Discursive crises in the political domain Research into the applicability of theories of discourse analysis on the Dutch political debate on immigration Master Thesis Just Bär 4156870 Research conducted for the completion of the Master Specialization ‘Conflict, Territories and Identities’, Faculty Human Geography, Department Management Studies, Radboud University Nijmegen Thesis supervisor: Jaïr van der Lijn Acknowledgements This thesis would not have been written if it weren’t for the tireless effort of certain individuals. The majority of the research was conducted while doing an internship at FORUM Instituut voor multiculturele vraagstukken. During this period, I was under the supervision of Chris van der Borgh, Renée Frissen and in particular Floris Müller. I wish to thank them for all their support and constructive criticism, which greatly influenced in shaping the thesis. Moreover, I wish to thank them for actively involving me in the activities of FORUM. I very much enjoyed the working environment and appreciated the interest of all colleagues in my research. I owe special thanks to my thesis supervisor Jaïr van der Lijn of Radboud University Nijmegen/ Instituut Clingendael for all his advice and above all his patience. I understand that this research subject somewhat deviates from the field of conflict studies; and realize that on occasion this student was somewhat negligent in following university regulations. The process of writing this thesis has proven to be very interesting but difficult. The subject of Dutch political discourse has been on my mind for a long time, far before starting the master of Conflicts, Territories and Identities. The master’s thesis provided me with an opportunity to conduct a research on this subject. The results of that research lie before you in the form of this master’s thesis. Enjoy reading, Just Bär 1- 1 Table of content ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1-1 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 1-4 1. INTRODUCTION 1-5 1.1 BACKGROUND 1-5 1.2 THEORETICAL DISCUSSION 1-5 1.3 PROBLEM DEFINITION 1-9 1.4 AIM OF RESEARCH AND HYPOTHESES 1-11 1.5 OPERATIONALIZATION 1-12 1.6 RELEVANCE 1-14 1.7 STRUCTURE 1-15 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 2-17 2.1 DISCOURSE 2-17 2.2 DISCURSIVE CONSTRUCTION OF CRISIS 2-20 2.3 IDEOLOGY IN DISCOURSE 2-21 2.4 DISCOURSE COALITION 2-22 2.5 POWER OF LANGUAGE 2-23 2.6 LEGITIMIZATION AND POLARIZATION 2-24 2.7 DOMINANCE AND AUTHORITY IN SPEECH ACTS 2-26 3. CONTEXT 3-29 3.1 HISTORICAL CONTEXT 3-29 3.2 GOVERNMENT POLICY ON IMMIGRATION AND INTEGRATION 3-32 3.3 CASE STUDIES 3-37 4. METHODOLOGY 4-42 4.1 GROUNDED THEORY METHOD 4-42 4.1 SENSITIZING CONCEPTS 4-46 4.2 DATA COLLECTION 4-46 4.3 DATA ANALYSIS 4-47 4.4 RESEARCH LIMITATIONS 4-48 5. CASE KOPVODDENTAKS 5-50 5.1 REPERTOIRES 5-50 5.2 ANALYSIS PER PARTY 5-63 5.3 RESPONSE TO THE DISCURSIVE CRISIS OF THE HEADSCARF TAX 5-67 6. CASE NORWAY ATTACKS 6-70 6.1 REPERTOIRES 6-70 6.2 ANALYSIS PER PARTY 6-81 6.3 RESPONSE TO DISCURSIVE CRISIS OF XENOPHOBIA 6-85 1- 2 7. CASE PLATFORM MEE-LANDERS 7-88 7.1 REPERTOIRES 7-88 7.2 ANALYSIS PER PARTY 7-100 7.3 RESPONSE TO THE DISCURSIVE CRISIS OF THE MEE-LANDERS PLATFORM 7-110 8. CONCLUDING REMARKS 8-113 8.1 EMPLOYMENT OF DIFFERENT REPERTOIRES 8-113 8.1.1 “HOW DID DUTCH POLITICAL ACTORS RESPOND TO DISCURSIVE CRISES IN THE DUTCH POLITICAL DEBATE ON IMMIGRATION, IN THREE CASE STUDIES?” 8-119 8.1.2 (2) POLITICIANS DISCURSIVELY CONSTRUCT A CRISIS TO GAIN SUPPORT FOR THEIR POLITICAL AGENDA. 8-122 8.1.3 (3) IDEOLOGY IS THE DRIVING FORCE BEHIND POLITICAL DISCOURSE ON IMMIGRATION. 8-123 8.1.4 (4) POLITICIANS FORM ALLIANCES THAT FIT THE NOTION OF HAJER’S DISCOURSE COALITION TO ADVANCE THEIR INTEREST IN THE IMMIGRATION DEBATE. 8-125 9. REFLECTION ON RESEARCH 9-127 10. LITERATURE 10-129 10.1.1 ACADEMIC ARTICLES 10-129 10.1.2 PARLIAMENTARY DOCUMENTS 2 10.1.3 MEDIA 2 1- 3 List of abbreviations CDA Christen Democratisch Appèl CU Christen Unie D66 Democraten 66 GL GroenLinks HoC House of Commons LPF Lijst Pim Fortuyn LURA Lessen uit recente arbeidsmigratie MEE Mid d le a n d Ea st er n Eu r o p ea n MP Member of Parliament PM Prime Minister PvdA Partij van de Arbeid PvdD Partij voor de Dieren PVV Partij voor de Vrijheid SGP Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij SP Socialistische Partij VVD Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie 1- 4 1. Introduction 1.1 Background For the past decades, immigration and integration have been topics of heated debates within the Dutch political arena. Being an open society, the Netherlands is subject of an on-going influx of people. Many immigrants arrive with expectations of building a life within Dutch society – this demands from the political domain that it continuously assesses the framework of immigration and integration. In the last decade, a line of thought that is more restrictive of immigration has become prevalent in the political and public debate . There are political actors that warn for the dangers of allowing certain immigrants into the Netherlands – they speak of the phenomena of immigration and integration as crises. Especially Muslim immigrants are considered to be a threat and some political actors have fuelled distrust towards them. Statements of this sort have become commonplace in the political and public debate. Concomitantly, a voice that opposes these statements has arisen ; politicians that use it emphasize the negative effects of a distrusting a t t it u d e . These different types of discourses compete within the political domain to effectuate policy changes that are in line with either line of thought. 1.2 Theoretical discussion The perception of the role of language in social life has gradually changed in the academic world. ‘In the positivist tradition in the social sciences, language was seen as a m ean s, as a neutral system of signs that described the world. With the coming of the post- positivist social sciences, however, language lost this neutral status and itself became problematized.’ (Hajer 1989; 44) After this linguistic turn, language is recognized as a medium; actors do not 1- 5 only describe the world but creat e the world through language. This research builds on the works of that school of thought. The academic field of work that has brought forth a massive amoun t of articles on the field of language studies is that of discourse analysis. In this field of research, language provides insufficient informative power. For a complete understanding of the function of language, it must be placed within its context structure to carry explanatory weight. That language matters has become a common assumption, upon which much research has been conducted. Differences occur in the ways that meaning is attached to language and speech acts – many interpretations exist within the academic field of discourse analysis in this regard. The origin of this research stems from the perceived discrepancies between theories on the matters of immigration and integration within the political domain. A few of these theoretical differences are looked into and are further explored. The issues that politicians want to put on the agenda are often communicated as being urgent problems; crises that call for thorough action. Such a crisis is constructed through a discursive practice – speech acts serve to show the urgency of an issue in order to mobilize a public. Paul ‘t Hart (1993) states that ‘language is the most important instrument of crisis management’ and that “[those] who are able to define what the crisis is all about also hold the key to defining the appropriate strategies for resolution”. (‘t Hart 1993:91) This would suggest that the politician that raises an issue might also be the one whose policy plans are adopted, indeed, he defined what the crisis was about. But “[c]rises are the domain of multiple realities and conflicting cognitions”, (‘t Hart 1993;99) and those who raise an issue do not automatically receive support for their cause. 1- 6 Maarten Hajer has written on the topic of authority in crisis situations. Specifically, he has researched the reactions of figures of authority in the wake of the murder of Pim Fortuyn and of Theo van Gogh (Hajer & Uitermark 2007; Hajer & Versteeg 2009). Within politics, actors compete with the use of different discourses in order to influence policy on diverse topics. The tensions between the lines of thought make the debates into a dynamic field. Hajer and Uitermark (2007) speak of a ‘discursive struggle’ in which political actors engage to “actively influence the meaning of [an] event” (2007;13-14). Concretely, this influence can translate to desirable policy changes for the political actor that succeeds. Hajer and Uitermark (2007) note how people look to authority for clarification and interpretation of events in times of crisis. Figures of authorities in their turn ‘are engaged in a power struggle to impose their view of reality onto others’ (Hajer and Uitermark, 2007). They state that in times of crisis, authorities must form alliances and communicate a coherent and unified account of the events to effectively terminate a crisis. By doing so, they consolidate their power, legitimate their authority and gain trust of constituents by showing they are capable of handling a crisis. According to Colin Hay (1996), political actors can ‘construct a crisis’ in order to gain support to instigate changes in the political structure. Because the construction of crisis is a discursive practice, the method of inquiry hereinto is discourse analysis.