The Management of Oppression: Focussing on relationships between refugees and the British state in Newcastle upon Tyne (original) (raw)
2010
"This thesis uses an empirically informed Marxist analysis to investigate the role of interests, consciousness and unpaid activity of refugees and asylum seekers in shaping their relationships with the British state, including case studies from the city of Newcastle upon Tyne. I argue that antagonism between the British state and refugees from economically underdeveloped countries is rooted in capitalist relations of production, with Britain occupying an imperialist position. The thesis advances a novel perspective on ‘social capital’, understood as purposive and sustained forms of non-contractual engagement, with implicit norms and values. Social capital is ‘unmasked’ as a way of understanding and intervening in relations at an individual level, in order to influence change at a social level. I argue that the tendency of recent Labour governments’ policy has been to break up social capital formations among refugees which are seen as threatening, whilst actively cultivating formations which engage refugees on an individual basis, as part of managing their oppression. The thesis identifies contradictions and possibilities for resistance within this process, such as simultaneous tendencies for volunteering to contribute to more collective forms of identity and more individualised forms of action. The multi-level research design explores processes connecting the individual to the global. Empirical data is used to interrogate and develop a theoretical framework which is rooted in classical Marxism, draws on insights developed within qualitative social research methods and anti-oppressive practice, and engages creatively with challenges from post-modernism and feminism. The methodology combines: theoretical research; secondary statistics and literature at an international level; interviews with key participants and archival research on local histories of migration and settlement, including three organisational case studies; four contemporary organisational case studies; and individual volunteer case studies based on semi-structured interviews and focus groups with eighteen refugees and asylum seekers."
Related papers
Reflections on Refugee Studies and the study of refugees: Implications for policy analysts
Journal of Management & Public Policy, 2014
The United Nations (UN, 2010) reports that 25.2 million people, an overwhelming majority from the Global South, are displaced: 10.55 million refugees and 14.7 million internally displaced people (IDP). The phenomenon of Refugee Studies as a field of academic inquiry is a main focus of this paper. This paper makes a case for more critical analysis in – and of – refugee studies in order to better protect displaced people and to assist government in creating policies which respect the dignity of individuals. Based on a review of academic literature, first this paper discusses key concepts, labels, and theories in refugee studies. Second it traces the emergence of the field of refugee studies. Following it discusses the dilemma within the study of refugee policy research in regards to our ability to remain critical while maintaining a close relationship with government funding agencies. Finally, the conclusion makes a case for studying asylum seekers as a distinct phenomenological group. Implications for the management of refugee claims administration, researchers and policy analysts are brought forward while arguing that theoretically a separate space for asylum studies is required.
Refugee research Methodologies: Consolidation and Transformation of a Field
Journal of Refugee Studies, Vol. 20 (2), 2007
The paper traces the early history of refugee research and shows how, from originally being prime movers in the research, refugees today have largely been reduced to invisibility. In the south, access to refugees held in camps is controlled by local government bureaucracies and by lead agencies, and may be severly restricted or completely denied; in the North, refugees held in detention centres are equally difficult to access and even more disempowered. Examples are given of studies carried out in Sierra Leone, Sudan, Egypt, Kenya, Greece and the Former Soviet Union. The paper also considers barriers to disseminating refugee research and concludes that now more than ever the duty of the researcher is to speak on behalf of refugees.
This paper aims to reflect from an anthropological perspective on the fact that, by taking the category of ‘refugees’ as both the primary focus and the boundary for its research, Refugee Studies is underpinned by definitions that originate from policy. It contends that the definitions of categories of people (such as “refugees”, “migrants”, “IDPs”, etc.) arising from the refugee and humanitarian regime are not necessarily meaningful in the academic field from an analytical point of view. Empirical research has demonstrated that in practice it is not possible to apply these definitions to separate discrete classes of migrants. They are policy related labels, designed to meet the needs of policy rather than of scientific enquiry. Moreover, as products of a specific system, they bear assumptions which reflect the principles underlying the system itself. For these reasons Refugee Studies needs to maintain analytical independence from the refugee regime. This would require inter alia disentangling the analysis from policy categories and including policy as one of the objects of study. The first section argues that in the context of academic research the descriptive scope of the term “refugee” is limited; in fact, empirical research shows that the refugee label does not define a sociological relevant group. The second section turns to the policy arena and to the shaping of labels by international actors. Two moments are analysed: the creation of a refugee regime separate from the one of migration after the Second World War and the current debate on the “asylum-migration nexus”. The third section presents the main assumptions conveyed by the refugee label as a product of the international refugee regime, that is a state centred and sedentary bias.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.