|
As Jeff Crisp so succinctly explained yesterday, just looking through the programme for this conference one can see just how broad the field has become. The broadening of the field does not just reach across the object of study, for example, refugees, asylum seekers, internally displaced persons, irregular migrants, detainees, displaced children, natural disaster victims, massacre survivors, stateless persons, conflict-induced migration and remittances, migrant workers, humanitarian assistance, international refugee regimes, diasporic identity, exilic identity in transcultural contexts, but importantly these burgeoning areas of interest are being tackled from multiple and inter disciplinary positions. From, anthropology, law, sociology, visual culture, political science, narrative research, health sciences, psychosocial approaches, gender approaches, I could go on and on. At the heart of all this is a coherent approach – a refugee centered approach.
However, what seemed lacking when I went through the abstracts and joined the sessions was a debate about this very fact. The field is widening not just because migration and forced migration experiences are harder to distinguish, tell apart, define and separate – and this is perhaps one aspect of a crossroad metaphor. The separation of refugees and forced migrants in the conference title alludes to a juncture. In some ways these questions are being considered on other theoretical lines. With increasing numbers of undocumented migrants, the question of whether the international community needs to adopt a more inclusive approach to protection rather than an exclusive and reducing definition is a more recent debate.
Alice Bloch continued the debates raised recently in the JRS regarding the question of protection definitions – but the question of how the field itself has expanded, and where the lines are which circle the field of refugee and forced migration studies seemed to miss most of us. I sensed from corridor chats that many of us have realized this shift, which is most noticeable from Toronto, and not just from the art component added this year, but by noticeable different disciplinary approaches and in some cases calls for multiple methodological approaches at the same time, a leap of faith that we might know what to use when and where.
Such moves reminds me of the shifts seen in the late 1980s and 1990s in ethnography and translation, which brought questions of authorship, a crisis of representation and voice, arguments were underpinned then by post-structural thought. A move which acknowledged that memory can tell us more about the present than about the past, and are partial-subjective formations and narrative is a dialogic orchestrated affair, brought about by speaker and listener in interaction.
Such ideas have not reached us yet, though none of us I am sure would suggest that narrative and memory are direct mirrors of experience – but the problematization of what it is we are dealing with then if the narratives that some of us deal with don’t mirror experience is a question we have not fully embraced.
It is a question that might knock on our door. Giorgia Dona paper touched upon issues of memory and narrative and the politics of representation and how one might represent embedded memory and the senses, in her analysis of official genocides narratives. The question of how nations configure historical narratives and the hegemonic essentialisation of dominant discourses from above, and the questions of what vernacular voices are silenced, and for what reason are questions which have been considered from Marx, the Frankfurt school, Antiono Gramsci, Stuart Hall and others in the field of cultural criticism since the turn of the 20th century.
The refugee centered approach has kept us on a clear track – but the track has widened, widened in its concern of the vulnerable on the move and the complex relationships, particulars, structures, relations and migrational trajectories that people find themselves in, personally and collectively. And at the same time widened in its application, approach and understanding of those experiences.
The varied and broad range of panels reflected that and a move towards cultural theory, literary theory and narrative theory is becoming increasingly common.
One panel explored the question of transnational identities and second generational alliances in diasporic contexts – there was discussion of complex allegiances to here and there, fluid identities with multiple relations to various cultural reference points. In some way exilic identity understood in terms of postmodern notions of identity – as fluid, textual, contextual constructions. And identities as signifiers of hope against the essentialisation of narratives of race and nation. That the refugee is a cultural signifier that contests the narrow idealogical framework of the ‘imagined community’.
Catherine Brun – reexamines the relationships between hosts and IDPs through hospitality, and in part through Derrida’s notion of hospitality which brought interdisciplinary theoretical and philosophical approaches to the conference
From the more general to the particular – I was not able to go to every session, I didn’t have a team and colleagues that kindly sent me descriptions of sessions I am extremely grateful to. Some of these descriptions follow below.
In Session 6: Impacts of Remittances on Livelihoods and Development in Crisis Countries, Diaspora and Recipient Perspectives
The study of remittances in conflict and crisis settings has shed light on new aspects of globalization, conflict, and livelihoods in conflict. It was discussed that Diasporas are using their influence to affect political realities in their countries or origin. This is especially important in situations of weakened or non-existing states, where the diasporic influence effectively works as a substitute for the state by fostering institutions and providing services such as health and education.
The discussion focused on how researchers should conceptualize peacebuilding in “remittances in conflict and crisis” contexts. Should it be a narrow definition, focusing only on high-level formal peace initiatives? Or rather, should researchers employ a more expansive definition, focusing on how the diaspora influences local initiatives that can affect peacebuilding? In this context, the ability of remittances to push back the thresholds for participation in armed conflict is important to take into account. The panel members felt that a bottom-up or expansive approach to peacebuilding was essential.
The double session on environmental change and forced migration examined the links between environmental degradation, climate change, and migration. The panelists and participants discussed the nexus between environmental issues and forced migration. Is environmental migration forced? What makes it forced? What are the similarities and differences between development induced migration and environmentally induced migration? Forced migration usually entails at least one of the following 3 factors: 1.) absolute compulsion 2.) threat/coercion 3.) actual harm. In many cases, the migrant faces one of these three factors but is also drawn by economic pull factors.
It was acknowledged that the line between voluntary and involuntary is rarely bright. In the context of voluntary v. involuntary needs to be conceptually worked out. Which word should be used? Is there such a thing as an environmental refugee? Should the terms “climigration” or “climigrant,” as used by one presenter, be promulgated to differentiate environmental and climate change migration from more “traditional” refugees? How do we get beyond this without diluting the meaning of “refugee?”
How does environmental migration affect or expand our understanding of the concept of return migration? Some climate change causes increase incidence of natural disasters and that doesn’t mean absolutely no return.
The panelists agreed that migration usually has a multiplicity of causes with environmental causes increasingly important.
The importance of politics for outlining environmental regulations in forced migration settings particularly was highlighted.
The need for better data, particularly longitudinal data, for conducting research on environmental migration is necessary. The usefulness of cross-sectional data on migration for the purposes of analysis was questioned.
The role of the state is crucial when discussing environmentally induced migration. What should be done when the state feels that a population needs to be moved due to environmentally reasons but the people don’t want to move? Participants highlighted that often times this type of dilemma affects indigenous populations.
In the Gender and Exile session Existing policies on gender tend to exclude men and boys. This has been a process over the last twenty years of gender equality mainstreaming, not gender mainstreaming. When looking at men’s experiences, there is not a gender approach but rather a “sexuality approach” that focuses on homosexuality. What then are men’s gendered experiences? Twenty years after UNHCR’s first proclamation on gender issues is it time to look at the experiences of men’s and boys.
The session argued the need to re-think social and cultural stereotypes about refugee men – move towards individualized or inter-sectional approaches taking into account other identity-based factors.
There is a need not to ignore the gendered experience of refugee men and boys, but some caution in ensuring that any steps in this direction do not undermine hard-won gains.
Should there be a wider focus beyond the legal aspect of gender. What are the other aspects of UNHCR’s policies in how men should be included? How about linking to the issues of rights? What is the complete gendered experience for men beyond asylum claims? Are men really a special group? Are boys a special group? In US case law, it’s been difficult to get women as a social group. Is it useful to distinguish between sexuality and gender? What are these differences? One can say what their sex is, but is gender as easily definable? It is important to distinguish between social group for legal purposes and sociological/anthropological purposes.
Is it time to focus on men now? Or as some argued, rather a gendered approach means both gender in relational interaction.
In the session Grounding and Contextualizing Protracted Refugee Situations, at the global level, there have been a number of positive international developments that are starting to consolidate an approach to protracted refugee situations. There has also been an effort to identify particular situations which are ripe for implementing durable solutions. There are more and more states that have developed inter-departmental working groups dealing with the problem of finding solutions to protracted refugee situations.
There are particular protection concerns for the women and children. Protection is about solutions, there is a link between durable solutions and protections and that should remain strong.
Protracted situations are not homogenous and are ever-changing and this must be taken into account. How can this diversity be better incorporated in the discourse on this situation? In developing strategies and frameworks, how do we incorporate this diversity? How do we involve the voices of refugees in developing programs? There are challenges with this - i.e. - How to not heighten expectations of those that give their voices? This is especially true with regard to timelines. The question of who represents refugees is important. Among ethnic groups there are a lot of different voices and we need more voices than those of the ethnic group leaders. Are we effectively incorporating urban refugee situations in the discussion? The importance of international migration and manage migration as part of solutions is an important consideration.
The question of local integration and supporting local development is important. How can we help host governments incorporate refugees into local development schemes?
What is the relationship between temporality, space, and identity? The relationship between refugees as “agents in spaces” in connection with policies that are created that transform them as agents in these spaces is important to take into account.
In Session 6, health and forced migration, the papers were linked by a focus on internally displaced people. The papers reported very different methods: a comparative study drawing together secondary data from two natural disasters, an epidemiological study of a population internally displaced due to conflict, "development disasters" and economic hardship, and an intervention study to support mental health following a natural disaster.
The discussion focused on:
- the extent to which conclusions drawn from research on forced migration due to natural disaster can be generalised to other forced migration experiences (and especially to refugee populations)
- the potential usefulness of "psychology of place" and "root shock" concepts to refugee contexts
- the extent to which the availability of mental health professionals helps or hinders the mental health of people affected by natural disasters
- the extent to which the "disaster" in "natural disaster" is human made
- the lack of consultation with survivors of natural disasters about when and
- what to rebuild (and what NOT to rebuild)
- the difficulties of gaining accurate information about sensitive health topics such as HIV/AIDS
- the relationship between key transport routes and the geography of disease spread (esp. HIV/AIDS)
The Deportation and Detention panel presented a wide range of issues related to detention in a variety of contexts, which provided an excellent foundation for a deeper understanding of the issue as a global phenomenon. In the Mexican context, we heard of an emerging policy environment built around detention from the perspective an advocate in a human rights NGO.
Building on this, the second presentation gave a sense of the actual conditions of detention, this time in Turkey, with some disturbing fieldwork data and state dispersal and detention programmes. It was excellent to hear from a practitioner in the field, working with a legal assistance and advocacy group. Finally, we heard about the long term impacts on the mental health of detained children and their parents from a psycho-social.
This presentation examined the Australian environment, and interesting looked at individuals and families whose asylum applications had been successful, and so who were no longer detained, although they continued to suffer the ill-effects of detention. Together, the panel set the stage for an understanding of detention as not simply a "Northern" (or "Western") solution, but a more global trend that has disturbing implications for both the rights, and the well-being of migrants.
Concluding remarks
I have offered you a partial view. From the 53 concurrent sessions I have offered a summary of 27 papers from 9 sessions. Even though I provide you with a summary of a mere 1/5 of the sessions, it represents the broad diversity of the programme in terms of the vast objects of study, rich inter-disciplinary approaches, and rigorous and various methodologies.
The question of where the conference and field goes now is apt. It seems we are indeed at a crossroads.
While we are all trying to decide on where we stand on these changes, in the corridors at the Shepheard Hotel in Cairo it seems to have been received with mixed responses.
Some are concerned about the widening of the field, both its expanding objects and areas of study and the range of disciplinary approaches that this field now seems to incorporate – others suggest this broad complex range of areas that refugee studies and forced migration studies now covers is a reflection of the complex experiences happening out there, and a narrowed approach limits the scope of understanding of the varied forced migrations trajectories and experiences occurring from complex contexts, brought about by complex changes in global politics and economy.
How we frame the arguments that follow and how we might respond only time will tell.
|
