst those living in Zuid-Holland, Noord-Holland and Utrecht tend to have a close attachment to their own town or city. According to the researchers, this is due primarily to the allure of the major cities in these provinces.

Several studies indicate that young people with a migrant background living in Rotterdam⁶³ and Amsterdam⁶⁴ consider themselves ‘Rotterdammers’ or ‘Amsterdammers’ first and Dutch only second. Respondents state that the intercultural character of these cities gives them a sense of belonging there, far more than ‘in the Netherlands’. Being Dutch, they say, is about being born and raised here, whilst feeling Dutch comes from acceptance by the majority – and in that, outward appearance often plays a role.⁶⁵

Attitudes of this kind are forging new forms of ‘citizenship’ and self-identification in the big cities, especially.⁶⁶ ‘Urban citizenship’ is undemanding and easily accessible; in principle, it is open to anyone who settles in a given city. And crucially, such an identity related to a particular place is not incompatible with others – one rooted in a country of origin, for instance. Many highly skilled professionals and EU labour migrants have no intention of settling permanently or becoming Dutch nationals, and sooner or later they either return home or move on. So pursuing legal citizenship is of no interest to them. Urban citizenship, on the other hand, can easily be combined with a foreign nationality or with continuing ties to the country of origin.

There are also downsides to the promotion of local identity, of course, especially if that is overly homogeneous in its exposition. After all, the natural human desire to develop a social identity almost inevitably leads to categorization, determination and group comparisons. The ingroup-outgroup distinction and the resulting bias in favour of the ingroup is a classic theme of experimental sociopsychological studies.⁶⁷ An excessive sense of ‘us-and-them’ can amplify dichotomies between regional or local identities: Limburgers versus Hollanders, for instance, or Amsterdammers versus Rotterdammers. Although this may strengthen social cohesion at a local level, it undermines it on the broader national stage. It is therefore important not to overemphasize place-based identity in public policy.

From the perspective of the new diversity, then, any policy involving this form of identity needs to satisfy a couple of criteria. First, the identity concerned should be strong and distinctive enough to give residents a sense of attachment to it. This can be done by utilizing widely recognized physical identifiers of the place in question, such as a unique skyline, famous buildings, bridges or other landmarks.⁶⁸ Or by highlighting its cultural symbols, in the broadest sense of the term: specific festivals and events (historical commemorations, carnival, an annual parade), the local dialect, ‘local heroes’, sporting events (the city marathon) or clubs and so on.

At the same time, a place-based identity must be general enough to encompass everyone living there. Even short-term residents should be able to identify with it reasonably quickly. This means that the symbols and identifiers used should be as inclusive and accessible as possible, even for people who have not lived in the city or region all their lives. It also helps to give residents co-ownership and control; for example, by letting them organize local festivals.

6.2.6 Summary

• In all western European countries, local authorities are struggling with the question of how to promote cohesion in highly diverse neighbourhoods. There are numerous small-scale initiatives to strengthen contacts between residents from different population groups, but the lack of sound impact studies and policy evaluations makes it very difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. Insofar as we do know anything about their effects, these are largely disappointing and come with significant risks attached.

• There is more evidence in support of the need for a good physical and social infrastructure. Social cohesion is enhanced by configuring the physical environment in such a way that residents encounter each other regularly and a certain degree of ‘public familiarity’ arises. A solid social infrastructure at the neighbourhood level, in the form of community centres and work, libraries, active housing corporations and so on, is also very important.

• Local identities are important, too – for migrants and their offspring sometimes even more so than national ones. It therefore makes sense to focus upon an urban or regional ‘sense of belonging’. This can be achieved by highlighting local landmarks, celebrations, festivals and the like.

6.3 Social Cohesion at Schools and Voluntary Associations

6.3.1 Segregation Undermines Cohesion Through Education

In so-called ‘high-contact’ settings in the semi-public service sector, the increasing diversity by origin and length of stay of the migrant population is very visible. This demands large numbers of professionals in education, care and the social domain. Education, in particular, is a sector in which people from different backgrounds come into intensive and lasting contact with each other. It is also a setting in which approaches to cope with diversity are developed actively.

Schools are both sources of cohesion and places of cohesion. To start with the former, they are a perfect example of institutions where people come into direct contact with members of other groups and so must learn to deal with the new diversity. The Dutch government considers it vital that education build social bonds: “Schools, as important meeting places for young people, play a prominent role in the development of active citizenship and of the knowledge and skills pupils require for that.”⁶⁹

There are indications, however, that the role of education in bringing together different groups is declining. The Netherlands already has highly segregated social networks, and such segregation is actually increasing in the areas of housing and education.⁷⁰ The neighbourhood in which you live very much determines what school your children attend.⁷¹ Hence the growing social, economic and ethnic segregation in schooling observed by the Inspectorate of Education (Inspectie van het Onderwijs).⁷²

The relatively early age at which children in Dutch secondary education are streamed by ability, about 12 years old, does little to help them learn to deal with diversity. The gap between ability groups in the field of civic engagement is wider in the Netherlands than in countries with a common curriculum in secondary education.⁷³ Our schools, according to Herman van der Werfhorst, are homogeneous islands when it comes to views regarding citizenship. “It is more difficult in the Dutch system than elsewhere to come into contact with people who hold different opinions,” he writes.⁷⁴ Only to a limited extent, then, does education in the Netherlands ensure that children of different origins meet and mix, thus strengthening social cohesion.

6.3.2 Diversity and Belonging

The segregation we find within the Dutch education system as a whole does not alter the fact that there are many schools with a high degree of diversity in their classrooms. So how can they best deal with this phenomenon? This question is really all about whether schools are places of cohesion, a topic on which there exists a substantial body of research.⁷⁵

We look first at how highly diverse schools can promote a sense of ‘belonging’ amongst their pupils. An international group of researchers led by Laura Celeste has studied the effects in this respect of different approaches to diversity at secondary schools in Flanders. They distinguish four such approaches, which closely resemble those we find in Dutch local policy.⁷⁶ The first is colour-blindness, in which religious and cultural neutrality is paramount and schools pay no attention to the origins of their pupils. This is the stance most commonly adopted at Flemish schools. Secondly, assimilationism requires everyone to adapt to the majority culture and there is no room for minority languages or cultural expressions. A third approach is equality, in which equal treatment and countering discrimination take precedence. The fourth and final option is multiculturalism , in which pupils learn about each other’s cultural heritage and there is room for mutual cultural understanding.⁷⁷ This, incidentally, is not the same as the much more far-reaching form of multiculturalism that was in vogue in the Netherlands in the late twentieth century, which emphasized education in one’s own language and culture and self-organization along ethnic lines. To avoid confusion in this regard, we refer to the ‘multiculturalism’ described by Celeste et al. as interculturalism (see Box 6.3).

Box 6.3: Interculturalism or Multiculturalism?

In the academic literature on educational theory and psychology, the terms ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘interculturalism’ are both used to describe a pedagogical approach that allows room for the recognition of cultural diversity. The label ‘multiculturalism’ is most common in the United States, whereas in Europe ‘interculturalism’ has been used more widely since about 2000.⁷⁸ In the US, moreover, the multicultural approach has been translated into set of specific and concrete measures, such as coverage of different cultures in the curriculum, countering prejudice and discrimination, actively promoting equality and the empowerment of students from minority groups. The Netherlands adopted its own interpretation of multiculturalism in the latter half of the twentieth century, one strongly coloured by the national tradition of politicoreligious ‘pillarization’ (see 4.1). That resulted in a strong emphasis upon educating migrants in their own language and culture, along with self-organization along ethnic lines. This approach has since become discredited, however, and has been replaced by a more generic focus upon citizenship skills.

To avoid confusion with this earlier, specifically Dutch, form of ‘multiculturalism’ in education, we refer to its more recent incarnation as interculturalism . By this we mean an educational approach in which pupils learn about each other’s cultural heritage, there is scope for mutual cultural understanding and particular attention is paid to countering discrimination.

For children with a migrant background attending the Flemish schools, such an intercultural approach proved the most effective by far. They felt as great a sense of ‘belonging’ at school as their classmates with a non-migrant background. Their academic achievement – measured using their Dutch-language grades – was also better than under the other approaches. It was striking, too, that this approach did not compromise the performance of the children of Flemish origin. And interculturalism was found to work especially well at ‘superdiverse’ schools, where more than 60% of pupils have a migrant background.⁷⁹ In schools adopting a colour-blind approach, by contrast, children with a migrant background performed significantly worse. And the stronger the colour-blindness, the lower their grades. Assimilationism also produced mainly negative results. It did not lead to better grades in Dutch, and feelings of belonging at school were far weaker. Indeed, the stronger this approach, the weaker they were. Finally, the researchers found that the equality approach had no significant effect.

Other international studies have generated similar results.⁸⁰ School curricula that pay some attention to other cultures make pupils from them feel acknowledged and involved, because it means that their particular knowledge in certain areas counts for something.⁸¹ Conversely, children who are not allowed to speak their own language in the school playground – as is often the case in Flanders – take that as a signal that their mother tongue and their identity in general are considered worthless. In the labour market, too, research shows that minority employees feel more at home in companies where management considers space for other cultures important. When leaders – in business or in education – acknowledge and value cultural differences, minorities have a greater sense of belonging than when they adopt a colour-blind approach. Moreover, colour-blindness is more frequently associated with conflict and distance.⁸² One final but also crucial finding in this regard is that interculturalism must be fully inclusive, in the sense that the culture of the majority group is recognized and appreciated as well,⁸³ otherwise there is a risk that it in turn will feel unvalued or even threatened.⁸⁴

6.3.3 Diversity and Interethnic Relations in Schools

One upshot of greater diversity in the classroom is that teachers increasingly face the challenge of channelling social tensions within the school.⁸⁵ Whilst a lot of research has been conducted into the effects of diversity upon classroom relationships,⁸⁶ the findings are far from unambiguous. Some studies indicate that the risk of bullying is lower when a school or a class is made up of many different ethnic groups of roughly equal size,⁸⁷ whereas others find no correlation between the ethnic composition of a school or classroom and the quality of its interethnic relations.⁸⁸ Dutch research shows that pupils in secondary education have a strong preference for interaction with peers from the same ethnic group. The greater the ethnic diversity of a school, the greater the chance that bullying occurs⁸⁹ – both interethnic and intra-ethnic.⁹⁰ About 45% of bullying in a class was found to be related to its composition. The more diverse the class, the more bullying there was. Because teachers in mixed classes may have more difficulty managing social relationships between pupils, the researchers believe that teacher-training programmes should pay more attention to the handling of group dynamics.

A review paper by Jochem Thijs and Maykel Verkuyten⁹¹ summarizes research perspectives of relationships between the ethnic composition of schools or classes and interethnic relations within them as follows: ethnically diverse schools produce more interethnic friendships in absolute terms, but this average effect is not very strong and may also be negative under certain circumstances. Thijs and Verkuyten thus conclude that ethnic diversity in itself does not guarantee interethnic tolerance. They point out the importance of other aspects of the school environment, such as emphasizing a common, inclusive institutional identity. It also helps if the teaching imparts knowledge about cultural differences and if standards are set which promote interethnic tolerance, such as a strong antidiscrimination policy. Drawing upon several empirical studies conducted at Dutch primary schools, the authors conclude that an intercultural educational approach can lead to more positive interethnic relations.⁹² Moreover, this effect is discernible amongst the majority with a Dutch background as well as the minority groups in question; the underlying mechanisms explaining it are greater knowledge of cultural diversity and the dissemination of antidiscrimination norms.

6.3.4 Policy Significance: Scope for Cultural Familiarity and Greater Professionalism

Based upon the scientific literature, an intercultural approach seems to work best at schools with a diverse pupil population. When children feel seen and recognized at school, they have a greater sense of belonging there and perform better. This means that schools need to create scope for a certain degree of cultural familiarity . Within the regular curriculum, for example, subjects such as history and geography could address pupils’ various backgrounds and origins as a matter of course. In this way, education can play a role in improving knowledge of different migrant groups, their reasons for migrating, their cultural backgrounds and the possible diversity within groups from the same country of origin. At the same time, an intercultural approach also addresses the cultural backgrounds of the more long-established groups in society.

Schools need to prepare themselves for a pupil population that is evolving constantly in terms of its cultural diversity, and they have to be able to absorb new groups smoothly. When the Netherlands had only a few migrant communities, specific expertise and dedicated policies could be developed for each of them. With dozens, from all parts of the world, that is impossible. What worked in the past for pupils with a Moroccan or Turkish background will not necessarily be relevant for the new influx of Eritrean, Polish or Indian schoolchildren.

This means that schools and teachers alike need far more knowledge and skills about how to cope with pupils of different origins and with highly diverse classes. Schools, for example, need to set clear standards to increase interethnic tolerance and to counter discrimination and racism. Through peer-to-peer learning, teachers can help each other find ways to raise sensitive issues and to act decisively. Intercultural knowledge and skills should be an integral part of their professional portfolio, so acquiring them should be a standard aspect of teacher training – as has long been in the case in traditional nations of immigration such as the US, New Zealand and Canada. At present, teachers in the Netherlands receive far less instruction in dealing with cultural diversity than their counterparts in many other countries.⁹³

Nor is there yet any Dutch teacher-training programme or Master’s degree with a specific focus upon intercultural education. In this regard we can learn from the International Baccalaureate scheme overseen by global organization IBO. As part of this, 19 international secondary schools in the Netherlands have developed an intercultural learning profile with an emphasis upon curiosity, inquisitiveness, thinking skills, communication, integrity, openness, caring, entrepreneurship, balance and reflective ability. To provide something similar across the Dutch education system, all existing teachers and future trainees would have to undergo a professional development trajectory (see Box 6.4).⁹⁴

Box 6.4: Interculturalism in Education

Many teachers in the Netherlands already encounter cultural diversity in their classrooms or will do in the future. It is therefore important that they be able to deliver inclusive and intercultural education. Sabine Severiens and her colleagues argue that teacher-training courses should devote more attention to the knowledge and skills important to be able to do this. In their view, that means a particular focus upon the following points.⁹⁵

• Dutch as a second language. With a broad school language policy, all teachers contribute towards the second-language acquisition of pupils with another mother tongue.

• Pedagogical skills. Awareness of one’s own ideas about diversity, bringing diversity into the classroom and integrating it into teaching materials.

• Social interaction and identity. Awareness of stereotyping, discrimination and their possible harmful effects, and acceptance of students’ cultural (or possibly bicultural) identity.

• Parental and community involvement. Actively engaging with all parents, and with the wider local community, brings the school and home cultures closer together and so contributes positively towards both academic performance and pupil well-being.

6.3.5 Diversity and Transience Also Put Pressure on Voluntary Associations

In many Dutch communities, voluntary associations are cornerstones of social cohesion. Sports clubs, choirs, carnival associations and other such groups are a means of making contacts and giving residents a sense of belonging. Many local authorities therefore put a lot of effort into supporting associations in pursuit of a variety of underlying policy goals. Sports clubs, for instance, are encouraged to broaden their scope by providing training sessions for people with disabilities, refugees and psychiatric patients, or by opening their clubhouses and changing rooms to after-school clubs and other community groups. Indeed, in many places they are expected to play a leading role in the integration of migrants and their children.⁹⁶

There are indications, however, that the increased diversity and transience of the migrant population are straining many local associations. Not much research has been conducted into the effects of short-stay migration upon organizations of this kind, but it seems highly likely that a high turnover of members puts their continuity at risk. In the Netherlands, such groups are almost always run by volunteers working for free in their spare time. The shorter people stay, the harder it becomes to bond them with the group and recruit them to positions of responsibility.⁹⁷

More studies have been undertaken into the ways diversity affects voluntary associations. These reveal clear differences between people with and without a migrant background when it comes to participation in such groups and volunteering in general. For example, people with a Dutch background are more likely to be members of a sports club. According to research by the Mulier Institute, 14% of Dutch residents with a non-European/Anglosphere background belong to a sports club, compared with 19% of those with a European/Anglosphere migrant background and 25% of those with a Dutch background.⁹⁸ Likewise, the SCP reports that someone with a European/Anglosphere background is far more likely to volunteer at a cultural institution than a person with a different migrant background.⁹⁹ Moreover, people not or only partially raised in the Netherlands feel far less attracted to organized group activities here.¹⁰⁰

Public opinion tends towards a cultural explanation of these dichotomies: many people with a migrant background come from cultures with no tradition of community organization or volunteering. The research, however, shows that they do in fact join sports clubs and put themselves forward as volunteers just as often as anyone else; their lower overall rate of participation is actually due to the fact that, on average, they cancel their membership more quickly.¹⁰¹ And this is especially so when a high proportion of the other members have a different background.¹⁰² Indeed, the same applies even more to members with a Dutch background: at the few clubs where they are in the minority, their departure rate is even higher than that of members with a migrant background who are also in a minority.

This suggests that the lower rate of participation by people with a migrant background is caused not by any cultural factor, but rather is a direct effect of diversity. Or, to put it in our terms: it is not a compositional effect attributable to the characteristics of a specific group but a diversity effect common to all groups, including those with a Dutch background. The primary underlying mechanism, it would seem, is homophily: the principle that people have a strong need to associate with similar others. If a voluntary association like a local sports or hobby club is very diverse, a large of proportion of its members will lack a sense of belonging and so be inclined to leave.¹⁰³

This applies equally to members with a Dutch background, although such feelings are still relatively rare for them because they form a significant majority in most associations. Certainly when it comes to sports clubs. The majority of amateur football clubs in the Netherlands, for instance, are made up predominantly of members with a Dutch background, who feel at home in the company of people ‘like themselves’ and renew their membership year after year. Members with a migrant background are almost always in a minority and therefore feel less connected with the group.¹⁰⁴ All this means that, as clubs become more diverse, they have a higher rate of ‘churn’ and run a greater risk of falling apart. Or, alternatively, that increased diversity is only a temporary phenomenon and they again become more homogeneous over time. In the latter case, their stability increases as the diversity dissipates, because everyone is once again ‘the same’.¹⁰⁵

In other words, diversity makes life more complicated for voluntary associations. Highly diverse clubs and societies must make more of an effort to keep themselves together than homogeneous ones. No studies have yet been conducted into effective strategies to achieve this, but it seems likely that the findings from the educational research outlined above are also relevant here. For members to feel that they belong, the association must work to build cultural familiarity and members from other backgrounds should feel acknowledged. This could well be achieved through relatively simple measures, such as providing a varied menu in the club canteen and respecting each other’s holidays. It might also be useful, as in schools, to focus upon a common identity that transcends members’ different backgrounds. And highly diverse associations will have to learn to deal with an increased rate of member and volunteer turnover. Funds permitting, taking on paid staff such as a (part-time) manager or caretaker would probably ensure greater continuity.

6.3.6 Policy Significance: Do Not Expect Too Much of Voluntary Associations

Three policy conclusions can be drawn from the above analysis. Firstly, it is questionable whether the local authorities in municipalities with a high HHI (see 2.4) can use voluntary associations to leverage a variety of goals in the social domain. Diverse ones are likely to lack the structures and social capital needed to undertake wide-ranging community work. Indeed, they themselves might well need local government backing just to survive.

Secondly, this means that local authorities should not expect too much of this sector as a source of social cohesion between population groups.¹⁰⁶ Voluntary associations are suited primarily to building cohesion within groups. A certain degree of segregation is probably inevitable in organized group activities.

Thirdly, it may be worth considering ways to support alternatives to the structured clubs, societies and associations traditionally responsible for organizing sporting, cultural and suchlike activities in the municipalities in the Netherlands. For example, local authorities in areas with a high turnover of migrants such as expat and horticultural municipalities could invest in more informal groups. Or even promote the use of commercial facilities like gyms, boot camps and yoga studios, which have a low accessibility threshold but still provide a certain degree of public familiarity. And sports clubs could think about arranging ‘casual’ leagues for expats and migrant workers, which are easy to join or leave as a team or a player. Another option is to focus more upon competitions between schools, as is common in the Anglosphere world – they are more solid institutions than clubs, and already have professional staff and facilities at their disposal. Moreover, participation in sports competitions, cultural activities and so on at highly diverse schools could serve as a source of common identity.

6.3.7 Summary

• Because of increasing segregation, education is less able than it once was to serve as a source of social cohesion.

• In schools with a highly diverse pupil population, it is preferable that an intercultural approach with room for mutual cultural understanding be adopted. This includes an understanding of the culture of the majority group. It is also important to set standards which promote interethnic tolerance, such as clear antidiscrimination policies.

• This means that schools need to create scope for a certain degree of cultural familiarity . Within the regular curriculum, for example, subjects such as history and geography could address pupils’ various backgrounds and origins as a matter of course.

• The knowledge and skills needed to deal with a wide range of learners should be an integral part of the professional portfolio of teachers and school leaders, so acquiring them should be a standard aspect of teacher training.

• Diversity and transience are also putting pressure on voluntary associations. Local authorities should therefore not expect too much of this sector as a source of social cohesion between groups. Such bodies are suited primarily to building cohesion within groups. A certain degree of segregation is probably inevitable in organized group activities.

• Local authorities in areas with a high turnover of migrants could invest in more informal ways of organizing sporting activities.

6.4 Strengthening National Cohesion

6.4.1 Diversity Reduces Overlapping Cleavages

Large sections of the Dutch population are concerned that increased immigration and diversity are straining national cohesion.¹⁰⁷ The main integration-related problems identified by people with a Dutch background are failure to adapt sufficiently and pressure on ‘national’ standards and values. More than half (54%) believe that people with a migrant background should participate in Dutch cultural traditions. People with a migrant background, for their part, say that it is important to respect each other and each other’s cultures, but that this does not necessarily mean that they must adopt the same standards and values or participate in cultural traditions.¹⁰⁸

In academic research on the consequences of immigration for social cohesion, these concerns are usually nuanced. Sociologists and political scientists argue that Putnam’s finding that people tend to hunker down in the face of increased diversity applies only at the local level.¹⁰⁹ There is little evidence, for instance, that overall social trust amongst the Dutch population is in decline. Nor do the numbers of people engaging in voluntary activities and informal care seem to be decreasing.¹¹⁰

Furthermore, it could be argued that the increased diversity of the migrant population makes it less likely that the social fault lines between established groups and newcomers will widen at the national level. And the same also applies, mutatis mutandis, to increased transience. For the stability of a society, it is important that it not have too many ‘overlapping cleavages’ and that ethnic, religious, geographical, social and political divisions do not overlap excessively. If this happens, a society may be in danger of falling apart. Ominous examples from the past include Northern Ireland, where religious, socio-economic and political dividing lines converged and tore the province apart. Or Belgium, where linguistic differences overlapping with geographical and sometimes socio-economic divisions led to a long and sometimes fierce language conflict. Or Lebanon, where religious and political fault lines coincide and the traces of the civil war are still close to the surface. Incidentally, until the so-called ‘Pacification’ of 1917 brought an end to its long-standing ‘schools struggle’ (over state funding for church schools), the Netherlands also had some very strong centrifugal forces of its own.

By contrast, the new diversity of the migrant population by origin, educational attainment and social background means that the differences between established groups and newcomers at the national level are less clear-cut now than they were in the past. No longer are a few relatively homogenous groups with a migrant background pitted against equally an homogeneous non-migrant population. This has reduced the likelihood of ‘us and them’ perspectives clashing and of differences by origin largely coinciding with differences of religion, language and social status.

Amongst new migrants and their children, for example, we encounter a multitude of faiths: not only are there Muslims, Hindus and a few Buddhists, but also many Roman Catholics, Protestants, Copts and other Orthodox Christians. There are now about one million Christian migrants in the Netherlands, as many as there are Muslims.¹¹¹ According to many commentators, Islam is a major source of social antagonism in the Netherlands.¹¹² In certain specific neighbourhoods or schools, it is certainly true that radicalization has given rise to tensions between groups, but nationally it is definitely not the case that either new immigrants or settled residents with a migrant background are predominantly Muslim. At present, for example, only 5% of the population identify as Muslim.¹¹³ Moreover, their ethnic and religious diversity is also quite considerable. They hail not only from Turkey, Morocco and Suriname, but also from former Yugoslavia, the former Soviet Union, Bulgaria, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Eritrea, Somalia and Syria. And as well as being divided along traditional Sunni-Shia lines, there is also a good deal of variety within both of these branches of Islam.¹¹⁴

Nor has migration to the Netherlands led to the emergence of a de-facto second language here, as is the case with Spanish in the United States and Russian in the Baltic states. Migrants and their children speak dozens of different languages at home, but their main medium of communication with others is Dutch or, for some groups, English. Even in the most diverse neighbourhoods, Dutch is the ‘lingua franca’ used by children from different backgrounds – although their street slang does include numerous loanwords drawn from a variety of migrant languages. Furthermore, there is no regional dominance by any ethnic group; migrants are spread fairly evenly over large parts of the country. There are no overwhelmingly Surinamese, Turkish or Polish neighbourhoods, and in hardly any does one particular group – with the exception of those with a Dutch background – constitute the numerical majority.¹¹⁵

Moreover, the Netherlands has not seen the formation of a homogeneous ‘migrant bloc’ on the political or cultural stage. Engagement in the current public debates around the history of slavery and the blackface character Zwarte Piet, for example, is confined mainly to participants of ‘indigenous’ Dutch and of sub-Saharan African, Afro-Surinamese or Dutch Caribbean heritage. People of Polish, Turkish or Moroccan origin, say, are far less visible in these discourses. And whilst ‘multiculturalist’ party Denk attracted strong support amongst voters with a Turkish or Moroccan background in the 2017 general election,¹¹⁶ those with an Indo-Surinamese background have been relatively quite likely to back the right-wing populist Party for Freedom (Partij voor de Vrijheid, PVV) in recent years.¹¹⁷

Finally, we observe little socio-economic homogeneity amongst the new generation of migrants to the Netherlands. Unlike the guest workers of the 1960s and 1970s, a fair proportion of those now coming into the country are university educated and work in professions with a high social status. This applies not only to highly skilled migrants from India and China, for example, but also to many of those with an Iranian, Afghan or former Yugoslavian background. Today’s immigrants from Turkey, Poland or Bulgaria, too, find their way not just to glasshouses and distribution centres, but to lecture theatres and research institutes as well.

6.4.2 But Diversity Also Increases the Risk of Fragmentation

Potentially, then, the new diversity can mitigate ‘old’ concerns about segregation and a cleavage between the established population and newcomers. That potential is not realized automatically, however. And greater diversity also has a possible downside: an increased risk of fragmentation, with society breaking up into a constellation of smaller groups, each seeking to cling to its own identity and in so doing turning its back on the rest. As more and more different migrant groups settle in the Netherlands, so the risk of collisions between them grows. It is therefore wise to consider how to promote cohesion at the national level, too. It is with this in mind that countries with a long history of immigration, such as Canada, the United States and Australia, have traditionally placed a heavy emphasis upon rituals, symbols and institutions which promote national unity.

What can be done at a national level to guide the conviviality of all these different groups in the right direction? How can we give everyone living in the Netherlands, be they immigrants or have their roots here, the feeling not only that this is their home but also that they are part of a unified society? To do this, we first need to acknowledge that we are here dealing with different groups starting from different positions. First there are the transients, those such as temporary migrant workers, highly skilled migrants and international students who are just ‘passing through’ and have no intention of settling permanently. Then there are the newcomers, who do stay. And finally the rooted, who were born and raised in the Netherlands.

6.4.3 Rules for Conviviality

To regulate the conviviality of all these groups, rules are needed that create a firm framework for healthy social intercourse. These are not specific to the Netherlands and can in fact be found in some form in almost all Western countries, as part of their own debates around immigration and national unity. Based upon the literature, we have identified three sets of rules which are essential to uphold constitutional democracy, to safeguard national prosperity and the welfare state and to maintain a pluralistic society (see Box 6.5).¹¹⁸

Box 6.5: Ground Rules for Conviviality

To enable conviviality as a diverse society, everyone living in it must abide by three sets of basic ground rules. Respectively, these uphold constitutional democracy, safeguard national prosperity and the welfare state, and maintain a pluralistic society.

• The first set of rules is associated with the constitutional democracy and the rule of law. These are legally codified norms which enable people to interact on a ‘level playing field’, governing the principle of equality, individual freedoms, social rights, the separation of church and state, physical integrity and so on.

• The second set covers the principles of economic and social participation. To safeguard the economic continuity of a society and its welfare state, it is important that everyone have access to education, employment and income. Conversely, they are expected to play an active part in society – not only by working and paying taxes, but also through volunteering or other forms of participation.

• The third set governs the expression of individual and collective identities. A pluralistic society allows room for everyone’s own traditions, customs and values. These must therefore be respected, as long as they do not run counter to the principles of constitutional democracy and the rule of law or impede participation in education and employment.

First, there are the rules of constitutional democracy and the rule of law. Everyone, be they transients, newcomers or rooted here, is expected to abide by the law and to respect the principles and institutions of the democratic constitutional state, including the principle of equality, the separation of church and state and fundamental rights. They must also treat each other with respect and refrain from racism and discrimination.

Secondly, everyone is expected to contribute towards society. After all, a healthy society can only exist by virtue of a certain degree of co-operation and reciprocity. This can be done by performing paid work and paying taxes, but also through other activities indispensable to a flourishing and healthy society, such as voluntary work. In this context, transients and newcomers are expected to make some effort to familiarize themselves with, and adapt to, the manners, traditions, customs and values of the Netherlands as a whole and of the region they settle in. This is why, in Chap. 5 on the reception and integration of migrants, we propose the development of forms of civic integration tailored to all migrants, irrespective of their legal status or intended length of stay: basic versions for transients and more advanced ones, including requirements for the acquisition of Dutch-language proficiency and some knowledge of national history, for those aspiring to citizenship. This is crucial for solidarity at the national level. Incoming migrants who work hard to earn their own living and engage with the community can generally count on more sympathy and goodwill than those who contribute little or nothing. We look at this in more detail in the next chapter.

Thirdly, there needs to be proper scope for the expression of individual and collective identities. In line with the intercultural approach described above for education and organized group activities, each group – the majority included – should have the freedom to celebrate its own origins, symbols and customs. Everyone living in the Netherlands has the right to feel at home here, including those with Dutch roots. So in regions of high diversity, for example, room should be created for each group to observe its own holidays: Sinterklaas (St Nicholas’ Day), Holi, Christmas, Eid al-Fitr, New Year, Keti Koti (Surinamese Emancipation Day) and so on. This requires a certain flexibility when drawing up work rosters and school timetables. It could also mean giving each group room on the national stage to showcase to its own history, perhaps by supporting the establishment of ‘migration museums’ focusing upon the stories and backgrounds of the country’s various ethnic groups as well as regional museums devoted to local history and customs.

6.4.4 Debates About National Identity Divide Rather Than Unite

Besides upholding these basic requirements, is there a broader task for government in this domain? In the Netherlands, as in most other Western countries, whether the state should also endeavour to create or maintain a distinctive national identity has become a recurring topic of sometimes fierce debate – not least because there is rarely any consensus as to what that identity entails.¹¹⁹ If it is anchored solely in the traditional values and customs of the ‘indigenous’ majority, that leaves no room for those prized by newcomers and their offspring. Leading them to feel excluded and demeaned. Hardly anywhere, moreover, has it proven possible even to agree on what exactly the elements of such a ‘Leitkultur’ should be. In the Netherlands, the debate about national identity flares up with some regularity but has yet led to produce any widely shared conclusions about the nature and substance of that identity.

Will Tiemeijer shows that our neighbouring countries, too, have been unable to pin down what exactly typifies their national character.¹²⁰ In France the debate has centred on identification with the nation’s history and culture, and with its heroes, symbols and traditions: the Revolution, the Enlightenment, Napoleon, Voltaire, Victor Hugo, De Gaulle, the tricolour, La Marseillaise, wine, cheese, gallantry and romance. Adherence to basic ‘French’ values such as ‘liberté, égalité, fraternité’ and ‘laïcité’ (strict constitutional secularism) is often mentioned as well, but some also equate ‘Frenchness’ with membership of a particular primordial group characterized by Caucasian descent, white skin and Christianity, especially Roman Catholicism. In Germany as well, there has been an emphasis upon its status as a nation of history and culture, the birthplace of Goethe and Bach. Religion is also said to be an important binding factor in society, although the state remains neutral in matters of faith. Germans are portrayed as enlightened patriots who love their country but do not hate others. Meanwhile, the people of the United Kingdom experience ‘Britishness’ as a combination of the general liberal values also mentioned elsewhere and unique characteristics such as the English language, the British landscape, the Royal Navy, pubs and fish and chips – not forgetting cricket, of course.

What is striking in all these countries, though, is that their public discourses around national identity are divisive rather than unifying. When former president of France Nicolas Sarkozy opened a website and organized regional debates on the theme, they attracted not only edifying contributions but also a torrent of racist and anti-Islamic sentiment. The whole exercise has come to be seen as one of Sarkozy’s most unsuccessful projects. Likewise, in Germany the discourse has largely been about what Germans are not – namely Muslim – and many have seen it as a thinly veiled message to migrants that they must assimilate. And in the United Kingdom the outcome has been inconclusive, leading the whole debate to fade quietly away. When The Times ran a competition in 2007 to devise a new national motto for Britain in no more than five words, entries included ‘Once mighty empire, slightly used’, ‘We apologize for the inconvenience’ and ‘At least we’re not French’. The winner perhaps typified the true national character: ‘No motto please, we’re British’.

6.4.5 Creating Unifying Stories and Institutions

Despite all this, a society made up of a patchwork of ethnic groups has a lot to gain from finding a common denominator which transcends and connects them all. Many traditional immigration nations therefore set great store by customs and symbols acceptable to all groups, such as respect for the national flag, singing the national anthem or the celebration of their independence day.

In fact, the same dilemmas as we have seen at schools and voluntary associations play out at the national level as well. An overly uniform majority cultural dominance leaves newcomers feeling excluded, but conversely a multicultural laissez-faire runs the risk of each group retreating into cultural isolation so that society breaks up into separate little islands. As with education and voluntary associations, we therefore propose focusing upon a small number of unifying, group-transcendent stories and institutions. (Here we mean ‘institutions’ in the sociological sense: certain fixed ways of acting that bring order and structure to social life.). All modern immigrant societies put some considerable effort into maintaining unifying national narratives and into socializing newcomers in line with them. The idea behind this strategy is that an emphasis upon common or inclusive goals positively influences intergroup relations.

These inclusive general narratives and institutions need to meet at least four conditions: (1) they should transcend the different groups and not be linked explicitly to any one of them; (2) they should be accessible for newcomers; (3) they should by unifying at the national level; and (4) they should provide some continuity from the past to the present and future.

So what might be appropriate unifying stories and institutions for the Netherlands? To some extent this is a pragmatic, empirical question; ultimately, we will have to see what works in practice and what does not. At the same time it is a political issue, too, because such inclusive narratives also say something about what we as a society want to have in common. Below, therefore, we suggest a few avenues for further exploration in the full knowledge that other options could also be considered.¹²¹

• 1. The Dutch language

  The Dutch language is one of the Netherlands’ most distinctive national institutions; ours is the only in the nation in world where it is spoken by the vast majority of the population. And that singularity is widely acknowledged. In a survey to find out what Dutch residents consider the nation’s most typical characteristics, the SCP presented 5000 people with no fewer than 185 possible answers. For each, the researchers asked first how typical the respondents thought it was of the Netherlands and then how much it contributed towards their own sense of belonging here. In both cases the Dutch language topped the list.¹²² Speaking it is crucial to connect with others. As we mentioned earlier, Dutch is the principal ‘lingua franca’ of communication between the many migrant groups in the Netherlands. It also provides continuity over time, as the medium of the nation’s spoken and written heritage and its literature past and present. The government should therefore continue to promote Dutch as the common language of the Netherlands. In the private sphere, of course, everyone can use whatever language they wish, and in certain situations and organizations it may be more practical to use another one – English, for example – as the working medium, but in the public sphere and public institutions Dutch should always remain our official language. For immigrants this does initially create a barrier because the language is not immediately accessible to them, but to overcome that the government should ensure that high-quality and affordable tuition in it is widely available for everyone settling here, including transients.

• 2. The collective struggle for a safe living environment

  Psychology teaches us that a joint struggle against an external threat forges solidarity. In the Netherlands, the eternal fight against encroaching water is a concern for everyone: transients, newcomers and the rooted alike. After all, they all benefit equally from a safe physical environment – that is a classic ‘collective good’, but in the Dutch psyche it is also more than that: creating that environment has become an important symbol of national unity, transcending personal interest and individual origin. The struggle to hold back water and develop productive land is not only a consistent theme throughout Dutch history but also a vital task for the future. In the coming decades, the whole nation faces a renewed challenge due to rising sea levels. This never-ending battle offers a narrative redolent of solidarity, a unifying story which not only does justice to the history of the Netherlands and all the groups settled here but is also forward-looking and includes newcomers. They too can, and indeed must, join the fight.

• 3. Co-operation, compromise and consensus

  A third national institution consistent with the criteria formulated above is the long Dutch tradition of co-operation, compromise and consensus. Because it is about transcending the interests of any particular group for the common good, this tradition is eminently inclusive and can thus contribute towards the harmonious conviviality of all the different groups in the Netherlands. After all, ours is a nation in which a lot of people, each one of whom cherishes their own freedoms, must live together in a small geographical area – something they can only do successfully if they are prepared to give and take. Within the bounds of constitutional democracy, the rule of law and common sense, of course, it is therefore not unreasonable to expect everyone – transients, newcomers and the rooted alike – to give each other some space and to be prepared to co-operate in delineating it. This is a two-way process: it is not only up to newcomers to adapt to the established population, but sometimes also the other way round. Mutual forbearance is a trait many Dutch people consider important. When the SCP asked respondents in its study of Dutch identity what they hoped the country would look like in 50 years’ time, they said they wished for tolerance above all else.¹²³ This aspiration, moreover, is in line with the Netherlands’ lengthy history of dialogue and conciliation, whereby groups with quite different outlooks on life have always managed to coexist peaceably. Research shows that emphasizing this tradition of tolerance has the potential to help maintain national cohesion.¹²⁴

This is not the place to elaborate any further on these points. And as mentioned above, other options are also conceivable. Indeed, a number have already been tried out with some success, in such areas the culture, sports and the royal family. More details of these can be found in Tiemeijer’s study.¹²⁵

6.4.6 Summary: National Coherence Through Rules Backed by Unifying Stories

• The new diversity of the migrant population by origin, schooling and social background means that the differences between established groups and newcomers at the national level are less clear-cut now than they were in the past. No longer are a few relatively homogenous groups with a migrant background pitted against an equally homogeneous ‘indigenous’ population. This entails a risk of fragmentation, with society breaking up into a constellation of smaller groups, each seeking to cling to its own identity and in so doing turning its back on the rest.

• Three sets of basic ground rules are the cornerstone of national cohesion.

  • Everyone living in the Netherlands – transients, newcomers and the rooted alike – must abide by the law and respect the institutions of constitutional democracy.

  • Everyone is expected to contribute towards society.

  • Within reason, everyone’s symbols and customs are recognized and acknowledged. This applies to all origin groups, the majority included.

• Public debates about national identity are more likely to be divisive than a source of solidarity. It would be better to invest in a few inclusive unifying stories and institutions, which are accessible to everyone and can build a sense of national solidarity.

6.5 Conclusion: Solidarity, Familiarity and Reciprocity

The various policy directions discussed in this chapter all have one thing in common: they aim to strengthen the sense of solidarity of everyone living in the Netherlands. A high degree of diversity and transience can strain that. The more diverse a neighbourhood, the less its residents know and recognize each other and the less they feel at home there. Short-stay migration makes it harder to build up long-term friendships at schools and voluntary associations. At the same time, as shown repeatedly by SCP surveys of the national mood, people have a deep-seated need for cohesion and solidarity.

The British economist Paul Collier describes the great importance of a ‘sense of belonging’.¹²⁶ This concept is twofold; it encompasses both feeling at home somewhere and being accepted there. This duality is at the heart of our message in this chapter. Local authorities, schools and associations should endeavour not only to ensure that their residents, pupils or members feel at home, but also that they are accepted. This applies equally to newcomers (and their children) and to those long settled here (and their children).

One crucial requirement here is a high degree of reciprocity. Not only do established residents need to make room for newcomers and give them a sense of belonging, but the newcomers themselves have to appreciate local customs and habits and make a commitment to their neighbourhood, school or association. This also means that a more intercultural approach, taking into the backgrounds of all concerned, is best suited to coping with the new diversity.

Such reciprocity is achieved more easily at the local than the national level. Public debates about national identity are more likely to be divisive than a source of solidarity. Urban and regional identities, on the other hand, are relatively ‘casual’ and so within easier reach. They do not require a family tree going back several generations. A sense of belonging to a neighbourhood, a city or a region can be acquired by going to school there, supporting the local football club or picking up its accent. We thus see that many residents with a migrant background develop local allegiances earlier than national ones, and that in the second generation these are even stronger than ethnic identities.

Promoting familiarity in neighbourhoods, at schools and in voluntary associations is primarily a task for local authorities and institutions. Central government’s principal role is to uphold the basic ground rules of conviviality: everyone living in the Netherlands should respect its constitutional democracy and the rule of law, and contribute towards society, whilst at the same time being allowed space to maintain their own identity. In addition, government has a responsibility to communicate unifying ‘national stories’ and to ensure that newcomers engage with them. The idea behind this strategy is that an emphasis upon common or inclusive goals positively influences intergroup relations.

6.5.1 Summary

• Provide good physical and social infrastructure at the neighbourhood level to promote public familiarity. Safe, clean public space is essential for social safety and for social cohesion in general. Semi-public facilities such as playing fields, libraries and community centres strengthen the social resilience of a neighbourhood. Housing corporations should be given greater scope to undertake small-scale activities in support of liveability and cohesion. In highly diverse environments, local authorities should invest more in professional community work.

• Strengthen intercultural skills in education and other parts of the public sector. Education can serve as a laboratory for the development of institutional approaches and professional abilities to deal with diversity. Because today’s classrooms contain learners from a wide variety of backgrounds, the knowledge and skills needed to educate them effectively should be a standard aspect of the training of teachers and school leaders.

• Enforce the basic ground rules for conviviality. Everyone living in the Netherlands should respect its constitutional democracy and contribute towards society, whilst at the same time being allowed space to maintain their own customs and symbols as long as this is in keeping with the rule of law and does not impede participation. Central government can also work to uphold unifying national institutions and to ensure that newcomers engage with them.