A comparative discourse analysis on refugees : the case of the 2011 Libyan Refugee Crisis and the 2015 case of the Syrian Refugee Crisis

(1)

A Comparative Discourse Analysis on Refugees:

The case of the 2011 Libyan Refugee Crisis and the 2015 case of the Syrian Refugee Crisis:

Master’s Thesis Political Science

Specialization module: The EU and its immediate neighbors: Practices of policy-making and policies in practice

Author: Charalampos Ion Vallianos Leventis Supervisor: Dr Andrey Demidov

(2)

Introduction

:

This chapter serves as a brief overview of the main components of this thesis. It will provide a first point of reference to understand the purpose and usefulness of this research, as well as the argument it is trying to push forward. In the context of contemporary developments, much emphasis has been placed on the massive refugee influx originating from Syria and the repercussions this has brought about for the European structure and the European peoples themselves. Many doubting arguments have been made concerning the eligibility of refugees to claim asylum and, therefore integrate into European society, or whether the European Union can in fact accommodate these large numbers of people effectively. Adding to this, there is also doubt if this can be done with respect to the humanitarian principles that the European Union was built upon.

Another particularly interesting aspect of this crisis is the fact that the social upheaval evident in the civil society of the Member States does not seem to be expressed to the same extent at the level of the European institutions, or is expressed in a different manner, thus creating a gap between society and institutions. In this sense, it seemed as if the discontent in civil society was linguistically and discursively mediated through the European Institutions, which in reality seemed to uphold a negative line regarding refugees and economic migrants. In this context, this thesis is concerned with the nature of the discourse of the three major European institutions on refugees, so as to determine the extent to which their discourse has changed since the last refugee crisis, essentially or structurally, if at all. Furthermore, examining the discourse will aid in determining whether the perception and identity of refugees has changed from the part of the European Union. The specific refugee waves which are going to be examined are the one originating from Libya in 2011 and that from Syria of 2015 as a product of the ongoing civil wars in those countries. The thesis is going to argue that the discourses of the European Institutions on refugees concerning these specific case studies has remained unchanged from the perspective of Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory, hence the identity of who a refugee is from the part of the European Union has also remained unchanged.

Analyzing and comparing the discourses in these two cases may aid researchers in the future to uncover other causal mechanisms through which these crisis impacted the European Union and also the way in which the European Union, in response to those crises, impacted the Arab region. Moreover, this research is valuable, because it concerns

(4)

itself with ongoing events. In this sense, the research is not isolated from the world or social reality, but rather aims to capture and understand it as we are experiencing it in the present. In simple words, the aim of the thesis is to understand the treatment and perception of refugees by the European Union through the lenses of their dominant discourses on the Libyan and Syrian refugee crisis.

However, the task of fully understanding the discourses of the European Institutions on refugees is limited to an extent by the research question. The thesis addresses the research question: To what extent has the discourse of the three major European Institutions on refugees has undergone change since the 2011 refugee wave from Libya? In order to answer this question, Laclau and Mouffe’s version of discourse theory and analysis is going to be utilized. It provides a cohesive and succinct methodological toolkit to approach discourse, and more specifically, the discourses on refugees. Furthermore it is comprehensive and since this thesis is aimed at analyzing the text and talk of the Institutions it provides an authoritative tool for doing so. There is going to be an exploration of the linguistic elements used by the European Institutions and their representatives in order to reconstruct the meaning of the discourses and vividly portray that essentially the discourse and, hence the approach of the European Union towards refugees, has remained largely unchanged.

The starting point of this analysis is going to be the establishment of the theoretical framework upon which this thesis is going to build upon and its constitutive elements. The main premises of the methodology are going to be set through the interpretation of Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory, which creates a specific scope within which the research will operate. Laclau and Mouffe’s approach was preferred due to its constructivist elements, which coincide with the principle that language shapes reality, rather than just influencing it. The empirical analysis will focus on documents, speeches and conclusions made and attributable to the European Institutions and the persons who represent them. These data are then going to be analyzed according to the principles of discourse analysis, therefore from a linguistic as well as a substantive perspective.

(5)

Literature Review:

This chapter aims to briefly summarize the main points of the scholarly debate revolving around discourse analysis, mainly regarding its usefulness and its role in understanding social reality. Moreover, it will briefly look at the nature of the relationship between the concept of a refugee and dominant discourses. To begin with, it is useful to point out the relevance and importance of conducting discourse analysis. According to Teun van Dijk: “An obvious first claim that could be made about the possible social relevance of discourse analysis is that the very choice or extension of the object or field of linguistic research—actual language use in its social context—already satisfies a condition of social relevance—it provides insight into the forms and mechanisms of human communication and verbal interaction.”1

Moreover, by conducting discourse analysis “we also begin to grasp some of the constraints of the various features of the social context, such as gender, status, power, ethnicity, roles, or institutional settings, upon the style, the thematic structure, or the cognitive interpretation of text and talk. Clearly, these latter contributions to the study of discourse in its social context provide a next step on the difficult route toward relevant applications[…]”2

Analyzing specific discourses is also essential in understanding power relations and interactions between social actors. This is because “power involves control, namely by (members of) one group over (those of) other groups. Such control may pertain to action and cognition: that is, a powerful group may limit the freedom of action of others, but also influence their minds. Besides the elementary recourse to force to directly control action, modern and often more effective power is mostly cognitive, and enacted by persuasion, dissimulation or manipulation, among other strategic ways to change the mind of others in one’s own interests.”3_{Therefore, discourse analysis is crucial because}

“managing the mind of others is essentially a function of text and talk.”4_{Hence, “the}

discourse analyst is committed to an investigation of what that language is used for.”5 The relationship between discourses and power have important implications on social reality. This is, because “members of more powerful social groups and institutions, […], have more or less exclusive access to, and control over, one or more types of public

1_{Dijk, Teun Van. "An Introduction to Discourse Analysis." (1985). Web.} 2

Ibid.

3

Dijk, Teun Van. "Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis." Web.

4_{Wetherell, Margaret, Simeon Yates, and Stephanie Taylor. Discourse Theory and Practice: A Reader.}

London: SAGE, 2001. Print.

(6)

discourse. [Therefore], [t]hose who have more control over more-and more influential-discourses are also more powerful.”6_{This, in combination with the fact that “[…]}

recipients tend to accept beliefs, knowledge, and opinions through discourse from what they see as authoritative, trustworthy, or credible sources”7_{, suggests that “it is through}

language, or rather through discourse, that identity is principally forged.”8

With regard to refugees, the nature of the discourse can have a significant impact on the way in which they are perceived and treated. According to Teun van Dijk a way through which the identity of a refugee is altered by discursive patterns could be by undermining the “credibility of refugees in political and media discourse by calling them economic refugees, or illegal aliens instead of undocumented immigrants.”9

Furthermore, another example of how discourses can impact the very definition and subsequent treatment of refugees is that the “press reporting about refugees systematically uses flow metaphors ( stream , flood , deluge , swamp , tide , etc.) to emphasize the catastrophic and threatening nature of the immigration of refugees. In the Netherlands, the natural response to such metaphors is to protect the country against such floods by building dikes.”10

In this way, it is apparent that the presence of certain elements of discourse can heavily impact, not only the perception of civil society regarding refugees, but also the way with which refugees are treated. As Ben Herzog argues: “The cultural perception of [being a refugee], is also constructed by the humanitarian discourse which tries to assist victims of forced migration throughout the world. The humanitarian logic, which builds on cosmopolitan ethics, entails the imperative to assist all victims of conflict, regardless of where they are or of their political, ideological or moral beliefs.”11

Continuing on, “[h]umanitarian actions, especially those which emphasize relief for victims of natural catastrophe or violent conflicts, play an important role in international politics today. Humanitarianism as a state policy is especially significant in Western countries (and Western-dominated organizations such as the UN and its agencies or NATO) where it is bound up with diplomacy and the broader security agenda. The humanitarian logic, based on the intent of helping populations in distress (whether natural

6_{Dijk, Teun Van. "Discourse Analysis as Ideology Analysis." Discourse & Society 5.2 (1994).Web.} 7_{Schiffrin, Deborah, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi Ehernberger. Hamilton. The Handbook of Discourse}

Analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2001. Print.

8_{Paltridge, Brian. Discourse Analysis: An Introduction. London: Continuum, 2006. Print.}

9_{Dijk, Teun Van. "Discourse Analysis as Ideology Analysis." Discourse & Society 5.2 (1994).Web.} 10_Ibid.

11

Herzog, Ben. "Between Nationalism and Humanitarianism: The Glocal Discourse on Refugees. Web.

(7)

or man-made) without discrimination […] influences both political policies and political rhetoric.”12

The huge influence of humanism can partly account for the devotion of the European Union to humanitarian principles. Humanism has become a part of the dominant societal discourse. Therefore it is logical for humanitarian elements to strongly define the discourse of the institutions regarding refugees.

In this sense, policies on refugees are to a large extent the expressions or manifestations of the prevalent discourse on this particular group. As William Walters suggests, “policy-making usually rests upon the traditional understanding that a ‘problem’ arises and that, in reaction, policy options are to be elaborated to ‘solve’ it. For example, ‘irregular migration’ or ‘trafficking’ would simply ‘happen’, which would call for policy interventions that aim at fighting them.”13_{Finally, another example of the importance of}

discourses in defining perceptions and policies is that “irregular migration is viewed as a ‘problem’ coming from ‘outside’ receiving states, thereby ignoring the role of ‘inside’ factors (like the demand for cheap labour) in triggering such flows.”14

In this context, it is essential to pinpoint the main discursive elements of the three European Institutions regarding refugees stemming from the 2011 Libyan civil war and the 2015 Syrian civil war. By doing so, we can understand the complete process of defining and treating refugees in a particular way from start to finish, and identify possible changes. According to the literature, grasping the discourse of the European Institutions around refugees will aid in determining essentially if the identity of a refugee has changed from the part of the European Union. Therefore, this thesis will contribute in clarifying, firstly the nature of the discourse of the European Institutions on refugees, and secondly whether the definition of who a refugee is has changed, on a theoretical-discursive level at least- since discourses define identity and policy outcomes.

12_{Herzog, Ben. "Between Nationalism and Humanitarianism: The Glocal Discourse on Refugees. Web.} 13

Geiger, Martin, and Antoine Pécoud. The Politics of International Migration Management. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. Print.

(8)

Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory:

This chapter is going to look at the basic premises underlying Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory, in order to identify the elements that will be used in the empirical analysis of the thesis. It will identify and define the exact framework within which the empirical analysis is going to operate. Discourse theory has been on the forefront of post-modern political thought due to its ability to provide daring insight into social processes and discourses, as well as the way in which these are created, maintained and shape our reality. It additionally provides us with a tool of theorizing about knowledge and its acquisition, as well as the way in which the processes of seeking to diffuse or attribute meaning define reality per se.

To start with, we must define the term discourse in itself, at least for the purpose of this thesis. According to Jorgensen: “the word ‘discourse’ is the general idea that language is structured according to different patterns that people’s utterances follow when they take part in different domains of social life, familiar examples being ‘medical discourse’ and ‘political discourse’. [However] a preliminary definition of a discourse [is] a particular way of talking about and understanding the world (or an aspect of the world).”15

However, merely defining the term discourse is not enough, because: “[…] this common sense definition is not of much help in clarifying what discourses are, how they function, or how to analyze them.”16

In this direction, “one quickly finds out that discourse analysis is not just one approach, but a series of interdisciplinary approaches that can be used to explore many different social domains in many different types of studies.”17 This is important, because it suggests that, the framework within which the researcher has to operate when dealing with discourse theory is holistic.

We have to look deeper into constructivism and, more specifically, social constructivism to fully comprehend the nature of this theoretical framework. As Jorgensen points out “discourse analysis is just one among several social constructivist approaches, but it is one of the most widely used approaches within social constructivism.”18

Discourse theory follows the idea that “our knowledge of the world should not be treated as objective truth. Reality is only accessible to us through categories, so our knowledge

15_{Jørgensen, Marianne, and Louise Phillips. Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. London: Sage}

Publications, 2002. Print.

16_Ibid. 17_Ibid. 18_Ibid.

(9)

and representations of the world are not reflections of the reality ‘out there’, but rather are products of our ways of categorizing the world, or, in dis-cursive analytical terms, products of discourse.”19

Moreover, there is the idea of historical and cultural specificity as was put forward by Burr in 1995.20 The essence of this idea is that humans are essentially historical and cultural beings and, thus the world, or our idea of it, is a product of historical and cultural interactions.21 Hence, our idea and sense of the world could have been different and can also change in time.22 This coincides with the foundations of discourse theory, because a discourse aims to provide a temporary closure, so as to enable us to analyze the social construct around us. Ontologically, “this view is anti-essentialist: that the social world is constructed socially and discursively implies that its character is not pre-given or determined by external conditions, and that people do not possess a set of fixed and authentic characteristics or essences.”23

In this way, discourse can also be a step towards constructing social reality.24

Furthermore, another essential premise of discourse theory is that there is a clear link between social processes and the formation or the acquisition of knowledge.25

Plainly, our methods of grasping the world are a function of our position in the social structure and are instigated and maintained by the processes that maintain this structure.26 In this sense, “knowledge is created through social interaction in which we construct common truths and compete about what is true and false.”27 Consequently, going deeper and analyzing the social sphere through the lenses of discourse theory implies that the aim of discourse analysis is to determine what is true and false from various points of view within the frame of social interaction.

Discourse analysis has a starting point in the very perception that the only access we have to reality is through language.28 With this tool, we as humans strive to understand the world around us, with the difference being, though, that the images of reality we

19

Burr, Vivien. An Introduction to Social Constructionism. London: Routledge, 1995. Print.

20_Ibid. 21 Ibid. 22_Ibid. 23_Ibid. 24 Ibid. 25_Ibid. 26 Ibid. 27

Jørgensen, Marianne, and Louise Phillips. Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. London: Sage Publications, 2002. Print.

(10)

create are not just a product of pre-existing patterns, but rather contribute in constructing reality itself.29 Of course it has to be stressed “[t]hat does not mean that reality itself does not exist. Meanings and representations are real. Physical objects also exist, but they only gain meaning through discourse.”30

Consequently, language is not just a medium through which information about mental states and behavior or facts about the world are communicated, but is rather a ‘mechanism’ that incites, and as a result is also a part of, the social world.31 The implication of this is particularly important, because it “means that changes in discourse are a means by which the social world is changed. Struggles at the discursive level take part in changing, as well as in reproducing, the social reality.”32 This is why discourses are pivotal underpinnings of the social world, reality, and as a result also our perception of it. In this sense discourse can be considered as a continuous process by itself that contributes to the creation of reality in each separate moment. Despite the fact that not all approaches to discourse analysis adhere to post-structuralism per se, all of them can agree on certain common points. Firstly, language is not a reflection of a pre-determined reality, but it is structured in patterns or discourses.33 Furthermore, they agree that these discursive patterns are maintained and transformed in discursive practices, and that the maintenance and transformation of the patterns should therefore be explored through analysis of the specific contexts in which language is in action.34 This is why the change of a discourse in its essence or structure is important. It suggests a change in reality and our perception. In that direction, conducting discourse analysis is one of the most effective tools available to researchers, so as to pinpoint what reality is, and also the degree to which it has changed.

For the purpose of this thesis, the approach developed by Laclau and Mouffe best serves the aim of this paper. Firstly, an important differentiation from other approaches is the fact that Laclau and Mouffe do not distinguish between discursive and non-discursive fields of social reality.35 This suggests that discourses are powerful and ever present. They are variables that define reality, and therefore should be treated as important elements of social reality. However, it is not correct to suggest that because of this, there is only

Publications, 2002. Print. 30_Ibid. 31_Ibid. 32_Ibid. 33_Ibid. 34 Ibid.

(11)

written expressions.36 The reality is that on the contrary, discourse has certain ‘real’ properties, and therefore material variables and factors such as economic, political, institutional, which also play a huge role in the discourse and the discursive construction of reality.37 Thus, in Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory discourse itself is fully constitutive of our world38 and also, actions are seen in terms of a “dual perspective: on the one hand, actions are concrete, individual and context bound; but, on the other hand, they are also institutionalized and socially anchored, and because of this tend towards patterns of regularity.”39

Furthermore, another important element of Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory is that social phenomena are not restricted by time. Meaning in itself can never be ultimately fixed and “this opens up the way for constant social struggles about definitions of society and identity, with resulting social effects.”40_{In essence, for Laclau and Mouffe, “the creation of} meaning as a social process is about the fixation of meaning, as if a Saussurian structure existed. We constantly strive to fix the meaning of signs by placing them in particular relations to other signs; […] The project is ultimately impossible because every concrete fixation of the signs’ meaning is contingent; it is possible but not necessary.”41 This ambiguity however is ultimately useful as “it is precisely those constant attempts that never completely succeed which are the entry point for discourse analysis. The aim of discourse analysis is to map out the processes in which we struggle about the way in which the meaning of signs is to be fixed, and the processes by which some fixations of meaning become so conventionalized that we think of them as natural.”42_{In Laclau and Mouffe’s words: “[W]e} will call articulation any practice establishing a relation among elements such that their identity is modified as a result of the articulatory practice. The structured totality resulting from the articulatory practice, we will call discourse. The differential positions, insofar as they appear articulated within a discourse,

36

Alasuutari, Pertti. Social Theory and Human Reality. London: Sage Publications, 2004. Print.

38_Ibid.

39

Ibid.

40_{Papakostas, Nikolaos, and Nikolaos Pasamitros. EU: Beyond the Crisis: A Debate on Sustainable}

Integrationism.Print.

41

(12)

we will call moments. By contrast, we will call element any difference that is not discursively articulated.”43

At this point, it is important to look closer at certain specific elements Laclau and Mouffe’s theory puts forward as a means to analyze discourses. According to Laclau and Mouffe: “a discourse is formed by the partial fixation of meaning around certain nodal points.44 A nodal point is a privileged sign around which the other signs are ordered; the other signs acquire their meaning from their relationship to the nodal point.45 In practice, this involves “the exclusion of all other possible meanings that the signs could have had: that is, all other possible ways in which the signs could have been related to one another. Thus a discourse is a reduction of possibilities. It is an attempt to stop the sliding of the signs in relation to one another and hence to create a unified system of meaning.”46 All the possibilities that the discourse excludes are the so-called field of discursivity.47 However, it is of primary importance to state that “exactly because a discourse is always constituted in relation to an outside, it is always in danger of being undermined by it, that is, its unity of meaning is in danger of being disrupted by other ways of fixing the meaning of the signs.”48

However, if taken by themselves these signs are of no significance because they have to be inserted into a particular discourse to acquire meaning.49 For example, a nodal point in political discourses is democracy and in national discourses a nodal point is the people.50 In order for these nodal points to become meaningful they have to be situated in such an environment that their relation to other elements prescribes their meaning. Due to this ambiguity, the so-called elements of the discourse become relevant. According to Laclau and Mouffe, elements are the signifiers whose meanings have not yet been fixed, but rather have multiple, potential meanings.51 Such points which can acquire various

43

Laclau, Ernesto, and Chantal Mouffe. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso, 1985. Print.

44_Ibid.

45

Ibid.

47_{Laclau, Ernesto, and Chantal Mouffe. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic}

Politics. London: Verso, 1985. Print.

49_Ibid.

(13)

meanings and significance are called floating signifiers.52 To make the term even clearer, Jorgensen suggests that “floating signifiers are the signs that different discourses struggle to invest with meaning in their own particular way. Nodal points are floating signifiers, but whereas the term ‘nodal point’ refers to a point of crystallization within a specific discourse, the term ‘floating signifier’ belongs to the ongoing struggle between different discourses to fix the meaning of important signs.”53

To make it even clearer, “Laclau and Mouffe’s example of the nodal point ‘human being’, defined as having inalienable rights, in contradiction with the fact that certain people are deprived of those rights”54

suggests that the exact nature and relationship between the nodal point and the other discursive elements, or reality, is not fixed. In this case, the term human being acts as a method of crystallizing the discourse around a central point, while the elements that suggest that these human rights are being deprived by some acts in an opposite manner. However, this does not imply that signifiers are of secondary importance. They are also very powerful elements of discourses. For example, in his election campaign Barack Obama rallied a massive amount of supporters around “slogans”, or in our terms signifiers, like hope which eventually had a huge impact.

Discourse is not something abstract and vague, but as stated earlier, takes on certain methodological and philosophical characteristics. In this sense, “a discourse attempts to transform elements into moments by reducing their polysemy to a fully fixed meaning.”55

Consequently, a discourse establishes a closure, a temporary stop to the fluctuations in the meaning of the signs. However, “the transition from the ‘elements’ to the ‘moments’ is never entirely fulfilled.”56_{This means that the discourse itself “can}

never be so completely fixed that it cannot be undermined and changed by the multiplicity of meaning in the field of discursivity.”57

At this point, it is significant to analyze the methodological elements presented by Laclau and Mouffe in order to investigate how they relate to one another. The aim of

52_{Laclau, Ernesto. New Reflections on the Revolution of Our Time. London: Verso, 1990. Print.} 53_{Jørgensen, Marianne, and Louise Phillips. Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. London: Sage}

54

Simons, Herbert W., and Michael Billig. After Postmodernism: Reconstructing Ideology Critique. London: Sage, 1994. Print.

Politics. London: Verso, 1985. Print.

(14)

discourse is to provide closure to its elements, which happens by removing ambiguities. However, this process is never completely successful as the elements of the field of discursivity threaten to destabilize the meaning of the elements of the discourse.58

Consequently, the duality of the moments of discourse remains.59 Moreover, “specific articulations reproduce or challenge the existing discourses by fixing meaning in particular ways. And because of the perpetual potential polysemy, every verbal or written expression is also, to some extent, an articulation or innovation; although the expression draws on earlier fixations of meaning – that is, it draws on discourses in which the signs have become moments – the expression is never merely a repetition of something already established.”60

Therefore, according to Laclau and Mouffe, “there are always other meaning potentials which, when actualized in specific articulations, may challenge and transform the structure of the discourse.61 In Laclau and Mouffe’s terms, “articulations are contingent interventions in an undecidable terrain. That means that articulations constantly shape and intervene in the structures of meaning in unpredictable ways. Discourses are incomplete structures in the same undecidable terrain that never quite become completely structured.”62_{Evidently, all the elements of discourse analysis are}

intertwined and interrelated. Even the field of discursivity, which is theoretically a completely different part of the discourse, can impact the discourse itself. Therefore, a substantial analysis will require for the majority of these elements to be considered, to the extent to which they carry meaning, or significance.

In the direction of applying Laclau and Mouffe’s theory to the discourse on refugees, Jorgensen makes a crucial contribution. Jorgensen suggests that there should be a focus on specific expressions and their ability to be articulated.63 This suggests that we ought to look at the meanings that these expressions establish and the way they relate to other discursive relationships which can later be investigated by asking certain simple questions such as: ‘what discourse or discourses does a specific articulation draw on, what

58

59

Laclau, Ernesto, and Chantal Mouffe. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso, 1985. Print.

60_{Jørgensen, Marianne, and Louise Phillips. Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. London: Sage} Publications, 2002. Print.

61_Ibid. 62_Ibid. 63_Ibid.

(15)

discourses does it reproduce?[…] Does it challenge or transform an existing discourse by redefining some of its moments?’64

When trying to answer these questions, the only apparatus available to turn to are the elements of the discourse, because their relation to one another will define its nature. In order to provide a substantial answer to these questions, the nodal points of the discourses have to be identified, in order to determine which signs are being predominantly portrayed, as well as their relationship with the other signs of the discourse. When this has occurred, it is possible to compare two discourses and determine how they define or include certain signs (floating signifiers).65 By doing this, we can gradually map the constitutive elements of the discourse and establish a structure. As a starting point for answers to these questions, the nodal points of the specific discourses can be identified: what signs have a privileged status, and how are they defined in relation to the other signs in the discourse? When we have identified the signs that are nodal points, we can then investigate how other discourses define the same signs in alternative ways. And by examining the competing ascriptions of content to the floating signifiers, we can begin to identify the struggles taking place over meaning. In that way, we can gradually map the partial structuring by the discourses of specific domains. What signs are the objects of struggle over meaning between competing discourses (floating signifiers); and what signs have relatively fixed and undisputed meanings (moments)?”66

In this context, “the aim of analysis is, therefore, not to uncover the objective reality, but to explore how we create this reality so that it appears objective and natural.”67

Furthermore, another important element in Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory is that for both theorists the primacy resides in the political process. Plainly, politics enjoy primacy.68 Being a primarily political matter, the phenomenon of refugee influx fits this idea, since the management of this phenomenon was primarily a question of political nature.

In Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory, the concepts of signifier and signified play a key role, even more so than the nodal point of the discourse. Therefore, as a final step, it is useful to simplify their meaning even more: “Signifiers are abstract or real

64

65_Ibid. 66_Ibid.

67

Ibid.

(16)

entities, concepts, phrases, and symbols. If they are located in a particular discourse, they will imply some specific meanings. Meaning and implications of a signifier are called signified. A signified is a sign that whenever we see it, we sense the desired signifier.”69

On the other hand, a central signifier is “a person, symbol, or concept around which other signifiers are collected and articulated. The central signifier is like a perpendicular for a tent, which if lifted the tent collapses. Discourse is a cohesive galaxy and the top signifier is its core and the gravity of the central core absorbs other signs.”70

The relationship between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary, because it enables language to bridge our understanding of the outside world.71 In fact, this language allows us to understand things. Thus, the meaning of the signs will change. Such a view provides a suitable ground for syntactic ambiguity and diversity.”72

The nature of this relationship is not irrelevant for discourse analysis since “discourse coherence depends on the stability of the relationship between the signifier and the signified on one hand and stability of the relationship between the signifier and the signified on the other hand.”73

By analyzing this theory and its constitutive elements in depth, a web of connections and relationships has been established, sufficient to enable us to apply it in the empirical cases of the 2011 refugee wave from Libya, and the 2015 refugee wave from Syria. The elements of the theory will help us to analyze why the discourse of the institutions regarding refugees has remained unchanged since the last refugee crisis, by providing a comprehensive theoretical framework to operate in.

69_{Dabirihmer, Amir, and Malihe Fatmi. "Laclau and Mouffe's Theory of Discourse." Journal of Novel}

Applied Sciences 3.11 (2014): Web.

70_Ibid. 71_Ibid. 72

Ibid.

(17)

Research Design:

This chapter is going to look at the basic premises of the research design of this thesis. More specifically, it will introduce and justify the selection of the case studies to be analyzed, the data which are going to be collected, as well as the procedures of analysis. For the purpose of this thesis, two case studies have been selected. Firstly, the case of the 2011 refugee crisis stemming from Libya, and secondly that of 2015 stemming from Syria. These two case studies were chosen due to the fact that they were the two most similar in their causes and substantive characteristics, this also serving the purpose of minimizing the variables that can affect the outcome of the analysis. Both refugee waves were instigated due to the eruption of a civil war under a dictatorial regime. Moreover, both case studies can be pinpointed in the same region. Also, the characteristics of the refugee waves were similar in that a high proportion of those refugees were of Muslim faith and sought asylum in Europe on humanitarian grounds. Finally, the number of refugees that fled their country was roughly approximate in these two cases, thus making them more easily comparable.

The data which are going to be collected are primarily official documents of the European Union, and more specifically from the three main European Institutions, the Commission, the Council and the Parliament. Other types of data, like speeches, are also going to be accommodated into the analysis to provide a more global understanding of the discourses of the institutions on refugees. The analysis of these documents will focus primarily on the language of the text and will try to establish the nature of the discourse for each institution in each case based on Laclau and Mouffe’s approach to discourse analysis.

In this direction, Jorgensen's contribution is crucial as it provides us with a clear-cut and simple interpretation of Laclau and Mouffe's complex theory. More specifically, the analysis of the documents from the European institutions is going to adhere to the following structure: “As a starting point for answers to these questions, the nodal points of the specific discourses can be identified: what signs have a privileged status, and how are they defined in relation to the other signs in the discourse? When we have identified the signs that are nodal points, we can then investigate how other discourses define the same signs (floating signifiers) in alternative ways. And by examining the competing ascriptions of content to the floating signifiers, we can begin to identify the struggles taking place over meaning. In that way, we can gradually map the partial structuring by

(18)

the discourses of specific domains. What signs are the objects of struggle over meaning between competing discourses (floating signifiers); and what signs have relatively fixed and undisputed meanings (moments)?”74

In this way, the research design is the “connecting tissue” that binds case study and theory together. Only by following the specific research design is this thesis going to achieve its aim, and prove that the discourses of the institutions have not been altered with time, and consequently also that the perception of the European Institutions regarding refugees is still dominated by humanitarian ideals and principles.

(19)

Data Analysis: The case of the 2011 Libyan Refugee Crisis

This section is going to apply Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory and its mode of analysis on empirical data concerning the 2011 Libyan refugee crisis based on the proposed research design. It will do so on specific documents from the three institutions under scrutiny, which are going to be gradually introduced and analyzed, in order to prove that the discourse of the institutions on refugees at that time was based on a humanitarian approach. With the outbreak of the Arab Spring in 2011 many authoritarian regimes in the African region faced mounting opposition from civil society. The high intensity of the situation called for drastic action in order to alleviate the pressure that society had put on the regimes, with this alleviation taking the form of a revolution. In Libya, the Qaddafi regime was one of the cruelest dictatorships in the region. Therefore, when the civil conflict broke out the repercussions for both armed sides were enormous. However, aside from the military aspect of this civil war the fist victims were the civilians who sought to flee their country in search for safety. Approximately 600,000 people fled Libya during the first years of the civil war, with many of those people ending up in Europe via legal or illegal means.

At that time, it was the first circumstance where Europe had to face head on a crisis of that nature. The three major European institutions, the European Commission, The European Council, and the European Parliament, responded, linguistically at first, to the stimuli that they were receiving concerning the mass influx of Libyan people into Europe. Their responses constituted an affirmation of the existence of a particular discourse on Libyan refugees.

(20)

European Parliament approach to refugees:

The first document that is going to be analyzed is the European Parliament resolution of 10 March 2011 on the Southern Neighborhood, and Libya in particular. In this document, the nodal point and other discursive elements are going to be identified, in order to determine the exact nature of the discourse. Firstly, although this document is geared towards a more general situation, the conclusions on refugees enable us to point out the exact attitude of the institution towards them. In this text, the nodal point is clearly the civil war in Libya in the context of the Arab Spring. This is because the civil war is a point of crystallization in the text, in the sense that everything is related or organized around it. However, our main focus is the discourse on refugees. In that sense, the very term refugee would constitute a signifier in the text, since it acquires meaning when seen in relation with the main focus of the document which is the Libyan civil war. However, this does not downplay the importance of the signifier in defining or organizing the discourse.

The document mentions the responsibility of the European Union to protect, democracy, freedom and accountability. However,, in our case the most important elements that have to be analyzed are those centered around refugees and their status. The first explicit mention of refugees comes with statement E which states: “whereas according to the UNHRC more than 200.000 people have fled from Libya into neighboring Tunisia, Egypt and Niger in recent days and hundreds of thousands more refugees and foreign workers face a desperate struggle to escape the conflict or leave Libya; whereas this is creating a humanitarian emergency that calls for a quick EU reaction [...]”75

. The call for a swift EU response and the connection of refugees and the idea of a humanitarian crisis is particularly useful in setting the basis for the discourse. It is evident that as far as this document is concerned, the linguistic focus is on the humanitarian emergency which is a result of the war. In this way, the discourse takes on humanitarian characteristics, and consequently is defined as such.

It is thus clear that the European Union adopted a specific approach to the crisis, by placing emphasis on humanitarian values. In this direction, the document states that the EU: “Is deeply concerned at the growing humanitarian crisis, as more than 200.000

75_{Parliament, European. "Texts Adopted - Thursday, 10 March 2011 - Southern Neighbourhood, and Libya in}

(21)

migrants fleeing the violence in Libya, many of them remaining stuck at the border between Libya and Tunisia and others being stranded in refugee camps in Tunisia, Egypt and Niger; [and] calls on the current and future Libyan authorities to grant access to the country to humanitarian organizations and guarantee the safety of humanitarian personnel;”76

Hence, the discourse around Libyan refugees in 2011, from the part of the European parliament is organized around a call for supporting those in need of international protection. In this sense, the terms “humanitarian” and “crisis” are attributed a specific connotation. They are floating signifiers that suggest the exact nature of the discourse in relation with refugees, which discursively, seemed to centre itself around humanism.

Reinforcing this perception is point 14 that “encourages the Council, the Commission and the High Representative to make all necessary financial and human resources available to support a robust international humanitarian operation, assisting the UNHRC and other relevant humanitarian agencies in providing protection and emergency assistance to all those in need; welcomes the measures taken and funds deployed so far by Commissioner Georgieva and ECHO and the humanitarian assistance provided by some Member States to meet this challenge; appeals to the EU and the Member States to supply air and maritime transportation to help repatriate or resettle migrants, asylum seekers and refugees from Libya, in keeping with international law and relevant European Union legislation, and to provide financial support in response to the joint UNHCR-IOM appeal. Issued on 3 March 2011;”77 This part of the document is valuable for various reasons. Firstly, it adds to the list of signifiers that surround the nodal point and the main signifier that interests us which is refugees. That is because it inserts floating signifiers that give the term refugee meaning and place it in context. The document refers to protection, assistance (financial or otherwise), and also stresses the term humanitarian. In this way, the discourse is rounded to stress humanitarian means of protection, and excludes other possibilities.

To complete the overall image of the discourse of the European Parliament on the matter, point 15 also mentions that the European Parliament: “Calls on the Commission to ensure that all the necessary measures, including adequate financial, human and technical resources, are in place to guarantee that the EU can respond appropriately in the event of

76_{Parliament, European. "Texts Adopted - Thursday, 10 March 2011 - Southern Neighbourhood, and Libya in}

Particular, including Humanitarian Aspects - P7_TA(2011)0095.

(22)

any mass migratory movement, in accordance with Article 80 TFEU.”78

Again, it is evident that in multiple statements, what is stressed from the part of the European Parliament is the humanitarian and orderly approach to the situation. Largely, the discourse of the European Parliament is focused around humanitarianism and the EU's responsibility to protect, while putting other factors, such as security threats etc, out of the limelight. Therefore, there is a multiple association between a humanitarian approach and refugees in this specific document. Hence, the specific discourse of the Parliament on refugees draws upon previous discourses of other humanitarian organizations and certain central rules of the Union, such as 80 TFEU to complete its discourse and essentially dictate the need for a strictly humanitarian approach when it comes to displaced persons.

Consequently, in this sense, the discourse of this specific institution establishes a specific pattern and web of connections between the nodal point, the main signifier and the floating signifiers, so as to create and suggest a response based on the European values of humanitarianism and aid. Essentially, the Parliament focuses on a humanitarian approach but leaves out the possibility of security threats, Islamic radicalization and other risk factors which are left to the field of discursivity and do not define, nor are they included in this specific discourse. In this way, refugees are characterized by the need to be protected and treated humanely.

Another document which is going to be utilized in order to further investigate the discourse of the European Parliament surrounding Libyan refugees, is the European Union Parliament recommendation of 20 January, 2011, to the Council on the negotiations on the EU-Libya Framework Agreement, coded 2010/2268 (INI). To start with, the nodal point of the discourse is migration, and more specifically in the context of the Libyan Civil War. The first important point of the document is point (c) which states that the European Parliament: “Urges the Council and the Commission to strongly recommend that Libya ratify and implement the Geneva Agreement on Refugees of 1951, and its 1967 Protocol, including full cooperation with UNCHR, so as to guarantee adequate protection and rights for migrants and adopt asylum legislation that recognizes refugees’ status and rights accordingly, notably the prohibition of collective expulsion, and grants the principle of non-refoulment.”79 The first important conclusion from this passage is that the

78

Parliament, Europeam. "EU-Libya Framework Agreement European Parliament Recommendation of 20 January 2011 to the Council on the Negotiations on the EU-Libya Framework Agreement (2010/2268(INI)).

(23)

European Parliament considers the 1951 Geneva Convention on refugees as a cornerstone for the treatment of displaced persons. This implies mainly that human rights must be respected and that they must be at the centre of the response of the European Union when dealing with refugees, and Libyan refugees in particular. In this passage, the linguistic signifiers “cooperation, protection, rights, and guarantee” largely define the discourse of the European Parliament in this particular document. These signifiers suggest a certain normative and practical treatment of refugees, and when seen in combination with the other textual elements surrounding them create a narrative based on human rights and conventions. This means that the relationship between the discourse, the nodal point and the signifiers is such, that refugees are discursively defined as people in need of protection. Further solidifying this particular discourse, point (d) suggests: “[The European Parliament] [r]eminds the Council and the Commission of their obligations to ensure full compliance of the European Union’s external policy with the Charter of Fundamental Rights, particularly its Article 19, which prohibits collective expulsion and grants the principle of non-refoulment.”80 In the same way as before, specific words which acquire special meaning and/or significance shape the discourse and the impact of the discourse. In more detail, words (linguistic signifiers) such as “obligations, principle, fundamental and rights” make it clear that in the core of the European Parliament’s approach is humanitarian values and the obligation of the European Union to provide a safe-haven for refugees to escape atrocities.

Continuing on, in point (g) the document reads: “[The European Parliament] [c]alls on the the Council to offer resettlement to recognized refugees identified by UNCHR in Libya according to the agreed Migration Cooperation Agenda of 4 October, 2010.”81

Also, point (t) states that the European Parliament: “Calls on the Council to ensure that Schengen visas for Libyans are issued without unnecessary delays, [and] to examine other facilitation procedures[…].”82

Firstly, both statements are constitutive of the discourse of the specific institution. Point (g) centers around the Migration Cooperation Agenda and point (t) suggests that the Schengen area should be accessible to Libyan refugees. These core suggestions imply that the primary aim of the discourse of the European Parliament is to influence the other European institutions, in order to base

80_{Parliament, Europeam. "EU-Libya Framework Agreement European Parliament Recommendation of 20}

January 2011 to the Council on the Negotiations on the EU-Libya Framework Agreement (2010/2268(INI)).

81_Ibid. 82_Ibid.

(24)

their approach on humanitarian measures such as the facilitation of visas, and overall greater cooperation. This narrative is given more substance if we take a look at the words that surround it and give it meaning. Signifiers as “resettlement, recognized, ensure, facilitate” in both passages suggest that the approach of the Parliament to migration, in the context of the Libyan Civil War (nodal point), is based upon a need of maintaining and facilitating humanitarian measures to alleviate the crisis. Such a perspective enjoys primacy. The discourse of the Parliament in the Libyan case is not moderate, but rather stresses the urgency of ensuring that such principles mentioned above will be upheld. Essentially, this document also suggests that the perception of refugees from the part of the Parliament is grounded on humanitarian principles.

The Discourse of the European Commission on Libyan Refugees:

Now that we have established the basic structural elements around which the discourse of the European Parliament on refugees from the Libyan civil War is organized, the discourse of the European Commission is also going to be taken into account. In order to determine the nature of the discourse and possible differentiation between the European bodies themselves, the same analytical approach is going to be followed. To unravel the discourse of the Commission around Libyan refugees, the Joint Statement by Kristalina Georgieva, Commissioner for International Cooperation, Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Response and Cecilia Malmstrom, Commissioner for Home Affairs, on 19 June 2011 is going to be analyzed according to the principles Laclau and Mouffe have set out.

The nodal point of this discourse is migration in the context of the Libyan Civil War of 2011. Due to the huge regional impact, and the impact on Europe itself, it is something logical. This statement declares: “The Arab Spring has not unleashed the human tide upon Europe that some feared. And while we have a duty to protect Europe's borders and deter irregular immigration, we should not let fear stand in the way of the human values we share with our neighbors: the imperative of helping those in need and caring for the most vulnerable.”83

This is important firstly because it defines the field of discursivity. It mentions the obligation towards border control, but immediately thereafter

83_{Commission, European. "Joint Statement By Kristalina Georgieva, Commissioner for International}

Cooperation, Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Response and Cecilia Malmström, Commissioner for Home Affairs, on the Occasion of World Refugee Day."

(25)

excludes it from the discourse as something of the past that has little or no relevance to the current discourse, at least from the standpoint of the Commission. Secondly, it is important, because the signifiers which can be identified here lean towards a similar discursive appraisal of the situation as that of the European Parliament. It is important that the security and risk aspect are essentially excluded by being temporarily included, but treated as minor or things of the past.

Again signifiers such as “humanitarian, helping, caring, vulnerable” suggest that the discourse of the Commission at the time was primarily focused on humanitarianism. Although the nodal point is the civil war and the dire repercussions it has had, the discourse is then fundamentally transformed and framed in the direction of feelings of empathy and values of caring and protecting the vulnerable. Therefore, even though Europe was in fact facing an influx of refugees, and asylum seekers, the focus was on the humanitarian treatment of these groups which had a right to be protected and be accepted by Europe. In this sense, security fears and other negative variables are left to the wider field of discursivity. This is what defines the discourse of the Commission as positive, when geared towards refugees. It is also important that the joint statement suggests that: “All of the EU's Member States are signatories of the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees. The events in North Africa have confirmed the importance of a comprehensive and coherent European asylum system, based on solidarity and shared responsibility. The opening of the European asylum support office (EASO) in Malta today is a step in this direction. The EASO will support Member States in better managing the reception of asylum seekers and in assessing their claims for protection.”84

This is valuable because not only does it introduce linguistic signifiers that suggest that in the heart of the EU's approach was the 1951 Geneva Convention, and thus humanitarianism in the core of the EU's approach and discourse, but also because it excludes other possibilities of discourse. Not only does the discourse of the Commission suggest a certain focus and viewpoint, but it also has policy implications. Therefore, the dominant discourses within the European Union also determined the direction of practical measures to be adopted. Again, from the part of the Commission refugees are perceived as people in need of humanitarian assistance.

(26)

Apart from the creation of the EASO, this particular discourse sets a precedent for the future by suggesting that: “In order to reach the target set by the European Council to complete a common European system by 2012, we need a renewed commitment and greater efforts by all Member States. We need to have a system which is both efficient and protective and which guarantees that asylum seekers are treated in an equal and appropriate manner wherever they are in the European Union.”85 In this way, it is evident that discourses have a huge influence over not only current reality, but also the future, thus exemplifying their importance. For the Commission, the existence of this discourse meant a pan-European commitment towards refugees. By emphasizing signifiers such as “effort, commitment, protective, equal, and appropriate” a road is paved. Not only does this discourse provide a temporary closure in the present, but also delineates a future path, thus maximizing the potential of discursive closure in the future. In simple words, the signifiers reinforce the perception that humanitarian principles are in the centre of the response of the Council.

In the quest of determining the exact structural and constitutive elements of the discourse of the European Commission on Libyan refugees, the Communication from the Commission to the European Union Parliament, the Council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions, entitled “A dialogue for migration, mobility and security with the Southern Mediterranean countries, on 24.5.2011 and coded COM(2011) 292 Final, is going to be analyzed according to Laclau and Mouffe’s framework. In this document, the Commission has set out various short and medium term measures to alleviate the crisis. Point (1) under those measures suggest that: “Continuing to provide funds for the humanitarian assistance of those in need in Libya and its neighboring countries and for repatriation of the persons fleeing from the conflict in Libya, according to the identified needs”86_{is essential. Furthermore, point (8) suggests}

that: “implementing a Regional Protection Program (RPP) encompassing Egypt, Libya and Tunisia, aimed at enhancing the possibility to assist refugees stranded in these countries and to develop locally the legislation and the administrative capacity to treat

86_{Commission, European. "Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European}

economic and social committee and the Committee of the Regions: A Dialogue for Migration, Mobility and Security with the Southern Mediterranean Countries."

(27)

them in line with international standards [is a priority]. Resettlement is also an important component of RPPs;”87

These two points stress the urgency of the Commission to alleviate humanitarian pressures from both the refugees themselves and the countries which are affected by the migratory flow. The existence of signifiers such as “assist, stranded, treat, international, standards, humanitarian, conflict and needs” teleologically shape the relation of the signifiers with the nodal point and define the discourse in terms of a humanitarian crisis in need of a solution. For that reason, the discourse includes not only elements of ethos and pathos, but admittedly, legal and other components that render it more global, powerful and effective. Again, the signifiers place the discourse in a specific and complex linguistic web that suggests that for the short and medium term, the emphasis of the Commission was in upholding humanitarian principles and standards. Finally, point (9) reinforces the discourse on humanitarian grounds even more by stating that: “Planning and implementing the resettlement of as many persons in need of international protection as possible from the territory of the countries neighboring Libya towards the European Union Member States and other countries willing to accept them”88_{is of primary}

importance. Again signifiers such as “protection, need and international” situate the discourse and define it in these terms.

Overall, the discourse of the Commission follows along the same lines as that of the Parliament, although it seems that the Parliament was more caustic, while the Commission seems to be more diplomatic and mild. Nevertheless, essentially the institutions uphold a very similar line with identical cores and values that surround them.

87_{Commission, European. "Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European}

economic and social committee and the Committee of the Regions: A Dialogue for Migration, Mobility and Security with the Southern Mediterranean Countries."

88

(28)

European Council discourse on Libyan refugees:

Another body which is pivotal for the functioning and the agenda-setting of the EU is the European Council. Of course, such an important body could not have left the 2011 situation in Libya without making a strong statement on the matter. This is useful because it provides a body upon which the methodology of discourse analysis is going to be applied. In this direction, the context of the 11 March, 2011 Council Declaration with code EUCO 7/1/11 REV 1 is going to be analyzed in order to define and determine the nature of the discourse concerning refugees from the 2011 Libyan Civil War.

In a similar manner as before, the nodal point of this discourse is migration in the context of the Libyan Civil War. However, as is evident with the previous analyses of the documents from the other European bodies, each body stresses or exemplifies its own view or take on the matter which may slightly deviate. The European Council therefore had suggested that: “The humanitarian emergency in Libya and at its borders is reaching worrying proportions aggravated by the massive migration movements resulting from the events. Ensuring the safe evacuation of EU citizens and other nationals wishing to flee the fighting remains a priority. The European Union and the Member States have mobilized humanitarian aid and are committed to further assist people in Libya and people crossing its borders, in close cooperation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian affairs, the International Organization for Migration, the International Committee of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and non-governmental organizations. The European Union calls on all parties concerned to allow humanitarian agencies and operators access to any zone where aid is needed and stands ready to support their work. To this end, the European Union will enhance its coordination in order to provide coherent and effective use of assets and capabilities, in line with humanitarian principles.”89

This first introduction from the part of the Council on its intentions is important for the discourse as it sets a framework and sets out certain clues that suggest that the approach of the council is balanced between security and humanitarian aid. The conclusions of the council mention the need for the receiving countries to be helped in an essential manner, it does however give more length of text and thus importance to the treatment and management of refugees and refugee flows on the basis of “humanitarian

A comparative discourse analysis on refugees : the case of the 2011 Libyan Refugee Crisis and the 2015 case of the Syrian Refugee Crisis