模棱两可的相遇:在寻求庇护者的激活计划中重新审视福柯和戈夫曼

IF 1.4 Q3 DEMOGRAPHY
K. Kohl
{"title":"模棱两可的相遇:在寻求庇护者的激活计划中重新审视福柯和戈夫曼","authors":"K. Kohl","doi":"10.1093/rsq/hdaa004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This qualitative study combined the approaches of Foucault and Goffman to investigate the consequences of a “roll-out” neoliberal “activation” programme on Denmark’s reception of asylum-seekers. The analysis found that the activation programme is an ambiguous technology of power intended to shape asylum-seekers into productive citizens by simultaneously disciplining them and improving their health and well-being, while using their labour to reduce costs. The strategic interactions in the job centre reflected the ambiguities created by these oft-incongruent aims, and activation caused conflicts as it amplified activities experienced as meaningless and humiliating. I argue that these consequences stem from the ambiguity, uncertainty, and trouble produced at the intersection of competing projects of rule in a “sensitive space”, and that the individualisation of responsibility for their own marginalisation, simultaneously serve to exclude asylum-seekers and to confine them to categories that license continued institutional discipline. Thereby, the intervention feeds cyclical process of failed integration and ill-fated interventions. Indeed, by individualising the responsibility for integration, such interventions depoliticise the marginalisation of citizens of immigrant decent and legitimise efforts to reduce immigration by fuelling problematisations of immigrants as expensive, deviant, and less employable.","PeriodicalId":39907,"journal":{"name":"Refugee Survey Quarterly","volume":"39 1","pages":"177-206"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/rsq/hdaa004","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ambiguous Encounters: Revisiting Foucault and Goffman at an Activation Programme for Asylum-seekers\",\"authors\":\"K. Kohl\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/rsq/hdaa004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This qualitative study combined the approaches of Foucault and Goffman to investigate the consequences of a “roll-out” neoliberal “activation” programme on Denmark’s reception of asylum-seekers. The analysis found that the activation programme is an ambiguous technology of power intended to shape asylum-seekers into productive citizens by simultaneously disciplining them and improving their health and well-being, while using their labour to reduce costs. The strategic interactions in the job centre reflected the ambiguities created by these oft-incongruent aims, and activation caused conflicts as it amplified activities experienced as meaningless and humiliating. I argue that these consequences stem from the ambiguity, uncertainty, and trouble produced at the intersection of competing projects of rule in a “sensitive space”, and that the individualisation of responsibility for their own marginalisation, simultaneously serve to exclude asylum-seekers and to confine them to categories that license continued institutional discipline. Thereby, the intervention feeds cyclical process of failed integration and ill-fated interventions. Indeed, by individualising the responsibility for integration, such interventions depoliticise the marginalisation of citizens of immigrant decent and legitimise efforts to reduce immigration by fuelling problematisations of immigrants as expensive, deviant, and less employable.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39907,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Refugee Survey Quarterly\",\"volume\":\"39 1\",\"pages\":\"177-206\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/rsq/hdaa004\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Refugee Survey Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/rsq/hdaa004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DEMOGRAPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Refugee Survey Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/rsq/hdaa004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

这项定性研究结合了福柯和戈夫曼的方法,调查了“推出”新自由主义“激活”计划对丹麦接收寻求庇护者的影响。分析发现,激活计划是一种模棱两可的权力技术,旨在将寻求庇护者塑造成有生产力的公民,同时约束他们,改善他们的健康和福祉,同时利用他们的劳动力降低成本。就业中心的战略互动反映了这些经常不一致的目标所造成的模糊性,激活会导致冲突,因为它放大了无意义和羞辱性的活动。我认为,这些后果源于在“敏感空间”中相互竞争的统治项目的交叉点所产生的模糊性、不确定性和麻烦,以及对他们自己边缘化的责任的个体化,同时有助于排除寻求庇护者,并将他们限制在允许持续制度纪律的类别中。因此,干预助长了一体化失败和干预失败的周期性过程。事实上,通过将融入社会的责任个人化,此类干预措施将移民公民的边缘化问题去政治化,并使减少移民的努力合法化,因为移民成本高昂、离乡离乡、就业能力低下。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ambiguous Encounters: Revisiting Foucault and Goffman at an Activation Programme for Asylum-seekers
This qualitative study combined the approaches of Foucault and Goffman to investigate the consequences of a “roll-out” neoliberal “activation” programme on Denmark’s reception of asylum-seekers. The analysis found that the activation programme is an ambiguous technology of power intended to shape asylum-seekers into productive citizens by simultaneously disciplining them and improving their health and well-being, while using their labour to reduce costs. The strategic interactions in the job centre reflected the ambiguities created by these oft-incongruent aims, and activation caused conflicts as it amplified activities experienced as meaningless and humiliating. I argue that these consequences stem from the ambiguity, uncertainty, and trouble produced at the intersection of competing projects of rule in a “sensitive space”, and that the individualisation of responsibility for their own marginalisation, simultaneously serve to exclude asylum-seekers and to confine them to categories that license continued institutional discipline. Thereby, the intervention feeds cyclical process of failed integration and ill-fated interventions. Indeed, by individualising the responsibility for integration, such interventions depoliticise the marginalisation of citizens of immigrant decent and legitimise efforts to reduce immigration by fuelling problematisations of immigrants as expensive, deviant, and less employable.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Refugee Survey Quarterly
Refugee Survey Quarterly Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
8.30%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: The Refugee Survey Quarterly is published four times a year and serves as an authoritative source on current refugee and international protection issues. Each issue contains a selection of articles and documents on a specific theme, as well as book reviews on refugee-related literature. With this distinctive thematic approach, the journal crosses in each issue the entire range of refugee research on a particular key challenge to forced migration. The journal seeks to act as a link between scholars and practitioners by highlighting the evolving nature of refugee protection as reflected in the practice of UNHCR and other major actors in the field.
×
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