First of all, I would like to make it clear that the change from “Risbergska” to “Riskbergska” should not be considered a typographical error. Simply adding the letter “K” gives the name a completely different meaning and aligns with my argument. This alteration is significant as it symbolizes the risks embedded within the issues and criticisms I aim to highlight.

To better analyze and understand the attack at the school, I believe it is important to address certain key aspects. First, we must consider the school’s connection to society, as it plays a significant role in shaping community dynamics. The attack itself, as well as the identity of the attacker, should be examined beyond individual responsibility, taking into account larger social and systemic factors.

Additionally, it is crucial to explore the issue of integration and how the true needs of society are being met in this context. The role of social media also cannot be overlooked, as it has contributed to the desensitization of society towards violence. Artists, intellectuals and writers have a key part to play in reflecting on and challenging these issues, while efforts to control society’s reaction must also be considered, especially in terms of how public perception is shaped after events like these.

The School’s Societal Connection

Riskbergska Campus is located in the Rosta district of western Örebro, near the Svartån River. The building, dating back to the 1960s, was constructed with the typical yellow brick and copper details of the era. The school offers courses for adults and Swedish for Immigrants (SFI) classes in Örebro. There are more than 1,500 students attending the school, and approximately 200 people work there.

For me, Riskbergska School was not just a place where I attended Swedish classes. It was a studio where I expressed myself and reflected on my thoughts. However, over time, I realized that the school was not merely about individual learning experiences. Instead, its true purpose was not to educate immigrants but to keep them together and under control under the guise of integration. The goal was for immigrants to not only learn the language but also assimilate into a specific social structure and work system. This effort reflects an attempt to mold immigrants’ individual identities and societal roles into a predefined framework.

Similar to Michel Foucault’s concept of “the Great Confinement,” such educational institutions do not genuinely aim to foster integration but rather function as mechanisms of control to ensure individuals conform to societal norms. Foucault’s ideas on discipline and surveillance are highly relevant here. The actual purpose of the education system and the school is not to help individuals coexist harmoniously with the local society, but rather teaching them how to adapt to existing power structures. This involves the imposition of a particular cultural structure, transforming individuals to fit within that framework.

While art and cultural production are expected to create a space filled with creativity for those considered “marginalized” in society, the education system often reproduces a form of cultural and structural exclusion. The participation of immigrants in social life is reduced to an economic perspective, thereby limiting their cultural identities and restricting their right to express themselves freely.

Institutions like Riskbergska School, despite their apparent aim of promoting integration — already a contentious concept — actually seek to mold immigrants to a particular order, reshaping them as a “workforce for society” rather than individuals with diverse identities. This process evaluates immigrants’ integration solely through an economic and labour-force lens, disregarding their cultural identities and shaping their participation in society based only on their utility in the workforce.

The Attack and the Attacker Beyond Individual Responsibility

To illustrate the sensitivity of foreigners, I would like to share an anecdote. After the attack, the primary concern among foreigners was the hope that the perpetrator was not one of them—a foreigner. Even though innocent people lost their lives, this reaction, no matter how difficult or unpleasant, reveals the deep concerns and anxieties that immigrants experience.

This is because, in such cases, foreigners who are already struggling against prejudice would face even greater discrimination and exclusion. The uncertainty surrounding the identity of the attacker was not only about security concerns but also about the effort to maintain societal acceptance and preserve the fragile relationship between foreigners and the local community.

If the perpetrator turned out to be a foreigner (such as a refugee), existing tensions could escalate further, increasing pressure on immigrants and making their lives even more difficult. This incident clearly highlights how immigrants are deeply connected not only to their personal safety but also to the processes of social acceptance and integration.

If the perpetrator turned out to be a foreigner (such as a refugee), existing tensions could escalate further, increasing pressure on immigrants and making their lives even more difficult.

Following the attack, I made an effort to observe the spaces where foreigners gathered. On the first day, I struggled to put into words what I saw and felt. There was shame, fear, anger, and shock. No one was looking into each other’s eyes, or perhaps they simply couldn’t.

I wanted to understand where these emotions came from and to whom they belonged. I could sense shame and fear among the locals, while anger, shock, and distrust were clearly visible in the eyes of the foreigners.

Focusing solely on the identity of the perpetrator and the act itself when discussing the attack in Örebro is a superficial approach. Events like these are often framed as isolated crimes, exactly as the authorities prefer, in order to avoid questioning deeper societal structures, power relations, and systemic issues.

However, all immigrants are aware that the roots of such attacks are not merely individual but deeply embedded in broader social and political dynamics.

Among the systemic problems are issues related to culture and art, education, political discourse surrounding immigrants, and, of course, the condescending attitude that society often holds toward these individuals. These factors fuel social exclusion and marginalization, ultimately fostering a dangerous environment that encourages hate speech.

The attack in Örebro and similar tragedies reveal that we must move beyond individual blame and instead scrutinize the societal structures and political dynamics at play. Issues such as cultural diversity, integration, and exclusion demand a broader understanding.

Integration and the True Needs of Society

The integration of immigrants and foreigners into European societies is constantly presented as one of the biggest issues. However, integration is not about immigrants—it is about the local population’s lack of tolerance for diversity. It is not enough to merely respect cultural differences; they must be understood and felt. The local population must take responsibility for engaging with different cultures, not just accepting them but actively taking steps to coexist with them.

Philosopher Vilém Flusser’s perspective on exile and migration can help us better understand the difficulties of the integration process. According to Flusser, exiles and refugees are rootless individuals. In an attempt to plant new roots, they seek to transform everything around them. Exiles do not simply conform to the majority; instead, they resist submission to power.

I want to focus on Riskbergska School; in my own class, even though we came from very different countries and did not share the same language, religion, or culture, we often complained about the SFI (Swedish for Immigrants) language teaching method. The reason for our complaints was that the method was not inclusive and contained hidden, even subliminal, messages. The method focused on “fitting in” for immigrants and foreigners, expecting individuals to disregard their own identities and cultural values. This was not a process of “integration,” but rather of “assimilation,” as immigrants were expected to distance themselves from their identities and conform to “local” norms.

A true integration process also brings the pursuit also brings the pursuit of social acceptance and equality. However, if educational systems and societal structures do not properly support that process, the despair, anger, and identity confusion experienced by marginalized groups can deepen. This situation can lead young people and other members of society to create spaces where they can express themselves and resist societal norms. These efforts can be seen as a form of rebellion against social inequalities and discrimination, a kind of revenge.

One of the most important factors to consider in integration is understanding the linguistic codes of other cultures. Developing empathy and creating approaches and practices towards foreigners with that empathy is necessary for the integration process to proceed smoothly.

Are immigrants the only ones in need of integration? Or do local populations, who struggle to engage with cultural diversity and show empathy, also bear responsibility in this process?

Instead of imposing one’s lifestyle and culture on others, it is essential to recognize the value of forming closer and more meaningful relationships with these individuals. Integration is not just a physical adjustment; it is a social and emotional process. Societies must accept and include different groups on an equal footing.

Spatial inequality reflects social inequality, reinforcing broader disparities. A concrete example of discrimination, inequality, and lack of integration at Riskbergska School was the separation of restrooms for teachers and refugees. While teachers had keys to their private restrooms, refugee restrooms were open to all. If even the ability to satisfy basic human needs is not distributed equally and a superior attitude prevails, how can empathy be fostered? This seemingly irrational example is, in fact, a small yet significant detail.

Social media and Desensitization

Social media intensifies emotional reactions in the short term, yet in the long run, it weakens people’s ability to empathize with social issues. True empathy should not be limited to tragic visual images shared on social media. These images often hinder social criticism and erode any sense of responsibility.

The rapid spread of tragic and horrifying images leads to empathy remaining superficial or confined to a virtual space, creating emotional numbness and desensitization. Social media amplifies this effect by spreading such images quickly, making people’s reactions and emotions shallower. Sharing a horrific event on a phone screen with dramatic music and the swipe of two fingers does not go beyond an artificial and virtual response. This process fosters desensitization toward social events and prevents people from truly understanding them. Sensitivity toward a tragedy is often reduced to symbolic actions, such as sharing a hashtag or changing a profile picture. This kind of performative activism (slacktivism) serves only to ease individuals’ consciences and fails to create real change or a call to action. Responses remain symbolic and do not have a profound impact on society. Instead, individuals merely alleviate their own sense of responsibility and continue with their lives.

Ai Weiwei's performative photograph referencing Alan Kurdi should be examined in this context. Pain and tragedy, when reinterpreted in such a manner, become a mere imitation of reality and fail to fully convey the experience to the audience. When a tragedy is transformed into an art object, the audience does not directly witness the event but rather experiences its aestheticized version. Weiwei enhances the visual impact of his version by converting it to black and white, yet this intervention weakens the context of the event and alters how the audience engages with it emotionally. Such artistic interventions obscure the true meaning of tragic events, producing only a superficial and temporary emotional reaction rather than deep and conscious empathy.

The Effort to Control Public Reaction

One week after the attack, the Örebro municipality and provincial administration organized a memorial ceremony in the city square. A minute of silence is a traditional part of such ceremonies, aimed at honoring the lost lives and supporting the grieving community. However, limiting this moment to just one minute cannot fully convey the emotional weight and significance of the loss. Lives are too sacred to be confined to a single minute. Great tragedies cannot be reduced to symbolic moments of silence; the value of each life cannot be measured in mere seconds.

Memorial ceremonies are held to restore emotional balance after societal traumas. However, we know that these ceremonies are sometimes used to control and direct public emotional responses. After a tragedy, the heightened anger, sorrow, and loss of trust in society often prompt governments to organize such events as a means of pacification. While these ceremonies aim to mourn and honor the lost, authorities also use them to regulate public emotions. Although they may provide temporary relief, such symbolic actions do not create real change within society.

While social media and performative activism render societal reactions superficial, we must not forget the necessity of calling for real change. Such events require deep societal critique and a call for transformation. Instead of settling for symbolic gestures, we must confront cultural differences and deepen empathy to promote social justice and inclusivity.

The Power of Art, Intellectualism, and Writing

As is well known, exiles and refugees often choose to live in the same communities and begin to establish roots together. These spaces create a “third space,” where equality prevails. For artists, intellectuals and writers, exile becomes a new creative domain, allowing for innovative perspectives and forms of expression within cultural and social contexts. Art has the power to promote resistance and raise awareness about forced migration in the public sphere. The power of art, in particular, can help societies overcome prejudices and address social issues in greater depth.

Artists, intellectuals, and writers should not only adopt a critical perspective on societal problems but also seek solutions. Artists often avoid elite urban spaces and prefer experiencing the environments where marginalized communities live and interact. Behind this choice lies the reality that such places offer a different dynamism and present challenges to systemic control.

Curators, directors, and critics can forge strong connections with the public by avoiding an exclusively institutional framework, making art more accessible, and strengthening society’s relationship with it. However, when this approach is not adopted and the bond is reinforced from a purely institutional standpoint, the effort lacks the essential foundation of empathy.

For artists, these spaces provide a freer and more creative environment. This enhances the artist’s connection with the public in the creative process and ensures that their works are not detached from society. Thus, the recoding of artistic production and the breaking of aesthetic norms begin in such spaces.

Sitting at a desk in an office, analyzing migrant issues, and proposing solutions without direct experience exhibits a superficial and irresponsible approach lacking in empathy. A genuine solution requires on-the-ground observations, direct engagement with migrant struggles, and an understanding of local community perspectives to develop solutions that take the experiences of both sides into account. This contributes not only to problem-solving but also to strengthening societal bonds.