What has happened to the tolerance of the Netherlands?

Some researchers argue that the country's policies on minorities have led to a segregated society. However, Dutch policies on immigrant integration were more diverse than critics suggest. Initially, the focus was on facilitating the return of guest workers to their home countries, and later shifted towards individual socio-economic integration. The recognition of the right to self-organization among minorities is different from the recognition of cultural rights seen in other countries like Canada. It would be clearer to call the prevailing policies in the Netherlands during the 1970s and 1980s "tolerant monoculturalism." The transition from tolerant to intolerant monoculturalism since the 1990s has been influenced by the culturalization of citizenship. Citizenship came to be associated more with customs and tastes of a cultural community rather than the rights and duties of a political community. The Dutch majority increasingly sees cultural differences as problematic, leading to polarization and debates on social cohesion. Culture plays a significant role in determining an individual's opportunities in life, including finding employment. In a society where citizenship is defined in cultural terms, knowledge of the culture becomes essential. In this article, the culture and the role of culture on how immigrants are seen is explored with three experiments on the views on after-work-drinks, holidays and loyalty.

What variants of culturalization of citizenship are there?

There are four variations of the culturalization of citizenship, which can be categorized based on two dimensions: practical versus emotional and restorative versus constructive.

• Restorative cultural citizenship: This perspective sees culture as a fixed and static phenomenon, consisting of established traditions, customs, and values that need to be preserved or rediscovered. It emphasizes the restoration of historical knowledge and canons to maintain shared affinities and social cohesion.
• Constructive cultural citizenship: This viewpoint considers culture as a dynamic process that evolves through social interactions. It recognizes the influence of external factors on culture and emphasizes the creation of new meanings and practices. It focuses on examining existing practices for their inclusivity and exclusivity.

Both restorative and constructive cultural citizenship can emphasize practical or emotional aspects:

• Practical cultural citizenship: This pertains to concrete practices, such as language proficiency, knowledge of history and traditions, and the ability to function within public institutions.
• Emotional cultural citizenship: This involves adhering to societal "feeling rules," which are implicit expectations about how individuals should express emotions in specific situations. It encompasses feelings of solidarity, loyalty, and belonging to a shared culture.

The restorative, emotional perspective of cultural citizenship emphasizes the importance of feeling at home in the existing culture as a means of integration and loyalty. It often seeks to restore a sense of national history and identity and can be exclusionary towards outsiders.

The restorative, practical approach focuses on teaching democratic participation and assumes fixed institutions, norms, and values. It aims to create good citizens who adhere to established principles.

The constructive, emotional variant aims to generate feelings of belonging and loyalty among citizens. It recognizes culture as a co-created entity and encourages creative responses to disagreements.

It's worth noting that the distinction between restorative and constructive citizenship is not absolute, as they can coexist or be emphasized to varying degrees. Native and new Dutch participants in discussions on cultural citizenship often displayed sensitivities and differing perspectives, with native Dutch participants expressing a desire to defend what they perceived as lost cultural elements, while some new Dutch participants advocated for liberal ideas that supported their freedom of choice.

How are Friday afternoon drinks at work seen in the Netherlands?

In the first analysis, the focus is on the issue of Muslim colleagues not participating in post-work Friday drinks, which involve the consumption of alcohol, a common practice in Dutch culture. The study highlights the difference in alcohol consumption between native Dutch individuals and Turkish and Moroccan immigrants in Amsterdam. It is observed that ethnic minority youths, including Muslims, tend to drink less than average, and the presence of individuals with Muslim backgrounds influences the alcohol consumption of non-immigrant peers.

The analysis explores the reactions and perspectives of participants from different backgrounds. Native Dutch participants generally believe there should be room for choice and propose solutions such as having a non-alcoholic period at the beginning of the gathering. However, some express resistance to making concessions, fearing that it would lead to an endless series of demands from various groups. The concept of gezelligheid (coziness) associated with alcohol in Dutch culture is emphasized, making it difficult for many to imagine socializing without it.

On the other hand, participants with an immigrant background, particularly Muslims, feel misunderstood and stigmatized. They argue that their religion does not strictly forbid them from being present in places where alcohol is consumed and that individual reasons, not just religious beliefs, may contribute to their absence. They express a desire for respect for their choices but also acknowledge the importance of open dialogue and understanding.

The analysis suggests that constructive citizenship involves discussing differences and understanding the motives and experiences of others. However, power dynamics and feelings of powerlessness can impact the willingness to engage in such discussions. It is noted that imposing unwanted identities on participants, particularly Muslims, can occur even during well-intentioned dialogues.

How are holidays viewed in the Netherlands?

The second analysis explores the concept of public holidays as social rituals and their role in sustaining collective feelings and unity within a society. Public holidays play a crucial role in sustaining collective feelings and ideas within a society. They serve as social rituals that bring individuals together and reaffirm shared values. These holidays, whether religious or national in nature, provide opportunities for people to gather and commemorate significant moments.

The integrative function of public holidays has been discussed by sociologists such as Durkheim and Etzioni. Durkheim argues that these occasions allow individuals to reaffirm their common feelings and values through meetings and assemblies. Etzioni builds on this perspective, emphasizing the importance of shared experiences in strengthening social cohesion.

There is a difference between holidays that confirm order through rituals (such as Easter) and those that affirm order through authorized chaos (like Carnival). The analysis presents a hypothetical scenario where the government proposes to establish the Islamic holiday of Eid as a national holiday, potentially replacing an existing holiday. The responses from participants reveal a range of opinions. Some individuals support the proposal, emphasizing inclusivity and the recognition of the Muslim population's needs. Others express opposition, concerned about losing their own holidays or the cultural significance attached to existing traditions.

The discussion surrounding the exchange of national holidays reflects deeper societal debates. Those in favor of the proposal often voice their opinions first, while opponents may hesitate due to fears of being perceived as intolerant or difficult. The topic evokes anxieties and emotional attachments, as individuals express discomfort with changing established holiday traditions or see an opportunity to embrace cultural diversity.

The analysis highlights the complexities of discussions surrounding the establishment and exchange of national holidays, emphasizing the emotional nature of the topic. Immigrants, in particular, tend to prefer keeping the issue private, relying on collective bargaining agreements to secure the day off for Eid. They express concerns about potential backlash from native citizens.

How is loyalty viewed in the Netherlands?

The third analysis explores the concept of loyalty among different groups in the Netherlands. It identifies significant differences between native Dutch individuals and immigrants when it comes to loyalty felt towards different levels, such as local, regional, national, and international. Loyalty is defined as a virtue that depends on one's membership in communities and determines the extent to which universal principles are applied. The article suggests that loyalty can be seen as both steadfastness and servility, and immigrants are often told they must choose loyalty to the Netherlands. However, loyalty is based on unelected ties and can be difficult to prove or demonstrate. The vignettes presented in the article illustrate the struggles and mixed loyalties experienced by the new Dutch and immigrants in relation to their identity as Amsterdammers, Arnhemmers, and Dutch citizens. The conversations reveal a range of perspectives, with some individuals strongly identifying with their city, region, or country, while others express a sense of disconnection or lack of pride in their Dutch identity.