The Mutually Constitutive Relationship between Place and Identity: The Role of Place‐Identity in Discourse on Asylum Seekers and Refugees

Abstract

Recent discursive research has shown that constructions of place may function to regulate social relations and reinforce particular notions of belonging. However, extant discursive research on place‐identity has so far neglected the mutually constitutive relationships between constructions of place and identity in legitimising people's presence. To address this gap, this study, undertaken in Scotland, applies the notion of place‐identity to the discursive analysis of interviews with asylum seekers and refugees, people who work in organisations that support asylum seekers and refugees and locals who live in areas where asylum seekers and refugees tend to be housed. The analysis suggests that constructions of asylum seekers’ and refugees’ countries of origin as dangerous, and the host society as relatively problem‐free, function to constitute their identities as legitimate and to justify their presence in the host society. Moreover, constructions of place may work to portray refugees and asylum seekers as benefiting the local community and as belonging more than certain other locals. In contrast, constructing the host society as ‘full’ functions to oppose their presence through portraying them as not being able to belong. This demonstrates the mutually constitutive roles of place and identity in legitimising or resisting people's movement and belonging. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

History in the Service of Politics: Constructing Narratives of History During the European Refugee “Crisis”

“…Such category‐based accounts, whereby the United Kingdom is construed as a nation that is always on the side of providing sanctuary to those who need it, functions to reinforce its moral integrity and buttress against claims to the contrary (see Stokoe, ). The construction of place functions to portray those seeking asylum as clearly in need of protection, through repeated reference to the “horrors” of Nazi Germany and “the Idi Amin regime in Uganda,” as well as “the crushing of the Hungarian uprising by Soviet tanks,” such that people have no choice but to flee and therefore are constituted as “genuine” refugees in need of protection (Kirkwood, McKinlay, & McVittie, ). The first‐person plural, “we,” connects people of the past with people of the present, such that a single (British) identity is presented as existing through time, making present‐day actions interpretable in reference to the past (Condor, ).…”

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

“…Defenders of asylum seekers in Australia attempt to shame the opposition, but this strategy can be counterproductive, further entrenching the targets' hostile positions (Every, ). Kirkwood, McKinlay, and McVittie (), show that disputing the normative hostile position towards asylum seekers requires considerable discursive labour.…”

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

“…Stating flatly that they are ‘human beings’ asserts the speaker's epistemic authority and presents this as a settled matter (Heritage & Raymond, ). Using colloquial familial terms (‘mums, dads, grans, uncles […] sons and daughters’) works to humanise them through linking them with the positive connotations of family members (Goodman, ; Kirkwood, McKinlay, & McVittie, ). In this way, the speaker presents an alternative to the categorisation of ‘economic migrant’, a category which suggests one is travelling on one's own volition and seeking financial gain, and as such is used to discredit one's need for asylum (Goodman & Speer, ), providing an alternative portrayal to those accounts that present refugees as idle, sub‐human or economically motivated (Goodman, ; Leudar et al, ).…”