"They should stay in the neighboring regions where their culture is" - A study of inclusion and exclusion through nationalism and racialization in the Danish immigration debate
Authors
Bruhn, Nina Svane ; Christensen, Mette
Term
4. term
Publication year
2019
Submitted on
2019-05-31
Pages
86
Abstract
This thesis examines how the Danish immigration debate is perceived, what concerns and opinions are attached to it, and how these are rationalized. The study is situated in a political and media context marked by growing polarization, the rise of neo-nationalism and neo-racism, Islamophobic discourse, and a series of restrictive measures (including border control and a covering ban; 114 restrictions to the Aliens Act since 2015). Using a qualitative design based on 11 interviews and an iterative analysis structured around four foci—the public debate, nationalist tendencies, racism/racialization, and truth judgements in the post-truth era—the thesis explores mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion. Findings indicate that the debate has become more extreme and that the boundary of what counts as “extreme” has shifted. Banal nationalism—everyday assumptions that the nation is natural and that those born within it have stronger claims to space and resources—is widespread and used to justify who should belong. Respondents express strong national pride and invoke uniquely Danish values as criteria for inclusion, which contributes to the racialization of especially Muslim immigrants and refugees as a homogenized “other”: seen variously as incompatible with Denmark, as weak and lacking agency, or as seeking to change respondents’ beliefs. At the same time, they reject being racist and treat “racist” as a pejorative worse to bear than reproducing racialized understandings. Respondents also exhibit deep distrust of the media and see themselves as able to see through fake news, grounding “truth” in gut feeling and common sense without recognizing its roots in hegemonic norms. Overall, the analysis shows that neo-nationalist and neo-racist attitudes are normalized within the current debate and remain invisible to respondents, reinforced by post-truth dynamics and confirmation bias.
Denne afhandling undersøger, hvordan den danske indvandringsdebat opleves, hvilke bekymringer og holdninger der knytter sig til den, og hvordan disse begrundes. Undersøgelsen placeres i en politisk og medial kontekst præget af øget polarisering, fremvækst af neo-nationalisme og neo-racisme, islamofobiske diskurser samt en række restriktive tiltag (bl.a. grænsekontrol og tildækningsforbud; 114 stramninger i udlændingeloven siden 2015). Med et kvalitativt design baseret på 11 interviews og en iterativ analyse, der fokuserer på den offentlige debat, nationalistiske tendenser, racisme/racialisering og sandhedsopfattelser i post-sandhedstiden, belyser afhandlingen mekanismerne bag inklusion og eksklusion. Resultaterne viser, at debatten er blevet mere ekstrem, og at grænserne for, hvad der opfattes som ekstremt, er forskudt. Banal nationalisme – hverdagslige forestillinger om, at nationen er naturlig, og at de fødte her har størst krav på rum og ressourcer – er udbredt og bruges til at legitimere, hvem der bør indgå i fællesskabet. Respondenterne udtrykker stærk national stolthed og henviser til særligt danske værdier som målestok for, hvem der kan inkluderes, hvilket samtidig fører til racialisering af især muslimske immigranter og flygtninge som en homogeniseret “anden”: enten som uforenelige med Danmark, som svage og uden handlekraft, eller som nogen der vil ændre danskernes værdier. Samtidig afviser de at være racister og opfatter “racist” som et skældsord, der er værre at få på sig end at reproducere racialiserede antagelser. Respondenterne nærer desuden dyb skepsis over for medier og føler, at de kan gennemskue “fake news”; de baserer ofte viden på mavefornemmelse og “sund fornuft” uden at se dens forankring i hegemoniske forståelser. Samlet peger analysen på, at neo-nationalistiske og neo-racistiske holdninger normaliseres i den aktuelle debat og forbliver usynlige for respondenterne, forstærket af post-sandhedens mekanismer og bekræftelsesbias.
[This apstract has been generated with the help of AI directly from the project full text]
Keywords
Other projects by the authors
Bruhn, Nina Svane:
Christensen, Mette: