{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021222410865874362, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006791171477079796, 'mean_word_length': 5.976331360946745, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A consensus that impedes contestation: Debating migration-related diversity in post-terror Norway

This article draws on the post-terror setting of Norway to investigate interactions between consensus, contestation, and conflict in public debates about diversity. A consensus-oriented unity prevailed in immediate responses to the 2011 terror attacks that killed 77 people in Norway. Analysis of 40 semi-structured interviews identifies lingering perceptions that the following conditions limited the space for contestation after the attacks: the intensity of the initial unity expressions; the perpetrator's identity as a Norwegian, self-proclaimed Christian crusader; and broader patterns of limited space for nuanced contestation in diversity debates. Drawing on influential political theories on liberal democratic debate, this is an empirical inquiry into when and how contestation about migration-related diversity is impeded, and with what implications. The Norwegian case illustrates that too much consensus-orientation and inadequate space for nuance can further underline conflict and thereby impede citizens’ engagement with debates about migration-related diversity.