ABOUT THE MOOC : INTERNATIONAL MIGRATIONS: A GLOBAL ISSUE Catherine Wihtol De Wenden - CERI CNRS/SciencesPo ABOUT THE COURSE The world is moving, but not all opinions and governments are willing to accept this poorly understood reality. The issue affects both states and the planet, in a process of globalization and of regionalization of migrations, and raises new questions for international relations, now including the South. This course aims at improving knowledge of the subject, addressing the key issues raised by international migration, and assessing the trends of tomorrow. FORMAT The MOOC lasts 7 weeks and focuses on various themes related to migration. It makes use of various types of document, such as maps, news articles, and scientific papers. The text is in English and the videos are in French with English subtitles TEACHERS Catherine Wihtol de Wenden is Research Director at the CNRS (CERI) and teaches at Sciences-Po. She has been a consultant to many international organizations, notably the Council of Europe and the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees. From 2002 to 2008, she led the "Migration" research group of the International Sociological Association. Author of some 20 books, and having conducted many field investigations, she also teaches at the Sapienza University of Rome. COURSE OUTLINE Session 1: Globalization of migration Session 2: Refugees and environmentally displaced persons Session 3: Europe Session 4: France and international migration flows Session 5: Citizenship and migration Session 6: Borders Session 7: Right to mobility and global governance
IMMIGRATION: AN AGENT OF TRANSFORMATION
Loading...
From the course by Sciences Po
International migrations: a global issue
20 ratings
Meet the Instructors
Catherine Wihtol De WendenResearch Director
Sociology - Political Science
"International Migrations : a global Issue"
Catherine de Wenden, research director, CNRS: CERI - Sciences Po.
-Among the elements that helped evolve the content of citizenship,
immigration was a very important factor
in this new dimension of citizenship
as it has expressed itself since the 1980s.
Notably, the "Mouvement beur" civic associative movement
highlighted several themes.
Besides the fight against discriminations,
which was central to the 1983 Beurs' March,
as it was called March for Equality and Against Racism,
and finally led to the 2000 EU anti-discrimination directive,
immigration, and particularly the associations emanating from it
highlighted the dimension of participation.
Participation was a somewhat forgotten theme of citizenship,
progressively confused with the possibility to vote
and to be elected. Whereas during the French Revolution,
this is the point of the content of these "Beur" associations,
to have put the spotlight back on the participative dimension,
and what mattered for these civic associations of the 1980-90s
was in the end not so much being national or foreigner,
but rather participating in the affairs of the city.
There is a form of rootedness in citizenship,
in local affairs. A truly and fully concrete citizenship,
emphasizing the involvement in the consideration
of matters that concern you, namely the issues of housing,
of intercultural dialogue, and so on.
Most of these associations, such as SOS-Racisme, France Plus,
and many others that have truly embraced the theme of citizenship
have emphasized not only the vote
of young people from migrant backgrounds,
who often do not vote, and the need for representatives
from migrant backgrounds at local level,
but also a number of needs
to participate in civic associative life,
by trying to renew the content of citizenship,
and by drawing inspiration from the French Revolution.
Let us not forget that at the time, in the 1980-90s, these associations
also committed themselves to the whole reflection we had
on the bicentenary of the French Revolution of 1789.
Some associations were even created during that period,
for example Mémoire fertile and other local associations.
In fact, the dimension of participation
has also been brought about by immigration,
and so was the cultural dimension, the idea that cultural diversity
needed to be emphasized. Some also spoke of multiculturalism
as an expression of a modern citizenship.
Let us not forget that many of these civic associations
were also fueled by the bubbling activity
of cultural mediators. These persons, these actors,
heirs of the urban policy, who tried to facilitate dialogue
at local level between the populations and the public authorities.
There is a bubbling of cultural expressions. Associations
are funded by public authorities to engage in cultural action,
so a cultural dimension is also involved.
Regarding this reflection, we then progressively saw
two confronting conceptions, both republican, of citizenship,
on which the debate still continues, in France, for example,
and that apply to the city policy and to urban policies in general.
The first conception is the dimension
of participative democracy, the need to emphasize participation
in citizenship, the need for more and more participants
from the local level, representatives and so on.
But suburbs also need to be densified,
diversified, to gain mixity.
This approach consists in leaving the populations on site
and providing more activity, be it economic, social, or cultural,
so that they cease to be areas of exclusion.
This approach on suburbs is applied
in Aubervilliers, for example, where the Maison des Sciences de l'Homme
and some other prestigious academic institutions were installed,
in an attempt to change its image. The creation of free zones
facilitated the installation of businesses in these suburbs
making them not populated only by excluded people, so to speak.
The second approach, quite opposite, but that has also been applied
in the name of republican ideals, is a meritocratic approach.
It says that in order to give their chance
to inhabitants who are elites in these suburbs,
they must be taken out of these suburbs.
As during the Third Republic, when youths from rural backgrounds
who performed particularly well were placed in high schools,
in the hope that they would live their lives
outside of this rural environment.
The same happens today. There are operations
to ensure that those who correspond to meritocratic profiles
are taken away from these suburbs,
so that they can live and pursue their school and university careers
in a different environment. It is an individualist approach
of the republican ideal of equal chances.
We hesitate between the two,
but it is also a form of expression of citizenship,
like the first one, and we apply both aspects.
Regarding the other contributions of immigration
to the content of citizenship, I would say that the interest
is mostly to emphasize mobility.
Today, those who are mobile have far fewer rights globally
than those who are sedentary. Even though it is said
that mobility is an essential factor in human development.
Very often, the great inequality in today's world
is precisely, because of nationality, the passport that we have,
that gives more or less rights in terms of mobility.
The inequality of the right to move is particularly striking.
If you are Finnish, British, or from another European country,
you can move freely, for a period of 3 months,
without visa, in 173 countries. In 92 countries if you are Russian.
But if you are Afghan, Somalian or Eritrean,
the number of countries you can travel to without visa
can be counted on the fingers of one or two hands.
So the first inequality linked to this notion of world citizenship
is the inequality of the right to move.
So here too, immigration contributes to the enrichment
of this reflection on modern citizenship.
Explore our Catalog
Join for free and get personalized recommendations, updates and offers.
Coursera provides universal access to the world’s best education,
partnering with top universities and organizations to offer courses online.
© 2018 Coursera Inc. All rights reserved.
