Response to Andrew S. Rosenberg’s Review of Crossing: How We Label and React to People on the Move

IF 4 1区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
R. Hamlin
{"title":"Response to Andrew S. Rosenberg’s Review of Crossing: How We Label and React to People on the Move","authors":"R. Hamlin","doi":"10.1017/s1537592723001135","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"North. Crossing then describes how Global South states developed and signed regional refugee agreements—the Organization of African Unity Convention of 1969 and the 1984 Cartagena Declaration on Refugees—to address their concerns with the global regime (pp. 99-107). While these regional agreements represent key fixtures of Global South resistance and solidarity, case studies of treatment of Syrians in the Middle East and Venezuelans in Latin America reveal how the migrant/refugee binary continues to structure political responses and public opinion toward mass displacement. Hamlin also provides illustrative case studies of Europe and the United States to show how the labels affixed to people on the move structure political discourse in both the North and South. In both cases, the problem with maintaining the binary is that it obscures external causes of displacement and allows contemporary anti-migrant sentiment to fester. For example, recognizing that the United States’ interventions in Central America sowed the seeds of contemporary mass movements breaks down the necessity of the migrant/refugee distinction, and it raises important questions about the rights of those affected by such coercive interventions. Crossing’s exploration of the origin and effect of the migrant/refugee binary puts it at the center of modern migration debates. However, this centrality, scope, and ambition also raise several further questions. First, what is the role of race in perpetuating themigrant/refugee binary? Hamlin selectively touches on issues of race, most notably in its discussions of colonialism (pp. 30, 34-36) and European responses to Mediterranean arrivals (p. 123). Yet, while these discussions reveal that racial discrimination and white supremacy likely shaped the emergence of restrictive migration policies and unequal sovereignty in the postwar era, there is little discussion of the role race played in the construction of the migrant/refugee binary itself. Hamlin discusses how the terms “migrant” and “refugee” are politically constructed to minimize the suffering and exploitation of the non-white Global South. But racial perceptions seem to lurk in that minimization, and they go undiscussed. For instance, we learn that the migrant/refugee binary allowsGlobal North states to avoid acknowledging how colonialism caused mass migration and displacement. But how do racialized perceptions lead European publics to assume that migrants are undesirable economic actors? A second question is how we should think about solutions to the migrant/refugee binary. This problem is thorny because the binary has become received wisdom in the scholarly, lay, and policy-making communities. This ideology is difficult to subvert because, as several chapters in Crossing reveal, politicians and citizens use it to warrant restrictive migration policies. But what should be done? Hamlin implores us to “move beyond binary” thinking, which she associates with avoiding discussing the culpability of border crossers and referring to them as a singularity, as opposed to distinct types (p. 161). These calls are admirable, but they are expressed in the passive voice. I wondered who needs to change their behavior and the prospects for those changes to occur. For example, if this call refers to academics, then we must deal with the uncomfortable question of the role of academics in public life: how much does the scholarly voice matter? What is the best way to convince organizations like UNHCR to change their approach to refugee governance and activism, particularly given the role the binary plays in bolstering its organizational legitimacy? If the call refers to policymakers or the public, then it raises a final question. Given, 1) the electoral incentives that politicians face, 2) the issues of race and racism discussed earlier, and 3) that the public typically responds to elite cues, is moving beyond the binary even a possibility? As Hamlin reminds us, politicians continue to trade on anti-border crosser rhetoric, and they likely do so because it works. This seemingly dire question, particularly in the Global North, provides an important path forward for future research, and the conclusion of Undesirable Immigrants points in the same direction. Hamlin’s argument points out that breaking down the conditions that allow structural inequalities in international migration to fester requires deep engagement with how states make policy decisions, which in part depends on the migrant/ refugee binary. Destabilizing that binary emphasizes that scholars must work at the intersection of political communication and migration studies to investigate both the power that leaders have over their constituents, as well as ways to educate the public to overcome the power of the bully pulpit. To reiterate, Crossing is an important book that will generate significant debate. Unsurprisingly, the scope and importance of the book’s argument raises more questions than it answers, but the looming threat of climate migration continues to reveal the importance of treating all border crossers with equal moral worth, irrespective of their presumed culpability or motive. Hamlin provides further confirmation of this task’s difficulty as it intimates the very real extent that moral worth, deservingness, and race unfortunately will remain highly correlated.","PeriodicalId":48097,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Politics","volume":"21 1","pages":"1052 - 1053"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives on Politics","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1537592723001135","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

North. Crossing then describes how Global South states developed and signed regional refugee agreements—the Organization of African Unity Convention of 1969 and the 1984 Cartagena Declaration on Refugees—to address their concerns with the global regime (pp. 99-107). While these regional agreements represent key fixtures of Global South resistance and solidarity, case studies of treatment of Syrians in the Middle East and Venezuelans in Latin America reveal how the migrant/refugee binary continues to structure political responses and public opinion toward mass displacement. Hamlin also provides illustrative case studies of Europe and the United States to show how the labels affixed to people on the move structure political discourse in both the North and South. In both cases, the problem with maintaining the binary is that it obscures external causes of displacement and allows contemporary anti-migrant sentiment to fester. For example, recognizing that the United States’ interventions in Central America sowed the seeds of contemporary mass movements breaks down the necessity of the migrant/refugee distinction, and it raises important questions about the rights of those affected by such coercive interventions. Crossing’s exploration of the origin and effect of the migrant/refugee binary puts it at the center of modern migration debates. However, this centrality, scope, and ambition also raise several further questions. First, what is the role of race in perpetuating themigrant/refugee binary? Hamlin selectively touches on issues of race, most notably in its discussions of colonialism (pp. 30, 34-36) and European responses to Mediterranean arrivals (p. 123). Yet, while these discussions reveal that racial discrimination and white supremacy likely shaped the emergence of restrictive migration policies and unequal sovereignty in the postwar era, there is little discussion of the role race played in the construction of the migrant/refugee binary itself. Hamlin discusses how the terms “migrant” and “refugee” are politically constructed to minimize the suffering and exploitation of the non-white Global South. But racial perceptions seem to lurk in that minimization, and they go undiscussed. For instance, we learn that the migrant/refugee binary allowsGlobal North states to avoid acknowledging how colonialism caused mass migration and displacement. But how do racialized perceptions lead European publics to assume that migrants are undesirable economic actors? A second question is how we should think about solutions to the migrant/refugee binary. This problem is thorny because the binary has become received wisdom in the scholarly, lay, and policy-making communities. This ideology is difficult to subvert because, as several chapters in Crossing reveal, politicians and citizens use it to warrant restrictive migration policies. But what should be done? Hamlin implores us to “move beyond binary” thinking, which she associates with avoiding discussing the culpability of border crossers and referring to them as a singularity, as opposed to distinct types (p. 161). These calls are admirable, but they are expressed in the passive voice. I wondered who needs to change their behavior and the prospects for those changes to occur. For example, if this call refers to academics, then we must deal with the uncomfortable question of the role of academics in public life: how much does the scholarly voice matter? What is the best way to convince organizations like UNHCR to change their approach to refugee governance and activism, particularly given the role the binary plays in bolstering its organizational legitimacy? If the call refers to policymakers or the public, then it raises a final question. Given, 1) the electoral incentives that politicians face, 2) the issues of race and racism discussed earlier, and 3) that the public typically responds to elite cues, is moving beyond the binary even a possibility? As Hamlin reminds us, politicians continue to trade on anti-border crosser rhetoric, and they likely do so because it works. This seemingly dire question, particularly in the Global North, provides an important path forward for future research, and the conclusion of Undesirable Immigrants points in the same direction. Hamlin’s argument points out that breaking down the conditions that allow structural inequalities in international migration to fester requires deep engagement with how states make policy decisions, which in part depends on the migrant/ refugee binary. Destabilizing that binary emphasizes that scholars must work at the intersection of political communication and migration studies to investigate both the power that leaders have over their constituents, as well as ways to educate the public to overcome the power of the bully pulpit. To reiterate, Crossing is an important book that will generate significant debate. Unsurprisingly, the scope and importance of the book’s argument raises more questions than it answers, but the looming threat of climate migration continues to reveal the importance of treating all border crossers with equal moral worth, irrespective of their presumed culpability or motive. Hamlin provides further confirmation of this task’s difficulty as it intimates the very real extent that moral worth, deservingness, and race unfortunately will remain highly correlated.
回应Andrew S.Rosenberg对Crossing的评论:我们如何给移动中的人贴标签和做出反应
北Crossing随后描述了全球南方国家如何制定和签署区域难民协议——1969年《非洲统一组织公约》和1984年《卡塔赫纳难民宣言》——以解决他们对全球制度的担忧(第99-107页)。虽然这些区域协议代表了全球南方抵抗和团结的关键因素,但对中东叙利亚人和拉丁美洲委内瑞拉人待遇的案例研究揭示了移民/难民二元关系如何继续构成对大规模流离失所的政治反应和公众舆论。哈姆林还提供了对欧洲和美国的例证性案例研究,以展示贴在移动中的人身上的标签是如何构建北方和南方的政治话语的。在这两种情况下,维持二元性的问题在于,它掩盖了流离失所的外部原因,并使当代反移民情绪恶化。例如,认识到美国对中美洲的干预播下了当代大规模运动的种子,就打破了移民/难民区别的必要性,并对受这种胁迫性干预影响的人的权利提出了重要问题。Crossing对移民/难民二元的起源和影响的探索使其成为现代移民辩论的中心。然而,这种中心性、范围和雄心也提出了几个进一步的问题。首先,种族在移民/难民二元对立中的作用是什么?哈姆林有选择地谈到了种族问题,最引人注目的是关于殖民主义的讨论(第30、34-36页)和欧洲对地中海移民的反应(第123页)。然而,尽管这些讨论表明,种族歧视和白人至上主义可能影响了战后限制性移民政策和不平等主权的出现,但很少讨论种族在移民/难民二元结构本身的构建中所起的作用。哈姆林讨论了“移民”和“难民”这两个术语是如何在政治上构建的,以最大限度地减少非白人全球南方的痛苦和剥削。但种族观念似乎潜伏在这种最小化中,而且没有得到讨论。例如,我们了解到,移民/难民二元法允许全球北方国家避免承认殖民主义是如何导致大规模移民和流离失所的。但是,种族化的观念是如何导致欧洲公众认为移民是不受欢迎的经济行为者的呢?第二个问题是,我们应该如何思考解决移民/难民二元问题的办法。这个问题很棘手,因为二元论已经成为学术界、非学术界和决策界公认的智慧。正如《穿越》中的几章所揭示的那样,这种意识形态很难被颠覆,因为政客和公民利用它来支持限制性的移民政策。但是该怎么办呢?哈姆林恳求我们“超越二元思维”,她认为这与避免讨论越境者的罪责有关,并将他们称为一个奇点,而不是不同的类型(第161页)。这些呼吁令人钦佩,但它们是以被动的声音表达的。我想知道谁需要改变他们的行为,以及这些改变发生的前景。例如,如果这个呼吁指的是学术,那么我们必须处理学术在公共生活中的角色这个令人不安的问题:学术声音有多重要?说服像难民署这样的组织改变其难民治理和行动主义的方法的最佳方式是什么,特别是考虑到二元对立在增强其组织合法性方面发挥的作用?如果这个电话是针对决策者或公众的,那么它就提出了最后一个问题。考虑到1)政客们面临的选举激励,2)之前讨论的种族和种族主义问题,以及3)公众通常对精英线索的反应,是否有可能超越二元对立?正如哈姆林提醒我们的那样,政客们继续在反越境者的言论上进行交易,他们这样做可能是因为它有效。这个看似可怕的问题,尤其是在全球北方,为未来的研究提供了一条重要的前进道路,而《不良移民》的结论也指向了同一个方向。哈姆林的论点指出,打破导致国际移民结构性不平等加剧的条件,需要深入了解各国如何做出政策决策,这在一定程度上取决于移民/难民的二元性。破坏这种二元性强调,学者们必须在政治传播和移民研究的交叉点上工作,调查领导人对选民的权力,以及教育公众克服霸凌讲坛力量的方法。重申一下,《穿越》是一本重要的书,将引发重大辩论。 不出所料,这本书论点的范围和重要性提出的问题比它回答的问题更多,但气候移民的迫在眉睫的威胁继续揭示了以平等的道德价值对待所有越境者的重要性,无论他们被认为有罪或动机如何。哈姆林进一步证实了这项任务的困难,因为它暗示了道德价值、值得尊敬和种族不幸仍将高度相关的真实程度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Perspectives on Politics
Perspectives on Politics POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
5.30%
发文量
313
期刊介绍: Perspectives on Politics is a journal of broad interest to scholars across many fields, in addition to professional political scientists, political analysts, policy makers, and the informed public. Essays synthesize and extend significant research and developments in all dimensions of political science scholarship. In many cases, the journal aims to connect research findings, conceptual innovations, or theoretical developments to real problems of politics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信