The Elephant in Multicultural Sweden

Abstract

In this study, I have investigated “the elephant in the room”, namely the tension surrounding discussions and interactions regarding ethnicity and race in Sweden. Specifically, my aim has been to unveil the dominant ideas that “whites” and “non-whites” use to morally navigate through tensions in this multicultural society. Methodologically, I have conducted four focus group interviews with students from Lund. I used a Vignette method, whereof the participants were introduced to five scenarios each with their own marker of difference. In this case, each scenario concerned their own moment of tension. As such, I have collected information on three specific issues, which this study presents as following: 1. The dynamic exchanges in the sessions; 2. The similarities between “whites” and “non-whites” views and experiences; 3. The differences between these groups. My analysis shows that participants morally navigate by using three dominant ideas: relevance, access and risk. In this case, I argue that these ideas materialize differently between “whites” and “non-whites”. “Non-whites” could more easily connect the relevance of each marker of difference to their experiences of standing out in Sweden. In addition, “non-whites” had more access when speaking about ethnicity and race, partly seen by how easy-going the subject was in-between “non-whites”. Also, “non-whites” had less risk of being accused of being prejudiced. Meanwhile, “whites” had less experience of standing out and instead made each marker of difference relevant to themselves through certain legitimizing ideas. Further on, “whites” perceived themselves to have less access to speak of these matters, partly due to running greater risks of being accused of being prejudiced. In short, “non-whites” guided their moral navigation through their perceived access whilst “whites” rather focused on the risks. Besides enforcing the importance of these ideas, I have also managed to show that my second-order distinction of “white” and “non-white” was important.

Popular Abstract

Today in multicultural Sweden, conversations relating to ethnicity and race are often filled with tension and are most often avoided. In this study, I wished to discuss “the elephant in the room” by collecting thoughts and experiences from “white” and “non-white” people in Sweden regarding specific tension-filled scenarios. I was looking for the ideas that these people use to handle such scenarios; how do they separate right from wrong, or okay from not okay? Further on, I organized four group interviews where each session consisted of both “white” and “non-white” people. In each interview, I presented a paper that listed five scenarios. Each scenario concerned different multicultural themes, such as: appearances, language, ethnic background, saying the n-word and religious behavior. I then let the interviewees discuss these scenarios with each other whilst I merely acted as a moderator. The interviews were then transcribed, translated to English and then carefully read in order to find these ideas that people might use to decide right from wrong.
I have mainly collected information which tells us three things: 1. How the interviewees acted in the interviews; 2. The similarities in answers between “whites” and “non-whites”, and; 3. The differences in answers between these groups. Firstly, I show that my use of the concepts “white” and “non-white” were a positive choice since these words could successfully be applied to my results. Secondly and most importantly, my analysis claims that “whites” and “non-whites” guide themselves through these sensitive matters through three ideas, I call these: relevance, access and risks. As such, depending on the scenario and depending on if the interviewee was “white” or “non-white”, the meaning of each idea – and the relation between them – was different. “Non-white” interviewees had a more relevant connection to each scenario, mainly since they had experiences of standing out in terms of looks. In addition, “non-whites” had more access¸ meaning that it was easier for a “non-white” person to speak about ethnicity with other people, especially with other “non-whites”. Also, this access lowered their risks, meaning that it was harder for a “non-white” to be accused of being prejudiced or racist. Meanwhile, “white” interviewees had next to no experience of standing out in terms of looks, names or similar aspects. For these interviewees, matters regarding race or ethnicity were relevant since they were natural, unconscious or psychological. However, “whites” had less access, meaning that they did not see many opportunities to discuss ethnicity and race with others. Instead, “white” interviewees thought that discussions regarding ethnicity and race were rather risky and preferably avoided them. In short, “non-whites” guided themselves by using their access, whilst “whites” were more focused on perceived risks.

• author: Mir Babaei, Seyed Shahab
• supervisor: Charalambos Demetriou
• organization: Sociology; Department of Sociology
• alternative title: The Elephant in Multicultural Sweden: How Whites and Non-Whites Morally Navigate through Moments of Tension
• course: SOCM04 20201
• year: 2020
• type: H2 - Master's Degree (Two Years)
• subject: Social Sciences
• keywords: white, non-white, tension, marker of difference, morality, navigation, vignette, group interview, students, Sweden
• language: English
• id: 9027974
• date added to LUP: 2020-09-02 11:01:10
• date last changed: 2020-09-02 11:01:10