Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Martin Sökefeld
(LMU Munich)
Sabine Strasser (University of Bern)
Send message to Convenors
- Format:
- Workshop
Short Abstract:
This workshop seeks to discuss what remains of the idea of a common humanity, derived for instance from humanitarian ideas and practices, in face of right-wing politics and particularistic moralities.
Long Abstract:
Humanitarianism has become a powerful force in our world, wrote Didier Fassin about a decade ago. This is based on an understanding of humanity that, on the one hand, refers to the idea of a humankind to which all people belong equally and, on the other, demands humaneness towards all human beings. Fassin described humanitarianism as a form of governance that is based on moral sentiments and aims to reduce the suffering of others. Humanitarianism creates the illusion that human solidarity can transcend national, ethnic, religious or political boundaries and differences.
Today, however, we must once again ask whether even the illusion and the discourse of shared humanity have become largely meaningless. Fassin himself pointed out the tension between humanity and security, between “compassion and repression”, which at least currently manifests itself particularly in the treatment of refugees. In view of the criminalization of sea rescue and a discourse that presents refugees primarily as a security risk, we must recognize that humaneness has lost much of its persuasive power and practical political significance. It is countered by the rhetoric of right-wing politics, absolutely foregrounding one's own interests, and a particularistic morality seeking to secure the privileges of one's own group. Something similar can be observed in climate politics, where one’s own economic interests are prioritized more and more, and protest is criminalized. What remains of the idea of a common humanity?
We invite ethnographic and conceptual contributions that deal with this question in fields such as climate and asylum politics.
Accepted contributions:
Contribution short abstract:
Based on my own ethnographic research in local border communities, I will show the determinants of resentment towards refugees who appear on the Polish-Belarusian border from 2021. This shows that the idea of common humanity does not address the important needs and fears of conservative communities.
Contribution long abstract:
I will present the results of my preliminary, exploratory field research in north-eastern Poland in 2022-2023 (interviews with residents of border areas, who have partly witnessed the arrival of refugees from Africa /Middle East at the Polish-Belarusian border. My interviewees mostly expressed attitudes that were hostile towards migrants and unfriendly towards activists bringing humanitarian aid.
The conflict in the public debate (and media) polarises the progressive milieus from which the activists come and the conservative milieus to which a significant proportion of Podlasian residents belong. The strong political polarisation leads to disbelief in the suffering of the refugees and the treatment of the issue as instrument of political struggle.
I observed mixing of local and global perspectives - when activists call for empathy with individuals, inhabitants talk about the threat of crime on a national and pan-European scale. Systems of privilege are also mixed. Although refugees belong to a globally unprivileged minority, in specific local arrangements and situations, the social status of newcomers and hosts is not far apart (peripherality of the Podlasie region). My interviewees felt that newcomers were resourceful (high fees for smugglers) and successful in achieving their goals, and therefore not 'weak victims' in need of help.
Loyalty to the local community (including Border Guards) lead to 'defence' of a territory treated as one's own. The idea of common humanity is generally supported on the basis of Catholic ethics (helping those in need), but de facto does not address the important needs and fears of conservative communities.
Contribution short abstract:
This paper explores the idea of a common humanity through analysis of asylum processes based on conversion to Christianity and fear of religious persecution. It explores the processes of inclusion and exclusion resulting from German legal authorities' own historically Christian identity.
Contribution long abstract:
In his “Humanitarian Reason: A Moral History of the Present”, Fassin (2012, 109ff) explores the contradictions of humanitarian governance in the context of refugee protection. While Western states on the one hand assert the possibility of protection from persecution according to the principles of the 1951 Geneva Convention, on the other hand they significantly curtail such rights by often narrow interpretations of what the categories of protection might entail.
In this paper, I draw on the analysis of my ethnographic research in Germany on asylum processes based on conversion to Christianity and fear of religious persecution to explore what remains of the idea of a common humanity in the context of asylum politics. In these asylum claims, decision makers must assess 1) the credibility of the applicant’s conversion and 2) its potential consequences in case of the applicant’s return to their country of origin. Yet, how can one correctly assess the genuineness of a conversion to Christianity? Can, or should, this be the role of the secular state and its legal decision-makers? If so, how does the state decide which forms and practices of Christianity are ‘acceptable’? What expertise is drawn on in reaching this decision? I will show how asylum claims based on conversion to Christianity reveal with exceptional clarity how legal authorities of Western states conceive of their own historically Christian identity, and the processes of inclusion and exclusion that result from it.
Contribution short abstract:
This paper explores the tensions between ethical commitments and structural conditions in a project, which aims to restore coastal ecosystems. Drawing on Tsing’s Feral Atlas and Fassin’s ideas of humanity and security, it examines how ecological and humanitarian crises intersect in a common world.
Contribution long abstract:
This paper examines the tensions between ethical commitments, practical actions, and structural conditions through the lens of the EU project REWRITE, which aims to "rewild" coastal ecosystems as part of broader ecological and social transformations. Aligned with the European Green Deal, the project seeks to turn intertidal soft sediment ecosystems into carbon sinks and to restore biodiversity. However, closer inspection reveals contradictions between ecological restoration and the complexities of global economic and climate dynamics. These tensions become visible for example in the Bay of Cádiz, where refugee boats arrive amidst ongoing restoration efforts, or in the Wadden Sea, where rewilding compensates for port expansion, which seeks to facilitate global trade and to enhance national security (LNG terminals).
Building on Anna Tsing’s Feral Atlas, this contribution extends the ecological transect—the investigation of an ecosystem’s diverse ecological features—by including the intersecting movements of ecosystems, displaced people, and global trade. Inspired by Didier Fassin’s exploration of the tension between humanity and security, it interrogates how localized care—for ecosystems or human lives—both reveals and reproduces structural inequalities.
By following these “feral” entanglements, the paper invites reflection on the boundaries of ethical practice. Can extending the transect help us imagine "rewilding" as a practice that addresses both ecological and humanitarian crises? Or does it risk reinforcing the very exclusions it seeks to challenge?
Contribution short abstract:
This paper explores possible grounds of solidarity beyond “humanity” and the “nation” in times of climate change and right-wing populism by building on critiques of the Anthropocene concept as well as on studies of commoning that foreground power dynamics and inequalities in their analyses.
Contribution long abstract:
Notions of humanity have played a central role in public discussions of climate change. The widely debated concept of the Anthropocene has emphasized the destructive impact humanity had on the earth, culminating at times in apocalyptic visions of a self-made erasure of human life from the planet. When the unequal impact of climate change in the global South is discussed, payments from the global North to counter its effects are framed as a humane gesture, a form of charity towards the poor who are not able to shoulder this burden on their own – rather than as reparation payment. In turn, the denial of climate change in particular from the populist political Right frequently goes hand in hand with a denial of a common humanity - for example when Donald Trump called illegalized immigrants “animals”. Affected are, among others, those who flee their home countries because of the consequences of climate change.
This paper suggests that both of these political articulations of humanity obfuscate the power relations and inequalities that are at the root of the politics of climate change. It builds on critiques of the Anthropocene concept that have problematized its undifferentiated notion of humanity as well as on studies of commoning initiatives that seek to embrace difference to examine possible grounds of solidarity beyond “humanity” and the “nation” in times of climate change and right-wing populism. Rather than leading to charity or exclusion, an analysis of power poses the question: What do we owe each other?