Demarcating Boundaries: Against the “Humanitarian Embrace”
DOI :
https://doi.org/10.25071/1920-7336.40791Mots-clés :
humanization, humanitarianism, partnerships, critical scholarship, refugee studies, solidarity, powerRésumé
Dans les dernières années, des appels renouvelés en faveur du rapprochement entre le monde des décideurs politiques, des travailleurs humanitaires et des chercheurs en sciences humaines et sociales se sont fait entendre. Cela a conduit à une croissance des partenariats entre les universitaires, les organisations humanitaires, les gouvernements et les entreprises, qui ont uni leurs forces afin de venir en aide aux personnes dans le besoin. Cet article adresse une réponse critique à ces développements et remet en question la logique derrière ces tentatives de forger des partenariats de plus en plus étroits par-delà les frontières institutionnelles. Il soutient que le domaine humanitaire, malgré son hétérogénéité, n’est en aucun cas un terrain équitable où les significations, les structures de pouvoir et les pratiques d’aide humanitaire sont vraiment ouvertes» à la négociation. Les tentatives de rapprochement ont souvent servi à consolider l’hégémonie institutionnelle et épistémique des acteurs humanitaires et a eu pour effet de délégitimer la recherche critique visant des changements structurels. Les chercheurs en études des réfugiés et de la migration forcée se retrouvent ainsi pris dans une étreinte de plus en plus serrée. Cet article soutient qu’afin de remplir un engagement plus radical en faveur de la justice sociale, de la non-violence et de l’égalité, il est temps de délimiter les frontières entre l’humanitarisme institutionnalisé et la recherche politiquement engagée, lente et insurrectionnelle priorisant la solidarité avec les migrants marginalisés, racisés, mis en camps ou déplacés eux-mêmes. À cette fin, je propose l’infiltration, la recherche lente et l’accompagnement comme méthodologies de recherche alternatives dans les espaces humanitaires.
Statistiques
Références
Bakewell, O. (2008). Research beyond the categories: The importance of policy irrelevant research into forced migration. Journal of Refugee Studies, 21(4), 432–453. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fen042
Bejarano, C. A., Juárez, L. L, García, M. A. M, & Goldstein, D. M. (2019). Decolonizing ethnography: Undocumented immigrants and new directions in social science. Duke University Press.
Benton, A. (2016). African expatriates and race in the anthropology of humanitarianism. Critical African Studies, 8(3), 266–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681392.2016.1244956
Betts, A., & Bloom, L. (2014). Humanitarian innovation: The state of the art. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.
Betts, A., & Collier, P. (2018). Refuge: Transforming a broken refugee system. Penguin Random House.
Billo, E., & Mountz, A. (2016). For institutional ethnography: Geographical approaches to institutions and the everyday. Progress in Human Geography, 40(2), 199–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132515572269
Bradley, M. (2008). On the agenda: North–South research partnerships and agenda-setting processes. Development in Practice, 18(6), 673–685. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614520802386314
Brankamp, H. (2018, June 13). The cynical recasting of refugees as raconteurs can’t mask the grim reality, The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/jun/13/tedx-kenya-kakuma-refugee-camp-hanno-brankamp
Chimni, B. S. (1998). The geopolitics of refugee studies: A view from the South. Journal of Refugee Studies, 11(4): 350–374. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/11.4.350-a
Chimni, B. S. (2009). The birth of a “discipline”: From refugee to forced migration studies. Journal of Refugee Studies, 22(1), 11–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fen051
Clark-Kazak, C. (2017). Ethical considerations: Research with people in situations of forced migration. Refuge: Canada's Journal on Refugees, 33(2), 11–17. https://doi.org/10.7202/1043059ar
DeLeon, A. P. (2012). Against the grain of the status quo: Anarchism behind enemy lines. In R. H. Haworth (Ed.), Anarchist pedagogies: Collective actions, theories, and critical reflections on education (pp. 312–325). PM Press.
Department for International Development (DFID). (2011). Humanitarian emergency response review: UK government response. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/67489/hum-emer-resp-rev-uk-gvmt-resp.pdf
De Waal, A. (2015, December 7). Policy to research to policy in difficult places. Humanity Journal. http://humanityjournal.org/blog/policy-to-research-to-policy-in-difficult-places/
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
Enhancing Learning and Research for Humanitarian Assistance (ELRHA). (2012). ELRHA guide to constructing effective partnerships. https://www.elrha.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/effective-partnerships-report.pdf
Farah, R. (2020). Expat, local, and refugee: “Studying up” the global division of labor and mobility in the humanitarian industry in Jordan. Migration and Society, 3(1), 130–144. https://doi.org/10.3167/arms.2020.030111
Fassin, D. (2011). Humanitarian reason: A moral history of the present. University of California Press.
Fast, L. (2017, November 2). The data divide: Overcoming an increasing practitioner-academic gap. Humanitarian Law & Policy. https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2017/11/02/the-data-divide-overcoming-an-increasing-practitioner-academic-gap/
Ferris, E. (2012). On partnerships, power and policy in researching displacement. Journal of Refugee Studies, 25(4), 576–580. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fes036
Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, E. (2020). Introduction: Recentering the South in studies of migration. Migration and Society, 3(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3167/arms.2020.030102
Fischlin, D., Heble, A., & Lipsitz, G. (2013). The fierce urgency of now: Improvisation, rights, and the ethics of cocreation. Duke University Press.
Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Penguin Modern Classics.
Gilmore, R. W. (2007). Golden Gulag: Prisons, surplus, crisis, and opposition in globalizing California. University of California Press.
Guilhot, N. (2012). The anthropologist as witness: Humanitarianism between ethnography and critique. Humanity: An International Journal of Human Rights, Humanitarianism, and Development, 3(1): 81–101. https://doi.org/10.1353/hum.2012.0002
Hartman, Y., & Darab, S. (2012). A call for slow scholarship: A case study on the intensification of academic life and its implications for pedagogy. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 34(1–2), 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714413.2012.643740
Hilhorst, D. (2018). Classical humanitarianism and resilience humanitarianism: Making sense of two brands of humanitarian action. Journal of International Humanitarian Action, 3(1), Article 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41018-018-0043-6
Hilhorst, D., & Jansen, B. J. (2010). Humanitarian space as arena: A perspective on the everyday politics of aid. Development and Change, 41(6), 1117–1139. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2010.01673.x
Hyndman, J. (2000). Managing displacement: Refugees and the politics of humanitarianism. University of Minnesota Press.
Ilcan, S., & Rygiel, K. (2015). “Resiliency humanitarianism”: Responsibilizing refugees through humanitarian emergency governance in the camp. International Political Sociology, 9(4), 333–351. https://doi.org/10.1111/ips.12101
Krause, U. (2017). Researching forced migration: Critical reflections on research ethics during fieldwork (RSC Working Paper Series). Refugee Studies Centre. https://www.rsc.ox.ac.uk/publications/researching-forced-migration-critical-reflections-on-research-ethics-during-fieldwork
Kuus, M. (2015). For slow research. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 39(4), 838–840, https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12257
Lammers, E. (2007). Researching refugees: Preoccupations with power and questions of giving. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 26(3), 72–81. https://doi.org/10.1093/rsq/hdi0244
Landau, L. B. (2012). Communities of knowledge or tyrannies of partnership: Reflections on North–South research networks and the dual imperative. Journal of Refugee Studies, 25(4), 555–570. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fes005
Mackay, F., Monro, S., & Waylen, G. (2009). The feminist potential of sociological institutionalism. Politics and Gender, 5(2), 253–262. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X09000208
Mackenzie, C., McDowell, C., & Pittaway, E. (2007). Beyond “do no harm”: The challenge of constructing ethical relationships in refugee research. Journal of Refugee Studies, 20(2), 299–319. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fem008
Madison, D. S. (2012). Critical ethnography: Method, ethics, and performance. Sage Publications.
Martell, L. (2014). The slow university: Inequality, power and alternatives. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 15(3). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-15.3.2223
Mei-Singh, L. (2020). Accompaniment through carceral geographies: Abolitionist research partnerships with Indigenous communities. Antipode, 33(1), 74–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12589
Mills, D., & Ratcliffe, R. (2012). After method? Ethnography in the knowledge economy. Qualitative Research, 12(2), 147–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794111420902
Mountz, A., Bonds, A., Mansfield, B., Loyd, J., Hyndman, J., Walton-Roberts, M., Basu, R., Whitson, R., Hawkins, R., Hamilton, T., & Curran, W.(2015). For slow scholarship: A feminist politics of resistance through collective action in the neoliberal university. Acme, 14(4), 1235–1259. https://www.acme-journal.org/index.php/acme/article/view/1058
Nader, L. (1972). Up the anthropologist: Perspectives gained from studying up. In D. Hymes (Ed.), Reinventing anthropology (pp. 284–311). Pantheon Books.
Ogata, S. (2000). An agenda for business–humanitarian partnerships. Washington Quarterly, 23(2), 167–170. https://doi.org/10.1162/016366000560836
Olivius, E. (2017). Sites of repression and resistance: Political space in refugee camps in Thailand. Critical Asian Studies, 49(3), 289–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/14672715.2017.1333268
Pailey, R. N. (2020). De-centring the “white gaze” of development. Development and Change, 51(3), 729–745. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12550
Pascucci, E. (2017). The humanitarian infrastructure and the question of over-research: Reflections on fieldwork in the refugee crises in the Middle East and North Africa. Area, 49(2), 249–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12312
Pittaway, E., Bartolomei, L., & Hugman, R. (2010). “Stop stealing our stories”: The ethics of research with vulnerable groups. Journal of Human Rights Practice, 2(2), 229–251. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huq004
Priyadharshini, E. (2003). Coming unstuck: Thinking otherwise about “studying up.” Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 34(4). 420–437. https://doi.org/10.1525/aeq.2003.34.4.420
Reid-Henry, S. M. (2014). Humanitarianism as liberal diagnostic: Humanitarian reason and the political rationalities of the liberal will-to-care. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 39(3), 418–431. https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12029
Reid-Henry, S., & Sending, O. J. (2014). The “humanitarianization” of urban violence. Environment and Urbanization, 26(2), 427–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247814544616
Sandvik, K. B. (2017). Now is the time to deliver: Looking for humanitarian innovation’s theory of change. Journal of International Humanitarian Action, 2(8), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41018-017-0023-2
Scott-Smith, T. (2016). Humanitarian neophilia: The “innovation turn” and its implications. Third World Quarterly, 37(12), 2229–2251. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2016.1176856
Shahjahan, R. A. (2015). Being “lazy” and slowing down: Toward decolonizing time, our body, and pedagogy. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 47(5), 488–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2014.880645
Simon, R. I. (1992). Teaching against the grain: Texts for a pedagogy of possibility. Bergin and Garvey.
Skilbrei, M. L. (2020). Taking on the categories, terms and worldviews of the powerful: The pitfalls of trying to be relevant. Identities, 28(5), 561–577. https://doi.org/10.1080/1070289X.2020.1805884
Smirl, L. (2008). Building the other, constructing ourselves: Spatial dimensions of international humanitarian response. International Political Sociology, 2(3), 236–253. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-5687.2008.00047.x
Smith, K. (2015). Stories told by, for, and about women refugees: Engendering resistance. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 14(2), 461–469. https://www.acme-journal.org/index.php/acme/article/view/1174
Stevens, D., Hayman, R., & Mdee, A. (2013). “Cracking collaboration” between NGOs and academics in development research. Development in Practice, 23(8), 1071–1077. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2013.840266
Stoler, A. L. (2009). Along the archival grain: Epistemic anxieties and colonial common sense. Princeton University Press.
Ticktin, M. (2011). Casualties of care: Immigration and the politics of humanitarianism in France. University of California Press.
Tomlinson, B., & Lipsitz, G. (2013). American studies as accompaniment. American Quarterly, 65(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1353/aq.2013.0009
Turner, L. (2020). “#Refugees can be entrepreneurs too!” Humanitarianism, race, and the marketing of syrian refugees. Review of International Studies, 46(1), 137–155. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210519000342
Weizman, E. (2011). The least of all possible evils: Humanitarian violence from Arendt to Gaza. Verso.
Zingerli, C. (2010). A sociology of international research partnerships for sustainable development. European Journal of Development Research, 22, 217–233. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2010.1
Téléchargements
Publié-e
Versions
- 2021-11-22 (2)
- 2021-11-22 (1)
Comment citer
Numéro
Rubrique
Licence
© Hanno Brankamp 2021
Cette œuvre est sous licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale 4.0 International.
Les auteurs qui publient dans Refuge conservent le droit d’auteur associé à leur œuvre, et octroient au public une licence Creative Commons Attribution - Utilisation non commerciale 4.0 International. La licence permet l’utilisation, la reproduction et l’adaptation du matériel avec attribution par tous moyens et sous tous formats pour des fins non commerciales. Pour des informations générales sur les licences Creative Commons, visitez le site Creative Commons. Pour la licence CC BY-NC 4.0, consultez le résumé lisible par l'homme.
