ABSTRACT

Scholars have described the increasing fragmentation of categories like ‘refugee’ as part of efforts to reduce refugees’ access to protection. The proliferation of categories such as economic migrants, humanitarian migrants, and transit migrants generally emerge from top-down, policy-driven migration management paradigms, efforts by traditional resettlement countries to restrict opportunities for forced migrants to seek asylum. Here, I argue for a cultural geographic approach to understanding the everyday work of representations as contributing to the erosion of categories like ‘refugee’ from the bottom-up as well. Despite widespread international agreement about the unfolding crisis in Myanmar and the exodus of Rohingya refugees, interlocutors in Thailand consistently doubted the legitimacy of Rohingya refugees’ claims. Through three vignettes that take place in Thailand, I explore how Rohingya refugees become characterized as ‘different’ from other regional refugee groups. Rohingya refugees are represented through three overarching narratives that question the legitimacy of their refugee claims: through the wrong imaginaries, in the wrong places, and using the wrong strategies. By demanding comparisons with fictional, ideal refugees; cementing ties between refugee status, race and religion; and strategically positioning refugee status as a legal tactic, I argue that these representations further the everyday erosion of the meaning and usefulness of the category of refugee.

摘要

学者们将“难民”等类别的日益分散描述为减少难民获得保护的努力的一部分。经济移民、人道主义移民和过境移民等类别的激增通常源于自上而下、政策驱动的移民管理模式，传统的重新安置国家为限制被迫移民寻求庇护的机会所做的努力。在这里，我主张用一种文化地理方法来理解代表的日常工作，因为它也有助于自下而上地侵蚀“难民”等类别。尽管国际社会就缅甸正在发生的危机和罗兴亚难民的外流达成了广泛共识，但泰国的对话者一直怀疑罗兴亚难民主张的合法性。通过发生在泰国的三个小插曲，我探讨了罗兴亚难民如何变得与其他地区难民群体“不同”。罗兴亚难民通过三个质疑其难民申请合法性的总体叙述来代表：通过错误的想象，在错误的地方，以及使用错误的策略。通过要求与虚构的理想难民进行比较；巩固难民身份、种族和宗教之间的联系；并将难民地位战略性地定位为一种法律策略，我认为这些陈述进一步加剧了难民类别的意义和有用性的日常侵蚀。罗兴亚难民通过三个质疑其难民申请合法性的总体叙述来代表：通过错误的想象，在错误的地方，以及使用错误的策略。通过要求与虚构的理想难民进行比较；巩固难民身份、种族和宗教之间的联系；并将难民地位战略性地定位为一种法律策略，我认为这些陈述进一步加剧了难民类别的意义和有用性的日常侵蚀。罗兴亚难民通过三个质疑其难民申请合法性的总体叙述来代表：通过错误的想象，在错误的地方，以及使用错误的策略。通过要求与虚构的理想难民进行比较；巩固难民身份、种族和宗教之间的联系；并将难民地位战略性地定位为一种法律策略，我认为这些陈述进一步加剧了难民类别的意义和有用性的日常侵蚀。