Talk:Pillarisation

Translation issue

I replaced "school with the bible" with "School met den bijbel" (protestant orientated school) because the reader won't understant the literal translation of "School met den bijbel".--Tomvasseur (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Three pillars?

Were there only three pillars? What about the liberals, didn't they form a fourth pillar? The table shows the three pillars and a fourth (general). The corresponding paper, political party and so on are considered liberal, so why aren't the liberals considered a pillar? Please clarify or correct this.

The general pillar wasn't a real pillar as the text reads: "People who were not associated with one of these pillars, mainly middle and upper class latitudinarian Protestants and atheists set up their own pillar: the general pillar. Ties between general organisations were much less strong. The political parties usually associated with this pillar were the liberal VDB and LSP, although these parties opposed pillarisation." The texts also says that there were atleast three pillars. I hope this clarifies. C mon 11:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The third pillar is the anti-clerical pillar. Intangible 12:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this system comparable to the dhimmi system historically especially in Spain? Just wondering. Jztinfinity 22:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, Jews lived in the Netherlands in the 19th century. Where did they fit into the pillarisation system? Did the Jews form their own pillar? 68.32.48.221 (talk) 05:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

According to the article on Dutch Jews, "Dutch Jews were staunch supporters of the Dutch monarchy until the late 19th century. Most Jews became socialists during the early 20th century and were fully integrated into the socialist pillar before the Holocaust." (Hmmmmm. So that would group Jews together with liberal Protestants and atheists?) 68.32.48.221 (talk) 05:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Morris dancing?

Really? Tozznok 19:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Unique?

I was wondering how unique the "Verzuiling" is in world history. To be honest: I was quite surprised that this is only addressed as a Dutch/Belgian phenomenon. Are there similar systems that are hidden away in Wikipedia under a different name? --Looskuh 21:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The article states: "Austrian, Israeli and Maltese societies were other examples of this phenomenon." So there is more, however the Dutch were and Belgians are quite extreme in this phenomenon. C mon 23:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget that Northern Ireland has a sort of “pillarised” society, with Catholics, Protestants & non-religious voting different parties, reading different newspapers, going to different schools etc. Even French and German Wikipedia has seen this.

	Protestant/Unionist	Catholic/Nationalist	Neutral/Non-Religious
Political Parties	UUP; DUP; PUP	SDLP; Sínn Féin	Alliance; Green Party
Newspapers	The Belfast Telegraph; The News Letter; British newspapers	The Irish News; Irish newspapers	The Belfast Telegraph; Newspapers in general
Schools	State schooling	Catholic schools; Irish language schools	State schooling
Sports (examples)	Cricket: Rugby	Gaelic football: hurling;	Football (Soccer)

159753 15:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The concept may not be unique, but the terminology used may be 85.159.97.5 (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the problem, the article recognizes this! C mon (talk) 11:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The uniqueness of verzuiling to the Netherlands/Belgium was questioned in June 2007 (with subsequent brief comments a year later). Here's the response I've been working on for the last six years (just kidding). This article (as of July 2013) does include some other examples of separation in society from around the world. But to me, the other cases are not at all the same thing. Perhaps all of the other systems have by their overall concept produced discrete classifications of daily life (the word in that sentence is "discrete" - they're not usually "discreet"). Northern Ireland was certainly like that (a few decades ago, a little less now. But those other systems of separation have their foundation in a "yes or no", "us or them" Boolean distinction only, always having precisely two pillars in their most basic form. The article's original topic was just the Dutch/Belgium system, which is observably unique in that regard by always having more than two pillars of society divided on the same axis (here of a combined denomination and ideology). In the Belgian case, the most basic form would be in the hypothetical monolingual Belgium, divided into just Catholic, Socialist, and Liberal pillars (still more than two, and thus conforms to my definition below). All the other described systems have just two pillars (cf. the timeless "Us and Them) and so do not conform with the first of the three bullet items, listed and explained below (the unique structural aspects or dimensions of the Dutch system). My experience of this was in the small towns around the northwest corner of Zuid-Holland, where I lived and worked in the early 1980's. I was surprised as I slowly learned the extent of its pervasiveness still remaining in the 1980's, and I began to see it as a three dimensional structure. I suspect their origin is a little older than described in the article. It may have developed from several rather unique processes of division and separation that characterized the region around two centuries ago. Note for example the incredible cyclic fate of Noord-Holland and Zuid-Holland repeated six times in the 19 year span between 1795 and 1814, "... a time of bewildering changes to the Dutch system of provinces" as amazingly described here. But [finally] answering the posed question with my opinion:

Yes. Defining aspects of this system are observably specific to just those two countries (I only know the Dutch system directly). Plenty of areas of this world have and still do exhibit similar separation, both institutionalized and de facto, but I think very few (maybe no others) precisely conform to the following three dimensional structural definition.
Verzuiling is the name (English: pillarisation) of a system that divides a population into distinctly separate societal groups, formerly pervasive in Dutch and Belgian life, with remnants surviving today. It is unique in having three distinct structural aspects (three dimensions), aside from its fully voluntary nature (at least initially), and the ostensible equality of its groups. These three dimensions are:

• (z depth) At least three "equal" classifications,
• (y height) Affecting (almost defining) many types of institutions (both official and informal),
• (x width) Zero personal contact/interaction across the divisions.

I believe the Dutch/Belgian system is particularly unique in the first regard, having at least three castes separated by division on the same axis, unlike Boolean systems of us/them, rich/poor, black/white seen elsewhere. This is not a subjective shade of opinion, but is very easily observable by almost everybody when making comparison with a system of separation from another location.

But this IS NOT segregation. I strongly disagree with the opening sentence of this article describing this system is a form of segregation. Segregation is the forced (usually codified in law and punishment) separation of a reluctant group away from mainstream society. I can even support this definition with an example from the Dutch language (well, nearly Dutch). The Afrikaans word apartheid was coined and initially used in South Africa specifically to be a politically inoffensive term (like USA's "separate but equal" originally) because (as I also claim) "segregation" implies an unequal action of the superior over the suppressed. Withholding my opinion of apartheid being an inoffensive word, I hope the consensus is that verzuiling was/is neither forced nor an unequal oppression, and so is not a form of segregation. Unfortunately, I also saw racial segregation (apartheid) during my time in The Netherlands (with signs like Geen Surinamers), but it was not derived from or related to the topic of this article. ChrisJBenson (talk) 09:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Segregation does not necessarily have to be state mandated or imposed. In many societies there is a strong tendency for members of different communities (ethnic, political, social class, etc) to live in different areas. Some of it may be down to individual prejudice/preference to live amongst ones "own" but some of it may be down to fear (well founded or otherwise) of what might happen to them in the "wrong" side of town. 86.174.216.135 (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Remnants

I think the primary and secondary school systems are also a leftover. Not directly, as in that they promote a certain pillar, but more that e.g. the organisation and ownership of non-public schools are still heavily tied to the Bishopric's in the South. This while strangely enough, the Catholic Pillar dissolved the strongest, with over 90% of the children on Catholic schools not having parents that are Catholic in more than name or not at all. 88.159.74.100 13:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Lack of References

"Pillarization" is discussed by Arend Lijphart. If I find time I'll get some references from his publications. 166.137.136.213 (talk) 22:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Grammar etc

Whole sections are not understandable as the writer's first language is not English. Rewrite required.--User:Brenont (talk) 03:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

seeming contradiction

"while more latitudinarian Protestants and atheists were pillarless"

vs.

"People who were not associated with one of these pillars, mainly middle and upper class latitudinarian Protestants and atheists set up their own pillar: the general pillar."

Now I am confused... Anybody can help us out here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazuz (talk • contribs) 22:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Austria part problematic

-POV (pro FPÖ/anti corporatist) even offtopic "young Dynmaic leader of the FPÖ"... -the instiution by pillar parts asignment of instution looks questionable. For example theres some weird University for Freud fans just founded in 2005 asigned to the SPÖ side... -Grammar could also be improved 84.56.74.115 (talk) 11:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Scotland?

I don't agree the concept of pillarisation exists or has ever existed in Scotland. Better terminology would be religious segregation, particularly in education. From reading this article, pillarisation seems to occur where two or more groups of people live amongst each other, on near-equal terms, with equally-valid social institutions and government.--ML5 (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll delete the link. Of course, if somebody can provide evidence, it can be reverted.--ML5 (talk) 07:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Need to narrow scope

As I understand it, pillarisation is not a generic social science term to describe political segmentation but a specific historical term applied to the study of the Netherlands and Belgium. While Northern Ireland may be compared to pillarisation, that does not make it so. For a good example of this, see this work on Northern Ireland which uses the comparison but describes pillarisation itself as a "Dutch phenomenon". While this similarity should obviously be mentioned, I think the current equal weight given to Northern Ireland in the article (together with Austria and Malta) is undue. I also suggest that much of the Austrian case is merged into the Proporz article to avoid a WP:Content fork.—Brigade Piron (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, the only mention of Maltese pillarisation I can find is a single reference in this book which I think makes it a WP:OR. I propose deleting this section.—Brigade Piron (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Verzuiling today

The article is a bit vague about how much (if at all) the phenomenon of pillarization in the Netherlands is still relevant today. Surely as society becomes more diverse and multicultural and the political scene becomes increasingly more fragmented and less rigid with the rise of the "floating voter" the idea of a society rigidly divided into three (or four) distinct pillars looks like a quaint anachronism. In particular the line some companies even hire only personnel of a specific religion or ideology. This leads to a situation where many people have no personal contact with people from another pillar. Surely anti-discrimination legislation has put an end to this practice ? 86.174.216.135 (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

That is cited to a work on Northern Ireland. I agree that it isn't relevant and I have removed it.—Brigade Piron (talk) 09:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Unexplained initialisms

There are initialisms for political parties (notably "PvdA") that are not explained in the text. I don't speak Dutch, and the Dutch names of the parties are not spelled out, so they're not actually meaningful. Related articles (e. g. Breakthrough) have the same issue. IAmNitpicking (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Austria & Italy

What about the split between DC and CPI?

and Austria goes far further

	Catholic	Social democrat	"Drittes Lager"
Political Parties	ÖVP (CSP)	SPÖ	FPÖ
Unions	FCG	FSG	FA
Pupils	Schülerunion	AKS
Students	AktionsGemeinschaft	VSStÖ	RFS
Aid agency	Hilfe im eigenen Land	ASSBÖ
motor club	ÖAMTC	ARBÖ
mountaineering	ÖAV	Naturfreunde

Braganza (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)