The Language of Inclusion and Exclusion in Immigration and Integration

Marlou Schrover, Willem Schinkel, Marlou Schrover, Willem Schinkel

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• eBook ISBN: 9781317432531
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Ethnic Studies
• Index: Social Sciences

This collection provides an overview of some of the most relevant concepts in the study of the language of inclusion and exclusion, specifically with a view to the functioning of nation-state categories. Categorizations, words, and phrases are constantly renewed with the intention to exclude (mostly) or to include (rarely), promulgating problematizations that highlight discursive distinctions between in-groups and out-groups. Such discursive constructions and the practices through which they are effectuated are sites of symbolic power, and their study reveals the workings of power. Historical analysis of the language of inclusion and exclusion can help elucidate contemporary transformations of discursive power.

The chapters in this volume discuss forms of discursive problematization such as defining, claiming, legitimizing, expanding, sensationalization and suggestion, and it connects these to the discursive drawing of boundaries, focusing on discursive constructions of 'illegality', race, class, gender, immigrant integration and transnationalism. As state categorizations continuously differ, both the historical analysis of their genesis, functioning and transformation, and the contemporary analysis of their practical effectuation are crucial to an understanding of inclusion and exclusion.

This book was originally published as a special issue of Ethnic and Racial Studies.

Introduction: the language of inclusion and exclusion in the context of immigration and integration

Marlou Schrover and Willem Schinkel

Abstract

When migrant status and citizenship are defined by means of state categories, the language of inclusion and exclusion is key to an understanding of their contemporary shape and historical transformation. This introductory article provides an overview of some of the most relevant concepts in the discourse analysis of in- and exclusion, specifically with a view to the functioning of nation-state categories. It discusses forms of discursive problematization, such as defining, claiming, legitimizing, expanding, sensationalization and suggestion, and it connects these to the discursive drawing of boundaries discussed by the authors contributing to this issue. They focus on discursive constructions of ‘illegality’, race, class, gender, immigrant integration and transnationalism. We argue that, as state categorizations continuously differ, both the historical analysis of their genesis, functioning and transformation and the contemporary analysis of their effectuation in practices are crucial to an understanding of in- and exclusion.

Introduction

This special issue focuses on the language of inclusion and exclusion in the context of migration. The leading question relates to the functionality of the discourse. Categorizations, words and phrases are constantly renewed with the intention to exclude (mostly) or to include (rarely) (Fischer, this issue). Society is defined so as to automatically exclude certain categories of people (Schinkel, this issue). Constructions differ according to class, gender and ethnicity (Bouras, this issue). Problematization in one domain (the academic for instance) is not necessarily mirrored by problematization in another domain (political). Transnationalism, for instance, has retained its semi-neutral connotation in academic debates, while in non-academic debates the term is hardly used, but the ‘ties’ it refers to are problematized (Bouras, this issue).

The articles in this issue concern discourses of alterity and the construction of society through the binary opposition with migrants (Schinkel), redefinitions of citizenship in the context of decolonization (Laarman), state practices of classification and exclusion (De Genova and Fischer), the discursive labelling of refugees (Walaardt) and the shifting meanings of transnationalism (Bouras). In all cases, the contributions focus on the language of inclusion and exclusion, and highlight the practices through which discourses are effectuated. They do so in different contexts, ranging from state deportation centres to bureaucratic institutions and from state borders to academic research. Equally, in all cases they highlight the productive aspects of discourses, that is, the way discourses produce objects of problematizations that legitimate policies and practices of in- and exclusion.

The sections below first present some overall theoretical notions with the aim of drawing attention away from how language is used, and towards the functionality of discourse. For example, western feminists have eagerly bought into the construction of ‘Third-World women’ as ‘powerless’, ‘exploited’ and ‘sexually harassed’ women who were automatically and necessarily defined as religious and family oriented (Mohanty 1988). Their victimization was instrumental to the construction of a counter identity of ‘western’ women, who were modern and emancipated, and everything else these ‘Third-World women’ were not (Doezema 2001). The second section looks at the phases within the process of problematization, and the third looks at how and why boundaries between categories are continually redrawn.

Discourse theory

In discourse theory the word discourse does not refer to the language used to describe a social reality (as it does in discourse analysis), but to systems of relational identities (Sutherland 2005). Discourses emerge through the process of articulation in which so-called nodal points give a discourse stability and coherence. A nodal point is the point within the discourse in terms of which other meaning is defined (Laclau and Mouffe 1985; Hawkins 2009). The nation can be used as a nodal point and thus becomes the central reference point around which competing political projects are structured and in terms of which political demands are articulated (‘national interest’ or to ‘the good of the nation’). From a discourse theoretical perspective, the function of nation is not only to structure social relations, but also to provide a source of political legitimacy (Billig 1995; Calhoun 1997). Discourses are crucial to problematizations, as they refer, in the words of Howarth (2000, p. 9), to ‘historically specific systems of meaning which form the identities of subject and objects’.

For their existence, discourses depend on the elements that they exclude. The homogenization of the nation, for instance, can only be obtained in and through the discursive construction of ‘enemies of the nation’, who are simultaneously outside and inside the nation (Torfing 1999). Discourses use the logic of equivalence and the logic of difference. Within the logic of equivalence, chains are created that deny differences (Laclau and Mouffe 1985). The construction of the nation requires the construction of an alternative chain of equivalence in which certain enemies combine to conspire against the nation. The formation of chains of equivalence results in the emergence of discourses as coherent and identifiable entities. Chains of equivalence make clear what an object is not, rather than what it is. They link issues to each other, thus constituting a field of problematization. In the colonial context, for instance, colonizers defined themselves by pointing out all characteristics in which they differed from the colonized, rather than the characteristics they shared as colonizers (Laarman, this issue).

Dislocations, which can be the result of events (decolonization, migration, arrival of a new group of refugees), may lead to reformulation of the discursive order (Laarman and Walaardt, this issue). Discourses compete with one another to become the dominant system of meaning within their discursive environment. Studying this competition, and events that lead to change, makes it possible to analyse relational identities. At the same time, certain concepts of problematizations – immigrant integration for instance (Schinkel, this issue) – can be so dominant that it is hard to think outside them. Struggles over legitimate meanings can hide from view the fact that a dominant frame exists underneath the struggles.

The situational, institutional and social contexts shape and affect discourses and discourses influence social and political reality. In other words, discourse constitutes social practice and is at the same time constituted by it. Through discourse, social actors constitute knowledge, situations and social roles, as well as identities and interpersonal and intra-group relations. Discursive acts are socially constitutive in a number of ways. They play a decisive role in the genesis, production and construction of certain social conditions, for instance the construction of national identities. They might perpetuate, reproduce or justify a status quo, and are instrumental in transforming it (de Cillia et al. 1999).

Problematization

Discourses on migration issues focus on problems (van Dijk 1992). The conservative and right-wing press emphasize the problems that immigrants are seen to create (in housing, schooling, unemployment, crime), whereas the more liberal press (also) focuses on the problems that immigrants have (as a result of poverty, discrimination). This binary construction is reproduced in the distinction between migrant men, who cause problems, and migrant women, who have problems (Roggeband and Verloo 2007), or between being a risk (to the labour market or security) and being at risk (of being trafficked, ending up in prostitution, forced marriages, situations of domestic violence or as victims of honour killings) (Schrover 2009, 2010b).

Problematization is the process in which actors (academics, politicians, journalists, non-governmental organizations, lawyers or others) analyse a situation, define it as a problem, expand it by attaching issues to it or by exaggerating the number of people or the cost involved, and finally suggest a solution (Foucault 1984). Analysing problematization leads to questions like: what is seen as the problem, and who or what is seen as the cause? The process of problematization, in our view, is characterized by six phases: defining; claiming; legitimizing; expanding; and sensationalizing the problem, and suggestions regarding causes and consequences via the use of metaphors.

Defining

Problematization involves, in the first place, the construction of a problem-subject, that is, an object of problematization, which is marked through practices of categorization and classification (Billig 1995; Clausen 2004). It is usually accompanied by the introduction of a new term, which is subsequently stretched beyond useful. Endless discussions on definitions ensure that the ‘problem’ remains visible, adding to its importance.

Rather surprisingly, new concepts, such as transnationalism (Bouras, this issue), are frequently introduced into (academic) debates without reference to similar earlier concepts, such as the so-called marginal man of Park (1982). Park’s marginal man – living in two worlds – was a favoured object of study from the 1930s until the 1980s. In the 1990s, the transnational migrant replaced him, but the differences between the two categories were not large. Lack of references to similar concepts is not (only) the result of insufficient historical knowledge or knowledge of the literature. It is also part of a strategy to present the problems of the world of today as ‘new’ and ‘unprecedented’, which calls for new policies. Not in the least, such strategies figure in academic struggles for recognition, which are also struggles for means for research grants.

The introduction of a new term is called a critical intervention (Laclau 2005, p. 110) for which academics are frequently responsible. The reasons for choosing one term over another are mostly implicit, but never neutral. Words can have a negative or a positive connotation, and people make choices regarding the words they use. Classic examples are the choice between a ‘freedom fighter’ and a ‘terrorist’, and between an ‘economic refugee’ and a ‘true refugee’ (Walaardt, this issue). Use of the term ‘transnational mothering’ and absence of the term ‘transnational fathering’ indicates that absent (migrant) mothers are a problem, while absent fathers are not (Hondagneu-Sotelo 1997; Yeates 2004; Pajnik and Bajt 2010).

Claiming

Second, there is the claiming the problem: if it is ‘our’ problem, ‘we’ have to offer a solution. When the cause of the problem can be located outside society, it is no longer a problem of society (Schinkel, this issue). Claim makers can be politicians, journalists or lobbyists, who try to generate support for their proteges (Walaardt, this issue). Justification for the claim is used as a structure, for example in the case of special attention for minority crime, by referring to the ‘truth’ or the ‘right to know’. Mockery, ridicule and appeal to common sense are frequently employed structures, when stressing that ‘of course’ today’s problems cannot be compared to those of the past. Routine combinations of fairness on the one hand, and firmness, realism or pragmatism, on the other (Prins 2002) are used to emphasize that the problem is normal and abnormal at the same time. The rhetoric of fairness seeks to combine the humanitarian values of tolerance or hospitality with the common-sense values of ‘realism’. Humanitarian aims are recognized, but at the same time rejected as too idealistic and, therefore, impractical. Reference to fairness also aims to mitigate negative implications of, for instance, a proposed legislation, such as limitations on immigration (van Dijk 1992).

The pendant of claiming a problem is denying it. While some issues or subjects are problematized, others are trivialized (Schrover 2011). Use of quotation marks is a subtle form of denial, down-toning and minimizing are explicit forms (van Dijk 1992).

Legitimizing

Third, the problem is legitimized; a step for which academics provide ammunition. Politicians who justify (controversial) policies do so by claiming that their actions were not only legal, but were also benefiting ‘the people’ and academically sound (Martin Rojo and van Dijk 1997). They emphasize normality and standing procedures: action was normal and hence legitimate (Fischer, this issue). They employ a consensus strategy – ‘we all agree there is a problem’ – and a strategy of comparison: reference is made to similar issues or policies. They stress the normality of policies in combination with the abnormality of circumstances, and the seriousness of the ‘threat’. They represent the Other in terms of threat to public order or to Us. Emphasizing that that action was pursued with great care is part of a positive selfpresentation (Martin Rojo and van Dijk 1997). It is opposed to a negative other-presentation, for instance by systematically describing migrants as illegal, associating them with crime and violence, or representing them as victims (preferably of their own culture) (Walaardt, this issue). After emphasizing that the action was legal, careful, democratic, normal and (morally) acceptable, there is some recognition that it was not a ‘model’ solution, but it had nothing to do with intolerance or racism (Laarman, this issue). The Others are described in plural, as a homogenous group. No pejorative terms are used to describe Us while many are used to describe Them, and the reverse is true for positive associations. Euphemisms are used: expulsions or deportations are called ‘operation’ or ‘sending back’. Another stylistic tool is the use of medical, legal and bureaucratic jargon to show control and legitimacy (Fischer, this issue).

Politicians and other authorities, including academics, use a syntax that is formal and complex. They show a preference for long sentences and embedded clauses. This contributes to the bureaucratization of the discourse and legitimizatio...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Citation Information
• Notes on Contributors
• 1. Introduction: the language of inclusion and exclusion in the context of immigration and integration
• 2. The imagination of ‘society’ in measurements of immigrant integration
• 3. Bodies at the border: the medical protection of immigrants in a French immigration detention centre
• 4. Spectacles of migrant ‘illegality’: the scene of exclusion, the obscene of inclusion
• 5. From heroes to vulnerable victims: labelling Christian Turks as genuine refugees in the 1970s
• 6. Shifting perspectives on transnationalism: analysing Dutch political discourse on Moroccan migrants’ transnational ties, 1960–2010
• 7. Family metaphor in political and public debates in the Netherlands on migrants from the (former) Dutch East Indies 1949–66
• Index