Digital resources in the Social Sciences and Humanities OpenEdition Our platforms OpenEdition Books OpenEdition Journals Hypotheses Calenda Libraries OpenEdition Freemium Follow us

Being the Other: Preventing Social Exclusion and Fostering Long-Term Integration

Layan Amouri

What does the word “refugee” mean to you?
 For me, it means a loss of things I held dear, a state of constant effort to be enough, but never quite reaching it. As Manal from Syria expresses it: “A person whose soul and everything he loves has been taken from him, a person who has to smile while he cries inside. A person who has to carry on and pretend that everything is okay while the situation is totally opposite. Being a refugee is not only leaving a country; it is leaving much more than that. You leave your everything and remain empty. You sleep and wake up alone as a stranger.” (ECCRE, 2018).

Like Manal, I would describe myself as empty, forced many times to put on a facade of happiness and contentment about my life here in Sweden. I am often amazed at how people from different backgrounds can share similar experiences – perhaps it is the act of immigration that unites us. I ask myself, what is “home”? For me, it’s like living in a no man’s land, a place where I float between two worlds without truly belonging to either. No man’s land is my inner struggle, a place of longing where my memories and dreams for the future collide.

Having arrived in Sweden from Syria when I was 14, I still wonder if other Syrians feel the same fatigue from all the fear and flight. These questions have followed me since my family and I moved to Sweden in 2014. Before that, I had barely heard of Sweden, a country few Syrians knew about.

2015: Sweden’s Migration Surge and the Shift to Reverse Migration

The year 2015 marked a pivotal moment in Sweden’s migration history. Over 450,000 refugees, many fleeing the war in Syria, sought safety in Sweden, drawn by its open asylum policies and a global reputation for humanitarianism (Migrationsverket, 2016). For many, Sweden symbolized hope—a place where they could rebuild their lives in peace. Yet, this optimism soon collided with harsh realities.

The sheer scale of arrivals strained resources and ignited political tensions. Sweden’s initial openness quickly led to restrictive policies as the political climate shifted. Nationalist sentiments gained ground, echoing broader European trends where multiculturalism—once a celebrated ideal—began to be portrayed as a threat to national cohesion. The 2008 financial crisis had already reshaped political narratives across Europe, and by 2011, leaders in Germany, France, and the UK declared multiculturalism a failure. This sentiment rippled across European politics, influencing Sweden’s approach (Ålund et al., 2025). While Sweden maintained its inclusive stance during the peak of the 2015 crisis, this quickly changed. The narrative around refugees shifted, from individuals seeking safety to potential burdens. Policies pivoted toward the idea of “earned citizenship,” where rights became conditional and revocable, blending neoliberal and nationalist ideologies (Ålund et al., 2025). Refugees faced mounting systemic barriers, leading to their increased marginalization.

The long-term impact of this shift is evident today. By 2024, Sweden experienced negative net migration for the first time in over 50 years. Asylum applications dropped by 27% compared to the previous year’s period, with just 5,600 new applications recorded up to July 2024 (Government, 2024). These changes indicate a growing disillusionment among migrants, particularly those who arrived during the 2015 refugee crisis. This reversal is not merely a matter of personal choice; it is a reaction to systemic alienation. Rather than fostering integration, Sweden’s evolving policies appear to be contributing to increased emigration and a decline in new asylum seekers, pushing refugees to the margins.

For many refugees and immigrants, like me and my family, these shifts weren’t just policy changes; they reshaped our everyday lives. When we first arrived in Sweden, we were placed in a neighborhood where most residents were also immigrants. While there was comfort in shared experiences, it also meant that we were physically and socially distanced from broader Swedish society. School events, community spaces, and daily interactions subtly reinforced that distance, deepening the sense of being “the other”.

The Political Agenda: Individualizing Structural Barriers

What is at the root of this disillusionment? The issues are not merely individual failings of refugees to “adapt”, as often suggested, but rather structural barriers and political decisions that maintain systemic inequalities.

Housing segregation is a prime example. Discriminatory rental practices and restrictive government policies force many refugees into socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods, limiting their opportunities and reinforcing cycles of exclusion (Abdirahman, 2021). This dynamic isn’t just theoretical. My family, like many others, faced countless hurdles when trying to move into better neighborhoods—applications rejected without explanation, options limited to already marginalized areas. These experiences aren’t isolated incidents but are part of broader systemic issues that push refugees into the periphery, both geographically and socially. Similarly, labor market discrimination severely limits opportunities. Studies show that job applicants with Arabic-sounding names receive significantly fewer interview invitations, highlighting pervasive hiring biases (Björklöv et al., 2023). Many immigrants also struggle to recognize their foreign qualifications, leaving them in low-wage or informal jobs (Institute for Labor Market and Educational Policy Evaluation, 2022). The Tidö Agreement (2022) intensified these structural barriers by almost entirely shifting the responsibility for integration onto refugees, ignoring the systemic factors shaping their opportunities (Liberalerna, 2022). Policies like security zones in immigrant-dense neighborhoods give police the authority to stop individuals without suspicion, disproportionately targeting non-European communities and reinforcing their marginalization (Civil Rights Defenders, 2022).

By framing integration as a personal responsibility while neglecting these systemic barriers, Sweden not only absolves its institutions of accountability but also perpetuates a cycle of exclusion that disproportionately affects refugees and their families.

Culturalization and Othering: The Dangerous Narratives of Exclusion

Systemic barriers don’t exist in a vacuum; they are reinforced by public narratives that justify exclusion. In Sweden, the process of “culturalization” has been central to this—framing social problems like unemployment, housing segregation, or school underperformance as the result of cultural deficiencies within migrant communities, rather than as outcomes of systemic inequality (Moberg Stephenson & Hertz, 2021). This cultural framing obscures the structural roots of exclusion and places the burden of integration squarely on migrants.

I encountered this first-hand in school. In Syria, I could always count on my family for help with schoolwork, but in Sweden, that support system crumbled. My parents, frustrated by language barriers and unfamiliarity with the Swedish education system, struggled to assist me and my siblings. The house often felt heavy with their frustration—not at us, but at their inability to help. This isn’t unique to my family. Many parents from similar backgrounds face the same struggle (see Västhagen et al., 2022). When schools overlook these social dynamics and focus solely on academic results, students from refugee backgrounds are often labeled as “problematic” or “underachieving” (Abdirahman, 2021). This framing feeds into broader public narratives that see refugees not as people navigating complex challenges but as cultural outsiders who fail to adapt.

Nowhere is this clearer than in the public discourse around Muslim communities in Norwegian countries such as Sweden and Norway. Islamophobia has become deeply embedded in the way “otherness” is constructed, with Muslim refugees often portrayed as culturally incompatible with Norwegian values (Page & Chahboun, 2025; Ålund et al., 2025). This isn’t an accidental byproduct of public discourse—it’s a deliberate narrative that links social issues to the supposed cultural backwardness of Muslims. Media outlets, political speeches, and even policy debates present Muslim communities as a threat to social cohesion, perpetuating a moral panic that justifies exclusionary practices (Page & Chahboun, 2025).

This culturalization is particularly harmful because it operates under the guise of neutrality. It suggests that social problems aren’t about race or systemic inequality but about “cultural incompatibility,” masking the deep-rooted individualization, culturalization, and othering that shapes Swedish policies and public attitudes. It’s a tactic that redirects focus away from systematic issues like labor market discrimination, housing inequality, and educational gaps, instead placing the burden of integration entirely on marginalized communities.

Preventing Further Social Isolation and Reverse Migration

To prevent reverse migration, Sweden must confront these systemic barriers and the narratives that sustain them. Integration isn’t simply about refugees “adapting” better—it’s about dismantling the social and structural walls that keep them on the margins. One approach is to implement policies that prioritize social cohesion at the local level. In other European contexts, like Spain, interculturalism policies have fostered dialogue and community building in diverse neighborhoods, reducing the social distance between groups (Hellgren et al., 2025). Sweden could adopt similar strategies, investing in community spaces, schools, and social programs that bring people together rather than isolate them.

Equally important is rethinking multiculturalism through a decolonial lens. Rather than view cultural diversity as something to be managed or tolerated, this approach sees it as a resource, a foundation for building stronger, more inclusive societies (Ålund et al., 2025). It means moving away from policies that simply aim to “integrate” refugees into existing structures and instead creating spaces where they can actively shape those structures.

Prevention of further isolation means here, therefore, a necessary structural change. Sweden needs policies that directly target labor market discrimination, housing segregation, and systemic racism. This includes stronger anti-discrimination laws, better pathways for recognizing foreign qualifications, and inclusive education policies that account for the diverse needs of refugee children.

Conclusion: Moving Toward a Truly Inclusive Society

The rise in reverse migration in Sweden isn’t simply a reflection of personal choices—it signals a deeper systemic failure in how integration is approached. From a prevention science perspective, this isn’t just about fixing problems after they emerge; it’s about identifying the root causes that make exclusion possible in the first place—and stopping them before they take hold. Prevention science teaches us that sustainable integration requires more than short-term solutions. It demands that we create environments where refugees aren’t just reacting to barriers, but are supported in building meaningful, long-term lives. When policies focus solely on individual adaptation, asking refugees and immigrants to “fit in” without questioning the systems they’re entering, they miss the point. True integration is about transforming those systems to be open, fair, and inclusive.

This shift means looking at the social fabric of Sweden and asking hard questions: Why are certain communities systematically pushed to the margins? Why do discriminatory hiring practices still go unchecked? Why is the burden of integration placed on refugees while structural barriers remain intact?

Prevention isn’t passive—it’s powerful. It’s about designing policies that actively reduce social risks, strengthen community ties, and build resilience before exclusion becomes entrenched. It’s about creating neighborhoods where diversity isn’t segregated but celebrated, schools that see the whole student, not just their grades, and workplaces that value potential over prejudice.

For me, as for Manal and many others, the dream of a home is more than just a physical space—it’s a place where we are seen, valued, and respected…a place where you can feel belonging. Prevention science offers a roadmap for building societies where refugees don’t just adapt to survive but are empowered to thrive. And that’s the kind of future we should all be working toward…. that’s where integration policies should begin and end.

Preparing for the next EUSPR Conference (September 23-26, 2025 in Berlin) 

Are you planning to participate in the next EUSPR Conference? If so, do you intend to present further details about your work?

Yes, I am planning to participate in the next EUSPR Conference, and I’m incredibly excited as this will be my third time attending! I intend to present findings from the PIA Project at Örebro University, with the exact focus still being finalized. The presentation will draw on project data to highlight key insights into the well-being and integration of newly arrived youth in Sweden.

Being part of the EUSPR community has been invaluable for my growth within prevention science, offering new perspectives, research insights, and opportunities to connect with fellow early-career researchers. I look forward to continuing this journey by engaging in meaningful discussions and exploring innovative strategies that continue to shape my academic and professional growth at the upcoming conference.

About the author

Layan Amouri is a professional social worker and researcher focused on migration, social inclusion, and preventive psychosocial work. She holds a Master’s degree in Social Work from Örebro University, where her own migration experience to Sweden during adolescence shaped her commitment to promoting social justice and well-being for marginalized communities.

At Örebro University, Layan works as a research assistant in the PIA Project at the Psychology Department, supporting the design, implementation, and evaluation of group-based interventions that strengthen the well-being and academic engagement of newly arrived youth, focusing on families’ existing strengths and resources. She is also part of the GLOMISCO research group (Globalisation, migration, and social cohesion) at the Social Work Department, conducting research overviews, focus group interviews, and data analysis while also working as a Teaching Assistant.

She volunteers with the European Society for Prevention Research (EUSPR) Early Career Forum, helping develop opportunities for early-career researchers. Her work challenges deficit-based narratives about immigrants, amplifying migrant voices and emphasizing their strengths and self-identified needs.

You can contact her at layan.amouri[at]oru.se for any enquiries


OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
EUSPR Early Careers Forum (March 17, 2025). Being the Other: Preventing Social Exclusion and Fostering Long-Term Integration. Preventing disease and ill health. Retrieved May 16, 2025 from https://doi.org/10.58079/13ho7


You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.