Abstract

European resettlement programs prioritize the admission of refugee families. While this is seen as the “natural” thing to do, we argue that the mobilization of family norms is crucially political: in everyday bordering practices, interpretations of family norms are decisive for who is admitted to Europe. We study the selection of Syrian refugees in Turkey for humanitarian admission to Germany, which involves national governments, UNHCR, and NGOs. Fusing practice-theoretical approaches to humanitarianism and mobility governance on the one hand, with gender and sexuality scholarship on nationalism, empire, and migration on the other, we show how family norms configure discretionary power in transnational migration governance. First, family norms shape how power is exercised over refugees in vulnerability and assimilability assessments. Vulnerability assessments hinge on whether a family counts as protective and supportive, or deficient and threatening. Assimilability assessments scrutinize whether refugees do family “right”: in a way that will not disturb resettlement countries’ national (gender) order. Second, the mobilization of family norms reflects power disparities between actors. International and non-governmental actors strive to recognize plural family forms, but are disciplined into applying resettlement states’ more constraining family norms, thereby participating in the (re)production of the borders and boundaries of Europe.

中文翻译：

---

家庭优先？难民安置中的家庭规范动员

摘要

欧洲安置方案优先考虑接纳难民家庭。虽然这被视为是“自然”的事情，但我们认为动员家庭规范至关重要，这是政治上的：在日常的接壤实践中，对家庭规范的解释对于谁被欧洲接纳是决定性的。我们研究了土耳其境内叙利亚难民的甄选，以便人道主义进入德国，这涉及到各国政府，难民署和非政府组织。一方面，将实践理论方法与人道主义和流动性治理相融合，另一方面，针对民族主义，帝国和移民的性别与性问题奖学金，我们展示了家庭规范如何配置跨国移民治理中的自由裁量权。首先，家庭规范决定了如何在脆弱性和同化性评估中对难民行使权力。脆弱性评估取决于一个家庭是否算是保护性和支持性，或缺乏和威胁性。相似性评估检查难民是否做家庭“正确”：以不影响移民国的国家（性别）秩序的方式进行。其次，动员家庭规范反映了行动者之间的权力差距。国际和非政府行为者努力承认多元化的家庭形式，但受到纪律处分，以适用移民国更为严格的家庭规范，从而参与欧洲边界边界的（再）生产。以不影响移民国的国家（性别）秩序的方式。其次，动员家庭规范反映了行动者之间的权力差距。国际和非政府行为者努力承认多元化的家庭形式，但受到纪律处分，以适用移民国更为严格的家庭规范，从而参与欧洲边界边界的（再）生产。以不影响移民国的国家（性别）秩序的方式。其次，动员家庭规范反映了行动者之间的权力差距。国际和非政府行为者努力承认多元化的家庭形式，但受到纪律处分，以适用移民国更为严格的家庭规范，从而参与欧洲边界边界的（再）生产。