Why labelling matters: the ‘ideal refugee’

Undoubtedly, the figure of the refugee has become one of the main themes in the press, in political debates and in popular discourse. That figure has been described as a security threat by some and as the ultimate symbol of human suffering by others. What many seem to neglect, however, is the fact that the way refugees are presented and portrayed can have tangible implications on their lives.

**The refugee, a victim? **

Victimology is a young discipline that emerged when criminologists realised that attention had been paid almost exclusively to one party of the criminal act, namely the offender. The victim, the person who actually has to endure the harm caused by the offender, had escaped criminologists’ attention (Fattah 1993). In hindsight, this may seem rather surprising, but it can, at least partly, be explained by the fact that, with the emergence of the modern nation state and the criminal justice institutions, the victim had gradually been shut out of the process of “doing justice”. An act of harm inflicted on a citizen was not considered merely an offense to the individual anymore, but to the whole of society, which the state was now supposedly representing. This evolution implied that victims gradually experienced a waning of their rights and of the attention they once deserved as directly affected individuals.

Victimology having made a rather recent appearance, the question might be asked whether the figure of the refugee, a person who is often not directly affected by a “traditional” act of crime, has entered the realm of victimological studies. Indeed, with the evolution of the discipline, the definition of “victim” has been expanded and more attention is being paid to victims of collective acts of injustice and abuse of power, which encompasses refugees fleeing conflict zones. Whether in the country of origin, on their journey or even in their country of asylum or destination, they may fall victim to a plethora of harmful situations and forms of injustice.

Victim-Labelling

Obtaining the status of “victim” however, does not come without a price tag. In the case of refugees and victims more generally, the cost is the “victim” label. The term “victim” nowadays has many connotations and is highly stereotyped. Nils Christie, a criminologist, suggested in 1986, that we only really consider someone a victim when they match the stereotype of “victim” society has established for them. According to Christie, the “ideal victim” should feature the following characteristics (paraphrased by Dignan 2005):

The victim is weak in relation to the offender – the ‘ideal victim’ is likely to be either female, sick, very old or very young (or a combination of these). The victim is, if not acting virtuously, then at least going about their legitimate, ordinary everyday business. The victim is blameless for what happened. The victim is unrelated to and does not know the ‘stranger’ who has committed the offence (which also implies that the offender is a person rather than a corporation; and that the offence is a single ‘one-off’ incident). The offender is unambiguously big and bad. The victim has the right combination of power, influence or sympathy to successfully elicit victim status without threatening (and thus risking opposition from) strong countervailing vested interests.

A “good victim” should therefore appear as pathetic and pitiful as possible, in order to be granted not only sympathy, but also, and more problematically, victim rights. While criminologists have started using the label of the “criminal” more carefully, the eminent victimologist Van Dijk (2009) argues that victimologists have been less concerned with how they use the victim label. This is problematic, because the discipline that is meant to study victims as comprehensively as possible, risks reproducing the same stereotype of the “ideal victim”.

Why should victim-labelling be a matter of concern? First of all, because stereotyping deprives any individual of its individuality and provides fertile ground for prejudice and injustice. Secondly, and more importantly, the legitimate “victim” status, which is conditioned upon this stereotype, excludes a range of people, who actually do fall victims to acts of crime and injustice. What about strong and healthy men? Outspoken victims like Natascha Kampusch, whose strong appearance on media raised suspicions about whether her story was fabricated? What about victims who know their offender personally? What about victims who continue seeing their offender after suffering harm from him or her? What about a drug dealer? Someone who got involved in a street fight?

The stereotype of the “ideal victim” misrepresents reality and excludes the majority of actual victims, who do not fit that idealised and caricatured image. Not only is it a driver of injustice through its exclusive nature, but it imposes passivity and helplessness and encourages victims to engage in so-called “appearance management”: A study has found rape victims to intentionally exaggerate their emotions or display vulnerability in court in order to obtain harsher punishment for the offender (Kondradi 1996, cited by Spalek 2006).

**The “real refugee” **

Refugees, unsurprisingly, are also subject to stereotyping and labelling. A number of researchers (Griffits 2015, Ghorashi 2005, Leudar 2008) have looked at how refugees are portrayed in popular discourse in different countries. From their studies, the stereotype of the “real refugee” emerges:

The refugee is feminised The refugee is a passively “suffering body”, not a political actor The refugee is vulnerable The refugee behaves like someone who is victimised and coerced The refugee does not lie and does not break any rules The refugee expresses his or her infinite gratitude for the help he or she receives

The similarity between the “ideal victim” and the “real refugee” is striking. The attributes of the ideal victim seem to be inherent to the figure of the refugee, effectively collapsing the two. Brankamp (2015) has denounced this “refugee-victim” narrative, that is produced and reproduced by the media and humanitarian actors, who, he argues, do so knowingly, given that the image of the feminised, young, suffering, passive “victim” is more likely to elicit sympathy and attract donors’ attention and funds.

It is difficult for academics, practitioners and especially for the greater public to be immune against these stereotypes. The image of the “ideal refugee” or “ideal victim” has become ingrained in our perceptions and understanding of the current migrant crisis. Deviations from the stereotype cause so-called “cognitive dissonance“, making it difficult for us to reconcile the image of someone who behaves in an “un-victim-like way” (Van Dijk 2009) with our image of the “real” victim or refugee. In a bid to reduce this cognitive dissonance, which causes us discomfort, we tend to disregard or dismiss information that does not fit the stereotype, which is why many refugees are labelled “illegal migrants”, “criminals”, “terrorists”, “bogus asylum seekers” etc. Those people, although they are the majority, are not considered “real refugees”.

Right-wing populists and advocates of anti-immigration policies are aware of our preference for stereotypical explanations, which alleviate the daunting task of making sense of the world, cast judgments and take a stance, which is why they are so keen on portraying refugees as a threat and a menace to their constituents.

Equally, however, refugee advocates distort reality by resorting to stereotypes such as the “real refugee”. As Brankamp observed, humanitarian organisations and NGO’s use predominantly images of women and children in their fundraising campaigns, conveying the human suffering and helplessness through sad facial expressions, tears and surrendered postures. John Oliver, in his show Last Week Tonight, demonstrates very strikingly how attempts to mobilise interest and understanding for the plight of refugees are mistakenly believed to necessitate eliciting sympathy through emphasis on particularly poignant and relatable examples. The person he chose to illustrate his point that “refugees are nice human beings” is Noujain Moustafa, a young girl in a wheelchair, who is suspiciously evocative of our above-mentioned “ideal refugee”.

Still, one may ask whether “refugee labelling” is really that bad. After all, it seems to be effective in stirring people’s interest, triggering their compassion and and coughing up some cash for donations. Labelling, however, has tangible impacts on refugees’ lives: As it is the case for the victim-labelling, refugee-labelling excludes the majority of actual refugees, imposes passivity and helplessness and, like victim-labelling, encourages attempts to engage in “appearance management“.

**Infantilisation, imposed passivity & learned helplessness **

Policies regulating the situation of migrants in European countries seem to be based on an understanding of refugees’ needs through the lens of the “ideal refugee”. Pupavac (2006) has observed that refugees are forced into what she calls the “sick role”: Refugees are seen as silent sufferers who are not entitled to any political aspirations and reduced to passive objects of professional management. This is further illustrated by the growing tendency of refugee advocates to encourage their clients to put forward any pathology they may be suffering from. The “suffering body” is prioritised over the “threatened body” (Fassin 2001). “Real refugees” are thus encouraged to accept and normalise their pathological status, which often has devastating repercussions on their mental health and self-esteem (Rousseau 2000, Leudar 2008, Hintjens 2012).

According to Ghorashi (2005), welfare states are particularly prone to engage in this “infantilisation” of refugees. Their rather strict regulation of migrants’ lives tends to deprive them of their agency and self-determination, by dealing with them as if they were children who had to learn to live in society. There is a great risk of social aid systems transforming “adult refugees into passive clients” (Harrell-Bond 1999). Not everyone accepts to be treated according to the label of the “ideal refugee”, which one of Ghorashi’s respondents in the Netherlands expresses clearly:

« But if you want to stand at the same level as they are, and you say: ‘I am working just like you, have the same qualities as you, and my rights are the same as yours’. They cannot accept it. They will hate you so bad that you cannot stand up. But Iranians do not accept being treated like victims. When they stand up against this, they are considered ungrateful.” (p.195)

In the light of all this, it might not come as a surprise that refugees’ right to work in European countries is not a given. A report by the European Council (2012), while underlining the benefits of work in terms of self-sufficiency, self-esteem, integration and development of the local economy, has found that refugees, and asylum seekers even more, are seriously restricted in their access to the labour market in Europe. Even though the right to work is inscribed in the Refugee Convention of 1951 and de jure granted in most European countries, there are a series of obstacles hampering refugees’ ability to exercise an economic activity such as limited language skills, insufficient work experience or the absence of diploma and certificates.

The problem is that, through this imposed passivity, refugees and asylum seekers are entrapped in something one could describe as “learned helplessness“. By impeding a largely healthy and willing group of people from taking care of themselves, the highly regulated asylum and welfare system deprives them of making choices for themselves, developing their skills and abilities and regaining their sense of self-esteem and self-sufficiency.

**Appearance management in the process of asylum seeking **

Konradi (1996) has observed, by studying a group of female rape victims in criminal justice processes, that some of them try to be particularly expressive and emotive in order to increase the likelihood of conviction for their offender. That such attempts of “appearance management” occur, is rather unsurprising, given that criminal justice professionals are also influenced by the stereotype of the “ideal victim”. In order to obtain justice and feel respected, it appears logical to adopt a demeanour and attitude that is more likely to match the common expectations.

For refugees and asylum seekers, that decisive moment of “truth” is usually not the criminal justice court, but the asylum request interview. In these interviews, it is common that the interviewer proceeds to a so-called “credibility assessment” of the asylum seeker’s account. Since the personal statement is often the only evidence that is available in order to judge the veracity of the person’s background and to decide whether asylum is granted or not, the credibility assessment is a crucial step in this procedure. However, what criteria do interviewers and decision-makers rely on in order to assess credibility?

UNHCR (2013) conducted an evaluation of asylum interviews and credibility assessments and found that, although criteria such as demeanour, attitude and expression are not to be taken into account when making a decision on credibility, in practice this cannot be guaranteed.

“Within the case set, a number of claims were not accepted due to rulings of lack of credibility, either at the initial stages or on appeal. This was due to a number of factors, most often inconsistencies or perceived implausibilities in testimony, ‘incorrect’ demeanour (for example, being matter*‐of‐**fact when the adjudicator expects an applicant to be distressed), or lack of corroborative country of origin information. When found credible, it was often due to a combination of ‘correct’ demeanour, relative consistency in the applicant’s story and corroborative country of origin information.*” (UNHCR 2013, p.186)

Whether demeanour is “correct” or not is likely to be a judgment resulting from a contrasting of a particular attitude with stereotypical assumptions about the attitude of a “real refugee”. The fact that this stereotype guides, at least partially, the assessment of the interviewer, is source for serious concern. If the likelihood to be granted asylum is dependent upon conformity with the stereotype of the “ideal refugee”, the occurrence of “appearance management” is merely a logical consequence, especially given the immense significance of such an interview in a refugee’s life.

**Labelling matters **

The imprudent use of labels such as “victim” and “refugee” and the association of these terms with passivity and helplessness is far from being a harmless endeavour. Victim- and Refugee-labelling have tangible implications for the lives of those who are directly affected, by excluding those who do not fit the stereotype, imposing helplessness and inciting appearance management. Labelling is a process that creates a range of injustices and provides fertile ground for the breeding of systems of dependency, exclusion and oppression. Humanitarian actors, politicians and the greater public are advised to pay greater attention to these stereotypes and how they themselves are perpetuating and reinforcing them.

References

Brankamp, H. (2015). Challenging the ‘refugee-victim’ narrative. Available at http://www.pambazuka.org/human-security/challenging-‘refugee-victim’-narrative

Christie, N. (1986). The ideal victim. Dans E. Fattah (dir.) *From Crime Policy to Victim Policy, *Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Conseil de l’Europe (2012). Refugees and the right to work. Available at http://website-pace.net/documents/19863/168397/20140313-RefugeeRightToWork-EN.pdf/8f426c61-f2ba-439a-b7db-7c2c585a2fe7

Dignan, J. (2004). Understanding Victims and Restorative Justice. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).

Fassin, D. (2001). The Biopolitics of Otherness: Undocumented Foreigners and Racial Discrimination in French Public Debate. *Anthropology Today, (17), *3-7.

Fattah, E. (1993). The Rational Choice / Opportunity perspective as a Vehicle for Integrating Criminological and Victimological Theories. Dans R. V. Clarke & M. Felson, *Routine Activity and Rational Choice *(pp.225-258) New Brunswick, NJ : Transaction.

Fattah, E.A. (2010) The Evolution of a Young, Promising Discipline : Sixty years of victimology, a retrospective and prospective look. Dans W.G. Shoham et al. (dir.) International Handbook of Victimology, Boca Raton : CRC Press.

Ghorashi, H. (2005). Agents of change or passive victims: The impact of welfare states (the case of the Netherlands) on refugees. Journal of refugee studies, 18(2), 181-198.

Griffiths, M. (2015). “Here, Man Is Nothing!” Gender and Policy in an Asylum Context. Men and Masculinities, 18(4), 468-488.

Harrell-Bond, B. (1999). ‘Refugees’ Experiences as Aid Recipients. Dans A. Ager (dir.), *Refugees: Perspectives on the Experience of Forced Migration (pp.136-139), *Pinter: London

Herlihy, J., Gleeson, K., & Turner, S. (2010). What assumptions about human behaviour underlie asylum judgments? International Journal of Refugee Law, 22(3), 351 366.

Kilchling, M. (s.d.). Migrants as Victims: Victimological Perspectives of Human Smuggling and Human Trafficking. Retrieved from http://f3magazine.unicri.it/?p=1298

Konradi, A. (1996). PREPARING TO TESTIFY Rape Survivors Negotiating the Criminal Justice Process. Gender & Society, 10(4), 404-432.

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (2015, 28 septembre). *Migrants and Refugees. Retrieved from: *https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umqvYhb3wf4

Pupavac, V. (2006). Refugees in the ‘sick role’: stereotyping refugees and eroding refugee rights. Policy Development and Evaluation Service, UNHCR.

Spalek, Basia (2006). “Crime Victims: Theory.” Policy and Practice. London: Palgrave.

Spijkerboer, T. (2005). Stereotyping and acceleration: gender, procedural acceleration and marginalized judicial review in the Dutch asylum system. Dans G. Noll (dir.) Proof, Evidentiary Assessment and Credibility in Asylum Procedures (pp. 67-102), Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.

UNHCR (2013). *Beyond Proof: Credibility Assessment in EU Asylum Systems. *Repéré à http://www.unhcr.org/51a8a08a9.pdf

Van Dijk, J. (2009). Free the victim: A critique of the western conception of victimhood. International Review of Victimology, 16(1), 1-33.