'Looking the Other Way Does Not Make Them Disappear'
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
‘Looking the other way does not make them disappear’ Social constructions of migrant Roma in Norwegian media Johanna Sofia Adolfsson Master of philosophy in psychology UNIVERSITETET I OSLO May 2014 ii © Johanna Sofia Adolfsson 2014 ‘Looking the other way does not make them disappear’: Social constructions of migrant Roma in Norwegian Media http://www.duo.uio.no/ Trykk: Reprosentralen, Universitetet i Oslo iii Acknowledgements My gratitude goes to all those who have inspired, encourage and helped me in this process. This thesis could not and would not been the same without your support. Thank you! First I would like to thank my supervisors Nora Sveaass and Ole Jacob Madsen for their continuous guidance, patience and encouragement. Furthermore, I would like to thank the staff at LEVE – Livelihoods in Developing Countries – I am deeply grateful for all their support and belief in me, for the invaluable opportunity to be part of their activities, and not least for letting me work in peace. I would also like to extend a big thank you to Susan Høivik for her linguistic assistance and for improving my English. And another big thank you to Kristoffer Ring for the invaluable help with the technicalities. Further I am deeply grateful to my family and friends for always being there, especially my sister and Linnèa for proof-reading and giving advice. Finally, a special thanks to Jocke for endless patient and loving support. Johanna Adolfsson 3 May 2014 iv Abstract Writer: Johanna Adolfsson Title: ‘Looking the other way does not make them disappear’: Social constructions of migrant Roma in Norwegian media Supervisor: Ole Jacob Madsen, Nora Sveaass This thesis explores social representations of the migrant Roma (‘Gipsies’) in Norway, within the context of the media. The study is located within the framework of qualitative social psychology. The use of critical discourse analysis as theory and method places this thesis epistemologically within a social constructive perspective. According to critical discourse analysis, discursive practices constitute social representations of the world that produce and maintain unequal power relations. Inquiring into dominance and suppression, critical discourse analysis enables an ideological stand that does not claim to be politically neutral, but rather politically committed to social change. Thus, the focus of this study is not to describe the social world as an objective reality, but rather to identify and critically analyse various discursive strategies used by the media, by drawing on media representations of the migrant Roma. By identifying possible ideological struggles and discursive negotiations, this study explores the discursive practices and social constructions of migrant Roma as expressed within the context of Norwegian media. v 1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Relevant concepts and definitions ............................................................................... 3 Historical, social and political context ............................................................................... 3 1.2 The migrant Roma as part of Norwegian culture ........................................................ 4 1.3 Antisiganism ................................................................................................................ 4 1.4 Ideology: particular ways of representing society ....................................................... 5 1.5 The Media .................................................................................................................... 5 The ‘new racism’ ................................................................................................................ 7 1.6 ........................................................................................................................................... 7 2 Relevant Research and Literature .............................................................. 9 2.1 Prejudice ...................................................................................................................... 9 ‘Othering’ the out-group .................................................................................................. 10 2.2 ......................................................................................................................................... 10 Strategies of ‘we–them’ argumentation ........................................................................... 12 2.3 ......................................................................................................................................... 12 2.4 A social-constructive turn to categorization, prejudice and racism........................... 12 2.5 Epistemological framework for the study ................................................................. 14 3 Methodology and Theory ........................................................................... 16 3.1 Discourse analysis: A social constructionist approach .............................................. 16 Critical discourse analysis ................................................................................................ 16 3.2 ......................................................................................................................................... 16 A critical way to address research .................................................................................... 17 3.3 ......................................................................................................................................... 17 3.4 How to analyse critically ........................................................................................... 18 Data generation ................................................................................................................ 19 3.5 ......................................................................................................................................... 19 3.6 Ethical considerations ................................................................................................ 20 3.7 Methodology of the study .......................................................................................... 20 4 Results: General discursive strategies in media ...................................... 21 4.1 Introduction to results ................................................................................................ 21 Headlines: linguistic structures revealing ideology? ........................................................ 21 4.2 ......................................................................................................................................... 21 Generalization: constructing the beggar? ......................................................................... 23 4.3 ......................................................................................................................................... 23 Metaphors: constructing a ‘Roma invasion’? ................................................................... 24 4.4 ......................................................................................................................................... 24 4.5 Quotation patterns revealing ideological motives? ................................................... 27 Over-lexicalization: constructing a Roma-problem? ....................................................... 28 4.6 ......................................................................................................................................... 28 4.7 The Ordinary People: constructing Roma as not ordinary? ...................................... 29 4.8 The migrant Roma as humans? ................................................................................. 31 4.9 Constructing dirtiness, darkness and dangerousness? ............................................... 32 4.10 Interdiscursivity: Roma as filthy, criminal beggars? ................................................. 33 Example No.1 ................................................................................................................... 34 4.11 Constructing impediment? ......................................................................................... 36 vi 4.12 Constructing Roma as not European? ....................................................................... 37 5 Methodological reflections ......................................................................... 41 Newspaper articles as data ............................................................................................... 41 5.1 Subjective reflexivity ................................................................................................. 42 5.2 Limitations of Critical Discourse Analysis ............................................................... 42 5.3 Strategies for constructing migrant Roma ................................................................. 43 5.4 Infrahumanization ...................................................................................................... 46 5.5 Animal attribution...................................................................................................... 46 5.6 Migrant Roma as humans .......................................................................................... 47 6 Conclusions ................................................................................................. 49 REFERENCES .................................................................................................