The civil society is considered an important component of a democratic system and is supported by political advocates. During the 2015 migrant crisis the voluntary sector, as part of the civil society, played an important role shouldering a lot of responsibility for the arrival of refugees. This led to criticisms aimed towards the public sector and it’s absence in regard to the same situation. The purpose of this essay is to investigate and explain the political paradox created in connection with the migrant crisis of 2015. Using the ”perspective of responsibility” as a starting-point this essay will look at the public sector’s- and respectively the civil society’s actions during the crisis as a benchmark. This essay will use the method known as case study, through a qualitative text analysis as a base. The different sectors and their respective relationships to the perspective of responsibility will be discussed through three separate ways in which Robert Putnams theory on social capital & citizenship, and Henrik Berggren & Lars Trägårdhs theory on the Swedish state individualism will be discussed. Using these two separate theories together with the perspective of responsibility as a foundation, the study will illustrate the problematic aspects of civil society partly bearing the responsibilities of the public sector’s areas of responsibility during the fall of 2015. This essay found that some of the negative criticism pointed at the public sector was misguided during the fall 2015.

In this essay I investigate the role of civil society in relation to migrants in the municipality of Kalix, in a rural area in northern Sweden. The purpose is to discover which subject positions that leaders from the civil society describe as possible and which positions they see as possible for migrants. I also want to see which discourses the leaders from the civil associations are a part of and contribute to. The material comes from interviews completed with people involved in civil society and from meetings, organized by the municipality and with participants from civil associations, discussing the subject. The method used is discourse analysis, influenced by Laclau and Mouffes theory about discourses. Foucault´s theory of governmentality is used to examine how civil society and migrants are affected by state control. This control manifests in control mechanisms such as the Swedish government’s establishment program, legislation about migrants rights and economic grants. The analysis is supported by earlier research and theories about multiculturalism and rights. The leaders mainly moved within four discourses: ´multicultural´, ´repressive liberalism´, ´rural preservation´ and ´quality of life and humanity´. The multicultural discourse had a positive view of cultural and religious differences. This discourse made the subject positions of organizer of cultural activities possible for the leaders. Migrants were described as having the position of representatives of specific cultural groups and as group members in need of extra support. The repressive liberalism discourse viewed difference as something negative. The goal was for migrants to be assimilated into the local culture. The leaders adopted the role of tutors. Migrants were described as occupying the subject positions of employment oriented, able to assimilate, and as representatives of all immigrant people. In the discourse about ‘rural preservation’ activities were motivated by goals for a bright future for Kalix. The leaders’ subject positions were understood as coordinators, mentors and debaters. Migrants were understood as competent in particular professions and as desirable long term residents of Kalix. Governmental Control mechanics were considered to be something that limited migrants’ possibilities. The quality of life and humanity discourse has the goal that everyone shall have the possibility to live a good life. The leaders adopted the role as creators of safety and confidence and migrants were considered to be both victims of unfair regulation that limited their legitimacy, and as developers of civil associations. There were antagonisms between the discourses about rights/justice, integration and culture. Because of these conflicts the activities are striving towards different goals and consider different phenomena to be obstacles. Cooperation and the possibilities of getting along are therefore made difficult. Both these antagonisms and the governmental control mechanisms affect which activities can be performed and thereby which subjects positions that are made possible.