The Shadow-gloom and Weight of the Sacred

"A much more likely danger posed by the new immigrant population [in Europe}, I think, is that it will erode Europe's commitment to its welfare state. Social scientists find that homogenous societies are much more willing to tax themselves to support social welfare programs than ethnically and religiously diverse ones. And they explain the great difference between the U.S. not having a welfare state and Europe having it by the fact that we are an immigrant country. Apparently, taxpayers need to feel an identity before they're going to reach down in their pockets and cough up money for someones else."
--Professor Margaret Lavinia Anderson
"The Eclipise of Violence? Europe as a Civilian Society"
History 5-Spring 2008: The Making of Modern Europe, 1453 to the Present
University of California, Berkeley

I think this quotation from Margaret Lavinia Anderson is very intriguing. I'd like to search out some the sociological research that Anderson is referencing some time, but as of yet have not had the opportunity.

I think that the European approach to government benefits and taxes is preferable to the American system. I have no doubt that it has its own faults, pitfalls and opportunities for extortive behavior by politicians (Americans seem numb to these things already), but in my observation the faulty American system is inferior to the faulty European system. It seems to me that, unlike what I once thought, that the welfare state of Europe is not necessarily a result of pursuing the greater good, but a result of traditionally ethnically homogenized societies collectiving pursuing an act of individualism. That is, Austrians pay heavy taxes but enjoy affordable and available education and healthcare, while also enjoying six-week (or longer) vacations, reliable unemployment benefits, good public transportation, and a solid pension. The Austrians do this for Austrians and not with a mind for the constantly increasing population of Turks and Nigerians living in Vienna.

This doesn't mean that the end result is bad, just that the motivation is not as pure as Michael Moore would have us believe, and as I believed once upon a time as well. I do think this is important to understand about Western Europe, though, because there have been some conservative politicians who do not want to share their benefits with immigrants or citizens of an origin other than that of the nation, no matter said immigrants ability to contribute to the system. These politicians are not without their followers, as I said yesterday, I found a strong strain of xenophobia throughout Europe, especially towards Turks, Africans, Roma (really towards anyone from former Warsaw Pact nations/former USSR). Dr. Anderson mentions this in the same lecture referenced above: Europeans have yet to embrace immigration.

This is kind of a rambling post, so let me summarize here in anticipation of tomorrow's big finish: (1) I encountered a group of people that enjoyed the benefits of the welfare state because it absolved them from responsibility, in their own minds, of addressing social issues (perhaps internationally as well as domestically); (2) The welfare state is a result of Europeans experiencing a shared identity in their given country and Margaret Lavinia Anderson is concerned that the current influx of immigrants into Europe (particularly Muslims) will alter the willingness of EU citizens to endure the heavy taxes necessary to fund the welfare state; (3) My experience is that Europeans are generally xenophobic and Anderson, through her own observations and scholarly research, makes similar conclusions.

It would appear that the welfare state of Europe is a result of collective individualism rather than collectivism. Again, the end result is not bad--I think it preferable to the American system. I'm simply stating what I believe it to be.