A reasonable, practical and moderate humanitarianism: the co-option of humanitarianism in the Australian asylum seeker debates Every, Danielle

User activity

Share to:
View the summary of this work
Every, Danielle
Appears In
Journal of Refugee Studies
Social and Community Psychology. (170113); Neo-liberalism; Australia: Politics and government
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.
Work ID

2 editions of this work

Find a specific edition
Thumbnail [View as table] [View as grid] Title, Author, Edition Date Language Format Libraries

User activity

e.g. test cricket, Perth (WA), "Parkes, Henry"

Separate different tags with a comma. To include a comma in your tag, surround the tag with double quotes.

Be the first to add a tag for this work

Be the first to add this to a list

Comments and reviews

What are comments? Add a comment

No user comments or reviews for this work

Add a comment

Show comments and reviews from Amazon users