Discourse and Othering: On the Importance of Language from the Perspective of Political Science

Translation: Victoria Bakshina

I often hear as a political science and linguistics student that people find my studies a strange mix, which is understandable, as the university offers a range of different fields within different Schools. However, linguistics and politics have more in common than people may suspect. In linguistics, I ponder the meaning of words; where they come from and what they mean. Similarly, discourse analysis is an important tool when dissecting the attitudes of nations towards various matters. In each of my studies I have learned about discourse analysis, and although the approaches are different, the basis is the same: words are not neutral, and it’s important to look into how we phrase things. In particular, I would like to point out some words that we all know and widely use when discussing immigrants and refugees. This is by no means an exhaustive list, and it’s important to note that sometimes, the meaning behind words is just as important as the words themselves.

As Iceland becomes more multicultural, the need to preserve our language arises, which must be achieved without enabling inequality or maintaining a discourse that promotes othering. Although this may seem obvious and even self-evident, it is easy to let discriminative discussions pass one by. A good example of this type of discourse is when we refer to the increased number of refugees within Europe as a “refugee threat” and “refugee crisis”, terms which are extremely loaded with strong connotations. The second part of both phrases, threat and crisis, indicates that the arrival of refugees in the country is accompanied by difficulties and problems that will affect the society. Words matter and people should do their best to ensure the inclusivity of Icelandic vocabulary by recognizing and replacing terms that contain derogatory and dehumanizing terms. 

According to the Icelandic Nationality Act, any person who is not an Icelandic citizen is considered a foreigner. People who apply for a visa, residence permits and citizenship in  the country go through an agency called Útlendingastofnun (Foreigners’ Institution). In English, the agency is called the Directorate of Immigration. Isn’t that a descriptive term, since it is in charge of providing protection and residence permits to people who settle here? How long should people be considered “útlendingar” (foreigners)? This constant othering and ostracism that people suffer by the hands of the agency is a form of microaggression. The terms Útlendingastofnun and útlendingalög (Foreign Nationals Act) imply that immigrants and refugees are always outsiders and as such, not accepted into Icelandic society. 

There has been a lot of discussion about the word “aðlögun” (adjustment), and whether it is appropriate to talk about the adjustment of immigrants. While the meaning of the word may not be intentionally malignant, it is accompanied by the underlying message that people should adapt to the environment presented to them and become completely Icelandic in order to gain social acceptance. “Adjustment” does not take into account other cultures, instead it places the responsibility on those who come here. People should not have to compromise their customs and values in order to be accepted by Icelanders. This word is undeniably loaded with values and gives the impression that people of foreign origin are not welcome unless it’s on the terms of Icelanders. However, the diverse flora of people enriches Icelandic culture and embracing them is a key factor in ensuring a prosperous society. Eiríkur Rögnvaldsson, a language activist, has argued that we should implement the word rótfesta (rooting) instead of talking about aðlögun (adjustment):

“We do not want immigrants to adjust into the Icelandic society in every sense of the word, but we want them to establish roots within it and enrich it, in the same way that various herbs of foreign origin have taken root in Icelandic soil and enriched Icelandic flora. As the herbs will then have to tolerate Icelandic soil and Icelandic weather conditions, so, too, the immigrants will have to be satisfied with Icelandic society without necessarily adapting to it once and for all.”

There’s an interesting history behind the English word “refugee”. The earliest example of its use is a description of the French Protestant Huguenots after they fled the country due to persecution following the annulment of Henry IV's Nantes directive which granted protestants freedom of conscience and religion. The word can be interpreted in two ways. On the one hand “anyone who seeks asylum” and on the other, “anyone who flees their home”. The French word refugié comes from the Latin word refugium which could be translated as “safe haven or refuge”. It is therefore neither strange nor false that the Icelandic translation is flóttamaður (a person on the run). The Latin word refugium is formed by the prefix re- which denotes “again” or “return” and the verb fugere which means “to flee”, “get away” or “escape”. The English word does not have exactly the same meaning because it refers to people on the run and also people in search of refuge. Such ambiguity is not present in the Icelandic word. The word flóttafólk is not bad in itself, as it is very descriptive, but in the current social discourse and in the context in which the word is used, there is a negative tint to it. It is therefore important to consider whether to adopt a new word, or, at least, change the discussion so that the word flóttamaður also implies that the person is in search of a refuge. The second option includes an attitude change, not neologism.

How we talk about objects, people and events in the media as well as political discourse matters; discourse shapes the attitudes and mindsets of society. But it is not only the above-mentioned institutions that are responsible. The language applies only to the words which are dominant. Sure, we all perceive language in our own way, but we still choose our words when we express ourselves. We make a conscious decision about our choice of words. Words are a spectacular phenomenon. They can be applied in various ways, we use decorative words to embellish objects and history, but also to exclude groups, condemn, discriminate, and ostracize. The issues and the language get complicated when it comes to politics. Languages are never neutral in politics. Both the application of language and the choice of using a certain language is highly political. With this in mind, it should therefore not be so absurd to adopt new words, and to choose those words carefully when considering matters of such importance as the issue of refugees and immigrants.