Tuesday, September 6, 2016

Immigration and Normative Science

Imran Khan, Jemima Goldsmith and Diana.
There are two contrasting styles of debating an issue: those who prefer the normative arguments, and those who choose the descriptive arguments. Most pop intellectuals nowadays adopt the former approach, but the truth unfortunately is generally bitter.

Let me admit at the outset that I do understand that race relations are a sensitive issue in the Western countries; especially when millions of skilled and unskilled immigrants from the Third World countries flock to the economically prosperous developed countries every year to find a better future for themselves and their families.

However, instead of bending over backwards and demanding from the natives of their host countries to be more accommodating and totally non-communal, the immigrants need to understand that migration is not the natural order of societies.

In order to elaborate this paradox by way of an analogy, when we uproot a flowering plant from a garden and try to make it grow in a different environment, sometimes it works but sometimes it doesn’t; depending on the adaptability of the plant and the compatibility of the environment. If you want to change the whole environment to suit the needs of that particular uprooted plant, such an unrealistic approach may not be conducive for the native flora and fauna of those habitats.

The right way to tackle the migration problem is to discourage it by reducing the incentive for the prospective immigrants to permanently abandon their homes, families and communities to find a better job in a foreign country and a radically different culture, where they would be materially better off but socially isolated and desolate.

Therefore, in order to minimize the incentive for immigration, we need to revamp the global economic order which makes the rich nations get richer and the poor poorer. Once the relative imbalance of wealth distribution between the developed and the developing world is narrowed down then there will be no need for the people of one region and culture to relocate to another, except on a temporary basis for education, traveling and cultural exchange.

Notwithstanding, throughout our anthropological evolution, from our nomado-pastoral, hunting-gathering phase to the golden era of agriculture, the humans never lived as individuals, but as social groups, clans and tribes. The ‘individual’ is only an artificial modern construct that has been conceived to suit the needs of the industrial economies.

Individuals must have intellectual autonomy and freedom of investigation and information for obvious reasons, but individualism as an ideology with complete disregard for our innate social nature only nurtures lost souls who sometimes find solace in existential acrobatics and sometimes in drug addictions.

More to the point, there is an obvious difference between a Chinese and an American: a Chinese speaks Mandarin while an American speaks English; they don’t understand each other, because they can hardly communicate with each other due to the difference of language.

Now if the difference among people on the basis of language is duly accepted and appreciated with the naked eye, then we should try to understand that under the sociological microscope the cultural ethos and social values of two or more radically different cultures don’t always blend seamlessly.

Humanism only implies that we should be just and fair in our approach: that is, we should try to understand that foreign people and cultures also have their legitimate material, moral and social needs and aspirations; instead of imposing our Orientalist ‘vision’ on them, we should let them choose and facilitate and expedite their choice and vision.

The human mindsets, attitudes and behaviors are structured and conditioned by their respective cultures and environments. A person born and bred in Pakistan or India generally has more in common with the people of the subcontinent.

For instance: when the first generation of Indo-Pakistani immigrants relocate to the foreign countries, they find it hard to adjust in a radically different culture initially. It would be unwise to generalize, however, because it depends on the disposition and inclination of the immigrants, their level of education and the value-system which they have internalized during their formative years.

There are many sub-cultures within cultures and numerous family cultures within those sub-cultures. The educated Indo-Pakistani liberals generally integrate well into the Western countries; but many conservative Pakistani and Indian immigrants, especially from the backward and rural areas, find it hard to adjust in a radically different Western culture. On the other hand, such immigrants from the underprivileged backgrounds find the conservative societies of the Gulf countries more conducive for their individual and familial integration and well-being.

In any case, the second generation of immigrants, who are born and bred in the Western culture, seamlessly blend into their host environments; and they are likely to have more in common with the people and cultures where they have been brought up. Thus, a first generation Pakistani-American is predominantly a Pakistani, while a second generation Pakistani-American is predominantly an American, albeit with an exotic-sounding name and a naturally tanned complexion.

Notwithstanding, the rise of Trump in America, the Brexit in UK, the anti-immigration protests in Germany and the ‘Burkini’ ban in France (which was subsequently overruled) is the manifestation of the underlying sentiment against the policymakers’ normative approach towards the issue of immigration, which generally harms the interests of the working classes of the developed countries.

Therefore, instead of offering band aid solutions, we need to revise the prevailing global economic order; and formulate prudent and far-reaching economic and trade policies that can reduce the imbalance of wealth distribution between the developed and the developing nations; hence, reducing the incentive for the immigrants to seek employment in the developed countries.

Finally, let me confess that I am somewhat insensitive to the issues of racism and discriminatory attitude that the immigrants suffer at the hands of the white supremacists. Actually I am someone who is acutely aware of the reality of the Third World: that is, laborers pulling carts like animals; construction workers doing backbreaking work under the scorching sun; the children of the Afghan refugees working as scavengers in the streets of Pakistan; and all in all a subhuman condition in which the majority of the Third World’s population has been condemned to labor.

Moreover, it’s a fact that we, as individuals, don’t like to revamp our deeply entrenched narratives even when such narratives have conclusively been proven erroneous, because our minds are incapable of radically transforming themselves, especially after a certain age. Despite being a mystery of gigantic proportions, the human mind still has its limits, especially the minds of grownups are highly cluttered.

The reality is always too complex to be accurately conceived by the mind. Our narrative is only a mental snapshot of the physical reality that we have formulated to the best of our humble abilities. But since our minds are quite overloaded, therefore, we generally tend to adopt linear narratives; and try to overlook the deviations and contradictory evidence as mere anomalies (selective perception and confirmation bias.)

Additionally, our minds also adopt mental shortcuts, or heuristics, to ease the cognitive load while making a decision. To instantiate this concept, Pakistan has numerous problems: like, poverty, social injustice, religious intolerance and patriarchy, to name a few. My individual narrative, however, has mostly been predicated on the social justice aspect; but I do acknowledge and appreciate the tireless efforts of the dedicated social activists who are doing commendable work in other areas too.

4 comments:

  1. I agree with the fact that wealth disparity has to be dealt with, on some scale. However, to aim to reduce migration and limit it is what will breed dangerous problems. To set people apart and keep everyone to themselves creates an atmosphere and mindset of 'othering' in people where they will go from being politely amused by anything different to what they know, to becoming openly hostile. Keeping minorities to themselves and separating groups of people as you suggest has always led to enormous injustice and loss of life. The apartheid of South Africa, the segregation in America, the partition of India and the Holocaust come to mind. When we breed dangerous narratives that everyone should stay where he or she was born and that that is the only place they will ever truly belong to, we are openly promoting ignorance, which was and always will be the start of any tragedy. To say that migrants shouldn't be allowed as they wouldn't 'adapt' well to a new society goes against everything humanity began upon and all the history we have accrued since. The true essence of humanity is their ability to strive in the face of a challenge, to adapt, to survive. Didn't the survivors of every war have to migrate, adapt, survive? Didn't the colonisers migrate to new places in their ships, and adapt to a foreign land? The natives they found; did they not migrate there too on canoes, and adapt? Adam, who fell from Heaven, the first man, did he not migrate? From Heaven to Earth? Did he not adapt? What would've become of you, of me, of us if he didn't migrate and adapt? We would've remained prophecies unfulfilled, remained in thought of the universe.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Really? Especially you, from Pakistan? Have you seen your country lately?

    Besides, if a human being never sacrificed for another human being, never helped or had kindness or collaborated or moved aside or even lifted a finger, you would not be here and neither would I. What do you even mean by 'non-communal'? You do realise that communities are not limited to the West, that the concept of community is universal, like the act of migration? That human beings are never going to be 'individual', and that we are a social species, and will never be content in solitude? That communities are made up of all the kindness and bond between individuals who prop each other up, and that without communities and diverse individuals in those communities, society would fail? That humanity would fail?

    If we drove out and neglected and 'discouraged' and 'minimised incentive', we leave our fellow people to toil away or die of war, hunger or famine. Yes, there is a gross wealth disparity across the globe, but it will be eons before countries come together and pool together the resources to spread equally across the world. It will never happen. The world has enough for everyone's need, but not enough for everyone's greed. It is hilarious to me that rather than let people migrate and work hard and start better lives, you want to 'revamp the global economic order.' Slow down, buddy. Think of realistic solutions, not imaginary fanciful ones. Do you imagine yourself as the 'Treasurer' of this new global economy perhaps, confining every man, woman and child who ever had a dream to what you determine is their limit? What you determine is their home? And where, might I ask, will you procure these absurd amounts of money you propose to use in order to singlehandedly better the migrant's original countries so that they will not want to leave? From the West? Wait, I forgot, you do not 'bend over backwards' and ask them for anything. You simply stay put and wallow in the fact that you can't migrate because it's not part of your 'natural order'. You simply confine yourself to your fate. That must be exciting. I can tell you've never experienced desperation, when you sit up there on your throne and tell people not to leave, its not in their 'natural order' as their families are bombed out of their homes.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You say that migrants should understand that they are 'not suitable' to the new environment. Speak for yourself. Has not this entire Earth been created by God for Man to inhabit for the short period that is his life? Since when did He create each land with a physical label on it that ordained by his divine law which people should live where? The only labels created are by Man. Were not the colonisers of every land not part of 'the natural order' of that place when they arrived? And the natives, when they arrived before? They were all migrants, as are we. What is this 'natural order' you speak of? It is not natural. It is created by man and a structure that is being dismantled as we speak.

    And no, the migrants are not 'bending over backwards' for the West to move out of their own spaces and give up their 'room', so to speak. They are asking for a chance to work hard and be given a chance in return, a chance to better their lives, which, as you mistakenly seem to think, does not come at the EXPENSE of those already living in the West. In fact, migrant workers benefit so much, and are not a drain on the society they have moved to inhabit, as you mistakenly think they are. The enormous migrant communities here in Australia are thriving and who are respected doctors, lawyers and business owners proves you wrong. Why should the 'incentive' to migrate be taken away, when these amazing individuals forward human society and add so much value to it, more than they would have done had they stayed where they were born where it might have been dangerous?

    ReplyDelete
  4. 'When we uproot a flowering plant...'
    If you have studied biology, you will know that a flower requires nutrients and a nurturing environment to prosper, much like people do. You are correct in that one regard.

    But where you go tremendously wrong is in you saying that, like how a flower cannot survive in a different environment, sometimes human beings can't as well. It reveals the fundamental truth you have been ignorant of in your entire article. Human beings are not born different. Someone born in the West still had to adapt to the West as much as a migrant who was not born there; one just does it earlier than the other. There are no different 'species' of human beings. We are all the same, with the same love and same fear and same tenacity and same bravery and same courage. The reason why we, and not some other ferocious animal has migrated across and colonised this Earth is solely because of our remarkable ability to adapt and change in the face of adversity, unlike any other creature. A desert flower from Australia may never become a towering alpine oak in Sweden, but a little girl from Pakistan may become a formidable advocate for global education for girls in Britain.

    You say migrants are to 'understand that migration is not the natural order of societies.' And you contradict yourself right there. Do you know how societieS, plural, with an S, ever came about? Because humans migrated, spread out into the world, changing and adapting until there was a community in every continent and country. Migration was, is and always will be an integral aspect of the human condition. If you agree that to be human is to survive, then you agree that to be human is to migrate.

    ReplyDelete