Pillarization , Multiculturalism and Cultural Freezing Dutch Migration History and the Enforcement of Essentialist Ideas

During the 1970s, the Netherlands introduced a set of multi-cultural policies which, through government subsidies, subsidised and promoted the otherness of migrants for several decades. Other countries also embraced multiculturalism. In the Netherlands, however, this policy represented a continuation of an older tradition of pillarization. Multiculturalism was not pillarization in new clothes, however, although there was a continuity of the underlying ideas, as this article will show. This led to a great deal of enthusiasm for multiculturalism, and subsequently to great disappointment, without it ever becoming clear what exactly the aim of the policy was and how its success or failure could be measured. The central thesis of this article is that the successive development of pillarization and multiculturalism in the Netherlands has led to a reinforcement of essentialist ideas concerning migrants and their descendants, as well as a freezing of ideas on ‘the’ Dutch culture. This double freezing then made adaptation difficult or impossible.

I will start with some general remarks about immigrant organising, pillarization and multiculturalism.These will be followed by sections describing organisation among immigrants, the influence of government policy and the effects of these on ideas about Dutch culture. 11

Immigrant organisations
The extent to which immigrants cluster in organisations is a measure of collectively expressed and collectively ascribed identity. 12The character, number and size of such organisations indicate the degree to which immigrants wish to profile themselves as different, or the extent to which others see them as different. 13It is also through these organisations that authorities address immigrants as a collective.As such, organisations say something about the demarcations within and between immigrant groups, and between immigrants and non-migrants. 14Immigrant organising is stimulated by (perceived) cultural differences between immigrants and nonimmigrants, migration patterns and motives, characteristics of the immigrant group (sex ratio, religion, numbers, concentrations, age) and the division of resources among the immigrants. 15The opportunity structure of the country of settlement is crucial to immigrant organising as this can frustrate, facilitate or encourage organisation among immigrants.A bell-shaped relationship exists between government interference and associational behaviour. 16llarization, multiculturalism and cultural freezing schrover BMGN.Opmaak.Special.indd331 28-06-10 15:17 the international relevance of dutch history At one end of the scale are countries where the government forbids or discourages immigrant organisations.In the middle, we find countries where tolerating and funding immigrant organisations stimulate the creation and continuation of such organisations.At the other end of the scale are those countries where too much government interference leads to the crowding out of immigrants' own initiatives.As we shall see below, the Dutch government has encouraged, facilitated and subsidised immigrant organisations, but has also crowded out immigrant initiatives.Pillarization within Dutch society and the way multicultural policies have been implemented has contributed to this.

Pillarization
Pillarization, which characterised Dutch society between 1900 and 1960, has been defined as a form of segmental differentiation in a functionally differentiated society, which promotes social exclusiveness and an in-group mentality. 17When the term was first coined, shortly after World War II, it was seen as a typically Dutch phenomenon.Later authors pointed out that other countries -such as Belgium, Switzerland or Austria -had similar systems of segmented pluralism, which were used for social mobilisation and the structuring of political conflict and compromise. 18In the 1950s and 1960s, however, politicians and social scientists saw pillarization as a uniquely Dutch Pillarization as a policy meant that groups could apply for government funding for, for instance, private schools, the building of places of worship and support for their organisations.In the 1950s (shortly before the onset of depillarization), more organisations than ever -active in more fields than ever -received state subsidies. 22Immigrant organising was influenced by pillarization -as will be described below -although this was no more than a footnote within the larger history of pillarization.

Multiculturalism
There is an extensive literature on multiculturalism, part of which seeks to pass moral judgement (was multiculturalism good or bad?) or deals with the (alleged) failure of multicultural policy. 23This article takes a different approach, and examines the functionality of multiculturalism: why was it pursued as a policy, how did it change over time, and what were its consequences? 24Some authors have equated pillarization with Dutch multiculturalism. 25However, Catholics and Protestants formed large groups within Dutch society, while the groups that were targeted by the Dutch multicultural policies consisted of small minorities, with a weak socioeconomic position.Furthermore, the people who formed the pillars were seen as members of Dutch society, whereas the groups that were targeted by multiculturalism were often not. 26 In the 1960s and 1970s, multiculturalism emerged as an ideology and as a policy for managing the cultural diversity that resulted from increased immigration to Western countries 27 , or as a way to avoid coping with change. 28It was not only the Netherlands that followed a multicultural policy; the United Kingdom, Sweden, Germany, Australia, the United States The struggle for recognition spurred ethnic formation, organisation and mobilisation by ethnic brokers who worked to obtain recognition by making cultures visible.Since claims for recognition were based on the supposed uniqueness of the group's culture, institutionalisation of multiculturalism led to overemphasising of differences between groups and underplaying of the diversity within groups.Because of this assumed group homogeneity, authorities encouraged the formation of one representative body.This not only denied differences within groups, but also increased competition between them, as they tried to legitimise their claims to speak on behalf of 'the community', and thus quality for funding.
The institutionalisation of multiculturalism led to the construction of collective public identities, quests for authenticity, assumptions about homogeneity, and competition within what are believed to be communities.
Institutionalisation dictated what a legitimate identity was and, as such, how migrant communities defined and presented themselves.Crucial to multiculturalism is that integration was seen as a group process, which justified subsidies for immigrant organisations. 40Immigrants in the Netherlands were encouraged to set up their own organisations.immigrants the High German used was as foreign as Dutch.A language issue evolved, fuelled by differences in orthodoxy.The orthodox and the more liberal Lutherans both appealed to the Dutch civil government.In the end, the liberals gained most support, but as a result the Lutheran church symbolically broke with its status as an immigrant church and became a Dutch minority church, with sermons in Dutch and ministers who were now trained in the Netherlands, and no longer in German regions.Dutch authorities also played a crucial role in the organisation of Jews in the Netherlands.In 1814, Jewsimmigrants and non-immigrants -were forced into a single organisation by Dutch civil authorities, who saw this as a way to counter the extreme poverty among some of the Jews: if there was one community, its richer members could be held responsible for the poorer ones.
Enforcing internal unity and creating external segregation via stateled, top-down initiatives did not originate at the time of pillarization or multiculturalism, but -as we shall see below -both phenomena did serve to stimulate this further.

Stimulating immigrant organisations and ethnic othering after 1900
In the 1920s and 1930s, immigrants made use of the possibilities created by the international relevance of dutch history In the 1960s, when guest workers started to arrive from Italy, Spain and Portugal, things did change.Guest worker immigrants from Catholic countries could have fitted into the pillarized structure, which at the time of their arrival was still in place.Catholic immigrants in the Netherlands did not set up separate churches before the 1960s. 46Rather surprisingly, however, the new Catholic immigrants started to do just that.The reason for this was a fundamental change in ideas about church organisation within the Catholic church. 47aditionally, the Vatican forbade the formation of separate churches based on language or ethnicity.In the United States, Catholic clergy showed some leniency towards separate Catholic churches, and German, Irish, Polish, and Italian Catholic immigrants there did set up their own churches in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. 48Around 1900, Catholic Poles in the German Ruhr area and Irish migrants in the United Kingdom also organised into separate churches. 49The Dutch clergy was stricter, however: in the 1930s, Italian, Slovenian and Polish miners and German dockworkers in the Netherlands were provided with chaplains who said mass and heard confessions in their own languages, but they were not allowed to form separate churches.
In 1969, as an outcome of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), the Catholic church broke with one of its oldest principles.It dropped the principle of territoriality, which had organised churchgoers into parishes, and allowed migrants to start minority language churches.Shortly afterwards, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese-language churches were set up in the Netherlands. 50Immigrants were organised by language and not according to country of origin.The Portuguese speaking churches, for example, included migrants from Portugal, the Cape Verde Islands, Brazil, Angola and Mozambique.
The reason for this dramatic change was that the Catholic church feared that migrants might otherwise lose their faith.This fear was not new, however, and had not previously constituted grounds to change policy (despite pressure in the United States).The reason for the change now was that the Vatican -like many of the governments in the countries of origin of the guest workers -believed this migration to be temporary, and that organisation into separate migrant churches would facilitate an easy return.
The change within the Catholic church had a spin-off effect via rather These Councils were also not immigrant organisations, as was true for the Foundations.Unlike the Foundations, the Councils however did include representatives of migrant groups, but never as part of the management.
The Foundations and the Councils with each other for the right to represent guest workers.They also competed for subsidies. 63The Councils favoured left-wing initiatives and successfully protested against subsidies for religious organisations set up by the guest workers.This refusal created an opening for interference by the countries of origin, which then sent money and imams. 64The result of all this was a remarkable constellation.The Foundations and the Councils received subsidies from the Dutch government and competed with each other and with left-wing immigrant organisations.
Right-wing and religious immigrants' organisations were subsidised by the countries of origin and thereby evaded interference and crowding out by Dutch organisations. 65The right was united, the left was divided. 66In 1975, elections were organised for the Council in the Dutch town Utrecht.Because right-wing guest workers were so much better organised than their left-wing compatriots, all guest worker representatives in the Councils following the elections were right-wing. 67A clash with the left-wing Dutch volunteers followed, and this signalled the end of the Councils.

Institutional path dependency
In the 1970s, the way in which group activities were subsidised made it advantageous to belong to an ethnic group.It was believed that by maintaining group-specific facilities, the socio-cultural emancipation of groups could be furthered, which would benefit individual socio-economic participation.This idea echoes the ideas behind pillarization.Subsidies were not granted to organisations that cut across ethnic boundaries.Immigrants were forced into homeland-based organisations, whose leaders were incorporated into advisory bodies and procedures.State funding relieved these organisations from mobilising a constituency. 68Activities had to be presented as 'cultural' and 'authentic'.Local and national governments used the subsidies to the organisations to keep in touch with communities, and in this way held communities responsible for the actions of individuals. 69This mirrors ideas about segregation and immigrant organisation from before 1900.
The policy of the 1970s can be described as 'selective exemptionism'.
Immigrants were encouraged to retain what was believed to be their 'original' culture, through subsidies and exemptions from general rules.The same leeway was however not granted to non-migrants wishing to retain their culture.In 1974, for instance, Dutch women from the province Zeeland protested -without success -against the obligation to wear a helmet when riding a moped, as this made it impossible for them to wear their traditional caps with large wings and golden ornaments, which were part of their traditional dress. 70 In 1981, the government decided that migrants should use general organisations whenever possible, rather than receive subsidies for their own organisations.Subsidies were reduced and the organisations which still received subsidies had to adapt their goals: there was no more bonding, but only bridging. 71National umbrella organisations continued to be subsidised, but had few ties with local immigrant organisations and did not represent large numbers of migrants.Not all migrants were seen as in need of this kind of representation.Migrants from some countries -principally Turkey and Morocco -were seen as more problematic and more in need of support than others.Despite -or perhaps because of -all the subsidies and professional support, these organisations mostly failed. 73 the end of the 1980s, multicultural policy changed again.The cultural brokers lost influence, and the immigrant organisations gained some. 74 In 1983, the government recognised that many of the guest workers and their families would stay in the Netherlands permanently. 75The adagio 'integration while retaining identity' was dropped from government policy, although political parties continued to use it for decades afterwards. 76The same went for institutions, the media and the public debate.Almost 25 years after the idea was abandoned, institutional path dependency meant this idea continued to resonate in public debates. 77Moroccans, for instance, are currently presented as less integrated than Turks because they organise less as Moroccans and fail to stand up for 'the Moroccan community'. 78This is a point of view that reflects the initial ideas behind multiculturalism.

The invention of ethnic minorities
The Dutch government stated in a 1983 policy memorandum that the Netherlands had a multicultural character, but that migrants had to respect and honour the norms and values of Dutch society. 79Immigrants were now labelled 'ethnic minorities'. 80What an ethnic minority was, was not defined in the memorandum, because the politicians who drafted it could not agree on a definition. 81They simply listed the groups of migrants that the policy targeted.Not all groups were included, since not all groups were seen as the international relevance of dutch history problematic.Turks and Moroccans were, but Chinese, for instance, were not.
In the 1990s, government support for immigrant organisations was again reduced, but was still not stopped altogether, and the infrastructure remained intact. 82To qualify for subsidy, immigrant organisations reproduced stereotypical ideas.Subsidy policy not only shaped the way subsidy requests were phrased, but also the type of activities organisations undertook. 83Organisations were more likely to get subsidies if their plans were based on stereotypical ideas, especially with regard to Muslims.In this way, the Dutch state subsidised the 'othering' of migrants.Subsidies were mostly short-term and project based, and the ensuing repeated reproduction of ideas enforced stereotyping. 84The system of subsidy led to fossilisation, with the same organisations receiving subsidies for the same activities year in, year out. 85 2000, the subsidies for national organisations were stopped, but in 2002 a new temporary subsidy was introduced.A great deal of emphasis in political discussions was placed on a change in policy, but very little changed in practice. 86Opinion leaders criticised multiculturalism, calling it a 'multicultural tragedy'. 87Immigrant self-organisations were no longer seen as a means to develop and strengthen identity, nor as a route to emancipation.
Cultural difference was problematised. 88In 2001, the policy focus shifted from social-economic participation towards reducing social and cultural distance between migrants and Dutch society. 89In 2002, the murder of Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn was presented as a 'clash of civilisations'.Fortuyn was murdered by a Dutch animal-rights activist, who wanted him to stop exploiting Muslims as scapegoats.Fortuyn was presented as someone killed for his criticism of multiculturalism. 90The same was true of filmmaker Theo van Gogh, murdered in 2004.
There The outcome of the search for a Dutch identity is influenced by the times in which the searchers live. 107During the Dutch Revolt against Spain (1568-1589) and the Eighty Years War for Dutch independence that followed, frequent reference was made to the Dutch origin myth of the Batavian uprising against the Roman Empire (69-70). 108Later, the Dutch Revolt itself became a defining element of Dutch identity, although Catholics had problems with its Protestant connotation. 109In the middle of the nineteenth century, tribes which were believed to have lived in the Netherlands in Roman times -Franks (in the South), Frisians (in the North) and Saxons (in the

(
and promising) transition to modernity.19In the Netherlands, pillarization meant segmentation of society into religious and secular blocs and subcultures.There were four pillars (Catholic, Protestant, Socialist and Liberal), but only the Catholic and Protestant pillars provided the cradle-to-grave embeddedness said to characterise a pillarized society.The Catholic pillar showed most coherence.The Protestant pillar split into two or more pillars20 , and the Socialist and Liberal pillars were largely the result of strong organisation among Catholics and Protestants.21 pillarization.One example of this is the German schools, set up by migrants inThe Hague, Amsterdam and Venlo, and subsided by the Dutch government.43These subsidies were, however, not meant to create or support ethnic 'micropillars'.This changed after World War II, but not immediately.Between 1945 and 1960, 300,000 people came to the Netherlands from the former Dutch East Indies (present-day Indonesia).They formed the first large group of postwar immigrants.The 'repatriates' were carefully monitored by Dutch social workers, and a large number of commissions, organisations and agencies were set up to help them.In 1950, an umbrella organisation 44 was established which helped these repatriates from their moment of arrival.It assigned social workers -from the pillar that seemed most appropriate -to repatriates.The idea was that the newcomers would find their place within pillarized Dutch society, but not by starting their own pillar. 4543 Katja Happe, Deutsch in den Niederlanden 1918-1945.Eine historische Untersuchung zu nationalen Identifikationsangeboten im Prozess der Konstruktion individueller Identitäten (Siegen 2004) 62. 44 Central Committee of Religious and Private Initiatives for the Social Care for Repatriates [Centraal Comité van Kerkelijke en Particulier Initiatief voor sociale zorg aan gerepatrieerden].45 Goss, 'From Tong-Tong to Tempo Doeloe', 15. pillarization, multiculturalism and cultural freezing schrover BMGN.Opmaak.Special.indd339 28-06-10 15:17 the international relevance of dutch history Selective exemptionism in the 1970s.Migrants were granted certain rights, based on what was claimed to be their cultural heritage, while similar rights were not granted to Dutch non-migrants, who tried to make claims on exemptions based on tradition.The picture shows an unsuccessful protest in 1974 against the wearing of safety helmets on mopeds by Dutch women who wear national dress with matching caps.Cor Out, Algemeen Nederlands Persbureau anp.BMGN.Opmaak.Special.indd346 28-06-10 15:17 of Dutch society.Local and national governments concentrated money and manpower on the development of non-religious self-help organisations.
dictated what was a legitimate identity and, as such, how migrant communities defined and presented themselves.36Itwasbased on a conception of groups as homogenous, and having unique and inherent characteristics.37Thisperception of a coherent and unified entity was linked to a belief in an underlying essence.Multiculturalism failed to take into account that ethnicity is not an immutable, primordial essence, but is fluid, amorphous, and constantly being reinvented.This denial makes it possible to search for 'authentic' cultural differences.Multiculturalism was morally and politically acceptable only if ethnic minorities were actual groups with inherent characteristics.38Itdemanded the construction of a public ethnic identity (as opposed to a private one), and pressed individuals to organise into groups on the basis of perceived cultural similarity.39 Rights of Minorities', Sydney Law Review 14 (1994) 473-505; Anne Phillips, 'When Culture Means Gender: Issues of Cultural Defence in the English Courts', The Modern Law Review (2003) 510-531, 517.BMGN.Opmaak.Special.indd334 28-06-10 15:17 institutionalisation, which 61e employers initially funded the charities, but in the 1970s the Dutch government decided to centralise activities for efficiency reasons.Government interference in immigrant organisations had a crowding-out effect.The bottom-up initiatives by guest workers themselves had to compete with top-down initiatives from organisations subsidised and initiated by the Dutch government.The result was that, for instance, language classes in Italian set up by the guest workers themselves outside school hours, were now moved into schools and given during school hours.The Italian guest workers and their organisations protested against this, as they feared their children might fall behind if they missed part of the regular Dutch curriculum.After three years of protests, the classes were again moved out of the schools.The Italians were however the only group to succeed in doing this.Children from other countries were concentrated in certain schools (called concentration schools); one school organised language lessons for all Spanish children, one for all Turkish children, etcetera.Mother-tongue apprehension was initially believed to make it easier for guest workers to return, but when it became clear many would not, it was believed that the classes would support identity development amongst minorities and that this would contribute to the creation of a multicultural society.theFoundationsandset up alternative immigrant Councils (Raden)61, which called the Foundations old-fashioned and patronising.The Councils were, like the Foundations, fully subsidised by national and local governments.62 52The Foundations for the Welfare of Foreign Workers (Stichtingen 53 ) played a crucial role.They were subsidised by the Dutch government to the tune of 40 percent, with local authorities and employers covering the rest.By 1975, government subsidies had increased to 100 percent, leading to a corresponding increase in government influence on and dependency by the organisations.54Thecreation of the Foundations was a reason for the general (non-immigrant) organisations to no longer see immigrants as their target group, and the migrants' problems as no longer their business.55TheFoundationsworkedonbehalfoftheguest workers, but were not guest worker organisations.The Dutch government favoured this construction as it feared influence both from the countries of origin of the guest workers and from right-wing immigrant organisations active in the Netherlands, such as the Turkish Grey Wolves, in the wakes of several severe clashes between right and left-wing guest workers in the 1960s.57In1974,immigrantorganisationswereseen as essential not only for maintaining ethnic identity, but also for smoothing relations with Dutch society.58In1975, the minister of Social Work pressed for more representation of guest workers within the Foundations.This was surprising, as only one year previously, the authorities were of the opinion that guest workers did not qualify for managerial positions within the Foundations because of their social and cultural background.The Foundations did not manage to find candidates, however, and nothing changed.59Between1973 and 1981, guest workers protested against their lack of influence.In several Dutch towns, there were groups of volunteers (many of them left-wing students) who gave Dutch language lessons to guest workers, and helped them with housing and labour issues.The left-wing 72Municipal councils tried to get 'the Moroccans' or 'the Turks' 106e been no bottom-up initiatives to unite Muslims in the Netherlands.Rather, it has been the Dutch government which has made repeated attempts to achieve this.The first umbrella organisation for Muslims was set up in 1975, but it excluded the Ahmadiyyas.98It was discontinued in 1980.In 1981, a new organisation was formed, which managed to survive until 1983. 99 also various parallel organisations which claimed to represent all Muslims in the Netherlands, but in fact none of them did.100In1989, after the Satanic Verses controversy (and protest by Muslims in the Netherlands against the book by the British-Indian novelist Salman Rushdie), the government felt a more urgent need to get in touch with the 'Islamic community'.101Umbrellaorganisationscame and went, but none of these managed to survive for more than a few years.After the El Moumni affair (a Rotterdam Imam who in 2001 declared that homosexuality is a disease), the 9/11 attacks (2001) and the murder of Theo van Gogh (2004), the Dutch government increased its attempts to create an Islamic umbrella organisation.In 2004, the Contact Body Muslims and Government (cmo) 102 was established, which represented Sunnites only.The government twice officially investigated to what extent the body represented all Muslims.Despite the fact that it was found that it did not, it was recognised as the official interlocutor of the Dutch government.The Dutch government wants to talk to one organisation only, which represents all Muslims in the Netherlands.It is aware of the fact that the cmo does not do so, but still seeks out this organisation to approve government policy, or to publicly disapprove of incidents.The government seeks to hold the 'Muslim community' responsible, as immigrant churches were held responsible for their members in the Early Modern Period.On the whole, we have seen that the heritage of pillarization and the way in which multicultural policies were implemented in the Netherlands led to static ideas about 'immigrant cultures'.These ideas were matched by static ideas about 'Dutch culture'.When, in the autumn of 2007, Princes Maxima claimed that there was no such thing as the Dutch identity, this led international relevance of dutch history to a large-scale debate.A Dutch newspaper invited its readers to define what Dutch culture was.103There was little consensus in the result.Serving one biscuit only with coffee was seen as typically Dutch by some, but as typically Protestant Dutch (and not Catholic) by others.A similar attempt three years earlier led to similar discord.104swersdifferedaccording to religious and regional background, gender and age.From the perspective of the United States and Canada, the Dutch may live in a country the size of a postage stamp105, but that does not stop them from pointing differences between the Protestant North and the Catholic South, or the urbanised West and the rural rest.Many things that are labelled 'Dutch' in public discussion are no more than a century old.Sinterklaas (a holiday on December 5th) has only been celebrated in its current form for the last half century.In the beginning of the twentieth century, many Protestants objected to celebrating this clearly Catholic saint's day.Bicycles are seen as typically Dutch, but they date from around 1890; Koninginnedag (Queens Day: now April 30th) was introduced in 1898, and the national anthem in 1932.In  nineteenth century, different measures were used in different regions of the Netherlands; the time on the clock and the date on the calendar differed per region, and people from the North could not understand people from the South.106 100 W.A.R. Shadid and P.S. van Koningsveld, Moslims in Nederland.Minderheden en religie in een multiculturele samenleving (second edition; 251-253; Thijl Sunier, Islam in beweging.Turkse jongeren en islamitische organisaties (Amsterdam 1996) 76. 102 Contactorgaan Moslims en Overheid: cmo.pillarization, multiculturalism and cultural freezing schrover BMGN.Opmaak.Special.indd351 28-06-10 15:17 the