Daedelus

 

Daedelus has amazing sideburns, a penchant for wearing waistcoats and some mad skillz.

SverigeDemokraterna - The Sweden Democrats

In Sunday's Swedish elections the governing liberal-centre-right coalition won a narrow majority over the environment-left coalition. However, the talking point is the entry to parliament of the anti-immigration party Sweden Democrats. SD's only real policies that I can determine are to stop non-EU immigration, stop supporting immigrants through social welfare and thus doing so, return Sweden's national identity. These policies convinced 5.7% of voters (around 80% of the population chose to vote) that they were the way forward for the country and thus they get 20 seats of the 349 in the parliament.

A map in yesterday's commuter paper showed that the (as expected) the percentage of voters supporting SD varied greatly throughout the country. In the sparsely inhabited north their supported was between 2% and 4%. In the immigrant dense suburbs near me their support was between 8% and 10%. However, across the water in a slightly posher part of town only 1% of voters supported them.

Acknowledging that support for SD isn't coming from backwater towns but rather the places in which immigrants are living indicates that integration has, in some respects, failed. If one considers successful integration to be immigrants feeling valued in society and society valuing the immigrants then, clearly, 6% of the population don't value their contact with different cultures. One can get angry about this statistic, much of the population are, but I don't think anger and shame will change the mind of these 6%. If you're happy voting for the party whose campaign ads were banned for being overtly racist then I cannot see how pleading editorials or protests with 10,000 people will change your mind.

So, I've been wondering about what caused their recent gains. Has there been a shift in government policies, has an influx in certain suburban areas changed attitudes, is there simply a growing acceptance of racism? Whilst I don't have the answers to these questions the following points may be contributing factors:

• Sweden, on the whole, is remarkably homogeneous. There is an often cited statistic that almost 20% of Swedes are either immigrants or the children of two immigrants. However, if one removes the other Nordic countries then this number is reduced to 9%. In contrast, the number of Australians born overseas (I was unable to find a statistic including children of immigrants which would be much much higher) is currently 24%. Subtract those born in the UK and NZ and this figure is still 16.1%. Melbourne's population is 4 million, 1.25 million were born overseas. Thus, where I come from 31% of the population were born overseas. This is how I can travel through Sweden and marvel at just how similar everyone is. Swedes may not realise it when they're hearing statistics like the 20% above but, generally, they haven't really had to come to terms with large scale migration. When they're used to living in such a culturally and visually similar society I can imagine that many people are threatened by an influx of immigrants.

This is a regular day on a Swedish street, everyone dresses alike. (from here)

 
• Sweden have a conservative-right leaning alliance. I did wonder if the simple fact that the government in charge for the last 4 years doesn't place the same value on social welfare could lead to immigrants not getting the support they require for successful integration. However, today I met with some people who worked in the field and have for the time being changed my mind. They stated that the governments drive to force people off welfare has actually had a positive impact on the groups they work with. I say 'for the time being' because I don't discount the fact that the governments good period coincided with economic growth from 2006 to 2008 and their bad period was from 2008 until now. Perhaps their policies did little but as they came in during a time of prosperity they appeared to have a positive impact. Correlation/Causation.

Source: SCB. Arbete = work; Familjeband = family ties.

• The bulk of immigration to Sweden is to join family. Of Swedish arrivals 47% are moving for family reasons. The figure for Australia is closer to 25%. Only 12.5% of Swedish immigrants are classed as moving for work, the number in Australia is around 50%. I question the accuracy of comparing the two sets of statistics as I get the feeling that to be classed as coming to Australia for work one just needs to prove the possession of skills, not a job offer, I don't know about Sweden's rules. Regardless of the validity of the comparison it's definitely easier to make the simplified argument that immigrants to Sweden are coming to use the system, as it takes longer to justify their benefit to society. Maybe too long for some people. If I was an Australian moderate politician all I would need to do is point to that 50% and then say "They make us all richer". Just to reiterate, I don't agree with this statement, and I don't think that either comment is using the statistics honestly, but I do see how it is an effective argument for the Sweden Democrats.

In summary, I don't know what has prompted the strengthening of the anti-immigration SverigeDemokraterna party, but it isn't baffling.

On a brighter note, I'm not hear just to critique Swedish society: you may read in the very near future that my peers and I will be undertaking a social entrepreneurial project to assist with the integration of a particular community within Gothenburg. Stay tuned.

Stats come from here:
ABS - Migration (2007)
SCB - Familjeband vanlig orsak till invandring (Family Ties common cause of immigration)
SCB - Population Summary
Metro 21/09/2010

Culture and language links

This is a very interesting article on how language may shape the way we think. (that was apparently plagiarised in the NYT)

And

this an equally interesting video on the origin of human kindness.

The Intro:

What I want to do today is talk about some ideas I've been exploring concerning the origin of human kindness. And I'll begin with a story that Sarah Hrdy tells at the beginning of her excellent new book, "Mothers And Others."  She describes herself flying on an airplane. It’s a crowded airplane, and she's flying coach. She's waits in line to get to her seat; later in the flight, food is going around, but she's not the first person to be served; other people are getting their meals ahead of her. And there's a crying baby. The mother's soothing the baby, the person next to them is trying to hide his annoyance, other people are coo-cooing the baby, and so on.
               
As Hrdy points out, this is entirely unexceptional. Billions of people fly each year, and this is how most flights are. But she then imagines what would happen if every individual on the plane was transformed into a chimp. Chaos would reign. By the time the plane landed, there'd be body parts all over the aisles, and the baby would be lucky to make it out alive.
               
The point here is that people are nicer than chimps.

Both are from Edge.org.