Political versus Everyday Discourses about Immigration

in contemporary Austria

The Dissolution of Political Charisma

 

                                             

A series of events since 1989, such as the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989, the opening up of Eastern Europe, the Yugoslavian crisis in the 1990s and the Austrian membership of the European Union since 1995 have contributed to an increase in the numbers of immigrants entering Austria, leading to the emergence of a wider range of ethnic communities. These events have gradually reinvented discourses about immigration in contemporary Austria at national macro, and regional micro structures of society. Differing opinions range from exclusionary discourses and the rejection of ‘foreigners’, to multiculturalist and welcoming opinions towards immigrants. In this respect, at the political level, depending on different political party factions (such as, for example, the Austrian Social Democratic Party or the Austrian Freedom party), discourses about immigration issues range from the appreciation of cultural diversity and the perception of foreigners as a useful tool for the labour market,  to discourses about the ‘assimilation’ of immigrants.  These political discourses arguably indicate charismatic, bureaucratic or traditional forms of authority (according to Max Weber’s three pure types of legitimate domination).   Subsequently, actors of the unofficial everyday sphere might on the one hand partly reduplicate opinions portrayed at the political levels of society and legitimate those, or on the contrary, might partly form their independent perceptions about immigration depending on their socio demographic background.

 

This presentation aims to compare patterns of discourse about immigration and migrants at the political elite level  to the ones portrayed by regional everyday actors. In consequence it aims to outline the legitimation of Austrian political parties and their form of ‘domination’ by the regional actors.  

 

Methodologically, the research was based on a qualitative analysis of political manifestos, parliamentary debates and qualitative semi structured interviews with 33 people.