How the analysis of racial and gender knowledge can enlighten parts in the migration discourse and the representation of refugees.

Racial knowledge and gender knowledge are both analysis categories who seek to understand racism and sexism not simply as a misbehaviour or wrong perspectives of individuals but as part of a society’s value. Both knowledges are seen as common sense and social cognition by the majority of the dominant group in society. In contrast to stereotypes the racial knowledge of "the others" is primarily "lived" by social practice and a close connection with institutions such as labor market, citizenship and hegemonic culture. It can be used to affirmatively describe which values ​​your own group defines as common. It is important to mention, that this knowledge can change during time but the topos itself is resistant. Gender knowledge for example just changed rapidly because of the raise of feminism and the professionalization of the women's movement. Even though gender knowledge  in science discourses, now based on on the idea of equality, changed a lot and the acceptance of women in society improved, there is still a sort of latent gender knowledge which leads to discrimination of women, recognizable for example in the gender pay gap.

In terms of the representation of refugees, these both sorts of knowledge are important, as they are subconcsious reasons for the way of representation used in media and political debates. It is important to mention, that ajar at the theory of Intersectionality, these both types of knowledge can cross and can be combinded to construct topoi of refugees such as the "dangerous male invader" or the "surppressed female" who needs to be defended by white man. So to understand how "the refugee" is constructed and used in society, science also has to figure out the impact of racial and gender knowledge.

 

Photography- the art of making the invisible visible? 

Art and photography are very powerful media for shaping public perceptions about refugees and asylum seekers. On the one hand it can open new perspectives and insights but on the other hand it can influence one’s feelings and push them into a certain direction. Especially portraits that aim to represent refugees can reach the opposite and exercise power over them, instead of showing their perspective.    

Identitäten, Kenya 2015 (by Alexa B.)

As a photography/ fine art as well as an anthropology student, I am sometimes struggling to reconcile both subjects’ perspectives, that are often very different. 

The representation of people by photographic means can pose a great difficulty when different values of anthropology and art clash with each other. For example I have worked a lot with portraits dealing with identity. My  aim was to display  the identity of the portrayed person, trying to deal with their identity conflict and using techniques for the destruction of the portrait in order to construct a new identity or revealing the construction of identity. In the end of my project I found out that it wasn’t really about the person I have portrayed but about myself. My work wasn’t actually showing the identity of the person I have portrayed but my own inner identity conflict. To connect this with the subject of cultural anthropology (which I have started one year after that art work) it can be linked to the anthropological theory that you can’t document culture or carry out fieldwork without including your own subjective point of view. 

According to Cabot (2016: 2 ff.) the attempts of representing refugee voices, silences them even more and show the „limitation of knowledge itself“(2016: 4). Following this claim, the same could be said about trying to represent refugees through art and photography. By trying to represent refugees through photos, you make them more invisible, as you are not showing their - but your own perspective. 

Through the selective use of light, camera perspective and presence of the photographer the situation and context is being changed (Hohenberger (1988) Lektion 10: 3).

A photo can only reveal a brief moment and not a permanent situation. The photographer has the power to deliberately take a photo of one specific situation and to froze the moment. This makes it seem like a permanent situation without explaining the real context of the situation. Furthermore, through these methods, the photographer is able to evoke certain feelings in the perceiver and has the power to manipulate or influence public opinion.  

Cabot argues that photographs add to the idea of refugees being „tragic and vulnerable figures“ (Cabot 2016: 16). „The elision of the faces“ in order to protect their identity „the limits of visibility“ and knowledge is highlighted. (Cabot 2016: 16). 

So then, what’s the point of trying to represent or document refugees voices? Is it even possible?

It is important to be aware of the fact that photographs are a powerful mean of influencing people’s perceptions about refugees and asylum seekers. Especially nowadays, as photos and images are an every-day companion in our lives and spread very rapidly through social media. Anthropologists can contribute towards a critical approach of media/photography by examining the self- representation and the representation of others by photography and other media. The strategy and methods of visualization, that influences people can be revealed by uncovering the cultural context. 

Clearly, this is a very anthropological point of view. From an artist’s perspective you could argue that art isn’t meant to be anthropological, ethnical or politically correct. Normally the perceiver of the piece of art or photograph is also the interpreter and the context is left complete open and free to interpret. Thus, the difference between documentary-photography and art-photography needs to be considered, although its not that easy to clearly separate these genres. Art-photography can also have a documentary character as documentary- photography can also be art.  

In addition it can be claimed that artist should be careful not to add to specific controversy or influence political opinions. But isn’t that all about art? Isn’t that often the point of art, to provoke, criticizes or shock people? 

Anyway, me as being in the situation of studying both art-photography and anthropology, I somehow have to deal with these different worlds that collide with each other. Let’s hope it doesn’t lead to an identity crisis… Just kidding. Let’s stop with that for now. 

References: 

Hohenberger, Eva (1988): Die Wirklichkeit des Films. Dokumentarfilm. Ethnographischer Film. Jean Rouch. Hildesheim: Ulms. 

Cabot, Heath (2016): Refugee Voices: Tragedy, Ghosts, and the Anthropology of Not Knowing. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. College of the Atlantic: Bar Harbor. 

Becoming a recognized refugee- A matter of privilege?

Looks like the color of the skin, names or religion can already determine the outcome of an asylum claim or if the refugee will be accepted by normative standards in the new society he tries to integrate in.

In her essay "How to Be a Good Loser: A Guide to Being a Refugee", Dragana Kaurin, who calls herself a human rights researcher and ethnographer, writes about her experiences as a refugee from Sarajevo in the 90es and compares it to the struggles of a Syrian refugee in the recent "refugee crisis".

In one part of her essay, Kaurin tells the reader about her arrival as a sudden refugee at the airport outside of Belgrad, together with her mother and her brother. With her mother being a Bosnian muslim and her father a Bosnian serb, Draguana Kaurin's name is a common in Serbia, but her brother’s isn’t. When she tells an officer her name, he believes the whole family is Serbian and gives her chocolate. Kaurin is lucky or has the privilege to seemingly belong to a certain "race".

So looks like the color of the skin, names or religion can already determine the outcome of an asylum claim or if the refugee will be accepted by normative standards in the new society he tries to integrate in.
Dragana Kaurin, in her essay, writes that the most important part of bing a refugee is “being a good loser”. She writes:

You learn to lose your nationality, your home to strangers with bigger guns, your father to mental illness, one aunt to genocide, and another to nationalism and ignorance. You learn to lose your kids, friends, dreams, neighbors, loves, diplomas, careers, photo albums, home movies, schools, museums, histories, landmarks, limbs, teeth, eyesight, sense of safety, sanity, and your sense of belonging in the world.

Not only what one will lose makes them a refugee. It is also what they used to own that often determines whether they even have the chance to become a recognized refugee

Reading the 2nd chapter called “The System” by Carol Bohmer and Amy Shuman in “Rejecting Refugees: Political Asylum in the 21st century”, it becomes clear that not only what one will lose makes them a refugee. It is also what they used to own that often determines whether they even have the chance to become a recognized refugee.
When one is forced to flee their country and becomes a refugee, the mentioned looks, religion or a simple name can make a difference in their experience as a refugee. Such might be their wealth and education, as it seems in Bohmer’s and Schuman’s text.

They describe, comparing the systems of claiming asylum in the UK and the US, how much of a difference a lawyer can make in the process of claiming asylum. While in the UK every refugee has the right to get counseling by a lawyer for a certain amount of hours, in the US, there is no such thing as lawyers paid by the state.
They either have to rely on the “word of the street”, which has shown to not be successful since every case of claiming asylum is different.
They also have the chance of hiring a pro bono lawyer, which can be a matter of chance, depending on in which state of the US the refugee is looking for one- in some states, they might not find one. They can hire a “fixer” of “expert”, often called “notario”, who is not as expensive as a lawyer, but most of the time he or she will also not be as professional.
If the refugee is very educated and speaks good enough English, he could fill out the forms to claim asylum by himself.
But the ideal scenario for a refugee is to have the resources that enable him or her to afford a lawyer.

Even though claiming asylum is a human right, different circumstances or “privileges” like looks, religion, education, origin and money can affect that particular human right

Syrian Refugees with smartphones
 that have often been criticized and associated with wealth

This is when privilege plays another important role: A refugee that has enough money to afford a good education, flee his country, pay smugglers on the way and finally to pay a lawyer that will help him claim asylum will most likely have more chances of becoming a recognized refugee than the one without any financial or educational resources.
So even though claiming asylum is a human right, different circumstances or “privileges” like looks, religion, education, origin and money can affect that particular human right.




It is unfair that a refugee that e.g. arrives in a state in the United States where he cannot find a pro bono lawyer might not get treated with the same human right as a refugee that can claim a lawyer in the UK.

A human right should be a human right, no matter the circumstance or “privilege” of a human being.




Resources:
Dragana Katrin, 2016. "How to be a Good Loser".
Carol Böhmer and Amy Human, 2008. Rejecting Refugees: Political Asylum in the 21st Century, Chapter 2, "The System".

European Refugee Quota system

European Refugee Quota system:

During one of the seminars, we lightly touched on the topic of refugee quotas. This term has been recently frequently used mainly in Europe. It began when the ‘European refugee crisis’ which refers to increasing number of asylum seekers who came to Europe in 2015 seeking refuge. I recently realized that most of the phrases used to describe the asylum seekers and refugees are mostly negatively connotated, for instance, mentioned above word ‘crisis’. The most prominent media reporters in the last two years referred to this situation as an ‘emergency’ which needed to be ‘solved’. Most of these asylum seekers came from Western Asia, South Asia, and Africa and traveled through the Balkan stated to northern Europe. Some countries receive more refugees than others, for instance, Germany, France, Greece, Italy, and Hungary were amongst the major refugee-hosting countries in Europe. So in order to even out the distribution, the EU countries decided to employ quotas for each member state.

By mid-2017 about 22,400 people had been resettled through the quota systems. I am not completely in favor of this quota system. A lot of asylum seekers came to that European country for a reason and having them relocated to countries where they probably feel unwelcomed is not fair. These people might have chosen Germany for instance because they might have families or friends here but now would be relocated to the Czech Republic. There have been reports of some of these relocated asylum seekers fleeing back to the European country they were sent from. The countries hosting the majority of these asylum seekers are in favor of the quota system and the others are against it. The countries against the implementation of this quota would accept the asylum seekers if they believe they are ‘safe’ for the nation. So, I came across this list that 12 EU countries have developed individually: ‘safe country of origin list’. This wording infuriates me, the countries considered safe are the EU candidates and potential EU candidate countries, so asylum seekers from other countries are not safe? They get scrutinized for not belonging to a certain nationality? On the other hand, the applicants from these ‘safe countries’ need to have a very convincing justification for seeking asylum as their country is considered safer than the others.

The way the so-called ‘crisis’ has been and is being dealt with I consider it to be really inhumane, especially with media predominantly hyping the potential negative aspects of lives of these people. This makes me question if there is a ‘right’ way to deal with such situations?

What do we actually call terrorism??

Today, I would like to share my experiences during the attack on Olympia Einkaufszentrum in Munich, which happened last year, and its general appearance on the media.

Shortly before the attack happened, I was at Tollwood festival, not too far from the actual shooting. I was on my way back home, on the subway, when the first incidences occurred. Finally, our train stopped at Odeonsplatz and we were forced to leave the subway calmly but fast. On the upper floor, there was a policeman screaming “RUN, RUN, RUN”. This didn’t seem to be much of a calm situation. I reached the surface and saw thousands of people celebrating. It was the 500 years reinheitsgebot festival. I still had the Paris attacks in mind and assumed that there had been a bomb warning. I felt sick as I felt that if that would hold true, no one could evacuate all these people in time.

I left the scene as quick as possible and when crossing the next street there were about a dozen police cars coming towards me, alongside the fire department and helicopters above my head.

I still had no idea what was actually going on and texted a friend of mine that I just got evacuated out of the subway. He instantly texted me the news, which said that there was a series of shootings going on in Munich, at Olympia Einkaufszentrum, Stachus, Isartor, and Odeonsplatz. It was weird as I felt like I would have heard the shooting as I was still so close.

Overall, there was no public transport running anymore, no taxis, the telephone services were broken down, and due to the news, I had the feeling that danger was awaiting me around every corner. After half an hour, I reached my home and sat in front of the TV for the next few hours. The media coverage was insane. Every 5 minutes, there were new rumors and stories and no one knew what actually happened. At least, overall there was the consensus that this was a terror attack. The hatred against refugees became insane within these hours without any actual reasoning.

The next day, the guy was found dead and his motives were analyzed. It had nothing to do with Islamic Extremism. In contrary, his action is supposed to be politically motivated, right-wing terrorism.[1] Officially, the Oxford Dictionary defines terrorism as: “The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.”[2]

Therefore, his action fits the definition perfectly. Still, suddenly it was not called a terrorist attack anymore by the media. Now, it was the rampage of a confused, young individual who had psychological problems. He had killed 13 people and committed suicide. So why is this not a terrorist attack? For me it is. And I am ashamed that right-wing terrorism is obviously not regarded as terrorism in this country. So, what do we base terrorism on? And why do we show understanding for a right-wing, confused teenager, but not a refugee fleeing war?

---

[1] http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/muenchen-gutachter-stufen-amoklauf-offenbar-als-politische-tat-ein-a-1171119.html

[2] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/terrorism