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.