Social Democratic asylum policy -The biopolitics of asylum policy and the loss of Social Democratic identity

Sune Maribo Bjerregaard Master thesis

Cand.Merc.Sol Vejleder: Ole Thyssen, MPP Copenhagen Business School Afleveringsdato: 01/06/2016 Antal normal sider á 2275 anslag: 72,7 Table of content Abstract ...... 3 Introduction ...... 3 Problem statement ...... 5 Limitations ...... 6 Methodology ...... 6 Social Constructivism ...... 7 Critical Discourse Analysis ...... 10 Methodology of Biopolitics ...... 16 Methodology of Complex Responsive Process Theory ...... 17 Data ...... 18 Theory ...... 19 Foucault and biopolitics ...... 19 Human capital ...... 23 Strategy and organizational dynamics ...... 29 Complex Responsive Process theory ...... 30 Dynamics of conversation ...... 31 Values, norms and ideology ...... 34 Legitimate and ‐shadow themes ...... 39 Analysis of interview with Mette Frederiksen, Henrik Sass Larsen and Pernille Schnoor ...... 40 Discourse analysis of Clement interview of Mette Frederiksen ...... 41 Textual analysis ...... 42 Contextual analysis of Mette Frederiksen on Clement ...... 45 Discourse analysis of interview of Henrik Sass Larsen ...... 48 Textual analysis ...... 49 Contextual analysis...... 50 Discourse analysis of Chronicle by Pernille Schnoor ...... 55 Textual Analysis ...... 55 Contextual analysis...... 57

1

Biopolitics and the asylum policy ...... 62 Complex Responsive Process theory and the problem of identity ...... 70 Conclusion ...... 78 Future research and limitations ...... 80 Bibliography ...... 82 Appendix 1 ...... 85 Appendix 2 ...... 90 Appendix 3 ...... 99

2

Abstract

This thesis is a discourse analysis which utilizes biopolitics and Complex Responsive Process theory, to identify favorable organizational outcome, as tightening’s to asylum policy are made. Specifically it analyzes the discourses of significant actors and the outcome of the following vote for Legislation L87. L87 is a set of laws which was voted for by the Social Democrats and put into place for the purpose of limiting the inflow of asylum seekers, by limiting their rights. This legislation was considered by many voters as well as members of the Social Democrats, to be incompatible with the traditional social democratic values. However the party leadership decided to vote for the legislation, despite strong resistance towards it. Social Democrats; Mette Frederiksen (party leader) and Henrik Sass Larsen (Leader of the social democratic group) explained the sense making behind their support for L87, in the two interviews which is used as data in the thesis. Meanwhile, former Social Democrat Pernille Schnoor explains her sense making for leaving the Social Democratic party, as a consequence of an excluding strategy of the leadership, of those who disagree with their policies, as well as their decision to vote for L87.

A biopolitical analysis of the reasoning behind L87 has been conducted and shows the strengths of L87 and its capabilities as a tool of control, when attempting to affect the flow of immigration. Furthermore the organizational impact of L87 and the Social Democrats communication strategy has been critically analyzed through the optics of Pernille Schnoor using Complex Responsive Process Theory.

Introduction

Since the global economic crisis which started in 2008, Denmark has been experiencing extremely low economic growth rates and high unemployment rates. While the global economic recession is considered over, Danish economy is still suffering from its effects and is experiencing growth rates close to 1%. However, it has not been economic growth policies that have occupied most of Danish public debate, but rather debate surrounding asylum policies

3 specifically. In 2015 the number of refugees seeking asylum in Europe exceeded 100.000 per month, and was thus described by media and politicians as the refugee crisis. While the economies of most counties in Europe had been failing for years and with the lack of easy explainable solutions to the economic crisis, public debate has turned towards the refugee crisis as a significant focal point for the debate surrounding economic recession. The Danish Social Democrat party has for years proudly been a political leader in the promotion of solidarity, both within the borders of Denmark as well as on an international level. However it has now turned its back on these values and is now supporting laws that limit the rights of asylum seekers. The economic agenda is therefore being seen as driving the Social Democrats into policies of exclusion. The economy now comes before the Social Democrats core values; freedom, equality and solidarity (Principprogram, 2011). Overall the Social Democrats have been accused of supporting right wing economic and social policy, which is a position in Danish politics, that is far from the traditional Social Democratic role as a “guardian of the welfare state”.

The Social Democrats have in recent years, steadily been losing voter support to the Danish Peoples Party. This is due to the fact that a large segment of traditional Social Democratic voters, have been hoping for tighter immigration policies. The Social Democratic leadership has felt forced to change its immigration policy, making it tighter in order to appeal to this voter segment and regain the loss of influence that comes with it. However, as they cater to voter segments who seek tighter laws on immigration and asylum seekers, they are at the same time ignoring other voter segments who wish for more solidarity in Danish policy.

With the Social Democrats vote for the legislation L87, the rights of asylum seekers have been tightened. The Social Democrats has effectively chosen a side in the asylum debate. The analysis in this thesis will be of the sense making of this new political course, against the rights of refugees through the optics of Foucauldian biopolitics. Hereafter the analysis will change focus to the effects these changes in political discourse, have brought to the Social Democratic organization. This will be done through the perspective of Ralph Stacey’s Complex Responsive Process theory, which will be used to analyze former Social Democratic member’s sense making.

4

This is done in the light of the changes to refugee policy and the negative effects it has had, on the Social Democratic identity.

Problem statement

‐ Has the Social Democratic vote for legislation L87 strengthened the party through the increased control of the refugee problem, or has it weakened the party through loss of organizational identity?

The problem statement leads to the following sub‐questions.

- Is L87 a valuable legal tool for the Social Democrats in a biopolitical perspective? - Has the leadership of the Social Democrats successfully explained and persuaded its supporters and members of the necessity of voting for L87? - Has a possible failure in communication and strategizing led the Social Democratic organization to a loss of identity?

The problem statement makes a foundation for the construction of the thesis. The problem statement addresses the controversial issues regarding the vote for legislation L87 and the following conflict of identity, which the vote has brought to the Social Democratic parties organization. It is followed by 3 sub‐questions which explore the following factors; 1) The sense making of lawmaking in a biopolitical aspect. 2) The successfulness or effects of Social Democratic members’ narratives when creating discourse. 3) Possible failures in strategizing ideology, in the Social Democratic party through the optics of Complex Responsive Process theory.

5

Limitations

This thesis limits itself to the exploration of the controversy, following the legislation L87. It therefore does not include the many other factors which may influence the sense making, values, and discourse formation etc. of the members of the Social Democratic party. This thesis therefore limits itself to L87 and its consequences and is separated from other policies of the Social Democrats. The thesis is furthermore limited in its analysis, to the sense making behind the theories of Complex Responsive Process theory and the through the optics of biopolitics in a Foucauldian aspect.

Methodology

In the following section I will explain the framework for the theoretical and methodological approach. First I will present and discuss social constructivism, which I will use to lay out the prerequisites for the methodology. Hereafter, I will present Norman Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), which I will use as a tool to analyze the chosen data of interviews and a chronicle. These will feature Mette Frederiksen (Chairman of the Social Democrats, Henrik Sass Larsen (Chairman of the Social Democratic group and Pernille Schnoor (former Social Democratic Member of Parliament). From these interviews and chronicle, I will make a discourse analysis. I will use the findings as a stepping stone for further analysis, from respectively the theory of Foucauldian biopolitics and Ralph Stacey’s Complex Responsive Process Theory (CRP).

6

Social Constructivism

Social constructivism takes a critical stance towards our taken‐for‐granted ways of understanding the world and ourselves. It challenges the view that conventional knowledge is based upon objective and unbiased observations of the world. It is therefore in opposition to positivism and empiricism (Burr, 1995). Thus the way we understand reality, life, right and wrong is understood by the individual in terms of their surroundings and influences, such as where they live, which culture they come from, their parents, community and the organizations they may be a part of etc. This means that all the ways of understanding things are culturally and historically relative. Not only are they specific to particular cultures and periods in history, but they are also seen as products of culture and history which are dependent upon social and economic events (Burr, 1995).

Knowledge is therefore sustained and created and recreated by social processes. It is through our daily interactions between persons that our version of knowledge becomes fabricated. Therefore social interactions and in particular language is of interest to social constructivists (Burr, 1995). Therefore when searching for true meaning behind specific interactions it is necessary to realize that our current way of understanding is not static but in constant flux, as interactions between persons is continuously shaping and reshaping their own environment and understanding of truth and knowledge.

This understanding of truth of things are therefore in a state of constant negotiation in which numerous actors compete using their truth and thus shaping others truths.

“For example before the temperance movement, drunks were seen as entirely responsible for their behavior, and therefore blameworthy. A typical response was therefore imprisonment. However there has been a move away from seeing drunkenness as a crime and towards thinking of it as a sickness, a kind of addiction… The social action appropriate to understanding drunkenness in this way is to offer medical and psychological treatment, not imprisonment” (Burr, 1995, p 5)

7

In the same way as the example of drunkenness, the practices concerning asylum seekers and integration, rights etc. in Denmark are largely determined by the political and public opinions about their presence and role In society. For example the international laws such as the Article 14 of the universal declaration of human rights, states that; “everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948). The declaration of human rights was created as a response to the terrors of World War II where millions had lost their homes and had attempted to escape war and persecution. However, Denmark and the Social Democrats are now discussing the interpretation of these laws, as new laws are being created such as L87, which may or may not be in violation of international law according to Chairman of the Social Democrats and former minister of Justice, Mette Frederiksen (Appendix 1, line 74‐105). While Frederiksen and Larsen believe that Denmark should limit or completely stop the flow of refugees, others such as Schnoor, believe that Denmark have a responsibility of solidarity to do more to help refugees. And so, the stage is set, and discourse formation takes place. As such, it is a battle of hearts and minds between those who believe that Denmark should do more to help the refugees and asylum seekers and those who believe Denmark should do less or the same. Much of this discussion is centered around the economic responsibilities to the Danish nationals and the humanistic responsibilities Danes may feel they have towards the asylum seekers. Therefore discussion in this thesis will be centered on the vote for L87 and the following interactions between persons regarding the legislation, as well as its ethical versus economic consequences.

It is laws such as L87, as well as meaningful statements which can be everything from interviews with politicians to private interactions between persons which together is constructing what is known in discourse analysis as discourses. The discourse of a subject is therefore the perceived normality of the given subject. It is an abstract construct that allow semiotic signs, to assign meaning to objects and subjects between each other. This means that it is the totality of all interaction that is deciding for the current discourse. However, this thesis will limit itself to just one moment in time and focus on only three significant actors in this process, namely Frederiksen, Larsen and Schnoor.

8

The concept of discourse should be understood as a way of talking about things and representing knowledge as well as the practices of those things. The discourse governs the way subjects can be talked about in a meaningful way, as well as influence the way ideas are put into practice. This means that the discourse of subjects is the deciding factor of how we talk about and do things, but can at the same time rule out certain other things. As such, it defines how we conduct and communicate when exploring general and particular topics. A discourse is never constructed from a singular practice or statement or come from one specific source, but is rather influenced by many statements and practices which came before it. Whenever the discourses of practices and statements share the same style and refer to the same objects, they are sharing a common administrative or political pattern and can be referred to as a discursive formation(Wetherell, Taylor, & Yates, 2001).

The discourse is never universal, meaning that it will never reach the final truth of things. There will always be a bias from whoever is doing the analysis as that person will never be able to separate himself from his own subjectiveness. However, this does not mean that the discourse analysis will become completely random and its answers wholly dependent upon the discourse of the person making it. The discourse analysis relies on the meaning and the frame of which we give meaning to certain things and statements. The discourse is not only revealed through language or through writing and speech, but also through actual physical objects, which can be observed and give meaning to the discourse (Fuglsang & Bitsch Olsen, 2004). For example; a fence around an asylum camp can have many meanings associated with it. Some associations could be to protect those outside the fence, or it could be to protect those inside the fence, from those outside. The structure of the fence could give meaning to this, as well as narratives around it. All in all, complex set of factors gives meaning to the fence. As the discourse on the subject of asylum seekers are based upon norms and values of the society they are in, a discursive analysis fits as a frame of critical method. Here meaning can be given to a subject, in which there are no “correct” answers, as these answers are dependent upon things like norms, traditions and morality, which are all in constant transformation.

9

Ultimately, the validity of the research will fall upon the selected statements ability to illuminate other data and hopefully lead to a convergence, which may explain the discourse behind the decision making and opinions (Gee, 2005).

As the subject of asylum seekers in Europe are currently in a state of much debate, the discourse regarding asylum seekers is changing. This has had much impact on asylum seekers in Denmark and the rest of Europe. This has led many countries to create policy which tighten the laws on asylum seekers. As such, new discourse formations are emerging as narratives are created around the asylum seekers, which in turn will affect the discourse formation in Denmark as new narratives and events emerge.

This thesis however, will narrow its focus to the discourse formation regarding the policies of the Danish political party, the Social Democrats. Specifically the focus will be on their increasingly hardline approach, to the questions of asylum seekers. I will do this by using Critical Discourse Analysis on interviews of Mette Frederiksen and Henrik Sass Larsen as well as a chronicle by Pernille Schnoor. Larsen and Frederiksen represent the current and official Social Democratic policy through their status as leading members, therefore their meaning making on the Social Democratic policy is considered significant. As an opponent of the legislation of L87, Schnoor represents the silent group of Social Democrats that oppose the leadership’s policy.

Critical Discourse Analysis

Discourse is commonly used in s various sense, including meaning making through social processes and language or communication and a way of viewing aspects of the world in in a particular social perspective (Gee & Handford, 2012). As such semiosis is viewed as an element of social processes which are dialectically related to each other.

“So social relations, power, institutions, beliefs and cultural values are in part semiotic, i.e. they internalize semiosis without being reducible to it.” (Gee & Handford, 2012)

10

In CDA, analysis is focused on the dialectical relations between structure (in this case the organization known as the Social Democrats) and events which is the actionable changes to the structure and is in this case the L87 legislature.

CDA has three basic properties; it is relational, it is dialectical and it is transdisciplinary (Fairclough, 2010). It is relational in the sense that it focuses on social relations and views them as layered and complex. This means those communicative events such conversations, articles newspapers etc. are part of the discourse, but their discourse can also be affected by abstract objects such objects from the physical world and their inferred meaning. Persons, power relations and institutions are all interconnected elements in the social practice and together create discourse (Fairclough, 2010).

The relational properties of things, means that it is impossible to answer the simple question of “what is the discourse?” It is not something that can be defined independently but must instead be understood as a set of relations which one can arrive at a greater understanding of, by analyzing the complexity of a given set of social objects which together can shed light on meaning and meaning making of things (Fairclough, 2010).

This means that CDA is not an analysis of a given discourse, but the analysis of the dialectical relations between discourse, objects, elements and internal relations of the discourse (Fairclough, 2010). The analysis therefore must cross the boundaries between disciplines like linguistics, politics, sociology etc. effectively making it a transdisciplinary form of analysis.

As the data collected and used in this thesis is primarily text based in the form of interviews, textual analysis of the data will be a focal point in the discourse analysis. While CDA has several methods of analyzing texts, I will be focusing on the method as described by Norman Fairclough.

The textual analysis has a dual character, meaning it is interdiscursive and linguistic. This mode of discourse analysis draws upon genres and styles and how they are articulated in the text and will draw upon multiple discourses of these. Secondly it draws upon a multimodal analysis of the differing semiotic modes such as language, visual images, body language, music, sound etc.

11 and their articulation (Fairclough, 2010). In this thesis however I will not be focusing on visual imaging and language, as these cannot be derived from the texts which are used as the data.

One of the more distinguishing differences between the Fairclough critical analysis and other discourse analysis is the critical part. This is the element in the analysis, which focuses on what is wrong with society, organization or institutions and how these wrongs might be righted from a normative standpoint (Fairclough, 2010). This critique has its basis from a particular view of things and how they are good or rather, how they are normative. For instance, the dispute within the Social Democrats party regarding the vote for L87, has angered many party members, because the party leadership have ordered them to vote for the legislation, regardless whether the lower ranking members believed in the legislation or not. As party members had the choice between leaving the party or voting for the legislation, this has put them in a position of conflict with the leadership. The basis of this conflict however, is found in the Social Democratic value set as perceived by some its members. This I will be exploring further and aim to discover more about in the analysis. It is the standpoints and meaning making of important individuals in this discussion of what is “right” based on a coherent set of values, which are determining factors for discourse formation.

An important focus in CDA is the effect of power relations, when the normative discourse is challenged through the dialectical relation within the social process. This in particular is questions on elements of ideology (Fairclough, 2010). Interpretations of discourse can be said as being ideological, if they are shown to be both inadequate and also necessary (Fairclough, 2010). The question of justification is therefore seen as related to power, as some explanations are viewed as being more dominant than others and therefore affect the interpretation and meaning making of things more than other explanations. Of course the relative power of an explanation or interpretation of things is in constant contention via its relation to the ever changing discourse and related social elements. The question of the power and its relation to

12 meaning making can be described as its capacity as an explanatory power and can be measured through its capacity to transform aspects of social life (Fairclough, 2010). This means that statements from leaders such as Frederiksen and Larsen will generally overshadow those of low ranking politicians such as Schnoor. However, this difference of power can be subsided through their individual capacity to create successful narratives.

Social activity is a form of production work which both depends upon and transforms the material and tools available. Or to put it in different terms: in which society is both a condition for and an outcome of social activity, and social activity is both the production and the reproduction of the conditions of production (Fairclough, 2010).

This is the reasoning behind selecting certain texts written by certain people over others. While everything and everyone shares a dialectical interconnection in a myriad of semiotic processes, some of these elements have more sway or power than others. It is through that reasoning that I have selected data from sources such as Mette Frederiksen and Henrik Sass Larsen as their position as top members of the Social Democrats makes their interpretations and meaning making more likely to influence others especially internally as they are elected leaders of that organization. Meanwhile the selection of the chronicle of Schnoor has been based upon the quality of her narrative which goes in depth with her critique of the Social Democratic leadership.

CDA is also used to analyze particular strategies that has become dominant in discourses and may further contribute to social transformations.

“Its concerns here are partly normative: how adequate are particular strategies as responses to the crisis given its nature as established through analysis? Can particular discourses be seen as not only inadequate in this sense but also necessary to establish and sustain power relations and therefore ideological and which strategies and discourses are, or are not, likely to lead to a path out of crisis which advances human well‐being?” (Fairclough, 2010)

13

CDA is used in this thesis as a point of entry to a relational focus on the dialectical relations between the discourses and social elements which can then be used to establish emerging strategies and the clash between the normative elements and those with the power to affect the normative and possibly change what is considered the norm.

When analyzing the data containing interviews and chronicle of Frederiksen, Larsen Schnoor and their views on L87, I shall do so in three stages, as exemplified by Norman Fairclough.

Stage 1: Emergence of discourse – a social wrong in semiotic aspect. Stage 2: Contextualization ‐ Identify obstacles addressing the social wrong. Stage 3: Recontextualization of discourse – analysis of discourse through biopolitics and CRP (Gee & Handford, 2012).

Stage 1: Emergence of discourse – a social wrong in semiotic aspect

I will identify discourses that have emerged surrounding L87 specifically regarding those that have affected the Social Democrat party. The legislation L87 is here identified as “the social wrong”, as it is the vote for this legislation that has destabilized the norm. However what constitutes as a social wrong is a controversial matter, and CDA is inevitably involved in the debates and arguments about this that go on at all times and constantly changing (Gee & Handford, 2012). Here I shall also identify differences and commonalties between discourses as to how they represent actions, objects institutions etc. that they involve and how they narrate the past and present events and how they legitimatize their policy proposals and thus changes to the system (Fairclough, 2010). When producing reasoning behind the dialectical relations between semiotic moments it is important to construct research objects in a transdisciplinary process, which is why I will also be using biopolitics and Complex Responsive theory to support my argumentation.

14

Stage 2: Contextualization ‐ Identify obstacles addressing the social wrong.

Here I will show the different discourses brought into dialogue within the context of the strategic struggle. Here I will analyze particular discourses and if they are gaining ground or are becoming marginalized. These discourse strategies are fought out through dialogue, debate, polemic etc. (Fairclough, 2010). It is in this section I will carry out the analysis of selected texts and material to discover their relations between semiosis and other social elements. Questions I will attempt to answer here are:

1. How is this piece of language being used to make certain things significant or not and in what ways? 2. What activities is this piece of language being used to enact or attempt to enact? 3. What sort of relationship is this piece of language seeking to enact with others? 4. What perspective of social goods is this piece of language communicating? 5. How does this language make some things relevant and others irrelevant? (Gee, 2005)

I shall then use the analysis of the data as a point of entry to the trans‐disciplinary analysis which is the biopolitical analysis of the subject in question as well as the CRP analysis of the findings of the CDA analysis. With this trans‐disciplinary method, I will to a greater degree be able to show and comprehend the relation between the social practices and events that constitute and explain the discourse of the Social Democrats and their inner struggle for self‐ understanding of values and meaning making.

Recontextualization of discourse – analysis of discourse through biopolitics and CRP

The third stage I will use to focus on the social wrong in the particular aspects of biopolitics and CRP. Here I will be using the data gathered from the analysis of narratives by Frederiksen, Larsen and Schnoor to show their impact in the discourse formation and the organizational changes that may have occurred.

15

Ultimately, the validity of the research will fall upon the selected statements ability to illuminate other data and hopefully lead to a convergence, which may explain the discourse behind the decision making and opinions(Gee, 2005).

Methodology of Biopolitics

While traditional social sciences focus is mainly on culturism, biopolitics adds another element in its evaluation and sense making of motives that may describe and explain the actions of the political human. That element is the biological roots of the human being. In this perspective, the creation of state and human conduct, does not have its origin from democratic agreement or social dominance but psycho‐physical behavior inherited in the human. Thus formations of hierarchy in society is not a social phenomenon, but is an inevitable result of the biological‐ human historical evolution (Lemke, 2009). Since humans are not biologically equal in any competitive scenario, and resources are something which is limited and competition amongst humans is a necessity, the power distribution amongst individuals will be distributed unequally and hierarchies will emerge (Lemke, 2009). This view on the state and political power and its distribution, I believe will put a unique perspective on the sense making and rationalization and its effectiveness behind arguments in the case of L87. Specifically I will use the CDA analyzed data from the selected texts to reflect on the effectiveness and alignment of the arguments towards the biopolitical perspective on the origin and course of the distribution of power within the Social Democratic party. I will also be using biopolitics to analyze L87 as a biopolitical tool and its effectiveness in terms of control.

16

Methodology of Complex Responsive Process Theory

CRP involves researching the patterns of narratives and interactions between people and is reflective in its approach. The reflection of these narratives are the raw material from which propositional themes emerge and opens up to further reflection (Stacey & Griffin, 2005).

As reflection on data plays a central role in the methodology of CRP, It follows that like CDA the research method is subjective in nature and thus contains the same problem of the researcher not being able to completely detach himself from his own discourse (Stacey & Griffin, 2005).

While Stacey’s CRP is traditionally used to analyze the inner workings of an organization through normal everyday conversation and narratives between workers in the organization, I have chosen to use the same principles of analysis on the public available narratives of members of the Social Democrats. This of course limits the data I will be able to gather regarding things like shadow themes and person specific narratives. However because of the nature of the organization in question, (a political party) the values and narratives and ideology will be available for research due to the fact that these are what political parties communicate to the public. As such the gathered data set of interviews and chronicle, is directly addressing those subjects.

This method of “reflection” is of course broad in nature, however it will be limited to a limited data set and subjects of the emerging patterns in the Social Democrats party i.e. values, narratives of its members and meaning making of their decision to vote for L87 as well as strategy of the leadership through narratives. I will also be using CRP to establish and explain the cult values within the Social Democrats organization and how these are both solidifying the leaderships position of power and at the same time, destabilizing the organization. Finally I will use shadow themes to help explain the consistency of the non‐acceptance to the official party line and how these may harm the organization in the future if not addressed properly.

17

Data

The analysis of this thesis is focused around interviews of the Chairman of the Social Democrats Mette Frederiksen and the Chairman of the group Henrik Sass Larsen, as they through their position of power and leadership in the party, are the primary sources of official Social Democratic policy communication and sense making of Social Democratic asylum policies. Former Social Democrat Pernille Schnoor is then used as a representative of the internal resistance within the Social Democrats, to the official party policies on Asylum seekers. For the answering of the thesis problem statement, the following empirical data has been selected:

1) An interview conducted by Clement Kjersgaard of the Chairman of the Social Democrats Mette Frederiksen, on the live television show “Vi ses hos Clement”. The interview was conducted on January 31 2016. The interview has been transcribed and is located in Appendix 1. The interview conducted on Vi ses hos Clement is very fast paced and has many moments in which both Clement and Frederiksen speak at the same time. Also there are several instances in the interview which have them repeating question and answers word for word. Some of these instances have been left out of the transcription of the interview as they have been considered irrelevant and disrupting, to the overall understanding of interview when analyzed. The interview is located in Appendix 1. The entire interview is available as video link in the bibliography section.

2) An interview conducted by Marchen Neel Gjertsen of the Social Democrats chairman of the group Henrik Sass Larsen. This interview has been conducted in a private one on one setting. It was published in the newspaper Jyllandsposten under the head line; ”Jeg prioriterer danskerne og danskernes velfærd og velstand højere, end jeg prioriterer flygtningene”. It was published on January 17 2016.

3) A chronicle written by Member of Parliament and former Social Democrat Pernille Schnoor. At the time of this article she is a member of the party Alternativet. The article was published

18 under the head line; “Fra politisk benlås til politisk håb”. It was published in Politiken on the 24th of April 2016.

The two interviews and the article are suitable for discourse analysis as Frederiksen, Larsen and Schnoor subjectively address their values and standpoints on asylum policy. The choice of using a chronicle and interviews gives them a platform from which they can go in depth and unfold their political message.

Theory

In the following section the theory of Foucauldian biopolitics is presented and examined, as well as contextualized with Social Democratic asylum policy. This is followed by the theory of Ralph Stacey’s Complex Responsive Process Theory which will be used to examine organizational consequences of the Social Democrats leaderships strategy on the subject of asylum policy.

Foucault and biopolitics

Foucault is acknowledged as one of the creators of biopolitics and used the term biopolitics to describe modern societies shift from the sovereign based power to the mechanisms of societal control, or biopower. While the sovereign affirmed his power in society with the use of repressive sanctions against his critics or opposition, modern society from the 17th century started to lean more towards a new form of power, biopower. By managing, securing and developing life of its citizens, government would secure its position of power through political economy.

19

Political economy reflects on governmental practices themselves, and it does not question them to determine whether or not they are legitimate in terms of right. It considers them in terms of their effects rather than their origins, not by asking, for example, what authorizes a sovereign to raise taxes, but by asking, quite simply: What will happen if, at a given moment, we raise a tax on a particular category of persons or a particular category of goods? What matters is not whether or not this is legitimate in terms of law, but what its effects are and whether they are negative (Senellart, Ewald, & Fontana, 2008, p 13).

Thus Political economy is measured in terms of its societal effects. Not because of any moral or philosophical obligation government has to its citizens in terms of what is “right and wrong”, but because of the inherent security of power, which lies within having a healthy and strong and happy population. Thus success of governance replaces legitimacy (Senellart et al., 2008). When creating asylum laws like L87, morality and international asylum laws, is therefore not a concern in the optics of biopolitics. What matters is whether the effects of the law, are effective in terms of power and control.

In other words, political economy does not discover natural rights that exist prior to the exercise of governmentality; it discovers a certain naturalness specific to the practice of government itself (Senellart et al., 2008, p 15).

While sovereign power reaffirms its own strength through the power over life and death, biopower lets live and lets die (Lemke, 2009, p35). In modern world politics control is therefore not applied through the threat of punishment, but instead through mechanisms of power that is used to remove or change unwanted elements in society. So government creates laws that make the environment inhospitable for those elements. In the case of asylum laws, these unwanted elements are the refugees, as they represent a threat to the economic and social stability, because they are being considered a burden to society. With this paradigm shift in the utilization of power and the role of the state, the concept of normality becomes a key subject. While the old sovereign worked with the perspective of

20 ultimate power over his subjects’ lives and deaths, biopower uses the norms of society to distribute life and value. Society does no longer exist to serve the sovereign, but to serve life in society itself (Lemke, 2009, p 49).

Michel Foucault argues that when natural life becomes included in the mechanisms of state power, politics turns into biopolitics, the territorial state becomes a state of population, and the nation’s biological life becomes a problem of the sovereign power (Lentin, 2007).

In the principle to which governmental reason must conform, interest is now a complex interplay between individual and collective interests, between social utility and economic profit, between the equilibrium of the market and the regime of public authorities, between basic rights and the independence of the governed (Senellart et al., 2008, p 44).

The phenomenon of politics becomes an exercise of adapting, reforming and conforming policy to the public interests in society, which is the collective body of individuals in the society. Governance is thus no longer something to be exercised over subjects but over what Foucault refers to as phenomenal republic of interests (Senellart et al., 2008, p46). The sense making behind L87 is therefore not solely based upon economic reasoning. It also has to take into account how this law might affect other social segments of society. As L87 was created to target the refugees from Syria and other Middle Eastern countries, this targeting could signal certain unwelcomeness to that specific culture. This could become a disrupting factor, as this culture is already present in Danish society.

The state no longer seeks to draw lines between its loyal subjects and its enemies, but instead creates divisions in society wherein norms are affirmed by institutions of law, and law is reaffirmed in a continuum of apparatuses of society which function is ultimately to regulate normality (Carnera, 2010 p 77). Thus the normalizing force in society is not static but flexible and subject to change. It is the social values in society which defines and redefines normality.

21

Biopolitics is therefore not identical to a unifying political order under a specific direction, but rather a mentality of management of government which Foucault refers to as Governmentality. In Governmentality the individual is organized in a social body where they have become an integral part of the development of the political economy and the goal of this integration is to further the productiveness of the individual in society in order to increase the wealth in said society. When implementing laws such as L87, it is therefore done so as tool for the regulation of normality. It is therefore not intended to assert any specific socialist or conservative agenda, but rather the defense of normality which is based in public discourse.

Competition between states is precisely the hinge connecting these limited and unlimited objectives, because it is precisely so as to be able to enter into competition with other states, that is to say, maintain an always uneven, competitive equilibrium with other states, that government [has to regulate the life of] its subjects, to regulate their economic activity, their production, the price [at which] they sell goods and the price at which they buy them, and so on [ ... ]. (Senellart et al., 2008, p 7)

The economy of the state and its citizen’s survival and success, thus becomes the fabric which holds the state together. The citizens rely on the states’ ability to control and enhance the economy and through this, the security and wealth of its citizens. In other words, the economy produces legitimacy for the existence of the government. This is because there is a mutual dependency between the state and its need for legitimacy and the people and their need for economic and social freedoms. This process produces a political consensus between people in society and the state, because of the order and security economic stability brings them. Workers, employers, investors etc. are all depending on economic stability in order for them to reliably be able to provide everything from food and housing to social freedoms for themselves or their families. The problem of the asylum seekers as established is in part their negative economic impact to society. However through competition between states, it may be desirable to create laws that may lead these undesirable elements i.e. the asylum seekers away from

22 society, simply by creating a slightly less desirable environment for them, compared to the neighbor states.

The economy produces political signs that enable the structures, mechanisms, and justifications of power to function. The free market, the economically free market, binds and manifests political bonds (Senellart et al., 2008, p 85)

But the role of the state is much more than merely making sure that there is competition and respect of ownership etc. Competition in modern society does not have a natural state of being, but is a principle of formalization. The free market competition is thus a game of rules with an internal logic which can only be produced if the logic of these rules is respected. These rules are produced through an active governmentality (Senellart et al., 2008). As government implements mechanisms of control in order to reaffirm norms of society, such as the free market and the protection of its citizens good, this produces the legitimacy to state itself. Consequently the obligations of the state are too its citizens, hence it is through them that the state receives its legitimacy.

Human capital

This leads us to the subject of how the state can create an environment of progress and wealth. As stated earlier, it is through a healthy economy that the state can thrive and produce legitimacy, but the subject of economy goes well beyond the scope of regulation of the free market and competition. The individuals of the society are the driving force of the economy. They are what consumes as well as produces. Therefore, when analyzing the problem of labor in economic terms one must view the worker as not only a biological machine, in the terms described by Adam Smith(Senellart et al., 2008), but also as the consumer of the goods produced.

23

So, we arrive at this idea that the wage is nothing other than the remuneration, the income allocated to a certain capital, a capital that we will call human capital inasmuch as the ability‐ machine of which the income cannot be separated from the human individual who is its bearer.(Senellart et al., 2008, p 226)

So the worker works in order to get his wage, so he then can buy the goods that he needs or wants. But the productiveness or consumption of the biological human individual differs widely and the qualitative and quantity differences of work have a significant economic effect. The economy as a whole can thus be thought of as a society of enterprise‐units, linked by an internal logic which is the agreed upon rules of the economy (Senellart et al., 2008).

As both labor and the consumerism in society rely of the abilities and the demands of individuals in society, the issue at hand becomes the investment and development of this human capital. But elements like schooling and professional training are not the only things which determine the productiveness of the individual. It is the entirety of the cultural stimuli which is what makes up human capital. Everything from the environment which has had an impact on the individual will contribute to the formation of the human capital (Senellart et al., 2008). In regards to the integration and the development of abilities of asylum seekers, the difficulty of determining cost versus success become apparent. As the integration asylum seekers and their development as ability‐machines within Danish society relies on cultural stimuli, the scope of the costs and effective tools of development becomes impossible to calculate.

The enhancement and effectiveness of the biological individual is a priority for government. In order to contribute to society, the individual must increase its productiveness. As the individual is an integrated part of the economic and social development of society, all aspects of the

24 biological life is of interest to the state. For example labor market policies are now more than just negotiations of pay and working hours versus productiveness, it now takes into consideration the workers entire situation of life – his social, family life etc. is now also relevant to the overall production of the individual. He is no longer just a cog in a production line in a factory, but an individual who must navigate and be a part of society as a whole. Therefore one must also take into consideration how the individual functions outside of his workplace. Considerations of education, health, mobility etc. are subjects which require organization and must be considered in order to enrich the life and in effect, the overall productiveness and efficiency of the individual (Carnera, 2010).

Basically, economic analysis can perfectly well find its points of anchorage and effectiveness if an individual’s conduct answers to the single clause that the conduct in question reacts to reality in a nonrandom way. That is to say, any conduct which responds systematically to modifications in the variables of the environment (Senellart et al., 2008, p 269)

As Foucault explains, one can analyze the economic impact to society when modifying environmental variables by discovering the systemic responses of the population. As such economic analysis of environmental changes is possible through an understanding of the systemic responses of humans. Through tools like socio‐economic statistical analysis, Government gains the capability to understand and therefore influence and provokes systemic responses within segments of the population through mechanisms of control. As such the role of the biological enterprise‐unit will act on the environment and systematically modify its variables in response to artificially introduced modifications to the environment (Senellart et al., 2008). But modifying the environment in a multicultural individualized society, where individuals, interest‐groups and organizations all will have difference or even opposite opinions or goals, modifications will often both stabilize as well as destabilize areas of society. This of course could lead one to think that diversity in society should be something which government should seek to eliminate in order to make future modifications more incontrovertible. However, while it is

25 often desirable to appease majority groups, neglecting minorities can lead to racism. The problems of racism in society is not only a problem in terms of physical elimination or ostracization of groups such as seen in Germany of the 1930’s, but will also dampen the ability of government to dynamically respond to modifications to the environment created by factors outside of their control. For example, government may find itself unable to effectively respond to economic competition between nations, if majority groups are unwilling to change cultural habitudes even of these habitudes are a detriment to efficiency and human capital. This can therefore lead to loss of wealth and security and ultimately become a significant destabilizing factor. In the case of the immigration crisis, these habitudes could very well become racially charged anger towards Muslim groups in Danish society. Scenarios of hatred between groups could destabilize the norms and values in society and is therefore undesirable in a biopolitical aspect. But the question still remains, how does government tackle the problems of a diversified workforce? Why do groups or individuals not rebel if their interests or not met? The answer lies in the nature of why government exists. As individuals all have their own personal interests before the interests of others, as their primary concern will always be their own wellbeing and survival, as opposed to their neighbors. But as in the natural Darwinian state of things, these interests will always be under threat. It is therefore indeed in the interest of the individual to enter into a contract of governance where some interests are sacrificed in order to protect others (Senellart et al., 2008).

The commerce with our fellows from which we draw such great advantages would have no security if we did not respect our engagements. This means that it is not because we have contracted that we respect the contract, but because it is in our interest that there is a contract(Senellart et al., 2008, p 274)

As established the interests of individuals are therefore both diverse and personal in its natural state. But that is not the only problem when government attempts to modify the environment

26 of individuals. The issue is that the interests of individuals are dependent on an infinite number of things and most of these are dependent on distant political and natural environmental events, which government can neither foresee nor affect (Senellart et al., 2008, p 277). In modern society communication technology has created a world where communication between individuals all over the world no matter how far or diverse a culture they have is possible. The sphere of cultural influence has expanded way beyond that of the influence on individuals from single governments. As such economic rationality is not based in creating a specific perfect culture in the society, but is founded on the very unknowability of the totality of the process which is constituted from a multiplicity of points of view (Senellart et al., 2008, p 282). Globalization is therefore a factor created by technology of communication. As such it is has become that more difficult to maintain cultural homogeneity in a multicultural globally connected world. The exclusion of cultural diverse elements in society is therefore more difficult to achieve than ever, as these elements will inevitable find a way to influence that society. Introduction of culture or ideas can now be transferred through communication technology and does therefore not require any person to person contact. The result is that the exclusion of cultural groups such as Muslims asylum seekers from the middle east, can no longer easily be demonized with rhetoric to the same extend as for example Jews in Germany of the 1930s. This is because information technology gives these lesser known cultures the ability bring sense making to the masses.

So that economic man is situated in what we could call an indefinite field of immanence which, on the one hand, links him, in the form of dependence, to a series of accidents, and, on the other, links him, in the form of production, to the advantage of others, or which links his advantage to the production of the advantage of others. The convergence of interests thus doubles and covers the indefinite diversity of accidents. (Senellart et al., 2008 p 227)

27

The art of governing is thus linking economics with the interests of individuals in order to obtain a balance in society where the advantages of others correlate with the advantages of the self. Thus the stability of interests between individuals, economic security, and maximization of human capital are all linked to successful governance.

The concept of biopolitics is according to Michel Foucault the development of political knowledge and new disciplines such as statistics, demographics, epidemiology and biology. Through analysis of life processes in the population the state seek to influence/control individuals and collectives using corrugating, excluding, normalizing, disciplinary, therapeutically or optimizing measures (Lemke, 2009, p 12). Understanding of Biopolitics is becoming increasingly important as new tools of control are made possible through the increasing discovery of the nature of the “population” through psychology and sociology of the human in society is made possible through technologies of statistics that can help give meaning and understanding to things like birthrates, mortality rates, integration, criminal rate, immigrant employment rate etc. While statistics of employment rates, English skills and criminality can be analyzed in detail, many more unknown social factors are also to be considered when lawmakers create policy on asylum seekers. As legitimacy of government is the ultimate goal of government, one must consider that satisfaction of the biological human, is not solely derived from the security of which a stable and wealthy society brings them. For example passing laws which may be considered ethically wrong to a number of groups in society a negative effect on the legitimacy of the government may occur.

28

Strategy and organizational dynamics

This thesis revolves around the human dynamics which constitutes the reasoning of the strategic choices within organizations. While the theory of CRP will be used to explain the communication as it applies to the Social Democrats party, I must first explain the basics of organizational behavior as it applies to CRP.

Human beings live in communities and whatever they do is a joint performance conducted by them in communities of practice. This joint activity is accomplished through communicative interaction between conscious and self‐conscious persons. (Stacey, 2007, p 2)

Through the interactions between individuals, a constant negotiation of the communities perceived reality and sense making of this reality takes place. These interactions takes place through conversations between individuals and are communicated and received through systems of practice. These systems are what becomes the dominant discourse and are reflections of the ideologies of the community and thus responsible for the influence on future generations of persons and practices. (Stacey, 2007) So why can’t one dominant discourse be perfect for a community and not stay the same forever? The answer lies in the fact that any human community will always be subject to changes in their outside environment. These changes could be anything from forest fires which could force the stone age community to move their village, to a modern political parties response to a sudden influx of refugees. These systems will therefore never be perfect and are thus subject to critique. It is through the critique of the dominant discourses that the practices of the community will change. The issue at hand is thus become; how fast and effectively can the organization change its practices in order for them to successfully overcome the obstacles of their environment and how does the organization create discourses which can help them to become adept at adapting to these changes.

29

Complex Responsive Process theory

Complex responsive process theory deals with the fundamental question of how an organization becomes what it become. The process refers to the human communicative interactions between persons. As such the process discovers how intention emerges in the local interaction between persons and how these interactions involve the interplay of intentions. Any organizations consist of a number of independent individuals and the patterns of strategic organizational response, therefore relies on the complex interplay amongst these individuals with different intentions (Stacey, 2007).

The interplay of intentions is an essential conflictual process, in the sense of an ongoing exploration and negotiation, taking the form of cooperation or manipulation and sometimes hostility, aggression competition, revolution or war. While each person or group may, perhaps, be more or less able to control their own desires and intentions, none of them will be able to control the desires and intentions of everyone else all the time.(Stacey, 2007, p 303)

Population wide patterns are created and recreated through the interactions between individuals and through organizations. Successful organizational development relies on the organizations ability to engage skillfully and intentionally to conversations and their consequences as they continually emerge. As the collective identity and the individual identities of the organization are inseparable (Stacey, 2007), strategic transformation of an organization cannot rely on a generic strategy, but must react to the patterns of their particular environment. In the case of the Social Democrats, there are two transformations in the organization the leadership have to address. There are changes to their external environment as they are losing voter support through the increasing number of citizens who seek tighter asylum laws. On the other hand, there is an also internal force within the Social Democrats, who seek more solidarity for the refugees.

30

The claim is thus that conversations are the activity of organizing. Stacey explains these conversations as gestures from one body to another. As the person sends out a gesture, it evokes a response from that other person, which in turn evokes further response (Stacey, 2007). This leads to an ongoing responsive process where beginning and end of the conversation is purely arbitrary. This means that all phases of communication between persons cannot be separated from each other and it is through the entirety of the social act as whole, that meaning can emerge (Stacey, 2007). It should therefore be understood that it is not only through the act of speaking which makes out communication, but all form of communication, such as physical gestures or action of response etc. that makes up the entirety of the communication between multiple individuals over time. This therefore leads us to the fact the strategic organization cannot be a one way communication, neither top‐down or bottom‐up. It is for that reason not sufficient to create an organizational strategy by sending out a memo of new values or implementing a template strategy. Instead one must view the act of strategizing has an ongoing conversational process (Stacey, 2007). In regards to the organizational strategy of the Social Democrats, it of importance that value creation is created and understood throughout the organization. If the strategizing is conducted by the leadership as a top down process, the meaning behind the strategy will not be understood by those outside of the process.

Dynamics of conversation

When developing organizational strategy, it is through the act of conversation which gives meaning and understanding between persons in the organization. But ordinary conversations do not simply take the form of one person saying something, others listening and understanding and then formulate a response and so on. People in organizations converse within a social structure of shared rules where they are attempting to clarify information and reaching a shared understanding in order to increase the effectiveness and output of the conversation. These

31 social structures are characterized by repetition and reflected in widely accepted discourses (Stacey, 2007). These discourses can be thought of as the norms of communication. It is when these norms of how we understand things and how we do things change, that the potential for organizational transformation occurs and it is this ability to transform which is fundamental for organizational creativity. The purpose of understanding the dynamics in conversation and meaning creation is thus not to produce the most efficient form of communicational strategy, because this strategy will always be subject to change through the constant fluidness of population wide patterns. Instead the idea is to foster the spontaneous development of conversations in order to be able to respond effectively to changes in the population wide patterns (Stacey, 2007). The importance here is that the successful organization and in this case the Social Democratic party, gives space to the internal critics of the party strategies, in order for leadership to critically examine them. When implemented strategies are challenged from within the organization, and it turns out that a change in strategy is needed, it gives the organization valuable time to implement a new and more fitting strategy. Just as the population wide patterns are fluid and is constantly changing, so must the leadership be ready to make changes at any time.

As humans live as social beings, they are in modern society interconnected through a vast series of organizations. It has become necessary to communicate through an established expectancy of attitude of others. This is what Stacey calls the generalized other. Although the generalized other gives us the basic structure to understand and communicate with each other, it serves only as expected tendencies.

However, we are always having to interpret what these generalized tendencies to act might mean in the specific, contingent situations we find ourselves in. We cannot simply, directly apply the generalization because in each present time period, in each contingent situation, we will find it necessary to make the general particular to that time and situation.(Stacey, 2007, p 307)

32

Generalization thus leads to conflict, as expectancies of the other are not always met, as it is derived from imperfect information. As such general rules of communication cannot be applied to a particular situation to solve organizational evolutionary problems. This means that while generalization serfs as the framework of communication it is through conflict between persons in particular situations, which is where movement of strategy can occur through negotiation of the conflict (Stacey, 2007).

The conflict between persons will inevitably occur naturally in particular situations within the local interaction. This is because our ideas of the generalized other, is based upon the population wide patterns. These patterns are in essence imaginary patterns created as a response for the need to particularize the general. As these patterns are imaginary and general, they will always be flawed and are therefore subject to negotiation. It is therefore essential to see the population wide patterns for what they are, namely generalizations of reality and not directly apply them as truisms’. In order to do this, organizations must support interdependent persons which display spontaneity, reflection, reflexivity, imagination and creativity as well as conflict within the organization (Stacey, 2007).

As organizations are the social constructs of our society, and persons within society particularize the general through their common interaction, the organizations which they are members of, becomes a reflection of how they give meaning to their lives. Organizations therefore hold a position of influence, in the population wide patterns, as the meaning creation of persons is influenced by their environment. Persons are particularly influenced by the organizations they are closest involved with, typically their place of work and their government. For that reason the power of persons influence to the population wide patterns, are not all equal. This is why the Social Democratic party holds great influence in Danish society and makes the organization particularly important to the meaning making of the public, as many persons in society experience a connection to the party. Leaders of the Social Democrats occupy a particular important status as spokes persons of the party. Their opinion matter as development of population wide patterns takes place.

33

As leaders and top executives within organizations have the power to instruct, persuade or force people to do what they desire, they have a much greater influence on the conversational subjects which can create conflict and development within the organization (Stacey, 2007). Furthermore Mette Frederiksen may communicate to hundreds or thousands of people at the same through email or interview on national television, while a low‐level party members usually have communication with a much smaller number of people. It is also within the power of the top level management to make decisions about the vision and future of the organization. They decide which voter segments to pursue or which values should be communicated first and so on. All of the actions the leadership takes evokes and provokes multiple responses from others, both within and outside the organization.

They make decisions and take actions that greatly affect a great many others. What they cannot do, however, is program the responses those others will make. They cannot control the interplay of intentions (Stacey, 2007, p 322).

The ones in power, therefore only have the power to set the agenda of conversation through mass communication, but they cannot control the response of others, as this is created through the myriad of interactions between persons affected. Therefore as Frederiksen or Larsen thinks up a vision of the future and explains this to the rest of the party, the ideas that they have are not interpreted as they see them themselves, but are subject to the fantasies of how they should be interpreted by the affected people and the following interaction between those (Stacey, 2007).

Values, norms and ideology

A powerful tool for those in power when affecting the beliefs of others, is what is known as cult values (Stacey, 2007). People in groups or organizations have a tendency to idealize the habitual patterns of the organization. In other words, the values and motives of the organization become

34 idealized imaginary constructs in the minds of the members of the organization. These constructs can become cult values if the leaders manage to present the imaginations of the people as an idealized future for the organization, free of conflict and constraint. This can make the individuals of the organization feel as if they belong to a whole as an idealized group and thus give their work meaning and value. This can bring about a sense of belonging with the members of the organization and provides them with a sense of enlarged personality which gives them a common direction (Stacey, 2007).

These cult values are usually applied through writing or speaking in the form of ethical propositions, myths and inspiring narratives. They may be presented as intended, crafted vision statements for a corporation (Stacey, 2007, p 343).

But cult values can be both good and bad for the organization. The primary objectives of the cult values are to instill direction, purpose and unity in the members of the organization, in order to reach certain goals more effectively. However if the values are applied directly to action, without variation, they become excluding in nature and will ultimately clash with the norms of the rest of society. This will alienate the members of the organization from the rest of society, and will usually undermine the benefits of the strong sense of belonging. As to the Social Democrats, if cult values are too strong and imbedded, they may cause staleness in the organizational and political development of the party. This may create a situation in which the leadership wants change and the rest of the party wants to keep the old values. Thus they may not effectively respond to change in the environment.

Normally however, idealization is accompanied by functionalisation(Stacey, 2007). This means that the cult values will be continuously challenged as they are applied to the unique situation. So when the cult values fail to be effective in certain situations, this will create conflict within the organization and the values may then be changed or modified. As cult values indeed are idealized versions of reality, they will inevitably at some point become less than ideal when functionalized (Stacey, 2007).

35

As cult values are social constructs made to generalize specific tendencies of its members by providing them with specific evaluative criteria when making choices, it can be thought of as a form of social control (Stacey, 2007).

We normally do not choose our actions in a technically rational matter but on the basis of what we believe, often unconsciously, to be “right”. And we derive these beliefs from the social milieu in which we have grown up and live. The ideological basis of our choices of action have become so ingrained in who we are that we are mainly unaware of just what this ideological basis is (Stacey, 2007, p 344).

As ideology deeply conditions the way we think of what and how we should do things and can be affected by leaders’ ability to inspire us through compelling visions of the future, it is of utmost importance to functionalize these values in order to critically examine their actual consequences, in order to ascertain their benefits and drawbacks. As values per definition are subject to personal opinion, the examination of cult values and whether they are good or bad, must therefore be done in the light of the norms that constitute the society.

In order to do this we must define what constitute as norms and values.

In complex responsive process terms, values are themes organizing the experience of being together in a voluntary compelling, ethical manner, while norms are themes of being together in an obligatory, restrictive way (Stacey, 2007, p 347).

This means that norms are the unwritten rules of society which people abide by and is the social construct derived from taking the attitude of others in a generalized way. Meanwhile, values are what persons and groups prescribe to as what is right and what is wrong. When put together, norms and values form ideology. Ideology constitutes the evaluative criteria for the choice of action of persons and organizations. If ideology is applied rigidly to all interactions within an organization, the result will be a fascist

36 power which cannot respond to critical reflection and will exclude those persons who do. Alternative if the ideology is too fragmented people will interact without the understanding of others, which can result in anarchy. Ideology should therefore be understood as a form of structured communication within an organization, which goal is to preserve order by including or excluding certain elements. Ideology is therefore closely related to the dynamics of power within the organization because ideology is a result of the local interactions between persons and is therefore the determining source of the patterning of how people experience reality. As such it is through ideology that people can align their identity and work together towards a common purpose and through this, experience a sense of belonging and common identity which can inspire and motivate. However this shared identity also result in greater friction when new elements are introduced and can therefore result in failure of integration (Stacey, 2007). It is therefore crucial when strategizing, that organizations understand how ideological themes emerge and are sustained. An ideology emerges through the local interaction between persons. Gossip plays a significant role in the development and sustaining of ideology. Because it is value driven in nature and not subject to functionalization because it is created and sustained by power differences of groups, it can apply stigmas to weak or marginalized groups or praise to charismatic individuals. The gossip thus reaffirms the power differences between groups by conferring feelings of superiority of the powerful and feelings of inferiority of the weak.

Eventually however, the weak marginalized groups will probably retaliate with what may be thought by others to be unreasonable vigor (Stacey, 2007 p 355).

This retaliation of the marginalized is exemplified in the Social Democratic organization, as three of its parliament members left the organization as a direct consequence of the vote for legislation L87.

37

Gossip is therefore a harmful way of interacting, but it cannot be removed from human relations (Stacey, 2007). It serves the purpose of configuring power relations in the organization and can through this, affect the patterns of strategizing activities. This is harmful for the organization, as strategic decision making becomes influenced by non‐functionalized values. These non‐functionalized values could in the Social Democratic party be any value, which does not serve the purpose of the leadership and thus creating disruptions within the organization.

Strategy can be understood as the evolution of transformed patterns of identity emerging in local interaction (Stacey, 2007). As strategy is something fluid and closely related to the identity of the members of the organization, the understanding and articulation of strategy emerges through narratives. Narratives emerge through conversation between persons and it is how knowledge is evaluated and organized. It is the expression of the organizations ideology. The narratives are essentially stories told, created to articulate the reasoning and experiences behind the ideology.

Narratives create a sense of temporality in experience, linking present experiences to past ones and pointing towards the future evolution of the experience. They focus upon the departures from what is expected, from what is taken for granted as ordinary and acceptable, and thereby they reinforce cultural norms. (Stacey, 2007, p 376)

The stories which are most effectual are those with unexpected outcomes and/or with moral implications. However the stories told within the organization are affected by the stories created by population wide narratives, which of course emerge through the total amount of interactions between people in society. The stories within the specific organization therefore reflect the particularization of the specific issues they encounter. When the narratives stop making sense of the issues, organizational change is warranted.

38

Legitimate and ‐shadow themes

Because the organization and its members change and evolve together, change of strategy can occur when conversational life is fluid and spontaneous. But as norms impose powerful constraints on how people can interact without getting ostracized, not all subjects can be freely talked about. The distinction between what can be talked freely about is categorized as legitimate and shadow themes.

Legitimate themes organize what people feel able to talk about openly and freely. They organize conversations in which people give acceptable accounts of themselves and their actions and the action of others… Shadow themes organize conversations in which people feel able to give less acceptable accounts of themselves and their actions, as well as others and their actions (Stacey, 2007, p 379).

Shadow themes are shadow because of how they are expressed in conversation and because they do not conform to official recognized ideology. They are in essence themes of conversation which takes place informally between members of an organization who trust each other enough, as to express convictions which may not conform or undermine the official ideology. This can therefore cause conflict in the organization and eventually challenge the official ideology and brings the potential for either organizational change or a blocking of change (Stacey, 2007). Shadow themes play an important part of strategizing, because they represent the most critical reflections on the current strategy. The shadow theme narratives are developed unofficially through the interactions of small groups in the organization, because the ideas threaten the status quo. As more people in the organization learn of these shadow narratives, they gradually become either accepted and can challenge the official ideology or they will be denied and will eventually lose power and influence in the strategic narrative. Either way, they play an important role when understanding the development of strategic narratives

39 and leaders must therefore involve themselves in these if they are to actively and successfully strategize.

As in any organization there is surely gossip in the Social Democratic organization. However the real danger for the stability of the organization is the handling of the shadow themes. These shadow themes that may not be spoken out loud in fear reprisal from the leadership, are likely to contain narratives around the vote for L87 and the apparent disconnect from traditional Social Democratic values. They could also be about the Social Democratic leadership’s pursuit of power and influence in for the sake of power alone. If these shadow themes are allowed to spread and are accepted throughout the organization they may challenge the current ideology and may result in the removal of the leadership from power.

Analysis of interview with Mette Frederiksen, Henrik Sass Larsen and Pernille Schnoor

When the Social Democratic party under the leadership of Mette Frederiksen voted for the legislation L87 which was a piece of legislation proposed by the governing party Venstre and was designed to tighten the rights of asylum seekers, it was not all elected members of the Social Democratic party who agreed that this was a good policy. In fact three elected members of the Social democrats, Mette Gjerskov, Daniel Toft Jacobsen and Yildiz Akdogan decided to vote against the party line and the legislation and shortly after leave the Social Democratic party. They all cited their reasons for leaving the party with the fact that they did not agree with the asylum/immigration policies that the leadership was supporting (Baglandstemmer revser S.top, Klarskov, Kristian – Politiken 27.01.2016).

The legislation of L87 has been to the newly elected party Chairman Mette Frederiksen, one of her first significant crisis regarding immigration policy. It has been primarily her and Henrik Sass Larsen who has defended and explained the Social Democratic policy regarding L87. Their

40 argumentation has been overall based upon the fact that Denmark has reached the limit on how many asylum seekers Denmark can keep, as the current number asylum seekers, makes the price of their stay economically unsustainable. As response to this, Frederiksen and Larsen have called for a reallocation of funds, to asylum camps outside of Denmark. Meanwhile their critics believe that Denmark has enough money to help more asylum seekers and that the Social Democrats are losing its humanism.

The following analysis contain a discourse analysis of interviews with Mette Frederiksen and Henrik Sass Larsen explaining the Social Democrats party position on asylum policy, as well as a discourse analysis of Pernille Schnoor and her reasoning for leaving the Social Democrats and her disagreement with the asylum policy. Following will be a recontextualizing analysis of the biopolitical theory and Complex Responsive Process theory and apply it to the discussion in order to get a nuanced understanding of the organizational processes within the Social Democrats.

Discourse analysis of Clement interview of Mette Frederiksen

In this interview which was conducted on live television between Mette Frederiksen and Clement Kjersgaard on 01/02/16 6 days after the vote for L87 which was adopted on 26/01/2016, Mette Frederiksen explains her reasoning for supporting and tighter policy towards asylum seekers. In this context I will evaluate the communicative message, that Denmark should limit the number of asylum seekers that come to Denmark and how this is aligned with the Social Democratic values.

41

Textual analysis

The first question Clement ask Mette Frederiksen in the interview is

“How different would Danish asylum policy be today, if you were prime minister”. (Appendix 1, line 6)

Here Clement suggests that Frederiksen, if Frederiksen had been prime minister, the L87 legislation would have been different if she had been the prime mister, suggesting that the policy she has signed may not be the policy she wanted. Frederiksen responds:

“That is a good question (pause) What we now see in Europe, is countries change their asylum policies because we are currently in a historic refugee crisis. Do I think things would look any different (with Frederiksen as prime minister) I do not think I can answer that, however I fully stand by the entirety of the bill (L87)” (Appendix 1, line 7‐10).

Frederiksens response conveys 3 things. That the question is not an easy one for her to answer as she firstly does not directly answer it and secondly use the sentence “that is a good question as her first response meaning she either does not find the question easy or does not know how to answer it. She then goes on to reflect the question away from her own policy referring to similar policies in rest of Europe as a way to validate her own policy. Lastly she stresses that she stands by her policy (L87). It may not be fully clear what her reasoning behind stressing that the bill she only a few days earlier voted for, she still believes in. However it may be because of criticism from fellow Social Democrats (source, is this really what it is to be a social democrat) and supporters of the party that she feels she must iterate her standpoint. Clement then continues asking

“when people criticize (The Social Democrats) you say that you have no doubt, that what you voted for was the right thing to do?” (Appendix 1, line 12)

42

Here Clement is pointing out that there has been significant criticism of the party and suggest that further explanation might be warranted. Frederiksen responds by attempting to explain the reasoning behind the policy.

“…It is very difficult, … unfortunately we are in a situation where countries are more interested in tightening their own policies (asylum policies) … but we are lacking the political leadership in Europe and the world which makes us able to get to the root of the reason why people are on the run in the first place. I believe they (tightening of asylum policy) are necessary because we must find a balance between our responsibilities to help, but at the same time being able to make our own society work in a proper manner” (Appendix 1, line 14‐21).

Frederiksen iterate that her asylum policy is what is, because other countries are also doing it and because there is a lack of leadership in Europe. She is later asked if her policy is a result of the policy of other European countries, with the reasoning, if they are tightening their policy, we must do it also, so we do not get more refugees. However she does not directly answer the question, but instead shifts the responsibility towards others.

“It is Europe and the western world and the Arabic countries which in my eyes do not take enough responsibility for the situation” (Appendix 1, line 35‐36).

Her reasoning for the policy is thus two pronged. On one hand she talks about responsibility to help refugees and on the other, she focus on maintaining a status quo of the society in Denmark. However she does not fully commit to this explanation, as she refers to European leadership and other countries responsibilities thus weakening her own standpoint that “She fully stands by her policy” (Appendix 1, line 10).

Frederiksen is later asked the question:

“One of the tightenings you have implemented is that you cannot get your family to Denmark before after 3 years. This means families are being split up. Is this Social Democratic policy?” (Appendix 1, line 58)

43

She answers the question:

“I do not think any parties would call this their policy… We do it in Denmark and we see the same in other European countries because family‐reunification (policy) is one of the only tools we have if we want to keep track of how many who come (to Denmark) There is nothing sympathetic about it”( Appendix 1, line 60‐64).

She then goes on explaining:

“There is nothing sympathetic or nice about asylum policy when people are being separated… If we want people (asylum seekers) to get to the labor market, and the young to get education and woman to learn our language and have equality between sexes there are very few tools to help, and this is one of them.” (Appendix 1, line 66‐71).

Frederiksen is here seen not directly answering the question if the policy is indeed that of a social democrat. Instead she shifts the focus away from the questions morally implicating connotations regarding values to a technical one by referring to the policy as a tool of keeping track of numbers. She then goes on to mentioning a range of other social democratic values, namely; Labor market, education, language and equality.

Clement later then asks:

“Henrik Sass Larsen said, I prioritize Danish citizens welfare higher than those of refugees. Do you agree?” (Appendix 1, line 77‐80). Frederiksen does not answer this directly but goes on to saying: There has become this atmosphere that it is not right (that Larsens words are not morally “right”), We receive many refugees and we will keep doing this, however we have to be able to finance it.( Appendix 1, line 115‐117)

She then goes on to later saying:

“We can send people to vicinity areas (local camps) when EU shows the right leadership” and “I would like it if Europe, the western world and the Arabic world and get themselves together and

44 lift the quality and the effort (of helping asylum seekers) because offer this to children and families.” (Appendix 1, line 134‐137).

Again Frederiksen refer to the “other countries and EU to “get themselves together and show leadership and calling for the need to do more, and at the same time evoking the importance of this by referring to children and families, and at the same time pointing to financing as a reason for not to help more. This is directly shown with her statement “we must make a greater Danish effort, but It cannot stand alone” (Appendix 1, line 140‐143)

Contextual analysis of Mette Frederiksen on Clement

In this interview, Clement several times asks about specific things regarding the asylum policies of Frederiksen and the Social Democrats. Questions like

“how different would Danish asylum policy be today if you were prime minister.” (Appendix 1, line 6)

Here Clement attempt to frame the question as such, that within the question he suggests, that this policy that Frederiksen has recently voted for, is not indeed what she herself believes to be the “right” policy or at least the optimal policy for the Social Democrats and that it would have been different if she had the power to make it so. Frederiksen responds by reframing the question. Instead of directly answering the question asked if things would be different if she could make it so, she lists a number of reasons why she voted for L87. “Other countries changing their asylum policies” (Appendix 1, line 31), “biggest crisis since world war 2” (Appendix 1, line 15) “we are lacking political leadership in Europe” (Appendix 1, line 18). “Find a balance between responsibilities.. and making our society work..” (Appendix 1, line 21). By reframing the question she is hoping to avoid taking a public stance to the critics from within her own organization and its voters, or potential voters, which many feel that those social

45 responsibilities that she mentions, are being neglected and are therefore considered a social wrong. As such, she is refraining from having to defend her position by explaining that the vote was essentially a necessity as a response to outside influence, such as policies of other European nations and by that attempting to stand by her decision to vote for L87 without addressing the social wrong inherited in it, as suggested by her critics. The social wrong in this particular case is the clash of discourse of the values of the Social Democrats. On one side, they value freedom, equality and solidarity of not only Danes but to those from the rest of the world with the lack of those qualities (Principprogram, 2011), however on the other side they also find that sustainable economic policies are important as they feel having a responsible economic policy is the backbone of their social welfare policy (socialdemokraterne.dk/da/politik/%C3%B8konomi/). From a biopolitical standpoint Frederiksen have a point when as she explains how European leadership is needed. As other countries are choosing to create similar laws of control, Frederiksen fear that, other countries do not do their part in spreading out the refugees between European nations and simply deny them access to asylum camps. She can then expect more refugees will come to the Danish borders. In order to prevent this, she must implement L87 before an even greater influx of refugees begins. This way of doing policy has a self‐ perpetuating effect, from which all European nations may suffer. Frederiksen feels forced to wait for this “leadership” which in essence must come from Germany.

It is such the interconnected social processes within the institution of the Social Democrats that are creating the current discourse. However, as one of the two leading parties in Danish politics which hopes to have both a sustainable economic policy as well as a strong welfare system, it is nothing new that there is a fight between these two sets of values. However with the vote for L87 and the following aftermath of many of its party members taking the drastic decision of leaving the party completely, it has become clear that it is through the power and influence of the party leadership, that has forced these former party members to feel that the ideology of the social democrats as it is now, is not something they any longer could recognize as those, they formerly believed was of the Social Democrats.

46

As evident of the “casualties” that is the former members of the Social democrats, creating meaning of policies is a battle of hearts and minds. However it is not a battle with just two opposing sides but a matter of complex layered relational social processes where multiple discourses are fighting for dominance through these social processes. These social processes are everything that can have influence on the minds of those with power to change the ideologies within the institution that is the Social Democrats. As such every individual has their own ideas of the interpretation of the values and ideology of the Social Democratic party. This means that the issues regarding L87 is not simply between those that think Denmark should do more to help and those who think we should do less. This is evident as Frederiksen is asked about one of her top supporters from the leadership, Henrik Sass Larsen and his interview in a Danish Newspaper where he amongst other things states that he believes the reasoning behind the tightening of the asylum laws are that he prioritize Danish citizens and their welfare higher than those of Asylum seekers (note). While he is indeed explaining the position on why the social democrats voted for L87, it is not an explanation which sits entirely well with Frederiksen. Instead responding directly to the question, she explains:

“it is not that simple, we have a unique society in which we have access to many public services such as schools, medical etc… If we are to finance that society we are dependent on adults who can give more than they take. So we are challenged by a number of refugees who come to Denmark, and some do well, but many are not doing so well” (Appendix 1, line 110‐117).

She then goes on to explain

“there has emerged an atmosphere that we cannot in decency have this policy, however this is not an opinion that I share. We receive many refugees and we will keep on receiving many, but we have to be able to finance it” (Appendix 1, line 115‐117)

As Frederiksen explains, she does not fully agree with Henrik Sass Larsens ideas about prioritization of people. But instead of engaging the question on the premise of values and ideology, she turns away from the social wrong by focusing her answer on the normative ideas

47 of balance between helping and economy. By turning towards a normative explanation of the policy and away from an explanation of the more aggressive or direct explanation of the meaning making behind L87 as Henrik Sass Larsen sees it, she is hoping to avoid the apparent conflict between core party values of solidarity, freedom and equality (Principprogram, 2011) from economics. Frederiksen cannot afford to respond with precision as seen with Larsen. She must find a way to me a point of reconciliation between the leadership and the members of the Social Democrats who believe she should not be voting for L87. Thus she attempts to cater to this group, by claiming that Denmark is indeed still receiving many refugees.

Discourse analysis of interview of Henrik Sass Larsen

This interview was made a short while before the vote for L87. It is an interview with Henrik Sass Larsen who is at the time chairman of the group (Social Democrats) and will talk to the interviewer about the necessity of limiting the number of non‐western immigration. This interview is about Larsen explaining his stance on the refugee crisis and has in my own opinion, the purpose of preparing the Social Democratic voters for the upcoming vote for L87 and the tightening of rules regarding refugees and asylum seekers. At the same time he is attempting to frame the public debate around refugees and thereby create and understanding for the choices that the Social Democrats are voting to tighten rules for refugees and set those choices in correlation with Social Democratic values. As opposed to Mette Frederiksen, he is not limiting his rhetoric as he it is not as necessary for him to reach an understanding from a wide range of potential, but can afford to focus his attention on those who already agree with him in some ways and thus making room for a more aggressive rhetoric.

48

Textual analysis

In the first part of the interview Larsen takes a somewhat hostile approach to the question of “right and wrong” in the asylum debate. He passive aggressively proclaim those who wish to do more for the refugees for “humanistic gods” who explains to others “right and wrong”. He finds them Irritating (Appendix 2, line 31). His rhetoric in this case is interesting as it is more aggressive than the usual political rhetoric. When he talks about the Danish welfare state and its role when dealing with the problem of refugees, he calls the state a “Victim” (appendix 2, line 60) A victim to the current policies which he describe as “Self‐destructing form of solidarity” (Appendix 2, line 64) It is interesting to notice the apparent reversal of roles in which the state is considered a victim but not the refugees. At the same time he refers to refugees not as refugees but “Immigrants” and “Costumers” (Appendix 2, line 68). The difference between refugees, immigrants and costumers are significant both in a legal sense but also a rhetorical sense as it suggests that Larsen has a specific view on what the refugees status are or should be. The interview turns towards a discussion of values and culture in where Larsen describes arranged marriages as “economic trade of children” ”(Appendix 2, line 88) as well his analysis of why Muslim immigrants have failed to become productive members of society, which attributes amongst other things to “A lack of will” ”(Appendix 2, line 139) As he describes shortcomings or incompatibly of Muslim culture and Danish society, it shows that he does not expect much success from the integration of new generations of immigrants, he paints a negative picture for the future of integration of the refugees. In the interview he mentions integration several times and contribute the difficulty and lack of this to be an important factor in his meaning making and argumentation.

49

Contextual analysis

Larsen holds the position that there is no difference between the refugees who come to Denmark in this current crisis and immigrants.

“Refugee policy in Denmark is the same as immigration policy. Because people stay here” (Appendix 2, line 31).

There is of course a difference between the meaning behind the word refugee and immigrant. While Immigrant is a person who has left their home in order to achieve a better life, a refugee is someone who risk violence and persecution in his home country, and can therefore not be sent back. (videnskab.dk/sporg‐videnskaben/migranter‐og‐flygtninge‐hvad‐er‐forskellen). There is a significant difference of legal status if a person who comes to Denmark as either a refugee or an immigrant. The two different statuses also hold very different connotations for the responsibility to assist these individuals. While under international law Denmark must give shelter to refugees, they are not required to do this for immigrants and its citizens does not feel the same level of responsibility for the immigrants as they do for refugees. So by declaring refugee policy as the same as immigration policy in Denmark one and the same, Larsen insinuate that the refugees who come from war stricken areas of the middle east are in fact not refugees, but immigrants and should therefore not have our assistance as if they were refugees. So instead of trying to affect normative values in society or of the Social Democrats he attempts to shift the dominant discourse in such a way that those who come to Denmark from war stricken countries, are in fact not refugees, but immigrants who seek to live a better life in the welfare state of Denmark. Thus he is removing the social wrong from the equation, and thereby hoping to defuse resistance towards L87 and refugee/immigrant policies. Larsen then goes on the offensive against those that believe that that Denmark has a responsibility to help more.

50

“They stand on the Olympus of humanism. Like Humanistic Gods, who shine their light down upon the rest of us and explain to us, what is right and what is wrong from their definition of the right dose of humanism. This is what is annoys me, that they do” (Appendix 2, line, 46‐48)

Larsen notably compares in a most sarcastic way those who believe that Denmark should help the refugees more, to gods. He portrays them as condescending as he portrays them to be casting “the light down on the rest of us”. Here he is trying to frame the conversation in such a way, that he placing the so called humanists apart from the rest of the population of whom he himself represents, as people which are unrelated to the normative values. He further explains his stance by saying

“I have arrived at the conclusion, that I am not willing to let the Danish welfare society become a victim of getting the most amount of people up here” (Appendix 2, line 60‐61) and “…We are conducting a self‐destructive form of solidarity if we give away ( our wealth) into infinity”(Appendix 2, line 63‐64)

And

“do not believe that there is not costumers out there who wants to get here” ”(Appendix 2, line 68)

By using the word infinite he attempts to frame the debate about refugees in such a way that there is only two options for the voters to choose from, namely his policies or the policies of the humanists who will “give everything away and destroy the society in the process”. By rhetorically leaving potential voters with only these two options, he bets on the fact that most people will chose their own lives over others. He thus attempts to shift the debate on its head from the humanists who do the so called “right” thing, into the fact that it is the duty of Danish citizens to save the society from the refugees and those who are willing to more of them in, thus making his policy the “right” thing. He further stresses his point by no longer refer to the refugees as neither refugees or immigrants, but as “customers”, and thus insinuating that Danes owe these people no special status concerning questions of values linked to things like

51 responsibility to help. Larsen is using his argumentation to that Danish cultural norms are in line with L87. They should not “feel bad” about not helping the refugees as they normally wood. Instead he calls out the refugees as immigrants, making it legitimate to feel that L87 is the norm. The interview turns to the current standing 24 year rule concerning family reunification, which is also something L87 will be influencing through the limitations it puts on refugees through the 3 year rule which makes it so refugees cannot reunite with their families before after 3 years. Larsen responds

“Unfortunately there is still widespread social and economic trade of children in these circles. Which is wildly outrageous. It is the parents and the families who arrange whom the daughters are to marry”(Appendix 2, line 87‐89)

Here Larsen attacks the value system of the refugees by rhetorically equating arranged marriages to “the trade of children”. His hope here is to alienate any sympathy Danes might have with the refugees and thereby gaining their support. He does this by banking on the fact that the trade of children is one of the worst social wrongs imaginable to Danes and at the same time claiming that trade of children is an essential part of the values in the culture of the refugees. By calling the asylum seekers “trades of children” he is hoping to demonize their culture and create a rift I society and thereby forming discourse which which underlines the incompatibility between the cultural norms of the refugees and the norms of Danes. As such he hopes for support to create new mechanism of power to further remove the unwanted elements. As the location changes to the hometown of Larsen in Taastup, he explains that even if Denmark were to let in refugees, they will not be integrated into Danish society and they will fail as productive citizens.

“(in the 70’s) At Taastrupgaard hundreds of both Vietnamese refugees and lots of Turkish guest workers arrived. All with children and all approximate the same age. One group did amazingly well, while the other group did not do well. They had the exact same conditions: same school, lived the same places, did the same leisure activities, and in all kind of ways the same starting

52 point. Is it because one group was Muslim? No you can’t say that, but it has something to do with culture and habits… Maybe a lack of will or aspiration for themselves or for their family… (the lack of) will to melt into the society in which they are part of” (Appendix 2, line 131‐143)

Larsen here brings up the fact that people who come from the same kind of culture as the refugees are doomed to never become a productive member of Danish society, because of the fact that their culture will not allow them to. He is trying to make sense of these social processes by analyzing what has occurred to two different groups of cultures, in which one has failed and one has succeeded. Thus he is trying to influence the discourse regarding the future of the refugees in a negative way, by explaining that not only will they cost Danish society wealth now, but also in the future, as they as a group never will be productive members of society. Larsen is hereby spreading uncertainty about the potential cost to society of taking in refugees and thereby solidifying his earlier point that taking in more refugees will be “destroying” the welfare society. Larsen then brings up how he sees the problem of refugees and its ideal solution

“The problem with the flow of refugees and the misery in the world is of a very comprehensive character. Even if peace was made in Syria, the problem would not be solved. In Egypt, the greater part of the young population has no occupation and is interested in migration. There are big parts of Afghanistan where they also think that this is a good idea (to migrate), and then there is Iraq and Iran, and everyone else… It is migration which is happening (as opposed asylum seeking). (Appendix 2, line 192‐197)

He then goes on to the solution.

“Somewhere in the vicinity of the conflict zones there should be made camps for receiving refugees, where everyone can seek protection. But every EU‐country should be able to decide how many refugees they would like to take (to their own country), the rest must stay in the camp” (appendix 2, line 198‐201).

53

“All applications for asylum must be handled from there. If people then spontaneously show up (at the EU‐borders) they must be taken back (to the camps) (Appendix 2, 211‐213).

Larsen concludes that the refugee crisis is not so much about wars in the Middle East, but about migrants looking for a better life somewhere in a rich country like Denmark. His argument thus becomes that this crisis is not something that is temporary, but will keep on going until Europeans and Danes stop it. He is thus removing the social wrong from the discussion about asylum seekers by equating those from Syria to any country in the Muslim world who is struggling economically. As such he is arguing that any policy that involves taking in refugees will never solve the root of the problem and is therefore not a solution at all. At the same time because his argument is based on the fact that the problems of Syrians are basically the same as those of the rest of the poor parts of the world, Danes should not feel that they have a responsibility to let the asylum seekers stay in Denmark. However Larsen as a part of the Social Democrats, still advocates for freedom, equality and solidarity and hopes to spread this as part of an international movement (Principprogram, 2011). So he suggests that the solution is to build asylum camps in areas near where people try to escape from war, from which Denmark and other European nations can selectively chose who and how many can come and live in Denmark. As such he is acknowledging that there is indeed a problem and a social wrong which there should be found a solution for, but his willingness to help the asylum seekers are closely related to the amount of control he has over their integration into Danish society and its success. In conclusion Larsen is attempting in this interview to frame the question of L87 and the tightening of the rules regarding Asylum seekers in such a way that the values he hold are within and was always a part of the ideology that is within the Social Democratic organization. There is no social wrong. Danes do not have a responsibility to help more asylum seekers because they are they are not refugees, but immigrants. But at the same time he understands that the complex layered relational social processes grow into more areas than simply those surrounding the question if the refugees need help or not. Therefore he also brings up arguments surrounding supposedly failed prior attempts at integration of Muslims and argues that the

54

Danish welfare state will suffer not just from the initial economic impact of the asylum seekers, but for years to come through the refugee immigrants who will not pull their weight economically and will harm Denmark culturally and thus threatening the norms in society as well as economic stability. His claim is therefore that the refugees will fail to develop their capacity for as human capital and they will consume more than they will produce.

Discourse analysis of Chronicle by Pernille Schnoor

Pernille Schnoor is a former Social Democrat. She left the Social Democrats on the 24th of April 2016 and changed her allegiance to Alternativet. She left the Social Democrats as she no longer believed that the polices and values supported by the leadership of the Social Democrats where something she could understand or believe in. Thus as a former Social Democrat she represents those within the party who disagree with the current party line on refugee policies and I will use her article to exemplify the growing discontent of many of the party members views on the leaderships stands on the refugee problem.

Textual Analysis

In the article Schnoor describes the current policies of the Social Democrats as “corydonistic and neoliberalists”. She attributes her discontent with the party and her decision of leaving the Social Democrats to the world views those words imply. To her they imply that the state has become something that lets the market forces rule its policy. That policy is no longer something made from ideals, values and ideology but from spreadsheets. When describing the immigration policy of the Social Democrats she says:

“The party leadership has submitted to Danish Peoples Parties asylum and integration policies in order to regain lost voter segments” (Appendix 3, line 41‐42)

55

With her use of the word submission, she implies that the policies made, are not the Social Democrats own and that they have solely been made to gain more voters. She also denotes the value of regaining the voters by referring to them, not as voters, but as voter segments, suggesting that the policies made are on the basis of cynical strategy rather than actual belief.

Schnoor continuously describe Christiansborg in negative terms, using colorful rhetoric such as “narrow minded power games”, “Dream crusher” “counterproductive”.

Christiansborg has become a dream crusher which slowly but surely crushes hopeful political visions of change and replace them with narrow minded dreams of power”. (Appendix 3, line, 69‐71)

Here she is not only describing her dissatisfaction with the party, but by naming Christiansborg as a whole, she is effectively criticizing the entire institution which resides within it. She implies that the institution itself, has corrupted the policy making process of the Social Democrats, and describes its culture as “counterproductive”.

When writing about the sense making processes of the policies of the Social Democrats, she does so in terms like “spreadsheet policy”, “spreadsheet hoopla”, “power for the sake of power”, “control regime”. By referring to economic policy in terms such as spreadsheet hoopla, she is implying the methods used when creating policy are not simply wrong but out of touch with the reality of policy making. At the same time she describes the Social Democratic leadership as power hungry and therefore not working in the best interest of the population.

The article therefore is considered to have an overall hostile view on the Social Democratic party and is used influence the meaning making process regarding question related to the policy making processes and meaning making of the Social Democratic leadership.

56

Contextual analysis

“When corydonismen set the course for the party, the Social Democrats and I, started to drift apart, because I personally care about equality, social mobility, social justice – in short social sustainability. And this is not something there is a lot of in my eyes, when you subdue to the neoliberalistic view on competition state” ( Appendix 3, line 18‐22)

Corydonismen refers to general policies of the Social Democratic party under the leadership of Helle Thorning Smith and under the influence of finance minister Bjarne Corydon, at a time when the Social Democrats were in Government. While some viewed the polices of Corydon as embracing the competitive state, a more precise definition was according to Social Democratic youth chairman Alexander Peterson that Corydonismen was a submission to the market state, in which the welfare state could only grow from any added value that the market would allow. It was no longer employment rates that were the main concern when financing the state, but international rating bureaus evaluations of the Danish economy. (politiken.dk/debat/ECE3122917/nu‐maa‐mit‐parti‐goere‐op‐med‐corydonismen/). So as Schnoor explains her position referring to Corydonismen and neoliberalistic view on the competition state, she is talking about a perceived disconnect between the people in the state and the state itself. Her view on what she believed to be Social Democratic ideology is a value system in which equality, social mobility and social justice does not coincide with what she view as a cynical competition state in which the market always comes first. She then goes on to explain why she believes the market should be separated from certain public institutions.

“I believe wholeheartedly in the intuitions, which provide basic and vital benefits, should be kept free from the competition and market conditions, because those are so often prioritized over humanism… (public institutions) cannot compete on the free market as long as they are publicly financed and subject to political prioritizing. It is utopian, unreasonable irrational and a destructive demand to put on them (the public institutions)” (appendix 3, line 25‐32).

57

As opposed to Larsens interview in which he speaks about humanism with contempt, Schnoor describes it as a vital part of political decision making in institutions. Furthermore she finds that if public institutions are to be subjected to the free market, their prime purpose as institution for the public will be eroded. This criticism can be directly connected to Larsens views on handling and financing of asylum camps outside of Denmark where he suggest

“We could ally ourselves with the people who make business investments and ask them if they could setup production facilities (in the asylum camps)” (Appendix 2, line 233‐234).

This is an example of how Schnoor believes that if the asylum camps become dependent on the free market and private business investments, the political humanistic ideals of helping the refugees will be lost.

Because they (the private institutions) are not subjected to the same political demands, in the end I believe that those most vulnerable… those who in the competition state do not contribute enough to the economic bottom line, are the ones who will lose out” (Appendix 3, line 33‐36).

Schnoor makes the argument that the idea of helping the weakest in society, for example refugees is incompatible with the free market, in which the strong survive and the weak die out. So while Frederiksen and Larsen makes arguments for the limitations on helping refugees because of their negative economic impact, Schnoor frame her argumentation around the fact, that economics should be second, in a discussion about political meaning making, as ideals such as humanism and helping the weakest in society is not something that makes sense in a free market perspective. This brings Schnoor to the reasoning behind her leaving the Social Democratic party.

“I have in an almost daily basis voted for polices, in which I did not understand my parties own line of reasoning. A line of reasoning which by the way was never fully explained openly. The tactics are laid outside of the group and political differences are silenced.” (Appendix 3, line 46‐ 48)

58

Schnoor is here seen shedding light on perceived failings in the structure of the Social Democrats. She explains that meaning making in the organization is no longer something which is done through interconnected social processes that involves all the elected members of the Social Democrats, but discursive formation has become a top‐down process in which the power and influence of the leadership of the Social Democrats are not just overruling those who disagree with their values, but keeps those who disagree completely out of the meaning making process entirely. If this viewpoint of top‐down leadership and meaning making is shared by many members of the Social Democrats, it could become an even greater problem for the Social Democrats than it already is. While Pernille Schnoor as well as party members Mette Gjerskov, Daniel Toft Jacobsen and Yildiz Akdogan whom have left the party, has sent a signal that the ideology of the leadership is so far apart from their own that there is no reconciliation. But even as those opposing members to the party line has removed themselves from the meaning making process and is therefore not considered an obstacle for the leadership, there are strong indications that their viewpoints in the party did not stand alone.

Morten Ryum who is candidate for parliament running as a member of the Social Democrats referred to the current asylum policies as “helt hul I hovedet” (dagens.dk/politik/h%C3%A5ndv%C3%A6rker‐udl%C3%A6ndingeloven‐der‐favoriserer‐ universitetsstuderende‐er‐hul‐i‐hovedet.) Which roughly translates to “completely idiotic”.

Chairman of about 600 members Arne Teglgaard of the Social Democrats of the Aarhus municipal said “We cannot vote for anymore tightening (of refugee policies). If this happens I foresee some will leave the party. (avisen.dk/s‐bagland‐brokker‐sig‐over‐mette‐fs‐ asylstramninger_360004.aspx)

If the top‐down policy making continuous, the Social Democratic leadership might become more and more disconnected from the rest of the party. If others, like Schnoor do not agree or comprehend the meaning making behind the polices that are made, their personal values will become progressively less connected to those of the party and the ideology of the party will no

59 longer make sense to them. This will eventually leave them with only two choices, leave the party or overthrow the leadership.

While taking responsibility of governance and economic realities is something Frederiksen and Larsen both use in their argumentation as reasoning for tightening of the rules on refugees and asylum seekers, it is not a reasonable argument to lower the standards of care in the perspective of Schnoor.

“The Social Democrats have for a long time talked about taking responsibility as something admirable in itself… it is not admiration I feel when the Social Democrats take responsibility for “smykkeloven”, family reunification laws, tighter and tighter shifting point systems for residence permits, which hurt integrated young people who are born and raised in Denmark, and must therefore live in constant uncertainty” (Appendix 3, line 50‐60)

While Schnoor recognize that taking responsibility for things can be good, she does not believe that taking responsibility for the any of the points in the legislation L87 is something a Social Democrat should be proud of. She has recognized the wrong in society which is the situation that refugees needs food, shelter, etc. and is thus concerned with solving this wrong from the ideological standpoint of what she believes is Social Democratic policy. This means that there is misunderstanding between the leadership and Schnoor as to what exactly the core values and the ideology are. While Schnoor describe her core values as equality, social mobility, social justice and social sustainability, the official principal program core values are freedom, equality and solidarity. When the principal program talks about responsibility, it does so in the context of helping the weak such as: “It is the responsibility of the community to take care of and create good structure around vulnerable groups” and “if we do not take responsibility in the community, we risk losing solidarity” and “the Social Democrats will meet other cultures and we value diversity and it is essential to show openness and tolerance” (Principprogram, 2011). As these are official principles of the Social Democrats, it is not surprising that Schnoor feels the Social Democratic leadership has abandoned these in favor of taking responsibility for the

60 tightening of the asylum laws and L87. She attributes the lack of the implantation of these values to the power struggle in parliament.

“Since I was voted in as a member of parliament, I have felt that my freedom (to make policy) has been taken away in the narrow tactical power struggle that is Christiansborg. It is this power struggle which has made Christiansborg a crusher of dreams, in which slow but surely crushes hopeful political visions about change and replace them with narrow minded dreams of power”. (Appendix 3, line, 67‐71)

Schnoor is seen here to show resent for the fight for power in parliament. She believes the pursuit of power is obscuring social progress. Her way of forming policies are in a different frame from what we see from Frederiksen and Larsen. While they implement policies from a perspective of balance between how much influence and power they will gain from it versus how well much is corresponds with their ideology, Schnoor operates within a different frame in which good policy is good in itself and will therefore also pay for itself in the long run if not immediately on the economic bottom line, then at a later time though social processes that will be improve society as a whole and make it more wealthy in the long run. In the case of asylum policies, Schnoor believes that helping more refugees will lead to a range of social processes that eventually will bring social and or economic advantages to the Danish society over a period of time. While her point in theory could be true I biopolitical sense, she suggests no new mechanisms of power to implement this idea. For the asylum seekers to become productive members of society, new laws would have to be put into place, such heavy investment in integration processes, skill development, job security and perhaps even reversal of L87. However, with her final statement, she reveals that her intentions for integration are not very specific but as she puts it in her chronicle it could be described as “politics with the heart”.

61

“Spreadsheets has a role to play, but it becomes destructive when a wide range of Danish politicians have allowed themselves to submit to the “what is the cost logic”. If a certain politic is smart and well thought through, it does not cost a dime – it is an investment in the future, which will put all three (economic, social, environmental) bottom lines in the black.” (Appendix 3, line, 143‐146)

Biopolitics and the asylum policy

When migration of populace occur and affect another eco system, which in this case is the immigration of people from war stricken countries of the middles east, to stable countries of the west, biopolitics is used as a set of apparatuses to defend a nation from changes to its ecosystem or normality. What is at stake is the sustainability of the existing life forms. Biopolitics is therefore shaped around the desire to conserve preexisting spaces and population from potential transformation due to movements of life that may occur due to migration(Reid, 2014). This leads to the question of what kind of society the migration and the reproductive consequences of the migration will lead to. The answer is not however a simple one as the migration of Syrian and other middle eastern refugees, can only be analyzed through a complex interplay between individual and collective interests, social utility and economic profit. In other words, on a longer timescale there is an infinite number factors which has influence on the reproductive consequences of the migration. The legislations of L87 are in this case used as the Danish societies immune system kicking in in order to defend body. The immune system turns against the elements it seek to exclude from the community which threatens it (Estévez, 2013). Thus L87 is an inoculation to society, given in order to protect it from the asylum seekers of the Middle Eastern countries.

62

As the chairman of the Social Democrats which is currently the largest party in Denmark currently holding 47 seats in parliament as of the election of 18th of June 2015. (politiko.dk/barometeret), Mette Frederiksen though not a part of the governing body, holds significant power and influence as an influential part of the governing structure in the Danish parliament. As her position as chairman of the Social Democrats, her goal is to bring about Social Democratic policies and win elections and thus bring more power to the Social Democrats. In order to do this she must manage political economy through the phenomenal republic of interests. These interests are of course not uniform as they consist of a complex interplay between individual and collectives interests. Frederiksen must therefore understand and respond to these individual and collective interests in order to gain support for her party. However, in order to obtain legitimacy, the Social Democrats must provide economic stability for the people through these policies. While values such as freedom, equality and solidarity are a core part of the Social Democratic value set (Principprogram, 2011), values like these come with an economic cost. Frederiksen and the rest of the Social Democratic leadership has thus decided that the economic costs of the refugee crisis were too great not to actively do something about, and thus they ordered the entire Social Democratic party to vote for legislation L87. By voting for this bill, they gain legitimacy through increased economic stability by insuring greater limits on the influx of refugees and thus protecting Danish society from the unknown and unwanted elements that are the refugees. In extension of this Frederiksen was asked:

“If it turns out that for the 20% (refugees) with temporary protection status is unconstitutional (that family reunification can only be attained after 3 years as opposed to 1) should the policy (L87) then be changed” (Appendix 1, line 77‐78),

Here Frederiksen has a number of issues to worry about. Firstly she responds by saying

“of course, that is obvious, we have to abide by international law” (Appendix 1, line 79).

63

Here she shows that it is important for her and by extension her party that international law is abided by. However when she is shown multiple instances of interest organizations proclaiming that they believe that this law will be deemed unconstitutional and is reminded that she herself (when she was minister of justice less than 2 years earlier) said :

“The law seems to have been tightened as much as possible within the rules of international constitution”. (Appendix 1, line 91‐92)

Frederiksen responds by proclaiming her lack of legal knowledge and refer her reasoning for her statement to the advice of the justice department (note). Clement hereby expose the disconnect between Frederiksens statement as minister of justice on international law tightening on asylum policies and her support for L87. While this is a loss in the rhetorical sense as she fails to give meaning to her statements, this is not her primary concern as lawmaker and party leader.

“What matters is not whether or not this is legitimate in terms of law, but what its effects are and whether they are negative” (Senellart et al., 2008), p13).

Foucault’s statement in regards to the value of law reveals her the reasoning behind Frederiksen choice to support a bill which she would have opposed just 2 years prior. Legitimacy for the Social Democrats is key. The main concern of Frederiksen is not the rights and wrongs in a moral or ethical sense or how much she can show she stand by her Social Democratic values like freedom, equality and solidarity. Frederiksen is concern is the how she will gain legitimacy and power. By supporting L87, she secures more tools to control refugees and the unknown costs that come with them. As such she gains more control over the society and her ability to protect it against change. The meaning making between biopolitics and L87 is therefore to create systems that limit and control the number of refugees by putting laws into place that can secure legitimacy as the government controls or removes these unwanted groups from society. But as the leader of the Social Democrats, she cannot simply say that she wants to get rid of the refugees. Her decisions making must make sense to both her voters as well as the rest of her

64 organization. Frederiksen therefore suggests there’s a limit to how many asylum seekers Denmark should take and that Denmark should focus on helping asylum seekers to asylum camps outside of Denmark in places like their home countries and Turkey.

“We are challenged by refugees who come to Denmark and while some do well, many do not do so well” and “We have a smart arrangement between turkey and EU in which EU sends money to turkey” (to handle refugee camps). “We have to find the right balance, handle the situation and provide the protection the refugees have a lawful right to receive, but at the same time not take in more people than we are able to integrate, because if the integration does not work it will lead to colossal problems. Therefore we need balance” (Appendix 1, line 27‐30).

So Frederiksen says she wants to help the refugees get into camps, however she does not want those camps to be in Denmark. This brings us to questions of human capital. As the individuals of society can be viewed as ability machines or cogs that together makes the society function, the income and economy of that society cannot be separated from the individuals within it(Senellart et al., 2008). The difference in productiveness versus consumption of the asylum seekers is thus what worries Frederiksen. When talking about human capital, the issue at hand is the investment and development of the people. However it is not solely a question about elements such as schooling and training that determines how productive an individual is, but the entirety of the cultural stimuli within the environment a given person is in (Senellart et al., 2008). This is an explanation of why, even as she is asked by Clement many times in the interview to give a specific number on how many refugees, she is willing to give asylum to. She gives vague answers in which she says things like “it is not so simple” and “we must find a balance”. This is why, while her main concern is the economy, she also focuses on integration. Integration which broadly covers the ability of the asylum seeker to conform and develop in the Danish society, not simply in terms of education and work opportunities but the wholeness of the environmental variables that influence a person’s life situation lets them become a

65 productive member of society. This is everything from family life, social life, mobility etc. that makes up the total productiveness of the individual(Senellart et al., 2008). Frederiksen explains:

“if we are to finance a society, (like ours) we are dependent upon the adults who are here, can contribute more than they take (Appendix 1, line 110‐111).

Frederiksen goes on to saying:

“family reunification is one of the only tools we actually have if we want to maintain control on how many who come” (appendix 1, line 62‐63)

What she is concerned with is the inflow of refugees and the Danish society’s ability to integrate these people so they can become productive members of society. Her concern about numbers is therefore situated within her perception of the Danish society’s ability to absorb and integrate a certain number of refugees at a time. As such she is using L87 to modify the environment for refugees in order to have greater control and success rate of the integration and thus productiveness of them. Family reunification is one of the important variables to be considered when determining human capital. Family is a core value for many refugees and when rules are tightening around this it will lead to destabilization in personal life of the affected and thus lowering their overall happiness and through that their productiveness and value to society. So while limiting the number of refugees by controlling family reunification in order to be more successful with integration, L87 also limits the success rate of the integration by limiting the social relations of the refugees with their families. While Frederiksens arguments make sense from both a social and economic standpoint, there are many who disagree with her policy. These are people of the general population, potential voters and even some of her own party members. As she attempts to stabilize economic and wealth related interests, she at the same time destabilize other cultural interests. But her political rationality not only relates around one specific knowable group of people, but is founded on an unknowable number of processes that constitute a multiplicity of points of

66 views. Therefore there is no rational perfect choice which can encompass all individuals’ interests. However her job is to make policies that can help her control the environment to her liking and at the same time give her more influence and control to do so. While the Social Democrats initially lost voters in polls following the interview with Clement, they have within months regained their losses and remain the largest party in Danish politics. Frederiksen has thus gained more control and power as part of the governing body and have lost little to no voter support and can therefore expect no loss of influence influence after the next election. So while the negative consequences in the polls are debatable, they are left with a policy which grants stronger tools of controlling refugees to the government. However Frederiksen has left herself with range of organizational problems of identity which has caused disruption in the ideology of the Social Democrats.

While Frederiksen interview was deemed a massive failure in communication proven by the effects in the polls, the reasoning for this was not as much her inadequacy to express herself and her narrative, but that her personal opinions on the subject did not defer much from those of Henrik Sass Larsen. Larsens interview may have had as much influence in the polls as through the fact that Frederiksen did not publicly denounce his standpoints, but instead give out very vague answers to the hard line of questioning of Clement. The problem of perception thus lies in the fact that a line her real personal stance on the subject was indeed the same as Larsens.

Frederiksens position as the Chairman of the Social Democrats, puts her in a difficult position. Frederiksens ideal policies are of biopolitical nature as she attempts to gain more power and influence. However she also has to cater to her own organization in order to protect her personal position as leader of the organization. At the same time, she is obligated to maintain the loyal voter segment of the Social Democrats in order to keep her party in power. This is the reason why she does not simply “answer” the questions of Clement. She knows that her policy is indeed unpopular within, not only her voter segment, but also with many of the lower ranking members of the Social Democrats. The word “balance” is used again and again in the interview to describe her stance on the refugee question. This is a word which in fact says nothing about

67 her values or stance on how much or how little the refugees should receive of help from the government. As she in reality has already declared her stance on the subject by ordering the party to vote for L87, she must find a way to reconcile and make sense of her policy to the segment of Social Democrats, voters as well as members that disagree with her policy. The result was as we see vague ideas about balance of economy and helping asylum seekers.

While Frederiksen has to worry about identity within the party as well as securing organizational development Henrik Sass Larsen does not have these limitations in his sense making of the party policies. Larsen can therefore freely use a much more direct and strong rhetoric as he constructs narratives around Social Democratic immigration policy. The terminology Larsen uses in the interview is used to categorize cultural diversity by underlining cultural differences in ethnic minority groups and at the same time ignoring any intra‐ethnic heterogeneities. This is seen as he rhetorically simplifies arranged marriages as the “social and economic trade of children”. He refers to these arranged marriages as cultural customs and describes them as “despicable” (Appendix 2, line 86).

Larsens choice of words demonstrates the contradiction between the (bio)politics as the politics of a caring society which puts its citizens and their welfare first, by defining boundaries of norms within the society by targeting cultural differences in minorities. Larsen is therefore not only advocating for legislation against the asylum seekers, but by describing the cultural failings and problems of integration of former Turkish guest workers, he is drawing parallels between legislation against not only asylum seekers but Danish citizens.

The argument here is not that Larsens sense making is racist or racially charged, but rather that the nature of his argument is in fact based in biopolitics. Larsens arguments have to do with the management of the homogeneity, in order to maintain structure and sustainability of the existing eco system that is society. The use of L87 is therefore a tool of biopower used for the management of ethnic diversity though the practice of law.

68

As seen below, the analysis conducted by the Danish Udlæninge‐intergrations‐ og bolig ministry, show the number of asylum seekers just prior to L87 and the 2 months following has had a significant fall of applicants.

(nyidanmark.dk/NR/rdonlyres/E3C50EA0‐BD36‐4DDD‐9C8D‐ 7AAF44DE1F12/0/seneste_tal_udlaendingeeomraadet.pdf)

By limiting the rights of Asylum seekers, it has followed an instant 65% fall in the number of asylum seekers in the month following L87.

In order to get public support for his policies on Asylum seekers, Larsen use discourse formation to demonstrate the problem of the refugees. He continuously refers to them, not as refugees, but instead uses terminology such as costumers or immigrants. As such he effectively puts them in the role as a villain to society whom has come to take advantage of already limited resources. And so the need to control them is presented as essential for the common good and legitimatized through the integrity behind the legal process of the removal of rights through legislation L87.

While there indeed was a loss of voters due to the interview with Frederiksen and Larsen, later polls show that while a large segment of voters left the Social Democrats as an initial reaction to the interview, other voter segments was regained.

69

(megafon.dk/362/seneste‐politiske‐indeks‐fra‐megafon)

In the optics of biopolitics it is for Larsen and Frederiksen, essentially irrelevant which voter segments they control as long as they remain in a position of power. While they may have suffered an initial significant setback, their policy now caters to other voter segments. The social Democratic leadership has thus successfully responded to the crisis, by gaining increased control over the change in the environment, which is the influx of refugees. They have done so with negligible impact on their popularity, which they can hope to regain through narratives and discourse formation in the future.

Complex Responsive Process theory and the problem of identity

Complex Responsive Process theory deals with the organizational changes that happen as the interplay of intentions within the organization clash and meaning emerges through these social processes. CRP deals with the strategizing of this meaning making in the organization. In the case of the Social Democrats the issue at hand is the shifting population wide patterns that are

70 the refugees and them coming to Denmark. The Social Democrats have therefore as a political organization been forced to adapt to the new discourse in society, which is “something must be done about the refugees coming to our borders”. That something is the organizational strategic response. The Social Democratic response to this issue, has been to vote for the legislation L87. However this strategy has not been universally accepted throughout the organization and has led to erosion within it. Several members have left the organization as result and many others might still hold resentment towards the strategy. The question thus emerges, how did the Social Democrats get to a place where many of its members decide to leave and perhaps many more disagree with their policy? In the following section I will therefore take a closer look into why the organizational have lost these members and if they are in danger of losing many more.

While the Social Democrats have increasingly been gaining support over the last few years while increasingly having a harder line towards asylum seekers, it is beyond the scope of this project to make a direct correlation between those, since there are an infinite number of variables related to this subject alone. However directly following the interview with Frederiksen, the Social Democrats fell to a 19.3 electoral support (in a Megafon poll) which was a 7 % fall from the November 2015 Megafon poll only 3 months earlier. Of former voters of the Social Democrats, 8 out of 10 people when asked, attributed their decision to no longer vote for the party to its immigration policy (nyheder.tv2.dk/politik/2016‐01‐28‐kaempe‐tilbagegang‐for‐ socialdemokraterne‐ikke‐set‐siden‐1998‐0). However a poll from Maj 22. put the Social Democrats at 25.6 % (politiko.dk/barometeret) which makes a fall in the polls over a 6 month period of only 0,7 %. The large fall in the poll after the interview can therefore reasonably be attributed to how Frederiksen was unable to rhetorically successfully explain her standpoints on her vote for L87. However the fallout of the Social Democrats tightening of immigration policy and their vote L87 may yet to be seen, as party members Mette Gjerskov, Daniel Toft Jacobsen and Yildiz Akdogan left the Social Democrats immediately after and as a consequence of the vote, as well as town councilor Aysel Jørgensen, Mads Holdgaard, Torben Toft Andersen and elected MP Pernille Schnoor leaving soon after the vote for L87, all citing immigration policy as

71 their reasoning for leaving the Social Democrats. The diverse interests of the individuals within the organization are disrupting for the meaning making and identity of the Social Democrats.

Pernille Schnoor chose to leave the Social Democrats and instead join Alternativet. While other politicians have changed their party allegiance before, the fact that so many others besides her have left, as well as her reasoning in doing so, is of a troubling character of the future of the Social Democrats.

The very basis of organizational development is its ability for its members to converse within a social structure of shared rules where information can be clarified. These shared rules become the norms of communication and it is when these norms change that the organization transform. These norms have indeed changed according to Schnoor as she explains her frustration.

“The tactics are laid outside of the group and political disagreement are therefore silenced – instead of using them and becoming smarter together” (Appendix 3, 46‐48)

Schnoor shows her disappointment and lack of understanding of the leadership decision to exclude those who do not share their opinions. If others in the organization share her opinion that they are being excluded from conversation and the development of sense making within the organization, this is indeed a troubling sign. It is the purpose of communicational strategy within an organization to be able to respond to the fluidity of the population wide patterns, it is therefore necessary to follow a strategy which fosters the development of conversation and not suppress them. Furthermore in order to communicate effectively, the organizations members must conduct their communication through the generalized other. This has to do with members of the organizations ability to communicate through a sphere of expectancy of the others attitude. It is clear that Schnoor did in fact expect that her viewpoints would be allowed to be heard and discussed within the Social Democratic group and that she would be a part of the strategizing on policies. While she may not have expected to be a part of every strategizing meeting, she gets into conflict with the leadership as she feels her role and voice has been

72 diminished. In accordance to CRP it is indeed of importance to give room for interdependent persons with differences of opinion. While these people may spread conflict within the organization, it is important to let them challenge the norms of the organization in order for the organization to keep on responding effectively to population wide patterns. In short, the Social Democrats leadership should not attempt to shut out those who disagree with them. In fact they should give them room to voice their opinion in order to challenge the cult values, in order for the organization to effectively respond to changes in their environment in the future.

Frederiksen and the rest of the leadership are in a position of power to instruct, persuade and pressure people to do what they desire. It is not only the organizational structure in which agreed upon rules lets leaders of the Social Democrats set the agenda and make decisions while other members of the organization is expected to follow because of these structures. Instead it is the superior capability to communicate that lets the leadership hold on to power. The difference of power and capabilities to communicate between Frederiksen and Schnoor is significant. As the chairman of the Social Democrats, Frederiksen has the capability set agendas at meetings, decide who gets promoted within the organization and communicate to many more people than Schnoor. The ability of mass communication to the public could be considered as a self‐reinforcing form of power. As Frederiksen rise to power within the structure of the organization, she also accepts a platform of communication which she can use to communicate to the greater population. As she communicates from this platform, she gains more exposure in the media and if done successfully, she will gain more power and influence through the rising number of people she is communicating too. The question of what is “successful” communication if therefore of importance. Frederiksen power therefore lie in here ability to set the agenda, however she will never be able to control the interplay of intentions or in other words, the response and opinions of others to her policies. So when Frederiksen communicate her vision of the policies toward the asylum seekers, her vision is interpreted by those receiving it and may therefore lead misunderstandings or misinterpretations. Schnoor explains her interpretation of Frederiksens vision of responsibility like so:

73

“The Social Democrats have for a long time talked about taking responsibility as something admirable in itself… it is not admiration I feel when the Social Democrats take responsibility for “smykkeloven”, family reunification laws, tighter and tighter shifting point systems for residence permits, which hurt integrated young people who are born and raised in Denmark, and must therefore live in constant uncertainty” (Appendix 3, line 50‐60)

It is clear that Frederiksen has in this case been unable to communicate her vision of responsibility to Schnoor, as Schnoor does not feel any of the admiration that Frederiksen describes.

The reason why Schnoor and other critics of the Social Democrats are not able to understand the vision of Frederiksen and Larsen and the Social Democrats policy on asylum seekers, is the leaderships own disconnect to the established cult values of the Social Democrats. When talking about values regarding asylum policies, Schnoor uses words such as social Justice, equality, social mobility. The principal program describes the Social Democratic core goals with words like; global equality, international solidarity and security and “our immigration‐ and asylum policies should always reflect humanism and solidarity (principprogram p. 9). On the other hand Frederiksen describes the asylum policy with words like balance, responsibility and finance, and “we must follow international ground rules”. Finally Larsen describes people with values like as Schnoor with contempt, as gods of humanism shining light down upon us. He refers to solidarity as self‐destructive and the asylum seekers themselves as costumers who trade with children for economic gains. The values described by the principal program and Schnoor are ones that represent the old Social Democrats. The values described by the current leadership who sets the agenda are values which they are in the process of implementing into the Social Democratic organization. In the view of the leadership they have been forced to adapt these old cult values as they have been challenged by the unique situation that is the great influx of asylum seekers. However the old cult values do not simply go away because the leadership proclaims change in the name of functionality. The cult values which has been imbedded in the Social Democratic organization

74 and its members for years remain as personal value set for those within the organization. These cult values have conditioned people such as Schnoor to think about asylum seekers in a certain way. So the result is a disconnect between the meaning making of the party leadership and a number of members of the organization. Frederiksen and the rest of the leadership are reacting to the changing norms of society by changing the values in the organization. The ideology of the Social Democrats must therefore change as well. However the new ideology has been applied rigidly throughout the organization as evidence of the consequences of the vote for L87. With Schnoor and several other party members leaving the Social Democrats in anger or frustration, this new ideology of the Social Democrats leaves evidence of a fragmented organization which no longer has an aligned identity. The strategy of the Social Democrats leadership must therefore be to create narratives in order to transform these patterns of identity that are not aligned with the current party policies. It is through media and other things that narratives such as Frederiksens and Larsens interview can be communicated. However, these narratives have not been communicated successfully and the result has been an erosion of Social Democratic identity. Instead of members of the organization gaining a greater understanding of the values and meaning making of the leadership, Frederiksen has left Schnoor and others in a state of confusion and anger. Instead of having the party come together, its internal differences has been underlined by the ultimate decision of Mette Gjerskov, Daniel Toft Jacobsen and Yildiz Akdogan and Pernille Schnoors decision to leave the party. This same pattern of identity is applicable to the voting public as well. Days after the interview was made with Frederiksen a poll by Megafon, showed a massive fall in voter support for the Social Democrats. (nyheder.tv2.dk/politik/2016‐01‐28‐kaempe‐ tilbagegang‐for‐socialdemokraterne‐ikke‐set‐siden‐1998‐0).

The voters who chose to no longer support the Social Democrats because of the vote for L87 is here seen primarily move their votes to parties like Alternativet which Schnoor joined, and Det Radikale Venstre. Both of these parties voted against L87 and are generally opposed to the tightening of refugee laws.

75

76

megafon.dk/362/seneste‐politiske‐indeks‐fra‐megafon

There have been written hundreds of articles in national media about the internal conflict within the Social Democrats. In this thesis I have shown proven dissatisfaction with the party leadership from four members of parliament; Mette Gjerskov, Daniel Toft Jacobsen, Yildiz Akdogan and Pernille Schnoor. Four Social Democratic members of municipals; Aysel Jørgensen, Mads Holdgaard, Torben Toft Andersen and Arne Teglgaard, and Social Democratic candidate for parliament. Seven of these nine names have all taken the final step of leaving the Social Democrats instead as opposed to try and change it. The reason for this, is that speaking out against the Social Democratic parties policies in the public forums is considered illegitimate to the norm of conversation within the Social Democratic organization. Simply put, if Social Democrats who disagree with the official party line speak their mind in the public forum, they risk being ostracized or penalized by the party leadership. This policy has left the before mentioned parliament members in a situation where they in a matter of months go from

77 publically supporting the party leadership to suddenly leaving the party in anger over its policies. This means, that while they may be the only members who left, there is almost certainly many more who feel the same discontent towards the party policies. These people informally communicate between each other and create narratives or rather shadow themes that speak against the leadership and its policies and thus the official ideology. These shadow themes are of great importance to the future of the Social Democrats as they are the primary critical reflection of the ideology created by the leadership. The Social Democratic leadership has so far chosen a strategy in which they silence their critics within the organization as described by Schnoor. More and more members of the organization will share these shadow themes and if those narratives become stronger than those of the leadership it will eventually lead to a revolution within the party.

Conclusion

The purpose of this thesis was to examine the discourse of the Social Democrats in regards to the question of asylum policy, and if the pursuit of power and control will lead the Social Democrats towards more power through mechanisms of control or less through loss of identity disruption within the organization.

While the Social Democratic leadership has set the tone for the official policy of the Social Democratic standpoint of asylum policies, it was the purpose of the thesis to make a closer examination, of the segments of the Social Democrats that has been unable to align their value set and sense making to that of the leadership. A Critical Discourse Analysis of three key persons was made in order to create a point of entry for the analysis of the Social Democratic organization. This analysis showed Mette Frederiksen through the interview on Vi ses hos Clement, that as she attempted to accommodate the values of the traditional Social Democratic voter but at the same time support right wing asylum policy, she struggled to gain ground on

78 either voter segment. Her answers in the interview were vague at best and left her own party members questioning her support for the core values of the Social Democrats, solidarity, freedom and equality. As shown in the polls her narrative had been a huge disappointment to the voters and she and the party suffered in the polls. The leaderships lack of ability to create successful narratives around the need for change of the old policy and values on asylum seekers, coupled with their inability to create an open environment in which internal criticism could be heard, led the Social Democratic members of parliament; Mette Gjerskov, Daniel Toft Jacobsen, Yildiz Akdogan and Pernille Schnoor to leave the party. Furthermore other Social Democratic town councilor Aysel Jørgensen, Mads Holdgaard, Torben Toft Andersen also left the party. Some of these former members attributed their decision to leave the Social Democrats, to the vote for L87, Pernille Schnoor showed that her decision was also made from the organizational failings in the party. She no longer believed the party was creating policy through values but instead described the leadership as people in pursuit of power for the sake of power. The biopolitical analysis of the sense making behind the decision making of Frederiksen and Larsen, showed that L87 had an immediate effect on the number asylum seekers coming to the Danish borders. A new tool of control has been implemented and can be used to discourage and limit the number of refugees that could influence society’s eco system. Furthermore while a number of voters left the party immediately after the interview with Frederiksen, other or same voter were shown to vote for the party in the following months. Within the course of less than 6 months (from the 26th of august 2015 to 25th of April 2016) the drop of 8% in the polls was reduced to a mere 2,5% drop which is not considered significant.

As the political landscape currently stands the conclusion for this thesis is therefore, that while there is evidence of loss of identity, the loss of former Social Democrats party members alone is not something significant enough to suggest a general loss of identity within the Social Democrats organization. While there may be evidence to suggest that there are unhealthy elements in the organizational strategy that has left at least some lower ranking members as spectators to the meaning making process of the organization, it is not enough to conclude that

79 the party is in danger of losing control of its own organization and identity. On the other hand with a 65 % decrease in asylum seekers just a month after L87, coupled with the greater control and power the governing body now possesses, has strengthened the Social Democrats and the governments’ ability to protect society against unwanted asylum seekers. Until a deeper analysis of shadow themes and narratives within the Social Democratic organization has been conducted and further analysis of the effectuality of L87 can be shown through time and statistics, the conclusion is that the vote for L87 has strengthened the Social Democratic party.

Future research and limitations

The three interviews which were used as data was all conducted in Danish. Though as this project has been written in English, translations of the data was necessary when quotations were made from the data. As this is a thesis which is concerned about meaning making through the narratives of the data, precise translation is of importance. However when translating the meaning behind narratives some of its meaning may at times get “lost in translation”. A small example of this is how Frederiksen uses the word “nælderoden af problemet” which was simply translated as “the root of the problem”. While the word root is the essential word of meaning in this case, the some meaning may also be derived from the fact that she is using an old Danish “saying” thus infusing her meaning with a level of “old values”.

As for future research, more time and statistics would benefit the effects of L87 as a tool of control. The implementation of these laws has had an apparent initial effect, however I suggest that data of an entire year compared to data from other countries such as Germany and turkey is needed in order to get a precise idea of its effect as compared to the influx of refugee on a European scale. The point here is that there could other factors which has to do with the lower numbers of asylum seekers.

80

A deeper understanding of emerging narratives and shadow narratives within the Social Democrats party would also be desirable. Ralph Stacey’s CRP suggests that the collection of data should involve several months of personal observation and communication within the organization that is being analyzed. While it is both unlikely to gain such access to the Social Democratic party as well as beyond the scope of this thesis, this was not done. However it would have been able to make much stronger conclusions on the organizational state of identity within the organization.

81

Bibliography

Burr, V. (1995). An introduction to social constructionism. Routledge Ltd. Retrieved from

https://www‐dawsonera‐com.esc‐web.lib.cbs.dk:8443/abstract/9780203133026

Carnera, A. (2010). Magten over livet og livet som magt; Studier i den biopolitiske ambivalens.

Estévez, A. (2013). The Biopolitics of Asylum Law in Texas: The Case of Mexicans Fleeing Drug

Violence in Juárez1. Norteamérica, 8, Supplement, 55–81. http://doi.org/10.1016/S1870‐

3550(13)71783‐X

Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. Routledge.

Folketinget, C. K. Kt. (n.d.). Folketinget ‐ L 87 ‐ 2015‐16 (oversigt): Forslag til lov om ændring af

udlændingeloven. (Udskydelse af retten til familiesammenføring for personer med

midlertidig beskyttelsesstatus, skærpelse af reglerne om tidsubegrænset

opholdstilladelse, skærpelse af reglerne om inddragelse af flygtninges opholdstilladelse

m.v.). Retrieved May 14, 2016, from

http://www.ft.dk/samling/20151/lovforslag/l87/index.htm

Fuglsang, L., & Bitsch Olsen, P. (2004). Videnskabsteori i samfundsvidenskaberne: på tværs af

fagkulturer og paradigmer (2. udg.).

Gee, J. P. (2005). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. Psychology Press.

Gee, J. P., & Handford, M. (2012). The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis. Retrieved from

http://esc‐

web.lib.cbs.dk/login?url=http://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/978020380

9068

82

Lemke, T. (2009). Biopolitik: En introduktion.

Lentin, R. (2007). Ireland: Racial state and crisis racism. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(4), 610–

627. http://doi.org/10.1080/01419870701356023

Reid, J. (2014). Climate, migration, and sex: the biopolitics of climate‐induced migration. Critical

Studies on Security, 2(2), 196–209. http://doi.org/10.1080/21624887.2014.943578

Senellart, M., Ewald, F., & Fontana, A. (Eds.). (2008). The Birth of Biopolitics. London: Palgrave

Macmillan UK. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/10.1057/9780230594180

Stacey, R. D. (2007). Strategic management and organisational dynamics: The challenge of

complexity to ways of thinking about organisations (5. ed.).

Stacey, R. D., & Griffin, D. (2005). A Complexity Perspective on Researching Organizations:

Taking experience seriously.

Wetherell, M., Taylor, S., & Yates, S. J. (2001). Discourse Theory and Practice: A Reader. SAGE.

Articles and webpages:

Baglandstemmer revser S‐top, Klarskov, Kristian – Politiken 27.01.2016 http://apps.infomedia.dk.esc‐ web.lib.cbs.dk/Ms3E/ShowArticle.aspx?outputFormat=Full&Duid=e585fa42

Berlingske Barometer, Politiko http://www.politiko.dk/barometeret

Håndværker: Udlændingeloven, der favoriserer universitetsstuderende, er hul i hovedet, Milling Marie – 08.05‐2015 http://www.dagens.dk/politik/h%C3%A5ndv%C3%A6rker‐udl%C3%A6ndingeloven‐der‐ favoriserer‐universitetsstuderende‐er‐hul‐i‐hovedet

83

Kæmpe tilbagegang for Socialdemokraterne: Ikke set siden 1998, Redder, Hans 29.01‐2016 http://nyheder.tv2.dk/politik/2016‐01‐28‐kaempe‐tilbagegang‐for‐socialdemokraterne‐ikke‐set‐ siden‐1998‐0

MEGAFON Meningsmåling for Politiken og TV2, http://www.megafon.dk/362/seneste‐politiske‐indeks‐fra‐megafon

Migranter og flygtninge‐ hvad er forskellen?, Johansen, Stine – Videnskab.dk 14.09‐2015 http://videnskab.dk/sporg‐videnskaben/migranter‐og‐flygtninge‐hvad‐er‐forskellen

Nu må mit parti gøre op med corydonismen, Petersen, Alexander ‐ 19.03‐2016 https://politiken.dk/debat/ECE3122917/nu‐maa‐mit‐parti‐goere‐op‐med‐corydonismen/

Social Demokraternes Principprogram, Hånden på hjertet, 2011 http://www.socialdemokraterne.dk/da/partiet/partiets‐historie/principprogram/

S‐bagland i oprør: Mette F.'s asylpolitik er DF‐light, Redder, Gitte ‐ 11 .12‐ 2015 http://www.avisen.dk/s‐bagland‐brokker‐sig‐over‐mette‐fs‐asylstramninger_360004.aspx

Social Demokraternes økonomi politik, 2016 http://www.socialdemokraterne.dk/da/politik/%C3%B8konomi/

Tal på udlændingeområdet pr. 31.03.2016, Udlændingestyrelsen, 31.03‐2016 https://www.nyidanmark.dk/NR/rdonlyres/E3C50EA0‐BD36‐4DDD‐9C8D‐ 7AAF44DE1F12/0/seneste_tal_udlaendingeeomraadet.pdf

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 http://www.un.org/en/universal‐declaration‐human‐rights/

84