Families in the Netherlands consisting of individuals falling into a variety of racialized migrant categories, are often the focus of governmental scrutiny and scientific curiosity. These ‘migrant families’ are constructed in a variety of ways, all which make it possible to center them as the object of interventions aiming to address their assumed cultural distance and their ‘traditional’ way of life, often within the discourse of ‘integration’ and within government mandated civic integration programmes. The paradox arises when these migrant families, problematized in their traditionality, their ‘unmodernity’, are seen as a threat to the Dutch ‘modern’ families and what are seen as their own national Dutch ‘traditions’. Embracing ‘tradition’ is therefore simultaneously seen as a sign of a lack of progress when attributed to migrant families, while also seen as something which must be protected, as an inherent characteristic of national identity of the modern Dutch nation state. This paper aims to explore this paradox and the constructions of the modern and unmodern family by focusing on the everyday doing of these families, and how they are studied and described in a variety of knowledge production reports. The everyday, and the description and governance of it, is a site which contributes to the (re)production of the logics of modernity, yet it is often ignored or left unseen, perhaps because of its assumed mundanity. What hierarchical descriptions exist in these reports between migrant and Dutch families on how daily family life is organized, enacted in parent child interactions, in gender roles, in community involvement, in celebratory traditions, and in work/leisure activities? How do these everyday activities, act as signifiers of the extent to which the doing of modern values (such as equality, solidarity, participation, and freedom) are enacted in everyday life in migrant vs Dutch families. Understanding these constructions, and the role that scientific research publications play in (re)producing them, will be explored to better understand how the normalization of these logics set the stage for the further scrutiny and discipline of these migranticized families.
MULTIFILE
Scientific research from within and beyond academia continues to provide the justification and the knowledge for policy developments directed toward migration and integration governance. A proliferation of scholarship aims to study, pilot, and investigate the ‘best practices’ for facilitating integration, which is then taken up in advice to policy makers. Many authors have written about this science-policy nexus (Boswell 2009; Penninx, Garcés-Mascareñas, and Scholten 2005; Scholten et al. 2015; Verbeek, Entzinger, and Scholten 2015) These works have also engaged in critical reflection, problematizing this nexus and demonstrating how funding structures draw researchers not only into addressing short-term policy goals, but also into reproducing some of the essentialist worldviews that come with methodological nationalism (Wimmer and Glick Schiller 2002) and the ‘national order of things’ (Malkki 1995). Yet, the colonial legacies and dis/continuities of these logics in integrationism have not received much attention so far.The paper takes a critical lens on the implications of the science-policy complicity in reproducing colonial logics of ‘cultural distance’, based on perspectives and empirical research from different national (Netherlands and Switzerland) and supra-national (EU) contexts. We analyse texts which shape the civic integration programme in the Netherlands, the genealogy of the integration requirement to respect the values of the constitution in Switzerland, and the EU framework on migrant integration. This combined analysis brings forth the role scientists and knowledge producers play in (re)producing the colonial logics within integrationism, and their contributions to the regime of truth within which integration discourse operates. Throughout this article, we draw on examples from these different contexts to display that integration and its migranticized (Dahinden 2016) subjects are constructed through practices deemed as scientific or objective expertise, building on important work by Schinkel (2018) on integration research as “neocolonial knowledge production” and Favell’s (2022) critical reflections on integration indicator frameworks. As we demonstrate, the “idea of integration as an issue of cultural distance is rendered imaginable in and through colonial legacies and scientific practices from which policy draws legitimacy. We show how cultural distance is produced in the scientification of migrants’ assimilability in a ‘Western work ethic’, in measurement of migrants’ adherence to liberal values, and through constructions of integration drawing on social imaginaries of national and European identity. Importantly, we argue that by presenting this cultural distance as a product of objective, scientific processes of empirical observation, the notion of cultural distance is normalised and depoliticized, which ultimately legitimizes integrationism as a mode of governance.The present study builds on important contributions (by Schinkel 2017; Favell 2022; Korteweg 2017; Bonjour and Duyvendak 2017, and others) in attempting to destabilize the normalization of integrationism as the widely accepted mode of governance of ‘immigrant’ or ‘ethnic’ populations and their inherent and problematic ‘distance’. The content and structure of this summer school in post-colonial Amsterdam would allow us to continue our critical reflexive discussions to better understand the colonial logics at play and how they operate in multiple contexts and at multiple levels of governance, in and beyond integration
LINK
We aim to understand the interaction between shifting organizational field logics and field actors’ responses to reconcile logic plurality and maintain legitimacy through business model innovation. Drawing on a multimethod, longitudinal field study in the fashion industry, we traced how de novo and incumbent firms integrate circular logics in business models (for sustainability) and uncover how productive tensions in field logics lead to experimental spaces for business model innovation. Our findings showed a shift in the discourse on circular logic that diverted attention and resources from materials innovation (e.g. recycling) to business model innovation (e.g. circular business models). By juxtaposing the degree of field logic tension and the degree of business model innovation, we derive four types of business model hybridization responses that actors engaged in to maintain legitimacy – constrained, limited, integrated, and expanded. Our study generates new insights on business models for sustainability as vehicles for organizational field change.
