Contemporary literary depictions of refugees are often written as “life narratives,” which Kay Schaffer and Sidonie Smith describe as “one of the most potent vehicles for advancing human rights claims” (1). The life narrative genre, as defined by Schaffer and Smith, comprises “emotive stories often chronicling degradation, brutalization, exploitation, and physical violence” designed to “invite an ethical response from listeners and readers” (4). In such works—including Khaled Hosseini’s The Kite Runner, Uzodinma Iweala’s Beasts of No Nation, and Dave Eggers’s What Is the What—suffering subalterns, and the authors who represent them, testify on the international stage about a state’s failure to protect human rights. This testimonial narrative structure portrays the refugee as a victim of a “failed” state and invokes the authority of the international human rights regime to justify the acceptance of the refugee into a host nation. Correspondingly, a cosmopolitan readership is encouraged to see themselves as literary humanitarians who offer relief to victims-turned-storytellers. Yet, such a testimonial relationship between text and reader frequently assumes Western moral and political superiority and isolates violence in the postcolony as the source of unimaginable trauma. Thus, in the life narrative genre, the refugee and the reader meet where international human rights intersect with historical and contemporary imperialism. Insofar as life narratives rely on a problematic testimonial structure and engage in literary humanitarianism, they reinforce an imperial relationship between the refugee and the reader. Rather than addressing the root causes of political, economic, and social injustices, such life narratives troublingly provide a way to discuss inequality in the language of human rights without challenging structures of contemporary imperialism. In the late twentieth century and into the twenty-first, as the language of human rights assumes more prominence vis-à-vis the representation of political violence in the postcolony, the life narrative genre has contributed to the resignification of the refugee not as an indication of a systemic problem, as Hannah Arendt revealed in mid-twentieth century Europe, but as a perceived symbol of failed, anti-colonial nationalism.

中文翻译：

---

Abdulrazak Gurnah的《海边的难民》和Edwidge Danticat的《露水破坏者》中的难民和读者

当代关于难民的文学描写通常被写成“生活叙事”，凯·沙弗和西多妮·史密斯将其描述为“推进人权主张的最有力手段之一”（1）。沙弗和史密斯所定义的生活叙事类型包括“情感故事，通常记录着堕落，残酷，剥削和身体暴力”，旨在“引起听众和读者的道德回应”（4）。在诸如哈立德·侯赛尼（Khaled Hosseini）的《放风筝的人》（The Kite Runner），乌佐丁玛·伊维拉（Uzodinma Iweala）的《无民族的野兽》和戴夫·埃格斯（Dave Eggers）的《 What Is the What》等苦难中的次要人物以及代表他们的作者在国际舞台上作了关于国家未能保护人权的见证。这种证明性叙述结构将难民描绘成“失败”国家的受害者，并援引国际人权制度的权力来为接纳难民接受东道国辩护。相应地，鼓励国际读者将自己视为文学人道主义者，为受害的故事讲述者提供帮助。然而，文本与读者之间的这种见证关系经常假定西方在道德和政治上具有优势，并且将后殖民时期的暴力隔离为无法想象的创伤的根源。因此，在生活叙事类型中，难民和读者在国际人权与历史和当代帝国主义相交的地方相遇。就生活叙事而言，它依靠有问题的证明结构并从事文学人道主义活动，它们加强了难民与读者之间的帝国关系。这些生活叙事没有解决政治，经济和社会不公正的根本原因，而是令人烦恼地提供了一种在不挑战当代帝国主义结构的情况下用人权语言讨论不平等问题的方法。在二十世纪后期到二十一世纪，由于人权语言相对于后殖民时期的政治暴力代表地位更加突出，生活叙事类型促使难民重新定位，而不是正如汉娜·阿伦特（Hannah Arendt）在二十世纪中叶欧洲所揭示的那样，是系统性问题的标志，但它却被视为失败的反殖民民族主义的象征。经济和社会不公，这样的生活叙事令人不安地提供了一种在不挑战当代帝国主义结构的情况下用人权语言讨论不平等的方式。在二十世纪后期到二十一世纪，由于人权语言相对于后殖民时期的政治暴力代表地位更加突出，生活叙事类型促使难民重新定位，而不是正如汉娜·阿伦特（Hannah Arendt）在二十世纪中叶欧洲所揭示的那样，是系统性问题的标志，但它却被视为失败的反殖民民族主义的象征。在经济和社会不公方面，这类生活叙事令人不安地提供了一种在不挑战当代帝国主义结构的情况下用人权语言讨论不平等问题的方法。在二十世纪后期到二十一世纪，由于人权语言相对于后殖民时期的政治暴力代表地位更加突出，生活叙事类型促使难民重新定位，而不是正如汉娜·阿伦特（Hannah Arendt）在二十世纪中叶欧洲所揭示的那样，是系统性问题的标志，但它却被视为失败的反殖民民族主义的象征。