society. Structures of inequality are embedded within the “obvious knowledge” in such a way that they appear to be off common interest (See Ibid). Within the European context, “symbolic power struggles” have underlined the emergence of specific systems of welfare: During the twentieth century extensive collective bargaining between different groups of interest – i.e. labour movements, agrarian parties, white collars and the (Catholic) churches – has shaped the approaches to public welfare in European nations rather differently (See for instance 1990:56-78). The emergence of national social systems could hence be said to have been dependent on how groups of interest have accessed the legitimating force of the symbolic power. This has also paved the way for rather distinct moral formulations. Three broadly different strategies or ways of addressing social issues distinguishes how Western capitalist democracies have come to view the relationship between the subject – the citizen - and the state (Esping-Andersen 1990 and 2000). These welfare strategies (or regimes) can be said to underline how the states have come to articulate social issues and how ideas about the ideal social order have become embedded in policies. Through the gaze of distinct political or philosophical lookouts, the states have developed their specific policies concerning phenomena such as “unaccompanied minors”, “child care” and the ideal way to deal with and comprehend such issues. Through such processes the welfare state has become the constructor of social categorisations, a structure of dissimilarity, an inclusive but yet also an excluding mechanism (See also Foucault xx). Governing does not just act on a pre-existing thought world with its natural divisions. To govern is to cut experience in certain ways, to bring new facets and forces, new intensities and relations into being. This is partly a matter of time (time as self-control) It is also a matter of space, of the making of governable spaces (Rose 1999/2008: 31) Governmentality studies aim at removing the “taken-for-granted” character of how things are done. Such analyses hence render practices of government problematic and
responsible and the general public. A “political scandal” is typically often presented as a call for action where focus is to demand liability from the authorities in question (Nord and Strömbäck, 2005: 14f). Typically journalists also tend to favour certain commentators above others and in an eager to represent contrasting stances and to “balance” their reports; they tend to reduce controversy to two competing positions (Gamson and Modigliani, 1989: 8 and Best 2008: 129ff). The presents a specific issue as an “organized set of ideas” or as a package: “A package” consists of coherent views on the specific social problem: a specific “frame” or root cause(s), how the problem is best dealt with, a call for action and so forth (Gamson and Modigliani 1989: 3f and Best 2008: 142-149). These calls for actions or “claims” often come packaged or framed in a “landmark narrative form” (Best 1990) or as formula narratives (Loseke 2001), where striking and dominant features are painted and carved out. Claim: “ask for”, “receive”, “obtain”, “collect”, “accusation”, “declaration”, “petition” By drawing on popular symbols or larger cultural themes –such as myths, folktales etc. - the “claims-package” comes to resonance cultural references of more general character and hence seem more appealing to the general public (See Best 1990, Gamson and Modigliani, 1989 and also Lindgren 1993 for similar discussion). According to Lindgren (1993) the public arenas –such as the media- endorse dramatically packaged social problems and the more striking the issue at hand is presented the more publicity it will get (Ibid: 50). In order for a package to remain workable –or “successful”- over time it hence needs to evolve and progress, include new elements as part of its core (formula) narrative or storyline. The development of a specific social problem is hence to be seen as a “value added process” (Gamson and Modigliani, 1989:5). Such packaging within the media narratives also risk conveying and reproducing stereotype representations of groups or subjects (See also Brune 2008 and Elmeroth 2008).
diverse concept interrelates is important part of the deconstruction of discourses. This have to do with how “chains of equivalence” or how systems of discourses also are systems of distinctions with inherent positive and negative understandings (Bergström and Boréus, 2000: 229f). The revealing of such binary oppositions or dichotomies has been an important part of my discourse analysis. To conduct a discourse analysis includes estranging and distancing oneself from the documents or interview transcripts – “data” – a process completed by underlining specific key words or concept by the help of quotation marks (Sahlin, 1999: 91.) This process helps to underline the specifics of occurrences/ways of making sense of “things” that would otherwise seems just common sense to us, in a way that highlights them and make them present themselves to us in novel ways (Ibid). To conduct a discourse analysis means trying to critically deconstruct the often rather liquid distinctions between what is considered legitimate or illegitimate, between the correct or incorrect (Börjesson 2007:8) and includes an thorough analysis of different social categories in order to study how they are transformed and “performed” through social action. The data collection process, the reading of previous research and theory and analysis has been parallel flows or run “circular” during the course of work. I have also coded, organized and systematized my empirical data with the help of a program for qualitative analysis (Atlas.ti). In my first coding of the newspaper narratives and official documents I focused on how concepts or representations such as “children versus adults”, “gender” and “age” and how “vulnerability” was constructed and framed with reference to the concept of “unaccompanied minors”. Themes or figures of thought raised in previous research on asylum, migration and unaccompanied children (see for instance Engebrigsen, Eide, Hansen, Brown, Jackson, Van Djik, Watters 2008 etc. etc.) were other constructive tools in the further categorizations of the different textual elements. The samples of reports, plans of action, newspaper articles etc. comprised of more varied lookouts and topics regarding “unaccompanied children” than expressed in newspaper narratives. Confronted with the diversity of the empirical material, I soon