Bridges between cultures - Can foreign language radio programmes enhance integration?

Table of contents

1. Introduction

A Theoretical analysis
1. Systems theory
2. Identity
2.1 Personal and collective identity
2.2 National identity
3. Integration
3.1 The process of integration
3.2 Assimilation and multiculturalism
3.3 Integration and the media

B Case study – guest workers and their media in Germany
4. History
4.1 Guest workers in Germany
4.2 Germany’s policy on foreigners
5. Current situation of foreigners in Germany
6. Guest workers’ and immigrants’ radio programmes in Germany
6.1 The changing function of foreign language radio programmes
6.2 Examples

Conclusion

Appendix

Bibliography

1. Introduction

Brazilian drums mingle with oriental flutes and make people in colourful dresses move their bodies to international sounds floating above Berlin. The smell of gyros fights with bratwurst for the noses of the strolling crowds . Every summer, the Carnival of Cultures creates a magical atmosphere in Kreuzberg, a central part of Germany’s capital. During the festival, multiculturalism in the city is not a utopia any longer but a fact. Berlin houses 440,000 non-Germans of 184 nationalities.^[1] Germany as a whole has eight million foreigners and another million nationalised with different backgrounds living in the country^[2] – one tenth of its total population. Most of them are of Turkish origin. Between 130,000 and 140,000 citizens of Berlin are Turks, another 60,000 are Germans with Turkish background.^[3] Although an unknown number between 30 and 40 million guest workers have come and gone since 1965^[4], most of the Turks, Greeks and Italians, as well as a considerable number of Ex-Yugoslavs and Portuguese living in Germany nowadays, are former guest workers, their children and grand-children. Yet apart from the weekend when all of Berlin celebrates the Carnival of Cultures, the immigrants have to lead a life in which they do not feel accepted and at home at all. Their double identity tries to combine their past, traditions and origin with the German surroundings and create a positive present and future. Berlin’s former senator of the interior, Peter Ulrich, described the lack of integration of the former guest workers and their families as a “social time bomb” in 1982.^[5]

Integration into multiculturalism is the process of building bridges between the cultures, making them accessible to one another and creating tolerance. One version of these bridges could be the media. In the early days of labour immigration to Germany, foreign language radio programmes were created to guide the newcomers through their lives in Germany. With time passing by, these bridges into a brighter future became the last connection to home.

Every bridge leads two ways. Standing on its highest point, the person walking across has to make a decision: to turn around or to walk on?

This essay will discuss whether foreign language broadcasts are enhancing integration or slowing it down. While the guest workers’ programmes were necessary to help foreigners who did not speak any German, foreign media today might create ghettos and decrease the need to learn German – a basic asset for integration.

Part A of the essay will closely analyse the theoretical research that has been done on society as a whole. Systems theory will give an explanation for the way societies work (chapter 1). As a next step, the building and existence of identity will be looked at. After the difference between personal and collective identities has been pointed out in chapter 2.1, national identity as a certain form of collective identity and especially its creation will be analysed further (2.2). The last section of the theoretical part will explain the process of integration (3.1), take a closer look at two main models of integration (3.2) and then deal with the role the media can play in integration processes (3.3).

In part B, the essay will conduct a case study on the integration of former guest workers in Germany and the impact foreign language radio broadcasting had on it. After giving a short history of labour immigration in the Federal Republic of Germany (4.1), the changing policy of the German governments towards foreigners in the country will be adumbrated(4.2). The current situation of foreigners in Germany will give a hint to the answer of the question whether integration has been completed or not (chapter 5). Chapter 6 of the essay deals with the function foreign language radio programmes had in the past and have nowadays (6.1) and gives examples for two different kinds of immigrant radio in Berlin (6.2).

The conclusion at the end of the essay will answer the question whether a media market with a choice of broadcasts in immigrant mother tongues can enhance their integration or whether it is obstructing it.

A Theoretical analysis

1. Systems theory

Analysing communication within a society can be done on different theoretical backgrounds from social sciences: systems theory, belonging to the field of the structural theories, or actor theories, being part of the group of theories of action. Very often, systems theory has to face the accusation that it only describes society but does not explain it very well. Actor theory on the other side works with the idea of individual, collective and corporative actors that follow certain roles. Their actions can either be guided by the notion to maximize profits or be bound to values and norms.^[6] Actor theories are not free of deficiencies either though. Being interested in single actors, the theory lacks a clear description of society as a whole – actor theory has to face the allegation of suffering from a macro-description-deficit.^[7] Following here will be an explanation of systems theory because it stays on that macro level and therefore has a higher possibility of universally valid solutions and explanations compared to the actor theories. In this essay, systems theory will be used as an explanation over and over again; the media or public sphere will be understood as a functional element (or subsystem) of a working democratic state.

The idea of systems theory considers the whole society to be a running system that is divided into numerous smaller subsystems. This structure is a network of elements that are strongly dependent on one another.^[8] These elements are connected through participation in each other’s subsystems as an audience.^[9] A teacher for example, who himself is part of the subsystem school/education, participates in other subsystems as a patient, reader, constituent or comparable functions at the same time.

Systems theory follows three main assumptions:

1. Subsystems fulfil a primary (exclusive) function for society as a whole,
2. every subsystem clearly circumvents itself from all the others through a specific inner structure,
3. subsystems are not situation-bound but exist permanently.^[10]

Looking back in history, systems theory followed two different approaches: the structural-functional and the functional-structural one. The structural-functional approach, originally developed by Talcott Parsons, assumes that there are existing and quite stable systems from the very beginning of society. Parsons tries to analyse their structures and functions. He does not explain why these systems formed though. Following Parsons’ historical thoughts, individuals can act within their systems; the system as a whole stays incapable of action. The functional-structural approach, on the other hand, which dates back from the 1960s and ‘70s, is based on the assumption of dynamic systems in which structures are nothing but the result of trying to solve inner problems. More recent approaches in systems theory were developed by Niklas Luhmann and Richard Münch in the late 1980s and early ‘90s. Luhmann was the first to mention autopoietic (self-referential) systems; Münch wrote about interpenetration. The main thought of this idea is the assumption of systems being open and interdependent. Interpenetration means that the different subsystems are frequently affecting each other more and more until they are not autonomous any longer but have to compromise through networking and ongoing communication. The interconnectedness leads to subsystems that no longer have clearly definable borders but blend into each other. Luhmann’s approach criticizes Münch by saying he does not have any empirical data to prove his point, nor is it possible to gain such data. Self-referential systems like the ones Luhmann talks about are able to create a description of themselves, do not need any kind of monitoring or observation from the outside world and are therefore closed systems. There is no hierarchy whatsoever between Luhmann’s subsystems because no part could ever manage to represent the whole system or society. Those social systems are completely based on the element of communication; only communication enables the system to produce and reproduce itself.^[11] Autopoietic systems reproduce themselves by producing the elements they consist of through the help of other elements belonging to the system. Media as well ensures its existence by creating news and information which they can then report on themselves. Luhmann's approach erases the deficits of both, actor and structural theories.

The numerous subsystems in which systems theory differentiates the whole of society are following their own goals within themselves and at the same time fulfil functions for society. The so-called functional differentiation talks about coequal subsystems of which every single one is desperately needed and indispensable to keep the whole system alive.^[12] Systems set up frontiers and rules. Within those

“constraints [frontiers, compulsions] given by the systems and substantially pointing out abstract goals as well as defining ways and means to reach those goals, actors can chose which actions to take to reach their specific goals with a minimum of effort.”^[13]

The duty of every single system in general is to reduce complexity of the environment to make it easier to understand. Politics are therefore supposed to decide on collective issues and make those decisions mandatory for everyone. Politics’ highest goal would be to appoint suitable characters for the highest positions within the state. The main goal of the subsystem media/public sphere is trying to gain as much and consistent attention as possible. The function of media/public sphere is a reduction of the number of topics and information^[14] as well as enabling the society to observe, analyse and reflect on itself.^[15] This “taking-a-closer-look” at society itself is brought into a scientific theory by Jarren/Donges and their mirror models in systems theory.^[16] Niklas Luhmann even called society a „social system, that exists of communication and nothing but communication“^[17] in 1990 and enforced the emphasis on media, public discourse and public sphere even more. Gerhards explains the inclusion by the media through which citizens are integrated into society as follows: “The subsystems can observe themselves and others through the public sphere or rather the mass media. Participation of the small parts in the big system is made possible through public communication.“^[18]

Systems theory does give a useful model to explain society, but one thing should not be forgotten: when society is looked at through the eyes of systems theory and through those eyes only, then the feeling of belonging does not play a role at all. “When on the other hand defining society as a result of integration through culture, a strong collective identity is considered a prerequisite.”^[19] Systems theory can therefore be used to explain the functions and duties media has in a well functioning society; it cannot, however, be consulted solely to answer any questions on identity and integration.

2. Identity

2.1 Personal and collective identity

When taking an analytical look at the simple term of identity, one thing is apparent: identity and identical have the same linguistic roots. When looking at Germans and groups of people of other ethnic origin living in Germany, there is not very much identical to be seen at first. Yet the question is not which features of people belonging to the same group really are identical but how the feeling of identical features is created. This brings us to the field of constructivism. Constructivism does not look at existing forms that already correspond; it analyses the process of creating a synthesis of congruent perceptions.^[20] In the context of systems theory and the idea of a society based on different systems, identity is created through interaction of these different systems. Communication between them is the main factor in the process of creating the illusion of belonging together. This process is supported strongly by the fact that human beings never stop to develop their identity. Every person is in constant change and redefines itself over and over again. Song writes that identity today is being “engaged in a reflexive project of the self”^[21] and goes on, “A fundamental part of this reflexive project is the ongoing formation and shaping of identity […].”^[22] This moulding of identity is based on the surroundings and impacts of others on the self every human being experiences. “A person is an open system: it is in continuous interaction with its environment through output and input.”^[23]

The term identity refers to labels we give ourselves. The culture we are brought up in, socialisation in our family and surroundings are factors that create our personality and make us identify with certain patterns of behaviour. Every individual has a self-defining picture that tells us who and what we are. Our personal identity is a mixture of the music we listen to, the view of the world we have, the political party we support and many more factors. Weeks brings the concept of identity down to its major reason when saying: “At its most basic, [identity] gives you a sense of personal location, the stable core to your individuality.”^[24] While every individual has its own personality, or individuality, as Weeks calls it, there are also the so-called collective identities that define our belonging – or at least the feeling of belonging – to certain groups of people. Collective identity makes the individual feel belonging to a family, a social class, a nation or even a whole civilization.^[25] The purpose of this essay is to find out whether and how it is possible to create such a collective identity for everyone living in Germany. If the concept works, all the existing identities in the country will have to be integrated and a clear cut definition of us, who are living in Germany has to replace the definitions of us, the Germans, us, the Turks or us, the Italians that are co-existing within the state today.

Collective identity in any form is never a given but always a constructed illusion of belonging together. Bernhard Giesen, a lecturer of sociology at the German university of Constance, pinpoints the construction of difference and equality as the major factor in building collective identities.^[26] The process of growing together entails not only emphasising the common grounds but also – or even more – works through pointing out clearly why other groups do not share these.

„Constructing boundaries and constructing a basis for trust, solidarity and communal equality are two aspects of such processes. Collective identity is produced by the social construction of boundaries. [T]hey establish a demarcation between inside and outside, strangers and familiars […]”^[27],

says Shmuel Noah Eisenstadt,

and Giesen formulates the same idea as follows:

“Collective identity does not come from an accidental congruence of interests but is based on the construction of fundamental boundaries between inside and outside, between a community of the equal and numerous groups of outsiders, foreigners and others.”^[28]

While frontiers between members of the group and others standing outside are a major part, those boundaries are not the nostrum when trying to create collective identities of any kind. Giesen himself stresses the fact that collective identities are not only based on the differences between inside and outside but also need a certain amount of getting over internal differences and creating equality amongst the members of the collective.^[29] Assimilation, a term that will be discussed more closely later in this essay, is therefore necessary as well. Summing up these findings, building a collective identity needs joint action towards others as well as a homogenized inner core.^[30] The latter is created through interaction and communication.

2.2 National identity

One specific kind of collective identities is the idea of nation. With the growing of the European Union, the “ever closer union”, working on a collective identity has moved to the forefront of sociological research. Many of the findings from nation building processes have been reviewed and considered helpful here. Nationality as a concept is for several reasons a surprising and confusing attitude. For once, the state never serves all classes or groups of its society equally well^[31], yet they all believe in their state just the same. Furthermore, people belonging to the same nation do not automatically have the same culture. As Schöneberg puts it: “Culture and nation are hardly ever identical. The nation-state consisting of an ethnically homogenous group of citizens is even today more the exception than the rule.”^[32] The cultures of nation-states that seemed to be associated with one particular country have never truly been based on assets specific to that respective state. “From a historical perspective, they have always been the result of numerous cultural imports as well.”^[33] An extensive part of national identities is not based on culture but on common norms. National identity therefore is a normative, a chosen collective identity. At a conference on European identity organised by the Friedrich-Ebert-Foundation in Germany, Gesine Schwan, chancellor of the European University in Frankfurt/Oder, emphasised the normative choice of democracy, of individuality and dignity of man as being the core of a European political identity.^[34] Such a normative identity, the choice of promoting democracy, could function as a political identity for everyone living in Germany as well. Collective national identity seen as something not grown by its own but agreed on and coming from rational choice as much as from the heart develops through and is a side-effect of the building and accepting of institutions. An already existing collective identity or at least a vague feeling of belonging together nevertheless also supports the process of institution building.^[35]

In a globalised world like ours is today, cultural belonging and identity are hardly ever “the effect of taking over the culture of your ancestors’ origin without cost or effort any more. [Personal and collective identity] are much more dependent on (individual) decisions.“^[36] These numerous options and decisions lead to a state of identity in which many people’s everyday life is shaped by “numerous social affiliations”. This aspect has an especially strong impact when living in a foreign country. Anthropologists as Smith assume that individuals combine multiple identities which are dependent on the situation they are in. According to the place the individual is in or the topic of a conversation it is holding, it identifies with its gender, age, religion or nationality.^[37] Living in a country other than one’s home country, the strongest identity often tends to be an ethnic one. Juhasz/Mey successfully proved this assumption in interviews they conducted with second generation Italian immigrants in Switzerland. The plan to go back to the home country seems to be a leading motive in almost every biography.^[38] Even the children born in Switzerland feel such a strong ethnic Italian binding that they are not talking about emigrating to Italy but going back to Italy.^[39] These ethnic identities lead to a dangerous conflict of cultures for second generation immigrants: they suffer from loyalty- and identification-problems.^[40] On the one hand, there is the closed cultural background and a continuity of the past represented through their parents. On the other side the receiving society demands an adjustment or adaptation mechanism.^[41] These two aspects work against each other and make the process of full integration hard to accomplish. In a multicultural society the question has to be posed whether already existing cultural identities, the commonly used point of orientation for national groups, should dissolve. In the process of building a multicultural society instead of a nation state that demands assimilation, citizens have to be convinced of going through the strenuous work of getting to know and accepting other cultures although they are happy with their own and do not see the need to open up. This is not only difficult in reality; sociologist Smith pinpoints problems in theory too: the national identities that are supposed to be overcome themselves are the only tools that can be used to work on a new, common identity for everyone.^[42] Miriam Meckel quotes the German sociologist Hans-Joachim Giegel and his theory of a “consensus paradox of modernity”:

“In extremely pluralistic […] societies, reaching consensus is getting more and more problematic because on the one hand, it is exactly the great number of forms of living that makes consensus […] necessary. On the other hand, these same numerous possibilities are the aspects diminishing the chance of this badly needed consensus.”^[43]

The factors that are needed to create a national collective identity are perfectly summed up by Schlesinger who defines three major features of identity:

1) Inclusion and exclusion. While we see ourselves as being similar to people of the same generation, nation or social class, we also need to set clear frontiers towards those who do not belong to these groups. “To be ‘us’, we need those who are ‘not us’.”
2) Creating traditions. Factors like manners, eating habits and especially common memories make us feel comfortable around people of our kind. Schlesinger sees the creation of ‘the other’ in these created traditions as well: “The dark side of memory is amnesia; to shed light is also to throw shadows.” Cultural groups that do not share these common memories tend to be seen as ‘the enemy’.
3) A spatial referent. Every group we feel belonging to has some kind of territory. Nations therefore need frontiers to form an identity.^[44]

Habermas completes these thoughts by saying that a nation and its people is not something given or put together by chance or fate; it is something that has been explicitly created.^[45] Identity and integration therefore do not have to have the prerequisites of a common culture, but can be constructed.

3. Integration

3.1 The process of integration

There have always been states with people from multiple cultural backgrounds living on their territories. Some of them, like Switzerland, have existed for centuries and do not result from migration in recent times; but most countries have attained citizens of numerous peoples through those movements. The number of states with a homogenous population in this respect has become increasingly small. Only 9% of the states on earth are populated by just one of the nearly 900 ethnic groups Murdock defines in his ethnographic atlas. 19% are states with a population of which more than 90% belong to the same ethnic group. 30% of all countries house multiple ethnic groups with none of those dominating in number; 40% of the states consist of several bigger ethnic groups and a number of minorities.^[46] Considering these figures, integration of different identities is essential. A normative collective identity is needed for the functioning of the state. Only when all the citizens identify with and support a common legal system as well as the respective values and norms can democracy work. Integration in simple terms works through shared values and orientations.^[47] Migrants who have been motivated to leave their own country by either push- or pull-factors^[48] usually

“share the vision of free-market capitalists that there be a global market for labour. No government in the world shares this vision, nor do the majority of nationals in any country. Many countries do, however, see the benefits from limited migration.”^[49]

[...]

---

^[1] see Voß, 2001, 138

^[2] see Oberndörfer, 2001, 16

^[3] see promotion material AYPA TV

^[4] see Oberndörfer, 2001, 16

^[5] Ulrich, 1982, 21

^[6] see Jarren/Donges, 2002b, 63/64

^[7] see Gerhards, 1994, 78

^[8] see Jarren/Donges, 2002a, 46

^[9] see Gerhards, 1994, 83

^[10] see Gerhards, 1994, 82

^[11] see Marcinkowski/Bruns, 2000, 210

^[12] see Jarren/Donges, 2002a, 52

^[13] Jarren/Donges, 2002a, 81; originally in German. All originally non-English quotes used in this essay will be the author’s own translation.

^[14] see Jarren/Donges, 2002a, 77; see also Luhmann, 1990

^[15] see Jarren/Donges, 2002a, 97

^[16] see Jarren/Donges, 2002a, 113

^[17] Luhmann, 1990, 173; originally in German

^[18] Gerhards, 1994, 88; originally in German

^[19] Kohli, 2002, 115/116; originally in German

^[20] see Luhmann, 1991, 21

^[21] Song, 2003, 2; see also: Giddens, 1991

^[22] Song, 2003, 2

^[23] www.stephweb.com/capstone/5.htm

^[24] Weeks, 1990, 88

^[25] see Kaelble/Kirsch/Schmidt-Gernig, 2002, 15

^[26] see Giesen, 1993, 493

^[27] Eisenstadt, 1993, 485

^[28] Giesen, 1993, 492; originally in German

^[29] see Giesen, 1993, 495

^[30] see Münch, 1993, 20

^[31] see Petras, 1996, 511

^[32] Schöneberg, 1995, 1; originally in German. See also Van den Berghe, 1976, 243.

^[33] Oberndörfer, 2001, 18; originally in German

^[34] Berlin, June 16th 2003

^[35] see Kohli, 2002, 117

^[36] Hansen/Lang/Neumann, 2001, 11; originally in German

^[37] see Smith, 1992, 59

^[38] see Juhasz/Mey, 2003, 171

^[39] see Juhasz/Mey, 2003, 172

^[40] see Juhasz/Mey, 2003, 12

^[41] see Viehböck/Bratić, 1994, 93

^[42] see Smith, 1992, 67

^[43] Meckel, 1994, 21; originally in German

^[44] see Schlesinger, 2002, 194

^[45] see Habermas, 2001, 7

^[46] see Schöneberg, 1995, 2

^[47] see Habermas, 2001, 7

^[48] see Portera, 1995, 13

^[49] Bernstein/Weiner, 1999, XVI