---

Johan Leman, 10 May 2022

An anthropological reading of some of the results of “De Stemming” (2022), as found in the media.

In anthropology, there are two main criteria to describe ethnic self-awareness and to concretise social cohesion on an ethnic basis: language and/or religion. In most communities, both criteria are dealt with in a balanced way, alongside other criteria. In Flanders, Dutch (i.e. language) occurs in 81% of the respondents as the criterion required to belong to Flanders, while being a Christian occurs in only 15%. This points to a strongly identitarian community on a secular pedestal. It is therefore no coincidence that political parties that meet these criteria have a loyal following.

It is true that you can focus on linguistic identity – Americans do this too – while this does not necessarily mean that someone has to be born in your country. Remarkable for Flanders is that 55% of the respondents nevertheless assumes that you also have to be born “in our country” to belong to the community. For these people, Flanders is a community to which you belong primarily by speaking the language (which is not an innate characteristic), but complementary (for 55%) also by having an inborn quality: being born here. The same people probably say that you have to have parents and grandparents “who come from our country” (37%). If 55% think in a certain direction, this means that perhaps 45% do not see it that way, or perhaps even see it completely differently. This often indicates polarisation on such a point.

I find the other features of the survey, anthropologically speaking, less telling. That 80% think you should respect the political institutions and laws of a country, and that 72% think you should have our customs and culture, you can actually predict. The fact that a majority of people think that headscarves or halal products are not nice, can also be predicted in that sense – by derivation (- others, a minority, will find this point of view narrow-minded). Again, this is not surprising. This too points to polarisation. And that plays both ways. Those who profit, on both sides, from this polarisation (Flemish radicals and Islamists) will keep hammering away at these points.

Final balance. It is a politically very difficult situation for people who want to pursue a dialogical and non-polarising policy. Those who succeed in polarising stand a good chance of winning. Others start the competition at a disadvantage. It is not impossible, but more difficult for them. They really have to be able to put a theme on the agenda that outshines the others. So, from a business point of view, in order to counteract polarisation and save a plural social cohesion, civil society has a very important role to play. Civil society is the only space where such a dialogue can develop successfully in the long run. The alternative is to wait for the implosion of the currently dominant body of thought. But it can take a lot of time…

Back