The 2018 Ghetto Plan: The political problematization of ethnic minorities living in deprived residential areas in Denmark

(1)

The 2018 Ghetto Plan:

The political problematization of ethnic minorities living in

deprived residential areas in Denmark

Rosa Lucca Brøbech Mathiasen

931008-T386

International Migration and Ethnic Relations

Bachelor Thesis 15 credits (IM245L)

Spring 2020

Supervisor: Ingrid Jerve Ramsøy

Word count: 11919

(2)

Abstract

This thesis investigates the problematization of ethnic minorities living in deprived residential areas in Denmark. The study focus on the whitepaper “Ét Danmark uden parallelsamfund – Ingen ghettoer I 2030” published by the Danish government in 2018. The theoretical

framework incorporated in the thesis are Gilroy’s concepts of new racism, nation camps and in between different camps, Hervik’s approach of the three elements together with Andersson’s concept of imagined communities. By using Bachhi’s poststructural WPR approach together with the above mentioned theory, this paper finds that the Danish government creates a discourse where ethnic minorities are problematized due to their ethnicity and culture and it becomes a way to legitimize certain initiatives. This thesis argues that the social diagnosis is wrong and that the ghetto plan could be interpreted as racist.

(3)

1. Introduction

On the 1st

of March 2018, the Danish government, consisting of the Danish Liberal Party (Venstre), The Conservative People’s Party (Det Konservative Folkeparty) and Liberal Alliance published a white paper called “Ét Danmark uden parallelsamfund – Ingen ghettoer I 2030.” (Regeringen, 2018). Translated to English this says: “A Denmark without any parallel societies – No ghettos in 2030”. Very quickly the media labelled it the ‘ghetto plan’ and now even politicians are using this term1

. The plan consist of 22 initiatives that are categorized into four overall themes: (1) Physical demolition and transformation of social housing projects, (2) increased control of who can live in these areas, (3) increased police action and higher punishment shall fight crime and create more safety and (4) a good start in life for all children and young people (Regeringen, 2018, p. 8) Examples of these 22

initiatives are forced institutionalization, double punishment in ghetto zones and forced displacement (ibid).

The way the government defines ghettos in the plan is if the area fulfils two out of the three criteria stated below: (1) Over 40 percent of adults in the age between 18-64 are not engaged in employment or education for an average two year period, (2) over 2.70 percent of

residents aged 18 or over are convicted of criminal, weapons or narcotic related crimes over a two year period, (3) The percentage of immigrants and descendants from non-Western countries exceeds more than 50 percent of the total population.

Or if the percentage of immigrants and descendants from non-Western countries exceeds to more than 60 percent of the total population. (Regeringen, 2018, p. 11).

This thesis investigates how the government through the ghetto plan is representing ethnic minorities as the ‘problem’ and how this discourse becomes a way to legitimize the 22 initiatives. For my method I am using the Foucault inspired poststructural policy analysis approach called “What’s the Problem Represented to be?”. The approach contains six

1_{The “Ét whitepaper Danmark uden parallelsamfund – Ingen ghettoer i 2030” is often referred to as the ghetto} plan, which is the term I am using when referring to the whitepaper. By using this word there is a chance that I might reproduce the stigma. I am therefore writing it in cursive as a way to distance myself from the use of the term.

(5)

different questions that are answered in order to analyse and question on what foundation the government creates specific policies and what effects it produces for the people that are being problematized. The theories used in this thesis are Gilroy’s concepts of new racism, the nation camps and the position between different camps. Also Hervik’s approach of the three elements to define if an action or phenomenon is racist or not is included as well together with Benedicts Andersson’s concept of imagined communities. The theory is used to answer the six questions from the WPR approach and to discuss whether or not the ghetto plan could be interpreted as racist in relation to new racism.

1.1 Research problem

There has been a lot of debate about the use of the term ‘ghettos’ in a Danish context. The French sociologist Loïc Wacquant criticizes the Danish Government for using the term ‘ghetto’ to define deprived residential areas because according to him there are no ghettos in the welfare state of Denmark (Omar, 2013). According to Wacquant a ghetto is defined through five characteristics: First, that the area consists of a single homogeneous group of residents, such as Jewish people or people of colour. Second, that the area is physically demarcated from the surrounding society. Thirdly, that residents have economic limitations, for example in the form of direct or indirect discrimination in the labour market as a result of their address is in a “ghetto”. Additionally Wacquant points to institutional demarcation, that ghettos are to a large extent excluded from the public institutions of society, thereby

developing such institutions of their own. Finally, territorial stigmatization, characterized by the allowance of specific areas to degrade (Wacquant, 2013).Wacquant sees the ghetto debate seen in the Western countries as a panic discourse, which has developed due to the fear of Islam and people of Muslim faith (Omar, T., 2013). In the ghetto plan it is argued that “ghettos” in Denmark are parallel societies (Regeringen, 2018), which Wacquant also takes issue with, stating that it is stigmatizing for the residents when such areas are labelled as “ghettos”2

(Omar, 2013).

2_{The paper will use the term ‘ghetto’ when referring to the plan. The reason for doing so is to stay close to the} original meaning as possible. When I write about matters that are not referred to in the ghetto plan I am using the term ‘deprived residential areas’, which according to Troels Schultz Larsen is a more correct term to use when describing these areas (Schultz, 2011).

(6)

Sociologist Troels Schultz Larsen has investigated whether or not it is correct to use the concepts of ghettos in a Danish context. He includes Wacquant’s five criteria in his research and concludes that the residents of these areas are heterogeneous because these so-called ghettos contain residents from several different countries. Also, many move in an out and public institutions are very much present in the areas, meaning there exists neither physical nor institutional demarcation of these areas. Address-based discrimination does exist, however only on a small scale. Stigmatization is to some extent also present in these deprived residential areas. The areas therefore fulfil three out of the five of Wacquant criteria, thus according to Schultz it is incorrect to define any areas in Denmark as either ghettos or parallel societies3

(Schultz, 2011).

Policy formation on the basis of the ghetto discourse is extremely problematic since by definition ghettos and their associated problems are not present in a Danish context. The issue is that the creation of policies that aim to solve the problems seen in these areas are created on a wrongful basis. In addition this serves to legitimize the stigmatization of these deprived residential areas and those who reside within them (Schultz, 2011, p. 63).

The fact that a vulnerable social housing area can be defined as a ghetto if the percentage of immigrants and descendants from non-Western countries exceeds more than 60 percent of the total population is problematic. Using the culture and ethnicity of a minority group to explain the issues seen in such areas could create exclusion from the rest of society, thereby creating an “us” versus “them” mentality (Eika et al., 2019). The reason for this is that there is a chance that ethnic minorities4

living in these so-called ‘ghettos’ will experience stigmatization or indeed racism due to the representation of such ‘problems’ in the general

3_{The Government does not distinguished between the different forms of categories that are used in the ghetto} plan. The government uses categorization such as non-Western immigrants, descendants and refugees without defining the meaning and difference of these distinct categories. The plan categorizes all the different

definitions into one homogenous categorization: Non-Western immigrants and does not take into account the distinctiveness of each category. I am however using the term ‘non-Western immigrants’ in my analysis in order to stay as close to the meaning of the ghetto plan. When I am not referencing to the ghetto plan I will instead use the term ‘ethnic minorities’.

(7)

discourse in the ghetto plan (ibid). Lastly it could furthermore remove the focus of other important factors that might otherwise explain the issues seen in these deprived residential areas (Schultz, 2018).

1.2 Aim and research questions

The aim of the research is to examine how the ghetto plan is representing the ‘problem’ that legitimizes the 22 initiatives, and also to investigate the historical discourses that have led to this specific problematization. Additionally, it will investigate if there are other factors that could explain the high influx of non-Western immigrants to live in deprived residential areas. Finally, it will analyse and discuss if the representation of non-Western immigrants in the ghetto plan could be interpreted as racist.

• How are ethnic minorities portrayed in the ghetto plan? And which discourses and social categorizations are visible in it?

• Could the ghetto plan be categorized as racist? If so what type of racism could it be interpreted as?

1.3 Thesis outline

In the following section, the literature review describes how the anti-immigration discourse and the problematization of non-Western immigrants have become part of the Danish discourse. Secondly, the theoretical section explains Andersson’s concept of imagined communities, Gilroy’s concepts of new racism, nation camps, the camp mentality and the between camps together with Hervik’s three elements approach. Thirdly, the description of the methodology in the form of the Foucault-inspired poststructural approach together with the method of the WPR poststructural policy analysis is presented. Also, the selection of material is described together with a section on validity and reliability. This is followed by analysis, assisted by secondary sources, with the theoretical component, methodology and method also incorporated in this chapter. Finally, the chapter containing the conclusion, which summarizes the thesis together with suggestions for further research.

(8)

2. Literature review

2.1 The percentage of non-Western immigrants has increased

Since the 1990s the Danish political discourse about integration and immigration has been increasingly negative. The negative rhetoric has mainly concerned non-Western immigrants, who often have been identified as people of Muslim faith (Jensen et al, 2010). The widely held perception of this group is of resistance to integration into the Danish modern society and that immigration from non-Western countries is a threat to the Danish state and its unity (ibid). One explanation to the anti-immigration discourse could be that in recent decades the percentage of non-Western immigrants and their descendants in Denmark has increased. In 1980 one percent of the Danish population were non-Western immigrants and their

descendants however in 2020 that number has increased to 8.9 percent (Det nationale integrationsbarometer, 2020). This anti-immigration discourse is however not limited to exist solely within the Danish national borders - negative vocabulary and discourse towards non-Western immigrants and their descendants has been seen in several Western European nation states (Simonsen, 2016).

2.2 The Danish People’s Party and 9/11

The emergence of the anti-immigration and right-wing party called the Danish People’s Party (DPP) has, since the 1990s gained a high level of support with between 8-15 percent of the electoral vote (Jensen et al, 2010). The DPP influenced the national discourse by becoming progressively more exclusive and xenophobic towards non-Western Muslim immigrants and their descendants. The Conservatives, the Liberal Party and some segments of the Social Democratic Party have to some degree also adopted this discourse. This has had severe consequences for the legal rights and possibilities for immigrants and refugees’ legal rights while also limiting their ability to be socio-economically and socio-culturally included (ibid).

Especially following 9/11 the rhetoric became more Islamophobic and radicalized which regenerated nationalistic identity politics (Mouritsen et al., 2009). The anti-immigration arguments used in the Danish political debate often suggest that immigrants are seen as security threat to the Danish nation because they exploit the welfare state and thereby

(9)

become an economic burden for society. Furthermore it is argued that immigrant’s culture and religion are seen as incompatible with Danish values and are thereby threatening the homogeneity of the Danish national identity and the Danish democracy (Simonsen, K. B., 2016).

2.3 Antithesis to the Danish national identity

According to Mouritsen, Muslims from non-Western countries are seen as the ‘other’ and have been the definition of the opposite of what defines a Dane and has created a mentality of ”us and them” in Denmark (Mouritsen et al., 2009).

Similarly, Simonsen argues that the negative discourse surrounding the Danish ghettos and ethnic minorities have been used as an antithesis to the Danish national identity (Simonsen, 2016). The political discourse around how the ghettos their residents are in opposition to the Danish society, is one means to validate and define a Danish identity, thereby disqualifying the ability of the residents in these “ghettos” to integrate and become functioning parts of Danish society. The existence of negative discourse and exclusion of the ghettos and its ethnic minority residents are developed in an attempt to define the Danish national identity (Simonsen, 2016). Additionally, Simonsen states that the feeling of national belonging is important both for the indigenous society of a nation but also its immigrants. She argues that this feeling of belonging causes a more established feeling of the self, but that also the environment of the individual will be more balanced (Simonsen, 2017). Furthermore, studies have found that if individuals are excluded and denied an identity it: “(…) can be

psychologically damaging and lead to frustration, anger, sadness, loss of meaning in life and depression.” (Simonsen, 2017, p. 16).

One study found that ethnic minorities living in one specific underprivileged area in Denmark, often referred to as an ‘immigrant ghetto’, feel a low level of belonging to Denmark and its national community, but a high degree of belonging to their local

community in Aalborg east. One of the primary reasons for this is the feeling of exclusion and stigmatization from the national community, witnessed in the political and public discourse where they are identified as ‘strangers’ in Denmark (Christensen and Jensen, 2011).

(10)

The research described above explains both when, and why, this negative anti-immigration discourse exists, as well as the general tendencies of the political problematization and the exclusion of non-Western immigrants in Denmark. The analysis includes extended and more in-depth contextual analysis of some of the historical tendencies that have been influencing the problematization of this group. Moreover, this thesis includes research into what sort of consequences are to be expected for individuals who find themselves excluded from the majority.

The contribution of this thesis is that it analyses the newest initiative in form of the ghetto plan from 2018 to investigate if this anti-immigration discourse is still intact but also to investigate if the discourse could be interpreted as racist. Lastly, the thesis analyses if the ghetto plan’s approach seems like the most suitable solution to solve specific issues in the deprived residential areas in Denmark.

Additionally, in the analysis I draw on previous research. It is not explicitly about the ghetto plan from 2018. It is however relevant because it describes what have influenced the general discourse such as the Danish cartoon crisis (Aguis, 2013), examples of the historical

political ghetto discourses in Denmark in 2004 (Statsministeriet, 2004) and in 2010

(Statsministeriet, 2010) and the way the Danish media has portrayed this group in relation to gender issues (Andreassen, 2007).

3. Theory

In this section I develop my theoretical framework, which includes Benedicts Andersson’s concept of imagined communities. Next, I seek to clarify Paul Gilroy’s theory about nation camps, new racism, and the position between camps including the example of the diaspora. Finally, I include Peter Herviks approach of the three elements that can be used to

investigate and analyse if a phenomenon, an action or an event is racist or not, understood in relation to new racism. I focus on theory that addresses nationalism, inclusion/exclusion, feeling of belonging and racism.

(11)

3.1 Imagined communities

Political scientist Benedict Anderson defined nations as imagined communities. Nations and nationality are created and maintained only if the members believe and imagine that the nation exists. Nations could be seen as bounded unities because of the restriction of how many members a nation can include, which produce an in- and exclusion of people

(Anderson, 1991, p. 6). An important point, which Simonsen illustrates, is that the general view of successful integration occurs when immigrants integrate into the nation by

becoming like the majority population of the nation state, also known as assimilation (Simonsen, 2017). This perception is challenged by Anderson’s definition of nations as imagined communities because it implies there is a natural limitation to how many people who can be included in the definition of being nationals of a nation state. The argument is that there will automatically be an exclusion of people in order for the nation state to be defined (Anderson, 1991, p. 6).

3.2 Nation camps and the diaspora

Paul Gilroy operates with the term “camps”. He refers to nation states that have been

racialised due to the historical process of modernizations (Gilroy, 2000, p. 83-84). The camp mentality is characterized by the ideal of purity and the idea that immigration of people of colour, Muslims and others are seen as an intrusion and a pollution to the homogeneity of the nation and a threat to the absolute cultural identity (ibid, p. 83). He describes how these nation camps create mythical versions of one homogeneous culture. This is a way to create an image of how immigrants’ culture is incompatible with the nation camp’s culture. This causes exclusion and yet is defended with the discourse of how these immigrants are a threat to the national homogeneity of the nation.

Instead of being part of one of these nation-state camps Gilory argues it is better to place oneself between the different camps. Doing so entails the possibility of seeing culture as something that is dynamic and able to change: “It can also promote a rich theoretical understanding of culture as a mutable and traveling phenomenon.” (ibid, p. 84). The

diaspora is according to Gilroy an example of a position between camps (ibid). The concept of diaspora is an alternative to the camp mentality and gives the opportunity to go against the idea of absolute and essential identity. He argues that the validation of sub- and

(12)

supranational kinship will give the opportunity of having a more ambivalent relationship with these nation camps. The network or web that diaspora are causing gives us the chance to think about solidarity, self-understanding and identity in a new way (Gilroy, 2000, p. 128). Diaspora focus on intercultural and transcultural processes, he explains it by saying there has been a shift of focus from roots to routes. The diaspora identities are: “creolized, syncretized, hybridized, and chronically impure cultural forms (…)” (Gilroy, 2000, p. 129). Instead of looking at cultures as entities that are simply incompatible Gilroy argues that instead cultural identities should be seen as hybrids.

3.3 New racism

Gilroy uses the term “new racism” to explain another form of racism that is present in these nation camps. It differentiates from traditional racism where it was believed that race was determined by biology, thereby created biological hierarchies. Instead what characterizes this new form of racism is the culturalist and nationalist focus (Gilroy, 2000). In particular nationalism is important for nation states along with the idea that the nation is a

homogeneous unity (Gilroy, 2000). According to Gilroy, when immigrants settled they were depicted as “transplanted aliens” and were seen as a great threat. It was not that they were seen as less worthy or inferior, but simply out of place (Gilroy, 2000).

According to Gilroy “race” is constructed through cultural difference, while racism is a social construction and the way we understand race today has developed since the 19th

century. The historical process of modernization racialised the different nations, which meant that some races were seen as different and therefore excluded from the national community (Gilroy, 2000, p. 57). This process of exclusion stems from a racialized rationality, understood in the sense that people were no longer an “essentially

undifferentiated collectivity” (Gilroy, 2000, p. 64). Instead there is a historically defined perception of a hierarchy of both “authentic” citizens, “inauthentic” people who do not belong (ibid). He uses the term “The rational irrationality” to describe how the concept of race gives a fundamental understanding of a natural hierarchy with a nationalistic and raciological focus (Gilroy, 2004, p. 9). This also means that cultures are seen as absolute, which hinders the change of culture. Gilroy criticises the perception of the impossibility of these groups to mix and a consequence to this could be the normalization of hate and cruelty

(13)

towards this group (Gilroy, 2000, p. 27). I am including the concept of new racism, with its focus on nationality, civilisations and culture as something that is seen in different nation states, to analyse the ghetto plan.

3.4 The three elements

In my use of the term racism, I rely on Peter Hervik’s three elements approach. Peter Hervik also operates with the term “new racism”, as a way to define the construction and separation of people by including “culture”, “ethnicity” and “difference” in the same way as Gilroy (Hervik, 2015). The creation of the idea of incompatibility is according to Hervik created to legitimize certain policies and sanctions. Racism has consequently become a political project (ibid). Hervik has developed a practical analytical perspective to investigate and identify if an event, a specific action, a phenomenon or a specific statement are racist and to what degree. There are three basic elements that have to be applied in the process to decide whether or not it constitutes racism: The first one is a national anchoring of “us” and “them” dichotomy as a shared basic understanding and a framework of interpretation (ibid). Here one has to investigate if there is seen a division between “us” and “them” which constitute an idea of incompatibility. He gives an example of how this could be nation-based, where “us” would be the native Danes, who arrived here “first”, whilst immigrants and their descendants, who do not “naturally” belong and are therefore are perceived as foreigners, could be defined as “them”.

The second is the racialization of the relationship between “us” and “them” (ibid). Racialization is understood as the process where the categorization of biological or cultural features is used to identify a group in the population. Here the identity attributions such as motives and actions are explained in relation to the collective instead of focusing on each individual. Also, the group are attributed with negative characteristics in order to legitimize claims and punishment. Racialization is the legitimization of racist discrimination, which includes defining characteristics in the form of tradition, appearance and specific lifestyle to groups referred to as “them” or the “others”. Here this dichotomization is analysed in order to expose what sort of value-laden relations exist between the practitioners and the victims of the racist action or statement. The focus is to show if the relationship represents a racialization, a hierarchization or a dehumanization of “them”. Also, the discourse of the “others” is described as incompatible with “us”, being primitive and controlled by their

(14)

culture, whereas the “us” is conversely described as modern, rational and individualized (ibid). The point of focus in this element is to identify the moment where the “others” are depicted as different and incompatible with the other group.

Finally, there is the element of the power of transforming the above into concrete discrimination. Here the focus is to identify the power that causes the racialization of people or negative consequences for these groups. In order for an action to be considered racist it has to create a structure of dominance based on hierarchized and essentialist race categories (ibid). The focus here is to identify what sort of power or position of power a person or an institution, in this case being the Danish government, has to control the access to for example policies, the labour market, or the military, to mention a few. Additionally the focus is to what extent the person or institution are able to maintain, marginalize and exclude the selected persons (ibid).

The concept of imagined communities is used to investigate whether the ghetto plan is part of a growing tendency for nation states to exclude specific groups as a way of better defining themselves. Gilroy’s concepts of nation camps and the camp mentality are also incorporated to examine what sorts of discourse are present in the ghetto plan. New racism and Hervik’s three elements are used to investigate what consequences arise for this group being held responsible for the issues in these areas, also to discuss whether the ghetto plan can be interpreted as racist or not. All the abovementioned theories are interlinked and used to answer the six questions from the WPR approach.

4. Method and data

4.1 Methodology

The methodology used for this thesis is the Foucault-inspired poststructural perspective and the method used is the poststructural policy analysis.

Foucault was interested in analysing the connection between micro and macro levels (Olssen et al, 2004). He developed the term “governmentality” also understood as the “conduct of conduct”, meaning the activity that forms, guides and affect human beings. Instead of the more traditional focus on class structures this discourse analysis focuses instead on the social structures of race, national identity and ethnicity. A central point in the analysis is

(15)

national identity and ethnicity, which is way I have decided to use it for my research. (Olssen et al., 2004).

According to Foucault, regulations and rules, including policies, create specific “knowledge”, or a form of political practice, which influence the way human beings are encouraged and affected to behave. An important focus for Foucault was subjectivities. He identified three ways human beings could be constructed as subjects. The first one occurred in the nineteenth century and focuses on how human sciences have constructed subjects. Secondly was the “dividing practices” Here the subject was objectified through

classifications. Finally, he points to how individuals turn themselves into these subjects and thereby change their history (ibid.). The poststructuralist approach differentiates from the more classical discourse analysis because it does not see politics as something that solves specific problems, but rather it focuses upon how politics creates problems that affect human beings’ life and behaviour. In addition, this approach differentiates from the more

traditionalistic discourse analysis because it does not focus on the concrete language, the different patterns in communication and rhetoric. Rather, it believes that reality is created through language. It is though not the words themselves that create meaning but rather the difference between words and the diverse meanings that occur depending on the context in which the words are used. In this perspective words appear in different structures but these structures are not considered to be final.

Furthermore, the specific discourse creates certain knowledge that is seen as socially produced (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016). This also means that the dominant discourses in society are the ones that create the social reality and thereby create the norms of ‘common sense’. A goal for the post structural analysis is to clarify the dominant discourse practices, and to question and challenge the objectivity being presented since this creates the

possibility of presenting counter-discourses as alternatives to the norm (ibid).

Foucault’s ontological approach would be categorized as primarily relativist. According to the poststructuralist ontology there are multiple versions of reality, and that truth is shaped by context, which evolves and changes depending on our realities. However neither values nor truths can exist outside a historical context (Olssen et al., 2004). Also, knowledge is seen as something contingent. The epistemology used in this perspective is more of a pluralistic one, where knowledge is seen as intersubjective (Moses & Knutsen, 2012, p. 200). Despite

(16)

Foucault mainly agreeing with this argumentation he did still believed that some universal truths existed, but were discursively and historically embedded (Olssen et al., 2004).

4.2 Method

I use the Foucault inspired qualitative poststructural policy analysis in form of the WPR approach called “What’s the problem represented to be?”. This is an analytic strategy that facilitates the analysis and was developed by Carol Bacchi and Susan Goodwin. The aim of this approach is to question and investigate on what background a government creates specific policies and what effects it produces (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016). The WPR approach consists of six interlinked questions, which will be answered systematically:

Question 1: What’s the problem represented to be in a specific policy or policies?

Question 2: What deep-seated presuppositions or assumptions underlie this representation of the “problem”?

Question 3: How has this representation of the “problem” come about?

Question 4: What is left unproblematic in this problem representation? Where are the silences? Can the “problem” be conceptualized differently?

Question 5: What effects are produced by this representation of the “problem”? Question 6: How and where has this representation of the “problem” been produced, disseminated and defended? How has it been and/or how can it be disrupted and replaced? These questions are used to examine the underlying premises of the ghetto plan and how these problems are represented. Doing so provides an opportunity to investigate the underlying assumptions that are linked to these policy statements, and also what sort of associations it causes for the people affected by it. This strategy therefore challenges the assumption of how policies are created to address problems: “(…) it approaches policies as problematizations that produce “problems” as particular types of problems.” (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016, p. 6)

Some political initiatives produce certain groups that are then being held accountable for a specific problem. This creates a stigma and disparages the importance of other factors that could otherwise explain the problem (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016). I also examine and

(17)

demonstrate that what we perceive as already identified problems and solutions remain up for discussion, and that there are several truths and thereby several alternatives and

opportunities to solve the problems seen in the deprived residential areas in Denmark. 4.3 Material

The primary sources for the analysis are: ´Et Danmark uden parallelsamfund – Ingen ghettoer I 2030”, which are also referred to as the ghetto plan. The translation into English would be: One Denmark without parallel societies – No ghettos in 2030. It consists of 40 pages, where the 22 initiatives are listed and explained. Additionally it includes two

appendixes consisting of a list with other government initiatives that are aimed at solving the problem with the so called parallel societies, followed by a list of deprived residential areas in Denmark, listed in three different categories: vulnerable housing areas, ghetto areas and the hardest ghetto areas in Denmark (Regeringen, 2018). The empirical source is published by the Danish Ministry of Economics Affairs and the Interior in 2018. Lastly, as mentioned in the literature review I incorporate previous research about the Danish cartoon crisis (Aguis, 2013), Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s New Year’s speech from 2004 (Statsministeriet, 2004), Prime Ministers Lars Løkke Rasmussen’s opening speech for the Danish parliament in 2010 (Statsministeriet, 2010) and research concerning how the Danish media portray non-Western immigrants in relation to gender issues (Andreassen, 2007) in order to answer the six questions from the WPR approach sufficiently.

4.4 Validity and reliability

My primary material: “Ét Danmark uden parallelsamfund – Ingen ghettoer I 2030” also referred to as the ghetto plan is only accessible in Danish. This means that I have conducted the analysis of the ghetto plan, then translated relevant quotes from Danish to English. The opportunity to read and analyse the text in my mother tongue is an advantage, since I have a deeper understanding and a better knowledge of the vocabulary in the Danish language, allowing me to conduct a precise analysis and reflection, resulting in an improved overall analysis. I have included quotes in Danish and translated them into English from

respectively three different sources (Regeringen, 2018), (Statsministeriet, 2004) and (Statsministeriet, 2010). The pitfall is when I had to do a one to one translation because there were words in Danish that the English language does not have an accurate word for.

(18)

There is therefore a chance that the overall meaning will be less precise since in the process of translating from one language to another, certain meaning could be lost. I have attached all three sources as appendixes to ensure as much transparency as possible.

5. Analysis

In this section I am answering the six questions from the WPR approach to analyse the ghetto plan while including other relevant material in order to do the most sufficient analysis.

5.1 What’s the problem represented to be in the ghetto plan?

To identify what ‘problem’ is represented in the ghetto plan examples are used, then

analysed by focusing on what sorts of language, rhetoric and discourse are used to create the representation of the “problem” (Bacchi and Goodwin, 2016).

By looking at the heading title of the ghetto plan: “One Denmark without any parallel societies – no ghettos in 2030” (Regeringen, 2018) it becomes clear how the government’s goal of having zero ghettos in 2030 must happen through the dissolving of parallel societies (ibid, p. 5) It is described that these parallel societies have been created by non-Western immigrants: “There has been produced parallel societies among persons with non-Western background.” (ibid, p. 4). This quote illustrates how non-Western immigrants are represented to be the “problem” due to the perception that it is these groups that have constructed parallel societies.

In the introduction of the “ghetto plan” it is described how ethnic composition has changed drastically, and that the population in Denmark has increased due to immigration in the last 40 years, and that immigration has occurred primarily from non-Western countries (ibid, p. 4). Afterwards it explains how many immigrants are participating and doing well, becoming active members in associations and in the broader Danish society (ibid, p. 4), yet on the same page it states that too many non-Western immigrants are not participating, and have no attachment to the Danish society (ibid). By firstly describing how many immigrants are doing well, followed by immediately afterwards problematizing the lack of participation

(19)

from non-Western immigrants, clarifies which group the government is choosing to

represent to be the ‘problem’: Non-western immigrants. This is an example of how policies create and produce certain kind of “problems” (cf. Bacchi and Goodwin, 2016), by starting with describing immigrants in positive terms, then non-Western immigrants are used as a contrast to this group, being solely described with negative attributes. This distinction between the two groups is therefore clearly stated. This produces an implicit representation of non-Western immigrants to be categorized as the “problems”, whereby the 22 initiatives are proffered as a much needed solution to the said “problem”.

The description of non-Western immigrants, ghettos and parallel societies are embedded in a nationalist discourse (cf. Gilroy, 2000). It becomes clear that this group of non-Western immigrants and parallel societies are portrayed as unilateral negative (cf. Gilroy, 2000). As a result the Danish nation is seen in stark contrast to this and as a consequence it becomes more defined and maintained as a bounded entity (cf. Anderson, 1991). By describing how they are not a part of the Danish nation there is automatically creates a restriction on how many members the country wants to include. The discourse of how non-Western immigrants living in ghettos/parallel societies is not a part of the imagined community (Anderson, 1991) and they are excluded from being accepted as a part of society.

5.2 What deep-seated presuppositions or assumptions underlie this representation of non-Western immigrants?

This section analyses how non-Western immigrants are represented to be the ‘problem’ by looking at what sort of binaries and categories are used in the text. Moreover it will identify the discursive practices that are expressed through the assumptions and suppositions

presented in the ghetto plan (Bacchi, C. and Goodwin, S., 2016).

In the ghetto plan, non-Western immigrants are defined via several negative characteristics. It states many are: “not participating actively in the Danish society and on the labour market.” (Regeringen, 2018, p, 5). It also argues that the reason for this is the fact that “too few have accepted the opportunities that Denmark have offered” (ibid), yet also that this group is generally not taking enough responsibility (ibid). Another example of how non-western immigrants are excluded from the definition of being Danish is how instead

(20)

they are portrayed as a economic burden: “Danish taxpayers could have saved almost 17 billion if non-Western immigrants had been in employment in the same scale as the Danes.” (ibid, p. 5). These quotes show how this group are represented to be passive, not taking responsibility and being an economic burden to the Danish society, which are arguments for why they could be defined as the ‘problem’.

Also it is assumed that non-Western immigrants have chosen to separate

themselves from the Danish society because they have “(…) not adopted the Danish values and are isolating oneself in parallel societies.” (ibid, p. 6). The supposition is that they have different norms and values (cf. Gilroy, 2000), which is clearly displayed in the following quote: “Most citizens with non-Western backgrounds come from societies with strikingly different values than in the Danish society” (Regeringen, 2018, p. 7.) The assumption that non-Western immigrants have entirely different values compared with Danes is causing exclusion and limits the opportunity for this group to become a part of the majority (cf. Gilroy, 2000).

The link between non-Western immigrants and parallel societies is exemplified in the following quote: “The strong population growth of citizens with non-Western origin have created parallel societies, where Danish values and norms are not primary”

(Regeringen, 2018, p. 7). Here it is implied that it is solely non-Western immigrants that are to blame for causing parallel societies. Afterwards it is argued that parallel societies are a burden and problematic for the Danish society: “Parallel societies are a big strain for the cohesion in society and for the individual” (ibid, p. 5). In the title of the plan “One Denmark without parallel societies (…)” (ibid, p. 5) Denmark is depicted to stand in contrast to parallel societies and can only be one united and complete nation state when parallel

societies have disappeared (cf. Gilroy, 2000). Throughout the plan Denmark is described as “The Danish community”, and “the Danish society” (Regeringen, 2018, p. 5) and “The normal Denmark” (ibid, p 7) with values such as democracy, freedom and equality (ibid, p. 7). Denmark is largely portrayed as the opposite of parallel societies and the two become binaries to each other (cf. Bacchi and Goodwin, 2016).

The ghetto plan gives various examples of different consequences due to the existence of parallel societies, of which one is: “It is a threat against our modern society when freedom, democracy, equality and tolerance are not accepted as fundamental values.” (Regeringen, 2018, p. 5). The use of “our modern society” is contributing to create an “us”

(21)

and “them”. “Us” is here referring to “ethnic Danes” and “them” are non-Western immigrants living in parallel societies. Moreover the Danish modern society is described with liberal values, against which non-western immigrants are perceived as a threat against (cf. Gilroy, 2000).

The aim of the ghetto plan is to ensure that: “ Citizens in parallel societies shall be fellow citizens, who contribute to society – economically and in a human way. On the same scale as all other Danes” (Regeringen, 2018, p. 7). The Danes are in this quote depicted to be fellow citizens who contributes to the Danish society, where the citizens in parallel societies, here referring to non-Western immigrants, from previous descriptions of those who live in parallel societies (see section above), are portrayed as the opposite. The use of ‘a human way’ to describe Danes, somehow dehumanises non-Western immigrants seem somehow not human and creates a larger separation between the two groups. Danes is used as examples to illustrate the major differences and a contrast to non-Western

immigrants.

Another example of how the government creates oppositions between “ethnic Danes” and non-Western immigrants: “It is a serious interference in the individuals freedom and opportunity for development, when there are exceeded social control towards women and young people” (ibid, p. 5). This quote describes how the lack of freedom is one of the consequences of parallel societies. One the very same page, freedom is mentioned as an important value in modern Danish society. Also non-Western immigrants are described as individuals who exercise social control and sees women as less worth than men (ibid, p. 5). This interpretation that social control due to gender inequalities and the absence of freedom are what categorizes parallel societies is in complete contrast to the description of the values of freedom and equality in the Danish state (Andreassen, 2007).

Throughout the text non-Western immigrants are depicted as a homogenous group, who all have the same negative attributes attached to them (cf. Hervik, 2015). However this claim neglects to take into consideration that this group is in fact very heterogeneous, with several different cultures and norms. The ghetto plan creates a

stereotype of non-Western immigrants. Likewise with the negative discourse about how the ethnicity of this group is being described in relation to negative characteristics such

(22)

passivity, being a threat or economic burden to society, not taking responsibility, having increased freedom and the oppression of women. In contrast, a Danish stereotype is depicted, which also is described as an identical group, who all have the same

unambiguously positive values. The ghetto plan is not taking into consideration that Danes cannot be categorized into one identical group. Throughout the text there are several examples of how non-Western immigrants and ethnic Danes are portrayed as the opposites of one another, and in binary fashion (cf. Hervik, 2015). Also Parallel societies and

Denmark are framed as being incompatible. The discourse creates certain knowledge (cf. Bacchi and Goodwin, 2016) of how non-Western immigrants are problematic in several aspects, but also how they have choose to isolate themselves with their distinct norms and values. The assumption is that due to non-Western immigrants’ passivity and rejection of all the opportunities the country has offered them, has resulted in the creation of parallel

societies. This implicates the emergence of ghettos/parallel societies as their own fault, thereby removing the focus from economic and structural explanations. Also, the Danish nation and its Danish citizens are defined through a use of “us” and non-Western immigrants are mostly portrayed as the “others” (cf. Hervik, 2015).

The negative discourses around the culture and ethnicity of this group, their lack of taking personal responsibility and the perception that they are a danger to the Danish nation state creates a specific political rationality. This socially produced ‘knowledge’ (cf. Bacchi and Goodwin, 2016) becomes the norm and is perceived to be the ‘truth’, which is a way to legitimize the ghetto plans execution of the 22 initiatives.

5.3 How has this representation of non-Western immigrants come about?

Here I conduct a Foucault-inspired genealogical mapping of the different practices that have led to the misrepresentation of non-Western immigrants and parallel societies seen in the ghetto plan. In accordance with this approach I go beyond the ghetto plan to focus on the historical context by examining how the problematization of non-Western immigrants has become legitimized via certain discursive practices that produce specific knowledge, which becomes perceived to be “true” statements about reality (Bacchi and Goodwin, 2016). By looking at the past discourses, the production of norms, and shifts in social attitudes towards this group, possible explanations may be discovered for the production of the legitimization

(23)

of the problematization of non-western immigrants and how the intervention of the ghetto plan itself came to be.

In 2005, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published 12 different cartoon drawings of the prophet Mohamed. This event is referred to as the Danish cartoon crisis (Agius, 2013). The cartoons were a critique of the religion Islam and themes such as violence, gender suppression and radicalism were illustrated in the drawings. The cartoons received

international attention and many Muslim communities and countries criticised the paper for disrespecting their religion, and asked for the drawings to be removed and demanding an apology. This was rejected under the banner of freedom of expression, which became the primary theme of the crisis alongside the debate about how the two cultures were clashing: The Danish culture versus Muslims’ culture. The discourses seen in the debate were often how these two cultures were irreconcilable with each other and it became a “culture

struggle” (ibid). Also, Muslims’ culture was perceived as traditional and old-fashioned and in contrast to the progressive Danish national identity and thus became a threat. Also, by arguing that the Danish welfare state and its progressive values such as democracy and gender equality were under threat, made it possible to define an exclusionary and limited definition on the Danish national identity (ibid). As a result of these narrow discourses around identity, even stricter immigration policies were enacted to protect this constricted definition of being Danish, which produced an exclusionary and hierarchical definition (ibid).

The political ghetto discourse has been a part of Danish political discourse since 2004 when Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the former prime minister (2004), in his new years speech said: “Many years of failed immigration policies have for example created immigrant ghettos where men are unemployed, where women are isolated and where the families only speak the native language. (…) They confuse the Danish liberalism with indecisiveness. The Danish freedom with emptiness. The Danish equality with carelessness. (…) We have to stop the disastrous formation of ghettos.” (Statsministeriet, 2004). From that moment Denmark had officially become a country with ghettos (Wacquant, 2013, p. 25). The same year saw the publication of a “strategy against the ghettoization” (Statsministeriet, 2004),

(24)

and a “program committee against the ghettoization”, which aimed was to develop and control the strategies (Statsministeriet, 2004).

In 2010 the debate about ghettos and parallel societies had intensified. The former liberal Prime Minister Lars Lykke Rasmussen (2010) said in his opening speech for the Danish parliament that: ”There has arisen a form of holes in the map of Denmark. Places where the Danish values clearly no longer are leading” (Statsministeriet, 2010). Here he gives examples of the Danish values such as freedom of speech, gender equality and: “Our deep-rooted democracy.” (Statsministeriet, 2010). Also the discourse of how specific values are defined as Danish and the use of “our” is a way to create a

separation between ghettos/parallel societies and the Danish society: ”When parallel systems of justice are growing and values such as trust, freedom and responsibility are non-existing.” ”The problems are connected to the vulnerable social housing areas. Areas, which we in everyday language call ghettos” (Statsministeriet, 2010). These examples are almost identical with the description of Danish values given in the introduction in the ghetto plan (Regeringen, 2018). This form of discourse is causing an “us”: Ethnic Danes and a “them”: non-Western immigrants living in ghettos. In the same year the government published: “The ghetto back to the society – A showdown with parallel societies in Denmark”

(Statsministeriet, 2010). Many of the initiatives listed in the approach had many similarities with the ghetto plan from 2018. The political discourse and the way both of the former prime ministers are representing ghettos/parallel societies, which also refers to non-Western immigrants, are both very similar to the ghetto plan. The past political discourses and the initiatives from 2004 and 2010 have most likely produced certain norms that legitimized the problematization of this group and are most likely an important factor in the

problematization of non-Western immigrants, therefore making the implementation of the

ghetto plan from 2018 possible.

Rikke Andreassen has done an extensive research of how the Danish newsmedia portrayed what she calls ‘visible minorities’ from the 1990s until the 2000s. The definition includes non-white refugees, immigrants and their descendants (Andreassen, 2007). This group were also the ones targeted in the ghetto plan, which makes it relevant to include her results. In this section I will use the term visible minorities to describe the group that is called non-western immigrants in the ghetto plan.

(25)

Andreassen (ibid) found that the Danish news media have throughout the years used the terms: refugees, foreigners, immigrants, Muslims and second-generation migrants to describe visible minorities, with a lack of differentiation between the definitions of these terms.

The results show how the media represented visible minority women as being oppressed. Also the group is often referred to as being one homogeneous group that live in a static and patriarchal culture (ibid). In contrast ethnic Danish women are described as liberated. The contrast here makes the ethnic Dane seem comparatively progressive and as someone who does not live in a patriarchal culture, and are thus portrayed as opposites (ibid). Moreover, the representation in the media of the oppression of women, domestic assault and honour killings are framed to be a Muslim phenomenon and are perceived in stark contrast to ethnic Danes. This creates the conception that Denmark is a gender equal country. This is criticized by Andreassen, who states that domestic assualt is a widespread phenomenon also present among ethnic Danes (ibid). The media’s representation of visible minority women as oppressed is similar to the description of visible minority women in parallel societies as exposed to social control and as less worth than men in the ghetto plan. Also the framing of ethnic Danish women as liberated and progressive and the way

Denmark is described as a country with gender equality is very similar to the descriptions seen in the ghetto plan.

It could therefore be argued that the Danish cartoon crisis, the historical ghetto discourse and the negative discourse in the media could have been an influence on the representation of non-western immigrants ultimately being perceived as the ‘problem’ in the ghetto plan.

5.4 What is left unproblematic in this problem representation? Where are the silences? Can the “problem” of non-Western immigrants be conceptualized

differently?

This question focuses on other factors that could explain the issues seen in the deprived residential areas but have been left out in the ghetto plan due to the government’s

(26)

According to Karin Børresen there are several explanations for why there is a high

percentage of non-western immigrants living in deprived residential areas, which she defines as ethnic segregation (Børresen, 2002).

Even before immigrants started to move to social housing areas in the start of the 70s it was seen how many resourceful ethnic Danes have already started to move away from these areas. The end of the 60s saw an economic upturn. This resulted in an increase in the amount of owner occupied dwellings that were built. As a result there was a low demand for new public social housings in the beginning of the 70s. This caused problems finding tenants to move in. A way to solve this was to locate immigrants in the new public social housing. This is one of the main explanations for why we today see a high influx of immigrants living in these so-called “ghettos” (ibid).

Another explanation is that in 1973, in connection with family reunifications, a requirement was introduced for the applicant for family reunification to have a specific residence at one’s disposal. Vacant apartments that met these specific requirements were mainly to be found in the new public social housing estates in the suburban municipalities. This requirement was repealed in 1983 but again reintroduced in 1999 (ibid). The policies of housing- Planning and extension have according to Børresen (ibid) had a major impact on why a high percentage of non-western immigrants are living in these so-called “ghettos”.

The economic boom in Denmark in the late 70s resulted in the start of an economic and social split-up of the housing market. The separation on the housing market was seen between owner occupied properties, that were mainly market regulated, and then public social housing areas that were politically regulated (ibid). There was building boom of owner-occupied buildings since more people could now afford to invest in private property. This resulted in an asymmetrical dualization of the housing market, where the most deprived in relation to economic and social opportunities were located in social housing areas (Schultz, 2018b). This is according to Schultz (ibid) one of the main factors for why we have seen a increasing economic inequality and a sociospatial segregation in the deprived residential areas in Denmark. Also Børresen (2002) argues that the reason why we have seen a high percentage of non-western immigrants in these areas is due to the fact many are not capable of buying a house owing to the lack of economic capital. Also discrimination on the private rental market and in private housing co-operatives are

(27)

additional reasons why many non-Western immigrants do not have options other than to move to deprived residential areas (ibid).

According to Schultz (2018b) these examples are not just random coincidences but rather it shows the state’s production of social mechanisms due to a restrictive and unequal urban policy. Moreover, he argues that the problematization of ghettos and non-Western immigrants is not the reason for the issues seen in these areas but rather it is structural issues in relation to lack of economic capital, the labour market and the housing market that are producing these problems (ibid).

The examples mentioned above illustrate an alternative explanation to the ghetto

plan’s representation of non-Western immigrants culture and ethnicity to be the reason for

this problem. This section argues instead that it could be economic and structural factors that explain the tendency of why there are a high percentage of non-Western immigrants who live together in these areas.

5.5 What effects are produced by this representation of the non-Western immigrants?

This question focuses on what sorts of effects are produced as a result of the ghetto plans ‘problem’ representation of non-Western immigrants living in ghettos/parallel societies. As part of Bacchi and Goodwin’s method there are three effects listed: The discursive effects, referring here to how the representation is restricting what can be thought or said (Bletsas and Beasley, 2012). The second effect is the subjectification, which reflects the way non-Western immigrants are portrayed and represented as particular kind of subjects and recognized as being responsible for the ‘problem’ (ibid., p. 69). The last effect is the lived effect, which translates how the discursive and subjetification effects are translated into this group’s sense of self and their behaviour, such as emotional and material distress (ibid). I also use Gilroy’s concepts of nation camps, the camp mentality and the concept of race. Additionally I implement Hervik’s three elements: (1) a national anchoring of the “us” and “them” dichotomy as a shared basic understanding and a framework of interpretation, (2) the racialization of the relationship between “us” and “them” and (3) the element of the power of transforming this into concrete discrimination (Hervik, 2015). This theory is used to discuss if the ghetto plan can be interpreted as racist.

(28)

Discursive effects

As analysed in question two the problem represented in the ghetto plan is how non-Western immigrants are clustering together in parallel societies and isolating themselves from the rest of the Danish society. An idea is constructed that non-Western immigrants and ethnic Danes are the opposite of each other, which creates an image of how these two groups are

incompatible with each other (cf. Hervik, 2015). This discourse creates an understanding of how non-Western immigrants do not naturally belong to the Danish state due to their cultural incompatibility. The ghetto plan constructs a fixed national dichotomy of an “us” being the ethnic Danes and “them” meaning non-Western immigrants living in parallel societies. The framework of interpretation or the “truth” that the discourse produces matches Hervik’s first element to define racism: the national anchoring of the “us” and “them” dichotomy as a shared basic understanding and a framework of interpretation (Hervik, 2015). Lastly, the discourse limits other possible explanations for the issues seen in these areas such as the economic and structural factors mentioned in question three: How has this representation of non-Western immigrants come about?

Subjectification effects

In order to analyse the effects of subjectification it seems relevant to include Hervik’s second element: The racialization of the relationship between “us” and “them” (Hervik, 2015). In the following section I argue how the ghetto plan represents subjects of non-Western immigrants using negative characteristics, and ethnic Danes using positive attributes and how the two are presented as incomparable, which fits Hervik’s theory of racialization (Hervik, P., 2015).

As described in question two the ghetto plan includes only negative descriptions of the group’s cultural features. This is a way to produce a specific negative perception of this group’s lifestyle and a very simplified method to categorize and identify non-Western immigrants (cf. Hervik, 2015). Moreover this discourse is not taking into account the very heterogeneous nature of this group and how it consists of many individuals with diverse characteristics. The identity attributions used in the ghetto plan depict this group as a collective instead of looking at each individual, which complies with Hervik’s second

(29)

element (Hervik, 2015). Furthermore, the subjectification of non-Western immigrants as a homogeneous group who are controlled by their culture is a subjectification that depicts them as the “others”. This is what Hervik (ibid) would define as a racialization in order to identify a specific group in the population. As illustrated in question two this is in stark contrast to how ethnic Danes are described as the opposite, and is a way to depict ethnic Danes as “us” creating the idea of incompatibility, which again characterizes Hervik’s first element of a national anchoring of “us” and “them” (ibid).

The description of the Danish nation as one homogeneous culture is creating what Gilroy describes as mythical versions of the state (Gilroy, 2000). This discourse is causing people with other cultures to be denied the option of becoming a part of the Danish nation state, which results in an idea of the two being incompatible and the “others” are perceived as a threat to the homogeneous nation. This discourse suits Gilroy’s term of nation camps and how these nations have been racialised (Gilroy, 2000). Further, the description of the Danish nation state as homogenous and how non-Western immigrants are negatively portrayed as an intrusion and a pollution and depicted as a threat to the Danish cultural identity are in

accordance with how Gilroy defines the camp mentality (Gilroy, P., 2000).

The discourse or the specific political rationality of how non-Western immigrants are

represented to be the ‘problem’ by describing them with negative attributions and the Danish national identity as something solely positive thereby makes these two groups distinctive from each other and incomparable (cf. Hervik, 2015). This approach produces certain

knowledge, which legitimizes these stereotypical descriptions of the two groups as being the “truth” (cf. Bacchi and Goodwin, 2016), thereby legitimizing the ghetto plans execution of the 22 initiatives. This part also suits Hervik’s second element because these negative descriptions are used to legitimize certain claims and punishments (Hervik, P., 2015). The factors listed above comply with Hervik’s second element of racialization of the relationship between “us” and “them” (Hervik, P., 2015).

Lived effects

To investigate the lived effects I am including Herviks third element of how power transforms into concrete discrimination and Gilroy’s concept of new racism.

(30)

One of the criteria for a vulnerable social housing area to be defined as a ghetto is if the percentage of immigrants and descendants from non-Western countries exceeds more than 50 percent of the total population (Regeringen, 2018). The government is therefore using ethnicity to define ghettos/parallel societies. Throughout the ghetto plan the articulation of non-Western immigrant’s ethnicity is described as the main factor for the social problems, and a way to legitimize the representation of non-Western immigrants as the ‘problems’. Also, the depiction of them as the “others” and as incomparable with “us” the ethnic Danes denies them the possibility of being part of the Danish nation (cf. Hervik, 2015). The government creates a structure of dominance by using ethnicity to hierarchize non-Western immigrants into race categories and the use of power causes negative consequences for this group. The government’s use of power is related to Hervik’s third element of how power transforms into concrete discrimination (Hervik, P., 2015). Ethnicity is therefore used to legitimize the 22 initiatives, that prohibits, sanctions and discriminate by demanding compulsory day care to ensure better Danish proficiency, lower benefits for refugees if they settle in these areas, double punishment in ghetto zones and forced displacement (Regeringen, 2018, p. 8) to mention a few. The solution to the ‘problem’ represented in the ghetto plan is the 22 initiatives (Regeringen, 2018).

Among other things new racism is according to Gilroy constructed through the creation of race, and that race is constructed through the making of cultural difference (Gilroy, 2000). It could be argued that both the social construction of cultural difference between non-Western immigrants and ethnic Danes are present in the discourse in the ghetto plan, which results in the construction of race (Gilroy, 2000).

According to Gilroy (2004) the concept of race gives a natural hierarchy of “authentic” citizens, in this context ethnic Danes, and then the people who “do not belong”, here being the non-Western immigrants. This concept is what Gilroy defines as the “rational irrationality” (ibid, p. 9). As a consequence it creates a perception of culture as something that is absolute, which hinders any form of change of culture (ibid). This makes it extremely hard for non-Western immigrants to ever be included in the definition of being part of the Danish nation. Additionally this presentation of a cultural discourse that presents these two groups as incomparable could result in the normalization of hate and brutality towards this group (ibid), and is therefore a negative lived effect for non-Western

(31)

immigrants living in parallel societies.

The implementation of Hervik’s three elements and Gilroy’s theory draw attention to how the ghetto plan could have a racist discourse understood in relation to the definition of new racism. One of the lived effects for non-Western immigrants living in parallel societies is the possibility for them to be exposed to racism.

5.6 How and where has this representation of non-Western immigrants

been produced, disseminated and defended? How has it been and/or how can it be disrupted and replaced?

The final question involves exploring and identifying the practices that have produced the representation of non-Western immigrants as being the ‘problem’ and how the dominating representations have produced certain knowledge that are perceived to be the “truth”. Secondly I challenge this point of view by introducing different forms of resistance and a ‘counter-conduct’ that are able to challenge these forms of governmentality and open up for

the possibility to decenter the ‘subjects’ (cf. Bacchi and Goodwin, 2016). In order to answer

the question I will include examples given in the introduction and the answers given in question 3 incorporating Gilroy’s theory of the diaspora as an alternative solution and the theory of placing oneself between the camps.

The production of this representation of non-Western immigrants as being the ‘problem’ is not something that suddenly just arose. It has been prevalent since the 1990s where the negative anti-immigration discourse became part of the political discourse and has only exacerbated since. Additionally, the negative political discourse intensified due to the occurrence of 9/11, the Muhammad crisis but also the media’s representation of this group has resulted in the perception of the group being a threat to the Danish nation state. Also, the historical political discourses about ghettos and non-Western immigrants and the connected initiatives to abolish the so-called ghettos listed in question 3 have contributed to create an “us” and “them” mentality. All these examples have influenced the construction of a narrow Danish national identity and the representation of non-Western immigrants as being the ‘problem’.

According to Røgilds (2002) it has become more and more standard to perceive non-Western immigrants as the ‘problem’. This discourse does not differentiate between

The 2018 Ghetto Plan: The political problematization of ethnic minorities living in deprived residential areas in Denmark