Maahanmuuttodiskurssi pienryhmäkeskusteluissa

Kirjoittajat

• Mikko Leino
• Rauli Mickelsson

Abstrakti

Questions linked to immigration have been among the most polarizing topics both in public and political discussions in Finland during recent years. This paper contains an analysis of the immigra­tion debate, by exploring the arguments used by people during a deliberative mini-public, with 207 participants, held in Turku, Finland, in 2012. It aims to trace, what kind of themes, assumptions and policy suggestions rise up, when people are asked to discuss immigration. Using data from group discussions, we use an analysis frame proposed by Norman Fairclough, where we categorize argu­ments into assumptions, value assumptions and propositions. We find, in line with most of the existing research literature, that most of the arguments derive either from the assumptions concern­ing the economic consequences of immigration, or from its impact on the Finnish culture. Further, using a narrative method based on the theory by Paul Ricoeur, we explore the discussants’ inter­pretations concerning the Finnish identity. We discover two contrasting archetypes of this narrative: one based on uniform Finnish culture and on constructing boundaries between the native Finns and the immigrants; and another one aligned with cosmopolitanism and compassion.