Reconceptualising ‘integration as a two-way process’

Abstract

In this article, I advocate the reconceptualisation of ‘integration as a two-way process’. I argue that integration is, fundamentally, an issue of relational inequality, and conceptualising it as a one-way process constitutes problems of undesirability and infeasibility. I show the theoretical hiatus which characterises many dominant approaches to the two-way process, which leads scholars to build their work on internal contradictions and to implicitly (and often unintentionally) feed into a one-way integration discourse. I argue that as long as conceptualisations of integration as a two-way process reinforce a boundary between ‘people who integrate’ and ‘people who do not integrate’, they are unfit to avoid the problems of one-wayness which they intended to overcome in the first place. In the last part of the article, I put forward some initial building blocks for a new theoretical framework of ‘integration as a two-way process’ which is more attentive to the relational social processes that constitute integration.

Overcoming barriers to social inclusion in Nordic cites through policy and planning

“…Among the questions that emerged from this debate is Should housing for new arrivals have a priority over housing for people that have lived in Sweden for many years in a housing market that is often overheated? The settlement of newly arrived refugees thus introduces questions about justice and priorities between the existing residents of a place, and newcomers 17 , or, using the terminology of Klarenbeek (2019), between 'insiders' and 'outsiders'. While the reception of newly arrived refugees with few or no critical opinions raised in some municipalities, or even with strong support from the civil society, it caused major debates and heated reactions in other areas, a diversity in situations that is confirmed by this chapter.…”

“…This argument about privilege suggests that the integration process is rather immature at the point when newly arrived refugees first become settled in the municipalities via agreements with the state. If applying Klarenbeek's (2019) definition of an ideal-type of integration "a society without any social boundaries between legitimate and non-legitimate members" (Klarenbeek, 2019:2), the question arises, how long does it take before the 'non-legitimate members' will become 'legitimate'? If integration is seen as a two-way process, there are good reasons to consider the integration efforts of the receiving community as well as those of the newcomers.…”

“…How immigrant groups perform on these indicators was then commonly compared to the majority or non-immigrant population. The definition of integration by Klarenbeek (2019) presented in the introduction to this chapter suggests that attention should be directed equally to the newcomers and to the non-migrant residents. She promotes the concept of 'two-way integration', meaning that insiders and outsiders should integrate with each other with no boundaries between 'people who need to integrate' and 'people for whom integration is not an issue'.…”

“…This chapter regards integration as a two-way process, meaning that integration is a reciprocal adaptation between immigrants and the host or receiving society (Puranen, 2019). Klarenbeek (2019) offers a definition of 'integration as an end state': "A society in which there are no social boundaries between 'legitimate members', or insiders, and 'non-legitimate members' or outsiders" (Klarenbeek, 2019: 2). This chapter aims to extend our knowledge of the reactions from a receiving society, the 'insiders', towards the establishment of housing for newly arrived refugees, 'the outsiders'.…”

Involuntary migration, inequality, and integration: national and subnational influences

“…Second, we note the substantive distinction between integration as a process to be studied (as it is here), and integration as a normative policy objective (Penninx 2019). Moreover, while the term nevertheless can be criticised for spotlighting troubling us/them dichotomies, Klarenbeek (2019) notes, 'social boundaries between "legitimate members" and "non-legitimate members" are a political and social reality and not using the term would not change the relational inequality and other injustices stemming from them' (2). Such inequalities are important to better understand and thus to study.…”