Fortællinger Fra Mjølnerparken

Dansk: 

Hvad var det, der oprindeligt gjorde dig nysgerrig på at forske og skrive om parallelsamfundspakken som case for at beskue by- og boligpolitik i marginaliserede boligområder som et socialpsykologisk fænomen?

Det som motiverede min forskning, var en bekymring over hvordan diskurser omkring ’ghettoer’ og ’parallelsamfund’ blev mobiliseret for at legitimere statsstyrede interventioner rettet mod radikalt at ændre beboersammensætningen i almene boligområder. Dette er ikke kun en tendens vi ser i Danmark, men en tendens der kan observeres bredt i Europa.

Med parallelsamfundspakken som case kunne jeg kritisk undersøge de værdier, idéer og forestillinger, som politikere mobiliserer for at legitimere denne type interventioner, samt hvordan disse både reproduceres og udfordres i praksis under implementeringen af lovgivning. Jeg blev under min forskning optaget af at analysere taler fra demonstrationer mod parallelsamfundspakken, flere af hvilke blev afholdt i Mjølnerparken. Disse demonstrationer og taler var netop en kontekst hvor ideer og forestillinger benyttet til at legitimere parallelsamfundspakken blev problematiseret og alternative forståelser og visioner blev produceret.

Hvad er dine tanker om parallelsamfundspakken i dag?

Jeg er ærgerlig over at en lovgivning der stadig har beboeres etnicitet som det centrale kriterie for om beboersammensætningen i et boligområde skal ændres, fortsat får lov at påvirke planlægning og drift i danske almene boligområder. Dette er trods EU-domstolens afgørelse fra december 2025, der vurderer at parallelsamfundspakken kan være diskriminerende.

Hvad ser du som det svære ved processen? Det kan både være i forhold til personer, der påvirkes, eller systemer og aktører – meget åbent.

Noget at det vanskelige ved processen omkring parallelsamfundspakken er at definitionen af problemer og løsninger i høj grad er skabt af politiske aktører i dominante positioner som både rummeligt, socialt og symbolsk er distanceret fra de boligområder lovgivningen handler om. Resultatet af dette har været en lovgivning præget af racialiserede forståelser af problemer og en rigid one size fits all løsning som giver meget lidt fleksibilitet til beboere og boligorganisationer i forhold til hvordan man ønsker at skabe fremtiden for et givent område. Det var for mig sigende, at flere af de repræsentanter fra Københavnske boligorganisationer jeg talte med ytrede at de havde rigtig mange gode tiltag i gang inden parallelsamfundspakken, og at dette arbejde herefter måtte vige for et politisk defineret mål om at reducere 60% af familieboligerne i et givent område. I stedet for centraliserede og ideologisk ladede definitioner af problemer og løsninger, synes en mere passende tilgang at være en der lytter til de lokale beboere og aktørernes faktiske bekymringer, drømme og ønsker.

Hvordan håber du fremtiden ser ud for Mjølnerparken – og hvad tænker du, der skal til for, at nabolaget kunne realisere dette? Dette kunne også appliceres til andre boligområder på listen.

Jeg håber at de beboere som er blevet flyttet mod deres vilje, får lov at komme tilbage til Mjølnerparken og at Mjølnerparken og dens beboere får en stemme i de forandringer der aktuelt finder sted i bydelen. Dette gælder også andre tvangsflyttede beboere og den byudvikling der finder sted i bydele omkring andre boligområder som på den ene eller anden måde er påvirket af parallelsamfundspakken. Dette vil kræve at boligorganisationer holder deres løfter overfor flyttede beboere samt at der i højere grad arbejdes på at skabe beboerinddragende indsatser – både i boligorganisationen og i kommunen. 

---

English: 

What initially sparked your curiosity that led to researching and writing about the parallel society legislation as a case for examining urban and housing policy in marginalised housing areas as a social psychological phenomenon?

What motivated my research was a concern about how discourses around “ghettos” and “parallel societies” have been mobilized to legitimize state-led interventions aimed at radically altering the composition of residents in public housing areas. This is not only a trend we see in Denmark, but one that can be observed widely across Europe.

Using the parallel society package as a case, I was able to critically examine the values, ideas, and assumptions that politicians mobilize to justify these types of interventions, as well as how they are both reproduced and challenged in practice during the implementation of legislation. During my research, I became particularly interested in analysing speeches from demonstrations against the parallel society package, several of which were held in Mjølnerparken. These demonstrations and speeches provided a context in which the ideas used to legitimize the policy were questioned, and alternative understandings and visions were articulated.

What are your thoughts on the parallel society package today?

I am concerned that legislation which still uses residents’ ethnicity as a central criterion for determining whether the composition of a housing area should be changed continues to shape planning and management in Danish public housing. This is despite the European Court of Justice ruling from December 2025, which found that the policy may be discriminatory.

What do you see as the most difficult aspects of the process? This could be in terms of affected individuals, systems, or actors – very open.

One of the key challenges of the process surrounding the parallel society package is that the definitions of both problems and solutions are largely constructed by political actors in dominant positions who are spatially, socially, and symbolically distant from the housing areas the legislation concerns. As a result, the policy has been shaped by racialized understandings of social problems and a rigid “one-size-fits-all” solution that offers very little flexibility to residents and housing organizations in determining how they want to shape the future of a given area. I found it telling that several representatives from Copenhagen-based housing organizations noted that they already had many effective initiatives underway prior to the introduction of the policy, but that this work had to give way to a politically defined goal of reducing family housing by 60% in certain areas. Rather than relying on centralized and ideologically driven definitions of problems and solutions, a more appropriate approach would be one that listens to the actual concerns, aspirations, and wishes of local residents and stakeholders.

How do you hope the future of Mjølnerparken will look – and what do you think it will take for the neighbourhood to realize this? This could also apply to other listed neighbourhoods.

I hope that residents who were forcefully displaced against their will are able and allowed to return to Mjølnerparken, and that both the area and its residents will have a meaningful voice in the changes currently taking place in the neighbourhood. This also applies to other forcibly relocated residents and to urban development processes in districts affected in various ways by the parallel society package. Achieving this will require housing organizations to honour their commitments to displaced residents, as well as a stronger emphasis on participatory initiatives that actively involve residents – both within housing organizations and at the municipal level.