“It's just heart breaking”: Doing inclusive political solidarity or ambivalent paternalism through sympathetic discourse within the “refugee crisis” debate

Abstract

This article explores how people do sympathetic talk in relation to the European “refugee crisis.” The analysis was grounded in critical discursive psychology and also drew on the concept of affective–discursive practice. Data was retrieved from a phone‐in program on Irish national radio over a 6‐month period when the refugee crisis debate was at its height. It is shown that speakers deployed elaborate sympathetic repertoires with ease that described their normative emotional response to the plight of the asylum seekers. But these same speakers found it problematic to present explicit, unambiguous, and unconditional calls of inclusive political solidarity with the asylum seekers, advocating increased asylum provision in Ireland. These findings are discussed in light of the hostile affective–discursive environment towards asylum and the common sense understanding that nation‐states have the moral right to exclude, which appears to constrain the talk to a position of ambivalent paternalism.

The European Union and the refugee “crisis”: Inclusion, challenges, and responses

“…This aspect of avowing sympathy for those seeking refuge is further explored by Nightingale, Quayle, and Muldoon (). Nightingale et al () examine talk on a publicly broadcast Irish radio call‐in programme. Their examination of sympathetic talk on the programme takes up the case of inclusion–advocacy and how this might or might not take place.…”

Managing stake and accountability in Prime Ministers' accounts of the “refugee crisis”: A longitudinal analysis

“…Similarly to what we saw in the Finnish rhetoric above, during the beginning of autumn 2015 talk of humanism and solidarity dominated the discourse of the Swedish PM (see also Kirkwood, ; Nightingale et al, ; Sambaraju et al, ). Löfvén emphasized that receiving and helping refugees in need, people who are fleeing for their lives, is a moral responsibility of the entire Swedish nation.…”

“…They showed that speakers promoted the inclusion of refugees through specific forms of talk about Ireland and the European Union, making relevant particular “unique” aspects of Ireland to warrant further inclusion and to diminish responsibility by framing the refugee crisis as a European issue. Thus, in line with previous research on refugees, specific national constructions could be used to enhance or to mitigate responsibility for limited inclusion (Nightingale et al, ; Sambaraju et al, ).…”

“…In both countries, in the beginning of the refugee crisis a discourse of refugees in need was constructed to portray the PMs in a favourable light and as examples of humane and solidary helpers and, thus, to attribute responsibility for the crisis to all Finnish and Swedish citizens—including the PMs themselves. Humanization (Kirkwood, ) and avowing sympathy (Nightingale et al, ; Sambaraju et al, ) have been shown to characterize parliamentary debates about the refugee crisis in the UK and in Ireland. As in this line of research, in the present study, sympathy for refugees was contingent upon the context in which it was located.…”

“…However, sympathy invoking positive accounts could be expressed alongside accounts that promoted a restrictive and paternalistic inclusion of refugees. Similarly, Nightingale, Quayle, and Muldoon (), who examined talk in an Irish radio call‐in programme, showed how callers avow grief and sympathy for those seeking refuge, whilst at the same time withdrawing from offering them inclusion. Similarly, Sambaraju, McVittie, and Nolan () found such “sympathy‐talk” in their study of political debates on the refugee crisis in the Irish parliament during 2015.…”