Forcing people to be free? A Critical Discourse Analysis of the Political Discourse on the Danish Ghettos

(1)

Forcing people to be free?

A Critical Discourse Analysis of the Political Discourse on

the Danish Ghettos

Emilie Nathalie Jordan

International Migration and Ethnic Relations Master Thesis 30 credits

Spring 2020: IM639L

Supervisor: Margareta Popoola Word count: 21.279

(2)

2

ABSTRACT

The aim of the thesis is to examine the political discourse related to the Danish ‘ghettos’, and if and how this discourse can be related to ‘securitization of migration’ and ‘repressive liberalism’. The point of departure is the salient explanation in previous research, that the political discourse is deriving from a movement towards nationalism. The findings of the thesis show that the political discourse entails a securitized agenda towards social cohesion, aimed at protecting the liberal core values of the Danish society, even if this requires the use of illiberal means. However, constructing the Danish society as ‘only for liberals’ is excluding (illiberal) immigrants from the social fabric, and the intended objective of the ‘Ghetto Plan’, social integration, is counteracted by the very means proposed to promote it. The thesis thus contributes with an alternative understanding of the political discourse, which is seen to derive from liberalism itself, though it turns into a tougher and more substantial form, where membership of Danish society is ‘granted’ based on attitudes and beliefs.

Keywords: immigration, ghettos, liberalism, discourse, securitization Word count: 21.279

(3)

3

1. INTRODUCTION

Following increased international migration during the last couple of decades, the themes of immigration and integration have become more prominent on the political agendas worldwide (Huysmans 2000: 755). Across Western European states, the dominating perception is that the governments’ migration and integration policies set up to accommodate the influx of migrants post-World War II have been insufficient or even harmful (Joppke 2007: 1). A result has been, that more restrictive policies towards migration and integration have been introduced in many European countries, moving from multiculturalism to a more ‘aggressive integrationism’ (Triadafilopoulos 2011: 861). In academics, some scholars have explained this turn in policies by a rise in nationalism and xenophobia (Fukuyama 2006, Bonjour & Lettinga 2012, Rytter & Pedersen 2014, Agius 2017), and European governments are increasingly presenting migration as a danger to public order, social cohesion, domestic and labor market stability and cultural identity (Huysmans 2000: 752).

Denmark has been formerly known as a liberal state, tolerant towards alternative lifestyles. In 1983 the Danish immigration law was one of the most liberal in the world (Mouritsen & Olsen 2013: 691). However, also the Danish government has followed the European tendency, and most political parties have taken a stance moving towards a more restrictiveintegration strategy (Simonsen 2016: 84-85). A central political concern related to the perceived failed integration strategy and a perceived decline of social cohesion is specific residential areas characterized by a high unemployment rate, a low level of education, a large proportion of residents with a non-western background, and a high crime rate (TBB 2020). These residential areas have been proclaimed as ‘ghettos’ by the Danish government, who in 2010 categorized 29 residential areas in Denmark as ‘ghettos’ in a ‘Ghetto List’ (The Government 2010). In 2019, the list included 28 residential areas corresponding to about 60.000 residents, and according to the government, two thirds of the residents have a non-western immigrant background (TRM 2019, The Government 2018). As an overall strategy targeting the ‘ghettos’, the Danish government released their first ‘Ghetto Plan’ in 2004, a white paper proposing several initiatives directed at these residential areas (The Government 2004). In March 2018, the latest modified ‘Ghetto Plan’ was released, which is aimed at creating a coherent Denmark by acting against the so-called ‘parallel communities’ perceived to be created by the ghettos (The Government 2018). The classification of the ghettos, and the political discourse concerning the appointed residential areas, have been criticized as potentially stigmatizing. In 2013, the French

(6)

6

sociologist Loïc Wacquant encouraged the Danish politicians to remove the ‘Ghetto List’, because of the foreseeable effect of the list: that highly skilled people with resources will move out of the residential areas because of the stigmatization (Omar 2013). Wacquant argues that the Danish government has been under a ‘panic discourse’ the last two decades, connected to a fear of Islam, and the debate about the ghettos has been used to create a narrative that instills fear in the population (ibid). The contents of the ‘Ghetto Plan’ have also been criticized. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights called the ‘Ghetto Plan’ ‘hugely troubling’ and pointed to the potential of racial discrimination when using coercive assimilation measures, which run the risk of “(…) fuelling racial prejudice, xenophobia and intolerance.” (O’Sullivan 2020). Moreover, at the press conference on the day of the release of the ‘Ghetto Plan’ in March 2018, Danish journalists questioned whether the regulations proposed in the ‘Ghetto Plan’ are aligned with the scope of liberal policy (STM 2018: ll. 316-318).

When the government relates subjects like immigration and integration to security issues, such as the ghettos being a threat to the social cohesion, these statements can be viewed to serve as a justification for the government to apply extraordinary measures (Banai & Kreide 2017: 906). The question is whether this securitization discourse is deriving from the rise of nationalist and xenophobic movements, as it is explained by some scholars, or if the discourse can be explained from a more liberal perspective?

Hence, the mentioned criticism of the political discourse, and the turn towards a more restrictive immigration and integration policy in Denmark and other Western European countries, have inspired the topic of the current thesis.

1.1. Aim and research questions

The aim of the thesis is to identify the political discourses concerning what is proclaimed as the Danish ‘ghettos’ by examining the government’s ‘Ghetto Plan’ of 2018, i.e. the white paper “One Denmark without parallel societies – No ghettos in 2030”1_{(The Government 2018) and} the government’s speech at a press conference on March 1st_{2018 (STM 2018). First, I will} examine if and how the discourses constructed in this material can be related to ‘securitization of immigration’. Secondly, I will examine if and how the emerging discourses can be explained from a liberal perspective unlike, or in supplement to, the salient explanation based on a rise in

(7)

7

nationalistic sentiments in Western European states. The thesis will hence focus on answering the following research question and sub-research questions:

▪ Which discourses are constructed in the Danish ‘Ghetto Plan’ from 2018? - How are these discourses related to ‘securitization of immigration’? - How can the discourses be explained from a liberal perspective?

1.2 Delimitations

As outlined in the introduction, I position the thesis within the field of integration policies. However, the discourses on integration in Denmark will vary depending on the context and the actors expressing themselves, which is why I have chosen to delimit the focus to the political discourse related to the Danish ‘ghettos’ deployed in the ‘Ghetto Plan’ released in March 2018 and the government’s speech on March 1st, 2018. The focus will not be on examining the practical effects of the implementation of the ‘Ghetto Plan’, the level of integration or segregation in the ‘ghettos’, or the experiences of the people in focus in the ‘Ghetto Plan’, as this would require a different research design including different methods than the study at hand. Also, the extent and reality of the social challenges in the ‘ghettos’ related to unemployment, criminality etc., which are appointed to in the ‘Ghetto Plan’ will not be considered, as statistics have established the extent of these challenges (The Government 2018a), and the focus is on the politically discursive construction of the ‘ghettos’ and the function of this construction, and not on whether the representation is ‘true’.

1.3 Contribution

Since integration and the perceived threat of social cohesion is a contested matter in Denmark, there is warrant for the thesis to illuminate the discourses behind political proposals related to integration, given the implication of the discourses for both policy and social practice in Denmark. By examining the government’s strategy against ghettoization from a critical discourse analytical perspective, the contribution of the thesis is of societal relevance, as this perspective offers a way to view a maybe grounded perception of the Danish ‘ghettos’ as something contingent on time and context, and not as an objective truth.

Furthermore, previous research on the Danish ‘Ghetto Plans’ has been based on theories related to nationalism, which is why the current thesis will provide an alternative approach by examining the ‘Ghetto Plan’ from a liberal perspective. Additionally, there has, to the best of my knowledge, been no research subsequent the release of the latest ‘Ghetto Plan’ in March

(8)

8

2018, which will be the point of departure in this study. Therefore, it seems a relevant contribution to the previous research on Danish integration law to examine the new developments, which has been proclaimed by the government to be based on tougher demands on immigrants (STM 2018: ll. 393-395), and examine whether the updated ‘Ghetto Plan’ can be explained from a liberal perspective following the substantial debates, both politically and in the general public, about the justification of the ‘Ghetto Plan’. The current thesis thus contributes to the academic knowledge of the discursive functions of political rhetoric through proposals in a Danish context.

1.4 Terminology 1.4.1 The government

Since the release of the ‘Ghetto Plan’ in March 2018, a new government has been elected in 2019, led by the Social Democrats (STM 2020). When I use the term ‘the government’ or refer to the ‘Prime Minister’ or other ministers in the analysis section, I am thus referring to the previous coalition government consisting of the Danish Liberal Party2, Liberal Alliance3 and the Conservative People’s Party4_{, in office from 2015-2019, who is responsible for the} initiation of the ‘Ghetto Plan’ of 2018.

1.4.2 Non-western immigrants and Danes

In the ‘Ghetto Plan’, the government is using the terminology of ‘non-western immigrants’ and at times immigrants and descendants, referring to the residents of the ‘ghettos’, without clarification of the concepts, and although at least one third of the residents are Danes and western immigrants. I am aware, that the heterogeneity of the group of people is not considered, when using the term ‘non-western immigrants’. However, I will use the term when analyzing the political discourse to refer to the terminology used by the government, but when referring to ‘immigrants’ and ‘descendants’ in Denmark in general, I will use these terms for the sake of readability, knowing that also these categories are not encompassing the heterogeneity. In the thesis, I will use the term ‘Danes’ solely for analytical purposes to distinguish between immigrants and descendants residing in Denmark, and persons who have at least one parent who is both a Danish citizen and was born in Denmark. The official term used in statistics is ‘persons with a Danish origin’ according to Statistics Denmark (Statistics Denmark 2020).

2_{In Danish: Venstre}

3_{In Danish: Liberal Alliance} 4_{In Danish: Konservative Folkeparti}

(9)

9

Outside analytical categories, I believe that everyone living permanently in Denmark, regardless of their ethnic background, are considered Danes. The government does not provide a definition on ‘Danes’, which is the term they use to distinguish the residents of the ‘ghettos’ from the rest of the population.

1.4.3 Ghettos

The term ‘ghettos’ will be used in the thesis when referring to the political rhetoric or the residential areas appointed in the ‘Ghetto List’ and the ‘Ghetto Plan’, even though I do not agree on the categorization of these residential areas as ‘ghettos’. Thus, the term is not used without concerns about potentially reproducing a stigmatizing discourse, but for transparency and readability I find it necessary to use the same term as used in the political discourse in order to understand and explain this discourse.

1.4.4 Integration

I will not treat ‘integration’ as an independent theme, but as I use the term in the current thesis, I find it necessary briefly to outline my understanding of the theoretical concept. Whenever the concept of integration is used, independently from referring to the statements of the government, integration is understood as the social processes which connects individuals and groups to each other in a unity (Simonsen 2017: 208). That is, an interactive dimension of the theoretical concept of integration and not a conception of integration as a political ideology linked with assimilation (ibid).

1.5 Thesis outline

The following chapter two will consist of an introduction to the contextual background of the thesis, which in the thesis will be focusing on a brief review of the immigration and integration history of Denmark and a presentation of the case in question: the ‘Ghetto Plan’. In chapter three, previous research related to the field will be presented, as to what is already known in the field, outlining of potential unanswered questions in the literature and how the current thesis contributes to the field. Chapter four will present the theoretical framework to be included in the analysis of the empirical material, drawing upon the theories of ‘securitization of migration’ and ‘repressive liberalism’, and chapter five will present the methodology of the thesis touching upon the method of critical discourse analysis (CDA), the material, my role as a researcher and ethical considerations. Chapter 6 consists of the analysis of the chosen material, leading up to the final chapter seven, where a concluding discussion and suggestions for further research are presented.

(10)

10

2. CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND

Since attention to the contextual background is an important part of the method of critical discourse analysis, as will be elaborated in the methodology section, this section will briefly describe the political context in Denmark related to themes of immigration and integration. Also, the case of the ‘Ghetto Plan’ will be presented before moving on to an outline of previous research in the field.

2.1 Immigration and integration in Denmark

Denmark became a ‘country of immigration’ relatively late in the 1960s. Before, immigration flows were modest, and immigration consisted mostly of immigrants from Nordic or European countries (Vitus et al. 2017: 2). The immigration starting in the 1960s were labor migrants who came from countries such as Yugoslavia, Turkey, and Pakistan, and they came to Denmark in a phase of economic growth and an expanding welfare state (Brochmann & Hagelund 2011: 15). These early migrants, called ‘guest workers’, were welcomed because of the challenge of securing the necessary labor force, and the general assumption was, that the migrants would return to their countries of origin (ibid). As the immigration increased in the 1970s and the economy simultaneously declined, there was an increase in political claims to control immigration and react towards the presumed rise of migrants as a social problem (ibid), as the guest workers began to settle and draw on the welfare institutions such as day-care, schools and health care system (Rytter & Pedersen 2014: 2310). As a result, Denmark introduced a restriction against guest worker immigration in 1973, but immigration of political refugees and family reunifications continued (Stenild & Martens 2009: 11, Mouritsen & Olsen 2013: 694). Similarly, as in other West European states, immigration started to become a matter of public concern, and there was a shift towards a more restrictive and control-oriented immigration policy, which at this point was motivated by the changes in the labor market, and a wish to protect the domestic workforce (Huysmans 2000: 754). During the 1980s and 1990s Denmark experienced an influx of asylum seekers from Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Sri Lanka, and Bosnia (Brochmann & Hagelund 2011: 16). With this influx, the concept of ‘integration’ became dominant in public and political discourse, and immigrants were expected to ‘integrate’ themselves by being subjected to what Rytter and Pedersen (2014) describe as “(…) vaguely defined Danish norms and standards.” (ibid: 2310). Nevertheless, Denmark introduced a very liberal immigration law in 1983 with a broad access to asylum and family reunification as well as legal status of de facto refugees (Mouritsen & Olsen 2013: 694).

(11)

11

In the late 1990’s, immigration was increasingly linked with the assumed dangers of a multicultural society, and besides a strict focus on labor market integration and language capability, also political and value integration became prominent in Danish integration policy, which meant an emphasis on “(…) the capacity for active citizenship in civil society and local communities: and on identification and loyalty.” (Mouritsen & Jensen 2014: 9). In 1998 an Integration Law was adopted, which somewhat reversed the liberal law of 1983 (Stenild & Martens 2009: 11-12, Mouritsen & Olsen 2013: 695). The focus of integration was turned strictly towards employment, and as a result, an ‘introduction program’ of 3 years was introduced, obligatory for obtaining permanent residency, focused on immigrants acquiring the necessary linguistic, cultural and professional prerequisites for participating in the Danish society on par with the Danes (Stenild & Martens 2009: 13).

2.2 A changing political environment

Rytter and Pedersen (2014) argue that the terror event of 9/11 in 2001 in New York, USA, launched a ‘decade of suspicion’ towards ethnic and religious minorities in Denmark, which led to the introduction of several new restrictions towards immigration (ibid: 2304). The Danish election in November 2001 was heavily affected by the attack on 9/11, and all political parties reacted strongly to preserve their voters’ support (ibid: 2306). The ‘immigrant/Muslim question’ topped the political agendas, and most parties competed for electorates by being ‘tough of immigration’. A competition which the immigrant skeptical Danish People’s Party5 succeeded in, becoming the parliamentary support of the new Liberal-Conservative minority government in office from 2001-2011 (Mouritsen & Olsen 2013: 692). The Danish People’s Party therefore had the position to influence the government significantly, which has been viewed as an explanation for the quite restrictive stand on immigration policy which followed the election (Mouritsen & Jensen 2014: 7). The Social Democrats6 suffered a great loss in the 2001 election, and a new course of right-of-center politics was set (Rytter & Pedersen 2014: 2306). After the election, the new Liberal-Conservative government introduced a far-reaching anti-terror legislation and stricter immigration legislation regarding family reunification and decreasing the number of refugees (ibid). The legislation was also changed for immigrants living in Denmark, where the criteria for being granted permanent residency was changed, and immigrants applying for citizenship were required to pass a test on Danish culture, history, and

5_{In Danish: Dansk Folkeparti} 6_{In Danish: Socialdemokratiet}

(12)

12

society (ibid). Furthermore, the Integration Law was amended in 2002 where, among other restrictions, mother-tongue teaching was no longer offered to non-western immigrant children (ibid: 2308, Vitus et al. 2009: 17). In 2005, the government introduced the ‘integration contract’, which immigrants were to sign to receive financial support (Mouritsen & Olsen 2013: 698). The contract included a focus on responsibilities to be fulfilled, such as attending language school and active employment-seeking (ibid). Further, a much debated 24-year rule was introduced, which meant that in family reunification, both the Danish resident spouse and the new immigrant spouse were required to be 24 years old or older for being granted residency (ibid). This rule was seemingly made to prevent forced marriages (ibid). In 2006, mandatory declarations on both ‘integration’ and ‘active citizenship’ were adopted targeting applicants of permanent residency and family reunification (ibid). The declarations included acceptance of ‘Danish values’, which referred to the responsibility of becoming self-supporting, acquiring knowledge on Danish society and language as well as norms of gender equality (ibid). Also emphasized in the declarations were modern families, sexual liberation, bans on domestic violence and forced marriages (ibid). These developments have been interpreted by Mouritsen and Olsen (2013) as symbolic civic screening and disciplining of the immigrants arriving in Denmark (ibid: 699).

From 2015 to 2019, a liberal-conservative government was again in office with Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen in front (STM 2020a). This was the government introducing the latest ‘Ghetto Plan’ of 2018, which followed other restrictions directed at immigrants such as the prohibition of wearing face veils in public, the introduction of a mandatory handshake at citizenship ceremonies, and the confiscation of immigrants’ valuables to cover their stay in Denmark (Sorensen 2018).

2.3 The case: The Ghetto Plan

Since 2012, all political parties in Denmark have had a statement about ‘ghettos’ on the webpage of the Parliament (Simonsen 2016: 83). The now former Prime Minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen from the Danish Liberal Party, introduced the term ‘ghetto’, instead of the formerly used ‘socially vulnerable housing area’, in his opening speech to the Parliament in October 2010, turning ‘ghetto’ into a political catchphrase among all political parties (ibid: 85). The first ‘Ghetto Plan’ was released in 2010, and according to Simonsen, there was a political unanimity on the rhetoric applied to the subject, as well as interpreting the perceived problem as a lack of integration (ibid: 86). In March 2018, a new modified ‘Ghetto Plan’ was released,

(13)

13

which states that 28.000 non-western families are perceived to live in parallel societies (The Government 2018: 7), though, the government acknowledges the lack of an accepted definition of ‘parallel society’ (OIM 2019: 10). On a press conference on the day of the release, the Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen spoke about the need for action against ghettoization, and he emphasized that the stakes are high as ghettoization and failed integration are a threat to the Danish welfare, security and values, which according to the Prime Minister ‘bind us together as a people’ (STM 2018: ll. 41-46).

The reasoning for the classification of residential areas as ‘ghettos’ is explained in a report from the Danish Ministry of Economics and Domestic Affairs (OIM 2019). In the report it is explained that the classification promotes a necessary focus on the specific residential areas, which need a special effort to break down the parallelization to society. Furthermore, that the classification of the residential areas has a bearing on the allocation of funds for both physical changes and social efforts (ibid: 12).

The ‘Ghetto Plan’ aims to act against ghettoization and parallel communities to create a coherent Denmark (The Government 2018: 4). The government’s proposals are divided into four themes which entail:

1. Physical demolition and renovation of the residential areas

2. A firmer management of the assignment of apartments in the residential areas

3. Strengthened police efforts and higher penalties to fight crime and establish security in the residential areas

4. A better start in life for children and adolescents, e.g. by obligatory day-care by the age of 1 year

(The Government 2018: 8)

The government defines the residential areas as ‘ghettos’, when they are a physically coherent public housing residential area with at least 1000 residents, and when these residential areas meet two out of the following three criteria (The Government 2018: 11):

- 40% or more of the total population are residents between the age of 18-64 without any connection to the labor market or education

- 50% or more of the total population are immigrants or descendants from non-western countries

(14)

14

- Residents convicted of crime related to the firearms act or the law of narcotics exceeds 2,7% of the total population

Or:

- 60% or more of the total population of the residential area are immigrants or descendants from non-western countries

Throughout 2018, seven political agreements were concluded following the proposals in the ‘Ghetto Plan’, which have been directed at three areas: the physical renovation of the residential areas, reduction of crime and the improvement of children and adolescents’ academic skills (OIM 2019: 14).

From having outlined the context of the ‘Ghetto Plan’, I will now proceed to the section of previous research on the topic.

3. PREVIOUS RESEARCH

The following section will be divided into two aspects of previous research, which are relevant to the thesis at hand. The first theme involves ‘securitization of migration’ and how policy is affected by discourse. This section will further outline two prominent explanations for the restrictive turn in European migration policy, which are based on theories of nationalism and liberalism. The second theme will focus specifically on research on ghettos, describing the importance within urban sociology of being able to distinguish between different forms of spatial separation, moving on to sociological studies of ghettos, where a focus has been on the discursive function and meaning of the ‘ghetto’.

3.1 ‘Securitization’ and the restrictive turn in migration policies

The connection between migration and policies is important to touch upon in the current thesis, although the focus in these studies has not been on ‘ghettos’ per se. However, their contribution to the research field is significant for the current thesis because of the focus on the connection between context, discourse, and policy. The effects of discursive securitization of migration on policies has been a prominent theme within this research. In a quite provocative study, Ibrahim examines Canada’s immigration legislation and argues that a new racist discourse is informing government policy using a securitizing discourse (Ibrahim 2005). Ibrahim contends that “(…) migration has become synonymous with a new risk to the liberal world” (ibid: 163), and the prevailing discourse normalizes the view that migrants are a threat to the social body, which

(15)

15

results in exclusionary immigration legislation (ibid: 163-164). The author argues that the securitization discourse is re-actualizing a new racist discourse, which she refers to as ‘exclusion based on cultural difference’ (ibid: 164). In her study, Ibrahim shows that the Canadian government has accepted and reaffirmed the ‘securitization of migration discourse’ by implementing more barriers to immigration (ibid: 179). Globally, states will, according to Ibrahim, exclude migrants through restricted policy in their attempt to handle the perceived risk migrants pose through the function of securitization (ibid: 183).

Similarly, within a Danish context, Rytter and Pedersen (2014) have explored the impacts of the 9/11 terror attack in New York, and how the event motivated a security/integration response within Danish public and political discourse, and thus transformed the relationship between the majority and minority in Denmark (ibid: 2303). The authors argue that a common response in many European states post 9/11 has been a process of securitization, which they define as: “(…) the process where something (a referent object) is deemed threatened and security actions are taken in its defense.” (ibid: 2305). Rytter and Pedersen state that a discourse of nationalism came to dominate Danish politics after 2001, and the main purpose of the following regulations was to curb the immigration of Muslim immigrants to protect the Danish nation and values (ibid: 2307). They further emphasize a cultural dimension of securitization, which they explain as cultural anxiety motivated by the fear of losing national sovereignty, history, values, and identity (ibid: 2311). The authors highlight the risk, that reconstructing Muslim immigrants as a potential enemy can erode the mutual trust, reciprocity, and solidarity, in which the welfare society is resting (ibid: 2309). Thus, according to Rytter and Pedersen, a process of securitization will inevitably create new security issues to deal with, which they refer to as a ‘spiral of alienation’, as Muslims are withdrawing from the public sphere because of the categorization (ibid: 2314-2315). Therefore, the security/integration response is not just related to the minority, as it will affect the entire social fabric of the society (ibid).

These studies on securitization and its effect on policies are helpful as a broader understanding of how the context in Europe and the rest of the world can affect the national immigration and integration policies, and how the discourse is reproduced by governments in their attempts to curb immigration. Also, the research provides an insight to the possible effects of a securitization discourse creating a ‘spiral of alienation’ in society. This knowledge is crucial in the analysis of social practice, which is the last dimension in the chosen critical discourse analysis framework.

(16)

16

The research presented here by Rytter and Pedersen (2014) is besides securitization touching upon the turn towards more restrictive immigration and civic integration policies in Europe, which has gotten significant attention in academic literature. Within the ongoing debate in policy research, a leading focus is on whether the restrictive turn in migration policies in Europe can be explained by a move towards nationalism (e.g. Fukuyama 2006, Bonjour & Lettinga 2012, Rytter & Pedersen 2014, Agius 2017) or if this restrictive turn can in fact be explained from a liberal perspective and a convergence towards universalism (e.g. Joppke et al. 2010, Joppke 2007, Tebble 2006, Triadafilopoulos 2011).

Jensen (2016) has examined the Danish integration philosophy, and he argues that integration in Denmark is viewed as a process which cannot be accelerated by the allocation of citizenship, but only through an elongated socialization to foster strong national identities and social cohesion (ibid: 14). The nation is perceived as historically fixed and can only accommodate the ones who make an effort to become Danish (ibid: 14, 70). Also, Vitus et al. (2017) have examined the discourses related to Danish integration policy, and they find that the policy is contradictory emphasizing both cultural sameness on one side and equal rights, equal opportunities and self-reliance on the other side (ibid: 4). They argue that the discourse mirrors the notion that equality presupposes a certain degree of sameness, and the concept of integration seems to be aligned with ‘assimilation’. Integration thus depends on the immigrants’ willingness to adapt to Danish norms and values (ibid: 5). An increased focus on ‘shared values’ as a necessity to preserve a democratic and liberal society has thus been noticeable in Danish integration policy, and Mouritsen (2006) has explained this by a process of ‘politicization of culture’, where culture has been deemed politically necessary for the continuity of the nation-state, and some cultures are therefore deemed beneficial, while others are not (ibid: 73). At the same time, a ‘culturalization of politics’ is present, where political values are linked to nationally specific historical traditions or ways of life and presented as ‘culture’ (ibid).

Lastly, Mouritsen and Olsen (2013) examine the politically restrictive turn towards immigrants in Denmark examining the two different explanations: that Denmark is returning to nationalism, or that Denmark is following a European trend towards a perfectionist, ‘repressive’ liberalism, where the goal is to ‘create liberal people out of immigrants’ (ibid: 691). The authors find that the Danish immigration and integration policy has shifted towards a more strident civic perfectionism (ibid: 706). They argue that recent policies emphasize the

(17)

17

duty of immigrants to mold themselves into active and autonomous citizens, and to adapt to a comprehensive set of public values, norms, and practices (ibid). However, they find that the Danish case is situated within a national tradition, as the movement in Denmark reflects perceptions of a superior Danish history and civic tradition, as well as the perception that Islamic traditionalism is the default ‘Other’ (ibid: 707). They therefore deem both the liberal convergence thesis and the nationalist thesis only partly right (ibid).

3.2 Ghettos

Research on ghettos started within urban sociology, and the analytical focus in these studies has been the materiality of the ghetto, i.e. the space and the inhabitants living in that space (Simonsen 2016: 86). A significant focus has been on defining the ghetto to differentiate it from other forms of urban spatial separation (ibid). The primary reason for this focus is that the circumstances for re-integrating different forms of segregation vary, and hence, the policy recommendations ought to differ (ibid). Loïc Wacquant has been prominent within this research studying France and the US (Wacquant 2004). Through his studies, he finds that the ghetto is a special form of collective violence concretized in urban space, and it is created by the asymmetric power relations between ethno-racial groupings (ibid: 122). Wacquant stresses the importance of differentiating between ‘ghettos’ and ‘ethnic clusters’ (ibid: 121). He defines the ‘ghetto’ as an autonomous center with its own institutions, inhabited by a racially homogenous group, undesired by the society (ibid: 124). ‘Ethnic clusters’ on the other hand, are based on class and inhabited by a racially heterogeneous group (ibid). According to Wacquant, the state maintains the deprivation of the ghetto by failing to act towards the ghettos, whereas state action is often sat in place to diminish the marginalization in ethnic clusters (ibid: 122). Wacquant’s research provides an insight to the importance of the words used to categorize different forms of spatial separation, as this categorization will impact the scope of the policy targeting the residential area.

In a Danish context, Larsen (2011) inquires whether it is sociologically relevant to use the concept ‘ghetto’ when referring to certain residential areas in Denmark (ibid: 47). In his study, Larsen draws on Wacquant’s studies on socio-spatial separation, and he applies Wacquant’s definition of ‘ghetto’ as ‘a secluded physical area with its own separate institutions to care for the residents’ basic needs in the absence of public and governmental institutions’ to examine the Danish context (ibid: 48, 52). Larsen assesses the similarities and differences of residential areas in Denmark pointed out in the ‘Ghetto Plan’, with the use of a Multiple Correspondence

(18)

18

Analysis (ibid: 50). Similar to the conclusion in Wacquant’s studies, Larsen finds that even though the appointed ghettos in Denmark takes the same position as the U.S. black ghettos in the social housing hierarchy, they are historically, socially, politically and structurally contingent on substantially different conditions, and he does not find it valid to use the ‘ghetto’ term as a social diagnosis of these areas (ibid: 63). Larsen proposes an alternative concept, ‘neglected residential areas’, which he argues refers specifically to the planning and political processes that have created the clustering of residents with limited resources (ibid). This examination of the use of the term ‘ghetto’ in a Danish context provides an important basic understanding for the current thesis, as it highlights the possible political processes creating the clustering of residents, in contrast to the government’s argument based on deviant cultures. Following Larsen’s conclusions, Simonsen (2016) finds it crucial to go beyond Larsen’s claim of the ghetto’s invalidity as a term used in Denmark and examine further the meaning and consequences of the continued use of the concept in Danish political discourse and the influence on policy. With the use of Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse analytical framework, Simonsen argues, that the former ‘Ghetto Plan’ from 2010 draws on a nationalist discourse, where the process of ‘othering’ is dominant, which contributes to unite Danish society against the perceived common threat of ‘the ghettos’ (ibid: 89). The author states that the ghettos signify a hostile anti-identity to Danish society (ibid: 83). Simonsen points out a paradox in the ‘Ghetto Plan’ when she states that an ‘exclusion of the ghettos’ is necessary for Danish identity to appear fixed, and integration of the ghetto into Danish society will hence dissolve the current idea of Danishness (ibid: 84). In conclusion, Simonson states that as long as Danish identity is constructed with an emphasis on cohesion and internal integration, the ghetto will remain “(…) an enemy to be destroyed.” (ibid: 97). In Simonsen’s analysis, the political discourse in Denmark surrounding the ghettos is thus explained from a nationalist view, where the preservation of a fixed national identity becomes salient as an explanation for the ‘othering’ of immigrants in Denmark. This view sparks the inquisitive position of the current thesis to examine whether the discourse on the Danish ghettos is a turn towards nationalism, or if it can be explained within a liberal perspective, as the government argues themselves.

To recap, there exist in academics different explanations for the ‘new’ restrictions in immigration and integration policies in Western European countries. One explanation is that national identities in European states remain blood-and-soil based, which means that they are solely welcoming to the ethnic groups who initially populated the country (Mouritsen & Olsen

(19)

19

2013: 692). An alternative explanation is that European countries are converging on a more tough and perfectionist form of liberal paradigm for integration, which can be repressive trying to “(…) create liberal people of third-world Muslim immigrants.” (ibid: 692). As discourse analytical studies related to the Danish immigration strategy (e.g. Agius 2017, Rytter & Pedersen 2014) and specifically related to the Danish ‘Ghetto Plan’ (e.g. Simonsen 2016), to the best of my knowledge, have been drawing on nationalist theory, in the current thesis I aim to examine whether the discourses related to the ‘Ghetto Plan’ of 2018 could instead, or additionally, be explained within a liberal perspective. The inspiration for this analytical focus will be derived from research by Christian Joppke, where the goal is not to establish whether a certain policy is liberal, but rather how liberal it is (Joppke et al. 2010). Further, like Simonsen (2016) and inspired by her research, I find it relevant according to the aim of the current thesis to focus on the symbolic meaning of the ghetto and the discourse related to the ‘Ghetto Plan’ rather than focusing on the materiality of the ghetto. The current thesis will thus draw on and contribute to the literature investigating how governments discursively regulate and manage diversity followed by immigration.

4. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

In the analysis, I will be using critical discourse analysis (CDA) as both a method and theory, which will be elaborated in the methodology section. However, as I will explain in the methodology section, it is necessary to include other theories to understand and ‘bridge’ the distinction between the discourses and the surrounding context, which is why in this section, I will mention two central theories to be included in the analysis. Nevertheless, when including other theories in CDA, the theories must adhere to the basic ontological and epistemological premise of the chosen CDA approach (Strauss & Feiz 2013: 154). As will be elaborated later in the methodology section, the epistemological approach of the thesis is social constructivism.

4.1 Securitization of migration

A central theoretical concept in the thesis will be ‘securitization of migration’. The choice of theory is based on both knowledge gained through previous studies, as well as from coding the empirical material, where it becomes apparent, that the political discourse on the Danish ghettos reveals a language of ‘threat and insecurity’, when emphasizing that the parallel societies are a burden to the social cohesion of Danish society (The Government 2018: 5). Securitization theory was developed by the Copenhagen School in the 1980s, however the process of how social issues are designed has been examined by historians, sociologists and

(20)

20

philosophers before this, although with the inclusion of different conceptual frameworks and theories (Balzacq et al. 2016: 496). Balzacq et al. (2016) state that the underlying idea of securitization is that “(…) an issue is given sufficient saliency to win the assent of the audience, which enables those who are authorized to handle the issue to use whatever means they deem most appropriate.”(ibid: 495). The security question is not necessarily based on objective features of an event, but it is constructed in the interaction between a securitizing actor and its audience (ibid). Hence, designating something a security issue exists in any sector of social life, and securitization theory aims at understanding why and how securitization occurs, and the effects that this process has on politics and the community (ibid). Thus, the aim of securitization theory aligns the first sub-research question, which aims to examine how the political discourse on the Danish ghettos is related to securitization. Further, the focus on discourse and the construct of security issues are well fitted into an epistemological approach pertaining to social constructivism.

According to the Copenhagen School scholars, securitization is created through political speech-acts to legitimize political agency and superiority (Banai & Kreide 2017: 905). With the use of semantic tools, a social practice, like migration, can be addressed as a security problem (ibid). Scholars like Balzacq and Bigo, from what has been called the ‘Paris School’, have argued that the focus only on discursive and linguistic practices in securitization theory is too limited, and they incorporate a range of administrative practices as possible securitization practices, such as population profiling, risk assessment etc. (ibid: 906). Banai and Kreide go further than the approach of the Paris School, including also the dialectical relationship between security and securitization stating that “Securitization, then, means discursively framing something as a security problem, and, through this, triggering political measures to deal with it, thereby neglecting the fact that those measures enhance insecurity for precisely the group of people that were object of ‘protection’.” (Banai & Kreide 2017: 906). This expansion of securitization theory is important to the current thesis, as it provides an understanding of the effect the possible securitization discourse created by the Danish government has on the overall Danish population, and how a securitization discourse itself can be counteracting the aim of establishing security.

Jef Huysmans argues that constructing migration as a security issue is rooted in politics of belonging in Western Europe (Huysmans 2000: 751). He understands politics of belonging as “(…) the struggle over cultural, racial and socio-economic criteria for the distribution of rights

(21)

21

and duties connected to membership of the national and European community.” (ibid: 771). Huysmans states that migration is reified through political and societal dynamics as a danger to the good life in West European societies (ibid: 752). When governments or the European Union directly or indirectly support strategies of securitization, the inclusion of immigrants in European societies is impeded (ibid: 753). According to Huysmans, security policy is mediating belonging because political integration and criteria of membership is altered through the recognition of existential threats (ibid: 757). He explains that “(…) discourses of danger and security practices derive their political significance from their capacity to stimulate people to contract into a political community and to ground – or contest – political authority on the basis of reifying dangers.” (ibid: 757). Through the securitization discourse, migrants are excluded from the ‘normal’ fabric of society, as aliens who are dangerous to the reproduction of the social fabric (ibid: 758). The future of the political community is then framed as a choice for or against migration (ibid).

Huysmans asserts that the securitization of migration in the European nations has developed based on three themes: internal security, cultural security, and the crisis of the welfare state (Huysmans 2000: 758). The internal security theme refers to the assumption that because of the eradication of internal borders in the EU, flows of goods, capital and people will challenge public order and the rule of law (ibid). This has led to the strengthening of external border control of the EU as well as an institutionalization of police and custom cooperation, who qua their professional status has the power to identify dangers to the social fabric (ibid: 759-761). This professional and political cooperation produce and distribute internal security knowledge, which articulate a security continuum connecting border control, international crime, terrorism, and migration. The security associations of terrorism and drug traffic is hence transferred to the area of migration (ibid: 760).

Secondly, Huysmans explains that “The protection and transformation of cultural identity is one of the key issues through which the politics of belonging and the question of migration are connected.” (Huysmans 2000: 762). The ‘mixing of culture’ is, according to Huysmans, politicized because of the assumption that multicultural developments challenge overlapping political and cultural boundaries (ibid). Migration represented as a cultural challenge to social and political integration through discourse is an important basis for mobilizing security institutions and security rhetoric (ibid).

(22)

22

Thirdly, the governance of belonging in the welfare state also entails differentiating between those who has a legitimate access to social and economic rights (Huysmans 2000: 767). Scarcity creates rivalry between national citizens and immigrants on the labor market and competition in the distribution of social goods (ibid). According to Huysmans, immigration has initiated ‘welfare chauvinism’, where immigrants are perceived as illegitimate recipients of socio-economic rights, or the offering of these rights is perceived as pulling migrants to the EU (ibid). Cultural identity criteria are thus introduced in an area where belonging is defined based on social policy criteria, like age, employment, disability, and health (ibid: 768).

In the analysis I will draw upon the theory of securitization of migration by applying Huysmans’ three themes of securitization to the discourses uncovered in the empirical material. Huysmans theory of securitization of migration provides a way to understand and examine the way the Danish political discourse is altering the criteria of membership in Danish society through the recognition of the ghettos as an existential threat, thereby connecting the discursive function of securitization to politics of belonging and social inclusion. As I will explain in the next theory section, the discourse of ‘repressive liberalism’ can be viewed as a way of molding the people of the state into a certain kind of citizen, which also entails exclusion of those not belonging in Denmark, which is why these two theories together are well suited to comprehensively understand the discourse related to the ghettos and the impact on social practice.

4.2 Repressive liberalism

At the press conference on the day of the release of the ‘Ghetto Plan’ in 2018, the Prime Minister of the Danish Liberal Party was questioned how the ‘Ghetto Plan’ fits within liberal policy (STM 2018: ll. 316-318). The legitimacy of the ‘Ghetto Plan’ has been discussed both politically and in public with a focus on whether the liberal principle of equality is breached when certain groups in the Danish society are subjected to different legislation than the rest of population (Hoffmann-Hansen 2018). A member of the government in 2018 from the party Liberal Alliance, Henrik Dahl, has argued in the press that “I am fully committed to defending the liberal society. But it is a crazy, self-imposed idea that the means of defense must also be liberal.” (ibid). From this discussion, I find it relevant to include theory related to liberalism and integration, namely Christian Joppke’s theory of repressive liberalism. I position myself within a general understanding of liberalism that the aim of politics is to protect individual rights and increase freedom of choice (McLean and McMillan 2009: 8). Moreover, that

(23)

23

individuals must be treated as equals irrespective of their gender, race, class, or nationality (Joppke et al. 2010: 15).

Christian Joppke has been prominent in researching boundary-drawing and membership-definition expressed in Western European states’ policies on immigrant integration, e.g. civic integration courses for newcomers (Joppke 2007, Joppke et al. 2010). Joppke contends that Western European states are converging from an emphasis on cultural recognition to enforcing liberal core values in integration policy, i.e. democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedom, and the rule of law (Joppke 2007: 3-4). A key feature of integration policies in Western European states is thus a weakening of national distinctiveness, and Joppke argues, that the notion of ‘national models’ is no longer meaningful (ibid: 1-2). Joppke connects the change in liberal policy with concerns linked to immigration saying that “In fact, in the wake of Islamic Terrorism, toleration liberalism has receded behind a less procedural, more substantive variant of liberalism that prescribes a shared way of life, in which, say, men and women are equal and the secular trumps the religious.” (Joppke 2010: 138). Joppke argues that such liberalism is potentially an identity, separating liberal people the illiberal (ibid).

Joppke argues that because immigrants are situated between different nation states, repressive policies toward immigrants are often interpreted in ‘nationalist’ or ‘racist’ terms, but Joppke claims that the repressive impulse derives from liberalism itself (Joppke 2007: 16). According to Joppke, immigrant integration in Western Europe is shaped by two forms of liberalism: a Rawlsian liberalism, also called ‘political liberalism’, which emphasizes individual rights, equality, and neutrality (ibid: 15). This type of liberalism has moved European states from a strategy of ‘assimilation’ to ‘integration’, upgraded alien rights, anti-discrimination laws and liberalized citizenship laws (ibid: 15-16). However, the liberalism influencing the restrictive civic integration policies in Western European states is a liberalism of power and disciplining, a ‘Foucauldian liberalism’, or ‘repressive liberalism’, which aims to create ‘liberal people’ out of immigrants (ibid: 15-16). Joppke states that the ‘Foucauldian liberalism’ “(…) is coercing individuals, as well as the ‘communities’ of which they are a part of, to release their self-producing and -regulating capacities, as an alternative to redistribution and public welfare that fiscally diminished states can no longer deliver.” (ibid: 16). That is, the Foucauldian liberalism seeks to create self-sufficient and autonomous individuals using illiberal means (ibid).

(24)

24

By enforcing liberal core values, the European states’ ‘citizenship identities’, fostered through citizenship and integration policies, are becoming increasingly universalistic (Joppke 2008: 533). The national particularisms which immigrants must accept in the receiving states are only “(…) local versions of the universalistic idiom of liberal democracy.” (ibid: 541). Hence, Joppke argues that there is a paradox in this ‘particular universalism’, as universal norms and values cannot offer a distinct identity, which binds individuals to this and not any state (ibid: 533). A particularistic identity is, according to Joppke, a necessity for integration, but it cannot be provided by the law, which must, in a liberal state, stay non-discriminatory (ibid: 543-544). European states are therefore leaning towards a certain kind of liberalism, which separates liberal from illiberal people (Joppke 2008: 543-544). Nevertheless, there is an “(…) illiberal potential of a liberalism that transmutes into an identity, an ethical way of life that everyone is expected to be conformant with, and which is brought forward with an unabashedly exclusionary intention against liberalism’s presumed Other, Islam and Muslims.” (ibid: 542). The possibility of exclusion and discrimination within the West European civic integration policies are incorporated in the representation of the liberal state as only for liberal people, for instance when the liberal-democratic order is interpreted in a binary opposition to an idea of Islam, perceived to involve the condoning of patriarchy, arranged marriage, terrorism, veiling, and homophobia (Joppke 2007: 15). Thus, repressive liberalism is according to Joppke used to exclude specific groups from society, and he maintains that aiming to ‘cast people into a standard mold’ is to exceed the limits of liberalism, since a core principle in liberalism ever since Kant has been that policies cannot aim to regulate people’s inner motivation, but solely their external behavior (Joppke 2008: 541).

Another convergence in integration policies in the EU is the emphasis on employment and thus self-sufficiency, which is viewed by Joppke as a response to the number of unemployed immigrants across Europe, and it is linked to the representation of society as a ‘machinery of performance’ (Joppke 2007: 4, 18). ‘Integration’ is thus interpreted as ‘social inclusion’ instead of ‘cultural homogenization’ as in classic nation-building, and social inclusion is connected to the labor market instead of the nation-state (ibid: 17-18). According to Joppke, the main objective of social inclusion is social cohesion, and consequently, rights and responsibilities go hand in hand, because there is an expectation that the individual becomes included (ibid). This inclusion of the focus on socioeconomic integration is highly relevant to the Danish case, where

(25)

25

participation in the labor market is first and foremost a requirement from the government to become part of the Danish society.

Jensen and Mouritsen (2017) have criticized Joppke for dismissing nationalism as a central factor in the policy developments related to the restrictive turn in West European states. They argue that the universal values and virtues, which newcomers are expected to respect and share, are nevertheless seen as ‘ours’, at least in a Danish context (ibid: 837). The authors state that the language of liberal universalism can certainly provide a national identity discourse with distinctiveness (ibid: 838). This because different nations will have the opportunity to prioritize, interpret, and institutionalize liberal values in their particular way (ibid). Jensen and Mouritsen agree with Joppke that “(…) Western European countries do converge, in that they all adopt ‘French’ republican and liberal universalist semantics, thereby partaking in a broad ‘civic turn’ towards stronger state intervention in the creation of good, liberal and self-sufficient citizens.” (ibid: 840). But they state that this convergence does not exclude a continuing existence of nationally specific conceptions of liberalism or the influence of nationalist sentiment (ibid). Jensen and Mouritsen thus view the nationalization of universal values as an applicable strategy towards mobilizing national sentiment (ibid: 852). Hence, they argue that nationalist claims embedded in political liberal universalist wording must be scrutinized for concerns for national culture, which “(…) flies under the radar of anti-discrimination (…)”. (ibid).

In the current thesis, I do not reject the criticism from Jensen and Mouritsen, as it seems valid that both notions of liberalism and nationalism can be part of the explanation of the Danish political discourse, and that emphasis on liberal core values can be related to concerns for national culture. As Mouritsen and Olsen argue, the difficulty on an analytical level is, that nationalism and liberalism are not necessarily mutually exclusive categories (Mouritsen & Olsen 2013: 707). Nevertheless, I find the theory of ‘repressive liberalism’ relevant when analyzing the ‘Ghetto Plan’ as an alternative to earlier research’s interpretation which, as mentioned, have mostly been concerned with a nationalist discourse, thereby not considering an alternative interpretation relying on liberalism.

5. METHODOLOGY

In the following section I will elaborate on the method and methodology of the thesis. I will present the method of CDA, its relevance to the aim and scope of the thesis, and in which way

(26)

26

the method will be conducted. Further, I will present the material, my role as a researcher and ethical considerations.

For the current thesis, I have chosen a qualitative case-based research design, as it can be used to illuminate the concrete in the case in question, such as the context and the uniqueness, and it allows for an in-depth understanding of the selected case, the political discourse on the Danish ghettos (Brinkmann & Tanggaard 2020: 579, 6 & Bellamy 2012: 104). The political context related to the discourse on the ghettos is highly relevant to illuminate, as the political discourse is situated within an intricate wider historical context, which affects the discourse and therefore also the interpretation of the discourse. Because of the flexibility in a case-based research design, the design further provides the opportunity of an iterative dialogue between the chosen theoretical framework and the empirical material, which makes the analysis open for alternative explanations with the possibility of altering the theoretical framework (6 and Bellamy 2012: 104). Overall, the study will be based on an inductive approach, as the analysis will be driven by its material and the themes appearing during the coding process. The point of departure is based on open questions about the Danish political discourse on the ghettos, contrary to being based on a hypothesis (Somekh and Lewin 2005: 345-346, 6 & Bellamy 2012: 76-77). Hence, the theoretical framework presented in the previous section will be used as a tool for interpretation in the analysis.

A case-based research design poses a limitation to the external validity of the thesis, as I am only focusing on one case, which affects the possibility of generalizing my findings (6 & Bellamy 2012: 108). The research I produce with a case-based research design provides particularistic insights in the Danish political discourse related to integration policy (ibid: 105). However, generalization is not the purpose of the thesis, and I am willing to trade-off high external validity for the possibility of enhancing the reliability of the analysis, as I focus on limited material, and therefore I can spend time going into depth becoming familiar with the material, which for instance provides a consistency in the coding throughout this process (ibid: 104). To increase the reliability of the application of the method and the final conclusions when using a case-based research design, which is centered on less specified variables, requires a high level of transparency throughout the research process, i.e. when collecting, coding, analyzing and interpreting material (ibid: 21, 114). Hence, I will continuously check my data and findings against the aim and research questions specified in the introduction. This will allow me to identify and correct any possible errors during the course of the research (ibid:

(27)

27

115). Another way to increase the reliability is to be clear about any potential biases, which I will return to later.

5.1 Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)

In researching political discourses and the underlying societal power structures, it is highly relevant to investigate the written language. For the analysis, I will use the qualitative interdisciplinary method of critical discourse analysis (CDA) to analyze the material. My understanding of ‘discourse’ will be similar to Jorgensen and Phillips (2002), defined as “(…) a particular way of talking about and understanding the world (or an aspect of the world).” (ibid: 1). CDA is a social constructivist approach, and the research focus are the discursive practices establishing representations of the world, social identities, and relations, including power relations (ibid: 1, 63). The focus is furthermore on the role that the discursive practices have in advancing the interests of powerful groups (ibid: 63).

The ‘critical’ in CDA thus derives from the assumption that researchers can ‘denaturalize’ the language and thereby expose the ideas, absences, and taken-for-granted assumptions in a text (Machin & Mayr 2012: 5). Furthermore, CDA pursues to link language and its methods of use to the social differences in society and power relations by displaying how discourse (re)produces and maintains relations of dominance and social injustice (Bryman 2008: 500). CDA draws on Foucault’s concept of power, where power does not belong to certain agents or the state but is spread across different social practices (Jorgensen & Phillips 2002: 13). According to Foucault, power is not only viewed as oppressing, but also as productive: power is used to constitute subjects, discourses, and knowledge (Brinkmann & Tanggaard 2020: 382). Hence, it is power that promotes the opportunity conditions for the social world, power produces our social world, and objects are separated from each other through power, which is why objects can achieve their individual characteristics (Jorgensen & Phillips 2002: 13). In this way, power is both responsible for creating our social world, but also for how the world is formed and can be talked about as it rules out alternative ways of being and talking (ibid: 14). Therefore, our only access to ‘reality’ is through language (Jorgensen & Phillips 2002: 8). In CDA, physical objects do exist, but they can only gain meaning through discourse (ibid). This critical approach to language and power is suitable to the aim of the current thesis, given the ‘Ghetto Plan’s’ possible impact on immigrants’ rights and well-being in Denmark.

In CDA, different discourses are articulated, combined and competing side by side in a dialogical and hegemonic struggle to establish the ‘truth’ (Brinkmann & Tanggaard 2020: 381,

(28)

28

Jorgensen & Phillips 2002: 76). This struggle is carried out in a way that either reproduces or challenges the order of discourses of which it is part, thus consequently reproducing or transforming the existing power relations (Brinkmann & Tanggaard 2020: 399-400, Jorgensen & Phillips 2002: 76). Brinkmann and Tanggaard explain that the ‘order of discourses’ is the sum of discourses circulating within a social institution or social domain, hence within the social order (Brinkmann & Tanggaard 2020: 399-400). The boundaries within the order of discourses and between different orders of discourses change when discourses are articulated in new forms (ibid: 400).

CDA has been subject to different sorts of criticism. According to Le and Short (2009), CDA is criticized for projecting social and political ideologies into the material, and not revealing these through the material (ibid: 10). However, as Le and Short argue, there is also a strength in that the researcher is thus required to be transparent about his or her social identity and ideologies and remain open to be challenged ideologically (ibid). Another weakness addressed by Freiesleben is that CDA alone cannot point to the effects of a given discourse, which requires other theory to be included in the analysis (Freiesleben 2016: 45). This requirement is in focus in the current thesis to reach a better understanding of the dialectic relationship between the political discourse related to the ghettos and the wider context. Furthermore, with the use of CDA, the researcher will not be able to analyze whether it is the ‘truth’ being conveyed in the discourse (ibid). However, it is comprised in the social constructivist premise, that one cannot reach an objective ‘truth’ the discourse is just one representation of reality, and hence, the aim of the thesis is to examine the political discourses themselves and how a certain reality is created through them. Consequently, also I as a researcher will produce just one out of different possible ‘truths’, which could be identified, as CDA relies on interpretation (6 & Bellamy 2012: 22-23).

CDA is suitable to answer the research questions in the current thesis, because of its ability to provide insights into the way language produces and legitimizes political proposals and decisions, and how the government succeeds in establishing a certain ‘truth’ about the Danish ghettos and the residents. Political decisions are a response to social conditions and thereby rooted in historical situations, which is why CDA, and namely Fairclough’s three-dimensional model, is relevant with its focus on context.

Forcing people to be free? A Critical Discourse Analysis of the Political Discourse on the Danish Ghettos