Diving into Migration's 'Narrative Ocean'
Photo by Mika Baumeister on Unsplash
“We tell ourselves stories in order to live” wrote Joan Didion in her essay The White Album. “We interpret what we see, select the most workable of multiple choices. We live entirely, especially if we are writers, by the imposition of a narrative line upon disparate images, by the ‘ideas’ with which we have learned to freeze the shifting phantasmagoria which is our actual experience.”
Didion’s words, written in the late 70s, still hold true today. They speak to how our brains are wired, to how we make sense of the world. Building on the importance of narratives, PopCollective speaks of narrative oceans, “the ecosystems of narratives, ideas, and cultural norms that shape the behaviors, mindsets, and worldviews of millions of people.” This narrative ocean shapes the collective imaginary of what is, what’s possible, and the policies that are implemented.
It is my belief that in no other domain – and I will admit that having worked in this space I may be slightly biased – do we see the power of narrative oceans more strongly than in migration. Unfortunately, the loudest stories that dominate the migration narrative ocean share a thread of othering and dehumanization. In both Europe and the United States, the stories often stink of rebranded far-right ideas with a heavy layer of make-up to cover what’s underneath.
What are the main stories in the migration “narrative ocean”? And who are today’s meaning makers?
Let’s break it down.
The meaning that lies beneath
Migration is a prominent issue on its own but it is also symbolic of larger questions that confront pluralistic multiracial societies. As scholar Fatima el-Tayeb explains in her book European Others, “Immigration has gained increasing importance as a symbol of the various social, economic, and political fears plaguing contemporary Western societies.” In the words of many European representatives, migration is first and foremost a problem, a challenge to be managed. It is rarely presented as a natural phenomenon that may present challenges but also opportunities and is a natural part of human experience.
As el-Tayeb says, migration is “of additional relevance within the European context, where the process of economic and political unification includes a massive redefinition and reconstruction of borders.” Migration – in part because of who the migrants are – is a challenge to Europe’s sense of self, as this sense of self is constructed in opposition to Others. This rapidly evolving Europe is often defined in terms of what it is not, in terms of who we are not.
In this conversation on identity, migration, in a way, allows us to speak of certain things — inevitable change, the past, race — without mentioning them. This rhetorical landscape has created fertile soil for the far right to thrive, as in this terrain of identity and uncertainty authoritarian populists are able to set the tone – the color, if you will — of our narrative ocean.
In the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung report Understanding Right-Wing Populism and What to Do About It by, the authors explain how right-wing populists in Western Europe have shifted their strategy from one of ethnic nationalism (i.e. one where ethnicity defines nation and nationality, which is still in use in Eastern Europe) to one that presents culture as a value that justifies exclusion on ideological grounds. A rhetorical strategy that, in fact, substitutes “values” and “culture” in place of ethnicity and race. That is not to say value differences are inexistent, but the language around values is often code for something else, and value differences are presented as inherently existential and insurmountable, as opposed to as an are of yes, some challenges, but also opportunities. People who migrate, people who claim asylum, are therefore rejected not on the basis of their skin color or ascribed traits, but because their ideology, their values, their beliefs, are “incompatible with ours.” It’s not racism, it’s realism, it’s about values, it’s about security, of protecting “our way of living,” (The European Union now even has a “Commissioner for Promoting our European Way of Life.”) The outcome, of course, is still that those who are non-white are disproportionately rejected, despite no official language naming race as a factor. The language of these policies may be superficially race-neutral, but the outcomes are deeply racialized.
EU Narratives Held as Truths
In the EU, the big overarching narrative from most political leaders and EU institutions would go something like this: We are the desirable land. Or, in the words of the EU’s Foreign Policy Chief, Europe as an idyllic "garden" of prosperity and the rest of the world mostly a "jungle."The land of human rights and liberal democracy that those elsewhere in the world (cue, Global South) want to reach. There are millions who will try to reach our shores and our borders and the only way to respond to this situation is through deterring arrivals, outsourcing responsibility to countries outside the EU, and downgrading refugee protection inside the EU. There is not enough for everyone (installing a scarcity mentality that is also becoming mainstream in discourse on climate change coded as an overpopulation problem) and for those who are already here, the only path forward is through “integration.” Enter: Fortress Europe.
In this narrative, there simply is no other way to deal with migration. In the words of professor Olajumoke Yacob-Haliso writing on the tendency of western media, academics and politicians to almost singularly focus on migration from Africa and other parts of the Global South to the North applies here, this narrative is reflective of the Western gaze, and reinforces “the anxieties brought on by ascendant right-wing nationalist and xenophobic movements in those societies.”
This overarching narrative – this ocean – informs political discourse and policy, evident over the past few weeks.
The Presidency of the Council of the EU, held on a rotating basis by EU member states, is currently held by Sweden (the Council of the EU is the co-legislator in the EU). In late January 2023, at a press conference following the informal meeting of Ministers for Justice and Home Affairs in Stockholm, Home Affairs Commissioner Ylva Johansson spoke of migrants “clogging up the [border] system”. Her speech was followed by the statements of the Swedish Minister of Justice who does not seem to be able to speak of migration without coupling it with criminality – as if there is an essential inextricable link. There is not one without the other. Of note, this Swedish government is now in power in Sweden thanks to the support of the country’s authoritarian populist party, the Sweden Democrats.
Shortly after, the President of the Commission Ursula Von der Leyen spoke in similar terms in her press release: “Migration is a European challenge,” it begins. It insists on the importance of the New Pact on Migration and Asylum, which is as of now at the level of proposal and is meant to constitute the new EU framework “that manages and normalizes migration for the long term.”
The New Pact places an emphasis on the economic interests of the Union, encourages externalization of integration practices, and focuses on return and reintegration processes. The New Pact is built on the ideas of securitization, externalization, and prevention, with barely any influence or mention of humanitarian and human rights concerns. Of note, the day after the Commission presented the New Pact, “the prime ministers of the central European 'Visegrad Four' countries [the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia] pushed back against the EU Commission's migration reform package” for not being hard enough.
This week, on February 9 and 10, the EU leaders summit is taking place, which, as reported, “will mark a hardening in the EU’s tone on migration” and where progress on this new European framework would be expected. However, any progress is unlikely to pass under the Swedish presidency. Tellingly, a few days before the summit eighth member states sent a letter to the Commission of the EU calling for action against irregular migration, placing emphasis on border security and returns.
After Sweden’s EU council presidency, the Spanish presidency follows. The Spanish government is a coalition of the center-left Socialist party and left-wing Podemos party. Yet with upcoming elections later this year, one expects that Spanish leaders’ will avert adopting any measures that could be exploited by the far-right populists of Vox. In this sense, anything to do with migration is dangerous territory and the far-right, even when not in power, shapes what others will or will not do.
As this Politico article eloquently states: “The issue [of of migration] is back on the EU agenda, but depressingly little has changed [...} EU politicians are still more inclined to strike postures and score points against each other for domestic advantage than to seek practical compromises that might help forge a joint approach.
In migration studies, theories around “push and pull” factors explain the reasons why people migrate. Push factors refer to the reasons why people leave their homes whereas pull factors explain what attracts people to a particular place.
Another one of the ideas absorbed as a truism is that strict immigration policies will deter immigration while more welcoming or less harsh ones will encourage it. The surge in arrivals at the US Southern border is interpreted as evidence of this, given Biden’s more lenient policies. That being the case, the EU’s stance of security and deterrence to prevent new arrivals logically follows.
Yet if this theory were absolutely true, we should have seen a decrease of arrivals to European shores, which is not the case. Policy may influence, but so do push factors. Maybe this is one of the ideas whose truth should also be interrogated. (For more detailed information on US asylum processing at the US - Mexico border I highly recommend the work of the Strauss Center).
Repackaging Language and Policies to Make Them More Palatable
Public opinion shifts, sometimes leaning more positive and sometimes more negative. Oftentimes, people have conflicting views on a range of topics, inherent to the complexity of human experience. It is unclear whether political elites and the media pave the way, or the public leads. Or, more likely, it is a feedback loop. But the mainstreaming of far-right ideas is evident. Mainstay political leaders seem to have given up on more welcoming values and adopted exclusionary ideas, giving up attempts at shaping the conversation.
Instead of changing discourse and policies towards more inclusive and pluralistic ones, the approach continues to be one of hardening and re-branding. This is evident for example with regards to integration. As scholar Matteo Bottero explains on integration, another pillar of migration policy in Europe, “rather than an integration process of reciprocal adjustment between immigrants and members of the receiving country, in many ways the concept of EU integration has now become synonymous with civic and cultural assimilation. Instead of promoting values of a pluralist society, this approach reflects a nationalistic narrative and centers on the immigrants’ acquisition of the language, values, culture, and way of life of the receiving country.”
One wishes that when speaking of integration it wasn't just a one-way process; rather, a one rooted in belonging. Belonging not as a fixed destination one arrives to but as a continuous process built on co-creation.
The strategy of using the language of “values” in place of race, integration for assimilation, is one that European authoritarian populists play well. And it seems that when they know that something linguistically would be too unpalatable, they have leant to pivot to “show don’t tell.” Framing through action. For example, shortly after becoming Prime Minister of Italy, Giorgia Meloni got in a row with French president Emmanuel Macron over the docking of a boat transporting people rescued at sea. Since then, she’s become more astute. Avoiding big speeches, a few weeks ago her government passed a new decree that targets NGOs who carry out rescue missions at sea and makes this kind of operation far more difficult and potentially way more expensive. This generated outcry from civil society, but not the aired reactions from international counterparts of previous months.
That being said, this does stand in contrast to the strategy of some of America’s most prominent populists. Last fall, Florida Governor Ron DiSantis embodied show AND tell by claiming merit for flying asylum seekers to Democratic states in a political PR stunt.
Imagining a Narrative Ocean of Possibilities Rooted in Belonging
Similar phenomena can lead to different interpretations. Despite record numbers of people arriving to the shores of Europe and the southern border of the USA, migration is not currently one of the most important issues in the eyes of the public, in contrast to 2015 and 2016. Currently, other topics such as the war in Ukraine and the cost-of-living crisis take precedence. And yet, even before the war in Ukraine broke out, according to data from a recent study by migration scholars James Dennison, Alexander Kustov, and Andrew Geddes the perceived importance of immigration had already consistently and significantly decreased. This may not speak about the direction in which the public leans overall (positive, negative, neutral) but migration being an easily exploitable topic by far right activists, it tends to divide when prominence (salience) increases. This salience is not immediate, but driven by meaning makers and narratives. (for more on the popularity of certain migration narratives in Euro-Mediterranean reasons amongst the public, see here).
Public opinion can change quicker than we might believe. Stories that are presented as inevitable can also change. In the UK, public opinion on immigration has gone from negative to being the most positive in Europe.
Dominant rationale behind public policy can change too. Years ago, the dominant narrative was that the only way out of a financial crisis was through austerity. This policy hollowed up the welfare state in many countries and left Southern Europe with a precarious labor market. Come Covid and suddenly the range of measures adopted to support citizens is the opposite of the packages undertaken in the earlier financial crisis.
Sometimes, hard-fought changes become realities. After decades of nationality laws that left people born in Germany without German nationality and many even stateless, German naturalization laws are finally changing.
In Canada, after a civil society campaign, British Columbia and Nova Scotia have become “the first and second provinces to publicly commit to ending immigration detention in their jails by canceling their respective detention contracts with the federal government. Alberta and Manitoba have also canceled their immigration detention contracts. Government leaders are now even publicly calling on provinces to stop jailing people on strictly immigration grounds.”
Writing on climate narratives, journalist Rebecca Solnit tells us that “we are hemmed in by stories that prevent us from seeing, or believing in, or acting on the possibilities for change.” She goes on, “people find grim narratives all too believable, whether or not they are grounded in fact. We are still inundated by harmful, as well as untrue, stories about climate and the future. Prophecies can be self-fulfilling: if you insist that we cannot possibly win, you pit yourself against the possibility of victory and the people trying to achieve it.” Her assessment holds true for migration. As humans we do suffer from negativity bias ( the tendency to “attend to, learn from, and use negative information far more than positive information”), evidence also suggests that receiving or observing pro-social behavior can make us kinder as well (and happier!).
In the same PopCulture report mentioned earlier, the authors state that in the social change sector, “efforts to change the narrative often result in specific one-directional communication plans, message frames, campaigns, or story projects that may have a short-term effect, but do not measurably transform cultural norms. These tactics are akin to squeezing a drop of red food coloring into a vast ocean of blue water and expecting the ocean to turn purple.” To change the narrative ocean, narrative immersion is needed, for “people experience a fictional way of life as possible, and begin to express first yearning, then desire, and finally, demand for this fiction to be made real.”
We need to dream of that world of possibilities, for a narrative ocean on migration that is rooted in belonging. One that is both utopian and acknowledges the policy, logistical, and humanitarian challenges that we are confronted with in our complex world. One that is not primarily informed by exclusionary discourses but by what our lives could be if we escaped this deterministic idea that the only way to “manage” migration is exclusively through security and prevention.
It is possible to change the narrative ocean and this is an effort that will require multiple approaches. There is no silver bullet solution, but fortunately there are many actors working hard to shape migration narratives. Civil society, arts, and culture have immense power in this space.
This new report called Change the Narrative, Change the World: The Power of Immigrant Representation on Television shows how TV characters can help people to be more understanding towards immigrants’ experiences. The Opportunity Agenda is “a community dedicated to building narrative and cultural power to move our nation toward a vision of justice, equity, and opportunity for all.” EPIM is “is an initiative of 25 private foundations with the goal of strengthening the role of civil society in building inclusive communities and in developing humane and sustainable responses to migration, based on Europe’s commitment to universal human rights and social justice.” Fundación PorCausa in Spain works on migration narratives, “to produce information on migrations from a unique perspective, combining both research and journalism”. This is a series of recommendations for “funders who want to contribute to the many transformations that journalists are leading in their industry.” Never Alone aims to “put back social cohesion to the centre of the public debate and help the creation of a less hostile environment able to support the social inclusion in Italy of unaccompanied children and young adults.” Migration Matters produces “short, educational videos on topics related to migration and diversity to encourage more evidence-based debate and reflection.” Are We Europe “works towards a borderless European media landscape.” Imix works “closely with organisations across the refugee and migration sector to train, support and build communications capacity.” For Global South perspectives, this series from Africa Is A Country focuses on African Women, Gender, and Migration.
In Other News…
Hundreds of child asylum-seekers have gone missing in the UK. In this dedicated podcast, Mark Townsend, the Observer’s home affairs editor, who has been investigating the disappearances for months explains how British authorities started emphasizing that the children are Albanian in order to reduce empathy. I have no words.
The latest iteration of The Economist’s Democracy Index is out.
And speaking of The Economist… this podcast that tackles the situation in Peru and the spending habits of Millennials and Gen Z. It is a clear example of lazy, sloppy, rancid reporting. Questionable (and biased) understanding of the Peruvian situation and 8 year-old level data analysis to perpetuate flattening, dehumanizing, and divisive stereotypes of generations.
In January the International Centre for Migration Policy Development released a new Migration Outlook report: Possible second wave of refugees from Ukraine and further weaponisation of migration.
And for the Soul…
I recently read Notes on Camp by Susan Sonntag. This 1964 essay was a wonderful distraction for a Sunday morning.
New York City’s Jazz Festival music is available here.
Connecting the Dots: Musings on Bridging and Belonging is a monthly column by Míriam Juan-Torres. In it, Míriam reflects on current events, connecting the trends and considering the specificities across countries, applying a bridging and belonging lens and translating concepts from academia for a wider audience. In Connecting the Dots, Míriam carefully curates readings and resources to further expand our understanding and shed light on the complexities of our time. Join our mailing list to stay up to date on the latest of the Democracy & Belonging Forum's curated analysis from Miriam and more.
Editor's note: The ideas expressed in this blog are not necessarily those of the Othering & Belonging Institute or UC Berkeley, but belong to the authors.