The issue of globalisation often provokes contrasting viewpoints among supporters and opponents, or rather among its flatterers and detractors. The essence of the problem primarily lies within the approach one takes when expressing a value judgement, in other words, is globalisation beneficial or harmful? Is it a means or an end? In my opinion every serious assessment of this continuous process cannot be removed from the way we make use of it. Human history can teach us this: man has used fire, the greatest discovery of humankind, for both cooking food and burning down forests. This is key to understanding, for example, the immigration phenomenon in a world which becomes more and more connected. It’s about understanding if the ability to communicate on a global scale (the internet, satellite) is useful for the integration process of immigrants, or if on the other hand it represents a serious risk of narrow-mindedness and ghettoisation.

My father was an immigrant in France during the fifties and at the start of the sixties. It would be more apt to refer to his time as being in exile rather than as an immigrant, because during the Algerian War of Independence (1954 – 1962) he could not return to his homeland. For seven years he had no way of speaking to his family. Upon returning to Algeria after independence, he discovered he had a daughter who had already grown up in his absence, and he had never seen a photo or heard her voice! Fortunately, my immigration experience today is drastically different from his. I call my parents on my mobile when I want and thanks to Skype I speak to my sister almost every day. I can share emails, voice messages, text messages, photos and videos with relatives and friends all over the world. Thanks to globalisation, I am able, as are most immigrants, to maintain and nurture close relations with my homeland. So immigration has lost its dramatic connotation as a path of no return, abandonment and separation.

The “Aristotelian mean” is a virtue which avoids excess and as a result achieves moderation. When immigrants abuse globalisation it also creates narrow-mindedness and ghettoisation. I know many immigrants who follow television programmes from their own countries every day thanks to satellite channels, and they are more informed about what is going on in Bangladesh, Senegal, Egypt, Morocco, Peru, etc., than Italian events. Gradually they lose contact with their host country and experience a very dangerous psychosocial alienation. I remember before the collapse of the Prodi government, a Tunisian friend asked me about the meeting between Berlusconi and Veltroni, after seeing a broadcast about it on Al-Jazeera. In this negative setting, the globalisation of communication can stand in the way of an immigrant’s integration process.

To conclude this relationship between globalisation and immigration, there is one point for further reflection. Globalisation today means the free circulation of goods and information. And yet people, especially in the southern hemisphere, still have to struggle against visa bureaucracy and the sacredness of the Schengen area.

Amara Lakhous is an Algerian author and anthropologist. He lives in Rome and is the author of the novel entitled “A clash of civilisations over a lift in Piazza Vittorio” (Editore E/O, winner of the 2006 Flaiano Award).

Translated by Helen Waghorn