Activation of Refugees in Norway for “Successful Integration”

Norway’s practical work, and efforts towards integration of immigrants, were until the start of the millennium characterized by variations in “content, scope and quality”, but were later standardized by reforms which made all resettled refugees attend the same qualification program (Introductory Program), regardless of which municipality they resided in (Djuve, 2011a: 7). In her research about the Introductory Program for Refugees, Djuve claims that the Introductory Act (Introduksjonsordningen), that was created in 2002, presents a divide in Norwegian integration policies. Through a reform in Norway’s integration policy towards refugees, the State has taken control over, and has standardized, the local integration of immigrants (ibid).

The main purpose of the Introductory Program, as mentioned in the introduction, is to integrate newly resettled refugees in municipalities into Norwegian society, through obligatory participation in Norwegian classes, lessons in social sciences, and activation in the labor market (ibid). Like asylum seekers in reception centers who do not attend the Obligatory Information Program, refugees who do not participate in the Introductory Program for valid and authorized reasons, are sanctioned economically and can lose some of their rights. This reform, according to Djuve, can be seen as problematic, as it presents a

“violation of the principle of the welfare policy of equal treatment of everyone with legal residence in Norway” (ibid).

While Edward Said (1995) claims that the relationship between West and East is built upon power and domination, Djuve investigates whether the conditionality of the Introductory Program as a Norwegian social and political policy “is imposed in order to qualify and enable (empowerment), or is rather motivated by an intention to control and deter (neoliberalism)” (2011b: 113). The empowerment discourse (ED) is evident in the Act’s objective, through individual customization, training in the Norwegian language and social studies, user involvements and introductory benefits through conditional participation in the program (ibid: 121). However, critics compare the conditionality and economic sanctions for lack of participation in the program as being equivalent with moral underclass discourse (MUD), as it highlights “the need to discipline social assistance clients” (ibid).

Containing elements of empowerment discourse (ED), political equality/equal opportunities (PED), and moral underclass discourse (MUD), the Introductory Act has been embraced by political parties on the left and right, in an attempt to create a new activation policy within integration, causing, according to Djuve, an influence on Norway’s integration policy (ibid:

121-122). She further asserts that it is “plausible that the mixture of ideological motivations for the act increased its political attractiveness” (ibid: 122). Regardless, the result of such activation of refugees through the Introductory Program gives the Norwegian authorities immense power over the members of the program (Djuve, 2010: 406). To conclude, Djuve argues that the nature of this introductory program, characterized by “entry and restricted exit”, is “explicitly paternalistic” (ibid: 407), with the ambition to “influence the actions of immigrants” (ibid: 419).

Even though Djuve refers in her research to a much broader aspect of Norway’s integration and social policy than merely the social studies that are taught to immigrants, her study can, to an extent, be compared to my investigation of the Obligatory Information Program for asylum seekers. Both refer to how the Norwegian authorities deal with

immigrants and what the tools used say about their integration policies. In other words, I find Djuve’s field of research on the Introductory Program not only relevant, but also applicable to my study, as it illustrates Norway’s integration policy and Norway’s relationship to “the other” within its borders.

When it comes to conditionality and economic sanctions for not participating in, for example, social studies classes, the same can be said about the practical measurements around asylum seekers in reception centers. Participation (and the lack of that) in the Obligatory Information Program affects the amount of money that asylum seekers receive from the UDI.³⁴ Asylum seekers in Norwegian reception centers, in other words, are provided with almost identical services and offers, regardless of where in the country they reside. This includes the Information Program and language classes, that – similarly to the Introductory Program for refugees – are both obligatory for asylum seekers.³⁵

To sum up, Norway’s introductory act, through conditional and obligatory participation in the introductory program for refugees, is a reflection of a policy that aims to control and influence immigrants and their choices. It is in other words a paternalistic tool used in the name of successful integration.

3.6 Summary

This chapter sought to present migration trends in Europe and Norway, and Norway’s integration policy. Migration to Norway is seen as a new reality, and with the immigration halt and the increase in refugees and asylum seekers to the country in recent years, Norway has seen reforms in its integration policy. Today’s integration policy is characterized with a pre-defined conditionality, with an attempt to cultivate the interests of the majority. In addition, this chapter has discussed the issue of identity in Norway, and concludes that it is ethnicity-related, and that imagined sameness leads to the notion that difference is seen as a challenge in the Norwegian society.

The next chapter presents the theoretical framework, starting with Edward Said’s Orientalism and Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed, and later presents theories of multiculturalism and integration, to determine how hosting societies of minorities are required to accommodate their new residents.

34 It should be noted that economic sanctions in reception centers are low compared to the introductory act. Having said that, it is the ideology behind such sanctions that is important here

35 The language courses are obligatory merely for those with residency permit, and still live in reception centers.