Ethnicities-2003-Van Der Valk-183-213 PDF

Ethnicities
http://etn.sagepub.com/
Political Discourse on Ethnic Minority Issues: A Comparison of the Right

and the Extreme Right in the Netherlands and France (1990-97)
Ineke Van Der Valk
Ethnicities 2003 3: 183
DOI: 10.1177/1468796803003002002
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://etn.sagepub.com/content/3/2/183
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Ethnicities can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://etn.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://etn.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://etn.sagepub.com/content/3/2/183.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Jun 1, 2003

What is This?
Downloaded from etn.sagepub.com at Jazan University on July 24, 2014
02 van der Valk (jr/t)
2/5/03
1:45 pm
Page 183
ARTICLE
Copyright 2003 SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi)
Vol 3(2): 183213 [1468-7968(200306)3:2;183213;032947]
www.sagepublications.com
Political discourse on ethnic minority issues

A comparison of the right and the extreme right in the
Netherlands and France (199097)
INEKE VAN DER VALK
University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands
ABSTRACT In this article, commonalities and differences in the discourses of

the right and the extreme right on ethnic minority issues in the Netherlands and
France are examined. The investigation is carried out from an interdisciplinary and
comparative discourse analytical perspective. The examined data include parliamentary debates, political speeches, interviews and articles in the time period
199097. The analysis shows that a majority of the investigated political actors in
particular of the extreme right, but also of the right contribute to the representation of immigrant groups, first, as an out-group; second, as different or even
deviant; and, third, as threatening. In France, however, a rather explicit ant-immigrant discourse appears to be more common and mainstream when compared to the
Netherlands during the period under study.
KEYWORDS ethnic minorities mainstream right politics racism
INTRODUCTION
In all European countries, including the Netherlands and France, ethnic
minorities, immigrants and/or multicultural society have become issues
high on the public and political agendas. Since the 1980s, we have witnessed
the intensified and largely unchallenged politicization of these topics
(Barats-Malbrel, 1998; Quaderni, 1998). As a result, in almost all spheres
of life, these issues have become major themes of discussion, indeed of
polarized debates, whether in private conversations or in written texts and
public debates such as in the arena of politics and public policies. There is
no doubt that politics in general and extreme right parties in particular have
184
2/5/03
1:45 pm
Page 184
ETHNICITIES 3(2)
played an important role in this evolution towards politicization. Extreme

right parties, generally speaking, reject the established sociocultural and
sociopolitical system, although they do not openly question the democratic
system as such. They are populist in that they frequently appeal to the
common sense of ordinary people. They are authoritarian and support
traditional family values. They are anti-egalitarian and oppose the integration of immigrant communities by mobilizing xenophobic and racist
sentiments. By the end of the 1980s, their major issue had become the immigration question.
This politicization of immigration has increasingly problematized immigration. Immigration is frequently associated with negative categories such
as criminality, threats to public order, religious fanaticism, the decline of
the nation and an increase in social costs. The anti-immigrant argumentative repertoires in France are mainly articulated by the Front National
(FN), the principal agent of racism in France, but other political actors have
also taken up these themes (Barats-Malbrel, 1998; Tevanian and Tissot,
1998), as has the media (Bonnafous, 1991). Since 1981 in the Netherlands,
the Centre Democrats (CD), among other marginal extreme right groups,
have tried to mobilize xenophobic sentiments.
To better understand the role of politics in the (re)production of
opinions on ethnic minority issues that are thus widely expressed, a longterm research project by the departments of discourse studies of the
Universities of Amsterdam and Vienna was started in 1997 on the occasion
of the European Year against Racism (see Wodak and van Dijk, 2000). The
research that is reported in this article is a follow-up to this long-term
project which engaged seven European countries. I investigated, in particular, the cases of the Netherlands and France. Unlike the earlier and broader
project, in which only parliamentary discourse was investigated, this study
focuses in particular on the general discourse of the right and the extreme
right on ethnic minority issues in the Netherlands and France from 199097.
Extra-parliamentary discourse is an important focus of this study. This
means that an investigation of the FN that was absent from the earlier
project could be integrated. The former project on the parliamentary
discourse of mainstream parties has already shown that, in France, a rather
explicit anti-immigrant discourse appears to be more common and mainstream in the politics of the right when compared to the Netherlands. Much
of the discourse of the French mainstream right, with its emphasis on abuse,
adds to a negative representation of the other and, in this respect, seems
rather close to the discourse of the extreme right FN. The mainstream right,
moreover, is more orientated towards the delegitimation of the left, which
uses a human rights and anti-racist perspective, than towards the delegitimation of the extreme right. The mainstream right thus does not only fail
to delegitimate the anti-immigrant discourse of the FN in the eyes of the
public at large, but justifies and reinforces it by using an anti-immigrant
2/5/03
1:45 pm
VAN DER VALK
Page 185
DISCOURSE ON ETHNIC MINORIT Y ISSUES
discourse of its own (van der Valk, 2000). This outcome has resulted in this
follow-up project.
The cases of the Netherlands and France are interesting to compare
because they have a comparable background. Both countries are members
of the European Union (EU) and have strong civil societies. Both the
Netherlands and France were colonial powers in the past. They suffered in
a comparable way under the fascist dictatorship of Nazi Germany. After the
Second World War, the Netherlands and France both experienced significant immigration in the context of decolonization and as compensation for
shortages in the labour market. Often the same groups (labour migrants,
ex-colonials and political refugees) from the same region (a majority originate from the Mediterranean) have been involved. Immigrants in both
countries occupy similar class positions. Relevant national policies,
however, such as immigrant integration policies and citizenship laws vary
in accordance with historically determined national differences in political
culture; France being characterized by a universalistic, egalitarian republicanism and the Netherlands by a so-called pillarization system that favours
an identity-based and inclusion-orientated approach to integration
(Ireland, 2000). In France, extreme right, politically organized racism
significantly increased in the period under study (CNCDH, 1996). In the
Netherlands, this form of racism gradually declined after the electoral
success of the extreme right in 1994, with 7 percent of the votes. It is sometimes presupposed that this difference between the Netherlands and France
is related to the presence or absence of a so-called cordon sanitaire around
the extreme right (van Donselaar, 1995). In France, it is said, the right and
the extreme right lack discursive distance; in the Netherlands, it is said, the
reactions of mainstream politics towards the extreme right are predominantly characterized by boycott and distanciation strategies. To date, no
comprehensive study has been carried out to support these arguments.
For this study, data from various discourse genres were used such as
interviews, articles, public speeches and parliamentary debates. For each
party that was investigated, one leading and influential politician was
selected. To avoid the impression that the main focus was on the discourse
of individual politicians, some discourse fragments of other members of the
parties were also analysed as well as more general (anonymous) discursive
materials of the parties, such as party programmes.
185
186
2/5/03
1:45 pm
Page 186
ETHNICITIES 3(2)
CURRENT RESEARCH
Policy-orientated social science studies
Most of the research on minorities and immigrants that has been done over
the past 30 years by Dutch scholars in the social sciences has focused on
ethnic minorities and their characteristics from a policy-orientated perspective; that is, the social problems experienced or allegedly caused by these
minorities have been the central topics of these studies. Systematic studies
of discrimination and racism, as expressions of ethnic dominance and
exclusion, and of their impact on ethnic minorities have remained relatively
scarce. The bibliographies Onderzoek Etnische Minderheden (ACOM, 1992)
reveal that, by 1998, only 6 percent of research publications by Dutch
scholars on ethnic issues had discrimination and racism as a central theme
(Borghuis, 1988; ACOM, 1992; LISWO, 1996, 1998). Most of these studies
are written from a legal or social science perspective and/or have the
extreme right as their object of reference. Only a few of these publications
deal with racism in social institutions such as schools, welfare institutions or
the workplace. In general, mainstream Dutch academia shows little interest
in racism as a social phenomenon, let alone as a discursive one or as a theoretical concept. In Europe, between the two world wars, racial science prospered, ultimately sustaining the political excesses of the Nazi regime that
culminated in genocide during the Second World War. As a result, the
concept of race has become a problematic category in Western European
continental thought, in particular in academic research. Frequently, race and
racism are defined away from academic and sociopolitical life. In dominant
Dutch academic (minority) discourse, race and racism only have to do with
biological characteristics. It is argued that contemporary ideological and
practical forms of exclusion and domination of (ethnic) others that refer to
culture or religion cannot be explained by this conceptual framework (see,
for example, Rath, 1991). The lack of conceptual clarity and the undertheorization of racisms in their sociohistorical contexts in many cases leads to
a situation in which racism is defined away. Consequently, whereas many
international studies are available in which race and racism are studied in
their social and historical context, development and effects, Dutch studies
in these fields are relatively rare. The following studies may however be
mentioned: Bouw and Nelissen, 1988; de Rooy, 1991, 1998; Eickhoff et al.,
2000; Essed, 1984, 1991; Hisschemller, 1988; Mok, 1999, 2000; Reedijk,
2000; van Arkel et al., 1990; van Dijk, 1984, 1987, 1991, 1993; Verkuyten,
1995. Moreover, the valuable work of researchers from the Foundation of
Historical Racism Studies should also be mentioned. Researchers at the
Foundation use the stigmatization perspective developed by van Arkel as a
general explanatory model to explain the historically constituted negative
representation of, among others, travellers (Cottaar, 1996; see also van der
2/5/03
1:45 pm
VAN DER VALK
Page 187
Valk, 1997) and gypsies (Lucassen, 1990; Willems, 1995; see also Diederiks
and Quispel, 1987; van Arkel et al., 1990).
Sociopsychological studies on ethnocentrist attitudes include: Hagendoorn, 2001; Hagendoorn and Hraba, 1987; Hagendoorn and Janssen, 1983;
Kleinpenning, 1993; Scheepers and Coenders, 1996; Scheepers et al., 1990,
1994, 2001; Verberk, 1999. Since 1997, the University of Leiden has
published studies monitoring racism, focusing mainly on the politically
organized racism of the extreme right (van Donselaar, 1997, 2000; van
Donselaar et al., 1998; van Donselaar and Rodrigues 2001).
For research on racism in France, see: de Fontette, 1985; Guillaumin,
1972, 1995; Lvi-Strauss, 1952; Memmi, 1994; Sibony, 1997; Taguieff, 1988,
1991; Todorov, 1989; Wieviorka, 1991, 1992, 1993; for elaborated reports on
racist violence in France, see the annual reports of the CNCDH; for an
overview of racist and antisemitic violence from 199094 in France, see van
Donselaar, 1995: 251.
Compared to the large number of studies of minority experiences and
activities, little research has been done on majority discourse about minorities, its general or specific properties, its evolution and cross-time or crosscountry comparative similarities and/or differences. Recently, however,
following a more general trend of increased interest in the role of the
discursive in politics and policy (see Kuitenbrouwer, 1994; van Zoonen and
Holtz-Bacha, 2000), there has occurred a slight growth in academic interest
in Dutch minority discourse (Fermin, 1997; Jacobs, 1998; Prins, 2000;
Schuster, 1999; Suurmond, 1995). These studies, however, focus primarily
on the content of discursive productions on ethnic issues on what is said
but fail to analyse how this is done. This sort of fine-grained, detailed
analysis may be considered the specialized approach to discourse analysis
as it is attempted in this article.
Political science studies

Despite the tendency towards an increasing interest in the role of the
discursive in politics and policy, political science studies written in English,
investigating the extreme right spectre of politics, did not focus much, until
recently, upon the discursive ideologies expressed by these parties or the
ideological and discursive factors conducive to the rise of such parties (see
Betz, 1994; Hainsworth, 2000; Kitschelt, 1995; for a recent discussion of the
ideological content of the party literature of five Dutch and German
extreme right parties, see Mudde, 2000; for an analysis of core ideological
beliefs of the FN, see Swyngedouw and Ivaldi, 2001). French studies,
however, focus more upon the ideological and discursive dimensions of the
extreme right. Since its rise in 1983, much has been written about the FNs
history and political activities, its relationship with other political forces, its
impact on mainstream French politics and parties and its ideology and
187
188
2/5/03
1:45 pm
Page 188
ETHNICITIES 3(2)
discourse (Birenbaum, 1992; Camus, 1992; Mayer and Perrineau, 1989;

Monzat, 1992; Orfali, 1990; Plenel and Rollat, 1984, 1992; Tristan, 1988; van
den Brink, 1997; van Donselaar, 1995; Vander Velpen, 1992, 1995; Winock,
1990). Ideological dimensions of the FN are investigated by Maricourt
(1993: 2730, 1705) and Taguieff (1989a, b). The discourses of the FN in
general and of le Pen in particular have similarly been the object of several
studies. Jouve and Magoudi (1988) employ a psychoanalytic perspective to
examine the subconscious drives producing the ideology of the FN leader.
By contrast, Duraffour and Guitonneau (1991) refute and challenge the
primary rightwing arguments by means of logical reasoning and objective
information. Further linguistic studies have scrutinized the discourse of le
Pen, focusing on his argumentation and rhetorical style (Bonnafous, 1998;
Cuminal et al., 1997; Renault and Tournier, 1995).
Much has been written about the CD in general and party leader
Janmaat in particular since the creation of the party in 1980. More comprehensive studies were published in the 1990s (Mudde and van Holsteyn,
1998; van Donselaar, 1991, 1995), increasingly employing a comparative
perspective (Elbers and Fennema, 1993; Husbands, 1992, 1998; Mudde,
2000; van den Brink, 1997; Witte, 1996). Mudde and van Holsteyn (1998),
in particular, offer a detailed overview of existing scholarship and of the
insights that have been gathered over the past 15 years into the CD
movement. The majority of these studies are written from the social and
political science perspective, but comprehensive discourse analytical study
is not included, nor does any such study exist (for an analysis of CD
ideology, see Mudde, 2000: 12341).
THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

The methodology of this study is embedded in a complex and multidisciplinary theoretical framework pertaining to discourse, social cognitions
(beliefs, values, knowledge, ideologies) and society (for the relation
between theory and method in discourse analysis, see van Dijk, 2000: 558).
The conceptual notions of racism and discourse are central to this framework. Racism is defined as a complex, multifaceted system of domination
and exclusion that produces social inequality between different ethnic
groups. This system is (re)produced by the social practices of dominant
groups, including their discourses, and by shared social representations
(Moscovici, 1981). These social representations imbue such practices with
meaning and thus legitimate social inequality and the daily organization of
dominance and exclusion. Note that in my conception racism not only refers
to overt and violent forms of social domination, but also to more indirect
and subtle forms expressed in daily practices. It should, however, be
2/5/03
1:45 pm
VAN DER VALK
Page 189
stressed that racism is not seen as a property of individual persons, but

rather as a dynamically changing, ideological dimension of social practices,
including discursive practices. Racism is a historically specific ideological
construction (Hall, 1980). It changes with time and with the economicpolitical and sociocultural conditions in which it functions (see Bowser,
1995; Hall, 1980, 1996; Wieviorka, 1991). Hall warns against the misleading
viewpoint that because racism is everywhere a deeply anti-human and
social practice, that therefore it is everywhere the same either in its forms,
its relations to other structures and processes, or its effects (1996: 435).
Contemporary forms of racism are often characterized as cultural racism or
new racism. Martin Barker, in his study of the new racism in the UK (1981),
points to two changes in the postwar ideological legitimization of racist
practices; that is, the superiority of ones own culture and nation is no
longer emphasized either openly or straightforwardly. Racist practices are
now legitimized on the basis of so-called principal otherness. Presumed
genetic differences in the postwar period are increasingly replaced by
differences between cultures, nations or religions represented as homogeneous entities. Race is coded as culture, ethnicity or religion. Barker
characterizes the new racism as pseudobiological culturalism. In this vision,
the building blocks of the nation are not the economy or politics, but human
nature: It is part of our biology and our instincts to defend our way of life,
traditions and customs against outsiders not because these outsiders are
inferior, but because they belong to other cultures (Barker, 1984: 78).
Discourse is viewed as a powerful mechanism in our modern postindustrial, communication and information society. Discourse is central to the
reproduction of society. Social processes, developments and changes are
reflected in texts. Discourse as a social practice plays a crucial role in the
production, legitimation and reproduction of racism as an expression of
ethnic dominance and exclusion. Discourse analysis accordingly links the
micro dimensions of text and speech to structures and strategies of cognition and communication and both of these to the macro dimensions of
society (for the theory of discourse analysis, see Fairclough, 1995; Fairclough and Wodak, 1997; van Dijk, 1993, 1998).
The expression of ethnic inequality and exclusion in the politics of the
right and extreme right is the central focus of this study. A common characteristic of groups that are excluded is the sociopsychological process of
stigmatization that they are subjected to (Heatherton et al., 2000). The
recognition of difference and the consequent devaluation of others in terms
of their deviance and the assumed threat they pose, along with the resulting anxiety, aversion, depersonalization and dehumanization, are all central
to processes of stigmatization that transform others into stereotypic
caricatures. Neuberg et al. (2000) argue that the universal tendency to stigmatize is grounded in evolutionary rules essential to effective group
functioning. These rules are based on the principles of reciprocity, trust,
189
190
2/5/03
1:45 pm
Page 190
ETHNICITIES 3(2)
common values and group welfare. The principle of reciprocity implies that
people are not supposed to take more than they give with respect to social
goods; the principle of trust implies that people will not cheat and betray
others; with respect to common values, people are supposed to support and
not to undermine them, just as they are supposed to contribute to group
welfare. Stigmatization occurs, they argue, when these basic principles of
effective and efficient group functioning are (supposedly) violated.
Crandall (2000) has identified two ideological mechanisms that justify
stigmatization. The first is attributional; attributions of causality, responsibility and blame serve as justifications for stigmatizing. The second resides
in hierarchical thinking; relations of superiority and inferiority are
represented as natural, good and even unavoidable. Neuberg et al. also
suggest ways for reducing stigmatization: once the threat or the perception
of the threat or, indeed, the representation of the threat posed by individuals or groups to group functioning is eliminated, the stigmatization of
targeted individuals and groups should decrease (2000: 52). This points to
the importance of language and more broadly the politics of representation
to reduce stigmatization and favour peaceful interethnic relations. These
mechanisms and justifications for stigmatization may be deconstructed in
the discourse on stigmatized out-groups. In order to do this for the present
study in particular, some global strategies and local text features that are
relevant for the study of racism and characteristic of the prejudiced
language used regarding immigrants, as they have been identified in earlier
studies, are examined (Reeves, 1983; van Dijk, 1987, 1991, 1993). Major
global discursive strategies, such as referential strategies of positive selfpresentation and negative other presentation and strategies of delegitimation, are also examined. The mechanism of positive self-presentation and
negative other presentation is crucial for research on discursive racism. On
a cognitive level, us/them thinking in terms of religion and/or ethnicity is an
important condition for the development of a prejudiced frame of interpretation, particularly if positive traits are related to us and negative features
to them. Another focus were local text characteristics of rhetorics
(metaphors, irony, repetition, euphemisms, hyperboles) and style (lexicon).
Semantic moves that were investigated and are reported in this article are
comparison, forms of implicitness and contrast. Reactive strategies to
accusations of racism such as denial and reversal are equally investigated.
Due to lack of space, it is unfortunately impossible to illustrate with
discourse fragments all the identified linguistic properties of the examined
party discourses. Given examples are chosen on the basis of representativeness and/or typicality.
2/5/03
1:45 pm
VAN DER VALK
Page 191
THE DATA
Few discursive data for the Dutch extreme right CD party are available.
This is because the party is excluded from mainstream politics, boycotted
by the media, the object of intensely negative public opinion and subject to
repressive governmental policies (Schikhof, 1998). Having been ostracized
from public life since its creation, the party has had only limited access to
the public. Consequently, no data derived from public speeches exist for the
period under study, nor are any reports available of the speeches held by
chairman Janmaat in private general meetings. Janmaat is rarely quoted in
news reports and seldom interviewed by newspaper, radio or television
journalists. Thus, from 199097, Janmaat was only interviewed nine times
by mainstream daily and weekly newspapers. The most important medium
employed by the CD for influencing public opinion are radio and television
broadcasts. Janmaat is generally the CD spokesman on radio and TV spots.
Eighty-eight transcribed speeches (72 TV and 16 radio interviews) and nine
press interviews in the period under study are used as data for this research.
Analysis of the discourse of a spokesman for the conservative liberal
party VVD concerns one of the Netherlands most important and wellknown political leaders, chairman of the party during the period under
study, Frits Bolkestein. The data consist of seven newspaper articles of one
page each, 15 press interviews, 12 transcribed radio and 10 TV interviews
with Bolkestein in the period 199097, as well as the introduction to his
booklet Moslim in de polder (1997).
My investigation into the discourse of the FN examines the theme
foreigners or immigration in the discourse of le Pen. Fifty-eight speeches,
interviews and articles from the period 199097 were selected from the
archives of La Documentation Franaise. Several speeches that were given
at mass meetings were downloaded from the Internet, as was general information such as the party programme. Altogether this corpus consists of 264
pages of printed text. The criterion for selecting texts was thematic. Only
those documents that contained the keyword immigration in the thematic
description of La Documentation Franaise were selected.
For an analysis of the discourse on immigration of the French mainstream right parties Groupe de lUnion pour la Democratie Franaise
(UDF) and Groupe du Rassemblement pour la Rpublique (RPR), data
from parliamentary debates on immigration and nationality from 199697
were used. These debates on the Debr draft bill on immigration, the
Guigou draft bill on nationality and the Chevnement draft bill on immigration consisted of 1237 pages.
191
192
2/5/03
1:45 pm
Page 192
ETHNICITIES 3(2)
FINDINGS: THE NETHERLANDS

Comparison of the CD and VVD discourses on immigration
In the period under study, the Netherlands slowly but successfully recovered from a crisis that had lasted two decennia and during which discrimination and racism increased significantly. For the first time in the Dutch
postwar period, the extreme right participated in mainstream politics and
even in parliament.
If we compare Dutch extreme right discourse on immigration with that
of the right, as exemplified and most elaborately expressed by their leaders
in various media, the following commonalities and differences may be
found. Both the right and the extreme right in the Netherlands use general
strategies of positive self-presentation versus negative other presentation.
This is indicative of the ideological character of the discourse on immigration.
Negative other presentation

While the negative other presentation of the CD is more explicit, that of
the VVD is more subtle, more orientated towards problematizing the issue.
At the same time, the VVD attempts to avoid an overly explicit negative
other presentation. This may be related to the fact that the expression of
negative evaluations of immigrant groups, and thus of ethnic dominance
and exclusion, contradicts a liberal ideology that emphasizes equality. It is
striking that they are not often directly mentioned in the VVD discourse.
Sometimes they are called allochthons or the groups. When the neutral
designation of people is used, it is often followed by negative attributions
people who are in a deprived situation, people who refuse to cooperate, ghettos of minorities who hardly speak Dutch and who only live on
welfare (NRC, 29 July 1992) and allochthons who do not consider it urgent
or necessary to get work (Hervormd Nederland, 18 March 1995). They also
often appear as the minority problem. Sometimes minorities even disappear from the adjectives and are only indirectly alluded to (i.e. using
metaphors). Implicitness and mystifying language use fulfil the function of
mitigating too negative an other presentation. In this way, possible objections by political opponents are anticipated, especially the criticism that the
speaker is promoting prejudice with his discourse. In the discourse of
Bolkestein, the situation of minorities, asylum seekers and the phenomenon of migration are defined in terms of the problems they entail or even
of the problem that they represent. The problem is, however, neither
defined nor explained. Bolkestein systematically remains vague and
implicit. It is presupposed that the audience knows what the problem is.
In this definition of the situation, conceptualized in terms of problems with
2/5/03
1:45 pm
VAN DER VALK
Page 193
reference to foreign culture and religion, migrants failure to adapt to Dutch

culture and high (immigration) numbers play an important role. From a
policy perspective, the threat of an ungovernable situation has a key role
and solutions are predominantly made the responsibility of minorities
themselves. When they make an effort and adapt, everything will be alright!
The immigrant in CD discourse is straightforwardly constructed as a
culturally deviant, dangerous outsider who is only after our riches and who
threatens to undermine our society. CD discourse envisions culture as a
static, homogeneous and timeless entity. Cultural differences appear in this
perspective as absolute, clearly delimited and nearly unbridgeable. In order
to represent ethnic groups as culturally deviant, the significance of relative
cultural differences between groups of people is enhanced. Causal
processes in which multiple factors might play a role are also reduced to
one: the deviant culture. To construct an image of the dangerous foreigner,
a direct connection is drawn between migrants and criminality. It is
suggested that foreigners behave like serious criminals because of their
culture. To achieve this representation, a relation of competition for scarce
resources such as work, housing, welfare and social allocations is
constructed between the Dutch and the immigrants by means of the linguistic tool of contrasting. CD discourse constructs a competitive relation,
especially on the socioeconomic level. The CD conceives of the interests of
the Dutch and of foreigners as opposed on several different levels. All vital
socioeconomic fields are touched upon housing, employment, education
and welfare because it is especially around public finance and social
provisions that a fierce competitive struggle can be established. The technique of contrasting is an important instrument for achieving this end. The
negative presentation of the other that is thus constructed is systematically
paired to a positive presentation of the in-group, the Dutch.
Positive self-presentation
The positive self-presentation of the CD is primarily related to the party
itself and to the Dutch working class, both of which are portrayed as
victims. Victimization is an important characteristic of the referential
strategy that is applied when speaking of Dutch people. The Dutch are
represented as victims of minorities, or at least of minority policies. The
Dutch, most of the speeches assert, are discriminated against. The CD itself
is also characterized as a victim; that is, as victimized by dictatorial political
policies. At the same time, the CD represents itself as the only party
defending the interests of the ordinary Dutch, in favour of Dutch norms
and values, in favour of reconstituting Dutch culture and more generally
fighting to save the Netherlands from decline. Positive self-presentation and
negative other presentation are facilitated by the mechanism of differential
differentiation. The in-group, who is primarily referred to as we, the
193
194
2/5/03
1:45 pm
Page 194
ETHNICITIES 3(2)
ordinary or our Dutch, is much more differentiated with respect to social

class or social origin than the out-group and includes the young, the elderly,
the citizens, the farmers, the weak, and so on. The out-group, by contrast,
is depicted as large homogeneous entities such as Muslims.
The positive self-presentation of the right, however, refers predominantly to abstract notions such as western civilization and its (liberal)
political ideology. No construction of competition, contrasting or victimization occurs in this case. An explicit and obvious form of positive selfpresentation is Bolkesteins statement that contemporary European
civilization is more developed than the civilization of the Islamic world
(Netwerk, 20 May 1997). In different terms, Bolkestein has repeatedly
argued that Christian civilization has to be considered superior to Islamic
civilization. Viewed with Bolkesteins eyes, we (Christians) are not only
superior, but we are also too good for this world. We have to transform the
welfare ideologies of the 1970s. Positive self-presentation also takes place
when the VVD presents itself as a proponent of strict migration laws and
firm action. Generally, firm migration policies are only advocated when
accompanied by moves of positive self-presentation, thus mitigating potential negative self-presentation.
On a semantic level, both parties present pessimistic worldviews and
scenarios of being doomed when nothing is done, although, once again,
the discourses vary in subtlety and in their degree of exaggeration and onesidedness. The more the problematic character of the actual situation is
emphasized, the more legitimate the call by Bolkestein for firm action
appears to be. It is here that the logic of recurring references to American
situations, the threatening ghettoization of the inner cities and the
imaginary time bomb may be found. The constructed crisis and threat and
accentuated uncontrollability fulfil the function of stimulating feelings of
fear, as a result of which the audience secludes itself from less conventional,
more creative and optimistic scenarios and may heavily rely on the strong
leadership and policies of the liberal leader and his party. Imaginary situations are created in order to emphasize how the future is doomed to
succumb under the pressure of ethnic conflict. Contemporary analogies
(American situations) are used as much as historical analogies in order to
highlight the dangers of unlimited migration. The speaker discursively
constructs an image of crisis. Political crises, according to Kiewe (1998: 81),
are discursive constructs that communicate an urgency and call for out-ofthe-ordinary decisions and actions. A crisis also calls for strong leadership
to avert it, a dimension that is obviously not inconvenient for the liberal
leader. In constructing their arguments, both parties make use of commonplaces and fallacies, particularly in order to invalidate their opponents.
Both the VVD and the CD use different rhetorical devices to enhance the
persuasive effects of their arguments.
2/5/03
1:45 pm
VAN DER VALK
Page 195
Delegitimation
Bolkestein expresses his standpoints and opinions on ethnic minority issues
predominantly in the context of a public debate (the minority debate) in
the media, in the context of an argumentative discussion with other politicians and opinion makers and, more indirectly, with public opinion. The
central issue in this debate is the definition of the ethnic situation and the
policies concerning the admission of immigrants and the integration of
legally accepted foreigners in the Netherlands.
Part of the intended consequence of introducing a new definition of the
current situation is the delegitimation of those who previously defined the
situation. The new right defends a liberal market economy with minimal
interference, but also a strong state, emphasizing the responsibility of
citizens and the transformation of the welfare state into a so-called guarantee state. This concept is contradictory to the welfare state thinking of social
democracy. Several discursive references are orientated towards the delegitimation of welfare ideology (and thus of the social democratic parties
that supposedly support that ideology). This is reinforced by a strategy of
backgrounding and downplaying the sociopolitical phenomena of discrimination and racism, which are contradictory to the ideological mechanisms
of a positive self-presentation and a negative other presentation. Delegitimation is an important feature in CD discourse as well. On a global level,
Janmaats discourse combines a populist strategy in which the victimization
of the CD and of ones own population plays an important role within a
strategy orientated towards the enhancement of his own credibility, the
negative presentation of the other and the delegitimation of his political
opponents, especially the social democratic party PvdA. The core of the
argument, made repeatedly in every broadcast, is as follows. From an
economic point of view, things are not going well in the Netherlands. The
government, political parties and politicians, especially the PvdA, defend
wrong policies. The government equally makes a mess of the implementation of policies. Mainstream parties and politicians only want to spend
money on asylum seekers, minority policies and the multicultural society.
This is why the Dutch have to give in more and more. The Dutch are
discriminated against. The CD is the only party that defends the ordinary
Dutch.
After having signalled commonalities as well as some secondary variations, it is important to emphasize some of the major differences between
the discourses of the right and the extreme right in the Netherlands. The
form and style of CD language and the repetitive use of identical items
indicate that the main orientation of this party is towards the Dutch
working class. Although the slogan simplify and exaggerate is sometimes
used to characterize the discourse of Bolkestein, his texts are much more
subtle, sophisticated and academically informed than those of the CD.
195
196
2/5/03
1:45 pm
Page 196
ETHNICITIES 3(2)
Bolkestein obviously speaks for the educated elite rather than for a workingclass audience. There is no indication of banal nationalism (Billig, 1995) as
it is expressed by the CD through its frequent and systematic use of typically
Dutch expressions. The discourse of the CD is characterized by a large
number of idiomatic constructions, in particular old-fashioned, typically
Dutch sayings, expressions, proverbs and puns, which are employed as
frequently as more popular contemporary ones. It is known that proverbs
have the function of reinforcing the arguments of the speaker, who fades
away, enabling a powerful and cultural utterance that reflects shared knowledge and is difficult to counter (Arnaud and Moon, 1993: 324). Proverbs
and sayings are not only expressed in their canonical form, they are sometimes used as the basic element for word games. Striking is the racialization
achieved through the introduction of changes or additions, such as occurs in
the following example: De Nederlandse regering wikt, de buitenlander
beschikt (the Dutch governments proposes, the immigrant disposes). The
subject of this proverb which is used in various languages, De mens wikt,
God beschikt (man proposes, God disposes), is here transformed in order to
convey a racist message: immigrants in the Netherlands have more power
than the Dutch government. This message may be better stored in and
retrieved from memory because it is packed in an instance of shared knowledge, a proverb. Similarly, the titles of the CD election programmes Oost
West, Thuis Best (East West, Home Best) and Trouw aan Rood-Wit-Blauw
(True to Red-White-Blue) reflect the same kinds of lexical habits. This is
underscored in CD leaflets by the use of colours; red and blue on white
paper, together representing the national flag (for an analysis of everyday
nationalist symbols, see Billig, 1995).
The word own has a central position in the lexical repertoire of the CD:
our own Dutch youth, our own population, the own Dutch, our own
problems and our own security of existence. Own is one of those inconspicuous words that Billig (1995) has shown routinely contributes to the
daily confirmation and reproduction of nationalist ideological repertoires.
Another important difference between Dutch rightwing parties
pertains to racism. While racism as a systematic form of ethnic domination
is not acknowledged, but rather denied, by the CD (even as they claim to
be one of its victims), the VVD (Vereniging voor Vrijheid en Democratie [Peoples Party for Freedom and Democracy]) recognizes the importance of this social phenomenon by declaring the struggle against it to be
one of the pillars of its immigration and integration programme. Nevertheless, discrimination and racism are backgrounded and subtly played
down as marginal phenomena in the discourse of the VVD leader. We
should also mention the fact that the CD more frequently, and more
explicitly and consciously than rightwing politicians, makes use of instruments of implicit language use. This strategy is strongly related to the
mechanism of theatrical role-switching that is used by the CD. The CD
2/5/03
1:45 pm
VAN DER VALK
Page 197
has a frontstage and a backstage image and must permanently be on the

alert so as not to confuse the two. The CD balances continuously on the
margins of the constitutional state. In 1994, Janmaat was convicted for
using discriminatory statements. The strategy of the unexpressed is used
to cope with this threat. This strategy is applied on different levels. One
way to do this is simply to eliminate certain topics. Practices such as
consciously manipulated vagueness, implications, presuppositions and
other forms of indirect language are deployed in the strategy of the
implicit. An example of this strategy is offered by the election slogan full
is full. On the one hand, this slogan represents an uncontested truth;
nobody can deny that full is full. The uncontested explicit message,
however, contrasts with the contested implicit one. The slogan presupposes knowledge being held by the receiver of the message regarding what
is full (the country) and what the implication of this is (stop immigration
or expel all foreigners). In the subtext, tucked behind presuppositions and
implications, an extremely controversial and contested theme is hidden.
The title of the CD election programme East West, Home Best also
represents an example of the strategy of the unexpressed. This title, on the
one hand, has the familiar ring of a centuries-old proverb and, on the other
hand, simultaneously implies the additional message for their own good.
This commonplace argument frequently occurs in anti-immigration
discourse, emphasizing that it is better for all of us if people stay in their
own country. The implied conclusion of this stereotypical argument is that
immigration should be stopped and remigration promoted. This strategy
of the unexpressed clearly responds to the social and legal pressure to
conform to consensual non-racist politics and language use. Backed by
constant legal support, Janmaat rarely shows the end of his tongue (as the
Dutch expression puts it), and this phenomenon may be one of the reasons
why his party, as far as the statements of its leader Janmaat are concerned,
appears to be closer to the right than it actually is. This points to the
importance of keeping in mind the programmatic differences between the
right and the extreme right. The CD programme, after all, with its plea for
repatriation policies, among other things, embodies an explicit anti-immigrant approach, while the VVD formally supports policies of equal opportunities and anti-discrimination. If, however, we consider the social effects
of discourse in terms of it embodying more than programmatic intentions,
we may, given our findings, hypothesize that a marginally supported, chauvinistic form of welfare ethnocentrism, as it is represented by the CD, has
been pushed aside by a much more broadly supported, although subtly
formulated, form of modern ethnocentric cultural racism that considers its
superiority as a self-evident fact of life needing no explanation. While
extreme right leaders did not succeed in finding more than marginal
support for their anti-welfare, chauvinistic, xenophobic themes, the mainstream right succeeded in bringing about a political translation of
197
198
2/5/03
1:45 pm
Page 198
ETHNICITIES 3(2)
traditional commonsense issues and thereby achieved an ideological shift

comparable to Thatchers in the UK (Hall, 1991). Latent cultural racism
was activated and normalized by associating the migrant population with
particular characteristics of religion that are negatively valued and stereotypically formulated. By means of a complex process of signification and
legitimation, a widely supported consensus was constructed around the
notion that we are superior to them. There is no doubt that the VVD
has strongly contributed to a process that makes culture/religion emerge
as a plausible explanatory framework for incidents and events in the
everyday life of ordinary people. This article has tried to show how this
form of cultural racism, based on essentialist thinking in which the dynamic
of positive self-presentation and negative other presentation is a central
one, is promoted even in a political climate where equality and antidiscrimination are highly valued. That Bolkestein again and again anticipates possible criticisms and replies to these critiques by denying the
prejudiced character of his discourse in no way diminishes the effect.
Cutting through his total oeuvre, the greatest logical error of the VVD
leader may be that he systematically presupposes that culture is the
essence of both the problem and the solution insofar as the situation of
migrants and minorities in the Netherlands is concerned.
As far as the CD is concerned, the identified discourse characteristics that
are discussed here support the identification of this party as a modern racist
party one, however, that is under heavy social pressure not to express its real
opinions, beliefs and ideology too explicitly. Where discourse analysis is able
to deconstruct significations, the examined data are revealing. This is
especially true of the implicit calls for arson, the references to a racist publication and the allusions that are made to Nazi conspiracy theories and the antisemitic practices of exclusion that are found in the data. The CD discourse
postulates that attempts to address the interests of asylum seekers and minorities via existing asylum and minority policies are enacted at the expense of
attending to the vital interests of the ordinary Dutch. The effect of this on
the Dutch, especially on those who are in an underprivileged socioeconomic
position, should not be underestimated, even if they do not vote for the CD.
FINDINGS: FRANCE
Comparison of the FN and the UDF/RPR coalition discourses on
immigration
For 20 years, the issue of immigration in France has been subject to a
constant process of politicization expressed, among other means, in frequent
changes in legislation. The FN, which has steadily been on the rise since the
2/5/03
1:45 pm
VAN DER VALK
Page 199
beginning of the 1980s, largely determined the terms of the debate with
other parties (in particular the political right), taking over many of the principal themes, associations and standard arguments. This section describes
the discursive properties of the commonalities and differences between the
discourses of the French right and the extreme right.
The political discourse of both the right and the extreme right on immigration is highly rhetorical. Repetition, rhetorical questions, hyperbole and
instances of irony occur frequently in the discourse of the mainstream right.
Metaphors are employed to symbolize threat and danger and the risk of loss
of control or the lack of restrictions on immigration and to symbolize the
ease with which immigrants succeed in obtaining permits. Metaphors are
also used to symbolize the threat of racism and right extremism. Immigrants
in the discourse of the FN are the object of a negative other presentation by
means, among others, of suggestive metaphors. Metaphors that are
frequently used when speaking of immigrants are, most systematically, those
of war and of water. These metaphors, depicting unending flows of people
entering Europe and the resulting aggression and struggle, create fear and
thereby motivate people to support restrictive or anti-immigration policies.
In other instances, immigrants are not only derogated they are implicitly
threatened. Both the right and the extreme right use strategies of positive
self-presentation and negative other presentation, associate immigrants with
problematic social phenomena and express fears about the decline of the
French civilization. The discourse of the right, however, is not only less
explicit, it is also in itself more contradictory, as the variation between the
various MPs is greater. The discourse of the FN, however, is strongly and
consistently rooted in a social Darwinist ideology in which attributions are
traced back to the natural order of things, which is itself assumed to be
governed by biological laws. If we believe the discourse of le Pen, France is
in decline, threatened by invasion and on the verge of disappearing. Its
civilization is doomed. This is primarily due to a cosmopolitan plot,
concealed by modern politics which strive for European unification and
globalization, and institutionalized by an anti-racist lobby that systematically
privileges foreigners and oppresses the French. It is in this broader context
that the immigration theme is instrumental to the strategy of the FN.
Negative other presentation

Immigrants embody, so to speak, the threatening decadence of the French
nation state and civilization. Immigration is consequently evaluated negatively in terms of the problems it generates, as a potential or actual and
future threat not only for national French identity, but for the nation as such.
Immigration is systematically seen in terms of an invasion. Immigrants, once
present in the country, are not only represented as a problem and the cause
of social insecurity, unemployment and other social problems, they are also
199
200
2/5/03
1:45 pm
Page 200
ETHNICITIES 3(2)
directly and explicitly related to a sense of insecurity in public spaces and

criminality. The threat to the nation that they represent is accentuated in
apocalyptic terms. The style is hyperbolical; differences are magnified and
turned into essential differences; categories of comparison that are
frequently used are relentlessly dualistic, calling for choice and absolute
commitment.
The negative presentation of the other of the UDF/RPR coalition is
frequently expressed in a discourse of systematic suspicion towards
migrants. Fraud and abuse are important rightwing topics in French debates
on immigration and nationality over the research period. They are present
in debates on almost all the issues discussed, whether the discussion
concerns a new visa system (with the obligation for the government to give
motives for a refusal), residence permits, the introduction of a special residence permit for researchers and artists or permits for personal and family
reasons each time, the mainstream right parties evoke all sorts of possibilities for fraud and abuse, thereby expressing suspicion. The same is true
of discussions about French nationality for all children born in France,
which has legal consequences for the parents, or of discussions about
marriages with immigrants which may be marriages of convenience.
Proposals of such bills are considered to facilitate evading or abusing the
rules, immigrants are supposed to enter the country only to profit and new
rules are seen as an open door for abuse or encouragement to white
marriages, and so on. This systematic expression of suspicion in the larger
context of a strategy of negative other presentation clearly functions to
justify restrictive measures on immigration without the risk of being
accused of repressive policies. Especially where negative opinions about
others are expressed, we may often find mitigating devices such as cases of
actor avoidance and the use of on as a pronoun (one) instead of nous
(we).
This negative evaluation of immigration and immigrants contrasts with
the high occurrence of a local and global strategy of positive self-presentation, particularly in UDF/RPR coalition debates on nationality. Generally, the debates on nationality that were held in November 1997 in the
French parliament present a typical, and at the same time particular,
example of an ongoing process of construction and reconstruction of the
nation/national identity, a process in which all the political actors from the
extreme right to the left in general participate. A strategy of positive selfpresentation in the form of national self-glorification, which several
political actors of the mainstream right combine with a strategy of negative
other presentation, plays a key role in this process. On a semantic level, the
national singularity of France compared to other nations is emphasized and
the superiority of the French political system underlined. Given that the
home of the Enlightenment, the concept of the sovereignty of the people,
the declaration of human rights and the modern constitutional state itself
2/5/03
1:45 pm
VAN DER VALK
Page 201
may all be found in France, it must be considered a role model for all the
nations of the world. It has a universal vocation. This strategy is underpinned by diverse linguistic realizations, of which the most remarkable are
the heavily rhetorical nature of speeches about nationality, which reflects
the strong affect with which the subject is invested, instances of personification of the republic and the nation, the frequent use of the pronoun we
(the French) and toponymical (la France) and ethnonymical (Franais)
characterizations.
Positive self-presentation
For the FN too, the negative evaluation of immigration and immigrants is
in sharp contrast to the positive evaluation of us in this case, the French
nation, its (presumed) political representative and future rescuer, the FN,
and the father of the fatherland, Jean-Marie le Pen. Multiple cognitive
resources are used to construct extreme right nationalistic ideology, derived
both from the intellectual domain (history, literature and philosophy) and
the sociopolitical domain (working-class discourse, nationalistic discourse
and a discourse of anti-fascist resistance). Historical comparisons,
biological metaphors and a poetical style, along with other rhetorical instruments, are used to construct a romantic version of France, to naturalize the
idea of the (French) ethnic nation and thus to legitimate defending it
against foreign intruders in a united, altruistic and heroic struggle, guided
by le Pen, the heir of the heroes of the past.
Discrimination is normalized and naturalized in the discourse of le Pen,
and an ideology of racism without race is developed and legitimated
whereby causal attributions are primarily traced back to the natural order
of things. This natural order is a core element of extreme right ideology.
Le Pen normalizes a racist ideology and legitimizes discriminatory practices, while referring to nature and biology. It is natural, he argues, to prefer
ones family to another, ones nation to another, and so on. This kind of
argumentation, typical of the FN leader, conveys how he resorts to
commonsense reasoning that is based on false analogies which themselves
do not require explanation. This explanation, in terms of nature, instinct
and inheritance, strongly recalls the once closely related, classificatory principle of race. This is especially the case where homogeneity and the dangers
of intermingling are accentuated, for example by representing the national
community as a physical body that is injected with immigrant communities in order to produce offspring. It is a fundamental biological rule,
according to le Pen, that cultural homogeneity leads to high performance.
Note how this straightforward racist argumentation is here circumvented
by introducing a cultural detour.
The nation is represented as a self-evident fact, as is the division of
homogeneous populations into nations through a natural process of
201
202
2/5/03
1:45 pm
Page 202
ETHNICITIES 3(2)
categorization that is determined by biological laws. The nation as an

identity category is extensively relied upon as part of a strategy of positive
self-presentation. In the discourse of le Pen, the ethnic concept of the nation
is constructed, among other means, by elaborating on and referring to
historical events. These historical narratives take whole pages and include
tremendously detailed references, names and dates. Le Pen has a preference for historical comparisons. Most frequently he turns to the historical
and symbolic figure of Joan of Arc who, in the Middle Ages, saved the
French from occupation by the English. He explicitly and repeatedly
compares the FN or himself as the future saviour of the French to Joan of
Arc. He thus succeeds in appropriating this traditional, national, almost
mythological symbol that embodies all the aspirations of an oppressed
people and represents the French longing for self-respect.
In le Pens discourse, the nation is frequently compared to and entangled with the concept of family, with all its connotations of self-evident
naturalness, clear boundaries and, thus, exclusion, material safety,
emotional security, protective tenderness and love. This allows for the
naturalization of the nation and its representation in terms of natural
exclusivity and emotional needs (for the function of naturalist discourse in
racist ideology, see Guillaumin, 1995: 21238). It also enables the anchoring of the ideology of nationalism in the emotional life of the audience.
This, in turn, sustains a representation of le Pen as father of the fatherland,
who talks to his audience as a parent to his children, using emotive
language.
The personalized female character of France is emphasized and is attributed with many positive metaphorical properties. In line with the family
metaphor, France is often personified as an ideal and attractive woman,
daughter of a goddess from antiquity. Thus, France and le Pen are simultaneously mother and daughter, father and son, intimately linked to each
other by natural bonds.
Le Pen explicitly compares his rank and file to the soldiers who
combated fascism in the Second World War. In this way, a unified support
for le Pens nationalist ideology is constructed. Other ideological resources
are likewise used to create this unity. The discourse of le Pen in many
respects recalls the original discourse of the leftist workers movement, with
sometimes subtle but critical variations. These types of linguistic transformation and ironical language games are typical of le Pens discourse.
Other resources, such as pseudoliterary, metaphorical language, are also
drawn upon to underscore the nationalistic ideology. A homogeneous,
closely interlinked and positively evaluated in-group of French people is
thus constructed.
Most striking when considering the differences between the right and the
extreme right are the programmatic differences. While the mainstream
right emphasizes humanistic values such as tolerance, brotherhood and
2/5/03
1:45 pm
VAN DER VALK
Page 203
equality of opportunities, the FN is orientated not only towards the normalization of a racist discourse, but also to the institutionalization of practices
of discrimination via its policy of national preference. The straightforward
discriminatory character of the FN programme comes to the fore in this
euphemistically formulated policy which envisions the institutionalized
exclusion of immigrants. A euphemistic style not only characterizes the
concept of national preference, but the sentences detailing this policy are
likewise formulated in a euphemistic way. For example, it is not specified
that immigrants will no longer receive family allocations, merely that family
allocations will be reserved for the French.
Justification for national preference is achieved by the frequent use of
comparisons that originate in commonsense logic and act as legitimating
devices for these policies and by the use of stereotypical commonplace
arguments and contrasts. Racism as a property of FN politics is strongly
denied by the party. Le Pen strongly refutes the accusation of racism, which
he obviously considers the most significant hurdle blocking his acceptance
into mainstream politics. A whole range of linguistic tools is used to achieve
this aim: denial, disclaimers and counteraccusations; they are not discriminated against, but we are! This reversal is also applied to anti-racist legislation which is considered oppressive to the freedom of expression.
Denial, reversal and victimization allow le Pen to represent the FN as a
natural representative of the French people and himself as its potential
saviour in the face of foreign occupation and repression. Yet, le Pen has
repeatedly asserted the inequality of the races. Reversal is also achieved
through the systematic use of false analogies and comparisons whereby the
struggle of the FN is compared to the anti-fascist struggle of the Second
World War and le Pen himself is compared to Churchill; that is, he implicitly portrays himself as the national liberator of France. Reversal statements are employed to present the FN as a victim and, more broadly, to
complete a vicious discursive circle portraying ethnic French people as the
true victims of racism who need to be rescued; we are not racist, we are
patriots!
Delegitimation
Although the right worries about the threat of racism and right extremism,
its sociopolitical discursive practices are, however, much more orientated
towards delegitimizing the left than towards delegitimizing the extreme
right. Proposals of the left are often distorted, simplified or exaggerated to
facilitate critical comments and verbal aggression. The motives, credibility,
integrity and consistency of the left and its policy proposals are called into
question. Fraud and abuse have a predominant position too in the reciprocal accusations of political opponents. The rightwing parties accuse the left
of being too lax; their concept of society is said to be too idealistic; they are
203
204
2/5/03
1:45 pm
Page 204
ETHNICITIES 3(2)
supposed to favour fraud and abuse and especially illegal immigration,

which will of course lead to criminality; they are accused of wanting to open
the borders, of pursuing the elimination of barriers and of provoking immigration flows, especially illegal immigration. In short, the left does not
observe the republican laws and is thus derogated, ridiculed and frequently
accused of harming the interests of the country. It is systematically delegitimized and represented as only motivated on ideological grounds. The left
is denied legitimacy on behalf of the people. Representatives of the right
whether they are a minority or a majority, in government or in opposition
claim to be the only representatives of the French people. In order to
distinguish itself from the left, its anti-immigration stance is overemphasized. This discourse brings the mainstream right closer to the extreme
right. The FN delegitimation of mainstream parties and especially their
immigration policies not only sustains obvious political goals, complementing attempts to legitimize the FNs own vision, but also functions as an
apparent global concession; we have nothing against immigrants, only
against immigration policies!
A survey by the daily newspaper Le Monde in May 1999 showed a
decline in support for the FN from 20 percent since 1983 to 11 percent in
1999. This declining support seems not so much due to the common efforts
of mainstream politics, caught as these parties continuously are in polarized
political relations and paralyzed by opposed analyses about the political
responsibility for the rise of the FN (van der Valk, 2000). Against the background of a general improvement in social-economic conditions, this may
instead be related to the internal quarrels and recent split in the extreme
right movement itself. It may, last but not least, also be related to the taking
over of anti-immigrant discourse by mainstream rightwing parties. It is,
however, not out of the question that the FNs linguistic policies are part
and parcel of its success and that they enabled it, with its ideology and
discourse of national preference, in just 15 years, to become a major instrument for promoting racism in France.
DISCOURSES ON ETHNIC MINORIT Y ISSUES OF THE

NETHERLANDS AND FRANCE COMPARED
Some concluding remarks may be made comparing the discourses on ethnic
minority issues of the investigated political parties and actors in the Netherlands and France. On a more abstract level, many of the findings in both
countries show a correspondence with the outcomes of sociopsychological
research on stigmatization, as it was introduced at the beginning of this
article. A majority of the investigated political actors, in particular of the
extreme right, but also of the right in a more or less contradictory way,
2/5/03
1:45 pm
VAN DER VALK
Page 205
contribute to the representation of immigrant groups, first, as an out-group;

second, as different or even deviant; and, third, as threatening. In constructing this representation, the examined politicians frequently, directly or indirectly, refer to the abovementioned rules for effective group functioning,
blaming immigrants for violating the reciprocity principle and accusing
them of not being trustworthy or of lacking support for common moral
values. They implicitly or explicitly refer to ideological mechanisms that
justify stigmatization by attributing causality, responsibility and blame to
immigrant individuals or groups without taking social conditions into
account and by legitimizing social hierarchies. That is, many of the investigated political actors, even if they do not explicitly support racist ideologies, fertilize, so to speak, the social ground for stigmatization processes to
occur. They facilitate the adoption of beliefs that justify stigmatization and
thus provide cognitive and emotional cover for the negative treatment of
stigmatized people. The discourses of the examined parties are characterized by mechanisms of positive self-presentation and negative other presentation, forms of implicit language use and strategies of denial.
This is not to say that the differences between the investigated parties
and countries should be neglected. In France, a rather explicit anti-immigrant discourse appears to be more common and mainstream when
compared to the Netherlands. Much of the discourse of the French mainstream right, with its emphasis on abuse, adds to a negative representation
of the other and, in this respect, seems rather close to the discourse of the
extreme right FN. The mainstream right, moreover, is more orientated
towards the delegitimation of the left than towards the delegitimation of
the extreme right (van der Valk, 2000). The mainstream right thus does not
only fail to delegitimate the anti-immigrant discourse of the FN in the eyes
of the public at large, but justifies and reinforces it by an anti-immigrant
discourse of its own. In the Netherlands, the CD, ostracized from public life
since its early years and boycotted by public institutions and mainstream
opinion, has always had little social support. In the 1998 elections, the CD
lost its seats in parliament and continues to have a marginal political life.
Its working-class, anti-immigrant discourse seems to have been swamped
by more modern forms of cultural racism based on essentialist thinking, as
it is represented by the examined discourse of the VVD. In the Netherlands,
anti-immigrant discourse is generally more hidden (Scheepers et al., 2001).
Thus, from my findings, it may prudently be hypothesized that the
relative support for the extreme right, as far as discursive influences are
concerned, may be explained not by its discourse on immigration itself, but
by its relation with the discourse of the mainstream right. The discourse of
the right, where a discursive cordon sanitaire is lacking, may render the antiimmigrant discourse more acceptable and thus the extreme right party, the
main actor articulating such a discourse, more legitimate. This seems to be
the case in France. In the Netherlands, given the existing cordon sanitaire,
205
206
2/5/03
1:45 pm
Page 206
ETHNICITIES 3(2)
the decreasing support for the CD may likewise be explained in relation to

the mainstream right which, in the period under study, has formulated and
acquired broad social support for an anti-immigrant discourse of its own
more sophisticated, more hidden, more adapted to prevailing social norms
and middle-class social cognitions. Anti-immigrant discourse is no longer
primarily identified with the extreme right.
This development has, particularly since Bolkesteins departure from
Dutch politics for a European role, culminated in the rise of a new populist
political movement initiated by Pim Fortuyn, who was murdered just before
the parliamentary elections of May 2002. This movement, the List Pim
Fortuyn (LPF), gained massive support by mainly articulating a Dutch
variant of an anti-immigrant repertoire that is gaining ground in European
politics. The LPF has recently transformed itself into a political party and
now participates in government. This analysis finds support in the fact that
adherence to racist theses among the public in the Netherlands and France,
as the Eurobarometer study shows, differs less than expected given the
difference in social support for the examined extreme right, anti-immigrant
parties: 31 percent of the respondents in the Netherlands and 48 percent of
those in France declared themselves very racist or quite racist (the
European average was 35 percent; European Commission, 1998). Given the
difference in support for the extreme right parties FN and CD, one would
expect a greater difference in the self-identification of racism in the Netherlands and France than observed by the EC. This indicates that the CD
apparently only mobilized a small section of the racist or prejudiced electorate. Thus, there was a space for a newcomer, such as the LPF (particularly since the departure of Bolkestein), to mobilize racist/anti-immigrant
sentiments, in particular if this newcomer could succeed in avoiding an
identification as racist and extreme right and, thus, of being discredited.
Thus, while the Dutch CD failed to link up with the common sense of
mainstream ordinary people and was discredited, the LPF, without being
discredited as extreme right, succeeded in mobilizing the racist, anti-immigrant and/or anti-Muslim sentiments that had increased since the events of
11 September 2001, without having a political translation (see EUMC, 2001;
LBR, 2002; van Donselaar, 2000; van Donselaar and Rodrigues, 2001).
Acknowledgement
The research reported here was supported in part by a research grant from the
Netherlands Scientific Organisation (NWO).
References
ACOM (Adviescommissie Onderzoek Minderheden) (1992) Onderzoek Etnische
Minderheden (Research on Ethnic Minorities). s-Gravenhage: Ministerie van
Binnenlandse Zaken.
2/5/03
1:45 pm
VAN DER VALK
Page 207
Arnaud, P.J.L. and R. Moon (1993) Frquence et emploi des proverbes anglais et
franais (Frequency and Use of English and French Proverbs), in C. Plantin
(ed.) Lieux communs, topo, strotypes, clichs (Commonplaces: Topoi, Stereotypes and Clichs), pp. 32342. Paris: ditions Kim.
Barats-Malbrel, C. (1998) Politisation de limmigration en France: Logiques politiques et enjeux discursifs (The Politicization of Immigration in France: Political
Logics and Discursive Stakes), Quaderni 36: 6981.
Barker, M. (1981) The New Racism. London: Junction Books.
Barker, M. (1984) Het nieuwe racisme (The New Racism), in A. Bleich and
P. Schumacher (eds) Nederlands Racisme (Dutch Racism), pp. 6285.
Amsterdam: Van Gennep.
Betz, H.G. (1994) Radical Right-wing Populism in Western Europe. London:
Macmillan.
Billig, M. (1995) Banal Nationalism. London: Sage.
Birenbaum, G. (1992) Le Front national en politique (The National Front in
Politics). Paris: ditions Ballard.
Bolkestein, F. (1997) Moslem in de Polder. Amsterdam: Contact.
Bonnafous, S. (1991) Limmigration prise aux mots: Les immigrs dans la presse au
tournant des annes 80. Paris: Editions Kim.
Bonnafous, S. (1998) Les argumentations de Jean-Marie Le Pen (The Arguments
of Jean-Marie Le Pen), Revue politique et parlementaire 995 (7/8): 2739.
Borghuis, M., ed. (1988) Etnische minderheden in Nederland: een geselecteerde bibliografie van sociaal-wetenschappelijke publikaties (19451986) (Ethnic Minorities
in the Netherlands: A Selected Bibliography of Social Science Publications
[19451986]). Muiderberg: Coutinho.
Bouw, C. and C. Nelissen (1988) Gevoelige kwesties. Ervaringen van migranten met
discriminatie (Sensitive Questions: Experiences of Immigrants with Discrimination). Leiden: Rijksuniversiteit Leiden.
Bowser, B.P. (1995) Racism and Anti-racism in World Perspective. London: Sage.
Camus, J. (1992) Political Cultures within the Front National: The Emergence of a
Counter Ideology on the French Far-right, Patterns of Prejudice 26(1/2): 516.
CNCDH (Commission Nationale Consultative des Droits de lHomme) (1996) La
Lutte contre le racisme et la xenophobie (The Struggle Against Racism and
Xenophobia). Paris: La Documentation Franaise.
Cottaar, A. (1996) Kooplui, kermisklanten en andere Woonwagenbewoners,
groepsvorming en beleid 18701945 (Merchants, Showmen and other Travellers:
Group Formation and Policy 18701945). Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis.
Crandall, C.S. (2000) Ideology and Lay Theories of Stigma: The Justification of
Stigmatization, in T.F. Heatherton, R.E. Kleck, M.R. Hebl and J.G. Hull The
Social Psychology of Stigma, pp. 12650. New York and London: Guilford Press.
Cuminal, I., M. Souchard, S. Wahnich and V. Wathier (1997) Le Pen, les mots;
analyse dun discours dextrme droite (Le Pen, the Words; Analysis of Extreme
Right Discourse). Paris: Le Monde.
de Fontette, F. (1985) Le Racisme. Paris: Presse Universitaire de France.
de Rooy, P. (1991) Bouleren met de Evolutie: over de samenhang tussen apen,
negers en proletariaat (Playing with Evolution: On the Relation between Apes,
Negroes and Proletarians), De Gids 154(5/6): 34366.
de Rooy, P. (1998) De Wetenschap van het Ras (The Science of Race), in M.
207
208
2/5/03
1:45 pm
Page 208
ETHNICITIES 3(2)
Beyen and G. Vanpaemel (eds) Rasechte Wetenschap? Het rasbegrip tussen

wetenschap en politiek vr de Tweede Wereldoorlog. (Purebred Science? The
Concept of Race between Science and Politics before the Second World War),
pp. 2131. Leuven and Amersfoort: Acco.
Diederiks H. and C. Quispel (1987) Onderscheid en minderheid, sociaal-historische
opstellen over discriminatie & vooroordeel (Distinction and Minorities: Sociohistorical Essays on Discrimination and Prejudice). Hilversum: Verloren.
Duraffour, A. and C. Guitonneau (1991) Des Mythes aux problmes: Largumentation xenophobe prise au mot (From Myths to Problems: Xenophobic Argumentation Taken Literally), in P.A. Taguieff Face au racisme I: Les moyens
dagir, pp. 127232. Paris: ditions la Dcouverte.
Eickhoff, M., B. Henkes and F. van Vree, eds (2000) Volkseigen: ras, cultuur en
wetenschap in Nederland 19001950 (Nation-specific: Race, Culture and Science
in the Netherlands 19001950). Zutphen: Walburg Pers.
Elbers, F. and M. Fennema (1993) Racistische partijen in West-Europa. Tussen
nationale traditie en Europese samenwerking (Racist Parties in Western Europe:
Between National Tradition and European Cooperation). Leiden: Stichting
burgerschapskunde/Nederlands Centrum voor Politieke Vorming.
Essed, P. (1984) Alledaags Racisme (Everyday Racism). Amsterdam: Feministische
Uitgeverij Sara.
Essed, P. (1991) Understanding Everyday Racism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
EUMC (European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia) (2001) AntiIslamic Reactions in the EU after the Terrorist Acts against the USA, a collection of country reports from RAXEN National Focal Points (NFP), the
Netherlands.
European Commission (1998) Racism and Xenophobia in Europe. Brussels:
European Commission.
Fairclough, N. (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. and R. Wodak (1997) Critical Discourse Analysis, in T.A. van Dijk
(ed.) Discourse as Social Interaction: Discourse Studies, a Multidisciplinary Introduction, Vol. 2., pp. 25884. London: Sage.
Fermin, A. (1997) Nederlandse politieke partijen over minderhedenbeleid 19771995
(Dutch Political Parties on Minority Policies 19771995). Amsterdam: Thesis
Publishers.
Guillaumin, C. (1972) LIdologie raciste, gense et langage actuel (Racist Ideology,
Origin and Current Language). Paris: LaHaye.
Guillaumin, C. (1995) Racism, Sexism, Power and Ideology. London: Routledge.
Hagendoorn, L. and J. Hraba (1987) Social distance toward Hollands minorities:
discrimination against and among ethnic outgroups, Ethnic and Racial Studies
10(3): 31733.
Hagendoorn, L. and J. Janssen (1983) Rechtsomkeer, rechtsextreme opvattingen bij
leerlingen van middelbare scholen (Turn right, Right-extremist Opinions of
Secondary School Pupils). Baarn: Ambo.
Hagendoorn, L. (2001) Stereotypes of Ethnic Minorities in the Netherlands, in
K. Phalet and A. rkny (eds) Ethnic Minorities and Interethnic Relations in
Context, pp. 4358. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Hainsworth, P. (2000) The Politics of the Extreme Right: From the Margins to the
Mainstream. London: Pinter.
2/5/03
1:45 pm
VAN DER VALK
Page 209
Hall, S. (1980) Race, Articulation and Societies Structured in Dominance, in M.

OCallaghan (ed.) Sociological Theories: Race and Colonialism, pp. 305345.
Paris: UNESCO.
Hall, S. (1991) Populaire democratie versus autoritair populisme, twee manieren
om democratie serieus te nemen, in Het minimale zelf en andere opstellen,
pp. 10327. Amsterdam: SUA.
Hall, S. (1996) Gramscis Relevance for the Study of Race and Ethnicity, in D.
Morley and K. Chen Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies,
pp. 41140. London: Routledge.
Heatherton, T.F., R.E. Kleck, M.R. Hebl and J.G. Hull, eds (2000) The Social
Psychology of Stigma. New York and London: Guilford Press.
Hisschemller, M. (1988) Een Bleek Bolwerk (A Pale Rampart). Amsterdam:
Pegasus.
Husbands, C.T. (1992) The Netherlands: Irritants on the Body Politic, in
P. Hainsworth The Extreme Right in Europe and the USA. London: Pinter.
Husbands, C.T. (1998) De Centrumstroming in perspectief: hoe verschillend is
Nederland? (The Centre Movement in Perspective: How Different Are the
Netherlands?), in C. Mudde and J. van Holsteyn (eds) Extreem-rechts in
Nederland (The Extreme Right in the Netherlands), pp. 17592. Den Haag: Sdu
Uitgevers.
Ireland, P. (2000) Reaping what They Sow: Institutions and Immigrant Political
Participation in Western Europe, in R. Koopmans and P. Statham (eds) Challenging Immigration and Ethnic Relations Politics, pp. 23382. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Jacobs, D. (1998) Nieuwkomers in de Politiek, het parlementair debat omtrent
kiesrecht voor vreemdelingen in Nederland en Belgi, 19701997 (Newcomers in
Politics: The Parliamentary Debate about Voting Rights for Foreigners in the
Netherlands and Belgium, 19701997). Gent: Academia Press.
Jouve, P. and A. Magoudi (1988) Les Dits et les non-dits de Jean-Marie Le Pen:
Enqute et psychoanalyse (The Said and the Unsaid of Jean-Marie Le Pen:
Survey and Psychoanalysis). Paris: ditions la Dcouverte.
Kiewe, A. (1998) Crisis Tool in American Political Discourse, in O. Feldman and
C. de Landtsheer (eds) Politically Speaking: A Worldwide Examination of
Language Used in the Public Sphere, pp. 7491. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Kitschelt, H. (1995) The Radical Right in Western Europe: A Comparative Analysis.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Kleinpenning, G. (1993) Structure and Content of Racist Beliefs. An Empirical Study
of Ethnic Attitudes, Stereotypes and the Ethnic Hierarchy. Utrecht: ISOR.
Kuitenbrouwer, M. (1994) De ontdekking van de Derde Wereld: beeldvorming en
beleid in Nederland, 19501990 (The Discovery of the Third World: Representation and Policy in the Netherlands, 19501990). Den Haag: SDU.
LBR (Landelijk Bureau Racismebestrijding) (2002) Jaarverslag 2001.
Rotterdam.
Lvi-Strauss, C. (1952) Race et histoire (Race and History). Paris: Denol.
LISWO (1996) Onderzoek Etnische Minderheden (Research on Ethnic Minorities).
Leiden: LISWO.
LISWO (1998) Onderzoek Etnische Minderheden (Research on Ethnic Minorities).
Leiden: LISWO.
209
210
2/5/03
1:45 pm
Page 210
ETHNICITIES 3(2)
Lucassen, L. (1990) En men noemde hen zigeuners. De geschiedenis van Kaldarasch,

Ursari, Lowara en Sinti in Nederland 17501944 (And They Called Them
Gypsies: The History of Kaldarash, Ursari, Lowara and Sinti in the Netherlands
17501944). Amsterdam and s-Gravenhage: IISG/SDU.
Maricourt, T. (1993) Les Nouvelles passerelles de lextrme-droite. Paris: ditions
Manya.
Mayer, N. and P. Perrineau, eds (1989) Le Front National dcouvert (The Front
National Uncovered). Paris: Presses de la Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques.
Memmi, A. (1994) Le Racisme: Descriptions, dfinitions, traitement (Racism:
Descriptions, Definitions and Treatment). Paris: Gallimard.
Mok, I. (1999) In de ban van het ras: Aardrijkskunde tussen wetenschap en
samenleving 18761992 (Under the Spell of Race: Geography between Science
and Society 18761992). Amsterdam: ASCA.
Mok, I. (2000) Een beladen erfenis, het raciale vertoog in de sociale wetenschap in
Nederland 19301950 (A Loaded Heritage: Racial Discourse in the Social
Sciences in the Netherlands 19301950), in M. Eickhoff, B. Henkes and F. van
Vree (eds) Volkseigen: ras, cultuur en wetenschap in Nederland 19001950
(Nation-specific: Race, Culture and Science in the Netherlands), pp. 12956.
Zutphen: Walburg Pers.
Monzat, R. (1992) Enqutes sur la droite extrme (Research on the Extreme Right),
pp. 292304. Paris: Le Monde.
Moscovici, S. (1981) On Social Representations, in J.P. Forgas (ed.) Social
Cognition, pp. 181209. London: Academy Press.
Mudde, C. (2000) The Ideology of the Extreme Right. Manchester and New York:
Manchester University Press.
Mudde, C. and J. van Holsteyn, eds (1998) Extreem-rechts in Nederland (The
Extreme Right in the Netherlands). Den Haag: Sdu-Uitgevers.
Neuberg, S.L., D.M. Smith and D. Asher (2000) Why People Stigmatize: Toward a
Biocultural Framework, in T.F. Heatherton, R.E. Kleck, M.R. Hebl and J.G.
Hull (eds) The Social Psychology of Stigma, pp. 3162. New York and London:
Guilford Press.
Orfali, B. (1990) LAdhsion au Front National: De la minorit active au mouvement
social (Adherence to the National Front: From Active Minority to Social
Movement). Paris: Kim.
Plenel, E. and A. Rollat (1984) LEffet Le Pen (The Le Pen Effect). Paris: La Dcouverte.
Plenel, E. and A. Rollat (1992) La Rpublique menace: Dix ans deffet Le Pen (The
Threatened Republic: 10 Years of the Le Pen Effect). Paris: Le Monde.
Prins, B. (2000) Voorbij de Onschuld. Het debat over de multiculturele samenleving
(Beyond Innocence: The Debate on the Multicultural Society). Amsterdam: Van
Gennep.
Quaderni (1998) Dossier immigration en dbat (France/Europe) (Debating Immigration). Universit de Paris, Sorbonne: ditions Sapientia.
Rath, J. (1991) Minorisering: de sociale constructie van etnische minderheden
(Minorization: The Social Construction of Ethnic Minorities). Amsterdam:
SUA.
Reedijk, R. (2000) Tussen fanatisme en fatalisme. De discussie over racisme en
2/5/03
1:45 pm
VAN DER VALK
Page 211
integratie (Between Fanaticism and Fatalism: The Discussion on Racism and

Integration). Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis.
Reeves, F. (1983) British Racial Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Renault, J. and M. Tournier (1995) Trois minutes argumentatives de J.M. Le Pen
la tlvision, le 14 avril 1988 (Three Argumentative Minutes of J.M. Le Pen on
Television, 14 April 1988), in Laboratoire Lexicomtrie et textes politiques,
prsidentielle, regards sur les discours tlviss (Presidential Elections: Looking
at Televized Discourses), pp. 191205. Paris: Nathan.
Scheepers, P., A. Felling and J. Peters (1990) Social Condictions, authoritarianism
and Ethnocentrism: A Theoretical Model of the Early Frankfurt School Updated
and Tested, European Sociological Review 6: 1529.
Scheepers, P., R. Eisinga and E. Linssen (1994) Etnocentrisme in Nederland.
Verandering bij kansarme en/of geprivilegeerde groepen? (Ethnocentrism in
the Netherlands. Changes for underprivileged and/or privileged groups?), Sociologische Gids 41: 185201.
Scheepers, P. and M. Coenders (1996) Trends in etnische discriminatie in
Nederland 19801993 (Trends in Ethnic Discrimination in the Netherlands
19801993), Justitile Verkenningen 22(3): 825.
Scheepers, P., G. Verberk and M. Coenders (2001) Recent Dutch Research on
Ethnocentrism in an International Perspective, in K. Phalet and A. rkny
(eds) Ethnic Minorities and Interethnic Relations in Context, pp. 5984.
Aldershot: Ashgate.
Schikhof, M. (1998) Strategien tegen extreem-rechts en hun gevolgen (Strategies
against the Extreme Right and Their Consequences), in C. Mudde and J. van
Holsteyn (eds) Extreem-rechts in Nederland (The Extreme Right in the Netherlands), pp. 43156. Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers.
Schuster, J. (1999) Poortwachters over Immigranten, het debat over immigratie in het
naoorlogse Groot-Brittanni en Nederland (Gatekeepers of Immigrants: The
Debate on Immigration in Postwar Great Britain and the Netherlands).
Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis.
Sibony, D. (1997) Le Racisme: Une haine identitaire (Racism: Identity-based Hate).
Paris: ditions du Seuil.
Suurmond, J. (1995) Een analyse van het illegalendebat (An Analysis of the
Debate on Illegal Immigrants), Migrantenstudies 11(2): 10716.
Swyngedouw, M. and G. Ivaldi (2001) The Extreme Right Utopia in Belgium and
France: The Ideology of the Flemish Vlaams Blok and the French Front
National, West-European Politics 24(3): 122.
Taguieff, P.A. (1988) La Force du prjug. Essay sur le racisme et ses doubles (The
Force of Prejudice). Paris: La Dcouverte.
Taguieff, P.A. (1989a) La Mtaphysique de Jean-Marie le Pen (The Metaphysics
of Jean-Marie le Pen), in N. Mayer and P. Perrineau (eds) Le Front National
dcouvert (The Front National Uncovered), pp. 17395. Paris: Presses de la
Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques.
Taguieff, P.A. (1989b) Un Programme rvolutionnaire? (A Revolutionary
Programme?], in N. Mayer and P. Perrineau (eds) Le Front National dcouvert
(The Front National Uncovered), pp. 195228. Paris: Presses de la Fondation
Nationale des Sciences Politiques.
Taguieff, P.A. (1991) Face au racisme (Facing Racism). Paris: La Dcouverte.
211
212
2/5/03
1:45 pm
Page 212
ETHNICITIES 3(2)
Tevanian, P. and S. Tissot (1998) Mots maux: Dictionnaire de la lePnisation des

esprits (Bad Words: Dictionary of the Le-Penization of the Mind). Paris: ditions
Dagorno.
Todorov, T. (1989) Nous et les autres: La rflexion franaise sur la diversit humaine
(We and the Others: French Thought on Human Diversity). Paris: ditions du
Seuil.
Tristan, A. (1988) Aan het front (At the Front). Amsterdam: Van Gennep/Kritak.
van Arkel, D., B. ter Haar, L. Lucassen, J. Ramakers and R. Ross, eds (1990) Van
Oost naar West, Racisme als mondiaal verschijnsel (From East to West: Racism
as a Global Phenomenon). Baarn, Den Haag and Brussel: Ambo/Novib/NCOS.
van den Brink, R. (1997) LInternationale de la haine: Paroles dextrme droite,
Belgique-France-Italie (The International of Hate: The Discourse of the Extreme
Right, Belgium-France-Italy). Paris: ditions Luc Pire/vent du Nord vent du
Sud.
van Dijk, T.A. (1984) Prejudice in Discourse: An Analysis of Ethnic Prejudice in
Cognition and Conversation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
van Dijk, T.A. (1987) Communicating Racism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
van Dijk, T.A. (1991) Racism and the Press. London: Routledge.
van Dijk, T.A. (1993) Elite Discourse and Racism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
van Dijk, T.A. (1998) Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Newbury Park, CA,
and London: Sage.
van Dijk, T.A. (2000) Parliamentary Debates, in R. Wodak and T.A. van Dijk (eds)
Racism at the Top, pp. 4579. Vienna: Drava Verlag.
van Donselaar, J. (1991) Fout na de oorlog. Fascistische en racistische organisaties in
Nederland 19501990 (Wrong after the War: Fascist and Racist Organizations in
the Netherlands 19501990). Amsterdam: Bert Bakker.
van Donselaar, J. (1995) De staat paraat, De bestrijding van extreem-rechts in WestEuropa (A prepared State? The struggle against the Extreme Right in western
Europe). Amsterdam: Babylon-De Geus.
van Donselaar, J. (1997) Monitor racisme en extreem-rechts: eerste rapportage
(Monitor Racism and the Extreme Right: First Report). Leiden: LISWO.
van Donselaar, J., F. Claus and C. Nelissen (1998) Monitor racisme en extreemrechts, tweede rapportage (Monitor Racism and the Extreme Right: Second
Report). Leiden: LISWO.
van Donselaar, J. (2000) Monitor racisme en extreem-rechts: derde rapportage
(Monitor Racism and the Extreme Right: Third Report). Leiden: Universiteit
van Leiden.
van Donselaar, J. and P.R. Rodrigues (2001) Monitor racisme en extreem-rechts:
vierde rapportage (Monitor Racism and the Extreme Right: Fourth Report).
Amsterdam and Leiden: Anne Frank Stichting/Universiteit van Leiden.
van der Valk, I. (1997) Minderheidsvorming: verheldering of verhulling?
(Minority Formation, Clarification or Mystification?), LBR Bulletin 13(1):
324.
van der Valk, I. (2000) Parliamentary Discourse on Immigration and Nationality in
France, in R. Wodak and T.A. van Dijk (eds) Racism at the Top, pp. 26183.
Vienna: Drava Verlag.
van Zoonen, L. and C. Holtz-Bacha (2000) Personalisation in Dutch and German
2/5/03
1:45 pm
VAN DER VALK
Page 213
Politics: The Case of the Talk Show, Journal of the European Institute for
Communication and Culture 7: 4557.
Vander Velpen, J. (1992) Daar komen ze aangemarcheerd (Here They Come amarching!). Leuven: Van Halewijck.
Vander Velpen, J. (1995) Zwarte Horizonten, radicaal rechts in Europa (Black
Horizons: The Radical Right in Europe). Leuven: Van Halewijck.
Verberk, G.T.M. (1999) Attitudes towards Ethnic Minorities, Conceptualizations,
Measurements and Models. Amsterdam: Thela Thesis.
Verkuyten, M. (1995) Alledaagse Betekenissen van Racisme en Discriminatie
(Everyday Meanings of Racism and Discrimination ), Migrantenstudies
11(3): 181202.
Wieviorka, M. (1991) LEspace du racisme (The Realm of Racism). Paris: ditions
du Seuil.
Wieviorka, M., ed. (1992) La France raciste (Racist France). Paris: ditions du Seuil.
Wieviorka, M., ed. (1993) Racisme et modernit (Racism and Modernity). Paris: La
Dcouverte.
Willems, W. (1995) Op zoek naar de ware zigeuner, zigeuners als studieobject tijdens
de Verlichting, de Romantiek en het Nazisme (Looking for the Real Gypsy:
Gypsies as Object of Study during the Enlightment, Romanticism and Nazism).
Utrecht: Jan van Arkel.
Winock, M. (1990) Histoire de lextrme droite en France (History of the Extreme
Right in France). Paris: ditions du Seuil.
Witte, R. (1996) Racist Violence and the State: A Comparative Analysis of Britain,
France and the Netherlands. London: Addison-Wesley-Longman.
Wodak, R. and T.A. van Dijk, eds (2000) Racism at the Top. Vienna: Drava Verlag.
INEKE VAN DER VALK is a researcher in the department of discourse

studies at the University of Amsterdam. Prior to this, she worked as a
community organizer with the migrant movement, the anti-racist
movement and the human rights movement. She has published on the
history of the migrant movement in the Netherlands, human rights in
Morocco and discourse on ethnic minorities in the Netherlands and
France. She also works as a consultant and trainer in the field of diversity
management. Address: University of Amsterdam Program of Discourse
Studies, Spuistraat 210, 1012 VT Amsterdam, the Netherlands. [email:
Ineke.van.der.Valk@hum.uva.nl]
213

Ethnicities-2003-Van Der Valk-183-213 PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Ethnicities-2003-Van Der Valk-183-213 PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Ethnicities

Political Discourse on Ethnic Minority Issues: A Comparison of the Right

Additional services and information for Ethnicities can be found at:

>> Version of Record - Jun 1, 2003

Downloaded from etn.sagepub.com at Jazan University on July 24, 2014

02 van der Valk (jr/t)

Political discourse on ethnic minority issues

ABSTRACT In this article, commonalities and differences in the discourses of

KEYWORDS ethnic minorities mainstream right politics racism

Downloaded from etn.sagepub.com at Jazan University on July 24, 2014

02 van der Valk (jr/t)

played an important role in this evolution towards politicization. Extreme

Downloaded from etn.sagepub.com at Jazan University on July 24, 2014

02 van der Valk (jr/t)

VAN DER VALK

DISCOURSE ON ETHNIC MINORIT Y ISSUES

Downloaded from etn.sagepub.com at Jazan University on July 24, 2014

02 van der Valk (jr/t)

Downloaded from etn.sagepub.com at Jazan University on July 24, 2014

02 van der Valk (jr/t)

VAN DER VALK

DISCOURSE ON ETHNIC MINORIT Y ISSUES

Political science studies

Downloaded from etn.sagepub.com at Jazan University on July 24, 2014

02 van der Valk (jr/t)

discourse (Birenbaum, 1992; Camus, 1992; Mayer and Perrineau, 1989;

THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

Downloaded from etn.sagepub.com at Jazan University on July 24, 2014

02 van der Valk (jr/t)

VAN DER VALK

DISCOURSE ON ETHNIC MINORIT Y ISSUES

stressed that racism is not seen as a property of individual persons, but

Downloaded from etn.sagepub.com at Jazan University on July 24, 2014

02 van der Valk (jr/t)

Downloaded from etn.sagepub.com at Jazan University on July 24, 2014

02 van der Valk (jr/t)

VAN DER VALK

DISCOURSE ON ETHNIC MINORIT Y ISSUES

Downloaded from etn.sagepub.com at Jazan University on July 24, 2014

02 van der Valk (jr/t)

FINDINGS: THE NETHERLANDS

Negative other presentation

Downloaded from etn.sagepub.com at Jazan University on July 24, 2014

02 van der Valk (jr/t)

VAN DER VALK

DISCOURSE ON ETHNIC MINORIT Y ISSUES

reference to foreign culture and religion, migrants failure to adapt to Dutch

Downloaded from etn.sagepub.com at Jazan University on July 24, 2014

02 van der Valk (jr/t)

ordinary or our Dutch, is much more differentiated with respect to social

Downloaded from etn.sagepub.com at Jazan University on July 24, 2014

02 van der Valk (jr/t)

VAN DER VALK

DISCOURSE ON ETHNIC MINORIT Y ISSUES

Downloaded from etn.sagepub.com at Jazan University on July 24, 2014

02 van der Valk (jr/t)

Downloaded from etn.sagepub.com at Jazan University on July 24, 2014

02 van der Valk (jr/t)

VAN DER VALK

DISCOURSE ON ETHNIC MINORIT Y ISSUES

has a frontstage and a backstage image and must permanently be on the

Downloaded from etn.sagepub.com at Jazan University on July 24, 2014