on xenophobia

Okay, so.... feeling philosophical.

One of the most prevailing and least-discussed aspects of human nature is xenophobia, literally translated as "fear of the other". Like many phobias which are trivialized by calling them fear, we tend to sideline xenophobia by labelling it "bad" and pretending it doesn't exist. It does exist, however, and is a huge drive behind every politicoeconomic thing we as a species do. I think this warrants a more candid discourse on the subject.

Two of the more controversial (and thus interesting) political figures I've encountered here in Holland are Ayaan Hersi Ali and Geert Wilders, both commonly described as far-right anti-immigration (i.e., xenophobic) politicians. The story of Ali in particular is fascinating (I cannot do justice to it here, but if you are interested, she has written two autobiographies: The Caged Virgin, and the excellent Infidel); in particular, she herself was an refugee from Somalia who lied to gain entrance into the Netherlands. After learning Dutch and obtaining a degree in political science, she became an increasingly outspoken critic of Islam, particularly its treatment of women, and was elected to the Dutch Parliament.

Among her policy statements, Hirsi Ali has denounced the existence of faith-based (and particularly Muslim) schools, which she blames for the failure of many young immigrant Muslims to integrate into Dutch society and accept Western values, instead encouraging insularism and radical anti-Western sentiment. Along with Wilders, she has also advocated a more restrictive immigration policy than is currently in effect in the Netherlands (and most of Europe), citing her fear that the pace of growth of the Muslim community poses a very real threat of Islamic values (and sharia law) being gradually imposed upon the country through a purely democratic means.

The Dutch are a proudly tolerant society, and these ideas are thankfully approached with much criticism and dubiousness. Hirsi Ali has since left Dutch politics and currently works for the American neocon think-tank the American Enterprise Institute (which features such thinkers as David Frum, Newt Gingrich, and Irving Kristol); and Wilders remains a controversial Member of Parliament with a small but consistent following. The issues that they represent, however, reflect a larger trend in world demographics that is not widely discussed by politicians (who abhor a hot potato like nature abhors a vacuum). As far as I can see, the issue boils down to xenophobia.

In a wholly unsatisfying wiki representation, xenophobia is displayed as a sort of world pathology; the introduction begins with an authoritative psychological assessment:

As with all phobias, a xenophobic person is aware of the fear, and therefore has to genuinely think or believe at some level that the target is in fact a foreigner.

Whether or not this is spoken by an expert (which I doubt), it is an opinion that is out of place in the wiki context. However, I find that it tends to sum up the general conecption of the term. We are xenophobic because we have some unattributable fear that we rationalize by assigning it to some pre-existing notion of group identity (e.g., nationality) as a defense mechanism. I think this tends to miss the point entirely. It ignores (or pretends away) the possibility that some of these fears may be well-founded, and not pathological at all. While selectively documenting incidences of xenopobia in the world (by no means doing justice to the actual state of affairs), its authors do not seem aware that this seemingly universal prevalence may just signify that xenophobia may actually be a fundamental and adaptive characteristic of human beings. Let's explore this possibility.

Although the fear that motivates Wilders' immigration policies is basically unfounded (Muslims constitute approximately 5 percent of the Dutch population, and according to this (well-documented) source, its growth rate has basically stabilized), the issues that have won him support are ones which I think illustrate the basis of xenophobia. The first is population growth rate. Population determines to a large extent a group's edge over another group; this can be counteracted by forcibly controlling resources and the war machine, as per South African apartheid, but over the span of history it is population levels that dictate territorialization and power structure. The second is integration. When two groups refuse to integrate with each other, this results in a natural mistrust and further insularism, and ultimately conflict.

This is arguably the basic drive behind all of human history: insularism and conflict, which acts as a powerful positive feedback loop which resonates, blows up (resulting in either assimilation or annihilation of one group), and starts over. A large portion of the efforts we have put into political and religious institutions have been (implicitly) motivated by the necessity of controlling this feedback cycle.

The biggest challenge this presents to us is as follows. To be honest with ourselves, we must admit that xenophobia is a natural human trait that will not be eradicated by any amount of persuasion or rationalization. We therefore need to address it directly, rather than building walls around it in the vague hope of containing it. Xenophobia is not irrational nor pathological; it is in fact largely adaptive. If another group threatens the prosperity and existence of my own (whether that "group" is defined by value systems, race, gender, circumstance, etc.), it makes perfect sense for me to fear and act against the threat.

For instance: If an immigrant group's population is growing at a rate which is disproportional with that of the native population - e.g., the average immigrant family has 10 children whereas the average native family has 1.5 - then this is a real issue. There is certainly the argument that we have no right to curtail a family's right to produce offspring, but by the same token such irresponsibly high reproduction should have real consequences. The immigrant community cannot maintain this rate while at the same time demanding equal opportunities from the native population; this amounts to an invasion by procreation. In this case, it is no surprise that they will "suffer unemployment, poverty and segregation out of all proportion to their numbers" (see this).


The problem is that we tend to be overly conservative in our risk assessments, such as is the case with Geert Wilders, and this leads to the feedback loop of insularization and conflict. The stats on second-generation Muslim families in the Netherlands, for instance, tell us that their birth rates hardly differ from native Dutch (same ref):

Not surprisingly, older Muslim women -- all first-generation immigrants -- gave birth to far more children than do native Dutch women. Not so second-generation Muslim women. Their fertility rate "hardly differs from that of native Dutch women," notes Statistics Netherlands.

The correct approach, I feel, is to:

(1) Obtain a real risk assessment. Collect statistics on population growth, on cultural intolerance, on changes to value systems. The numbers are usually better than the bleak assessment we instinctively, lacking information, arrive at;

(2) Make this a matter of public discourse. If a real threat exists, then bring it to the public forum and allow all sides to debate it and decide upon an acceptable compromise, rather than pretending it doesn't exist, or treating it as taboo;

(3) Give integration a chance. Expecting immigrant communities to instantly express unconditional love for their new homes, where they live in poverty and lack immediate prospects - in direct contrast to their relatively well-off hosts - is foolish. There needs to be patience and a gradual transition in order to make this work. That being said, insularization should be actively discouraged.

The take-home message then, is that xenophobia is not a horrendous beast that we should condemn without condition. It is a natural human drive that has very rational bases. Intergroup tensions should not be simply chastized and ignored, but they should be the substance of consistent and open public discourse, if we are to have any hope of addressing their root causes. In this respect, I think the Dutch are not doing too bad a job.