Skip Navigation


Journal of Refugee Studies Advance Access originally published online on April 24, 2008
Journal of Refugee Studies 2008 21(2):210-229; doi:10.1093/jrs/fen013
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
21/2/210    most recent
fen013v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Every, D.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author [2008]. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

A Reasonable, Practical and Moderate Humanitarianism: The Co-option of Humanitarianism in the Australian Asylum Seeker Debates

Danielle Every

University of South Australia, Hawke Research Institute for Sustainable Societies, Murray House, St Bernard's Road, Magill SA 5072, Australia

danielle.every{at}unisa.edu.au

Critiques of humanitarianism have highlighted its conceptual ambiguity and its usefulness in justifying the exclusion, rather than inclusion, of refugees and asylum seekers. This facility for co-option can be traced to the tension between the opposing considerations of ‘costs to self’ versus ‘duty to others’ in liberal definitions of humanitarianism, and to the liberal binaries of reason versus emotion, moderation versus excess, and pragmatism versus idealism. Using discourse analysis, this paper explores how these binaries framed Australian political debates over asylum seeking, providing persuasive discursive resources for limiting humanitarian responsibilities for asylum seekers. The analysis demonstrates that the consideration of ‘costs to self’ is so flexible that these costs can be presented in such a way as to deny any humanitarian responsibility whatsoever. However, this paper also suggests that asylum seeker advocates’ arguments may be strengthened by drawing upon these same frameworks of reason, moderation and practicality.

Key Words: humanitarianism • liberalism • asylum seekers • critical discourse analysis • political discourse

MS received June 1, 2007 ; revised MS received November 1, 2007
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.