I don’t think I’d have to put forward that hard a case to get people to agree that language is intrinsically political. The awareness of this over the past few years has grown exponentially: people are now wary of things being PC (politically correct), and trying to find the right terminology, especially when discussing topics that are not so known to us.
And so, before my ideas about this project really were written down, I knew I’d have to address the issue of language; its political nature, and the imbued power that language (and its holders) can have.
In the case of my project, it comes down to this: “What is a refugee?”
- What is the difference between a refugee and a migrant?
- Where do migrants and exiles fit into the conversation?
- What about “asylum seekers”?
- If someone is a displaced person, does this make them a refugee?
- What are the political connotations of each of these words? And what kind of atmosphere do they conjure?
.
The United Nations 1951 Refugee Convention declare that a “refugee” is as follows:
“any person who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his/her nationality and is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself/herself of the protection of that country.”
United nations, 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees, p.16, at www.unhcr.ch
The convention itself, given its historicity, has issues. It was initially only applicable for those people displaced due to events that occurred pre-1951, and only to Europeans. While these have been widened and shifted as the twentieth-century progressed, there are still short-comings in this definition.
An individual cannot choose this designation or identity for themselves; at least not legally. They can only be designated as a “legal refugee” when that status has been granted, via application, as a result of meeting certain requirements.
.
So – if there is an issue over who or what is a refugee, then what alternatives are there?
There are some news outlets, such as Al Jazeera, who chose to no longer use the term “migrant” because they believed it ‘dehumanises and distances the individual in need from the reader’ – and so they’ve chosen ‘refugee’ instead.
On the other hand, Alexander Betts, director of the Refugee Studies Centre at Oxford University, believes that “migrant” used to be neutral, but now means “not a refugee.” He says that the term “economic migrant” ‘is used to imply choice rather than coercion.’
One article I read, written by Loren Voss for the YJIA, chose to use “asylum seeker”; even though they recognised it was not neutral, she used it ‘because it does not prejudge whether the person has a valid refugee claim under the law, but still invokes the dire situation from which they came and the larger social policy issues that are implicated.’1
In all of this, there may not be a neutral term. That may not be possible. But – it is worth asking, how does the language we use impact our assumptions, and consequently our historical analysis?
.
My current thinking is that for my short essay, with a more theoretical approach, I should look at the history of “refugee/migrant”. This, I believe, is tied in with the ideas of “Refugee-ness” and “Refugee-dom”, which have begun to emerge alongside the popularity of “Life Stories”.
The labels placed on these displaced people have been used to inform policy and shape people’s opinions; we don’t have to look far to find examples. In Israel, their conventions claim that asylum seekers are “infiltrators” – regardless of why they’re coming.
If my project progresses as I hope – then this is crucial for me to understand as I seek to look at narratives. Because; whether I like it or not, even the stories from the refugees themselves are not neutral accounts. My methodological essay may also need to look at oral history; and its advantages and disadvantages. I can’t seem to escape the question of agency – something which I think is at the heart of subaltern studies.
Psychology has helped ‘us with the “why” and “how” of government and media campaigns: (1) vocabulary affects how people think about asylum-seekers and state responses to them, and (2) that framing bias allows a national security framing to narrow the solution set avoiding those that might address social issues.’2
.
I’m trying hard not to get stuck in an ethical trap with all this research, but I’m afraid I may need help at some point soon. As I said in my presentation on Tuesday – I want to avoid discrediting the agency of the refugee, either through taking the wrong approach, or by giving too much, or not enough importance to institution.
But then again – all of this is hypothetical – I don’t have access to first-hand stories, or get to ask the questions myself. And so I’m having to put on my “glasses of critical thinking” in order to challenge what I read, and hopefully, not fall into the trap I can see looming.
.
(On a side note however, any ideas about how to put these questions into something practical; I’d love to hear them and chat them through. Sometimes too much theory just baffles my brain!)
.
.
1 Loren Voss, ‘Choosing Words with Purpose: Framing Immigration and Refugee Issues as National Security Threats to Avoid Issues of Social Policy’, Yale Journal of International Affairs, 13:1, (Spring 2018), pp.40-41.
2 Voss, ‘Choosing Words with Purpose’, pp.46-7.
Hi Hannah, I found your post really intriguing and, studying philosophy myself, I am always intrigued by wider questions such as those around our language, what it implies, and how it is interpreted. As Wittgenstein said, words are simply how you use them. Though this does lend itself to an overwhelming nature of language and a tendency to become bogged down in definitions, which you alluded to in your discovery of a plethora of different definitions of ‘refugee’.
Your question of ‘how does the language we use impact our assumptions, and consequently our historical analysis?’ is a very important one. Here we seem again to be tentatively tip-toeing around, attempting not the import our own modern notions onto the history we study. As you suggest, a short essay on defining ‘refugee’ would be very helpful going towards your project. I think that you are right that there will not be a neutral way to define the word, since it means something different to different individuals, cultures, periods, and in different institutional contexts.
I am trying to think about how to avoid the trap between giving the refugee agency, but also remembering that these accounts are not isolated and must be framed in a wider context. It is hard, as you say, since primary sources are hard to find. However, by using the short essay to delve into the word ‘refugee’ and really attempting to provide a wider historical analysis of the ever-changing nature of the term, you could maybe help yourself in the long run? So while your project is a history of the refugee, the essay is a history of the word refugee. In terms of historical approach, perhaps intertwine a discussion of relativism about language and terms such as this one. Then, when you come to write your project you could briefly discuss the problems around the word itself, make it clear that it is a nuanced term, before going into deeper historical analysis of case studies and comparative experiences, and how the refugee fits into wider social contexts. Maybe having these case studies, along with putting forward an acceptance that the term itself varies, would let you move forward to discussing the history of the refugee without getting bogged down in definitions.
Anyway, I’m not sure if this helps but it is what came to mind when I thought about how I might approach the topic, and it is a great topic at that!
Morven