‘United through our values’? Expressing unity through value-talk after terrorism in France and Norway

Abstract

In the immediate aftermath of terrorism, references to ‘our values’ as a source of unity became a substantial part of public discourse. Leaders, the media, and the public emphasize ‘values’ to express that ‘we’ are united across ethnic, religious, and political differences. This article comparatively examines formulations of ‘we’, ‘us’, and ‘them’ with reference to ‘values’ (i.e. value-talk) after terror attacks in France (November 2015) and Norway (July 2011). To access speech, events, and symbols as they were unfolding, the analysis draws on the first week of national television news following these attacks. Whereas the terrorists in France were self-proclaimers of an Islamic State, the terrorist in Norway was a self-proclaimed defender of the Christian civilization. The central place of a value-based unity—regardless of the terrorists’ ethnicity and motivations—contrasts with the otherwise common idea expressed in public debate that ‘values’ embody a fundamental divide between ‘natives’ and immigrant populations. This article argues that scholarship on values, in migration studies and beyond, reifies the much-repeated assumption in public debate that there is a value-based divide between groups of people. By examining expressions of unity in contexts of conflict, the analysis untangles the dynamic and flexible ‘groupness’ articulated through value-talk. Analytical attention to this variability, I argue, better reflects the widespread attention to cultural complexities in migration studies. Through the study of value-talk in the immediate aftermath of terrorism, the article explores some of the dimensions of how and when unity is mobilized in societies marked by migration-related diversity.

A consensus that impedes contestation: Debating migration-related diversity in post-terror Norway

“…These reflections align with research findings that the 22 July news coverage was largely depoliticised and consensus-oriented (Falkheimer & Olsson, 2014;Thorbjørnsrud & Figenschou, 2018) and had few political consequences (Bangstad, 2014;Kolås, 2017). The story of a united 'we' resonated with the public, and the (seeming) consensus was the result of an interaction between leaders, the media, and the public (Ezzati, 2021b;Steen-Johnsen et al, 2021). The media portrayal of terror attacks and the political context within which they occur play a vital role in defining the post-terror dynamics of consensus and trust, as found in a variety of post-terror contexts (Kaplan, 2006;Steen-Johnsen et al, 2021).…”

“…The day after 22 July, news broke that the perpetrator had previously been a member of the Progress Party and its youth organisation. This news attracted considerable attention, but overall, the main story was that of the initial expressions of unity manifest in public events, such as the 'rose marches' for the slain victims (Ezzati, 2021b;Solheim & Jupskås, 2021). A sense of consensus for unity reigned among the media and across the political spectre in the weeks and months that followed (Thorbjørnsrud & Figenschou, 2018).…”

“…In academic terms, the perpetrator was seen as an individual among 'us' and was scarcely subject to collective Othering. Although he did describe himself as a Christian crusader in the manifesto he launched online shortly before committing his crimes, the media coverage of the attacks were largely depoliticised and barely problematised his professed Christian belief (Ezzati, 2021b;Falkheimer & Olsson, 2014).…”

“…Terror attacks accentuate the potential of conflict linked to diversity. And yet, in the immediate aftermath of terrorism, leaders, the media, and the public stress the need for consensus and unity (Ezzati 2021b;Monin, 2020;Thorbjørnsrud & Figenschou, 2018). Such a conflict-induced unity is time-limited, but while it lasts it is salient and powerful (Collins, 2004).…”

“…The immediate aftermath of 22 July saw many calls for consensus-orientation, as leaders, the media, and the public emphasised unity (Ezzati, 2021b;Rafoss 2019;Thorbjørnsrud & Figenschou, 2018). However, with the passing of time, questions remain about whether the attacks have led to too few consequences in Norwegian society, and if so why (Bangstad, 2014;Ezzati & Erdal, 2018;Falkheimer & Olsson, 2014;Kolås, 2017;Solheim & Jupskås, 2021).…”