Browsing by Subject "http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p5739"

Tutkielma tutkii Suomen monikulttuurisuuspolitiikkaa ja vähemmistöjen poliittisia osallistumismahdollisuuksia. Monikulttuurisuuspolitiikalla tarkoitetaan kaikkia julkisen vallan keinoja, joilla pyritään huomioimaan yhteiskunnan monimuotoisuutta. Sen merkitys on korostunut, mikäli vähemmistöt eivät pääse yhdenvertaisesti osallistumaan politiikan rakentamiseen. Suomessa vähemmistöjä on pyritty kuulemaan etenkin kansalaisyhteiskunnan kautta. Tutkielman aineisto koostuu 12 puolistrukturoidusta vähemmistöä edustavan tahon johtotason henkilön haastattelusta. Aineistoon sisällytettiin ruotsinkielisiä, saamelaisia, romaneja, venäläisiä ja venäjänkielisiä, virolaisia ja vironkielisiä, somalinkielisiä, juutalaisia, tataareja, karjalaisia ja viittomakielisiä edustaneita tahoja. Analyysi toteutettiin laadullisella sisällönanalyysilla ja analyysista nousi yhdeksän teemaa: 1. monikulttuurisuuden ilmenemismuodot, 2. monikulttuurisuus politiikassa, 3. lainsäädäntö monikulttuurisuuspolitiikan taustalla, 4. yhteiskunnallinen ilmapiiri ja asenteet, 5. symbolit ja valta-asetelma, 6. edustuksellisuus, 7. sanoitetut vaikutusmahdollisuudet, 8. todelliset vaikutusmahdollisuudet ja 9. Suomen monikulttuurisuuspolitiikka kansainvälisessä kehyksessä. Keskeisenä tuloksena havaittiin, että lainsäädännön ja poliittisten ohjelmien perusteella, Suomen monikulttuurisuuspolitiikka on korkealaatuista. Sanoitettu politiikka kuitenkin eroaa toteutetusta. Tämä siten selittää arjessa havaittuja vähemmistöjen kohtaamia haasteita. Tutkimuksessa lisäksi havaittiin, että vähemmistöjen poliittinen edustuksellisuus oli heikkoa etenkin valtakunnan politiikassa. Vähemmistöjä kuultiin edustavien tahojen kautta, mutta kuulemisten vaikutus vaihteli. Johtopäätöksenä voidaan todeta, että Suomen monikulttuurisuuspolitiikassa on kehitettävää erityisesti sen toteutukseen liittyen. Lisäksi vähemmistöjen alhainen edustuksellisuus sekä kokemukset siitä, ettei kuulemisilla ole aina vaikutusta, asettavat kyseenalaiseksi Suomen edustuksellisen demokratian yhdenvertaisuuden. Jatkotutkimus olisi tärkeää etenkin toteutukseen liittyvien haasteiden ja vähemmistöjen osallistumismahdollisuuksia rajoittavien tekijöiden tunnistamiseksi.

This research aims to examine the identity construction processes of sexual and gender minorities who are also a part of visible ethnic minorities. There is very little research conducted on the topic by social psychology scholars in the Finnish context. The present research is interwoven with critical social psychology drawing its’ framework from intersectional theory, queer theory, and notions of hybrid identity, theorized by Ang (2001), Bhabha (2012) & Hall (1999). The main framework of the study is constructionism which treats the established understandings of the social world and identities as phenomena that are constructed in social practices, rather than as natural truths (see e.g. Gergen, 1985). This research examines how and in relation to which social environments BIPOC and queer identities are constructed, whilst considering how local and global interlocking systems of oppression and privilege challenge and enable such identity negotiations which are done from a state of “in-betweenness” of cultural identities as visible ethnic minorities often describe, and hybridity theories suggest. Using the framework of intersectionality and hybridity capacitates the examination of both, challenges, as well as possibilities of identity construction from the intersections of BIPOC and queer identities in the Finnish context. The research questions are: 1. What kind of challenges and possibilities of cultural identity construction do BIPOC and queer people face in the Finnish context? a. How were the intersections of their identities negotiated? b. How did hybridity figure in their identity negotiations? The data consists of three focus group interviews conducted in the context of insider research. The analysis method used was Reflexive Thematic Analysis. As a result, three themes were generated from the data: (1) Hybrid identity as a necessity, (2) Queerness is white, and (3) Hybrid identity is inherently queer. The analysis suggests that queerness and BIPOC:ness create an intersection of identities, which demand and enable hybrid construction of identities, not only in terms of cultural or BIPOC identity but also in terms of queerness. However, identity construction is done in relation to the available communities which either support and enable exploring and constructing such identities or challenge and limit these processes.

The ethnic diversity in Europe is increasing and targeted cultural rights for old and new minorities are today a hot topic of debate. Most studies of these debates have so far focused on public discourses. This thesis asks how ethnic and national identities gain function as arguments in these debates and takes the study of them to the grass-root level of a specific locality: Porsanger. Porsanger is a municipality in Northern Norway with three official cultures; Sámi, Kven and Norwegian. Lately, also new immigration has increased the local diversity. The specific objective of this thesis is to analyse 1) in what kind of discourses ethnic and national identities gain function as arguments, 2) what kind of versions of these identities they facilitate, and 3) what kind of norms and ideologies these arguments build on. The primary material of the study consists of thematic, qualitative interviews with 19 inhabitants from Porsanger, all with diverging backgrounds and ethnic affiliations. The analysis was done with Discourse Analysis and borrowed concepts from Argumentation Theory. The discursive contextualization was done with ethnographic material and 36 thematic interviews from Porsanger (from year 2015 and 2017), previous research, media material and governmental documents. The results show, that the utterances in which diverging constructs of ethnic and national identities gain argumentative function reflect two central ideologies. First off, the function of ethnic identities is especially prominent in utterances which build on the idea that cultural rights are a question of minority categorization and of being an “authentic” minority. Three legal categories with different ethnic criteria, which entitle to different levels of protection, form the basis for targeted minority rights today: indigenous peoples, national minorities and immigrant groups. Sámi are today recognized as indigenous peoples and Kven as a national minority. Three discourses are identified in the material. In discourses in which the status or the authenticity of a specific group is questioned, ethnic identities become a matter of debate. In the Discourse of sameness, groups are re-constructed as indistinguishable right claimants. In the Discourse of opportunism, existing rights are opposed by questioning the authenticity of specific group identities. The normative presuppositions in these discourses insinuate that those that are autochthonous and “authentic”; those traditional and genetically and culturally distinct, have the most right to cultural protection. Secondly, the utterances also reflect the public discourses in which cultural rights boil down to a question of national belonging: a question of who should receive protection by the state and whose culture belongs in the public sphere. Hence, also re-constructions of the nation gain function. Several pan-ethnic boundaries such as “western”, “indigenous”, “Muslim” and “refugee” are drawn in these negotiations of belonging. Those culturally most distant are constructed as having the least right to belong. In addition, and more surprisingly, also the region of Porsanger gains a clear function. I argue, that Porsanger takes form as a nation-like construct. In the Discourse of regional belonging, constructs of Porsanger and the Norwegian nation justify different standpoints on the inclusion of immigrant cultures. The Norwegian nation or Porsanger as multicultural functions as an argument for increased rights for immigrant groups, while Norway as mono-cultural, and Porsanger as part of it, functions for the opposite. Constructing everyone in Norway as ethnically “mixed”, functions both as an argument against exclusion of immigrants but also against targeted rights as such. Conversely, constructing the nation as built on several distinct peoples (Norwegian and Sámi or Kven) becomes an argument for targeted rights. This thesis shows that rights and identities are negotiated in plural and fragmented ways and in relation to other groups, the nation, and the regional community. The thesis shows that identity construction is a dialectic, context dependent, glocalised way of ordering the world.