Petra Rostock

Sabine Berghahn

The ambivalent role of gender in redefining the German nation

Keywords: gender equality, gender-specific violence, Germany, headscarf, migration, multiculturalism, Muslims

Since the maxim of Germany as a non-immigration country was finally relinquished at the end of the 20 th century, the country has struggled with redefining itself as an immigration society and inventing a modified national identity. Our article argues that gender has come to play a pivotal role in this process of redefining a 'German' identity because it helps secure the 'self' by creating the Muslim/migrant 'other' as culturally different. Under the pretext of preventing women's rights violations, a renewed debate on integration and the duties of migrants is taking place. While we criticize the deployment of gender against the civic recognition of Muslims, violations of women's rights within minority groups do exist and must be combated. Our article offers some preliminary considerations as to how public agencies can intervene effectively against practices that are harmful to women, without in the process demonizing minority groups.

reliable figures on the problem exist: Islam and the entire Turkish or Muslim population are generally thought to oppress women.

This sudden interest in the rights of Muslim migrant women needs to be understood in a broader perspective. When the maxim of Germany as a non-immigration country was finally relinquished at the end of the 20th century, a new self-definition of the German nation had to be formulated. Gender has come to play a pivotal role in this process of redefining a 'German' identity. A renewed debate on integration and the duties of migrants is taking place under the pretext of preventing the violation of women's rights. At the same time, the social and economic problems of migrants are being ignored, and the shortfalls of German integration policy obscured. The perceived oppression of Muslim women, ostensibly proven by so-called honour crimes, forced marriages and the headscarf, serves to substantiate the idea that Islam in general and Muslims in particular are not (yet) part of German society. Gender equality serves as a marker of modern liberal German society even though it is far from being fully realized. Although government statements welcome Muslims in Germany and call Islam a part of Germany, reality offers a different picture. The fact that the demand for Islamic religious education, the introduction of 'Thoughts for Friday' 2 and the building of mosques have caused, and still cause, major debates in the public sphere and the media, shows that Germany is far from accepting Islam as part of its society.

To substantiate our thesis, we first set the context by outlining Germany's long road to becoming an immigration society, tracing the development of multiculturalism and describing the impact of an ethnically defined conception of citizenship. Subsequently, we discuss how the issue of gender equality is utilized to work against the civic recognition of Muslim migrants. Our critique of the current state of migration policies with regard to gender equality is completed by showing how the legal measures debated in relation to forced marriage or 'honour' crimes serve to restrict migration and create resentments against the Muslim minority. We close the article with a normative focus on initiatives from within the German-Turkish community, as well as from federal states, which attempt to intervene effectively against practices that are harmful to women, without in the process demonizing minority groups.

THE LONG ROAD TO BECOMING AN IMMIGRATION SOCIET Y

With the formal acceptance that migrants were here to stay in Germany, there was a shift in perceptions of them. Migrants have always been referred to as 'foreigners', regardless of their citizenship, but Muslims and their religion are now at the centre of the current debate on Germany as an immigration society. Muslims are defined as a homogenous group, and the diversity of (former) migrants is also ignored. Simultaneously, the process of redefining Germany as an immigration society is accompanied by attempts of politicians of almost all persuasions to fill 'Germanness' with new content. As a result of the lessons learned from the National Socialist regime, 'German' is not referred to as an ethnic category. It is associated rather with secularity and gender equality, treated as general attributes of modern societies, and with a specific form of religion and religiosity and 'German value system' (deutsche Werteordnung) supposedly originating from Christian ethics. Although it is stated and even demanded that Islam must find its place within the German value system (cf. [START_REF] Schäuble | Perspektiven für eine gemeinsame Zukunft[END_REF], it remains unclear where this place could be -particularly, when there is no societal consensus as to what 'German values' are and what role the Christian religion should play. Do these values encompass the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms (clearly not a unique German value), or identification with the German national soccer team, including enthusiastic waving of the German flag (something the German authors of this article, at least, certainly would not do)?

A delegitimized nation

The historical breaks in German history, the country's late unification in the 19th century and its 40-year-long division in the 20th century have all contributed to the difficulties in defining a national identity. Following the atrocities and defeat of the National Socialist regime, the nation's identity was deeply discredited. 'German' identity was then defined by distancing itself from the historically burdened national identity. Former government administrations in West Germany tried to define their national interests in a way that did not come into conflict with European interests, preferring multilateral policy. Undisputed support of European integration became the trademark of West Germany's foreign and European policy. The Federal Republic's state identity was thus fundamentally Europeanized, whereas the national identity was predominantly oriented towards Germany as a cultural nation (Beyme, 2004: 72;Schild, 2003: 32-3). Yet a shared and unique German culture seems to be a myth, as the presumption that Germany has more homogeneity of culture, religion and so forth than its neighbour states lacks plausibility (Elwert, 2001: 129).

Legally, the 'nation' has traditionally 3 been defined in ethnic terms (by descent), a definition that is even determined by article 116 of the constitution (Elwert, 2001: 135). 4 Until the introduction of the Nationality Act in 1993 and its reform in 2000, German citizenship was defined according to the Citizenship Law of 1913: in terms of ethnicity, passed on through blood lineage (jus sanguinis). Therefore, foreigners in Germany were not entitled to naturalization. They could apply for it only after having lived in Germany for a very long time, and the administrative decision was left to official discretion.

As [START_REF] Joppke | Immigration and the Nation-State: The United States, Germany, and Great Britain[END_REF] rightly points out, the long-standing official maxim that Germany is 'not a country of immigration' was not so much a description of reality as a political-cultural norm grounded in the ethnocultural mode of West German nationhood:

While in principle delegitimized by its racist aberrations under the Nazi regime, ethnocultural nationhood was indirectly reinforced and prolonged by the outcome of World War II, with the division of Germany and the scattering of huge German diasporas in communist Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Against this backdrop, the Federal Republic defined itself as a vicarious, incomplete nation-state, home for all Germans in the communist diaspora . . .

[Therefore] it prioritized the immigration of co-ethnics . . . Opening the national community to foreigners would have posed the risk of a redefinition of national identity, and of diluting the Federal Republic's historical obligation to its dispersed and repressed co-ethnics in the East (Joppke, 1999: 63).

Moreover, Turkish migrants' own uncertainty as to whether they would return 'home' and the political class's refusal for a long time to acknowledge that the 'guest workers' were there to stay made it possible to hold onto the perception of West Germany as an ethnically and culturally homogenous collective.

The idea of West Germany as a multicultural society was first introduced in 1980 in a symposium held by the Catholic and the Protestant churches. In preparation for the 'Week of the Foreign Citizen' ('Woche des ausländischen Mitbürgers'), the symposium issued a number of theses. One stated that 'In the federal republic we are living in a multicultural society' (Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland (EKD), 2007). At that time, the term was highly controversial. With its appeal for the recognition of ethnic and cultural minorities in West Germany and its demand for their juridical and political equality, ecumenical Christianity contradicted public and official opinion (Frank, 1995: 36). Although by the 1980s the migrant presence in the cities was inescapable, the permanence of immigration had not been recognized. Immigrants were still denied equal rights and citizenship. Instead, a range of short-term measures was introduced to improve the situation in schools and the social arena, for example by helping children to cope with their living situation in West Germany. At the same time, migrant children were prepared for eventual return to their parents' country of origin. In the long run, these measures did not lead to integration but rather to the reinforcement of social separation and a high degree of educational disadvantage for migrant children (Schierup et al., 2006: 147).

The public discourse at the time was characterized by fear of foreign infiltration and inundation, as West Germans 'discovered' the Turks as Muslims and constructed foreigners as 'others' with an insurmountably alien religion (Frank, 1995: 37). The image of the oppressed Turkish woman that has become so prominent in contemporary debate was at the time used only by West German feminists, who focused on the perceived victimization of migrant women and claimed superiority in knowing what is 'right' for the 'poor migrant woman' [START_REF] Beck-Gernsheim | Türkische Bräute und die Migrationsdebatte in Deutschland' (Turkish brides and the migration debate in Germany)[END_REF]. But this image was not yet taken up by policy makers. The discourse on multiculturalism in West Germany was divided into two irreconcilable positions: one embracing the cultural diversification of West Germany and willing to recognize migrants as members of society, the other rejecting foreigners in an attempt to preserve the notion of a homogenous West German society. 5 Still, West German multiculturalism remained an intra-German affair in which ethnic immigrant groups were only marginally involved.

Slow changes

The 1980s debate on multiculturalism already reflects certain elements of the current redefinition of a 'German' identity through the construction of a (Muslim) migrant 'other'. Yet at that time, the maxim of West Germany as not an immigration country was still being upheld, while gender equality and the situation of migrant women were mainly issues within feminism and the women's movement. It was the unification of the two German states in 1990 and the end of Communism that made the definition of Germany as a delegitimized, incomplete nation-state obsolete, providing for a more relaxed attitude towards the German 'no-immigration' maxim (Joppke, 1999: 63).

In 1993, German citizenship law was reformed through the introduction of the Nationality Act. For the first time, a legal claim to naturalization was introduced, its precondition being 15 years of legal and permanent residence in Germany or just eight years for foreigners between the ages of 16 and 23. Hence, the jus sanguinis was supplemented with some elements of the jus soli. But when the government changed from the coalition of the Christian Democratic Union and the Liberal Party to the coalition of the Social Democratic Party and the Green Party in 1998, the no country of immigration tenet was finally given up officially. The new government heralded a decade of integration, and a new Nationality Act came into effect in 2000. Since then, foreigners with eight years of legal and permanent residence in Germany have been entitled to naturalization. Further preconditions are proof of sufficient knowledge of the German language, impunity, loyalty to the constitution and financial independence. Children of foreign parents are given German nationality (jus soli) if one parent has had legal and permanent residence in Germany for at least eight years and a permanent residence permit for at least three years. These children can also keep the nationality of their parents, but between the ages of 18 and 23 they must choose one nationality (Özcan, 2005). Nevertheless, there are a number of cases in which it is permissible to have one or more foreign nationalities in addition to German nationality (Die Beauftragte der Bundesregierung für Migration, Flüchtlinge und Integration, 2005: 44-5).

Although ethnic belonging is no longer the only way to gain individual access to citizenship, the German conception of citizenship insists on conformity to a set of values that is shared by all citizens, making cultural assimilation a precondition for naturalization (c.f. [START_REF] Koopmans | Contested Citizenship: Immigration and Cultural Diversity in Europe[END_REF]. The prevalent view holds that integration should precede naturalization, meaning that migrants must demonstrate their 'Germanness' before they may acquire citizenship. It seems unrealistic, however, to expect integration into German society when citizenship and full participation in public and economic life are withheld (International Crisis Group and Laurence, 2007: i).

The new government also appointed an independent commission on immigration, which pointed out in its final report that Germany had been a country of immigration for many years and that immigrants were needed in Germany both for economic and for demographic reasons. 6 The commission proposed a comprehensive integration policy requiring reforms and special measures in education, social welfare, the labour market and other areas (Schierup et al., 2006: 150). At this point, the situation of women played only a marginal role, with the commission merely affirming the need for protection of women from gender-specific persecution. In January 2005, the new Immigration Act came into effect, recognizing gender-specific persecution. 7 Women's organizations voiced criticism over the fact that no women's associations participated in the legislative process. In particular, the German Women Lawyers Association argued that the selection criteria for the immigration of foreign employees would lead to the recruitment of mainly young, male migrants with a natural-scientific or technical training, while female migrants were viewed primarily either as family members or as unskilled workers for the low-wage sector [START_REF] Diewell | Stellungnahme zum Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Steuerung und Begrenzung der Zuwanderung und zur Regelung des Autenthaltes und der Integration von Unionsbürgern und Ausländern (Zuwanderungsgesetz) der Fraktionen SPD und Bündnis 90[END_REF].

A new 'Occidentalism'?

The change in migration policy and the recognition of immigration as a political norm revealed a growing number of deficiencies concerning the integration of migrants, particularly with respect to equal opportunities in education and the job market. These shortcomings, along with the assassination of the provocative Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh in 2004, kindled a new debate on multiculturalism in Germany. 8 The diagnosis issued by the media and politicians was that multiculturalism in Germany had failedeven though it had never officially existed as a policy. Multiculturalism was used as a negative concept on which to blame any malfunction in the cohabitation of minority and majority societies. The results of previous German policy on foreigners -'a kind of benevolent, paternalistic, and egalitarian (or pseudo-egalitarian) apartheid, an institutionalized separateness' (Brubaker, 2001: 538) -were blamed on the few 'multicultural idealists' who had been advocating in vain the recognition of migrants as members of German society.

As we have stressed, the official end of the no-immigration maxim and the now obsolete definition of Germany as a delegitimized, incomplete nation state, necessitated a new definition of 'German' identity. Unfortunately, this process has not so far brought about changes in the societal structure or the traditional self-perception as a homogenous society. Instead, arguments formerly brought forward to establish that Germany was not a country of immigration are now employed in the process of forming a new identity. The majority society seems to find the oriental and patriarchal 'other' necessary for its own self-definition, and uses it to preserve the fiction of a national homogeneity. The construction of homogeneity serves to fulfil several purposes at once, not least to obscure the obvious 'cultural' and political differences between East and West Germany. Gabriele Dietze, following Fernando Coronil (1996), defines this need for a (Muslim) 'other' in order to secure or reconstruct the 'self' as a new 'Occidentalism' [START_REF] Dietze | Kollektivkörper im Schüttelfrost' (Collective body shivering)[END_REF]. These renewed expressions of 'Occidentality' can be most clearly observed in current debates on a 'deutsche Leitkultur' ('German leading or hegemonic culture') and the 'German value system'. These debates construct an insurmountable cultural difference between the Christian occidental 'us' and the Muslim 'other', a difference seen as manifesting itself both in the 'alien' religion of Islam and in the field of gender relations. Central to the debates on the integration of migrants and their religion into the German society is the social position of Muslim women. This is hardly a coincidence, as the gender relations of the 'other' have always served as the symbol for the backwardness and barbarism of the colonized (Castro Varela and Dhawan, 2006: 427-34). Therefore, while there has been some opening up in the ethnic definition of the German nation, the ultimate marker of difference between 'them' and 'us' still seems to be the question of gender equality.

THE UTILIZATION OF GENDER AGAINST THE CIVIC RECOGNITION OF MUSLIMS

The issue of gender equality works against the civic recognition of Muslims on at least two levels -in public discourse and in law. In accordance with the view of a 'Christian Occidental us' and a 'Muslim other', the predominant image of the foreign woman in public discourse is that of the oppressed Turkish or Muslim woman. Migrant women are typically represented as victims, either of German society or of Turkish men. They are seldom depicted as active agents, and when they are, this depiction is described as the exception to the rule. In addition, the oversimplified image of the poor oppressed Muslim woman is coloured by a claim of superiority on the part of German society in general [START_REF] Beck-Gernsheim | Türkische Bräute und die Migrationsdebatte in Deutschland' (Turkish brides and the migration debate in Germany)[END_REF]. The dangers of such essentializing views have been recognized at least partly in German gender and migration research, but positive, non-essentializing images of migrant women in the German public and media remain rare. One reason why gender equality seems to work so well against the civic recognition of Muslims is that the victimization of the 'other' woman serves as the screen through which the Christian European woman and society is distinguished as progressive and emancipated (Castro Varela and Dhawan, 2006: 427). Additionally, reports of violent acts such as 'honour' crimes, and the general perception of Islam as oppressive to women, stir up fears of falling back behind the already achieved status of gender equality.

The headscarf debate

With regard to gender equality, one indicator for the differentiation between a Christian-Occidental 'us' and a Muslim 'other' are the antiheadscarf laws passed by a number of federal states following the ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court in September 2003. 9 The main argument put forward for prohibiting the headscarf but no other religious symbols is that the headscarf is not a religious but a political symbol for the oppression of women in Islam. Through this, the anti-headscarf laws prohibit teachers from displaying symbols and wearing clothes that express their adherence to a specific religion, ideological faith or political opinion that contravenes the duty of public servants to behave neutrally. Yet the laws include an exception clause for the display of Christian-Occidental values and traditions. Although the interpretations of this clause are not unanimous, the principal political aim is to tolerate Christian symbols, such as nuns teaching at public schools in their habit, while prohibiting the headscarf. Legislators have thus used the headscarf as an instrument of demarcation against the Muslim 'foreigners'.

In public discourse, the division between positions for and against the headscarf runs right through German society and even divides political parties, the Christian churches and the women's movement. But gender equality is always central to the line of argument: the headscarf is depicted either as a symbol of the oppression of women or a symbol enabling socalled neo-Muslims [START_REF] Nökel | Die Töchter der Gastarbeiter und der Islam: zur Soziologie alltagsweltlicher Anerkennungspolitiken; eine Fallstudie (The guest workers' daughters and the Islam: on the sociology of every day life recognition politics[END_REF]cf. also Karakas, og ˘lu, 2003;[START_REF] Klinkhammer | Moderne Formen islamischer Lebensführung: eine qualitativ-empirische Untersuchung zur Religiosität sunnitisch geprägter Türkinnen der zweiten Generation in Deutschland (Modern forms of Islamic conduct of life: A qualitative empirical study on the religiosity of second generation Sunni Turkish women in Germany)[END_REF] to emancipate themselves from their parents and participate in German society. The debate has created strange allies exactly because the headscarf enables various groups to instrumentalize gender against the civic recognition of Muslims. Conservative opponents of the headscarf and some feminists, such as Alice Schwarzer, Necla Kelek, Seyran Ates, and other authors with a Turkish migration background, cite the order to veil the female body or hair as evidence of the incompatibility of Islam with German values of democracy and freedom. Past and present oppression of and hostility towards women is ignored. In the context of growing anti-Islamism, religious fundamentalism and continued violence against women, this position also ignores the complex intersections of racism and sexism. The paternalistic stance that positions Muslim women as oppressed victims may provoke a prioritization of struggles within migrant communities, with the allegedly more important fight against racism or anti-Islamism supplanting any challenge to gender violence (Castro Varela and Dhawan, 2006: 434). To wear a headscarf voluntarily 10 does not mean that a woman promotes forced marriage, nor does it compellingly imply that women are subordinated to men, nor does it show why girls should not participate in sports, school trips or other activities. The simple denunciation of the headscarf as a symbol for the oppression of women is just one example of a growing tendency to deploy aspects of gender in order to 'prove' the anti-egalitarian, patriarchal orientation of Islam in general.

Double standards

When the circumstances are auspicious, even officials unenthusiastic about gender rights convert into firm believers and strugglers for the rights of women, and even homosexuals, revealing a remarkable capacity for double standards. As in the headscarf debate, this was again the case in the debate on naturalization tests in early 2006. These tests were directed only at specific migrants in Germany. Resettlers from eastern and southern Europe, facing socioeconomic difficulties similar to those of other migrants, do not have to take tests because they are considered ethnic Germans. Moreover, the tests alleged certain values (gender equality, acceptance of homosexuality) and knowledge (geography, history) as the German norm, in ways that are far from reflecting actual social consensus. When the federal state of Baden-Württemberg introduced, in January 2006, a 'values test' for Muslim migrants applying for German citizenship, to ensure that they shared the basic values of the Federal Republic, Muslim organizations and numerous politicians criticized the discriminatory nature of the test. The examination questioned migrants not only on their attitudes towards democracy and terrorism, but also the relationship between women and men, homosexuality, and so forth, posing questions such as: 'What do you think about the statement that a wife should obey her husband and that he is allowed to beat her if she is not obedient?' Or, to take another example: 'Imagine your adult son comes to you and explains that he is gay and that he wants to live together with another man. What is your reaction?' Some weeks later, the Home Secretary of the federal state of Hesse decided to develop his own naturalization test under the slogan 'Knowledge and values'. This required profound knowledge of German history, the German political system, the European Union, and German art, music and literature, and again asked questions about the role of men and women in society. In acknowledgement of the critical reactions to the first test, the Hesse government emphasized that the examination was directed not only at Muslim migrants. But the test also posed highly gendered questions: 'A woman should not be allowed to go out in public or to travel without the company of a close male relative. What is your opinion of this statement?' The governments of both states are otherwise rather conservative with respect to the equality of men and women and the rights of homosexuals; their naturalization questionnaires therefore leave the distinct impression that gender equality is being employed opportunistically in order to demonize Muslim migrants and 'prove' their backwardness.

Women's rights seem to work as a highly effective means to mobilize emotions: not only do the 'poor oppressed Muslim women' need our help; 'we' also have to protect our modern gender and sexual politics. Instead of reflection on the very recent modernization of values and lifestyles that has taken place in Germany's majority population, there seems to be an implied symbolic order: 'we' have successfully overcome our own conservative gender model, and do not now want this reversed by 'backward' migrants. 'They' have to take their place at the end of the queue and must adapt to 'our' value system, even when this is more a myth than a reality. After discussions lasting months, the Home Secretaries of all German federal states agreed on joint criteria for naturalization, making a German language and a naturalization test binding. The standards are still to be worked out, but it has already been decided that topics will include the equality of men and women.

The alien bride

Even before the discussion on naturalization tests, Germany had found its authentic informant on patriarchal Turkish life in Germany. Shortly after an 'honour' killing of a young woman from a Kurdish family living in Germany had called public attention to the issue, Necla Kelek's book Die fremde Braut (The alien bride) was published [START_REF] Kelek | Die fremde Braut. Ein Bericht aus dem Inneren des türkischen Lebens in Deutschland[END_REF]. As María do Mar Castro Varela and Nikita Dhawan (2006: 436) put it, in this moment a hegemonic listening, which only listens to what stabilizes the prevailing circumstances, amalgamated with the demand of politicized minorities for the right to their own, authentic voice.

In Die fremde Braut, Kelek, a sociologist born in Turkey who came to Germany with her family at the age of nine, first describes her family history and her own way to freedom and self-determination. The second part of the book is devoted to so-called import brides. Despite admitting that there are no reliable studies on the number of forced marriages in Germany, Kelek asserts that nearly every other marriage of Turkish migrants is either an arranged or a forced marriage, and that there is no difference between the two categories (2005: 214-25). She admits that there are 'different' Turks who have accepted German society and its rules as their own and have integrated themselves, yet maintains that these remain the exception to the rule, and that the majority of the two million plus people of Turkish origin have neither taken this road nor are willing to integrate (2005: 260 & 262). While Kelek is certainly right to stress that any forced marriage is a human rights violation that must be punished, her book endorses prevailing notions of Turkish 'parallel societies' in Germany and of Islam as a barbaric religion and the root of all patriarchal evil. Because of its decontextualized representation of the Islam as barbaric and the enemy of Muslim women, Kelek's book received harsh criticism. Unfortunately, most of her critics have fallen into the same essentializing trap.

On 2 February 2006, the German weekly newspaper Die Zeit published a petition initiated by Yasemin Karakas, og ˘lu and Mark Terkessidis. Signed by 60 migration researchers, the petition criticized the use of essays based on the personal experience of women such as Necla Kelek, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Seyran Ates, and others to enlighten the public and politicians about arranged and forced marriages and 'honour' crimes. A central target of their critique was the dissemination through Kelek's book of cheap clichés about 'Islam' and 'the Turks'. The researchers pointed out that forced marriages and 'honour' crimes do take place and must be combated with laws. In their analysis, however, crimes in the name of 'honour' are a political and not a moral problem and cannot be ascribed to Islam in opposition to western civilization. Because the phenomenon of migration comprises not only the Muslim minority, but also the everyday discrimination faced by both Muslim and non-Muslim migrants in the field of education, they called for a rational discussion about the future structure of the immigration society [START_REF] Terkessidis | Gerechtigkeit für die Muslime!' (Justice for the Muslims!)[END_REF]. Necla [START_REF] Kelek | Sie haben das Leid anderer zugelassen!' (You have permitted the distress of others!)[END_REF] responded a week later that her critics had had the time, money and employees to analyse questions of forced and arranged marriages, 'honour' crimes and ethnic segregation, but had ignored these issues because they did not fit into their ideological concept of multiculturalism and because they did not want to see the human rights violations behind these issues.

These two letters triggered a heated media controversy [START_REF] Butterwegge | Kein journalistisches Ruhmesblatt[END_REF] in which the most sorely missing component was a representation of Muslims and Islam as complex, heterogeneous and diverse according to their own historical, regional, ethnic and class-specific contexts, as well as to the different experiences of migrants. The reaction of the petition's authors to accounts of gender violence within Muslim communities -routine belittlement and negation -was hardly expedient and no less essentializing. Moreover, in their critique, efforts to address sexist violence are subordinated under the allegedly more important struggle against racism. Almost none of the reactions to Kelek's book examined how images of oppressed Muslim women can be utilized to argue that the Muslims do not fit into German society because of their cultural 'otherness ' (cf. Castro Varela and Dhawan, 2006).

Necla Kelek and a few other Turkish-German advocates of women's rights have been readily accepted by German officials as 'authentic' informants on the violations of women's rights occurring within the Turkish community. Their role is problematic because they reproduce the dominant discourse on the differences or incompatibility between an emancipated 'us' and a patriarchal 'Muslim other'. Their successful emancipation could be viewed as indicating the heterogeneity of the Turkish community in Germany; instead, they are seen as, and often depict themselves as, the exception to the rule. As a consequence, the stereotype of the 'oppressed Turkish woman' persists (Çelik, 2003). It becomes difficult for German Muslims to define for themselves what being 'Muslim' means (cf. [START_REF] Spielhaus | Religion und Identität. Vom deutschen Versuch, "Ausländer" zu "Muslimen" zu machen' (Religion and identity. On the German attempt to turn 'aliens' into 'Muslims[END_REF]. Moreover, the representation of Kelek and others as lone yet strong fighters against patriarchy within their own culture and religion obscures the fact that they can be seen as part of a larger movement against gender violence within minority groups.

The most striking aspect of the Kelek debate is that forced marriages and 'honour' crimes have long been identified and addressed by academic experts and women's rights organizations but have never gained the attention of the public or politicians. With the rise of the debate on the redefinition of 'German' identity, it seems as if the issue of gender-specific violence within Muslim communities has been exploited for the purpose of a restrictive integration regime. As described above, at the centre of the debate is the demand for the integration of migrants, which is justified by pointing to 'honour' crimes, forced marriage, a high rate of violence among migrants in general, and a tendency to separation and/or isolation. The Integration Summit and the Islam Summit, both initiated in 2006, as well as the amendment of the Immigration Act enacted in August 2007, suggest that it is more important to demand stricter rules for allegedly problematic groups than to discuss in detail how to combat violence while at the same time accepting migrants as Germans with full equal rights.

Restricting migration in the name of women

Up to now, most of the policy measures needed to combat gender-specific violence within minority groups in Germany have not been drawn up or passed. As part of the Integration Summit, and under the topic 'Improving the situation of women and girls, achieving gender equality', a working group coordinated by the Federal Ministry of Justice developed proposals on 'integration through law'. The group focused on protection from violence in the private sphere in general and from forced marriage in particular. In the summary of its work, the group highlighted the need for empirically sound findings, information on potential victims and perpetrators and publicity through awareness-raising campaigns, and advocated the establishment of specialized shelters for persons affected by violence. But these demands are far from new. Non-governmental organizations such as Terre des Femmes e.V., which has been working continuously on both forced marriage and crimes committed in the name of 'honour', have been and still are making the same demands (cf. [START_REF] Volz | Zwangsheirat in Deutschland -eine tolerierte Menschenrechtsverletzung' (Forced marriage in Germany -a tolerated human rights' violation)[END_REF]. But the public authorities at the lower levels of administration who most commonly deal with victims of violence still fail to protect minority women and men because of a lack of intercultural sensitivity, a lack of knowledge about these forms of violence, and even a lack of knowledge about possible legal and administrative aids. Often, youth welfare offices, and even courts, view violence in migrant families not as a social problem but as a private matter or a cultural problem. The internal structures of migrant families are likely to be seen as 'exterritorial' problems (Arpat, 1999: 61;Gedik, 2005: 321).

In the past, forced marriage was regarded as a criminal offence of coercion. In October 2004, the German parliament passed legislation making forced marriage a particularly severe case of the offence of coercion, punishable with up to five years' imprisonment (Bielefeldt, 2005: 24). Two years later, the Federal Council of Germany (Bundesrat) introduced a bill aimed at making forced marriage an element of an offence sui generis, in order to ostracize forced marriages socially and arouse an awareness of injustice, particularly among the relatives directly involved. Up to now, the bill has not been discussed in parliament. Human and women's rights experts question the efficacy of such laws: they do not anticipate many complaints on the part of the victims because that would mean opposing their own families, and in many cases this would be too momentous a step. What is really needed to combat forced marriage and other forms of gender-specific violence (within minority groups) is an elaborate policy strategy based on sound findings and composed of interlinked outreach, shelters, and a comprehensive education and sensitization of policy makers, responsible administrative agencies, teachers and police, as well as potential victims and their families. The experiences gained during the struggle of the second German women's movement against domestic violence teach us that the road to realizing the necessary measures is long. 11 In the meantime, however, violations of women's rights are being employed to enforce new restrictions on immigration. In other words, on the level of law, too, gender is utilized to argue against the civic recognition of migrants.

Disguised as a measure to provide protection from forced marriage, the amendment to the Immigration Act establishes new hurdles to immigration. Among other regulations, the subsequent immigration of spouses is allowed only for partners who are at least 18 years old and who can demonstrate a basic knowledge of the German language. Spouses from the USA, Australia or Japan can still move to Germany without having to fulfill these criteria. Women's rights activists and experts have argued that the age and language restrictions do not constitute effective provisions: the basic requirement for subsequent immigration is the consummated marriage; thus, the law does not prevent forced marriages. Apart from the above-mentioned strategies, what would be needed in legal terms is an extended right to return for victims of marriage abduction and a right to residence independent from the spouse. But such open regulations concerning the right to residence are not likely to be introduced. In sum, up to now violence within minority groups has not been combated successfully, yet at the same time this violence has been exploited to create resentment against Muslims in Germany.

A LONG ROAD AHEAD

When forced marriages, 'honour' crimes or the headscarf are castigated as violations of universal human rights, a universalism is employed that becomes a rejection of the 'other', both in the form of denying many civil rights for migrants and of challenging an ethno-pluralistic understanding of the German nation. As we have pointed out, Germany is currently in the process of redefining 'German' identity, a process that started when the maxim that Germany is not an immigration country was finally abandoned. Characteristic of this redefinition process is the attempt to preserve the fiction of national homogeneity despite the realities of immigration and the obvious 'cultural' differences within German society. The ultimate marker between a Christian occidental 'us' and the (Muslim) 'other' remains the question of gender equality: gender proves to be a useful tool to secure the image of German society as modern and emancipated. At the same time, this progressive gender regime is depicted as being undermined by less emancipated migrants. While these lines of argumentation bear the risk of demonizing minority groups, drawing a clear line between an emancipated 'us' and a barbaric or at least backward 'other', the normative question that remains is how public agencies can intervene effectively against practices harmful to women, without in the process demonizing Muslim minorities. To close our article, we offer some preliminary considerations that require further development.

Contrary to what the exceptional status of Necla Kelek and others suggests, a number of migrant organizations have initiated activities against forced marriage and/or 'honour' crimes. Among the first was the secular Turkish Association of Berlin and Brandenburg (TBB), which issued a 10point plan calling for 'zero tolerance' towards violence against women and encouraged other Turkish and Islamic organizations to speak out against crimes committed in the name of 'honour'. 12 The TBB identified the need to reinforce the funding of projects that offer targeted help to endangered women and provide awareness training, especially in schools. The latter need was partly taken up by a postcard campaign initiated by a social worker at the Berlin girl's club MaDonna. 13 The girl's club had already created two postcards against forced marriage under the slogan 'Till death do us part'. 14 Two German-Turkish boys in Berlin subsequently had themselves photographed for the campaign, under the slogan 'Honour is to fight for my sister's freedom'. 15 Twenty thousand postcards were printed and circulated at the beginning of 2005. In the future, postcards will also be printed in Arabic and Turkish and distributed selectively in male domains such as cafés and sports clubs. A poster campaign with the same theme is being planned.

The MaDonna postcard campaign served as an inspiration for the visual component of a larger state campaign called 'her freedom -his honour'. The North Rhine-Westphalian Ministry of Integration started this campaign in November 2006, together with a surprisingly large alliance of migrant organizations and prominent women such as Alice Schwarzer and Seyran Ates, , both of whom otherwise represent, as we have mentioned, a feminism with sometimes anti-Islamic overtones. 16 The campaign comprises all the necessary aspects identified above. It aims not only to create publicity and awareness, but also to send a signal to women affected that there is help if they need it. Moreover, the campaign sets out to redefine terms such as 'honour', providing further education on the issue, and has developed an approach to combating forced marriage that is supplemented by an online consultancy. 17 But perhaps even more important, the minister of integration of North Rhine-Westphalia, Armin Laschet -a Christian Democratemphasized that this campaign is not about demarcating the majority from the minority society, but about focusing on shared values and cooperation. This initiative even includes the engagement of the Turkish newspaper Hürriyet, a popular paper with around 200,000 readers in Germany. This had earlier led a week-long campaign against German-Turkish authors such as Serap Cileli, Necla Kelek and Seyran Ates, because of their outspokenness against 'honour' crimes and forced marriage and their fight for women's rights. But in May 2005, the newspaper changed its position and expanded a campaign against family violence, started in Turkey, to Germany as well. This change of course is furthered by the recent 'honour' campaign.

The campaigns presented here demonstrate that public agencies can intervene effectively against practices harmful to women without demonizing minority groups. Moreover, the initiatives undermine many of the assumptions voiced in German public and politics about migrants, Muslims, gender and values. If ethnic minorities are to become truly part of German society, migration policy, and particularly the fight for the recognition of migrants and the prevention of gender-specific violence, needs to be formulated and implemented not as a special policy but as a regular part of social policy, aimed at limiting the risk of increased inequality and social disintegration for all (Bommes, 2007: 5). If initiatives continue to be understood as special policy, specific to minority groups, the symbolic charge will encourage one-sided blame for the failures of integration, exemplified in forced marriages and the like. This failure will be blamed on the refusal of migrants to integrate, or -even worse -on a general inaptitude of Muslim migrants because of their cultural 'otherness'. Any positive effects may be thwarted by an equivocal form of universalism that labels gender violence among migrants as cultural, while dismissing it in the majority society as individual. In this way, women's rights may continue to be used as a marker to distinguish 'them' from 'us', when what is really needed is to create diverse alliances to tackle oppressive forces of any kind.

When we speak of 'Germany' we refer to the history of the Federal Republic of Germany. We do not analyse the migration policies of the German Democratic Republic.

'Thoughts for Friday' is analogous to 'Thoughts for Sunday', a five-minute-long broadcast every Saturday evening on public television in which Catholic priests and Protestant ministers express their views on Christian and theological questions. So far, 'Thoughts for Friday' is only published online.

'Traditionally' here refers to the view advanced by leading scholars and conservative politicians, as reflected in the laws. Before the unification of 1990, parts of the German Left in West Germany, in particular critical theorists, tried to define the German nation as a constitutional nation (Verfassungsnation).

4 Article 116 of the constitution, or Basic Law, defines as 'German' not only citizens but also refugees or expellees of German

descent. 5 Cf.[START_REF] Dirke | Multikulti: The German Debate on Multiculturalism[END_REF][START_REF] Frank | Schön bunt und nützlich. Der Diskurs über die multikulturelle Gesellschaft' (Very colourful and useful: The discourse on the multicultural society)[END_REF], for a detailed history of German

multiculturalism. 6 See Unabhängige Kommission 'Zuwanderung' (2001) for a

summary of the report. 7 The act regulates three main areas: the immigration of foreign employees, the acceptance of refugees and the integration of new immigrants. Furthermore, questions concerning security and the fight

against terrorism are included. 8 One explanation as to why the murder of Theo van Gogh in the Netherlands triggered a debate on multiculturalism in Germany is that, with it, the German

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Sarah Clasen, Avigail Eisenberg, Anne Phillips, Sawitri Saharso and Birgit Sauer for their helpful comments. An early version of this article was presented at the conference Gender Equality, Cultural Diversity: European Comparisons and Lessons, at the Free University Amsterdam in 2006 and we also thank participants for their feedback.

Notes

public and officials came to the conclusion that Islam posed a threat not only in countries such as Iran, Saudi-Arabia, Afghanistan or Sudan but also in Europe. 9 So-called anti-headscarf laws, with an exception for Christian-Occidental values and traditions, have been passed in Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria, Hesse, Saarland and North Rhine-Westphalia. 10 How such a voluntary nature can be ascertained is still to be determined. 11 German legislation had been quite reluctant to combat domestic violence, viewing it as a private or cultural problem. It took over 20 years until, on 1 January 2002, legislation on protection against domestic violence (Gewaltschutzgesetz) was enacted. 12 The 10 points to fight intolerance towards violence against women are: ( 1


Baukje Prins
email: b.prins@rug.nl]

Sawitri Saharso
email: s.saharso@utwente.nl].

Werkgroep Den

Vrouwen Buitenlandse

Sawitri

In the spotlight A blessing and a curse for immigrant women in the Netherlands

Keywords: discourse, emancipation, integration, new realism, policy

Within a short period of time, the Netherlands transformed itself from a relatively tolerant country to a nation that called for cultural assimilation, tough measures and neo-patriotism. The discursive genre of 'new realism' played a crucial role in this retreat from multiculturalism, and that had a dual effect for immigrant women. Whereas formerly they were virtually ignored by both the integration and the emancipation policy, since the triumph of new realism they are in the centre of both policy lines and there is now more policy attention for their needs and interests. Yet in the public debate the culture card is drawn frequently and immigrant women are portrayed as either victims or accomplices of their oppressive cultures. Policy makers and practitioners in the field, however, succeeded in avoiding cultural stereotyping by developing cultural-sensitive measures, while naming them in culture-blind terms.

INTRODUCTION

'The integration of ethnic minorities into Dutch society has grown into . . . the "social question" of the 21st century, comparable to the problems that accompanied the transformation of the rural population into urban labourers at the beginning of the 20th century.' So read one of the first sentences of the document with which in 2004 the Dutch cabinet reacted to the report of the commission that had examined the results of Dutch policies of integration since its beginning in the 1980s (TK, 2003-04a: 2). The political party that had requested this evaluation, the Socialist Party, had actually asked the commission to investigate why the integration policy had failed, though this was subsequently reformulated in a more neutral vein. When the commission presented its findings, concluding that in some parts the policy had succeeded and in others had failed to reach its objectives, this met with great scepticism. The general Dutch opinion is that the integration of immigrants has failed because of a policy that was based on wrong -that is multicultural -assumptions (see [START_REF] Entzinger | Changing the Rules When the Game is On: From Multiculturalism to Assimilation in the Netherlands[END_REF].

In this article, we will argue that in the public debate on integration in the Netherlands the genre of new realism gained the upper hand and we will lay out the argumentative structure of this new realist discourse. New realism not only revolves around the importance of 'culture', it is also a highly gendered discourse. We will first assess the impact of this shift in public discourse on the policy lines of integration and emancipation, and then discuss the effects of these general developments on policies regarding immigrant women. We will not only focus on formal policy documents, but on one specific issue, violence against women, to see how official policy plans are implemented by practitioners in the field. In a remarkably short period, issues concerning immigrant women in the Netherlands have shifted from the margins to the centre of public concern, which is, we conclude, both a curse and a blessing. 1

THE PUBLIC DEBATE ON INTEGRATION

At least until well into the 1990s, the Dutch took pride in the way they had traditionally been able to manage sources of social, economic and religious conflict through policies of toleration and pacification -the consociational system of (religious) 'pillarization' and the much praised (socioeconomic) 'poldermodel' being among the more sympathetic peculiarities of Dutch political culture. Combined with ongoing attempts to fight racism and discrimination, these were assumed to be the reasons why the Netherlands had seen little to no racial riots, why the extreme-right had never gathered a large following, and why it was assumed that immigrants were doing relatively well (Vermeulen and Penninx, 2000).

However, long before 'September 11', issues of integration and immigration had become the subject of ever more heated public debates. In September 1991, the then leader of the Conservative Liberals (VVD) initiated what was called the 'national minorities debate' [START_REF] Bolkestein | Integratie van minderheden moet met lef worden aangepakt' (The integration of minorities should be handled with guts)[END_REF]. European civilization, Bolkestein argued, is sustained by the values of rationality, humanism and Christianity, bringing with them a number of fundamental political principles, such as secularization, freedom of speech, tolerance and the principle of non-discrimination. Value pluralism was to be embraced, but cultural relativism should be rejected. Bolkestein's intervention marked the beginning of what we will call a 'new-realist' approach to immigration in the Netherlands. Almost a decade later, new realism received further support by an essay written by the Social Democrat Paul Scheffer [START_REF] Scheffer | Het multiculturele drama' (The multicultural drama)[END_REF]. Scheffer castigated the Dutch elite for closing their eyes to 'The Multicultural Drama' developing right before their eyes. Although rates of unemployment, criminality and school drop-out among children of immigrants were extremely high, the Dutch mistakenly held on to their good old strategies of peaceful coexistence through deliberation and compromise. However, Islam, with its refusal to accept the separation of church and state, could not be compared to modernized Christianity, and 'allochthone' youngsters were accumulating feelings of frustration and resentment. Teaching Dutch language, culture and history should be taken much more seriously.

In autumn 2001, in the atmosphere of crisis following September 11, the former Marxist sociologist Pim Fortuyn entered the political scene. Fortuyn's explicit aversion to Islam, the policy of toleration, the 'left-wing church' and the continual influx of immigrants and asylum seekers, combined with his charismatic presence, soon gave him a large following. In one of his notorious interviews, he claimed that Holland was a 'full country' (i.e. already too densely populated), and Islam 'a backward culture'. In the weeks following his assassination by an animal rights activist on 6 May 2002 many mourners indicated that Pim had 'said what we were not allowed to say' -a view that referred to white Dutch people's fear of foreigners 'invading' the country and their anger at the ruling elite for not taking their concerns seriously. The ideal of multiculturalism had fallen into discredit, while the new realist discourse gained the upper hand.

The Dutch genre of new realism can be identified by five distinctive features. First, new realism emphasizes the need to listen to the ordinary people, i.e. the 'autochthonous' lower classes in urban neighbourhoods. The ordinary people deserve to be represented because they know from daily experience what is 'really' going on in society, and because they are not blinded by 'politically correct' ideas. Moreover, one should take their complaints seriously in order to keep their emotions under control and channel them in the right direction.

Second, a new realist presents him-or herself as someone who dares face the facts, who has the courage to break taboos and speak frankly about truths that the dominant discourse has supposedly covered up.

Third, new realists argue that it is high time to break the power of the progressive elite, which has dominated the public realm for too long with its 'politically correct' sensibilities, its relativistic approach to the values of different cultures and its lax policies of toleration. New realists instead call for an affirmation of the values of western civilization over and against Islam, such as the separation of state and church, freedom of speech and the equality of men and women.

A fourth feature of new realism is its insistence on the (re)affirmation of national identity. It promotes a revival of Dutch patriotism and the reinvention of a Dutch Leitkultur.

Finally, the Dutch discourse of new realism is highly gendered. From the very beginning, when participants in the debate on multiculturalism wanted to prove the relevance of the issue at hand, they referred to issues of gender and sexuality, such as the headscarf, arranged or forced marriage, female genital mutilation (FGM), honour killing, the cultus of virginity, domestic violence and homophobia.

Gender seeped into the new realist discourse in more subtle ways too. Thus, in cases where immigrants were called on to leave behind their cultural and religious inheritance and submit to the laws and customs of Dutch society, implicitly it was only male immigrants who were addressed.

The assumption was that Dutch laws and customs particularly conflict with the privileges of immigrant (i.e. Muslim) men. Immigrant (i.e. Muslim) women, on the other hand, were depicted as 'victims' of their own culture, and as having a self-evident interest in their integration into Dutch society (see also [START_REF] Prins | The Nerve to Break Taboos: New Realism in the Dutch Discourse on Multiculturalism[END_REF][START_REF] Prins | Voorbij de onschuld. Het debat over integratie in Nederland (Beyond innocence: The debate on integration in the Netherlands)[END_REF].

One of the most outspoken representatives of new realism was the Dutch-Somali politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Since January 2003, when she was elected as a member of parliament for the VVD, Hirsi Ali regularly created a stir by controversial statements against (any kind of) religion. She castigated Islam for its authoritative stance and deemed it especially backward when it came to the position of women. Thus, she suggested that Islam was accountable for practices such as female genital cutting, forced marriage and honour killing.

In the summer of 2004, together with filmmaker Theo van Gogh, Hirsi Ali made a short film, Submission I, which denounced the (sexual) violence against Muslim women, suggesting that this was legitimized by Islam. 2 The movie was considered extremely blasphemous by pious Muslims. A couple of months later, Van Gogh was assassinated by a young Dutch-Moroccan man, who appeared to be a member of a network of radical fundamentalist Muslims. Hirsi Ali went into hiding; the Dutch government responded with a series of arrests and stricter measures to fight Muslim terrorism. Opinion polls pointed to a further hardening of Dutch public opinion towards Muslims, especially towards Moroccans. The murder of Van Gogh put Hirsi Ali in the spotlight of the international media. After a dramatic clash over her right to Dutch citizenship, in May 2006 Hirsi Ali left the Netherlands to take up a position at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative Washington DC think-tank. 3 Hirsi Ali's interventions in the Dutch public debate left Dutch feminists (Muslim and non-Muslim) severely divided. Her fierce attacks on Islam gave her a huge following among conservative and liberal white Dutch, but simultaneously alienated her from many of the Muslim women for whom she claimed to speak. Some feminists celebrated her as a brave woman who, in the best tradition of feminist activism, dared to be controversial and speak up against patriarchal traditions. Others criticized her for stirring up the latent racism and xenophobia among the Dutch population, and for wanting to 'liberate' Muslim women without taking account of their own ideas on liberation. Whereas Hirsi Ali suggested that women's emancipation could only be achieved through the adoption of secular liberal values, hence a rejection of Islam, many Muslim women insisted on the viability of their attempt to combine Islamic faith with their struggle for emancipation.

Without a doubt, the charismatic person of Hirsi Ali and her 'un-Dutch' tendency to raise controversy and seek confrontation was an important reason why the position of immigrants, and especially Muslim women, became the focus of debate in the Netherlands from 2003. The question is: to what extent did this shift in the public discourse reflect itself in the Dutch policy plans regarding the integration of immigrants?

THE INTEGRATION POLICY

In the integration policy we discern three phases. In the first phase (1982-94), 4 under a coalition of first Liberals and Christian Democrats and later Christian and Social Democrats, the analysis was that the maintenance of minority cultures would facilitate immigrants' integration into Dutch society. This was fully in line with the Dutch tradition of 'pillarization' (verzuiling), the segmentation of Dutch society along confessional lines. This tradition was closely connected to the emancipation movements of Dutch religious minorities, such as the Catholics and the Dutch Reformed Church in the 19th century, who wrested themselves from their subordinate position by developing their own institutions (see [START_REF] Lijphart | The Politics of Accommodation: Pluralism and Democracy in the Netherlands[END_REF]. The Minorities Policy (Minderhedennota, 1983) hence targeted not individual immigrants, but specific immigrant groups, literally named 'ethnic minority groups' and their emancipation was believed to be executed via their organizations.

In the 1994 Dutch parliamentary elections, the Christian Democrats (CDA) were defeated and remained outside the government for the first time in almost a century. Traditionally, it was the Christian Democrats who cherished pillarization. This explains why the incoming so-called 'purple' coalition of Labour, Conservative Liberals and Social Liberals was able to shift the focus of its policies. The bulk of policy measures were aimed at improving the school achievements of immigrant children and at promoting immigrants' labour participation. The preservation of minority cultures was no longer considered a public responsibility (see [START_REF] Tk | Meerjaren Beleidsplan Emancipatie 2006-2010 (Emancipatie: Vanzelfsprekend, maar het gaat niet vanzelf!)[END_REF]. The Minorities' Policy was renamed 'Integration Policy' and no longer targeted groups, but individual immigrants. The title of the memorandum, 'Kansen krijgen, kansen pakken' (Getting opportunities, taking opportunities) [START_REF] Tk | Meerjaren Beleidsplan Emancipatie 2006-2010 (Emancipatie: Vanzelfsprekend, maar het gaat niet vanzelf!)[END_REF], said it all: immigrants were to be encouraged to seize the opportunities given to them by Dutch society. Another important shift involved a growing feeling that the lack of socioeconomic integration of immigrants was also due to their insufficient familiarity with Dutch language and society. As a consequence, since 1998, every newly arrived immigrant from outside the European Union was obliged to attend a newly launched programme of language and civic integration (inburgering) courses. Although the introduction of integration courses indicates a nascent sense of the importance of culture for societal integration, in this second phase (1994)(1995)(1996)(1997)(1998)(1999)(2000)(2001)(2002) policy measures remained focused on the promotion of socioeconomic integration, from which cultural integration was thought to follow.

Since the Fortuyn-revolt of May 2002 until February 2007 (the third phase) the Netherlands were ruled by conservative-neoliberal governments. 5 Instead of a precondition for socioeconomic integration, culture now came to be considered as a problem in its own right. Cultural differences were associated with Islamic terrorism and with the undermining of social cohesion and national identity. The quote with which we opened this article continued, referring to (inter)national terrorism, 'these events have raised doubts about the loyalty of parts of the minority population to the central values of Dutch society' (TK, 2003-04a: 2). 6 Former integration policies were criticized for putting too much emphasis on the acceptance of differences. 'There is nothing wrong with that, but [often] this was interpreted as if the presence of allochthone ethnic groups in society would constitute a value in itself, an enrichment tout court. One then loses sight of the fact that not everything different is therefore valuable' (TK, 2003-04b: 8). The solution according to the government was 'shared citizenship', meaning that every inhabitant keeps to the same basic (Dutch) norms. These include 'doing one's best to be able to support oneself . . ., caring for one's environment, respecting the physical integrity of others, also in marriage, acceptance of every person's right to express his opinion, acceptance of the sexual preferences of others, the equality of women and men' (TK, 2003-04b: 8-9). Second, the Dutch cabinets in this period maintained that it was not the government but immigrants themselves who were responsible for their successful integration (TK, 2003-04b: 9). Thus, although integration exams were compulsory, individual immigrants carried the responsibility for organizing and financing their preparation for the exam.

Concern about the lack of social cohesion led the Dutch cabinet to launch the so-called 'Breed Initiatief Maatschappelijke Binding' (Broad initiative social ties) (TK, 2004-05b), a series of debates with civil society. The integration courses and the introduction of a Dutch canon and civic education in schools in 2006 were supposed to ensure citizens' loyalty to central Dutch values (CFI, 2006)). Civic education should explicitly address the equal treatment of men and women as one of these values, as it was recognized that the above mentioned 'parts of the minority population' urgently needed to be educated on this point [START_REF] Tk | Meerjaren Beleidsplan Emancipatie 2006-2010 (Emancipatie: Vanzelfsprekend, maar het gaat niet vanzelf!)[END_REF].

If we ask ourselves whether there is any correspondence between the shifts in the public debate and policy plans, the answer is clearly 'yes'. New realism's insistence on Dutch culture as Leitkultur and the reaffirmation of Dutch national identity and values thus achieved a clear translation in public policy.

In November 2006, new elections brought a progressive majority into Parliament and a government consisting of Christian Democrats, Labour Party and Christian Union was installed in February 2007. The new government announced the replacement of the individualistic approach of neoliberalism with a more communitarian outlook emphasizing the importance of family values, civic duties and social cohesion. At the moment of writing (June 2007), it is too early to say much about the course this new cabinet will take regarding the emancipation and integration of immigrant women. But a remarkable feature of its first Policy Programme (Samen Werken, Samen Leven 2007 (Working together, living together 2007)) is that the notions of 'autochthone', 'allochthonous' or 'ethnic minority' are rarely used, while there is not a single reference made to Islam. Instead, when addressing immigrant issues, the programme uses ethnically neutral terms such as persons, citizens or inburgeraars (literally: someone who is becoming a citizen).

THE EMANCIPATION POLICY

In the mid 1970s, pressurized by the women's movement, the Dutch government started developing official policies to foster the emancipation of women. In this first period (between 1977 and 1981), the main goal was to change the mentality of men and women alike [START_REF] Keuzenkamp | Emancipatiebeleid en de levensloop van vrouwen. Een toekomstanalyse (Emancipation policy and the course of life of women. An analysis of the future)[END_REF]. This was expected to lead to the transformation of existing gender roles. Government, moreover, committed itself to the promotion of 'characteristics and activities traditionally associated with being a woman' (quoted in TK, 2003-04e: 434).

During the second stage of the emancipation policy (1982-94), the policy documents strike a more militant tone. Emancipation also involved the redistribution of power between the sexes. A more equal distribution of paid and unpaid labour was needed, more women should be appointed in decision-making positions and women should be actively encouraged to become economically independent. 7 Society would be transformed into a truly pluriform society, in which there was room for each individual, men and women alike, to live according to one's desires. These transformative intentions were again expressed in 1992, when a new policy programme identified three spearheads: more participation of women in political and social decision making, a redistribution of unpaid (i.e. care) labour and a break with traditional ideas about femininity and masculinity (Keuzenkamp, 1995: 9).

When in 1994 the first 'purple' cabinet came into office, on paper, government remained committed to the ideal of a pluriform society. But at the same time, during this third period of the emancipation policy (1994)(1995)(1996)(1997)(1998)(1999)(2000)(2001)(2002)(2003), economic concerns were put to the forefront more clearly. Thus in the policy plan issued in 1996, the focus was on women's participation in the labour market, and on economic independence and the accessibility of higher positions in governance and industry. It was a period of moderate optimism. The title of the emancipation memorandum of 2000 was telling in this respect: Van Vrouwenstrijd naar Vanzelfsprekendheid (From women's struggle to self-evidence) (Ministerie van [START_REF] Ministerie Van Szw | Van Vrouwenstrijd naar Vanzelfsprekendheid (From women's struggle to self-evidence), Meerjarennota Emancipatiebeleid[END_REF]. In line with this optimism, and to celebrate 25 years of emancipation policy, the Minister then responsible for emancipation, De Geus, declared that for most people it had become entirely obvious that women were present in almost all domains of society. There was little need for extra policy efforts, as women's emancipation in the Netherlands was deemed to be right on track [START_REF] Geus | Toespraak van minister mr[END_REF].

De Geus's self-confidence met with indignation from many feminists, and their scepticism was rapidly confirmed by the results of the Emancipatiemonitor (Emancipation monitor) published in 2006 [START_REF] Portegijs | Emancipatiemonitor 2006. Veranderingen in de leefsituatie en levensloop (Emancipation monitor 2006: Changes in living conditions and life course)[END_REF]. The monitor showed that between 2002 and 2005, the process of emancipation in the Netherlands had stagnated. The portion of working women and the amount of hours that women worked per week had barely increased. Likewise, there had been no significant growth of the portion of economically independent women. The move of women into higher positions also fell short of expectations. The authors of the Emancipatiemonitor 2006 expressed concern that the initial policy targets would not be achieved.

During this fourth period (2003 to the present) there is a resurgent sense of urgency about the emancipation of Dutch women. Hence the less optimistic tone of the new long-term policy plan published in 2005. Its subtitle can even be read as a direct comment on its predecessor: 'Emancipatie: Vanzelfsprekend, maar het gaat niet vanzelf!' (Emancipation: Self-evident, but it does not take care of itself!) [START_REF] Tk | Meerjaren Beleidsplan Emancipatie 2006-2010 (Emancipatie: Vanzelfsprekend, maar het gaat niet vanzelf!)[END_REF]. The general policy programme of the now ruling Balkende IV government likewise acknowledges that women's emancipation has not been completed. The new government seems predisposed to adopt the main goals of the long-term emancipation policy plan of 2005, i.e. (1) prevention and combat of violence against women and girls (such as domestic violence, traffic in women and female genital mutilation); (2) furthering the economic independence of women; (3) prevention of the social exclusion of vulnerable and deprived women; (4) and a more proportional representation of women in positions of power and decision-making (see [START_REF] Tk | Meerjaren Beleidsplan Emancipatie 2006-2010 (Emancipatie: Vanzelfsprekend, maar het gaat niet vanzelf!)[END_REF].

Reconstructing the overall picture of some 30 years of active Dutch government interference in women's emancipation, two developments are striking. First, we see that the initial aim of the general transformation of Dutch culture into a truly pluriform society in which so-called 'masculine' and 'feminine' virtues would be equally appreciated, was supplanted quite swiftly by more narrow economic goals. But over the years it appeared not so easy to achieve this socioeconomic gender equality. Currently, the average Dutch family has a full-time working husband while the wife combines a small part-time job with the care for the children and household [START_REF] Portegijs | Emancipatiemonitor 2006. Veranderingen in de leefsituatie en levensloop (Emancipation monitor 2006: Changes in living conditions and life course)[END_REF].

How come, despite the insistence of new realists that gender equality is one of the main values of Dutch society, this very same society seems to resist the pressures of both government and the market economy when it comes to increasing the socioeconomic participation of women? To begin with, Dutch political and policy culture have for a long time been dominated by the Christian parties, which have always put an emphasis on family values and supported the idea that the first task of a mother is to be available for her children. Second, because of the reasonable level of salaries, good labour conditions and welfare state provisions, in many families there is no economic necessity for both partners to have a full-time job. Third, Dutch culture in general is known to be not very competitive, and recent surveys show that many, including young Dutch men and women, are inclined to prefer lifestyles that are not merely focused on individual success, career and money (see for instance Hofstede, 2004: 108-26). Finally, the heritage of the cultural revolution of the 1960s, with its critique of the 'bourgeois' family and its emphasis on individual autonomy, has been and still is interpreted by many Dutch women in broader terms than just exchanging the conventional role of the stay-at-home mother for the role of the ambitious career-woman [START_REF] Brinkgreve | Wie wil er nu nog moeder worden? (Who still wants to become a mother these days?[END_REF][START_REF] Duindam | Pleidooi voor een sekse-neutrale (thee)mutscultuur' (In defense of a gender-neutral (tea)cosy culture)[END_REF][START_REF] Pessers | Balans Pharos (2006-09) Meerjarenprogramma preventie vrouwelijke genitale verminking[END_REF].

A second remarkable development within the Dutch policies of emancipation is that, since about 2003, the official policy documents contain a more or less explicit subtext in which a distinction is made between policies aimed at native Dutch women on the one hand, and policies aimed at nonwestern immigrant women on the other. The aforementioned long-term emancipation plan 2006-10, which is expected to be adopted by the new Balkenende IV government, illustrates this bifurcation along ethnic lines quite well. Whereas the second and fourth aim, i.e. furthering the economic independence of women and a more proportional representation of women in the top echelons of Dutch society, are geared to native women in the first place, the other two aims, i.e. combating violence against women (FGM, honour killing) and preventing the social exclusion of 'vulnerable and deprived women' (e.g. women from ethnic minority groups) are geared to non-western immigrants.

The most significant change compared to previous policy plans on emancipation is the addition of this latter goal, the prevention of social exclusion. In the explanatory notes, it is acknowledged that for some groups it is not realistic to expect them to acquire paid labour. Hence, while 'autochthonous' women are encouraged to acquire paid work and go 'for the top', for immigrant women the set aim is that they will at least do unpaid, volunteer work. As the labour participation of Surinamese and Antillean women is above average, this can only refer to especially Turkish, Moroccan, Somalian, Iranian, Iraqi, and Bosnian women -most of whom are Muslim.

Thus, the recent Dutch documents on emancipation make a tacit distinction between immigrant and non-immigrant, or better: between non-Muslim and Muslim women, where the first are captured under the generic heading of 'women' who are to be encouraged to become economically independent and break through the glass ceiling, while the latter fall under the heading of 'vulnerable and deprived women' for whom paid work or positions of power are mostly out of reach, and who instead are simply encouraged to participate in society by volunteering in care activities (mantelzorg) and other kinds of social work.

POLICIES REGARDING IMMIGRANT WOMEN: EMANCIPATE IN ORDER TO INTEGRATE?

The question poses itself: which developments have led to this bifurcation along ethnic lines? If we look at the history of the Dutch approach of immigrant women, we see that it runs parallel to the history of emancipation policies in general, but that it takes a separate course from the very beginning.

In January 1977, a report by the Werkgroep Buitenlandse Vrouwen (Foreign Women Study Group) was published. The report found that 'foreign women' (see TK, 2003-04a: 434) lagged behind 'autochthonous' women in many respects. 8 Although the 1977 white paper on emancipation mentioned the need to develop special policies geared to immigrant women because of their cultural differences, the pillarization motto of integration with the maintenance of cultural identity made it difficult to develop such policies. As a consequence, during this first period (1977-81), a governmental policy on immigrant women was virtually non-existent.

In 1982 the Emancipation Council called for specific policies for women within the Minority Policy that was just being developed. The 1985 Emancipation Nota also dedicated attention to the specific situation of immigrant women. Their problems were perceived as caused by a lack of education and of relevant work experience, and by different cultural norms and values. The suggested aims of emancipation policies geared to immigrant women were threefold: (1) to further equal rights, on condition that their own cultural values were respected; (2) to improve their position in the domains of education and work and to increase the accessibility of social welfare institutions; and (3) to challenge traditional representations of gender relationships (TK, 2003-04a: 439). Although again this set of goals saddled policy makers with a paradoxical task, during this second phase (1982-94), a number of emancipatory projects, the so-called VEM (women and minorities) projects, were initiated by the ministries responsible for minority and emancipation policies. These small-scale projects were geared to improving the level of education and the labour market participation of immigrant women while, in line with the tradition of pillarization, they also supported self-organizations, and developed aid projects focused at women from specific ethnic groups.

When the VEM projects were finished, a third phase started, covering the period between 1994 and 2003, during which problems of immigrant women were alternately addressed as part of the agendas of immigrant integration and women's emancipation. Thus, while between 1997 and 1999 reports on ethnic minorities contained separate chapters addressing the position of 'black, migrant and refugee women', between 2001 and 2003, emancipation programmes contained separate sections on immigrant women. There is no need to say that such fragmentation did not lead to very effective policy measures.

All in all, in the first decades of Dutch integration and emancipation policies, immigrant women occupied a marginal position. While integration policies focused mainly on the male migrant, emancipation policies took the situation of 'autochthonous' women as their starting point [START_REF] Roggeband | Dutch Women are Liberated, Migrant Women are a Problem: The Evolution of Policy Frames on Gender and Migration in the Netherlands 1995-2005[END_REF]. This changed from 2003 onwards. Right after the start of the second Balkenende government and the installation of Ayaan Hirsi Ali as a member of parliament, the Ministries of Justice (taking over the integration of ethnic minorities from the Ministry of Internal Affairs) and Social Affairs joined forces by setting up the so-called Participatie van Vrouwen uit Etnische Minderheidsgroepen (PaVEM) commission. With the installation of this high-profile commission, a fourth period seems to have started during which immigrant women moved from the margins to the very centre of both emancipation and integration policies (2003-07). In 2005, the commission published its plans, according to which before 2010, immigrant women should have made up their arrears in Dutch language, paid work and social participation. These plans are currently implemented under supervision of a direction group 'labour participation ethnic minorities' (TK, 2005-06b: 29) and have also been included in the so-called Deltaplan inburgering (Deltaplan integration) of the Balkenende IV government.

It is worth noting that, contrary to the aims set by general policies of emancipation, immigrant women are not assumed to catch up with men, but with native Dutch women -who, however, as we have indicated, in many respects still lag behind women in other western countries. The PaVEM plans for immigrant women were inspired by the motto (presumably an African saying): 'If you educate a women, you educate a family' (see PaVEM, 2005). Within the context of the international development organizations from which it is adopted, this saying captures the idea that the empowerment of women is essential to the transformation of the traditional patriarchal societies they live in. Likewise, in the Netherlands, immigrant women's education and participation are not just meant to stimulate their personal development, it is also expected that as wives and mothers they will pass on Dutch values and norms to their husbands and children, and thus have a 'civilizing' influence on their own community.

Next to stimulating the social participation of immigrant women, the 2005 long-term emancipation document also aimed to prevent and combat violence against women and girls. Although phrased in a general way, the examples of the kinds of violence to be combated (honour-related violence, female genital cutting -or 'female genital mutilation' as it is named in the document -and traffic in women) indicate that, similar to the policies geared to social participation, the actual focus was on immigrant women. Hence, immigrant women were simultaneously seen as important cultural brokers upon whom the integration of their community is dependent, as well as victims of their patriarchal cultures who are in need of support in order to free themselves from oppressive practices (see also [START_REF] Roggeband | Dutch Women are Liberated, Migrant Women are a Problem: The Evolution of Policy Frames on Gender and Migration in the Netherlands 1995-2005[END_REF].

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

In 2002, the policy document 'Privé geweld -publieke zaak' (Private violence -public cause) (TK, 2001-02) appeared, in which a coordinated approach to this issue was formulated. Family violence now has a structural place in the national security programme and the Big Cities policy. The measures include the formation of a network of support and advice centres on family violence in 35 local councils (TK, 2001-02: 17-18). Citizenship education, already mentioned in the paragraph on integration, also returns as emancipation activity in as far as its subjects include arranged marriage, gang rapes and so-called 'loverboys' (men who lure girls into prostitution by first posing as their generous lover). On FGM, a policy plan was developed in 2005 9 and a broad programme of measures ranging from prevention to prosecution is now being implemented. Honour related violence has also been designated in 2005 by the Lower Chamber as a socalled 'large project' [START_REF] Tk | Meerjaren Beleidsplan Emancipatie 2006-2010 (Emancipatie: Vanzelfsprekend, maar het gaat niet vanzelf!)[END_REF]. Measures concerning honour-related violence are aimed at securing more safety for the victims, prevention and raising professionalism among the police and staff members of women's shelters. The Dutch cabinet is bound to report periodically to the Chamber about progress made in combating honour-related violence, genital mutilation and family violence, which are seen as related to each other (TK, 2005-06a: 18-20).

The issue of FGM has been put on the Dutch political agenda by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. It is estimated that in the Netherlands yearly around 50 girls are being 'circumcised' (Keuzenkamp et al., 2006: 256). The Dutch approach consists of a combined strategy of legal prosecution and information, education and communication (IEC). In the Netherlands, FGM counts as a penal offence. So far, however, there has not been a single case in which perpetrators of FGM have been brought to court, basically because of lack of evidence. To make prosecution more effective, the law has therefore been changed so that FGM now counts as an offence before the Dutch law, even if it has been performed in a country where it is not an offence. Another measure proposed by Hirsi Ali in order to make prosecution more effective was a compulsory yearly medical check of all girls from high-risk groups (i.e. girls from Somalia, Sudan and Egypt). This suggestion was rejected by the Dutch cabinet, as it was considered to be discriminating, and because an extensive genital examination without medical necessity and without the consent of the person involved, would infringe on her right to physical integrity. Pharos, the Dutch refugee and health knowledge centre, designated by the government as the focal point for girls 'circumcision' (Pharos's terminology, BP/SS), has been given the task of developing the IEC approach. It does so in close collaboration with the communities concerned (Pharos, 2006-09).

Until recently, honour-related violence was not well recorded in the Netherlands. According to a recent pilot study, in a period of six months in one police region, 79 cases were reported, of which 11 had a fatal ending (Keuzenkamp et al., 2006: 254). The analysis of the policy document on honour-related violence (TK, 2005-06a) is that family violence and honourrelated violence do not need a separate approach. At the same time, the document recognizes that 'because of the nature of the phenomenon, honour related violence demands specific knowledge on intervention methods for an effective approach' (TK, 2005-06a: 2). Clarifying the nature of this 'specific knowledge', the document refers to family and migration patterns and relevant social and economic factors. It thus bespeaks an awareness that 'culture' is not the all explaining factor (TK, 2005-06a: 5). The policy document also stresses that sustained contacts between the communities and institutions are indispensable. Reference is made to more than 50 meetings, organized by minority organizations and financed by the Ministry, in order to initiate activities to be undertaken from within the communities.

To add some flesh and blood to the gist of these official documents, on 8 May 2006 we had an interview with Sezai Aydogan, senior staff member of Transact (now Movisie), the national expertise centre for combating family violence and sexual violence. Mr Aydogan confirmed that the sensitizing activities are being conducted in collaboration with a wide range of selforganizations of immigrant groups.

Critics often warned that Hirsi Ali's fierce attacks on Islam would disable Muslim and immigrant organizations from recognizing family violence as a problem in their communities. It seems, however, that their effect was precisely the opposite: they created the opportunity and the financial means (as government was prepared to invest in the issue) for these organizations to act against it. Likewise, while the dominant public discourse insisted on legal prosecution, we were surprised to learn that practitioners in the field have opted for the soft approach of information and persuasion. And while the official policy line is to target the individual immigrant, practitioners chose close collaboration with immigrant organizations. The entire approach, as well as its explanation and justification, are very much phrased in terms of the practices that are to be combated; the cultural background of some of these practices is only alluded to between the lines, as it were. In a so-called masculinity project, for instance, the working groups often are all Turkish or all Moroccan, but the participants are asked to reflect on what masculinity means for them as a person, not on masculinity in Turkish or Moroccan culture. When asked, Mr Aydogan confirmed that in the field, family violence is indeed conceptualized as a general problem of the violence of men against women. This perception of the issue stands in stark contrast to the public debate in which violence against women is culturalized and Islam in particular is portrayed as oppressive to women.

Policies that address family violence in immigrant families inevitably have to address the tension between gender equality and respecting cultural diversity. The practitioners engaged with family violence seem to have found a way to negotiate this tension by developing culturally sensitive measures, but naming them in culture blind terms. 10 While some may understand this negatively as proof of a multiculturalist sitting on the fence in the field of welfare, it may also be understood as a pragmatic way to deal with differences, a strategy entirely in line with the Dutch tradition of the pacification of conflicts through deliberation and compromise.

BET WEEN THE DEVIL AND THE DEEP BLUE SEA

Within a very short period of time, the so-called Fortuyn-revolt of 2002 transformed the Netherlands from a relatively tolerant and relaxed country to a nation that called for repression, tough measures and neo-patriotism. Where before it was claimed that the Dutch cherished no nationalistic sentiments, afterwards a majority of the population said 'no' to the European Constitution, and supported the harsh implementation of asylum rules, while intellectuals emphasized the need for the reinvention of a Dutch canon, and also questioned the value of cultural diversity and the loyalty of the Muslim population to Dutch society (see for instance [START_REF] Sniderman | When Ways of Life Collide. Multiculturalism and its Discontents in the Netherlands[END_REF].

How was the fate of immigrant women affected by this remarkable reversal in the Dutch mood? If we recapitulate the developments in the public and policy discourse over the last 30 years, the following picture emerges. Between 1977 and 1982, both policies of integration and emancipation were still under construction. (White) women's emancipation, it was thought, necessitated a change in mentality concerning traditional gender roles, hence a radical transformation of Dutch culture, while the integration of immigrants presumably necessitated the preservation of their own cultural background. The combination of these views made any attempt to develop an approach to immigrant women virtually impossible.

During the second phase , the minority policies held on to the pillarization motto of the maintenance of cultural group identities, while within the policies of emancipation, the focus was gradually shifting from cultural change to the need for women to catch up with men regarding economic independence and social and political empowerment. This made it difficult to develop unambiguous policy guidelines for immigrant women, as the preservation of their own cultural identity was squarely at odds with the policies of emancipation that would require them to assimilate to the lifestyle norms of (native Dutch) men.

During the following period (1994)(1995)(1996)(1997)(1998)(1999)(2000)(2001)(2002), while policies of emancipation were straightforwardly aimed at further socioeconomic empowerment, and there was an optimistic belief that (native Dutch) women were firmly on track and needed little extra help, the policies of integration likewise were more and more inclined to shift the responsibility of integration from governmental institutions and self-organizations to individuals themselves. Immigrant women thus again ended up between the devil and the deep blue sea, in a no man's land in-between the policy frameworks of women's emancipation and immigrants' integration.

It was only during the fourth period, between 2003 and 2006, that immigrant (in particular, Muslim) women moved from the margin to the centre of Dutch public debate and policy making.

It is worth noting that at the beginning of this period, at the time of the Fortuyn-revolt, although the new realist critics of immigration and Islam frequently referred to issues of gender and sexuality, they did so only to illustrate their cultural 'backwardness', hence the dangerous 'otherness' of Muslim immigrants, not to express any real concern for the problems of Muslim women.

It was the feminist political entrepreneurship of Ayaan Hirsi Ali that managed to make a fruitful connection between the Dutch populist discontent about the (implicitly male) Islamic immigrant population and the difficult position of Muslim women. In this respect, Hirsi Ali succeeded where other feminist politicians (who for years had attempted to get problems of immigrant women on the agenda) failed: the larger Dutch audience has become more aware of the problematic situation of many immigrant women and girls, and both Dutch policy makers and Islamic selforganizations are now encouraging projects to break taboos and discuss problems, such as the problem of sexual and family violence.

In our view, for immigrant (Muslim) women this development has proven itself to be both a curse and a blessing. The curse is that, since the triumph of new realism, in the public discourse especially Muslim women figure as either the victims of their own culture and religion or, in the case of women who actively identify themselves as Muslim (for instance by wearing a hijab), as accomplices to a culture which is oppressive to women and a threat to the cohesion of Dutch society and to the values underlying the Netherlands as a liberal-democratic state.

The blessing, however, albeit to many a blessing in disguise, is that by putting Muslim women in the spotlight, they were challenged to take a standpoint and speak up in public. Although many did so in order to lash out against Hirsi Ali and to make it clear that she did not speak for them, they were still not only enabled to defend (their interpretation of) Islam, but also to express their own views of and desires for emancipation.

Another blessing in disguise is the considerable discrepancy between the polarization and radicalization of positions in the public debate on the one hand, with gender relations as the paradigmatic example of the gap between Dutch majority and minority cultures, and the pragmatic policy measures taken to stimulate the emancipation of immigrant women on the other. Whereas in the debate the culture card is drawn frequently, policy makers and practitioners in the field are careful not to link up certain problematics (such as family violence) too quickly with a particular cultural or religious background. As we indicated already, practitioners engaged with family violence seem to have found a fruitful and effective way to negotiate the tension between the value of gender equality and the value of respecting cultural diversity, by developing culture-sensitive measures, but naming them in culture-blind terms.

Notes

1 In Dutch discourse, the terms most often used are 'ethnic (or cultural) minorities', and 'allochthone' (allochtoon) versus 'autochthonous' (autochtoon). In official documents, the term 'allochthone' refers to those residents who are either themselves born outside the Netherlands, or of whom at least one of their parents is born outside the Netherlands, while 'autochthonous' refers to native citizens. The terms 'cultural' and 'ethnic minority' were introduced in the 1970s to select target groups for policy measures, as it was observed that members of certain immigrant groups, recognized by their ethnicity, occupied a position of socioeconomic deprivation. In everyday usage, 'allochthone' as well as the term 'ethnic minority', are reserved for people of colour and/or of non-western origin. In this article, we will speak of 'immigrants' and 'immigrant women' in order to hold some distance from the Dutch terminology, which suggests that people 'from there' can never become 'from here'. 8 At the time, the labour market participation of immigrant women was actually higher than that of native Dutch women, although there were significant differences between the different ethnic groups. In 1981, for instance, 32.9 percent of the Dutch, 42.1 percent of the Turkish and 16.3 percent of Moroccan women had a paid job (see TK, 2003-04d: 435). 9 FGM is the official policy term (see TK, 2004-05a). 10 This seems to be symptomatic for a larger trend among the practitioners working with immigrant women. See also [START_REF] Saharso | Culture, Tolerance and Gender: A Contribution from the Netherlands[END_REF] on surgical hymen repair or [START_REF] Saharso | Sex-selective Abortion: Gender, Culture and Dutch Public Policy[END_REF] on sex-selective abortion.