I don't speak Finnish.
This supposedly holds me back from "integrating" into society. It makes sense to believe it though, because obviously a lot of nuance is tied to language that will be missed by a non- or poor speaker. However, I believe it is often used as an excuse to not accepting foreigners, rather than a hurdle to integration. And this was highlighted in an article I was reading today about the marginalisation of adopted children in Finland, despite their mother-tongue being Finnish. People automatically speak to them in English for instance.
The term the article used was "othering".
Othering is defined as a process that labels individuals or groups as fundamentally different from, and inferior to, a dominant societal group.
But really what it all comes down to is the culture of Finland that sees Finnishness as a whiteness question. I get it. Traditionally it was, depending on how far back you go, because I guess that if you go back far enough, traditionally we were all a lot darker than many of us are today. Though back then, Finland didn't exist as a country, as there were no countries. Countries are conceptual. The first one is considered to be Egypt, about 5000 years ago.
But I always find it interesting when culture is tied to colour of skin, when culture itself is behavioural. Customs and traditions, ideas and social interaction. If two groups act precisely the same, but have different colour skin, are they culturally diverse?
No.
They are not. However, if one person from each groups swaps into the other group, despite being identical in every way other than skin colour, they will be treated differently. Which is pretty bloody silly, isn't it? I find it ridiculous that people are judged based on such a broad labelling group that with can have such a massive range of difference across so many important factors. This is especially true when talking about culture, because so many external aspects feed into an individual's behaviour patterns and thought processes. I find it equally ridiculous when people make judgements based on sex too, where "men are like this" and "women are like that" when it comes to highly variable and nuanced factors.
While you might be forgiven for thinking that we should be over all this nonsense by now, it is best to remember that we have created a global culture of polarisation based on personal identity factors. We have made an infinite number of new label groups, each claiming a diverse set of cultural traits, without actually checking to see if there is a marked difference in behaviour at all.
The perception of difference is enough.
And I think this goes to show how frail our opinions are, because for the most part, they aren't based on any kind of reality, or even our experience, it is simply our perception of what we see, filtered through our belief system built on just as flimsy assumptions and repetitive and conditioned thoughts, practiced over and over without evidence.
When it comes to integration into a country, what is the marker that says a person has made it? Is it acting like locals? Is it being accepted by locals? Working and paying taxes like locals? Is it about being like the average, the best, the worst? What is the worst group of people in your country? Do you want foreigners coming in and integrating into that group?
What does "integration" mean?
As I see it, integration into a country is about being a functional member of society, which actually has very little to do with language. Society requires all kinds of activities to take place to ensure it works well, and it doesn't really matter what languages are spoken in order to do so, as long as communication is able to happen and tasks get done. That is becoming far easier with the globalised spread of English, as well as the increasing options of technology. What is interesting about the "speak the language to integrate" approach, is that people are actually talking to others less today, doing a lot of their activities through apps and over the internet.
I always find the "integration conversation" quite banal, because they usually focus on things that don't matter, and completely ignore the things that do. They don't spend time investigating an talking about the actions of adding value to society, rather leaving at "learn the language and you are in". That makes no sense, because if the actions are contrary to what is benefiting society, the integration is dysfunctional, because society is dysfunctional.
In the US, a man has a 9% chance of being incarcerated. That is a massive amount and a very large slice of the population. Does that mean a man can be considered successfully integrated once imprisoned?
Similarly to the markets, sentiment is what stops most people from feeling integrated into a society, because those who consider themselves "in" already, believe that anyone who is different to them must be "out". The fact is though, that within any country or culture, there is a very large range of behaviours, and even though there are some traditions, just because people adhere to a holiday or food, doesn't mean that two people will automatically get along as if they are both the same - because they are not.
Society today is largely dysfunctional, because rather than improving function through changing our systems and behaviours, we spend our time staying the same by focusing on what can't change or is meaningless - like skin colour. We could have a better world, but unfortunately, our actions and beliefs stop it from becoming our reality.
Become what is already broken, or be part of building what works?
It is funny how many want to keep making the same mistakes, to fit in.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
Be part of the Hive discussion.
- Comment on the topics of the article, and add your perspectives and experiences.
- Read and discuss with others who comment and build your personal network
- Engage well with me and others and put in effort
And you may be rewarded.
Quite a thorny topic. I agree with your assessment. I guess every country experiences this "othering" process differently, but the fundamental discriminatory results are similar.
Here in Venezuela we are almost 90% racially mixed. Foreigners were welcomed and, probably as a result of internalize d racism and self-deprecation, even privileged. If they did not speak spanish or spoke with heavy accents, it did not matter. Most foreigners were hard working and locals admired them. They could make fun of their accents, but it was never to the extent of discrimination or exclusion.
On the contrary, because the country allowed hardworking people to prosper, foreigners developed their own class and had access to what locals did not. They were really in.
Things changed in recent decades and even though racial and economic markers might draw lines of inclusion or acceptance in certain settings, polítics is more of a factor now. Having the blessings of the dominant political class is the key that opens doors now, even if you don't speak a word in Spanish. Opposing it is the stigma that might get you fired, imprisoned, deported, exiled or killed, even if your spanish-speaking roots can be traced back to colonial times.
I must say a good one right there.
And when acceptance depends on loyalty to power rather than shared life or effort, what happens to the idea of a common society?
The concept of society becomes transactional.
It’s like being in a club where the only requirement isn’t to bring snacks or help clean up, but to always agree with the president’s cat. One day you’re in, the next day you’re out, and nobody remembers why anyone joined in the first place except to please the cat.
Honestly, culture being behavioural rather than visual feels important.
And if culture is how people act, cooperate, contribute, and relate to others, then reducing it to skin colour or assumptions tied to origin is not just inaccurate, it actively prevents the very social cohesion people claim to value.
Congratulations @tarazkp! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPAs you know Australia had the same problem for ages (I don't know if it still exists culturally but definitely in some people's stupid heads). I may have told you about the time someone incorrectly assumed I didn't speak English when I didn't realise they were addressing me and my as-yet-unrealised audio processing issues were in full swing because I was also tired (it being assessment period and all) and the fun stories from an Indian girl I met at uni who grew up in the UK and had the most British of accents and also loved wearing saris.
At least people these days are figuring out they actually mean "what's your ethnic background" and correct when they ask "what's your nationality" and I reply "Australian" (that's what it says on my passport).
I guess people like to classify on that because it's a blatantly obvious difference (if you notice stuff like that off the bat), classifying on behaviour requires much more observation and that's way too much effort.
In America integration used to work pretty good, but in the last ten years I feel like we went backwards. Skin color is the stupidest thing to differentiate on as a single gene mutation is responsible for the white color and was beneficial for the less sunny climates.
Culture, they say, is the people's way of life. Language is essentially part of people's cultures as without language, the culture is bound to go into extinction. People often talk about integration into a community or society by understanding the rules and regulations that guide the conduct of the people and behave absolutely like the stalite.
There is no way someone can claim they are integrated into a society without speaking the language of such a society it would be considered non-conforming. However, there are other ways in which someone can fit into society by offering services and contributing positively to society. It's actually easy to identify people easily through language and also the colour of their skin. The Asian has a common feature, likewise Africans and Europeans.
I think culture is far deeper than these obvious traits, and we need to pay attention to actions and contributions to really promote integration and a sense of belonging in our communities.
how we’ve built these complex digital societies but still rely on caveman-level visual cues to decide who belongs.
This is a powerful reflection. Culture is about shared behaviour and values, not skin colour or labels. Integration should mean contributing and functioning in society, not fitting into a stereotype. You really nailed how perception often replaces reality in these debates
Interesting seeing what is going on in my country and problems experienced by others. I don't know about Finland, or any other country, but here. I thin it is just fear and racism. White males are being dog whistled that they are being replaced by "others". When in fact, the others are actually doing work the white males won't or can't do. As far as langauage, personally, I think it is important for someone to assimilate to the culture and the language of the country they adopt. If I were to become a citizen of Vietnam, I would learn to speak the language best I could and adapt to their culture. All the while trying to sharesome of mine.
It makes you wonder if the concept itself isn't the thing that is causing the problems to begin with. I feel like integration is an artificial thing. Like a solution to a problem that shouldn't be a problem in the first place. It's one of those things were we created an issue just so we could claim to have a fix for it.