English Summary, extract from Nihad Bunar’s PhD thesis Skolan mitt i förorten: fyra studier om skola, segregation, integration och multikulturalism, Brutus Östlings Bokförlag Symposion, Stockholm/Stehag 2001.
URL of this page is http://www.skeptron.uu.se/broady/sec/p-bunar-summary-01.htm
Chapter
1
The
contemporary Swedish elementary school system is primarily organized on the
so-called “proximity principle”, which means that children from a given
neighborhood attend the school that is closest to where they live. Thus, schools
mirror their local environment. Schools in middle-class neighborhoods where
Swedish families predominate are seen to be more stable and of a higher status
than schools in areas with many unemployed and immigrant families. Schools in
areas with a high proportion of immigrants or socially marginalized residents,
or in “segregated” areas are often associated with the same categorizations.
The school’s status, reputation, and accomplishments are thus directly
associated with the social and representational effects that characterize its
catchment area. As “segregated” areas are the object of various integration
policy visions and concrete efforts, their schools consequently are also part of
these visions and efforts. In recent years the central role of schools in
integration has been highlighted in state studies among other fora. The
aim of this dissertation is first to bring into focus and analyze
how relations between schools and the local community are affected when negative
economic developments in combination with stigmatizing public representations or
portrayals segregate the area. The
second aim is to lift up and analyze what role schools are expected to, and
actually do, play when an area with a large proportion of immigrants and
socially marginalized residents is to be
integrated via a set of political-ideological proclamations and
concrete efforts. The empirical material that I analyze in the dissertation has
been collected from spring 1998 – spring 2000 in the following districts of
Stockholm: Jordbro, Rinkeby, Tensta, and Husby. The heart of the dissertation
comprises of four independent studies (chapters 5-8), as well as an introductory
section (chapters 1-4), in which the dissertation’s background factors,
theoretical and methodological framework, and central concepts (segregation and
integration) are delineated. Chapter 9 comprises of a concluding discussion of
the central findings of the dissertation.
Chapter
2
This
chapter sets out the basic theoretical framework of the dissertation. The same
framework lies behind the theoretical perspective and concepts that are
presented and used in the individual studies. My primary source of inspiration
is the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu’s way of looking at the relations
between individuals and structures. To a great extent Bourdieu’s sociology is
about breaking the dualisms between abstract theorizing and theory-less
empiricism, between “structure” and “agency”, and between “personal
problems” and “social issues”. Bourdieu’s theoretical and empirical work
is characterized by the central roles he ascribes to social and economic
conditions, even when his investigations reach down to the individual and
subjective level. Structural conditions and power relations all impact everyday
occurrences and furthermore impact the formation of the individual’s
habitus,
that is to say a sort of cognitive or mental map with which the individual
comprehends, makes sense of, and evaluates the world he or she lives in. Other
important concepts in Bourdieu’s sociology are
field, capital, and
symbolic
power. Within a given more or less autonomous field (such as the educational
field) struggles take place between various institutions, individuals, and
groups (for example, schools, the local political leadership, parents, etc) for
various forms of capital (economic, cultural, social, and symbolic). In order to
study, understand, and explain the origins, developments, and outcomes of these
processes we must at the same time study the relations between structures,
habitus, and the logics of symbolic power. Against the background of these
premises I contend that: 1) we cannot understand why individuals act as they do
in various settings, in relations and interaction by solely studying concrete
forms of self-understanding and practices, such as, for example expressed
individual motives; 2) we cannot understand how power relations between various
positions are recreated in a field solely by orienting our analyses towards
studies of the internal logics of institutions, such as schools’ work routines
and practices; 3) we cannot understand how the conditions of social structures
are internalized as dispositions and lead to tangible consequences through
practices solely by studying the discourses and ideologies of symbolic power,
for example, how the media or the rest of society represents areas with high
proportions of immigrants. It is first when positions, lived experiences, and
representations are placed in relation to each other in a specific context – a
field – that we can see the complexity that makes an explanation possible of
why and how segregation of areas with high proportions of immigrants and their
schools can be carried out and maintained. This is the framework that I
operationalize in my empirical studies. The framework thus consists of a)
“objective” socio-economic structures, or “objective” life conditions in
suburbs with large immigrant populations; b) the forms of understanding,
practices, and relations of the local actors, which in different ways are
dependent upon these conditions and therefore contribute to their reproduction;
and c) public representations of structural conditions and the lived experiences
of local actors. And once again, the relations between these.
Chapter
3
In
this chapter I discuss issues related to the dissertation’s methodology. The
topic for my dissertation to a large extent was decided by the research project
Partnerskap för multietnisk integration (PfMI) [Partnership for Multi-ethnic Integration] that I participated
in. The project commenced in autumn 1997 and concluded in December 1999. The
project was financed by what was then the Department of Domestic Affairs [Inrikesdepartementet].
PfMI was also sponsored by the
UNESCO-MOST program and was part of the international network “Multicultural
policies and modes of citizenship in European cities”. PfMI’s primary task was, as formulated in the project application,
to study various efforts to promote integration and counter segregation in four
suburbs of Stockholm (Jordbro, Rinkeby, Spånga-Tensta, and Kista). The
dissertation’s ethnographic data-collection method was directed towards,
naturalism, understanding (verstehen),
and discovery. Most of the empirical material was acquired through direct
contact with actors in the areas and schools studied. I have also continuously
tried to illuminate the historical and structural factors that have impacted the
life conditions of the actors. The most important aim of the fieldwork has been
to understand and explain why people act as they do and what they say means
against the background of their life conditions and representation. I have not
sought to test the validity of strictly defined hypotheses. My ambition has been
to “discover” or illuminate how neighborhoods and schools are impacted by
worsening socio-economic conditions and stigmatizing representations on the one
hand, and integration programs on the other. In this sense “exploration and
discovery” must be woven together with theoretically oriented thought.
Chapter
4
This
chapter delineates the meanings that the concepts integration and segregation
have received in different contexts. The aim of this review is to show the
complexity of the concepts, and show which dynamic processes lie behind their
creation and perpetuation in society. At the same time I seek to show how
society’s integration problems have, through a series of practical actions,
become immigrants’ integration problems. In this dissertation, integration and
segregation are neither a theoretical system to be applied to my empirical data
nor analytical tools. They rather summarize the background precepts or
“problem” that this dissertation treats.
In
sociological theory and empirical research, integration has primarily denoted
the processes and relations between various groups and structures that in
functional cooperation create a society. The general Swedish welfare policy has,
during the post-war period, via a series of actions attempted to facilitate
integration between various social strata and the institutions of the emerging
welfare state. Emphasis was placed on general
welfare actions aimed at encompassing all citizens. The labor immigration of the
1960s and the refugee and family unification immigration of recent decades have
increasingly diversified the previously ethnically homogeneous Swedish nation.
At the same time that immigrants came to be encompassed by the general welfare
policies (and thereby also general integration processes) due to their formal
status, the responsible authorities also pointed out these groups’
particular needs. To meet these needs “integration policies” (in
various guises) have been produced from the 1970s onwards for immigrants. The
difference between today’s integration policy and general welfare policy is
the former’s ethnic dimension. One could say that
today’s integration policy is the ethnified component of Swedish
welfare policy. It is primarily this particular and ethnified welfare policy
and its practical implementation (I
choose to call this practical integration
policy) that is analyzed in this dissertation. The school has been made into
an operative for this practical integration policy and its implementation.
Besides giving pupils with a different cultural background (that is to say other
than Swedish) pure factual knowledge, schools are also to be natural meeting
places, in the forefront of developing these primarily immigrant suburbs, and to
change the image of the local community in the wider society and thereby
indirectly contribute to strengthening the local community (the school at the
center of the community).
Most
theoretical approaches focus on segregation’s
socio-spatial
character, that is to say on the prevailing physical, social, and mental
distance between ethnic groups and classes in an urban context. The primary
explanations of physical segregation’s origin and maintenance in the
sociological literature appears to have changed little since the Chicago school
launched their theories nearly a century ago. Socio-economic status and
discrimination of ethnic minorities are the two most common explanations. In
recent decades more attention has been paid to the segmentation of the housing
market and the desire of immigrants and minorities to live near each other, as
well as the attitudes of the majority which lay behind “white flight”. Even
these explanations are often basically socio-economic
and ethnic in nature. Changes in
society’s conditions for reproduction, internal and external migration streams
(immigration) and fluctuations in the housing market have contributed to make
some of the Swedish “million program” housing areas into
socio-economically and ethnically segregated areas. The “million program” was the Swedish governmental project in
the 1960s of building one million new housing units to improve the housing
conditions of the population. The
basic operations in these segregation processes take place on society’s macro
level. But these segregation processes are dependent upon a more fundamental
dynamic that, through everyday practices on the micro level, creates and
maintains differentiation and separation. Much of this dynamic is highlighted in
the dissertation. School segregation can take many forms.
External
or outer segregation is an expression of segregated housing. Most
children attend the school that is nearest their residence, which means that the
neighborhood’s social structure and ethic composition is reflected in the
school. A negative attitude towards housing areas with a large immigrant
population thereby almost automatically afflicts the local school, regardless of
the results that the school achieves. Inner
segregation can arise as a consequence of dividing pupils into groups, the
division between practical and theoretical lines of study, and the creation of
different profiles for different classes. With regard to results, segregation
can arise as a consequence of students achieving lower grades.
Chapter
5
The
first study – Economics, Rhetoric and
Reality – examines the relations between schools and their local
communities (as represented by parents, institutions, associations, etc) in the
largely immigrant communities from the perspective that these relations are
strongly impacted by the negative representations and economic changes in the
1990s as well as the new integration policy goals and visions. The question is
how and with what consequences? The aim
of the study is first to show what the relations between schools and their local
community look like in Jordbro, Rinkeby, Tensta, and Husby. The second aim is to
analyze similarities and differences in these relations against the background
of the integration and segregation processes that take place in the nexus
between economics, rhetoric, and the real actions taken.
In
certain housing areas, such as Husby, unemployment at the end of the 1990s
reached 40%, and in others, such as Rinkeby, nearly half of the population
received welfare relief payments. As such, many of the residents of these areas
are separated or segregated from the labor market and the opportunity to
economically provide for themselves, something that not only decimates the
economic situation of the individual families, but also the whole of the local
social life. This brings with it everything from difficulties in offering
positive role models for youths to being placed in a relationship of dependence
on the bureaucratic apparatus and institutional network. Through negative
representations the residents, architecture, and institutions of the
area are labeled “different”. This stigmatization also affects the schools.
In many schools the effects of the symbolic identification with the poor and
stigmatized neighborhood in which it is located is felt to be the greatest
problem. The most tangible effect is flight from the majority of these schools.
As a result of these representations the schools are ascribed various
characteristics. The representations (formed by the media and various actors
within and outside of the local community) are based on average grades, the
number of students who have passed all subjects and graduate, and the percentage
of students with immigrant heritage and thereby conveys a grossly simplified
picture of a complex social whole. Both categories of problems and programs of
remedies are created in response to these representations, while the totality,
the preconditions, efforts, positive results in certain areas and the views of
teachers and students remain overlooked.
The
conclusion reached in this study is that the structure of all the schools
reflects their respective catchment area’s structure, with regard to
socio-economic conditions and the composition of the population. However, the
schools deal in different ways with the effects of the segregated and
stigmatized space, and with different results, something that to a great extent
is associated with the relations developed between the schools and their local
communities. Although the socio-economic conditions in the areas studied have
not changed, the local actors are not entirely locked into space’s structural
effects. Bredby school in Rinkeby, for example, shows that a school doesn’t
necessarily have to reflect its catchment area’s status and reputation, even
though the area harbors structural and stigmatizing elements (such as many
unemployed, welfare recipients, immigrants, etc). To achieve this certain things
are required:
that
visions of change (regardless of whether this is spoken of as
“integration” or something else) are formulated and institutionalized;
that
local projects and efforts are oriented towards the totality, the town,
district or local community and not an association of special interests, or
an “integrated” neighborhood that can mobilize against the visions,
projects and efforts as these things are interpreted as a threat to the
patterns of life and practices to which they are accustomed;
that
no
deep divides that counteract local mobilization are present in the area;
that
the local school is not used as an instrument in internal conflicts between
various local actors, regardless of whether these are conflicts between
parent groups, teachers and staff, the school administration, or any other
group;
that
schools work to give students the tools to be “someone” and
“something;”
that
a strong engagement exists at the level of everyday practices among
individual actors.
It
is however important to underscore that the positive results of changed
relations in themselves cannot change the structural bases of the problems that
these “immigrant” areas and their schools struggle with – the
socio-economic position of the population and powerlessness in relation to the
public sphere and the market. These are not “immigrant issues”, but rather
social phenomena, the creation, maintenance, alteration and eradication of which
involves the whole of Swedish society, every day and in all arenas, from the
kitchen table to the national parliament, from public sector institutions to
market actors.
Chapter
6
The
aim of the second study – Borders,
Trouble, Reputations and the School – is to analyze at a deeper level how
changed socio-economic conditions and negative representations of two areas
impact the relations between actors who directly or indirectly have to do with
the local schools. The analysis focuses on three questions which figure large in
the way schools where pupils with immigrant backgrounds are in the majority are
portrayed, namely trouble in terms of unruliness, badly functioning relations
between schools and parents, and cultural differences. Some of the questions I
discuss are: Who is it that causes trouble or is unruly? Why don’t relations
work between the schools and parents in predominantly immigrant areas? How are
cultural differences dealt with in teaching?
The
study’s framework comprises of the concepts of configuration, figuration, and
representation. As a consequence of socio-economic changes, reproduction
processes and the nature of power relations in society create within an area a
certain configuration characterized by the population’s characteristics such
as class, age, ethnicity, gender, the local architectural design, etc. These
characteristics provide the foundation for the formation of
figurations,
that is to say the relations, power orders, and the legitimizing actions within
an area. Configuration in turn lead to the creation of external
representations
of a space, for example in the media, film, or academic research, that create a
given image of an area or gives an area a certain reputation and status. This
also leads to the space’s internal representations, that is to say, the way
the residents of an area symbolically deal with the space’s configurational
structure and the eventual negative and stigmatizing images that proliferate
about the area as whole. This study observes how the tension between
configurations, figurations, and representations impact the situation in two
Swedish suburbs, Jordbro and Tensta, and the consequences on the residents and
local schools. The study shows that stigmatization and segregation cannot be
understood entirely unless the basic socio-economic conditions, actions,
relations, and power hierarchies as well as external and internal
representations of a social space is seen from a
relational
perspective. The trouble that is always portrayed as stigmatizing for schools
and in general seen as creating problems for the area is conflicts between
individual students or between different groups of students. When unruliness
between students is seen as an action and a type of social relation on the
social space’s configurational map, when it is placed in relation to other
conflicts between different parent groups and the personnel of the school (also
seen as actions and social relations), and when we look at the long-term
significance and social consequences of the various sorts of trouble for the
areas’ and schools’ reputations, status and daily work, we see that the
trouble between students is accorded a disproportionately large role in the
stigmatization of the area and school. The explanation as to why this is the
case can be found in the exploitation of “student unruliness” in both the
internal and external representations, which in turn is facilitated by the local
power hierarchy, which in turn is associated with the local configuration. The
same chain of reasoning can even be used in the field of the school’s
relations to parents and how “cultural differences” are dealt with in
teaching. Seen as an integrated part of the local configurations, figurations,
and representations, these “pedagogical problems” become social problems
between actors with varying access to power resources and with a lack of basic
trust. The consequence of this is mutual accusations, stigmatizing
representations, and cultural shame. The cumulative effect of these processes
deepens the divide between “we” and “them”, further contributing to the
maintenance of stigmatization and segregation. In the end, the social and
cultural reproduction process is cemented. The theoretically informed model
employed comprising of configurations, figurations, and representations also
shows the basic ambivalence that can be embedded in the alternative spaces that
are more or less consciously created by different social actors in an otherwise
polarized social space. Paradoxically, these spaces which in terms of identity
can be seen as boundary transcending, build new distinctions and stigmatizing
representations. In practice even these boundary transcending meetings affirm
the status quo. They tend to reproduce socio-economic and ethnic differences,
distancing, division, stigmatization, segregation, negative external
representations, and border-setting spatial practices into new distancing and
divisions. Is this determinism? No, it is merely a sociological representation
of reality, but undoubtedly a representation that is necessary not only in order
to understand and explain a complex reality, but also to change it.
Chapter
7
The
third study – When Jobs Disappear
– is based on the fact that the areas with high proportions of immigrants were
those hardest hit by unemployment in the 1990s. From previous research we know a
great deal about what socio-economic changes took place and what their
structural consequences were for the area residents. What we do not know very
much about though is what consequences increased unemployment had on social life
in the afflicted areas and how it impacts relations between actors in these
residential areas. The ambition of this study is to bring to the surface a
number of these complex patterns of relations and their consequences by way of
international comparison. The reason for this is that a debate, what might even
be called a moral panic, has begun to spread within established political
circles in Europe that European cities are becoming just as segregated, or
ghettoized, as the inner-city ghettos of large American cities. The metropolises
of Europe are portrayed in this debate (or panic) as a
single
homogeneous block, comparable to American big cities. An increasing number of
opinion-makers in Sweden have begun advocating the application of American
models for solving the segregation problems of Sweden’s major cities. The
primary question is whether Europe’s segregated housing areas are really
comparable to American inner-city ghettos? This study has two aims. The first is
from a comparative perspective to discuss and analyze relations between various
actors in an American ghetto (Woodlawn
in Chicago), a French banlieue
(Quattre mille in Paris) and a Swedish residential district with a high
proportion of immigrants (Tensta in Stockholm) with reference to three dimension
that have bearing on people’s everyday lives: the presence of territorial
stigma and “we” and “them” distinctions; the degree of crime and
violence in public spaces; and the structure and actions of social institutions.
The second aim is to discuss differences and similarities between these deprived
areas in the context of three welfare state contexts. The comparison is based
primarily on two sources. The first is Loïc Wacquant’s (1996b) work presented
in a number of articles, but primarily “Red Belt, Black Belt: Racial Division,
Class Inequality and the State in the French Urban Periphery and the American
Ghetto”. In this article Wacquant compares two areas in Chicago (Black Belt)
and Paris (Red Belt). The other source is ethnographic material from fieldwork I
conducted in Tensta in the past three years. I augment these two primary sources
with a number of secondary sources.
In
this study I argue that the deprived and segregated areas have:
been ascribed, (as a consequence of increasingly tense everyday representation forms in the United States as well as in Europe);
structurally
created (as a consequence of
economic restructuring and tightening up); and
internalized
from within (as a consequence of the residents’ powerlessness, the way the
institutions present in these areas operate and division between different
groups);
a
specific set of real and imagined characteristics that operate as handicaps in
times of economic recovery such that general positive trends in the rest of the
country to an all too limited extent reach the residents of these areas. I call
this set of characteristics, “objectively” existing and embodied,
territorial hexis. The word hexis
comes from ancient Greek and means “posture” or “strata”, “way of
being”, or “way of composing oneself”. The term’s anthropological or
sociological meaning is borrowed from Pierre Bourdieu’s analysis of Kabyl
society in Algeria in the 1960s. In this work he speaks of a
bodily
hexis in terms of an embodied political mythology transformed into a
particular disposition, a durable way of being and speaking, and thereby
thinking and feeling. Territorial hexis is a set of characteristics, ascribed
and/or real and existing, that reside in the socio-spatial sphere, that through
various mechanisms such as embodied patterns of understanding and explanation,
social actions, and representations, impact the residents and wider society’s
dispositions and practices. The delimitation of space spans from the geographic
to the social, from the administrative to the cognitive.
In
comparing the three areas, some principle differences could be identified. These
comprise primarily of the characteristics in Tensta and Quattre mille (in
contrast to Woodlawn) not leading to
certain consequences:
the
majority of the population in these areas do not live in economic misery and
far below the official poverty line;
the
illegal economy is not the primary economic and social motor in the local
community;
crime
has not eroded the basic trust that people have to each other and in
relation to public places;
public
institutions have not abandoned these areas, either as a consequence of
increased crime or an ideology that deems the individual fully responsible
for his or her life conditions.
One
of the primary factors that leads to the residents in Tensta and Quattre mille
living in conditions different from the residents of Woodlawn is the predominant
ideologies in Sweden and France about solidarity and social justice, and the
absence of such ideologies in public policy in the United States. Two other
factors are the presence of institutional networks, and the practical actions of
the welfare state in the deprived areas. Even though criticisms of
the way welfare state institutions operate in Tensta have been
voiced, in the three years of my fieldwork I have never met anyone who has said
that these institutions and their extra efforts should disappear or desist. Most
of the people I have spoken to have called for a new disposition, a new
attitude, and a new way of relating to the area’s residents, their
difficulties and possibilities. The differences between Tensta and Quattre mille
largely have to do with the welfare state sphere. The question is not whether or
not to initiate integration promoting projects and retain the institutional
network or not. The question is rather what
sort of programs should be initiated, what the local bureaucracy should be
doing and how. Another difference of importance for the territorial hexis in the
two European areas is the percentage (or density) of immigrants as a portion of
the total population. Nowhere in Europe is the density as high as in Sweden,
something that influences the orientation of the integration projects (such as
language courses, information on democracy, etc) and the local bureaucracy’s
attitude towards citizens with a non-Swedish ethnic background. However, as my
analysis and comparison shows, an area’s territorial hexis does not need to be
dominated by the ethnic aspect for it to be categorized as “different” and
it inhabitants stigmatized as “the other”. One can though say that ethnicity
makes categorization and stigmatization “easier”.
Chapter
8
The
point of departure for the fourth study – Cultural
Citizenship and the Multicultural School – is that multiculturalism is
indicated to be a possible solution for many of the problems of schools in areas
with high proportions of immigrants in numerous official documents and
recommendations. The expectation is that by profiling (or marketing) schools
with many pupils with immigrant backgrounds as “multicultural”, these
schools can be made attractive, front-end schools. The primary argument is that
the world is becoming more and more globalized, and that access to multicultural
skills and language capacities accords a great advantage in the future. However,
“the multicultural school” has in practice become linked to a number of
negative and stigmatizing markers. I term the gap between the vision and
practice “the official lie about multiculturalism”. The lie is that while
there is conscious, pronounced official support
for
multiculturalism as an idea and vision, there is an equally conscious
rejection
of multiculturalism as a reality and in practice. The purpose of this study is
to discuss how the gap between ideal and practice arises in the school and how
it is recreated through the educational system’s social history against the
backdrop of theories about the expansion of citizenship. I also name a few
preconditions necessary for this gap to be bridged. I take my point of departure
in theories of citizenship because a precondition for the multiculturalization
of the school and the role such a school can play in increasing equality is that
citizenship rights are respected on various levels. Recent developments in
schools have two consequences for
social citizenship. The first is that citizenship as an idea is hollowed out by
a group that is in the process of attaining (formally) full citizenship is also
in practice deprived of the right to an equal education. What is interesting in
this context is that these persons on the way to attaining citizenship are
excluded from future opportunities by reference to their ethnic belonging via
stigmatization (“immigrant schools”); socio-economic marginalization
(unemployed parents); isolation (growing up in segregated, predominantly
immigrant residential areas); and prejudice (discrimination, racism and
“culturalizing”). The other consequence is the paradox that the
multicultural school today is built precisely on these grounds. That is to say,
the same grounds (ethnic background and life experiences) that at the same time,
through a number of social practices and mechanisms, are used to stigmatize and
exclude the bearers of these characteristics. The civil, political and social
dimensions of citizenship apparently lack the necessary instruments to deal with
the multicultural paradox where representations of ethnicity and socio-economic
conditions create new and deepen old rifts in society. Recognizing the dimension
of representation via the rights of cultural citizenship and corresponding
institutions can help us see what new instruments are required to dissolve the
paradox. Cultural citizenship can be defined as every person’s right to
recognition as a full-fledged member of the national community regardless of his
or her ethnic or cultural background or lifestyle. Realization of this cultural
citizenship in the first instance requires conscious and diligent efforts to
change the existing norms and attitudes towards ethnic diversity that have their
roots in a cultural hegemonic way of thinking. Among other ways, this can be
guaranteed by non-stigmatizing symbolic representation of diverse cultural life
forms in the public sphere and society’s key institutions. In the same way
that social citizenship once was expanded and won support via the
socially
expansive education system, cultural citizenship today can be expanded and
win support in part through a culturally
sensitive education system. That is to say, through the creation of a new
multicultural school. The new multicultural school promotes equality and equal
respect. All students are afforded equal opportunities regardless of their
social and cultural background. It is a meeting place for children from
different social and cultural environments, a school in which all students feel
valued for who they are and where all students see themselves in and attracted
to the content of their school books. To attain this, altering schools in a
multicultural direction must be coupled to the relationship between social
(basic socio-economic conditions) and cultural citizenship (representations).
Secondly, this process comprises of a comprehensive review and alteration of
institutional constructions (catchment areas, choice, non-state schools), the
ideological base of the school (multiculturalism as a goal worth striving after)
and the pedagogical basis of the school (curriculum, schoolbooks, and the basic
practices of teachers). It is through these sorts of changes that the official
lie about multiculturalism can be transformed into a practically functioning
multiculturalism.
Chapter
9
In
this, the final chapter, I summarize and discuss in more detail the primary
analytical points made in the dissertation. In this dissertation I have sought
to put positions, lived experiences, and representation in relation to each
other in order to make visible what it is that creates difficulties and
opportunities in areas and schools that are labeled “segregated” and the
objects of “integration programs”. Through the use of a multifaceted
empirical material from predominantly immigrant residential areas and the
schools in these neighborhoods, this dissertation attempts to bridge the gaps
between micro and macro; individual
and
structure; material conditions and representations;
individual difficulties and social
problems; empirical research and
abstract theorizing.
What
have I found? I’ll begin by emphasizing the importance of socio-economic
conditions. Many residents in Jordbro, Rinkeby, Tensta, and Husby are
economically disadvantaged to put it mildly. Unemployment is very high. Many
households receive various types of welfare transfers from both national and
municipal programs, transfers which for some comprise their sole income. It is
precisely this concentration of disadvantaged individual positions, with a
generally lower rate of employment and income that separates these areas that I
have studied from other areas in Stockholm, and from the city of Stockholm in
general. The positions of the residents are weak, as are the social networks
that they at best take part in. Unemployment doesn’t just mean that the
population “merely” becomes economically poorer, but also that their power
over their own daily lives is severely reduced. The futures of the residents can
be planned and steered by how the local bureaucratic apparatus perceives various
cultures, or the presence of various “integration projects”, their content
and availability. Educational background, skills, and motivation can prove to be
less valuable individual capital than ethnic membership or belonging. The weak
social position of the parents, limited access to various types of capital, and
tenuous influence over one’s own daily life is confirmed and deepened in
relation to school. Schools tend more and more to take over the role of parents
in the child’s development (surrogate parenthood) as parents are defined as
almost incapable of raising their children as a result of social
marginalization. Thus parents are even marginalized in relation to their
child’s schooling.
Many
residents in the areas studied are not just unemployed, but also immigrants,
something that plays a large role in this context. In an area with many
unemployed and immigrants the existing
social conditions and negative representations catalyze along with a number of
other factors a tendency for the area to develop and harbor a number negative
characteristics. When a school is plagued by a bad reputation and begins losing
students, and thereby also economic resources (as a consequence of lost
“school money”), it is quite easy for the headmaster or principal and
teachers to point to the effects of specific aspects of the area’s hexis
(unemployment, many immigrants, stigmatization, reorganizations, etc) as the
cause of the problems. Their reaction thus is to further distance themselves
from the problem’s source. Precisely this distancing conveyed via accusations
about who is to blame for the situation creates further problems, makes changes
more difficult, and lays further negative characteristics on the area.
Another
solution to the segregation problem that is often proposed in various official
documents is the role of the school in integration. In more concrete terms, this
role implies continuous efforts in internal pedagogical change (increasing the
quality of teaching, strengthening the self-esteem of the students, treating all
students equally), creation of natural meeting places for young people from
different social and cultural environments, and the creation of “the school at
the center of the community”. The latter concept connotes a more active role
for the school in local social and cultural life. All headmasters and teachers I
have been in contact with have pointed out the importance of schools actively
working with these three integration goals. The extents to which the standard of
teaching is high, and that teachers actively work at improving their pedagogic
skills is hard to discern from my material. I have not looked at classroom
teaching as such. All headmasters and teachers however claim that the teaching
at their schools is of very high quality. These contentions are substantiated to
an extent by external official commendations of merit, positive articles in
newspapers and commendations from headmasters and teachers from other areas and
schools that I have been in contact with. I have however been able to show that
culturalization, and as a consequence of this, negative special treatment of
students with immigrant backgrounds takes place, and that this has negative
consequences on the students’ self-understanding. Whether the school functions
as a meeting place or not, is to the greatest extent dependent on the area’s
housing, social and ethnic structure. The process I have seen in some of the
schools studied witnesses to a degradation rather than strengthening of the
vision of a meeting place. As a consequence of the stigmatization of the school,
strained relations between teachers and parents, and in some cases even between
the school’s leadership and its administration has led many parents to begin
withdrawing their children from such schools and placing them in schools that
they believe to be more stable, with more Swedish students, and better
reputations. But not necessarily better instruction. Very few of the parents,
politicians, headmasters, teachers, and students interviewed spoke of the
pedagogical skills of the teachers. In contrast, everyone spoke of the
reputations of schools.
The
vision of the school as a meeting place can even be eroded as a consequence of
strained relations between groups of parents in an ethnically and socially
heterogeneous area with heightened internal divisions. In such cases Swedish
parents claim that the school is unruly and turbulent and should be closed. That
there is a value in itself in the school’s role as the divided community’s
only meeting place weighs negligibly when the socially stronger group’s social
and cultural capital is deemed to be at risk. I have shown that fighting between
a few fourteen year-olds on the school playground is not unique enough to lead
to a bad reputation for the school until it is linked to some deeper background
factors in society, such as different groups’ uneven socio-economic
conditions, the fact that different ethnic groups are concentrated in certain
housing areas, and the relations between them. Again, the analysis employs the
theoretical model of positions, relations and representations; from the
individual to the general, from the macro to the micro, from “immigrants’
integration problems” to society’s social and structural integration
problem. In the cases where the school, through various programs, has attempted
to get students from different districts of the city to meet, this has been
understood as a picturesque boundary-transcending vignette in an otherwise
strictly segregated daily life. I will not moralize over such laudable, small
individual attempts to break the consequences of housing segregation, but my
analysis shows that this is not really where the problem lies.
When
it comes to the idea of “the school at the center of the community”, or
“the school at the center of the suburb”, I show that this goal is far from
attained. The following have been shown to be some of the reasons for this.
First, schools have classically been closed institutions that vest all their
available human and financial resources in everyday school activities. The
consequence of this is that all too little room is left for the necessary
expansion of activity that the idea of “the school at the center of the
community” demands. Secondly, the local community in these predominantly
immigrant areas are often seen as the primary source of the problem, rather than
its solution. The solution is thus to sever ties with the surrounding
environment, not to expand cooperation. Thirdly, from the school’s side there
are few ideas about what the school can contribute to the local community beyond
teaching. The dominant conception is instead, “what can the local community do
for us?” Fourthly, the local community increasingly sees the school as an
instructional institution, not as a potentially potent instrument in the
integration process or in social change at the local level. Most of the extra
resources that accrue to schools as part of “integration promoting” projects
are channeled into teaching-related activities. Fifthly, parents, especially in
areas with strong social and ethnic differentiation are at best moderately
interested in participating in working for change. In some areas, parents have
actually actively combated various
integration efforts. Sixthly, these changes and the school’s search for its
own role in a rapidly changing world have meant a rethinking of traditional
activities for many teachers. An unrefined media debate about the deficiencies
in schools can in some cases be felt to be an unfair attack from people who
don’t really know that much about how the inner world of schools functions. A
consequence of this can be a latent resistance to change and falling back to
old, established routines – “the way we always have done things”. In some
cases, attempts at change are dismissed as “loony pedagogy”, where students
are taught everything other than the essentials of the subjects they are
supposed to be learning – precisely what it is believed they most need to
learn. Opposition hits disadvantaged and predominantly immigrant areas hardest.
In the Department of Education’s (Skolverket)
studies it has been shown that parents with shorter periods of formal education
tend to be less inclined to take personal strides to impact a school. This means
that the impetus for change in many cases comes neither from the school nor
parents, which naturally complicates the picture of engagement and renewal, not
the least for disadvantaged young people.
The
role in integration that schools are officially expected to play in the local
community, and that is accepted as legitimate and worth pursuing by the
leadership in schools has, for the most part been unsuccessful. In some respects
it never really started. The reason for this is the way that the negative
socio-economic conditions and representations have impacted the relations
between various actors in the schools and local communities. I have also been
able to show that when these relations work relatively well, there can be
positive benefits for both the school and its socio-economically deprived,
predominantly immigrant catchment area. The positive effects for the schools are
marked, with regard to reputation, status, an improved economic situation,
pedagogic development, and higher grades among the students. The positive
benefits for the local community come primarily in the form of higher status and
reputation.
The
way and extent to which “the school at the center of the suburb” can
contribute to integration or segregation processes at various levels in
predominantly immigrant and socially deprived districts of big cities is
dependent upon what material conditions, lived experience, representations of
the area, institutions, and various social actors are present and comprised of;
as well as how these interplay with political visions and concrete goals about
what must be done to change their negative impact, and how conditions,
experiences, and representations and visions are dealt with in each individual
case (whether institutional or individual) in each area, and each school.
URL of this page is
http://www.skeptron.uu.se/broady/sec/p-bunar-summary-01.htm
Back to SEC home page
This HTML version created by Donald Broady. Last updated
11 Aug 2011