Immigrants, Literature and National Integration (New Perspectives in German Political Studies)

New Perspectives in German Political Studies General Editors: William Paterson OBE is Honorary Professor in German and ...

Author: Chantal Lacroix

12 downloads 521 Views 656KB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

New Perspectives in German Political Studies General Editors: William Paterson OBE is Honorary Professor in German and European Politics at the University of Aston and Chairman of the German British Forum. Charlie Jeffery is Professor of Politics at the University of Edinburgh. Germany remains a pivotal country in Europe. It is Europe’s biggest economy, continues to play a central role in the European Union and has a growing significance in international security politics based on its strategic location at the centre of Europe and its evolving role as a provider of security in Europe and beyond. All this is nuanced by the legacies of a turbulent recent history: the two World Wars, the Holocaust, Germany’s division after World War II and its unification in 1990. New Perspectives in German Political Studies has been designed as a platform for debate and scholarship on contemporary Germany. It welcomes contributions from political science, international relations, political economy and contemporary history. It follows on from the success of the earlier series on New Perspectives in German Studies, co-edited by William Paterson and the late Professor Michael Butler. Titles include: Wilhelm Hennis POLITICS AS A PRACTICAL SCIENCE Alister Miskimmon, William E. Paterson and James Sloam (editors) GERMANY’S GATHERING CRISIS The 2005 Federal Election and the Grand Coalition Y. Michal Bodemann (editor) THE NEW GERMAN JEWRY AND THE EUROPEAN CONTEXT The Return of the European Jewish Diaspora Anne Fuchs PHANTOMS OF WAR IN CONTEMPORARY GERMAN LITERATURE, FILMS AND DISCOURSE The Politics of Memory Caroline Pearce CONTEMPORARY GERMANY AND THE NAZI LEGACY Remembrance, Politics and the Dialectic of Normality Axel Goodbody NATURE, TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURAL CHANGE IN TWENTIETH-CENTURY GERMAN LITERATURE The Challenge of Ecocriticism Beverly Crawford POWER AND GERMAN FOREIGN POLICY Embedded Hegemony in Europe Dan Hough, Michael Koß and Jonathan Olsen THE LEFT PARTY IN CONTEMPORARY GERMAN POLITICS Roger Woods GERMANY’S NEW RIGHT AS CULTURE AND POLITICS

Christian Schweiger BRITAIN, GERMANY AND THE FUTURE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Karl Christian Führer and Corey Ross (editors) MASS MEDIA, CULTURE AND SOCIETY IN TWENTIETH-CENTURY GERMANY Matthew M.C. Allen THE VARIETIES OF CAPITALISM PARADIGM Explaining Germany’s Comparative Advantage? Gunther Hellmann (editor) GERMANY’S EU POLICY IN ASYLUM AND DEFENCE De-Europeanization by Default? Chantal Lacroix IMMIGRANTS, LITERATURE AND NATIONAL INTEGRATION Charles Lees PARTY POLITICS IN GERMANY A Comparative Politics Approach Ronald Speirs and John Breuilly (editors) GERMANY’S TWO UNIFICATIONS Anticipations, Experiences, Responses James Sloam THE EUROPEAN POLICY OF THE GERMAN SOCIAL DEMOCRATS Interpreting a Changing World Margarete Kohlenbach WALTER BENJAMIN Self-Reference and Religiosity Henning Tewes GERMANY, CIVILIAN POWER AND THE NEW EUROPE Enlarging Nato and the European Union Wolf-Dieter Eberwein and Karl Kaiser (editors) GERMANY’S NEW FOREIGN POLICY Decision-Making in an Interdependent World Gerard Braunthal RIGHT-WING EXTREMISM IN CONTEMPORARY GERMANY A Threat to Democracy?

New Perspectives in German Political Studies Series Standing Order ISBN 978-0–333–92430–3 hardcover Series Standing Order ISBN 978-0–333–92434–1 paperback (outside North America only) You can receive future titles in this series as they are published by placing a standing order. Please contact your bookseller or, in case of difficulty, write to us at the address below with your name and address, the title of the series and the ISBN quoted above. Customer Services Department, Macmillan Distribution Ltd, Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS, England

Immigrants, Literature and National Integration Chantal Lacroix

© Chantal Lacroix 2010 All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission. No portion of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, Saffron House, 6-10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS. Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. The author has asserted her right to be identified as the author of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. First published 2010 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN Palgrave Macmillan in the UK is an imprint of Macmillan Publishers Limited, registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS. Palgrave Macmillan in the US is a division of St Martin’s Press LLC, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010. Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies and has companies and representatives throughout the world. Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries. ISBN-13: 978–0–230–23045–3 hardback This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully managed and sustained forest sources. Logging, pulping and manufacturing processes are expected to conform to the environmental regulations of the country of origin. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. 10 9 19 18

8 7 6 17 16 15

5 4 3 2 14 13 12 11

1 10

Printed and bound in Great Britain by CPI Antony Rowe, Chippenham and Eastbourne

Contents

List of Figures and Tables

viii

Acknowledgements

x

Introduction

xi

1 National Integration and Immigrant Literature 1 National integration 1.1 Defining integration 1.2 Dimensions and spheres of integration 1.3 Multiculturalism and integration 2 The inner workings of integration 2.1 Constructivism as theory 3 Immigrant literature in Germany and the United Kingdom 3.1 Whose literature? 4 Why immigrant literature and integration? 5 Conclusion

1 6 6 12 16 18 18

2 Cultural Integration 1 National culture 1.1 German culture 1.2 British culture 1.3 Minorities and stereotypes 1.4 Summary 2 Cultural policies 2.1 British cultural policy 2.2 German Kulturpolitik 2.3 Summary 3 Influencing factors 3.1 Globalisation 3.2 Stereotypes 3.3 Islam

36 39 40 43 46 51 53 54 57 60 62 62 65 67

v

22 22 30 34

vi

Contents

3.4 Censorship 3.5 Summary 4 Links with cultural integration 4.1 Generating intercultural dialogue 4.2 Redefining national culture 4.3 Indicators of cultural integration 5 Conclusion

70 72 73 74 77 81 82

3 Social Integration 1 Education and the curriculum 1.1 Germany 1.2 United Kingdom 1.3 Summary 2 Ethnic minorities in schools 2.1 Demographics 2.2 Integration policies in schools 2.3 Achievement of migrant pupils 2.4 Summary 3 Literature in British and German schools 3.1 Literature and the British curriculum 3.2 Literature in German schools 3.3 Choosing what to teach 3.4 Summary 4 Links with social integration 4.1 Literacy 4.2 Social empathy 4.3 Public space 4.4 Indicators of social integration 4.5 Summary 5 Conclusion

86 87 89 92 94 96 96 97 101 106 107 107 109 111 112 113 113 116 119 122 124 125

4 Economic Integration 1 Culture, industry and the economy 1.1 The cultural industries 1.2 Literary producers (authors) 1.3 Literary consumers (readers) 1.4 Summary 2 The gatekeepers 2.1 The publishing industry

129 131 131 133 136 138 139 139

Contents

2.2 Book retailing 2.3 Public institutions (via literary prizes) 2.4 Summary 3 Influencing factors 3.1 Information communication technologies 3.2 Libraries 3.3 The media and word of mouth 3.4 Book fairs and other literary events 3.5 Summary 4 Links with economic integration 4.1 The market link 4.2 The labour link 4.3 Indicators of integration 4.4 Summary 5 Conclusion

vii

147 153 155 157 158 159 161 163 165 166 167 170 173 173 175

5 Conclusion 1 The links between immigrant literature and national integration 2 Immigrant literature as an indicator of national integration 3 Immigrant literature as a tool for promoting national integration 4 Conclusion

179

Notes

193

Bibliography

199

Index

211

181 185 188 191


Figures 1.1 The dimensions and spheres of integration 3.1 Percentage of British pupils from each minority ethnic group in maintained primary and secondary schools as of January 2006 3.2 Foreign (ausländische Schüler) and German (deutsche Schüler) pupils at schools of general education (without primary education) by types of school (without special schools) in the years 1992–1993 and 2003–2004 (as a percentage) 3.3 Differences in mean reading literacy scores of two subgroups of students—students from families who speak the test language at home and students from families who speak a language other than the test language at home. 3.4 Attainment in foundation stage profile, 2004 and 2005, in communication, language and literacy 4.1 Consumer book expenditures 1995–1997 (millions Euro) 4.2 Interest for literature by information source

14

96

100

104 105 137 163

Tables 1.1 Glossary of terms 1.2 Immigrant literature and national integration: areas of exploration 2.1 British and German cultural policies: similarities and differences 2.2 Influential factors: positive and negative impacts 3.1 Foreign students by nationality and type of school in the 1999–2000 academic year viii

7 33 61 73 98


3.2 Means and distributions of student performance in Germany and the United Kingdom in comparison to other OECD countries 3.3 Intercultural aspects in the teaching of German language and literature, 2006–2007 4.1 International export of books (all books) by largest exporters 4.2 International import of books (all books) by largest importers 4.3 Summary of potential indicators of integration linked to immigrant literature

ix

103 110 148 149 174

Acknowledgements Several people have been instrumental in bringing this book to completion. I would like to extend my most heartfelt gratitude to Prof. Simon Green of Aston University for his support, advice and patience; the subject was not conventional from the start and his encouraging words carried it a long way. Many thanks as well to Dr Jonathan Grix, University of Birmingham, for reading my drafts and offering valuable advice; Prof. Andrew Geddes of Sheffield University and Prof. William Patterson of the University of Birmingham for their constructive criticism and critical eye; and to Prof. Michael Bommes for welcoming me at the Institute for Migration and Intercultural Studies, University of Osnabrück and providing me with his knowledgeable input at a critical stage. The research received financial support from the Institute for German Studies, European Research Institute, University of Birmingham, and from the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD); for both, I am very grateful. I am grateful as well to my interview partners in Germany, the United Kingdom, Canada and India: much of the discussion herein is based on their valuable input. They have graciously offered me their time, knowledge and opinions for which I am much obliged. On a more personal note, thank you to my family who has given me the much needed support and encouragement. Merci as well to my valued friends, old and new, and on both sides of the Atlantic, their understanding ears have been a tremendous help along the way. Special thanks to Hans Benzinger for reviewing my German translations; Claudia Major and Guy Schmit for commenting on various chapters; and Monica and Frank Schlegel, as well as Barbara and Gilbert Major, for giving me shelter during my numerous trips to Germany. And finally, thank you to Matthew Bailey who saw this work through and to whom I am much indebted.

x

Introduction Integration is a hot topic worldwide. National governments around the world are struggling to find ways to accommodate the increasing number of immigrants crossing their borders or residing in their countries. Immigration is raising alarms on all fronts: there are fears of a diluting national culture and a changing way of life; increased perceptions of a burden on national social systems; ideas of value incompatibility and a culture clash between Islam and the Western world; and enduring beliefs that immigrants ‘steal’ the few remaining good jobs from deserving nationals. Of course, integration is far from a new topic and has received much attention for many years. Yet, despite the amount of research and policy initiatives targeting national integration, there are but very few indications of successful integration initiatives. For years, multiculturalism—best portrayed by the Canadian, Australian and Dutch approaches towards immigration—was touted as la crème de la crème of integration policies. However, in view of the recent crest in immigration tensions worldwide and particularly in liberal countries like the Netherlands, multiculturalism is now often deemed an approach of the past. It is now necessary to find new ways to promote national integration in order to meet societal needs, facilitate cohesion and counter or curb rising ethnic tensions. Based on the scarcity of new integration policy initiatives, governments appear to be running short of ideas. Many countries, including Germany and the United Kingdom, but also France, the Netherlands and Canada, to name a random few, are increasingly making use of written tests, combined with stronger border controls and antidiscrimination measures as their means to promote integration or, at least, prevent racial tensions. However, these initiatives are hardly new or innovative and could benefit from being complemented by measures that have a more lasting and deeper impact on national integration. This book aims to take a step in that direction. By exploring new links to national integration, it examines a less obvious tranche of society that nonetheless has ties to various aspects of national life. xi

xii Introduction

Indeed, given the links between immigrant literature and national integration’s cultural, social and economic aspects, immigrant literature could prove a novel, cost-effective and ‘light-touch’ approach to promoting national integration and strengthening the ties that bind increasingly diverse citizens. This book results from research conducted between 2004 and 2008. Much of the arguments herein are based on the testimonies of immigrant authors, critical readers, industry and education professionals and others which, when triangulated with quantitative data and documentary information, greatly contributes to the added value of this work. The book is structured as follows: Chapter 1, discusses the basis for linking national integration and immigrant literature; Chapters 2, 3 and 4 form the core of this work, wherein I discuss the links between immigrant literature and cultural, social and economic integration respectively; Chapter 5, brings the threads of the discussion together and concludes by proposing ways in which immigrant integration could be used for promoting national integration.

1 National Integration and Immigrant Literature

National elections often nurture the worst side of politics and bring to the fore some of the most sensitive national issues, those judged to be of greatest importance for the majority population and the election or re-election of the political parties concerned. Consider, for example, the 2008 Austrian and United States elections, the 2007 French presidential elections, the 2003 and 2006 Dutch general elections or the 2001 Australian elections: whilst local particularities do and did arise in each national discourse linked to migration, it is fair to say that in all cases the topic was a difficult if not dangerous one for politicians to handle. Indeed, ‘immigration is to modern politics what violent crime was in the 1980s: an apparently marginal issue that can swiftly overwhelm a campaign’ (The Economist, 10 October 2008). In the last 2005 British general elections immigration was, again, the subject of many controversial and attention-grabbing headlines. That immigration should be high on the media and politicians’ radar screens is certainly not new or undesirable—in fact, an honest discussion on immigration to clear the air and dispel some myths can be useful. What was (and is) worrisome is the one-sided negative nature with which it is often debated and reported. During the elections, the battle was on as to who could best ‘be tough’ on immigrants and ‘crack down’ on the number of foreigners entering the country. The incumbent Labour party announced strict rules on immigration, blurring distinctions between asylum seekers, labour migrants and family migration in the process. For their part, the Conservatives threatened to pull out of the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees. In the midst 1

2 Immigrants, Literature and National Integration

of this heated debate, very little mention was made of immigration’s contribution to the labour force or, indeed, of Britain’s need for immigration in the face of an ageing workforce and a high and increasing potential support ratio.1 In fact, foreigners were said to steal jobs, drain the national welfare system, dilute Britain’s national culture and act as a hindrance on social cohesion. Of course, Britain is not alone in cultivating such an antiimmigration discourse: recent German national elections experienced similar discussions, mostly linked to the issue of dual citizenship and Kindernachzug (the immigration of dependant children). As with Britain, discussions in Germany have generally centred on issues of border control, with an added emphasis on access to, or acceptance of, dual citizenship for long-term settled migrants (socalled denizens—see Table 1.1). Moreover, in both countries, the challenge of integrating immigrants looms high in national public debates, and the issue of social cohesion has caused headaches for many politicians and policy makers. This book contributes to the discussion surrounding immigrant integration by examining the links between literature and national integration processes. Specifically, it explores the links between German-Turkish and British-Asian immigrant literature and integration in their respective national contexts by comparing and contrasting the impact of immigrant literature on integration’s three spheres, that is, cultural, social and economic integration. The use of immigrant literature as the key focus of this work is justified by the fact that whilst borders mark the nation so too does a sense of national identity and both do not necessarily coincide. Indeed, on the one hand, many peoples’ transnational networks are grounded in the perception that they share a certain form of common identity based on a place of origin and the cultural and linguistic traits associated with it. However, on the other hand, for many contemporary migrants especially, identities are negotiated within social worlds that span more than one place (Vertovec, 2001b). Immigrant literature, through its narrative of ‘between-ness’, encapsulates and indeed encourages migrants’ transnational affinities and, as such, affects society’s integration process. Moreover, given the size of the publishing industry in Germany and the United Kingdom, the presence of literature in both national language curriculums and the recognised link between reading and literacy (Krashen, 1993; OECD, 2000, 2003), it becomes

National Integration and Immigrant Literature

3

clear that immigrant literature has a potential impact on the national integration processes and that the links between immigrant literature and integration deserve exploration. Germany and the United Kingdom prove to be particularly useful subjects for this comparative work, not least because of their status among the leading immigrant-receiving countries of the European Union (EU) (in absolute terms). Of particular interest to the present book is the fact that, under increasingly similar pressures, British and German immigrant integration policies are converging: strong border control, integration classes, anti-discrimination measures and greater access to citizenship are increasingly seen as the key policy tools for successful integration (Lacroix, 2004a). With this in mind—and with the different reception of, and status given to, immigrant literature in both countries—this book is in a good position to explore the links between immigrant literature and integration in Germany and the United Kingdom.2 As a whole, the character and content of German and British immigration and integration policies have been shaped by a number of factors, the most important of which include their respective histories with immigration, experiences with human rights, national political structures and shifting perceptions of immigration. First, Germany’s history with foreign labour recruitment between 1955 and 1973 has made German policy makers reticent to reintroduce expansive measures to recruit labour migrants, especially in regards to low and semiskilled workers. This fear may arguably stem from the fact that most of Germany’s dependant migrants today (and to some extent asylum seekers) are in some way related to the recruits of the Gastarbeiter (guest worker) years (Castles, 2004; Green, 2005b; UKZ, 2001). As for Britain, its extraordinarily liberal immigration policies up to 1962 and the subsequent rapid closing of its borders (especially to New Commonwealth citizens) have made immigration policies particularly sensitive to racial issues, yet, at the same time, also particularly efficient (Hansen, 2000). Second, the United Kingdom’s immigration policies have generally been more successful in restricting migration than those of Germany, either because of judicial or constitutional constraints on the German state that have no equivalent in the United Kingdom (Joppke, 1998a, 1999) or because of ‘little successful opposition from international norms or institutions’ (Hansen, 2000, p. 260). Whatever the case, the


effect of human rights on immigration policies is particularly noticeable in Germany, where these rights have had a visible impact on the country’s attempt to introduce policies aimed at increasing control of its borders. Third, the decision-making structure and policy implementation processes in both countries have also largely influenced—and still influence—immigration policy outcomes. Germany’s cooperativefederalism structure generally encourages the ‘regionalisation’ of policies (that is, a varied implementation from Land to Land), whereas the centralised United Kingdom structure ensures more uniform implementation. Moreover, German regional representation in federal decision-making processes can impede or at the very least slow down proposed immigration policy reforms (Kruse et al., 2003). This is not the case in the United Kingdom, where regional representation in national policy making is relatively poor and, in any event, regions have little at stake, since the implementation and funding of these policies is of national jurisdiction (Boswell, 2001, with respect to asylum). Fourth, despite timely immigration ‘hysteria’, there has been a subtle but nonetheless important shift recently in the overall perception of immigration in both Germany and the United Kingdom: migration has moved from being largely unwanted to being partly necessary, albeit only when well managed. That is, ‘within the old framework, immigration was interpreted as a threat to individuals and society as a whole, whilst the new thinking accepts “legitimate immigration” as a benefit’ (Düvell and Jordan, 2003, p. 330). This view, combined with the recognition that migration flows cannot be completely stopped, has helped fuel the perception that a more pragmatic approach to managing (as opposed to controlling) migration is required: ‘a more workable immigration policy would be more selective, not restrictive’ (The Economist, 2 November 2002, p. 11). Such pragmatic migration management also entails elements of promoting the integration of settled foreigners (Bade and Münz, 2002; BDA, 2003; Geddes, 2003; UKZ, 2001). All in all, both countries have seen intense activity surrounding their migration policies in the past decade. In Germany, the Federal Minister of the Interior set up an Independent Commission on Migration (Unabhängige Kommission für Zuwanderung) in September 2000 with the goal of providing recommendations for a new


5

German immigration policy.3 In July 2007, Angela Merkel unveiled a new National Integration Plan to provide local and state officials with a federal framework for conducting immigrant integration programmes (MPI, 2007). Furthermore, the 1999 reform of the German Nationality Act was certainly no small task. In the United Kingdom, activity was centred on the continued honing of multiculturalism, the questioning of Britishness and the refining of ‘better race relations’ among increased racial tensions, in particular in the wake of the July 2005 London attacks when it was discovered that the perpetrators were British nationals. Finally, both countries, on different levels, turned to the EU in an attempt to improve the management and control of immigration, especially with respect to asylum seekers and refugees. It is among this high level of activity, great volatility and conflicting pressures that national integration must be examined. To a certain extent, the German and British approaches to immigrant integration reflect their respective experiences with immigration: Germany, which has made peace with the reality of large-scale migration only recently, tends to focus its efforts on improving the legal status of its immigrants whilst combating racism and discrimination. The United Kingdom, with its longer immigration tradition, is more inclined to include socioeconomic elements in its policies, for example, positive discrimination facilitating the integration of migrants in the labour market for the sake of cultural diversity (Entzinger and Biezeveld, 2003). More recently, in both countries, growing attention has been paid to the cultural aspect of immigrant integration, seen namely through the introduction of citizenship classes for future citizens. The issue of cultural integration has come to the fore, in part due to, first, the dilemma of respecting minority cultures in a multicultural and democratic environment and, second, the perceived need for a core of commonly shared values and identification. Central to this work is the question: using the United Kingdom and Germany as example cases, what are the links between immigrant literature and integration? Captured within this broad question are a number of sub-questions, namely: how does immigrant literature affect the three spheres of integration—cultural, social and economic—respectively? Can immigrant literature serve as an indicator of integration? And, more generally, could immigrant literature


be used as a tool for promoting integration in de facto multicultural societies such as those of Britain and Germany, and if so, in which ways?

1

National integration

1.1 Defining integration Measuring social behaviour and phenomena is always a challenging task. This is especially true of evaluating the integration of immigrants into host societies, since this means evaluating not one but two social processes: one cannot look at the migrants alone but must also take into account the members of the host society. Furthermore, and adding to the complexity of the analysis, national policies such as those of Britain and Germany often reflect different definitions of what is meant by ‘integration’. Whilst, in essence, the term means ‘joining different parts into one entity’, its practical interpretation and social connotation can vary considerably: ‘assimilation’ as well as ‘multicultural society’ can be considered synonyms or descriptions of a successful integration policy. Thus, as a result, all forms of cultural or social behaviour, ranging from completely giving up one’s background to preserving unaltered patterns of behaviour, are often captured by the term ‘integration’ (Council of Europe, 1998). Of course, this problem of definition has a bearing on measuring, analysing and studying the levels or processes of immigrant integration: since different meanings of integration form the basis of national policies for improving immigrant integration, the standard of determining when integration has been successful also varies. Table 1.1 provides an overview of the terminology used in academic and policy discourse to describe the process through which immigrants become part of the receiving society.4 Table 1.1 shows that there is an absence of a clear definition of integration with respect to research and policy formulation. The means and ways of describing integration—or indeed any of the above terms—vary from country to country or over time and depend on the interests, values and perspectives of the people concerned. The wide scope of integration’s dimensions and spheres makes it that much harder to define. In fact, Banton (2001) refers to integration as a ‘treacherous metaphor’, which alludes to a two-way accommodation of host and immigrant groups but offers no clear criteria for

Table 1.1 Glossary of terms Term

Usage(s)

Shortcoming(s) of the Concept

Integration

•

•

•

Usage 1: Integration is often used in a normative way to imply a one-way process of adaptation by newcomers. This usage does not recognise the diversity of cultural and social patterns in a multicultural society; as a result, integration in this sense may merely be a watered-down form of assimilation. Usage 2: A two-way process of adaptation involving changes in values, norms and behaviour for both newcomers and members of the existing society. This includes recognition of the role of the ethnic community and the idea that broader social patterns and cultural values may change in response to immigration.

The concept can be vague and amorphous and can mean whatever the person citing it wishes it to mean.

7

8

Table 1.1 (Continued) Term

Usage(s)


Assimilation

•

•

Implies bringing immigrants into society through a one-way and one-sided process of adaptation. Newcomers are to give up their prior linguistic, cultural and social characteristics, adopt the values and practices of the mainstream receiving society and become indistinguishable from the majority population. The process can take more than one generation, with states creating conditions favourable to this process. The emphasis is on the individual immigrant, who ‘learns’ and embraces the new culture and gives up the culture of origin through a process of acculturation.

•

• •

Assimilation devalues the cultures and languages of minority groups, thus contradicting democratic principles of diversity and free choice. It presupposes that a receiving society is willing and able to offer equality of rights and opportunities to immigrants who assimilate; assimilation fails where there is discrimination. It is based on an individualistic model and ignores the importance of family and community in social life. It gives little attention to the possibility of varied paths followed by immigrants.

Acculturation

•

The process through which immigrants are expected to learn the language of the country of immigration, as well as its presumed dominant cultural values and practices.

•

It may presuppose that the receiving society is monocultural and that immigrants must surrender their own ethnic group cultures.

Adaptation

•

The selective and often conscious attempt to modify certain aspects of cultural practice in accordance with the host society’s norms and values. The idea may coincide with a view that public behaviour should conform to the majority

•

Assumes the onus is wholly on the immigrant to ‘do something’ to make himor herself ‘fit in’. The bright line between public and private is artificial in reality and may presume that assimilationism is

culture, whilst private activities may continue in line with the society and culture of the immigrant’s former nation.

appropriate for the public sphere, whilst multiculturalism is pertinent only to the private sphere.

Incorporation

• Usage 1: Incorporation of immigrants is seen by some social scientists as a fairly neutral term that refers to the overall process by which newcomers become part of a society. It is seen as avoiding the normative implications of such terms as ‘assimilation’, ‘integration’ and ‘insertion’. • Usage 2: Incorporation is used to refer to a broadly defined political domain alongside integration in the social sphere. That is, incorporation is ‘becoming part of a polity’: gaining access to rights and privileges (including citizenship); participating in a society’s legal, organisational and political structures; and policy measures to assist this.

•

It may lead to an overly rigid conceptualisation of the legal/political and social/cultural areas.

Inclusion

•

•

Like ‘integration’, the term may be so broad and vague as to risk being overused and invoked without any attempt to establish relevant indicators.

The process whereby immigrants become participants in particular sub-sectors of society: education, labour market, welfare system, political representation, etc. The emphasis is on active and conscious processes, that is, policies of public agencies or employers, as well as the role of newcomers themselves. This is touted as the antithesis of exclusion or social exclusion.

9

Table 1.1 (Continued) 10

Term

Usage(s)


Insertion

•

The process though which immigrants and refugees are brought into various social sub-sectors. The term originates in the French Republican Model of individual assimilation of immigrants and carries the implication of being inserted into an unchanged social institution—in other words, that the immigrant must assimilate to existing structures.

•

Like assimilation, insertion neglects the collective dimension of societal belonging. The role of the ethnic community is also ignored.

Settlement

•

The term is widely used in ‘countries of immigration’ such as Australia and Canada, where the emphasis is on the role of government services in the integration process. However, much sociological research on settlement emphasises the active role of immigrants and the ethnic community. Settlement is also used with reference to geography and spatial patterns, as well as residential trends.

•

Settlement is mainly used in the context of policy models and tends to define the process in a top-down fashion or social engineering terms.

Denizenship

•

A term coined by Swedish sociologist Tomas Hammar to describe those immigrants in European countries who do not have full formal citizenship but still have a legal claim to important rights that are normally seen as part of citizenship. These can include, for example, local voting rights, the right to permanent residence in a country and social rights.

•

Denizenship contradicts the liberal-democratic principle of full inclusion for all permanent residents as full members of society and, above all, as active participants in the political system.


11

operation and measurement. Crucially, this treacherousness is further increased by the fact that there is no clear measure of what constitutes an integrated modern society (Council of Europe, 1998; Favell, 2005; Green, 2002; Lacroix, 2004b). In recent years, integration has been prominent in public policy debates and high-level policy formulation in Britain, Germany and all across Europe. An important challenge to integration in the United Kingdom, and even more so in Germany, is the close relationship between the notions and ideas linked to integration and the long-standing narratives of nation-building and national identity that form the basis of British and German national politics (Favell, 2005) and provide the background for cultural policy making. In both cases, the related debate centres on how historical notions of the nation can be adapted to include new, culturally distinct immigrants and, conversely, how these immigrants must change or adapt to become integrated in the nation (Green, 2005a; Joppke and Morawska, 2003). Popular attitudes and policies in Britain and Germany often seem to be based on the assumption that integration is a one-way process: migrants are expected to integrate into the existing culture and society without any reciprocal accommodation. In other words, whilst in German and British public policy discourses there is a sense that integration is referred to as a middle way between coercive conformism to national norms and values, on the one hand, and the threat of separatism on the other (Favell, 2005), there nonetheless remains the implicit assumption that the end goal of their respective integration policies is an eventual ‘assimilation’ of migrants (that is, ‘usage 1’ of ‘integration’ in Table 1.1 above). Hence, it becomes clear that British and German governments favour a fuller integration of immigrants but, at the same time, cherish the principle of homogeneity, albeit at different degrees and in different ways. A clear expression of this goal can be seen in the implementation of integration classes where ‘national’ values, laws and histories are taught. Whilst national laws are more tangible and straightforward to define, the definition and outlining of national history and values common to the British or German nations is clearly a highly controversial, somewhat contested and arguably impossible task. In fact, as has been noted and criticised (Entzinger and Biezeveld, 2003; Favell, 2001; Kamboureli, 1996; Schiller et al., 1999), the concept

12

Immigrants, Literature and National Integration

of integration presupposes the bounded nation-state-society as the exclusive context for the immigrant settlement process: integration’s ‘success or failure is charted against a set of taken-for-granted, mainstream white middle and upper class norms, bounded by the notion of . . . society as a wholly self-contained unit of social process’ (Favell, 2005, p. 20). However, in this context, the notions of community and national culture need to be considered in terms of their fluidity, including, as far as immigrants are concerned, social, cultural and political roots both in the home country and the country of settlement (Castles et al., 2002; Gilroy, 1987). This redefining of national culture will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 2; however, the central idea is that nation-states are not pure or static but change in new circumstances or by sharing cultural, social and economic space with other heritages and influences. In fact, Bach (1993, p. 157) advocates ‘refocusing immigration research to include community transformation as a whole’ (emphasis added); that is, that research should not restrict its focus solely to immigrants but should also examine established populations and how immigration ‘has changed the composition and relationships between members of groups in urban communities’ (Bach, 1993, p. 157). It is this aspect of ‘community transformation’ and the relationship between the majority and immigrant minority community (or individuals) that is the focus of this work. Hence, referring back to Table 1.1, the second definition of the term ‘integration’ is used in this book, in the process inferring a likely change on both sides and presupposing no necessary assimilation to the dominant society. Of course, these minority–majority exchanges are by no means equal or symmetrical and usually tend to favour the latter (Entzinger and Biezeveld, 2003). Nonetheless, and as discussed in more detail later in this chapter, the outcome is one of an ever fluctuating, relative and non-finite integration and not the eventual long-term assimilation of the immigrant culture. That is, integration refers to the inclusion of newcomers as well as to the internal cohesion of the societies that are affected by immigration. 1.2 Dimensions and spheres of integration Above all, integration in a democracy presupposes the acquisition of legal and political rights by the new members and granting these members a position as equal partners in society. In fact, it is possible


13

to argue that, in any given society, ‘integration may be understood as a process through which the whole population acquires civil, social, political, human and cultural rights, which creates the conditions for greater equality’ (Castles et al., 2002, p. 113). In this approach, integration can also mean that minority groups should be supported in maintaining their cultural and social identities, since the right to cultural choice is intrinsic to democracy (Kymlicka, 1995). Exactly because integration is such a complex and multileveled process it cannot be studied from the perspective of any single academic discipline; economics, political science, history, sociology, anthropology, geography, urban studies, demography, cultural studies, ethnography and other fields all have a part to play. The various dimensions, domains, levels or ‘types’ of integration have been categorised in many different ways, the most popular of which have been discussed under the groupings of economic, social, legal and cultural integration. For example, Stephen Castles (1994), Adrian Favell (1998), James Hollifield (1996) and Yasmine Soysal (1994) have suggested various typologies of integration regimes. Of course, none of these aspects of integration are isolated, and more often than not, one will influence the other. Insofar as this work is concerned, integration can be categorised into two major ‘dimensions’: (1) the structural, which includes all aspects of the social participation of individuals and groups into larger society, including legal, political, labour, citizenship and so on; and (2) the affective, which refers to the processes of value orientation and identification. Whilst both (1) and (2) implicate the whole of society as their subjects, the more traditional ‘structural’ integration policies target immigrants and ethnic minorities with the implicit assumption that the majority of society is already structurally well integrated.5 Intuitively perhaps, policies referring to affective integration should focus on both the majority and minority community. The better the interrelationship between structural and affective integration is understood, the more likely policy intervention will be effective. Both dimensions of integration can be further broken down into two separate spheres. Figure 1.1 outlines the dimensions and spheres of integration.6 It should be noted here that the challenges of defining each of these indicators are similar to those related to the problems of defining the term ‘integration’ itself. What it means to be ‘integrated’

14

Integration

Dimensions

Structural

Affective

Spheres

Indicators

Figure 1.1

Cultural

Social

Economic Indicators

Indicators

Labour particpation

Educational achievement

Language

Income

Naturalisation rates

Belongingness

Market penetration

Political participation

Frequency of contact between

Housing

Anti-discrimination

cultures

Levels of criminality

Public visibility

Intercultural marriages

The dimensions and spheres of integration


15

influences the ways in which indicators themselves are defined. Furthermore, forms of settlement and inter group relations vary across ethnic groups and depend on such factors as community, religion, class, gender and so on (Castles et al., 2002). As a result, certain ethnic communities may be perceived as better integrated than others, which, in turn, seems to lead to ‘hierarchies’ of integrated communities and the individuals in them. By way of example if utilising levels of criminality as an indicator: can it be said that ethnic minority groups associated with low crime rates are better integrated than those with high rates of crime? A high crime rate could be just as, if not more, reflective of (and correlated with) levels of unemployment, discrimination, housing conditions and service provision as poor integration. Similarly, whilst it is interesting and important to examine levels of intercultural marriage, these cannot in themselves provide a full understanding of group integration. This is especially the case in instances where immigrants experience high levels of discrimination and exclusion in relation to the labour market, schooling or training and are thus relatively more restricted in their contacts with the majority population. Finally, indicators of integration are very rarely applied to the majority population: when levels of crime are high in white (majority) communities, the statistics are not cited as being caused or influenced by a lack of integration (Castles et al., 2002). Hence, it is important to view integration as relative. My argument is that emphasis on a limited number of indicators (such as employment, housing or rates of criminality) very likely leads to misleading results. It is therefore important to employ an integration framework that is based on a wide range of indicators and includes indicators that are less ‘quantifiable’ such as belongingness. For example, referring back to Figure 1.1, whilst the use of naturalisation as an indicator for social integration may be contestable, the point is not so much which indicator is being used individually, but rather how and to what extent indicators are combined. Put another way, clearly, any policy that aims to promote integration should take into account each of the three spheres of integration individually, as well as their complex interrelationships, since no one sphere is independent of the other. Furthermore, in order to stress that integration is not a unilateral process, in as much as possible, indicators would gain to encapsulate majority-minority cohesion. This addition is of

16


importance given that most immigration countries—not least Britain and Germany—are confronted with material anti-immigration attitudes among their populations. Such attitudes constitute major obstacles in the integration process of migrants and would therefore gain from being expressly addressed and considered as part of a well-rounded integration policy. Conventionally, integration policy and research has mainly centred on the first dimension of integration, that is, on structural integration, focussing primarily on individual and group differences in citizenship access or on structural barriers to economic advancement. Yet, questions of group advancement, ethnic identity and empowerment are critical for understanding the unequal patterns of integration in the United Kingdom and Germany. Still, these approaches are limited in their understanding of the full recomposition of community life that has resulted from the influx of migration and the new cultural diversity that large-scale immigration has created (Bach, 1986, with respect to the United States). Hence, as a ‘solution’ to ever-increasing and (potentially dis-integrating) effects of diversity, a number of immigrant-receiving countries—most notably Australia and Canada—have turned to multiculturalism as a policy solution; in Europe, the Netherlands comes to mind. In Germany— but more so in the United Kingdom—multiculturalist approaches to integration have also had a substantial impact on integration debates. It is important to examine the role of multiculturalism in integration policy making here since it also pertains to work linking immigrant literature and integration. 1.3 Multiculturalism and integration Multiculturalism is often portrayed in the United Kingdom (and from time to time in Germany) as the ideal type of integration, as a means of imagining the nation and national culture liberated from racebased identity. This notion is starting to change, however, with some critics and commentators now announcing the death of multiculturalism (Kundnani, 2002; The National Post, 28 February 2007). Whilst both Germany and the United Kingdom are de facto multicultural societies, the United Kingdom is often portrayed (indeed, portrays itself) as the European example of a successful multicultural nation. Whether this is the case, and whether this is an outcome of wellthought-out national policies or rather a result of years of laissez


17

faire attitudes remains to be determined (Favell, 2003; Lacroix 2004a). Nonetheless, whatever the case may be, in both countries, ‘multiculturalism is an acknowledgement that to be “British” or “German” has thicker, ethnic connotations that—in liberal societies—cannot be easily imposed on culturally remote immigrant groups’ (Joppke, 1998b, p. 291). But that is where the convergence ends. In Germany, multiculturalism is linked to the problem of nationhood after the experience of Nazism (Joppke, 1998b), whereas in Britain, it is related to the experience of a multiracial empire and subsequent racial problems (Hansen, 2000). Nevertheless, the promoting of multiculturalism has, in both cases, but especially in the United Kingdom, raised questions about national unity, traditions and culture. Combined with race-related riots in the United Kingdom and right-wing extremism in Germany—not to mention the London, Madrid and attempted Düsseldorf bombings—the perceived failure of multiculturalism has generated a renewed interest in immigrant integration. All in all, the new British and German discourses about immigration and the multicultural host community are fundamentally rooted in a revival of discussions about the common good, questions of national identity (including the aim of integration and the values linked to citizenship) and the issue of social cohesion in a pluralistic environment. This being the case, it has been argued that a search for indicators for affective (or cultural) integration must be intensified (Entzinger and Biezeveld, 2003). Of course, the elaboration of such indicators is even more difficult than those of the structural dimension. A key question that emerges is the identification of what constitutes society’s core basic values and norms; as mentioned previously, mainstream culture is not uniform, let alone static. The same holds true for immigrant culture (Gilroy, 1993). With this view in mind, some claim that a set of shared norms and values is likely necessary to create an atmosphere of mutual understanding in a society; that multiculturalism necessarily prevents the nurturing of common values; and that the cultural recognition for immigrants would eventually lead to separatism (Goodhart, 2004). Even so, a question arises as to how liberalism is to cope with non-liberal groups. Parekh’s (2000a) solution is to seek a higher philosophical vantage point and envisage multiculturalism as a form of universalism. Hence, liberals should go beyond toleration and

18


accommodation to an institutionalised dialogue with other cultures. Furthermore, the value and presence of a variety of cultures in a multicultural society should not be understood as simply increasing the number of options, but rather as providing contrast and deepening the understanding of one’s own culture. Nevertheless, as Favell and Modood (2003, p. 4) point out, the question remains as to what extent the central theoretical concepts of North American multicultural thought ‘are informed by an experience that is different to that of Europe and where an uncritical application of the former to the latter is highly damaging’. All in all, given the multidimensional nature of integration policies and the extent to which different sections of society are involved in their implementation, integration is a major challenge for political leaders and civil society alike. Indeed, it could be argued that successfully managed immigration for Germany and the United Kingdom would go beyond mere strong border controls and immigration statistics and be judged against its end result in the national integration process—multiculturalism or not. As we will see in Chapter 2, a discussion of the pros and cons of multiculturalism might be moot since, in both contexts, processes of cultural fusions are well under way, by definition contradicting the essence of multiculturalism, which calls for preserving cultural distinctiveness under one cohesive national umbrella. In any event, it is clear that the failure to develop an inclusive and tolerant society, which enables different ethnic minorities to live side-by-side and in relative harmony with the local population of which they form a part, inevitably leads to discrimination, social exclusion and the rise of racism and xenophobia. Germany and Britain are facing the same dilemma: maintaining national integration in a de facto multicultural society, and doing so whilst respecting human rights and personal freedom, values at the core of both socio-political systems.

2 The inner workings of integration 2.1 Constructivism as theory As for me: I, too, like all migrants, am a fantasist. I build imaginary countries and try to impose them on the ones that exist. I, too, face the problem of history: what to retain, what to dump, how


19

to hold on to what memory insists on relinquishing, how to deal with change. (Rushdie, Shame, 1983, p. 87) The narrator of Shame has a valid point: migrants are fantasists. They create and recreate their realities, national affiliations and identities. They revisit their pasts and reinvent their locations. They do so in constant interaction with their environment, at the family table, at their local corner shop, in regional community centres, watching national television, surfing the web and reading books. That is to say, migrants build their cultural, social and economic realities virtually and physically, through contact with their environments. As they do, they affect their environments and the people within them. Naturally, the same can be said about members of the majority community who affect, and are affected by, the actions, views, traditions, culture, food, philosophy and ways of life of minorities and majority others within their environments. As a result, the building of one’s world is based on a dynamic interaction between majority and minority communities, along with external and internal factors. This ‘world building’ exercise translates into the understanding that we have of the nation(s) that we have today. This idea of national construction is at the core of national integration. In fact, according to the constructivist view, we are all fantasists in that we make our worlds in the same fashion as Rushdie’s migrant. What is more, we do so in concert (Goodman, 1978). In this view, the idea of being German or British and of holding a German or British passport is jointly constructed and based on common agreement of the existence of citizenship. It logically follows that the idea of the nation, and of a nationally integrated Britain or Germany, is an individual and collective construction. At its core, constructivism posits that the environment in which actors operate is given meaning through ongoing processes of construction (Checkel, 1998). These construction processes occur in all aspects of society: socially, culturally and economically. The idea of a socially constructed reality stresses the ongoing building of world views, identities, habits, institutions and so on by individuals through a dialectical interaction with society and where the various realities formed comprise ‘imagined worlds’ of human existence and activity (Anderson, 1991). These worlds are in turn gradually crystallised by habit into institutions, which are sustained by linguistic and social conventions. Finally, these socially constructed worlds

20


are subjectively internalised via human socialisation (for example, education, social interaction, cultural consumption and so on) and eventually develop into part of the personal and collective selfunderstanding of persons.7 Crucially, these national construction processes are by no means insular: due in part to the advent of increased globalisation, information communication technologies and mass communication, this socialisation is performed at both national and international levels. Also, the processes occur at a particular period in time and are influenced by historical developments and processes. To put it another way, the construction of national integration is historically informed and includes international and national contact zones where socialisation acts at both the national and global levels. Constructivism is defined here as: a sociological, historical and philosophical approach to understanding the reality of the human environment that aim[s] at displaying or analysing actual, historically situated social interactions or causal routes [which] led to, or were involved in, the coming into being . . . of [a] present entity or fact. (Hacking, 1999, p. 48) It is ironic that I use Hacking’s definition of constructivism here since he is well known for his anticonstructivist stance. Yet, I argue that constructivism as understood emphasises two important points, namely: 1. It encapsulates the impact of history on the construction of national integration by taking into account the British and German histories of migration and their respective impact on their national building projects. More specifically, the power relationship between the remnants of history and the current realities of majority-minority relations (be they between migrants and the majority community, or between centres of cultural power and those in the periphery) are taken as factors of national integration. 2. The ‘building or assembling from parts’ is inherent to the definition of integration used in this work. That is, integration is explored as a process of building one nation from its parts and ‘a two-way process of adaptation involving changes in values, norms and behaviour for both newcomers and members of the existing society’ (see Table 1.1).


21

At this point, it is also important to expand on the argument introduced previously for including literature as the independent variable of this work. I already discussed how the use of literature is justified in social science work due to the fact that it is produced in specific social and historical environments at any given time. Hence, even where artistic production is a more ‘individual’ activity, as with the production of literature, the collective nature of this activity consists of the involvement of numerous other actors, both preceding the act of production (for example, teachers, literary predecessors, patrons, cultural policies for the arts, among others) and mediating the process between production and reception (for example, literary critics, publishers, booksellers, the media, among others). This social aspect of artistic creation has been well documented in works on the sociology of arts (Wolff, 1981) and, more specifically, of literature (Hall, 1979; Laurenson, 1978). Therefore, in all these ways, the individual act of creative writing is manifestly an act that results from socialisation and that, in turn, acts upon the socialisation of other people. Purposely here, the individuality of the immigrant writer and the conditions in which he or she created a specific piece of work are also entirely dependent on the existence of structures and institutions which facilitate or hinder the production process, and the way in which the work is promoted and received. These structures and institutions may seem at first glance to be similar to those available to ‘national’ writers (such as, for example, publishing, education or support for the arts programmes).8 However, the social, cultural and economic situation of immigrant authors more often than not substantially differs from that of ‘national’ authors, resulting in different kinds of literature that has a different impact on its environment. That is, immigrant literature is considered a constructed product influenced by its different position in society and its interaction with a different environment. Its link to national integration is different to that of ‘national’ literature in that it provides a snapshot of the position occupied by migrant communities in Britain (in the case of British-Asian literature) and in Germany (in the case of GermanTurkish literature) that are in the margins and, as such, more often than not are the targets of integration policy. An exploration of the links between literature constructed at the margins, which encapsulates the relationship between majority and minority communities

22


and, in turn, further affects these relations, provides a good understanding of national building processes. Crucially, it is because of this sociology (social construction and socialisation) of literature that each sphere of integration must entail a contextual analysis of the environment that comes to bear on the links between immigrant literature and national integration.

3 Immigrant literature in Germany and the United Kingdom 3.1 Whose literature? Before briefly outlining immigrant literature in both countries, it is important here to pause and reflect on the terminology being used since ‘immigrant literature’ is not an uncontested or universally approved term. In fact, As indicated . . . , there is a long history of description for this literature. At the beginning of the seventies, it was described as ‘guestworker literature’, ‘literature of the affected’; later as ‘foreigner literature’, ‘minority literature’, ‘literature of the foreign’, ‘migrant or migration literature’, ‘intercultural literature’ and ‘literature with the theme of migration’.9 (Blioumi, 2003, p. 243) This quote by Blioumi encapsulates the state of affairs and debate surrounding ‘immigrant literature’ in the last 30 years; similar to the discussion surrounding the term ‘integration’, there is no consensus on the terminology to best describe this genre of literature. In Germany alone, the term has recently evolved from Gastarbeiterliteratur (guest worker literature) to ‘migrant literature’ (MigrantInnenliteratur), shifting emphasis from the writers’ outsider status towards the notion that these authors moved to Germany from different national contexts for economic and other reasons (Gerstberger, 2004). Furthermore, a recent reference work by Chielino (2000) uses the term Interkulturelle Literatur (intercultural literature), shifting the focus again, but this time from the disparity between the authors’ origins and their country of residence to the narrative responses of those living in and with more than one culture. Similar arguments can also be made for


23

British immigrant literature where the terms ‘Commonwealth literatures’, ‘new literatures in English’, ‘world literatures in English’ and, most of all, ‘postcolonial literatures in English’ have been commonly used. With respect to immigrant literature in Britain a strong case has been made for the use of ‘postcolonial literature’ as appropriate terminology.10 Nonetheless, I contend here that ‘immigrant literature’ is more accurate and representative of the independent variable under study in this comparative work. Generally speaking, and as Gerstenberger (2004), Jonassaint (1998) and Sayhan (2001) have argued, critics and academics alike are increasingly reading works by ethnic minorities in Germany, the United Kingdom and worldwide as examples of literature that can no longer be understood within one national tradition and that portray the realities of border crossings. Yet, the terms Gastarbeiterliteratur, ‘empire’ or ‘postcolonial’ literature tend to imply the victimisation or exploitation of minorities at the hands of the majority (Gerstenberger, 2004, with respect to German terminology). Similarly, ‘ethnic’ literature or Ausländerliteratur implies that its significance is not an integral part of the nation’s literary history. Accordingly, the term ‘immigrant literature’ is the most relevant to describe a growing body of literature that is concerned with borders and borderlands between cultures and the identities emerging from these positions; authors straddle the experiences of two cultures and draw on literary and linguistic traditions that transcend national boundaries and that are representative of the experience of migration. Put another way, immigrant literature is a ‘genre of writing that . . . addresses issues facing deterritorialised cultures, and speaks of those in . . . “paranational” communities and alliances’ (Sayhan, 2001, p. 8). In effect, the problems and issues at stake in contemporary immigrant literatures are no longer consequences of old imperialism or experiences of the Gastarbeiter recruitment system, but are a product of global capitalism, and the rapidity of modern communications and travel. In other words, whilst writers are undoubtedly based in, and influenced by, their country of residence, the new global world is built under the pressures of multinational capitalism in which Britain and Germany play a very significant part. Furthermore, whilst for writers of the first generations, the links with India or Turkey may have been sufficiently strong for there to be an awareness of being

24


both ‘insider’ and ‘outsider’ in the British and German scenes, for the second and third generations, the question is one of transnational experiences, that of living across or perhaps beyond borders. 3.1.1 German immigrant literature The notion of culture has always played a central role in Germany’s self-perception, from the concept of Kulturnation (cultural nation) in the eighteenth century to Clause 35 of the unification treaty of October 1990, where it is stated: arts and culture were—despite the different development of the two states in Germany—a basis of the continuing unity of the German nation. In the process of state unification of the Germans on the path to European unity, art and culture have an independent and essential contribution to make. (quoted in Cooke, 2005, p. viii) More recently, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) raised controversy by suggesting the notion of a leading German culture (Leitkultur) as the basis for immigrant integration (Green, 2004; see Chapter 2 for a detailed discussion). The elements comprising this notion involve learning the German language, professing loyalty to the German nation, and accepting Germany’s legal and political institutions (Klusmeyer, 2001). Whilst the proposal was strongly rejected by the then ruling Green-SPD (Social Democratic Party) coalition, one can nonetheless argue that the notion remains partly in effect, through, for example, the implementation of immigration classes. It is in the light of a strong idea of a homogeneous and unified German culture that Germany’s immigrant literature must be observed. Since the inception of Gastarbeiterliteratur or Ausländerliteratur in the 1960s, writing by ethnic minorities in Germany has been commonly understood as the literature produced by labour migrants on the fringes of the nation. In fact, as Gerstenberger (2004) points out and as I further argue here, more or less to this day, most German readers associate immigrant literature with the writings of Turkish ‘guest worker’ descendents. Critics categorise and label the work of nonGerman writers and artists as ‘ethnic’ and ‘minority’ in nature and do not regard them as an integral part of the national culture.


25

The body of 1960s German immigrant literature concentrated on the everyday life of the foreign worker, on his (most, if not all, were men) struggles with work and housing, as well as problems with the natives and their prejudices: ‘The over arching goal of this literature was twofold: to protest against inhumane living and working conditions as well as prejudice and intolerance and to foster understanding between Germans and foreigners’ (Harnish et al., 1998, p. 17). The publication and circulation of these texts was made possible through a network of groups, small publishing houses,11 journals and series such as Südwind Gastarbeiterdeutsch. These groups saw their work in the tradition of socialist workers’ literature: ‘the articulation and dissemination of a zweite Kultur (second culture), a cultural experience excluded from the mainstream and common not just to migrant labourers, but the whole working class in Germany’ (Fisher and McGowan, 1996, p. 5). This view of immigrant literature as Gastarbeiterliteratur remained relatively unchanged until the late 1980s. The first of the 1990s German literature debates (or Literaturstreit) came about in the wake of the controversies surrounding the person, and literary achievements of, Christa Wolf and the wave of national questioning that followed the euphoria of reunification.12 There were strong views that (West) German literature had been obsessed with moral rather than aesthetic subjects since the end of World War II. Critics condemned the way in which Germany’s left liberal intellectuals rejected German traditions: political correctness, they argued, was not only an offence to the integrity of the aesthetic, but it was also an obstacle to the narration of ‘German stories’ and the celebration of German traditions and national feeling. Hence, ‘German mainstream discussions surrounding its national literature were marked by themes of survival and were characterised by attempts on all sides to provide a sustainable “German model” of literature in an age of global competition’ (Finlay and Taberner, 2002, p. 134). It was in this atmosphere of national questioning that Germany witnessed the rise of its first highly publicised and certainly most controversial immigrant writer, Feridun Zaimoˇglu. Following the publication of Kanak Sprak, Zaimoˇglu became the self-appointed spokesperson in the 1990s of the second and third generations of Turkish nationals and other racially and politically discriminated against migrants in Germany.13 The success of Kanak coincided with

26


the enthusiastic reception of totemic works of Anglo-American cultural studies and postcolonial studies, including the analyses of culture, migration and race by Homi Bhabha (1990, 1994), Stuart Hall (1990) and Gayatri Spivak (1987). In this period in which most of the German literary critics feared the impact of globalisation on national creative writing, literature and cultural commentators expressed (and still express) hopes that ‘the magic of hybridisation, working on the ferment of migration, might yet produce a world-class writer from Germany’ (Cheesman, 2002, p. 182). All in all, it is difficult to find a common denominator for the German (or indeed British) immigrant literature of the early 1990s and beyond. Rather than having ‘denunciation’ or the fostering of good relations between Germans and foreigners as their overarching goal, the authors of these texts investigate their own cultural origin(s) and mixed identities. Second- and third-generation authors such as Ermine Özdamar and Zafer S¸ enocak go back to their nonGerman heritages and mix them with German cultural traditions: words, images, motifs, myths, different cultural traditions and ways of storytelling are combined to illuminate and challenge each other and produce a hybrid literature typical of contemporary and indeed global art forms. Authors of the second and third generations appear critical in new ways of the prejudice they encounter in Germany, but also of self-pity, subservience, backwardness or greed of their parents’ generation (Fisher and McGowan, 1996). Women immigrant writers also became more prominent, reflecting the feminisation of migration to Germany post Anwerbestopp. More single-author volumes are published, leading, in turn, to a recognition of the diversity and in some cases thematic, stylistic and linguistic sophistication of this literature, although it should be said that its reception has remained dogged by stereotypes. In the result, immigrant literature in Germany has progressed from Gastarbeiterliteratur to pluralism and now encompasses a range of writing from the naively autobiographical to the highly selfconscious, sophisticated narratives of authors with a wide range of backgrounds and experiences. Immigrant authors are now showing up on German bestseller lists and winning highly acclaimed German literary prizes: Zahra Çirak was awarded the Hölderlin Prize für Lyrik in 1994 and Emine Sevgi Özdamar the Ingeborg Bachmann Prize for her novel Das Leben ist eine Karawanserei hat zwei Türen aus


27

einer kam ich rein aus der anderen ging ich raus (1994).14 Nonetheless, the reception of German immigrant literature in Germany remains less ‘mainstream’ and more stereotyped than its counterpart in the United Kingdom.

3.1.2

British immigrant literature

There is relatively broad consensus that British immigrant literature has been heavily influenced by the country’s colonial past (Ashcroft et al., 1989; Bald, 1995; Boehmer, 1995; Sauerberg, 2001 among others), a clear reflection of the country’s experience with immigration. Where conflict in opinion does arise is with respect to the extent of that impact on immigrant literature produced today. In the postcolonial view held by scholars such as Ashcroft et al. (1989) and Bhabha (1994), the most common trait characterising this genre of British literature is that it has emerged in its present form out of the experience of colonisation and has asserted itself by emphasising its differences from the assumptions of the imperial centre.15 Indeed, it has been argued that the weight of the empire continues to dominate cultural production in much of the postcolonial world through the literary canon, the body of British texts that acts as a touchstone of value (Ashcroft et al. 1989). This cultural hegemony has been maintained through canonical assumptions about literary activity, and through attitudes to postcolonial literatures which identify them as isolated national offshoots of English literature, and which therefore relegate them to marginal and subordinate positions. Moreover, there is a view that ‘when the migrant is a member of a formerly colonised people and the border s/he crosses marks the land of the former coloniser . . . the narrative of immigration comes to include not only the loss of continuity and the search for belonging, but also the experience and negotiation of racism and colonialism’ (Bald, 1995, p. 70). The 1950s in particular marked the beginning of a more militant phase in the decolonisation process16 and an increase in the production of postcolonial literature. Anticolonialists waged the fight for freedom at any number of different levels, and literary writings became a weapon for political liberation. Indeed, many Englishlanguage writers from British colonies took up the call to include literature as a ‘moving spirit’ in the nationalist struggle, so much so that

28


anticolonial resistance became a rallying cause, both as a literary context and a focal subject of much of the writings of the time. In fact, as Boehmer (1995, p. 184) highlights, a widespread agreement existed that the role of cultural production was to help transform social life in such a way that, in turn, it would reciprocate by regenerating a then marginalised and inferior culture: ‘writers . . . were invoked as the beacons, soothsayers, and seers of political movement’. It was argued that the ‘mimicry’ of earlier writings had been unable to displace what remained an entrenched opposition between the native and coloniser. Hence, Indian, African and Caribbean nationalist writers focussed on reconstituting a cultural identity which had been damaged by the colonial experience; indeed, up until the late 1970s, their literature was characterised by themes of national roots, origins, founding myths and ancestors (Boehmer, 1995). In the 1980s and 1990s affiliations became more divided and uncertain, and from the 1990s onwards the generic postcolonial writer was more likely to be a cultural traveller or an extraterritorial rather than a national. In fact, cultural expatriation is now widely regarded as intrinsic to the end-of-century postcolonial literary experience (Boehmer, 1995; Sauerberg, 2001). What began in postcolonial writing as the ‘creolisation’ of the English language has become a process of mass literary migration, transplantation and cross-fertilisation, changing the nature of postcolonial—and indeed ‘English’—literature at its very heart. In British ‘migrant writing’, the transplantation of names, the mixing of languages, the diversification of tastes which developed during the imperial period have been further amplified by coming ‘home’ to the old and now polyglot colonial metropolis. Put another way, the British immigrant writer is ‘ex-colonial by birth, “third-world” in cultural interest, cosmopolitan in almost every other way, and he or she works within the precincts of the Western metropolis while at the same time retraining thematic and/or political connections with a national background’ (Boehmer, 1995, p. 233), increasingly feeding the international literary machine and tastes. In fact, speaking in Britain at the 1982 Festival of India, Salman Rushdie considered the status of the migrant Indian writer in this way: We are Hindus who have crossed the black water; we are Muslims who eat pork. And as a result—as my use of the Christian notion


29

of the Fall indicates—we are now partly of the West. Our identity is at once plural and partial. Sometimes we feel that we straddle two cultures; at other times, that we fall between two stools . . . but however ambiguous and shifting this ground may be, it is not an infertile territory for an author to occupy. (cited in MacDermott, 1993, p. 39) All in all, as Sauerberg (2001) argues, a number of factors other than the experience of the empire have contributed to the characterisation of ‘the other’ in contemporary British literature. Clearly, as she puts it, ‘the empire-writes-back syndrome’ has had a considerable impact on the literary scene in the United Kingdom and the whole of the former empire. However, more recently, and arguably more relevant to today’s literary world and industry, the American connection (that is, the increasing literary interaction across the Atlantic in terms of both frame of reference and markets) also plays a considerable role. In fact, ‘the reality of the British scene of fiction is that inter-culturalism is a characteristic that not only obtains regarding reading audience, with no strong barriers set up between Anglophone nations when it comes to publishing and marketing, but also regarding subject matter and themes in the contemporary novel’ (Sauerberg, 2001, p. 111). The fact of the matter is that British contemporary immigrant literature cannot and indeed does not attempt to escape a past of empire and colonialism. However, as is the case in Germany where this genre has evolved from Gastarbeiterliteratur to pluralism, the current situation is infinitely more complex than a binary distinction between an indigenous British literature and emerging immigrant literatures in English. The modern writer in or out of Britain or Germany increasingly uses the whole world as his or her frame of reference and is not restricted by geographical, historical, political or social conventions. In contrast to Germany, however, Britain has been in a particular situation in this globalisation of literature in terms of intersections, since the country, whilst reorienting itself to compete in the global world of publishing (see Chapter 4), is at the same time attempting to cope with its former status as a leading imperial nation (Sauerberg, 2001). In this context, it is important to note that non-native British writers differ from those in Germany through their colonial experience. In this case, ‘migrant’ writers and their compatriots share with their hosts the kind of historical, cultural and linguistic intimacy that

30


exists between the coloniser and the colonised (Bald, 1995). This, indeed, is one of the core differences between the British and German literary worlds: writing in the British cultural mosaic and writing in the fairly homogeneous German cultural scene have totally different implications (Sayhan, 2001, with respect to the US and German literary realms). The other core distinction is familiarity with the national literary language (see Chapter 3).

4

Why immigrant literature and integration?

The literary critic F. R. Leavis believed that the study of literature was necessary for those engaged in social research. He wrote, for example, that: without the sensitising familiarity with the subtleties of language, and the insight into the relations between abstract or generalising thought and the concrete of human experience, that the trained frequentation of literature alone can bring, the thinking that attends social and political studies will not have the edge and force it should. (cited in Filmer, 1998, p. 275) Nonetheless, more than 25 years later, in her introduction to the Sociological Review Monograph’s special issue on ‘The Sociology of Literature’, Laurenson (1978, p. 3) makes use of five (of nine) pages to justify the use of literature in social studies: in 1978, ‘an article on the sociology of literature in a journal [was] still a rarity’. Thankfully, five pages will not be required here to spell out the place and importance of literature in social studies: the bulk of the groundwork has been accomplished before me, by scholars in a variety of fields such as Benedict Anderson (1991), Roland Barthes (1953, 1966a), Edward Said (1978) and Gayatri Spivak (2000). Indeed, academic shifts and developments since the mid-1970s have been conducive to the recognition of literature as being fit for serious study, so much so that, in today’s academic research, the idea of literature in social research is well established on the contention that literary works (novels, biographies, plays, poetry, film scripts, documentaries, short stories, and so on) do not drop from the sky or emerge solely from individual creativity. Rather, they are


31

created by authors who have a history of socialisation in a particular class, genre and place and who are subject to a range of changing social pulls and pressures. They are created at a particular historical stage of society, which is never static; they are affected by a number of variants such as market situation and readership. (Laurenson, 1978, p. 6) Taking this argument one step further and with respect to immigrant literature in the United Kingdom and Germany, it is posited that this ‘genre’ of literature offers an altogether different sounding of the social and cultural bodies of both countries; that it affects social and economic integration through increased interest in literature in schools and thus increased language capabilities; and that economic integration also emerges through the labour market and the literary industry. In fact, I argue that that evolution of British and German immigrant literatures corresponds in many respects with the making of a multiethnic state.17 Nonetheless, and notwithstanding research already conducted linking social sciences and literature, there has in fact been little systematic study of ‘immigrant literature’ as a social phenomenon in the classic traditions of social research and none linking immigrant literature and national integration. Moreover, as discussed previously, given the ever-growing importance of immigration and integration research, it is surprising how little attention has been paid to the link between culture (in the form of cultural products) and society’s integration processes. The field is dominated with analysis of economic and structural integration, but little notice has been given to the cultural aspects and certainly little or none examining the receiving society. Developing a comparative, cross-national and cross-disciplinary study of the links between immigrant literature and integration enables an exploration of the relationship between immigrant literature and the various dimensions and spheres of integration, a novel and cross-disciplinary area of migration research. At this juncture, a brief overview of the links between immigrant literature and national integration should be outlined. • First and foremost, the emerging body of nonterritorial, immigrant literary paradigms offers an imagined form of community (Anderson, 1991) not bound by conventional commonalities of territory, history, language and religion and that goes against the

32


ideas of politically endorsed national identities. Immigrant literature resists classification along one-dimensional lines of nationality and ethnicity and establishes ‘verbal and cultural bi- and multilingualism as the first prerequisite of emphatic identification’ (Sayhan, 2001, p. 158). With this in mind, studying the impact of immigrant literature on society helps further our understanding of the social and cultural effects of transnationalism on national integration by challenging the ‘idea of a primary belonging to one society and a loyalty to just one nation-state’ (Vertovec, 2001a, p. 9). The link between immigrant literature and the conceptual understanding of national culture and identity is discussed in Chapter 2. • Second, Portes et al. (1999, p. 229) argue that the successful integration of migrants ‘does not so much depend on abandoning their culture and language to embrace those of another society as on preserving their cultural endowment, while adapting instrumentally to a second’. This alternative path to economic and status achievement opens a host of new adaptation possibilities involving both immigrants and the receiving community. A study that takes into account the economic and social activities of immigrant authors is a particularly effective way of exploring these new possibilities. The impact of migrant authors on community status is discussed in Chapter 3; their role as economic participants is addressed in Chapter 4. • Third, work that combines immigrant literature and integration provides a new way of examining the relationship between global axes of social and cultural contact, and this literature’s effect on national and personal identities. Specifically, a juxtaposed study of British-Asian and German-Turkish forms of literary expression will allow for a differentiated understanding of the important linkages between local and global cultural production, in particular given the multinational nature of the literary industry. The impact of the global context on integration—or more specifically on the link between immigrant literature and integration—is discussed in Chapters 2 and 4, as they pertain to culture and the economy, respectively. • Fourth, given the link between reading and literacy, and the role that literacy plays in the integration of migrant communities in the labour market on the one hand (see Chapter 4) and the social


33

environment on the other (see Chapter 3), immigrant literature can play a key role in national integration processes. Comparing the introduction of immigrant literature in schools in Britain with its absence in the German context may provide important hints on these links. • Having outlined the relation between immigrant literature and cultural, social and economic integration, the usage of immigrant literature as a yardstick for national integration can then be explored (addressed in all chapters). Table 1.2 outlines the areas of exploration linking immigrant literature and national integration herein.

Table 1.2 Immigrant literature and national integration: areas of exploration Cultural Integration (Chapter 2)

Social Integration (Chapter 3)

Economic Integration (Chapter 4)

British and German cultural policies

British and German education policies

Culture and the economy

⇓ British and German cultural self-understanding ⇓

⇓ Minorities in schools in the United Kingdom and Germany

⇓ The socioeconomic situation of authors and readers

⇓

⇓

The space of GermanTurkish/British-Asian culture in Germany and the United Kingdom ⇓

Literature in schools in the United Kingdom and Germany

The literary industry (publishers, retailers and public institutions)

⇓

⇓

Influencing factors (for example, globalisation, stereotypes, Islam and censorship)

Immigrant literature in schools in the United Kingdom and Germany

Influencing factors (for example, technology, libraries, the media, book fairs)

⇓ The links between immigrant literature and cultural integration

⇓ The links between immigrant literature and social integration

⇓ The links between immigrant literature and economic integration

34


Hence, a number of areas of exploration link immigrant literature and national integration. In some, the link might be more straightforward, whilst in others, more intuitive or anecdotal. Whatever the case may be, the topic presented here has received little attention so far in either the humanities or the social sciences, not to mention in migration-focussed research specifically. This lacuna is surprising given the breadth the area covers—from cultural to social and economic integration—and given immigrant literature’s potential role and impact in the social development and education of children and young adults in both national contexts.

5 Conclusion Before moving on to the next chapter, it is important to bring together the threads discussed so far in order to clearly state the bridge this work builds between the humanities and the social sciences. In setting the parameters of this work, I presented four core pillars upon which the work is based: • The United Kingdom and Germany are particularly relevant as subjects for this comparison, given their status as the highest immigrant-receiving countries in the EU, in absolute terms. More important, however, they lend themselves particularly well to comparative studies because their immigrant integration policies are increasingly converging: both emphasise strong borders, easier access to citizenship, integration (or citizenship) classes and the implementation of anti-discrimination measures. This convergence, combined with the varied reception of their respective immigrant literatures, provides a rich ground for comparing and contrasting. • Integration is a relatively flexible two-way process through which both the immigrant communities and the receiving society are transformed. Nevertheless, it is accepted that the majority– minority exchange that takes place is neither equal nor symmetrical: the majority community is usually dominant or in the stronger position. ‘Community transformation as a whole’ best encapsulates the term ‘national integration’. • Furthermore, as depicted in Figure 1.1, national integration is divided into two dimensions, affective and structural; and three


35

spheres, cultural, social and economic. This work is concerned with both dimensions of the integration process and explores the cross-disciplinary and cross-dimensional links between immigrant literature and national integration. • Finally, constructivism is the adopted overarching theoretical approach for this work, not least because of its inherent meaning of building one entity out of multiple separate parts. Most noteworthy, constructivism allows for the mutual understanding of a fluid exchange between immigrant literature and the environment within which it is received, that is, the idea that the individual act of creative writing is manifestly a social act and immigrant literature is influenced by, and also influences, its cultural, social and economic environment. That is why, in each sphere of national integration explored, it is important to first provide a contextual overview of the cultural, social and economic factors that come to bear on the link between immigrant literature and integration.

2 Cultural Integration

Since the end of the Cold War, ‘culture’ has become the key term for explaining and rationalising both international and national conflicts, a phenomena which can be broadly described as the ‘culturalisation of politics’ (The Guardian, 3 October 2006). One of the most prominent examples is Samuel P. Huntington’s (1993) ‘clash of civilisations’, a clash, he argues, that is taking place domestically through the ‘importing’ of different cultures via immigration. According to Huntington, at the level of international relations, civilisations (for example, the West, Islam) are substitutes for the ideologically oriented nation-state, whilst, at the domestic level, the assimilation of immigrants is the litmus test for the ‘cultural health’ of Europe and North America. For Huntington, cultural belonging is an essentialist category in which democratic values and human rights are not universal principles but specific attributes of Western civilisation that cannot be transfused into other cultures. He argues that immigration from necessarily hostile civilisations such as Islam imports the international clash into the domestic realm, which is why ‘we have to contain the flood of immigrants, forget about multiculturalism and fight de-westernisation’ (quoted in Pautz, 2005, p. 43). Such a discourse contributes to legitimising restrictive immigration policies. It is because of this ‘culturalisation of politics’ that cultural integration often takes centre stage in national integration and the reason that cultural integration is an increasingly central part of any comprehensive integration policy. In the past, there was perceived cultural homogeneity at the national level, but now ethnic diversity 36

Cultural Integration

37

is the norm. As a result, governments such as those of Germany and the United Kingdom are facing a large number of challenges, two of which are (1) how to ensure respect and acceptance for differences among individuals and (2) how to promote mutual understanding, dialogue and the search for ‘common values’. This chapter examines the cultural sphere of national integration. Cultural integration has different meanings for different people and is composed of many concepts which make it a particularly difficult sphere to assess. The idea of a multicultural society reflects cultural integration at work; so too does the idea of the ‘global village’, where, through technology and trade, a seemingly borderless world is created. Cultural integration also concerns the adoption of a mass consumer culture where everything from fashion to sport, literature to television, becomes integrated into the national culture, often without challenge. This work discusses cultural integration as meaning a common cultural identification and value orientation. Similarly, ‘culture’ is defined in a very general sense as the ‘way of life’ of a group of people, including the traditions, customs, languages, belief systems, art, architecture, music, food and institutions shared by a particular group of people. In keeping with the constructivist approach adopted here, I start by taking a critical comparative look at the national contexts that come into play. There are two main contextual areas that need to be addressed: first, British and German national culture in the form of their respective self-understandings and the place occupied by national minorities therein and, second, British and German cultural policies, that is, policies that pertain to the management and funding of arts and culture. Both contextual areas are analysed through their respective evolutions, their current processes and understandings, as well as how each area affects the present study in its specific way. Indeed, it has been argued that to fully understand and appreciate a literary work, it is necessary to comprehend the world in which it was written (Foucault, 1975). Likewise, to fully comprehend and examine the impact of literature on a nation’s cultural integration process, it is vital to grasp the context at hand. Comprehension and examination are even more necessary because, in the immigrant literature cultural integration link, the understanding of national culture and the ‘culturo-political context’ will affect, among other things, who might become a writer, how these cultural actors are able to practise

38


their art and how novels are supported, received and become (or do not become) part of the national curriculum (see Chapter 3). It is therefore important to dedicate a full section to a comparative analysis of British and German national cultures. The first part of this chapter compares the ‘essence’ of both cases’ national cultures, how each understands itself and, perhaps more importantly, how they incorporate the cultural specificities of their national minorities’ traditional practices and products. A different understanding of national culture and the traits associated with the national cultural fabric necessarily has an intrinsic impact on the relation between immigrant literature and cultural integration. Indeed, pragmatically, this understanding affects the nature of a writer’s funding and the presence of his or her novels in schools. Perhaps less pragmatically, this understanding influences the tone and message of a literary work and the constitution of the national literary canon and culture. The comparative confronts both cases with respect to processes and ideologies that have given national culture form and meaning. I spell out how these respective differences and similarities translate into the present study and analyse the place occupied by BritishAsian and German-Turkish cultures in their respective national cultural fabrics. This includes a comparative discussion of ‘minority’ cultures in Germany and the United Kingdom and the stereotyping linked to these cultures in their respective public cultural realms. In the second part of the chapter, I examine British-German cultural policies with respect to the ‘cultural-political’ context in which immigrant literature is encouraged, created and evolving. I explore British and German national thought and processes with respect to cultural policy, particularly as embodied in national support for the arts. In order to account for the differentiated impact on the link between immigrant literature and cultural integration, it is important to focus on what, in both countries, has been and continues to be a particularly problematic and, at times, highly profiled dilemma: the inclusion of culture and the arts in policy. This is particularly significant and relevant, as it is here that the issue of defining the type of culture for which public intervention is appropriate, that is, where the idea of national culture and its role in society is at its strongest. Also of relevance at this juncture is the perceived legitimacy of any such public intervention.


39

Thirdly, I turn my attention more squarely to immigrant literature itself and the issue of ‘influential factors’. I refer to them as factors since they represent issues, institutions and aspects of contemporary life that influence the presence and reception of, and links between, immigrant literature and cultural integration in very specific and substantial ways. Here I examine a specific, non-exhaustive list of agents that arise, which seem particularly vital in either promoting or impeding the links to cultural integration. These influential factors include globalisation, stereotypes, Islam and censorship; each factor affects the link between immigrant literature and cultural integration in its own respective way. Section 4 of the chapter outlines the links between immigrant literature and cultural integration. Two particularly strong links emerge, namely, the generating of intercultural dialogue—both in an integrative and potentially disintegrative way—and the redefining of national culture. That is, whilst, on the whole the links between immigrant literature and cultural integration are positive in nature, a potentially more disintegrative aspect remains, in large part through increased cultural tensions generated between minority and majority. With respect to immigrant literature’s potential use as an indicator of cultural integration the results are less clear, perhaps reflecting culture and cultural integration’s inherent intangibility. Whilst some indicators are pragmatic and could serve in a comprehensive cross-spherical assessment of national integration levels, this is with the caveat that given the very nature of culture the indicators are less concrete and their implementation debatable.

1

National culture

There is no agreement among academics on the basic question of how the nation, national culture and national identity are best defined. These are interlinked questions that will not be exhaustively addressed here. However, since one cannot discuss cultural integration without referring to a national culture, it is important at least to address the issue in broad strokes, if only to situate the conclusions of this work in the overall academic literature on national integration. As a broad and relatively neutral starting point for any exploration of the subject, Anderson’s well-known maxim, that nations are ‘imagined communities’ will suffice. Anderson (1991, p. 6) argues that this

40


is the case since ‘the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the mind of each lives the image of their communion’. However useful this definition may be, it raises further questions about how to understand national culture. Indeed, what is it that members of the German or British nation believe they have in common with their respective fellows to form a cohesive nation? Why is the image of German or British culture such a powerful motivating force for vast numbers of its citizens when it comes to claiming national belonging and identity? And, more important perhaps, in such a national cultural understanding, where does minority culture fit in, and how can this view of a national culture best adapt to make space for new cultural features for an increasingly large portion of the British or German society? I do not attempt or even propose to answer all of these questions. However, I will take a closer look at the German and British self-understandings of national culture. In particular, the debate surrounding German Leitkultur will provide a robust analysis of the German cultural context at play in the present work. The same applies to the British understanding of Britishness and its implications with respect to identity and culture. These two cases, when compared and juxtaposed with one another and further complemented by a focus on minority culture and stereotypes, provide solid bases upon which to outline the links between immigrant literature and cultural integration. 1.1 German culture The conceptual separation of German culture from that of its ethnic minorities has deep historical roots. Unlike the situation in Britain, Germany has neither a prolonged nor a successful period of colonisation; hence, its migrant population has few or no linguistic, educational or cultural commonalities with that of ethnic German citizens. As a result, German society does not have the British equivalent of cultural mediators or postcolonial discourse. Moreover, due in part to West German claims to East Germany, ethnicity remained at the core of German nationality and citizenship (initially in a racial and later in a cultural and linguistic sense [Brubaker, 2004]) and retained its national weight and justification after World War II. In fact, in the 1970s and 1980s, a new form of racism emerged in which


41

the basis of discrimination and exclusion shifted from physical markers to cultural ones (Miles, 1989). In the case of guest workers, the at times peasant background and perceived poverty of the country of origin, combined with the relatively low educational attainment and skill levels compared with ethnic Germans also contributed to consolidating social and cultural differences between foreigners and the German majority. Perhaps because of the historical and socioeconomic factors mentioned above, it is widely assumed in the press and among cultural policy makers and producers alike that a Mehrheitsgesellschaft (a German majority society) exists in the German context. The term ‘Mehrheitsgesellschaft’ does not generally refer to a politically constituted and verified majority but to an implicit ethnic or cultural majority (Bloomfield, 2003). This majority is seen as sharing certain linguistic and lifestyle characteristics that imply a common way of life and values. Such a modern, secularised variant of the German Kulturnation (literally, ‘cultural nation’) still has strong, influential support among cultural policy makers. Indeed, as Julian Nida-Rümelin1 expressed, ‘Germany understands itself as a cultural nation’ (2002, p. 87). Whatever the case, the term Mehrheitsgesellschaft invokes a culturally constructed homogeneity of Germans against culturally different others. The result of this in cultural policy is to leave the assumptions of the mainstream and dominant culture untouched and to treat migrant settlers as foreigners and cultural outsiders (Bloomfield, 2003). This outlook appears most obviously in the public discourse on national identity and Leitkultur that surfaced as a result of the negotiations on the Zuwanderungsgezetz (immigration law) (Green, 2006). The Leitkultur’s concept of culture is based on the assumption that different cultures should remain separate in order to retain their identities and avoid cultural conflicts (Pautz, 2005). The notion of culture replaced that of race, and cultural belonging became essential. To put it another way, culture, as a vague and broadly interpretable changing cluster of meanings, was able to perform the same exclusionary function as race (Miles, 1989; Pautz, 2005). For example, this is clearly expressed in the CDU position statement on Leitkultur: An immigration policy and integration policy can only succeed if we are certain of our national and cultural identity . . . We Germans

42


have developed our national identity and culture on the foundation of European civilization in the course of history, which finds expression in our language and in arts, in our morals and customs, and in our understanding of law and democracy, of freedom and civic duty. (quoted in Klusmeyer, 2001, p. 522; see also Auswärtiges Amt, 9 May 2007) The introduction of the concept of Leitkultur into public policy making in the late 1990s constituted a shift towards the creation of a culturally focussed immigration policy. It placed under the spotlight of public debate the perceived need for immigrants to make additional efforts to integrate. Cultural belonging and the adoption of German customs and values became a prerequisite for wider social and political participation. Whereas the Independent Commission on Migration’s (ICM) intention was to provide practical guidelines for immigration and integration concentrating on language acquisition (UKZ, 2001), the CDU and CSU shifted the focus of the debate to questions of national identity and the loyalty of non-European immigrants in particular. Put another way, ‘the Leitkultur debate was meant to reconstruct the national state’s authority by drawing new boundary lines between nationals and immigrants. No longer was the obsolete ius sanguinis to be used to define who was part of the national body, rather “culture” was to mark this boundary’ (Pautz, 2005). As a result, still yearning for cultural homogeneity, conservatives refused to accept that Germany was a country of immigration. However, at the other end of the spectrum, it has also been argued that politicians and policy makers on the left were also in denial since they rejected initiatives that required putting pressure on immigrants to integrate, seeing such initiatives as echoes of fascism (The Economist, 22 April 2006). Hence, as a result, it can be said that both sides of the political spectrum made use—and still make use—of the culturalisation of politics and use culture as a means of differentiation, which socially excludes a large number of people in Germany. The Leitkultur debate legitimates the exclusion of foreigners (Klusmeyer, 2001). People from different cultural backgrounds (in the present case, German Turks) cannot expect to be treated as Germans because they have yet to become Germans. Hence, it is clear that Germany still very much sees itself as a Kulturnation and that the definition of German


43

Leitkultur is not flexible enough to accommodate the different cultural traits of cultural minorities. Of all the spheres of integration, culture may arguably be the one where there is the least space for an ethnic minority to ‘fit in’ in Germany. It is perhaps in this area then that migration policy work is most required. 1.2

British culture

When we take time to stand back and reflect, it becomes clear that to address almost every one of the major challenges facing our country—our relationships with Europe, America and the rest of the world; how we equip ourselves for globalisation; the future direction of constitutional change; a modern view of citizenship; the future of local government; ideas of localism; and, of course, our community relations and multiculturalism and, since July 7th, the balance between diversity and integration; even the shape of our public services—you must have a clear view of what being British means, what you value about being British and what gives us purpose as a nation. (Brown, 2006) Gordon Brown has much work ahead of him; determining the parameters of Britishness or of the British nation is a difficult and highly complicated task. In this respect, Germany may sit at the other end of the scale. British values, as recently defined by then Education Secretary Alan Johnson, are composed of free speech, tolerance and respect for the rule of law (The Guardian, 10 April 2007). It is interesting to note that these values are, of course, by no means solely British and, in fact, are common to virtually all European nations, including Germany.2 It follows therefore that when people in Britain talk of the nation or national identity it is not always clear where these boundaries lie. England can perhaps be best described as the dominant nation within the multinational state known as the United Kingdom. Yet, whilst it may be a relatively simple matter to differentiate between England and the United Kingdom, it is a much harder task to separate notions of Britishness from Englishness. Clearly, debates about British national culture and cultural integration cannot be neatly separated from those linked to devolution and the United Kingdom’s ‘minority nations’ (Kymlicka, 2000).

44


Determining what constitutes Britishness becomes more difficult still when one considers that the British Empire once spanned the globe: ‘prior to 1948, those in the British Isles and those in the British Empire were, formally, equal “subjects” of the Crown’ (Cohen, 1994, p. 6; also Hansen, 2000). In the postwar years, great numbers of immigrants from the colonies and former colonies came to Britain and found that most white Britons were far from ready to accept them as British. Today, the majority of the nonwhite population in Britain is born in the country ‘but often still find[s] that the popular definitions of Britishness and, all the more, of Englishness exclude[s] them from membership of the nation’ (Jacobson, 1997, p. 184). This may be because many white English citizens perceive themselves as English first and British second, whilst English ethnic minorities tend to perceive themselves as solely British and not as English (CRE, 2005; The Economist, 27 January 2007). To add to the complexity of the question, one must also take into consideration Britain’s ‘imperial culture’, an idea that not only took root abroad but also shaped Britain domestically, whether via an elusive sense of a participation in ‘greatness’, in the more palpable institutions of a national literature and history or in the existence of cultural and political elites whose horizon of expectation was shaped by an imperial Britain. In sharp contrast to the ‘nations within a nation’ that characterise the United Kingdom, British imperialism was a ‘blanket culture’ that covered the entire empire with the aim of creating one great British nation. Whether this imperial culture was more English than British has been the subject of much debate (Langlands, 1999). Thomas Babington Macaulay’s Minute on Education (1835) is exemplary in its tone and assumptions. Referring to India, Macaulay set out an ambition to create ‘a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, opinion, in morals and in intellect’ and invoked the authority of orientalists to support the view that ‘a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia’ (quoted in Cook, 2004, p. 24). In fact, Cook argues that variations of the theme of imperial upbringing continued throughout the nineteenth century and into the twentieth. The products of this theme included the dissemination of the English public school system (or close versions of it) throughout the British Empire, which created a feedback loop that readily sustained the view that the British way of life, whether in its daily culture or


45

in its literary achievements, was superior because it was so widely admired, desired and imitated (Cook, 2004).3 I now return to my introductory point about the devolution of culture and identity in the United Kingdom. In recent years, a number of reports, surveys, research groups and studies have examined the question of what it means to be British (CRE, 2005; Griffith and Leonard 2002; ICM/BBC Asian Network 2007; MORI, 1999, 2000), noticeably more so in the United Kingdom than in Germany when studies on German-ness are rather scarce. The first key issue that emerges is that the debate is most lively in relation to both nationality and ethnicity (including religion). Generally speaking, as previously alluded to, three different views exist as to who the British people are: the British as English, Scottish and Welsh; the British as exclusively white English; and the British as multicultural and diverse. In fact, CRE (2005, p. 7) notes that in a recent UK-wide research survey on what it means to be British, In Scotland and Wales, white and ethnic minority participants identified more strongly with each of those countries than with Britain. In England, white English participants perceived themselves as English first and as British second, while ethnic minority participants perceived themselves as British; none identified as English, which they saw as meaning exclusively white people. Thus, the participants who identified most strongly with Britishness were those from ethnic minority backgrounds resident in England. As a result, for ethnic minorities in particular, maintaining the difference between the English and the British is crucial, since it provides ethnic minorities with space to belong (CRE, 2005; The Economist, 27 January 2007). Many ethnic minority respondents argued that Britain is inherently multicultural and that Britishness is fundamentally about the coming together of diverse people. From this perspective, Britishness is more a nationality or a citizenship than a culture or a way of life. In that sense, Britishness could be particularly important since it is more inclusive than labels of ‘English’ or ‘Scottish’, for example, which seem to convey an ethnic rather than civic identity. Hence, Britain and Britishness is the soil in which an inclusive national culture can take root.

46


Despite attempts to create an overarching, all-encompassing British culture, Britishness has its strongest appeal with British ethnic minorities. Overall, the definition of what it means to be British remains unclear. However, it is clear from the analysis above that Britishness—being a fairly neutral and historically linked term for all British citizens—could become the concept under which the collective nation is unified. 1.3 Minorities and stereotypes Diasporic or ethnic minority culture constantly outstrips the taxonomic efforts of cultural critics and academics to fix it as an object of study. It is therefore more productive to view German-Turkish and British-Asian cultures—indeed culture in general—as dynamic and productive phenomena that constantly and continually challenge preconceptions and forge new links among areas of society. The two previous sections examined German and British selfperceptions of national culture. In order to complete the picture of the two cases’ respective cultural contexts, it is also vital to outline German-Turkish and British-Asian cultures in their national contexts, their daily realities and the way in which they are perceived from the perspective of minorities and majorities respectively. This will better highlight the development, reception and space of immigrant literature in the national cultural realm and the ways in which immigrant literature can or cannot be used as a cultural integrator in the development of comprehensive immigration management policies. 1.3.1 German-Turkish culture Turkish culture in Germany is a heterogeneous affair that is undergoing profound changes in the form of cultural transfers that reflect contemporary social and political realities. Turks in Germany are becoming German-Turks as their Turkish identity acquires more German traits and they in turn import Turkish features into German life. Nowhere is this more apparent than in forms of artistic expression such as music, dance, theatre, film and literature. In these areas, cultural and social changes are clearly visible, and unplanned social experiments are under way, creating cultural synthesis. Although German-Turks remain firmly located in the bottom social strata in Germany, there are signs of an emergent middle class and the development of distinctive intellectual groups. Yet, as the example


47

of the space occupied by German-Turkish literature in the German national publishing industry illustrates (see Chapter 4), the public space occupied by German-Turkish culture in Germany is relatively smaller than that of British-Asians in the United Kingdom. Nonetheless, this does not mean that it does not exist. In fact, it is possible to identify a variety of ‘linguistic currents’ among Turks presently in Germany: a Turkish language scene with a relatively high competence in Turkish; a scene with high competence in both German and Turkish; a scene with limited command of Turkish but an impressive command of German; and a scene where both languages merge to produce new linguistic melange. (Tan and Waldhoff, 1996, p. 144) A similar diversification exists in German-Turkish culture. Works of music, film, theatre, literature, art and academic research are aimed at Turkish-speaking migrants in Germany, at German-speaking Turks, at ethnic Germans or more broadly at all of these groups. Moreover, like other minorities, the Turks operate under ethnic distinctions; the Turkish minority often characterises itself through Muslim culture, yet its claims are civic in character, demanding cultural recognition and minority rights such as those guaranteed to other religious groups under the German constitution (Die Zeit, 21 September 2006). However, the increased emphasis on Islamic customs and social rules, the insistence on traditional cultural values and norms and the strong reference to one’s place of origin can be, and in many instances is, interpreted as an attempt by Turkish parents to recoup some of their lost authority and inhibit further change: Retaining religious customs and an Islamic upbringing after migration provides a means for some Turkish families and, in particular, some Turkish fathers and brothers to protect the traditional family structure from unwanted social influences. Here, ‘lived Islam’ becomes a device to legitimise and prop up the patriarchal family. (Zentrum für Türkeistudien, Türkei Sozialkunde, quoted in Tan and Waldhoff, 1996, p. 140)

48


Yet the future of German-Turkish culture lies not in a fundamentalist, conservative or nostalgic clinging to the past but rather in an innovative change through developing and retaining a bicultural approach, a German and Turkish cultural identity. The prospects for ‘everyday’ Turkish culture and its innovative potential in Germany depend on the immergence of transnationalism among the Turkish minority and its acceptance in German society. That is to say, the future of GermanTurkish culture lies not only in taking (and being given) a place in the national cultural realm but also on the acceptance on the part of both the majority and minority communities that cultural transference occurs and that change is inevitable. Turkish intellectuals could help break the deadlock by providing professional, social or cultural role models and means of orientation. In modern, knowledge-based societies, intellectuals usually play brokering (Stehr, 1994). Tan and Waldhoff (1996), for example, argue that without a German-Turkish professional culture and the contribution of a German-Turkish middle class and intellectual elite, everyday German-Turkish culture will tend to look back, retrench and segregate. With respect to the national cultural integration of the German-Turkish community specifically, the future of Turkish-German everyday culture lies in an innovative change through the development of a hybrid culture that finds its echo and self-recognition in the majority community and accepts the inevitable changes that a transcultural migrant life brings, along with the increasing pressures of global culture.

1.3.2 Britain-Asian culture Even less so than the Turkish-German community, the British-Asian community is not single-cultured.4 In fact, in the case of BritishAsians, there are at least two alternative diasporic public spheres, particularly with respect to the space they occupy in the national cultural environment. Werbner (2004) argues that, in the public display of cultural identities in Britain, specific Pakistani or Bangladeshi national identities are submerged beneath the broader rubric of a Muslim identity whilst an Indian (or Hindu and Sikh) identity is subsumed under the rubric of ‘South-Asian’. Nevertheless, despite their differences, these sub-identities are generally labelled under the same group of British-Asians, and this wider definition will also be applied here.


49

Particular to the British case when contrasted with Germany is the remarkable level of cultural exchange taking place between minority communities on the one hand and between majority and minority groups on the other hand. This exchange goes beyond mere culinary enjoyment or language and reaches a wide array of cultural products, including literature, cinema, music, clothing, and so on, and is similar to German-Turkish cultural production but in much greater numbers. British-Asians have produced a culture that is grounded in both the United Kingdom and Southeast Asia. Werbner (2004) argues that British-Asian culture represents a resistant, yet complicit, public arena produced primarily through the entertainment industry that recites a story of cultural hybridity and cosmopolitanism, intergenerational conflict, interethnic or interracial marriage, family politics and excesses of consumption. It is a cultural arena that makes its distinctive contribution to British and South-Asian culture by satirising the parochialism and conservatism of the South-Asian immigrant generation and that often has the effect of transformation or regeneration of the community image. Hence, British-Asian culture is a mixture of transnational cultural exchange, world consumption and markets and products that often include postcolonial messages. This production is best portrayed in a thriving popular commercial cultural sphere imported from South Asia in which Muslim, Hindu and Sikh artists, actors, musicians and producers are all equally prominent. This cultural sphere includes Bollywood movies, pop music, Pakistani dramas, Sufi devotional qawwali music, classical Indian music and dance, spices, jewellery and traditional clothing. Crucially, whilst this commercial culture had at one time little impact beyond the confines of the SouthAsian community, today it increasingly reaches beyond the sphere of British-Asian migrant communities to that of the majority white population. This cultural reach is perhaps best portrayed by the expansion of the Bollywood movie industry. In recent years, British and Indian cinema industry experts have noticed a large increase in Bollywood movie attendance in the United Kingdom and, in particular, a distinct diversification of the traditional ethnic Asian attendance to include a large number of ‘white Bollyphiles’. Such is the crossover appeal of Hindi musicals produced by the Bollywood industry in Bombay that the United Kingdom now represents the second-largest Bollywood fan base in the world outside

50


of India (The Independent, 17 June 2006). Indeed, whilst ten years ago Bollywood films were released with around ten prints in the United Kingdom per movie, in 2006 90 prints were released for the film The Rising (The Independent, 17 June 2006). This inclusion of Indian cinematic culture in Britain is noticeable in other ways, for example: • In 2000, the Bollywood actor Amitabh Buchchan was voted star of the millennium in a BBC poll, ahead of Sir Lawrence Olivier and Charlie Chaplin; he received a DeMonfort University honorary degree and was immortalised in wax at Madame Tussauds (The Guardian, 10 November 2006); • In 2006, the British Academy of Film and Television Arts launched a three-day celebration of contemporary Bollywood cinema; • Bollywood films such as Kabhie Kushi, Kabhi Gham now claim the top-five spots on the box office charts for opening weekends in the United Kingdom (The Independent, 17 June 2006); and • In 2007, Sheffield in England hosted the International Indian Film Awards ahead of potential suitors such as New York, Rome, Barcelona, Marrakech, Melbourne and Hong Kong. Crucially, whilst British-Asian communities in Britain are a large consumer audience for Bollywood and other types of British-Asian cultural products, the large increase in consumption is not justified by migrant communities alone and has expanded via the inclusion of majority consumers. Moreover, the increased appeal and consumption is also linked to marketing and market growth from the respective industries. As we shall see in Chapter 4, Bollywood is not the only example in case and the publishing industry has followed suit. Of course British-Asian culture is not solely composed of threehour love story dramas with song and dance. Whilst Bollywood is perhaps one of the most glamorous and visible parts of transnational British-Asian cultural consumption, the second sphere of BritishAsian culture is characterised by a distinct conservatism, in particular with respect to Muslim-based communities. Paradoxically perhaps, given their apparent differences, the new-wave South-Asian popular culture agents and the reformist Islamists in Britain share crucial features: both enunciate critical, oppositional discourses which attack ‘culture’, ‘custom’ and ‘tradition’. That is, ‘in being focused on family politics, they open up spaces for young people to assert agency and


51

autonomy, whether they draw on liberal discourses or Islamic ones. Either way, their right to choose, to seek knowledge and stand up to their parents is legitimised’ (Werbner, 2004, p. 907). This conservative part of the British-Asian Muslim community is a conflictual diasporic Muslim cultural sphere dominated by Muslim male community leaders, which has had to respond to international political crises such as the Rushdie affair, the Gulf War, the 11 September 2001 and 7 July 2005 attacks, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the confrontation between India and Pakistan. Conservative elements of the British-Asian community also impact this study since the reception of controversial novels, such as The Satanic Verses (Rushdie, 1988) or Brick Lane (Ali, 2004), is altered by their condemnation of the work. In such cases, the tensions between majority and minority communities palpably increase. All in all, it is worth repeating that the term ‘British-Asian’ is without doubt an oversimplification used to represent a wide array of people with significantly different cultural, linguistic and religious make-up. These differences, in contrast to the German-Turks who, although no doubt composed of a certain degree of variety, cannot be said to be as diversified as those described as ‘British-Asian’. As a result, with respect to the British-Asian cultural scene in Britain, we see a dialectical process at work. On the one hand, Islam in Britain has been incorporative and integrative, providing a legitimate locational identity in an immigrant society. At the same time it has also generated its own contradictions and dilemmas, which have inhibited the integrative process by politicising and racialising this very same religious identity. By contrast, South-Asians in Britain are increasingly part of a creative effort to produce a culturally hybrid high and popular culture which is critical, satirical and self-reflexive (Werbner, 2004). The enormously positive response by an English and increasingly global mainstream audience has made this diasporic public sphere extremely lucrative and enjoyable, helping to integrate South Asians into British society without the demand that they abandon their (often consumption-based) South-Asian transnational connections and orientations. 1.4

Summary

In this section I undertook a comparative examination of national culture in both Germany and the United Kingdom, including

52


German and British self-understandings via the debates surrounding Leitkultur and Britishness. These two cases were compared and contrasted and further complemented by a separate focus on minority culture (German-Turkish and British-Asian) in their respective contexts. Five points emerge as vital in the context of immigrant literature and cultural integration:

1. Any examination of ‘culture’ must be done with great trepidation because, whether studied nationally or at any possible sublevel, it is dynamic, ever changing and difficult to define distinctly. For example, as we have seen, the concept of Mehrheitsgesellschaft and Leitkultur, of Britishness and Englishness and other cultural terms such as ‘British-Asian’ are malleable, socially constructed self-images, which have no legitimate political basis. This distinctively affects the present study in that, as we shall see in Section 4, such flexible concepts can be redefined, in part through immigrant literature. 2. The fact that I examined national culture in the context of an aggregated self-understanding leaves many questions unanswered, including where and how minorities fit in. In this respect, a redefinition of national culture would be required in order to include the cultural specificities of migrant minorities. 3. The culturalisation of politics can be viewed as a more sophisticated form of racism or means for the dominant majority to assert itself and ‘legitimately’ exclude the foreign or minority, which is occurring at the same time as some minorities are increasingly emphasising their differences from the majority in order to assert their own identities. This has a negative influence on the link between immigrant literature and cultural integration, namely by impeding intercultural dialogue and cultural transfers, and sometimes leading to quasi- or outright censorship. 4. When comparing the historical link between migrant communities and the host country, the United Kingdom has a long history of common education, values and cultural links that do not exist in the German environment. That is to say, common points of reference exist between British-Asians and the British majority, particularly with respect to history, language and education, whereas in Germany, no or very few common points


53

of reference exist with German-Turks upon which to build an integrated national culture. 5. Culture and cultural products—especially where they are hybrid in nature—have been and can be an integrative catalyst for minority communities. British-Asian culture acts as a particularly telling example of cultural transfer and exchange, in contrast to the case of German-Turkish communities in Germany where, although present, the cultural transfer has not yet attained the level of hybridity of the United Kingdom. Crucially, market growth has played a substantial role in promoting British-Asian culture in the United Kingdom. Finally, it must be noted that in any discussion on national culture it is clear that other external factors have an effect upon its development and nature: the attractions of global (often American) culture as a source of pleasure, allegiance and identity; the resurgence of popular nationalisms with values and idioms very different from the official version; the creation of a new Europe; the end of national monopolies in television and radio; and, of course, the emergence of cyberspace and the Internet. Popular as well as elite experiences now routinely go beyond the national horizon, redefining the understanding of the nation from within, a subject that will be expressly addressed when I discuss the ‘factors’ influencing the links between immigrant literature and cultural integration; however, first I will discuss the cultural policies in place in the United Kingdom and Germany that influence the development of immigrant literature.

2

Cultural policies

At this point, I turn my attention to cultural policies, more specifically to cultural policy making, in both Britain and Germany. A comparative examination of both countries’ policy-making processes is required in order to properly contextualise the scene in which immigrant literature is produced and develops. Part and parcel of this examination is a sound understanding of how cultural policy is funded, particularly in national support for the arts. I will show how funding increasingly entails the inclusion of ‘culture’ and the arts in social policy, especially in the area of national integration.5

54


2.1 British cultural policy Geir Vestheim (1994, p. 65) defines British cultural policies as ‘instrumental’ because they have a tendency to ‘use cultural ventures and cultural investments as a means or instrument to attain goals in other than cultural areas’. In the United Kingdom, the notion of exploiting arts and culture to attain social, economic or other aims outside the cultural realm dates back to the nineteenth century, when the connection between the arts and manufacturing began to strengthen. In fact, as Minihan (1977) points out, when making the case for public subsidy of the arts, nineteenth-century parliamentarians argued that the creative arts were useful in enhancing the manufacturing sector’s inventiveness. This link between artistic and industrial creativity in the United Kingdom remained about the same until the 1980s. With the election of the Conservatives to government came the so-called policies of survival that the British cultural sector had to adopt in the face of reduced government spending (Belfiore, 2004). The Thatcher era was a period of great uncertainty for the arts during which the cultural sector was forced to put forward a strong economic case to avoid reductions in funding. Cultural activities were referred to as ‘products’, the audience as ‘consumers’ and the language of subsidy turned into that of investment (Hewison, 1995). Survival strategies of this type allowed the traditionally ‘weak’ culture and arts policy sector to attach itself to a number of so-called ‘strong’ political agendas. As a result, subsidies for the arts and culture have found their way into mainstream public policy making, so much so that public cultural organisations such as the Arts Council of England (ACE) can today publicly claim as a strategic goal ‘to place greater resources and emphasis on marketing the transforming power of the arts’ (ACE, 2003). Indeed, ACE argues that being involved with the arts can have a lasting and transforming effect on many aspects of people’s lives. This is true not just for individuals, but also for neighbourhoods, communities, regions and entire generations, whose sense of identity and purpose can be changed through the arts. (ACE, 2003, p. 3) The point is that the use of the arts and related cultural policies as instruments to achieve aims that are external to the realm of culture


55

has a long history in the United Kingdom and is still very much present today. In fact, what seems to characterise British cultural policy is ‘a rather remarkable consistency in the use of explicitly instrumental justification for government involvement in arts funding’ (Belfiore, 2004, p. 186). The principal sets of government political objectives to which the British arts sector has successfully attached itself are economic development, urban regeneration and—of particular relevance to the present analysis—social inclusion (Belfiore, 2004; also interview with British policy maker). Whilst one may have the impression that the alleviation of social exclusion as a goal of instrumental cultural policy is a relatively new phenomena, this is not the case. In fact, in contemporary history, what was once referred to as ‘social order’ is now spoken of in terms of ‘social inclusion’ and ‘social cohesion’, ‘but this does not alter the identical substance of the various claims’ (Belfiore, 2004, p. 186; also Belfiore, 2002). What is different today is New Labour’s highly visible and clearly spelled out aim of cultural policy to promote social inclusion. That is, today’s link between the arts and social cohesion is comparatively more expressly stated. In fact, New Labour government, through the Department of Culture, Media and Sports (DCMS), has officially endorsed the view that the arts can alleviate social exclusion. Then DCMS Secretary of State Chris Smith clearly spelled out the government’s commitment to the arts as an instrument to curb exclusion. He said that the arts can not only make a valuable contribution to delivering key outcomes of lower long-term unemployment, less crime, better health and better qualifications, but can also help to develop the individual pride, community spirit and capacity for responsibility that enable communities to run regeneration programmes themselves. (DCMS, 2002, p. 2) Clearly, reducing social exclusion through the arts is currently one major thrust of British public policy. The focus of the centralised government then trickles down to the regional level through guidelines and funding and is enforced through accountability reports. One might argue that this is not dissimilar in result to the survival policies of the 1980s since, ‘if cultural organizations hope to have the importance of their work recognised . . . they need to take account of [the

56


Labour government’s social inclusion] concerns’ (François Matarasso, Chair of the East Midlands Regional Arts Council, quoted in Selwood, 2002, p. 19). Hence, with respect to implementation, British cultural policies are centrally decided and regionally implemented. The government sets overarching goals for the arts, which are reflected in the strategic policies that DCMS sets for the arts sector. These Public Service Agreements (PSAs) set out the department’s aims, objectives and key targets; they are agreed with the Treasury and form an integral part of the spending plans set out in government reviews. The implementation of DCMS policies is carried out in partnership with the ACE, the Regional Art Boards, the Department of Education and Employment (DEE) and a number of other bodies following the so-called arm’s length principle (DCMS, 2006) which is meant to define the relative autonomy of the Arts Council and the Regional Arts Boards in deciding how to allocate the available resources to individual art forms and artists. However, as Matarasso pointed out, in reality, given that the government sets the goals for arts funding, the funded bodies and organisations have to subscribe to the governments’ instrumental view of the arts. In that way, the PSAs and funding agreements ensure that decisions relative to arts funding are informed by and incorporate the government’s cultural policy objectives. DCMS’s QUEST (Quality, Efficiency and Standards Team)6 clearly spelled out the dilemma that the cultural sector finds itself in with respect to its accountability to government: The cultural sector cannot continue to compete with other increasing demands for expenditure on education, health, law etc. without essential ammunition that performance measurement offers. The greater the impact, the greater the chance that the role and fundamental potential of the sector will be fully recognised across government and by the public. (QUEST, 2000, p. 19) As a result, British cultural policy is characterised by its centralist nature where implementation has the potential to be quicker and its overarching aims being enforced measures from above, such as through PSAs. Moreover, the instrumentality of British cultural policy is likely to remain, given not only its long history in the national


57

context, but also its overall financial pressures which tend to affect support for the arts and culture in the first instance. Should the current focus on national integration remain a justification for arts funding and the links between immigrant literature and national integration be deemed positive, cultural policy could become beneficial to the further development of immigrant literature in the United Kingdom. 2.2

German Kulturpolitik

In contrast to the United Kingdom’s centralised cultural policy making, Kulturpolitik (cultural policy) in the Federal Republic of Germany is developed at the Länder and municipality levels, keeping with the country’s decentralised political system. For all intents and purposes, in terms of cultural policy and cultural administration, Germany presents a case of almost complete devolution (Burns and van der Will, 2003); in fact, ‘According to the Constitution, the primary competence for the promotion of Art and Culture lies with the Länder.’ The federal government’s few responsibilities can be summarised in three points: • the improvement of structural conditions for the development of Arts and Culture; • the development of, and support for, cultural public institutions of national significance; • the preservation and protection of cultural heritage.7 Given the quintessentially federal structure of German cultural policy, the Federal Government Commissioner for Culture and the Media (BKM) necessarily spends much of its time executing coordinative policy functions. Of course, in this area, as is the case in Britain, a number of cultural institutions are governed by other public or private concerns (for example, some art galleries, cultural magazines and newspapers, publishing houses or municipalities). However these are not typically understood to undermine the cultural prerogative of the Länder but rather to exist within their own brief or under market conditions (Burns and van der Will, 2003). There is also a historical reason behind the regionalisation of cultural policies. The politisation of German cultural policy has its roots in the 1960s, when leftist groups and social movements promoted

58


Soziokultur (social culture) through politically committed art forms (Dubois and Laborier, 2003). They denounced traditional cultural institutions in favour of ‘alternative’ forms of culture expression and largely emphasised intermediary forms of culture, improving the ‘living environment’, the ‘humanisation’ of new urban estates, as well as defending a ‘culture of daily life’ for all. To some extent, Soziokultur also pursued the goal of mending and respecting minority cultural practices, whether ethnic, sexual, social or religious. Dubois and Laborier (2003) posit that the aestheticisation of everyday German life in the 1960s was partly based on a multicultural approach, but this statement is arguable and, as we shall see, not applicable in today’s cultural policy context. Whatever the case, German Kulturpolitik’s bottom-up policy development was quickly institutionalised through the actions of politicians and intellectuals close to the Soziokultur movement. These players set in motion the institutionalisation of cultural policy through consultation and evaluation groups such as the Council of German Cities8 (Deutscher Städtetag) and the Society for Cultural Policy (Kulturpolitische Gesellschaft). Henceforth, the principle of cultural delegation was transformed. The agents authorised to speak about culture on behalf of the social groups were no longer those who through their voluntary commitment or political activity had been assigned representative functions, but rather those who held a specialised competence guaranteed by the fact that they were ‘professionals’ (Dubois and Laborier, 2003). The policies that were originally constituted on the basis of collective mobilisations and around ‘social’ objectives became during the 1980s and 1990s a matter for ‘specialists’ who proclaimed their political and social neutrality and invoked cultural excellence (Dubois and Laborier, 2003). Nonetheless, despite the specialised institutionalisation of multilevel players within the field of cultural policy, it remains the case that most fundamentally provocative instances of policy change have not issued from cultural policy makers or administrators. They have instead arisen from public policy discourses in open society that have infiltrated government at all levels (Burns and van der Will, 2003). The significant point here is that despite the different origin and development process, German and British cultural policy decision making and representation today are conducted in a similar manner,


59

that is, through the politically informed decision makers whose greatest claim is that of being culture professionals. Nonetheless, all of that being said, one main difference remains: the level at which reform is generated, that is, centralised in the United Kingdom and at a Land level in Germany. This radical approach to Soziokulturpolitik clearly changed after unification, when Germany’s Soziokultur turned its attention to encouraging a greater understanding and cohesiveness between the former eastern and western Länder, thus leaving behind the ‘multicultural focus’ advocated by Dubois and Laborier (2003). It is partly thanks to reunification (in conjunction with the election of the Green government) that the social anchoring of cultural policies in Germany left the grassroots level and became part of the national discourse. Whilst Kulturpolitik did not involve highly profiled discussion about ethnic relations between immigrants and Germans, it nonetheless managed to receive public legitimacy as a tool for social betterment between the former East and West. Even conservative politicians accepted the instrumental view of Kulturpolitik as a legitimate component of cultural policy. Hence, by the beginning of the 1990s, through unification and the emergence of the Greens as a political force, Kulturpolitik reached mainstream Land government levels, that is, a level of recognition similar to that in the United Kingdom. Another striking similarity between British and German cultural policy development is that of financial pressures. As noted above, the British cultural sector was forced in the 1980s to justify its existence by attaching itself to core political issues such as urban regeneration and social inclusion. A similar survival act brought Soziokultur onto the agenda in the 1990s when it was denounced as representing a bad use of public funds and was a prime target for cuts in culture budgets (Burns and van der Will, 2003). The erosion of the cultural budget since the 1990s in Germany is in part a consequence of the substantial costs of German reunification and in part attributable to the persistently slow German economy in recent years. In other words, and perhaps ironically, when German cultural policy was gaining ground in terms of legitimacy in government policy, it was also facing significant budgetary pressure. Hence, as was the case in the United Kingdom in the 1980s, the threat of budget reductions in Germany generated a social reclassification of cultural expenditure,

60


including new types of investment justifications being put forward to rationalise cultural spending.

2.3 Summary The attribution of social objectives to the public financing of arts and culture in Germany and the United Kingdom is a function of the varied relations between the different levels of public intervention, the different history and ideologies linked with cultural policy and the ensuing varied factors and agents that affect its delivery. Hence, it is safe to say that the difference in both sets of policies helps to partly explain the varied impact of cultural policies on the ground, including the overall social aims attributed to ‘culture’. What is striking, however, is that despite their substantially different historical development, both countries have highlighted the use of the arts in alleviating social exclusion. The biggest difference here is not the goal itself but the process through which the stated goal is pursued. The differences and similarities just discussed and their respective impacts on the relationship between immigrant literature and national integration are summarised in Table 2.1. All in all, looking forward, it is perfectly reasonable to posit that the link between culture, the arts and society—that is, the instrumentality of cultural policies—is likely to remain and even gain prominence in both countries as Britain and Germany strive to retain a sense of national cohesiveness in the face of globalisation, increased immigration and the current economic crisis. Furthermore, as Van der Ploeg (2005) argues, social issues are bound to gain substantial centrality in future cultural policies in many EU member states by virtue of the European Community’s cultural programme, Culture 2000, which builds upon the commitment to cultural access expressed in Article 151 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Culture 2000 formally acknowledges the contribution that the arts can make to integration across Europe. The targets of the programme’s initiatives are all European citizens, but in particular the young and socially underprivileged, which, of course, may also have major implications here, in particular with respect to the German-Turkish community since many of its members are not German citizens. Similar implications can certainly be found across Europe for many migrant groups or third-country nationals.

Table 2.1 British and German cultural policies: similarities and differences The United Kingdom

Germany

Impact

•

•

Historical grassroots ‘bottom-up’ development of cultural policies; remains the case currently Land and municipal decision making

•

‘Politics of survival’ from the 1990s onwards

•

•

•

Historical ‘top-down’ development of cultural policies; remains the case currently Central decision making

• ‘Politics of survival’ from the 1980s onwards

•

• •

•

•

Accountability (including use of targets)

•

Targets are not yet materially present

• •

Potentially quicker policy intervention in the United Kingdom versus potential for cultural policies in Germany to be more in tune with reality Germany’s federal structure increases proximity to minorities and population Centrality increases national uniformity whilst devolution increases level of diversity ‘Politics of survival’ likely to remain given budgetary pressures (in both the United Kingdom and Germany) and targets (in the United Kingdom) The ‘instrumentality’ of cultural policy is likely to remain; that is, a likely symptom of the politics of survival will be an increase in the linking of arts to national integration (for example, to justify increasingly scarce funding) Accountability increases the transparency of evaluating the success of policies for the arts Targets tend to increase the instrumentality of cultural policy

61

62


3

Influencing factors

A number of factors emerged as having a material role in the construction of national cultural integration, in particular with respect to the immigrant literature-cultural integration link. The most germane of these include (1) the impact of globalisation on literary culture; (2) ethnic stereotyping or ‘pigeonholing’; (3) Islam; and (4) censorship (both self and imposed). 3.1 Globalisation The impact of globalisation on immigrant literature and the link to cultural integration is both subtle and great at the same time. Globalisation can encourage national cultural integration and make immigrant literature more accessible to the general population; however, it may do so at the expense of decreased variety and the pursuit of a ‘common denominator’ type of immigrant literature. On the one hand and popularly speaking, culture is thought of as locally based and the nation’s prerogative. On the other hand, there is ‘the global’ or ‘globalisation’, which translates into the abolition of barriers and distance and means instant access to arts, opinions, entertainment, raw information, among other things and the levelling of cultures. So defined, globalisation represents a standardisation and homogenisation of culture: The lesson of the hegemony of the mass media—television, MTV, the internet—is that there is only one culture, that what lies beyond borders everywhere is—or one day will be—just more of the same, with everyone on the planet feeding at the same trough of standardised entertainments and fantasies . . . with everyone enlightened by the same open-ended flow of bits of unfiltered (if, in fact, often censored) information and opinion. (Sontag, 2007, p. 6) Naturally, the pull towards cultural homogenisation cannot fail to affect the realm of literature. Readers today, for instance, may consult book reviews on Amazon’s Web sites; they may receive a book of Chinese verses from China within a week by post, whilst, at the same time, listen to Iranian verses on their Internet-enabled digital radio. As previously outlined, defining the boundaries of immigrant


63

literature is a challenge in itself, a challenge which is accentuated by the fact that many of its creators are increasingly viewed as ‘global authors’. As we shall see in Chapter 4, this is more the case in Britain than in Germany in no small part due to English being the language of globalisation. In fact, as Jusdanis (2003) argues, English-language literature has a tremendous capacity to influence literary trends and markets, buttressed by the force of its popularity, the prestige of its traditions and the muscle (including the economic muscle) of its cultural industry. In fact, as a testimony to the strength of writing in English, note the short-listed candidates for the Man Booker International Prize 2007: 11 of 15 authors are English-language writers, and only four are novelists who write in another language (in this case, Dutch, French, Hebrew and Spanish, respectively).9 This is despite the fact that the Man Booker international judges aim ‘to offer a gift to the readers all over the world, an opportunity to join a conversation on 15 writers, diverse in nationality, language, themes and techniques’ (The Guardian, 13 April 2007, p. 15). Of course, this distinct English influence on the international literary scene cuts both ways. On the one hand, novels written in English often create or influence literary trends. On the other hand, critics point to the self-consciousness of contemporary works that are prepared for the global market or that ‘thematise’ the market. That is, today’s writers, in particular those who write in the English language, understand global literary fashions, the intricacies of the transnational book trade and the current obsession with exoticism in the West and, accordingly, write with these things in mind. In summary, these writers—and in particular British-Asian writers—influence current global literary trends, but are also influenced by them. In fact, one notes a distinctly and fairly recent trend in British immigrant literature which specifically embraces as primary subjects the global world of jet travel, satellite television and American popular culture. Note the selected examples that follow: • Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things (1997): In a memorable scene set in 1969, the grandmother, uncle and twins go to see The Sound of Music in a remote Indian city. Three decades later, the grandmother watches Donahue, MTV, Bill Clinton and The Oprah Winfrey Show on her satellite television.

64


• Salman Rushdie’s Shalimar the Clown (2005): Rushdie’s work is a political and love story that spans modern history and the globe. The story moves from California to France, England and Kashmir and relates a tale of a daughter called India, whose father, a former United States ambassador to India, is murdered in Los Angeles by a Kashmiri driver. • Kiran Desai’s The Inheritance of Loss (2006): The story unfolds between Harlem and the Himalayas; Noni, an old Nepalese neighbour, washes her Marks and Spencer underwear, loves strawberries and cream and watches the BBC. • Hari Kunzru’s Transmission (2004): This is a novel that mixes London, Bollywood and Silicon Valley; takes in three different continents; follows the lives of three inhabitants (a computer programmer, a Bollywood actress and a British businessman); and encapsulates globalisation and life ‘at the click of a mouse’. All of these novels cast themselves globally by making Indian life (or indeed ‘Asian immigrant life’) accessible to Western audiences. This is made possible partly by the characters themselves, who have either lived in uptown New York or London or who readily consume Western products and culture. Very few similar themes of globalisation are found in German immigrant literature, which perhaps only serves to re-emphasise the link between globalisation and the English language. German literature is much more insular, which is perhaps representative of Germany’s self-perception as a cultural nation. However, in the global world where the local easily becomes global, the pretence of cultural homogeneity at the level of nation-states as envisaged by the German Kulturnation and concept of Leitkultur seems increasingly anachronistic. In fact, by attempting to obscure cultural differences between citizens (and denizens), this integralist vision of national culture actually sharpens the boundaries between groups of ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’. Indeed, as already mentioned in the Section 1 of this chapter, portraying immigrants as outsiders may make their presence appear to be a threat to the presumed integrity of the national culture. In this sense, the CDU idea that in order to achieve ‘a free and secure society of equal opportunities . . . it is necessary that there [be] an acceptance in Germany of a Leitkultur’ (Auswärtiges Amt, 9 May 2007) seems to be both disintegrative


65

and unachievable (and perhaps even futile) in the wake of globalisation. How then does globalisation in general and within the literary industry in particular affect the link between immigrant literature and cultural integration? Unsurprisingly in many ways; first, it redefines the borders of the nation and, second, it generates a hybrid homogenised cultural product under the influence of market publishing (see Chapter 4). In fact, if a uniform national culture is the intention of national policy makers then, with or without government intervention, a uniform national culture will eventually be the end result by virtue of increased pressure from globalisation and cultural markets. Policy makers can, however, promote faster integration by introducing immigrant literature in schools, for example (see Chapter 3). But whatever the case, the main point is that this increased integration of culture is well under way and cannot be stopped.

3.2

Stereotypes

Often understood as offensive, pejorative and misleading, stereotypes in fact tend to act as necessary cognitive shorthand to enable individuals to understand the complexities of their environments and categorise individuals into specific social groups (Fowler, 2001). Stereotypes are a categorising tool where we abstract from reality, seeking out key characteristics of a group or nation and investing the pictures in our heads with meaning (Grix and Lacroix, 2006). The danger arises when one relies solely on stereotypical views of the world that are ill balanced and result in an opinion based on little or no empirical experience against which to check and recalibrate these stereotypes. Stereotyping is often solely associated with negative connotations, but it is not always negative, including its use in relation to immigrant literature. On the one hand, stereotypes can serve in a similar fashion as ‘positive discrimination’ and influence immigrant literature by providing assistance to minority communities who do not have the networks, infrastructure, role models or overall chance to access the literary world when compared with their fellow majority citizens. On the other hand, stereotyping can restrict immigrant literature’s ability to potentially broaden knowledge of, and affectivity

66


towards, ‘foreign’ culture in that authors, novels and communities are pigeonholed into a predefined ethnic marker that restricts the ‘cosmopolitan’ nature of immigrant literature. Here two distinct camps emerge: that of authors and cultural critics who generally believe that stereotyping has a strong negative impact on the development and reception of immigrant literature, as well as societies’ general cultural integration. The second camp is generally composed of publishers and cultural or art policy advisors who believe in the positive influence of immigrant literature—and even stereotyped immigrant literature—on society overall. The second camp sees stereotyping as a temporal necessity until ethnic minorities are endowed with the same or similar opportunities and advantages enjoyed by majority communities. In fact, the literary editor of a major British newspaper sums up this point as follows: In a way it’s an inevitable paradox. If you decide that you’re going to separate a particular area for support and development, then to some extent you can be seen as ghettoising it. Because, on the other hand, if you didn’t draw a boundary around it and say ‘this is for the moment tactically what we’re going to concentrate on’ then nothing would happen. So, obviously it’s not a permanent solution. As with lots of these initiatives to do with cultural diversity, one hopes that in the end they become more and more unnecessary because there are no longer barriers to be overcome. But we’re certainly not at that place yet. In Britain, within the ACE and in particular its literary branch, there is a view that the general readership looks to immigrant literature as a way to understand and be exposed to other cultures. Of course, there is also an understanding that ethnic minority communities may believe that the books are portraying their culture or immigrant life experiences stereotypically; however, ‘that’s good . . . and . . . gets it onto the front pages and into the broader cultural discourse which is all to the good’. In fact, it is ‘much better . . . that’s happening than that these books are published and nothing is heard at all from anywhere’ (Interview with British policy maker). At the same time, the applicable authors generally perceive that they are, on balance, talked about and presented solely in terms of their ethnicity (Interviews with British and German immigrant


67

authors; also The Guardian, 7 February 2003; The Bookseller, 2004). Authors would much prefer to be seen as writers who, whilst perhaps concerned about issues surrounding race, above all else are judged as interesting on their writing alone. Being labelled solely as an immigrant author or the new Monica Ali10 restricts creativity and the potential reception of immigrant authors. That is to say, once someone is coined as a British-Asian or German-Turkish author, a certain expectation comes with it, along with a certain audience: The problem is as follows: how the people describe me actually makes no difference, whether it is Turkish-German or GermanTurkish, or something else, makes no difference. The problem is that because of this label, much is reduced to something that it is not. That is, when I write a book, when I read something, the people first see [me and say] ‘aha, he is German-Turkish’, and then pay attention to what I write. (Interview with German-Turkish author) As a result, stereotyping is very much a double-edged sword, but it is certainly a tool that can have a positive impact on the link between immigrant literature and cultural integration through the promotion of intercultural dialogue and greater access to the literary market and industry by migrant communities. That is to say, the positive– negative balance is hard to assess, but overall the points made by the British literary editor and policy maker above are valid; stereotyping ‘get[s] the literature out there’. Certainly, if we look at the effect of stereotyping on the expansion of the British publishing industry on British-Asian authors, the ensuing market expansion and overall popularity, a strong case is made for its overall positive impact. The key, however, is to be aware of stereotyping’s negative side, of the fact that it may restrict access to a certain aspect of the market and immigrant linked themes. 3.3

Islam

Islam is included as a factor not so much for its direct impact on immigrant literature but for its influence on cultural integration. In the ‘clash of civilisations’, there is a perception that one of the core ‘problems’ or issues of cultural integration is an inherent and insurmountable incompatibility between Islam and Western culture.

68


British and German immigrant literature often addresses this perceived incompatibility, certainly because it is a reality with which many authors live on a daily basis. That is to say: We must not forget that [immigrant literature] takes place within the question of the so-called clash of civilizations, so our relation to the Islamic world after 9/11 is an extremely important question. I think that [the German] relation to the Turkish minority is a sort of miniature of the world-wide problem of the relations between the USA, Europe, and Islam. (Interview with German academic and literary critic) An image of Turks as fundamentalists is prevalent among Germans, whereas Turks or Muslims in Western dress, with apparent Western lifestyles, are seen as the exception rather than the norm (Bloomfield, 2003; Tan and Waldhoff, 1996). Sometimes this ethnic characterisation of Turks is tempered by recognition of the discrimination they face, for example, with respect to the disproportionate number of foreign children in Hauptschule (see Chapter 3). Overall, in Germany, however, it is clear that: Islam surfaces as culture. And then we do not get anywhere. It is a cul-de-sac, . . . to quickly ethnisise, to blame religion too quickly. This also disturbs this so-called middle class; they take xenophobia as the truth, as a way to keep out the Turks. . . . And if we do not stop them, it will become really dangerous. These social, cultural phenomena must be clearly identified. As we are having this whole Islam debate, this is not a very opportune time for this. (Interview with German-Turkish author) In Britain, a major feature of Islam is that, on the whole, it remains nationally and ethnically divided. Despite optimistic talk of an emerging British version of Islam—the so-called British Islam—there remain separate Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Arab mosques, as well as Turkish and Shi’a mosques. Mosque attendance among the young is primarily a matter of choice and by no means universal. This is the case even though most youngsters remain pious and stress their Islamic identity, which they consider to be beleaguered, both locally and globally (The Economist, 2 December 2006).


69

Hence, the talk today by politicians, intellectuals and the media in both the United Kingdom and Germany is of Muslim self-segregation (BBC News, 14 July 2005; Die Zeit, 21 September 2006). Whilst Islam is a congregational religion that provides a valued identity for immigrants, for many it is also ‘an adventure of self-discovery, an enjoyable substitute for . . . youth culture (Werbner, 2004, p. 907, in the case of Islamic Britain). Yet: Traditional teachers find it difficult to argue against the contemporary teaching of the Koran and increasing lose contact to young people. On this front, there is a noticeable voice that helps, like the one of the British pop Star Sami Yusuf who already sold more than one million albums. (Die Presse, 13 November 2006). Doctrinally at least, history shows that there is nothing in Islam to prevent migrants from developing a modern European variety or strand of their religion. Religion, like identity or culture, tends to absorb aspects of the social practices and cultural orientations of the society in which it exists, and it becomes part of that society. Varieties of Islam—Arab, African, Indian and Asian—have already developed over the centuries, and American and European varieties of Islam have also begun to take shape. With respect to literature in particular, recent history shows that the portrayal of Islam (or other religious or cultural practices) in works can raise tensions as witnessed by the reception of Brick Lane and the The Satanic Verses. These tensions have an immediate, negative influence on ethnic relations and, hence, cultural integration. On the other end of the scale and in the long run, one notes a distinct role that novels such as (Un)arranged Marriage (Rai, 2001), Koppstoff (Zaimoˇglu, 1999), Sprich langsam, Türke (Pamuk, 2002), The Buddha of Suburbia (Kureishi, 1990) or Psychoraag (Saadi, 2004) could play with respect to reaching young immigrants of Islamic faith in the German and British school systems whilst at the same time explaining Islam to pupils of Christian faith. Authors identified with Islam could have a distinct, positive influence on youth, as could writers such as S¸ enocak, Scheinhardt, Rai and Saadi, who take a moderate tone that calls for respect and, in the case of S¸ enocak, who publicly promote a European Islam. Immigrant literature ‘can work to broaden perspectives and open debate. It serves to re-emphasise the subtlety

70


and sophistication of Muslim culture; that the Islamic world is about far more than fanatical extremism, and that ambitions can rise above bombing and jihad’ (The Times, 12 September 2006). Note for example the following quotes from immigrant literature where Muslim experiences are described in the German and British environment: I am not often asked why I wear the headscarf since most people believe they already know, but they cannot know. Nobody can know what is going on in my head unless I have told them. (Zaimoˇglu, 1998, p. 67) It was certainly bizarre, Uncle Anwar behaving like a Muslim. I’d never known him believe in anything before, so it was an amazing novelty to find him literally staking his life on the principle of absolute patriarchy. Through her mother’s staunch and indulgent love . . . but mainly because of Anwar’s indifference, Jamila had got away with things some of her white counterparts wouldn’t dream of. There has been years of smoking, drinking, sexual intercourse and dances, helped by there being a fire escape outside her bedroom. (Kureishi, 1990, p. 64) Indeed, passages like these could help break down Islam-related prejudices (and stereotypes) in the majority community population, where persons of Islamic faith are believed to be strongly religious and dogma-prone and where young Muslim women must submit to an authoritarian family environment, stay inside the home under the strict supervision of elders and do as they are told. Of course, immigrant literature also has benefits for minority students, some of which are discussed above. Other benefits, such as presenting positive role models, are discussed in future chapters. Finally, (conservative) Islam as an influencing factor can also have a negative impact on the links between immigrant literature and national integration. It has the potential to increase tensions between majority and minority communities, thereby generating negative intercultural dialogue. The presence of (conservative) Islam also has a part to play in the next influencing factor of this analysis: censorship. 3.4 Censorship It is easy to assume that freedom of expression is an acquis in both Germany and the United Kingdom and in Europe generally. However,


71

this is not necessarily the case with regard to immigrant works in particular. The maxim attributed to Voltaire ‘I disagree with what you are saying but I will fight to the death for your right to say it’ seems faint in today’s environment, a result perhaps of the culturalisation of politics. A few recent examples serve to highlight this point: • In December 2004, Behzti, a play by the British-Sikh Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti, became the centre of a major controversy in the United Kingdom when its opening night was disrupted by a riot at the Birmingham-based theatre where it was to be shown. The play was eventually cancelled—an example of public self-censorship as opposed to state censorship—because of the controversy surrounding a scene set in a Gurdwara that included rape, physical abuse and murder. • In September 2005, the Danish Muhammad cartoons controversy began after 12 editorial cartoons, most of which depicted the Islamic prophet Muhammad, were published in the newspaper Jyllands-Posten. The newspaper announced that the publication of the cartoons was an attempt to contribute to the debate regarding criticism of Islam and self-censorship. Danish Muslim organisations objected to the depictions by holding public protests that attempted to raise awareness of the cartoons’ publication. The controversy deepened when examples of the cartoons were reprinted in newspapers in more than 50 countries, which led to protests across the Muslim world, some of which escalated into violence (The Guardian, 30 September 2006). • In September 2006, the Deutsche Oper Berlin cancelled a performance of Mozart’s opera Idomeneo after receiving threatening phone calls about a scene in the opera showing the prophet’s severed head, alongside those of Jesus, Buddha and Poseidon. Angela Merkel described the cancellation by the national opera as ‘self-censorship out of fear’ (ABC News, 27 September 2006). • In September 2006, French writer and philosopher Robert Redeker went into hiding in response to death threats on Islamist web sites following the publication of an article he wrote for Le Figaro (19 September 2006) which stated that Mohammad is revealed in the Qur’an as ‘un maître de haine’ (a master of hate). • In June 2007, a group of ultranationalist Turkish lawyers tried to bring a case against Turkish author Elif Shafak for her book The

72


Bastard of Istanbul. The group argued that her novel had been manufactured by imperial powers ‘bent on dismembering Turkey’ (The Economist, 11 January 2007). Turkish author and winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature Ohran Pamuk also faced legal charges in Turkey for comments he made to a Swiss newspaper about Armenian-Turkish history. • The most famous (and less recent) example of all, of course, was the publication of Salman Rusdie’s The Satanic Verses (1988), which provoked violent reactions from Muslims in several countries. Rushdie faced death threats and a fatwa (religious edict) issued by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, then leader of Iran, and spent nearly a decade largely underground, appearing only sporadically in public. It is challenging to find a positive impact of censorship. Perhaps the only positive outcome of censorship is that some works receive more publicity as a result, as was the case of Behzti and The Satanic Verses. However, since Behzti was cancelled, its message did not reach much of its intended public. That is the crux of censorship: its greatest impact is that it prevents immigrant literature or any other type of ‘debatable’ work from reaching the public. For many of the incidents noted above, the very fact that they were censored arguably makes their publication or staging necessary in order to bring their respective issues to the forefront of debate. Instead, the discussion ultimately turns around the issue of censorship and cultural clashes rather than the greater topic of integration (The Guardian, 5 October 2006). Crucially, it is worth emphasising that, for the most part, the censorship outlined above is self-(or public) imposed, rather than forced by the state. 3.5 Summary The impact of these influential factors on immigrant literature and cultural integration are summarised in Table 2.2. There are two influencing factors whose interplay with one another should be highlighted: the dual impact of Islam and censorship as factors in the immigrant literature-cultural integration link. Whilst German-Turkish or British-Asian immigrant literature with Muslimcentric content or portrayal has the potential of introducing a message of cohesion and intercultural sensitivity, they can, and indeed


73

Table 2.2 Influential factors: positive and negative impacts Positive Impact Globalisation

• •

Negative Impact

The homogenisation of • culture encourages national cultural integration Facilitates access to • immigrant literature and the arts in general

Stereotypes

•

Furthers intercultural dialogue through the positive discrimination of authors and works

Islam

•

Use of immigrant literature • to encourage the development of an integrated European Islam Use of immigrant literature to reach Islamic children in schools

•

Censorship

•

Immigrant literature (or certain related immigrant works) make it into the headlines and, as a result, overall public discourse

•

•

Potential decrease in the variety of immigrant literature available Increase in formulaic immigrant literature to please global markets Built-up stereotypes of minority culture will likely be difficult to deconstruct once unnecessary Certain reactionary elements may feed into and reinforce negative stereotypes and censorship

Prevents the production, marketing and reception of immigrant literature

at times do, raise tensions between majority and minority communities. This is most often brought about when there is a call to ban or censor a particular novel or work. In turn, this increases or sharpens the ‘clash of cultures’, whether real of perceived, since freedom of speech is a sensitive topic in the ‘Western’ world, including in Germany and the United Kingdom. This dichotomy is dealt with further in the first link of Section 4, ‘generating intercultural dialogue’.

4

Links with cultural integration

The contextual discussion and influencing factors listed above collectively illustrate two strong links between immigrant literature and

74


national cultural integration, namely immigrant literature acts as a catalyst for generating intercultural dialogue—both in an integrative and, at times, disintegrative way—and for redefining national culture. With respect to immigrant literature’s potential use as an indicator for cultural integration the situation is less clear, reflecting the blurry borders of culture itself.

4.1 Generating intercultural dialogue Intercultural dialogue emerges as the most cogent link between immigrant literature and cultural integration. This is the case not only because it is one of the most intuitive links, but primarily because it is by far the most commonly ascribed link between immigrant literature and (cultural) integration. The fundamental goal of intercultural dialogue is to reveal differences and similarities between cultures through contact, thereby contributing to mutual understanding, an essential aspect of peaceful coexistence and national integration. However, as we shall see below, these differences can also be accentuated in ways which raise intercultural tensions and, thus, can also have more of a disintegrative than integrative impact. Dialogue among or between cultures fosters exchange and debate among individuals and communities, thereby creating a basis for shared values and increasing cultural integration. There are two major ways in which immigrant literature generates intercultural dialogue: first, by the immigrant author’s presence in the public realm and, second, by bringing together cultural worlds, traditions and topics that would otherwise have little or no chance of coming into contact with each other. Border crossings, being the literal substance of migration, inevitably lead to cultural contacts, both metaphorically and in actuality for individuals, communities and nations. Immigrant writers and artists work within this intercultural context and inevitably become part of the dialogue that is taking place. This can manifest itself as having a positive impact, as in the case of Feridun Zaimoˇglu’s public profile surrounding the publication of Kanak Sprak, or a negative impact, as in the case of Salman Rushdie’s fatwa after the publication of The Satanic Verses. Similar crossings of boundaries in language, subject and discipline are required of those who seek to track and explore these changes. In this sense and perhaps more


75

so than in the majority communities, minority authors are in a better position to influence and facilitate intercultural dialogue between migrant and majority communities.11 Nevertheless, more often than not, immigrant authors with a public profile have this role thrust upon them, whether they wish for it or not: Even when these authors do not necessarily want the role of [intercultural facilitators], the public will quickly bring it up. You always quickly hear questions like ‘what is’, ‘why is’, ‘how do you feel in German society?’ ‘How do you feel here or what is your relation to your home country these days?’ People quickly have the need to talk on that general level of intercultural life and relations. (Interview with German publisher) The point here is not so much whether the author accepts or doesn’t accept the role of being a conduit for intercultural dialogue (and in fact many of them do).12 It is more the fact that their appearance and popularity on the national cultural scene generates this positive (and at times negative) dialogue across cultures, which, in turn, is a cultural indicator of integration. What is clear however is that, on the whole, intercultural exchanges and dialogues between the majority and minority cultures are central to increasing integration and reducing tensions, thereby influencing integration in a positive way: If there is still this tension—you are like this and I am like that— how can we come together? . . . There is still this tension, because big questions still surface [in Germany], and they are not diminished. So am I racist if I laugh about it? Can you not say ‘you are an idiot’ without immediately being called racist? . . . And there are many places where big tensions still exist and where you go around very self-conscious. . . . Integration will only be achieved when this does not exist anymore, when it is completely natural. (Interview with German-Turkish author) There is a clear overlap here with the social integration sphere that will be discussed in Chapter 3. The sheer presence of immigrant authors in the public realm increases intercultural dialogue between the majority and minority communities. The increase, whether desired by the author or not, generally disarms social and cultural

76


tensions between Germans and Turks, or Britons and Asians. The increase in intercultural dialogue also generates new cultural links and identifications, which is further discussed below. The second way in which immigrant literature influences intercultural dialogue is that it seeps into the culture of the other and provides insight into a foreign way of life, a common and often necessary ingredient of cultural dialogue and integration. Testimonies from immigrant literature publishers, authors and policy advisors outline the impact of their own respective work on readers, the interest of ‘non-ethnic’ readers for immigrant literature and how such novels are seen and used by the majority community. Three indicative examples follow: You have a very tight right-thinking liberal, very often, woman reader who thinks all Muslim women are just living in the dark ages. And then, suddenly she finds a whole array of characters in your book, some of whom might even be living behind closed doors. (Interview with British-Asian author) What we feel is that we have already gained quite a few readers who have never before read anything, any Turkish literature. We’ll meet these people in our evening events; and they’ll say, it looked so interesting that I just came; and I’m very surprised how much it touches me, what you read to me here. (Interview with German policy maker) I think for many white readers, people who read fiction they get a sense of what [the immigrant] world is like. It’s a fairly crucial part of that exposure to everything that’s going on in this culture. (Interview with British literary critic) As a result, if the link between immigrant literature and intercultural dialogue is accepted as positive, policy makers in both Germany and Britain could use immigrant literature to promote cross-cultural understanding and thus mitigate the so-called clash of civilisations between minority and majority, Islam and the West. Whilst clearly more comes into play (integration is trispherical and bidimensional), this is one means that could be achieved subtly, namely through the school curriculum, increasing immigrant literature’s presence in the public sphere or promoting its further publication.


4.2

77

Redefining national culture

As mentioned, in Germany, the idea of Leitkultur is a strong impediment to national integration. Should cultural integration be a goal of national policy, the essentialist view of national culture needs to be redefined to include cultural aspects of minorities or, at the very least, a hybrid and flexible form of cultural understanding. In the case of Britain, the increasing regionalisation of culture and identity restricts further national integration whilst, on the other hand, the idea of Britishness could be a suitable thread around which to build a more inclusive national culture. In both country cases, the role of immigrant literature could be to redefine national culture to make it more inclusive and hybrid. As noted above, cultural transference is already under way and represents the current contemporary cultural reality. My argument here shares Bhabha’s view (1990) that the very idea of national identity and culture depends on the stories a nation tells about itself to itself and others.13 If we think of national identity as the organisation of differences of class, gender, regions and language into a supervening unity, then stories about shared pasts or current common challenges provide cognitive and affective indicators that maintain a sense of national identity. Stories and novels, as well as cinema, television, newspapers and so on, become vehicles of national narrative, working on a major or minor scale. That is to say, with respect to immigrant literature, instead of stories about, for example, the British going out to encounter the exoticism or recalcitrance of the colonies, British-Asian novels remind us of the other narratives about the journey from the colonial home to an exotic and recalcitrant Britain. It is these ‘foreign’ stories that are now significant for re-imagining Britishness or, in the case of Germany’s immigrant literature, a modern and hybrid sense of Leitkultur. In those stories, Britain and Germany become part of a global narrative about immigration, diasporas and the contemporary lives of people crossing borders. The meaning of those narratives is not principally about imperial greatness or Kulturnation, but about the migration of people from Turkey and Southeast Asia and the intercultural contacts thereafter. Take for example the following passages:

In Germany, people believe in changes only when they have already occurred. These changes are frequently already part of the

78


old order. Nowhere do people show so little preparedness to question the course of one’s life. The old order has long arms and an even longer breath. This time, the collision should come the middle of Germany and not from the outside. (¸Senocak, 1997, p. 68) Well, after all, it is an Asian station, he thought. All the bits, past and future, that daily jostled and sang the state of Asianness into being, that reconstructed something that wasn’t real from somethin that wis. A dancer’s shadow hoverin over the hot red soil of South Asia. Old India wis shaped like a crucified Jesus. An, like some white-walled cavern chapel, Radio Chaandni bellowed out its hymns into the unlistenin darkness of Glasgow. Wee drops of Punjab and Oudh and UP and Baluschistan and Sindh and Madhya Pradesh and Sri Lanka and Tamil Nadu and Bihar and Bangladesh and Orissa and West Bangal and Karnataka and Kerala and NWFP and Himachal Pradesh and Andra Pradesh and Assam and Goa and Gujarat and Meghalaya and Tripura and Travancore and Pondicherry and Mizoram and the Dominions of the Nizam and Jharkhand and poor bloody Kashmir and Chandigarh and the old islands of Andamam and Nicobar—the prison islands or wee they the spice islands? (Saadi, 2004, pp. 22–23) In these passages, notice that a redefinition of national culture is emerging, one that is fluid and hybrid. Hall, for example, writes that the postmodern identity is a ‘moveable feast’, for individuals now have access to ‘a variety of possibilities and new positions of identification . . . making identities more positional, more political, more plural and diverse’ (1992, p. 309). Concentrating on cultural interchange and the production of hybridities, immigrant literature combats fixed national or cultural stereotypes and addresses concrete historical contexts and political concerns. By weaving together complex ethnic and social strands of character development, authors open up spaces for the negotiation of national identity definition within the enabling constraints of different traditions. This hybridisation of national culture is noticeable in many ways, namely, [In] retail fashion, the bedspreads and the clothing and the whole caftan pillowcase have made a real surge. Like [in] every


79

industry, [in] the food industry, you’ll notice that a lot of restaurants now are doing fusion cooking. So, they’re catering for a very, very different clientele . . . And you’ll go to some restaurants and you’ll think it’s got a very sophisticated bar feel to it, and sometimes the feel is secondary, it’s more their destination. And [it is] the same thing with literature. [Also] look at the [British-Asian] music scene . . . it’s very mainstream, very much of a clubbing feel to it. And it’s got a lot of young Asian people and white people mixing and finding that that is their joint culture. It’s not a question [where] does it come from. . . . It’s a new breed. It’s not an either-or. (Interview with British policy maker) I have already noted how this mainstreaming of cultural hybridity and the redefinition of national culture are more prevalent and visible in Britain than in Germany. That is not to say, however, that it is not happening in Germany, where one can already see a mixing of culture occurring, particularly with respect to language. Since the time Turks first settled in Germany, the Turkish language within the country has incorporated many German terms, reflecting the wide variety of ways in which the Turkish and German lifestyles touch or overlap. Concepts, ideas and patterns of belief from the two spheres merge to produce their own particular mix of linguistic symbols and expressions. As Tan and Waldhoff (1996) argue, speakers who switch between languages have an increased capacity for expressing fine nuances of language and are better able to cross linguistic, cultural, logical and emotional boundaries, which may be why authors of immigrant literature are advantaged when it comes to facilitating intercultural dialogue between majority and minority communities. Whilst the crossing of cultural borders has been going on in Germany for some time, little headway has been made in clearly spelling out what this means for national identity and culture in the context of Germany as a cultural nation. Note, for example, the comment of this German-Turkish author: Some of the texts that I wrote 15 years ago, when you look at them, I get the feeling they were actually written exactly for today. Maybe that is the reason why some of my texts were not at all understood. I always started with the idea that there was going to

80


be a conflict here in Germany, even more than in other countries, because of the inclusion of non-Germans in the culture. . . . How will this so-called new Germany, this united Germany, define itself with what is not German? We are currently in the middle of this discussion, as you have noticed, it is very intense. Unfortunately, from my perspective, we are regressing, we are actually loosing footing, and nobody is really noticing. It has become very dangerous. With respect to the redefinition of national culture, one additional important point remains to be highlighted. The German-Turkish and British-Asian cultural synthesis is more often than not characterised by a key discrepancy: the relative uneven weight of the cultures that are brought together. For example, Tan and Waldhoff (1996) argue that whilst the Turkish language has incorporated a number of German words, virtually no Turkish term or concept has entered German, with the exception of a few food-related words. Hence, culture can also be viewed and regarded as an expression of a power struggle. That is to say, globally, the most important international cultural centres are located in the most powerful societies which themselves constitute the hub of a centre-periphery constellation (Wallerstein, 1990). Societies near or at the periphery have no other option but to base their activities on the cultural models and standards of the centre. In this respect, German-Turkish and British-Asian literatures and culture share the same fate; that is, they take more than they give.14 In other words, the redefinition of national culture and its impact on cultural integration via immigrant literature is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, through its amalgam nature and its introduction of ‘migration’ (that is, hybrid British-Asian or German-Turkish) culture into the public realm, immigrant literature influences the content and essence of national culture by making it more inclusive and hybrid. At the same time, however, its hybrid nature is forever facing dilution by the powerful impact and strong influence of the majority culture. As a result, this particular link between immigrant literature and cultural integration describes how cross-cultural contacts increase cultural integration through a redefinition of national culture that is increasingly hybrid and more uniform. Hence, increased cultural integration erodes sharp diversity within and across cultures and


81

undermines the traditional definition of multiculturalism since most variants of multiculturalism aim to preserve the multiplicity of existing cultures. For cultural integration to really happen, Germany and the United Kingdom need to redefine their self-perception of national culture to one that is more flexible (in the case of Germany) and all-encompassing (in the cases of both Germany and the United Kingdom). The only re-definition leading to increased integration is one that entails a hybridisation of culture; this hybrid culture is the very essence or ‘bread and butter’ of immigrant literature. Indeed, immigrant literature in both Germany and the United Kingdom is characterised by an integrative understanding of culture that takes note of contemporary global and societal changes; these, in turn, produce transformation in modes of identity construction. In the end, the idea of a multicultural society in which ethnic minority culture is preserved alongside that of the majority culture is a false utopia; processes of cultural fusion are already under way, and they represent the only chance of real, sustainable cultural integration. 4.3

Indicators of cultural integration

I have already hinted at immigrant literature’s potential role as an indicator of cultural integration. I noted that the results are mixed and that measuring cultural integration is by definition a particularly difficult task. Since it is enormously difficult to define the boundaries of culture and cultural integration, measuring a nation’s cultural integration levels is a significant challenge. That being said, immigrant literature can be used as a cultural integration indicator, although not on a stand-alone basis. For example, taking the two links outlined above, some indicators could be: 1. With respect to intercultural dialogue, one could assess (1) the level of presence of immigrant authors in the national cultural sphere as an indicator of level or extent of public debate linked to migrant communities; (2) the mixed attendance at immigrant literature events as an indicator of levels of contact between communities; or (3) the extent to which immigrant novels are borrowed at national libraries. 2. With respect to measuring the redefinition of national culture, one could examine (1) the amount of immigrant literature in

82


the national literary curriculum (see Chapter 3) as an indicator of the official acceptance of immigrant literature as part of the national literary canon; (2) the amount of national public spending on immigrant literature (under the safe assumption that this spending is primarily geared at encouraging national literature) as an indicator that immigrant literature is seen as part of national literary creation; or (3) the level of cultural hybridity portrayed in novels as an indicator of a redefinition of cultural understanding. Some of the potential indicators listed above (for example, attendance, public lending and—in the case of Britain at least—the literary curriculum) are pragmatic in nature and could be introduced relatively easily. If indicators of cultural integration via immigrant literature are adopted, they could be put into practice quickly and easily.15 At the other end of the scale are the more complex indicators, such as levels of public presence and hybrid content, which are more difficult to define and commensurately more cumbersome to implement. For example, if immigrant literature is by definition transnational and hybrid, how does one assess the relative degree of hybridity in-between two works? Moreover, assessing levels of intercultural dialogue and cultural transfer is made difficult by the intangible nature and pace of the processes taking place. The point is this: whilst immigrant literature can be linked to generating intercultural dialogue and redefining an inclusive form of national culture, its role in how best to measure the processes under way is inconclusive. Perhaps the suitable conclusion to draw takes the form of another question, namely, can national cultural integration be measured at all? As we shall see, of the three spheres of national integration, cultural integration may well be where the development of indicators is least applicable.

5 Conclusion In this chapter, I examined the links between immigrant literature and the cultural sphere of national integration. In order to do so, I compared the national contexts in Germany and the United Kingdom as each pertains to the self-understanding of national culture,


83

the impact of cultural policy as well as other relevant external factors that come to bear on the relation between immigrant literature and cultural integration. A number of important points should be highlighted: 1. When comparing the historical connection between majority and minority in the United Kingdom and Germany and the potential influence this might have on the immigrant literature and cultural integration link, it becomes clear that Britain has a distinct advantage in that it possesses a common point of reference on which shared common cultural identifications can be built. 2. The exclusionary German Leitkultur and devolved British cultural self-understanding are not conducive to cultural integration. However, national culture, being a flexible and porous concept, can be redefined to a more inclusive understanding. In this respect, immigrant literature could contribute to redefining national culture. If one accepts the view that narration about the nation affects the sense of national culture and identity, then the hybrid stories of immigrant authors where majority and minority have merged redefine the nation in a way that impacts national cultural integration—a process that is further enhanced by ongoing globalisation. Hence, given the dialectic and evolving construction of national culture, immigrant literature is linked to the redefinition of Britishness and German-ness. 3. In this respect, the redefinition of national culture and its impact on cultural integration can be said to be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, immigrant literature influences the content and essence of national culture by making it more hybrid. However, on the other hand, in a postcolonial-style power struggle, immigrant literature also faces content pressure and influx from the majority culture, so much so that its hybrid nature continually faces dilution. 4. Intercultural dialogue can both reduce and increase tensions between the majority and minority communities and, as a result, impacts positively and, at times, negatively on cultural integration. Nonetheless, on the whole, this link with cultural integration is rather positive, particularly over a longer-term perspective. In this relationship, immigrant literature acts as a conduit for intercultural dialogue via, first, its presence (and the presence of

84


immigrant authors) in the public realm and, second, by bringing together topics, styles, values and cultural traits from two or more cultural realms that would otherwise have little or no chance of intersecting. 5. Stereotyping immigrant authors and literature can be both beneficial and disadvantageous in promoting cultural integration. On the one hand, stereotyping promotes and encourages otherwise disadvantaged minorities to join the development of the national literary scene with an ensuing impact on integration. On the other hand, the resulting pigeonholing may have a longer-lasting effect than intentioned, in particular with respect to cornering immigrant culture. Nonetheless, on the whole it is clear that, as British policy makers tend to spell out, such ‘positive discrimination’ is necessary initially to raise the profile of minority literature, communities and the migration debate that usually follows. 6. With respect to the use of immigrant literature as a co-indicator of cultural integration, its use is difficult due to the porous and ever-changing nature of culture itself. Nonetheless, the presence of immigrant literature in national libraries or the national German or English curriculum could prove a useful tool for assessing the official perception of national culture as including immigrant elements. Overall, it is clear that there are links between immigrant literature and cultural integration. Therefore, it logically follows that by promoting these links, cultural and hence national integration is, on the whole, encouraged. Taking advantage of the links outlined above by promoting the development and reception of immigrant literature may be easier in the British environment that in Germany. First, in the British context, there is a long-standing history of instrumental cultural policy, whereas in Germany this is more recent. Moreover, similar to the education policies outlined in the next chapter, uniform and rapid implementation is more likely to take place in centralised Britain than in federal Germany. Whatever the case may be, one should not be overly optimistic: processes of cultural integration, even when hastened by national policies, are not likely to be rapid or problem-free. Indeed, as highlighted above, within minority communities there are sharp and sometimes contentious differences in attitudes to identity. What is more, an awareness of persisting


85

prejudice and discrimination from the majority community can also undermine hopes for an end to the exclusivist conception of ‘nation’ or national culture. Finally, the cultural homogenisation that accompanies integration seldom draws attention in policy discussions. Promoters of civil rights laws, ethnic affirmative action policies, school programmes and other tools of national integration tend to favour some form of multiculturalism. Policies in Britain and Germany try to integrate migrants of various backgrounds whilst also facilitating and even encouraging expressions of social, ethnic and religious separateness. The supporters of these programmes do not recognise that the success of integration policies will undermine the goal of multiculturalism by reshaping the cultures that are ostensibly being preserved. Yet, as we shall see in Chapter 4, it is clear that this homogenisation process is only likely to increase under the combined pressure of information communication technologies and global markets. Next, however, I turn to the links between immigrant literature and social integration.

3 Social Integration

The purpose of Chapter 3 is to focus on the links between immigrant literature and integration’s social sphere. This relation is best outlined through the analysis of immigrant literature’s role in the education of nationals (and foreign nationals, as would be the case for many immigrant children in Germany). Education is one of the fundamental social rights inherent to the notion of citizenship and crucial in the socialisation process. Indeed, Marshall (Marshall and Bottomore, 1992, p. 16) wrote that the education of children has a direct bearing on citizenship, and, when the state guarantees that all children shall be educated, it has the requirements and the nature of citizenship definitely in mind. It is trying to stimulate the growth of citizens in the making. Thus envisioned, schools become the physical space whereby the abstract concepts of citizenship and national identity are fashioned, partly through interpersonal contacts, but also via teaching and the curriculum content. In fact, the introduction and teaching of immigrant literature in schools has a distinct impact on social integration, particularly through literacy, social empathy and the acquisition of public space. Thus, in today’s de facto multiethnic Britain and Germany, the co-education of both the minority and majority populations through immigrant literature is an aspect of the social integration process that should be highlighted. Indeed, as Marshall argues, it is here that the formation of citizens begins, where not only are the tools to increase structural integration necessary to national 86

Social Integration

87

betterment (that is, tools for future employment and productivity) taught, but also the means by which to generate a common sense of national belonging that could cross cultural barriers and reduce racial prejudice. In the end, such tools are not only necessary to promote national social integration but are also vital in dealing with nations and cultures throughout this increasingly global world. To put it another way, the content of the national curriculum is crucial to the social integration process and it would gain to incorporate not only the tools required for success in the economic world but also those needed for a greater understanding of the global society in which children are going to grow up. It therefore becomes clear that given education’s central contribution to the (in this case, social) construction of citizens, it is vital to first understand the context in which literature is introduced and taught in schools. This understanding helps shed light on the links between immigrant literature and social integration. Thus, I first conduct a critical analysis of the education system in both countries, with special attention paid to curriculum decision making. Second, I turn to the situation of ethnic minorities in both national systems, including policies specifically geared to their integration, achievement in schools (particularly with respect to literacy) and language difficulties; all of these factors have a substantial impact on work that links literature and national integration. Third, I examine the space occupied by literature in both education systems, including the process through which books are selected for study in English and German classes, respectively. Finally, in Section 4 of the chapter, I outline the links between immigrant literature and social integration, which include the fostering of literacy, the cultivating of social empathy, and the acquiring of public space. The chapter ends with a discussion of immigrant literature’s potential use as a co-indicator for social integration.

1

Education and the curriculum

Above and beyond their importance in building national citizens, schools are also one of the main venues for introducing immigrant literature to the British and German populations. It is in school that an appreciation for literature is often built. It is also here that tools for greater language capabilities, increased understanding of other

88


cultures and an appreciation for democratic values are introduced. Hence, it is especially important to understand the decision-making processes behind the formulation and introduction of each nation’s curriculum. A number of introductory comments should first be made about the British (here, English) and German curricula. First, a thorough understanding of the curriculum and its development in Germany and the United Kingdom requires knowledge of history and national politics, as well as an appreciation for the varied nation-specific education issues involved. In both cases the organisation of the national (or, in the case of Germany, Land) curriculum is closely intertwined with the social, cultural and political contexts in which they evolved. In England, for example, the controversies surrounding which literary texts should be compulsory in the English curriculum or which historical events should be studied in the history curriculum have generated profound political national debates. Similar issues have been raised in Germany, especially with respect to the teaching of history and World War II. As a result, in both instances, the curriculum is not above party politics or interest-group lobbying. Second, as Moon (2004) argues, the current curriculum format, which is organised around subjects, cannot and should not be taken for granted. Although there may be many reasons that the current format is appropriate, with time it may require a rethinking under varied external or internal pressures. What is important, however, is that the curriculum in its broadest sense should reflect changes in knowledge and social contexts. This might be of particular relevance to Germany, which is currently struggling with the reform of its education system, partly in order to accommodate the recently accepted reality of immigration. To some extent, the same can also be said of Britain and its struggle with defining and teaching Britishness. Third, the national curriculum in the United Kingdom, and to a much lesser extent in Germany, has become increasingly regulated over the past few decades. Governments of all political persuasions perceive education as a key element of social and economic prosperity and, more so in Britain than in Germany, have been increasingly reluctant to leave curriculum decisions to teachers. Above all, in both cases, it is clear that curriculum development has been part of a process through which a variety of different and not necessarily convergent considerations have been brought to bear, including, for example, the individual’s interest in the optimal development

Social Integration

89

of his or her skills and talents; society’s actual or anticipated needs for certain kinds of skills and qualifications; the need to socialise people into certain attitudes and dispositions towards authority, performance and so on; and the pattern of social relations which results from the education process itself. It is in part because of the processes above, as well as the close affinity between society’s sociocultural fabric and the realities of its national curriculum, that the area of curricular policy entails a particularly acute ‘legitimacy issue’ (Weiler, 1990). Indeed, of all education policy decisions, those dealing with the curriculum tend to be most explicitly normative and controversial since they are, after all, the most tangible expression of the objectives that a society wishes to convey through its education system, along with the skills and values that it wishes to instil in future generations of citizens (and denizens) through school-based education. 1.1 Germany The German school system is rather complicated since it is composed of multiple educational tracks and different school types across the 16 Länder. As part of the federal division of powers and responsibilities German schools are supervised and funded by the Länder, given that education and the curriculum are seen as inherent to Kulturpolitik. The same system applies for the education of non-German students. Pupils in Germany commence compulsory schooling at the age of six in a Gundschule (primary school) and progress through six grades. Upon successful completion of these grades, they then progress to a secondary school. The decision regarding the student’s transfer to one of the different types of secondary schools is made with a combination of teacher advice and parental choice. Three types of secondary school exist: the Hauptschule (similar to the British secondary school), which originally recruited the greatest proportion of pupils and concentrates on developing and improving basic and practical skills; the Realschule (likened to the British technical schools), which specialises in vocational preparation and provides prerequisite training that enables students to enter industry, business and skilled trades; and the Gymnasium (in keeping with British grammar schools), which prepares pupils for university entrance. Should pupils fail the probationary period in the Gymnasium, they move to the Realschule, and should they fail the probationary period in a Realschule, they transfer to a Hauptschule.

90


Economic justifications are perhaps the most important implicit considerations that underlie German thought with respect to the education system. This results from Germany’s commitment to rebuild the country and achieve economic primacy post-World War II. Moreover, as Marshall (1989) argues, given that the country is largely landlocked with no natural resources to speak of other than human capital, the pressure has been on the Gymnasien and Realschulen, at the expense of the Hauptschulen and Gesamtschulen, to achieve status for the German nation. Indeed, the Hauptschulen, which were attended by 50 percent of pupils 40 years ago, are now in danger of becoming the schools for underperforming pupils. It is noteworthy that the proportion of migrant students at these Hauptschulen is comparatively high. As education in Germany is a matter for each individual Länder, it is a factual error to refer to a national curriculum. Each Land has its own Education Ministry that is responsible for the maintenance of the material and academic standards of its own schools and institutes of higher education, for writing the curricula for individual subjects in each type of school and for employing and assessing teachers (Klopp, 2002). Hence, the number and types of schools in each state’s multitrack system are not identical and school reforms take different forms in different states. As a result, there is no binding legislation for schools that applies to the whole of Germany since independent control over them has been an essential element of Länder autonomy in the federal structure of post-war Germany. Moreover, given education’s link with culture and identity, sovereign regional control over education and the curriculum is likely to be closely safeguarded by each Land for some time to come. Nonetheless, with all of the above being said, the system is experiencing some standardisation by the Standing Conference of Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs (KMK). The individual Länder created the KMK as a forum to coordinate certain structures, curricula and leaving certificates. However, the amount of clout and influence which the KMK wields is debatable: Over the past 40 years we have tried to find a mean and middle way between extremes of unity and diversity, allowing as much diversity as possible as that is the law . . . The KMK is helping the [Federal Republic of Germany] to come to some common

Social Integration

91

agreement . . . There are National Associations and national level frameworks for ideas, but where they get strong is in the Länder. (1988, former KMK secretary Kaster, quoted in Marshall, 1989, p. 310; also interviews with German policy makers and teachers) Hence, despite the presence of this central coordinating body, the KMK’s powers are limited to the issuing of non-legally binding recommendations to the Länder. It is not until these recommendations are adopted by the Länder that they become law, regulations or decrees. This lack of centrality, of course, has major implications for any potential national educational or curriculum initiatives with respect to integration being facilitated through or affected by schools. With respect to curriculum development specifically, individual Land curriculum is arrived at as a result of the deliberation of working groups composed of mixed personnel. The Rahmenrichtlinien (curriculum guidelines) provided in each of the Länder can, in many respects, be likened to the guidelines produced for the British General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE). Through the use of national criteria, the GCSE ensures that there is a greater standardisation of practice in curricula, including assessment procedures. Whilst the German Lehrplan (curriculum) layout goes even further than the GCSE national criteria,1 German policy makers and teachers interviewed suggest that the extent to which schools follow these guidelines varies considerably. In fact, the reality in most German Länder is that the Lehrplan acts more or less suggestively in many curriculum areas, but especially so when it comes to the choice of which specific novels to utilise in class. Here publishers may have a greater role to play than the Lehrplan itself. Crucially, there is little being done on the accountability of teaching and curriculum assessment. Although it is true that it is slowly beginning to surface in certain Länder, namely in Berlin, the introduction of curriculum assessment is so recent that it is too early to assess any real impact on the ground where the curriculum is implemented. Hitherto, this ‘accountability gap’ has translated into comparatively more power for teachers, at least when compared to their British counterparts. As a result, if immigrant literature is or could be an important catalyst for social integration, Germany’s disparate ability to implement educational policy or curriculum recommendations could lessen or dilute the potential impact of any move to introduce immigrant

92


literature in schools with a goal of increasing integration. Of course, this is the very point of the German federal system to some extent: it institutionalises caution and slow change. The slow pace of change in Germany makes it all the more difficult to formulate, let alone implement, a cohesive national strategy to positively affect integration through schools (whether involving immigrant literature or not) and means that it is difficult for Germany to arrive at a uniform position on whether immigrant literature is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ for the German education system. At the same time, this federal ‘patchwork’ is potentially advantageous to the extent that a particular Land (or group of Länder) could adopt different approaches—also a goal of Germany’s federalism— ahead and different from that of fellow Länder, especially where local conditions warrant, which could be particularly interesting with respect to ‘testing’ the impact and reception of immigrant literature in different educational environments. In order to test properly, however, tools for curriculum accountability and assessment would have to be perfected—which is still a long way away in Germany where curriculum assessment is but in its infancy.

1.2 United Kingdom Compared to Germany, curriculum policies and practices in the United Kingdom are highly centralised.2 The National Curriculum of England and Wales was introduced in 1988 through the Education Reform Bill and sets out very specific regulations about the content of the curriculum. These national prescriptions were implemented by the then Conservative government and were later adopted by the succeeding Labour government (Buckingham and Jones, 2001; Powers and Whitty, 1999). Ten subjects make up the British curriculum, and English, which includes the teaching of literature, is one of the three ‘core foundation’ subjects (along with mathematics and science). Moon (2004) argues that three processes appear to have fused around the national curriculum upon its introduction: (1) a long-term ‘staking-out’ of bureaucratic control; (2) a drive towards efficiency and accountability; and (3) a formulation of policy bringing together competing interests among pressure groups on the so-called right. Similar factors and pressures remain and significantly influence curriculum policy making and implementation.

Social Integration

93

Upon their introduction in 1988, accountability measures were intended to have a decentralising effect by creating quasi markets among schools; they intensified the move towards local management of schools and transferred greater discretion to boards of governors. The measures were meant to encourage competition among schools through the regular publication of tables of examination and other performance indicators which, in reality, could not help but discourage local initiative, since it focussed public attention on the same criteria for measuring all schools (Patterson, 2003). Nonetheless, it is clear that from this perspective a standardised national curriculum ‘tidied up’ the ground upon which cost and personnel divisions could be made, and benchmark testing provided a basis for comparative judgements about the efficiency of schools and classes. Finally, a standard curriculum could also be defended in terms of entitlements or equality. Whatever the various appeals of a standard and accountable national curriculum, the effect was to reduce school diversity (Buckingham and Jones, 2001). The introduction of accountability measures also represents significant policy-making power for the central government, which trickles all the way down to the implementation (and thus the reception) of the national curriculum. Upon its introduction in 1988, the Education Reform Bill contained detailed information on the curriculum and stopped short of trying to regulate teaching methods (Moon, 2004). More recently, however, the Labour government has increasingly resorted to nonstatutory guidelines, such as for literacy and numeracy, which are buttressed by powers of inspection and are thus difficult to ignore. In fact, Patterson (2003, p. 176) argues that Labour has been ‘highly interventionist in education policy since 1997’. As Stuart Maclure, former Times Education Supplement editor, also spelled out: The [Conservative] revolution has been consolidated without relaxing the pressure for change. The structural change, the centralisation of authority and strategy, the nationalisation of the curriculum, the enforcement of accountability—all these will remain and be used by Labour ministers to impose their vision. (quoted in Patterson, 2003, p. 169) The introduction and maintenance of national curriculum standards was justified on a variety of grounds in order to appeal to a variety

94


of constituencies. The aim of improving standards was directed at the Conservatives’ core supporters, since the party in England had never been reconciled to the introduction of comprehensive secondary schools in the 1960s and 1970s. Moreover, then and now, the aim of guaranteeing basic skills is meant to appeal to employers. This focus on business even filters down to artistic education where the language of creative practice and personal development is a feature of contemporary business rhetoric. As Buckingham and Jones (2001, p. 5) argue, ‘The insistence that culture and creativity are not elite possessions but ordinary elements of everyday life and work is no longer the position of an embattled intellectual minority but a maxim of business innovation.’ Certainly, in the British context, there is a strong view that higher levels of skills are needed in industry and commerce to enhance career prospects, including creativity, intercultural competence and literary skills. In contrast to the German educational structure, the centralised nature of British education and curricular policy process implies that if immigrant literature is identified at the highest level as potentially playing a positive role in the social integration sphere, it could more easily be implemented and assume a role in the national curriculum. The centralised nature of curriculum policy in the UK is a potential strength since alternative methods to promote social integration could be introduced more quickly. However, the centrality of the curriculum is also a weakness in that there would be a smaller scope for prior, differentiated testing in the British environment, despite the fact that tools for accountability and assessment of the system are comparatively well oiled in the United Kingdom. 1.3 Summary Contrasted side by side, the British and German national or Land curricula have a varied impact on the introduction and teaching of immigrant literature in schools in a number of ways. First, as is the case with many British-German policy comparisons, one of the most important differences is the contrasting governance structures: in this case the centrality of British decision making with respect to education and the curriculum versus the devolution of Germany. The implication of these differing approaches to curriculum formation is that any potential curriculum or educational method that is perceived to be advantageous for society as a whole will have a faster,

Social Integration

95

more uniform effect in the United Kingdom if adopted. Whereas in Germany there may be a greater likelihood of such a method being discovered via the individual experimentation of the Länder, these experimentations would be much more difficult to implement nationwide. The second comparative point about education and the curriculum is that in the United Kingdom, there is a restrained ability for experimentation in the curriculum, not only because of the centralised decision making previously discussed but also as a result of the reaction to standardised testing and accountability. This is not the case in Germany, where few accountability measures are yet present, and where in any event decision making is regional and implementation is performed on a school-by-school basis. Third, the relative power of teachers in the classrooms, especially when it pertains to curriculum implementation is rather different in Germany and the United Kingdom. Power to determine curriculum content and hence which books to teach and read has been wrested away from teachers in the United Kingdom. Teachers in Germany, however, have greater power over the end result of the curriculum since they are the sole real decision makers when it comes to the application of the Lehrpläne. Fourth, one striking similarity between British and German curriculum policy making is that both systems link education, business skills and the economy. In Germany and the United Kingdom, the power of lobbies and business groups in policy making is very important. One slight difference in the United Kingdom, however, is that even the commitment to the arts and creativity in schools is added to the business and economic link. Of course, it may turn out that emphasising the importance of art and literary education as an instrument for economic advancement and access to the labour market will prove an effective way to encourage an increased emphasis on reading. Finally, in both cases it should be said that there is a strong sense that the curriculum needs to be reformed so as to adapt and take into account the changing makeup of society to include groups with different linguistic and literary heritages. Given that the situation of ethnic minorities in education is particularly central to the analysis herein, it deserves to be treated separately; this is the subject of the next section.

96


2

Ethnic minorities in schools

2.1 Demographics Immigrant children first began to enter British schools in significant numbers in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Their parents were immigrants from former colonial countries, notably the West Indies, the Asian subcontinent and East Africa. A small number of Chinese children had been in the school system from the 1930s onwards, and post-war migration from Europe added to cultural and linguistic variations of British schools. For its part, Germany’s education system began experiencing migration slightly later than the United Kingdom because its first waves of post-war migration were composed mostly of migrant workers who arrived without children. The migration pattern rapidly changed, however, and migrant children quickly became a day-to-day reality of many West German schools, with the largest ethnic group being of Turkish descent. Today, the majority of ethnic minority children in the United Kingdom and Germany were born in these countries and are in no sense ‘immigrants’. Figure 3.1 3.5 3.3

3.0 2.6 2.5

2.4

2.3

2.5

2.3

2.3

2.0 1.8

1.5

1.5

1.4

1.0

0.9

0.9 0.8

0.7

0.5

ed la

ss

ifi

e es

gr o

in

U

nc

c

Ch

ni th

re

he

ot

An y

ck gr o

an si

ar

up

d

d an an un ric be ro Af ib kg k c c C a ba k Bl k ac ac Bl Bl r he ot y An un

i an ist

Pa k

rA he An y

ot

he ot

An y

Primary

hi

ba

d

an In

n

un

d

ba

ck gr o

ia

ric

As

Af

&

hi

W

le

es ad gl an

B

rm

te

W

&

Bl

ac k

y ps

te

sh

ge

Iri

ita

er H h ris fI ro

an

0.2

a nd an om ou be /R kgr rib c a C y ba k G te ac hi Bl W r & he te ot hi W ny

A

0.4

0.4 0.3

0.2 0.3

ixe

0.0

hi

0.1

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4 0.4

0.0

Tr av el

1.1 0.9

0.9

1.4 1.3

1.2

1.2

1.0

di

% of pupils

2.5

Secondary

Figure 3.1 Percentage of British pupils from each minority ethnic group in maintained primary and secondary schools as of January 2006. Source: DfES, 2005.

Social Integration

97

and Table 3.1 represent the breakdown of minority children in both education systems. The figures for Germany are even more telling when they are grouped by the type of schools which ethnic migrants attend and when compared to the majority German population. A greater proportion of children of migrants attend Hauptschulen. Moreover, fierce competition for places in Gymnasien and Realschulen tends to remain the prerogative of native Germans as is reflected in Figure 3.2. The figures and tables presented in this section show that in the United Kingdom British-Asians represent the greatest number of migrant children in schools. In Germany, German-Turks represent the largest migrant group in schools, and their numbers are concentrated in the Hauptschulen.

2.2

Integration policies in schools

2.2.1 Germany Most schools in Germany are dedicated to a monocultural and monolingual philosophy, and most teachers have been raised, educated and trained in this tradition (Luchtenberg, 1998). In fact, the German self-concept is still that of a monolingual and monocultural country, and the German language is an important part of German identity. This self-perception can hinder a positive attitude towards multilingualism and multiculturalism and affect the development of a multicultural identity in both German and migrant students. Germany’s relative failures with respect to the education and integration of ‘foreign’ students were highlighted in the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) report (2000; 2003), which outlined the German system’s scarcity of provisions for the integration of non-native German speakers in schools and the difficulties faced with respect to educating its de facto multicultural population. This urgency and need for increased integration was further emphasised in 2006 by, among other things, the teachers’ walkout in the Rütli School in Berlin; the teachers had complained about abuse from migrant pupils (The Economist, 22 April 2006). This integration lacuna of the German system caught many people off guard. Given its multitrack structure and dual nature of occupational training and apprenticeship, one might assume that the German

98


Table 3.1 Foreign students by nationality and type of school in the Out of which at Citizenship

Total

Vorklassen

Grece Italy Spain Turkey Fed. rep. Yugoslavia Croatia Bosnia Herzegovina Slovenia Macedonia Portugal

33.149 71.504 8.257 412.161 75.893

109 75 30 2.510 470

21.391 23.484

Total

Kin-dergärten

Grundschulen

Schul-unabh Orientierungsstufe

226 734 51 5.151 1.119

13.324 29.217 3.161 186.824 33.792

640 1.353 220 14.787 2.277

60 218

84 143

6.912 9.154

1.373 4.799 12.863

1 56 40

13 54 104

412 1.993 5.239

946.300

5.597

10.172

400.894

31.868

Source: BLK, 2003.

education system was well suited to accommodate a diverse population. However, as illustrated by the school segregation shown in Figure 3.2, that is demonstrably not the case.3 The fact is, as with many other areas of immigrant integration, one of the principal impediments to social integration through schools has been Germany’s slow and reluctant acknowledgement of the permanence of migration. It was not until 1964 that education officials agreed that it should be mandatory for immigrant children to be educated in public schools, and even then the policy was rather disintegrative since it aimed to facilitate the return and reintegration of immigrant children to their native country (Klopp, 2002) and, crucially, concentrated on educating German-Turkish pupils in the Turkish language rather than the German language. There are, of course, many reasons for and symptoms of the German education system’s struggle with integration. With respect to the curriculum specifically, one argument is that its decentralised nature is a strong impediment; indeed, how does one encourage national unity in an inherently ‘disunified’ (that is, federal) system and curriculum? Moreover, recommendations for diversity and intercultural

Social Integration

99

1999–2000 academic year

Haupt- Schularten schulen mehrere Bildungsgänge

Realschulen

Gymnasien

Ges.schulen/ Freie Wal-dorfschulen

Evening school and colleges

Other schools

7.682 18.517 1.218 84.953 17.046 4.640 6.586 288 1.201 2.971

142 646 27 2.034 673 68 217 5 32 67

3.563 6.645 1.072 32.776 4.514 3.736 2.404 235 383 1.321

3.772 4.398 1.295 22.388 3.663 3.989 1.869 287 338 1.150

1.798 3.933 693 32.000 4.867 959 1.691 53 311 752

245 363 121 3.205 319 213 116 22 42 99

1648 5623 369 25.533 9.153 780 1.104 57 389 792

188.570

6.511

79.089

88.116

62.926

8.710

60.847

initiatives in the curriculum from the centralised KMK have little clout and tend to be broad ethical or moral statements with respect to the benefit of intercultural education. To put it another way, the problems with the German approach are twofold: first, as outlined in Section 1 of this chapter, they are issued on the federal level by the KMK, which has very little power to ensure any implementation of its recommendations. Second, the recommendations are so vague that the ability to implement, execute and measure them may be futile. They are general statements with respect to the value of intercultural education in the integration process (KMK, 2002). Despite the KMK’s lack of weight and its propensity to speak in general statements, initiatives with respect to the integration of migrant children have started to appear in most large cities. This may be primarily the result of a practical need to come to terms with the results of immigration and the place and pressure of Turkish and other ethnic minority children in the school system. Most notably, concrete city initiatives have come out of the Department for Multicultural Affairs in Frankfurt am Main, for example, which has implemented a number of programmes jointly with the Staatiches Schulamt and six


50

47,6

45 39,9

39,5

40 Schüler in %

35

33,0

30 24,3

25 20

16,2

19,8 17,5

18,2

16,1

15 10

17,9

17,9 18,2

15,5 13,2 10,7

10,4 7,7

9,3

7,3

5 0

deutsche Schüler

ausländische Schüler 1992/93

Hauptschulen

Realschuien

ausländische Schüler

deutsche Schüler

2003/04

Gymnasien

Integrierte Gesamstchulen

Other

Figure 3.2 Foreign (ausländische Schüler) and German (deutsche Schüler) pupils at schools of general education (without primary education) by types of school (without special schools) in the years 1992–1993 and 2003–2004 (as a percentage). Source: BBMFI, 2005.

Grundschulen from Frankfurt to help children and parents learn German (Stadt Frankfurt am Main, 2003). 2.2.2 United Kingdom Over the past few decades, the British education system has also attempted to cope in an ad hoc and piecemeal fashion with the incorporation of ethnic minority children resulting from immigration. The initial response was to focus on the problems created for the education system by the arrival of minority children (Tomlinson, 1982). In keeping with Britain’s more laissez faire attitude towards immigrant integration, no coherent national policy or planning for their incorporation in schools existed until quite recently. Schools originally envisaged their task as assimilating the children to what in liberal terminology was described as ‘the British way of life’, and only recently has there been some recognition of the validity of cultural pluralism. Historically speaking, educational policies in England and Wales towards migrants and their children can be divided into, first, those responding primarily to socioeconomic disadvantage and, second, those relating to cultural pluralism. In the first case, a rather mild

Social Integration

101

assimilationist policy was pursued, but the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) subsequently drew back from the type of strong measures adopted in the United States (McLean, 1983). In the second case, there has been muted and qualified recognition of cultural pluralism since the early 1980s; that is, whilst there were attempts to ‘do something’ in the past, these attempts were fairly muted until recently. Overall, the general comprehensive education principle in England has been linked to the idea of the community school. Common secondary schools exist not only to provide equality of opportunity, but also to ensure the social intermixing of children from different social classes in one school (McLean, 1983). School is also looked upon to foster a community identity greater than that of the individual children. The notion of applying special treatment for a particular ethnic group, which seems to conflict with the idea of equality of opportunity or the maintenance of a geographically-based community, is more easily accommodated within this view of community comprehensive schooling. In summary, it is fair to say that both countries were relatively late in introducing integration policies in schools. When they were introduced, the initiatives were rather opposite in nature: the United Kingdom attempted to introduce diversity initiatives into the school system, albeit in an ad hoc way, whilst Germany introduced measures to promote reintegration of foreign nationals upon their return to their place of origin. Later on, given the fact that migrants were not returning home, Germany slowly incorporated national integration policies in the school system, albeit at a weak national level. The practical introduction of such polices in Germany remains scarce and instances far apart, but pressure for change will come from below and arguably increase. 2.3

Achievement of migrant pupils

Given the relatively high percentage of ethnic minority children in both school systems and that these children are nationals (or denizens) who are very likely to remain in the county, it is arguably the state’s responsibility to assure that they receive a sound education and to encourage their integration in society. Accordingly, the performance of ethnic minority pupils in schools has posed problems to both Germany and the United Kingdom. However, in recent


years, the problem has been more pronounced in Germany, which was reflected in the PISA report (OECD, 2000). PISA’s international comparison of student assessment shocked the German population: the country was among the lowest-ranking Western countries in the world for pupil performance. The results pertaining to literacy performance and the minority ethnic population merit closer examination. Germany’s mean performance on the reading literacy scale is significantly below the OECD average,4 and its variation is comparatively large: the gap between the lowest- and the highest-achieving students is larger than in any of the other participating countries. The great disparities in student performance are attributable primarily to the particularly low results of the least proficient students. In Germany, 13 percent of students are at the lowest proficiency level and almost an additional 10 percent are not proficient even at this level. As a result, almost one quarter of young people in Germany can only read at an elementary level. The literacy results of the PISA report are outlined in the left column of Table 3.2. The United Kingdom’s relative ranking is significantly higher than that of Germany. Of course, the difference could partly be linked to or explained by the language of instruction. That is, the disparity could be attributed to the number of ethnic minorities whose first language is not the domestic language; this is less the case in the United Kingdom than in Germany. However, PISA (OECD, 2000, p. 9) found that almost half of the German students who did not reach the first level of proficiency were ‘born in Germany, have parents who were born in Germany, and speak German at home’. The fact is that PISA reports a close link between student performance and factors such as interest in reading and reading activities. In Germany, the proportion of young people who report that they never read for pleasure is particularly high (42 percent), which suggests that measures to promote reading literacy should make motivation to read a primary target. This, of course, has important implications with respect to encouraging the reading of literature. Whilst Table 3.2 outlines the results of pupils as a whole, PISA also highlights that pupils from migration families tend to perform much worse in Germany than those of German descent, including with respect to literacy. Almost 50 percent of the students whose parents were both born outside of Germany do not progress beyond an elementary level in reading and literacy, even though more than

Social Integration

103

Table 3.2 Means and distributions of student performance in Germany and the United Kingdom in comparison to other OECD countries Reading literacy Countries

Mathematical literacy

Means Distri- Countries (standard errors bution* in parentheses)

Finland Canada New Zealand Australia Ireland Korea United Kingdom Japan Sweden Austria Belgium Iceland Norway France United States OECD average Denmark Switzerland Spain Czech Republic Italy Germany Liechtenstein Hungary Poland Greece Portugal Russian Federation Latvia Luxembourg Mexico Brazil

546 (2.6) 534 (1.6) 529 (2.8) 528 (3.5) 527 (3.2) 525 (2.4) 523 (2.6) 522 (5.2) 516 (2.2) 507 (2.4) 507 (3.6) 507(1.5) 505 (2.8) 505 (2.7) 504 (7.0) 500 (0.6) 497 (2.4) 494 (4.2) 493 (2.7) 492 (2.4) 487 (2.9) 484 (2.5) 483 (4.1) 480 (4.0) 479 (4.5) 474 (5.0) 470 (4.5) 462 (4.2) 458 (5.3) 441 (1.6) 422 (3.3) 396 (3.1)

291 310 355 331 309 227 330 284 304 307 351 302 340 301 349 328 319 335 276 318 296 366 316 306 326 320 320 303 334 325 281 284

Means (standard errors in parentheses)

Japan Korea New Zealand Finland Australia Canada Switzerland United Kingdom Belgium France Austria Denmark Iceland Liechtenstein Sweden Ireland OECD average Norway Czech Republic United States Germany Hungary Russian Federation Spain Poland Latvia Italy Portugal Greece Luxembourg Mexico Brazil

557 (5.5) 547 (2.8) 537 (3.1) 536 (2.2) 533 (3.5) 533 (1.4) 529 (4.4) 529 (2.5) 520 (3.9) 517 (2.7) 515 (2.5) 514 (2.4) 514 (2.3) 514 (7.0) 510 (2.5) 503 (2.7) 500 (0.7) 499 (2.8) 498 (2.8) 493 (7.6) 490 (2.5) 488 (4.0) 478 (5.5) 476 (3.1) 470 (5.5) 463 (4.5) 457 (2.9) 454 (4.1) 447 (5.6) 446 (2.0) 387 (3.4) 334 (3.7)

Scientific literacy Distribution*

286 276 325 264 299 278 329 302 350 292 306 283 277 322 309 273 329 303 320 325 338 321 343 298 336 337 299 299 357 307 273 320

Countries

Means Distri(standard errors bution* in parentheses)

Korea Japan Finland United Kingdom Canada New Zealand Australia Austria Ireland Sweden Czech Republic France Norway OECD average United States Hungary Iceland Belgium Switzerland Spain Germany Poland Denmark Italy Liechtenstein Greece Russian Federation Latvia Portugal Luxembourg Mexico Brazil

552 (2.7) 550 (5.5) 538 (2.5) 532 (2.7) 529 (1.6) 528 (2.4) 528 (3.5) 519 (2.6) 513 (3.2) 512 (2.5) 511 (2.4) 500 (3.2) 500 (2.8) 500 (0.7) 499 (7.3) 496 (4.2) 496 (2.2) 496 (4.3) 496 (4.4) 491 (3.0) 487 (2.4) 483 (5.1) 481 (2.8) 478 (3.1) 476 (7.1) 461 (4.9) 460 (4.7) 460 (5.6) 459 (4.0) 443 (2.3) 422 (3.2) 375 (3.3)

263 297 283 321 290 326 307 296 300 303 308 334 311 325 328 331 284 364 324 310 335 313 335 318 315 316 327 321 287 315 251 301

* Gap between the scores of the 5% lowest performing students and the 5% highest performing students. Performance significantly above the OECD average

Performance does not differ significantly from the OECD average

Performance significantly below the OECD average

Source: OECD, 2000.

70 percent of them have received all of their formal education in German schools. What is more, this shortfall of literacy skills is directly linked to student performance in mathematics and science (note the second and third columns in Table 3.2). Shortcomings in reading comprehension also appear to inhibit the acquisition of knowledge and skills in other subject areas: the disparities for mathematics and science disappear when controlling for students’ reading literacy (OECD, 2003). When comparing students with similar levels of reading skills, children from immigrant families are no longer at a disadvantage, which strongly suggests that the lack of German literacy skills is the main obstacle preventing this group from flourishing at school. Figure 3.3 is telling in that, of the countries taking part in the PISA assessment, only Belgium fairs worse than Germany on that front.

104

Belgium Germany Switzerland Luxembourg Austria Denmark United States New Zealand France Greece Sweden United Kingdom Norway Canada Russian Federation Advantage: Test language is home language

Australia 0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Difference in test scores Figure 3.3 Differences in mean reading literacy scores of two subgroups of students—students from families who speak the test language at home and students from families who speak a language other than the test language at home. Source: OECD 2000.

Social Integration

105

60

50

40

30

20

10

ifie

ss

cla

ba

ck

rB

he

ot

An y

ot An y

2004

Un

ck gr ou C nd hi ne se

d

un

ck gr o

si

rA

he

rm

he

ot

An y

la

d

an

ba

ba

ck gr o

un In d di an

sh

i i p an an an sh ou be ric ist de gr k ib Af a ic ar ck Pa ngl n C th k Bla Ba re ac he Bl t o y An

ixe

W

hi

te

Br

iti

sh

a n n e n d ag m un ea rica sia f rit /Ro ro rib A he psy ckg Ca ck A nd a a k sh y la Iri G te b lac B hite of hi d B and W r le r W an ite el h he ite av W ot h Tr y W An

d AL L

0 Iri

% Met/Working beyond the Early Learning Goal (score of 8+)

In the United Kingdom, the picture is again somewhat different. In fact, DfES (2005) reports that, by way of one example, in 2004 Chinese pupils were the most likely to achieve high sores in England’s GCSEs, with Indian pupils holding second place.5 The lowest and most worrying levels of GCSE attainment were among Black Caribbean pupils, with Black African, ‘other’ Black and ‘mixed’ White and Black Caribbean groups also scoring low. This is despite the fact that, in January 2005, the percentage of pupils in primary schools whose first language was known or believed to be ‘other than English’ was only around 12. With respect to literacy and language specifically, Figure 3.4 shows overall achievement of pupils in England by ethnic category for 2004 and 2005. On average, Pakistani and Bangladeshi pupils are the second-lowest group of achievers after traveller groups. The number of pupils who

2005

Figure 3.4 Attainment in foundation stage profile,6 2004 and 2005, in communication, language and literacy. Source: DfES (2006).


have met the curriculum’s early learning goals is typically 16–18 percent lower than the average for all pupils. For Bangladeshis, despite a decrease in the percentage assessed as having met or working towards the goals, there was a mixed picture with regard to the attainment gap. The attainment of Indian pupils varies across the scales. On average, the number of Indian pupils who have met the early learning goals is around 4–5 percent below the percentage for all pupils on average. Crucially, it is lowest in the communication, language and literacy learning areas. The PISA data highlighted here suggests that Germany and the United Kingdom are far apart with respect to the integration of migrant students: Germany requires major reforms and initiatives to integrate its migrant population in the school system. Here, language capabilities stand out as a key issue and a means to improve ethnic minority performance. The United Kingdom, on the other hand, appears to be doing relatively well, although with certain minority groups only. Measures to further assist the integration of children of West Indian descent, for example, are highly necessary. What is not clear, however, is whether the British ‘success’ is a result of the integration initiatives outlined in Section 2.2 or an unlinked phenomena partly due to a nonchalant attitude towards immigrant communities. Crucially, national data focussing on the literacy achievement of pupils in ethnic groups show that British-Asians fair poorly in language and literature achievements, similar to the Turkish community in Germany.

2.4 Summary Germany and the United Kingdom are far apart with respect to the integration of migrant students and possible reasons for the disparity are discussed. One generally accepted explanation is Germany’s slow acceptance of migration as a permanent phenomena. Another hindrance is the language challenges faced by many Turkish nationals in German schools. In contrast, the United Kingdom has attained a distinct competitive advantage over Germany, generally speaking; however, British data shows that British-Asian ethnic minorities achieve lower rates of literacy than the majority community. This is also the case in Germany where many migrant children lack sufficient knowledge of German to fully participate in school

Social Integration

107

life. Adequate language education is therefore an important factor, and one to which the inclusion of immigrant literature in the school systems could significantly contribute. If one accepts the PISA report, which clearly highlights the close link between student performance and factors such as interest in reading and reading activities, it follows that measures to promote reading should make reading motivation a primary target. One of the key places where children are exposed to novels is in school: immigrant literature in the school curriculum is therefore the subject of the next section.

3

Literature in British and German schools

3.1

Literature and the British curriculum

A particularly large volume of scientific research, newspaper commentary and government consultations is carried out and published in the United Kingdom with respect to the content and teaching of English literature at all levels in schools. The amount and degree of this information is especially striking when compared to the situation in Germany. A number of bodies are involved in making or contributing to literary curriculum decisions in Britain, the most important of which are the DfES, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) and the National Literary Trust (NLT). The subject of required readings generates much debate and leaves one with an impression that the idea of Britishness and national pride is closely linked with the national reading list or, at the very least, the national literary canon. The importance of English as a subject of study was reinforced through a recent (2005) consultation on the future of English in schools called English 21. However, the view that both the content and the methods used in teaching had to be modernised also emerged loud and clear. A modernisation was believed doubly necessary in order to promote integration and to meet the government’s targets with respect to alleviating exclusion: An international approach to children’s literature goes alongside an inclusive approach to the cultures reflected in British classrooms, where one pupil in eight now comes from an ethnic minority background. (QCA, 2006a, p. 3)


The quote above, of course, resounds the view of DfES that explicitly recognises the importance of appropriate curriculum content for promoting the learning of children from ethnic minorities. In fact, a DfES report focussing on increasing the achievement of ethnic minorities states that [b]oth the content of the curriculum and the skill with which it is delivered are key to engaging children and young people in learning. This can be particularly important for children and young people from minority ethnic groups who may not see their culture, history and values reflected in their school experience. (DfES, 2003, p. 14) The English national curriculum requires the study of texts from a variety of cultures and traditions at all key stages of development. This requirement is nurtured through specific teaching objectives. National curriculum guidance specifies that pupils must read significant authors, long-established books and good quality modern poetry. These requirements are intended to develop children’s knowledge and understanding of the distinctive qualities of literature from different traditions and to enable children to make connections and comparisons between texts from different cultures. Yet the QCA has expressed concern that the range of texts taught in schools is too narrow and also found that a number of books were being read at, and across, several different grades. Sue Horner (The Daily Telegraph, 28 February 2005), the QCA’s head of English, said: ‘There is some repetition and you might find the same book being taught to six-year-olds at one school and to eight-year-olds at another. This raises the issue about whether children are being sufficiently challenged’. The QCA does not prescribe any writers except Shakespeare in its English curriculum, saying simply that literature studies should include ‘stories, poetry and drama written before, during and after the 20th century’ (Times Education Supplement, 11 November 2005). In its report, called Taking English Forward, the QCA (2005b) recognises that to improve cultural understanding, England’s literary heritage should not be seen as a static and fixed list of texts but should be updated to include work from various traditions, including those of young people from ethnic minorities.

Social Integration

109

Overall, with respect to the English curriculum, there is a sense that English in the classroom is rather remote from the world outside and needs to be connected to it: ‘classrooms need to become more “permeable” so that there is contact with writers, actors, playwrights, journalists and others whose business is words. This should be a planned part of the curriculum so that it has a lasting impact on pupils’ understanding of both the craft and the art of language’ (QCA, 2005a, p. 6). That is, the place and importance of literature in the English curriculum has been re-emphasised but needs to be refreshed to reflect changes in society so that pupils’ full cultural backgrounds are included. 3.2

Literature in German schools

Compared to the United Kingdom, Germany’s management of the German curriculum and reading requirements is rather ‘hands-off’ and minimalist. Content and funding are managed at the Land level, and generally speaking, the guidelines that are issued involve broad targets with respect to reading, writing and speaking capabilities. Some aspects of general intercultural requirements have found their way into the teaching of German, but, again, they suffer from being broad and vague. For example, Table 3.3 shows the intercultural literature guidelines for Berlin’s German curriculum. It is noteworthy that for classes 11–13, mention is made of migrant literature in the language curriculum in the intercultural context. It may be the case that these guidelines have been introduced as a result of the KMK recommendations issued in 1996, since the thrust is similar and familiar: The starting point for the intercultural aspects mentioned, is not only restricted to the social sciences. In all subjects, there is the option to interculturally emphasise content. [For example] . . . In German by means of the comparative study of texts that encourages a change in perspective, the analysis of globally dispersed story cores, that make experiences and knowledge of happiness and justice, love and grief apparent. (KMK, 1996, p. 10) However, it is equally if not more likely that the guidelines were introduced as a result of pressures from below by teachers and, perhaps to

Table 3.3 Intercultural aspects in the teaching of German language and literature, 2006–2007

(2) Forms 7–10 Sekundarstufe I D: Understanding culturally relevant texts and media Reading: Using reading strategies; applying unlocking techniques; comparing literary texts and day-to-day experiences; understanding different types of texts and their meaning. Writing: Reproducing contents; using and interpreting creative writing; and using argumentative and descriptive writing. Talking and Listening: Reproducing contents and interpreting texts. Knowledge and Awareness of Language: Reflecting on the evolution of language. Possible Contents: • Combined Term 7/8: Ballad, youth novel, short story, novella • Combined Term 9/10: Drama, lyric, prose, movie

(3) Forms 11–13 Sekundarstufe II (Gymnasiale Oberstufe) 4.2 Literature and language in relation with different Cultures, Arts and Media Contents: Evolution of German literature in relation to European literature development; • • • • • • • •

Perception of literature from other continents; Types and development of migrant literature; Oral and written forms of presentation and transmission, traditional oral narration; Film and theatre traditions within their own special cultural features; The aesthetics of literature and theatre and its place or conflict with media and audiences; and Inter-dependencies of fine arts, music, film and literature Acquirement of competencies in the thematic field Subject related competencies should contribute to the understanding of language and literature as part of cultural and aesthetic practices.

Source: Senatsverwaltung für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Forschung (SBWF), Rahmenlehrpläne for the teaching of German (SBWF, 2006a, 2006b, 2000c).

110

(1) Form 1–6 In all primary school subjects language is key to education. Emotional, social and cognitive correlations are made accessible through language—verbally or written—and the understanding of texts is crucial. In German lessons pupils learn to: • read and write, and use reading and writing; • communicate adequately in accordance to situation and addressee; • use the creative opportunities of language; • reflect on language and the use of language; and • understand language in its cultural, intercultural and esthetic functions.

Social Integration

111

a lesser extent, parents. The point to take away from the German approach is that it has not evolved to the same degree or level of detail (some might say ‘sophistication’) as that found in the United Kingdom. Whether this is a symptom of the German federal state system or for some other reason(s) (for example, cultural nation-state self-perception, later arrival of immigrant children, fewer immigrants with German as a first language, and so on) is a matter of debate. Nonetheless, the situation in Germany is far from static and is evolving: increasing concerns and statements can be seen from both the German state and education practitioners.

3.3 Choosing what to teach Perhaps instinctively, there are two major purposes for including multiethnic and multicultural literature in the school curriculum: first, to develop students’ knowledge of and respect for religious, racial and ethnic diversity and, second, to enhance these same students’ familiarity with and appreciation for the literary traditions of other peoples and countries around the world. In order to integrate multiethnic and multicultural literature into the school curriculum, Stotsky (1994) argues that three questions need to be addressed: (1) Who should decide what ethnic groups and what cultures should be presented in a multiethnic and multicultural curriculum? (2) On what basis might currently studied works be removed from the curriculum in order to make room for newer or different works? and (3) What national considerations should be kept in mind? The answers to these questions matter a great deal since they affect the breadth, quality and integrity of pupils’ literary readings. However, it is also important to keep in mind that the very act of selecting works automatically excludes others. There is generally no dispute about the notion that the texts made available to young people in schools should be chosen on the basis of quality and resonance, providing the most for the minds and the imagination of children (although this is of course subjective). The problem is with respect to the specific criteria by which texts are selected. Some believe it best to dispense with the concept of a literary heritage or canon altogether since it is an outdated term that alienates and excludes and prefer instead to think simply about an overall entitlement to a range of literature (QCA, 2005a; also interview with


German teacher). Most teachers and education practitioners, however, do agree with the idea of a specific list of required (or at the very least proposed) reading—the issue is with respect to ‘which books?’ What is clear is that the literary curriculum should not be thought of ‘as something that can simply be handed down by some committee that we’ve never met, and we’re just told to lump it’ (survey respondent, quoted in QCA, 2005a, p. 23). Just as the idea of culture and identity is forever evolving, the same can be said for the national literary heritage. Any national emphasis should not command such a large proportion of the curriculum that students from ethnic minorities are deprived of exposure to religious and ethnic diversity or works attributed to the common civic culture. Conspicuously, most of the debate and views discussed on this matter come from Great Britain. There is surprising little public debate in Germany about the content and extent of the literature that should be introduced in schools despite the fact that, education practitioners have much knowledge and opinion to share on the topic. Whilst some guidelines from the Land Education Ministries are available about what books may be introduced in schools, these are merely suggestions: it is largely left to individual teachers to decide which books are introduced to their classes. In fact, German teachers found that publishers of children’s books tend to take matters into their own hands and promote works directly to them. Libraries are another primary source of inspiration for which books to include (see Chapter 4). 3.4 Summary In the United Kingdom—and to a lesser extent at the national level in Germany—there is official recognition of the importance of promoting ‘world’ literature in the national literary curriculum. In Germany, however, little of this recognition has made its way down to the level of implementation, again highlighting the decentralisation of the curriculum and the important role of teachers in the German system. It is no surprise that most of the debate and views discussed in this section stem from the British context: there is surprisingly little discussion in Germany about the content and extent of the literature that should be introduced in schools. The idea of a national canon and school reading list is strong in Britain, whereas it is virtually nonexistent in Germany.

Social Integration

113

In Britain, there is substantial official and policy-based recognition of the need to include the experience of ethnic minorities—which includes that of migrant children—in the school curriculum, specifically in the form of literature. This has been officially spelled out and endorsed by the national government and is in sharp contrast to the literary curriculum in Germany.

4

Links with social integration

In light of the discussion above and keeping in mind the various challenges and factors already outlined, the links between immigrant literature and social integration can be divided into three main areas: increased literacy; the development of social empathy; and the acquiring of public space. Moreover, immigrant literature may play a role as a co-indicator of social integration in each of these three areas. 4.1

Literacy

Literacy has a direct impact on integration, in particular structural integration, by affecting the linguistic knowledge, attitude and ability of people to engage in civic or labour activities, thus enabling the achievement of social and economic goals. Over time, structural integration builds what may be termed as a country’s social infrastructure. This infrastructure draws people closer together, creating links between various groups and thus contributing to increased social cohesion. Hence, it appears that the introduction and teaching of immigrant literature in schools in Britain and Germany has (or could have) a correlation to, first, literacy levels and school achievement and, second, motivating students—especially ethnic minority students from families who have immigrated—to better engage with the labour market in general and the literary sphere specifically.7 The issue of literacy achievement in Britain and Germany has been a worry for both national administrations, but more so in Germany, given its poor performance in the OECD’s PISA (2000; 2003) reports and given that its ethnic minority students achieved the lowest levels of success. As the reports outline, literacy is a ‘chicken and egg’ problem since one of the greatest impediments to increased literacy levels stems from the lack of reading among children and young adults. What is more, the low reading level of pupils has been directly associated with a low general interest in reading. That is to say, low interest


in reading leads to less (or no) reading which in turn leads to poor literacy. Hence, reading for pleasure—or at least having an increased interest in reading—could be an important way to help combat social exclusion and raise national educational standards. In fact, according to Krashen (1993, p. 85): When children read for pleasure, when they get ‘hooked on books’, they acquire, involuntarily and without conscious effort, nearly all the so-called ‘language skills’ many people are so concerned about. They will become adequate readers, acquire a large vocabulary, develop the ability to understand and use complex grammatical constructions, develop a good writing style, and become good (but not necessarily perfect) spellers. Although free voluntary reading alone will not ensure attainment of the highest levels of literacy, it will at least ensure an acceptable level. Without it, I suspect that children simply do not have a chance. A number of education practitioners in Germany and the United Kingdom have outlined the link between literacy and reading for pleasure. However, only in the United Kingdom has the link between immigrant literature and literacy been clearly expressed in curriculum policy making. This may be the case since English teachers in Britain seem to be more aware of the existence of this literature and its potential benefit for pupils than their German counterparts. Perhaps one simple, straightforward and efficient way to increase literacy achievement among schoolchildren is to rework the language and literature curriculum to include contemporary, vibrant works that portray the everyday life and worries of students. Increasing literary achievement is particularly important since, as PISA has shown, there is a direct link between literacy and performance in other areas such as mathematics and science. This approach especially targets migrant pupils who, in both countries, possess fewer literacy skills than the majority population and who are keenly interested in books that portray their collective life experiences, including those linked to migration. Penguin-sponsored research (PTI, 2003) shows strong interest on the part of migrant children and parents in literature that is representative of their experience(s), especially in Britain. A British-Asian young adult novelist, further highlighted this interest when he said, in response to a question about his experiences in schools,

Social Integration

115

Second- or third-generation British-Asians are now more British than they are Indian or Pakistani or anything like that. And part of that is they want to read about their own experiences that are unique. They don’t want to read about Indians. They don’t want to read Salman Rushdie or anything that’s either too weighty or is about the Indian experience in Britain. They want to read about the British-Asian experience and it’s so different. However, an appetite for immigrant literature is by no means solely linked to migrant children: the Nestle Family Monitor (2003) has also monitored the reading background of 11–18-year-olds (all ethnic groups included). This organisation determined, first and foremost, that 55 percent of young people pick up reading and novels that help them understand different people and cultures. Unfortunately, no similar data is available on Germany, making it difficult to gauge whether the situation is similar. Nonetheless, this study shows that although the interest may not be as high in Germany, it does seem to be on the rise. For example, Kerim Pamuk—a comedian and young adult literature writer in Germany—has noticed a palpable interest in his books from the German-Turkish community when he tours German schools. What is more, German literature teachers have also observed an increase in their students’ interest: We see that there is a growing interest in the Turkish-German literature, especially the works of Emine Özdamar that are very interesting for us. We have met many [German-Turkish] female students. Most of them are young girls who are very interested in the subject, so I see in my teaching that the Turkish-German literature is very interesting for the students, also for the ‘normal’ German students. (Interview with German academic and literary critic) Of course, in the case of German-Turkish pupils, knowledge of the German language is vital in order to be fully exposed to GermanTurkish immigrant literature. Whilst it is true that literature cannot help with the ABCs of a new language, it can and does help increase language fluency levels, including basic vocabulary and language structures (Krashen, 1993). This is especially the case with GermanTurks, when books such as Sprich langsam, Türke (Pamuk, 2002) are written in a way that is more familiar in structure and language to


German-Turkish pupils learning German. That is to say, immigrant literature written by German-Turks could be an easier introduction to the German language than the usual traditional German literature. The Özdamar works mentioned by Hofman above, for example, are written in a structure and vocabulary that resembles the style of language spoken by German-Turks, which makes the German language more familiar, digestible and easily recognisable to GermanTurkish pupils, along with content to which the reader might more closely associate or relate. In other words, this kind of literature could represent a relatively accessible and fruitful means to improve the language skills of ethnic German-Turkish pupils. To put it plainly, whilst the causal link between immigrant literature, literacy and social integration cannot be established with absolute certainty, there is enough ‘soft’ primary and ‘hard’ secondary evidence to suggest that its introduction in the German and British literary curricula can bring social integration benefits to young readers, migrant children and majority children alike. The link appears convincing and can be summarised as follows:

1. Germany and the United Kingdom face the need to increase literacy levels, especially in Germany where the Turkish community suffers from very poor literacy. 2. There is a well-researched and supported direct link between reading and literacy. 3. The propensity to read is related to the pleasure that children and young adults derive from the act of reading. 4. There is demonstrated proof that both German and British schoolchildren are interested in reading immigrant literature. 5. Hence, the introduction of immigrant literature in schools could increase reading levels of children and young adults and, through this literacy achievement, have an impact upon the country’s social and structural integration.

4.2 Social empathy In discussing the links between social empathy and immigrant literature, I refer to the processes through which children and young adults acquire the awareness, understanding and dispositions needed

Social Integration

117

for a democratic citizenship, that is, for the acceptance and recognition of ‘differences’. Civic knowledge and sociocultural sensitivity are not passed down genetically, but require that each pupil learns civic facts, explores democratic ideals and connects such concepts to the responsibility of citizenship. Immigrant literature can assist in the elaboration of a civic culture through the betterment of ethnic relations and the fostering of social affectivity. Affective integration refers to the processes of value orientation and identification (see Chapter 1). This aspect of social integration has received much attention in the past few years (for example, Goodhart, 2004; S¸ enocak, 2000) in academic research and social policy making alike. Both German and British policy makers and advisors have dealt with this issue in different ways. For example, in 1999, the British National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education (NACCCE) produced the report All Our Futures in which the committee argued that ‘the world that young people live in and will inherit is multicultural’ and that it should be a priority for schools to take account of cultural diversity in planning the curriculum: ‘As a matter of urgency education must help young people . . . to engage with and respect cultural perspectives different from their own’ (NACCCE, 1999, p. 60). The German KMK voiced a similar concern: Understood in this way, intercultural competence is a key qualification for all children and youth, minority or majority. It enriches private and professional life and increases life opportunities for the upcoming generations. . . . The intercultural aspect is therefore not to be isolated in a single topic, subject or project, it is rather a cross-requirement in schools. (KMK, 1996, pp. 6–7) With respect to literature specifically, and despite KMK’s statement on the promotion of ‘intercultural competencies’ in all aspects of education, the promotion of cultural sensitivity and democratic citizenship through literature in schools has not been a matter of urgency in the German curricula and has had mixed success in implementation in Britain. Nonetheless, it is arguably the case that literature could become an important way in which children learn to develop a sense of civic culture, by moving away from ethnocentrism and towards a broader view of the world. That is, ‘coming to understand


how others think and feel, and how this can be expressed through words, is going to be even more essential in a shrinking world’ (QCA, 2005a, p. 14). In fact, immigrant literature influences readers with its intercultural content. For example, British-Asian and GermanTurkish authors report on the reaction of the students whom they met on their respective reading tours in the United Kingdom and Germany: The first book award that I ever won was for (Un)arranged Marriage. That was the Angus Book Award in Scotland. I went to the schools there . . . . I wanted to talk to teenagers about it. And there was not a single non-white face. . . . I was shocked that these white kids [were interested]. Because it is so removed, far removed from [their] existence, from the way that [they] live. I did not think it would be something that [they would] be interested in. And one . . . girl said ‘look, it’s like you opened the door for us and we can look in’. They can choose to do that or not. . . . So, that is what I try to do. [My writing] is all about giving somebody an insight into what it is like to grow up, as a young man, in a strict traditional semireligious Punjabi family, which is my background. (Interview with British-Asian author) and: What I can say is that I know that the people who read my books, who go to my shows, are impacted in a liberating way. I know that very well. I also know that it has an influence in that both sides can live with each other in a more relaxed way, which I find very important in Germany . . . This is where I think what I do clearly has an impact, because both sides notice that there is someone who sees where the problems are on both sides. (Interview with German-Turkish author) Bettering ethnic relations and alleviating racism therefore emerges as an area in which immigrant literature can have an important impact. Many respondents, policy advisors, education specialists, writers and critical readers alike outlined how immigrant literature can open readers to a new world that is different from their own with the end goal of improving ethnic relations. Immigrant literature is particularly relevant in conveying migrant experiences for the majority

Social Integration

119

population, as well as sharing the experiences and the harm linked to racist behaviour. It is an approachable and perhaps more efficient way to introduce and discuss sensitive issues such as race, intercultural understanding and citizenship. The difficulty in highlighting the correlation between immigrant literature and the improvement of ethnic relations is that it cannot be established with certainty: indeed, how does one prove, on balance, let alone beyond reasonable doubt, that pupils have a better understanding and appreciation of race issues after reading a book? What is more, this ‘ethnic upbringing’ would be, in fact is, a process that takes place over a number of years. Hence, whilst most policy makers, practitioners and others involved in the teaching or development of literature in schools outline the benefits of immigrant literature, few are in a position to provide examples of tangible and direct links or impacts, or to provide quantifiable data. Naturally, lack of evidence of a tangible link is not evidence that such a link does not exist. The fact is that there remain a number of concrete examples, anecdotes and testimonies, all of which attest to the correlation between immigrant literature and social integration through better ethnic relations. 4.3

Public space

One last important link between immigrant literature and social integration is its ability to affect the democratisation of the national social sphere. Admittedly, this third key link is not specifically related to the curriculum or literary education. Nonetheless, it is a link where the correlation between immigrant literature and social integration is particularly important and therefore deserves mention. With respect to the democratisation of the national social sphere, the case of the United Kingdom is particularly telling and, in the case of Germany, a transformation in a similar direction may also be taking place. Even the briefest review of national British newspapers reveals a number of articles by immigrant British authors. In the past few years alone there have been direct contributions to British national papers by, to name but a few, Hanif Kureishi (27 January 2007), Zadie Smith (13 January 2007, 20 January 2007), Hari Kunzru (31 March 2007), Monica Ali (9 December 2004), Arundhati Roy (15 December 2006) and Anita Sethi (7 April 2007). Such articles are given perhaps surprising prominence and often appear in sections of the papers reserved for articles that have clear and wide appeal.8


What is particularly interesting and perhaps more important about such contributions other than their frequency and prominence in national papers is the credibility with which they are treated, especially in light of the subjects discussed. For example, a small sample of the contributions noted above yield the following topics: • Internet censorship: Hari Kunzru • Tips for writers and readers: Zadie Smith • A commentary on the book On Venus from Junichiro Tanizaki and how these tales have inspired an upcoming play: Hanif Kureishi • Pride and Prejudice and its impact on how women see themselves: Monica Ali • A holiday escape when in student loan debt: Anita Sethi • The ‘war on terror’ and its repercussions in India: Arundhati Roy There are many such examples in the United Kingdom. A similar exercise in Germany reveals fewer articles; although the size of the public space acquired by Turkish writers is substantially smaller, it is not insignificant. The space is mostly occupied by three immigrant literature authors: Zafer S¸ enocak, Zaimoˇglu and Emine Özdamar. S¸ enocak’s contribution to German immigrant literature and national public debate, although recognised by many academic circles as important, is generally restricted to a small circle of connoisseurs and foreigners (that is, French, American and British). It is fair to say that although S¸ enocak’s texts are rich in content and style—he is often mentioned as one of the German-Turkish authors with the best grasp of the German language—his contribution is less recognised in Germany than abroad and, hence, has acquired little social space in Germany. With Zaimoˇglu and Özdamar, the situation is different. Their contributions are higher profile and recognised in Germany. On 12 April 2006, Germany’s most respected intellectual weekly, Die Zeit, offered the German-Turkish Zaimoˇglu its front page for an opinion piece discussing the issue of Ehrenmord (honour killing), an extensively covered Berlin trial. Whilst it may be argued that the Islam-centred subject matter accorded to the Turkish writer was an exercise in stereotyping, the fact that Zaimoˇglu was provided with such unprecedented prominence in Die Zeit outweighs any negative

Social Integration

121

stereotyping. This was a cultural sign (and signal) of very high importance ‘that someone of the Turkish community has the possibility to give his opinion at that place, which is a really symbolic place’ (Interview with German academic and literary critic). It is significant to social integration that authors of immigrant origin participate in public debate in their respective countries of residence, especially when the subjects are not the ‘usual’ race, nation and citizenship. Of course, race-related issues are bound to arise more frequently when immigrant authors are concerned, but the point is that, in Britain at least, authors are not being asked to comment solely on such topics. This might be a sign that British-Asian (or indeed ‘immigrant’) novelists are more mainstream and/or integrated. In any event, democratisation of the social space can positively affect social integration when minority authors are seen as an integral part of the public and literary realms. For example, the establishment of British-Asian literature as more or less ‘on par’ with that of British national literature since Salman Rushdie, Monica Ali and others represents an important acquiring of social space for migrant communities in Britain. In fact, as the then ACE Literature Director acknowledged: When you think of literature in English or English literature now, you do think of the Rushdie’s of this world and those writers whose work has emerged from all kinds of diverse backgrounds not as something other or exotic but as very much part of the culture. This public recognition of a British-Indian as an inherent part of the English canon translates into a means of social affirmation and an acquisition of British social space not previously available to minority communities in the United Kingdom. It sets a watershed precedent from which there is likely no return. The same may yet take place in Germany, with authors such as Özdamar and Zaimoˇglu, but future recognition is far from assured. The recent Nobel Prize in Literature awarded to Ohran Pamuk might act as a catalyst in this regard, but it is too early to tell.9 As I will discuss in the next chapter, Turkish and German-Turkish literature in Germany suffers from not being taken as seriously as, or is deemed not ‘on par’ with, German literature. Pamuk’s external recognition upon being awarded the Nobel


may increase the value of Turkish and German-Turkish literature in Germany and, as a result, provide immigrant literature with increased status in the country. 4.4 Indicators of social integration Given the above links, it follows that immigrant literature could play a distinct role in measuring social integration. Indicators of social integration are by no means stand-alone tools for measuring integration, but their level of accuracy can be increased by triangulating a number of co-indicators that include all three spheres of national integration (economic, social and cultural). It is with this in mind that I highlight here the potential use of immigrant literature as a co-indicator in the social sphere. First, the appearance of immigrant literature in school curricula could, in itself, be a useful indicator of social integration. The national curriculum is a vital tool for building future citizens, and more important, it is the encapsulation of what a society deems to be the ‘vital knowledge’ that future citizens should acquire, including the idea of national heritage. In this respect, when a school, Land or national government adds immigrant literature to its reading list(s), it acknowledges this literature’s role in the national literary heritage. Immigrant literature’s inclusion in this way signals an affirmation of the migrant community’s integral part of the national cultural fabric. When comparing the presence of immigrant literature in the school curricula in Germany and the United Kingdom, one observes the following: 1. There is little or no immigrant literature present in the German curriculum. When it is included it is only at an individual class level and, even then, is often not expressly intended. As a result, the introduction of immigrant literature is relatively new, as is the form of literature itself, in Germany. 2. There is comparatively (and substantially) more immigrant literature in the British curriculum. In addition, the introduction of immigrant literature tends to be enforced from above via the education system’s accountability measures. In the United Kingdom, immigrant literature was introduced sooner than in Germany, in keeping with this literature’s earlier ‘arrival’ in the United Kingdom.

Social Integration

123

If one takes the summary above into account and compares this to the general space occupied by immigrant authors in both countries, including examining market shares (see Chapter 4) and any related snowball or multiplier effects, a direct link emerges between official recognition of immigrant literature in schools and the integration of immigrant communities. This link could serve as an indication of immigrant communities’ level(s) of integration. Second, with respect to public debate, one of the striking differences between Germany and the United Kingdom regarding immigrant literature content and authors is the success in recent years of sensationalist books such as Die Fremde Braut (Kelek, 2005) and the comparative restrained success of more serious novels such as S¸ enocak’s Gefährliche Verwandschaft (1998), among others.10 This in itself could be an indicator of integration: perhaps the relative integration of a migrant community can be attested partly through the subject and content of novels which it produces. For example: Feridun Zaimoglu with his new book that is very successful at the moment, his novel is of course something completely different from what Mrs Demirkan wrote, from the style, the art of the language, the strength. That is to say, there is a clear development in [or move into] German literature. (Interview with German-Turkish author) Put another way, if we look at the evolution of Zaimoˇglu’s writing specifically, we see that his first novel, Kanak Sprak (2005), gained a certain success in Germany but was stereotypical and controversial in content. Recently, however, he authored a 600-page novel Leyla (2006) in ‘respectable German . . . he changed his style to fit that of mainstream German writing’ (Interview with German academic and literary critic). Germany’s literary establishment and readers have embraced Leyla with an intensity few foreign-born authors have enjoyed in that country. Indeed, Zaimoˇglu’s publisher, Kiepenhauer and Witsch, claims the book sold 60,000 copies in its initial six months. Zaimoˇglu’s readings are no less popular: in a tent on the Bebelplatz in late May 2006 Zaimoˇglu read to a crowd made up mostly of white Germans (International Herald Tribune, 27 July 2006). The point here is that this evolution in writing and the reception with which the German literary establishment has embraced Leyla may


be a sign that the German-Turkish community is increasingly making headway into Germany’s closed literary circles and readership. This is particularly telling when contrasted to the general situation of German-Turkish culture. Germany’s situation is also telling when compared to the British environment; in the United Kingdom, many books contain ‘ethnic’ content, although it tends to be about issues of cultural hybridity and entails a distinct British migrant content (for example, White Teeth, Brick Lane and so on). Moreover, the level at which these works are received—and the size of the social space that they occupy— is substantially larger than in Germany. Although it is not possible to say that ‘A’ occupies X percent of the social space, the situation can nonetheless be relatively assessed and compared using sales levels, mentions in newspapers and other popular media, occurrence in high street book shops, as well as the presence of these novels in the official curriculum. Moreover, the success of a single book such as Die Fremde Braut (Kelek, 2006) in Germany, for example, when compared to a work of equal success in the United Kingdom (for example, The Impressionist, Anita and Me), could also be used to relatively indicate integration of ethnic communities in each country’s social sphere. A significant link to social integration therefore seems to exist where authors of immigrant origin participate in national public debate, especially when they are not restricted to race-related matters. In this respect, it can be said that immigrant literature acts as a catalyst for social integration via the acquiring of public space. 4.5 Summary One efficient way to increase school achievement and, in the process, social capital among schoolchildren is to rework the language and literature curriculum to include contemporary and vibrant works that portray the everyday life and worries of school pupils. This is particularly important since there is a direct link between literacy and other areas such as mathematics and science. Such an approach especially targets migrant pupils who, in both countries, suffer from lower literacy skills than the majority population and who are keenly interested in books that portray their life experiences, including those linked to migration. A re-energising of the literary curriculum is particularly important since there is a direct link between reading for pleasure and literacy levels. As a result, the introduction of immigrant literature in

Social Integration

125

schools could increase reading levels of children and, through this, their literacy achievement, the country’s social capital and overall social integration. The democratisation of the social space through immigrant literature and particularly immigrant authors can have a positive effect on social integration including where minority authors are part of the public and literary realms. The establishment of immigrant literature as being ‘on par’ with that of the national literature represents an important acquiring of social space for migrant communities and, as a result, social integration.

5

Conclusion

Education plays a crucial role in the social development of children, particularly with respect to the linking of citizens and citizenship development. The British and German educational systems vary considerably regarding the introduction and teaching of immigrant literature in schools. First, British decision making with respect to the curriculum is centralised whereas it is made at the Land level in Germany. As a result, potential curriculum changes generally occur faster and with more uniformity in the United Kingdom. However, in the British context the ability for experimentation is restrained, particularly in contrast to Germany where there are fewer accountability measures, decision making is regional and implementation is achieved on a school-by-school basis. Finally, the power to determine curriculum content, including the list of books to teach, has been wrested away from teachers in the United Kingdom whereas teachers in Germany have greater influence and autonomy over the curriculum. The state of ethnic minorities in both school systems and national or Land school integration policies influence the impact of immigrant literature on integration and, in particular, language education. Germany and the United Kingdom are far apart with respect to the integration of migrant students: Germany requires major reforms to integrate its migrant population in the school system whereas the United Kingdom appears to be doing reasonably well, particularly in the case of literacy levels. PISA reports a close link between student performance and factors such as interest in reading and reading activities. These conclusions are also consistent with other PISA research


on ethnic minorities in schools where the link between language, reading habits and general academic success has been outlined. In the end, the relative low performance of German pupils has been directly linked to their poor reading skills and the level of satisfaction that German students derive from reading. Hence, measures to promote literacy should make reading motivation a primary consideration. The space occupied by immigrant literature in both systems, the venues where this literature could be taught and curricular practices affect literature’s introduction in schools. Compared to the United Kingdom, Germany manages the curriculum and reading requirements with more of a ‘light touch’. Content and funding is managed at the Land level, and the guidelines issued encompass broader targets with respect to reading, writing and speaking capabilities. Most of the debate and views available on curricula matters stem from the British context; there is surprisingly little discussion in Germany about the content and extent of the literature that should be introduced in schools. The decision about which books to read in classes is largely left to individual teachers, so much so that publishers of children’s books often promote their wares directly to teachers. Three major areas of correlation exist between immigration literature and national social integration: increased literacy; the development of social empathy; and the increased acquisition of public space through minority participation. These links also translate into two major potential co-indicators for social integration. These four social integration links need to be understood as follows. First, regarding immigrant literature and literacy, both Germany and the United Kingdom face major challenges with respect to literacy levels—in particular with respect to German-Turks in the German environment. Given the direct relationship between reading and literacy, combined with the fact that children and young adults are interested in reading novels, in particular those that represent their own life experiences, the introduction of immigrant literature in schools could increase reading levels of (particularly migrant) children and young adults and thus affect social integration (structurally, but also affectively). Second, reading immigrant literature, which contains portrayals of race relations, the breaking down of stereotypes and the reality of Islam, for example, can have a distinct effect on social empathy. As such, immigrant literature may be an approachable, soft and perhaps

Social Integration

127

more efficient way to introduce and discuss sensitive issues, including intercultural understanding and citizenship. This is one of the most important and obvious links raised by policy advisors, educational practitioners, authors and critical readers. Yet no hard proof exists, given the intangible nature of empathy and the long-term process of social construction that is described. Third, the link between immigrant literature and the acquisition of public space is more tangible. Here, the British–German comparison reveals many differences. On the one hand, in the United Kingdom, British-Asian authors have taken centre stage in much public debate, at times related to ethnic issues, but at other times not. In Germany, immigrant authors are not as visible, but their visibility is increasing. The fact of the matter is that British-Asian authors have taken (but have also been given) a public platform on which to express ideas and debates. This is partly a result of public recognition from British literary circles, but it is also the result of the market potential this literature is seen to possess (see Chapter 4). Whatever the case, a significant link to social integration exists when authors of immigrant origin participate in national public debate, and not only in race-related matters. Therefore, it can be said that, in this respect, immigrant literature acts as a catalyst for social integration via the acquiring of public space. Fourth and finally, given the links outlined above, it quickly becomes clear that immigrant literature could serve as a yardstick against which to measure social integration. Here, two particularly useful co-indicators come to the fore: the space occupied by immigrant literature in the national curriculum (easier to implement in the United Kingdom than in Germany) and the content of, and debate surrounding, the literature itself. For example, the popularity of sensationalist novels might indicate little intercultural understanding, whereas books such as Shalimar the Clown might demonstrate a more balanced and informed view of relations between the applicable cultures. Naturally, this last indicator is less tangible; however, as a co-indicator together with ‘hard’ measures of integration such as employment, it could provide added depth to levels of integration. Finally, it is important to note that the links between learning outcomes and societal, institutional and cultural background characteristics observed at the state level should not be interpreted as causal relationships. Rather, these findings draw attention to the


significance of complex educational contexts that influence the development of future citizens in many different ways and through a variety of mediating factors. Immigrant literature is but one of many intervening agents with respect to social integration. In order to better understand, influence and measure national integration, one would gain from studying its many intervening agents, along with the surrounding (and evolving) environment. I now turn my attention to the third sphere of integration and examine the links between immigrant literature and economic integration, the last sphere under study.

4 Economic Integration

In the previous chapters, I alluded to the fact that market economics, and in particular the literary industry, plays an important role in linking immigrant literature and national integration. Here, I will discuss how the literary industry plays one of the most important roles influencing the links between immigrant literature and national integration. This chapter addresses these links and discusses how the literary industry influences the presence of immigrant literature in the national (and indeed international) environment. We see how economic integration forms a significant part of the third sphere of national integration and goes hand in hand with market expansion, economic growth and economic participation, including employment. A thorough analysis of the links between immigrant literature and economic integration necessitates a contextual discussion of the relationships between culture, the industry and the economy. The connection is based on the view that the artist, as a representative of the cultural realm, shares a position in the market system, whether as an artisan or as a ‘cultural producer working to the command of hegemonic class interest’ (Zukin, 1988, p. x). Moreover, in the last two decades in particular, cultural activities have become increasingly significant to the economic regeneration strategies of many locations (Kong, 2000). The economic contextualisation of the first part of this chapter entails two aspects of particular importance here, that is, the socioeconomic situation of producers (that is, authors) and of consumers (that is, readers). This contextualisation provides a basis for further analysis when later I discuss economic integration in both 129


the German and United Kingdom national contexts in Section 4 of the chapter. In the Section 2 of this chapter, I turn my attention to the specificities of the literary industry and discuss the role of publishers, retailers and public institutions in its development. Given the global nature of the literary industry today, and the importance of this industry’s impact on the links between immigrant literature and national integration, this analysis entails a discussion about multinational publishing as well as the global book market. An examination of the publishing industry and book market is justified on the basis that the relationship between the producers and consumers of literature is typically mediated through social mechanisms, factors that provide institutional channels for the flow of ideas. The organisations or persons who control these channels are gatekeepers of ideas, since they are empowered to make decisions as to what reaches or doesn’t reach readers and the way in which it reaches them. For example, publishers can prevent manuscripts from reaching the market, as can book retailers and public institutions, especially with respect to the way and level at which this literature is received. Understanding the function of gatekeeping and analysing the factors behind the gatekeepers’ decisions or functions can provide major clues about the ways in which cultural products are selected for distribution, thereby affecting economic integration. In the Section 3 of this chapter I examine the factors that influence the link between immigrant literature and economic integration, and the actors taking part. Much like the gatekeepers mentioned earlier who influence the production and reception of literature, a number of factors affect the way in which and at what level immigrant literature is received. Because of the number of factors involved, by necessity I restrict the discussion to the four most relevant and oftencited factors: information and communication technologies (ICT), libraries, the media and book fairs and other literary events. I conclude by examining the links between immigrant literature and economic integration in greater detail. I discuss how economically integrating immigrant literature and in particular increasing market access and expansion of this genre plays a catalytic role in promoting national integration. I also discuss immigrant literature’s link to the labour market, namely via its ability to promote literacy and positive role models, particularly for the benefit of immigrant youth.

Economic Integration

1

131

Culture, industry and the economy

The nexus between culture and the economy is not new in policy making and social research. ‘Culture’ is or, to be more specific, the cultural industries are an increasingly important part of national economies and international trade, and the publishing industry is one of the most important sectors (approximately 30 percent) of cultural production worldwide (UNESCO, 2005). Given their size, the cultural industries are vital to the economies of states and have a notable impact on national and international labour markets, economic flows and the nature of culture itself. 1.1

The cultural industries

Questions of definition arise when discussing cultural industries, in particular with respect to the flexibility of the term ‘culture’ and its specific meaning when related to the economy or industry. Suffice to say that, with respect to the cultural industries specifically, a sensible option is to recognise, as Hesmondhalgh and Pratt (2005) do, that the main interest in such industries is the symbolic, aesthetic and artistic nature of their output. Moreover, in line with the understanding of culture adopted in this work, the most fruitful way to produce a coherent definition of the cultural industries is to see the boundaries between cultural production and other ‘non-cultural’ production as ‘porous, provisional and relative, and to think about these boundaries in terms of the relationship between the utilitarian functions and non-utilitarian (artistic/aesthetic/entertainment) functions of symbolic goods’ (Hesmondhalgh and Pratt, 2005, p. 6; see also Hesmondhalgh, 2002). Finally, Lash and Urry (1994) characterise the contemporary cultural industries as existing at the intersection of the local and global. Given the global, multinational, nature of the literary industry discussed below, it is fair to say that this characterisation is accurate and completes the picture for our purposes. The commercialisation of culture began in the nineteenth century in societies making the transition from feudalism to capitalism. This commercialisation intensified in advanced industrial societies from the early twentieth century onwards (Boudrieu [1996] and Williams [1981] trace aspects of this history). In the second half of the twentieth century, the growth of cultural industries accelerated, and their rise was very much bound up with the intensification of ‘mass


culture’. A number of factors were involved: rising prosperity in the global North, increasing amounts of leisure time, rising levels of literacy, links between the new medium of television and new discourses of consumerism, the increasing importance of ‘cultural hardware’ in the consumer goods industry (for example, hi-fi stereos and television sets, and later video recorders and personal computers), the Internet, e-books and so on (Hesmondhalgh, 2002). By the early 1980s, it was becoming increasingly difficult for policy makers to ignore the growing cultural industries, and cultural products began to make an impact on national policy making. For example, in the 1980s and 1990s, the French Ministry of Culture devoted special attention to film and cinema, as an extension of concerns about high culture and national identity. Moreover, we have already discussed how the cultural industries (or, more specifically, cultural policy) in the United Kingdom and Germany were seen as a means of reinvigorating the integration of society. A crucial aspect of the relationship between culture and the economy is its symbiotic nature: whilst cultural production contributes to the economic activity of a country, this same economic activity is also part of national cultural creation and innovation. In fact, Scott argues (1997, p. 325) that whilst this connection is true for cultural as well as non-cultural products, the connection in cultural industries has special significance because of the ‘intensity of the recursive relations between the cultural attribute of place and the logic of the local production system’. This culture–economy link translates into language where cultural economy conceives of culture in the language of economics, ‘with the attendant measurements applied to policy analysis: investment, leverage, employment, direct and indirect income effects, social and spatial targeting and so forth’ (Booth and Boyle, 1993, p. 22).1 Scott (1997, p. 333) suggests that particular methods of production and distribution characterise the cultural economy. He argues that the cultural production industries can be epitomised in terms of five main technological or organisational elements: (i) considerable amounts of human handiwork, complemented by advanced flexible computer technologies; (ii) dense networks of small- and mediumsized establishments that are strongly dependent on one another for specialised inputs and services (though large and relatively integrated firms are more common); (iii) huge demands on local labour markets


133

and enormous demands on worker skills; (iv) enjoyment of external economies, many of which benefit from mutual learning and cultural synergies made possible by the presence of many interrelated firms and industries in one place; and (v) the presence of institutional infrastructures that ease the functioning of the local economy. This understanding of the production and distribution of the cultural industries very much translates into the present work, in particular the focus on high-skilled labour (authors, publishers, critics, distributors and others); computer technologies (for example, tracking systems; International Standard Book Numbers [ISBNs]; transnational sales enabled via the Internet); small- and mediumsized businesses (in particular with respect to the German publishing industry); mutual and self-reinforcing benefits (which can translate into market expansion and the diversification of product lines [that is, immigrant literature as a new product]); and the presence of an institutional support structure (in this case, public support for literature). Let us now tackle the first point, the ‘considerable amount of human handiwork’, by discussing the socioeconomic situation of authors. 1.2

Literary producers (authors)

The profession of freelance writer and the idea of earning a living from writing arose more than 200 years ago during the Enlightenment, together with the emergence of the book market and literary society (Hall, 1979; Weidhaas, 1995). But then, as now, very few writers were able to take up writing as a fully-fledged profession. I will not conduct a detailed overview of the historical development of writing as a profession;2 however, I will examine the socioeconomic reality of authors in Germany and the United Kingdom as it currently stands, since it provides a contextual understanding of the situation of immigrant literature producers and, as we shall see, of positive role models for ethnic minorities to potentially access a greater share of the labour market. Generally speaking, it is only possible to exist as an independent freelance literary writer if one is internationally successful to the degree of Orhan Pamuk or Salman Rushdie. The alternative and more usual way of subsistence is for authors to be supported from some other quarters, often a spouse, friends, via the support afforded by public subsidy for literature, through a literary prize or other grants.


It is for this reason that many writers, including immigrant authors, are compelled to pursue conventional occupations to make ends meet. For example, a German-Turkish author interviewed noted the substantial challenges of living on her writing income alone: I only want to say that many, many, authors are having a hard time. Naturally, I can only speak for myself; it is very hard to make ends meet. . . . All the others have other professions. Franco Bondi is a psychologist, sociologist. And Rafik Schami made a lot of money with his fairy tales, but he is a chemist, a doctor of chemistry. That is, . . . I am the only one with a doctorate etc. but who really kept with writing. The delicate financial situation of many authors makes for an unequal relationship with the ‘hand-that-feeds’, the publisher. From the publishers’ perspective, author relations appear to be one of the most unproblematic aspects of their business. With regards to list building, most publishers are engaged in both reactive acquisition (in response to author and agent submissions) and proactive commissioning. Literary agents are also important, in particular with respect to accessing larger publishers such as Penguin or Random House.3 However, seen from the author point of view, the relationship is not that straightforward: it is generally a chicken-and-egg situation where an author is under contract only upon being successful but often requires a contract in order to be published and get into the public eye. Moreover, as with Scheinhardt and other authors in the past (Coser, 1975), the instability of the publishing industry causes great unease among the primary producers, authors and editorial staff who find it unsettling to see their creative and business relationships arbitrarily changed, and find it distasteful to be ‘bought and sold’, without consultation by businesspeople. It is for this reason that in the United Kingdom particularly writers increasingly seek the contractual right to follow a trusted editor should they change publishing houses. One more important point needs to be raised with respect to the socioeconomic situation of authors, in particular regarding the British-German comparison. This point is also directly linked to the history of migration in both countries: the social class of immigrants originating from Southeast Asia, who for the most part also spoke


135

English when they arrived in Britain, versus the guest workers who migrated to Germany, who did not speak German upon arrival. This important difference flows directly from the discussion about education in Chapter 3 where, generally speaking, Asians in the United Kingdom were fluent in the national language and generally more highly educated than their Turkish migrant counterparts in Germany. It follows that this has a direct impact on the nature and availability of immigrant literature reaching the market and, critically, its reception. A number of interlocutors raised this point, and the Director for the Society for the Promotion of African, Asian and Latin American Literature in Frankfurt, encapsulated the dilemma particularly well: You have a much wider production scene from the United Kingdom in comparison to Germany. We [that is, Germany] have a fairly wide production scene, I mean many people writing. There are immigrants writing in Germany, but the majority of them don’t have any talent. They are second-class, third-class people with a so-called message. There are many who have not really overcome this thing of concern of this Gastarbeiterliteratur. If I think of Emine Özdamar or Sahila Scheinhardt and the likes, I can only say, bah, why is anybody publishing these women? They can’t write. While in the UK, it’s different. There are many more who have at least a certain sort of energy with telling a story. Whether the subjective point of talent is accurate is of little concern or consequence here. What is important, however, is that a highranking professional of the German literary industry, who is directly involved in the promotion of world literature in Germany, feels comfortable enough to make such a statement. This says much about the perception of the industry and readers in Germany, and the barriers that need to be overcome. It is important to outline how this perhaps ‘elitist’ view is reflected in the publishing industry, that is, by the gatekeepers of German literature who decide what and who gets published, which, in turn, affects the type of literature reaching the market. This issue will be further discussed in Section 2.1.2. The other side of the economic coin needs to first be examined, and so we consider the socioeconomic situation of literature’s consumers, the readers, which reveals a much less clear picture.


1.3 Literary consumers (readers) Whilst the socioeconomic situation of authors reveals a power imbalance in favour of the publishers which in turn can act as a barrier to entry for immigrant literature authors, examining the socioeconomic situation of readers generates a much more fuzzy picture. Both the United Kingdom and Germany have highly literate populations, and although the competition for consumer spending has become increasingly varied and intense in recent years, the proportion of leisure expenditure devoted to books has held fairly steady at about 0.35 percent of gross domestic product for the United Kingdom and 0.42 percent in Germany (the Publishers Association, quoted in the Bookseller Association, 2005). In the United Kingdom, available data on book buying and book reading habits suggests that up to 45 percent of the population buy few, if any, books and that around 25 percent of the adult population reads very little or not at all (BML, 2005). Most adults are relatively pleased with their current level of book buying, and few have a real desire to buy more at present. However, crucially, many adults would start to increase their purchases under the right circumstances (BML, 2005). For example, ethnic minorities find that bookshops (in the United Kingdom, at least) do not adequately serve their needs and could carry more British-ethnic related book sections (based on Penguin-sponsored research on ethnic minority readers). Figure 4.1 illustrates consumer book expenditures (all books where fiction represents but a section) over the period 1995–1997 by European Union (EU) member state and shows that Germany and the United Kingdom had the highest spending. Whilst, in most cases, it is impossible to determine who the readers are exactly, 4 it seems clear that most of the readership is not largely based on ethnic origin. In the United Kingdom, partly given the huge success of British-Asian fiction in recent years, the multinational nature of publishing and the language of publication, novels such as Small Island, White Teeth, Brick Lane, Transmission, and Shalimar the Clown have large market appeal and are read across ethnic groups, the caveat being that one must be inclined to read in the first place. For example, ACE Literature Director noted that: [Readership] with somebody like Rushdie it is very broad. With somebody like Zadie Smith it is very broad, [like] Harry [Kunzru],


9000 8000

137

-1995 -1996

7000 6000

-1997

5000 4000

UK

Finland

Sweden

Portugal

Austria

Netherlands

Luxemburg

Italy

Ireland

France

Spain

Greece

Germany

Denmark

Belgium

3000 2000 1000 0

Figure 4.1 Consumer book expenditures 1995–1997 (millions Euro); Source: EC (2000).

it is broad, because they have been brought out by mainstream publishers. They have been sold through the mainstream bookshops. So, it is a broader audience. In Germany, immigrant authors have generally much less market appeal since, first, most immigrant author works are published by smaller boutique publishers and, second, German-Turks have a much harder time with the German language, hence this group of readers is generally left out. The language dilemma also trickles down to the level of librarians who, despite attempting to reach German-Turkish readers, have a difficult time and must focus on more ‘general’ and perhaps practical literature: When I buy, I always have to think of books for simple people, but there are none because simple people do not learn from reading, but from living. That is the problem. I think there is also a link, that simple people are, of course, forced to learn more German and read these simple books in German, of course. But in fact they do not know German well enough to read a book. (Interview with German policy maker) Hence, two main points come out as important: first, there is a much broader audience in the United Kingdom than in Germany, in large part because of the market size for British-Asian literature


and publishers interested in this literature. That is not the case in Germany, where publishing still views Turkish-German literature as marginal. Second, language and literacy are crucial in reaching ethnic minority readers. The link between immigrant literature and literacy, in particular for Germany, was discussed in detail in Chapter 3 and was found to be positively correlated, where the introduction of immigrant literature in schools could help increase language achievement among pupils.

1.4 Summary There is a clear, strong and symbiotic link between culture and the economy via the cultural industries. The production of cultural artefacts, including books, movies, music and paintings, among others, employs a large quantity of people (many of whom are highly skilled), is truly global in nature and represents about 7 percent of the world’s gross domestic product (UNESCO, 2005). Moreover, cultural industries influence other aspects of the economy, including the media, trade and retail sectors. Turning to the literary industry and the producers of literature specifically, one notes their overall high education and skills, but also the general economic precariousness of their existence, except those rare few fortunate enough to be successful on an international scale. This economic reality influences the relationship that authors have with the publishing industry; the latter has the upper-hand in the resulting power imbalance and represents a barrier to entry for aspiring immigrant literature authors and their works. This, as we shall see, is directly linked to market penetration and, to a lesser extent, to the generally restrictive white, upper-middle-class nature of the publishing industry. The relationship between authors and the publishing industry affects the actual literature that is commissioned and requires, for most authors, secondary employment. Publishers may be the most vital element in the immigrant literature and national integration link; the very publishing of this literature is a precondition of any discussion on the topic. Finally, when comparing British and German producers and consumers, immigrant literature has potentially large market appeal, particularly in the United Kingdom where it is more often published by mainstream publishers in a language with


139

wide international appeal and, thus, increased market and profit margin potential.

2

The gatekeepers

Mass communications sociology developed the concept of ‘gatekeeper’ to refer to those whose role is selecting the type of information that the audience is to receive (Hall, 1979). A variety of persons and institutions have exercised gatekeeping functions at different historical periods and in different cultural constellations. Catholic clergy assumed this role in medieval times and, to a lesser degree, in the post-medieval period. Educational institutions, academies and learned societies, salons, coffee houses, the daily press, the modern mass media and many other institutions have occupied (and in many cases still do occupy) central positions that allow them to select between intellectual and cultural products and make decisions as to which product deserves sponsorship or is kept out of circulation and the public eye. Literary gatekeepers have a decisive role in influencing the reception of immigrant literature in the national (and at times international) environment. In fact, whilst the industry plays an important role in influencing the links between immigrant literature and economic integration, I discuss the key role that these gatekeepers— in particular the publishing industry—exert in linking immigrant literature and national integration altogether. 2.1

The publishing industry

Publishers stand at the intersection of the production and distribution of written culture and knowledge in society.5 The nature of the publishing industry has much to do with what kind of materials are published, and, of course, industry personnel, including editors, salespeople and marketing directors, all play a role in disseminating literary culture. Whether internationally, within Europe or at a national level in either Britain or Germany, there is a great deal of consolidation in the publishing industry, as firms attempt to reap economies of scale and scope in an unstable and increasingly competitive market. This has an important impact on the links between immigrant literature and national integration since the larger, more global publishing businesses are better able to expose


works—including immigrant literature—to the national and indeed international stage.

2.1.1 Multinational publishers The emergence of multinational media corporations transformed the structure of Europe’s book publishing industry in the second half of the twentieth century. Indeed, before World War II, book publishers were small, nationally based and mostly family or individuallyowned. Jumping to 1990, however, more than half of all book publishing in Europe—and particularly in Britain—was controlled by large, publicly owned, international companies (McGowan, 1995). This transformation now seems irreversible, at least in the short term, if only for the reason that it makes modern financial sense. The metamorphosis from independent publishing houses to large, multinational holdings was not spontaneous. Rather, as Graham (1995) argues, it was primarily the result of two outside forces: first, the revolution in ICT and, second, pressure from capital markets. The corporations that have grown dramatically are either based in an English-speaking country (such as the United Kingdom, the United States or Canada) or are businesses that have deliberately decided to branch out of their own language (for example, Germany’s Bertelsmann). The reach of the English language, both in terms of potential consumers and publication, also affects which novels actually reach readers. Of course, size in the publishing industry has both advantages and disadvantages, some of which are outlined below. Self-publishing, aided by desktop equipment, is common in the German context and relatively more successful than in the United Kingdom. Small publishers have the advantage that book publishing is a business of constant self-renewal, where each new title is a separate microventure. This is perhaps why the fiction industry may not always prosper under centralised and large-scale management. Book publishing as a division of a large corporation appears to prosper best with maximum decentralisation, when editors are able to build lists and recruit talented authors and publishers are content with the book as their chosen vehicle and do not see it merely as a sector within the larger information industry. Graham (1995) argues that the fastest


141

rate of growth within book publishing in the 1990s was not in corporations or groups but in new independent companies, many of them quite small. The prosperity of independent companies could also have been assisted by the rise of online retail channels such as Amazon, where publisher size matters less. Although somewhat debatable, the diversity of the German publishing industry, combined with the fact that it is one of the world’s top publishing nations, could be an illustration of these trends. At the same time, there are limitations to small-scale book publishing. Multinational corporations can provide—for example, through inter-trading among subsidiaries in many countries—novels with scope that a small, independent publisher cannot produce.6 Production and distribution are other areas where corporate management and financial discipline can be of benefit. Due to the wider availability of funds for major, capital-intensive investments (albeit with stringent financial checks), larger corporations have access to worldwide production facilities and sophisticated, expensive computer equipment. Corporations are also able to gain experience through their acquisition of different kinds of author lists, which can bring synergies or be transferred to other business divisions or other countries alike. All in all, it is clear that since businesses are by definition operating with the goal of making a profit, financial considerations are central to publishing decisions. Whilst some argue that given the uncertainties of the market and the fickleness of consumers it is easier to defend idiosyncratic decisions in publishing than in other organisational environments driven by more precise profit-and-loss considerations (Coser, 1975), it is increasingly true that publishers are placing more and more emphasis on best-selling books. For immigrant literature, this means that sensationalist books such as Ich klage an (Ali, 2005) or Fundamentalismus gegen Frauen (El Saadawi, 2002) may have a greater chance of being published than non-sensationalist literature: The motivation for general interest behind a sale is still there with some publishers, but there is more dominance when it comes also to immigrant literature. There is quite a high degree of sensationalism. . . . If somebody starts with saying the German notion of what kind of Islam the Turks are following is completely wrong; if you are saying that, especially as a woman, then you end up with


a contract for a book. If you are saying it strongly enough, maybe you have a ghost-writer; then you are in for some kind of career. (Interview with German policy maker; also Der Spiegel, 2005) In fact, ‘these [sensationalist] books are big sellers: Ich klage has sold 80,000 copies and more than 20,000 copies of Erstickt an euren Lügen have been sold in the first few weeks’ (Der Spiegel, pp. 118–119). Whatever the case, an important point is that, as Weidhaas (1995) argues, nowadays growth in this sector is the result of the adoption of new subject matter (for example, computer literature or, crucial and potentially, immigrant literature), and the merger and buyout activity discussed above. 2.1.2 German publishers Throughout its history, book publishing in Germany has been different from the trade that developed elsewhere. The structure of the German publishing industry exhibits its own particularities, and in the wake of reunification and indeed the near concurrent arrival of multinational publishing, it is again experiencing its own unique developments. It was in Germany that the letterpress using movable type was invented and began its advance across Europe. Over the centuries, the book fairs in Leipzig and Frankfurt have established Germany at the heart of the international book world, where it remains today. Despite the clear avant-garde nature of the German publishing industry and technology, it was not until the late eighteenth century that a real market structure for books, and in particular for novels, first emerged; this was some 100 years later than in Britain (Weidhaas, 1995). Today, although Germany is a leading publishing nation, the organisation and structure of its bookselling and publishing industry, perhaps surprisingly, have retained much of their traditional nature. As with other sectors of society in the immediate postwar period, it fell to the occupying forces to restructure the German book market. Although publishers who received the first licenses enjoyed a clear head start on rivals, a rich variety of publishers quickly developed. Today, a total of roughly 2000 publishers exist, including a wide variety of companies differing in size and market focus. Indeed, there are international ‘champion’ media corporations such as Bertelsmann,


143

with global turnover equal to that of the entire German retail book trade, and smaller publishing houses with strong literary traditions such as Suhrkamp or S. Fischer. It still remains, however, that the most typical characteristic of book publishing in Germany is its great diversity (Finlay and Taberner, 2002). The publishing community in Germany is still rich in its variety, including many small publishers and mini-presses who have ambitious literary lists, take great care in design and production and serve a loyal circle of customers (Weidhaas, 1995). Small publishers remain despite the strong trend towards worldwide concentration, perhaps because of Germany’s efficient and well-integrated dispatch service that enables bookstores to obtain overnight almost any book requested by their customers and, as mentioned above, the rise of Internet book retail. The boutique aspect of German publishing may also be the reason for the often-cited ‘elitist’ nature of publishing in Germany. Though perhaps decreasing in importance, the publishing and authoring industry in Germany is characterised by the notion that its members are engaged in a ‘gentlemanly calling’, a high cultural mission which should not be tainted by purely commercial considerations. The self-image of publishers, editorial directors and writers thus plays a part in their decision making, and therefore on the way immigrant literature is commissioned, sold and received. Indeed, in Germany: There is a distinct division between high culture and popular culture . . . high culture is not meant to be entertaining, and it’s serious, it’s challenging. And that’s another reason why some Turkish writers would be just disregarded because they were just writing to the popular culture, so they won’t be taken seriously, and I think that remains the difference [to the United Kingdom] . . . That’s one of the reasons why [German-Turkish] writers don’t get read, or taken seriously . . . because they’re not writing what is considered weighty German literature. (Interview with academic in the field of German studies) This collective self-image within the German publishing industry in turn depends on the reference group publishers have chosen for themselves. For some, the feedback coming from shareholders


is a decisive consideration (for example, for publishers at Bertelsmann or, in the United Kingdom, Penguin); for others, it may be the opinion of reviewers in certain elite publications; for other actors still, it may be their standing in the social circles of Berlin or London. It stands to reason that such points of reference are not chosen at will, but depend, at least in part, on structural characteristics. To put it plainly: the fact that many publishers in Germany are small may increase the propensity and occurrence of elitism. Hence, despite the perhaps intuitive view that boutique publishers may be more prone to publishing immigrant literature, the example of the German industry tends to point in the opposite direction: the restrictiveness of these small publishers limits the potential access of German-Turkish literature to the market, and hence to readers. That said, one must not overestimate the reach of smaller publishers in Germany, or underestimate that of the multinational publishers. As in most big publishing markets, the real business belongs to the corporate giants. It is not surprising therefore that many large German publishers take international publishing for granted, and coproduction with foreign companies is the norm (Weidhaas, 1995). Nonetheless, even large companies continue to perceive their domain as the German-language market and, unlike their British counterparts, rarely plan books with a view to selling them internationally. In recent years, licensed editions have appeared from the AngloAmerican sector, and a quick visit to a German bookstore reveals the impact of the English-language book industry on Germany. This impact is not only with respect to the number of books translated from English, but also with the advertising style: when publishers pay high license fees for books, they undertake marketing more associated with that for ‘normal’ consumer goods. Consequently, German publishers—especially the larger ones—are gradually becoming more accustomed to this approach. These ‘big business’ developments in the German publishing industry impacts the way in which German-Turkish literature is received by the German market and readers. Whilst the current boutique environment challenges German-Turkish authors’ access to the literary market, the industry’s reaction to international market pressures may force a certain diversification of novels published, including more German-Turkish novels in the process.


145

2.1.3 British publishers Regarded historically, characteristics of the British publishing industry include a substantial home base for literature, given the prosperous population; a high proportion of export sales, in particular to countries with links to the former British empire and its educational system; a diverse product mix in consumer publishing for both adults and children; the openness of its educational, professional and research market segments on which its specialist output depends; and the industry’s interconnectedness with other Englishlanguage (McGowan, 1995) and international markets. These factors have not and do not remain constant, their interplay contributing to the development of, and changes to, the British publishing trade.7 Consistent with the international changes discussed above, one of the major phenomena to mark the British publishing industry from the late 1980s and early 1990s onwards was the series of mergers and acquisitions that contributed to the rise of conglomerates which, together with a small number of major independent publishers, now account for an increasing proportion of total market turnover. For the year 2002–2003, the Office for National Statistics (2005) estimated the number of British publishers at 2275. Whilst no one company commands more than 10 percent of the United Kingdom book publishing market as a whole, in almost all important sectors the top-ten companies now control upwards of 65 percent of the market. Critically, however, in the case of works of fiction, the control increases to 90 percent (Hampson and Richardson, 2004). As mentioned above, it is a gross oversimplification to regard the big publishing corporations as enemies of creativity. However, it is an interesting, if unscientific, indicator that over the 35-year period that the Booker Prize (now the Man Booker) has been awarded, the two most consistent producers of short-listed titles have been the independent publishers Faber & Faber and Jonathan Cape.8 The fact that so much buying power, whether in terms of authors’ monetary advances, marketing spending and the ability to acquire limited display space in retail shops, is concentrated in the hands of half a dozen major companies is bound to have an impact on the performance of smaller competitors in the market and, in particular, on the diversity of literature being published. Whilst there has been a substantial increase in the number of titles published in the United Kingdom over the last half century, from around 40,000 to 128,000,


this growth has been uneven across genres. About half of the new titles published in 2003 were academic, professional and scientific, and much of the growth has been in that sector. Fiction has grown much slower in the last five years, as the industry focuses increasingly on lead titles. In fact, the category of literature and poetry has declined by 5 percent in volume in recent years. Indeed, according to Nielsen BookScan this category represents only 1.2 percent of the total United Kingdom consumer market by volume. Moreover, it is a sector heavily dependent on already existing, or so-called backlist, titles (for example, Shakespeare, Chaucer, Homer and Larkin all feature in the top-ten authors by annual sales), with new titles accounting for only a quarter of sales (quoted in Hampson and Richardson, 2004). Of course, this is not to say the context for immigrant literature in the United Kingdom is gloomy. Immigrant literature is a market expander and is viewed as such by much of the publishing industry in the United Kingdom. Hence, when a niche such as immigrant literature resonates in the market and looks to become successful, the larger publication houses will take notice and act on the trend: When I’m thinking about this I would say that [at] Penguin, [immigrant] authors are all published within the mainstream of Penguin, they’re absolutely not published as niche writers at all. They’re published in the kind of literary mainstream . . . So Rushdie, Zadie Smith, Hari Kunzru have all been published as kind of in the mainstream of our publishing. (Interview with British publisher) On the whole, given the larger volume of immigrant literature published in the United Kingdom in the last decade and the relative success of this literature in the British (and indeed international) market, the lack of small publishers in comparison to that seen in Germany does not appear to have harmed the development of immigrant literature in Britain. In fact, in direct contrast to the United Kingdom, the prevalence of small publishers in Germany may be one of the reasons why immigrant authors have had difficulty breaking into the German literary market.


2.2

147

Book retailing

The second group of important gatekeepers to immigrant literature is book retailers. Given the previous sections, it may come as no surprise that the balance of power has arguably shifted away from publishers in favour of retailers with the advent of book ‘superstores’ such as Thalia and Waterstone’s, ‘big box’ giants like Asda and Tesco and Internet retailers such as Amazon. Hence, the commercial availability of books has important consequences both for specific authors and for the wider intellectual and cultural community. Surprisingly, this appears to have gone largely unnoticed in academic research, with more research being devoted to the impact of publishers than that of retailers. Crucially, in the book publishing subset of the publishing industry, Germany and the United Kingdom were among the world’s largest exporters and importers of books, which gives an indication of the importance of this industry in both countries. Tables 4.1 and 4.2 outline the international export and import of books by largest importers and exporters, respectively. Given the sheer size of the book publishing segment of the cultural industry and immigrant literature’s potential to form an increasingly larger part of it, it can be said that books and the business units creating, producing, distributing, marketing and retailing them play an economically significant role and thus have direct implications on the relation between immigrant literature and economic integration, particularly with respect to market penetration and reaching a larger number of readers. 2.2.1 The British book market Other than mergers and acquisitions in the British publishing industry, the greatest single industry-wide change, which started in the late 1980s and early 1990s and is still being felt today, is the rise of large-scale retail outlets for books. Before the arrival of these chains, bookselling had the somewhat simple image of being a mere servant to the publishing industry (McGowan, 1995). From 1982 onwards, with the opening of the first Waterstone’s, the scene changed dramatically as large-scale outlets spread into the major shopping cities in the United Kingdom, offering attractively fitted shops, long business

148

Table 4.1 International export of books (all books) by largest exporters Books Rank

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Exports

Million US $ in 2002

Share

All available countries Sub-total for five countries

10,835.0 6,189.5

100 57.1

United States of America United Kingdom Germany Spain France Italy China Canada Belgium Singapore Hong Kong, China Netherlands Russian Federation Switzerland Mexico Denmark Japan Sweden Ireland Malaysia

1, 921.4 1, 805.7 1, 257.8 686.0 518.5 510.3 409.1 396.0 362.1 349.9 258.4 253.7 240.2 147.2 119.6 110.7 107.5 95.4 93.8 93.1

17.7 16.7 11.6 6.3 4.8 4.7 3.8 3.7 3.3 3.2 2.4 2.3 2.2 1.4 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9

Notes: a 1999/2002; b 1996/2002. Source: UNESCO (2005).

2001/2002 % change in $ value

−3.3 7.0 8.8 −3.7 −0.8 −0.9 17.0 −1.5 −1.5 −4.9 −3.9 2.1 −5.8 10.6 −0.2 8.2 −5.7 18.9 −7.2 8.7

Average annual % change (1994/2002)

0.4 2.5 4.8 5.0 −0.6 1.1 25.3 10.6 −2.6a −0.1 −3.7 −2.2 −1.4b −4.5 5.6 −1.3 −7.6 2.3 7.0 9.1

Table 4.2 International import of books (all books) by largest importers Books Rank

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Imports

Million US $ in 2002

Share

All available countries Sub-total for five countries

11,738.0 5,555.0

100 47.3

United States of America United Kingdom Canada Germany France Hong Kong, China Mexico Switzerland Japan Belgium Australia Austria Italy Netherlands Singapore Spain Ireland Sweden Republic of Korea Denmark

2, 090.0 1, 272.8 1, 019.3 631.6 541.3 472.7 414.5 402.3 329.8 363.4 307.6 258.5 231.5 230.7 199.2 196.4 153.0 148.8 120.5 115.1

17.8 10.8 8.7 5.4 4.6 4.0 3.5 3.4 2.8 3.1 2.6 2.2 2.0 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.0

2.2 13.3 6.3 −3.6 −4.4 5.9 2.3 2.9 2.0 −0.1 5.2 −17.0 9.4 −5.6 −0.6 17.4 4.1 0.3 2.6 −1.0

Average annual % change (1994/2002)

8.0 2.2 −5.1 8.7 5.4 −7.2 −5.5 7.2 −10.0 −5.1a −0.3 57.4 6.5 3.8 2.8 22.1 −9.6 −4.1 −8.8 15.6 149

Note: a 1999/2002. Source: UNESCO (2005).

2001/2002 % change in $ value


hours, pleasant atmospheres, author events and, above all, a wide range of books purchased in large quantities. Given their popularity and the publishers’ need to obtain exposure in these popular chains, it is not surprising that the balance of power swung palpably in favour of the big booksellers. A recent (2004) example of the increasing market control of retail outlets is provided by Waterstone’s announcement that it would close all direct accounts with publishers worth less than £10,000 per year and divert such business through their preferred wholesaler (Hampson and Richardson, 2004), thus clearly disadvantaging small boutique publishers. There is also the more recent trend of increased competition from nonspecialised retailers such as Tesco and Asda. Whilst larger retailers are arguably well equipped to face this competition, traditional bookstores now face a situation where they themselves may be better off purchasing books from their local Tesco rather than from the publisher or wholesaler (The Times, 19 July 2007a). Perhaps just as with the arrival of the large bookshop in the 1980s, Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury’s and other large supermarket chains will once again alter book distribution and market flows. The situation might not be all bad for immigrant literature. Research shows that ethnic minorities believe that they are not well served by many traditional book outlets and large-scale retailers such as W. H. Smith and Borders (PTI, 2003). Moreover, for the general public (including minorities), improving access to books is seen as beneficial to expanding readership. Potential readers express that if supermarkets had a better selection they would be a convenient place to buy books (BML, 2005; also Hampson and Richardson, 2004). Considering the example of Tesco, which revolutionised the British food retail industry by tailoring the content of its stores to the surrounding neighbourhood, including those with ethnic populations (The Economist, 21 June 2007), there is reason to believe that book retailing could follow a similar model. In fact, there is already a clear move in this direction: Sainsbury’s has set an ambitious growth target of a double-digit sales uplift across the chain over the next 12 months. By the end of April 2009, the retailer will be more than doubling the number of branches with its ‘buy two for £5’ paperback offer. It currently runs the offer in 85 stores but this will be increased to 183 (The Bookseller, 17 April 2009).


151

However, for authors, this situation probably does mean a more difficult time accessing the book market since it results in increased pressure for even larger quantities of books and, in turn, increases the demand on publishers for best-selling (and, at times, sensationalist) novels. In fact, whilst the popularity or success of an author at a bookstore chain such as Waterstone’s may be felt directly by the author in financial terms, he or she can have little influence on the matter. Whatever the case, the difficulty for publishers, let alone authors, in exerting control over book outlets is clear. The notion of retailers serving publishers is an outdated concept, certainly in the United Kingdom and increasingly in Germany. Nonetheless, even though large retail outlets and ‘big box’ superstores may be beyond influence, it does not necessarily mean they will only carry best sellers. Should the trend increase whereby such retailers do carry immigrant literature (and some already do, given the existence of mainstream immigrant authors in the United Kingdom), any impact of this literature on integration would increase. A vicious cycle ensues, the issue being what or who makes a book a success in the first place. I posit that large publishers most influence this ‘decision’, because they primarily conduct the all-important marketing and sometimes necessary ‘hype’ of a book. That is, publishers remain the most important gatekeepers from which immigrant literature needs to gain entry. 2.2.2 The German book market The situation for book retailing in Germany is not appreciably different from that in the United Kingdom. Large retail outlets are common, and they control much of the market. Similar to Britain, the process of change in the German book market is most apparent in retailing. Large chain stores such as Thalia do particularly well in big cities, demonstrating the experts’ vision of the future bookseller: precise market insight and orientation, rationalisation, cross-selling with other types of products and the ‘recreational bookshop’ spread over large areas located in the heart of town. A German publisher summarises the evolution of German book retailing particularly well: The big problem here is that the whole thing is to a certain extent being controlled and dominated . . . It is increasingly the


case because we are taking on the American system, for example, that is already underway at Thalia . . . And this whole story that is currently taking place, whereby publishers run to those big boxes and ask: “are you on board? Then we will make this book”. That is how it works in the USA and this development leaves little space for other literatures . . . so, partly, it has to do with the concentration process, right? You have to look at it from this perspective, the changes that are underway in this [the German] book market. As in the United Kingdom, retail sales of books in Germany are concentrated among a few companies and in similar proportion to the publishing industry: 10.4 percent of a total of approximately 4000 bookstores earn 63.4 percent of the aggregate national turnover (Weidhaas, 1995). Yet many smaller retail shops do survive, particularly in small centres, and owe part of their survival to the dense national dispatch service, which enables booksellers even in rural areas to obtain almost any book required by a reader the next day. It should be mentioned, however, that this excellent distribution system for books also benefits larger stores. Although the same Tesco-like trend of laying waste to smaller bookstores has not yet emerged in Germany to the extent seen in the United Kingdom, it is likely to be only a matter of time. Intuitively, fixed book prices may be thought to support smaller firms but on balance seem to have little effect (Ringstad, 2004). In spite of this, however, the trade press repeatedly reports closures, buyouts, acquisitions and bankruptcies among small and, increasingly, medium-size firms, at the same time that new, large-scale outlets are opening (Weidhaas, 1995). As in the United Kingdom, the retail book trade in Germany overall began in recent years to lose sales to other channels, including book clubs, Internet-only retailers and department and nonspecialist stores. As a result, there is potential for increased literary diversity in the German fiction industry, given the boutique nature of German publishing, the excellence of its distribution network and the enabling possibilities of Internet retailing. However, the key challenge is that German-Turkish literature is not treated seriously in Germany; it simply does not have the degree of market penetration that British-Asian literature has in the United Kingdom. As a result, any catalytic impact


153

of German-Turkish literature in the German environment will be significantly less than its counterpart in the United Kingdom. 2.3

Public institutions (via literary prizes)

The last of the three gatekeepers examined—public institutions— certainly has a lesser role to play regarding immigrant literature’s access to markets than retailers and publishers. Accordingly, it will be discussed only briefly here, but recall the detailed discussion of government intervention in the cultural realm in Chapter 2. The impact and intervention of public institutions influence the level of diversity in both the production of books and their resulting readership. In both Germany and the United Kingdom a variety of subsidies is in place to encourage national literature. One central aspect particularly pertinent to the link between immigrant literature and economic integration is state support in the form of literary prizes and their impact on the course of an author’s career as well as the market’s reception to his or her work. Literary prizes range from the very well known (for example, Man Booker, Ingeborg Bachmann Prize) to the obscure (for example, Nelly Sachs Prize). Authors and publishers generally covet these prizes since they can significantly raise profiles, boost book sales and enhance career development and prospects. Different schools of thought exist about the impact of such prizes; there is general agreement about their overall positive benefit, but some disagree about the degree and importance of this impact. Just as the size of a publisher may matter in the publishing of a book, so does the reputation and ‘recognisability’ of a prize. Wellknown prizes such as the Man Booker Prize, the Nobel Prize for Literature, the Orange Prize for Fiction and the Whitbread (now Costa) have a demonstrable market effect with respect to increased sales, sometimes overnight. The prizes are also a mechanism for generating publicity; for example, Costa would need to spend millions of pounds in advertising to garner the same amount of name recognition brought by the prize bearing its name (Hughes, 2006). For the most part, such attempts at publicity seem to work. Indeed, in the fortnight or so after the 2006 short list was announced, Hermione Lee, chair of the Booker judges, remarked that she had a hard time ‘finding the [short-listed] books in the big bookstores, as did other people . . . in different parts of the country’ (Lee, 14 October


2006); they were sold out, and publishers were taken by surprise and therefore late in delivering reprints. Other prizes, such as the Decibel, the Commonwealth and the Heinrich Mann, have less of a measurable effect on book sales but are nonetheless sought after since they can propel the career of the winning author, especially in the longer term. Such a prize might not transform a 5000-copy book into a 500,000-copy best seller, but— especially with younger writers—the prize can put authors on a more secure footing and increase their bargaining power with agents and publishers. There is ‘a kind of nexus between publish[ers], bookshops and media. They will pick up the Commonwealth prize-winners and very often the book stands a better chance of being perhaps repackaged by a mainstream publisher’ (Interview with British-Asian author). For the immigrant literature link with integration the potential benefits of winning literary prizes are arguably more important than creating best sellers since they serve to increase the number of authors accessing the market with greater financial security, who in turn ‘pave the way’ for others. Note the following examples from authors:

As mentioned, this 1st literature prize in 1985, after that the publicity on television etc. and then the publisher took notice of me. (Interview with German-Turkish author) It was called the Munich literature year. A book from a new writer would always be presented, so I received a ‘first book’ prize. This was in 1984 with my poetry book ‘Electric Blue’. Back then, I received 12,000DM, which is naturally a great deal of money for a student. It gave me courage and I thought: ‘Ah ha, you can also make money with this’. (Interview with German-Turkish author) In 1999 I came in second in the [IN] competition, which wasn’t the big Scottish one at that point. . . . And then, the publisher published the short stories that were short listed . . . for that prize, that second prize, was at the event, and she [the publisher] said to me, ‘Do you have any other stuff?’ and I said, ‘Yes. I’ve got a drawer full’. So she said, ‘Send me’ . . . And I was working on what would become Psychoraag. (Interview with British-Asian author)


155

Importantly, the United Kingdom and Germany have both developed literary prizes focussing on ethnic minorities: the Decibel Prize and the Adalbert von Chamisso Preis, respectively. Whilst there is debate about whether such typecasting and pigeonholing is positive or negative for the integration process, on balance the impact with respect to economic integration specifically is positive. Above and beyond career development, such prizes increase the visibility of ethnic minority writers to publishing houses, the key literary gatekeepers. For example, the Decibel Prize is co-financed by Penguin, one of Britain’s largest publishers, which is continually on the watch for authors that it believes will increase its competitiveness and market share. In fact, the co-financing of this prize by an important publisher together with the Arts Council of England is a mutually beneficial arrangement: What they [ACE] are is a fantastic resource; they’re very supportive; they’ve got money to support the right kind of project. There are quite a lot of hoops you have to jump through in order to get the money out of them, but I guess that’s just the public sector probably the world over, and the process can be quite lengthy. But, undoubtedly, we couldn’t have afforded to do this prize without their support. There’s no money in this at the moment. I guess the payback would be if you find the next Zadie Smith in the pile. In a sense, if you do, it’s not like we’d get them on the cheap, it’s just that you would find them, and they would then be there, and out in the market. (Interview with British publisher) The impact of prizes on the literary industry is both clearly visible and lasting. The most important aspect for the immigrant literature– economic integration link is with respect to sales and the affected authors’ career development. 2.4

Summary

I have highlighted a number of important points about how the relationship between the literary industry and economic integration is affected. I also underlined how the literary gatekeepers (and the market access they bring) may be the single most important aspect of the relationship between immigrant literature and national integration.


Book publishing remains one of the largest sectors of the cultural industry as evidenced by the sheer size and volume of the international and national book trades. In addition to this backdrop, there are some other longer-term trends worthy of mention. The first is the increasing concentration and bifurcation of production: the industry is becoming increasingly polarised between a small number of very large corporate publishers and a pool of much smaller operators. In between these two poles are medium-sized businesses, some with a long and distinguished publishing history, but many of them are being nudged into one of the two groups. These structural considerations, especially the size of the publishing firm, play a determining role in who accesses the industry, and what type of literature is published. It stands to reason that a large publishing house can better afford to experiment with a number of titles, even in one specialised area, without the assurance that all or even a majority of the titles will do well. In contrast, smaller houses must exercise greater care to avoid being saddled with too many failures. However, at the same time, smaller houses and, more particularly, newcomers may be more alert to new trends in the hope of out-manoeuvring the larger or more traditional publishing houses by introducing new authors or fields not yet pre-empted by the big competitors. In the general result, contrary to the current thinking that makes a virtue of small size, larger publishing houses may be more inclined and able to innovate. Crucially, growth in the publishing sector is generally the outcome of either adopting new subject matter or through corporate mergers and acquisitions. With respect to industry access, barriers exist for authors who are not self-sufficient. This may be particularly potent where German immigrant literature authors are concerned, since they and their genre tend to be perceived as inferior and do not reach a large market. This perception creates a conflict in that these authors may be tempted to adopt a writing style that is more stereotypical in order to please publisher market requirements and appeal to a larger audience. Overall, it is much more difficult for German-Turkish authors to access the literary market than for British-Asian authors; German-Turkish literature is viewed as marginal with commensurate little market interest, whilst British-Asian literature is a clear market expander and, as a, catalyst for economic integration.


157

The economics of modern bookselling make it more and more important for publishers to have best-selling books on their lists since even a well-known author is no guarantee of profits. The temptation to ignore new fiction and commission fiction-cum-film script (for example, Jaws and The Da Vinci Code) is on the increase. For immigrant literature, this often means that sensationalist books (often ethnic- or religious-related) are more likely to be published over lowkey, superior-quality works of fiction. Indeed, in the German context at least, all authors interviewed had been asked to write such a book, though none accepted. As gatekeepers of literature, public institutions have less impact on the link between immigrant literature and economic integration than either retailers or publishers. Nonetheless, their impact is felt, especially with respect to influencing literary production on the reception side by supporting literary prizes. Whilst public institutions’ budgets may be low in comparison to those of multinational publishers, they are important in terms of enhancing author profiles and ensuring the presence of literary diversity. Though not to be overemphasised, this is important since public institutions in many countries—Germany and the United Kingdom among them— promulgate prizes specifically geared towards immigrant literature and its authors.

3

Influencing factors

A number of factors need to be considered for their impact on the link between immigrant literature and economic integration. I have already pointed to some, including the role of ICT in altering the structure of the publishing industry and bringing literature to more readers. Other factors should be considered. For example, libraries also play a role as venues for the dissemination of information and literary culture. The media and word of mouth can also encourage or discourage book sales at any phase of the process. Finally, book fairs and other literary events are also important in influencing the link between immigrant literature and economic integration since they create trends and increase the presence and visibility of the author on the market.


3.1 Information communication technologies When the Frankfurt Book Fair announced in 1992 that ‘Frankfurt Goes Electronic’ it was a call to the international book trade to face the consequences of technological change. In the publishing industries, ICT equipment is used primarily to improve productivity, reduce cost or substitute for large amounts of paper-based production. Although ICT saved money in the 1970s and 1980s, new uses today are not designed for cost savings alone (EC, 2000), but rather to expand market reach and increase competitiveness. More specifically, most ICT now being implemented increase the speed and flexibility of printing operations (for example, digitalised production) and facilitate online activities (for example, retail). As previously discussed, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, many book buyers and booksellers presumed that the book format would progressively decline as the major vehicle for the communication of knowledge, learning, information and entertainment (Graham, 1995). This presumption turned out to be wrong, at least where book publishing was concerned. Indeed, whilst electronic publishing formats have been most successful in news reporting and magazines, electronic books have not been utilised to the extent that was initially predicted (Datamonitor, 2005a; 2005b). However, there are signs that this segment of the market might yet develop since, for example, the 2004 E4Books conference witnessed great interest on the part of independent publishers in general, and the Independent Publishers Guild in particular, in developing its potential (Hampson and Richardson, 2004). What is more, there are indications that European publishers are keeping a close eye on ‘book tablets’ (essentially handheld electronic books) already available in some markets (EC, 2000). Finally, Google’s aim to create a universal digital library, making as many books as possible available online, appears to be well under way (The Guardian, 10 March 2007; see also www.books.google.com). Whatever the case, the single greatest impact of ICT on the industry to date is, without a doubt, in book retailing. Online bookselling has stormed the market and harmed ‘bricks and mortar’ sales; indeed, books have proven to be the single most commonly traded item on the Internet in recent years (EC, 2000). The Internet has offered a direct channel to the consumer, although it is a medium of supply that has shown itself best suited to higher-priced specialist books, perhaps since distribution outlets tend to stock books that appeal to


159

the greatest numbers of people. Distribution of such sales overwhelmingly relies on national post or courier services but still represents a meaningful way to market and sell to consumers outside of the traditional retail channels. In order to remain competitive in the long run, publishers will have to continue exploring the possibilities of other ICT products that enhance and operate parallel to the traditional publishing base. Whilst the retailing of books is by now well-established online, electronic publication is in its infancy. What is clear, however, is that the potential impact of this technological development cannot be ignored and, indeed, perhaps should be embraced. Following a visit to the Frankfurt Book Fair, Stephen Page, former president of the United Kingdom Publishers Association, outlined the situation with respect to ICT use in the publishing industry quite well: I do not believe that the much-heralded disappearance of the book will happen soon. The history of technology simply doesn’t work like that. We will have roll-up books, books on Palm organisers and iPods, mobile phones and PCs. But that is no reason to think that the parallel technology of books on paper will not continue. Also, new technology often reawakens old technology . . . The important point for writers and publishers is that it will not be possible to separate these worlds. Online marketing of physical books will have to include the use of content. Content sales online will spin off physical books and vice versa—and this will go on for a long time. (The Guardian, 3 March 2007) All in all, the impact of ICT developments is hard to assess and is ever evolving. Online publication is likely to have implications for authors and publishers for whom copyright is an important means of economic survival; however, on the positive side, books should also be made more readily available and searchable, thus expanding readership. For the industry as a whole, ICT developments could expand the market by creating new forms of publishing and making the purchase of novels across national borders easier to manage. 3.2

Libraries

It is a strange if not surprising to note that publishers and librarians frequently fail to recognise their interdependency. Indeed, if


publishers are the gatekeepers of literature and information, then librarians are a gateway; they support a significant portion of publishers’ output; they buy, organise, quasi-market, preserve, store and disseminate information and literature. Through their work, ideas are made available, affordable and accessible. How librarians perform these functions affects the social, cultural, economic, educational and political fabric of society (Schumann, 1995). Some might even consider publicly funded libraries a form of indirect subsidy for the literary industry. In both Germany and the United Kingdom, librarians work in schools and public, academic and special libraries; publishers work in private sectors and not-for-profit organisations (for example, trade, journal, professional, electronic, textbook, university press and mass market paperback). Despite this diversity, some commonalities of mission and self-interest should mandate mutually supportive collaborations between librarians and publishers. However, neither communication nor collaboration is the current norm. Both professions are frequently unaware of the methodologies, economics, concerns and policies of the other. Relations between libraries and publishing communities are often strained and sometimes nonexistent. In fact, it is fair to say that librarians are often an invisible market to publishers since most libraries purchase through wholesalers rather than directly from publishers. Libraries are not the market that can ‘make or break’ potential best-sellers but are steady and reliable customers. Most library sales are final, and returns are negligible. Much to their annoyance, libraries receive substantially lower discounts than bookstores, despite extensive multiple purchases. In many respects, publishers do not appear to give libraries a second thought:

The history of it has been that I think libraries have tended to be the poor partner. But publishers don’t really care that much about the book sales to libraries and it’s not such a significant percentage. I can’t bring it to mind now, but it’s not great. So, that isn’t a driver for them. They know that there’s no business to be lost. We’re always going to be buying the stuff anyway. So, we [librarians] have always been setting ourselves up against bookshops really. (Interview with British policy maker)


161

Some conceived ideas should be dispelled: first, any image of the library user as a relentless bookworm is mistaken. Research shows that those who use the library are frequently active in community life (Hall, 1979). Second, it is not the case that the use of libraries militates against the purchase of books in any simple way, because frequent users also tend to buy books. This is where the publishing industry fails to note a channel where influence over potential buyers could be exercised. A study of lending patterns would point towards potential market niches to explore; conversely, the introduction of new literature in libraries could serve as a testing ground for new literary trends. This is could be the case since library lending does not differ greatly from the nature of sales in bookshops; for example, United Kingdom Public Lending Right Data show that in 2005 and 2006 The Da Vinci Code and Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince were clear borrowing favourites in United Kingdom libraries (The Guardian, 10 February 2007) and topped sales charts those same years. All in all, as an influencing factor, it is clear that libraries could be a good and inexpensive venue for publishers and policy makers alike to introduce and spur immigrant literature. The library may be a particularly interesting setting for policy makers to pursue or at least develop if increased exposure of immigrant literature leads to increased cultural, social and economic integration.

3.3

The media and word of mouth

It is no surprise that the media, including literary critics, is an important factor in the success (or failure) of a book. It is perhaps surprising, however, that word of mouth is often cited as one of the most reliable means by which to promote a book. In fact, ‘literary writers command less reader loyalty, instead relying on word-of-mouth or prestigious prizes to promote individual titles’ (The Guardian, 10 February 2007). Literary critics have always believed that they have a substantial impact on the reception of a book. However, this is not always true, and their impact is arguably decreasing. Nevertheless, depending on the size and public profile of the publication in which critics review the book, as well as the stature of the reviewer, they can have some appreciable influence, particularly on book purchases and the introduction of new literary genres to segments of the population.


Generally speaking, whilst it is fair to say that literary critics do have an impact on the reception of books, this impact is somewhat mixed, debatable and tempered. That is to say, in order to reach a large number of potential readers, one might wish to turn to the mass medium par excellence: television. For example, television programmes such as ‘The Big Read’ and ‘Richard and Judy’ (as well as Oprah Winfrey’s show, which tends to influence book sales worldwide) have demonstrated that books promoted and discussed on television can reach a larger audience and that television can have a substantial positive effect on book sales (The Guardian, 3 March 2007). In fact, a Richard and Judy 2007 press release reports that between January 2004 and the end of May 2006 consumers purchased 10 million copies of the 30 books appearing on the Richard and Judy Book Club, spending over £58 million (Richard and Judy, 2007). The Richard and Judy Book Club also won the 2007 Bookseller HarperCollins Award for Expanding the Market for its ‘influential book review programme’, its responsibility for ‘titles shooting to number one on bestseller lists’, since it ‘kick-started authors’ careers’ and ‘encourages multiple book buying’ (www.thebookseller.com; accessed 17 August 2007). The importance of television for reaching a greater audience and increasing book sales is similar in Germany. See, for example, Figure 4.2, which details readership in Germany and illustrates that the most common source of information on novels comes from television, at 33 percent. It is somewhat puzzling that word of mouth accounted for only 15 percent of information sources on literature since personal contacts were cited as one of the most pertinent and influential means by which to promote literature. For example: In fact, it’s only word of mouth. If you do not have the money to spend, let’s say, huge amounts; and if you do not have the possibility or not the product or the author or anything to get him into . . . the real mass talk shows, you just depend on word of mouth. It’s like in cinema. You can have the big budget and the film can flop; and you have a low budget and it can fly high. And in the end, it always shows up that it’s the word of mouth that gets people to go to a movie. (Interview with German publisher)


163

Interest for literature by information source 33%

Television 25%

Magazines

24%

Newspapers 15%

Word of mouth Radio

12%

Internet CD-Rom

8% 3%

Figure 4.2 Interest for literature by information source. Source: www.stiftunglesen.de (2007).

Indeed, BML (2005) reports that personal recommendations are the most used and trusted source of advice on books. Public libraries are also trusted, as are bookshops, on the whole. Press reviews are a less influential source of information. Hence media clearly supports the introduction and promotion of literature. However, in order to reach a large number of potential readers, mass media outlets such as television might be required. It is unlikely that huge sums of money would be invested in mass media by the only two viable sources of such funds to promote immigrant literature: publishers (even large publishers) and policy makers. As such, should either or both of these actors consider an increase in immigrant literature on the market desirable, other means such as literary prizes or literary events that generate media coverage and word-of-mouth would be necessary to increase visibility.

3.4

Book fairs and other literary events

Large and small-scale literary events affect the link between literature (and immigrant literature, as its subset) and economic integration in that, in the case of large events such as the Frankfurt Book Fair, they create literary trends that resonate on the international scene. Even smaller events may influence sales and, perhaps more important, increase the public visibility of an author or authors.


Worthy of highlighting as an ideal type is the Frankfurt Book Fair, a unique international event and the most important of its kind. Once a year, it brings together vital actors involved in worldwide publishing: publishers, booksellers, librarians, financiers, marketing agencies, production houses, agents, authors, translators and journalists. More than 100,000 publications are presented annually and about 2400 publishers from more than 95 countries exhibit. Thousands of professionals attend to cultivate established connections and make new contacts, to negotiate and sign contracts, to discuss projects and to explore joint ventures and strategic partnerships (Weidhaas, 1995). At the outset, Frankfurt was purely a fair at which the domestic book market made its orders. But the fair rapidly expanded, with foreign publishers joining in, and today it is an international market for rights and licenses with ordering per se playing virtually no role. Parallel to its increasing significance as a marketplace, the Frankfurt Book Fair has also made a name for itself as a venue for promoting books and inspiring public debate about literature. With the introduction of themes such as Latin America, children’s books, Africa, India and, in 2008, Turkey, the fair achieved a higher profile in terms of content and political orientation. It is important to note here that these thematic focuses have a substantial impact worldwide and in Germany as well, where, perhaps as host country, they are felt the strongest. One concrete initiative to come out of the book fair has been, for example, the Society for the Promotion of African, Asian and Latin American Literature: The Frankfurt Book Fair people . . . felt that more should be done to encourage translations and to encourage also dissemination because there was a simple reason in saying that if you are involved in international relations, cultural factors are coming into play in any case . . . And you can learn about foreign cultures and how people perceive their own culture and the world around them also by reading fiction. (Interview with German policy maker) Since 1988, these themes have been altered so that they focus less on political or cultural-political issues. Now, individual countries


165

are invited to introduce their cultures and book markets. Crucially, as noted by T. Abraham, President of Penguin India, these themes continue to influence the world of literature far beyond Frankfurt itself. The point is not so much that an international literary event of the size of the Frankfurt Book Fair changes the course of literature; rather, the fair does (and other fairs generally, in proportion to their size and influence, do) substantially influence trends for at least one year. Fairs bring the latest literary trend(s) to the spotlight and give them a much needed push, sometimes influencing publishers and sale levels which can, in turn, assist in launching new authors or developing a literary genre and related markets. Whilst no single fair alone may be a ‘market mover’ on its own, the cumulative effect when combined with other marketing and smaller-scale author-led events—along with media coverage or word of mouth that results—can have a major impact. As a result, it quickly becomes clear that, in order to increase the visibility and impact of immigrant literature nationally, public institutions, publishers, retailers and others concerned with the reception of books would gain to exploit the more thematic fairs and promote literary tours. Here, large multinational publishers such as Random House, Bertelsmann or Penguin have a distinct financial advantage and potential for investment. 3.5

Summary

The influence of the four factors outlined above on the relation between immigrant literature and economic integration can be summarised as follows: First, ICT have played, and will continue to play, an important role in enhancing market reach and potential readership for books generally. Book retailing is strongly influenced by the Internet, and this influence will only increase in both the near- and longer-term future. There is no reason to believe that these factors will be any different for immigrant literature. If anything, the digitalisation and ‘searchability’ of books and the ability to bypass traditional retail channels will increase the accessibility of niche markets, including immigrant literature—or perhaps especially immigrant literature, given its transnational nature and potential appeal. Second, libraries are disregarded partners in the book business, ignoring the fact that book borrowers are proven book buyers and


often early-adopter and trendsetting book buyers. The publishing industry has made little use of this channel as a means to influence potential buyers. Libraries could be a worthwhile means by which to identify emerging literary and purchasing trends and thus test or research potential new markets. Third, the media has a strong influence on the literary industry, and the mass media in particular can still potentially ‘make or break’ a title. The influence of traditional literary critics has deceased as new sources of advice and guidance—such as Oprah Winfrey and Internet book reviews—enter the fray and reach a much larger audience. Whilst newspaper reviews may have a relatively lesser impact they are not negligible: a Zeit or Times reader may consult a book review and recommend the novel to friends or family. However, ample evidence suggests that word-of-mouth remains one of the best means by which to promote a book. Of course, there is no harm in utilising both the mass media and public word of mouth. Like all forms of literature, immigrant literature could similarly benefit from any such large-scale campaign, but cost implications dictate that any promotion of immigrant literature would be on a lesser scale. Hence, measures such as book fairs, smaller literary events and public intervention in the form of literary prizes may be the appropriate means by which to ensure as much media coverage and word of mouth as (affordably) possible. Indeed, fourth, the significance of the Frankfurt Book Fair deserves a special mention since it is the biggest and most influential book fair worldwide, especially for Britain and Germany. Its (and other fairs’) impact is with respect to creating trends in the industry—such as India in 2006 and Turkey in 2008. Fairs create a ‘buzz’ around a particular market and literary style, which in turn influences the writers and publishers involved. On a micro scale, author-led literary events bring authors out from behind the scenes and into the public eye. Although these events could be easily dismissed for their apparent lack of importance, this temptation should be resisted since such smaller events can help create role models for their respective immigrant communities.

4

Links with economic integration

Two important links arise from the discussion and analysis above; the first and most important is a market link with immigrant literature and the second is a link with labour.


167

With respect to the market link, immigrant literature constitutes a large and untapped market into which the publishing industry could expand and in the (unintended) result act as a catalyst for national integration. The experience of the British publishing industry with respect to British-Asian literature serves as a particularly potent example from which to extrapolate. The market link with immigrant literature is best understood on two fronts, that is, through market opportunity and market growth. The market link is one of the most important between immigrant literature and national integration overall, since immigrant literature’s economic integration has a direct impact on its presence and reach in the national environment and, as a result, also positively affects the other two spheres of national integration, the social and cultural. The labour link is less straightforward but nonetheless noteworthy. Immigrant literature affects labour market participation by encouraging immigrant youth to enter into highly skilled employment, which can be facilitated through immigrant literature’s positive influence on language skills. Highly skilled labour employment is further encouraged by the presence of immigrant authors as public role models.

4.1 The market link In Section 2 of this chapter I discussed how growth in the literary industry is characterised by corporate mergers but, more important here, the adoption of new subject matters and genres. Immigrant literature represents a market opportunity in its own right that could be exploited for economic growth and, in the long term, contribute to national economic integration as it becomes a new literary genre. The resulting economic expansion also serves as a catalyst for the other two spheres of national integration.

4.1.1 Market opportunity Publishers in the United Kingdom are well aware of the developing demographic trends resulting from a combination of low domestic birth rates and increased migration. They are also aware that ethnic groups generally use libraries more, and do more creative writing, than the majority population (The Bookseller, 2004). In other words,


British publishers know that this ethnic market segment is where the industry may have its greatest growth potential: It’s the sense that there are topics here, there are audiences here that need to be addressed and cared for and that if you don’t seem to be acknowledging and creating space for them, then to some extent you are damaging your present or your future position. So, it’s certainly what publishers do, this is a very hard-headed business which has to do with the assurance that they have links into current and potential groups of readers and [that] audiences are not being neglected. (Interview with British literary critic) Moreover, as mentioned in Chapter 3, ethnic readers want to read literature that is representative of their own ‘migration’ experience, certainly in the United Kingdom and increasingly so in Germany. This represents a potentially sizeable and expanding market on which the publishing industry can capitalise. It is clear that many mainstream publishers in the United Kingdom have identified the potential of this literary genre, as exemplified through the joint Arts Council of England and Penguin Decibel Prize, the number of BritishAsian novels being published and the amount of marketing funds spent on this genre. However, it is also clear that the analogous market niche in Germany is not being exploited, perhaps because a large section of the German-Turkish community does not (yet) have the necessary language skills to read German-language books. However, recall that these books tend to also resonate with the majority community in Germany, indicating the fallacy of this reason for the underexploitation. Although there may be a large global market for books by Salman Rushdie, Zadie Smith and others, it is more restricted for German-Turkish literature. However, this too is debatable since German publishers tend to see their market as primarily Germanlanguage based, which, in any event, would also apply to German ‘national’ literature. In fact, it is more likely that the growth of the German-Turkish literature market is restricted by the elitist nature of the German literary industry. German-Turkish culture is viewed with a lower standing than German high culture and thus is seen as less worthy of publication. However, there are indications that this market might yet start to grow.


169

4.1.2 Market growth I already stated that British-Asian literature has witnessed impressive growth in the last decade, in particular when compared to the situation of German-Turkish literature in Germany. Market growth linked to immigrant literature depends on a number of factors, including some ethnic minority penetration of the literary industry; the success of immigrant literature authors; the transition of immigrant literature from small to large publishers; and increased retailing of immigrant literature. The Indian publisher Tejpal reports that the growth in the Indian novel industry ‘would have been inconceivable less than two decades ago when Salman Rushdie published Midnight’s Children’ (Tejpal, 1999). Indeed, ‘nothing in the publishing scene is as successful as a success’ (Interview with German policy maker). In the United Kingdom and in particular since the (controversy and) success of Salman Rushdie, the development of British-Asian writing in the last few decades has been impressive and has gone from strength to strength. Rushdie’s unprecedented international success is more often than not attributed to the rise of the British-Asian, and indeed the Indian, literary genre. However, it is more accurate to say that Rushdie’s success was a catalyst. The more precise explanation behind the rise has more to do with market economics and the industry capitalising on a market into which it felt it could expand. Whilst one could argue that the success of writers such as Zadie Smith or Arundhati Roy (and the number of British-Asian writers on recent prize lists) indicates a more enlightened outlook with respect to the economic integration of British-Asians in the United Kingdom, the market opportunities and economic gains resulting from publishing such novelists are, in fact, the main reasons that the market continues to expand. Where there is a prospect of financial gain, an industry as fiercely competitive as publishing will swiftly address the issue of economic integration. In Germany, albeit on a smaller scale, the market is showing some similar trends. There have been a number of recent successes, and there are currently a number of high-profile German-Turkish authors and intellectuals. Moreover, there are signs that the industry might start to grow, partly as a response to small domestic successes, namely the publication of the Turkish Library,9 but also in reaction to the international recognition of the excellence of Turkish literature by the awarding of the Nobel Prize for Literature to Orhan Pamuk. Note


for example the testimony of the manager of the Turkish Library project for the Robert Bosch Foundation: We have a little success already with a novel that we only indicated to the public that it would be part of the Turkish library, namely a novel by Sabahattin Ali. An editor said: ‘oh, we would like to issue all the works of Sabahattin Ali. Would that be possible with you, or would you like to do it and then we wouldn’t interfere with it?’ [We said]: ‘Oh no; you’re quite welcome. Unionsverlag is not able to do all; you know? So why don’t you take all of the rest of the novels and issue them?’ And this is just with the one. It’s some kind of noble effect, a multiplying effect. This is by no means an isolated case in Germany. Swiss publishers specialised in Turkish literature in Germany have also noted the trend. The publisher argues that ‘just judging by the facts, many, many publishers, maybe two dozen, may have Turkish authors. And publishers who never had before, maybe [for] five years or six years, they [now] publish Turkish authors. . . . So it’s growing, and some of them are selling. So it is coming up’. Hence, the point is that meeting a market demand and profiting from it is a powerful incentive for change, particularly when competition is robust. Whilst the capitalist nature of this argument may give rise to some cynicism, in the long term it could have a significant economic and social impact. Though publishers are primarily propelled by profit considerations, in the end they could nonetheless play a crucial role in opening society’s eyes to its own neighbours. Of course, another key point is that the immigrant literature being created has to reach large-scale publishers in the first place, which was precisely the reason behind the creation of the Decibel prize in the United Kingdom.

4.2 The labour link The cornerstone of the argument below brings together education, literacy, role models and the labour market. In the end, the effect that immigrant literature has on increasing literacy, combined with its role in facilitating the creation of and creating positive ethnic role


171

models, has an integrative affect on migrant youth since they culminate in a potential increase in highly skilled employment and, thus, structural integration. One of the threads running throughout this work is the link between the history of migration in Germany and the United Kingdom and the situation of minorities in the cultural, social and economic spheres of integration. For example, the integration status of the German-Turkish community is linked to its socioeconomic background, level of education and command of the German language. A similar picture surfaces for the British-Asian community in the United Kingdom, albeit not at such an extreme level as the German-Turkish example. In Chapter 3, I outlined how immigrant literature can assist in developing language skills that are required for increased social integration. This point has obvious overlap with economic integration because migrants who do not speak the national language (or do not speak it well) will have a more difficult time securing gainful employment. I also highlighted how one efficient way to increase literacy achievement among schoolchildren would be to rework the language and literature curriculum to include immigrant literature, which could increase interest in reading. This is particularly important since there is a direct link between literacy and other subject areas, such as mathematics and science (OECD, 2003). Introducing immigrant literature into schools especially targets migrant pupils who, in both countries, have fewer literacy skills than the majority population and have a keen interest in books that portray their life experiences, including those linked to migration. The dearth of role models from minority backgrounds, in particular in the German environment, and the lack of immigrant literature in schools noted in Chapter 3 points to potential contributing factors as to why some ethnic minorities have persistent difficulties with the national language and, as a result, tend to have generally less access to higher education and therefore highly skilled positions. Of course, no direct, causal relationship supports this theory—the impact of literature and role models is very difficult to isolate and gauge. Yet, research shows that immigrant role models can play a significant role in furthering the integration process of all migrants (Entzinger and Biezeveld, 2003). Note for example the following quotes; both highlight how the celebrity (or at the very least, public status) of


authors and indeed other role models can have a direct impact on the willingness and interest on the part of young adults to develop skills necessary to access higher education and professions. As one British-Asian young adult literature author stated: It is about establishing role models. The amount of responses I get when I go into schools where there are British-Asian kids is incredible! They go in and they’ve never seen a British-Asian writer and that’s why they’re really interested. [They say:] ‘we did not realise people like us could do this’. So the more people like Hari Kunzru, like Monica Ali, like myself who write, the more it becomes something that Asians do. A German-Turkish Librarian noted similar trends linked to popular culture with ethnic minorities: When someone becomes really popular, then there are people, above all young people, . . . who show an interest. They see role models in these young people and then read and try to do the same. For example, when Fatih Akin, the film director, becomes popular, then I can notice that they come and look for books on how to write a film script. Or when an actor, a Kabarettist becomes popular on television, gets his entrance, then I notice that young people try to become Kabarettist. They look for books, because for migrants there is a lack of role models, there are very few role models; actors, good moderators, successful politicians and so on; very few, so that in the city you can say: ‘good, I also want to be like that and that is my goal’. Hence, the presence of immigrant authors in the public space is vital to ensure a guiding example for the social and economic development of ethnic minorities. Also, note the potential role here for public subsidies, which could encourage reading tours for ethnic minority authors to visit schools or community halls with high minority populations. Taken together, there is reason to believe that a constructive relation between immigrant literature and labour market integration exists for ethnic minorities. The increased presence of immigrant literature (for example, in schools) leads to increased reading on the part of immigrant youth and increased exposure to role


173

models; both of these, in turn, can lead to improved language skills and higher academic achievement which facilitates highly skilled employment and results in increased economic integration. 4.3

Indicators of integration

From the collective discussion above, a number of potential indicators of economic integration emerge, summarised in Table 4.3. It is important to note, however, that there are significant challenges in obtaining some of the data described above. Publishers carefully guard proprietary sales figures and treat them confidentially and are thus reticent to divulge such information. As a result, perhaps more than any other stakeholder, the publishing industry as a whole might be better placed than public officialdom to take these measures and, in effect, gauge levels of economic integration. Finally, it is worth remembering that indicators are by no means exhaustive and do not, in themselves, represent the level of economic integration of the national population. Nonetheless, when combined with indicators in the other two spheres of integration—that is, social and cultural—they can provide a good indication of the integration or levels of cohesiveness of the minority (and majority) communities. 4.4

Summary

The presence of literary role models in the public space is an important way to provide a guiding example for the social and economic development of ethnic minorities. Indeed, immigrant authors who receive public recognition become role models for migrant youth and can (indirectly) encourage higher levels of education and employment. Indeed, the highly skilled nature of jobs created via increased literacy achievement on the part of members of the ethnic community can positively, and perhaps significantly, assist their economic integration into society. There has been significant market penetration of immigrant literature in the United Kingdom since the 1980s. Following Salman Rushdie’s success in the early 1980s, British mainstream publishers created literary prizes for ethnic writers, conducted research on expanding this market, created India-based, English-language publishing houses and altogether published more ‘immigrant’ authors in the United Kingdom. In other words, the industry realised that there was a large and untapped market into which it could expand,

Potential Indicators (nonexhaustive)

↔

Indicator of What? (nonexhaustive)

•

Nature of publisher issuing immigrant literature (for example, size, scope and ownership)

↔

•

•

% of literary publishing and sales (including trends measured over time)

↔

•

Increasing % indicates (i) increased penetration of immigrant literature in the book national market and (ii) possible increase in majority community empathy to minorities

•

% of library loans (including trends measured over time)

↔

•

Increasing % indicates increased interest in immigrant literature by lower socioeconomic classes, often ethnic minorities (which could in turn indicate increased language capabilities)

•

minority participation in the publishing industry (especially in professional positions)

↔

•

Increased participation indicates (i) greater access for minorities (including authors) to the mainstream national cultural industry; (ii) increased educational achievement for ethnic minorities; (iii) increased highly skilled employment for ethnic minorities

•

Nature of retail outlets carrying immigrant literature (for example, size, market reach and ownership)

↔

•

Large retailers indicate increased penetration of immigrant literature in the national book market and increased popularity of immigrant literature with mainstream readers Small retailer indicates a niche or developing market with popularity of immigrant literature likely restricted to small groups including ‘elite’ readers; low popularity of immigrant literature with mainstream readers

•

•

Large publishers indicate increased penetration of immigrant literature in the national book market Small publishers indicate a niche or developing market

174

Table 4.3 Summary of potential indicators of integration linked to immigrant literature


175

and that immigrant literature represented a potentially successful new product which they could introduce. In this respect Germany represents a counterexample: the lack of mass public recognition of German-Turkish literature at the level achieved in the United Kingdom is one of the reasons that immigrant literature is still viewed as marginal and external, and the primary reason that the market has not yet expanded in the same direction or with the same vigour. Nonetheless, looking forward, it appears that Orhan Pamuk’s success in capturing the 2006 Nobel Prize for Literature—and his highprofile brush with Turkish courts—may have a positive impact on the popularity of Turkish and German-Turkish literature in Germany. Crucially, the market penetration of immigrant literature is central to the immigrant literature–national integration relation under study since it affects all three spheres of national integration. Finally, the economic success of immigrant literature could be a cogent indicator of integration, especially when combined with a range of other relevant indicators across the different spheres of integration. Unfortunately, to date, very little immigrant literaturespecific data is recorded or available about sales and borrowing levels, books in circulation in schools, or on the national curriculum. However, even without such specific figures, which publishers resist disclosing, it can nonetheless be said that the clear increase in interest—both within the population and by the industry—could be an indication of integration via greater market penetration, greater language capabilities and greater empathy and interest on the part of the native population. Hence, tracking the levels and flows of immigrant literature could help indicate the levels of intercultural dialogue and integration.

5

Conclusion

I have presented the role and impact of the cultural industries on the economic integration of general society through the concrete example of the publishing industry. In particular, I have highlighted the links between immigrant literature and economic integration. In order to do so thoroughly, it was important to first closely assess the publishing industry and in particular the pressures it faces, the way in which it is structured and how books are brought to British and German readers.


We saw that international pressure on the publishing industry is strong. Multinational corporations and large-scale retailers (including nonspecialised retailers) are increasingly pressuring the publishing industry for a stream of best-selling titles. This is more so the case in the United Kingdom, where the publishing industry’s structure is more concentrated and the pressures of the international market stronger given the English-language link. However, the United Kingdom has also demonstrated that market concentration is not the enemy of ethnic diversity in literature since British-Asian literature has flourished and, in fact, sits at the top of best-seller lists, perhaps assisted by the fact that British-Asian titles have repeatedly won high-profile prizes like the Man Booker and Whitebread (now Costa) prize. Size is indeed an important factor in the development and reception of immigrant literature in the market, including in Germany and the United Kingdom. Here, the Anglo-German comparison highlights some additional interesting points. The British example contradicts the popular view that the size of publishers may restrict diversity in publishing. Germany’s smaller publishers seem prone to elitism which may have the effect of restricting immigrant literature’s development. The overall pressure for best sellers increases the need for sensationalist immigrant literature. Conversely, small publishers can act as early adopters and trendsetters, increase accessibility to authors and, in the result, facilitate the first step into the market for immigrant literature authors and works, which, with public help, can transition into the larger mainstream industry. The chapter then discussed public institutions and influencing factors. Although the least influential gatekeeper among those discussed, public institutions play an important role in highlighting the visibility and accessibility of immigrant literature in national book markets. With the support of literary prizes, literary events and direct subsidies to publishers, these institutions facilitate diversity of national literature and author access to publishing houses, which is further supported by factors such as libraries (of course also publicly funded), the media, ICT and book fairs (for example, Frankfurt). It is interesting to note that, unlike the factors outlined in previous chapters, the ones linked to economic integration are for the most part positive— that is, they promote immigrant literature’s access to the market and


177

assist in national economic integration. The issue therefore is how to best take advantage of these factors in order to make use of immigrant literature as an integrative tool. Again, publishing houses and book retailers could (and in some cases do) play a distinct role because, first, they have the financial clout to support literary tours, television appearances and so on and, second, they obtain a direct benefit from doing so. The role of immigrant literature in the economic integration process or rather the links between immigrant literature and economic integration were discussed with respect to both market and labour effects. One central and crucial point is the catalytic link between immigrant literature and economic integration. That is to say, the market link between immigrant literature and economic integration is important in promoting increased national integration since the greater the market access, the stronger the impact of immigrant literature nationally. Therefore, it is clear that the links between immigrant literature and integration are particularly strong, mainly since the market success of immigrant literature (or lack thereof) affects the three spheres of integration. Hence, it logically follows that by encouraging immigrant literature’s access to the literary industry, national integration is promoted. Here, the British-Asian comparison is particularly potent since the United Kingdom provides an example in point of the publishing industry taking ownership— albeit for capitalistic reasons—of expanding the market, popularity and reach of British-Asian literature. Germany served as a counterexample, where the restrictive nature of the publishing industry, in particular with respect to German-Turkish literature, demonstrates an impeded market. On the labour front, I discussed how immigrant literature can promote access to the literary industry via public, literary role models, by encouraging highly skilled employment by developing language skills (particularly in migrant communities where this improvement—especially in Germany—is sorely needed) and enhancing access to higher education. Comparatively, one important point should be highlighted. The relative lack of mass public recognition of German-Turkish literature at the level achieved in the United Kingdom for British-Asian works is one of the reasons that this literature remains marginal and external. It is also an important reason


that the German market has not yet expanded in the same direction as the United Kingdom. Public subsidies aimed to increase the visibility and aura of literary prizes might improve the situation. I demonstrated how the key to measuring national integration lies in publishers and the sales figures for novels which they closely guard. Borrowing levels at libraries could also be a useful yardstick, however, the categorisation for fiction is not currently differentiated by type of fiction. As a result, whilst one can posit that sales and borrowing levels are good literary co-indicators for national integration, this is difficult to assess in practice. Finally, there is also a vicious cycle at play: if large publishers are expected to pay attention to immigrant literature, a certain level of public interest must exist. However, much of this interest is generated by the hype from the publishing industry itself. Of course, the United Kingdom had an initial catalytic event in the controversy and success of Salman Rushdie; perhaps Orhan Pamuk will have the same effect in Germany. Whatever the case, the increased presence of ethnic minorities in the publishing industry could help break this cycle. In Germany, in particular, nepotism remains the norm, and few publishers have decent ethnic representation. Indeed, there will only ever be a small number of ethnic minorities joining the publishing industry, whether as authors or otherwise. If the impact of immigrant literature on national integration is materially positive and the state of immigrant literature is to be advanced for these (and other) ends, the ‘closed shop’ of the publishing industry represents a self-reinforcing conundrum that makes the challenges even thornier to address and overcome. This is not trivial, of course, because the inherent restrictiveness of the publishing industry results in a doubly negative impact on economic integration. First, this restrictiveness prevents ethnic minorities from accessing a highly skilled strand of the labour market and, second, prevents the expansion of immigrant literature as a literary genre in the market.

5 Conclusion

Throughout this discussion, I have emphasised how integration is a flexible two-way process through which the immigrant communities and the receiving societies are both constructed and transformed. The challenge therefore is to ensure that this construction takes place in such a way that minorities and majorities meet, as much as possible, under one generally integrated national entity. The constructive nature of the integration process was clearly visible throughout this book and particularly in the previous three core chapters covering culture, society and economy. Integration as a constructive process is clear, for example, in the cultural sphere, where immigrant literature can potentially redefine national culture into a more inclusive understanding. The constructive nature is apparent in integration’s social sphere, where the public realm is affected by the increased presence of immigrant literature and authors, with space being made for the migrant communities in national public debate. The constructive process is also apparent in the economic sphere, whereby the national literary market grows or shifts to include immigrant literature in the pursuit of market niches and profits, with the perhaps unintended consequences of greater cultural, social and economic benefit overall. In this construction of national integration and in examining the links between national integration and immigrant literature, the influence of history and globalisation are taken on board. First, in regards to the link between integration and immigrant literature, national histories and experiences with migration reverberate in Germany and the United Kingdom in different ways. For example, when 179


comparing the historical connection between majority and minority in the United Kingdom and Germany together with the potential influence it might have on the immigrant literature and cultural integration link, it clearly surfaces that Britain possesses more common points of reference on which shared cultural identifications can be built. For example, British-Asians and the majority community have a common history of socialisation and education that results in the use of a common language, which, of course, is a key aspect to any study whose subject matter deals with written works. In addition, the United Kingdom also possesses the amorphous concept of Britishness, which may also serve as a middle ground concept in attempting to build a common point of call for integration. The central idea of a borderless world is also taken on board in the analysis herein. The concept is best portrayed by the global nature of the book publishing industry and its impact on book content, the development of national culture and (if one extrapolates) the creation of both personal and national identity. The United Kingdom and Germany provide an interesting contrast here. The United Kingdom now virtually shares its language in common with the rest of the world and is particularly sensitive and attuned to outside pressures and global trends. The German market is relatively insular despite being home to the world’s largest publishing corporation. GermanTurkish literature is thus little influenced by, and has little influence on, the outside world, in keeping with the German literary market in general. Crucially, transnational ties are taken into account against state-centric nations, where cultural, education and integration policies are very much nation based and, perhaps arguably, increasingly so. We see that the United Kingdom and Germany lend themselves well to this comparative study given the increasing convergence of their immigrant integration policies and the fact that this convergence, when combined with the varied reception of their respective immigrant literatures, provides a rich ground for comparing and contrasting. For example, in the cultural sphere, the place occupied by German-Turkish culture and literature in Germany provides a cogent counterexample to that occupied by British-Asian culture and literature in the United Kingdom. The economic sphere amplifies this contrast in that British-Asian literature has an increasingly larger share of the domestic market whilst German-Turkish literature in

Conclusion

181

Germany remains a small and restricted niche. In the social sphere, with respect to education in particular, German-Turks face greater literacy and achievement challenges in German schools than BritishAsians do in the United Kingdom, a fact no doubt influenced by a common educational history and language or, in the German case, the lack thereof. Moreover, this study corroborates that policy making is centralised in the United Kingdom and federal or Land-based in Germany, each bringing certain advantages and disadvantages. The framework and comparative nature of the study guides the exploration of the links between immigrant literature and national integration. In particular, it structures the answers to three crucial questions: (1) What are the links between immigrant literature and national integration? (2) Can immigrant literature be used as an indicator of national integration? and (3) Can immigrant literature serve as a tool to promote national integration?

1 The links between immigrant literature and national integration There are significant links between immigrant literature and cultural, social and economic integration. Whilst the links are analysed separately for the cultural, social and economic spheres, it is important to keep in mind that they are not independent but rather reflect the reality of the integration process whereby no sphere is independent from the other; recall the overlap and interplay depicted in Figure 1.1. Moreover, for example, with respect to immigrant literature specifically, generating intercultural dialogue through immigrant literature is dependent on this literature being made available, and visible, in the public space; increasing literacy via immigrant literature is dependent on immigrant literature being adopted by and made available in schools; and increasing literacy in turn affects economic integration by increasing (at times highly skilled) employment. As a result, all three spheres of integration—as well as integration’s structural and affective dimensions—are interrelated. For the cultural sphere, the analysis of the data brings two convincing yet relatively intangible links to light. In fact, these links are themselves representative of the cultural sphere: just as culture is a porous, elusive and ever-changing concept, so are the links emerging from the analysis. One of the most important relationships between


immigrant literature and cultural integration is immigrant literature’s potential role in redefining national culture. Here, immigrant literature influences national cultural self-understanding and makes it more inclusive. Immigrant literature often includes hybrid stories in which the majority and minority come into contact and often merge; these tales redefine the nation in a way that positively influences national cultural integration. This relationship is based on the idea that the exclusionary German Leitkultur and devolved British cultural self-understanding are not conducive to cultural integration. However, since culture is an inherently flexible concept, it can be redefined to be more inclusive. In this respect, immigrant literature could play a role in doing just that on the basis that narration about the nation affects the sense of national culture and identity. Of course, this same process also means that immigrant literature and its hybrid nature face content pressure and influx from the majority culture, thus risking dilution. The second important area where immigrant literature is linked to cultural integration is with respect to generating intercultural dialogue, both positively and negatively and, hence, reducing or increasing tension between the majority and minority communities. That is to say, immigrant literature can have both an integrative and disintegrative impact. On the whole, however, in this relationship, immigrant literature acts as a conduit for mostly positive intercultural dialogue, first, through its presence (and the presence of immigrant authors) in the public realm and, second, by bringing together topics, styles, values and cultural traits from two or more cultural contexts that would otherwise have little or no chance of intersecting. In fact, in today’s so-called ‘clash of cultures’ environment, this aspect of the integration–immigrant literature relationship could be particularly important, for example, by helping to ease perceived religious tensions in Europe. Whilst in some cases immigrant literature may increase tensions between majority and minority groups, it seems in the long run more beneficial than detrimental in bringing intercultural topics into the fore of public debate, increasing book sales and, thus, enhancing immigrant literature’s overall visibility. Here, Muslim immigrant authors who promote intercultural and inter-religious understanding, or a ‘European Islam’, could play a significant role that should not be underestimated.

Conclusion

183

Social integration’s links with immigrant literature are more tangible (and hence measurable) than those of the cultural sphere. First, there is a strong and convincing correlation between immigrant literature and increased literacy, which is particularly important because both Germany and the United Kingdom face major challenges with respect to migrant pupil literacy achievement, especially for GermanTurks and the Bangladeshi and Pakistani British-Asian subsets. Given the direct relationship between reading for pleasure and literacy, combined with the fact that children and young adults are interested in reading novels that represent their own life experiences, the introduction of immigrant literature in schools could increase reading levels of children and young adults, in particular from the German-Turkish and British-Asian communities. In turn, this affects social integration’s structural and affective dimensions. Second, evidence shows that reading immigrant literature (which more often than not contains portrayals of positive race relations) can have a distinct effect on social empathy. It is because of this link that immigrant literature may be an approachable, ‘soft’ and perhaps more efficient way to introduce and discuss sensitive issues, including intercultural understanding and national identity. This is one of the most important links mentioned by policy advisors, educational practitioners, authors and critical readers alike. Yet no hard proof can be tabled about its existence, given the intangible nature of empathy and the long-term process, that is, social construction. This particular link is one that most obviously crosses spheres since it can also influence intercultural dialogue and, over time, the redefinition of national culture. The third link between immigrant literature and social integration is the acquisition of public space. Here the British-German comparison is again revealing. In the United Kingdom, British-Asian authors have taken centre stage in much public debate, though they are at times restricted to ‘ethnic issues’. In Germany, immigrant authors are not as visible, but their visibility is increasing. The fact of the matter is that British-Asian authors have taken (but have also been given) a public platform on which to express ideas and participate in (and potentially shape) debate. This is partly because of public recognition from British literary circles, but it is also the result of this literary genre’s market potential and appeal. Whatever the case, a significant link to social integration exists when authors of immigrant


origin participate in national public debate, especially when the subject is not one that is a stereotypically ‘ethnic’ issue. Therefore, it is clear that immigrant literature acts as a catalyst for social integration through the acquisition of public space. The relationship between immigrant literature and the economy is particularly important since the literary industry emerges as the single most important catalyst for national integration promoted through immigrant literature. That is to say, it is immigrant literature’s links with and introduction through the economy that affects, or rather ‘kick-starts’, integration in all three spheres. Since publishers and book retailers, the most important gatekeepers of the industry (in that order, it should be said), are in a strategic position to bring immigrant literature to a larger share of the reading public, the literary industry is central in linking immigrant literature to national integration. Clearly, the economic link between immigrant literature and integration is important in promoting increased national integration since the greater the market access, the stronger the impact of immigrant literature will be felt nationally on the integrative process. Here, the British-Asian case resonates strongly since the United Kingdom provides a convincing example of the publishing industry seizing an opportunity—albeit for capitalist purposes—and expanding the market for British-Asian literature. Germany serves as the counterexample, where the restrictive nature of the publishing industry, in particular with respect to German-Turkish literature, demonstrates an impeded market not yet penetrated. Crucially, the introduction of new genres into the market represents one of the two ways in which the literary industry can grow (the other being by acquisition). The more immigrant literature is deemed a profitable genre by market actors, the more attention it receives from large publishers who in turn have formidable marketing power (to generate demand factors) and significant channels and access to consumers (to facilitate supply factors). This also helps make size an important (co-)factor in the development and reception of immigrant literature in the market, including in Germany and the United Kingdom. The British example contradicts the popular view that publisher size restricts the diversity of what makes it to market and, in fact, may point to the importance of a publisher being able to ‘take a chance’. Germany’s smaller publishers seem more prone to elitism, which, with respect to immigrant literature, has the effect

Conclusion

185

of restricting the genre’s market access. Small publishers are often assumed to be early adopters and trendsetters, more accessible to ‘fringe’ authors and, thus, intuitively considered as the first step into the market for immigrant literature. Counterintuitively, then, this is not the case in Germany’s ‘boutique’ publishing market. The last link between immigrant literature and national integration, which straddles both the social and economic spheres, relates to literacy and labour. If the introduction of immigrant literature in schools affects literacy, then increased literacy in turn affects labour market access, and potentially higher skilled employment. Immigrant literature can produce public, literary role models and, even more indirectly (that is, two degrees of separation), encourage higher skilled employment through increased language abilities (especially needed for migrants in Germany) and enhance access to higher education. Finally, it is important to note that the links between immigrant literature and cultural, societal and economic integration characteristics observed at the state level should not be interpreted as causal relationships. Rather, these findings draw attention to the significance of complex national contexts that influence the integration of citizens and denizens in many different ways and through a variety of mediating factors. Immigrant literature is but one of many intervening agents with respect to national integration. As such, it would be overstating the case to say that immigrant literature is the, or even a, key tool for promoting national integration. However, it is proper and appropriate to consider the use of immigrant literature as one of many tools to promote national integration.

2 Immigrant literature as an indicator of national integration As already noted throughout this book, indicators of integration are by no means stand-alone tools for measuring integration; their level of accuracy can be increased by triangulating a number of coindicators that include all three spheres of national integration. It is with this in mind that I highlight immigrant literature’s potential use as a co-indicator of national integration. To be fair, its role as such is rather a mixed picture. Given the links outlined in Chapters 2, 3 and 4, one would assume it possible to use immigrant literature


as an indicator. However, the links are at times intangible, such as when redefining national culture, and there are practical challenges as well, such as the difficulty in obtaining sales figures; as a result, viewing immigrant literature as an indicator is rather challenging. Nonetheless, it is fair to state that given the fact that national integration is bi-dimensional and tri-spherical, immigrant literature cannot single-handedly act as an indicator but as a useful co-indicator of integration. On this front, the social sphere in particular could be materially useful. Needless to say, cultural integration is by far the most difficult sphere to assess. Some of the potential indicators listed in Chapter 2 (for example, attendance at immigrant literature events, public lending) are pragmatic and could be implemented relatively easily. If these indicators of cultural integration via immigrant literature are adopted, they could be put into practice quickly, inexpensively and easily. At the other end of the scale are the more complex indicators, such as levels of public presence and hybrid content, which are more difficult to define, implement and measure. If immigrant literature is by definition transnational and hybrid, assessing the relative degree of hybridity between two works is rather daunting and assailable. Moreover, assessing levels of intercultural dialogue and cultural transfer is made all the more difficult by their intangibility and the pace at which the processes take place. It is more straightforward to use immigrant literature as a yardstick or proxy for measuring social integration. In this respect, two particularly useful co-indicators come to the fore: the space occupied by immigrant literature in the national curriculum (previously outlined as being easier to implement in the United Kingdom than in Germany) and the nature of, and debate surrounding, its contents. First, the appearance of immigrant literature in school curricula could, in itself, be a useful indicator of social integration. The national curriculum is a vital tool for moulding citizens and, more important, is the portrayal of what a society deems the ‘vital knowledge’ that residents should acquire, including the national heritage. In this respect, when a school, Land or national government adds immigrant literature to its reading list(s), it acknowledges this literature’s role in the national literary heritage. Immigrant literature’s inclusion in this way signals an affirmation of the migrant community’s integral part of the national cultural fabric.

Conclusion

187

Second, the content and debate surrounding the genre itself would lend useful indicative clues to the state of social integration. For example, the popularity of sensationalist immigrant literature novels might indicate little intercultural understanding, whereas less popular books that generate a certain degree of societal discussion or reflection might demonstrate a more balanced and informed view of relations between the applicable cultures. Naturally, this indicator is less tangible and is difficult to measure, especially consistently on a comparative basis. However, as a co-indicator together with ‘hard’ measures of integration such as employment, it could provide added depth to the levels of integration under study. Finally, the publishing industry itself could serve as a useful bed of indicators. Of course, there are significant challenges (experienced first-hand) in obtaining some of the most pertinent data. Publishers simply will not and cannot be expected to share proprietary, in-house, segmented sales or market-share figures. Nonetheless, if by way of example one takes into account the overall presence of immigrant literature in the market, the number of times immigrant literature wins prizes or the presence of immigrant authors in large retail spaces or events, a good general indication or trend of increasing penetration of immigrant literature in the national book market and increasing popularity of immigrant literature with mainstream readers can be obtained. As a rule of thumb, the economic success of immigrant literature (both overall and its trends over time) could be a cogent indicator of integration, especially when combined with a diverse assortment of other relevant indicators across the different spheres of integration. Unfortunately, little if any immigrant literature-specific (that is, segmented) data is recorded or publicly available about sales and library borrowing levels or the number of books in circulation, in schools or in the national curriculum. However, even without these specific figures it can nonetheless be said that a clear increase in interest—both within the population and by the industry—could be an indication of integration via greater market penetration, greater language capabilities on the part of migrant youth and greater empathy and interest on the part of the native population. Hence, tracking the levels and flows of immigrant literature could help indicate the levels of intercultural dialogue and integration.


3 Immigrant literature as a tool for promoting national integration When a positive link between immigrant literature and a sphere of national integration is found it logically follows that immigrant literature could be used to promote national integration via this link. In these conclusions, I go one step further by providing a focus for tools to promote national integration via immigrant literature on the basis that some links are more potent than others. Many of the efforts could target two contextual areas of society and immigrant literature, namely the literary industry and the national education system. Influencing these aspects of society will reach beyond the respective individual spheres of each to affect other parts of the national integration framework. In fact, given the importance of the literary industry as a catalyst for national integration and education’s crucial role as a venue for knowledge building, cultural development and moulding citizens, these two links would bring most benefit from being the focus of initiatives aimed at promoting national integration via immigrant literature. The fact that the literary industry is one of the most important tools for promoting national integration via immigrant literature should, by now, come as no surprise. Above and beyond being the main gatekeepers of literature, publishers also play a central role in determining the reach of novels. Given this influence over the national integration–immigrant literature link, it follows that one of the best means by which to promote national integration lies in the expansion of immigrant literature in the national literary market, in particular through large publishers. As outlined in Chapter 4, the issue of how to best take advantage of this link and expand the reach of immigrant literature in the literary market requires more probing and investigation. A similar view supports the use of language and literature education as a tool for promoting national integration via immigrant literature. Schools are central in supporting literacy, the development of social empathy and national identity. Indeed, they are likely the main site where national identity is fashioned. Thus, it is here that the formation of citizens begins, where tools to increase structural integration are taught and the means by which a common sense of national belonging that crosses cultural barriers and reduces racial prejudice

Conclusion

189

are introduced. In the end, such tools are not only necessary to promote national social integration, but are also vital in dealing with nations and cultures in a global world. Within these two areas, the industry and schools, there are three important ways in which immigrant literature could be used as a tool for increasing national integration. This first is industry-focussed, the second bridges industry and education, and the third targets the school curriculum. First, public institutions could (and in some cases do) directly support market expansion and hence the reach of immigrant literature via targeted cultural policies, such as support for publishers, and through high-profile literary prizes for immigrant authors and works. Here, public assistance aims to raise the profile of immigrant authors and their works so as to make them more appealing to large publishers that are best able to bring them to a wide market. This profile raising is important since large publishing houses (and book retailers) play a catalytic role in bringing immigrant literature to market and therefore affect national integration. Moreover, large publishers have the financial wherewithal to sustain the necessary promotional momentum through literary tours, television appearances, newspaper advertisements and so on. Hence, one central aspect in using immigrant literature as a tool to promote national integration is to support immigrant literature’s greater access to the commercial market and its eventual publication by large publishers. The situation of immigrant literature in the British market has demonstrated that market concentration and multinational publishers are not necessarily bad things for immigrant literature. British-Asian works have flourished in the United Kingdom, sitting on the best-seller charts and repeatedly winning high-profile prizes. In the comparative result, public subsidies would be more necessary in Germany since the British market has already experienced the initial impetus that raised the profile of the genre and the interest of publishers. As we have seen, greater market access will in turn affect the acquisition of public space for authors, cross-cultural dialogue and, potentially, national self-understanding of culture. A second (and related) way in which to make use of immigrant literature as a tool for national integration is by revitalising immigrant author literary tours, bringing together the industry (booksellers, publishers and producers), public institutions and schools. Many


interviewees positively referenced literary tours, but they happen infrequently, and are decreasing in number. The hope for a reinvigoration of literature readings is based on findings outlined in the previous three chapters. First, literary tours in schools bring positive role models into contact with children and young adults, particularly immigrants and immigrant offspring; they introduce immigrant literature to a future reading public; they increase general interest in reading in young people and, as such, help raise literacy levels; they promote active, live intercultural dialogue; and, for the industry, they increase sales of books in schools (school purchases are a significant income source for publishers). Given the relatively modest investment such an initiative would entail, especially when measured against the potential gains from improved national integration (for example, from as modest an indicator as better labour participation rates for migrant youth to one as ambitious as less race-related crime and policing), it is worth serious consideration notwithstanding the initial scepticism (or even cynicism) with which it may be greeted. The last of the three major ways in which immigrant literature could be used as a tool to promote national integration is via its introduction in the school curriculum. Probably more so than literature tours, the introduction of immigrant literature in the school curriculum is an important way to promote increased literacy, generate greater social empathy and reach into the cultural sphere of national integration. Of course, the application of this tool faces different challenges in the United Kingdom and Germany; the power to determine curriculum content, including the list of books to teach, is centralised in the United Kingdom and decentralised in Germany, where teachers have greater influence and autonomy in developing the curriculum. The above being said, the idea remains the same: the content of the national curriculum can affect the social integration process and would gain to incorporate not only the tools required for success in the economic world but also those needed for a greater understanding of the global society in which children will mature. Immigrant literature has the potential to serve both goals. It increases literacy levels by providing more enjoyable reading material to children and young adults who want to see a more modern and representative reflection of their own experience (and perhaps that of their family or larger community). Moreover, via its hybrid content, immigrant

Conclusion

191

literature generates intercultural dialogue on current contentious issues such as Islam, race and ‘the clash of civilisations’. This dialogue is increasingly necessary, and migrant authors are in a particularly unique and powerful position to mediate this process since they are often at the crossroads of the culture(s) and come with a certain status which, in many cases, makes them respected community members, in particular with children and young adults. Finally, in the longer term, this gained intercultural understanding could assist in redefining national culture, including the increased presence of immigrant literature in the public realm and in schools. Indeed, with time, part of the migrant culture becomes incorporated into the majority culture and whilst the integration of Turkish culture has not yet reached the same extent in Germany as Asian culture in the United Kingdom, there is reason to assume that it is underway. Taking advantage of the links between immigrant literature and national integration by using immigrant literature as an integrative tool may be less difficult in the British environment than in Germany. First, in the British context, there is a long-standing history of instrumental cultural policy, whereas in Germany it has been implemented more recently. Moreover, uniform and rapid implementation is more likely to take place in centralised Britain than in federal Germany. Whatever the case, the process is long and slow, even when hastened by national policies or the assistance of large publishers. As with all initiatives dealing with national integration, a comprehensive approach that targets and addresses all three of its spheres, doing so on multiple fronts, may be necessary for a chance at success.

4

Conclusion

There exist important links between immigrant literature and national integration. It should come as no surprise that some are anecdotal; many, however, are the result of triangulation among narratives, individual accounts and secondary evidence. The results of this research demonstrate that there is a vicious circle at play: in order for immigrant literature to make a strong impact, it requires access to large publishers. However, to gain this access, immigrant literature must have a certain level of public interest and thus market potential. German-Turkish literature will remain marginal and external (and thereby its ability to assist national integration suppressed)


so long as there remains the relative lack of public recognition and appeal needed for the publishing industry to take notice; the analogous opportunity in Britain is and has been true for British-Asian immigrant literature in the United Kingdom. This is also why the German market has not yet expanded in the same direction as the United Kingdom. Public subsidies to increase immigrant literature’s visibility and aura might play a role in any change or solution. In these concluding words, we would be well minded to recall the candid and pointed words of Mexican author Carlos Fuentes, who gave the opening speech at the Fifth International Festival of Literature in Berlin in 2005: ‘the partial verities proposed by a novel are a bulwark against dogmatic impositions. Considered politically feeble and unimportant, why are writers then persecuted by totalitarian regimes as if they really mattered?’ (Fuentes, 2005) Indeed, if literature doesn’t have much of an impact on society, why then has it the proven ability to raise emotions in people and generate such events as the destruction of the Library of Alexandria, the burning of books and burying of scholars under China’s Qin Dynasty, the destruction of Mayan codices by Spanish invaders and, in more recent times, the destruction and control of books by fascist and communist regimes? If literature can ignite conflicts and raise passions then it can also contribute to appease tensions and unite people in a relatively integrated whole.

Notes 1


1. The potential support ratio (PSR) represents the number of persons aged 15–64 for every person aged 65 or older (that is, the number of persons of working age per older person). As such, it indicates the dependency burden on potential workers. The United Nations (UN, 2001) report Replacement Migration outlines that both Germany and the United Kingdom require foreign migrants to mitigate the impact of an ageing work force: by 2050 the PSR for Germany and the United Kingdom will decrease to an unsustainable 2.05 and 2.37, respectively (assuming constant 1998 immigration levels). 2. Roughly outlined, the differences that I will discuss entail: (1) culturally, in the United Kingdom, British-Asian immigrant literature is perceived as part and parcel of the national literary scene, whereas in Germany, German-Turkish immigrant literature is external; (2) socially and with respect to the national curriculum, there is a certain acceptance of including immigrant literature in the curriculum in the United Kingdom, whereas in Germany this is not yet on the horizon; and (3) economically, British-Asian literature has substantially expanded the British literary market and is targeted for more expansion, whereas in the German context, this is not the case. 3. The Commission submitted its report in July 2001, and exactly three years later, after much turmoil, a compromise migration law was finally approved amending the legislation dealing with foreigners entering and remaining in the country. 4. The list in Table 1.1 is an edited version of the extensive glossary of terms provided in Castles et al. (2002). It is included here to provide an explanation of meanings attached to specific terms in current social scientific literature on immigration and integration. Given that there is rarely a consensus on the precise meaning and significance of these terms, this list is presented here as indicative only. 5. Of course, such assumptions are not necessarily true, as women, disabled persons and seniors, for example, can confirm. 6. Whilst this figure and argument are my own, some of its content has been influenced by a report written for the Council of Europe by Entzinger and Biezeveld (2003). 7. See Berger and Luckmann (1966) for a detailed overview of these construction processes. 8. The similarities do not always hold true. For example, immigrant communities such as those of German-Turks have a substantially different 193

194 Notes

9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

2

educational achievement from that of the majority community; moreover, in both Germany and the United Kingdom, support programmes geared at immigrant authors exist for which nationals are not eligible. Translations throughout the book are by myself; I retain all responsibilities for any mistranslations that may occur. See, for example, the well-received The Empire Writes Back (Ashcroft et al., 1989). In the German context, there is no such broad consensus. The role of small publishing houses in potentially increasing the diversity of literature available on the market is discussed in detail in Chapter 4. For a detailed discussion see Anz (1991); for a concise overview see Finlay and Taberner (2002). The mainstream discourse of multiculturalism comes under attack in ˇ Zaimoglu’s work because of its use in deflecting attention from plain social and political injustice. Cheesman (2002) argues that, in Zaimoˇglu’s hands, literature has been an effective consciousness-raising medium, for ‘German Germans’ and for ‘hyphenated Germans’. The awarding of German literary prizes to authors of Turkish descent is significant in granting these authors equal footing on the national literary scene. Germany’s Goethe Institute created a literary prize for ‘immigrant authors’ in 1985. However, whilst the creation of the Albert von Chamisso Prize for immigrant literature did contribute to the widening awareness of immigrant literature among German readers, it also played a part in stereotyping this literature through a range of normative pronouncements. The impact of literary prizes on the immigrant literature-integration link is discussed further in Chapter 4. I make a similar argument in Chapters 2 and 4 with respect to the impact of globalisation where I refer to the centres versus the margins of cultural production. For example, 1947: independence and partition of India, creation of Pakistan; 1948: independence of Burma and Sri Lanka; 1955: first incidents of the Land of Freedom revolt in Kenya, in South Africa anti-apartheid protest intensified, and final withdrawal of British troops in Egypt; 1956: independence of Sudan; 1957: independence of Ghana; 1960: independence of Nigeria; 1962: independence of Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago and Uganda among other examples. Kamboureli (1996) makes a similar argument with respect to what he calls ‘Canadian multicultural literature’.


1. Former German Minister of Culture, current Chair and Professor for political theory and philosophy at the Ludwig Maximilian University, Munich. 2. Christian Democratic Union (CDU) Secretary Ronald Poffala notes that German values stem ‘from the German constitution, [and entail] a responsibility arising from history, patriotism and competence in the German language’ (Auswärtiges Amt, 9 May 2007).

Notes

195

3. Incidentally, the self-perception of cultural superiority is still very much present. In 1999, MORI/Socioconsult research aimed at identifying and tracking underlying trends and providing a coherent pattern to attitudinal and behavioural strands of Britain’s national character identified ‘National Superiority’ as an overarching basic trend in the country. That is, there is an overall conviction that Britain is different through its unique culture and heritage and in many ways better than other nationalities (MORI, 1999). 4. According to the latest official estimates, British-Indians number almost a million, the British-Pakistani community 675,000, Bangladeshi 257,000 and Chinese 149,000. A further 242,000 people have varying Asian backgrounds (www.bbc.co.uk, June 2005). As noted in Chapter 1, I concentrate on immigrant literature from Southeast Asian (that is, Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi) communities. 5. I do not address British and German external cultural policies for the simple reason that, in both cases, the British Council and the Goethe Institute’s mandate is to promote national culture abroad and hence has little influence on the domestic situation. 6. QUEST was established in 1999 to report directly to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on issues relating to the performance and quality of publicly funded bodies. Working with but independent of DCMS, QUEST undertakes studies and reviews at the request of the Secretary of State. 7. www.kulturportal-deutschland.de (Accessed 1 November 2006). 8. The Council of German Cities is a national pressure group representing municipal councils before the Länder and federal government. 9. The fifteen writers are Doris Lessing (United Kingdom); Ian McEwan (United Kingdom); Salman Rushdie (United Kingdom); Chinua Achebe (Nigeria); John Banville (Ireland); Peter Carey (Australia); Don DeLillo (United States); Amos Oz (Israel); Michel Tournier (France); Margaret Atwood (Canada); Michael Ondaatje (Canada); Alice Munro (Canada); Carlos Fuentes (Mexico); and Harry Mulisch (Netherlands). 10. This pigeonholing has occurred namely to Anita Sethi on the publication of her first book. Her reaction was telling: ‘And yet, if I hear the term “the new Zadie/Monica” one more time I may be forced to kill myself by banging my head against the pavement of Brick Lane’ (The Guardian, 14 November 2003). 11. In this respect, it is true that pigeonholing minority authors as the most suitable conduit for intercultural dialogue is, again, a form of stereotyping, and, as mentioned, one hopes that in the future such stereotyping will not be necessary. 12. For example, the ACE literature director said: ‘More and more we’re finding that writers are prepared to be kind of cultural commentators or take greater responsibility for the effect or the impact of their work. They’re prepared much more to kind of engage with an audience, be that straightforward, live event, be it through kind of web chats and all that.’ Similar comments were made by publishers Penguin and Brandes & Apsel, as well

196 Notes

as authors Scheinhardt, Hussein, Pamuk, S¸enocak and Rai. Finally, similar high-profile examples on this point include Ohran Pamuk, Salman ˇ Rushdie, Hari Kunzru and Feridun Zaimoglu, to name a few. 13. There are at least two ways of understanding the relation between nation and narrative. One is that a nation pre-exists its narratives and is mediated more or less adequately by them; arguments about what is more or less adequate will move back and forth between notions of obligation to national ideals and claims of realism, telling things as they really are. The other way of understanding the relation is that narratives constitute nations; stories bring them into being and sustain them. ˇ in Germany: Zaimoglu, ˇ 14. Take, for example, the case of Feridun Zaimoglu one of the most famous ‘rebel’ German-Turkish novelists, has completely changed his style of writing. He began with Kanak Sprak and has recently published a 600-page novel, Leyla, ‘in a very traditional, respectable German style’ (Interview with German academic and literary critic). 15. Although, as we shall see in the following chapter, Germany does not enforce a literary curriculum, thus making the measurement of cultural integration rather difficult.

3

Social Integration

1. Department for Education and Skills (DfES) research outlines that the German syllabus contains: ‘ . . . a statement of the aims of the subject; a list of the content and topics considered suitable for each year’s work for each school-type . . . the skills to be fostered; and an indication of suitable methods of assessing the pupil’s success in learning and teacher’s success in teaching . . . the documentation also stipulates the number of pieces of work to be addressed formally to lead to the half-yearly grade in each subject’ (DfES, 1986, quoted in Marshall, 1989, p. 312). 2. School curriculum in the United Kingdom is devolved. There is no ‘British’ education system as such. Separate legislation covers the education systems of England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. The discussion here pertains to the national curriculum of England and Wales, the most far-reaching in terms of numbers of pupils, both with respect to the majority and minority communities. 3. For a detailed discussion on the failures of the dual system in accommodating immigrant students, see Faist (1993). 4. For the most part, the findings for the Länder substantiate the results of the international comparison. In almost all of the German states, a relatively low level of overall performance is coupled with a wide variation in student performance. Compared to the international figures, the proportion of students classified as belonging to the ‘at-risk group’ is also large across the federal states (OECD, 2000). 5. The scores are for overall academic achievement, that is, they are not restricted to literacy. 6. The Foundation Stage Profile replaced the statutory baseline assessment on entry to primary school. It measures progress against ‘Early Learning Goals’ set by curriculum targets.

Notes

197

7. I discuss the correlation between literacy and social capital here; the links between immigrant literature, the literary industry and integration is discussed in Chapter 4. 8. For example, Kureishi’s article was published on the first page of the review section of The Guardian’s Saturday edition (and was mentioned on the cover page of the paper); Anita Sethi’s contribution was on the front page of the travel section; Hari Kunzru appeared on the front page of the review section; Zadie Smith also appeared on the front page of the review section (and was mentioned on the front page of the same paper). 9. The German press extensively covered Ohran Pamuk’s award. Die Zeit in particular published a number of articles on the subject, including one that appeared on the front page of its literatur section (19 October 2007). 10. This restrained success can also be partly attributed to the publishing industry, which is discussed further in Chapter 6.

4


1. I discussed one aspect of this link at length in Chapter 2, where governments are increasingly turning towards instrumental cultural policies to achieve increased social cohesion, among other goals. Note the similarity in language here where cultural activities are referred to as ‘products’, the audience as ‘consumers’ and subsidy as ‘investment’. 2. For a detailed overview of the historical development of writing as a profession, see Hall (1979); for the overall development of writing and the literary industry, see the comprehensive Altbach and Hoshino (1995). 3. For example, one publishing executive at Penguin stated that the group does not consider manuscripts unless they are ‘agent led’ (The Times, 19 July 2007b). 4. Immigrant literature is not a category specifically tracked by publishers, sellers or librarians. Immigrant literature generally falls under the ‘fiction’ label, which makes it practically impossible to isolate in the available data. 5. The publishing industry consists of three subindustries: books, newspapers and magazines. The aggregated value of the publishing market is calculated from the revenues generated by publishers from hard and electronic copies of their products, as well as from advertising generated by those products. The ‘literary market’ refers to the section of this industry relating to the publishing of works of fiction. 6. For example, consider the link between Penguin United Kingdom and Penguin India with respect to book sales, authors’ lists and the potential introduction of new literature catering to British-Asians in the United Kingdom. These all represent powerful competitive advantages, not only beneficial to the company itself, but also to the economies involved (for example, via increased trade) and consumers (for example, increased diversity and selection). 7. By way of one indicative example, the intentions and effects of the 1988 Education Reform Act discussed in Chapter 3 had a substantial impact on

198 Notes

the publishing industry. Its intention was to reduce individual teachers’ and schools’ freedom of choice as to syllabi and to favour a centralised system with a higher degree of government control. Its effects included a decrease in the diversity and choice of books available and a concentration of book sales in the hands of a select few publishers. 8. Jonathan Cape has passed through a number of corporate hands over this time and has lately, as an imprint of Random House, become part of Bertelsmann (Hampson and Richardson, 2004). 9. The Turkish Library presents milestones in Turkish literature from 1900 to the present. Its aim is to introduce German-speaking readers to the cultural and intellectual world of modern Turkey.

Bibliography

ABC News (27 September 2006) ‘Merkel warns against self-censorship.’ ACE (2003) Ambitions for the Arts 2003–2006. London: Arts Council England. Ali, A.H. (2005) Ich Klage An. Munich: Piper. Ali, M. (9 December 2004) ‘Is this the book that changed your life?’ The Guardian. Ali, M. (2004) Brick Lane. New York: Scribner. Altbach, P. and Hoshino, E. (eds) (1995) International Book Publishing: An Encyclopaedia. New York and London: Garland Publishing. Auswärtiges Amt. (9 May 2007) ‘Merkel’s party outlines plan for new political programme.’ Anderson, B. (1991) Imagined Communities. London: Verso. Anz, T. (1991) Es geht nicht nur um Christa Wolf: Der Literaturstreit im vereinten Deutschland. Frankfurt am Main: FischerTaschenbuch Verlag. Ashcroft, B., Griffiths, G. and Tiffin, H. (1989) The Empire Writes Back. London: Routledge. Bach, R. (1986) Immigration: issues of ethnicity, class and public policy in the United States. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 485: 139–152. Bach, R. (1993) Recrafting the common good: immigration and community. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 530: 155–170. Bade, K.J. and Münz, R. (2002) ‘Einführung: migration and migrationspolitik– säkulare entscheidungen für Deutschland.’ In Bade, K.J. and Münz, R. (eds) Migrationsreport 2002. Frankfurt am Maim: Campus Verlag GmbH. pp. 11–29. Bald, S.R. (1995) ‘Negotiating Identity in the Metropolis.’ In King, R., Connell, J., and White, P. (eds) Writing Across Worlds. London: Routledge. pp. 70–85. Banton, M. (2001) National integration in France and Britain. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. 27 (1): 151–168. Barthes, R. (1953) Le degrée zéro de l’écriture. Paris: Seuil. Barthes, R. (1966a) Critique et vérité. Paris: Seuil. BBC News (14 July 2005) ‘UK multiculturalism under spotlight’ [online] http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk [Accessed 20 July 2005] BBMFI. (2005) ‘Daten—fakten—trends’ bildung und ausbildung (Stand 2004). Beauftragte der Bundesregierung für Migration, Flüchtlinge und Integration. Berlin. 199

200 Bibliography

BDA. (2003) Zuwanderung für den arbeitsmarkt, Bundesvereinigung der Deutschen Arbeitgeberverbände [online]. www.arbeitgeber.de [Accessed 28 November 2003] Belfiore, E. (2002) Art as a means of alleviating social exclusions: does it really work? A critique of instrumental cultural policies and social impact studies in the UK. International Journal of Cultural Policy. 8 (1): 91–106. Belfiore, E. (2004) The subsidised cultural sector in the new public management. International Journal of Cultural Policy. 10 (2): 183–202. Berger, P. and Luckmann, T. (1966) The Social Construction of Reality. New York: Anchor Books. Bhabha, H. (1990) Nation and Narration. London: Routledge. Bhabha, H. (1994) The Location of Culture. London: Routledge. Blioumi, A. (2003) Amerikanisher multiculturalismus und Deutsche interkulturalität. Neohelicon. 30 (1): 243–249. BLK. (2003) Förderung von kindern und jugendlichen mit migrationshintergrund, Gogolin, I., Neumann, U. and Roth, H.J. (eds). Hamburg: Bund-Länder Kommission fur Bildungsplannung und Forschungsförderung. Bloomfield, J. (2003) ‘Made in Berlin’: multicultural conceptual confusion and intercultural reality. International Journal of Cultural Policy. 9 (2): 167–183. BML. (2005) Expanding the Book Market: A Study of Reading and Buying Habits in Great Britain. London: BML. Boehmer, E. (1995) Colonial and Postcolonial Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Booth, P. and Boyle, R. (1993) ‘See Glasgow, see culture.’ In Bianchini, F. and Parkinson, M. (eds) Cultural Policy and Urban Regeneration: the West European Experience. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Boswell, C. (2001) Spreading the Costs of Asylum Seekers: A Critical Assessment of Dispersal Policies in Germany and the UK. London: Anglo-German Foundation for the Study of Industrial Society. Boudrieu, P. (1996) The Rules of Art. Cambridge: Polity. Brown, G. (14 January 2006) Britishness, speech by Chancellor Gordon Brown to the Fabian Future of Britishness Conference [online]. www.fabiansociety.org.uk [Accessed 26 May 2007] Brubaker, R. (2004) In the name of the nation: reflections on nationalism and patriotism. Citizenship Studies. 8 (2): 115–127. Buckingham, D. and Jones, K. (2001) New Labour’s cultural turn: some tensions in contemporary educational and cultural policy. Journal of Education Policy. 16 (1): 1014. Burns, R. and van der Will, W. (2003) German cultural policy: an overview. International Journal of Cultural Policy. 9 (2): 133–152. Castles, S. (1994) ‘Democracy and multicultural citizenship: Australian debates and their relevance for Western Europe.’ In Bauböck, R. (ed.) From Aliens to Citizens: Redefining the Status of Immigrants in Europe. Aldershot: Aveburry. pp. 3–28.

Bibliography

201

Castles, S. (2004) Why migration policies fail. Ethnic and Racial Studies. 27 (2): 205–227. Castles et al. (2002) Integration: Mapping the Field. London: Home Office. Checkel, J. (1998) Norms, institutions and national identity in contemporary Europe. International Studies Quarterly. 43 (1): 83–114. ˘ Cheesman, T. (2002) Akçam—Zaimoglu—‘Kanak Attak’: Turkish lives and letters in German. German Life and Letters. 55 (2): 180–195. Chielino, C. (2000), Interkulturelle Literatur in Deutschland: ein Handbuch. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzlersche Verlagsbuchhandlung. Cohen, R. (1994) Frontiers of Identity: The British and the Other. London: Longman. Cook, J. (2004) ‘Relocating Britishness and the break-up of Britain.’ In Caunce, S., Mazierska, E. and Sydney-Smith, S. (eds) Relocating Britishness. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press. pp. 17–37. Cooke, P. (2005) Representing East Germany since Unification. Oxford: Berg. Coser, L. (1975) Publishers as gatekeepers of ideas. ANNALS of the AAPSS, 421: 14–22. Council of Europe. (1998) Measurement and Indicators of Integration, Directorate of Social and Economic Affairs. Brussels: Council of Europe Publishing. CRE. (2005) Citizenship and Belonging: What is Britishness? London: Commission for Racial Equality. Datamonitor (2005a) Publishing in Germany. Reference code: 0165-2129. Frankfurt: Datamonitor Germany. Datamonitor (2005b) Publishing in the United Kingdom. Reference code: 01832129. London: Datamonitor Europe. DCMS. (2002) Count Me In. London: Department of Culture, Media and Sport. DCMS. (2006) Annual Report 2006. London: Department of Culture, Media and Sport. Der Spiegel (2005) ‘Flucht aus der Ehehölle’. Issue 33. Desai, K. (2006) The Inheritance of Loss. New York: Grove Press. DfES. (2003) Aiming High, Raising Achievement. London: Department for Education and Skills. DfES. (2005) National Curriculum Assessment, GCSE and Equivalent Attainment and post-16, Attainment by Pupil Characteristics in England 2004. Statistical First Release 08/2005. London: Department for Education and Skills. DfES. (2006) Ethnicity and Education: The Evidence on Minority Ethnic Pupils Aged 5–16. London: Department for Education and Skills. Die Presse (13 November 2006) ‘Burka und Reizwäsche: Islam im Pop’. Die Zeit (21 September 2006) ‘Dossier’. Die Zeit (19 October 2007) ‘Seht auf diese Stadt!’. Dubois, V. and Laborier, P. (2003) The ‘social’ in the institutionalisation of local cultural policies in France and Germany. International Journal of Cultural Policy. 9 (2): 195–206. Düvell, F. and Jordan, B. (2003) Immigration control and the management of economic migration in the United Kingdom: organisational culture,

202 Bibliography

implementation, enforcement and identity processes in public service. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. 29 (2): 299–336. EC (2000) Competitiveness of the European Union Publishing Industries. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. El Saadawi, N. (2002) Fundamentalismus gegen Frauen. Munich: Diederichs. Entzinger, H. and Biezeveld, R. (2003) Benchmarking in Immigrant Integration. Report written for the European Commission under contact no. DG JAI-A2/2002/006, Rotterdam: Erasmus University. Faist, T. (1993) From school to work: public policy and underclass formation among young Turks in Germany during the 1980s. International Migration Review. 27 (2): 306–331. Favell, A. (1998) Philosophies of Integration: Immigration and the Idea of Citizenship in France and Britain. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Favell, A. (2001) Multicultural nation-building: ‘integration’ as public philosophy and research paradigm in Western Europe. Swiss Political Science Review Lavenex, S. (special ed.), 7: 116–124. Favell, A. (2003) Integration nations: the nation-state and research on immigrants in Western Europe. Comparative Social Research. 22: 13–44. Favell, A. (2005) ‘Assimilation/integration.’ In Gibney, M. and Hansen, R. (eds) Immigration and Asylum: From 1900 to the Present. Santa Barbara: Clio. pp. 19–23 Favell, A. and Modood, T. (2003) ‘The philosophy of multiculturalism: the theory and practice of normative political theory.’ In Finlayson, A. (ed.) Contemporary Political Philosophy: A Reader and Guide. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. pp. 484–495. Filmer, P. (1998) ‘Analysing literary texts.’ In Seale, C. (ed.) Researching Society and Culture. London: Sage Publications. pp. 275–284. Finlay, F. and Taberner, S. (2002) Emerging writers: introduction. German Life and Letters. 55 (2): 131–136. Fisher, S. and McGowan, M. (1996) ‘From Pappkoffer to pluralism.’ In Horrocks, D. and Kolinsky, E. (eds) Turkish Culture in German Society Today. Oxford: Berghahn Books. pp. 1–22. Foucault, M. (1975) Surveillez et punir. Paris: Gallimard. Fowler, R. (2001) Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology of the Press. London: Routledge. Fuentes, C. (2005). ‘A la louange du roman.’ Le Monde Diplomatique. December 2005. pp. 28–29. Geddes, A. (2003) The Politics of Migration and Immigration. London: Sage. Gerstenberger, K. (2004) ‘Writing by ethnic minorities in the age of globalisation.’ In Taberber, S. (ed.) German Literature in the Age of Globalisation. Birmingham: Birmingham University Press. pp. 209–228. Gilroy, P. (1987) There Ain’t No Black in the Union Jack. London: Heinemann. Gilroy, P. (1993) The Black Atlantic. London: Verso. Graham, G. (1995) ‘Multinational publishing.’ In Altbach, P. and Hoshino, E. (eds) International Book Publishing: An Encyclopaedia. New York and London: Garland Publishing. pp. 243–251.

Bibliography

203

Green, S. (2002) Immigration, Asylum and Citizenship: Britain and Germany Compared. London: Anglo-German Foundation for the Study of Industrial Society. Green, S. (2004) The Politics of Exclusion. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Green, S. (2005a) Between ideology and pragmatism: the politics of dual nationality in Germany. International Migration Review. 39 (5): 921–952. Green, S. (2005b) ‘Immigration and integration policy: between incrementalism and non-decisions.’ In Patterson, W. and Green, S. (eds) Governance in Contemporary Germany. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 190–211. Goodhart, D. (2004) Too diverse? Prospect Magazine. 95 (February). Goodman, N. (1978) Ways of World Making. Indianapolis (IN): Hackett Publishing Company. Griffith, P. and Leonard, M. (2002), Reclaiming Britishness. London: Foreign Policy Centre. Grix, J. and Lacroix, C. (2006) Constructing Germany’s image in the British press: an empirical analysis of stereotypical reporting on Germany. Journal of Contemporary European Studies. 14 (3): 373–392. Hacking, I. (1999) The Social Construction of What? Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press. Hall, J. (1979) The Sociology of Literature. London: Longman Group. Hall, S. (1990) ‘Cultural identity and diaspora.’ In Rutherford, J. (ed.) Identity: Community, Culture, Difference. London: Lawrence & Wishart. Hall, S. (1992) ‘The question of cultural identity.’ In Hall, S., Held, D. and McGrew, T. (eds) Modernity and Its Futures. Cambridge: Polity Press. Hansen, R. (2000) Citizenship and Immigration in Post-War Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hampson, J. and Richardson, P. (2004) Kitchen Table to Laptop: Independent Publishing in England. London: Arts Council of England. Harnish, A., Stokes, A.-M. and Weidauer, F. (1998) Fringe Voices. Oxford: Berg. Hesmondhalgh, D. (2002) The Cultural Industries. London: Sage. Hesmondhalgh, D. and Pratt, A. (2005) Cultural industries and cultural policy. International Journal of Cultural Policy. 11 (1): 1–13. Hewison, R. (1995) Culture and Consensus. London: Methuen. Hollified, J. (1996) ‘The migration crisis in Western Europe: the search for a national model.’ In Bade, K. (ed.) Migration – Ethnizitat – Konflikt: Systemfragen und Fallstudien. Osnabruck: Universitatsverlag. pp. 367–402. Hughes, K. (2006) Let’s see what you would have won! Guardian Unlimited, Arts blog, books [online]. http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/books/2006/ 12/post_8.html [Accessed 12 May 2006] Huntington, S. (1993) The clash of civilizations? Foreign Affairs. 73 (3): 22–49. ICM/BBC Asian Network (2007) ‘16–34 Asians Survey (4th–11th July 2007)’ [online] www.bbc.co.uk/asiannetwork [Accessed 23 November 2007]

204 Bibliography

International Herald Tribune (27 July 2006) ‘An outspoken Turkish voice in Germany.’ Jacobson, J. (1997) Perceptions of Britishness. Nations and Nationalism. 3 (2): 181–199. Jonassaint, J. (1998) ‘Migration et études litéraires. Essai de théorisation d’un problème ancien aux contours nouveaux.’ In Verduyn, C. (ed.) Literary Pluralities. Peterbourough: Broadview Press/Journal of Canadian Studies. pp. 64–74. Joppke, C. (1998a) ‘Asylum and state sovereignty: a comparison of the United States, Germany, and Britain.’ In Joppke, C. (ed.) Challenge to the Nation State. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Joppke, C. (1998b) ‘Multiculturalism and immigration: a comparison of the United States, Germany and Great Britain.’ In Jacobson, D. (ed.) The Immigration Reader. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Joppke, C. (1999) Immigration and the Nation-State. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Joppke, C. and Morawska, E. (2003) ‘Integrating immigrants in liberal nationstates: politics and practices.’ In Joppke, C. and Morawska, E. (eds) Toward Assimilation and Citizenship: Immigrants in Liberal Nation-States. London: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 1–36. Jusdanis, G. (2003) World literatures: the unbearable lightness of thinking globally. Diaspora. 12 (1): 103–130. Kamboureli, S. (1996) Making a Difference. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kelek, N. (2005), Die Fremde Braut. Köln: Kiepenheuer & Witsch. Klusmeyer, D. (2001) A ‘guiding culture’ for immigrants? Integration and diversity in Germany. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. 27 (3): 519–532. Klopp, B. (2002) German Multiculturalism. Westport: Praeger. KMK. (1996) Empfehlung, Interkulturelle Bildung und Erziehung in der Schule, Beschluss der Kultusministerkonferenz vom 25.10.1996. Berlin: Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. KMK. (2002), Bericht, Zuwanderung, Beschluss der Kultusministerkonferenz vom 24.05.2002. Berlin: Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Kong, L. (2000) Culture, economy, policy: trends and development. Geoforum. 31 (4): 385–390. Krashen, S. (1993) The Power of Reading. Englewood: Libraries Unlimited. Kruse, I., Orren, H.E. and Angenendt, S. (2003) The failure of immigration reform in Germany. German Politics. 12 (3): 129–145. Kundnani, A. (2002) The Death of Multiculturalism [online]. http://www. irr.org.uk/2002/april/ak000001.html [Accessed 3 August 2007] Kunzru, H. (2004) Transmission. London: Penguin Books. Kunzru, H. (31 March 2007) ‘Host not found.’ The Guardian. Kureishi, H. (1990) The Buddha of Suburbia. London: Faber and Faber. Kureishi, H. (27 January 2007) ‘The debt to pleasure.’ The Guardian. Kymlicka, W. (1995) Multicultural Citizenship. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Bibliography

205

Kymlicka, W. (2000) Review symposium (with Banton, M. and Westin, C.): report of the Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. 26 (4): 719–738. Lacroix, C. (2004a) Contemporary Immigration Policies in Germany and the United Kingdom: Convergence or Divergence? Birmingham: dissertation submitted as part of the requirements for a degree of M.A. European Studies. Lacroix, C. (2004b) Labour Migration Conference Brief. London: Anglo-German Foundation for the Study of Industrial Society. Laurenson, D. (1978) Current research in the sociology of literature. Sociological Review Monograph. 26: 1–14. Langlands, R. (1999) Britishness or Englishness? The historical problem of national identity in Britain. Nations and Nationalism. 5 (1): 53–69. Lash, S. and Urry, J. (1994) Economies of Signs and Space. London: Sage. Lee, H. (14 October 2006) ‘A bunch of terriers.’ The Guardian. Le Figaro (19 September 2006) ‘Contre les intimidations islamistes, que doit faire le monde libre?’ Luchtenberg, S. (1998) Identity education in multicultural Germany. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 29 (1), 51–63. MacDermott, D. (1993) ‘What comes after post? some considerations of the future of post-colonial literature with special reference to India. In Bindella, M.T. and Davis, G.V. (eds) Imagination and the Creative Impulse in the New Literatures in English. Amsterdam: Rudopi. pp. 33–40. Marshall, S. (1989) The German perspective. Comparative Education. 25 (3), 309–317. Marshall, T.H. and Bottomore, T. (1992) Citizenship and Social Class. Concord (Mass.): Pluto Press. McGowan, I. (1995) ‘The United Kingdom.’ In Altbach, P. and Hoshino, E. (eds) International Book Publishing: An Encyclopaedia. New York and London: Garland Publishing. pp. 565–574. McLean, M. (1983) Education and cultural diversity in Britain: recent immigrant groups. Comparative Education. 19 (2), 179–191. Miles, R. (1989) Racism. London: Routledge. Minihan, J. (1977) The Nationalisation of Culture. London: Hamish Hamilton. Moon, B. (2004) Teaching, Learning and the Curriculum in Secondary Schools. London: Routledge. MORI. (1999) British Identity [online]. www.ipsos-mori.com [Accessed 26 May 2007] MORI. (2000) What is Britishness? [online]. www.ipsos-mori.com [Accessed 26 May 2007] MPI. (2007) Germany Strives to Integrate Immigrants with New Policies, Migration Information Source, Migration Policy Institute [online]. www.migrationinformation.org [Accessed 8 February 2007] NACCCE. (1999) All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture and Education. London: National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education. Nestlé Family Monitor. (2003) Young People’s Attitudes Towards Reading. Croydon: Nestlé.

206 Bibliography

Nida-Rümelin, J. (2002) ‘Die kulturelle Dimension des Nationalstaates zur kulturpolitischen Rolle des Bundes.’ In Hoffman, H. and Schneider, W. (eds) Kulturpolitik in der Berliner Republic. Köln: DuMont Literatur und Kunst Verlag. pp. 79–99. OECD. (2000) PISA 2000: Design, Method and Results. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. OECD. (2003) Where Immigrants Student Succeed—A Comparative Review of Performance and Engagement in PISA 2003. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Özdamar, E. (1994) Das Leben ist eine Karawanserei hat zwei Türen aus einer kam ich rein aus der anderen ging ich raus. Köln: Kiepenheuer & Witsch. Patterson, L. (2003) The three ideologies of the British Labour Party, 1997– 2001. Oxford Review of Education. 29 (2), 165–186. Parekh, B. (2000a) Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political Theory. London: Macmillan. Powers, S. and Whitty, G. (1999) New Labour’s education policy: first, second or third way? Journal of Education Policy. 14 (5), 534–546. Pratt, A. (2005), Cultural industries and public policy: an oxymoron? International Journal of Cultural Policy. 11 (1): 31–44. Pamuk, K. (2002) Sprich langsam, Türke. Hamburg: dtv. Pautz, H. (2005) The politics of identity in Germany: the Leitkultur debate. Race and Class. 46: 39–52. Portes, A., Guarnizo, L. and Landolt, P. (1999) The study of transnationalism: pitfalls and promise of an emergent research field. Ethnic and Racial Studies. 22 (2): 217–237. PTI. (2003) Diverse voices. Research on the reading and book-buying habits of ethnic customer groups. London: PTI/Penguin (unpublished). QCA. (2005a) English 21: Playback. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. QCA. (2005b) Taking English Forward. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. QCA. (2006a) Teaching World Literature in the Primary School: A Discussion Paper. London: QCA. QUEST. (2000) Modernising the Relationship Part Two, Developing Risk Management in DCMS Sponsored Bodies. A report to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport from the Quality, Efficiency and Standards Team. London: DCMS. Rai, B. (2001) (Un)arranged Marriage. London: Corgi. Richard and Judy. (2007) Richard and Judy’s Summer Read Returns for 2007. Channel 4 Press Release. Ringstad, V. (2004) On the cultural blessings of fixed book prices. International Journal of Cultural Policy. 10 (3): 351–365. Roy, A. (1997) The God of Small Things. London: Harper Collins. Roy, A. (15 December 2006) ‘India’s Shame.’ The Guardian. Rushdie, S. (1983) Shame. London: Picador.

Bibliography

207

Rushdie, S. (1988) Satanic Verses. London: Vintage. Rushdie, S. (2005) Shalimar the Clown. London: Vintage. Saadi, S. (2004) Psychoraag. Edinburgh: Black and White Publishing. Said, E. (1978) Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books. Sauerberg, L.O. (2001) Intercultural Voices in Contemporary British Literature. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Sayhan, A. (2001) Writing Outside the Nation. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press. SBWF. (2006a) Rahmenlehrplan Deutsch grundschule, schuljahr 2004/05. Berlin: Ministerium für Bildung, Jugend und Sport des Landes Brandenburg und der Senatsverwaltung für Bildung, Jugend und Sport. SBWF. (2006b) Rahmenlehrplan für die sekundarstufe I. Jahrgangsstufe 7-10, Hauptschule, Realschule, Gesamtschule, Gymnasium (Schuljahr 2006/2007) Berlin: Ministerium für Bildung, Jugend und Sport des Landes Brandenburg und der Senatsverwaltung für Bildung, Jugend und Sport. SBWF. (2006c) Rahmenlehrplan für die gymnasiale oberstufe gymnasien, gesamtschulen mit gymnasialer oberstufe, berufliche gymnasien, kollegs, abendgymnasien (Schuljahr 2006/2007). Berlin: Ministerium für Bildung, Jugend und Sport des Landes Brandenburg und der Senatsverwaltung für Bildung, Jugend und Sport. Schumann, P. (1995) ‘Libraries and publishers.’ In Altbach, P. and Hoshino, E. (eds) International Book Publishing: An Encyclopaedia. New York and London: Garland Publishing. pp. 215–229. Scott, A.J. (1997) The cultural economy of cities. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 21 (2): 323–339. Selwood, S. (2002) What difference do museums make? Producing evidence on the impact of museums. Critical Quarterly. 44 (4): 65–88. S¸ enocak, Z. (1997) Die Prairie. Hamburg: Rotbuch Verlag. S¸ enocak, Z. (1998) Gefährliche verwandschaft. München: Babel Verlag. S¸ enocak, Z. (2000) Atlas of a Tropical Germany. Lincoln/London: University of Nebraska Press. Sethi, A. (7 April 2007) ‘Three-year itch.’ The Guardian. Schiller, N.G., Basch, L. and Blanc-Szanton, C. (1999) ‘Transnationalism: a new analytic framework for understanding migration.’ In Vertovec, S. and Cohen, R. (eds) Migration, Diasporas and Transnationalism. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. pp. 26–49. Smith, Z. (13 and 20 January 2007) ‘Tips for writers and readers.’ The Guardian. Sontag, S. (17 May 2007) Abstract of ‘At the Same Time.’ The Guardian. Soysal, Y. (1994) The Limits of Citizenship: Migrants and Postnational Membership in Europe. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Spivak, G. (1987) In Other Worlds: Essays in Cultural Politics. London/New York: Methuen. Spivak, G. (2000) ‘Thinking cultural questions in “pure” literary terms.’ In Hall, S. Gilroy, P. Grossberg, L. and McRobbie, A. (eds) Without Guaranties. London: Verso. pp. 345–357.

208 Bibliography

Stadt Frankfurt am Main. (2003) mitSprache. Frankfurt am Main: Stadt Frankfurt am Main. Stehr, N. (1994) Arbeit, Eigenturm und Wisen: zur Theorie von Wissensgesellschaften. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp. Stotsky, S. (1994) Academic guidelines for selecting multiethnic and multicultural literature. English Journal. 83 (2): 27–34. Tan, T. and Waldhoff, H.P. (1996) ‘Turkish everyday culture in Germany and its prospects.’ In Harrocks, D. and Kolinsky, E. (eds) Turkish Culture in Germany Today. Oxford: Berghahn Books. pp. 137–156. Taylor, C. (1993) Reconciling the Solitudes: Essays on Canadian Federalism and Nationalism. Montreal: McGill University Press. Tejpal, T. (14 August 1999) ‘New gold rush in the east.’ The Guardian. The Bookseller (17 April 2009) ‘Sainsbury’s steps up space for books.’ The Bookseller (2004) In Full Colour. London: The Bookseller/Arts Council of England. The Daily Telegraph (28 February 2005) ‘Schools told: don’t make pupils read same books year after year.’ The Economist (2 November 2002) ‘A survey of migration.’ The Economist (4 February 2006) ‘Culture wars.’ The Economist (22 April 2006) ‘Multicultural hysterics.’ The Economist (2 December 2006) ‘A nation at ease with bits of itself.’ The Economist (11 January 2007) ‘Who to believe?’ The Economist (27 January 2007) ‘Waning.’ The Economist (21 June 2007) ‘Fresh but far from easy.’ The Economist (10 October 2008) ‘The lurking monster.’ The Guardian (7 February 2003) Comment and analysis: ‘colour blind.’ The Guardian (14 November 2003) ‘The curse of being labelled the ‘new Zadie.’ The Guardian (30 September 2006) ‘How one of the biggest rows of modern times helped Danish exports to prosper.’ The Guardian (3 October 2006) ‘Culture, not politics, is now the heart of our public realm.’ The Guardian (5 October 2006) ‘The struggle to defend free expression is defining our age.’ The Guardian (10 November 2006), ‘Bollywood heads for Yorkshire as Sheffield outshines New York.’ The Guardian (10 February 2007) ‘The borrowers.’ The Guardian (3 March 2007) ‘Publish of be damned.’ The Guardian (10 March 2007) ‘Off the shelf.’ The Guardian (10 April 2007) ‘They’re not just British values—but we need them anyway.’ The Guardian (13 April 2007) ‘Who wears the world’s literary crown? Man Booker award aims to decide.’ The Independent (17 June 2006), ‘Britain falls under Bollywood’s spell with attendances hitting record high.’

Bibliography

209

The National Post (28 February 2007) ‘Europe’s tolerance finds its limit: death of multiculturalism.’ The Times (12 September 2006) ‘Cross-fertilisation in an Islamic garden.’ The Times (19 July 2007a) ‘Independent booksellers are queuing up to buy Harry Potter from Tesco.’ The Times (19 July 2007b) ‘How a Laydee proved that first impressions really can be deceptive.’ Times Education Supplement (11 November 2005). ‘Feel the creative force in English.’ Times Education Supplement. Tomlinson, S. (1982) A note on the education of ethnic minority children in Britain. International Migration Review. 16 (3): 646–660 UKZ. (2001) Zuwanderung gestalten—integration fördern. Unabhängig Kommission Zuwanderung, German Federal Ministry of the Interior, July 2001. UN. (2001) Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations? New York: United Nations. UNESCO. (2005) International Flows of Selected Cultural Goods and Services 1994–2003. Montreal: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Van der Ploeg, R. (2005) The Making of Cultural Policy: A European Perspective. Working Paper No. 1524. Munich: CESifo GmbH. Vertovec, S. (2001a) Transnational Challenges to the ‘New’ Multiculturalism. Transnational Communities Programme, Working Paper Series No. 6. Vertovec, S. (2001b) Transnationalism and identity. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. 27 (4): 573–582. Vestheim, G. (1994) Instrumental cultural policy in Scandinavian countries: a critical historical perspective. International Journal of Cultural Policy. 1 (1): 57–71. Wallerstein, I. (1990) ‘Culture as the ideological battleground of the modern world system.’ In Featherstone, M. (ed.) Global Culture: Nationalism, Globalisation and Modernity. London: Routledge. pp. 31–55. Weiler, H. (1990) Curriculum reform and legitimation of education objectives: the case of the Federal Republic of Germany. Oxford Review of Education. 16 (1): 15–27. Weidhaas, P. (1995) ‘Germany.’ In Altbach, P. and Hoshino, E. (eds) International Book Publishing: An Encyclopaedia. New York and London: Garland Publishing. pp. 547–558. Werbner, P. (2004) Theorising complex diasporas: purity and hybridity in the South Asian public sphere in Britain. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. 30 (5): 895–911. Williams, R. (1981) Culture. London: Fontana. Wolff, J. (1981) The Social Production of Art. Basingstoke: Macmillan Education. ˘ Zaimoglu, F. (1995) Kanak sprak. Köln: Kiepenheuer & Witsch. ˘ F. (1998) Koppstoff. Hamburg: Rotbuch Verlag. Zaimoglu ˘ Zaimoglu, F. (2006) Leyla. Köln: Kiepenheuer & Witsch. Zukin, S. (1988) Loft Living: Culture and Capital in Urban Change. London: Radius.

210 Bibliography

Websites www.bbc.co.uk www.kulturportal-deutschland.de www.books.google.com www.stiftunglesen.de www.thebookseller.com

Index accommodation, see integration affective integration, 12–16, 77, 117, 126, 181 definition of, 13 see also belongingness and national identity Ali, Monica, 51, 67, 69, 119–21, 124, 136, 172, 195 Anderson, Benedict, 19, 30–1, 39 Arts Council of England, 54–6, 66, 121, 136, 155, 195 authors, see immigrant authors belongingness, 10, 14–15, 27, 32, 36, 40–2, 45, 87, 144, 188 Bhabha, Homi, 26–7, 77 Bollywood, 49–50, 64 book consumers, see readers book fairs, 33, 142, 157, 163–6, 176 book markets, 29, 63–5, 67, 73, 129–30, 133, 135–9 in Germany, 142–4, 151–3 in the United Kingdom, 145–51 see also book retailers book retailers, 21, 33, 130, 157, 165, 169, 174, 176–7, 184, 187, 189 electronic book retail, 141, 143, 158–9, 165 in Germany, 151–3 in the United Kingdom, 145, 147–51 see also gatekeepers booksellers, see book retailers British Empire, 17, 27–9, 44, 145 Britishness, 5, 40, 43–6, 52, 77, 83, 88, 107, 180 Brown, Gordon, 43 CDU, 24, 41–2, 64, 194 censorship, 33, 39, 52, 62, 70–3

citizenship, 2–3, 10, 16, 34, 42, 45, 86, 117, 119, 121, 125, 127 classes, see integration Clash of Civilisations, 36, 67–8, 73, 76, 182, 191 see also Islam Conservative Party, 1, 54, 92–4 constructivism, 18–22, 35, 37, 41, 52, 62, 81, 83, 87, 127, 179, 183 CSU, 42 cultural belonging, see belongingness cultural industry, 49–50, 53, 63, 65, 131–3, 147, 156, 174 cultural policy, 11, 38, 53–61 accountability in, 55–6, 61 in Germany, 41, 57–60 as social instrument, 54–9, 61 in the United Kingdom, 54–7 cultural products, 21, 27–8, 31–2, 38, 49–50, 53–4, 64–5, 130–3, 138–9 cultural subsidies, see cultural policy culture, definition of, 37 see also hybridity and national culture curriculum, 86–95, 117, 122, 125, 186 accountability in the, 91–5, 122, 125 in Germany, 89–92, 94–5, 98–9 immigrant literature on the, 2, 38, 76, 82, 84, 107–14, 122, 124, 126–7, 171, 186, 190–1, 193 and teachers, 69, 88, 90–1, 95, 97, 109, 112, 114, 125–6, 190, 197 in the United Kingdom, 92–5, 106, 114

211

212 Index

devolution, 43, 45–6, 57, 61, 93–4, 98–9, 112, 190 education, 33, 86–9, 93, 114, 117, 125, 170–3, 177, 188–9 in Germany, 89–92, 94–5 and integration, 97–101, 107 and minorities, 52, 96–7, 101, 125, 181 in the United Kingdom, 56, 92–5, 145 see also curriculum education policy, see education elections, 1–2, 54, 59 englishness, 43–5, 52 ethnic minority, see minority culture exclusion, 9, 15, 18, 41–2, 55, 60, 83, 107, 114, 182 Gastarbeiterliteratur, see immigrant literature gatekeepers, 135, 139–57 definition of, 130 see also publishers, book retailers German nationality act, see Zuwanderungsgezetz globalisation, 20, 32–3, 62–5, 73, 83, 189–90, 194 and culture, 26, 37, 48, 51, 53, 60, 63, 80, see also homogenisation and literary markets, 23, 25, 130–1, 139, 168, 180 and literature, 26, 29 see also publishers and book market Green Party, 24, 59 Hall, Stuart, 26, 78 homogeneity, 11, 24, 30, 36, 41–2, 62–5, 73, 85 see also globalisation homogenisation, see homogeneity hybridity, 26, 48–9, 51, 53, 65, 77–83, 124, 182, 186, 190

identity, 16–17, 28–9, 46, 48, 51, 53–4, 68–9, 90 see also national identity immigrant authors, 22–3, 26, 31, 63, 66–7, 73, 77 and the literary industry, 137–8, 144, 146, 151, 153–6, 162, 189 in public debate, 69, 75–6, 79, 84, 118–22, 123–5, 127, 182–3, 191 as role models, 48, 65, 166–7, 170–3, 177, 185, 190 the socio-economic situation of, 21, 33, 68, 133–5 see also under individual authors immigrant culture, see minority culture immigrant literature definition of, 22–4 use in this book, 2–3 see also literature immigrant writers, see immigrant authors inclusion, see integration indicators (of integration), 13–15, 17, 185–7 cultural, 29, 74–5, 81–2, 84 economic, 173–5, 178 social, 122–4, 126–7 integration classes, 3, 5, 11, 24, 34 definition of, 6–12 promotion of, 4, 6, 15, 17, 37, 55, 65, 76, 84, 87, 94, 107–8, 117, 184–5, 188–91 see also structural integration, affective integration intercultural dialogue, 39, 52, 67, 70, 73–6, 79, 81–4, 175, 182–3, 186–7, 190–1, 195 see also social empathy Islam, 33, 36, 47–8, 50–1, 67–73, 191 European Islam, 69–70, 182 in literature, 69–71, 73, 76, 126, 141 see also, clash of civilisations

Index

Kanak Sprak, see Zaimo˘ glu, Feridun Kulturnation, 24, 41–2, 64, 77 Kulturpolitik, see cultural policy; in Germany Labour Party, 1, 55–6, 92–3 language, see literacy Leitkultur, 24, 40–3, 52, 64, 77, 83, 182 libraries, 33, 81, 84, 137, 159–61, 165–7, 174, 178 literacy, 32, 86, 102–6, 113–16, 124–6, 138, 170–1, 181, 183, 185, 190 literary critics, 24, 26, 161–2, 166 see also media literary industry, see book market; book retailers; and publishers and globalisation see also, publishers, book market, book retailers literature prizes, 26, 63, 121, 133, 145, 153–5, 157, 161, 163, 166, 168–70, 173, 175–6, 189, 194 literature, sociology of, 21–2, 30–3 see also immigrant literature majority culture, see national culture see also Mehrheitsgesellschaft media, 1, 33, 62, 69, 119–20, 124, 154, 161–3, 166, 189, 197 Mehrheitsgesellschaft, 41, 52 Merkel, Angela, 5, 71 minority culture, 5, 17, 40, 46–52, 73, 81, 84 in Germany, 46–8 in the United Kingdom, 48–51 multiculturalism, 5, 9, 16–18, 36, 43, 81, 85, 97, 194 Muslims, see Islam national culture, 12, 16, 37–40, 52–3, 65 in Germany, 24, 40–3, 52, 64, see also Kulturnation,

213

Leitkultur and Mehrheitsgesellschaft redefining of, 74, 77–83, 179, 182–3, 191 in the United Kingdom, 2, 43–6, see also Britishness and Englishness national identity, 2, 11, 39–43, 45, 77–9, 83, 86, 97, 132 the construction of, 81, 101, 180, 182, 188 Özdamar, Emine, 26, 115–16, 120–1, 135 Pamuk, Ohran, 72, 121, 133, 169, 175, 178, 196–7 pigeonholing, see stereotyping positive discrimination, see stereotyping postcolonialism, 26, 49, 83 in literature, 23, 27–9, 77 postmodernism, 78 see also globalisation publishers, 130, 134, 147, 150–4, 156–7 in Germany, 137–8, 142–4, 168, 170 and integration, 33, 66, 138, 170, 173–8, 184, 187–9 Multinational, 140–2, 152 in the United Kingdom, 145–6, 168, 173 see also gatekeepers race, 5, 16–17, 41, 119, 121, 124, 126–7, 191 Rahmenrichtlinien, see curriculum; in Germany readers, 24, 33, 62, 66, 76, 114–16, 118, 136–8, 150, 162–3, 168 role models, see immigrant authors Rushdie, Salman, 18–19, 28, 51, 64, 69, 72, 74, 115, 121, 133, 136, 146, 168–9, 173, 178, 195–6

214 Index

Satanic Verses, see Rushdie, Salman school curriculum, see curriculum S¸ enocak, Zafer, 26, 69, 120, 123 social empathy, 86, 116–19, 126–7, 183, 188, 190 Soziokultur, see cultural policy; as social instrument SPD, 24 stereotyping, 33, 46, 65–7, 73, 78, 120–1 and literature, 26–7, 84, 123, 126, 156, 184, 194

structural integration, 12–16, 113, 116 definition of, 13 through labour, 170–3, 188 see also literacy transnationalism, 2, 24, 32, 48–51, 63, 82, 165, 180, 186 writers, see immigrant authors Zaimo˘ glu, Feridun, 25, 74, 123, 196 Zuwanderungsgezetz, 5, 41

Immigrants, Literature and National Integration (New Perspectives in German Political Studies)

German National Identity in the Twenty-First Century: A Different Republic After All? (New Perspectives in German Political Studies)

New Perspectives in Political Ethnography

New Immigrants in New York

New Immigrants in New York

Nationalism and National Integration

Expressionist Film -- New Perspectives (Studies in German Literature Linguistics and Culture)

Germany's Uncertain Power (New Perspectives in German Studies)

Philosophy and German Literature, 1700-1990 (Cambridge Studies in German)

Literature and German Reunification (Cambridge Studies in German)

Phantoms of War in Contemporary German Literature, Films and Discourse: The Politics of Memory (New Perspectives in German Studies)

Nature, Technology and Cultural Change in Twentieth-Century German Literature: The Challenge of Ecocriticism (New Perspectives in German Studies)

Music and Literature in German Romanticism (Studies in German Literature Linguistics and Culture)

Women and Family Life in Early Modern German Literature (Studies in German Literature Linguistics and Culture)

Music and Literature in German Romanticism (Studies in German Literature Linguistics and Culture)

Modern German Political Drama 1980-2000 (Studies in German Literature Linguistics and Culture)

Germany's New Right as Culture and Politics: Culture and Politics (New Perspectives in German Studies)

Political Theory and Praxis: New Perspectives

Gender and Russian Literature: New Perspectives (Cambridge Studies in Russian Literature)

Institutions, Ideas and Learning in Welfare State Change: Labour Market Reforms in Germany (New Perspectives in German Political Studies)

Left Party in Contemporary German Politics (New Perspectives in German Studies)

Immigrants and National Identity in Europe (Advances in Sociology)

Comparative Fascist Studies: New Perspectives

A Companion to the Literature of German Expressionism (Studies in German Literature Linguistics and Culture)

German Literature, Jewish Critics: The Brandeis Symposium (Studies in German Literature Linguistics and Culture)

The Dual Transformation of the German Welfare State (New Perspectives in German Studies)

Mass Media, Culture and Society in Twentieth-Century Germany (New Perspectives in German Studies)

Bertolt Brecht's Dramatic Theory (Studies in German Literature and Culture)

New German Jewry and the European Context: The Return of the European Jewish Diaspora (New Perspectives in German Studies)

Rhetorical Criticism: Perspectives in Action (Lexington Studies in Political Communication)

New Dimensions in Regional Integration

Immigrants, Literature and National Integration (New Perspectives in German Political Studies)

German National Identity in the Twenty-First Century: A Different Republic After All? (New Perspectives in German Political Studies)

New Perspectives in Political Ethnography

New Immigrants in New York

New Immigrants in New York

Nationalism and National Integration

Expressionist Film -- New Perspectives (Studies in German Literature Linguistics and Culture)

Germany's Uncertain Power (New Perspectives in German Studies)

Philosophy and German Literature, 1700-1990 (Cambridge Studies in German)

Literature and German Reunification (Cambridge Studies in German)

Phantoms of War in Contemporary German Literature, Films and Discourse: The Politics of Memory (New Perspectives in German Studies)

Nature, Technology and Cultural Change in Twentieth-Century German Literature: The Challenge of Ecocriticism (New Perspectives in German Studies)

Music and Literature in German Romanticism (Studies in German Literature Linguistics and Culture)

Women and Family Life in Early Modern German Literature (Studies in German Literature Linguistics and Culture)

Music and Literature in German Romanticism (Studies in German Literature Linguistics and Culture)

Modern German Political Drama 1980-2000 (Studies in German Literature Linguistics and Culture)

Germany's New Right as Culture and Politics: Culture and Politics (New Perspectives in German Studies)

Political Theory and Praxis: New Perspectives

Gender and Russian Literature: New Perspectives (Cambridge Studies in Russian Literature)

Institutions, Ideas and Learning in Welfare State Change: Labour Market Reforms in Germany (New Perspectives in German Political Studies)

Left Party in Contemporary German Politics (New Perspectives in German Studies)

Immigrants and National Identity in Europe (Advances in Sociology)

Comparative Fascist Studies: New Perspectives

A Companion to the Literature of German Expressionism (Studies in German Literature Linguistics and Culture)

German Literature, Jewish Critics: The Brandeis Symposium (Studies in German Literature Linguistics and Culture)

The Dual Transformation of the German Welfare State (New Perspectives in German Studies)

Mass Media, Culture and Society in Twentieth-Century Germany (New Perspectives in German Studies)

Bertolt Brecht's Dramatic Theory (Studies in German Literature and Culture)

New German Jewry and the European Context: The Return of the European Jewish Diaspora (New Perspectives in German Studies)

Rhetorical Criticism: Perspectives in Action (Lexington Studies in Political Communication)

New Dimensions in Regional Integration

Recommend Documents