Syftet med denna uppsats är att studera hur vissa svenskar med invandrarbakgrund upplever sin situation i det svenska samhället, samt att bidra med ny kunskap om andragenerationens invandrares livssituation i det svenska samhället. Uppsatsens fokus kommer att ligga på identitet och problematiken med att ha olika kulturer att anpassa sig efter. Metoden vi har använt är kvalitativa intervjuer med sammanlagt sex personer av vardera kön som har invandrarbakgrund. Det vill säga att vi har intervjuat tre tjejer och tre killar för att få en mer klar bild om könskillnader. Samtliga informanter har växt upp i Sverige men har föräldrar som har växt upp i hemlandet och dess kultur. Centrala teorier är Goffmans teori om stigmatisering samt Hirdmans teori om genus. Övriga teorier/begrepp som används är internalisering, ambivalens, roller, etnicitet och kulturkrock. Vår problemformulering/frågeställning lyder följande: På vilket sätt påverkas individens identitet av att vara kluven mellan två olika kulturer? Våra informanters berättelser kring deras situation, gav oss en djupare förståelse kring hur det är att tillhöra två olika kulturer som de samtidigt ska anpassa sig efter. Under uppsatsens gång kom vi fram till att våra kvinnliga informanter har känt stora svårigheter i att skapa sig en fast identitet, eftersom de har varit väldigt begränsade till hemmets regler, vilket har lett till att de har haft mindre möjligheter till att anpassa sig efter den svenska kulturen samt det svenska tänkandet. Dock hade våra manliga informanter större möjligheter eftersom de inte hade samma krav på sig eller inga större begränsningar ifrån hemmets sida. / The aim of this thesis is to study how some Swedish people with immigrant backgrounds perceive their situation in the Swedish society, and to contribute new knowledge about second-generation immigrants living in Sweden. The essay will focus on identity and the problem of having different cultures to adjust to. The method we have used is qualitative interviews with a total of six persons of each six who has an immigrant background. That is to say that we have interviewed three girls and three guys to get a clearer picture of gender differences. All informants grew up in Sweden but have parents who grew up in the home country and its culture. We have used Goffman's theory of stigma and Hirdman's theory of gender. These two are central theories but we have also made use of concepts such as, internalization, externalization, ambivalence, roles, ethnicity and cultural crash. Our problem issue read as follows: In what way is the individual identity affected of being split between two different cultures? Our information parties stories about their situation, gave us a deeper understanding of how it is to belong to two different cultures to adapt to at the same time.

This paper explores the political thought during the 1920s of Lala Lajpat Rai (1865–1928), a prominent anti-colonial nationalist. It outlines the historical context under which a secular politics became vital for Rai, and elaborates the intricate internal texture of his complex, often fluid vision of secularism. The second half of the paper explores the theoretical implications of Rai’s dynamic position. It illustrates how Lajpat Rai simultaneously articulated both a Hindu communal politics and a vision of secularism. By so doing, this paper challenges the long-drawn strict dichotomy between Hindu politics or Hindu ‘communalism’ and Indian secularism. Yet, the paper also pushes back against revisionist scholarship which, in challenging assumptions of strict mutual exclusivity between Indian secularism and Hindu communalism, has tended to overlook and undermine meaningful distinctions that still exist between these categories. This paper insists on the need to retain and respect the analytical distinctions between the two categories, even while recognising that they do not always exist in relation to each other as a strict dichotomy. Unearthing a hitherto-hidden Indian secularism articulated by this ‘Hindu communal’ politician, the paper will briefly explore the ways in which Rai’s complex position overlaps with, and is distinct from, Western variants of secularism, India’s constitutional secularism, and the Gandhian-Nehruvian vision, the latter of which became hegemonic till the 1970s. The paper ends by, very briefly, comparing Lajpat Rai’s position with Hindutva nationalism – a major influence on the contemporary Hindu right – and by reflecting on the relationship between the Hindu right and secularism.