ArticlePDF Available

Cross-Fadings of Racialisation and Migratisation: The Postcolonial Turn in Western European Gender and Migration Studies

Authors:

Abstract

Looking at feminist and anti-racist approaches situated in or focused on Western Europe, especially Germany, this article investigates how racism and migration can be theorised in relation to each other in critical knowledge production. Rather than being an article ‘about Germany’, my intervention understands the German context as an exemplary place for deconstructing Europe and its gendered, racialised and sexualised premises. I argue that a ‘postcolonial turn’ has begun to emerge in Western European gender and migration studies and is questioning easy assumptions about the connections between racism and migration. Discussing examples from academic knowledge production and media debates, I suggest to think of migratisation (the ascription of migration) as performative practice that repeatedly re-stages a sending-off to an elsewhere and works in close interaction with racialisation. In particular, drawing on postcolonial approaches, I carve out the interconnection of racialisation and migratisation with class and gender. I argue that equating racialisation with migratisation carries the risk of whitening understandings of migration and/or reinforcing already whitened understandings of nation and Europeanness. To make discrimination ‘accessible’ to critical knowledge production, I engage in an epistemological discussion of the potentials and challenges of differentiating analytical categorisations. With this, this article engages with ascriptions, exclusions and abjectifications and attempts to formulate precise conceptualisations for the ever shifting forms of resistance we urgently need in transnational feminist activism and knowledge production.
This%is%the%Accepted%Version%of%the%forthcoming%article%‘Cross-Fadings%of%Racialisation%and%Migratisation:%
The%Postcolonial%Turn%in%Western%European%Gender%and%Migration%Studies’%which%will%be%published%by%
Routlege%in%Gender,'Place'and'Culture;%https://genderplaceandculture.wordpress.com/about/%
%
Accepted%Version%downloaded%from%SOAS%Research%Online:%
https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/24863/%
Cross-Fadings of Racialisation and Migratisation: The Postcolonial
Turn in Western European Gender and Migration Studies
Alyosxa Tudor
Centre for Gender Studies, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of
London, UK
at53@soas.ac.uk
Dr Alyosxa Tudor is a Lecturer (Assistant Professor) in Gender Studies at the Centre for Gender
Studies at SOAS, University of London. Their work connects trans and queer feminist
approaches with transnational feminism and postcolonial studies. Tudor’s main research interest
lies in analysing (knowledge productions on) migrations, diasporas and borders in relation to
critiques of Eurocentrism and to processes of gendering and racialisation. Tudor has published
on these topics with Feminist Review and Lambda Nordica and is the author of the monograph
from [al’manja] with love. Their second monograph Ascriptions of Migration is forthcoming
with Palgrave in the series ‘Thinking Gender in Transnational Times’. In the past, Tudor was a
LSE Fellow in Transnational Gender Studies, a Senior Teaching Fellow at the Centre for
Gender Studies, SOAS, and a Visiting Fellow at GEXcel, Centre of Gender Excellence at
Linkoping University/Sweden.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2018.1441141
Alyosxa Tudor (2018) Cross-fadings of racialisation and migratisation: the postcolonial turn in Western European
gender and migration studies, Gender, Place & Culture, 25:7, 1057-1072, DOI: 10.1080/0966369X.2018.1441141
Cross-Fadings of Racialisation and Migratisation: The Postcolonial
Turn in Western European Gender and Migration Studies
Looking at feminist and anti-racist approaches situated in or focused on Western
Europe, especially Germany, this article investigates how racism and migration
can be theorised in relation to each other in critical knowledge production. Rather
than being an article ‘about Germany’, my intervention understands the German
context as an exemplary place for deconstructing Europe and its gendered,
racialised and sexualised premises. I argue that a ‘postcolonial turn’ has begun to
emerge in Western European gender and migration studies and is questioning
easy assumptions about the connections between racism and migration.
Discussing examples from academic knowledge production and media debates, I
suggest to think of migratisation (the ascription of migration) as performative
practice that repeatedly re-stages a sending-off to an elsewhere and works in
close interaction with racialisation. In particular, drawing on postcolonial
approaches, I carve out the interconnection of racialisation and migratisation with
class and gender. I argue that equating racialisation with migratisation carries the
risk of whitening understandings of migration and/or reinforcing already
whitened understandings of nation and Europeanness. To make discrimination
‘accessible’ to critical knowledge production, I engage in an epistemological
discussion of the potentials and challenges of differentiating analytical
categorisations. With this, this article engages with ascriptions, exclusions and
abjectifications and attempts to formulate precise conceptualisations for the ever
shifting forms of resistance we urgently need in transnational feminist activism
and knowledge production.
Keywords: postcolonial Europe; racism; migration; postcolonial Germany;
migratism; transnational feminist epistemology
This article investigates how racism and migration can be theorised in relation to each
other in feminist and anti-racist knowledge production situated in or focused on
Western Europe, especially Germany. Rather than being an article ‘about Germany’, my
intervention understands the German context as an exemplary place for investigating
and deconstructing processes of defining postcolonial Europe (Bhambra 2009) and its
racialised, gendered, sexualised and nationalised premises. Elsewhere, I have suggested
the term ‘migratism’ (Tudor 2014, 2017a) for theorising the power relation that ascribes
migration to certain bodies and establishes non-migration as the norm of intelligible
national and European belonging. Building on this intervention, I argue for a complex
feminist analysis of the interconnection of racism and migration that focuses on the
differences, overlaps, contradictions and ambivalences of migratising and racialising
strategies. Most importantly, my discussion of feminist approaches on racism and/or
migration situated in Western Europe aims to illuminate how the missing differentiation
between racism and migratism positions Europeans of colour as abjects to discourses on
migration, nation and – paradoxically – racism (Tudor 2017a). Furthermore, equating
racialisation with migratisation (the ascription of migration) carries the risk of
whitening understandings of migration and/or reinforcing already whitened
understandings of nation and Europeanness.
Drawing on postcolonial approaches, I analyse academic knowledge productions
and media representations to carve out the interconnection of racialisation and
migratisation with class and gender. To make discrimination ‘accessible’ to critical
knowledge production, I engage in an epistemological discussion of the potentials and
challenges of differentiating analytical categorisations. Thus, offering this
differentiation between racialisation and migratisation, between racism and migratism,
is intended to intervene productively in a field already concerned with intersections of
power relations, yet struggling to make sense of how to characterise the different
discriminations that are experienced in a mobile and global world.
Differentiations of Racialisation and Migratisation
‘Migratisation’, the term I suggest here, foregrounds the ascription of migration to
certain bodies, and the construction of certain people as ‘at home’ (see also Ahmed
2000) while others are constructed as migrants. I argue that migratisation intersects in
specific ways with racialisation but is not the same phenomenon. The relationship of
racialisation and migratisation depends on national peculiarities, context-specific
moments and interactions with other power relations, like classism, sexism and
queer/transphobia etc. In order to underline that a politicised concept like migratisation
can be useful for feminist theory and activism, one that deals with the ascription of
migration as distinct from racialisation, and focuses on their complex overlaps and
contradictions, I invite you to read with me a set of examples in which power relations
can be analysed differently when thinking about the interplay of racialisation and
migratisation.
In his reflections on racism and nation in France, Etienne Balibar makes the
interesting clarification that “not all foreigners and not only foreigners” are seen as
migrants in hegemonic discourse (Balibar in Balibar and Wallerstein 1991, 221;
emphasis E.B.). With this statement, he helps us to move beyond thinking of migration
as a purely descriptive category by reframing it as an ascription that produces
hierarchies, one that can construct people as migrants even if they do not have a
migration history. However, he uses national categories alongside racialising ones: “A
Portuguese, for example, will be more of an ‘immigrant' than a Spaniard (in Paris),
though less than an Arab or a Black; a Briton or a German certainly will not be an
‘immigrant' [...]” (ibid.). Thus, Balibar states that in a French context a “Portuguese”
person would more likely be ascribed with migration than for example a “German”
person would, while “an Arab or a Black” person would definitely be seen as a migrant
(ibid.). In a similar vein, Annita Kalpaka and Nora Räthzel (1990) claim that in the
German context “Englishmen [Engländer], Americans and Swedes” do not experience
the same resentments as “Africans, Turks, Spaniards, Greeks” (Kalpaka/Räthzel 1990,
12).
Using my concept of migratisation, both approaches can be understood as
making the point that ‘becoming a migrant’ in Western Europe relies on hierarchical
ascriptions of migration – one is not born, but rather becomes a migrant (excuse my
reference to de Beauvoir) through being repeatedly treated as one. However, neither
approach reflects on questions of what role racialisation plays and how it works
ambivalently to migratise specific national subjects when they cross borders. It is
certainly true that in Western Europe, people read as i.e. Greeks and Portuguese are
seen as migrants. However, as I want to point out, one can only claim that “Americans”,
“Swedes” (Kalpaka/Räthzel) and “Britons” (Balibar) are not ascribed with migration in
Germany or France if one assumes that they are homogenously white. Asian Americans,
Black Swedes and British Indian people, for example, would in a dominant gaze not be
seen as non-migrants qua their European/Western nationality, they would instead be
ascribed with migration from non-Western, extra-European countries/continents.
Western/European nations in both approaches are implicitly constructed as white, while
for example “Blacks and Arabs” (Balibar) remain in the role of eternal migrants who
can never be at home in Europe. Thinking about racism in Europe only in terms of
migration and national belonging, then, has the effect of racially homogenising
Western/European nations as white and excluding Europeans of colour (who may or
may not have a migration history) not only from discourses of “nation as well as
migration,” as El-Tayeb (2011, xxxv) puts it, but as I also want to stress, from
(academic and activist) understandings of racism. Therefore, it is important for critical
analyses to carve out the interplay of racialisation and migratisation. My proposal to
think about ‘migratisation’ rather than about ‘migrants’ helps us to understand, on the
one hand, that the ascription of being a migrant does not necessarily need an actual
migration or border crossing, and on the other, that white privilege can manifest in
supra-national border crossings that are precisely not seen as migrations.
Moreover, as Balibar (1991, 221) points out, privileged border crossings that are
not considered migrations are often accompanied with class privilege. Thus, for a
French context, Balibar ponders: “a Spanish worker and, a fortiori, a Moroccan worker
will be 'immigrants', but a Spanish capitalist, or even indeed an Algerian capitalist, will
not be” (ibid.). Bringing these thoughts together with Kalpaka/Räthzel’s statement, that
“Africans, Turks, Spaniards, Greeks” (1990, 12) are discriminated against in a German
context – a discrimination the authors claim should be called racism and not xenophobia
– I wonder if Kalpaka and Räthzel, even if not addressing class as directly as Balibar
does, refer to class+migration as a distinguishing dimension for racism. They mention
“Africans” (a term that is problematically used alongside nationalising terms) and
“Turks, Spaniards, Greeks” in the same breath. The last three groups predominantly
migrated to Germany during the 1950-1970s wave of legalised labour migration to West
Germany, which is tied to a specific configuration of class and geopolitical hierarchies.
Important however to understanding the intersecting racialised and classed politics of
West Germany’s labour migration programmes is the fact that, as Karen Schönwälder
(2001, 2004) points out in her extensive historical work, this push for intra-European
foreign recruitment was motivated by a conflation of Europeanness with whiteness. At
the time, Turkey was seen as part of Europe (2004, 251) and there were coordinated –
but unofficially and secretly conducted – efforts in operation on many levels of the
West German administration to prevent the entry of Europeans of colour as workers
from the European partner nations (2001, 247f, 269; 2004, 250). While Kalpaka and
Räthzel seem to suggest that ‘migration+class discrimination’ substitutes racialisation,
and that the discrimination against workers from Southern Europe should subsequently
be called racism rather than ‘only’ xenophopbia, it becomes clear through
Schönwälder’s study that racism in West Germany has historically meant efforts to
restrict labour migration to only white Europeans. Like most stories, this one is not
absolute. Most labour migrants came to West Germany from Turkey, but one could
dispute the claim that Turkey has ever been considered a ‘true’ part of Europe by other
European nations and therefore state that Turkish migrants are not considered as white
in Western Europe. We can certainly speak of an ambivalent construction of Turkey in
European discourses (see Küçük 2009). However, as ambivalent the Western German
official migration politics might have been regarding the geopolitical borders of Europe,
Schönwälder’s findings make clear that German authorities had an explicit concept of
Europeanness as whiteness, stating for example that Germans would expect a ‘white
worker’ when hiring a Portuguese (Schönwälder 2001, 269).
In a UK context, recent debates on Brexit serve as a reminder of the importance
of avoiding the conflation of nationality with race. Framing UK based anti-Polish or
anti-Romanian rhetoric as ‘racism’ against people ascribed as migrants from Romania
or Poland falls into this very trap and avoids confronting how Black, Arab, and Asian
Eastern Europeans who migrate to Western Europe are not ascribed with Eastern
Europeanness but with extra-European migration. As Michelle Wright and Fatima El-
Tayeb show, hegemonic understandings of Europe construct Black Europeans as non-
Europeans. El-Tayeb (2011, xvii) argues that racism in Europe is characterised through
an “externalization of racialized populations”, and Wright (2004, 191) similarly asserts
that, in the German context, Black Germans are constructed as “Africans, or Others-
from-without”.
This is not to say that delineations between European nations do not play an
important role for defining a distinctive national identity. In the next section’s
discussion on German nation building, and through recent debates on British
nationalism in the wake of Brexit, nationalist constructions that rely on delineations
from other European nations become evident. Indeed, this specific construction of
European nation states is rooted in an internal European hierarchy that is secured by
chauvinist nationalisms. However, this does not mean that any resentment based on the
ascription of different European nationalities is ‘racism’ in an analytical sense. As
Manuela Boatcă (2013) explains, during modernist nation building processes ‘multiple
Europes’ emerge with ‘heroic Europe’ as the self-declared core and
Southern/Eastern/South-Eastern Europes as its peripheries. This internal hierarchy and
competition does not only create tensions, it also stabilises ‘Europe’ and affirms its
shared and divisive racist projects. While Maria Todorova speaks of a “racial
ambiguity” of Eastern Europe (2009, 19), both she and Boatcă agree that dominant
perceptions construct Eastern Europeans as “on this side of the fundamental opposition:
white versus colored” (Todorova 2009, 19) which means as “(predominantly) Christian
and white” (Boatcă 2013, 6). Therefore, in order to understand how whiteness functions
in this context, it is necessary to situate the complex history of Eastern and Southern
Europe(anness) through their relation to each other and to Europe’s dominant core
(ibid.). Relying on theorists like Boatcă, my approach focuses on the shared investment
in whiteness of Western and Eastern European nations. With this it is an explicit
intervention in knowledge productions that construct Eastern Europeans as a
homogenous category which is automatically external to white privilege. Elsewhere for
example, I discuss the migratisation of white Romanians in Western Europe through
hegemonic ascriptions of backwardness and their counter-attempts to delineate
themselves in racist and heterosexist ways from Roma and to define Romanianness as
‘proper white Europeanness’ (Tudor 2017b). However, my intervention does not deny
internal hierarchisations between European nations that can be traced back to
Enlightenment (see Boatcă 2013, Wolff 1994), nor does it claim, white Eastern
Europeans are not discriminated against in a Western context.
Bringing together the insights from my readings of these examples, I argue that
neither ‘migration’ alone or ‘migration+class discrimination’ nor ‘migration-from-
Europe’s-peripheries’ can be seen as replacing racialisation in the functioning of
Western European racisms. Rather, for complex analyses, one must study (the shifting)
meanings of racialisation, whiteness and hegemonic understandings of Europeanness
and investigate their interplay with migratisation. After complicating the proposition
that ‘migration+class discrimination’ equals racialisation, let me go back to Balibar’s
quote and focus on the question of what role class privilege plays for racialising and
migratising readings. It is interesting that he claims that class privilege can do away
with the ascription of migration definitely in the case of the Spanish border crosser
(who is assumed to be white in Balibar’s account) and possibly even in the case of the
“Algerian capitalist” (1991, 221). Here, Balibar seems to suggest that class privilege has
the power to undo discrimination based on the ascription of migration. The implicitly
white Spanish border crosser, and even the (implicitly non-white?) Algerian border
crosser with class privilege, are not seen as migrants in his view but as privileged
subjects of a supra-national elite. Once again, I want to re-visit Balibar’s claim by
integrating an analysis of racialisation into his work. Could a Black or Arab Spaniard in
France or Germany really overcome the ascription of migration through class privilege
in the way Balibar suggests? Would class privilege so straightforwardly mediate racist
ascriptions of migration to non-white subjects? Moreover, are Black and brown border-
crossers from the Global South who inhabit class privilege really not subject to the
discrimination Europeans of colour or non-class privileged Black and brown migrants
experience? Is racism only something that the poor are subjected to, or, indeed, is the
ascription of migration something that only the poor experience?
Applying the concepts I have suggested in this article, it follows that the
interconnection of ‘race+class+migration(+gender)’ is not as straight forward as Balibar
suggests. Lata Mani’s elaborations on ‘race+class+migration+gender’
(Frankenberg/Mani 1993) are compatible with my analysis, as seen through the two
incidents she shares in a theoretical reflection on postcolonialism and politics of
location in a US context (ibid., 296f). Having grown up in Mumbai, India, Mani
migrated to the UK and then to the US holding a US PhD, she describes two attempts to
enter her academic workplace in the US after closing hours without her keys on hand.
The first time, a white male academic colleague is unable to read her profession and
class position as a fellow academic and subsequently questions her right to enter the
building. “Race appears to have overriden class” (ibid.), she sums up. The second time,
she is let in without any challenge by a non-white female cleaner, who Mani ascertains
as having read her as belonging to the academic institution due to Mani’s class
privileged appearance (books/clothes) (ibid). This account suggests that the
interconnection of class with migratisation and racialisation is complex and the
readability of class can become fragile in light of a hegemonic gaze that sees class
privilege and non-whiteness/migratisation (from the Global South) as mutually
exclusive.
Gender, of course, also plays a role. In Mani’s narrative, the gendering of the
protagonists makes specific readings possible, not in an isolated form (it is not because
the first person is a generic man and the second person is a generic woman that they
read Mani like they do), but gender in its racialised and classed dimensions. I will
discuss this with the help of a few more examples. There are countless incidents in
which it becomes clear that, mediated through a dominant gaze, racialisation and class
privilege are very often mutually exclusive (from Oprah Winfrey being told in a
boutique she could not afford a handbag, to Henry Louis Gates being mistaken for a
burglar when trying to enter his own house). Racialisation, gender and the restricting of
space very often goes together in these examples: it is about access and belonging, as
we have seen in Mani’s narrative, and about automatised dominant reading practices.
In 2016, the BBC reported that the MP Dawn Butler was mistaken for a cleaner
in Westminster by a fellow MP and was told there were different lifts for the cleaning
staff (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-35685169 [04/07/2017]). Another
incident was discussed by German journalist Kübra Gümüsay, who reported in a 2012
newspaper article on racism in German higher education that a student wearing a hijab
was addressed as a cleaner by her white male professor when she entered the classroom
and was told that the cleaner’s room was at the end of the corridor (Gümüsay 2012).
Racialising, migratisatising and classed readings are gendered. Incidents in which
Black, brown or Muslim women are being mistaken for cleaners not only reveal the
logic of dominant imagination of bodies and spaces (see Puwar 2004), but also the
material aspects of racism, migratism, classism and sexism. As feminist scholars have
pointed out, jobs in the domestic, cleaning and caretaking sector are highly gendered,
racialised and migratised (Lutz 2002, Gutiérrez Rodríguez 2010). Consequently, many
migratised and racialised women are forced to work in the cleaning and caretaking
industry under mostly precarious conditions, while education and professional fields
that provide class mobility are heavily policed in gendered, racialised and migratised
terms in Western Europe. This also means that there is a hegemonic cognitive
connection that equates Muslim, migratised, Black and brown women with cleaners,
resp. ascribes them with non-belonging in institutions like the parliament or universities,
and fixates them conceptually and materially in precarious jobs or simply ‘elsewhere’.
This being sent elsewhere is one of the intersectional dimensions of what I mean when I
speak of migratisation as performative and its interconnection to racialisation.
Ascriptions and (mis)readings of classed belonging are not absolute and are certainly
not the only important aspect of class. Classism, migratism, racism and sexism have
material effects on lives and living conditions, operating in overlapping and complex
ways. It becomes clear that racialisation and migratisation have a complex relationship
with gender and class and that ‘class+migration’ alone is not nuanced enough to explain
racialisation, the ascription of migration to certain bodies or the functioning of racism in
Europe.
The concept of migratism – which sees migratisation as the ascription of
migration to certain bodies, and migratism itself as a power relation that defines ‘the
normal’ of Western national entities and its ‘belonging’ subjects – is intended to help
theorise tacit understandings of belonging to or exclusion from gendered, sexualised,
white European nations. In the two examples of Black and Muslim women being
mistaken for cleaners, it becomes clear that being sent ‘elsewhere' is a performative
migratising repetition of displacement within a racist logic of Europe as white. It is not
necessarily related to actual border crossings, nor does it happen only once. The
cleaner’s room – one example of the ‘elsewhere’ migratised people are sent to or being
imagined as having come from – is gendered, and so are institutions like the parliament
and universities. Nirmal Puwar aptly uses the term “space invaders” (2004: 1) to refer to
the “arrival of women and racialised minorities in spaces from which they have been
historically or conceptually excluded”. Therefore, I suggest that studying migratism as a
power relation includes analysing the codification of a taken-for-granted ‘elsewhere’ as
constitutive of the ‘here’. The codification of an ‘elsewhere’ is referenced in questions
such as ‘Where are you from?’, or ‘Don’t you want to live back home again?’ (Kilomba
2008), which are posed to migrants but are very often also used to migratise Europeans
of colour who may or may not have migrated. The construction and the reference to an
‘elsewhere’ is phantasmatic and follows a diagnosis based on visual or hearing
perceptions. In Western Europe, the migratisation of Black people, Muslims and People
of Colour is a fundamental strategy in racist discourses and, at the same time, it is a
strategy of the continuous reconstruction of Europeanness as whiteness (El-Tayeb
1999). It is not (only) a matter of the dimensions of geographical distance – it is about
the phantasmatic ascription of distance. If we think of migratisation as performative
practice that repeatedly re-stages this sending-off to an elsewhere, it becomes clear that
crossing national borders is not the only relevant dimension of the ascription of
migration.
The Postcolonial Turn
In the next section, I will focus on tracking some of the historic roots of Western
European ideas of gender, nation and racialisation, in order to make the case that
racialisation needs to be taken into consideration when analysing the ascription of
migration. Gender, nation and racialisation are connected to space (geographical and
conceptual) and with this codify understandings of migration. Therefore, this section
wants to achieve an analysis of racism that is embedded in postcolonial feminist
knowledge production. I will use the German case as a transnational example of
Western European nation building and its gendered and racialised premises. Germany’s
history of racism and migration has transnational overlaps with other European contexts
but is also constituted by specific national implementations of racisms, colonial legacies
and genocides (like the genocide of the Herero and Nama in Western Africa between
1904-1907 and the genocides of Europe’s Jewish and Roma Populations in the 1930-
40s). Given this history of various racisms, some of which are acknowledged in
hegemonic discourse, some of which are less remembered or denied, and different post-
war migration regimes in West and East Germany, critical knowledge production on
racism and migration in Germany has had several – often contradictory – foci.
Critical migration studies and gender studies approaches on migration, not only
in Germany but also in a broader European context, have had the tendency to forget
about postcolonial racism and racialisation and instead promoted an understanding of
migration that was disconnected from postcolonial analysis. Moreover, in academic
discourse and public media debates in the German context, ‘racism’ for a long time has
only been used as a term to refer to the racist anti-Semitism of Nazi Germany
(Messerschmidt 2008; 2010). Nevertheless, attempts to try to make sense of various
forms of racism can be found, for example, in knowledge production on the continuities
and differences between German colonialism and the Holocaust (Messerschmidt 2010).
Visual artist and media theorist Hito Steyerl sees in the Nazi politics of extermination
‘echoes of colonial biopolitics’ (2003, 43). Astrid Messerschmidt (2010) further
advocates for a critical differentiation of colonial racism and anti-Semitism and
criticises a powerful discourse in which racism (equated with anti-Semitism) is
relocated in Germany’s past. It creates, as Messerschmidt insists, the all too easy idea of
today’s Germany as ‘free of racism’: racial ideas of Germanness are seen as belonging
to a closed epoch of the past and today’s Germany as beyond racism, a fantasy which is
justified with the so-called denazification (ibid., 53). Messerschmidt points out that this
discursive strategy not only places anti-Semitism in the past by pretending German anti-
Semitism is not relevant anymore, but it also simultaneously denies the mere existence
and relevance of colonial racism (ibid., 52).
Having examined various – often competing – strands of critical knowledge
production on racism and migration in Germany and in transnational Gender Studies
discussions on Western Europe (Tudor 2014, 2017a), I argue that a ‘postcolonial turn’
has begun to emerge and is questioning easy assumptions about the connections
between racism and migration. With an comprehensive account of the historical
processes of constructing Germanness as Whiteness in the context of colonial racism,
El-Tayeb (2001) investigates formations of European nationalism and their
interconnection to racialisation. She makes clear that the construction of Black Germans
as the abjects of German nationality is inseparable from how Germanness has been
defined in a European context. As El-Tayeb further argues, in the 19th century, the
scramble for colonies became the central topic of European nationalism (2001, 61).
Susanne Zantop (1999) points out that in Germany the bourgeoisie constituted itself
through colonial phantasies long before Germany held actual colonies. European
colonialism reached its climax at the beginning of the 19th century, yet despite
Germany’s desire to distinguish itself from other European nations, it was only able to
become a colonial power in 1884. The ambition for colonies and the sense of lagging
behind the other European nations was formative for German nationalisation processes
(Eggers 2005, 137ff). But the former lack of colonies does not make the imperial
imagination any less strong. On the contrary, the ambitions for colonial domination are
compounded from and feed into a severe inferiority complex. Germany’s self-image is,
from the beginnings of the national process, based on a ‘colonial complex’ – a sense of
not being acknowledged as a ‘properly colonising’ European nation.
One of the results of the postcolonial turn in Western European Gender Studies
is a shift towards understanding gender as always already racialised. Moreover, this
shift allows accounting for European colonialism as not only affecting the colonised
spaces and peripheries but also the colonialist centre (Shohat 1992). Coming from this
angle, I argue that the nexus of racism and migration cannot be reflected on responsibly
without taking into account Europe’s colonial past and postcolonial legacy. Therefore,
one of the key arguments I propose in this article is that a differentiation of racism and
migratism helps avoid the trap of substituting the power relation that ascribes migration
with the power relation that ascribes race. With this, I criticise approaches on racism
which see migration as the more relevant dimension than racialisation or claim that
Europe has its ‘own’ racisms that do not rely on racialisation. In my view, these
approaches produce a problematic European racial exceptionalism in which racialisation
very often is considered a construct that ‘does not exist’ or that has no relevance in
Europe (as seen in Bojadžijev 2008, 29; Kerner 2007). As El-Tayeb (2011, xv) puts it,
these approaches even consider it ‘racist’ to analyse racialisation.
While authors such as Paul Gilroy have argued for a post-race epistemology, this
intervention is not meant to deny the continued existence of racialisation but to
highlight the damage done in and through categories of ‘race’ that come from
colonialism (Gilroy 1998). Rather than assuming ‘race’ is static, Gilroy argues for anti-
racist approaches that connect critical knowledge on historic metaphysics of race with
contemporary forms of racialisation that rely on different ways of perceiving bodies and
ontologies (ibid.). He calls for anti-racist utopias that see the mere existence of race as a
category as problematic (ibid., 843). However, Gilroy makes clear that this does not
deny the importance of racialisation. Rather, questioning race as a category interrogates
how racialisation functions today and how it gets constructed through ambivalent
practices of perception that require analyses which cannot rest in certainty (see Tudor
2017b). In this sense, my differentiation of terms here is an epistemological as well as a
political move, intended to provide us with the necessary tools to understand
racialisation and migratisation as ambivalent and contradictory processes in a globalised
world.
Imported Misogyny?
Building on feminist postcolonial approaches, the argument I want to make here relies
on the idea that the historical processes of the self-assertion as ‘European’ in the long
19th century are central for today’s understandings of gender, nation and racialisation –
and therefore for analysing migration and the construction of who is seen as a ‘migrant’
in Western Europe. In many postcolonial approaches, the historicising focus lies on the
colonial epoch of the long 19th century and its perpetuation. With this, nations like
Great Britain and France are centred as colonial agents (Boatcă 2013). This focus makes
sense, too, for a German context whose 19th century colonialism and 20th century
genocide in Africa is, until today, widely de-memorised, despite of relentless efforts of
scholars and activists in recent years to fill this void in the public and academic
consciousness (i.e http://www.no-humboldt21.de/resolution/english/). However,
processes of nationalisation are not cut off from the rest of the world and European
nationalisms and their investment in racialisation function transnationally. Therefore, it
is important to analyse the relationship between different epochs, racialisations and
national specificities. This means that constructions of Europe’s racialised Others are
interconnected in complex ways and one could speak of the interdependencies,
simultaneities, contradictions and interconnections of colonial racism, anti-Semitism,
anti-Muslim racism and anti-Romaism. With this, it also becomes clear that the
Enlightenment is not the starting point of European racism and racist discrimination.
Present-day racisms have their complex histories. While some scholars identify
a rise of a neo-Orientalism since 9/11 that deploys the topos of ‘patriarchal Muslim
societies’, Iman Attia (2013) warns against the idea that anti-Muslim racism is
exclusively a post 9/11 phenomenon and instead underlines that there is a centuries long
tradition and culture in Europe of constructing Islam as foreign and threatening (Boatcă
2013, Said 1979). In this vein, Ella Shohat (2002) makes clear that the colonisation of
the Americas and the expulsion of Muslims and Jews, starting in the early modern age
and departing from the Iberian Peninsula, has an ongoing importance and plays a central
role for Europe’s self-construction through colonialism and religion. Therefore, Avtar
Brah’s concept of “differential racialisation” (1996, 3, 186) is helpful for understanding
the relationship of racisms in Europe, as it advocates for conceptualisations that engage
with the idea of interconnected but still differentiable forms of racialisation and racism
(ibid., 105).
What does this mean for analysing racisms, gender, sexuality and migration in
the recent situation in postcolonial Europe? In latest Western European acrimonious
debates on the ‘male migrant as sexual perpetrator’, for example, as seen in
representations of what has been termed the ‘Cologne incident’, a topos can be carved
out that assumes misogyny (and in extended perspectives, homophobia and anti-
Semitism) are imported to the West. The term ‘Cologne incidents’ (in plural as I will
explain below) refers to the mass sexual assaults during the 2015/2016 New Year's Eve
celebration in Cologne, Germany. ‘North African men’ were constructed as the
perpetrators which led to a legitimisation of mass racial profiling in the following year
(which is in my view the second ‘Cologne incident’). A debate on sexual harassment
‘emerged’ that understands sexism and misogyny as a Muslim/extra-European
phenomenon. It is a discursive construction of brown men as Muslim migrants and
therefore as both sexual perpetrators and ‘not-German’ or ‘not-European’, resulting in
calls for stopping (extra-European) immigration to Europe. Those presumed to have
migrated from the Middle East or Northern Africa are also constructed through an
automatic ascription of ‘Islam’ (that comes together with a cultural and religious
homogenisation of the presumed regions of origin). There is a tendency to displace
sexism, misogyny, homophobia and even anti-Semitism to outside of Europe and to
ascribe it to brown bodies that are constructed as being not part of Europe, but as eternal
migrants (hence ‘migratised’). This topos is often used in racist and anti-immigration
argumentations and as well in some strands of ‘feminism’. One of the attempts to create
a counter-narrative was the open letter by #ausnahmslos (without exceptions), a
campaign by academic and public feminist intellectuals in Germany in which they
demand nuanced analyses of the entanglement of sexism and racism: “Against
sexualised violence and racism. Always. Anywhere.” http://ausnahmslos.org/english
[15/02/2017].
However, even if this debate seems to have ‘emerged’ recently, it is worth
questioning the alleged newness of this discourse. Sexualised racial panic has a history
in Germany. Tina Campt (2005) analyses historical tendencies of ascriptions of
Black/African men as sexual perpetrators in her discussion of the German reaction to
the French occupation of the Rhineland after WWI. The Germans launched campaigns
against the non-white soldiers of the French ‘colonial troops,’ a phenomenon she calls
“echoes of imagined danger” (2005, 25). Campt points out that Germany saw itself as
an “innocent victim of a racial conspiracy”, imposed on them by France (ibid., 26). One
can draw a connection here between this perceived ‘victimhood’ and the German
colonial complex identified in the last subsection.
It is this denial of sexism/misogyny/homophobia’s constitutive role in Western
culture and the perpetual denial of it being a ‘domestic’ problem that renders resistance
‘impossible’. Moreover, this denial is invested in turning feminist and queer rage
against the (phantasmatic) outside (see Haritaworn 2012, Razack 2004). Of course, as
queer/feminist research has shown, European sexism, racism, heteronormativity has
produced the complex product ‘gender+sexuality+racialisation+class’. From the late
18th century on, the division between a public and a private sphere took place in
European society which can be seen as a new bourgeois order. As Karin Hausen (1976)
carves out, the invention of binary ‘gender characters’ was crucial for this process.
However, it is not only the polarised and compulsory complementary relation between
white bourgeois women and men that played a formative part in the construction
processes of modern European nation states (and with it a fixed class system), but also
the colonial order that legitimised Europe’s claim to supremacy. Moreover, the late 19th
century saw the emergence of constructions and ascriptions of Jewishness. This
‘modern’ anti-Semitism constructed Jewish identity through body and character features
(Dahl 2013, 94). Furthermore, Patricia Hill Collins and El-Tayeb, amongst others, make
clear that the European concept of womanhood, and with it gender as a category, is
constructed inseparably from racialisation and nationalism (Collins 2002, 196; El-Tayeb
1999, 155). Maria Lugones (2007, 186) shows how “heterosexism” can be seen “as a
key part of how gender fuses with race in the operations of colonial power”. With this,
she underlines that ‘gender itself’ was introduced as a ‘colonial concept’ (ibid.). Indeed,
gender as a category comes into existence through racialisation and colonial expansion.
Therefore, feminist attempts to ‘un-gender Europe’ – to ‘trans’ gender, to go beyond
gender and to question naturalised ideas of gendering – need to engage in postcolonial
analysis. Historical research and contemporary critical analysis show that misogyny,
homo/transphobia and anti-Semitism are, of course, ‘domestic’ problems in Europe.
Nevertheless, in public discourse and media led debates, Muslims, who are constructed
as eternal migrants, and Black and Brown persons, migrants or not, are seen as
committing to the ‘wrong’ kind of heterosexuality – a sexist, homophobic one (El-
Tayeb 2012, 83) and even accused of importing anti-Semitism (Salzmann 2012). Of
course, postcolonial queer-feminist interventions and approaches do not deny that these
power relations exist in migratised communities – our communities – or outside of
Europe. However, the dominant discourse’s constant externalisation prevents seeing
sexism, misogyny, homo/trans/queerphobia and anti-Semitism as problems that
everyone must address as inherent to the nation states, institutions, families and
communities they live in. Solely throwing this struggle on migrant, Muslim, Black and
brown bodies and the Global South is a migratist and/or racist instrumentalisation.
Conclusion
In this article, I have aimed to discuss how a differentiation of racialisation and
migratisation with specific focus on the intersection of both helps us to think in more
nuanced ways about nation, Europe and belonging in feminist and gender studies
approaches on racism, migration, class and gender. As I have shown, the displacement
of people and groups of people to an ‘elsewhere’ and the spatial-temporal dimension of
coming, staying and ‘going back’ are the hegemonic requirements for conceiving of
‘migration’. The migratism conceptualisation helps us to understand that migratisation
is constitutive for Western nations and very often works as a strategy of racism. Rather
than promoting an exceptionalist approach on European racism, or denying the
importance of racialisation in knowledge production on migration and even racism in
Europe, it would be helpful to analyse “new geographies of whiteness”, as Anoop
Nayak (2007, 750) puts it, in order to make sense of “complex intersections […] in
global times” (ibid., 751). Indeed, it is undeniable that racialisation in Europe – like
everywhere – is complex and contradictory, and forms of racism, nationalism and
migratism overlap, contradict and exist simultaneously. The argument that Europe has
its ‘own’ racisms that don’t rely on racialisation forgets that colonial racism and anti-
Black-racism are not merely imports but have belonged to Europe since ‘Europe’
emerged. Racial and religious categorisation systems, misogyny, homophobia and a
compulsory gender binary have come into existence through modernist ideas of
Europeanness and can therefore not be displaced to an elsewhere. The compulsory
gender binary for example – which is one of the presumptions and effects of Western
heterosexuality – cannot be addressed as being problematic with a dominant concept of
ascribing ‘wrong’ forms of heterosexuality to migratised Others. The idea that sexism,
misogyny and homophobia – or even anti-Semitism – do not exist in the West beyond
being imported makes resistance impossible: how can one oppose something that
supposedly does not exist?
One of the problems of feminism, and indeed any movement for radical social
transformation, is that power relations come in conjunctures, in different and
contradictory forms at the same time as they adapt to resistance (see
Demirović/Bojadžijev 2002 for an interesting approach on ‘conjunctures of racism’,
from whom I take the term). Therefore, critical knowledge production must engage with
the complex and paradoxical task of differentiating power relations and their histories in
order to analytically grasp their specificities and, at the same time, be able to think of
them as intersectional (Crenshaw 1991) or – a metaphor I prefer – as assemblages (Puar
2007): non-linear excrescences that can only be disentangled analytically by analysing
ambivalences, contradictions and blurry cross-fadings. This means, however, that every
attempt to define a power relation and its constructed ‘object’ (like racism/racialisation,
migratism/migratisation etc.) will be necessarily simplistic. Yet, differentiations are
necessary to be able to define and deconstruct specific oppressions, ascriptions,
exclusions and abjectifications and to formulate the precise and ever shifting forms of
resistance we urgently need in transnational feminist activism and knowledge
production.
References
Ahmed, Sara. 2000. Strange Encounters. Embodied Others in Post-Coloniality. New
York: Routledge.
Attia, Iman. 2013. ‘Privilegien Sichern, Nationale Identität Revitalisieren’. Journal Für
Psychologie 21 (1). http://www.journal-fuer-
psychologie.de/index.php/jfp/article/view/258/297 [22/03/2014].
Balibar, Etienne, and Immanuel Wallerstein. 1991. Race, Nation, Class: Ambiguous
Identities. London: Verso.
Bhambra, Gurminder K. 2009. ‘Postcolonial Europe, or Understanding Europe in Times
of the Postcolonial’. In Sage Handbook of European Studies. London: Sage, 69–
85.
Boatcă, Manuela. 2013. ‘Multiple Europes and the Politics of Difference Within’.
Worlds & Knowledges Otherwise (WKO) Uneasy Postcolonialisms 3 (3).
https://globalstudies.trinity.duke.edu/wp-
content/themes/cgsh/materials/WKO/v3d3_Boatca2.pdf [20/07/2014].
Bojadžijev, Manuela. 2008. Die windige Internationale. Rassismus und Kämpfe der
Migration. Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot.
Brah, Avtar. 1996. Cartographies of Diaspora. Contesting Identities. London:
Routledge.
Campt, Tina. 2005. Other Germans. Black Germans and the Politics of Race, Gender,
and Memory in the Third Reich. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Collins, Patricia Hill. 2002. ‘The Sexual Politics of Black Womanhood’. In Sexuality
and Gender, eds. Christine L. Williams and Arlene Stein, 193–206. Malden:
Blackwell.
Crenshaw, Kimberle. 1991. ‘Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics,
and Violence against Women of Color’. Stanford Law Review 43 (6): 1241–
1299.
Dahl, Izabela A. 2013. Ausschluss und Zugehörigkeit. Polnische jüdische
Zwangsmigration in Schweden nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg. Berlin: Metropol.
Demirović, Alex, and Manuela Bojadžijev, eds. 2002. Konjunkturen des Rassismus.
Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot.
Eggers, Maureen Maisha. 2005. ‘Rassifizierung und kindliches Machtempfinden. Wie
Schwarze und weiße Kinder rassifizierte Machtdifferenz verhandeln auf der
Ebene von Identität’. Dissertation, Kiel: Christian-Albrechts-Universität.
http://d-nb.info/1019667087/.
El-Tayeb, Fatima. 1999. ‘“Blood Is a Very Special Juice”: Racialized Bodies and
Citizenship in Twentieth-Century Germany’. International Review of Social
History 44, 149–69.
El-Tayeb, Fatima. 2001. Schwarze Deutsche. Der Diskurs um ‘Rasse’ und nationale
Identität 1890-1933. Frankfurt a.M., New York: Campus.
El-Tayeb, Fatima. 2011. European Others. Queering Ethnicity in Postnational Europe.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
El-Tayeb, Fatima. 2012. ‘“Gays Who Cannot Properly Be Gay”: Queer Muslims in the
Neoliberal European City’. European Journal of Women’s Studies 19 (1): 79–
95.
Frankenberg, Ruth and Lata Mani. 1993 ‘Crosscurrents, Crosstalk: Race,
‘Postcoloniality’ and the Politics of Location’. Cultural Studies 7 (2), 292–310.
Gilroy, Paul. 1998. ‘Race Ends Here’. Ethnic and Racial Studies 21 (5), 838-847
Gümüsay, Kübra. 2012. ‘Rassismus: ‘Was habt ihr gegen mein Kopftuch?’’ Die Zeit.
2015-11-12. http://www.zeit.de/campus/2012/04/meinung-rassismus
Gutiérrez Rodríguez, Encarnación. 2010. Migration, Domestic Work and Affect. A
Decolonial Approach on Value and the Feminization of Labor. New York:
Routledge.
Haritaworn, Jin. 2012. ‘Colorful Bodies in the Multikulti Metropolis: Vitality,
Victimology and Transgressive Citizenship in Berlin’. In Transgender
Migrations. The Bodies, Borders, and Politics of Transition, ed. Trystan T.
Cotten, 11–31. New York: Routledge.
Hausen, Karin. 1976. ‘Die Polarisierung der ‘Geschlechtscharaktere’. Eine Spiegelung
Der Dissoziation von Erwerbs- und Familienleben’. In Sozialgeschichte der
Familie in der Neuzeit Europas. Neue Forschungen, ed. Werner Conze, 367–93.
Stuttgart: Klett.
Kalpaka, Annita and Nora Räthzel. eds. 1990. Die Schwierigkeit, nicht rassistisch zu
sein. Leer: Mundo.
Kerner, Ina. 2007. ‘Challenges of Critical Whiteness Studies’. Translate. Beyond
Culture: The Politics of Translation.
doi:http://translate.eipcp.net/strands/03/kerner-strands01en [20/01/2017].
Kilomba, Grada. 2008. Plantation Memories. Episodes of Everyday Racism. Münster:
Unrast.
Küçük, Bülent. 2009. ‘Borders of Europe: Fantasies of Identity in the Enlargement
Debate on Turkey’. New Perspectives on Turkey, 41, 89–115. Cambridge.
Lugones, Maria. 2007. Heterosexualism and the Colonial/Modern Gender System.
Hypatia 22 (1), 186–219.
Lutz, Helma. 2002. ‘At Your Service Madam! The Globalization of Domestic Service’.
Feminist Review 70 (1), 89–104.
Messerschmidt, Astrid. 2008. ‘Postkoloniale Erinnerungsprozesse in einer
postnationalsozialistischen Gesellschaft – vom Umgang mit Rassismus und
Antisemitismus’. Peripherie 109 (110), 28.
Messerschmidt, Astrid. 2010. ‘Distanzierungsmuster. Vier Praktiken im Umgang mit
Rassismus’. In Rassismus bildet. Bildungswissenschaftliche Beiträge zu
Normalisierung und Subjektivierung in der Migrationsgesellschaft, eds. Anne
Broden and Paul Mecheril, 41–57. Bielefeld: transcript.
Nayak, Anoop. 2007. ‘Critical Whiteness Studies’. Sociology Compass 1 (2), 737-755.
Puar, Jasbir 2007: Terrorist Assemblages. Homonationalism in Queer Times. Durham:
Duke.
Puwar, Nirmal. 2004. Space Invaders: Race, Gender and Bodies out of Place. Oxford:
Berg.
Razack, Sherene. 2004. ‘Imperilled Muslim Women, Dangerous Muslim Men and
Civilised Europeans: Legal and Social Responses to Forced Marriages’.
Feminist Legal Studies 12 (2).
Salzmann, Marianna. 2012. ‘Kopfwrestling Der Begriffe. Wer Hat Wann Wem Gesagt,
Dass Ich Jüdin Bin’. Freitext - Kultur Und Gesellschaftsmagazin 10 (19).
http://freitext.com/magazine/heft-18/.
Schönwälder, Karen. 2001. Einwanderung und ethnische Pluralität: politische
Entscheidungen und öffentliche Debatten in Großbritannien und der
Bundesrepublik von den 1950er bis zu den 1970er Jahren. Essen: Klartext-
Verlag.
Schönwälder, Karen. 2004. ‘Why Germany’s Guestworkers Were Largely Europeans:
The Selective Principles of Post-War Labour Recruitment Policy”. Ethnic and
Racial Studies 27 (2), 248–265
Shohat, Ella. 1992. ‘Notes on the ‘Post-Colonial’. Social Text 31/32: 99–113.
Shohat, Ella. 2002. ‘Area Studies, Gender Studies, and the Cartographies of
Knowledge’. Social Text 72 20 (3): 67–78.
Steyerl, Hito. 2003. ‘Postkolonialismus und Biopolitik’. In Spricht die Subalterne
deutsch? Migration und postkoloniale Kritik, eds. Hito Steyerl and Encarnación
Gutiérrez Rodríguez, 38–55. Münster: Unrast.
Todorova, Maria (2009): Imagining the Balkans. Oxford: Oxford University.
Tudor, Alyosxa. 2014. from [al'manja] with love: Trans_Feministische
Positionierungen zu Rassismus und Migratismus. Frankfurt a.M.: Brandes &
Apsel.
Tudor, Alyosxa. 2017a. ‘Queering Migration Discourse. Differentiating Racism and
Migratism in Postcolonial Europe’. Lambda Nordica, 22 (2-3), 21-40.
Tudor, Alyosxa. 2017b. ‘Dimensions of Transnationalism’. Feminist Review 117.
Wolff, Larry. 1994. Inventing Eastern Europe: The Map of Civilization on the Mind of
the Enlightenment. Standford: Stanford University.
Wright, Michelle M. 2004. Becoming Black. Creating Identity in the African Diaspora.
Durham, London: Duke University.
Zantop, Susanne 1999. Kolonialphantasien im vorkolonialen Deutschland (1770 -
1870). Berlin: Erich Schmidt.
... As Gargi Bhattacharyya (2008) argues, by defining Muslim men as hyper-patriarchal, Muslim women are dichotomised as passive and meek. Thus, intervention is required in the face of such imported gender and racialised dynamics, that always come from elsewhere rather than within European modernity (Tudor 2018). This therefore evokes images of more passive women who are denied access to English and integration and revives broader colonial tropes of Other femininities and masculinities (Boatcă and Roth 2016;Farris 2017). ...
... In a similar vein, Alyosxa Tudor argues 'Racial and religious categorisation systems, misogyny, homophobia and a compulsory gender binary have come into existence through modernist ideas of Europeanness and can therefore not be displaced to an elsewhere' (Tudor 2018(Tudor , 1069. 7 The Life in the UK Test and naturalisation process, however, require demonstrating 'British' values with the implication that these forms of discrimination come from elsewhere and need improvement and correction through the test process to allow membership and inclusion. ...
Article
Full-text available
This article explores the different experiences of migrant women who are at various stages in the UK naturalisation process, drawing on interviews in Leicester and London, United Kingdom. We consider how care and coloniality shape migrant women's experiences in the context of the neoliberal test process and what Nancy Fraser has called a 'crisis of care' (Fraser 2016). We argue that migrant women claim their own citizenship despite rather than because of the naturalisation process, and in so doing resist colonial relations of citizenship. ARTICLE HISTORY
... Furthermore, what are the racial factors pertaining to queer migrant reproduction? Are they migratised factors (Tudor: 2017;2018)? What are the institutional processes that queer migrants undergo for reproduction (surrogacy, pregnancy, adoption)? ...
... The depth of colonialism's influence in the Arabic-speaking countries denotes that conceptualising Lebanon as a home for migrants is an impossibility. This process of migratisation (Tudor 2018: 1058) divulges elite and upper middle-class aspirations to distance Lebanon from the African and Asian continents, in favour of being closer to Europe and the privileges of whiteness. In this context, I argue that queering migration entails understanding the history of global health and eugenics, in the exploitation of migrant women bodies in tandem to ongoing anti-Black and classist effects of colonialism across West Asia. ...
... The physical crossing of borders transforms the Kurdish man into a "migrant" and shapes a racialised subjectivity that stands at the margin of Belgian society. Tudor (2018) reminds us that not all border-crossings construct a migrant. Rather, the category of migrant functions as a hierarchical ascription that relies on nationality, country of origin, and, often times, class. ...
... Rather, the category of migrant functions as a hierarchical ascription that relies on nationality, country of origin, and, often times, class. In the construction of Europe as white, the Kurdish man appears as the racialised Other and, subsequently, as never at home in Europe (Tudor 2018). His localisation in a physical no-person's-land, where he neither belongs to the hegemonic space nor the homeland, turns him into the perpetual migrant, and materialises a different mode of being "male." ...
... Attributed to the Merkel administration and the many volunteers who came forward to help when Germany and other European states failed to provide immediate support in the early days of the so-called "refugee crisis" of 2015, this hospitality was swiftly replaced by a nationalist security discourse and the implementation of asylum restrictions. In this affective conjuncture, Cologne served as proof that asylum seekers were impossible to integrate, and sexual violence was understood as a result of open borders, a problem imported from outside of Europe (Dietze 2016;Boulila and Carri 2017;Tudor 2018;Hark and Villa 2020). ...
Article
Full-text available
In this introductory article to the special issue, we ask what role sexuality plays in the reproduction and contestation of border regimes and think sexuality towards its various entanglements with border control. As borders have been understood as a method for reproducing racialized distinctions, we argue that sexuality is also a method of bordering and illustrate how sexuality works as a key strategy for the capture, containment and regulation of mobility and movement. Taking a transnational approach, we bring together queer scholarship on borders and migration with the rich archive of feminist, Black, Indigenous and critical border perspectives to suggest that these strategies need to be understood in close relation to the (I) intersecting dynamics of colonial histories of racialization, (II) national regimes of reproductive control and (III) the containment of contagion, disease and sexual deviance.
... A small but growing part of this scholarship explores the connections between EU responses to irregular boat arrivals within the context of colonial histories and logics (for example, Saucier and Woods 2014;Danewid 2017;Proglio et al. 2021). This is also part of what has been dubbed a "postcolonial turn" in critical migration studies (Koh 2015;Tudor 2018) and speaks to the same research agenda to which we wish to contribute. However, the particularities of the Channel border-zone and responses by the British state also make this, like any border-zone, a unique case which is worthy of further in-depth analysis. ...
Article
Full-text available
In 2020, over 8,400 people made their way from France to the UK coast using small vessels. They did so principally in order to claim asylum in the United Kingdom (UK). Much like in other border-zones, the UK state has portrayed irregular Channel crossings as an invading threat and has deployed a militarized response. While there is burgeoning scholarship focusing on informal migrant camps in the Calais area, there has been little analysis of state responses to irregular Channel crossings. This article begins to address this gap, situating contemporary British responses to irregular Channel crossers within the context of colonial histories and maritime legacies. We focus particularly on the enduring appeal of “the offshore” as a place where undesirable racialized populations can be placed. Our aim is to offer a historicized perspective on this phenomenon which seeks to respond to calls to embed colonial histories in analyses of the present.
... To mitigate this, I suggest differentiating between racism and what I call migratism to analyse the complex connection of racialization and migration in postcolonial Europe. Migratism makes it possible to think of migration as an analytical rather than descriptive category and resists equating the ascription of race with the ascription of migration (Tudor 2014(Tudor , 2018a. Most importantly, the conceptualization of migratism is epistemological -it is not about boxes, but rather about critically examining certain pregiven categories. ...
Article
Full-text available
We respond to prompts about the relationships between race, migration, and sexuality, as these intersecting differences have been forced into the same frame by the violent practices of right-wing regimes, and brought into relief by Covid19. Even as we have long known that sexual politics are a way to govern bodies, and to distribute uneven states of vulnerability, we are seeing new incarnations of government. What we aim to point out is how people who are seen as “different” are being attacked, maimed, dispossessed and murdered. But perhaps more importantly, we insist on the specific nature of right-wing times because these regimes not only encourage attacks on people, but on the very idea that such people should exist and be recognized and understood; that there are areas of scholarship that centre them, or areas of law that try to address the inequalities that dispossess them.
... The second involves the critical theorisations of race and racism. I draw from scholars who conceptualise migratism -'the 2 As Alyosxa Tudor (2018Tudor ( : 1057 argues, 'equating racialisation with migratisation carries the risk of whitening understandings of migration and/or reinforcing already whitened understandings of nation and Europeanness'. In my examination of belonging, I use 'migratism' (Tudor, 2017) and 'othering' (Ahmed, 2000) instead of other analytical terms such as xenophobia. ...
Article
This afterword addresses four broad questions raised by this special issue: uncertainty as a mode of governance, the ontological politics of naturalisation, the citizen-noncitizen distinction, and performative (anxious) states. First, taking uncertainty as a mode of neoliberal governance as the starting point of analysis, this afterword invites the scrutiny of the ways in which the artifice and uncertainty of citizenship are concealed or rendered irrelevant in naturalisation processes. Second, the contributions to this special issue consider naturalisation as a social and political process, rather than solely as a legal status. Pushing this conception further, this afterword considers naturalisation as transactional in two ways: on the one hand, migrants navigate a number of formal and informal requirements and ‘tests’, where some transactions are needed along the way, be they financial, practical, or symbolic. On the other hand, transactions will also occur in the translation of political ideology into policy. Third, naturalisation regimes both blur and reify the citizen-noncitizen and the citizen-migrant distinctions. Distinctions which this afterword unpacks by unravelling the assumed separation between citizenship and migration. How are citizens and migrants migratised? How are migrants and citizens citizenised? Fourth, a further element of the analysis concerns how state-citizen relations are enacted and by extension, how the state itself is ‘made up’ and ‘anxious’. The affective politics of ‘anxious states’ are telling of the frames of desire of naturalisation, which are founded on a threefold principle: the desirability of citizenship, the desire for desirable citizens, and the desirability of the state itself.
Article
This article is based on ethnographic fieldwork in an Italian reception centre for male ‘unaccompanied minors’. Drawing on the concepts of ‘hostipitality’ (Derrida), the Black Mediterranean, and ‘intimate citizenship’ (Plummer), we examine the political ambivalence of hospitality for young African men as they transition to adulthood and how this is experienced through the intersections of age, gender and race. The biographical transition to adulthood thus offers a unique empirical opportunity to examine the extent of hospitality, as the (uninvited) Black child guest crosses the threshold into being an unwanted, potentially deportable, ‘invader’. Drawing from the young men’s images (art and photographs) and narratives, we discuss their experiences of differential anti-Blackness during their migration journeys and how hegemonic notions of masculinity circumscribe the quest for legal citizenship and the meaning of adulthood. While capitulation to gender normativity bolsters claims to citizenship, racism is a continuing and profound threat to ontological security.
Article
This article interrogates the discursive regimes that underpin Leitkultur (guiding culture) discourse in contemporary Germany and argues that Leitkultur conjures Germany’s imagined “freedom from history” from within Enlightenment temporalities of liberal freedom. This requires that liberal Germany mark its limits in certain moments of German history—namely, National Socialism—while disavowing its role in the constitution of German colonialism. The return to the Enlightenment implied in hegemonic formulations of Leitkultur restores Germany’s freedom from an ugly past; this imagined return can carry the promise of a “diverse” and “inclusive” Germany only insofar as Germany’s colonial heritage is suppressed. The article aims to expose how Germany’s colonial legacy underpins dominant Leitkultur discourse while it is nevertheless hidden from it.
Chapter
Full-text available
Rassismus bildet! Dieses Buch versammelt Studien, die sich kritisch mit der Bildungsdimension rassistischer Normalität auseinandersetzen. Rassistische Ordnungsprinzipien des machtvollen Unterscheidens wirken nicht allein als ›äußerliche‹ Verteilung von Ressourcen, sondern sind auch in dem Sinne produktiv, als sie auf Selbst-, Gegenstands- und Weltverständnisse einwirken. Die Beiträge des Bandes untersuchen als üblich geltende - und dadurch kulturell selbstverständliche - institutionelle und interaktive Praxen der Fremd- und Selbstpositionierung in formellen und informellen Bildungszusammenhängen. Es wird gezeigt, wie die Gewöhnlichkeit solcher, an rassistische Traditionen anschließenden, Unterscheidungspraxen ihre Wirksamkeit ausmacht.
Article
Full-text available
This article identifies and analyses links between conceptualisations of trans-gender and trans-national and aims for a critical redefinition of political agency. Through an examination of theories on transing, passing and performativity in queer-, trans-, and transnational feminist knowledge production and illustrated by discursive examples from transgender communities and Romanian migrant communities I call for a conceptualisation of entangled power relations that does not rely on fixed pre-established categories but defines subjectivity through risk in political struggle. I suggest that ‘transing’ the nation and ‘transing’ gender could be thought as critical moves for a radical deconstruction of gendered and national belonging. Rather than provide a static definition of the term ‘transnationalism’ the article explores potentials and limits of going beyond ‘the national’ and ‘gender’ and intervenes in forms of minority nationalism that reproduce racism, sexism, heteronormativity and gender binary as the norm of Western national belonging. In particular, building on Jasbir Puar’s conceptualisation of homonationalism the article shows how forms of nationalism in Western transgender and migrant communities rely on a combination of heteronormative binary gendering and the exertion of racism. While a conventionalised approach to transnationalism defines the term as a political strategy based on transnational politics I play with suggesting different dimensions of transnationalism: it could mean ‘transgender nationalism’; the 'assimilation of transgendered persons to the Western nation'; or 'cross-border-nationalism', a form of nationalism often established in migrant communities that constructs the diaspora as a nationalist extension of the homeland. My focus, therefore, is on analysing privilegings, contradictions and ambivalences in gendering, racialising and nationalising ascriptions of (non)belonging. Overall, and as an alternative to romanticized knowledge productions of crossing national and gendered borders I suggest a power-sensitive epistemological and methodological shift in thinking entangled power relations, belonging and subjectivity in trans_national feminist knowledge productions.
Article
Full-text available
In this article I make one main argument: I claim that a differentiation of racism and migratism is needed in critical (queer feminist) knowledge production concerned with racism and migration in postcolonial Europe(s). With my analysis I show that without this differentiation, queer feminist theory and activism reproduce Europe as a space free of race (and thereby deny racism and the efficiency of racialization), reduce transnationalism to a coexistence of homogenised national entities and render Europeans of color as the abjects of discourses on migration – and paradoxically racism. Overall, this is an epistemological project and I call for a change of paradigms in (queer) feminist activism and scholarship on migration in postcolonial Europe. I argue for a postcolonial framing of migration and show the necessity of analysing migratism (the discriminatory ascription of migration) always in relation to racism. I am concerned with carving out dimensions of power relations that are, in such an immense way, constitutive for collective possibilities of conceptualising the world and knowledge production(s), that they become even inaccessible to critical and reflective analyses, as their premises are naturalised and normalised in such a way that they become invisible and unquestionable. My approach is not about separating struggles against racism from those against migratism, nor do I want to deny that racism and migratism have a specific interconnection. On the contrary, I argue that anti-racist and anti-migratist struggles have a long shared history and my research underlines the necessity to carefully analyse the construction of gendered racialisation in Europe, its relationship to migration and to the ascription of migration to certain bodies.
Article
This article deals with the question of new domestic servants. It sets out to describe a ‘new' phenomenon manifesting itself all over Europe, that is the comeback of domestic workers and carers for children and the elderly in many households. It then proceeds to explain the establishment of an informal labour market in the private sector, which arises amid today's revolution of information technology. Research sources on the current situation are scarce compared to historical studies. This is particularly true for Germany and even more for the Netherlands. The present situation differs from its earlier appearance mainly in that domestic workers today are migrant women from Eastern Europe, from Asia or South America. The article aims to show how studying this phenomenon raises relevant questions both on an empirical and a theoretical level for gender studies as well as for migration studies. It pleads in favour of an intersectional analysis by taking into account class, gender and ethnic differences within the context of globalized labour markets and transnational migration movements.
Book
»from [al'manja] with love verbindet in so noch nicht gesehener Form postkoloniale und transnationale feministische Ansätze mit kritischer Migrationsforschung und antirassistischer Praxis. Radikal im besten Sinne lässt das Ergebnis keinen Zweifel daran, dass diese Verbindung nicht nur Sinn macht, sondern für ein grundsätzliches Infragestellen binärer Dominanzstrukturen zwingend notwendig ist. Von der deutschen Situation ausgehend, aber globale Strukturen im Auge behaltend, entwickelt Tudor ein theoretisches Konzept, das sowohl Rassismus und Migratismus differenziert als auch den anhaltenden Einfluss des europäischen Kolonialismus aufzeigt. Die resultierende, trans_feministische und trans_diasporische Analyse ist eine originelle und immens wichtige intellektuelle und politische Interventionin deutsche Debatten um Migration, Rassismus und Widerstand.« Fatima El-Tayeb, Associate Professor, Department of Literature and Department of Ethnic Studies; Associate Director, Critical Gender Studies Program. University of California, San Diego
Article
The European public debate on Turkey's EU accession either emphasizes Turkey's political (in)competence for EU membership, or marks its cultural difference. Based on the discourse analysis of this debate in the German mass media, this paper questions the dominant European perspective, by placing emphasis on how and where the symbolic borders of an imagined Europe become visible. I will argue that the debate surrounding Turkey's accession to the EU reveals an ambivalent discursive process as it places the construction of the self-definition of Europe at the frontier of its Turkish-Islamic "Other.".