1
Introduction. Cultural diversity policies in Europe: between
integration and security
In Global Media and Communication, Special themed issue on ‘Cultural diversity
policies in Europe’, December 2014, 10 (3), pp. 231-245.
Guest editors: Tristan Mattelart and Leen d’Haenens
Draft. This version is not for citation. Please cite the published version only. Available at: http://gmc.sagepub.com/content/10/3.toc
Tristan Mattelart
University of Paris 8, Saint-Denis, France
Leen d’Haenens
KU Leuven, Belgium
‘One of the great challenges of our time must now surely be to ensure that our rich
cultural diversity makes us more secure – not less.’ With these words, United Nations
(UN) secretary general Ban Ki-moon drew a clear connection between the issues of
cultural diversity and international security (Ban Ki-moon, 2008). Ban Ki-moon spoke
in a peculiar context framed by the 9/11/2001 attacks against the United States or the
Madrid and London bombings of 2004 and 2005, all attributed to Islamist terrorist
groups. In 2005, against the prospects of a ‘clash of civilizations’, the UN had
implemented an ‘Alliance of Civilizations’ (UNAOC) with the co-sponsorship of the
Spanish and Turkish Prime ministers in the hope of building ‘bridges between
2
societies’ and appeasing conflicts ‘threatening international stability’ (UNAOC, 2006:
3).
Ban Ki-moon’s statement pointed to an understudied dimension of ‘cultural
diversity’ policies. Indeed, such policies are also meant to ‘build bridges’ between
and within societies with a view to easing tensions that threaten international and
national security. Within this framework the media are seen both as an obstacle to
cultural diversity policies and as a major tool at the latter’s disposal. According to the
UN Alliance of Civilizations the media are forces that shape ‘stereotypes and
misrepresentations’, fuelling antagonisms between communities and raising security
problems, but also instruments able to ‘reduce cross cultural tensions and to build
bridges between [these] communities’ (UNAOC, 2006: 25, 31).
Cultural diversity policies are infused with a rhetoric that makes it difficult to
critically explore their nature: after all, how could one be against diversity? Yet, as
this special issue’s articles show, the polysemic nature of the term ‘diversity’
obfuscates the objectives of the policies that are pursued in its name. There is a
need to go beyond this consensual rhetoric in order to analyze the reality of these
objectives, which in many respects may be in opposition to the semantics of diversity.
Despite the imaginaries of cultural differences conveyed by the notion of diversity,
such policies do not necessarily aim to enhance multiculturalism. On the contrary, as
emphasized by this special issue, in consonance with the growing body of literature
on the subject (synthesized here by Gavan Titley), many recent European ‘diversity’
initiatives work against multiculturalism policies inasmuch their explicit goal is to
‘integrate’ ethnic minorities in the post-9/11 world, such minorities – starting with
those of Muslim faith – being viewed as a growing danger to national cohesion.
Indeed, cultural diversity policies may in many ways be construed as being part of an
overall strategy that seeks to improve the ‘integration’ of ethnic minorities so as to
increase security in Europe by reducing perceived threats.
This special issue focuses on media representations policies dedicated to
ethnic minorities and carried out in Europe under the banner of ‘diversity’. It shows
that these are both in continuity and in rupture with former national policies
implemented in Europe starting in the 1970’s to ‘manage’ migration. In this
introduction we provide a historical overview of European policies conducted in this
field, before putting into perspective some specificities of current diversity initiatives.
3
From the right to receive information to the right to communicate
From the very beginning the issue of migrants’ access to the media in Europe has
been placed under the sign of security. Illustrative of this is the fact that the first
official European document mentioning the necessity of improving the media
condition of migrants – or, to use the vocabulary of the time, of migrant workers –
was the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE),
a Conference initiated in times of détente to create conditions of peaceful
coexistence on the continent. Adopted in 1975 in Helsinki by 35 States, the Final Act,
‘recognizing that workers’ migrations have […] given rise to a number of economic,
social, human, and other problems’, urged participating States ‘to confirm the right of
migrant workers to receive, as far as possible, regular information in their own
language, covering both their country of origin and the host country’ (Final Act, 1975:
33-34).
Interestingly, this provision on the migrant workers’ right to receive information
was not part of the agreement’s third ‘basket’ (devoted to ‘humanitarian’ issues) but
of the second one, which specifically dealt with ‘cooperation in the field of economics’
(Final Act, 1975: 14). In such a context the right to receive information granted to
migrant workers was not conceived as a citizen’s right but as a utilitarian need which
was, as Taisto Hujanen put it, ‘directly related to the exploitation of the migrants as a
labor force’ (Hujanen, 1988: 59).
When the Final Act was signed, this migrant workers’ right to receive
information had been established or was being established in most Western
European countries. Indeed a few public radios stations in the early 1960’s as well as
some public televisions channels in the mid-1960’s had already begun to dedicate
special programming to these audiences in their mother tongues, giving them access
to news, to entertainment from their countries of origin, and to practical information
about the country of residence (see the French and the German cases in this issue).
However, in an early review of these ‘special services’, Hujanen dated their
‘remarkable expansion’ back in the second half of the 1970’s. As he emphasized: ‘It
is worth noting that [this] expansion [was] parallel to more restrictive migration
control’ (Hujanen, 1988: 76). These special programmes were at least partially a tool
of such migration control policies. In fact, implemented in an era of economic crisis,
these programmes pursued ambivalent objectives. On the one hand they meant ‘to
4
maintain the possibilities of repatriation of migrant workers’ by bringing them news
and entertainment in their native tongues, and on the other hand they aimed to
‘further their orientation towards the host society’ (Hujanen, 1980: 2).
Important as they were, the provisions of the Helsinki Final Act on migrant
workers’ rights for information had their limits. Indeed, they tended to consider
‘migrant workers as mere receivers of information’ (Hujanen, 1980: 23). Based on
this criticism Hujanen set up an ambitious, collective research project on ‘the role of
information in the realization of the human rights of migrant workers’ in Europe
(Hujanen, 1980, 1988)1, funded between 1980 and 1988 by the University of
Tampere’s Department of Journalism and Mass Communication, and supported by
UNESCO.
Revealingly, Hujanen placed his study within the broader framework of the
discussions held at the UNESCO for the implementation of a New World Information
and Communication Order (NWICO). His research drew a parallel between structural
imbalances in the communication field between rich and poor countries on the one
hand, and structural imbalances in the communication field within developed
countries between majority populations and minorities on the other hand. In this
context special programming policies were criticized for not letting migrants become
the ‘actors’ of their own media representations. According to Hujanen these policies
only aimed to bring these audiences some special ‘content’ in limited time slots,
leaving ‘untouched’ ‘the way the communication is structured’. Providing migrant
workers with specific programming was not enough. There was a need for a thorough
‘democratization of communication’, which presupposed changing the media’s
structures of ‘power and control’. Thus Hujanen and his colleagues called for these
migrants to be granted the very right defended within the NWICO framework: the
‘right to communicate’2 (Hujanen, 1988: 44-48).
Politically this objective was crucial as the nature of migration had changed
between the 1970’s and the late 1980’s. While they had long been viewed as
temporary guests – gastarbeiter as they were called in Germany – always meant to
return to their native lands, it became increasingly clear in the 1980’s that many
migrant workers were going to stay in Europe: they had settled once and for all in
their host country with their families. This change in the nature of migration
processes in Europe was well illustrated by the joint study coordinated by Hujanen.
Originally dealing with the media rights of ‘migrant workers’ only (Hujanen, 1980), it
5
focused on the broad picture of ‘ethnic minority’ rights by the end of the decade. As
noted in the report of the final conference: ‘The former communication policy
concerning migrant workers needs to be substituted by a new one, which would
focus on a group of people which can be characterized as the new ethnic minorities
of Western Europe’ (Hujanen, 1988: 43-44, his emphasis).
Last, Hujanen’s study’s significance lays in the depiction of the problems
European societies would face if ethnic minorities were not granted more media
space in their host country. It was suggested they try to circumvent the limitations of
the local media by turning to content coming from their countries of origin. Manfred
Oepen’s ‘National report of the Federal Republic of Germany’ (1983) exemplified this.
It stated that given the ‘substantial deficit’ of German programmes aimed at Turkish
‘migrants’, ‘a private video market’ bloomed in this country ‘as a compensation to the
insufficient public supply’, raising fears of ‘media isolation’ – a media isolation that
‘could finally result in social and cultural ghettoization bearing disastrous
consequences for every integration policy’ (Oepen, 1983: 143-144).
Promoting inter-ethnic understanding
In the 1980’s the changing nature of immigration forced national authorities and
public broadcasters in Western Europe to reconsider their media policies towards
ethnic minorities. This was considered all the more important since European
countries were confronted to the rise of various forms of ‘ordinary racism’, specifically
directed against ‘cultural differences’ introduced by immigrants coming from outside
the European continent (Rea, 1998: 12-13). In this context a number of national
governments and European institutions began to think public broadcasters had a role
to play in the fight against racism.
In Germany especially, in the second half of the 1980’s, public broadcasters
and various government institutions held a series of conferences to look at ways of
responding to ‘the pressing issue of “hostility against foreigners”’. The specific
programming policy was seen as unable to address this problem: a new strategy was
needed to enhance ‘inter-ethnic tolerance, based on a mutual understanding which
public-service broadcasters had the duty to promote by providing information for and
about the “other”’ (Kosnik, 2000: 328). Public radios and televisions were described
as having an ‘integrative mission’ to accomplish through broadcasting to ethnic
6
minorities as well as ‘the German audience in their efforts to teach people about
ethnic difference’ (ibid.: 329; see also the article by Çiğdem Bozdağ in this issue).
This philosophy was echoed at a European level by the Council of Europe
(CoE). Having closely followed the various discussions held as part of Hujanen’s
study, this institution took an active part in the debates on these issues starting in the
late 1970’s/early 1980’s. It co-sponsored various conferences on the representation
of ethnic minorities in the media, including a November 1988 colloquy on the
relationships between ‘Migrants, media and cultural diversity’ held at
Noordwijkerhout, in the Netherlands (Perotti, 1993: 23-29) – one of the first such
gathering to turn the semantics of ‘diversity’ into a policy imperative.
It was against this background that a major report issued in 1991 by the CoE’s
Community Relations Project (Community and Ethnic Relations in Europe) laid in
many respects the foundations of the policies that were later to be labeled ‘diversity
policies’. The report was based on the idea that instead of ‘a separate […] group’
destined to go back to their countries of origin, immigrants must rather be viewed as
an integral part of ‘society as a whole’: ‘Ethnic, racial and cultural diversity has
become a characteristic feature of European society’ (Council of Europe, 1991: i, 10).
Therefore public policies were needed to improve the conditions in which
‘interaction between the majority or host population and the various migrant groups
or ethnic groups of immigrant origin’ occurred (ibid.: 1). Enhancing interactions within
‘multicultural societ[ies]’ (ibid.: 10) was all the more important since the context in
which the report was written was one of perceived ‘migratory “threats”’. Indeed, the
fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 had ‘aroused the fear of a massive, incontrollable
migratory influx from the east’, and migratory flows from the south were also ‘a case
of anxiety’ (Martiniello, 2006: 317).
Security considerations were not absent from the report. Written in the wake of
the Rushdie affair, it looked squarely at the climate of ‘tension’ in ethnic relations, and
it voiced concerns about a growing sentiment among populations that there were a
‘clash of values’ and an ‘incompatibility of cultures’ in Europe – which fuelled ‘racist
and xenophobic movements’. As a reaction, it pleaded for ‘determined action […] to
try to reduce the risks for the future’ and ensure ‘peaceful coexistence’ between
communities (Council of Europe, 1991: 7, 11, 23, 25).
Despite the fact that it was wrapped in the rhetoric of multiculturalism – and as
such infused to a certain extent with the agenda of British or Dutch multiculturalist
7
policies – the report advocated the implementation of an ‘integration policy’ such as
the one then being pursued in Germany. This integration policy would be directed not
only towards ethnic minorities but also towards the population as a whole. It should
help immigrants and persons of immigrant descent ‘adap[t]’ to their ‘new society’ –
‘without, however, being forced to assimilate and to abandon their own ethnic origins’
– while ensuring that the ‘majority population adap[ts] to a new degree of cultural and
ethnic diversity’, which was seen as an integral part of European societies. To be
successful this integration policy had to overcome one major obstacle: the ‘structural
discrimination’ affecting ethnic minorities (ibid.: 16, 28).
Where did the media stand in these policy proposals? Considered as having
‘an effect on all members of society’, they were explicitly designated as hindering the
‘integration’ of minorities. The report stressed that the mechanics of the media in an
increasingly deregulated market – the ‘media tend to concentrate on “spectacular”
events which attract public attention’ – produced a distorted image of ethnic
minorities: the media were accused of strengthening negative ‘stereotyped images of
ethnic and migrant communities, […] without always being fully aware of the[ir]
possible repercussions on community relations’ (ibid.: 67).
To counter such pernicious effects the report advocated various ‘policy
measures’ that were directly inspired by the recommendations of the colloquy on
‘Migrants, media and cultural diversity’. It urged the Council of Europe’s member
States to grant ethnic minorities two types of rights: the ‘right to receive through the
media adequate information appropriate to their needs’ – a right already mentioned in
the CSCE’s Final Act – and the right ‘to express themselves in the media’ (ibid.: 68),
which bore some resemblance to the ‘right to communicate’ defended by Hujanen
and colleagues. To enforce these rights, the report inter alia urged ‘public sector
media’ to offer ‘professional opportunities to journalists and programme-makers of
immigrant origin’, and called for the development of ‘media run by immigrant and
ethnic groups themselves’ (ibid.: 68).
In other words, the time had come for ethnic minorities to be included, ‘in their
own right, in generalist programmes’ of their countries of residence. After being
viewed as ‘a social problem’ that needed to be addressed through a policy of specific
programming, they were now to be considered as ‘an issue concerning society as a
whole’ (Perotti, 1993: 29). However, as noted by Antonio Perotti, the CoE’s calls to
act to improve the image of ethnic minorities remained largely unanswered: its
8
actions did not result in a ‘significant improvement of institutional policies in this field’
(ibid.).
The European Union: the media as instruments of ‘integration’
While the Council of Europe’s calls for ‘cultural diversity’ policies in the media mostly
fell on deaf ears, European Union (EU) initiatives launched in the late 1990’s have
given the issue pride of place in public debate on the continent. After gaining
competence in the field of migration policies in accordance with the 1997 Amsterdam
Treaty, the EU has indeed implemented, as part of its broader migration strategy, a
policy meant to promote ‘cultural diversity’ in the media sector, with the explicit
objective of enhancing ethnic minorities’ ‘integration’.
The rationale behind EU migration policies was mostly economics. At the end
of the 1990’s the European Commission came to the conclusion that European
countries were facing ‘growing shortages of labor at both skilled and unskilled levels’
and called for ‘channels for legal immigration to the Union’ to be opened (On a
Community Immigration Policy, 2000: 3). However, migration was too complex an
issue to be tackled from an economic point of view only. To be economically efficient
such policies needed to address ‘the very important human issues involved’ with
migration (ibid.: 3-4). To generate economic benefits from immigration while
containing the possible negative ‘impact of migration policies on the host societ[ies]’,
the EU has designed ‘an integrated approach’ (ibid.: 15), or a ‘holistic approach’
(Communication from the Commission on Immigration, 2003: 17) to migration issues
which aims to manage both the presence of immigrants on the continent and the
flows of immigration coming to Europe. This integrated approach includes various
interconnected policies: the opening of European borders to a regulated, legal
immigration; the ‘reinforcement of integration policies’; the ‘fight against illegal
immigration’, and, finally, the need to maintain ‘relations with countries of origin and
transit’ to ‘reduce push factors’, i.e. factors encouraging emigration (On a Community
Immigration Policy, 2000: 6-7). Integration policies are a key dimension of this holistic
approach of migration. As the European Commission puts it: ‘The successful
integration of immigrants is both a matter of social cohesion and a prerequisite for
economic efficiency’ (Communication from the Commission on Immigration, 2003:
17).
9
In the continuity of the philosophy of the aforementioned CoE report, the
European Union understands integration as a ‘two-way process involving adaptation
on the part of both the immigrant and of the host society’. In this context, host
societies have to ‘respect’ – up to a certain point – the ‘cultural and social differences’
introduced by ethnic minorities, while the latter must in turn accept ‘our fundamental
shared principles’ (On a Community Immigration Policy, 2000: 19). The ‘promotion of
diversity’ through the media is seen as having a key role to play in this integrative
framework. The media, as explained in the document that defines EU immigration
policy, have ‘considerable responsibility in this respect in [their] role as an educator of
public opinion’ (ibid.: 6, 22). They should promote ‘a generally positive attitude in the
public towards immigrants’ (Communication from the Commission on Immigration,
2003: 17) to foster their integration.
This objective became crucial in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, which – as
the Commission itself admitted – created a climate of mounting animosity against
ethnic minorities, especially Muslims, hindering integration policies. In 2003 the
Commission noted a ‘growing tendency in the public to blame immigrants for the
insecurity in our societies and general hostility towards Muslims, which has arisen
since the events of 11 September 2001 in the United States’ (Communication from
the Commission on Immigration, 2003: 22). The Commission then urged the media to
present ethnic minorities in a better light: ‘They should set an example for civil society
by emphasizing the value of the contribution immigrants make and ensuring that the
general coverage of integration issues and the tone of the public debate is balanced
and based on accurate information’ (ibid.).
After the Madrid and London bombings, the Commission endowed integration
policies with an even more important function: making Europe safer. In a document
delineating a European ‘counter-terrorism strategy’, written in the wake of London
attacks, the European Council stressed the need to prevent terrorism within
European borders through the promotion of ‘inter-cultural dialogue and long-term
integration where appropriate’ (The European Union Counter-Terrorism Strategy,
2005: 9). And here also the media had a part to play.
The problem was that there was a huge gap between the role they were
supposed to play in favor of integration and the one they did play. A 2002 study
coordinated by Jessika Ter Wal for the European Monitoring Center on Racism and
Xenophobia (EUMC) illustrated how much there was to do in this field. After looking
10
at existing research on Racism and Cultural Diversity in the Mass Media in the then
15 EU member States, the study pointed out a few commonalities in the way ethnic
minorities were portrayed in Western Europe. ‘A general problem with the
representation of migrants in the media registered for various countries is that
negative images’ – associating ‘migrants with crime’ – ‘were not compensated by
positive images’. Interestingly, the study also stressed that some populations were
more discriminated against than others in the media field: ‘Stereotypes for Roma and
Muslims were found […] as the most pernicious and the most negative’ (Ter Wal,
2002: 43-48).
According to the Commission the media as instruments of discrimination were
to be turned into integration tools through a proactive ‘cultural diversity’ policy. And
initiatives have proliferated in this field since the beginning of the 2000’s: EU-
commissioned studies, EU-funded conferences, symposiums or seminars, Diversity
Toolkits depicting best practices in media coverage of ethnic minorities, Handbooks
on using the media for integration purposes, etc.
The ‘business case for diversity’
The reader of documents that promote European ‘cultural diversity’ policies is struck
by the faith their authors seem to place in the power of the media. These are
universally viewed as major ‘change agents’ able to achieve ‘the full integration of the
groups of “new citizens” into the national societies’ (Thinking forward, 2004: 10) or
considered, to quote the EU’s third Handbook on Integration, as ‘a powerful medium
for influencing attitudes in society’ (Handbook on Integration, 2010: 26).
This naive assumption as to the media’s ability to foster the objectives of
diversity policies contrasts with a lack of interest for their social, economic, and
political underpinnings. Yet, the ‘ways of financing and organizing’ the media are not
without ‘consequences for the range of discourses and representations’ they convey
(Golding and Murdock, 1991: 15). The organizing logics governing the media should
then be addressed by people intent on enlisting the latter in the promotion of
‘diversity’.
However, the reform of the media structures lies clearly outside the scope of
EU policies meant to improve the representations of ethnic minorities. The goal is to
change these media portrayals while leaving ‘untouched’ ‘the way the communication
11
is structured’, to quote Hujanen’s criticism of the shortcomings of the special
programming policy in the 1980’s. EU documents are indeed based on the notion
that such representations of ethnic minorities can be improved simply by ‘raising
awareness’ among media professionals and media organizations (Triandafyllidou
and Ulasiuk, 2011: 7). This means attempting to enhance the visibility of such
minorities in editorial rooms and on television screens without overhauling the
organizing logics that structure the media3.
On the contrary, diversity policies are seen as largely compatible with some of
these organizing logics – especially market imperatives. Far from an obstacle to
achieving diversity in the media, such imperatives are viewed as a contributing factor.
Thus a Toolkit aiming at Making the Media more Diverse (Thinking forward, 2004: 3)
asserts that there is a ‘business case’ for cultural diversity. This rhetoric permeates a
lot of reports published in the name of cultural diversity, including the Diversity Toolkit
produced under the auspices of the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), which
represents the interests of public broadcasters. Defending diversity ‘makes business
sense and aids social cohesion’ (Diversity Toolkit, 2007: 49).4
Thus the increasing commercialization of the audiovisual sector isn’t at all
considered problematic with respect to the implementation of cultural diversity
policies. As the third edition of EU’s Handbook on Integration states: ‘To survive in a
competitive market, media organizations [“public broadcasters as well as private
media enterprises”] need to ensure that their products are tailored to the needs and
wants of their consumers. […] In this sense, competition presents an opportunity and
a challenge for integration’ (Handbook on Integration, 2010: 27).
Nevertheless, the postulate that ‘market forces’ produce ‘dividend[s] for media
diversity’ is questionable, as shown by a team of researchers coordinated by
Georgios Terzis in the Media4Diversity report. In contrast with the faith in the
‘business case for cultural diversity’ expressed in other parts of the document, the
researchers note in their conclusion that ‘an exclusive or heavy reliance on the
market to deliver diversity often brings bitter competition among the different groups
facing discrimination who are seeking recognition, which usually results to the loss of
the ones with the least appeal to advertisers’ (Media4Diversity, 2009: 75, 89).5
Finally, EU documents advocate the use of domestic, mainstream media –
especially domestic generalist televisions, be they public or private – to foster the
ideals of cultural diversity, while expressing misgivings about ethnic minorities turning
12
to the media of their countries of origin, which is seen as a threat to the integration
objective. The Third edition of the Handbook on Integration illustrates this: it
formulates the fear that through satellite television ethnic minorities may come to live
in ‘parallel media spaces’ where they would be insulated from majority population.
‘This may cause intercultural miscommunications in society, which could in turn
impede integration’ (Handbook on Integration, 2010: 26). Yet, empirical research has
shown that this ‘ghettoization theory’ is far too simplistic, as people combine different
media platforms, using them for different purposes (Peeters and d’Haenens, 2005).
The influence of these European initiatives on national contexts should not be
overestimated. This special issue makes it clear that domestic diversity policies are
largely framed by the specificities of the histories of national public policies towards
immigrants and minorities. In France, as Alec Hargreaves and Tristan Mattelart
explain, current cultural diversity policies cannot be understood without taking into
account the way in which the French state used to deal with the cultures of the
immigrants coming from its former empire. Çiğdem Bozdağ studies how German
media policies towards ethnic minorities were shaped by the peculiar context in
which they were elaborated – a context marked, inter alia, by the competition
represented by communist radio stations targeting migrant workers in the Federal
Republic in the 1960s, by the perception of a ‘Türkenproblem’ in the 1970s and
1980s, or by the waves of immigration from former Eastern European communist
countries after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Jiska Engelbert and Isabel Awad show the
extent to which current diversity policies on Dutch public channels are informed by a
‘specific national social history of social difference and pillarization, as well as a
tradition of pluriformity’. In Ireland, as Gavan Titley analyzes, the diversity theme was
first used to celebrate a ‘historical shift from emigration to immigration’, before being
mobilized from the late 2000s on as a ‘resource’ by ‘state integration strategy’.
However, as this last remark suggests, one common feature emerges from the
domestic contexts studied here: in each country, national cultural diversity policies
are at the service of ‘integration’. This is in congruence with the aims the EU has
assigned its own initiatives purported to promote ‘diversity’. Similarly, in these various
countries, true to European orientations, cultural diversity policies in the media
sector, given the key role they are supposed to play in integrating ethnic minorities,
are seen as easing interethnic relations, therefore enhancing domestic security6.
13
The contradictions of the migration management policies
Migration policies implemented by the European Union in the 2000’s can be
characterized as ‘migration management’ policies, as defined by Martin Geiger and
Antoine Pécoud. Born out of a ‘perceived migration crisis’, ‘migration management’
policies attempt ‘to turn migration into a mere orderly, predictable and manageable
process’, with a view to ‘making migration economically beneficial’ (Geiger and
Pécoud, 2010: 2-3, 14). Such policies are also marked by their ‘holistic ambitions’,
and as such by their ability to address many different ‘policy issues connected to
migration’ (ibid.: 9).
One striking feature of these EU migration management policies – in definite
contrast with previous policies – is the centrality they give the media. These are said
to be nothing less than ‘critical success factors’ for European integration initiatives
(Handbook on Integration, 2010: 21). The European Union is not the only multilateral
institution that views the media as key instruments of migration management. As
stated in the 2011 report of the International Organization for Migration (IOM), which
addressed the pressing issue of Communicating Effectively about Migration,
‘managing migration also implies managing how migrants are perceived in society’.
Accurate information ‘about migration may be the single most important policy tool in
all societies faced with increasing diversity’ (IOM, 2011: XIII).
Such migration management policies resort to cultural diversity measures in
the audiovisual sector in the hope of integrating ethnic minorities living legally within
the borders of the European Union, but they also mobilize the media in order to deter
clandestine immigration. Indeed, since the early 2000’s, as we saw above, the EU’s
approach towards immigration has been ‘holistic’ in nature: it includes both
integration policies and policies meant to ‘fight against illegal immigration’ with the
cooperation of the sending countries. And, among the instruments serving this end,
there are information campaigns – coordinated by the IOM and funded by the
European Commission or European governments (Nieuwenhuys and Pécoud, 2007:
1677) – designed to discourage potential migrants from leaving their country.
Documentary maker Charles Heller’s personal testimony in this issue focuses on one
such campaign, based on the ‘perception management’ principles and conducted by
the IOM in Cameroon in the second half of the 2000’s. He shows how the IOM
employed ‘images of suffering migrants’ to dissuade potential migrants from coming
14
to Europe. Interestingly, this campaign meant to influence the perceptions of potential
migrants in a sending country bears some resemblance with cultural diversity policies
designed to manage the perception of EU populations towards ethnic minorities: both
cases evidence a naive trust in the media’s power to solve complex social problems.
As these developments show, the analysis of cultural diversity policies
implemented in the media field cannot be separated from the study of the broader
policies, which they are a part of. As one component of a ‘holistic’ migration
management policy aimed both at integrating ethnic minorities living in Europe and
deterring ‘illegal’ migrants from coming to Europe, cultural diversity policies need to
be viewed as complementing the border control policies enforced by the EU’s
Frontex agency, among other means.
As such, these migration policies are fraught with contradictions. On the one
hand they call for improving the media portrayals of ethnic minorities through various
cultural diversity measures, in order to foster integration. On the other hand EU
policies of ‘integrated border management’ – to use the official terminology – lead to
massive numbers of ‘illegal migrants’ risking death in the hope of a better life in
Europe. Always on the lookout for sensational contents likely to attract large
audiences, the media lap up such tragic stories, propagating representations of
immigration issues that are far removed from those the promoters of cultural diversity
policies are calling for.
The various articles in this special issue further consider the inner
contradictions in European diversity policies. Paradoxically, as pointed out by Titley,
the ‘integration regimes’ such policies are based on are ‘predicated on
categorization, division and stratification’. They pit ‘acceptable’ forms of difference
(which can be integrated into the country’s national culture) against other forms of
difference (that are viewed as endangering national cohesion). Thus in the words of
Engelbert and Awad cultural diversity policies imply ‘both the protection of some
differences and the protection from others’.
Christian Sinclair and Kevin Smet point to another important contradiction: that
between the agenda promoting cultural diversity at a European scale, on the one
hand, and the way the tropes of terrorism have been mobilized to shut down some
minority media, on the other hand. Studying the case of Kurdish transnational
broadcasting, they show how, ‘using to a great effect a discourse of terrorism to
frame its case’ with the support of the United States government, the Turkish State
15
successfully stifled the different generations of Kurdish satellite televisions operating
under EU and EU member states’ broadcasting regulations, despite the fact that
these recognize the guidelines of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe (OSCE, which succeeded to the CSCE), stipulating the right of minorities ‘to
receive, seek and impart information and ideas in a language and media of their
choice’.
Focusing on mainstream media, and especially television, this special issue
does not deal with the way governments and multilateral institutions have tried to
promote the ideals of cultural diversity through information and communication
technologies (ICT). Yet, these have been since the 2006 Riga Ministerial Declaration
on ‘ICT for an Inclusion Society’ endowed by the EU with the task of e-including
migrants and ethnic minorities in European countries, and as such officially entrusted
as cultural diversity tools (Ministerial Declaration on ‘ICT for an Inclusive Society’,
2006). However, it remains to be seen whether the incorporation in diversity policies
of the new communication platforms linked to the internet will radically change the
objectives these policies have been vested with until now. In fact the Riga Ministerial
Declaration is based on the same naïve assumptions of the power of ICT for
‘improving the possibilities for […] integration’ (ibid.: 4) as the ones on which rely the
calls for using television to this end.
Moreover, the internet raises the same kind of fears as those previously
caused by the rise of videocassettes or satellite television, and these anxieties have
resulted in a certain reluctance from the part of domestic authorities, in contrast with
EU’s enthusiasm, to enlist ICT in cultural diversity policies at a national level. As a
study funded by the EU and aimed at exploring ICT use by migrants or ethnic
minorities and their ‘related policy implications’ in the field of cultural diversity states:
‘In the light of the widespread concern that blogs and self-organised communities on
the internet could be a channel of co-ethnic bonding, of information self-segregation
and even of aggressive separation from the host society, a national level ad hoc
policy to support immigrants in accessing and using ICT would likely meet with more
or less strong opposition’ (Codagnone and Kluzer, 2011: 54).
Finally, it should not be forgotten that ICT play a non-negligible role in the
policies of border control, which are, together with diversity initiatives, a constitutive
feature of the EU’s holistic approach of migration issues. Indeed, the European
border surveillance system implemented through Frontex has an important
16
technological component, which gives shape to an electronic barrier to fight ‘illegal’
immigration.
Conclusion
In the report he wrote for the Council of Europe on The Challenge of Transcultural
Diversities, Kevin Robins noted that the issue of ‘cultural diversity’ had been, up to
the early 2000s, framed almost exclusively by European governments ‘from the point
of view of the social and cultural integration of minorities into the dominant national
order’ (Robins, 2006: 12). In contrast, he pleaded for a ‘transcultural’ approach which
would break away from the ‘national frame of reference’ and would be more in tune
with the realities of increasing transnational flows (ibid.). However, as our analysis of
European policies shows, far from pursuing a ‘transcultural’ approach, ‘European-
wide policy making’ in the field of cultural diversity has paradoxically stayed in many
respects, as Robins recently put it, highly dependent on ‘essentially national
imagination’ (Robins, 2014: 33).
1. We are grateful to Kaarle Nordenstreng who drew our attention to Hujanen’s
project.
2. This minorities’ ‘right to communicate’ has been since strongly advocated by
John Downing and Charles Husband, who participated to Hujanen’s study
(see Downing and Husband, 2005).
3. Creative media production inevitably entails individual choices by producers
and journalists, who more often than not take their more or less homogeneous
peers as their main reference point. Such practices may hinder truly
intercultural collaboration and production, no matter the regulatory framework
or institutional/managerial infrastructure. In order for transformation to happen,
journalists and producers need to take their multifaceted audiences seriously
(d’Haenens, 2011; Roth, d’Haenens and Lebrun, 2011).
4. For a critique of EBU’s ‘managerial approach to diversity’, see Awad Cherit
(2008) and Horsti (2009).
5. For a further critique of these commodified conceptions of diversity, see
Titley’s and Engelbert and Awad’s articles in this issue.
17
6. However, it is important to note as a counterpoint that, in countries where
public authorities did not implement diversity policies towards ethnic
minorities, various social actors use European initiatives as a lever to promote
the need of such policies. See the Spanish case in Navarro (2014).
References
Awad CI (2008) Cultural diversity in the news media: A democratic or a commercial
need? Javnost-The Public 15(4): 55-72.
Codagnone C and Kluzer S (2011) ICT for the Social and Economic Integration of
Migrants into Europe. Luxembourg: European Commission Joint Research Centre,
Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.
Communication from the Commission on Immigration, Integration and Employment
(2003) to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions COM (2003) 336 final. Brussels:
Commission of the European Communities.
Council of Europe (1991) Community and ethnic relations in Europe. Final report of
the Community Relations Project. Strasbourg.
d’Haenens L (2011) Prospects for transformative media in a transcultural society:
Drivers and barriers in media policy, production and research. The International
Communication Gazette 73(5): 380-399.
Diversity Toolkit (2007) for Factual Programs in Public Service Television. Brussels-
Geneva: European Union-European Broadcasting Union.
Downing JDH and Husband C (2005) Representing Race: Racisms, Ethnicity and the
18
Media. London: Sage.
Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (1975) Helsinki,
available at http://www.osce.org/mc/39501?download=true [last access: June 2014].
Geiger M and Pécoud A (eds) (2010) The Politics of International Migration
Management. London: Palgrave-MacMillan.
Golding P and Murdock G (1991) Culture, communications and political economy. In:
Curran J and Gurevitch M (eds) Mass Media and Society. London: Edward Arnold,
pp. 15-32.
Handbook on Integration for Policy-Makers and Practitioners (2010) Directorate
General for Justice, Freedom and Security. Brussels: European Commission.
Horsti K (2009) Antiracist and multicultural discourses in European public service
broadcasting: Celebrating consumable differences in the Prix Europa Iris Media
Prize. Communication, Culture & Critique 2(3): 339-360.
Hujanen T (ed) (1988) Report of the Final Conference of the Joint Study ‘The Role of
Information in the Realization of the Human Rights of Migrant Workers’. Lausanne:
Bureau lausannois pour les immigrés.
Hujanen T (1980) The Role of Information in the Realization of the Human Rights of
Migrant Workers. The Framework and Outline of an International Research Project.
Tampere: Department of Journalism and Mass Communication of the University of
Tampere.
IOM (2011) World Migration Report 2011. Communicating Effectively about
Migration. Geneva: International Organization for Migration.
Ki-moon B (2008) Ensuring greater security through cultural diversity is one of the
greatest modern challenges, secretary-general tells High-level meeting on Culture of
Peace’, United Nations, Secretary-General, Department of Public Information, News
19
and Media Division, 12 November 2008, available at
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/sgsm11917.doc.htm [last access: June
2014].
Kosnick K (2000) Building bridges: Media for migrants and the public-service mission
in Germany. European Journal of Cultural Studies 3(3): 319-342.
Martiniello M (2006) The new migratory Europe: Towards a proactive immigration
policy? In: Parsons CA and Smeeding TM (eds) Immigration and the Transformation
of Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 298-326.
Media4Diversity (2009) Taking the Pulse of Diversity in the Media. A Study on Media
and Diversity in EU Member States and 3 EEA countries. Directorate General for
Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities. Brussels: European
Commission.
Ministerial Declaration on ‘ICT for an Inclusive Society’, approved unanimously on 11
June 2006, Riga, Latvia, available at
http://www.umic.pt/images/stories/publicacoes/declaration_riga.pdf [last access: July
2014].
Navarro L (2014, in press) Médias publics et politiques de la ‘diversité’ en Espagne:
entre les intérêts du marché et ceux des politiques d’immigration. In: Mattelart T (ed)
Médias et migrations dans l’espace euro-méditerranéen. Paris: Mare et Martin.
Nieuwenhuys C and Pécoud A (2007) Human trafficking, information campaigns, and
strategies of migration control. American Behavioral Scientist 50(12): 1674-1695.
Oepen M (1983) National report of the Federal Republic of Germany. Media,
migrants and marginalization. In: Hujanen T (ed) The Role of Information in the
Realization of the Human Rights of Migrant Workers. Report of the International
Conference, Tampere 19-22 June. Tampere: Department of Journalism and Mass
Communication, University of Tampere, pp. 125-153.
20
On a Community Immigration Policy (2000) Communication from the Commission to
the Council and the European Parliament, COM(2000) 757 final. Brussels:
Commission of the European Communities.
Peeters A and d’Haenens L (2005) Bridging or bonding? Relationships between
integration and media use among ethnic minorities in the Netherlands.
Communications. The European Journal for Communication Research 30(2): 201-
231.
Perotti A (1993) Les orientations du Conseil de l’Europe. In: Frachon C and Vargaftig
M (eds) Télévisions d’Europe et immigration. Paris: Ina-Adec, pp. 19-29.
Rea A (ed) (1998) Immigration et racisme en Europe. Brussels: Éditions Complexe.
Robins K (2014) Transcultural research as encounter and a possible creative
modality of its dialogue. In: Transculturality and interdisciplinarity. Challenges for
research on media, migration and intercultural dialogue. Barcelona: United Nations
University and CIDOB, pp. 23-41.
Robins K (2006) The Challenge of Transcultural Diversities. Cultural Policy and
Cultural Diversity. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Roth L, d’Haenens L and Lebrun T (2011) No longer ‘the other’: A reflection on
diversity in Canadian fiction television. The International Communication Gazette
73(5): 380-399.
Ter Wal J (ed) (2002) Racism and Cultural Diversity in the Media. An Overview of
Research and Examples of Good Practice in the EU Member States, 1995-2000.
Vienna: European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, Vienna (EUMC).
The European Union Counter-Terrorism Strategy (2005) Note from the Presidency
and CT Co-ordinator to the Council/European Council 30 November 2005. Brussels:
Council of the European Union.
21
Thinking Forward (2004) Making the Media more Diverse and the Role of ‘Change
Agents’. Utrecht-Rome: EquaMedia-Online/More Colour in the Media.
Triandafyllidou A and Ulasiuk I (2011) Media for Diversity and Migrant Integration
(MEDIVA). Studying and Evaluating the Role of the Media in Migrant Integration:
Introductory Remarks for the MEDIVA Project. Florence: European University
Institute.
UNAOC (2006, November 13) Report of the High-level Group. New York: United
Nations Alliance of Civilizations.
Tristan Mattelart is Professor of International Communication at the Department of Culture and Communication of the University of Paris 8, and researcher at the Research institute on Media, Technologies, and Internationalization (CEMTI). He edited various works on media and migration - Médias, migrations et cultures transnationales (Brussels-Paris: De Boeck-INA, 2007), TIC et diasporas (a special issue of the journal tic&société, 2009, on ICTs and diasporas), Médias et migrations dans l’espace euro-méditerranéen (Paris: Mare et Martin, 2014) -, and authored different book chapters published in English on the subject.
Leen d’Haenens is Professor of Communication Science at the Institute for Media Studies, KU Leuven, where she teaches on western media policy, media and diversity, analysis of media texts. Her areas of research include digital media and youth, news media (e.g. portrayal of Islam and Muslims in the news, longitudinal studies on news diversity), media and ethnic minorities (e.g. ethnic discussion forums as a source of social capital for ethnic minorities), and western media policy and governance mechanisms. She edited a special issue of the International Communication Gazette 73(5) on ‘Prospects for transformative media in a transcultural society’ and co-edited a special issue of Communications: The European Journal of Communication Research 32(2) on ‘Media and ethnic minorities in Europe’ in addition to various articles on media and diversity and pluralism issues in peer reviewed journals.
Top Related