Empirical trouble: Danish identity meets Muslims as difference difference

'Muslims' appear in Danish debates and in Danish policies more often these days than ever before. A few snapshots may provide an impression of the unprecedented variety of places and roles awarded to Muslims:

First picture: Armed Danish military personnel and a Danish flag in front of a dessert sunset. Denmark was right behind the US in the 'Multi-National Force' invading Iraq in 2003.¹ In Afghanistan, Denmark has – relative to it size – contributed more men to tougher tasks than most European countries.² Whether the point of departure was a search for weapons of mass destruction or for Al Qaeda terrorists, each of the

1 Cf. the official George Bush White House announcement of the coalition of the willing and the Wikipedia pages detailing 'who actually sent what troops when', available at http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030327-10.html;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_Force_-_Iraq; all visited 2009.09.04.

2 Cf. NATO's official 'placemat' of the ISAF troop contributions and the Wikipedia page discussing of the quality of the assignments undertaken by the troops, available at http://www.nato.int/isaf/docu/epub/pdf/isaf_placemat.pdf;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force, both visited on 2009.09.04.

ventures turned into a project of reconstructing a Muslim country: a state building project, a nation building project or a project of building democracy.

Second picture: A drawing of an angry bearded man with a bomb in his turban is – along with 11 other cartoons – printed in a Danish newspaper. The newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, writes that the publication is meant to communicate to Muslims that when you live in a democracy, you need to accept "scorn, mockery, and ridicule".³ The prime minister refuses to meet with Muslim ambassadors to discuss the matter which they see as part of an "ongoing smearing campaign in Danish public circles and media against Islam and Muslims".⁴ As the Danish prime minister insisted that the freedom of expression enjoyed in a national democracy could not be limited even in a world of globalized communication, the controversy spiralled into what became known in public debate as 'the worst foreign policy crisis for Denmark since WWII'.

Third picture: A woman – possibly wearing a veil – is sitting in a class room doing a multiple choice test on Danish history and society. It might be an 'integration test' to qualify for a permanent residence permit or it might be the more advanced 'citizenship test'. The Act on Danish Nationality and the Integration Act has over the course of the last decade introduced these tests to pass – along with declarations of allegiance to Danish democracy, society and values to be signed. The point of the tests and the declarations is to make sure that only migrants with the right qualifications and the right intentions stay in Denmark. Included in the declarations to be signed is the denunciation of a series of practices – female circumcision, forced marriages, terrorism, and the like – recognizable from debates on how to integrate people with a 'Muslim culture' in Danish society. In the same period the Danish Alien

3 "hån, spot og latterliggørelse" (Rose 2005).

4 Letter to prime minister A.F.Rasmussen from 11 ambassadors from primarily Muslim countries, dated 2005.10.12, accessible at http://gfx.tv2.dk/images/Nyhederne/Pdf/side1.pdf, visited 2009.09.04.

Act has repeatedly been tightened to 'limit the influx of aliens' – while 'Green Cards' and reduced taxation are among the tools employed to invite foreign experts to fill vacant positions.⁵

These debates on 'Muslim relations' are not just a marginal phenomenon in Danish debates. The debates on what to do about the Muslims are an important way of negotiating who 'We' are. In recent years, research has found Muslims to be featured centre stage in many arenas. A political geographer went to a small provincial town to interview regular people about what 'Danishness' meant to them – and came back surprised that next to everyone immediately invoked 'Muslim culture' as a contrast necessary to answer the question (Koefoed 2006:117). A political scientist concluded on an electoral survey designed to analyse the 2001 parliamentary elections which was called in the wake of 9/11 that "Islam has increasingly become a point of condensation for animosity against strangers.” (Tobiassen 2003:361, my transl.)⁶ The general thrust of present Danish debates on Muslims seems to be that They ought to become like Us. At home and abroad; it would be better, if They were like Us.

Denmark and the world would be better places if they could be reformed to become more identical with Us.

Such an approach to the difference of the other may, obviously, lead to conflict: If the pictures painted of Muslims in Danish debates do not resemble the pictures which the

5 Cf. the official home page of the Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs, nyidanmark.dk, visited on 2009.09.03.

6 Similar conclusions are reached by political theorist Per Mouritsen focusing on political discourse (2006:75-6, 83, 88); international politics scholars Mona Sheikh & Ole Wæver focusing on public debates (2005:31); Karen Wren conducting anthropological field work (2001:147, 156); political geographers Haldrup et al. analyzing the practices of urban everyday life (2006:174, 183); political scientist J.P.F. Thomsen (2006:188) surveying puclic opinion; as well as historian Jørgen Bæk Simonsen (2006[2004]:8, 14, 173ff); literary scholar Hans Hauge (2003:54); as well as Grøn & Grøndahl (2004: 15, 179; 208f), all characterizing public debate.

people painted would like to see, they are unlikely to cooperate in the reform process.

The disagreement may concern both the pictures painted of present day Muslims and the pictures of Muslims as they ought to become. Furthermore the policies promoted to make Them more identical with Us may lead to internal conflicts in Denmark over whether and how to be in conflict with those painted as Muslims. But how, more specifically, does identity, policy and conflict relate?

This question has bearings beyond Denmark. On the one hand, the character of the debate in Denmark is neither unique, nor isolated from developments beyond its borders. On the other hand, the debates found in Denmark are not exact replicas of debates elsewhere in Europe or the West in general. Rather Denmark has been among the vanguard in tendencies that may be recognized in a number of countries on several 'fronts' in what could be termed the 'Muslim relations' of the West: tightening immigration laws to limit the influx of Muslims; awarding vocal Islam critics respected and responsible political positions; participating in the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (cf. Aydin & Acikmese 2008). Denmark may even – by playing its part of the Cartoon Crisis – have contributed to constituting the relation between 'The West' and 'Islam' as a self-propelling conflict (cf. Buzan & Wæver 2009:269-274).

If one connects the image which Denmark presently conveys to the outside world with the image which the country have enjoyed for decades (Lawler 2007), the change appears to be extreme: To a lot of foreign observers, this new Denmark preoccupied with Muslims does not sound like the liberal, tolerant Denmark, they thought they knew.^7F

Recent research documents that a change actually did occur. Sociologist of religion Brian Jacobsen (2008:265-8) charts how the 'guest workers' and 'alien workers' were

7 I.a. Jonsson (2006); Sundström (2009). Cf. Nielsen (2004:15-7, ch.4, 7) who presents a detailed account of the picture painted in reports from international organizations and foreign media – but finds the picture painted too grim.

framed by a labour market discourse in the parliamentary debates in the 60ies and 70ies: The difference between Danes and migrants concerned the wage level and working conditions one was willing to accept – and their presence was conceived of as temporary. From the end of the 70ies, however, the presence of the 'immigrants' was gradually seen as permanent – and their difference was gradually described in terms of ethnicity, language, culture and religion. From that time, 'integration' was a central concept. During the 80ies and early 90ies, 'integration' meant that Danish society were to facilitate the different culture which the 'Danes with a different ethnic background' had brought with them. Gradually during the 90ies, however, the parliamentary discourse changed: now their different culture was what distinguished them from us – and their different culture was seen to block their integration.

Jacobsen concludes that at least from the debates on the Alien Act of 1997, it was the dominant position in parliamentary debates that the responsibility for integration was basically on the shoulders of the immigrants (2008:267) – and it was generally implied that the difference discussed was Muslim culture and religion (2008:234).

Since 2001, the new centre-right majority has combined the Danish People's Party who presents the Muslims as a threat, and the Liberal/Conservative government who presents their difference as one to be 'integrated' away (2008:267-8).⁸

Like the foreign observers, a lot of Danes has not really to have gotten used to living in this 'new' Denmark: They want to have an 'old' Denmark back. There is, however,

8 Political scientist Lærke Holm basically tells the same story as Jacobsen based on roughly the same parliamentary debates, but she finds that the dominant trend of the 80ies was not only to facilitate but even to strengthen the culture of the migrants while integrating them (2007: 208-12). Furthermore, she places the shift in emphasis of the centre-right wing parties from labour market integration to national-cultural already in the late 80ies (2007:126-8, 208-10). Holm does, however, not discuss 'Muslims' specifically – probably because her research question does not focus on religion and her empirical material is limited to a period ending in 2002. Andreassen observes on the basis of an analysis of media coverage that 'migrants' and 'Muslims' have been used more or less interchangeably since the mid 90ies (2005:156ff). Cf. Jensen (1999a; 1999b); Madsen (2000).

a struggle over which 'old' Denmark is the one to long for: On the one side, Sudanese-Danish rapper Natasja Saad asks us to "give me my Denmark back / like in the good old days" with its "Copenhagen ... my colourful old friend" and its

"liberality".⁹ She wants to return to a Denmark without the demand for homogeneity.

On the other side, the Danish People's party asks to 'Give us Denmark back'; a Denmark in which one can walk the streets of the presently pluricultural Nørrebro without the nuisance of having to face veiled women and ethnic gangs.¹⁰ Egyptian-Danish comedian Omar Marzouk trumps by thanking for a 'hate letter' accusing him of betraying his country: "Describing me as a traitor to my country must be a sign that I am finally considered a Dane ... You will never get Denmark back, it's my country now." (Marzouk 2009)¹¹

The dissertation analyzes debates in this new Denmark; debates on how it relates to the old Denmark and what kind of Denmark, it should become. The dissertation does not tell the story of how old Denmark turned into new Denmark. Rather, the dissertation tells a series of little stories of how parliamentarians and political parties in this new Denmark attempts to connect with different ideas of what old Denmark was and how new Denmark should become in the future. To complete the picture, the dissertation turns the table by looking at what roles the stories imply for the other:

9 "Så gi’ mig mit Danmark tilbage, ligesom i de gamle dage / Gi’ mig frisindet igen, der lurer under byens tage / Gi’ mig København igen, min farverige gamle ven." Saad, N.

(2007): 'Gi' mig Danmark tilbage', CD: I Danmark er jeg født, Playground Music, lyrics available at http://www.metrolyrics.com/gi-mig-danmark-tilbage-lyrics-natasja.html, visited 2009.09.04. Generally, where no official English versions of the texts analysed are available, the Danish texts translated by the author is reproduced in a footnote.

10 Kjærsgaard, P. (2008): 'Gi' os Danmark tilbage', address to the annual congress of Danish People's Party, 2008.09.20, http://danskfolkeparti.dk/Giv_os_Danmark_tilbage_.asp, visited 2009.09.04.

11 "At beskrive mig som landsforrædder må være et tegn på, at de samme mennesker endelig betragter mig som dansker ... I får aldrig Danmark til tilbage, det er mit land nu." (Marzouk 2009).

What futures are envisioned for those casted as Muslims? And how are They likely to respond? In doing so, the dissertation adds up to its own story which points to a possible future for Danish Muslim relations – a future of radicalized conflict. The Danish narratives ask Them to become more like Us. But the way in which the invitations are formulated is likely to result in greater difference, more differences, and more conflict.

The following sections of this introductory chapter explain the premises for and the proceedings of the analysis: Section 1.2 positions the dissertation in the field of social theories valuating conflict. Section 1.3 formally introduces the philosophical, theoretical and empirical problematiques which the dissertation engages – as a way to pose its main research question. Section 1.4 lays out the project designed to answer the research question in abstract terms. Section 1.5 sketches the theoretical account of identity discourse and identity politics framing the analysis. Finally, section 1.6 introduces the individual parts and chapters of the dissertation by stating the questions they answer.

1.2 Turning trouble into puzzle: Getting conflict under control When observing social life, social theory has differed over how to view conflict – both over what the prospects of conflict are and over how to value conflict: Among the fathers of Sociology, in the one end of the spectrum, Durkheim worried how Modern society could integrate in spite of differences stratified to produce centrifugal forces (1984[1893]). Parsons laid out how it purportedly did integrate (1970). In the other end of the spectrum, Marx prognosticated how conflict would inevitably radicalize until a final showdown – a showdown with history – would bring eternal harmony (Marx & Engels 2002[1888]). Fukuyama (1992) saw the same Hegelian end to – historical – conflicts coming by Liberalism proving itself to be the superior way to handle conflicts. Contrarily, Carl Schmitt saw the constitution of conflict as the

only meaningful realization of identity (1996[1932]:35; cf. Strauss 1996:100ff;

Strong 1996:xviii).

The ontological point of departure for this dissertation is that there is difference.

Therefore there are differences. And therefore there is conflict (cf. Galtung 1978:484). Conflicts, however, may be had in many forms and with many consequences. Conflicts may range from pleasant exchanges to lethal combat.

Conflicts may be orderly conducted or they may be spinning out of control. They may achieve their own life. Informed by theories of conflict and security evolving out of the study of International Relations – a realm where the most massively lethal conflicts have occurred – the normative point of departure of this dissertation is that conflicts should not have their own life: The dissertation should contribute to our engagement in conflicts becoming more reflexive. In that sense, the analysis and conclusions should contribute to keeping conflicts under some sort of management.

One of the things over which there is conflict is who are allowed to be parties to conflicts: Who are the identities in each end of difference – in each end of the differences. And at another level: who are to decide, who the identities are. That is to say: Who are the agents in the conflicts. The introduction to the empirical problematique (in section 1.1) showed how that the question of 'who we are' is closely related to the questions of 'who we were' and 'who we ought to be'. The dissertation should contribute to self-reflection on how we are creating ourselves as identical with our selves and as agents – by describing ourselves as different from others. And self-reflection on how we are – in this process – allocating roles and agency in ways which may radicalize conflict.

Derridean poststructuralism denies the possibility of success of any one overarching resolution to conflicts, not least because identity can never be settled (1988b:52f).

Laclau & Mouffe (1985:ch.3) put this denial into formula by describing a social world which is not present, in the sense that the social consists only of – ultimately

impossible – attempts to achieve hegemony for one principle of ordering: Each attempt is impossible as it carries with it a surplus of meaning which will produce the challenging perspective finally entering into open conflict. The hegemonic project of Laclau & Mouffe initially promoted on the basis of this diagnosis was one of opening up to more conflict: a radical and plural democracy – i.e. the "equivalential displacement of the egalitarian imaginary to ever more extensive social relations"

(1985:188). In practice this means "the elimination of relations of subordination and of inequalities" as these relations meet the demand for equality which turns relations of inequality into unacceptable relations of domination (1985:188). The task described in the context of academic Marxism (1985:ch.4) was one of articulating a series of dispersed, democratic conflicts into one popular antagonism: Even if the aim promoted by Laclau & Mouffe was no longer to end oppression once and for all, a break with the existing was still envisioned.

By the turn of the millennia, the strategic terrain seems to have changed: Now, Laclau argues the need for a new, leftist populism – not primarily to advance on neo-liberalism but to counter a right wing populism formulated in ethno-nationalist terms (Laclau in Clausen 2001; Laclau 2005). And Mouffe develops a concept of 'agonism' as a way of keeping conflict within limits; a way of keeping antagonism from being configured in overly destructive, lethal – i.e. often ethno-nationalist – ways (2002;

2005).

The dissertation joins in this project, by producing an immanent critique of the debates and policies proposed: The dissertation seeks to point out when the debates risk radicalizing conflict in spite of the stated intensions of the participants. The normative point of departure of the dissertation, hence, is the responsibility of academic activities to contribute "to our living in difference and not to some of us dying from otherness." (Neumann 1999:37) The trouble is how to get conflicting identities under control. One step is to formulate the trouble in terms of a puzzle

which may be researched (cf. Bruner 1980:35; 1960; Weldon 1953:75-83): How do we study conflicts of identity?

1.3 Problematiques and research question: Structures