In the “Cultural Figure of the Refugee” lesson, we learnt that there were ‘layers’ to the term “refugee.” There are three layers: the legal definition, the human person, and the cultural figure. Dr. Goheen asked us that before we write papers, begin projects or work on assignments, we make it clear which term we are using; which ‘layer’ we are addressing. The cultural figure of the refugee is the figure of the refugee that is used in cultural artifacts. Dr. Goheen explained that there is a shared imaginary around what a refugee is. Not everyone agrees with it, but there is a common or dominant imaginary.
The three layers can be broken down as follows:
Legal definition– relevant to policy/national and international law/humanitarian organizations. When we speak of the legal definition, we look at how the term fits into the larger structures of political science and international relations.
Human person– a refugee is a person who has had the term refugee imposed onto them/their families. When we speak of the human person, we look at how the term is used in sociological or anthropological contexts. It is often related to personal experience and impact.
Cultural figure– this is the hardest to explain, but of course the most relevant to our class which is titled “Reimagining the Cultural Figure of the Refugee.” This term is significant beyond the legal category. Dr. Goheen described “refugee-ness” as the “various qualities or characteristics that are commonly associated with and assigned to refugee identity.” There is a cultural expectation when it comes to how people expect “authentic” refugees to act, and certain qualities and behaviours are demonstrative of this expectation.
In the lecture, an example was used which told the story of a person who was suspicious of a refugee. This suspicion came not from the legal definition, nor from the experience of the human in front of them, but rather from the expectation around the ‘cultural figure’ of a refugee. This example resonated with me and allowed me to really wrap my head around this concept of ‘layers.’
We were asked to visualize the layers in the term ‘refugee.’
Here is the initial sketch I drew while listening to the lecture:
After reflecting more upon this concept, I realized that my sketch did not properly convey the complexity of these layers. I imagined the legal definition as the simplest layer; as established words, a simple phrase. I represented this with clean, straight lines. Moving onto the next layers, I imagined them as increasing in complexity. Upon reflection, the main component that I realized needed to change was the visualization of the legal term. It is not simple at all. Even though a definition is supposed to be “the exact meaning of a word,” the term “refugee” is contested, manipulated, misused and misinterpreted. This is often due to variability in how the language inside the definition is understood, interpreted and debated. Words such as ‘persecution,’ have been, and are, widely debated.
Moving ahead with this idea of the cultural figure of the refugee, the concept of literary and cultural production comes into play. As a class, we look at literature as a carrier of history. We ask who is producing the literature, how are they representing refugees, how do refugees represent themselves? Cultural studies studies literature in its cultural context. We ask: How are cultural texts being taken up, and by whom? How is the cultural figure of the refugee produced? Who makes it? How does it get used? How do stereotypes get normalized and how do they disadvantage other kinds of representation?
How do refugees resist this dominant narrative? It is often done through texts by refugees…
