Mixed migration, fragmented protection: refugee and migrant protection in the ‘field’ of mixed migration
<p>This thesis is an examination of the social world – or <em>field</em> – born of UNHCR and IOM’s operational responses to refugees and migrants. I argue that we can better understand UNHCR and IOM as existing relationally, as entangled within a single field of practice in which b...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Thesis |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2023
|
| _version_ | 1811139420973170688 |
|---|---|
| author | Marshall-Denton, C |
| author2 | Andersson, R |
| author_facet | Andersson, R Marshall-Denton, C |
| author_sort | Marshall-Denton, C |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | <p>This thesis is an examination of the social world – or <em>field</em> – born of UNHCR and IOM’s operational responses to refugees and migrants. I argue that we can better understand UNHCR and IOM as existing relationally, as entangled within a single field of practice in which both agencies are engaged in a struggle to give shape to the refugee and migrant categories and respond to them on the ground. Rather than considering each organisation in isolation, I make a case for considering what their relational existence within a field – the ‘mixed migration field’ – means for them institutionally and those they are meant to protect. Moving beyond institutional mandates, I show that the formal ‘differences that distance’ UNHCR and IOM from one another are impossible to maintain on the ground (Bourdieu 1996b: 242). This results in blurred institutional boundaries between UNHCR and IOM and blurred categorical divisions between refugees and migrants.</p>
<p>Paying close attention to the dynamics of the mixed migration field along the Central Mediterranean route in Tunisia and Libya, I explore who is made into an object of protection and to whom, and I interrogate the shape this protection takes at the interface of UNHCR, IOM and ‘their’ persons of concern. I argue that in the mixed migration field, the unmixing of refugees and migrants represents little more than a form of symbolic differentiation, for I show that through their struggle in the field, UNHCR and IOM have emptied the refugee and migrant categories of substantive difference. In exploring the transformative effects of the field, I identify a new field-specific logic and practice of protection enacted toward refugees and migrants, which I argue is fundamentally transforming the fabric and identity of UNHCR and IOM.</p> |
| first_indexed | 2024-09-25T04:05:49Z |
| format | Thesis |
| id | oxford-uuid:cb86a3b2-4703-42b4-bc40-878b7b7a0dc0 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-09-25T04:05:49Z |
| publishDate | 2023 |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:cb86a3b2-4703-42b4-bc40-878b7b7a0dc02024-05-20T07:13:13ZMixed migration, fragmented protection: refugee and migrant protection in the ‘field’ of mixed migrationThesishttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_db06uuid:cb86a3b2-4703-42b4-bc40-878b7b7a0dc0EnglishHyrax Deposit2023Marshall-Denton, CAndersson, RGibney, MScott-Smith, TBradley, M<p>This thesis is an examination of the social world – or <em>field</em> – born of UNHCR and IOM’s operational responses to refugees and migrants. I argue that we can better understand UNHCR and IOM as existing relationally, as entangled within a single field of practice in which both agencies are engaged in a struggle to give shape to the refugee and migrant categories and respond to them on the ground. Rather than considering each organisation in isolation, I make a case for considering what their relational existence within a field – the ‘mixed migration field’ – means for them institutionally and those they are meant to protect. Moving beyond institutional mandates, I show that the formal ‘differences that distance’ UNHCR and IOM from one another are impossible to maintain on the ground (Bourdieu 1996b: 242). This results in blurred institutional boundaries between UNHCR and IOM and blurred categorical divisions between refugees and migrants.</p> <p>Paying close attention to the dynamics of the mixed migration field along the Central Mediterranean route in Tunisia and Libya, I explore who is made into an object of protection and to whom, and I interrogate the shape this protection takes at the interface of UNHCR, IOM and ‘their’ persons of concern. I argue that in the mixed migration field, the unmixing of refugees and migrants represents little more than a form of symbolic differentiation, for I show that through their struggle in the field, UNHCR and IOM have emptied the refugee and migrant categories of substantive difference. In exploring the transformative effects of the field, I identify a new field-specific logic and practice of protection enacted toward refugees and migrants, which I argue is fundamentally transforming the fabric and identity of UNHCR and IOM.</p> |
| spellingShingle | Marshall-Denton, C Mixed migration, fragmented protection: refugee and migrant protection in the ‘field’ of mixed migration |
| title | Mixed migration, fragmented protection: refugee and migrant protection in the ‘field’ of mixed migration |
| title_full | Mixed migration, fragmented protection: refugee and migrant protection in the ‘field’ of mixed migration |
| title_fullStr | Mixed migration, fragmented protection: refugee and migrant protection in the ‘field’ of mixed migration |
| title_full_unstemmed | Mixed migration, fragmented protection: refugee and migrant protection in the ‘field’ of mixed migration |
| title_short | Mixed migration, fragmented protection: refugee and migrant protection in the ‘field’ of mixed migration |
| title_sort | mixed migration fragmented protection refugee and migrant protection in the field of mixed migration |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT marshalldentonc mixedmigrationfragmentedprotectionrefugeeandmigrantprotectioninthefieldofmixedmigration |