Instead of such symptomatic measures I believe it is important to take a step back and take a close look at the European “integration” or “assimilation” policies. This in order to understand why it appears as if many young second and third generation immigrants are becoming more religiously/politically conservative than their own parents.

The French sociologist Olivier Roy has an interesting take on it when he describes the development of “reactive identities” or the “re-creation” of identities. As many of Europe’s disenfranchised immigrant youth, particularly the second-generation Muslim youth, feel alienated from the culture of their grandfathers and rejected by the Western societies they were born and raised in. They are not divided between two cultures, but rather, they are deprived of both. As a result, they are “culture-less.”

The reaction of this youth is not to import an identity from elsewhere, but rather to recreate an identity for themselves, i.e. more often than not they do not return to a previous identity or to traditional religion. Rather, they opt to create a new identity in reaction to the identity of the host country and their ancestral culture. They create a reactive identity.

This being said – I do certainly understand the French and their wish to see immigrants also adapt to the cultural norms of the host society. This should be a given. But in order to achieve a truly pluralistic society – in every sense – opportunities for true integration need to be provided. And – “integration” should not mean to create a Frenchman out of the immigrant but rather to be able to allow these groups to keep their parallel identities – while at the same time being French – or Dutch or whatever it might be.

Amina Semlali