Análisis etnográfico de un dispositivo político transescalarel marco de la Unión Europea para la integración de nacionales de terceros países

Abstract

Abstract: This study deals with immigrant integration soft policies developed within the trans-scalar context of the ¿EU framework for the Integration of Third Country Nationals¿. The research is based on (i) 37 semi-directed interviews, mostly given in Brussels by main actors of this political field (European Commission, European Economic and Social Committee, Committee of the Regions, think tanks, foundations, regional and local administration networks, civil society organizations, etc.), as well as on (ii) direct observation of various events and spaces and (iii) the reading of numerous sources related to the aforementioned issues. Particularly, it rests on theoretical contributions made by the ¿anthropology of policy¿ and the ¿governmentality studies¿, borrowing from the latter certain useful notions like those of ¿government¿, ¿governmentality¿, ¿political rationality¿ and ¿technologies of government¿. This critical/deconstructive approach analyses several issues related to the EU political framework for the integration of non-EU immigrants, especially, those dealing with the construction process of this political field, its main actors, the participative process within the frame of the multilevel governance, through which decision and policies are made, the main tools set for implementation of the latter, the socio-cultural assumptions lying beneath the practices and problematisations driven by the aforementioned policies, and the specific forms of knowledge promoted. In this piece of research the concept of integration has been used as a tool, which sheds light on the existence of broader processes in the background of this policy area that refer to the social dynamics originated in the last decades ¿in particular, such processes are associated with changes in the mode of production (Post-Fordism) and with the increasing dismantling of the welfare state under hegemonic neoliberalism. As these processes have generated brand new vocabulary, practices, knowledge and participatory forms, which are common within a new type of political rationality, the category of integration has been addressed as a social construction. It is not analysed as a pre-existing object, but rather in terms of its historical and social conditions of production. Far from having prescriptive purposes, for example, that of determining which policies could be considered as ¿most appropriate¿, this research has focused on the meanings revealed by the word ¿integration¿ and the concepts derived from it across different contexts, on the various instruments deployed under its logic of functioning, on the (discursive and non-discursive) practices fostered by those instruments, as well as on the processes of classification, categorization and inclusion/exclusion driven by the policies developed within this framework, which affect certain populations. This document is structured as follows. After a brief prologue setting out the concerns in the background of the main issues, the introduction (Chapter 1) provides some indications on how to approach the reading of the study, taking into account that this is a thesis by publications. In the same chapter, I point out the importance of migration and integration policies for public policy analysis and clarify the main political and epistemological stances I have taken and maintained. A second chapter drafts the main research questions, but it also formulates methodological and political-epistemological objectives. The third chapter outlines the Brussels context, being the most important location (although not the only one) in which the fieldwork has taken place. Furthermore, some information on the city as well as more detailed data about the European quarter are provided. After that, the general features of the main EU policy makers¿ social worlds are traced, and the worlds of migration and integration policy makers are described later in detail. In the fourth chapter I introduce the techniques used for data production and construction of the ethnographic account, establishing a connection between the theoretical framework and the empirical practices carried out throughout the research process. The fifth chapter includes the seven publications constituting the main body of the thesis, which address different aspects of the topic under study. The first methodological paper summarizes the main dilemmas of the research process: assuming that social science research is characterized by an ¿uncertain¿ and non-linear path, the main transformations suffered by the object and context of study are shown. From a reflexive viewpoint, the first paper also analyses the internal and external factors that have conditioned the development of my research and it drafts some theoretical and methodological considerations on which the conceptualization of the European framework as a trans-scalar apparatus is based. The second article covers the most significant moments in the creation of this policy area at EU level, analysing perspectives, positions and strategies of the most influential and committed actors in this context. It shows some of the problematizations underlying the idea of integration, including the fact that its current dominant meaning is closely related to immigration control policies and linked to a ¿home affairs¿ approach, what should be understood as the result of all the ¿moves¿ made by the various actors and, therefore, the outcome of an open non-deterministic historical process. The third publication introduces various observations on the emerging problematizations on immigrant integration policies within the context of the political hegemony of neoliberalism. Certain representations and discourses underlying integration policies are revealed, like the idea of society, that of state and the relation between the two, as well as the representation of the ¿neoliberal¿ subject and the reiterated need of managing the migrant presence from a technocratic and seemingly depoliticized perspective. The fourth contribution deepens into the aforementioned assumption on the depoliticization and technification of European Union integration policies. It unravels the concept of ¿best practices¿ and the idea of their exchange, deconstructing their socio-cultural assumptions and their logic of functioning and concluding that the political element ¿returns¿ in different ways, despite the attempts to silence it. It also states that the technicism in which these policies are wrapped should be rather considered a concealing ideological operation. The fifth article thoroughly analyzes the ¿good practices¿ paradigm, the concept of ¿modules on integration¿ and the participatory practices implemented within the European Integration Forum. It addresses the patterns of agency promoted in these three spaces, concluding that participation here is understood as a limited channeled process, which is subordinated to legitimacy and effectiveness requirements of public policy process. It also analyzes the knowledge and ways of talking about integration promoted by these practices. The sixth publication outlines the historical origins of the concept of integration, reviewing the main EU documents related to it. Later on, it focuses on the case of the European Integration Forum, analyzing in detail participatory practices taking place there and theorizing this tool as a technology of government. It also analyzes the strategies, resignificances and struggles for the meaning regarding the concept of integration, which occur within this dialogue platform. The seventh article, which closes the fifth chapter, examines two different instruments at the EU framework: the Common Basic Principles and the European Integration Fund. By analyzing their operating logic, it concludes that they can be considered together a technology of government, aiming at aligning the actors¿ conduct with the achievement of governmental targets. It also addresses the issue of the failure of several public policies, providing the audience with a specific interpretation. The sixth chapter outlines and broadly discusses the results set out along the different articles, in an attempt to unify and homogenize the set of publications. It also clarifies the scope of the emerging results, discussing the validity of the proposed interpretations with regard to each specific instrument. It summarizes the reasons why integration should be considered a social construction; it details the operations of ¿reification¿, ¿visibilization¿ and ¿operationalization¿ to which it has been subdued; it looks over the process of depoliticization and technification of both its content and the participatory practices developed by policy makers; finally, it provides broader considerations about the failure of policies. A brief closing section (Chapter 7) warns about the risks of automatically extending the validity of data produced, even those referring to more general processes, to other political fields ¿at least, without a previous empirical analysis. Lastly, it questions whether integration policies themselves can be considered a technology of power and it sketches a set of proposals for future research. It can be concluded that this research is conceived in order to produce situated and counter-hegemonic knowledge. Through the deconstruction of socio-cultural assumptions existing within EU soft integration policies, it aims to highlight that these, far from being based on objective scientific facts, contribute to naturalize the dominant ideology and blur other ways of thinking and making, such as experiences and practices of alternative or migrant groups. Bibliografía básica: Dean, Mitchell (2010). Governmentality. Power and Rule in a Modern Society. London: Sage. Primera edición: 1999. Dietz, Gunther (2011). «Hacia una Etnografía doblemente Reflexiva: una propuesta desde la Antropología de la Interculturalidad». Revista de Antropología Iberoamericana, 6(1), 3-26. http://www.aibr.org/antropologia/06v01/articulos/060101.pdf. Feldman, Gregory (2011). «Illuminating the Apparatus: Steps toward a Nonlocal Ethnography of Global Governance». En: Shore, Cris; Wright, Susan y Però, Davide (eds.). Policy worlds. Anthropology and the Analysis of Contemporary Power, 32-49. New York-Oxford: Berghahn Books. Foucault, Michel (1991). «Governmentality». En: Burchell, Graham; Gordon, Colin y Miller, Peter (eds.). The Foucault Effect. Studies in governmentality. With two lectures by and an interview with Michel Foucault. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Primera edición: 1978. García, Francisco Javier; Álvarez, Aurora y Rubio, María (2011). «Prismas transescalares en el estudio de las migraciones». Revista de Antropología Social, 20, 203-228. revistas.ucm.es/index.php/RASO/article/download/36267/35116. Gil, Sandra (2006). Las argucias de la integración. Tesis doctoral. Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Guiraudon, Virginie (2003). «The Constitution of a European Immigration Policy Domain: a Political Sociology Approach». Journal of European Public Policy, 10(2), 263-282. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/1350176032000059035. Gupta, Akhil y Ferguson, James (1997). «Discipline and Practice: 'The Field' as Site, Method, and Location in Anthropology». En: Gupta, Akhil y Ferguson, James (eds.). Anthropological locations: boundaries and grounds of a field science, 1-46. Berkeley-Los Angeles: University of California Press. Rose, Nikolas (1999). Powers of freedom. Reframing political thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shore, Cris (2000). Building Europe. The Cultural Politics of European Integration. London-New York: Routledge. Shore, Cris y Wright, Susan (1997). Anthropology of Policy. Critical perspectives on Governance and power. London: Routledge. Shore, Cris; Wright, Susan y Però, Davide (eds.) (2011). Policy worlds. Anthropology and the Analysis of Contemporary Power. New York-Oxford: Berghahn Books. Walters, William y Haahr, Jens Henrik (2005). Governing Europe. Discourse, governmentality and European integration. London-New York: Routldege.