Author:

Abstract:

Majority group members may represent the presence of minority groups as threatening in a number of ways. Using a content analysis of Flemish media and politics, this paper studies how symbolic threat, welfare threat, demographic threat and safety threat are construed as distinct frames; and how these frames are used to argue for restrictive vs. inclusive immigration and integration policies. We analyzed three types of public messages: a) eight political party platforms, b) 45 opinion articles pieces from two frequently read newspapers c) along with 307 online commentaries. A coding scheme was developed distinguishing between types of threat, and applied to all texts by two independent coders (inter-coder reliabilities: kappa > .60). Results document distinct ways of problematizing cultural diversity as a source of threat. A ‘symbolic threat’ frame typically problematises Muslim culture as violating democratic rights and liberties and is used to justify assimilationist policies: “they” should adapt to “our” culture. Second, ‘welfare threat’ is commonly invoked, often together with ‘demographic threat’ to represent immigrants as a socio-economic burden: “they” are blamed for not contributing their fair share. This framing is used to argue for more restrictive government policies (i.e. excluding newcomers from social rights). Finally, a distinct ‘safety threat’ frame blames immigrants for unsafety and petty crime in urban areas and is less frequently used to argue for policies. We conclude that distinct threat frames complement each other; and that they constitute powerful representations to problematise cultural diversity and to mobilize support for restrictive policies towards minorities.