Docility and desert: Government discourses of compassion in Australia’s asylum seeker debate

Abstract

In the years since 2001, Australian governments on both sides of politics have at times appealed to compassion to justify their asylum seeker policies. This article takes these discourses of compassion – contradictory and cynical as they sometimes seem – and subjects them to careful and systematic analysis. It seeks to identify the underlying model of compassion that these government discourses employ, and to explain its significance. Ultimately it argues that the model of compassion that has been advanced by successive Australian governments deviates from traditional philosophical understandings of the concept. In reserving compassion for the weak and the passive, government discourses have allowed Australia to understand itself both as ‘good’ and as powerful. When privilege replaces solidarity as the basis for compassion, discourses of compassion – like the ‘hardline’ rhetoric that scholars have often prioritised in their analyses – speak to the fears and insecurities of the Australian people.

Tactics of the ‘Ugly Australian’: Morality, masculinity, nationalism and governance amid a cheating controversy in sport

“…Also, in a discursively comparative sense, there are collective psychic wounds felt in observing such confected outrage while, for example, asylum seekers languish in detention (Peterie, 2017). These contrasts reveal grotesque skews regarding what lives we deem 'grievable' (Butler, 2006).…”

The melancholic torturer: How Australia became a nation that tortures refugees

“…As Michelle Peterie (2017: 1) explains in ‘Docility and Desert: Government Discourses of Compassion in Australia’s Asylum Seeker Debate’, it was during this time that the government – first the Coalition and later the Labor government – was able to subvert the discourses of compassion itself. Discourse that now:functioned not as expressions of equality or solidarity, but as demonstrations of power.…”

Grey networks: The contradictory dimensions of Australia's immigration detention system

“…While research confirms that these messages resonate with the electorate (McKay et al ., ), Australians have also expressed concern regarding the human costs of deterrence. As such, governments have increasingly employed humanitarian language to frame their policies, suggesting that hardline deterrence policies are ‘compassionate’ (in that they purportedly save lives at sea and curb people‐smuggling) and ‘fair’ (in that they ensure maritime asylum seekers derive no advantage from ‘jumping the queue’) (Peterie, ; see also Dauvernge, ). These discursive strategies present deterrence policies as compatible with Australia's self‐image as a decent and law‐abiding country.…”