Abstract

The increasing pace of immigration to the Western world and the subsequent xenophobic backlashes to immigrants has created an urgent need for empirical research that examines the dynamics of immigration and xenophobia. This project addresses that dynamic through a comparative analysis of Denmark and Canada, whose histories since World War II have shaped both official responses and dominant discourses in ways that position the two countries at near opposite ends of the spectrum of immigration responses in the Western world.
Moving away from linear, macro-level models employed in most immigration research, this project employs methods triangulation. It uses both qualitative and quantitative data to explore the hypothesis that the perceived level of diversity – of the 'self' and the 'other' – is instrumental in shaping the dynamics within which discourses and attitudes about immigration are negotiated.
The research findings support the diversity hypothesis while also causing us to expand on it: not only is the receiving population's negotiation of the national identity vis a vis diversity central in shaping responses to immigration, but the nature of the distinction between the 'self' and the 'other' is instrumental in this negotiation process. Furthermore, the level of society from which the identity negotiation process stems - whether group-based or focused on the individual - plays a large role in shaping the responses to immigration.