Immigrant youth well-being and diversity

How are diversity and well-being constructed for immigrant youth in Finnish Lapland, and how do they deal with it in their daily lives? How do these aspects exist in Finnish Lapland, and what are the challenges for youth in this particular Arctic region? The Finnish Executive Summary of the Government’s Report on the Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development has defined as one of their main focus areas a “non-discriminating, equal and competent

Finland”. They especially focus on the well-being of children and youth in a time when inequality has increased in Finland (Finnish Government Report, 2018) and state:

According to the values espoused by Finnish society, everyone is a valuable and an equal member of the society, and everyone has equal opportunities for wellbeing and good life, health, working and functional capacity, education and employment. Everyone is entitled to participate in the society in a meaningful way. Ensuring wellbeing of children and young people, and supporting civil engagement are of particular importance. Promoting gender equality is an integral part of the implementation of all goals of the 2030 Agenda.

(Finnish Government Report, 2018, p. 7)

This is valid for immigrant youth in the same way as it for their Finnish counterparts. But how is this well-phrased and well-intentioned policy being implemented on a practical level? Well-being is addressed in various policies aimed at young people, and the scientific task within this topic is to explain the meaning of well-being and how it is experienced individually and collectively. Once the cultural specificities are understood, assumptions on a broader human level can be made. Mathews and Izquierdo (2009) raise the topic of happiness and well-being in anthropology and social sciences because of its frequent use by academics, politicians, and NGOs. According to Dimitrova (2017), well-being is one of the most commonly studied psychosocial subjects among children, youth, and adults, but there is a lack of studies regarding the phenomenon of well-being in a broader, societal context. The precise meaning of well-being is elusive and ambiguous, but the term is generally used in psychology to refer to indices of positive adjustments, and a flourishing and thriving physical and psychological state (Dimitrova, 2017, p. 8). Bobowik et al. (2017) state that the well-being of ethnic minority youth has been mostly measured in negative terms such as depressive mood, poorer mental or physical health, or distress (Bobowik et al., 2017, p. 158). However, the cultural differences in perceiving well-being on an individual and collective level, and the interpretations of well-being, vary between different cultures. (Dimitrova, 2017, pp. 8-9). Hence, my research aims to examine the similarities that immigrant youth share in their experiences in Finnish Lapland. Are there aspects of cultural adaptation and well-being that are collectively experienced? I will later argue that there are aspects, such as education, security, infrastructural issues, and the feeling of belongingness, that are shared among young people, regardless of their origin.

Minors are still rarely studied as active social agents with their own rights, needs, and desires. Matthews et al. (1999, p. 135) argue that, unlike other marginalized groups, children are not in a position within most societies to enter into a dialogue about their environmental concerns and geographical needs, and, in this sense, young people occupy a special position of exclusion. According to the European Commission Youth Policies Report (2017), Finland must be acknowledged as one of the leading countries with its own laws for respecting the rights of young people. The Finnish Youth Act, for example, promotes social inclusion and opportunities to participate in policy- and decision-making. The development of individuals’ abilities is stipulated, and free-time hobbies and youth work are available in the small municipalities of the North. The government supports the implementation of the Act on national, regional, and local levels. However, it is still difficult to implement practices to incorporate immigrant youth into various activities that promote their inclusion within mainstream society. While Bobowik et al. (2017) explain that social integration refers to belongingness, social acceptance includes an accepting view of human nature and trust in others. Christ et al. (2014) found in their psychological study that positive face-to-face contact, especially between cross-group friends, has a positive effect on individual well-being. Supposedly, contact between different ethnic groups reduces prejudice among minority and majority group members (Christ et al., 2014, p. 3996). Kehily (2007) suggests that youth can be understood and conceptualized in different ways, and she brings the cultural viewpoint into the debate. She advocates for the need to distinguish between looking at youth from cultural, comparative, and biographical perspectives. The cultural aspect is defined by Kehily as “everyday social practice that young people make sense of the world and take their place in it through participation and engagement with the routine social practices of everyday life” (Kehily, 2007, p. 4). Promoting the well-being of children and youth will have societal effects (Pollock et al., 2018, p. 1), and therefore it is important to include this in the policy agendas of local governments, EU institutions, and UN declarations.

Prevailing migration theories deal with reasons for migration and explain the current situation of the movement of people (Bhabha, 2014; Brettell, 2003; Castles & Miller, 2009; Ensor & Gozdziak, 2010; Hammar et al., 1997; Hirvi, 2013; Koscr, 2016; Vertovec, 2010). Caglar and Glick Schiller (2018, p. 5) argue for a multiscalar analysis beyond methodological nationalism and the ethnic lens, and appeal for migrants to be approached as social actors who are integral to citymaking on various different levels, which becomes apparent especially in the study of young immigrants. Discourses on the cultural adaptation of youth have been discussed in contexts that often explain exclusive, criminal, educational, or traumatized subject matters (Bhabha, 2014; Ensor & Gozdziak, 2010). As the terms “diversity” and “multiculturalism” appear within the subject of immigrant youth well-being, it is vital to engage with this topic from a theoretical viewpoint. Ver-tovec’s concepts of diversity and multiculturalism provide a good introduction and perspective on addressing these commonly used, but rather vague, terms.

Vertovec (2001) has always advocated “diversity” as a descriptive concept and approach to new migration patterns, but at the same time he emphasizes that it is not a theory (Meissner &: Vertovec, 2015; Vertovec, 2001, 2017, 2019). A theory would regard inherent relations or causalities, and a hypothesis would be a “to-be-tested theory”, which the concept of “super-diversity” is not. Vertovec (2019) came up with the term “super-diversity” in order to explain new migration patterns of inequality and prejudice:

Super-diversity is a summary term proposed also to point out that the new migration patterns not only entailed variable combinations of these traits, but that their combinations produced new hierarchical social positions, statuses or

Immigrant youth perspectives 63 stratifications. These, in turn, entail: new patterns of inequality and prejudice including emergent forms of racism, new patterns of segregation, new experiences of space and “contact”, new forms of cosmopolitanism and creolization.

(Vertovec, 2019, p. 126)

Vertovec provides an explanation for how and why these changing patterns arose, as well as their interlinkages and consequences (Vertovec, 2017, 2019). He also makes a clear statement that super-diversity does not merely mean more ethnicity, meaning that new migration processes have brought more ethnic groups to a nation or city (Vertovec, 2019, p. 130). Consequently, he advocates for the need to rethink approaches used within the social sciences to deal with migration issues, and to move beyond an “ethno focal lens”, which is still used within conventional migration studies (Meissner & Vertovec, 2015, p. 542). Concomitantly, Vertovec addresses diversity at a policy level (Meissner & Vertovec, 2015; Vertovec, 2012) and states that “‘diversity’ is the focus of a wide-ranging corpus of normative discourses, institutional structures, policies, and practices in business, public sector agencies, the military, universities, and professions” (Vertovec, 2012, p. 287). Diversity is also the key word in making EU youth plans, diversity programmes, and training strategies, and the Finnish Youth Act aims for integrative measures (European Commission, 2017). Vertovec (2012) argues that the language of “multiculturalism” has largely been changed into “diversity”. Furthermore, he states that the “European Charters for Diversity” are made for organizations and businesses with efforts to promote “diversity” and combat discrimination (Vertovec, 2012, p. 294), which is visible in the Finnish education system as well. Moreover, the diversity discourse arose and developed for various reasons, ranging from addressing historical disadvantages and discrimination all the way to avoiding the risk of discrimination lawsuits and to strategies for gaining benefits for organizations (Vertovec, 2012, pp. 294-295). Through multivalence and optimistic orientation, diversity has become an ever-present emblem of fairness and openness (Vertovec, 2012, p. 302).

Despite this omnipresence and formal implementation of diversity, practical inclusion is lacking on various levels, as I will argue later on through empirical examples. Therefore, it is not enough to just address diversity for the sake of “political correctness”; there is a need to more practically address diversity in Arctic youth issues. Ironically, according to Vertovec, most people are not sure what “diversity” refers to, and yet the term has a positive connotation for most (Vertovec, 2012, p. 307). The preliminary results of my current research among immigrant youth coincides with Vertovec’s perception of the terminology use: in schools or youth centres, diversity strategies and policies are incorporated theoretically in the strategies and plans, but the practical implementation of getting young people from different backgrounds to interact with each other is a more complex endeavour. The effort of including a “newcomer” requires more effort than tolerating immigrants simply being present. Vertovec reminds us that, for more than 30 years, international policies have had as their overall goal the promotion of tolerance and respect for other groups and identities. This task has modified public services by promoting culture-based differences of value, language, andsocial practice (Vertovec, 2010, p. 83). Moreover, Vertovec (2017) points out that, at a practical level, every state has introduced policies regarding opportunities, restrictions, and consequences for immigrants. These range from accessing welfare, health, education, work, public services, justice system, length and nature of residence, to chances of permanent settlement and the possibility of gaining citizenship (Vertovec, 2017, p. 1576). However, he also reminds us that migrants adapt in one way or the other:

The incontestable fact is that with regard to both transnationalism and integration, migrants adapt. Sustained and intensive patterns of transnational communication, affiliation and exchange can profoundly affect the manner of migrant adaptation - including practices associated with positive or limited integration - through the maintenance of a particularly strong sense of connection or orientation to the people, places and senses of belonging associated with the place of origin.

(Vertovec, 2010, p. 99)

What Vertovec (2019) proposes is a new approach to new migration patterns with multidimensional categories, shifting configurations, and new social structures, which is relevant to Arctic immigration. There is a need to focus beyond ethnicity, as ethnic groups are not the optimal units of analysis and may actually mask more significant forms of differentiation (Vertovec, 2019, p. 131). Addressing diversity or super-diversity in the context of Finnish Lapland might, at first glance, seem incomprehensible, given the overall low number of immigrants. However, Vertovec does not address the density of immigrants at any time, but builds his argument on the conceptual limits of diversity. In that sense, the theoretical engagement with terms such as “diversity” or “multiculturalism” is not limited to places with large immigration numbers, but can be used in any context where topics of diversity and multiculturalism are being discussed. They provide ideas for understanding the embeddedness of immigrant policy strategies, which are interpreted in this research through the different factors that impact the well-being of immigrant youth.