From the margin to the centre? A relational analysis of discursive contention in the minority integration debate in the Low Countries

Abstract

Minority integration is a highly contested topic in public debates, and assimilationist actors appear to have gained discursive ground. However, it remains difficult to accurately depict how power relations in debates change and evolve. In this study, the public debates on minority integration in Flanders and the Netherlands between 2006 and 2012 are studied to ascertain changing power relations. We use a relational method to identify clusters formed through discursive contention and study polarization in the debates as well as several aspects of discursive power between and within clusters. In the Netherlands, a pattern identified in earlier research is reproduced, whereby a unified but small cluster of assimilationists with strong discursive leaders is able to dominate the debate on integration. In Flanders, group consolidation is too low, so the clusters cannot be viewed as cohesive groups. Another difference to the Dutch debate is that the volume of opinion articles is much lower and the actors in the Flemish debate are more often foreign opinion leaders. We conclude that the assimilationists have increased their discursive power in the Dutch debate, while the anti-assimilationists have lost power. The stark contrast between the Dutch and Flemish discursive landscape highlights the need for more research on the causal mechanism behind discursive struggles.