Do we have to agree? Accommodating unity in diversity in post-terror Norway

Abstract

Fostering unity in diversity while ensuring spaces for disagreement is a key challenge for all liberal democracies with ethnic and religious diversity. Increasing polarization, not least due to the threat of terror attacks, exacerbates this challenge. Drawing on the case of Norway in the aftermath of the 2011 terror attacks motivated by 'Eurabia' sentiments, we find that both consensus and contestation are necessary to counter conflictual polarization. Consensus establishes a necessary common ground for interaction, while contestation permits diverging interpretations to emerge. Working with 21 semi-structured interviews with people in influential roles in Norway, we propose an analytical framework that draws on both political theory and empirically based analyses of interaction in diverse societies. We find that consensus-oriented approaches immediately following terror attacks can build unity and bridge divides across existing ethnic, religious, and political diversity. Over time, however, they may contribute to conflict, as they are perceived to conceal underlying disagreements. Perspectives founded on dualistic contestation can also cultivate conflict if opponents increasingly perceive each other as enemies in a hostile environment. A plurality of contestations, by contrast, can de-escalate conflict and thereby ease renewed cooperation. Thus, our findings point to the need for a perspective that transcends the dualism of ''us'' and ''them'', and acknowledges the plurality of human beings in order to de-escalate the spiral of polarization.

Are we all Charlie? How media priming and framing affect immigration policy preferences after terrorist attacks

“…39 Contrary to the emphasis on "openness," those who had divergent views from the ones expressed in the political debate may have felt less able to participate after the attacks. 40 There is reason to believe that these groups may have reacted to the pressure and not increased their outgroup trust as much as others did.…”

How critical is the event? Multicultural Norway after 22 July 2011

“…A number of researchers have since put such assertions to the test. Some have focused on post-22 July attitudinal changes (Andersson, 2012;Ezzati & Erdal, 2017;Fimreite, Lango, Laegereid, & Rykkja, 2013;Jakobsson & Blom, 2014;Myrdahl, 2014;Rykkja, Laegreid, & Fimreite, 2011;Solheim & Kvaal, 2013;Wollebaek, Enjolras, Steen-Johnsen, & Ødegård, 2012) others on existential issues (Leer-Salvesen, 2013;Lied & Bakke, 2013). Notably, Wollebaek et al (2012) compares survey data from Norway pre-and post-22 July and the United States pre-and post-9/11, to analyse levels of civic engagement, trust and fear of terror in the two countries.…”

Norwegian national day oratory: constructing and reconstructing a national we

“…In most speeches, national difference and us/them dichotomies are assumed but never explicitly called into question. This is a way of (re)producing consensus rather than opening up space for true debate (Ezzati and Erdal ). However, they also reproduce diversity by opening up the viewpoint that, even though there are religious differences (e.g.…”