Nationalism in a Liberal Register: Beyond the ‘Paradox of Universalism’ in Immigrant Integration Politics

Abstract

In recent years scholars have observed a restrictive turn in West European immigrant integration policies towards conditioning access to permanent residence and citizenship on language proficiency, knowledge of history, institutions, culture and political values, national loyalty and labour market integration. This has been accompanied by a strong reaction among European politicians and publics emphasizing that newcomers must share in certain liberal-democratic values and virtues that characterize the national community. Yet, the influential scholar Christian Joppke argues, among others, that liberal values cannot define national particularity, nor can cultural integration be enforced because legislation and policies are legally and normatively constrained by the same liberal values. Hence, prevalent liberal conceptions of national identity are paradoxical and inconsequential for the formulation of public policies. This article critically examines this argument in detail. It argues that the paradox of universalism does not exist, and that therefore nationalism should not be dismissed as a central factor behind recent policy developments.

Introduction: Theorizing the civic turn in European integration policies

“…Indeed, even though nationhood is articulated in a liberal register, how publics and decision-makers understand certain values and what supports them varies with different conceptions of nation and state. National publics prioritize different liberal values, understand them differently and emphasize different historical origins and institutional preconditions (Jensen and Mouritsen, 2019). To these scholars, what is happening is not a shift away from old national ways of thinking about integration, but an ideological re-orientation that retains the 'old' national differences.…”

“…Third, it suggests going beyond the important study of effects of civic integration as public policy (Goodman and Wright, 2015) towards a broader politicalsociological theorization of societal civic integration, which may turn our attention towards welfare state regimes, class formation, links between socioeconomic and civic integration and the impact of majority attitudes and new populism on civic inclusion. In particular, it reopens the discussion about the relationship between civic integration discourse, nationalism, national models (Ferna´ndez, 2019;Jensen, 2019), and national identities (Gustavsson, 2019).…”

Theorizing national models of integration: An ideational perspective

“…This is a more refined, nuanced definition of the ideational content of a national model (see also Jensen and Mouritsen 2017). It distinguishes between a (normative) content aspect and a (functionalist, sociological) process aspect of national identity conceptions.…”

The participation paradox: demand for and fear of immigrant participation

“…The central narrative is that integration thus far has failed, and that the state needs to become more actively involved in integration processes. In order to regain control of integration, the state is urged to be more demanding and assertive, and to come up with policies that foster the creation of 'good, liberal, self-sufficient citizens' (Jensen and Mouritsen 2017;Lithman 2010). This bears resemblance to other present-day management and policy reforms in the areas of employment and welfare, characterized as neo-liberal: it places responsibility upon the individual to become self-governing, resilient, and adaptive to the current demands of the society and market (see Chandler and Reid 2016).…”