21.10.2005

Empowering government

Miikka Pyykkönen

E-mail: miipyyk@yfi.jyu.fi    

 

Empowering government – The role of immigrant associations in the activating integration of immigrants

 

 

Introduction

 

“Individual subjects are transformed into citizens by what I call technologies of citizenship: discourses, programs, and other tactics aimed at making individuals politically active and capable of self-government” (Cruikshank 1999, 1).

 

According to Foucault (1999), the development of the modern nation states meant shift from the sovereign power to the disciplinary power of state, and then gradually to the ‘governmentalization of the state’. The latter implies a “phase”, where centralized state power scatters into the area of the social and “exercise of sovereignty comes to be articulated through the regulation of population and individuals” (Dean 1999, 210). At this point, government starts to work more and more in the complex networks of the civil society, while the life-world of individuals and the government itself has become a process of self-evaluation and self-reparation. Concretely this meant mobilization of governmental techniques, which regulate the everyday life and security of population and its individuals, such as vital statistics, public health institutions and programs, and general compulsory education. What is also emblematic for this transition is that population becomes the means and the end of the government.

 

According to Mitchell Dean (2002), government of modern, western societies occurs more and more through agencies located within civil society, which enable people to be active and self-responsible in their own government. Especially in the social sector, linked to the questions of exclusion and marginalisation, civic organisations are recently considered to be one of the main producers of acts of empowerment. These ‘technologies of citizenship’ (Cruikshank 1999, 67) call people in marginal positions (e.g. unemployed, disabled, substance addicts and immigrants) to be self-responsible through actions which are considered acceptable for them in order to advance their participation in the fields of “normal society”.

 

One of these "risk groups" is immigrants. In their case, the question of citizenship is actualized in a particularly remarkable way, as none of them have Finnish nationality in the beginning. Nation-state citizenship in their case is also problematic, as immigrants are seen mainly culturally, but often also religiously, economically and politically different. Without programmatic governance, their difference can be thought to form a threat for the security and coherence of Finnish society and its internal security (Mervola 2004; cf. Inda 2002).

 

The main focus of this text is on the expectations of immigration administration and public authorities[i][1] for the immigrant associations in this era of activation and integration policy. I shall search for answers to this with the twofold ‘Foucauldian’ approach: first of all, I shall explore what the administrative rationalities concerning integration of immigrants through their own associations are like. What are the socially and culturally constructed knowledge and truth formations behind the migration work in this context? To which larger economic, political or cultural trends and paradigms are these knowledge formations connected? Second, what kind of ways of action do government administration, public authorities and other experts on immigrant issues promote both for associations and individuals as their members and customers? In ‘Foucauldian’ manner: what are the technologies of governmentality which are linked to the associations in administrative discourse and which are expected to improve the immigrants' self-responsibility and activity in the process of integration? In relation to Mitchell Dean's (1995, 569) definition, this aim deals with the relation of government and ethics; it aims at illuminating the techne of government and how somewhat impersonal general technologies are incorporated to subjects' self-formation in empirical practices, in something that can be named as governmental-ethical practices (ibid.), or technologies of the self (Foucault 1999, 132-137). On the whole, my intention is to study what governmentality means in the context of the administrative utilization of immigrant associations. The secondary purpose is to illustrate the relevance of a governmentality toolkit to understanding problematics of power in integration of immigrants, while simultaneously indicating this phenomenon as a potential site for exploring governmentality.

 

Theory and key concepts

 

To understand the approach used in the text, opening of basic theoretical concepts - first of all, government - is required. According to Foucault (1982, 220-221) government means “conduct of conduct”.  Thus, government (to govern) “entails any attempt to shape with some degree of deliberation aspects of our behaviour according to particular sets of norms and for variety of ends” (Dean 1999, 10). Dean (ibid., 11) has concludingly ascertained that

 

"government is any more or less calculated activity, undertaken by a multiplicity of authorities and agencies, employing a variety of techniques and forms of knowledge, that seeks to shape conduct by working our desires, aspirations, interests and beliefs, for definite but shifting ends and with diverse set of relatively unpredictable consequences, effects and outcomes".

 

According to the ‘Foucauldian’ ideas of displacement of government from the sovereignty to the complex networks of the social and the birth of the population as a central economic and political force of the society, modern (liberal) government does not concentrate on the direct disciplining of the citizen, but aims at optimizing their forces in the name of survival of the state and its population. Government is thus something that secures the social development according to institutions, practices, ideas and behaviours that are considered normal.

 

According to Foucault (1991, 102), governmentality, then, means "the ensemble formed by the institutions, procedures, analyses, and reflections, the calculations and tactics that allow the exercise of this very specific albeit complex form of power, which has as its target population as its principal form of knowledge political economy, and as its essential technical means apparatuses of security". Governmentality can be named as sub-concept of government, which indicates an “advanced” way of governing in modern societies in focusing on the normative self-practice and ways of thinking of citizens. Government within the governmentality framework appears more as forms of action and relations of power that aim to guide and shape the actions of others or oneself, than as direct force, control, or domination (Cruikshank 1999, 4). If the focus in governmentality-studies is not directly on self-practices, it is usually on how hegemonic forms of knowledge, authorities, their programs, and technical means intertwine to construct the members of the population both as objects and subjects of government - how and by what means people are made targets to governmental practices and how they are guided to become self-steering subjects of their own behaviour. (Cruikshank 1999; Dean 1999, 9-39; Dean 1995; Rose 1989; Rose 1999.)

 

"A rationality can be thought of as a necessary condition of governmental practices" (Lippert 1999, 296). Rationality of government is a way or system of thinking about the nature of the practice of government, i.e. its mentality. The rationalities of governmentality that are in use can be regarded as broad historically developed and constructed discourses (Dean 1994, 182). They can also be understood as meta-level background justifications for technologies of government. Rationalities are usually latently immanent in the codes of our everyday speech, practices, behaviour and interaction. In this respect, one might say, that they are a form of grand narratives, which (re)produce existing truth formations and contain knowledge about what are the best societal conditions and how the government should work in order to achieve and maintain them.

 

“If government is to achieve ends, or seek to realize values, it must use technical means" (Dean 1999, 31). In Foucauldian speech, the practices of government based on rationalities are called techniques and a set of them is called technology. Practices are being rationalised – brought into the sphere of reasonable thinking considering their meaning and consequences – through technologies, which consist of deliberated governmental acts guiding practices of groups and individuals (ibid, 23). Techniques of governmentality can be divided into two in Foucauldian approach, as one shall see more profoundly later from the page 12 onwards. First, there are techniques of governance, which take place on the organisational level, and whose target is the individual citizen – they are techniques that aim at governing others. In modern liberal western societies, those technologies deal more and more with creating possibilities for collectives of citizens to participate in taking care of the common things, particularly their own lives in the way that is seen to be the normal and the right way. Second, there are techniques of the self. They are mental and practical manners with which individual makes her-/himself to act morally, as a moral-subject. (Foucault 1999, 132-137.) Through moral-related self-techniques, rationalities as a way of general thinking about societal order penetrate into the area of individual practices by creating an atmosphere of social control both in a conscious and unconscious manner. The fundamental aim of techniques of governmentality is to empower people to conduct themselves as plenipotentiary citizens (Cruikshank 1999).

 

Integration of immigrants and ‘governmentalization of the civil society’

 

Jonathan Xavier Inda (2002; 2004) has studied biopower and governmentality in order to show how exclusion of illegal immigrants "is codified as an essential and noble pursuit necessary to ensure the survival of the social body" (2002, 99). My purpose here is, instead, to show how inclusion/integration of legal immigrants and political efforts towards it are codified as an essential and noble pursuit necessary to ensure the survival of the social body; to ensure that the socio-cultural difference of the immigrant others is limited in certain degree and they will become a functional part of the social body, ‘us’.

 

The Integration Law was constituted at 1999 in Finland. Its basic aim is to “promote the integration, equality and freedom of choice of immigrants through measures which help them to acquire the essential knowledge and skills they need to function in society” (L 493/1999, §1). In this case, integration means individual and group level attachment to the societal centre and cultural formation which is named as ‘dominant culture’, and which consists of the ideas, beliefs, features and patterns that are thought to be typical for Finnish population. Societal centre on its behalf refers here to the basic institutions of the society, such as work and language, and the possibility to participate in the political decision-making and to belong to the sphere of the same basic services as anyone else (cf. Wahlbeck 1999, 186-190). Today being a member of the societal centre requires activeness and social interaction (e.g. STM 1999). Thus, integration can not be a socially and culturally neutral process, but requires both cultural and social concessions from immigrants. There has to be programmatic technologies of government and experts controlling the acts, routines and rituals that immigrants have to perform in order to qualify their duties. Integration policy is thus a set of techniques with the purpose of controlling the multicultural development of the society in a way that could be defined as culturally and politically democratic.

 

Considering 'legal’ immigrants, the survival of the population is secured through integrating them to the majority by teaching them Finnish language, history, everyday civil skills and social system (including law, norms and “basic values”), getting immigrants to interact with members of the majority (common hobbies and pastime events), and organising education, work practice and employment for them. For the Finnish social policy, integraatio (‘integration’) as a noun means: “the individual development of immigrant with the aim to participate in working life and activities of society, while retaining one's own language and culture at the same time” (L 493/1999, §2).

 

According to the Integration law and section, ‘integration’ as a verb form means the measures and capacities organised by authorities to advance integration in the sense denoted by the noun above. With this section, the position of public immigration officials (mainly leading social and cultural workers of the cities) is set to be the fundamental organisers of integrative activities. Thus, they are ultimately controllers of all official integrative actions, and in an essential position when choosing the right techniques for the integration based on its general rationalities, such as social cohesion and security.

 

After the recent trends of social policy and structural-economic changes in Finland (a prominent deduction in the state aid for municipalities, for instance), the case is often that public institutions, such as social care centres, buy some of the needed services from external producers, such as associations and foundations. Also immigrant associations are called to participate in the local service production connected to the integration work in the name of reducing public expenditures, and advancing multi-ethnic worker structure, positions of experts with immigrant background and the bottom-up principle in public administration and decision making. (Työministeriö 2001, 46, 51.)

 

"The significance of immigrants' own associations increases in the integration process of new immigrants, when the number of immigrants increases. […] Associations should be taken into consideration when organising immigration work and preparing the decisions concerning it. Their possibilities in developing labour policy coordinated actions must be utilized co-ordinately." (Tampereen kaupunki 2001, 5/2 pp. 11/12.)

 

One relatively new way of integration related to the organisation of services is that public authorities and associations as partners start development projects to take care of them. In 2004 there were altogether sixteen different kinds of integration projects for immigrants going on in Jyväskylä and Tampere. Most of them have incorporated immigrant associations into them, but only one of them was organised by an immigrant association. What is required for the immigrant associations in order to get involved in cooperation is that they "intensify their activities into a more purposeful direction" (ibid., 5/2 pp. 10/12). ‘Purposeful’ here means primarily ‘easily employed to official integration’ or ‘cooperation with public officials’.

 

The general logic of usefulness of immigrant associations in guiding and integrating newcomers into Finnish society (in projects, for instance) is based on the general belief that new immigrants prefer to listen and cooperate with people representing the same ethnicity or the same social position as them. With newly arrived immigrants, about whom the local authorities do not know enough or with whom officials do not have a common language, trust and understanding are not obtained easily. By participating in the reception of newcomers, associations are expected to estimate and calculate their need for immediate integrative actions, such as psycho-social guidance and support, education, and parenthood and family information.

 

After the 1980s, Finnish society has witnessed an enormous renewal of the production and governance of public services. Especially after the first EU programs, the making of civic actors as participants and their guidance by the public administration have been much more systematic and programmatic than before. This present trend of extending administrative rationalities, techniques and practices into the field of civil society can be approached as a next step of the governmentalization of the state, as ‘governmentalization of the civil society’. While the governmentalization of the state massively increased the proliferation of the rationalities and techniques of the government in the whole society, the governmentalization of the civil society increases the administrative charging into the field of civil society actors more clearly than before. The transition also includes features of ‘marketization’ of the civil society. The operational logic of associations is in certain parts very close to that of private enterprises: semi-institutional third sector organisations need to carefully follow novel fidelity in monitoring their activities and costs. (Dean 1999, 102-111; Rose 2000.)

 

Never in the history of the Finnish third sector, or the immigrant part of it, have auditing, performance evaluations and cost-benefit analysis of associations been as common as now. Wijkström and Lundström (1995) describe this general change in function of associations as transformation "from interest groups associations to service providing associations".

 

Governmentalization of the civil society is also connected to Dean's (2002, 43) argument, that associations and other collective actors of civil society have become an important part of what he calls (neo)liberal police. Rationalities of the liberalistic government demand that practices of government and policing the normative behaviour in communities are extensively transferred from the state to the organised civil society. Neo-liberal police requires that citizens (members of the population) or non-citizens (the excluded, immigrants, etc.) are trained, guided and shaped to be individuals who govern and develop, i.e. civilize, themselves to be competent members of the societies so that the state government need to interfere in their lives as little as necessary. (Rose 1999, 61-97.) This new form of police

 

" employs techniques and agencies located within civil society rather than merely issuing regulations. […] The different speheres and agencies of civil society, and the knowledge of them, are as much a component of liberal government as parliaments, public bureaucracies and judiciaries. […] Liberal police will seek to co-operate with, contract out or enter into partnership with agencies, groups and bodies of civil society." (ibid.)

 

This new operational logic for associations attach them more closely to the hegemony of social and cultural policy, and limits the forms and possibilities of resistance by pleading to rationality and the best of the actors themselves; "if you resist, you struggle against your own good". Programs declare to stand for clarifying "how the needs of integrators, third sector actors and public officials can meet each other" (Hammar-Suutari 2003, 7). This ‘meeting’ of actor groups and their interests is never neutral, and the question of expertise is present in them. In fact, the programs predetermine the common values and teleologies for cooperation in themselves. Although immigrant associations are allowed to participate in the administration and production of integrating projects, they are rarely allowed to define the policies, terms and patterns of administration. As far as expertise is concerned, then, the general view among administration seems to be that rules and procedures of bigger partnership development and integration projects are so complex that immigrant actors do not have enough professionality or language skills to take the main responsibility over them. Through this kind of rhetoric of expertness, the administrative actors justify their leading positions in integration work. Officials hold the competence to recognize the right and good immigration work to themselves: "there are many very enthusiastic associations which want to do migration work, but then they do not necessarily have a clue of what it really means (Interview # 1; emphasis added).

 

Recent history of immigrant associations in Finland

 

At the moment there are around 105,000 people with foreign nationality living in Finland. They have formed nearly 700 associations[ii][2] in Finland (Pyykkönen 2003; Saksela 2003). The present situation in the target areas of my research is following: There are about 2200 immigrants living in Jyväskylä (total population approx. 80,000) and they have 30 associations, 21 of which are registered. In Tampere (total population approx. 200,000), the number of immigrants is around 5500. They have 29 associations, 26 of which are registered.

 

According to my research data of immigrant associations (primarily, the 22 interviews of them and 59 statutes of associations), they can be divided into nine categories: ethno-cultural associations, religious associations, women’s associations, multicultural associations, youth associations, integration associations, coalition associations, art associations and sports associations. This categorization is based on the self-definitions of the associations. They differ in participant structures, human objects and group interests they claim to serve, teleologies they take for their action, ways of action, and in ways of cooperating with public officials, for instance (see Appendix).

 

The changes in types and goals of immigrant associations have been remarkable since the end of the 1980s when the first ethno-cultural and religious associations were established in the above-mentioned cities. Then, the idea of associations, shared by both authorities and immigrants, was the restoration of immigrants’ cultures and religions in diaspora. The number of immigrant associations increased clearly after the mid-1990s, when the number of immigrants, the sizes of immigrant communities and, along with that, their internal diversity increased. The differentiation of communities led to the mixing of interests and identities among immigrant groups. As a consequence, wholly new kinds of associations were born. One very influential thing was also that many community activists, who at the beginning planned to move back to their home countries, became rooted in the country of settlement, and local communities and started to work for issues relating to their new subject positions in there.

 

Since the mid-1990s, an ever-increasing part of the new associations have been multi-cultural, with a multi-ethnic participant structure and an aim to form and serve trans-ethnic interests. Some ethno-cultural associations have transformed into multicultural associations or taken some of multicultural principles, aims and models of activities as part of their policy repertoires. Immigrants have started to organise themselves more and more according to internal differences (cf. Brah 1996, 81-83). During the last few years local Finnish milieus have been witnessing not only the appearance of women’s and youth associations, but also the appearance of associations of ethno-cultural subcultures (e.g. different Kurdish and Somali cultural associations; cf. Wahlbeck 1999, 152-178) or religious subgroups (e.g. different types of Muslim associations; see Martikainen 2004, 238).

 

Recently there have been two major administrative events which have had an impact on the formation of associations and on their interaction and cooperation with migration administration: first, the affiliation of Finland to the European Union in 1995, and second, the inception of Integration Law in 1999. The former brought up the ideas and practices of project work in Finland. The idea of projects was (and still is) to advance multisectoral procedures within European Union in the name of democratization and empowerment of citizens in social policy affairs. At same time, the idea of deploying associations in official immigration work started for the first time to spread among the officials on a large scale. (ESR 2004; EYK 1994; EYK 2001.)

 

The constitution of Integration Law for its part gave legal force to the developing partnerships between officials and immigrant associations (L 493/1999). After it, the Ministry of Labour has required municipalities to incorporate immigrant associations into the local immigration work: “When programmes are drawn up and implemented, immigrants, NGOs, employee and employer organizations and, when possible, other local parties shall be heard” (ibid, §7).

 

The above-mentioned things have, on the one hand, increased the diversity of the associations, but also caused pressures of homogenization, on the other. The former occurs in that the many civilly active immigrants have established new associations in order to get their part of the shared integration and project funds, and to influence the policies of projects and migrant work, e.g. integration associations. The latter is seen in that many formerly purely ethno-cultural or religious associations have recently included integrative aims and operations to their policies in the faith that it would guarantee better possibilities for receiving resources. Most of all, however, these ‘external pressures’ have had an impact on the rhetoric of the associations. In the “formal speech” about their principles, goals, and practices, they have started to increasingly iterate the discourses of national and local administrative programs. The more money has flowed into the resource markets of immigration work, the more associations have started to represent their meanings and functions along the lines of administrative discourses. This is crucial for the governmentality: Before the programmatic government is able to work in practice, its rationalities and techniques have to become shared among the associations representing marginalised people at whom particular governmental procedures are aimed.

 

In concrete co-operation between local administration and associations, this has meant that public authorities invite particular types of associations to join the projects they lead. Most often those are integration associations, but also ethno-cultural, women’s and multicultural associations are used whenever they serve the particular aims of the projects. I will get back on this later in the context of techniques of government.

 

Rationalities of integrative government through immigrant associations

 

In relation to the socio-cultural integration of immigrants and to the deployment of associations in integrative actions, rationalities of government of administrative discourse are imposed primarily in the spheres of (a) health, welfare and happiness (of the Finnish population, and individual immigrants), (b) activeness and productiveness (of the Finnish society, but especially individual settlers), (c) wealth and economics (meaning both national economics and of individual immigrants and their families), and (d) security and stability of the societal whole. These rationalities are expected to become part of the working ideas of associations and dominant in the lives of immigrants through different techniques (see next chapter).

 

As one can notice from above, most of the rationalities operate both on the level of population and the individual. First, the work of associations is expected to be beneficial for the wealth of the society, for example, in binding new citizens or citizen candidates to the aim of saving public expenditures, not being too extravagant or too much dependent on subsidies. Second, rationalities of integrative technologies are directed to the individual immigrants, their health, activeness, capacity and happiness - in other words, the welfare of legally settled immigrants. These two levels of rationalities intertwine inseparably with each other, and it is common that levels of collectiveness (both ethno-cultural and whole population) and individuality are present in the same administrative utterances, as following citation shows:

 

"Working as a voluntary in civic organisations could be crucial part of [personal, MP] integration and offer a path to employment. There are innumerable organisations and associations in Finland, which offer many kinds of activities for their members. Also the immigrants living in Finland have established associations, many of which are concentrated on maintaining the group’s own language and culture. […] In such organisations, people can do things they consider meaningful and get to know other congenial people. They also give valuable information about associational activities, fund raising and having an impact on issues, all of which are necessary skills in a civil society like Finland." (Työministeriö 2002, 10.)

 

Suggested activities for associations are thought to ‘do good’ for both individuals and groups, and foster their lives under the right manners, so that the welfare of every element of the social body (population) supports the welfare of others. The welfare of individual immigrants depends on the welfare of their ethnic and/or religious group, and the welfare of that group depends on the welfare of the Finnish society at large.

 

Looking at the rationality of health, welfare and happiness in administrative sources of integration, it is obvious that it is linked to the risk of individual and collective exclusion, and to the risk of social disintegration as well. The fundamental idea of administration within this rationality seems to be that the healthier and happier individual immigrant is, the more they can participate in the social interaction and, thus, the more integrate society becomes.

 

In most cases of writing or speaking about health, the concern is on mental health of the immigrants, usually refugees, because of their forced dispersal and possible traumatic experiences (e.g. Jyväskylän kaupunki 2000, 54-62). Also the encounter with a new majority culture, and adaptation to it, is said to include the risk of ‘acculturation stress’ (Berry 1992), which is defined as harmful for the individual and her/his family (in Finland: Liebkind 1994). Because these non-healthy features imply the risk that individuals exposed to them may not possibly be integrated to the Finnish society according to general criteria, they have to be taken care of. This rationality can be observed as part of the set of biopolitical rationalities giving birth to the discrete techniques of government (e.g. classification and control of citizens by medical experts) which aim at healing the ‘others’ in the name of activeness; being a member of the population and having the basic rights of the citizen requires a particular degree of health (cf. Helén & Jauho 2003, 14-15).

 

Although a usually openly articulated meaning in health-concerning utterances is to help individuals to foster their health, these utterances are often partly reducible to the concern of the health and well-being of the whole mainstream population. Both in the cases of mental health and other health-issues, the explicit purpose of the care is to prevent immigrants from exclusion and advance their integration, but often in the same articles or speech entities, the topic turns in some phase to getting immigrants to the sphere of active public life, and often so that the political economy and local economy can make a benefit from their contribution to it (e.g. MoniTori 4/2002a, 3-4; Project worker interview # 4). According to the Integration Law, immigrants' rights to preserve and cherish their own culture and identities has to be secured, but it becomes usually justified through the well-being, activeness, security and economic healthiness of Finnish society, i.e. all the above mentioned rationalities.

 

“Immigrant organisations can by their action support especially immigrants’ learning of their own mother tongue and religion, strengthening of culture and ethnic identity. Work of civic organisations fulfils the work of public officials and thus it has great significance for integration of immigrants.” (MoniTori 2/2000, 35.) On the individual level this means that the cultural know-how of immigrant can be valorized for the needs of Finnish labour markets. “Finnish society can take advantage of immigrants’ special cultural, lingual and professional capacities and skills by employing them to the internationalizing sector of private services and to the integration work for new immigrants in the public sector” (Tampereen kaupunki 2001, 12/22).

 

The first headline of the book called “Immigrants’ integration into Finland”, published by the Ministry of Labour (2002, 3), says: “Integration is participation”. It crystallizes well the relation of rationality of activeness and integration: Activeness is ‘written inside' the integration, and constitutive to it. There is no recognized integration without particular type of immigrants’ activeness. Thus, activeness is not just a rationality in the background of governmental procedures, but also a duty for an individual in order to achieve legitimate citizen status. This means that if immigrants want to verify the activeness on the integration process, they have to learn how to make themselves visible. Being visible and reachable means that one has to be available for immigrant workers to contact them and interact with them, for educational institutions to train them, for employers to get manpower or trainees and so on. “Activeness and taking responsibility of ones own situation” (ibid.) is at least partly about making a product out of oneself (Rose 2000); divest oneself from the difference in appropriate ways.

 

In the administrative discourse, the activeness and economic productivity are seen as normal states of citizen. They are important part of its being. As ontology, this has to be applied to immigrants too. The rationality of activeness and productivity includes the duty to work in order for an immigrant to become a plenipotentiary member of the society of settlement (cf. Schierup 1991, 21-46). The recent translation in Finnish immigration policy supports this observation: “During the years 2001-2003 focus of the strategies of immigration policy has been transformed into securing the availability of labour force; the active immigration policy is under development” (Työministeriö 2003, 22). Administration has started to move from humanitarian immigration policy towards economically justified immigration policy.

 

The concern for the activeness of immigrants is connected to the concern for their capability to work and give their input to the economic productivity and the wealth of the host society. Immigrants can best fulfil their obligations to their new country of settlement by most effectively pursuing the enhancement of the economic well-being of themselves. "Integration means that immigrants acquire such knowledge and skills with the help of which they survive in Finland and can participate in the working life and activities of society as an equal member. […] Above all, immigrants are expected to be active and take responsibility over their own lives." (Työministeriö 2002, 3.)

 

What is also an important rationality behind the integration policy and integrative techniques is the one of security and stability of the Finnish society and population. According to Foucault’s (1991; 1999, 99-100) notion of biopower as a central form of power for governmentalized societies, one might even argue that fundamentally the need for integration of ‘others’ becomes justified through securing the vitality and reproductive capability of the population (e.g. Mervola 2004; Inda 2004; 2002).

 

New people, different cultures and their possible disintegration, separation, segregation and exclusion form risks to the normal order. Thus, if one aims to scrutinize the rationality of security, one cannot avoid dealing with the risks and their problematizations, because, at the end, problematizations of risks are a central element in governmentality. The procedural purpose of acts of biopower within the framework of integrating immigrants is to prevent and deduct the societal elements that risk the life of the majority. The transformation from seemingly monocultural nation states to multicultural ones after the century of the widely shared comprehension that the very constitutive of the state was based on ethnic and cultural homogeneity is a process which raises up sensitive questions of risks related to differences, and to a more or less discreet governance of them. (Cf. Sitra 2002, 53-67.)


 

Risk scenarios give birth to the systematic and calculative conditioning of threats, and professions of expertise to make these risks visible, and to manage them in practice (Dean 1999, 167). Recently Finnish administrative bodies have started to speak about national risk policy (e.g. Sitra 2002, 9). Experts of migration can recognize and, even more importantly, problematize risks and instruct associations to produce integrative, non-risky subjects, who are expected to perform in a risk-preventive manner.

 

Although sub-populations, such as ethnic minorities, are usually those towards whom intervention in risk-preventing is directed, the entire population is the primary locus of risk. The integration of immigrants aims at the prevention of the spread of social effectiveness of disintegration. All others - already self-responsible individuals and groups - must be protected from those who threaten their security, and the quality of their way of life. (Dean 1999, 167; Inda 2004.)

 

"The exclusion of immigrants involves problems, because while this kind of development continues, immigrants are completely alienated from the Finnish way of life, which increases tensions between minorities and majority. The key to prevent marginalisation is a more effective and more participatory integration policy." (Sitra 2002, 64, emphasis added.)

 

When the natural anticipation is impossible with some risky groups, they have to be brought calculable by ‘filtering’ them through so called normal actions. This is indeed the case with deploying immigrant associations into managing risks of disintegration. When others start to act according to our rules, their activities are calculable and possible to anticipate, and, as such, also to recognize and to reward.

 

The phenomenon represented as risk always represents something incalculable, something that is impossible to seizure because of its unexpectedness and strangeness. The government of risk aims at making the incalculable calculable. While integration as a process is hard to measure, the risk of disintegration and signs of it are easier to calculate. That is one reason why there are hardly as much statistics about any issue concerning migration as about immigrants' employment/unemployment, education, or public costs and savings caused by migration (e.g. MoniTori 4/2002b: Statistics appendix). Migration has to be mirrored against its risky side before it can be well governed through different technologies and practices.

 

Techniques of making the immigrant citizen-subject through associations

 

"Governing does not only entail certain ways of shaping truthful experiences of the world and the objects or zones that constitute it. It also entails certain ways of intervening with these constituted domains, ways of making them up practically through these practices of intervention. Thought becomes governmental to the extent that it becomes technical." (Rose 2000, 145-146.)

 

The study of technologies of government is an inseparable part of the analysis of rationalities in the governmentality studies. If the study of rationalities gives answers to why government works the way it does in a particular context, the study of techniques can show how it is precisely done. Like in many Foucauldian studies, techniques of governmentality can also be divided in two in the context of immigrant associations: governmental-organizational techniques and techniques of the self. The former can be named as techniques of governance, because they aim at governing someone other who is not directly internal to the collective structures of associations or administrative units, for instance (‘subjection’, see Cruikshank 1999, 21, 70; Foucault 1982, 212). Within the liberal rule, techniques of governance are organised to do good for objects of governance by empowering them to participate in the social activities. The latter can be named here as techniques of the self, because they work on the level of individuals’ mentality and ethics. They are techniques that people target on themselves according to the general moral pounded rationalities (‘subjectivity’, ibid.). These are governmental techniques of doing good for oneself. If the education or work training produced by immigrant associations works as an example of the former, individual participation in them – the adaptation of mentality and suggested self-technique of government – is an example of the latter. Both sets of techniques can well be approached with Cruikshank’s (1999, 4) argument about making citizens through people’s own collective and personal action: "Technologies of citizenship operate according to a political rationality for governing people in ways that promote their autonomy, self-sufficiency, and political engagement; they are intended to 'help people to help themselves'".

 

Authority and expertise are of great value in techniques of governmentality. Experts who use the power based on management of particular knowledge, have significant role in putting rationalities into practice (Rose 1999 xi-xii). Mechanisms of self-regulation are primarily based on ‘general knowledge’, norms and moral truths, but they demand experts to guide, evaluate and control their correct realization. Experts have legitimate and often legal positions with which it is possible for them to interfere in the lives of individuals in case they cannot control themselves on their own. Such is the case when immigrants do not for some reason follow their personal integration plans by participating in language courses or work practice, for instance. Usually such radical interventions are unnecessary, but experts plan the integration paths and evaluate how well individuals follow them. Such experts in Finnish immigration work are public social and cultural workers, project managers, and teachers, and occasionally psychologists, doctors, social scientists, consults, professionals of semi-institutionalized associations (e.g. Finnish Red Cross and other large-scale social service associations). An increasing role is also played by those immigrant associations that advance by law integration and which have "earned" legitimation among public authorities and actors responsible for fund sharing.

 

When approaching the techne of government connected to immigrant associations, it is tactilely pertinent what governmentality theorists say about modern art of government: “it govern[s] by making people free, yet inextricably linking them to the norms, techniques, and values of civility" (Rose 2000, 144). That is to say that taking advantage of associations and other civil society organisations in the integration of immigrants the question is about using formal organisational acts, which are traditionally considered to be the main participative technologies in Finland, and which teach newcomers the norms and values of the new host society.

 

Both techniques of governance and those of the self are rather comprehensively expressed in the following definition of demands to all training implementing official integrative education: “Training includes learning of Finnish or Swedish language, learning of everyday skills and control of life, societal information, familiarization to culture, and developing of preparation for education and employment” (Hammar-Suutari 2003, 3). These are all suggested forms of action for associations in administrative sources. However, it is rather rare that immigrant associations can independently be responsible for such actions due to their “lack of expertness in administrative issues” (see page 5), but they are continuously encouraged to develop their actions and themselves as organisations so that they can become responsible of those to a greater degree than now. Associations very widely, and often as a part of the local integration activities, organise so called ‘co-ordinated actions of official integration’. This can include, for instance, organised teaching of mother tongue, hobby-groups and clubs, sports, get-together meetings for women, ‘afternoon clubs’ for school children, and so on, everything that supports immigrants’ possibilities to “full participation” in their everyday life. 

 

The most needed and expected capacity of associations seems to be that they are to be able to guide ‘immigrants at risk’ into the sphere of active citizenship. People in danger of exclusion can be achieved through them, and that is why they are ‘technologizised’ (by policy-directing funding, for example). The significance of the work of associations’ integrative activities increases when public techniques which are also called ‘normal’, integrative and activating, are for some reason unavailable for an immigrant. (ibid., 7.)

 

Techniques of governance

 

First of all, associations themselves form a technique of governance in that they are thought to do good for the people involved in them, mainly to educate their members and human objects of their activities on how to become and be civil in the new living environment. Working and participation in associations teaches and roots particular and legitimate ways of action for immigrants. This way associations help individual immigrants to understand themselves and speak about themselves as integrative subjects, a definition produced in administrative discourse.

 

In spite of attaching individuals to the sphere of integration, associations also have more collective functions in the integration process. Administrative discourse also suggests that associations open channels for immigrant groups to communicate with administration on the collective level. This role can be interpreted in the framework which according to Siisiäinen (1999) is the ‘traditional role’ of associations in Finland: they are bidirectional filters between the governmental system and civil society. As registered and thus legal actors they deliver voices and interests of the heterogeneous civil society to the actors of sub-systems (politics, economy, culture, religion, etc.) while translating these messages into the language and telos of the system. On the other hand, they spread official vocabularies, truths and knowledge among integrators. In other words, associations translate the administrative language and expectations towards individual immigrants to their conceptual maps and language. With the help of associations, integrative governance does not suffocate difference, but normalizes and harnesses it as part of the multicultural society. This technique is thought to touch upon every type of associations in administrative discourse, but most of all integration associations.

 

In the latter part of the 1990s, Finnish officials actively started to encourage immigrants to establish associations (e.g. Työministeriö 1997). This led to a remarkable transition in the lives of associations, which had a profound meaning for the government of associations and for the government through associations. In the first half of the 1990s, most of the immigrant associations were non-registered, and in that sense beyond the reach of law and administrative practices, and not so easy to cooperate with. After the beginning of an active encouragement policy, many already functioning associations registered themselves, and nowadays, most of the new associations register themselves at the very beginning of their span. This technique has affected all kinds of associations equally.

 

Registration of associations, which can be observed as a second technique of governance, means their formalisation and it is the primary way of control of Finnish civic organisations. Along registration, associations undertake to obey the laws and acts passed for civic action. After registration, it is not only the will of their members that directs the aims and activities of an association, but rather, they are codified formally into a statute, which is a general formulation of intention. (cf. Siisiäinen 1999, 124-5.) One may regard registration as collective performative (Austin 1962; Butler 1993) of recognition and authorization, because as a written speech act it produces a desired state of affairs, which in this case is the legitimate civic actor that follows the law in its actions.

 

According to interviews and some administrative documents, immigration authorities see the registration of associations beneficial in two ways. First, registration makes contact making to immigrant groups easier for officials. By registration of organisation, immigrant groups make themselves and their representative bodies recognizable for officials. The other benefit is for the associations themselves. Through registration, they make their way into the financing systems of the Finnish third sector, and open channels for other types of resources, too, such as knowledge and communication networks. "It is easier for a registered association to get officials of municipalities and political decision-makers to listen to the ideas of immigrants, and suggest improvements of common matters" (Työministeriö 1997, 4). The fulfilment of the demands written inside the registration is glazed with positive impacts to actors themselves in administrative discourse:

 

"It is important for immigrants to organise themselves in a formal way. It helps the cooperation and eases the advancing of matters. And it is easier to make funding applications. I do not know any non-registered groups with which I have had cooperation." (Interview # 2.)

 

Action in registered associations has its special civilly educative function. It teaches obedience of law, norms and rules for actors. Whether consciously or subconsciously, administrative actors observe immigrants as actors who do not have much knowledge about or respect for the laws and regulations when they come to Finland and start to act collectively, not at least in the Finnish sense of the words. "Although the obedience of rules may feel tedious and formal at the first place, by learning and obeying them, one can avoid many contradictions and the association can concentrate to work on behalf of its fundamental issues" (Työministeriö 2002, 4). These kind of utterances of slight moral panic may be scrutinized in the framework of risk control confronting new and strange constituents among the population. Public civil servants need to seizure the others for the continuity of social and cultural integration and continuity of shared ways of civic action, or help them to seizure themselves according to these rationalities.

 

During the last 10 years, funding has become one of the main ways for public authorities to make conducting interventions in the work of immigrant associations. Thus, it is considered the third technique of governance here. While the government of public service production was earlier based totally on the more direct institutional control, nowadays implementation of many, for instance, social and cultural services produced by ‘external actors’ are more controlled through funding as a way of ‘governing at a distance’ (Rose 2000). The present financing system makes possible for the financier to get to the position to define the principles of good practices, which funded actors, such as associations, have to follow in their action. This creates pressures for third sector actors to start or join such networks that extend their legitimacy and recognizability. To manage in the competition for funds, associations and other service providers have to create good cooperative relations to public officials, supporting interest groups, clients, etc. Of course, this also means that associations have to negotiate about their principles and actions with them.

 

On the local level, the policy trend of encouraging immigrants to establish registered associations led to the birth of rather stable funding structures for immigrant associations. First, the culture departments of the cities shared small annual funds for ethno-cultural and religious associations. Due to the membership in the European Union and the increase of ESF and ERF funding, and finally the inception of Integration Law, funding structures and action demands for immigrant associations extended. Municipal cultural departments are still the main financiers for associations, as far as the whole local fields of immigrant associations are concerned, but the financial significance of social service departments and other, non-municipality institutions (TE centres), has increased. Cultural departments do not set constraints to the activities of associations in exchange for their funding, except that associations have to follow laws. In contrast, other regional financiers do, especially in the case of projects. Funding is applied from them for strictly predefined purposes and associations have to report the use of funding for the financiers or their representatives (e.g. steering groups). The technique of funding concerns most often integration and multicultural associations or big and ‘institutionalized’ ethno-cultural associations that are considered to represent particular ethnic groups well. Those are usually the ones that are accepted to the integration projects as partners, and from whom administration and authorities except actions that are equivalent to the ‘co-ordinated integrative actions’ defined in the Law and local programs.

 

The fourth technique of governance is auditing and evaluations. They can be defined as procedures of ‘governing at a distance’ (Rose 2000, 160), too. Associations using public funding and especially those running projects are either asked to make their recurrent ‘economic, social and/or cultural balancing’ or, if associations are partners of integration projects, the responsible organizations of projects do the balancing job for them. Associations must organize follow-ups for their activities in order to clarify their economic, social and cultural effects, defined in integration policy, programs, or, in the case of projects, cross-organisational contracts. Regularly repeated self-audits and -evaluations help associations to govern themselves along the rules made for organizations connected to the integrative actions. This enables migration administration to follow the development of their actions and of integrators, especially the most difficult ones, whom they are unable to contact without associations. The purpose of such organizational ‘self-activities’ is to make the work of associations transparent and this way ease the public monitoring of whether the associations follow the rationalities connected to the integration. As in the case of funding, this technique usually touches upon associations that are linked to the official integration work as partners in projects, for instance. Thus, this technique has most often an impact on the actions of integration associations, but sometimes multicultural ones as well.

 

Integration Law and related local programs can be considered the fifth technique of governance. Government works through them, and yet in a very effective way; they are technologies that put every other technique, which work more through human action, into practice. They also state the rules of local migration work, including how associations should be deployed so that they purposefully fulfill the official integrative actions. (Tampereen kaupunki 1999; Jyväskylän kaupunki 2000; Työministeriö 2002.) This technique concerns all kinds of associations, but most explicitly integration associations, which are committed to the policies of programs and Law in their statutes.

 

In addition to the major expectations concerning integration to the Finnish society, administrative discourse contains expectations concerning immigrant cultures, which are part of correct integration according to the legal conceptualization (L 493/1999, §2). As a sixth technique of governance, associations advance maintenance of immigrants’ ‘original’ cultures and languages. It touches upon all types of associations that promote and cherish the “original” cultural features and language of the settlers, most typically ethno-cultural associations and mono-cultural youth, women and religious associations.

 

The aim of the technique is to ease the integration process for individual immigrants, to make them feel more at home and secure in the new environment. According to the administrative discourse, this technique supports the integration of individual immigrants to the sphere of the social interaction in their new localities. Associations are expected to increase the social participation of individual immigrants, especially those ‘at risk’ of those ‘at risk’, immigrant women, mothers, unemployed, elderly, youngsters, and socially separated immigrants – to whomever the particular possibilities of risks are connected. By offering hobbies and social clubs for individual immigrants associations activate people in the name of promoting their own cultures. The main thing is that people are activated to work for their social relations, and not to stay on their own, unreachable and ‘unhappy’, when they are impossible to integrate according to the telos of active citizenship. (Ministry of Labour 1997; 2002; Hammar-Suutari 2003; MoniTori vol. 2001-2003; Interviews.)

 

Techniques of the self

 

As the techniques of the self mainly concern individual action, the following are techniques that an individual can perform through associations. One could argue that personal participation in associational activities or membership in them is as such a technique of the self par excellence. According to the administrative discourse, it indicates individual commitment to good integration and willingness to become an active citizen. One example of this kind of utterance can be found in the issue of MoniTori magazine (4/2000, 67), in an article about the establishing of a Finnish Multicultural Sports Federation, in the birth-process of which immigrant members have had a great part:

 

“These immigrants [those who were active in the establishing of association, MP] proved by their patience and persistence that it does not make sense to sit idle and wait until public officials do everything for them, but one has to start the dialogue with official actors, when immigrants can themselves express their own wishes”.

 

In order for the immigrants to belong to the sphere of integration support, they have to be able to indicate their activity by participating in job-seeking, training, and co-ordinated integrative measures. Passiveness in these things, and denial of monetary support justified by it, causes the interruption of the citizenship ritual. A non-participatory immigrant is left outside of the rights and duties of integrators with legitimate pre-citizenship status.

 

"In return for the subsidy, the immigrant has the responsibility to operate actively towards her/his own employment and education. Regarding this acquaintance, an integration plan will be made for her/him. When a person carries out her/his plan, her/his income will be secured by an integration subsidy." (Työministeriö 2002, 2.)

 

It is possible to interpret the statement in the sense that active participation in associations indicates immigrants’ capability to become responsible, self-reliable and free actors, who are not negatively dependent on public authorities. This relates also to the realization of the willingness to be involved in approved social groups and groupings. If one participates in the work of associations, it is a sign of active avoidance of social separation considered to be dangerous for the individuals’ health. According to the migration administration, the purpose of associations related to integrative self-practices is to empower immigrants: to give them physical, mental, symbolic, and sometimes even economic means and facilities to realize their integration along the Integration Law and personal integration plans.

 

The latter is particularly important for self-practices, and could be here named as the second technique of governmentality. The Integration plan is a special type of contract between the integrator and experts from the social welfare office and the employment administration. For the integrator it is an engagement to perform the rights and duties as expected from them. “An integration plan is an agreement […] on measures to support the immigrant and the immigrant's family in acquiring the essential knowledge and skills needed in society and working life” (L 493/1999, §11). This contract is based on the rhetoric of rights. Unemployed immigrants have the right to an integration plan (ibid, §10), i.e. the right to make a contract that defines their subjectification project. “The contract acts as a kind of ‘obligatory passage point’ [Callon 1986] through which individuals are required to agree to a range of normalizing, therapeutic and training measures designed to empower them, enhance their self-esteem, optimize their skills and entrepreneurship and so on” (Dean 1999, 168). Immigrant associations are one, but ever more significant, set of spaces, where an individual can perform integrative training agreed in these contracts.

 

Perhaps the main set of techniques of the self defined for associations in the administrative discourse can be named as work-related techniques, including employment, work practice, work training, education, etc., but also coordinated techniques whose purpose is to advance the employment of individual immigrant. Activities for education on the Finnish language and social skills organized by associations are examples of the latter. Immigrants must perform integration either by working or, as in the most cases, by work-training, voluntary self-education and participating in the courses. And whereas the public institutions and units are seen as too authoritarian for this, according to the present political trends (Rose 2000), both legitimate Finnish (e.g. Finnish Red Cross) and immigrants’ own associations are ideal for offering such possibilities. (Cf. Hammar-Suutari 2003; Työministeriö 2002.)

 

"Employment of educationally co-ordinated integrative measures can include some kind of combinations of training and work practice, i.e. integrative activities. […] Interesting civic action can function as a springboard to working life.” (Hammar-Suutari 2003, 9, 7.)

 

All assignments called co-ordinated measures of integration and named in the Integration Law and local programs, such as education, work-practice, continuous job-seeking, rehabilitation, and participation in organised social action and other such forms of pseudo-work (Rose 2000), are rituals of redemption for immigrants in the process of becoming plenipotentiary citizens of Finnish society. (Cf. ibid., 161-170.) Unemployment or non-integration has to be changed into pseudo-work through practices of activeness for which a person does not get paid, but which otherwise resemble work conditions.

 

According to the recent administrative discourse, immigrant associations seem to have become convenient spaces of performing these rituals. In funding and co-operational projects, administration favours associations that organise language or computing lessons, good hobbies (normally sports), or even work-practice, and to a lesser degree those that organise cultural activities relating to the ethnic backgrounds of immigrants. Also semi-institutional Finnish third sector organisations are seen as convenient places for practising this. (E.g. Työministeriö 2001, 46).

 

"Beside work or studying, it is good to have other options that offer meaningful activity and help the immigrant to integrate and lead a rewarding and active life. Civic action can offer a possibility to goal directed and integration-advancing action. With acting in cooperation with others, the integrator gets acquainted with the structures of Finnish society, different work communities, work possibilities, and, at the same time, the third sector's opportunities to make an impact." (Hammar-Suutari 2003, 6; emphasis added.)

 

In relation to skills, knowledge and other capacities promoting employment of immigrants in the new living environment, a crucial thing in associations is that performed self-practices operate for securing the mental and physical health of immigrants (see the previous chapter). This rationality creates needs for what can be named as somewhat traditional techniques of the self with the reference to Foucault’s (1999, 156-166) analysis on the ethical techniques of ancient Greece and other historical contexts. Associations are thought to offer familiar social space for self-reflection when it comes to the control of individual's body and (physical and mental) health. Most clearly this technological formation can be found in the administrative utterances emphasizing the meaning of sports. The need for associations to organise sports activities, for example, are based on the significance of keeping up the physical health of participants through sports and exercises, and mental health through social contacts, communication and interaction.

 

"Inactivity and constant stay at home can lead to passivation and separation. Also the threshold to move to working life extends. When one cannot find a paid job, participation in voluntary work and different kinds of association activities compensate work related social relations and ease attachment to the living environment." (Työministeriö 2002, 9.)

 

Such biopolitical practices of governmentality form the most powerful technology of risk management.  When implemented, it proves that individuals are capable of utilizing their own capacities to be plenipotentiary agents in the framework of action reserved for them according to their subject positions. A disintegrated, and thus ’excluded’, immigrant is more than others an object of government, a target of ’subjection’ (Cruikshank 1999, 70), whereas an integrated – decently self-practising and active – immigrant is more or less a self-satisfied subject of government considered capable of expressing one’s freedom and conducting actions according to that. (Cf. Dean 1999, 167.)

 

 

Conclusions

 

First of all, I would like to emphasize the secondary purpose of my text. All the rationalities and techniques that I have gone through in two earlier chapters prove that the governmentality approach offers a relevant toolkit to understand the problematics of power in the integration of immigrants, and in the case of associations. The fact that I have analysed the administrative speech from the perspective of productive governance does not mean that I am one-dimensionally condemning it, although it might look like that. Moreover, my purpose is similar to that of Cruikshank’s (1999, 3): “my goal is not to indict the will to empower but to show that even the most democratic modes of government entail power relationships that are both voluntary and coercive”. Although civic actors such as immigrant associations and the use of them for integrative purposes are often represented as anti-political actors and actions in administrative discourse, there is a political and governmental dimension present. The form of political actions and thought is merely more sophisticated and hidden in these contexts of ‘voluntariness’ and good-will than in the normal public administration, for instance. Talk about fairness, co-operation and mutual responsibility of the civic communities (e.g. Rose 2000, 166) easily tends to fade the socio-political antagonisms possibly appearing in them. Empowering acts of others and especially of ‘self on the self’ are rarely considered political or direct use of power. Rather than being depoliticizing, the expansion of use of immigrant associations in their integration has expanded the reach of a particularly productive kind of power.

 

In this somewhat triadic framework of government that enforces the significance of the civic networks, decreases direct state interventions, and iterates the market logic in the public and civic sectors, ‘advanced liberal government’ has to deploy new fidelity techniques to guarantee the empowerment of people in an appropriate manner. In Finland, as in UK for instance (Rose 2000, 164-170), associations and multisectoral partnership projects offer delicate ways for realizing these ideas of government. They enable people to participate in their own government and that of the communities (both spatial and imagined) they are living in – i.e. they widen the spectrum of opportunities for democratic participating.  “Liberty here entails the active exercise of rights in the name of the good within a political community; citizenship must continually be exercised in defence of freedom” (ibid., 166).

 

Although one might think that rationalities and activities that administrative discourse suggests are transferred as such to the knowledge and activities of immigrant associations and individuals, the dual nature of (neo-)liberal government – autonomize and responsibilize, enable and normalize at the same time – makes the modern government rather uncertain at the end; spreading of rationalities and techniques of governmentality always includes something that Callon and Latour (1981) call ‘translations’. Whenever government is practised by accepting the governed subjects and their organisations to participate in it, rationalities and suggested techniques change in use – especially in the case of majority and minority relations (cf. O'Malley 1998). That is exactly the thing that has to be carefully studied in the case of immigrant associations in the future, too, especially in order to avoid the pressures of predetermined results, which the governmentality approach easily sets for the studies deploying it.

 

Bibliography:

 

Austin, John L. (1962) How to do things with words. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.

 

Brah, Avtar (1996) Cartographies of Diaspora: Contesting Identities. London: Routledge.

 

Butler, Judith (1993) Bodies that Matter. On Discursive Limits of “Sex”. New York: Routledge.

 

Callon, Michel & Latour, Bruno (1981) Unscrewing the big Leviathan: how actors macro-structure reality and how sociologists help them to do so. In Knorr-Cetina, K & Cicourel, A. (eds.): Toward an integration of micro- and macrosociologies. London: Routledge and Keagan.

 

Cruikshank, Barbara (1999) The Will to Empower. Democratic Citizens and Other Subjects. New York: Cornell University Press.

 

Dean, Mitchell (1994) Critical and Effective Histories: Foucault’s Methods and Historical Sociology. London: Routledge.

 

Dean, Mitchell (1995) Governing the Unemployed Self in an Active Society. Economy and Society 24 (4), 559-583.

 

Dean, Mitchell (1999) Governmentality. Power and Rule in Modern Society. London: Sage.

 

Dean, Mitchell (2002) Liberal government and authoritarianism. Economy and Society 31 (1), 37-61.

 

ESR (2004) Euroopan sosiaalirahasto 2000-2006. Tiedon, työllisyyden, osaamisen, yrittäjyyden ja tasa-arvon eurooppalainen Suomi. <http://www.esr.fi/> 15.9.2003.

 

EYK – Euroopan Yhteisöjen Komissio (1994) Valkoinen kirja Euroopan sosiaalipolitiikasta: Unionin tie eteenpäin. KOM(1994) 333 lopullinen. <http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/fi/cha/

c10112.htm> 21.4.2002.

 

EYK - Euroopan Yhteisöjen Komissio (2001) Eurooppalainen hallintotapa. Valkoinen kirja. KOM(2001) 428 lopullinen. <http://europa.eu.int/comm/off/white/index_fi.htm#2001> 21.4.2002.

 

Foucault, Michel (1982) The Subject and Power. In Dreyfus, Hubert L. & Rabinow, Paul (eds.) Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. New Yourk: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 208-226.

 

Foucault, Michel (1991): Governmentality. In Burchell, Graham et al. (eds.) The Foucault Effect. Studies in Governmentality. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 87-104.

 

Foucault, Michel (1999) Seksuaalisuuden historia. Tiedontahto. Nautintojen käyttö. Huoli itsestä. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.

 

Hammar-Suutari, Sari (2003) Kototoiminta tutuksi kolmannella sektorilla – maahanmuuttajat mukaan kansalaistoimintaan. Helsinki: Mannerheimin lastensuojeluliitto.

 

Helén, Ilpo & Jauho, Mikko (2003)Terveyskansalaisuus ja elämän politiikka. In Helén, Ilpo & Jauho, Mikko (eds.) Kansalaisuus ja kansanterveys. Helsinki: Gaudeamus, 13-32.

 

Inda, Xavier Jonathan (2002) Biopower, Reproduction, and the Migrant Woman’s Body. In Aldama, Arturo J. & Quiñonez, Naomi (eds.) Decolonial Voices. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 98-112.

 

Inda, Xavier Jonathan (2004) Calculated Measures: Illegality and the Government of Immigration. Book and research project scheme. <http://www.chicst.ucsb.edu/faculty/Personal_Pages/

Jonathan_Inda/calculatedMeasures.shtml> 14.3.2004.

 

Jyväskylän kaupunki (2000) Muuramen, Laukaan, Jyväskylän maalaiskunnan ja Jyväskylän kaupungin Kotouttamisohjelma. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylän kaupunki.

 

L 493/1999. Laki maahanmuuttajien kotoutumisesta ja turvapaikanhakijoiden vastaanotosta.

 

Lippert, Randy (1999) Governing Refugees: The Relevance of Governmentality to Understanding the International Refugee Regime.

 

Martikainen, Tuomas (2004) Immigrant Religions in Local Society. Historical and Contemporary Perspectives in the City of Turku. Turku: Åbo Akademi University Press.

 

Mervola, Markus (2004) Panoksena turvallisuus: Maahanmuuttajien epäonnistunut integraatio ja pelon politiikka. Unpublished conference paper at “Conference on cultural policy research” in Jyväskylä, 8.-9.11.2004.

 

MoniTori vol. 2000-2003.

 

MoniTori 2/2000. Adrián Soto: Kotona kunnissa, 30-35.

 

MoniTori 4/2000. Ike Chime: Urheilu edistää monikulttuurisuutta Suomessa, 66-68.

 

MoniTori 4/2002a. Eva Biaudet: Myös maahanmuuttajat tarvitsevat hyviä sosiaali- ja terveyspalveluja, 3-4.

 

MoniTori 4/2002b. Statistics appendix.

 

O’Malley, Pat (1998) Indigenous Governance. In Dean, Mithell & Hindess, Barry (eds.) Governing Australia. Studies in Contemporary Rationalities of Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

Pyykkönen, Miikka (2003) Integraatio ja maahanmuuttajien yhdistystoiminta. In Hänninen Sakari, Kangas Anita & Siisiäinen Martti (eds.) Mitä yhdistykset välittävät. Tutkimuskohteena kolmas sektori. Jyväskylä: Atena, 89-120.

 

Rose, Nikolas (1989) Governing the Soul: the Shaping of the Private Self. London: Routledge.

 

Rose, Nikolas (1999) Powers of Freedom. Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

Rose, Nikolas (2000) Governing Liberty. In Ericson, Richard V. & Stehr, Nico (eds.) Governing Modern Societies. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 141-176.

 

Saksela, Sanna (2003) Mångkulturella organisationer och invandrarorganisationer I Finland. In Mikkelsen, Flemming (ed.): Invandrerorganisationer in Norden. Köpenhavn: Nordisk Ministerråd, 235-282.

 

Schierup, Carl-Ulrik (1991) The Duty to Work. In Schierup, Carl-Ulrik & Ålund, Alexandra. (1991). Paradoxes of multiculturalism. Essays on Swedish society. Avebury, Aldershot.

 

Siisiäinen, Martti (1999) Voluntary Associations and Social Capital in Finland. In van Deth, Jan W.  et al. (eds.) Social Capital and European Democracy. London: Routledge, 120-143.

 

Sitra (2002) Riskien hallinta Suomessa. Esiselvitys. Helsinki: Sitra.

 

STM (1999). Aktiivinen sosiaalipolitiikka – työryhmän muistio 1999. Helsinki: Sosiaali- ja terveysministeriö.

 

Tampereen kaupunki 2001. Tampereen kaupungin maahanmuuttaja- ja kotoutusohjelma. <http://www.tampere.fi/strategia/maamu/index.htm> 30.7.2002.

 

Työministeriö (1997) Yhdistystoiminta – opas maahanmuuttajille. Helsinki: Työministeriö, Maahanmuutto-osasto.

 

Työministeriö (2001) Maahanmuutto- ja pakolaispolitiikan kehittäminen ja yhteydet työpolitiikkaan –projekti. Loppuraportti. Helsinki: Työministeriö.

 

Työministeriö (2002) Maahanmuuttajien kotoutuminen Suomeen. <http://www.mol.fi/migration/kotosuomi.pdf> 16.12.2003.

 

Työministeriö (2003) Kotouttamislain toimeenpanoa koskeva selontekoprojekti. Loppuraportti. Helsinki: Työministeriö.

 

Wahlbeck, Östen (1999) Kurdish Diasporas. A Comparative Study of Kurdish Refugee Communities. London: MacMillan Press LTD.

 

Wijkström, Philip & Lundström, Tommy (1995) Från röst till service? Den svenska ideella sektorn I förändring. Stockholm: Sköndalsinstitutet.

 

 



[i][1] The primary data used in this paper consist of local and national administrative documents concerning governance of migration, especially those suggesting teleologies and acts for immigrants' organisations. The total number of utilized documents is twenty-five. The second part of the data consists of five interviews of migration officials in Tampere and Jyväskylä, and seven interviews of workers of integration projects. The third part of the data consists of volumes of MoniTori, the official Finnish magazine for immigration affairs, from the years 2000-2003. As in ethnographic studies generally, the purpose of the data collection has been to conceive a comprehensive view of interests of administrative bodies towards immigrant associations.

 

[ii][2] I here define ‘immigrant association’ as a registered or non-registered voluntary association that is either established by immigrants or actively ran by them.

 

 

Appendix

Factors

 

Category of

associations

Participant structure

Main human objects & interest(s) group(s)

Primary purpose

Main ways of action

Cooperating with public officials (type & % of all)

Ethno-cultural associations

 

People belonging particular ethnicity/ nationality

Ethnic or national community organisers represent, majority

Ethno-cultural affiliation and maintenance of culture

Celebrations, mother tongue education, organising cultural hobbies,  summer, hobby & family camps, exhibitions & news distribution (internet)

Common events, ethno-cultural exhibitions, information services, camps, 50 %

Religious associations

Mono-

ethnic

religious

assoc.

People recognizing particular religion and ethnicity/ nationality

Ethno-religious community organisers represent, majority

Ethno-religious affiliation, maintenance of  'religious culture'

Religious education for the children, family camps, celebrations and hobbies

Information services, 50 %

Multi-

ethnic

religious

assoc.

All recognizing particular religion

Religious community  organisers represent, majority

Religious affiliation, maintenance of religious customs, doctrines and ideas

Facilities for religious rituals and ceremonies, and sharing information about religion

Common seminars & events, information services, camps, 75 %

Women’s associations

Mono-

ethnic

women’s

assoc.

Women of particular ethnicity

Women of particular ethnicity

Ethnic affiliation and

maintenance of culture

Gatherings, cultural events & exhibitions

Information services, 25 %

Multi-

ethnic

women’s

assoc.

Immigrant women from different ethnic groups

Local immigrant women

Meaningful doing, social contacts and activeness

Gatherings,  social events, women’s summer camps, trips and cultural ‘get-acquainted sessions’

Common events, camps, education, 50 %

Youth associations

Mono-

ethnic

youth

assoc.

Youth of particular ethnicity

Youth of particular ethnicity

Ethnic affiliation and maintenance of culture

Celebrations, mother tongue education for children, and sports

Ethno-cultural exhibitions, information services, 25 %

Multi-

ethnic

youth

assoc.

Youngsters with different ethnicities and nationalities

Local youth

To increase multiethnic reciprocity between young people

Youth events,  summer and hobby camps, sports, and language,  ADP  and school homework lessons

Common events, camps, education, sports, projects, 75 %

Multicultural associations

Local people (mainly immigrants and social activist)

Local people

Increase reciprocity between ethnic majority and minorities, prevent ethnic prejudices

Celebrations, meetings, seminars, Finnish teaching , sports, hobby & family camps and information distribution (internet & magazines)

Partnership projects and common events, education,  work-practise, 90 %

Integration

associations

Long-term immigrants and public officials

All immigrants (mainly refugees and remigrants)

Integrate immigrants to Finnish society

Teaching Finnish and social skills, arranging work-practises, jobs and education and organising summer camps, meetings, seminars

Partnership projects, information sharing,  common events, education, employment services, 100 %

Coalition associations

Local immigrant associations and group representatives

Local immigrants and their organisations

Serve interests of local immigrant organisations

Meetings, seminars and facilities for immigrant organisations, make statements to appeal to officials

Information sharing and advising, 100 %

Sports associations

Mono-

ethnic

sports

assoc.

People belonging particular ethnicity/ nationality

People belonging particular ethnicity/ nationality, especially children and youth

Ethnic affiliation, maintenance of culture and mother tongue, physical and mental health of the participants, and offer decent hobbies for the youth

Hobby clubs and teams around part. sports, training, coaching, games and tournaments

Information services, common events, tournaments and sports camps, 50%

Multi-

ethnic

sports

assoc.

Local people (mainly immigrants and social activist)

 

 

 

Local people, especially youth and children

Physical and mental health of the participants, offer decent hobbies for the youth and advance the formation of multicultural contacts

Hobby clubs around part. sports, teams, training, coaching, games and tournaments

Information services, common events, tournaments and sports camps, 50%

Art associations

Mono-

ethnic

art

assoc.

People belonging particular ethnicity/ nationality

Local people, esp. those interested in the particular arts and arts of particular countries

Make part. forms of art of part. culture known in their new locality, ethnic affiliation, maintain “typical” forms of art of the ethnic group

Performances, festivals, concerts, exhibitions, shows, seminars and celebrations

Information services,  common events, shows and festivals, 25%

Multi-

ethnic

art

assoc.

Local people (immigrants and young art devotees)

 

Local people, esp. those interested in the particular arts

Multicultural contacts through different forms of art (mainly theatre) & artistic statements about minority and migration affairs

Performances, festivals, concerts, exhibitions, shows, seminars and celebrations

Information services,  common events, shows and festivals, 25%