Advertisement

Unmasking the Cultural Construction of Asylum Screening at the Border

  • Olga Jubany
Chapter
Part of the Transnational Crime, Crime Control and Security book series (TCCCS)

Abstract

The asylum screening process at borders is largely perceived as a legislative, administrative and political action, detached from personal inference, exempted from prejudice and disengaged from its historic-cultural background. Thus, immigration officers are seen as mere enforcers, unaccountable for their decisions but responsible for the enaction of a rule. This chapter questions this assumption to argue that beyond the implementation of rules, asylum screening responds to profound cultural constructions articulated through the actions and interactions of immigration officers. Stemming from the phenomenological understanding that subjective meanings give rise to an apparently objective social world, this chapter reveals that asylum screening is a complex categorizing and labelling process guided by the assembly of certain ‘truths as knowledge’ about social acceptance and rejection. Grounded on an unprecedented ethnography of immigration officials’ training routines in the UK, the analysis evidences how asylum screening is forged within an immigration subculture, which remains largely unaffected by legal and policy regulations but is saturated by the meta-messages of disbelief, denial and moral panics.

References

  1. Allen, J. (2011). Topological twists: Power’s shifting geographies. Dialogues in Human Geography, 1(3), 283–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, J., Hollaus, J., Lindsay, A., & Williamson, C. (2014). The culture of disbelief: An ethnographic approach to understanding an under-theorised concept in the UK asylum system (Working paper series, No. 102). Oxford: Refugee Studies Centre.Google Scholar
  3. Arendt, H. (1963). Eichmann in Jerusalem: A report on the banality of evil. New York: Viking Press.Google Scholar
  4. Asylum Aid. (2011). Unsustainable: The quality of initial decision-making in women’s asylum claims. London: Asylum Aid.Google Scholar
  5. Bateson, G. (1955). A theory of play and fantasy. Psychiatric Research Reports, 2, 39–51.Google Scholar
  6. Bauman, Z. (2007). Liquid times. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  7. Becker, H. S. (1973). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bigo, D. (2014). The (in)securitization practices of the three universes of EU border control: Military/navy – border guards/police – database analysts. Security Dialogue, 45(3), 209–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bigo, D., & Guild, E. (2005). Controlling frontiers: Free movement into and within Europe. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interaction. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  11. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Cicourel, A., & Knorr-Cetina, K. (Eds.). (1981). Advances in social theory and methodology: Towards an integration of micro and macro sociologies. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  13. Cohen, S. (1972). Folk devils and moral panics. London: MacGibbon and Kee.Google Scholar
  14. Cohen, S. (1985). Visions of social control: Crime, punishment and classification. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  15. Cohen, S. (2001). States of denial: Knowing about atrocities and suffering. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  16. Cohen, S. (2002). Folk devils and moral panics (3rd ed.). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Daniel, E. V., & Knudsen, J. C. (Eds.). (1995). Mistrusting refugees. London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  18. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia (B. Massumi, Trans.). Minneapolis University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  19. Fassin, D. (2013). The precarious truth of asylum. Public Culture, 25, 39–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ferguson, J., & Gupta, A. (2008). Spatializing states: Toward an ethnography of neoliberal governmentality. Anthropologies of Modernity: Foucault, Governmentality, and Life Politics, 29(4), 105–131.Google Scholar
  21. Foucault, M. (1988). Technologies of the self: A seminar with Michel Foucault. In L. Martin, H. Gutman & P. Hutton (Eds.). Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
  22. Fugerlud, O. (2004). Constructing exclusion: The micro-sociology of an immigration department. Social Anthropology, 12(1), 25–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gardner, R. C. (1994). Stereotypes as consensual beliefs. In M. Zanna & J. Olson (Eds.), The psychology of prejudice. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  24. Gelder, K., & Thornton, S. et al. (Eds.). (1997). The subcultures’ reader. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Gilbert, G. (1951). Stereotype persistence and change among college students. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 245–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gill, N. (2010). New state-theoretic approaches to asylum and refugee geographies. Progress in Human Geography, 34(5), 626–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gill, N. (2016). Nothing personal?: Geographies of governing and activism in the British asylum system. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  29. Goffman, E. (1963). Behaviour in public places: Notes on the social organization of gatherings. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  30. Herlihy, J., Gleeson, K., & Turner, S. (2010). What assumptions about human behaviour underlie asylum judgments? International Journal of Refugee Law, 22(3), 351–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Heyman, J. (1995). Putting power in the anthropology of bureaucracy: The immigration and naturalization service at the Mexico-United States. Current Anthropology, 36, 261–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, leadership and organisation: Do American theories apply abroad?. Organisational Dynamics, (Summer 1980), 42–63.Google Scholar
  33. Hollifield, J. F. (2000). The politics of international migration: How can we “bring the state back in”? In C. Brettell & J. F. Hollifield (Eds.), Migration theory: Talking across disciplines (pp. 227–288). New York/London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  34. Home Office. (2006). Controlling our borders: Making immigration work for Britain. Norwich: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office.Google Scholar
  35. Home Office. (2015a, January). Asylum policy instructions: Assessing credibility and refugee status. Home Office.Google Scholar
  36. Home Office. (2015b, March). Asylum policy instructions: Asylum interviews. Home Office.Google Scholar
  37. Horii, S. (2012). It is about more than just training: The effect of Frontex border guard training. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 31, 158–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jubany, O. (2011). Constructing truths in a culture of disbelief: Understanding asylum screening from within. International Sociology, 26(1), 74–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jubany, O. (2017). Screening asylum in a culture of disbelief: Truths, denials and sceptical borders. Oxford: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lane, T. (1989). The living organisation: system of behaviour. London: Praeger.Google Scholar
  41. Lazaridis, G. (2015). International migration into Europe: From subjects to objects. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lippmann, W. (1946). Public opinion. New York: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  43. Loftus, B. (2015). Border regimes and the sociology of policing. Policing and Society: An International Journal of Research and Policy, 24, 115–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Marston, S. A., Jones, J. P., & Woodward, K. (2005). Human geography without scale. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 30(4), 416–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Martin Cassares, A. (2007). Antropología del género: culturas, mitos y estereotipos sexuales. Madrid: Cátedra.Google Scholar
  46. Matza, D. (1969). Becoming deviant. New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  47. Mercer, J. R. (1973). Labeling the mentally retarded. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  48. Mountz, A. (2010). Seeking asylum: Human smuggling and bureaucracy at the border. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pilivain, I., & Briar, S. (1964). Police encounters with juveniles. American Journal of Sociology, 70, 2016–2014.Google Scholar
  50. Prokkola, E.-K., & Ridanpää, J. (2014). Border guarding and the politics of the body: An examination of the Finnish Border Guard service. Gender, Place & Culture, 0524(October), 1–17.Google Scholar
  51. Reiner, R. (1997). Policing and the police. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan, & R. Reiner (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of criminology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  52. Riggins, S. (1990). Beyond Goffman: Studies on communication, institutions and social interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rosaldo, M., & Lamphere, L. (2001). Women, culture and society: Theoretical overview. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Rosenhan, D. L. (1973). On being sane in insane places. Science, 179, 250–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schur, E. (1971). Labelling deviant behaviour: Its sociological implications. London: Harper and Row Publishers.Google Scholar
  56. Simmel, G. (1966). Conflict. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  57. Snyder, M., & Miene, P. (1994). On the functions of stereotypes and prejudice. In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds.), The psychology of prejudice: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 7, pp. 33–540). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  58. Solomos, J. (1993). Race and racism in Britain (2nd ed.). London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Souter, J. (2011). A culture of disbelief or denial? Critiquing refugee status determination in the United Kingdom. Oxford Monitor of Forced Migration, 1(1), 48–59.Google Scholar
  60. Tayeb, M. H. (1988). Organisations and national culture: A comparative analysis. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  61. UNHCR. (2011). Handbook on procedures and criteria for determining refugee status. Geneva: UNHCR.Google Scholar
  62. Weber, L., & Bowling, B. (2004). Policing migration: A framework for investigating the regulation of global mobility. Policing and Society, 14(3), 195–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Werthman, C., & Pilivain, I. (1967). Gang members and the police. In D. Bordua (Ed.), The Police. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  64. Wright, C. (1984). Construction of deviance in sociological theory: The problems of commensurability. New York: University Press of America.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olga Jubany
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Social AnthropologyUniversitat de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations