“We Never Say We Are Integrating People!” Interpretative Repertoires of Integration Among Local Stakeholders in Sweden

• Published in: Journal of international migration and integration Vol. 25; no. 3; pp. 1403 - 1421
• Main Authors: Hemmaty, Mona, Lind, Jacob, Hansen, Christina, Khoury, Nadeen
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Dordrecht Springer Netherlands 01.09.2024; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Civil society; Debates; Demography; Discourses; Discrimination; Gangs; Inequality; Integration; Interest groups; Internal migration; Labor market; Migrants; Migration; Perceptions; Political activism; Population Economics; Prime ministers; Qualitative analysis; Racism; Resistance; Separation; Social Sciences; Sociology; Stakeholders; Violent crime; Sweden; Local stakeholders; Integration; Sweden; Critique of integration; Interpretative repertoires
• ISSN: 1488-3473; 1874-6365; 1874-6365
• DOI: 10.1007/s12134-024-01127-y

This article examines how local stakeholders in Scania, the southernmost county of Sweden, talk about integration. Drawing on 28 qualitative interviews, we use the theoretical concept of interpretative repertoires to analyze perceptions and conceptualizations among those who work closely with migrant integration. We identify two interpretative repertoires that stakeholders draw upon to make sense of the concept on the ground: the separation and de-migranticization repertoires. The repertoires display a shared understanding among the stakeholders of integration as a failure , although they do not agree on the extent or cause of the perceived failures of integration, or even how the problems should be defined or tackled locally. Within the separation repertoire, integration is failing in terms of processes where primarily migrants are seen as accountable and responsible for their (in)ability to adapt to the Swedish society. Within the de-migranticization repertoire, integration is differently perceived as something that is plagued with misdirected or even false boundaries between groups (in this case “migrants” and “non-migrants”), and authorities are held accountable for problems beyond migrants and migration, such as inequality, racism, and discrimination. The findings reflect the contested field of integration on the ground and contribute to ongoing critical debates on the concept of integration within migration research, by providing snapshots from a bottom-up perspective of local stakeholders’ acceptance of, or resistance to, present-day integration discourses.