Send message to Authors

Paper short abstract:

We bring a feminist perspective situated in the twin locality of a critical post-colonial approach and the experience of working with Asylum applicants in Greece to the study of how the intersection of gender, nation, race and sexuality works discursively in granting Asylum Decisions.

Paper long abstract:

This paper examines the intersection of gender, the nation-race nexus and sexuality as it is articulated, and productive, at the discursive site of Asylum Decisions regarding the international protection of African women in Greece. The “securitization” of the borders of the European Union unfolds as a gendered and multi-faceted project of maximum interest to its member nation-states. We focus on Asylum Decisions issued in response to applications submitted by women from Africa from 2015 onwards. In 2019, 3603 asylum requests were submitted from Congo alone in Greece (Greek Asylum Service, 2019). The justification for granting or refusing international protection, of different levels, is provided from the caseworker within the Asylum Decision document.

This paper reports on research using discourse analysis for a focused in-depth study of three asylum request decisions, one in-depth interview of another recognized refugee and Greek media discourse regarding abused refugee women, including the high-visibility cases of Nadia Murad and Malala Yousafzai. The contextualized analysis of this material identifies and traces larger political forces that are at play within individual Asylum-Application Decisions. The paper argues that disparate nationalisms work in conjunction with the Evaluation Criteria of the European Union to produce a normative Asylum-meriting woman from Africa. Features we find to be key are a specific expression of emotional pain and trauma within the application narrative, and information illustrative of prior reverence for European democratic values. A question is raised as to the weight given to reports of gender-based violence.