Montserrat Guibernau - Belonging_ Solidarity and Division in Modern Societies (2013, Polity)

. . . Life has never been so exciting and so frustrating: we have never been so empowered and so helpless.’27

The lack of clear prescriptions on what to choose and how to act, unless a person obeys the principles of a specific doctrine or ideology, adds greater difficulty. Although modern society values freedom and agency as key elements in the active and constant construction and reconstruction of self-identity, not all individuals are prepared to or interested to engage in a dynamic critical and constant process of self-construction. For some, freedom becomes a burden and the possibility of deciding to conform to mainstream patterns offers a source of relief that frees them from the constant pondering and evaluating of the various available options. Identity provides a sense of purpose and meaning in life, it increases selfesteem, it defines who we are as well as how and why we are to behave in normatively specified ways, and, according to Peggy Thoits, it also reduces depression and anxiety.28

The consequences of globalization

Economic insecurity and uncertainty in everyday life

The pace of socio-economic change is being accelerated by globalization, and this is making a major impact upon the lives of individuals. Consumption, production, leisure, media, education, travel and politics are all affected by increasing interdependence and speed in communications. But not all individuals have access to the means of globalization: that is, the sophisticated technological tools that have made it possible. In a similar manner, not all are equally affected by its consequences; social class and education tend to fuel a growing divide between those competent to move around and benefit from living in the global age and those on the margins.

The transition from industrial to post-industrial society requires fast-adapting individuals capable of surviving within a dislocated society where moral norms, values, ideologies, traditions and knowledge are constantly challenged and revised. In this context, only a few achieve an elite position while a substantial underclass, having few chances of escaping its situation, grows at the bottom. Inequality is rampant not only between different areas of

the world but also within particular societies, and this generates resentment and fragmentation.

While a successful elite benefits from operating in this global flexible market, a growing number of lowand medium-skilled workers are filling the ranks of the unemployed. Among them there is an escalating sense of vulnerability and defeat, often accompanied by an increasing lack of self-esteem. In addition, the perception that immigrants come to their countries to ‘steal’ their jobs as well as the view, substantiated or not, that asylum seekers and refugees receive greater social benefits than nationals is contributing to a process of increasing resentment towards the state and towards society as a whole. These marginalized workers’ own personal insecurity leads them to disregard the generally precarious conditions in which immigrants tend to find themselves and the frequent unwillingness of nationals to take up so-called ‘immigrant jobs’. Instead, as will be discussed below, the visibility of certain minorities associated with ‘alien’ cultures, traditions and ways of life often fosters fear, a lack of trust and open hostility, and, in some cases, it results in xenophobia and racism against those regarded as different.

The rise of the new radical right partly reflects the insecurity and instability brought about by the end of a bipolar division of the world led by the USA and the former USSR; substantial changes concerning the restructuring of the world economy; and a technological revolution which has far-reaching social, cultural and political consequences.

The collapse of communism has irremediably weakened socialism and trade unions together with the traditional values underpinning them. Solidarity and equality have been replaced by competition, individualism and the survival of the fittest. Among the main factors that have created a climate favouring the emergence of the new radical right are: public political distrust of and resentment towards politicians and the political system alike;29 the proliferation of all sorts of international and transnational institutions, corporations and associations, prompting the ­transformation of the nation-state’s traditional role; and, in Europe, the weakening of the nation-state or, at least, the substantial transformation of its sovereignty associated with European integration – a process that is also contributing to foster anxiety among some citizens ill prepared to take advantage of the opening up of European

frontiers and markets. These people feel threatened by prospects of labour mobility and cultural diversity because, in their view, such changes alter their own expectations and restrict their possibilities, creating an environment where they do not feel secure. Fierce competition for jobs, the restructuring of welfare systems and cultural anxiety break the ‘imagined’ homogeneity, solidarity and sense of community associated with the nation. In addition, the pervasive threat of terrorism since 9/11 is also associated with ‘outsiders’, people who do not ‘belong’, even if they are citizens.

The impact of globalization is not restricted to culture and values; it also affects the economic and the political spheres. World trade and the labour market are currently being guided by capitalist principles, resulting, among other things, in the displacement of the manufacturing industry away from traditional industrialized Western societies, where production is more expensive, to Eastern Europe and developing countries, where labour regulations are less strict, wages lower and worker’s rights weaker and sometimes non-existent.

Cultural anxiety

A significant number of nations and ethnic groups share a genuine concern about the eventual disappearance of their cultures and languages and feel anxious regarding the worldwide expansion of English. For example, the French are extremely preoccupied about the predominance of English worldwide and, in particular, about the progressive displacement of the use of French within EU institutions as well as the introduction of English expressions into the French language.

Furthermore, increasing numbers of immigrants belonging to cultural, ethnic and religious communities are settling in the West. The substantial influx of refugees and asylum seekers recorded in the last fifteen years or so is contributing to an enhanced perception of diversity in Western Europe and North America, where, in many instances, indigenous cultures are being challenged, rejected and confronted by those of the newcomers. Moreover, some sectors of the indigenous population display a growing mistrust and even hostility towards some of the newcomers’ cultures and

values, perceived as ‘alien’ and posing a threat to national cohesion, national culture and a particular ‘way of life’. This is illustrated by Hilde Coffé’s study of municipal-level support for the radical right party Vlaams Blok in Belgium. She and her co­authors found that the difference in electoral reactions to the presence of different ethnic groups is traced to perceptions of cultural distance and, on the supply side, to the appeals of Vlaams Blok, which typically targets Turkish and Moroccan groups: ‘This suggests that it is not so much the presence of foreigners, but rather the fear of the Islamic way of living that leads to extreme right voting.’30

Such attitudes are generating heated debates about various models of integration, their success and desirability. They also open up the debate about what should be the basis of a cohesive society and whether this requires the sharing of a common identity grounded upon some cultural, linguistic, religious and civic values among all citizens. Ultimately, it poses questions about the conditions for the coexistence of different identities within a single nation, thus directly addressing a reflection on the limits of toleration within liberal democracies.

According to some theories, there is a link between the revival of the radical right and the anomie experienced by some citizens in the West. They argue that ‘traditional social structures, especially those based on class and religion, are breaking down. As a result, individuals lose a sense of belonging and are attracted to ethnic nationalism, which according to psychological research increases a sense of self-esteem. For similar reasons, they may be attracted to family and other traditional values.’31

The new radical right has managed to capture feelings of insecurity and uncertainty encouraged by a world defined by rapid change, and it has addressed them through a political discourse based on underlining the distinction between those who belong and the ‘others’. This has marked the emergence of some kind of ethnic nationalism, cutting across social class cleavages and emphasizing the need to preserve national identity against foreign influences.

Although Western societies are profoundly individualistic, and in some respects as a result of globalization increasingly so, there is a dimension of the individual that can only be satisfied by his or her sense of belonging to a group. This social aspect is generally

fulfilled in situations within which individuality is transcended through experiences of feeling in unison with others: that is, by sharing some common interests or objectives which enable individuals to rise above their isolation and feelings of ontological insecurity. National identity has proven capable of playing this role, and the new radical right not only has become fully aware of the relevance of a shared identity but also offers a strong commitment to jealously protecting it against what it perceives as foreign contamination and downgrading.

Political alienation

In the political arena, far-reaching changes at the national, European and global levels have affected people’s views of the stature and role of politics and politicians alike, and have added to their sense of powerlessness. In the 1980s, the UK and the USA saw the ascendance of neoconservatism and neoliberalism, which subsequently spread to mainland Europe and to other parts of the world. To some extent as a reaction to this, numerous societies experienced political radicalization, often accompanied by strong anti-system movements beyond the control of traditional conservative parties, a development which, in some instances, has crystallized in the constitution and advancement of radical rightwing populist parties.32

At the national level, lack of trust in the political system has weakened the traditional role of the political party as the representative of the interests and concerns of its supporters. A growing number of people regard the political system as alien to their lives and politicians as being primarily concerned with maintaining their own status and privileges. As Colin Hay points out: ‘[T]he contemporary association of politics with the pursuit of the material self-interest of politicians is . . . oddly antithetical to its very raison d’être.’33 Yet, for many, ‘“politics” has become synonymous with notions of duplicity, corruption, dogmatism, inefficiency, undue interference in essentially private matters, and a lack of transparency in decision making’.34

Finally, globalization and its consequences have favoured the proliferation of all sorts of international and transnational institutions, corporations and associations with varying degrees of power

and competences, which in the eyes of many further undermines the traditional role of the nation-state.

As a result, people are confronted with a radically altered political environment. Many experience the new layers of governance and its impact on the nation-state as a progressive erosion of democracy owing to lack of transparency, corruption and other problems associated with it. This idea, which is often fuelled by certain parts of the media, has resulted in the alienation of significant sectors of the population, who feel disenchanted and who often opt to remain in the margins of institutional politics.

Summary

Traditional societies assigned identity to individuals according to their gender, lineage, status and religion. A distinctive feature of modernity is the unprecedented emphasis it places upon selfidentity as the outcome of individual choice, regarded as involving an active reflexive process. The self is in flux and is constructed through interaction. Processes of construction of both self-identity and collective identity are realized through group membership – by inclusion and exclusion, by the setting up of boundaries defined as fluid and permeable (including renegotiation, modification and transformation). The sharing of a collective identity has the potential to turn a group into a political actor.

In the West, the use of the burqa (and niqab) exemplifies the intersection between tradition and modernity owing to the different­ and, sometimes, even radical opposing interpretations of its use, ranging from a symbol of belonging to Islam and an expression of modesty, on the one hand, to a feminist statement and a tool to convey political protest, on the other. The burqa creates a boundary between the person wearing it and the rest. In so doing, it underlines a specific identity founded upon belonging to the Muslim community.

The Trignac incident about the wearing of a burqa in a French supermarket has highlighted the intolerance and division between different communities living within a single society; it has also illustrated a clash of values and different sentiments of belonging coexisting within a Western liberal democracy. However, it is my argument that division can be overcome by a shared sense

of solidarity associated with a sentiment of belonging. In the following chapter I examine the meaning of belonging by choice and focus upon the challenges inherent in the construction of collective identity.

2

Belonging by Choice

Belonging and emotion

Modern societies confer unprecedented importance on the individual per se and on his or her ability to build a distinct identity, which often involves a reinterpretation of tradition. But how is this personal identity constructed?

The main claim of this book is that self-identity is constructed both through belonging and through exclusion – as a choice or as imposed by others – and that, in both cases, it suggests a strong emotional attachment to a range of communities and groups. The distinctive feature of modern societies is that through the process of choosing, belonging is turned into a consequence of free will, which implies a degree of personal commitment absent from assigned forms of membership where individuals are ‘expected to’ conform to a series of norms, habits and behaviours in the name of tradition.

In some instances, belonging is the result of assigned membership: for example, most Catholics baptize their children shortly after they are born. Baptism entails welcoming the newborn into the Catholic community of believers through the use of symbolism and ritual. Recently, some parents, though baptized as Catholics themselves, have decided not to baptize their newborn children, arguing that it should be up to them to decide on whether or not to become members of the Catholic Church when they grow up.

Others, usually under the influence of various churches, make a case that children should be baptized only once they have reached the age of reason. To support this view, they contend that Jesus himself was baptized in the river Jordan when he was 30 years of age.

This transformation points to one of the most striking features of our time: the understanding that in modern democratic societies individuals expect to be free to join the groups or communities of their choosing, and that in so doing they engage in the construction of their own self-identity.

Belonging by choice contributes to the empowerment of individuals by allowing them to transcend the assigned membership or role associated with gender, class, lineage and ethnicity. Nonetheless, assigned forms of membership continue to be relevant and they predominate in some parts of the world. For instance, in rural India the caste system remains highly influential in determining life chances, including employment prospects and marriage options. It also involves well-defined economic obligations for the members of a specific caste or sub-caste, and while it presumes a degree of equality within the caste, inter-caste relations are unequal and hierarchical.

Some Western countries – Belgium, Denmark, Liechtenstein,1 Luxembourg,2 Monaco, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the UK – being constitutional monarchies, in which a monarch acts as a head of state within the parameters of a constitution, are based upon the inherited right to rule. Being a king or a queen is the result of assigned membership; although it is possible to opt out, as proved when Edward VIII, King of the UK and the Dominions of the British Commonwealth, and Emperor of India (20 January–11 December 1936), abdicated to marry Wallis Simpson. She was a divorcee, and the Church of England, of which Edward VIII was the head, opposed the remarriage of divorced people if their ex-spouse was still alive.

In contrast, belonging by choice assumes that the individual is, to a certain extent, free to choose among a set of different options. The act of choosing entails a personal decision and a personal commitment to be acknowledged by other members of the group. It fosters a sense of belonging emerging out of the individual’s active engagement in the construction of his or her own self-identity to be defined by means of his or her identification with the group.

Members define themselves by invoking the name of the group. While crucially contributing to the construction of self-identity, belonging somehow limits the individual, who, as a result of his or her own choice, is compelled to act in a particular manner and to comply with the group’s rules and values. Nevertheless, obedience to the group one has decided to join may be regarded by some as less challenging and painful than the alternative of isolation.

Belonging fosters an emotional attachment; it prompts the expansion of the individual’s personality to embrace the attributes of the group, to be loyal and obedient to it. In return, the group offers a ‘home’, a familiar space – physical, virtual or imagined – where individuals share common interests, values and principles, or a project. Belonging provides them with access to an environment within which they matter.

The group may also be able to offer access to some material and non-material assets, conceived in the broadest possible sense. Material assets may include, among others: admittance to its premises (if it has some); access to information, leisure activities and events, and documents with an instrumental value, such as a passport or a membership card; as well as a range of ventures whose access is restricted to members. Non-material assets are exemplified by the emotional closeness, moral support and solidarity which generally arise among members of a group with a common goal. For instance, the sense of belonging to a nation can somehow be lived through the experience of comradeship arising within the nationalist movement or political party. Other nonmaterial goods comprise opportunities for self-promotion, as well as access to power and resources.

The balance of advantages and disadvantages derived from group membership impacts upon the individual’s evaluation of belonging to a specific group as either a rewarding positive experience, or as a limitation only able to offer little incentives. The perceived equilibrium between the rewards and the constraints of belonging plays a key part in the subjective appraisal of group membership. Continuous dissatisfaction and disappointment concerning expectations may lead individuals to search for alternative sources of collective identity able to satisfy their most urgent needs.

Throughout their lives, individuals tend to belong to more than one group, each of which is expected to play a specific role and