SciPost Submission Page
Auto-Ethnic Economies and How Guest Workers Became Working Guests: The Economic Integration of Berlin’s Refugees
by Jagat Sohail
This is not the latest submitted version.
This Submission thread is now published as
Submission summary
| Authors (as registered SciPost users): | Jagat Sohail |
| Submission information | |
|---|---|
| Preprint Link: | https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/m3zwj (pdf) |
| Date submitted: | 2022-07-18 10:46 |
| Submitted by: | Sohail, Jagat |
| Submitted to: | Migration Politics |
| Ontological classification | |
|---|---|
| Academic field: | Political Science |
| Specialties: |
|
| Approaches: | Theoretical, Observational |
Abstract
Changes in the nature of work in Germany over the last decade and a half have resulted in a de-regulation of the labour market and a gradual withdrawal of the welfare state for many. The introduction of reforms regarding the access to the labour market for asylum seekers that arrived in Germany in the summer of 2015 have in addition meant that newcomers coming to Berlin seeking refuge are exposed to these transformations in especially acute ways. New arrivals are increasingly expected to rapidly integrate into this market, though the nature of this integration paradoxically impedes their social incorporation and reifies their status as asylum seekers. This is especially true for the ever increasing number of rejected asylum seekers who are temporarily “tolerated”, and for whom the only path to residence requires that they display their value as economic subjects to the German state. Based on ethnographic fieldwork conducted in Berlin between 2017 and 2020, I argue that, armed with little other than their cultural identities and networks, refugees seem to find themselves in ethnically sealed zones of economic activity that display “auto-ethnic” properties; a logic whereby cultural groups are enlisted in their own commoditization, exploitation, and even policing.
Current status:
Reports on this Submission
Strengths
see document
Weaknesses
see document
Report
Overall the journal's criteria are met, if the author provides more details about data collection and research ethics.
Requested changes
see document
Report #3 by Anonymous (Referee 3) on 2022-8-26 (Invited Report)
- Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:socarxiv_m3zwj, delivered 2022-08-26, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.5588
Strengths
The paper's ethnographic perspective offers a very rich and timely account of patterns of differentiation of migrants actually enacted rights and opportunities in a specific site (a camp here) beyond the level of formal policy. This to me is a very welcome innovation to the usual asylum policy and politics accounts (with focus on formal institutions and letter of the law).
The empirical work is rich and nuanced and the author manages to connect the material back to longer-standing discussions about the German migration and asylum regime, its welfare state and political economy in highly insightful ways (though I suggest some of these debates require deeper engagement at the theoretical level, see below).
The paper is eloquently written and a joy to read.
Weaknesses
Structure:
The text would be better accessible with a preview on its structure in the introduction.
The contributions of the paper should also be spelled out more explicitly from the start - how does it advance theorisation and our understanding of asylum policies "on the ground"? What does the ethnographic approach add? And what do we learn not just about German asylum policy and governance, but also more widely for migration research?
Methodology:
There is currently no information on how the author has integrated the (rich and welcome!) empirical observations from the ethnography with theoretical knowledge and existing concepts in the field of research. Is this grounded theory and fully inductive? Or did you start out with some concepts, e.g. the notion of ethnically-articulated stratification mechanisms in asylum practices?
How did you come to select the stories of these three men as somewhat representative of a dominant stratification mechanism? This is no positivist "validity" obsession of mine - rather, I want to know more about how the detailed discussion of these three stories is situated in a particular and complex case (as in Weber's "Verstehen" approach to social science).
Overall, I am appreciative of ethnographic work being presented here in a less classic "scientific" format (and I support this approach to overcome positivist soc sci analysis in journals!)- but I think that a clearer signposting of lit review type writing and the sharing of your material and analysis would help the reader identify the article's contributions.
Conceptual clarifications:
I don't quite follow the concept of "auto-ethnic economy" - I understand that the auto refers to some internal differentiation processes in the camp community (as argued on p. 4), and I also get that this relates to constructions of "ethnicity" and ethnically-sorted hierarchies of belonging... but why does this matter as an "economy"? This needs more conceptualisation in my view, to be properly understood and useful for future research.
Relatedly, how did the author select the notion of "auto-ethnic economies" and how does this tap into existing conceptualisations, e.g. on moral economies of deservingness (Chauvin and Garces-Mascarenas), on stratification and hierarchies of belonging in migration domain (Bridget Anderson's work; Amelina et al. etc.) or on the cultural political economy of (labour) migration (Paul)?
I would also urge the author to spend more time to detail their concept of ethnicity and "co-ethnic" labour --- a more constructivist perspective of course treats those not as essentialised categories of belonging but as constructs of identity which are activated in specific situations and for specific reasons. How does such a constructivist ontology speak to your research here?
Report
The article meets the criteria of the journal neatly. My discussion of weaknesses suggests improvements of signposting mainly with regard to the article's contributions and some methodological reflections.
Requested changes
See discussion under "weaknesses"
Strengths
Please see attached document.
Weaknesses
Please see attached document.
Report
I believe this article has the potential to provide an important intervention in the field. Yet, I suggest major revisions because I have serious concerns regarding how the author demonstrates his arguments (lack of substantial demonstration) and also some serious concerns regarding the ethics and politics of representation of the paper.
Requested changes
Please see attached report.
Report #1 by Simone Di Cecco (Referee 1) on 2022-8-8 (Invited Report)
- Cite as: Simone Di Cecco, Report on arXiv:socarxiv_m3zwj, delivered 2022-08-08, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.5510
Strengths
1- The paper offers new insights about the political and moral economy of asylum, and the intersections between asylum and labour : an under-analysed but increasingly important field for contemporary critical migration studies.
2- An interesting empirical study of the differential inclusion which points out the existing links between the proliferation of precarious documentation and the development of segmented (and hierarchized) economic sectors "reserved" to asylum seekers/refugees.
3- A compelling analysis of rarely investigated phenomena of "subcontracting exploitation" among refugees/national minorities.
Weaknesses
1- I am not persuaded by the concept of "auto-ethnic economy" proposed here.
°What is the difference with the classical concept of "ethnic economy"?
°Why do you talk about "ethnic" when it is not the a member of the same ethnic group which is, for instance, exploiting another? Isn't "ethnic" used here to talk about foreigners/not white? Which kind of identification is analyzed here? (for instance, when Haider refers to "our people", he is not talking about people of the same ethnic/national group...)
°Why "auto"(ethnic) when you demonstrate that it is a process of subcontracting/devolution finally governed by white (and rich) nationals which is at stake here (I'm thinking for instance about the security industry)?
2- The focus here is about dynamics of competition/distinction/exploitation between refugees or foreigners : what about solidarity? Is it completely invisible in the interactions and situations you observed?
3- Interviews and observations selected here don't allow the reader to see the full materiality of work afforded by the informants : finer descriptions of tasks and interactions in the workplace are welcomed.
Report
The paper opens a new pathway in researches about migrant deservingness, as well as about asylum and labour. It is written in an intelligible way, contains an abstract and an introduction, and provides sufficient empirical details. It provides citations to relevant literature of the field.
Requested changes
°Formal changes :
1- You should move the interlude (maybe integrating it at the beginning?)
2- You should remove the separation marks "***" and put titles for the sub-parts
3- References are sometimes absent in the bibliography at the end.
°Methodology
It could be important to add a methodology section in the paper, incorporating some missing informations :
4- How did you negotiate your access to the field - for instance, how did you get into the camps, which role did you play in the eyes of the asylum seekers? I can read (p.8) "I was tasked to with convicting Haider" : why were you?
5- You should clarify how many people you interviewed/informally talked with.
°Content :
6- It could be important to integrate racism and racialization in your analysis. This shift can maybe help you to redefine the concept of "auto ethnic economy" proposed here. Notions like "racial capitalism" could also be fruitful to enhance your theoretical effort.
6- Your analysis of cosmopolitanism is interesting but you do not always offer empirical details (and mainly in the conclusion) : a better integration of this aspect of the analysis in the demonstration is welcomed.
7- Your commitment with the concept of capital(s) should be better defined : Which kind of capitals are you talking about? Are you moving from a bourdieusian perspective? Could you define the notion of "legal capital" (p.23).
8- Did you meet other kinds of labour, especially unpaid labour (volunteering, unpaid stages and so on) in the precarious careers of your informants? If so, it can be interesting to integrate these kinds of labour in the analysis.
9- About the analysis of "auto-ethnic" exploitation : It seems to me as if it is often a form of "auto-reproduction"/endoreplication of the asylum system, based on the selection of some refugees/asylum seekers to control others (Haider as a security agent in the camp, Omar as a translator). I think you should insist more on that aspect, focusing on the role of NGO and social workers (see for instance Bird, Gemma, and Davide Schmid. "Humanitarianism and the ‘Migration Fix’: On the Implication of NGOs in Racial Capitalism and the Management of Relative Surplus Populations." Geopolitics (2021): 1-27.).
I think it could alsobe fruitful to dialogue with an author proposing a different point of view from the one you develop here: Sara De Jong, A window of opportunity? Refugee staff’s employment in migrant support and advocacy organizations