Ethnic Boundaries and the Public Sphere: Minority Experiences with Public Debate in Multicultural Norway

This paper offers a sociological approach to understanding freedom of speech. I use survey data to study differences in the access to and the experiences with the public sphere in Norway among the white majority population and in a subsample of the ‘non-Western’ immigrant population. Qualitative interviews with 17 media-experienced individuals with different ethnic and religious minority backgrounds are used to explore more in depth the personal costs of participating in public debates. The survey data reveal that non-Western migrants tend to receive negative comments attributed to their race, religion and ethnic background, while the white majority report that negative comments are mainly based on the content of their argument. Further, while 19 per cent in the majority sample hesitate to participate in the public sphere again if they have had negative experiences, the same goes for 36 per cent of the minority sample. Focusing on the access to the mediated public sphere as well as the experiences with and the consequences of public engagement, the qualitative data provides more nuances to this picture: Minority interviewees born and raised in Norway tend to experience the public sphere as more inclusive than the immigrant generation. And although all interviewees report having negative experiences, the gravity of these experiences seems mediated by their gender, the topics they usually debate, and their public positions in controversial issues. I use theories of ethnic boundary-making and particularly Alba’s (2005) distinction between bright and blurred boundaries in order to discuss the implications of these findings.