Malmö Högskola IM601E International Migrations & Spring 2009
Ethnic Relations Supervisor: Maria Appelqvist
Knowledge is Power
-About Swedish Politicians‟ Knowledge Concerning
Migration Policy
Abstract:
This thesis deals with Swedish politicians and their knowledge concerning migration policy. It investigates what knowledge the politicians have and from where they collect their
knowledge on the mentioned topic. The study also investigates the politicians‟ role as mediators of knowledge and the possible responsibilities connected to such a role.
The main source for data has been interviews with six Swedish politicians, all members of parties, represented in the Swedish Parliament. To understand and be able to explain the results found, Sociology of Knowledge has been used as theoretical framework.
The result of the thesis is that politicians in general, possess very little knowledge concerning migration policy. But, the current presence of the Swedish right wing party,
Sverigedemokraterna, has changed the social code of the institutions that the politicians are members of and therefore many politicians have realized that they are in need of more knowledge, on the discussed topic. It was also found that the politicians have an important role as mediators of knowledge to the members of society. This role is connected to a responsibility of being correct and truthful in the statements made.
Table of Content
1. Introduction 1 1.1 Aim 2 1.2 Research Questions 2 1.3 The IMER-Perspective 2 1.4 Previous Research 31.5 Methods and Material 4
1.5.1 Written Material 4
1.5.2 Interviews 5
2. Background 8
2.1 The History of Swedish Migration Policy 8
2.2 The Current Swedish Migration Policy 9
2.2.1 The European Union 11
3. Theoretical Framework 13
3.1 The History of Sociology of Knowledge 13
3.2 Defining the Concept 15
3.3 The French Tradition 18
4. Results and Analysis 20
4.1 Becoming Part of an Institution 21
4.1.1 Sverigedemokraterna and the Changing Norms 24
4.1.2 Positive Exclusion? 26
4.2 The Shifting Focus of the Political Debate 27
4.2.1 United Against Sverigedemokraterna 29
4.3 Social Construction and Typification 30
4.4 Knowledge and Powerlessness 32
4.4.1 Migration Policy, Problem or Routine? 36 4.4.2 Knowledge and Political Affairs of the Heart 38
4.5 Politicians as Mediators of Knowledge 39
4.5.1 Media: The Tool of Mediation 41
5. Summary and Final Discussion 45
6. Bibliography 49
1
Introduction
Migration policy is an extremely vast area of politics, including several hot and often rather controversial issues. Throughout the European Union, right wing parties are moving further in on the political arena increasing their power. In Many European countries right wing parties started expanding and gaining political power several years ago, such as the Front National in France and the Dansk Folkeparti in Denmark. In the Swedish case, there has been a lack of presence of right-wing parties at the different levels of the political system since the fall of the party Ny Demokrati, represented in the Swedish Parliament (Riksdagen) between 1991 and 1994. In the next election in Sweden, held the third Sunday in September 2010, there is a possibility that another party, Sverigedemokraterna (SD), by many classified as a right-wing party, will get enough votes to enter into the Parliament. Sverigedemokraterna defines themselves as nationalist democrats and the party‟s expansion has intensified the discussions concerning migration in general, and immigration and asylum policies in particular, on the political arena.
At the same time, the member states of the European Union are working towards harmonization of the asylum system, as well as with constructing common policies
concerning a number of migration issues, such as high-skilled labour migrants and seasonal migration. Already existing is the EU Global Approach to Migration, which is a strategic framework concerning the EU‟s common migration policies towards third countries. These issues could allow one to assume that migration politics will get a central position in the election campaigns and debates leading up to the election next year.
To learn what opinions the different parties have on the many different areas included in migration politics is not hard. One just needs to look at their web page or party program. What could be seen as equally interesting and also very intriguing, when voting for a person to represent your opinion, is to investigate the parties‟ representatives engaged in these issues, focusing on their knowledge, approach and attitudes concerning migration issues.
This thesis is investigating a number of politicians and their relation to knowledge concerning migration issues. Through semi-structured interviews and a theoretical framework of
sociology of knowledge, this thesis is investigating politicians and migration policy and the relation between the two. The study examines politicians‟ knowledge in migration policy and related issues but also their thoughts, attitudes and competences concerning the mentioned area of politics.
2
The thesis has the purpose of discussing the politicians‟ relation towards knowledge solving issues as; from where does a person, active in a political party, collect her or his knowledge concerning migration issues? What responsibilities do politicians have, when it comes to being truthful and correct in their statements? Do politicians have any responsibility as mediators of knowledge to their voters and to what extent are their statements and opinions affecting the general discourse concerning migration?
These are all questions dealt with in the following sections of this thesis. In the next section, the aim, research questions, method and material are presented. The background chapter deals with the current Swedish and common European migration policies as well as it gives a short summary of the history of Swedish migration.
The third chapter presents the theoretical framework used. It gives account for Sociology of Knowledge, its history, the definitions of the theory and discusses the possible problems connected to it.
In the fourth chapter the results of the interviews and the analysis thereof are presented. The results are analysed with help of the chosen theory, but also connected to theories
concerning otherness, role models and other IMER related theories and concepts. A summary and the final discussion are included in the fifth and last chapter.
1.1 Aim
The aim of this thesis is to investigate the knowledge and attitudes concerning migration policy, among Swedish politicians. The purpose is to investigate what knowledge politicians have and from where they collect their knowledge concerning the discussed topic. The thesis also aims at examining the politicians‟ role as mediators of knowledge and the possible responsibilities, connected to this role.
1.2 Research Questions
What knowledge and attitudes do Swedish politicians have, when it comes to migration policy?
What role do Swedish politicians have as mediators of knowledge and what responsibility is connected to this role?
1.3 The IMER-Perspective
IMER is short for International Migration and Ethnic Relations and this part aims at clarifying the IMER-perspective of this thesis. One could argue, that studying politicians, using a
3
theoretical framework as the sociology of knowledge might lead the thesis into being more of a sociological study, maybe leaving the IMER-perspective behind. Therefore it feels
necessary to point to some issues to illuminate the IMER-perspective of the thesis.
The study performed is focusing on the politicians and their attitudes, competence and their views concerning their possible role as mediators of knowledge and responsibility when it comes to the field of migration policy. To approach politicians and interviewing them on the mentioned topics is highly interesting, seen from an IMER-perspective. The conversations held with the respondents gives a hint of what IMER-competence, politicians engaged in these issues actually have.
The special characteristics of the mentioned area of politics, including political issues often being a bit more controversial than many other areas of politics, makes the specific topic very suitable for investigation from the point of departure chosen here. The controversial nature of migration policy, cold possibly lead to it being perceived as more populistic than political questions in general, mainly in the sense of providing simplified solutions to
complex political questions. Because of these special features, specific IMER-competence is highly relevant, when analysing the interviews.
Migration policy is an area of politics that during a long period of time have not been a much prioritized question in suffrages. But for the coming election, there is a possibility that migration issues become highly important and critical for the outcome of the election. Therefore, investigating politicians‟ knowledge concerning migration policy and their role and responsibility as mediators of knowledge is of huge relevance for the field of IMER studies.
Another point, in which the special IMER-competence is highly relevant, is when the interviews are analysed and the conclusions drawn from the results. The specific IMER-competence makes it possible to find parallels, draw conclusions and find connections highly relevant for the specific area of politics discussed. At the same time the IMER-competence of the interviewer increases the possibility of asking the right questions for one to get more in-depth answers.
1.4 Previous Research
Efforts has been made, when it comes to finding previous research on the subject chosen for this thesis, but nothing has been found. Books, articles and reports have been looked for with no result. It seems like politicians‟ knowledge, roles and responsibilities are rather unexplored topics in the academic world.
4
1.5 Methods and Material
For this research, qualitative methods have been chosen, since they correspond well with the research question of the thesis, and it makes it possible to fulfil the aim.
1.5.1 Written Material
For fulfilling the aim of this thesis, secondary sources have been studied. According to Lundahl and Skärvad, secondary sources are defined as information and data, dealing with a certain issue or phenomenon but that has not been collected by the researcher, specifically for the study performed, but that was collected with another purpose.1
The main materials for the theoretical chapter are the books Kunskapssociologi: Hur
individen uppfattar och formar sin sociala verklighet and Moderna Samhällsteorier:
Traditioner, Riktningar, Teoretiker, edited by Per Månsson, associate professor is sociology.
The first mentioned book is written by Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann and is a
classical book, when it comes to sociology of knowledge, first published in 1966. The version used here is the Swedish one, in its second edition, published in 1998.
Complementary materials used are different articles discussing sociology of knowledge from different angles and viewpoints, such as “The Sociology of Knowledge” by Ernest Kilzer and Eva J. Ross, published in The American Catholic Sociological Review in 1953. The thesis also contains a background chapter, dealing mainly with the current Swedish migration policies. This part is also containing a short summary of the work, within the European Union, with harmonizing the different member states‟ migration policies, current in all EU member states. For this chapter, most material used has been taken from the web page of the Swedish Parliament, www.riksdagen.se and from the Government‟s web page,
www.sweden.gov.se. There information about the current policies, concerning all different areas of migration politics migration policies could be found. For the short historical
background, dealing with the history of migration policy in Sweden, Lena Södergran‟s paper
Invandrar- och flyktingpolitik i praktiken: Exemplet Umeå Kommun, from 1997.
1 Ulf Lundahl, Per-Hugo Skärvad (1999), Utredningsmetodik för samhällsvetare och ekonomer, 3rd edition,
5
1.5.2 Interviews
The interview is one of the most common ways of collecting empirical data for qualitative research.2 Performing interviews gives the researchers the opportunity to gain knowledge about another person‟s views, perceptions, opinions and knowledge, data that could not be found in secondary sources.
Keith F. Punch refers to Fontana and Frey when he states that there are three different types of interviews that are commonly used; standardized, semi-standardized and non-standardized interviews.3 Most suitable for this research, was the type of interview
characterised as a semi-standardized interview. This type of interview is an in- depth, open ended interview which gives the respondent the possibility to talk without interruption, to take her or his time and to focus on what she or he feels is most important. At the same time, the semi-standardized interview provides the researcher with the possibility to have some, more standardised questions which are the same for all respondents. This type of interview gives the interviewer the possibility, by using follow-up questions, to steer the respondent into the topics most important for the study performed. Another advantage with the semi-structured interview is that it facilitates the possibility to go deeper into interesting topics, touched upon by the respondent, topics that might not be included in the interview guide from the
beginning. The semi-standardized “free interview”4 is suitable when the aim is to investigate the respondent‟s views, thoughts and opinions rather than collecting facts.
Before the first interview, an interview guide was written. The use of an interview guide helps the interviewer to keep the discussion on track as well as it makes the different
interviews comparable.5 This guide was slightly modified and improved through the process, in pace with more experience being gained. It has also been adapted to fit the characteristics of the different respondents, on the basis of knowledge, experience and interests. Even if the interview guide has been modified, the changes have been small and the guide has been more or less the same through all the interviews.
All performed interviews have been recorded, with an old speech dictation device. By recording the interview the interviewer can focus on the listening and asking questions and does not have to concentrate on taking notes. This facilitates the possibility for the interviewer to fully use the potential of the semi-structured interview.
2
Keith F. Punch (2005), Introduction to Social Research – Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches, 2nd edition, (Wiltshire: SAGE Publications Ldt), p. 168
3 Punsch, p. 169
4 Lundahl, Skärvad, p. 116, ”fria intervjuer” 5
6
After each interview, the interview was listened to and interview reports were written on each interview, in which the important bits of the conversations were transcribed. The whole interviews have not been transcribed due to limitations of time. When recording interviews one has to be aware of the risk of the respondent feeling less relaxed and possibly think of the conversation as more formal, which could make her or him less open and communicative. At the same time, the full attention and concentration that the interviewer could provide when not taking notes, might have the opposite effect.
For this thesis individual, face- to-face interviews have been performed with six people who are all politically active in parties represented in the Swedish Parliament, each whom was interviewed for about one hour. The respondents was found by taking contact with the regional offices of the parties and asking for people who might be interested in sharing a small amount of their time. Persons with interest and/or knowledge in migration politics were requested since that would increase the chances of the conversations being useful and
interesting. The different parties were contacted both by telephone and e-mail, some of them, several times. Unfortunately, despite the extra effort, some parties could not be reached. The relatively small number of respondents and the fact that the representatives interviewed, did not represent the whole political spectra, from right to left, could raise the question of “generalizability”.6
Can the results found in the research be said to provide the general answer to the research question asked? In this case, the study gives us only a hint of the full picture and one has to be very careful before interpreting it as applicable to all politicians in Sweden. The small size of this thesis makes it problematic to generalize the result to give a full picture of the issue. But the range of the study and the limited amount of time at disposal demands limitations for the study to be performable. Therefore no more effort could be put into finding more respondents.
The six persons interviewed are all members of some of the seven different parties represented in the Swedish Parliament. Some of the respondents are full time politicians, while others are not. Even though, in this thesis, all six are referred to as politicians. For this thesis, it has been chosen to let the politicians interviewed stay anonymous, since their
identity and what party they belong to is not relevant for the study. Therefore, fictional names have been created and all comments mentioning which party they belong to have been taken away. But everything else, the descriptions of the respondents‟ political background,
6
7
education and so on, which could be found in the analysis chapter, are correct and not changed.
As mentioned, the goal was to interview representatives from all the parties, currently represented in the Parliament (Riksdagen). Covering the full political spectra would provide the study with more dimensions and a possibly a more interesting result. But despite the fact that all parties were contacted, repeatedly, through both phone and email, not all parties could be reached. It is of great interest to analyse and discuss why there is such a major difference in both accessibility and availability between different parties. About half of the parties were completely unproblematic to get in contact with while some could not be gotten a hold of despite repeated tries.
The interesting question here is why some parties could not be reached. Is it only a lack of an established, well-functioning system of being available to the voters or could it be a lack of interest, discussing the topic that the interviews concerned? Is the political area of
migration and integration more controversial and therefore more problematic to discuss that other political topics? Anyhow it is remarkable that the some parties, with an election coming closer, do not have a functioning system for being available to answer the questions of their potential voters. When some of the interviews were already performed, the idea of asking the politicians about their parties‟ views on accessibility arose. Since some of the interviews were already performed, some of the respondents were asked through email. All the asked
respondents illuminate the importance of being available for the voters. One of the
respondents states that his party has the policy to try to meet as many a possible of the people contacting them. At the same time he stresses that he “thought that most parties had that policy”.7
The parties that were not participating in this study, also got the same email, but now answer reached the mailbox.
7
8
2 Background
In this thesis, the relation between Swedish politicians and knowledge concerning migration policy is discussed. The topics concerned are; the politicians‟ knowledge concerning
migration and migration policies and the politicians‟ presumed role as mediators of
knowledge and their responsibility as politicians. For the reader to be able to fully understand the argumentations and points made, a short background of Swedish migration policy is needed. Some space is also given to very briefly presenting the major changes in the country‟s migration policies, leading up to today.
2.1 The History of Swedish Migration Policy
Before the 1990‟s the term Migration policy was not used in Sweden. Instead one used the terms immigrant policy, immigration policy and refugee policy to describe the different areas of politics, today collected under the term migration policy.
Up to the 1930‟s Sweden was a country of emigration. In the very beginning of the country‟s history as an immigration country, the biggest number of immigrants was Swedes, returning from North America.
During the Second World War, a large number of asylum seekers came to Sweden and for the first time the country felt a real need for political measures providing work and housing for the immigrants.
In the aftermath of the Second World War, Sweden, as some other European countries, experienced vast economic growth and was in need of labour. This led to the 1954 Aliens Act being less restrictive than the previous act, from 1945. In the early 60s the politicians had understood that foreign labour was important for Sweden‟s future development. Therefore several inquiries were initiated to investigate what changes was needed in the laws in order to fit the future needs of the country. In 1968 the results of the inquiries resulted in a decision from the Parliament (Riksdagen) that immigration from non-Nordic countries was only submitted in organised forms.8
During the late 1960‟s the patterns of immigration changed again. The new laws resulted in decreased numbers of non-Nordic labour migrants, while the political situation in Europe led to an increased number of asylum seekers. During this time, an agreement between the Nordic countries led to a continued high number of labour migrants, mainly coming from Finland. Immigration was during this time, as well as during the 70s, more
8
Lena Södergran (1997), Invandrar- och Flyktingpolitik i Praktiken: Exemplet Umeå Kommun, Licentiatavhandling, Sociologiska institutionen Umeå Universitet, (Umeå: Umeå Universitet), p. 45ff
9
restricted, but at the same time increased measures were taken to improve the conditions for immigrants already residing in Sweden.9
In 1980 a new Aliens Act entered into force, after a period of inquiries. Many
investigation was performed during both the 70‟s and 80‟s, which in the end led to a massive reconstruction of both immigrant and refugee policy in the late 1980‟s. Large conflicts in Iran-Iraq, Somalia, Kenya and the Balkans during the end of the 1980‟s and the beginning of the 90‟s once again vastly increased the number of refugees and asylum seekers. The existing immigrant-, immigration- and refugee policies was strongly criticised at this time, which started discussions about the flexibility and adaptability of the policies. The system created through the reorganisations during the 80‟s, was not applicable on the new current with large numbers of asylum seekers and once again a few changes was necessary. One of these changes was the establishment of a new committee, with the goal to make the handling process of asylum applications more effective.10
Continued investigations and inquiries during the 90‟s, led to the establishment of the National Integration Office in 1998, responsible for all integration issues and assigned to work against xenophobia, ethnic discrimination and racism. The National Integration Office was closed again in 2007 and handed the responsibility for integration over to the County Administrative Boards.
2.2 The Current Swedish Migration Policy
To facilitate for the reader to get an overview, the different areas will be dealt with one by one, starting with what is called migration and asylum policy.11
Migration and asylum policy covers “refugee and immigration policy, return policy [and] support for repatriation”.12
Also included are policies concerning the connection between development and migration and the European and international co operations
concerning all mentioned areas of policy.13 According to the government, Sweden shall work to have a humane refugee policy and shall be a safe haven for people who flee from
persecution and oppression. Sweden shall also work against the development, seen in Europe, towards stricter asylum rules and more closed boarders.
9
Södergran, p. 48f
10 Södergran, p. 53ff
11 ”Migrationspolitik”, Faktablad, Justitiedepartementet, Ju 09.06, Oktober 2009 12 http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/3083/a/18320, 091105, 11:46
13
10
The current Swedish government states that their main goal for the current legislation concerning migration and asylum issues is to create and secure sustainable migration policies. The legislation shall cherish the right to asylum and, within the scope of the regulations concerning immigration, facilitate mobility over boarders. Further more, the current government‟s migration policies shall also deepen the European and international co-operations concerning migration policies.14
The policy regulating the right to asylum is the Aliens Act, from 2006. The Aliens Act includes all issues concerning foreigners‟ right to reside in Sweden. The policies concerning who shall be granted asylum is based on the different international agreements ratified by Sweden, such as the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, The
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom and the UN Convention Against Torture. In addition to these conventions, Sweden has added one
more grant for asylum called “particularly distressing circumstances”.15
The Migration Board is the governmental authority responsible for handling the different issues connected to migration. Today, the Migration Board have four main areas of responsibility, the asylum process, permits for people visiting Sweden, permits for people settling in the country and citizenship affairs.16 It might be necessary to clarify that included in these areas of duty, are all parts of the asylum process, from application to residence permit or voluntary return home, repatriation, immigration on the basis of family ties. Also included are the co-operations with international organizations such as the EU and the UNHCR (The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees). The Migration Board co-operates with several other authorities such as the police, the National Courts Administration
(Domstolsverket), the County Administrative Boards (Länsstyrelsen) and the Municipal and County Councils (Kommunfullmäktige och Landsting), but also with non-governmental organizations and aid bodies. Making sure that these different authorities co-operate in a satisfactory way, also falls under the responsibility of the Migration Board.17
The current government wants to create a system of labour market immigration that is more flexible and open than the one regulated by previous policies. During the current length of office, the government has changed the policies concerning labour migration to put the employer‟s need for labour in focus and have facilitated for the employer to recruit labour from a third country. The new rules for labour migration entered into force in December 2008 14 http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/3083/a/18320, 091105, 11:46 15 http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/9688, 091105, 11:49 16 http://www.migrationsverket.se/info/om_en.html, 091106, 10:30 17 http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/108/a/133543, 091126, 11:09, p.1
11
and the major changes from previous systems are; The employers have more power to decide whether or not they are in need of foreign labour, larger possibilities for labour migrants to obtain permanent residence permit to work and that guest students and asylum seekers can apply for work permit from inside the Swedish boarders.18 For a person to obtain work permit in Sweden, some criteria have to be fulfilled. One of these criteria is that the person applying for work permit have been offered employment in Sweden, an employment enough for the person to make his or her living. Another criterion is that the conditions for employment have to respond to the conditions stated in the Swedish agreements on terms of work. It is also important that the agreements within the European Union are respected and that employers make sure that citizens of the EU/ESS and Switzerland are prioritized in access to all jobs.19 Integration policy is also a part of migration policy, which includes areas concerning “equal rights and obligations and opportunities for all”.20
The County Administrative Boards, which are responsible for integration since the closing of the National Integration Office, are also responsible for the establishment of newly arrived immigrants in Swedish society, as well as for the promoting of integration.
2.1.1 The European Union
Right now, Sweden is co-operating with many other states both within and outside the European Union concerning migration issues. Sweden is a member state in the GFMD (The Global Forum on Migration and Development) which is working towards closer connections between migration and development, with the goal to increase the positive effects that migration has on development.21
Within the European Union, since 1999, all member states are working towards creating a Common European Asylum System, CEAS. The CEAS is to be complete in 2010 and the objective is to create a common asylum system with common and equal conditions and standards in the asylum system, to guarantee that those in need of protection are protected on equal conditions in all member states.22
The Harmonization of the states‟ asylum systems was to be made in two stages, the first focusing on harmonizing the states‟ legal frameworks to set up minimum levels of standard
18 http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/9685/a/90346, 091105, 12:05 19 http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/9685/a/90346, 091105, 12:05 20 http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/2188/a/19443, 091126, 10:45 21 ”Migrationspolitik”, p. 2 22
”Green Paper: on the future Common European Asylum System” Commission of the European Communities, Brussels6.6.2007, COM(2007) 301 final, p. 2
12 “ensuring fairness, efficiency, and transparency”.23
This first stage of the harmonization was started in 1999 and up to 2006, five important legal documents were passed. These five are The Asylum Procedures Directive, the Asylum Qualification Directive, the Dublin
Regulation, the Reception Conditions Directive and the Eurodac Regulation.24
The Dublin Regulation regulates which European member state that is responsible for handling an asylum application. In accordance with the Dublin Regulation a person fleeing from her or his country is bound to apply for asylum in the first EU member state that he or she enters. If this is not the case and an asylum seeker has applied for asylum in another state previously, a state has the right to send the person back to the first country of asylum. For this system to work, the EU have created the Eurodac Regulation in accordance to which, finger prints are taken on all asylum applicants over the age of 14. This system makes it possible to control whether or not a person has issued an asylum application in another European
country.25
In the current, second stage of the harmonisation, focus lay on adopting an “integrated, comprehensive approach to asylum” with the goal to improve the asylum procedure in all different aspects.26
Sweden is also part of cooperation within the European Union on issues concerning return migration. One directive has been formulated concerning return migration aiming at setting common rules and procedure, when sending back asylum seekers, who have not gotten permission to stay in Sweden.
Another European cooperation is the EU Global Approach to Migration. This is a strategic framework on how the member states are to work with migration issues in
connection to the European Union‟s outer, neighbouring states. The approach was adopted in December 2005 and is aiming at increasing consensus between states within and outside the European Union to increase effectively in dealing with all sorts of migration.27
23 ”Green Paper: on the future Common European Asylum System”, p. 2 24
Numbers of the directives are 2005/85/EC, 2004/83/EC, 2003/343/EC, 2003/9/EC, 2000/2725/EC, ”Migrationspolitik”, Faktablad, p. 2
25 http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/9688/a/93135, 091105, 12:42
26 ”Green Paper - on the future Common European Asylum System”, p. 3 27
13
3 Theoretical Frameworks
As a theoretical framework for this thesis, the Sociology of knowledge has been chosen. The selected theory is suitable for applying on the results found during the performed interviews, since the interviews deals with politicians‟ knowledge concerning migration policies and with their role and responsibility as mediators of knowledge.
3.1 The History of Sociology of Knowledge
According to E.M. Rigné in the article “Kunskaps- och vetenskapssociologi”, in the book
Moderna samhällsteorier: Traditioner, riktningar, teoretiker, edited by Per Månsson the term sociology of knowledge (Wissenssoziologie), was first used in 1924 by German philosopher
Max Scheler (1874-1925).28 Scheler believed that the different categories of human thought are determined by the structures of the society surrounding the individual. In the early 1920, German politics was highly unstable and the sociology of knowledge was developed to be used to solve the vast ideological conflicts, present in German society at the time. Scheler saw the development of the sociology of knowledge as the creation of a political tool with the purpose to make politicians, subscribing to different ideologies, aware of the limitation of their ideology of choice. The awareness would provide a larger understanding towards others‟ opinions and therefore decrease the distance and conflicts between the different groups and provide an understanding for the other groups‟ opinions.29
Scheler‟s theory was also a philosophical project, searching for „true‟ knowledge. With this aim, Scheler developed a theory of human life and history. In this theory, Scheler talks about “ideal factors” and “real factors”30
, where the ideal factors represent the “intellectual, moral, religious and imaginative”31
factors of life and “race, state [and] economy”, represents the real factors.32 According to this theory, the different real factors determine the
circumstances in which the ideal factors appear, without affecting the thoughts or knowledge of the human. At the same time, the ideal factors in themselves are powerless and must be connected to the real factors to be able to effect any change in history. This dualistic theory
28 E.M. Rigné, ”Kunskaps- och Vetenskapssociologi” in Per Månsson, editor (2007), Moderna Samhällsteorier:
Traditioner, riktningar, teoretiker. 7th Edition (Finland: WS Bookwell AB), p. 186
29 Rigné, p. 187ff
30 Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann (1998), Kunskapssociologi: Hur individen uppfattar och formar sin
sociala verklighet. 2nd Edition, (Falun: AiT), p. 17, Rigné, p. 191 and Ernest Kilzer and Eva J. Ross “The
Sociology of Knowledge”, The American Catholic Sociological Review, Vol. 14, No. 4 (Dec., 1953), p 231
31 Kilzer, Ross, p. 231
32 Robert K. Merton, “The Sociology of Knowledge” in The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The
14
was later considered as problematic from a sociologic point of view and as somewhat of a dead-end.33
Although Scheler is considered the founder of sociology of knowledge, another man is equally, if not more important, for the development of the discussed theory; that is Karl Mannheim (1892-1947). Mannheim is best known for his book Ideology and Utopia: an
Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge.34
In his work, Mannheim argued that the term ideology ought to be used in a broader sense than what was custom at the time. He stated that there are two different aspects of ideology, one “particular”, which refers to the individual and operates on a psychological level and one “total” aspect, referring to an historical ideology or the ideology of a specific social group during a particular period of time.35 The last mentioned aspect of ideology, acts on a level larger than the single individual and is more of a conception of the world, shared by a larger group of people. Ideology, seen from the particular aspect, does not deal with single individual‟s knowledge and ideas, but more with the characteristics of knowledge and the situation in which this particular knowledge have been created.
According to two of the most important persons in the field of Sociology of Knowledge Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, the ideas forming the sociology of knowledge, derives from three different phases in the German intellectual history; the “philosophy of Marx, the philosophy of Nietzsche and the historicism”.36
One of the basic ideas, being the foundation for the forming of sociology of knowledge is Marx‟s thoughts about the human consciousness and ideology and that these are determined by the human‟s place in society, or in accordance to Marx, in her position in the chain of production. Marx believed that knowledge was a product created by social life, different for different individuals, dependant on their social position and belonging.
The influence of Nietzsche‟s ideas, on the discussed theory, is not equally easily detected, even though his ideas were of great importance in the forming of the sociology of knowledge. Most influential was Nietzsche‟s ideas about the “false consciousness”.37
During the second half of the 19th century, an interest for discussing knowledge, as a product of social circumstances in contrast to the, at the time general notion on knowledge as
something univocal, arose among the German intellectual elite. At the same time the 33 Rigné, p. 191 34 Rigné, p. 191 35 Rigné, p. 192 36 Berger, Luckmann, p. 14 37 Berger, Luckmann, p. 16
15
Universities changed into being secularised, governmental institutions and the division between different disciplines became more evident.38 This fraction between the different disciplines in the academic world, was most visible between the natural science and the Humanities and social sciences, and led to large discussions about if there is such a thing as true knowledge and how it can be reached. This discussion was crucial for the progress of the sociology of knowledge.
As mentioned, also of big importance for the forming of sociology of knowledge, was German historicism. Historicism arose as a counter reaction towards the models of
explanation, provided by the natural sciences which were thought to be general and wide-ranging, and was dominated by the theme of human thoughts. The historicists meant that any historic, human course of event, can only be understood “in their own terms”39
that is, in the context of that particular situation. Many of the important thoughts and concepts of
historicism can be closely connected to the sociology of knowledge‟s ideas of human thoughts as being products of specific social positions and situations.
3.2 Defining the Concepts
Vaguely defined, sociology of knowledge deals with the relation between ideas, knowledge and thoughts and their correlation to the society.40 This means that the theory deals with human thinking and the social context in which the thoughts are formed.
Sociology of Knowledge discusses what is considered as knowledge in different societies as well as in different social groups. According to the discussed theory, the
knowledge that a person possess is determined by his or her social position in society as well as the historical context that he or she acts in. The social context determines what knowledge that the individual holds. The knowledge is to a large extend shared within the social group and is crucial for the feeling of belonging.
According to E.M. Rigné, the sociology of knowledge aims at analyzing the relation between on the one hand, people‟s social life and the thoughts formed in their minds, and on the other hand, the relation and the possible tension between the two. The connections between these two are constantly changing and have to be considered in relation to the context of the particular time and culture where it is created.
38 Rigné, p. 189
39 Berger, Luckmann, p. 16 ”i sina egna termer” 40
16
The theory given account for in this chapter aims at determining the different aspects that affect the human thought to explain why some groups of people subscribe to some specific thoughts, ideas and believes.41 According, Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, the need for theories concerning the sociology of knowledge is established as soon as differences between what is taken for granted as knowledge, in different societies are
discovered.42 What is seen as knowledge is always knowledge from a certain standpoint and could be very different in different societies. But, equally diverse is the notion of what knowledge is, between different social groups within the same society. What is reality for a teenager with non-European background; living in Sweden, might not be reality for native-born, upper middle class student, studying migration and integration issues. At the same time the knowledge, concerning integration, that the two different individuals‟ possess and that is necessary in their everyday social context, are not the same either.
Further, Berger and Luckmann states that the sociology of knowledge shall deal with what is seen as knowledge in a society or group, even if this knowledge is proved to be true and right or not. This is because what is knowledge, and therefore peoples‟ reality, is
constantly in change as well as constantly developing. Not all knowledge can be determined to be right or wrong, true or false. So even if some of the knowledge possessed by the
members of one particular social group, only is true according to that specific group, it is still equally interesting from Sociology of Knowledge- perspective. The theory dealt with in this chapter aims at investigating what processes that determine what is seen as knowledge and how this affect different individual‟s perception of their reality. Therefore Berger and Luckmann define sociology of knowledge as dealing with the “analysis of the social construction of the reality”.43
According to E.M. Rigné, the sociology of knowledge is interested in phenomena that are products of cultures, such as religious or moral ideas. Examples of these phenomena are easily detected in an individual‟s first encounter with a culture, different from their own.44 Common-sense knowledge is another concept central in the discussed theory as well as for this thesis. In its common use the term common sense refers to the basic level of practical knowledge that people need in their everyday life.45This knowledge, shared by all people in a
society is necessary for the society to function. The important remark here is that it is this 41 Rigné, p. 186 42 Berger, Luckmann, p. 12 43 Berger, Luckmann, p. 12 44 Rigné, p. 186 45 http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=15419&dict=CALD, 091107, 15:09
17
kind of knowledge that the herein discussed theory analyses. Sociology of knowledge must primarily deal with this type of knowledge, the reality that people now are real, in the life lived “without or before all theories”.46
The sociology of knowledge have, from the forming of the first thoughts creating the theory, been wrestling with a highly challenging problem; how to deal with relativism. In discussions dealing with the sociology of knowledge, objectivism is often discussed in contrast to relativism, where objectivism represents the thought that there is such thing as absolute knowledge. As understood of the above discussion, sociology of knowledge subscribe to the point of view, that knowledge is relative. The problem here is that a fully relative viewpoint on the discussed theory tends to undermine the theory in itself. If all knowledge is relative to historical and social contexts, then how can we analyse different persons‟ knowledge? How can we be sure that the sociological analysis of knowledge is not also a product of a social position in society? Can we study and compare knowledge between different groups or individual and how can we explain our own knowledge to anyone else?47
According to Rigné, Mannheim tries to escape this problem in two different ways. By accrediting the intellectuals and the scientists, as an own social group different from other social groups in society, having a special position “in and towards history”48
, Mannheim mean that this group can analyze knowledge in other groups. Due to the group‟s education and its heterogeneous composition of people, the intellectuals can get an “eagle perspective” and is therefore able to analyse other perspectives and divide between true and false
knowledge.49 This idea, created to escape the problem with relativism that the intelligentsia are able to analyze knowledge in relation to social and historical context is called
“relationism”.50
In a second attempt to legitimize the use of relativism in sociology of knowledge, Mannheim has stated that knowledge in the natural sciences and mathematics are excluded from the analysis of this theory, since the mentioned areas of science are unaffected by social interests.51 In modern sociology of knowledge the problem with relativism is still often discussed and one of the more important criticism towards sociology of knowledge.
46 Berger, Luckmann, p. 24, ”utan eller före alla teorier” 47
Rigné, p. 192
48 Rigné, p. 193, “i och till historien” 49 Rigné, p. 193, ”örnperspektiv” 50 Rigné, p. 193
51
18
3.3 The French Tradition
So far, the focus of this chapter have been on giving account for sociology of knowledge from a historical viewpoint, as well as defining the theory and concepts central in concerned
discussions. But, only the more influential, of two existing traditions, has been presented, that is the German tradition. Main focus of this chapter will still be on the German tradition, but nevertheless a shorter summary of the French tradition will be given.
Most central for the development of the French tradition within sociology of knowledge, and especially for the discussion surrounding the problems of the theory is sociologist Emile Durkheim. In the early 1900, Durkheim, presented a work dealing with analysing what E. M. Rigné refers to as the “general conditions of thinking”.52
In his work, The Elementary Forms
of Religious Life, from 1912, Durkheim analyses religion as a social phenomenon, focusing
on the “collective mind”existing in every society, including some fundamental categories setting the framework for all thinking, such as time and space.53
According to Durkheim, the individual must internalise the knowledge included in the collective consciousness or mind to be able to be a part of society. Durkheim‟s theories about the collective mind were highly important for the development of sociology of knowledge.54 A comparison can easily be made between Durkheim‟s thoughts and the type of knowledge, above referred to as common sense knowledge. The common sense knowledge is needed for a person to function as part of the society in which she or he lives. In a similar way, according to Durkheim, the individual must internalise or “institutionalize”55
a system of rules and meaning, created from the social norms existing in a society or group to fully exist in, and be part of, its social context.
An important difference between the French and German tradition of sociology of knowledge, is that the French was not as closely tied to the political concerns in society, mainly because much of Durkheim‟s studies were carried out in so called “primitive societies”.56
To summon up, Sociology of Knowledge is affected by three important influences, Marx, Nietzsche and German Historicism. The term sociology of knowledge was first used in 1924, by German philosopher Max Scheler who believed that human thought was created in relation to the social and historical context which the individual was a part of. The different
52
Rigné, p. 194, ”tänkandets generella förutsättningar”
53 Rigné, p. 194 54 Rigné, p. 195
55 Berger, Luckmann, p. 69ff 56
19
knowledge, possessed by members of different social groups, determined the way the individual view upon his or her reality. Sociology of knowledge aims at analyzing the social construction of reality and examines the between social life and human thoughts and the relation and possible tension between the two.
20
4 Results and Analysis
This thesis aimed at investigating political representatives‟ role and attitudes when it comes to knowledge concerning migration policy. The study also aimed at investigating the politicians‟ presupposed role as mediators of knowledge to the members of society as well as the
responsibilities connected to this role.
The results found have been divided into five different chapters. In the first sub-chapter, it is described how politicians are socialized into three different social groups or contexts. It is also discussed how Sverigedemokraterna have changed the norms and rules within the institutions. In the second sub-chapter focus lays on the fact that the politics and opinions of Sverigedemokraterna have contributed to turbulence and a shift of focus, but also increased awareness, on the political arena.
The fact that politicians are ordinary people, in need of structuring their social reality and their ambitions in handling this process, is dealt with in the third part of the analysis. The fourth part of this analysis discusses the politicians‟ knowledge or lack of the same and how choosing not to discuss certain things, could be a sign of ignorance. It also discusses from were politicians collect their knowledge concerning migration policy. At last, the fifth part deals with politicians as mediators of knowledge and the responsibilities connected to such role. But before starting to do what is promised, the politicians interviewed must be
introduced.
For this study, six people have been interviewed. All six are politically active in the seven different parties represented in the Swedish Parliament. Some of the respondents are full time politicians, while others have other occupations as their major source of income. Even though, for this thesis, all six are referred to as politicians. As mentioned in the method chapter, all different parties are not represented which means that for some parties, more than one representative have been interviewed.
It has been decided to let all of the respondents stay anonymous, since their personal identity and which party they belong to is not relevant for the analysis and results of the study. Therefore, fictional name have been created, all the other information is correct.
Richard is a student who has been a member of his party since 2000. For Richard the most important political questions are those concerning climate and environment, but the
foundation for his political engagement is questions concerning democracy in general. He has had several different tasks as a politician and when he is not working with political
21
assignments, he is a student, studying political science.57 The second respondent is David. He is an educated mechanical engineer and has lived in Sweden since 1999. His engagement in politics started when he realized that he could not get his education approved in Sweden. His political engagement started in a NGO. Now he is a member of the Municipal Council (Kommunfullmäktige) in a city district of Malmö. David is most engaged in questions concerning children and youth, integration, discrimination and the environment.58
The third politician interviewed is Anna who has been active working with politics on the municipal level since 1998. The political questions, most important to her are those dealing with migration, integration and Human Rights. Anna is a lawyer, specialized in Human Rights. She is now working as a local government commissioner (Kommunalråd).59 Sara is our fourth respondent. She is now president for the youth association of her party, but was previously active in different NGOs. She states that she has always been interested in migration and integration issues and therefore she chose to study the program Language, migration and globalization, resulting in a bachelor‟s degree in IMER. Right now she is also working as political secretary at the Parliament, focusing on questions concerning asylum and integration.60
Robert is a regional ombudsman for his party. Before, Robert was a member of the board of the party‟s youth association for 2, 5 years and has also been a member of the
Municipal Council (Kommunfullmäktige). Robert has a bachelor‟s degree in political science, with focus on migration and integration. The sixth and last politician interviewed is Magnus, who has been studying medicine for four years but was forced to move to Sweden before he was finished. He has had different political assignments and is currently a commissioner in one of the City District Councils in Malmö (Stadsdelsfullmäktige).
4.1 Becoming Part of an Institution
According to the theory used when analyzing the results of the interviews, what knowledge an individual possesses and needs to possess is dependant on and formed by the social context that the person is in. Different social groups are dependant on different knowledge,
knowledge that is necessary for all members of the group. The members of the group has to possess certain knowledge in order to act and function in the group.
57 p. 1f in appendix 58 p. 4f in appendix 59 p. 6f in appendix 60 p. 12f in appendix
22
When it comes to the group studied in this thesis, politicians, they could be seen as included in three different social groups, or social contexts, at the same time. The different groups that all the respondents are included in are; their own „party‟, „politicians‟ and the „Swedish society‟. To exemplify this, David will be used. He states that “we have said in our party that we must pursue a very honest migration policy”.61
In this statement, David talks as a member of his party. With this statement one cold assume that he wants to lift the view of his party on the discussed topic. When asked what migration policy means to him, the same respondent answers that it means dealing with questions like reoccurring throughout all most of the interviews. “[h]ow shall we in Sweden receive people, who shall we receive and how should we deal with immigration.”62
He continues, within the answer of the same question, to say that “[w]e politicians must reach those whom it concern and ask them what they want”.63
In this statement he no longer talks only as a member of his party, but as a member of the group „politicians‟.
All these three social groups have different common knowledge, norms and social codes. In the interview situation, the questions asked, determines from which perspective the respondent answers the question. The common knowledge and social codex determines the characteristics of the answer. One could say that the respondents speak in different tongues, dependent on whether they answer as members of their party, as politicians, or as members of the Swedish society. Naturally, all the respondents are also included in a vast number of other social groups and contexts, such as the close family, old friends from school etc, but these other social contexts are not of interest for this study.
According to Berger and Luckmann, a person‟s interaction with other people in every day life is constantly affected by the fact that all people have a common part in what they refer to as the “social stock of knowledge”64
. This stock of knowledge is common for all members of a social group and all members contribute to this stock. The knowledge, included in the social stock, is fitted within a certain set of rules and norms, specific for that group. The knowledge included is the type of knowledge that all members of the group takes for granted as true and „real‟ knowledge. Also included is the common sense knowledge, defined in the theoretical chapter.
Common for all social groups and therefore also for the three different social contexts described above, is that all individuals who are part of the groups have to be
61 ”vi har sagt i vårt parti att vi måste driva en mycket ärlig migrationspolitik”, p. 6 in appendix
62 ”Hur ska vi i Sverige ta emot folk, vem ska vi ta emot och hur ska vi hantera invandring?”, p. 5 in appendix 63 ”Vi politiker måste nå ut till dem det gäller och fråga dem vad de vill”, p. 5 in appendix
64
23 “institutionalized”65
or socialized into the social group or context in order to be a part of it.66 Institutionalization into a social group or context is always preceded by a habitualizing process a process where the group forms common habits and thereby turns in to an “institution”.67
All the three mentioned social groups that our respondents are included in; their party, politicians and the Swedish society, represent different institutions. These institutions do always have a history and are built through a common history of social norms, habits and experiences, made available to everyone within the institution, through language.68 To exemplify this, let us look at our three institutions, starting with the party.
All the political parties, represented in the Parliament today, have a rather long history. During the years that the party has existed, the members of it have worked out rules and norms for their social interaction. It has been determined how things are done in the best way and what opinions that are accepted to utter. It might have been determined, not always through common and considered decisions but merely out of habit, that for example
xenophobic comments are not accepted. In the institution, consisting of all politicians, from different parties, other rules and opinions might be norm. Even though politicians have different opinions the institution has worked out a set of norms for the different politicians‟ interaction. In the institution, the Swedish society, a third set of rules and norms exist. As an example, Richard states that “it is always more okay as a common citizen to be a bit rougher and more radical”.69
This means, that the rules on what to say and what opinions to have are stricter within the two first mentioned institutions than in the last.
An institution is often taken for granted by the individuals who are institutionalized into it and the social rules, patterns and possible taboos are perceived as reality by the members of the institution.70 When a person becomes a member of a party, he or she has to learn the norms and rules existing in that party. The politician has to make the rules and opinions their own and learn what is okay to talk about and what is taboo. The taboos existing within the social context, or institution, are controlled by different mechanisms, not unlike the punishment one could get when committing a crime. Off course, in the case of norms and rules within the different institutions including politicians, one can not be sent to jail or be
65 Berger, Luckmann, p. 69ff 66
Compare with Durkheim‟s collective consciousness, p. 17
67 Berger, Luckmann, p. 71 68 Berger, Luckmann, p. 85
69 “Det är alltid mer ok som vanlig medborgare att vara lite grövre och mer radikal”, p.2 in appendix 70
24
sentenced to paying a fine, but could be punished by the others in the group with exclusion and distrust.
The result of this institutionalization process is that the politicians become more similar than they might have been from the beginning. The culture of the institution must be made one‟s own, in order for the person to be a part of the institution.
4.1.1 Sverigedemokraterna and the Changing Norms
During the interviews, a few of the respondents expressed that they have experienced change, within the political debates towards increased presence of xenophobic opinions and opinions supporting a more restrictive migration policy. Some of the politicians interviewed stated that the presence of SD on the political arena has changed the norms and social codes within the different institutions. SD challenges the rules set for social interaction within the institutions and their participation have torn down the rules setting the norms in the institutions. What is the reason for politicians that were before institutionalized in to the social groups, to suddenly start going against the norm? Why are people, earlier acting by the norms, now making xenophobic statements, earlier considered to be taboo?
One respondent states that it is visible that established parties are copying the “xenophobic rhetoric and politics”71
of the SD to try to win over some of their supporters. This explanation is supported by another respondent, Robert. He says that this might be “because one wants to stay in power and is afraid that one might not be able to do so”.72
Off course, this might be a possible explanation that the competition between the different parties makes them turn towards a more restrictive migration policy. Since SD is growing and getting more votes, the other parties might have become aware of the presence of these opinions among the Swedish people. Parties and politicians, changing their discourse to more resemble that of the SD might be a strategy to win over supporters from SD to their own party. This is a possible explanation, but it makes one wonder, would a politician, not agreeing with SD‟s politics, adapt the same with the only purpose to gain votes?
Another explanation might be that SD are slowly starting to become part of the institution „politicians‟ and that their presence have slightly changed the rules and norms concerning what is to be said and thought within the norms of the institution. Such change would affect what knowledge that is needed to be a part of the institution. Much xenophobic
71 ”etablerade partier tar efter främlingsfientlig retorik och politik för att försöka ta Sverige demokraternas
väljare”, p. 13 in appendix
72
25
opinions, influencing the social stock of knowledge, might possibly change the institution‟s view on migration policy. What is interesting in this argumentation is whether the influence of one, rather small party, in this case SD could manage to change the norms of the
institutions discussed here. According to sociology of knowledge, institutions like those discussed here are fixed and highly problematic to change. The rules and norms are often formed during a long time.
A third explanation, says that even though the opinions and statements of SD are not norm and therefore not socially accepted in the two discussed institutions, the opinions of SD might be supported by other politicians, within the institutions. It is possible that people within the institutions might agree with SD‟s politics, but for a long time their opinions have not been socially accepted and therefore kept in silence. The underlying opinions and
knowledge, existing within the institution, might make it easier to change the social codex of it. In this case Sverigedemokraterna is given the role of a catalyst, needed for other politicians and parties to dare to counter the norms of the institution and lift these opinions out in the open.
This reasoning is supported by the politician, Richard, in the following quote: “I think the opinions exist in other parties and the risk is that a party like SD can open up so that other parties copy them and feel that it is okay to let these opinions out.”73
Sara has a similar opinion and states that it is:
the larger parties, who really are the ones who have implemented all the restrictions in the migration policy now for over ten year‟s time. /…/ Like in Vellinge where the parties have pursued SD‟s policies for ten years and no one have reflected over it.74
As mentioned, since the social codex and the common knowledge, within the institution, are fixed, everyone included in the institution must me institutionalized into the social group. When getting institutionalized, the person, in this case the politician, learns and eventually starts sharing the common knowledge and norms, typical for the institution. He or she learns that xenophobic opinions are not part of the common stock of knowledge and uttering them means that you break the rules set up for the group. If xenophobic opinions are not part of the norm, these opinions are hidden, in order, for the politician, to fit into the norm and be part of
73
”Jag tror att åsikterna finns i andra partier och risken är att ett parti som SD kan öppna upp så andra partier tar efter och känner att det är okey att släppa fram de här åsikterna”, p. 3 in appendix
74 ”de större partierna som faktiskt har genomfört alla restriktioner i migrationspolitiken nu under 10 års tid. /…/
Som i Vellinge där partierna faktiskt bedrivit SD:s politik i 10 år och ingen har reflekterat över det.”, p. 15 in appendix
26
the institution. In neither of the institutions „politicians‟ or „Swedish society‟ it has been socially accepted to express xenophobic opinions, but that does not necessarily mean that nobody has them. Since they are not socially accepted and since the knowledge the opinions are based on are not part of the common stock of knowledge, these views are kept in private. But as soon as somebody, in this case the SD it starting to question the norms within the institutions, more people dare to express controversial opinions.
Richard continues by saying that “SD is not a problem in reality but they open up for similar statements from other parties”.75
It seems to be the opinion of some respondents, that SD‟s politics and opinions can encourage other parties into letting their members express xenophobic ideas. It seems like the norms might change and that therefore, xenophobic opinions can emerge due to just a small change within the institution. The social stock of knowledge determines how a person acts within an institution. If this stock changes due to the influence of new knowledge, the person is free to change too.
It seems as the presence of Sverigedemokraterna have questioned the norms and rules of the institutions and that this development have made politicians question their social reality. The question is if there is a possibility that this change have made some politicians question their party, in favour for the freedom to utter one‟s own opinions?
4.1.2 Positive Exclusion?
During the interviews, it became visible that being excluded, or not being a part of the institution is not always negative. Even though SD is a political party, represented in a number of Municipal Councils (Kommunfullmäktige), the members of the party are not seen as „politicians‟. Many of the established parties are afraid of being associated with SD‟s common knowledge and norms and have therefore chosen not to co-operate with them.
Stated during the interviews is the fact that Sverigedemokraterna sees them self as not being part of the establishment. One of our respondents, Sara, states that SD is a party which wants to “represent the people against the power and the establishment”.76
Anna comes with a similar statement in her interview, saying that SD manages to spread the view that “the
establishment is all other parties. SD tries to pack us all up to one indistinct mass so that they
75 ”Sverigedemokraterna är inte ett problem egentligen men de öppnar upp för liknande uttalanden från andra
partier.”, p. 3 in appendix.
76
27 are the only ones that see the light and the truth”.77
By not sharing the other parties‟ social stock of knowledge and therefore not their norms, SD can use the voters‟ “dissatisfaction”.78
To judge from these quotes, it might be the case that the members of SD are not seeing themselves as part of the institution „politicians‟, it might even be part of their strategy, not to be included. By identifying themselves as not being part of the institution, politicians could obtain larger freedom. This way, one could express controversial opinions, without having to worry about exclusion and at the same time appeal to voters sharing another stock of
knowledge, different from the one shared by the established parties. In fact, being excluded might be an important part of one‟s identity. On the other hand, this argumentation offers no explanation to why; the SD‟s membership on the political arena would open up for opinions and for a discourse that have been taboo for a long time. But if this was the case, the increased support among politicians of other parties, for more restrictive immigration and xenophobic opinions, cannot be blamed on SD. As mentioned, some politicians have either adapted SD‟s opinions and rhetoric, or the fact that SD‟s politics have become more visible, makes other politicians utter opinions that they before kept hidden.
4.2 The Shifting Focus of the Political Debate
When talking to the respondents, some of them stated that before the SD begun to grow, migration policy was not a question frequently debated. During the interview, Sara states that the question of migration “has never been a politicized question earlier, it has not been a question that determines where you put your vote.”79
And when asked if the parties, represented in the Parliament, have formulated their opinions concerning migration policy, she answers that her party have done so. But she also states that the larger parties probably have not “put so much energy on that question.”80
One of the other respondents has a similar opinion and that is Anna. Since migration policy has not been a prioritized question in her party, she believes that “it has not been clear to the voters what opinions we have concerning these questions.”81
To judge from these quotes, migration policy has been somewhat of a forgotten area of politics for a while and no larger efforts have been made by the parties concerning the related questions.
77 ”att etablissemanget är alla andra partier. SD försöker packa ihop oss till en och samma otydliga massa, så är
det bara de som ser ljuset och sanningen”, p. 11 in appendix
78
”missnöje”, p. 22 in appendix
79 ”har aldrig varit en politiserad fråga i Sverige tidigare, det har inte varit en fråga som avgör var du lägger din
röst.”, p. 14 in appendix
80 ”lagt så mycket energi på den frågan.”, p. 15 in appendix 81
