“We Are a Small Country That Has Done Enormously Lot”: The ‘Refugee Crisis’ and the Hybrid Discourse of Politicizing Immigration in Sweden

Michał Krzyżanowski

doi:10.1080/15562948.2017.1317895

Abstract

ABSTRACTThis article looks at mainstream political discourses about immigration in Sweden during the recent “refugee crisis”. It argues that different patterns of politicization of immigration have traditionally dominated in Sweden and focuses on Swedish mainstream politics wherein, as is shown, explicit focus on politicization via (previous as well as current) immigration-related policies still persists. However, as the analysis of Sweden's Social Democratic Party's Twitter discourse shows, a hybrid new discourse of politicization is now emerging. It allows political actors to legitimize immigration policy with often populist-like politicization and the use of new modes of online political communication.

Highlights

It argues that different patterns of politicization of immigration have traditionally dominated in Sweden and focuses on Swedish mainstream politics wherein, as is shown, explicit focus on politicization via immigrationrelated policies still persists
This paper, which looks at Swedish political discourse at the time of the recent “refugee crisis,”1 sets out from the argument that a disparity in politicization patterns with regard to immigration has traditionally existed in Sweden
As the analysis above indicates, the recent refugee crisis has been fully entangled in Swedish politics in discourses that belong to the country’s long-standing traditions of politicization of immigration and, in particular, to the mainstream-political tradition of politicization though policy

Summary

Introduction

This paper, which looks at Swedish political discourse at the time of the recent “refugee crisis,” sets out from the argument that a disparity in politicization patterns with regard to immigration has traditionally existed in Sweden As it is argued here, in the Swedish context one could traditionally observe differences that were historical in nature and were a matter of a strong impact of two—initially to some degree subsequent—political-discursive traditions of approaching and politicizing immigration (including asylum/refugee) issues. It is recognized here that in many national contexts the difference between the two aforementioned “types” of politicization might not be very clear and that they have often been part of one, path-dependent politicization process The latter would in many cases pertain to subsequent or sometimes even simultaneous articulation of immigration-related views (in the wider public sphere), through its penetration into political agendas up to eventual inscription into the policy frameworks. The politicization through public-sphere articulation would often precede the politicization through policy making and legitimation, with ideas about, or in most cases against, immigration being first articulated in the public sphere, including politics and the media, and only after entering the political and policy-making domain

Objectives

Methods

Findings

Conclusion