Migration: First Draft

Today's big task was a draft paper for a conference on migration in December. The outline was produced by a group I facilitated in November, and there is more work to do. Here is the first go at some text:

How can we speak about migration?
Introduction

The Canadian singer, Bruce Cockburn one wrote “Some people get to make the news – some people get to say what’s true...” He was hinting at the way language and power are closely related. Those who have power shape our world by deciding what stories are told and how language is to be understood. We often say that history is told by the victors, but the present is also defined by those who control public conversations and narratives.

Those who find themselves in a position of powerlessness are most affected. This is particularly true of migrants who have often lost their homes, support structures and means of employment. Lacking power, their stories are told by other people and the words used to describe them are determined by those who own the news media. As Bruce Cockburn would put it, by those who “get to say what’s true”.

This chapter will look at how language has been used to shape our world view and the way we think about migration. We will take note of the groups and individuals who have shaped that debate – and the interests that have motivated them. We will also make some suggestions about how churches might seek to consciously use language, and what their agenda might be. Before we do that, we will start by looking at the theological and Biblical resources which might help inform our understanding.

What does the Christian tradition teach us?

The Bible and Christian theology is deeply associated with migration. Abraham, for example, is seen as the father of the Jewish, Christian and Islamic communities, but his story begins when God calls him to leave his homeland and his own people, in search of a land where God will bless him. In modern language, Abraham would be described as an “economic migrant”.

Likewise, the children of Abraham move to Egypt to escape famine in Canaan, then flee Egypt to escape persecution, before arriving back in Canaan, where their arrival results in war and conflict.

During the exile, the people of God find themselves in a strange land. Although they had been forced from their homes, they make the most of their new context. Daniel, Esther and Ezekiel all demonstrate that God is active amongst the diaspora, and has a plan for the dispersed people.

In the New Testament, we read that Jesus was a migrant – we might even call the Holy Family Asylum Seekers, since they had to flee Bethlehem and seek refuge in Egypt. The early Christians also became migrants when they voluntarily or involuntarily left Jerusalem to spread the Good News across the ancient World.

The Biblical tradition is not universally positive about migration. The Hebrew Bible reveals stories of ethnic and religious tension. The prophets often express suspicion of foreign influences, particularly when these lead to a dilution of faith and religious practice. In the Book of Ezra we read about the deportation of foreign wives and children as a way of defending the purity of the nation. However we might feel about these stories, they illustrate the reality that migration can generate fear, conflict and hostility – and that these tensions should be taken seriously.

Nevertheless, the Biblical tradition also bears witness to some key values which must inform Christian Theology. Prophets like Isaiah and Amos remind us that God’s justice requires us to focus on the needs of the most vulnerable in society. The stranger in our midst is not to be abused. Jesus teaches us that those we think of as “the other” can be the very people who reveal God’s love. Paul writes that “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Perhaps the most important concept that should inform our discussion about migration is the universal value of human life. Christ died for all, therefore every human being is uniquely and specifically loved by God. This is particularly significant since the language used about migration can dehumanise others, which helps justify particular actions or policies.

We should also note the Biblical emphasis on the poor and on those who are most vulnerable in society. As Christians we should promote language that encourages justice, rather than makes it more difficult.

Talking about Migration

During the summer of 2015 there were a string of news stories that warned about “swarms” or “floods” of migrants who were crossing the Mediterranean Sea and the European continent. It was only when the photograph of Alan Kurdi was shown across the World that the story changed. The discussions moved rapidly from being an issue of faceless hordes, to being an issue of real people with children and families.

This story illustrates the dangers and the opportunities created by language. Words are evocative and have associations which generate emotional and often subconscious responses. The word “swarm” is associated with rats or dangerous insects. A “flood” implies a damaging and uncontrollable invasion of mindless matter – rather than a large number of human beings fleeing conflict. Language is not neutral and also changes over time, as words gain new meanings and associations.

Some would suggest that the word “migrant” is a neutral word, since it merely refers to a person who has moved from one place to another. Unfortunately, the frequent association of the word with particular ideas causes it to take on other meanings. For example, the news media will often refer to people as “economic migrants” which implies a desire to gain financial advantage by relocation. Many people have noted that a white person moving from the UK to Africa for work might be described as an “ex-pat”. At the same time, a black person moving from Africa to the UK to escape from extreme poverty is described as an “economic migrant”. There is an implication that rich people have a right to travel in the pursuit of self-interest while poor people should stay where they are.

The situation is further complicated by the use of the word “refugee”. This is a technical term under international law which refers to a person who is fleeing from armed conflict or persecution. They can only referred to as a “refugee” if they have been recognised as such by national governments or the UNHCR. One they have this status, they have access to official protection and legal rights. Many people do not have this status, often because they have made their way between countries by unofficial or even illegal routes. These people would normally be described as “Asylum Seekers”. Asylum seekers have fewer legal protections and rights – and can have their right to remain taken away if they are not subsequently given refugee status.

Some people have been deeply uncomfortable with the use of the word “migrant”, but others, such as the journalist Judith Vonberg, have argued that we should reclaim the word: “Instead of rejecting ‘migrant’, we should reclaim it from those who have worked to turn in it into a term of abuse. The term migrant ought to be accepted as a neutral descriptor which covers the situation of everyone who migrates, whether in exercise of a positive right as a citizen through to the desperate search for a safe haven."

Creating a World View

The term “world view” or “Weltanschauung” refers to the way an individual or society experiences, understands and relates to the world around them. It is a conscious point of view, but is also deeply rooted, which means it has a significant effect on behaviour and thought. James W. Sire defines a worldview as "a commitment, a fundamental orientation of the heart, that can be expressed as a story or in a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true, or entirely false) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic construction of reality, and that provides the foundation on which we live and move and have our being."

Language has an important role in the construction of a world view, because of the words we choose to use and the semantic associations that those words have. Words, ideas and emotional associations provide the building blocks, and the limitations which define our thinking.

We all have a world view, which is created by our experiences and our choices. The communities we belong to and our society as a whole can also have a significant effect.

It is important therefore to recognise that a world view is not fixed – and can be influenced by those who control public debate and mass communication. Politicians have an interest in shaping the way people understand the world, because they want to persuade people to embrace their policies or solutions. Businesses want to influence the behaviour of customers and competitors. News media often has a bias towards left or right.

In this complex world, it is important for us to be aware of the way language is used to frame discussions and influence our thinking. Those who have power to “say what’s true” are able to win an argument by emphasis and association rather than logic and debate.

For example, some discussions about migration are framed in the language of “security”, using words like “illegal”, “threat” and “war”. Once migration is defined in these terms is more likely that force and coercion will be used to “contain” the “danger”. Alternatively, language can be used to dehumanise migrants, by referring to them using animalistic or physical language: “swarm”, “flood”, “surge”, “tsuname”. These terms help us to think of migrants as something less than human. Once we start thinking in that way it becomes easier to ignore the plight of individuals and accept brutality as normal.

Some politicians and reporters use language without careful thought. Others are very intentional in the choices that they make. It is important for churches to be aware of the threat posed by anti-immigration groups who have a racist or xenophobic agenda, because their language can have a perfidious influence on public debate and the world view of ordinary people.

How Should Churches Respond?

The Bishop of Oxford, Steven Croft, is currently encouraging churches to be people of the Beatitudes. In summary, he believes that churches should be contemplative, compassionate and courageous. This framework is useful when thinking about the Christian response to language about migration:

a) Contemplative: We need to take time to engage in deep listening. If we listen to the voice of God as it comes to us through scripture, factual information and personal experience, we will be better equipped to understand the plight of refugees and the needs of migrants. Being contemplative requires reflection and careful consideration rather than the knee-jerk reaction encouraged by some news outlets and political commentators. Where possible, churches should attempt to build relationships with asylum seekers and refugees in their communities and listen to the personal testimony of those most affected.

b) Compassionate: Once we have encountered migrants as people, it is much easier to relate to the issues that they face. As Christians we are called to “suffer with” those who suffer. Being compassionate requires deeper understanding, and is emotionally costly, but it is essential for effective action. When migrants are regarded as impersonal “swarm” the urge to act is reduced. One they become real suffering human beings, it is impossible to walk by on the other side.

c) Courageous: Language about migration is a battlefield. Those who fight on it are unforgiving when people speak out of turn. Politicians, leaders and journalists are careful not to offend the powerful voices in our society who are determined to frame the migration debate in a particular way. Christians often keep silent when racist or xenophobic views are expressed as normal. If we are to be faithful to the Gospel then we must be courageous in the face of negative language – promoting language that is humanising, compassionate and hopeful.

There are big challenges for churches and church members, but there is also an opportunity to influence our local communities as salt and light in a troubled time.