Race
|
In the English language, the concept of ‘race’ has changed throughout history. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term race (a derivate from the French and Italian terms race and razza, respectively) enters the English language in the 16th century, describing “a group of people, animals, or plants, connected by common descent or origin.” There is no reference to biological or other differences such as colour of skin in this definition. By the late 18th century, race becomes “any of the (putative) major groupings of humankind, usually defined in terms of distinct physical features or shared ethnicity, and sometimes (more controversially) considered to encompass common biological or genetic characteristics.” The latter reflects, albeit in a destructive way, the influence of scientific methods of observation and categorisation of enlightenment and modernism. The early ‘scientific’ and superficial categorisation of humankind by physical markers of colour of skin and other physical features have been debunked by genetics and the fact that humankind share the same genetic make-up. ‘Race’ should therefore be treated as a social construct and as such has often been used as a basis for division of people into hierarchies of different categories and groups, justifying practices of othering and discrimination (see also the entries on “othering” and “discrimination,” respectively), or as “technique of power” (Titley 2020, 45).
⇢ see also antiracism, Discrimination, Epistemic injustice, Inequality, Othering, Politics of mobility, racism
References and further reading:
Gilroy. Paul. 2000. Between Camps: Nations, Cultures and the Allure of Race. London, UK: Routledge.
Penket, Laura. 2006. “Racism and Social Policy.’ In Social Policy: Theories, Concepts and Issues, edited by Michael Lavalette and Alan Pratt, 87–104. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Titley, Gavan. 2020. Is Free Speech Racist? Cambridge: Polity Press.
Category: A
Work Package: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
[MM]
|
Racism
|
Racism is a key term in migration discourses, where it usually takes the form of narratives on racism, including second-order observations of institutional or endemic racism. Notable exceptions are interventions backed up by narratives of personal experience (see, e.g., Eddo-Lodge 2017). Notoriously difficult to define from a theoretical (etic) perspective, racism is easily identified when experienced first-hand (emic perspective).
This programmatic perspective shift from an approach to racism which focuses on in-groups rather than out-groups is in line with the core concern of OPPORTUNITIES, the notion of level telling fields (see the entry on “Level Telling Field”). From this point of view, an out-group-oriented definition challenges both political complacency – i.e., the argument that racism has long been overcome in Western liberal democracies – and the right-wing backlash against anti-racism, which initiates pseudo-debates on cultural appropriation and restitution, designed to re-introducing racism through the back door. OPPORTUNITIES therefore advocates defining racism not merely as an ideology, a mindset or attitude, a set of discriminatory practices (e.g., stereotypes, hate speech, or verbal abuse), or (the threat of) physical violence, but also in terms of the effects of such ideologies and practices on those concerned. This is more than a rhetorical maneuver or an academic exercise in perspective-taking: it is the core of a new strategic anti-racist narrative.
This strategic narrative, which understands racism as a certain type of experience, empowers, first, the ‘experiencers,’ in narratological terms, i.e., those who are confronted with and forced to endure racism. It foregrounds, secondly, the alertness and vigilance as well as anxiety and fear felt by people who experience racism. It uses the concept of terror, thirdly, to describe such effects in a systematic manner. And it draws an analogy between the experience of racist terror and other experiences of terrorism. The implications are clear: if “racism is terrorism” (Diallo and Sommer, forthcoming), it should be taken as seriously as, and be prosecuted like, other kinds of politically, ideologically, ethnically, or religiously motivated terrorism.
⇢ see also Anti-racism, Narratives on migration, Othering, Refugee archetype, Stories of migration, Terrorism
References and further reading:
Diallo, Moustapha M., and Roy Sommer. Forthcoming. Racism Is Terrorism: A Manifesto.
Eddo-Lodge, Reni. 2017. Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race. London: Bloomsbury.
Titley, Gavan. 2020. Is Free Speech Racist? Cambridge: Polity Press.
Category: C
Work Package: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
[RS]
|
Refugee archetype
|
The term refugee archetype refers to a set of stereotypical notions of refugees and displaced people that is typically evoked through the ways in which these groups are framed in the media. Marta Szczepanik (2016, 32) argues that mass media distribute a “[publicly] imagined ‘refugee ideal,’” which is based on a “universal set of normative characteristics (such as poverty, passivity or helplessness, [and] gender-related behaviour patterns).” This set then generates a “normative ‘refugee archetype’” (24) that underlies debates on whether migrants, and especially asylum seekers, are “legitimate” and hence “deserving” refugees or not (De Coninck 2020).
The archetype of a “deserving refugee” is characterized by a strong bias concerning various dimensions of a migrant’s identity, including their gender, race, ethnicity, and origin. According to Szczepanik (2016), women refugees and displaced children are typically depicted as vulnerable, passive victims, who are in urgent need of help and protection, whereas male migrants are “repeatedly portrayed as [a] dangerous, barbaric collective” (24), who mainly seek to abuse social welfare systems (26). Research on media coverage of migration, moreover, reveals that European mass media tend to present refugees from non-European countries as potentially endangering Western values or the European way of life (Arcimaviciene and Hamza Baglama 2018; Schröter 2023, 28–29). By reproducing and perpetuating refugee archetypes, mass media can contribute to endorsing the (problematic) view that a “good refugee” is “female, poor, helpless, and from a specific country,” while “bad refugees” are “people who intend to abuse the social welfare system of welcoming European countries, and who lack all the attributes of good refugees” (De Cock et al. 2018, 306).
⇢ see also Frame analysis (aka framing analysis), Frames of migration, Gender, Othering, Race and racism, Victimization
References and further reading:
Arcimaviciene, Liudmila, and Sercan Hamza Baglama. 2018. “Migration, Metaphor and Myth in Media Representations: The Ideological Dichotomy of ‘Them’ and ‘Us.’” SAGE Open April-June 2018: 1–13.
De Cock, Rozane, Stefan Mertens, Ebba Sundin, Lutgard Lams, Valeriane Mistiaen, Willem Joris, and Leen d’Haenens. 2018. “Refugees in the News: Comparing Belgian and Swedish Newspaper Coverage of the European Refugee Situation During Summer 2015.” Communications 43.3: 301–323.
De Coninck, David. 2020. “Migrant Categorizations and European Public Opinion: Diverging Attitudes Towards Immigrants and Refugees.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 46.9: 1667–1686.
Schröter, Juliane. 2023. “The Austrian Press Discourse on Refugees, Migrants, and Migration: A Corpus Linguistic Approach.” In: The Representation of REFUGEES and MIGRANTS in European National Media Discourses from 2015 to 2017: A Contrastive Approach (Corpus Linguistics), edited by Annamária Fábián, 23–66. Berlin: Springer Nature.
Szczepanik, Marta. 2016. “The ‘Good’ and ‘Bad’ Refugees? Imagined Refugeehood(s) in the Media Coverage of the Migration Crisis.” Journal of Identity and Migration Studies 10.2: 23–33.
Category: B
Work Package: 2, 4, 5
[BBK / CG]
|
Remittance
|
|
Representation of migration
|
Representations of migration and mobility or migrants and other mobile individuals (see “Figure of the migrant”) can be found in a wide range of discourses, media, and genres. These include literary texts (e.g., novels, short stories, plays; see also “Fictions of migration”), non-fiction books, newspaper articles, policy narratives and political speeches, as well as feature films and TV series.
Discourses of migration frequently draw on narrative as a dominant mode of representation. The main reason for this is probably that narrative may appeal to audiences differently than other modes of representation (e.g., argument, description, or explanation). Psychologists and media theorists have repeatedly argued that “stories have the power to influence minds and motivate action” (Bech Sillesen et al. 2015, n. p.), as they evoke empathy by causing their audiences to become emotionally involved with the characters presented in these stories (see Green and Brock 2000). This ‘strategy of affect’ is particularly effective in stories presenting vulnerable, marginalized, or even stigmatized groups such as migrants, refugees, or asylum seekers (see Oliver et al. 2012).
⇢ see also Empathy, Fictions of migration, Figure of the migrant, Narrative, Stories of migration, Narratives on migration
References and further reading:
Bech Sillesen, Lene, Chris Up, and David Uberti. 2015. “Journalism and the Power of Emotions.” CJR: Columbia Journalism Review May/June 2015. URL: https://www.cjr.org/analysis/journalism_and_the_power_of_emotions.php.
Green, Melanie C., and Timothy C. Brock. 2000. “The Role of Transportation in the Persuasiveness of Public Narratives.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79.5: 701–721.
Juvonen, Annimari, and Verena Lindemann Lino, eds. 2021. Negotiations of Migration: Reexamining the Past and Present in Contemporary Europe. Berlin and Boston, MA: De Gruyter.
Oliver, Mary Beth, James Price Dillard, Keunmin Bae, and Daniel J. Tamul. 2012. “The Effect of Narrative News Format on Empathy for Stigmatized Groups.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quaterly 89.2: 205–224.
Category: A
Work Package: 2, 4, 5, 8
[CG]
|
Risk
|
As a noun, risk is defined as a situation involving danger or “([e]xposure to) the possibility of loss, injury, or other adverse or unwelcome circumstance” (see the entry in the Oxford English Dictionary). Risk as a verb means ‘to endanger; to expose to the possibility of injury, death, or loss; to put at risk” (see the entry in the Oxford English Dictionary). In both senses a ‘risk’ situation implies the chance of a potential loss.
Note that risk is different from uncertainty, which describes a situation in which you are not certain about future outcomes. Migration involves various risks as well as uncertainty in relation to questions of travel/route, income, unemployment at destination, poverty, cultural shocks, discrimination, etc. (for further discussions of risk in migration studies see the respective entries provided by the International Organization for Migration Williams and Balaz 2012).
⇢ see also Migration
References and further reading:
The International Organization for Migration. 2021. “Migration and Risks.” IOM: International Organization for Migration. URL: https://gmdac.iom.int/section/migration-and-risks.
Williams, Allan, and Vladimir Balaz. 2012. “Migration, Risk, and Uncertainty: Theoretical Perspectives.” Population Space and Place 18.2: 167–180.
Category: A
Work Package: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
[MM]
|
Rural-urban migrant
|
The term rural-urban migrant is used to designate any person who migrates from a rural location to the city. In recent years, African cities seem to serve as springboards for migrants heading for other countries in Africa and beyond.
⇢ see also Migrant
References and further reading:
Tandian, Aly. 2013. “Nouvelles figures des migrations au Sénégal : Quand les migrants internes et internationaux se côtoient.” Blocs 1. 2–19.
Tandian, Aly. 2018. “Migrer pour une réussite évidente : la construction de routes migratoires à partir de représentations.” Série Anthropologie 3 (November 2018): 106– 114.
Category: A
Work Package: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
[AT]
|
