From labelling to social aid for immigrants in the 21st Century

Migration is as old as humanity, but since the 1990s migration flows in Western Europe have led to societies that are not just multicultural but so-called «super-diverse». As a result, Western towns now have very complex social structures, with amongst others large amounts of small immigrant communities that are in constant change. In this paper we argue that for social workers to be able to offer adequate professional help to non-native residents in town, they will need balanced view of ‘culture’ and of the role culture plays in social aid. Culture is never static, but is continually changing. By teaching social workers about how to look at cultural backgrounds of immigrant groups and about the limitations of then role that culture plays in communication, they will be better equipped to provide adequate aid and will contribute to making various groups grow towards each other and to avoid people thinking in terms of ‘out-group-homogeneity’. Nowadays, inclusion is a priority in social work that almost every social worker supports. Social workers should have an open attitude to allow them to approach every individual as a unique person. They will see the other person as the person they are, and not as a part of a specific cultural group. Knowledge about the others makes them see the cultural heterogeneity in every group. The social sector, though, must be aware not to fall into the trap of the ‘inclusion mania’! This will cause the social deprivation of a particular group to be forgotten. An inclusive policy requires an inclusive society. Otherwise, this could result in even more deprivation of other groups, already discriminated against. Emancipation of deprived people demands a certain target-group policymaking. Categorized aid will raise efficiency of working with immigrants and of acknowledging the cultural identity of the non-natives group. It will also create the possibility to work on fighting social deprivation, in which most immigrants can be found.

Contemporary Transformations of the Relations between Politics, Culture and Religion in Western Europe. Some Notes on the Spanish Case

According to Tilly, two laws shaped the process of transformation undergone by Western European societies since the Peace of Westphalia until the end of the 20th century: their increasing inner homogenisation and their growing heterogeneity between them. Cultural inner homogenisation affected, fi rst, those ethnic groups living within the territories of the said states. The second phase of homogenisation impinged on those groups that immigrated after World War II. This process followed different models according to the country considered, but the 1973 oil crisis revealed their general lack of success. During the last quarter of the 20th century and onwards, these European societies have been altered by two progressive and contradictory global logics: a process of cultural homogenisation at the world level (rather than society level) and a process of cultural re-creation led by those groups with an immigrant background, who have reacted against their integration shortcomings by searching for new sources of social and personal esteem in their respective cultural and religious traditions. This paper seeks to clarify these processes from a social differentiation and political representation theory perspective. The latter becomes indispensable, as the said processes have happened in a context in which the structure of relations (i.e. communication) between civil society and the democratic political sphere have experienced a radical crisis. In this way, the complex relations that exist between civil society, culture, religion and politics in these Western European societies are depicted.

Of Marx and Makers: an Historical Perspective on Generative Justice

In Marxist frameworks “distributive justice” depends on extracting value through a centralized state. Many new social movements—peer to peer economy, maker activism, community agriculture, queer ecology, etc.—take the opposite approach, keeping value in its unalienated form and allowing it to freely circulate from the bottom up. Unlike Marxism, there is no general theory for bottom-up, unalienated value circulation. This paper examines the concept of “generative justice” through an historical contrast between Marx’s writings and the indigenous cultures that he drew upon. Marx erroneously concluded that while indigenous cultures had unalienated forms of production, only centralized value extraction could allow the productivity needed for a high quality of life. To the contrary, indigenous cultures now provide a robust model for the “gift economy” that underpins open source technological production, agroecology, and restorative approaches to civil rights. Expanding Marx’s concept of unalienated labor value to include unalienated ecological (nonhuman) value, as well as the domain of freedom in speech, sexual orientation, spirituality and other forms of “expressive” value, we arrive at an historically informed perspective for generative justice. 

The Devil and Views on the “Other” in Part One of Pedro Cieza de León’s "Crónica del Perú" (1553)

Many 16th century Spanish chroniclers and missionaries, arriving at what they interpreted as a New World, saw the Devil as a “hermeneutic wildcard” that allowed them to comprehend indigenous religions. Pedro Cieza de León, a soldier in the conquest of Peru, is a case in point. Cieza considers the Devil responsible for the most aberrant religious practices and customs of the Indians, although he views the natives in a positive light, as men susceptible to divine salvation. From a providentialist perspective of the history of the conquest, Cieza interprets that the evangelization and conversion of the Indians and the implantation of Christian civilization by the Spanish Crown, were able to defeat the Devil.