The Humanisation of Refugees: A Discourse Analysis of UK Parliamentary Debates on the European Refugee ‘Crisis’

Abstract

Previous research has explored the 'othering' and dehumanisation of asylum seekers and refugees, yet comparatively little research has explored the opposite process: the humanisation of refugees. This article applies discursive psychological analysis to the transcripts of five UK Parliamentary debates on the European refugee 'crisis' from September 2015 to January 2016, examining an explicit form of humanisation: categorising refugees as 'human beings'. The analysis focuses on the nature and function of such categorisations to explore the social functions of the discourse. It illustrates how politicians draw on the human qualities of both refugees and 'us' to make the government and nation morally accountable for protecting refugees. Moreover, it shows how the humanisation or dehumanisation of others implicates or denies the self as morally responsible. This highlights how research on dehumanisation-and the opposite process of humanisation-needs to attend to the rhetorical, relational and dialogical aspects of discourse.

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.…”

“…This news, reported both nationally and internationally, shows how Sipilä manages his stake and interest as PM and constructs for himself a “subject position of a humane and solidary helper.” The announcement appeared only 3 days after the heart‐breaking pictures of 3‐year‐old Alan al‐Kurdi were distributed in the media and can, thus, also be considered as a response to this, as illustrated in Extract below (cf. Goodman et al, ; Kirkwood, ; see also the Swedish PM's rhetoric in Extract below).…”

“…In August 2015, the Finnish PM Juha Sipilä took a strong public position on behalf of refugees. Several newspapers reported the PM's statements in which he described refugees as humans in need and danger (see also Kirkwood, ). In most of these press‐interviews, the PM refers to his recent visit to Lebanon as having opened his eyes to the severity of the situation.…”

“…The focus in these studies has mainly been on discursive practices of inclusion and exclusion in elite and public settings (Sambaraju & McVittie, ). One study (Kirkwood, ) focussed on sympathetic categorizations of refugees, namely, on the humanization of refugees in parliamentary debates in the UK. Kirkwood found that the use of mundane categorizations allowed for expressions of sympathy towards people seeking asylum or refuge and thus supported their inclusion.…”

“Sad day for the UK”: The linking of debates about settling refugee children in the UK with Brexit on an anti‐immigrant news website

“…While it has been demonstrated that arguments based on these did appear to be made regarding the wider refugee crisis, especially following the photographs of a drowned 3year-old refugee (Goodman et al, 2017), and that these humanitarian arguments are some of the strongest pro-refugee strategies (Kirkwood, 2017;Wroe, 2018), these arguments are generally missing from this particular discussion and are not found to be used to respond to some of the anti-asylum arguments that are featured in this analysis. Of particular note is the lack of arguments based on compassion and/or humanitarianism throughout the debate.…”