Hello and welcome to the Migration Oxford Podcast. I'm Jackie Broadhead and I'm Rob McNeill.
Rob. Today we have a great subject. Asymmetrical sympathies.
When it comes to refugees and migrants, what do we mean by asymmetrical sympathies?
So the basic gist of this is that people are welcoming to some groups and lots of welcoming to other groups.
Um, and it's a sort of exploration of why that is and what are the factors that shape our willingness to say, please come,
we're going to help you to some groups of people and then say, no, no, no, no, no, you're a problem to other groups of people.
Um, which obviously we've seen play out quite a lot in the UK media and policy debate in the last few years.
Um, incredible, welcoming, incredible openness rather to people coming from Ukraine,
from Hong Kong, fleeing really problematic scenarios in both places.
But then this very, very uncomfortable scenario with people arriving, for example, on small boats.
Um, and certainly not much welcoming, uh, for people who are considered to be making the migrants.
And we're talking here about public opinion and about policy.
But I also wondered, with your huge experience in journalism and working with the media,
it feels like they have a huge role to play in how those asymmetries play out.
What were your thoughts about that? Well, I think it's really important to understand that the kind of relationship between public attitudes,
policymaking and media are like they influence one another.
They will shape the way that each other function. And some of the things, some of the stories.
And I think this is we hear about this in the discussion a little bit more clearly,
but some of the stories that we hear about people that deserving this or non deserving this,
um, are really very, very similar to the sort of stories that we've been told since time began, about one group or another turning up.
And I use this when I lecture on migration media.
And this is one of the cool points that I come back to the same sets of stories,
the idea of the US and the Z in group, and that the ideas of, you know,
like land rights and territorial ownership of the idea of, you know,
of a distant and exciting place rather than and that the ordinariness of home or whatever.
These all shaped the way that we see different places, and particularly the structures that are in place relating to global economics.
You know, a place that is poor that people want to escape from.
This is a place that is rich, that people want to get into, tells us a lot about what's going to happen,
that, you know, people can be open and welcoming to be able to be maybe leaving those places.
But it's very it's very much not the only story because these are issues that are
commonly related to race and culture and colonial activities and all that kind of stuff.
So this is stuff that we've discussed in this, in this, in this podcast, which I think is super interesting.
Do you think the tale sometimes bugs the dog in terms of the media role?
You know, I guess the media would say that they're reflecting back what the public think.
Do you think they have a role in creating that reality, or are they simply reflecting it?
Well, I think it's important to remember that there isn't such a thing as the media, as one functioning body.
There's lots of different components of any and any media environment in any country.
There are inevitably scenarios, I think, where public attitudes are shaped to some extent by stories that they read,
but those stories that they really are shaped by often policymaking,
which is then in itself shaped by the way that the public are responding to things
on the doorstep in the way that therefore politicians are deciding to do things.
So it's really, really hard to unpick causality in these sorts of situations.
And I think that we can really go back again to this kind of historical scenario.
I mean, you can go back all the way to biblical times and the stories about these kind of losses and that is,
you know, um, and before and even beyond that and still see the same sorts of stories coming out.
It's not it's not about necessarily kind of an evil media behemoth making people think evil things.
It's it's a much more complex scenario where people respond in complex ways to difficult situations.
They're accused sometimes that can stimulate them to behave in particular ways.
But it's not just media that can trigger those that can trigger those responses.
And media is often reflecting back. It's sometimes is stimulating.
It's a complex place. It's a complex scenario. And I think that it's more about society's broader relations with in groups and groups,
and why media organisations can play a role in shaping attitudes to the different groups might have.
Yeah, I think that's a good point.
And I was also interested in that academic and research perspective and how much academic research shapes some of these discussions.
You know, sometimes migration studies as a kid has been accused of being dislocated from, um, studies of race,
racism or also from questions of foreign policy or being a little bit, er, historical and kind of flattening out some of that complexity.
Do you think that there is a kind of role in academic research for bringing in some of these other factors,
rather than kind of just solely thinking about migration as if it were, um, slightly divorced from some of these other areas.
Well, I think the idea that migration certainly began in 2001 or something like that is clearly preposterous,
and it's something that means that we have to situate these things historically.
And the reasons, the factors that shift, why people are moving, why people are in the places they were in in the first place.
Um, you know, what the geopolitics are that are leading to certain people in certain scenarios where people have to leave.
These are all things that are situated within history and in particular.
So one of the people that was speaking today, Professor Bridget Anderson,
has done a lot of work looking at the kind of historical origins of migration control of the US and then the politics of immigration control.
Yeah, fundamentally, the X factor, even units of medieval England and the the issuing of the very first sort of identity documents,
um, to, you know, to value baggage, to control their mobility around different parishes.
And it speaks to a kind of like the fact that we are consistently replicating things that have happened in the past,
rather than necessarily doing something extraordinarily novel.
Um, and this is not entirely surprising, because while society changes, the reality is that, you know, humans are still humans.
We still live in communities. We still have our in groups.
Um, and there are people outside of those that we may be concerned about or that we may want to help.
And making decisions about those groups is something that is a constant challenge and has been throughout history.
Thanks so much, Rob. Um, now for our conversation with Bridget and Isabelle.
I'm joined today by Professor Presents and Director of Migration Mobilities Pursuit, and by Isabel.
The menu is a student in development studies at the University of Oxford.
So, Isabel, can I start by asking you,
what do you think conditions people's openness to one group of people claiming asylum and their opposition, potentially to another group?
Uh, well, thank you very much for this question and for having me on the podcast.
And I think it's a fascinating question, and one that is actually at the heart of, of my DPhil research.
Um, in that context, um, what I'm partly interested in is looking at the perceptions and the emotions that may be at play in,
in varying, uh, responses to, to refugees, whether it's its openness or, uh, closure versus, you know, of a position.
Um, so maybe just a first note, um, I think it's important to, to to clarify that perceptions are subjective.
So they're made of biases, um, preferences, understandings of the world, um,
that people have, uh, which can be influenced by the media and political elites as well.
Um, so maybe for the purposes of this conversation, there are many that we could discuss.
Uh, but I would like to raise two of them. Uh, one of them is deserving this and and undeserving this.
So you may have heard about about that concept. Many people have talked about it in the literature.
And basically it's, um, it relates to this idea that some people can be perceived as worthy of protection, whereas others, uh, may be not.
So, for instance, motivations for fleeing is often, um, a um, a concept that that is used to,
to define whether people are just constructed as deserving or not.
So, for instance, if people are understood to be forced to flee versus having economic motives,
that will shape bit the response of whole societies to how they, you know, to their perceived deserving ness.
Um, age and gender are also often, um, a factor.
So, for instance, a woman and a child usually is considered as deserving of protection versus single men,
which are more often understood as security threats and the like.
Um, so that's one of the concepts that I think is important to, to reflect, uh, about.
The other one is relatedness. Um, that's actually a concept that was used by Matthew.
Give me to refer to the Kosovo, uh, response, I mean, the European response to Kosovar refugees in the, in 1999.
And basically it's whether people feel whether they have feelings of identification with the displaced.
So often having individual stories will be more helpful than statistics because people relate more to individual stories and they do to,
you know, to numbers. Um, and often it will also be shaped by ethnic, uh, or, you know, or historical features.
So racial biases can, can play a role in that.
Isabel. That's fantastic. Thank you very much. Um, Bridget.
So your work has explored the idea that the hard migration policies tend to be about controlling the mobility of the poor.
Do you think that's key to this issue of this idea of people's asymmetrical sympathies?
Yes, I do, and I think in a way, kind of it speaks to what, um, Isabel was just saying,
because I think if we think about the control of the mobility of the poor,
then that necessarily brings in once again, these questions of deserving ness, um, which I would say have a long history.
And actually we can see them reflected in ideas of the welfare state who's deserving of, um, of receiving welfare benefits.
Um, and, you know, and even the idea of the deserving poor, you know, that we talk with all of its kind of Victorian,
um, ramifications, I think is helpful in thinking about attitudes to, uh, excuse me, about asylum and immigration.
So, you know, neediness, victimhood, but also the, the benevolence of the, um, of the giver of the receiver, as it were.
Yeah. So I think our culture is deeply infused with ideas of deserving us rather than solidarity,
which also then leads to questions about fairness rather than justice, hierarchies and kind of competition.
Who's more worthy than the next person. So I think that is one kind of set of concerns that connects the idea of the poor who's deserving,
deserving of welfare with similar ideas about immigration and asylum.
And then the other, I think, is ideas of race and racism, the civilised and the uncivilised,
which again, you know, historically, I think are bound up with, with poverty, um, with class.
And today, you know, the global poor means the great mass of people who are from low income countries and these, uh, almost always people of colour.
One of the things that I'm really interested in,
this is the situation that happened back in 2015 time of 2014, 1516 and this point, particularly in Germany.
In Isabelle, I think you've done some work on, on, on Germany and this point that what is sometimes thought of as the Thea Schaffen
Das moment where Germany threw itself behind the protection of refugees,
it feels like a really pivotal moment for Germany in particular. But it's also a really divisive point as well.
So do you think that what, uh, Mary George, you and Rafael Zebrowski discussed the just so dubbed,
rather the ecstatic humanitarianism at that mid 2010 point,
which was then followed by this rapid shift towards securitisation with the Bataclan attacks and things like that.
Do you think that shifted Europe's perspective on asylum seeking and asylum seekers fundamentally?
That's a very, very good question.
Um, so from analysing the case of Germany and why it's so fascinating is that we can see those kinds of two periods of time,
one that is, uh, you know, with very positive and welcoming representations of refugees across the board, release of political elites.
I mean, again, generally had, uh, positive discourses around the displaced, um, in public opinion and in the media as well.
Um, and there was also, I think is also interesting is how the, you know,
the perception or the understanding of the nation can also play a role in those contexts.
So in the case of Germany, um, there were a lot of discourses around the nation almost redeeming itself for,
um, welcoming refugees, which I think played a very interesting role.
Uh, but as you say and I mean, we can we can pinpoint that the kind of shift to January 2016, uh, you may remember, um,
there were reports that Arab looking men, uh, including some seekers, had assaulted women in Cologne on New Year's Eve.
And following that, there was a clear shift in in media representations of refugees and public opinion as well,
and, and discourses of political elites.
Um, but what research shows, and my work as well, is that the German public did not reject the idea of asylum in and of itself.
It's more that it questioned whether those who were actually entering the country were worthy of that protection.
So I think it gives, um, you know, new nuance to that.
Um, so I'm not a European specialist.
So, um, I may not be the best person to say whether, like, that's a fundamental shift or not, but I think that just the idea of,
you know, that it's more like whether the people where they are in front of us are disturbing, um, or not.
To me, that indicates that those perceptions are actually on a pendulum.
So you may be more open or, uh, you know, societies can become more open or not, depending, uh, across time.
I think that the example of Ukrainian refugees, um, um, recently also shows that, that it's,
uh, so from my research, I would say this, that those moments of openness come and go.
It's not that it's a fundamental shift, but I think then the question becomes, how can we make those responses more long lasting?
Um, and also more inclusive of all groups of refugees.
That's a very interesting point, and a great point for me to jump on to my next question, which is for you,
which is to do with the fact that obviously so millions of Ukrainians have moved to the EU and,
and, and, you know, well over a hundred thousand to move to the UK following the Russian invasion.
But we haven't seen the sort of backlash that we saw towards flows of people moving off the Syrian civil war or
indeed towards people crossing over the channel or the Mediterranean in small boats in considerably smaller numbers.
Now, is this because we perceive Ukrainians to be part of what you've described is as part of a larger community of values?
Well, I think community value is a very elastic term as, as Isabel's intimated.
So, um, yes. On the one hand, you know, it's, uh, Ukrainians are perceived to be, you know,
Christians and in inverted commas, like us, which includes not being used to war.
Um, and therefore, um, uh, yeah, sharing certain certain values.
But I think so.
The danger of it is, is that when we talk about community of values and like us, you know, we're not just talking about queuing, you know,
actually there is a racist dimension to that that can get hidden by talking about culture or talking about similarity or talking about closeness.
And I think more generally, this is, uh, a challenge to both migration and refugee studies that,
uh, questions of race and racism, uh, both there and not there.
You know, it's the great unsaid. Um, so I think thinking about how the community of value is actually kind of proposing,
um, a certain kind of fantasy which is both racialized and classed,
uh, I think is important if we want to kind of get to grips with, uh, the kind of responses to, uh, refugees and migrants more generally.
Okay. So so this is then the question kind of for both of you.
So do we think that this, this, this question of kind of the exclusion and inclusion thing, this idea of, of an asymmetry of sympathies.
Do we think that this is something that is actually global, or is it something that sits more strongly within, you know,
the a culture of high income countries that feels that they have somehow or another, uh, rights to exclude others?
And, and do you think that there is a way of changing this?
Is there a way of creating a situation which is more inclusive, um, structurally, globally?
Um, generally, what do we saw with you again, uh, Bridget on that.
So I think it's important that we distinguish between state responses and people to people responses and don't
necessarily think that what we see reflected when when states say they're acting in the name of the popular.
Well, you know, that isn't necessarily the popular.
Well, um, and, uh, and I say that not because I think that people are, uh, you know, immune to, um,
to the influences of government and media, but just that we can't we can't simply equate them.
Um, and actually, quite often I think that, um, responses to, you know,
I would say responses to Ukrainians and responses in the British case to Hong Kong is also deeply shaped by,
you know, our own government's foreign policy interests and agenda, which then affects how these issues are portrayed in, in the media.
Um, so and I think once we once we start realising that immigration and asylum are not standalone issues,
you know, they're connected to global politics, they're connected to, uh, global economics.
Um, and they also have long histories.
I think that helps kind of perhaps open up some space for, um, different approaches,
but also recognising when there are also different approaches that pass unseen under the radar.
Um, and I think in terms of your question about, you know,
is this something European or sort of to do with the wealthy countries in and on the one hand, yes.
You know, wealthy countries might feel that they have more to lose, um, or might be able to present that there is more to lose.
But also, I think we have to recognise that ideas of race and racism have been rolled out all over the globe, um, in part through imperial history.
So yes, Europe and uh, Europe has a there's a big responsibility there, but also that they built on um, other.
Ways of excluding and hierarchy sizing people.
So I've been doing some work recently looking at the, um, terrible treatment of Rohingya people and its historical roots,
and how it was that actually ideas of race, uh, and nation grafted so well into the,
um, uh, pre imperial Burmese courts way of looking at the world, which was an elite way of looking at the world,
which also hierarchies sized people, even if it didn't use race.
So I think we have to recognise that race and racism is now a kind of global discourse, um, that it was, um, rolled out and globalised by imperialism,
but also that there are multiple ways of making differences and inferiority and superiority between different kinds of people.
Which brings us to the second part of that question, which perhaps is about you can give us some thoughts about is there a way through this?
Is there a way of improving the situation? Um, thank you for this question.
And I think my ideas on this are, uh, quite similar to what Bridget was saying.
And, uh, it's that I think we can all play a role in nurturing environments and understandings of the world that are more conducive to solidarity.
So going back to the concept of relatedness that I spoke about earlier,
I think there's work to be done to promote, um, understandings of our relatability to all groups of refugees.
And I think that, um, that has a potential of, of challenge challenging racism that Bridget has talked about.
And I think it is key in those dynamics. So, um, that that's one point.
And then the other one is I think we need also more education on the ways in which societies in the global north often play a role,
um, or have some level of responsibility in the trajectories of people who are displaced.
Um, so, um, I think that connects also to what Bridget was saying, um, you know, that solidarity and justice are often not key understandings of,
you know, or are not often, uh, mobilised in situations of open openness to refugees.
Uh, and there's a reason to that, um, in my own work, um, I've seen that, you know, big mobilising ideas that that societies have a role to,
you know, are implicated in those situations, kind of challenges their the virtue of their host for receiving refugees.
So it's kind of a different it comes from a different part from a, you know,
it's more grounded in justice and solidarity versus virtue for, um, for, for receiving refugees.
But I think that challenging those, uh, perceptions and I think can can go a long way in,
um, you know, creating more openness to, to all groups of refugees.
Of course, that's not something that is easy to do, but going back to to what Bridget was saying about elite and society dynamics,
I think that we can all have a role in this and that, um, if, you know,
researchers, universities, uh, civil society organisations,
I think all have a role to play in kind of nurturing representations that may be more, um, that may be more grounded in solidarity.
And as a result, that can also have an impact on on the policies that that governments make and hopefully kind of,
you know, maybe not, um, that can at least challenge somewhat, uh,
the asymmetrical sympathies that we often witness and hopefully be more how is show more
solidarity to to all groups of people and all refugee crises that we see around the world?
Can I ask a question? Oh, yeah. Yeah. Can I ask is a valid question because I think that's really interesting.
But I wonder whether what do you think about the kind of the more foundational distinction between the refugee and the migrants?
I mean, you're talking about refugees, but do you think that that really applies to migrants more generally?
Because I would say that there's, you know, the distinction between the refugee and the migrant and the refugee is basically
being the more deserving than the economic migrant is itself a problem.
So that you're all that if you only talk about refugees,
then the risk is that then you're still creating this kind of undeserving subordinate group, which is economic migrants.
That's you. Absolutely right. Absolutely right. Um, and I think I was using the term refugee really like, as a broad concept.
That is and I think we also need to challenge and going back to the idea of deserving this, and I as I was saying, you know,
usually people who are considered as forced to flee will be those, you know, who who we usually understand as refugees versus economic motives.
So I think that challenging that as well, and that there are different grounds for needing to flee and, and mobilising stories of people for,
you know, so that people understand why they may be, uh, why they, they may need to, to, to leave their countries behind.
And I think that can that can help and in promoting understandings are more open to different narratives of migration.
Um, clearly that's not something that is that is easy to do.
But I think that's also something that's important to to challenge.
But it is important.
And we're raising some fundamental questions about how we imagine global mobilities generally and the use of terminology like refugee or migrant,
uh, two defined in ways that, that mean that we have particular understandings of what they mean.
And that in itself generates particular legal policy responses.
Um, and I think that, I mean, we can look at this going back through time a little bit as well.
Which brings me again, neatly to the question that I was going to ask Bridget, because, Bridget, you've done a lot of work in the past.
Um. You know how the past can illuminate the present.
So, I mean, just to kind of wrap this up, I wanted to know what you thought about the idea that or what you thought of,
of how the current era, in terms of openness to people fleeing disasters and persecution, um, actually compares to scenarios in the past.
Is it a better time to be seeking refuge in globally than it was, or is it worse?
I don't know. Uh, well, I don't know the answer to that question either.
But I would say, um, and and this actually goes back to again what Isabelle was saying.
So for me, it's been great to have this, um, conversation, but, um, so firstly,
again, I would distinguish between policy and practice, between elites and um,
um, normal people as it were, but also the story that is told, you know,
the story that is told of ourselves, ourselves in inverted commas and the past.
So, for example, uh, in Britain, you endlessly hear rolled out the shoe kono's as the example of, you know, how open that we've been, you know.
Well, this you can those were, you know, highly skilled, um, weavers that actually were,
you know, fulfilled a very useful function in, uh, English society at the time.
We hear much less about the so called poor, poor Palestine's who were, um, poor people from Germany who are what's now Germany,
who were fleeing poverty and, um, and oppression in the early 18th century,
1709, I think it was, um, and who came to London in their thousands and who were accused of taking jobs,
lowering wages, bringing crime, all this kind of familiar stuff.
So, um, in some ways, I think the stories that we tell each other about migrants are really distressingly old,
and we need to really move on from them. And on that note, uh, that slightly depressing note.
Uh, I'm going to say thank you very much indeed to Professor Bridget Anderson and Isabella Levey.
Thank you so much. Thanks, Rob. You're welcome. You've been listening to the Migration Oxford podcast.
I'm Robert. And I'm Jackie Brodhead.