Evaluación de test técnico Arco en Pareja

As we now know I chose to continue the analysis of the results with 4 centroids. With the significance number calculated above, 0.32, I flagged the loadings indicating a defining sort within the different factors. This resulted in the flagging seen in table 2.

Q-sort Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

1111 0.4275 0.4382 0.1200 0.0534 1112 0.2167 0.0901 0.06364 X 0.0798 1123 0.0039 0.0499 -0.0694 -0.4978 X 1124 0.7193 0.2649 -0.0622 0.3771 1100 0.5623 0.5693 -0.0745 0.2848 1235 -0.0825 0.8396 X 0.0877 -0.0317 1236 0.1762 0.6659 X -0.0987 0.1370 1247 0.6118 0.1185 0.1480 0.4266 1248 0.4252 0.1786 0.4247 -0.1251 1200 0.1706 0.5608 X 0.3189 -0.2008 2351 0.8153 X 0.0995 0.1850 0.0749 2352 -0.1069 -0.1919 0.4915 X 0.1479 2363 0.4948 X 0.0324 0.0652 0.2389 2364 0.3838 0.2596 0.0578 0.5427 2300 0.2783 0.7321 X -0.0003 0.1230 2475 0.6832 0.2858 0.0976 -0.3631 2476 0.8150 X -0.0145 -0.0101 0.0552 2487 -0.0990 0.0438 0.4808 0.4769 2488 -0.2214 -0.0953 0.0888 -0.6759 X 2400 0.1134 0.1354 0.7224 X -0.1025 % expl.Var. 3 _{20 15 9 10}

Table 2 Factor Matrix with an X Indicating a Defining Sort

As you can see factor 1 to 3 have each three or four defining sorts, only factor four is a so called ‘borderliner’ with the minimum of 2 defining sorts (Watts & Stenner, Doing Q Methodological Research, 2012, p. 107). When giving a closer look at the 4th factor, I identify the flagged values to be only negative ones. The consequence is that for factor 4, all the values given to the specific distinguishing statements will need to be interpreted inversely. Meaning when a statement got valued with a 6, I need to interpret as if it was valued with -6. This is very important to notify as

3 _{When summing the expl. Var. percentages: 20+15+9+10= 54%, the result is above fifty percent meaning these} factors, which will be transformed to discourses through interpretation, have a high explanatory value.

46

the meaning of the discourse is interpreted as the opposite that is actually given in the table for factor 4.

Factor 1: The Safety & Security Discourse

This factor is characterised by the 8 statements found in table 3. It is labelled The Safety & Security discourse as in an overall sum the major overlap of the Q-sorts in this factor express their concern with security and the feeling of lacking protection from the common European border.

no Statement Q-SV

23 We abolish major borders, to create lots of new small ones: at the station, in the mall, the museum, at concerts, at Christmas markets...

5

7 Conducting policies of cooperation and closing our borders are not incompatible. 3

60 It is at least at the border of the whole Schengen area that there should be a real border-control, airports and ports included, regardless of the waiting time....otherwise what is the purpose of the Schengen space!!

3

43 Who can argue that border-control at the borders of each nation is a discomfort for the free movement (apart from the free exchange of contraband cigarettes or bags of money escaping tax)?

2

62 And thus this lady [Merkel] wants that we open our borders? But who do they think they are, stating that we need to give away all our sovereign powers...

-3

4 Schengen is an illusion and does not exist because there are no external borders. -5

27 In short, on all the points you will see that the output of the EU would bring more security and jobs to France.

-5

59 We must restore the borders of each Member State. -6 Table 3 Distinguishing statements for factor 1

All distinguishing negatively valued statements express hostility towards the Schengen agreement being an illusion, bad for French job opportunities, that national borders should be reinstated, and that chancellor Merkel is taking the French sovereign powers. As they are valued highly negatively, the respondents obviously think the opposite which created the idea of a more pro-European discourse. When looking at the positively valued statements, the ‘+2’ valued idea makes a little fun out of Schengen. It states the undeniable popular benefits from having ‘no border-control’, being that people can escape the government’s grip on every move we make. They are joking about the lack of border-control but actually esteem this a quite worrying issue. It would be handy as we would live in an ideal society where crime and bad intentions wouldn’t exist. As we do not live in such a ‘fairy tale’, we now need enforced border control. I am inclined to link this to the possibly build up fear amongst the French regarding extremist-Islamic terrorism. In the past decade the French western way of living life has been hit hard by this small but highly fatal group of extreme

47

thinkers. Respondents within this discourse comprehensively understand the benefits of having no internal borders within the EU but still see also the inconvenience it has brought. As the perpetrators of the Paris Bataclan attack easily passed the border of Belgium to France, we can’t help but wonder: ‘What if there had actually been a border with actual physique security checks?’, or ‘Is it legitimate to reinstate those physical security checks, stressing that too many incidents have occurred?’. The respondents also attribute high value to the statement of the creation of small borders. This idea elaborates on the idea that we have abolished our major national borders, but now after the terrorist attacks we have installed extra controls at the places we visit during our daily lives. The major issue that can be elaborated upon, is that of the privacy-security dichotomy. To sum, we value our privacy very much and mostly do not like to be filmed or to have our private information shared on the internet, but when the security issue comes in people open their bags willingly at the shopping malls, and accept their privacy to be intruded. To link this back to the respondents within this discourse, they argue that Europe and Schengen is not a bad thing, it is even good. However, as there is always a ‘but’, not enough means have been given to the European Union and the Schengen project to work to their ideal potential. As one respondent put it: ‘There are some places in which the Schengen has proven successful, the obscure side are the members countries of the EU that are not willing to give more of their sovereign powers away to enable Schengen to work as it should. The ideal is not yet attained. We need more Europe.’4 _Furthermore, another respondent argues: ‘I think Schengen is a good thing, this accord enables me to travel freely and to work wherever I want in Europe. It lifts my opportunities’.5_{These personal opinions}

were retrieved after the respondents had sorted the statements and were able to express their own thoughts. As these are given by the PQ method program to be the distinguishing respondents, I would conclude this discourse to be highly pro-Europe, but still I identify a call for stronger border management. On the basis of this first approach in analysing the discourse for factor one, there is a call for better protection and these specific respondents see it as a duty for the European Union.

4_{Respondent 2476: Female, over 30 y.o., working in Public sector, White-Collar.} 5_{Respondent 2351: Female, under 30 y.o., working in Public sector, Blue-Collar.}

48

Factor 2: The Anti-Capitalist Discourse

The second factor is not against the EU either. When interpreting the factor into a discourse, I very much sense socialist view. The respondents deem the EU to be too much based on the liberal view which should be more social. This means, having more social policies and asking the opinion of the peoples of Europe. The instrument of each country needing to be consulted by a referendum is moderately high estimated with a 3, this possibly reflects on a call for more participatory democracy. In table 4, all the distinguishing statements for factor 2 are aligned.

No Statement Q-SV

39 To think that the current EU is often wrong is obvious, and it is therefore healthy that politicians have the courage to say so openly.

6

29 Immigration boosts the GDP, but mainly benefits the favoured classes, the others are turning to the extreme Right-wing political parties.

6

1 For the neo-liberals, the freedom of movement, is that of financial flows and the transport of goods produced at low cost with derisory wages.

5

14 Macron doesn’t care about the security of the people, what interests him is just the free movement of finance.

5

47 [As a result of closing the Borders] The rich, them only, would have the right to emigrate?

3

58 It is essential that each country is consulted by referendum. 3

46 There are in our cultures real convergences, both on the role of government as in social protection, the freedom to undertake, democracy, social security, Human rights.

2

23 We abolish major borders, to create lots of new small ones: at the station, in the mall, the museum, at concerts, at Christmas markets...

2

5 On a planet close to become saturated, with very low economic growth but which still continues to exhaust the latest resources of the earth, it seems obvious that the borders are going to close.

-2

13 And especially, it [the Schengen Agreement] precludes the potentiality of an intra- European war.

-3

28 If Europe was doing its job, by not letting millions of individuals enter, who come to Europe as they would go to their local shop, and cause the security of Europeans to be endangered, because the EU system has become a huge "strainer". The question doesn’t even need to be asked!

-5

31 The refugees have vocation to be granted the right of asylum and economic migrants to be expelled. This is fair, and balanced.

-6 Table 4 Distinguishing statements for factor 2

What is interesting to see here is that the people within this factor do not seem very keen on President Macron. The statement valued with number 5 displays the claim about Macron not caring about people’s security, but rather about the flow of finance. This stereotype statement is popularly developed in France as Mr. Macron has worked for the Bank of Rothschild and was minister of

49

Finance under the presidency of Mr. Hollande (A&E Networks, 2018). Furthermore, again valued with 5, the respondents argued neo-liberals (Macron included) to understand the freedom of movement to be about the transport of goods and capital at the cost of very low wages, meaning even more benefit for the higher classes. This is deemed unfair and the respondents continued on with 6, the straight expression that the open borders boosts G.D.P. and immigration but that the benefice made strictly goes to the privileged. The lower class therefore feels neglected and turns to the polity party giving them a group of people to blame for their problems. Lower-class citizens fall into the arm of Extreme Right-wing parties like the Front National with Marine Le Pen. This political party blames immigrants and the open borders for the lack of jobs in France, the unequal distribution of government aid, and the downfall of security in France (Mathiot, 2017). On the other hand, as the respondents themselves acknowledged the statement, and understood the problematic side of the two folded approach within the opinion, I am inclined to say the respondents may be adherents to the socialist, left part of French political spectrum. As became clear in the 2017 French presidential campaign, many French were inclined to follow the ideas of extremes. Expressing a discontent with the established French system, the extreme-left party of Jean-Luc Mélenchon, La France Insoumise, expressed the idea of the 6th Republic (Le Monde, 2017). This was promoted as entailing a whole new parliament structure and more participatory democracy with the focus on social policy and giving back to the people what is rightfully theirs (Le Point, 2017). Rather this is a realistic proposition that is debatable, but public opinion was inclined to embrace this idealistic view (Malandain, 2017).

Reaching back to the respondent within this factor, they weren’t only judgemental about the European Union. Also ranked at 6, the recognition of politicians openly stating Europe is often wrong. These politicians are described as courageous and having a healthy mind, thus being realistic. Consequently, this could hint to the fact that the respondents still think the domination of the Liberal school of thought can still change for the EU; therefore they still give some of their support to the EU and do not adopt an entirely hostile attitude. When looking at the negatively valued statements, the overall discourse is very protective of the migrant/refugee debate. I am inclined to argue that the respondent within this discourse hold in high esteem the fact that France is considered ‘une terre d’asyle’, meaning a land of asylum. The nation of France identified with this notion which means that it should help any person that came to the point of leaving his or her home country for France, as they hope to find a better life in France (France Terre d'Asile, 2018).

50

Therefore the statement that refugees should be granted asylum and economic migrants should get expelled is totally opposed to the anti-capitalist social respondent within this discourse. Additionally, it is interesting to see that respondents valued the statement on the idea of real convergences between the cultures if Europe with a 2, but that the statement on Schengen precluding any potential intra-European war was valued with a -3. This would mean that respondents think that an intra-European war is still possible, and express their concerns with security. Therefore I looked into the answers that the distinguished respondents gave to the last question of the small interview. One respondent argues that the problem wasn’t the Freedom of Movement accord for him, but the fair distribution of money, and that there should come an end to the corruption and fiscal evasion.6 Another respondent elaborated very much in detail on his train of thought, therefore I quote: ‘I am not in favour of leaving the European Union, and therefore I am in favour of the Freedom of Movement within Europe and respectfully the Schengen agreement. Indirectly we are responsible for what happens in foreign countries, in the Middle-East etc. We cannot take on all the misery of the world, but we are responsible and therefore we must contribute by helping and welcome the refugees who fled their country’s war WE started.’7 _{This statement} directly supports my claim of France being considered the land of asylum and feeling the responsibility/ having the duty to help those in need. Another respondent shared the idea of Schengen being very practical and enabling him to work in another country than France, but still he stressed that French security is suffering from it (the Freedom of Movement).8 _Transforming this factor to the anti-capitalist discourse I identified, a clear discontentment is found with established national government. The call here is for more social policies by the European Union and more emphasis for the instrument of referenda to hear the public opinion. To conclude, it is the EU’s duty to help those who seek refugee what so ever their reasons may be, nonetheless we simultaneously need to enforce security measures for the Union to ensure the safety of all.

6 _{Respondent 1235: Male, over 30 y.o., working in Public sector, Blue-Collar.} 7 _{Respondent 1236: Male, over 30 y.o., working in Public sector, White-Collar.} 8 _{Respondent 1200: Male, over 30 y.o., no job.}

51

Factor 3: The French Nationalist Discourse

As defined in the Oxford English dictionary, nationalism: 1. Strong support for and pride in one’s own country, 2. Belief in political independence for a particular country (Oxford University, 2006, p. 676). The distinguishing statements for factor 3 can be found in table 5. I came to name this factor ‘the French Nationalist’ discourse, as when interpreting the statements they are very much inclined to protect the country and put France on a pedestal. They want to take what is good from Europe for France but leave the rest out.

No Statements Q-SV

60 It is at least at the border of the whole Schengen area that there should be a real border-control, airports and ports included, regardless of the waiting time....otherwise what is the purpose of the Schengen space!!

5

16 The differences between western and eastern Europe on the question of immigration will become more and more a matter of contention as the question grows in magnitude.

4

44 We believe that as long as the EU has no control of its external borders, it will be necessary to maintain the border-control at national level.

3

55 Quit this infernal machine, which forbids us to control our borders. 3

20 The Schengen agreement does not ensure the security of the people of France. 2

10 Having borders is NORMAL, I do not understand this fear of the ‘downfall’, we do

not close ourselves on double lock, we just control a little bit, as all countries of the world do.

2

28 If Europe was doing its job, by not letting millions of individuals enter, who come to Europe as they would go to their local shop, and cause the security of Europeans to be endangered, because the EU system has become a huge "strainer". The question doesn’t even need to be asked!

2

59 We must restore the borders of each Member State. 1

41 As long as the borders of the Schengen area will be sieves it will be legitimate to restore the national border controls.

1

17 The Declaration of Human rights does not abolish the borders and the right of each country to check the entries on its own soil.

-2

37 Great Britain puts itself in the circle of "free trade" (how most useful) but in none of the circles which create obligations in the field of solidarity and of harmonisation of the rules!

-2

30 Merkel would not risk jeopardizing the Schengen Agreement because it is at the heart of the European project and it is essential to the concept of "single market".

-3

29 Immigration boosts the GDP, but mainly benefits the favoured classes, the others are turning to the Extreme Right-wing political parties.

-4

25 It is now ‘ok’ to let all persons who wish so, enter the national or European territory,

without any constraint.

-6

1 For the neo-liberals, the freedom of movement, is that of financial flows and the transport of goods produced at low cost with derisory wages.

-6 Table 5 Distinguishing statements for factor 3

52

Examining the negative statements first, I see that the respondents opposed the idea of welcoming every person into the EU, as was for the Anti-Capitalist discourse, and valued it with -6. Also the neo-liberal view of Freedom of Movement being just about financial flow, and cheap goods was rejected with a -6. I am not sure if this means respondents think the neo-liberal definition is just