Migration and the politics of ‘the human’: confronting the privileged subjects of IR

Abstract

In what ways has migration as a field of scholarship contributed to the discipline of International Relations (IR)? How can migration as a lived experience shed light on international politics as a field of interconnections? And how might migration as a political and analytical force compel IR to confront its privileged subjects? This article addresses these questions by focusing specifically on precarious migration from the Global South to the Global North. It shows how critical scholars refuse the suggestion that such migrations pose a ‘global challenge’ or problem to be resolved, considering instead how contemporary practices of governing migration effectively produce precarity for many people on the move. It also shows how critical works point to longer standing racialised dynamics of colonial violence within which such governing practices are embedded, to emphasise both the limitations of liberal humanitarianism as well as the problematic politics of ‘the human’ that this involves. By building on the insights of anti-racist, indigenous and postcolonial scholarship, critical scholars of migration are well placed to draw attention to the privileging of some subjects over others in the study and practice of international politics. The article argues that engaging IR while rejecting the orthodoxies on which the discipline is built remains critical for such works in order to advance understanding of the silences and violences of contemporary international politics.

Between race and animality: European borders, ‘colonial dogs’, and the policing of humanity

“…57 As post-colonial thought and critical race scholarship have shown us, despite its universal connotations within liberal and cosmopolitan paradigms, the idea of modern humanness has been racialised from its very inception and, hence, is not simply 'available' to everyone. 58 The very notion that we can talk about a 'shared humanity' , as Sabrina Axster explains, is 'blind to the colonial racial hierarchies underpinning who has historically been considered "human" in the first place and who could thus ascend to the space of our "shared humanity"' . 59 More simply put, while modernity and Enlightenment produced a purportedly 'universal' category of humanness based on ideas of freedom, rationality, autonomy, etc., this category was in actuality constructed through the partial and sometimes full exclusion of racialised and colonised bodies, who were continually produced as either non-or sub-human.…”

“…This can be seen as part of the broader process of (de)humanisation carried out by Europe's border apparatus of security in the context of Europe's so-called migrant crisis. 126 The use of police dogs, more simply put, like other forms of border violence, enables Europe to demarcate and secure the lines between those whose lives are worthy and those whose lives are 'disposable' and do not fully belong within the contours of Europe's liberal humanity. 127 It does so not only by reinforcing Europe's modern and human subjectivity -in opposition to the migrant's non-or sub-human status -but also essentially by denying migrants access to 'modern humanness' , further (de)humanising them.…”

Why Did They Assume Only Humans Had Politics?

“…Although obviously naïve, the assumption that only humans had politics retained an iron grip on the minds of people in the early part of this century, and explaining why and how this could have been the case has been the purpose of this report. 23 One consequence of a long process of subjectification, which exclusively considered the European "man" as political thinker, actor, and participant, was the explosive innovation and creativity that resulted from its unseating. 24 Today, we can only reflect on the immense suppression of history, evidence, and information that holding this conclusion required.…”

Recentering the human in the continuums of in/mobility and in/security: Perceptions from two emblematic borders

“…Este llamado particularmente apunta a las personas sin privilegios en los regímenes globales de movilidad. En el desarrollo de nuestro argumento, reconocemos que ha habido otros estudios (Brigden, 2016;Squire, 2020) intentando este cambio. Nuestro énfasis es en el des/encuentro entre la persona en situación de movilidad que no tiene privilegios y la aplicación de la soberanía nacional.…”