Living Together: European Citizenship
against Racism and Xenophobia
Dissemination of the results of the project
16 June 2010
This project is supported by the European Commission DG Justice,
Freedom and Security, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship
Programme (2007-2013)
Living Together Partners

Project Co-ordinator
◦ OBERAXE, the Spanish Monitoring Centre on Racism and
Xenophobia.

Participating countries
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦

Spain
Portugal
Finland
The Netherlands
Sweden
Ireland
Statutory bodies, universities, NGOs
Living Together Aim
Promote European discourse of
tolerance
recognition free from
harmony
of
racism and
and respect
difference xenophobia

See UNESCO Declaration of Principles on Tolerance
Living Together Objectives
Focus
Groups
Best
Practice
Expert
Forum
• Analyse and identify prejudices, stereotypes, fears
• How are racist attitudes generated and legitimised?
• Compile best practice
• Identify strategies to fight racism and xenophobia
• Identify common principles and actions to address racism and
xenophobia - Decalogue
• Audience – various social agents / experts
• Develop transnational monitoring mechanism
Network
Living Together Methodology

Developed by Complutense University of
Madrid and Rotterdam University
Focus groups
 Best practice reports
 National expert forums

Living Together Methodology
Focus groups
Finland, Sweden, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain
 3 focus groups per country

FG1
• Upper middle
social status

FG2
• Young middlemiddle social
status - 18-25 yrs
FG3
• Lower middle
social status
Drawback – funding constraints dictated the
number of focus groups
Living Together Methodology
Focus groups
 Moderation style - conversational
 3 phrases to stimulate discussion
◦ Skin colour is of great importance for living
together
◦ Both immigrants and ethnic minorities get
more (from the country they live in) than
they give
◦ Both immigrants and ethnic minorities should
maintain their identity and culture of origin
Highlights – Focus Groups
Sociodemographic
profiles
Key
influences
positions on
immigrants
and ethnic
minorities
Experience of
living together
social
desirability
bias
Feelings of
competition jobs and public
benefits
Reflective
arguments to
neutralise
cultural
criticism
Class racism
General
tolerance
Social context
of economic
crisis
Good and bad
experiences
impact
attitudes
FG3
Pros and cons
of immigration
FG2
FG1
Highlights – Focus Groups
Social context
of economic
crisis
Feelings of
competition
and
discrimination
Experiences of
difficulties living
together
Highlights – Focus Groups
Skin
colour
• Matters in society (Sweden, Finland, Netherlands)
• More about socio-economic status (Portugal, Spain)
• Stereotyping – associate skin colour with cultural and
religious values. Media plays a role in this context.
Get more
than they
give
• Give: economic, cultural and demographic contributions
acknowledged
• Get: public subsidies, unemployment benefit, housing,
jobs
Should keep
identity and
culture
• Greater cultural tolerance shown by young people
and adults with higher education especially in
Sweden and Finland.
Highlights – Focus Groups
• Negative
Discourses
• Negative
Arguments
• Positive
Discourses
e.g. invasion,
damage labour,
cultural imposition,
anti-social
behaviour, reverse
discrimination
e.g. immigration
necessary, human
rights,
discrimination,
cultural wealth
contribution
e.g. control
immigration,
abusive & unskilled,
immigration, lazy
e.g. Necessary
immigration, equal
rights, citizens,
over-qualified,
stereotyped
• Positive
arguments
Highlights – Focus Groups
Country comparisons
Class racism more prevalent in Spain, Portugal
and the Netherlands
 More admissions of racism in Spain and
Portugal based on experiences and perceptions
 Social desirability bias more prevalent across all
focus groups in Sweden – less visible racism
 Discourse of resentment present across all
focus groups in Spain – possibly linked to
collective memory pre-welfare state

Living Together Methodology
Choosing best practice
1.
2.
3.
4.
Demonstrable effects / tangible impacts
Creative / innovative
Sustainable
Potential for replication

Must meet at least criteria 1 and 4 above

Based on UNESCO’s International Migration Best Practice Project
Living Together Methodology
Choosing best practice – other criteria
Geographical
big city
Entity
public
Private
town
Timescale
Project Type
education
completed
by 2008
improving
intercultural
tolerance
and dialogue
social service
housing
NGO
rural
Area
other
employment
sport etc
Highlights – Best Practice

Area – education, sport, legal, employment,
public administration etc.

Type – awareness raising, tackling racism,
cultural mediation, youth, arts, living together,
interculturalism and religion etc.

Website –
http://livingtogether.oberaxe.es/livingtogether/
Living Together Methodology

Purpose of expert forums - to provide a
basis for the preparation of the Decalogue – i.e.
Identify common principles and actions to
address racism and xenophobia
National expert forums responded to findings
from focus groups
 In the absence of focus groups Ireland’s national
expert forum addressed the theme ‘tackling
racism and the impact of racist stereotypes’.

Living Together Methodology
National expert forums to include:








1 - capital city
2 - university / research centre
2 - NGOs
1 - national / regional public administration
1 - business sector
1 - media
1 - trade union
1 - opposition political party
Highlights – Expert Forums
Finland
• More recent change in
negative public debate
noted
Sweden
• Discourse of ‘individual
tolerance’ explained by
political correctness in
Swedish society
• Expert forum reflected
on examples of racism
and discrimination in
Sweden in practice
Spain
• Reflection on positive and negative
arguments
• Context provided by economic
crisis noted
Ireland
• Focus on monitoring,
media and best practice
as tools to address
racism
Portugal
• Chinese identified as
best integrated and
Roma the most
discriminated
Outcome - Decalogue
1. Identify
principles on
which best
practices
should be
based
5. Foster the
mass media
role in
promoting
respect for
cultures and
in recognising
diversity
3. Document
and monitor
racism and
xenophobia
2. Name and
recognise all
forms of
racism and
xenophobia
as problems
4. Identify
effective legal
remedies,
policy actions,
educational
programmes
and best
practice
Outcome - Decalogue
8. Promote
principles of
respect and
dialogue,
perceiving
cultural
diversity as
enriching
6. Recognise
immigrants’
economic,
social and
cultural
contribution
7. Design
public services
taking into
consideration
the needs of
society
10. Perceive
migration as a
universal
phenomenon
and the
reflective
argument
9. Move from
stereotypes to
‘Living
Together’
Outcome – Develop Network






Warning system to monitor racism and
xenophobia
Information will be communicated and managed
by OBERAXE (Spain) via website
Aim – highlight racism and share information
Member organisations can provide information
– must identify themsevles
OBERAXE will verify information
Members can be public, private, NGO, media
organisations who join the network
Further information ......
Website –
http://livingtogether.oberaxe.es/livingtoget
her/
Comments and Feedback?

In general?

In relation to the Decalogue?

In relation to the network to monitor
racism and xenophobia?
Download

Living Together summary presentation