openness to the unknown - an animated video

Heimatland - Homeland (silent movie)

Final Paper Proposal - Humour and the Discourse on Immigration: A Comparative Analysis of the Performances of Serdar Somuncu and Kaya Yanar

Should I laugh or not? Is a question that often comes to my mind, when hearing jokes about issues, such as immigration, integration and ethnicity, to name a few. On the one hand, these jokes are often funny, but on the other hand, they also address serious issues, which not funny at all for some people's daily lives. Is then comedy or satire the right genre to address these issues? By comparatively analyzing two very contrasting comedians' performances I shall examine this question in the paper proposed hereby. Serdar Somuncu, an 'actor, writer, satirist, comedian, and self-styled philosopher of transnational humanism' (Bower 2012: 194) achieved fame through his reading of Hitler's "Mein Kampf" on stage in 1996. Somuncu ascribes himself the right to take part in the process of coming to term with the past (Vergangenheitsbewältigung) as a 'informed German citizen' and further, legitimizes his right to criticize German-Turkish relations with his Turkish heritage (Bower 2012: 196). Further, he 'confronts the cultural taboos silenced by political correctness or exaggerated playfulness with ethnic stereotypes' (Bower 2012: 204). Kaya Yanar, comedian, moderator and writer, became famous with the TV program Was guckst du? (What are you looking at?) launched in 2001. Using Somuncu's words, Yanar is one of those comedians addressing ethnic stereotypes with 'exaggerated playfulness'. In contrast to Somuncu, Yanar puts the boundaries of humour with issues that could hurt people, thus he does not joke about religion or tragic events (spiegel.de 2008). Moreover, Yanar does not see politics as fitting for comedy, as it is not entertaining, but exhausting. And integration, according to Yanar, is fulfilled, when a German-Turkish comedian can step on stage without having to address his being German-Turkish (spiegel.de 2008).

In the context of the final paper for this class I would like to look closer at how Somuncu and Yanar address ethnic stereotypes, migration, ethnicity, belonging, identity, integration and home; issues that we dealt with throughout the semester. What role does humour inhabit when addressing these issues? Does it challenge stereotypes and common perceptions or does it rather reinforce them? How does migrant background of the performers play into the effects of their shows? What are the commonalities and differences of the performances of Somuncu and Yanar? And how does the impact of their performances differ from one another, if at all?

References:

- Bower, Kathrin 2012: Serdar Somuncu: Reframing Integration through a Transnational Politics of Satire. The German Quarterly 85 (2): 193-213.

- Spiegel.de 2008: http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/leute/kaya-yanar-im-interview-mein-comedy-programm-ist-eine-danksagung-an-die-deutschen-a-542524.html

Hospitality and immigration

In the introduction to her book Postcolonial Hospitality: The Immigrant as Guest Mireille Rosello discusses the transformation of the characteristics of immigrants, which consequently also altered the discourse about immigration in France. Moreover, Rosello problematizes the metaphor of "immigrant as guest" as it obscures several aspects and creates a blurred image. First, by regarding an immigrant as a guest the reason for their "invitation" - which was not related to hospitality, but rather to employment - is obscured. Taking an "employee" as a "guest" results in the deprivation of the "guest" 'of the type of contract that exists in a businesslike relationship' (Rosello 2001: 9). What is more, the "guest" can always be disinvited and sent away without any further justification. The distinction between the discourse of rights (social contract) and the discourse of generosity (excess and gift-giving) is, thus, blurred through the metaphor of the immigrant as a guest. Not only is the status and are the rights of the immigrant hazy, but also the position of the state. Rosello argues that by taking the state as the "host", the fact is obscures that immigrants often live in shantytowns - 'a strange twist to the idea that the nation was the equivalent of a house' (ibid.: 10). Often, it is even other immigrants, rather than the state that provide housing to newcomers. As a result 'being grateful to the so-called host nation is a baffling proposition' as the only contact of the immigrant to the nation are bureaucratic procedures. Rosello continues then with a discussion of Derrida's distinction between the ethics of (infinite) hospitality and a politics of (finite) hospitality, into which, however, I shall not delve at this point.

Depicting immigrants as guest, does not only blur their reasons for migration, their status and their right, but further also legitimizes treating them differently; a "guest" is rarely regarded the same rights as a "host", the "guest" should respect the "host", and act accordingly to the latter's rules. The immigrant should behave in a certain way - as a "guest". Further, the metaphor implies another place as home, if someone is a guest in one place s/he is at home or the host in another place. It further supports the idea of temporal stay, of the immigrant not being at home, and thereby not being able to feel 100% comfortable. A possible return to the country of origin is then "naturalized", they are going "home", to where they belong, know the habits, and will feel comfortable. "Home" further implies that one is allowed to stay, and always welcome. These implications are not only valid for first generation migrants, but also for their offsprings, as we can see in discussion about remigration of second-generation immigrants to their parent's home.

In Matthieu Kassovitz's movie La Haine we can also trace the issue of hospitality in relation to offsprings of immigrants. The protagonists and the other youth habitants, clearly see their district as their home, people coming in are scrutinized carefully and often sent away (the reaction when they see the mayor from the roof, or when the TV reporter want to interview the three protagonists). However, the dynamics changes with sporadic appearance of the police, controlling what is going on in the district (Vinz stops telling a story when they come across policemen). The distinction of "guest" and "host" is further blurred by immigrant-offspring police men. When the three friends go to Paris, the dynamics change again. There they are actually visitors, and experience to some extent the hospitality usually showed to guests (the friendly police man giving directions, the beginning at the exhibition). However, after some point they have to leave the exhibition. After they left a man states: 'that is the problem with the suburbs', hinting at the "suburbs" not knowing how to behave. When coming back to their district Said and Vinz are once again subjected to the "control" of plainclothes police, with which the film takes a deadly ending. 

Could the riots in the banlieus be received differently if immigrants are not regarded as guests? Would a similar outburst in another, non-immigrant context (maybe rather in a leftist-socialist protesting against the system) circle be received similarly? Could the riots then be received as reaction to socio-political problems (such as lack of equal opportunities) rather than as upheavals from immigrant youth, from ungrateful "guest"? 

It becomes clear as the protagonists state "liberty, equality and fraternity"among other "wise" sayings while sitting on the roof of a Parisian building, they do not see that "saying" apply to them. 

References:
- Matthieu Kassovitz, La Haine/Hate (1995)
- Rosello, Mireille. Introduction to Postcolonial Hospitality: The Immigrant as Guest. Stanford, Standford UP, 2001. 

international migration - foto series and a video

let down in Europe (foto series)

video on international migration giving basic information on issues of migration:

but looking at the comments it does not seem very successful in challenging xenophobia...

Switzerland and immigration

For this week's discoveries I would like to share some articles and images around the issue of immigration in Switzerland. "Massimmigration," "floods of migrants," "waves of immigration" "invading" or "overrunning" Switzerland, "the boat is full"(boat referring to Switzerland) are widely used expressions in the media and especially in the political discours about immigration to Switzerland, often visually supported.

This article (in English) provides a quite differentiated and carefully formulated view on issues of immigration. The article further problematizes the political initiatives made for example by the Swiss People Party (SVP) in relation to immigration. Although newspaper articles, where immigration is mostly represented in a more or less objective and factual perspective, the images used often provide a different impression.

High immigration from Eastern Europe

The article heading this picture reports the ongoing discussion about the implementation of the safety valve (Ventilklausel) in order to regulate the immigration of workforce from EU countries to Switzerland. Article (German)

The article with this image also discusses the safety valve and especially the rapidly increasing population number in Switzerland. The article calls for a stricter regulation of immigration, before it is to late and Switzerland bursts. Article (German)

Further, provoking pictures are widely used in political discourse and mobilization. Here some examples:

Posters by the SVP. Left: Ivan S. rapist, soon Swiss? NO, to the counter initiative, YES for the deportation initiative. Right: YES, to the deportation initiative, NO to the counter initiative. The deportation initiative called for a stricter regulation for criminal foreigners, eventually leading to their deportation (depending on the crime). The initiants dismissed the counter initiative as 'not going far enough'. 

 Left: before, right: after; therefore: NO to the free movement agreement with the East.

 Now is enough! Stop mass immigration: 

     - So that we have less criminal and violent foreigners in Switzerland!

     - So that we do not feel foreign in our own country!

     - So that your children are not the only Swiss in their class!

     - So that our social systems do not get ruined!

     - So that your salary does not decrease and you do not loose your job!

Swiss vote for the SVP

The logo on the left states: Swiss quality SVP

Native americans could not stop immigration either...

Today they live in reservations...

(Source: homepage of the Swiss Democrats Party, minor (strongly) right wing party)

Throughout all of these images immigrants are represented in a very negative light. They are depicted as criminals, violent, swindlers taking advantage of the welfare system, etc. The images do not differentiate immigration (labor migration, refugees, asylum seekers, etc) and are very generalizing. Especially the last image is out of context, comparing the conquest of the Americas with immigration to Switzerland. 

Audre Lorde

I came across this striking quote and wanted to share it with you.

"Institutionalized rejection of difference is an absolute necessity in a profit economy which needs outsiders as surplus people. As members of such an economy, we have all been programmed to respond to the human differences between us with fear and loathing and to handle that difference in one of three ways: ignore it, and if that is not possible, copy it if we think it is dominant, or destroy it if we think it is subordinate. But we have no patterns for relating across our human differences as equals. As a result, those differences have been misnamed and misused in the service of separation and confusion" (Lorde 2007: 115; original emphasis).

For a short biography of Audre Lorde please click here.

Reference:

Lorde, Audre: Sister Outsider. Essays and Speeches. Berkley: Crossing Press, 2007 (1984).

migration and ethnicity

     This weeks reading evolve around the issue of migration and ethnicity, providing three different views. Let me start with briefly outlining the authors’ main arguments. Sirkeci, writing about – bluntly put – the reasons for migration, argues for the inclusion of ethnicity ‘among explanatory variables in future analyses of Turkish international migratory regimes’ (Sirkeci 2003: 204). Although it may not be the most important variable it can still add to the “environment of insecurity”.

     Soysal, then, criticizes the notions of “second generation” and “in-betweenness” as it locates migrant youth neither in the everyday life of Germany where s/he was born, but outside or on the peripheries; nor is s/he ‘longer inside Turkishness, since [s/he] was born in Germany (Soysal 2002: 125). Further, Soysal argues that stories of integration, which come along with notions such as second generation, ‘rely on taken-for-granted conceptions of identity that singularly take “national” as the defining parameter of identity and belonging’ (ibid.: 133). Consequently, Soysal argues in favor of situating migrant youth in an institutional setting, ‘in the social and cultural spaces within which they realize their life stories, make and have cultures, and converse and cooperate with their peers’  (ibid.: 123). Soysal’s approach results in a move away from generational and ethnic categories.

     In a similar vein, Glick Schiller argues against “methodological nationalism”, which takes the nation-state as containing social and historical processes, as “naturally” constituting borders, separating different homogeneous identities. The author calls instead for the ‘examination of non-ethnic forms of incorporation and transnational connection’ (Glick Schiller 2008: 1). Taking ethnicity as an analytical unit in the study of migration is likely to leave un-researched and under-theorized possible non-ethnic forms of settlement and transnational connection, and the significance of locality of the city in a migrant settlement. Further, a unit of analysis based on ethnicity homogenizes the community, which is actually highly heterogeneous as it bears divisions of class, gender, generations, region of origin or politics.

     The movie Kebab Connection (2004) written amongst others by Fatih Akin helps to understand especially Soysal’s and Glick-Schiller’s arguments. On the one hand we see how the migrant youth (Ibo and Valid) cannot be regarded as somewhere in between. By running a restaurant and through the making of movies Valid and Ibo constitute an active part of the city they inhabit and contribute to the art and culture of it. On the other hand, we also see connections across ethnic groups, although at the beginning especially among the youth. This also supports the argument that ethnic groups are heterogeneous and that through an approach of ethnic unit, this heterogeneity would be undermined and overshadowed. Taking for example Ibos family as a and other Turkish migrants as a unit of analysis would not reflect social reality, especially in the case of Ibo, who engages with the son of a Greek migrant and has a German girlfriend.

     This turn away from ethnicity as Soysal and Glick-Schiller propagate it is not in contradiction to Sirkeci’s claim to include ethnicity into the explanatory variables of migration as they focus on different phases of the migratory process. Sirkeci does not call for taking ethnicity as a unit of analysis, but rather for it’s inclusion in the analytical process, as ethnicity can contribute to the reasons for migration. In relation to Soysal’s article the question arises of who “qualifies” as migrant youth? What is necessary to “count” as migrant youth, when does someone stop to be part of migrant youth (not so much in terms of age but of the “migrant”). And then, what is the difference of utilizing the term “migrant youth” (or “migratory background”/Migrationshintergrund which seems like the German equivalent) to using “second generation”? Do not both equally contain notions of not being completely in the ‘everyday life’ of the country of residence (using migrant as part of the term), but neither being inside the …-ness of the parent’s country (using youth in the term)?

References:

• Fatih Akın, Kebab Connection (2004)
• Sirkeci, Ibrahim. "Migration from Turkey to Germany: An Ethnic Approach." New Perspectives on Turkey 28-29  (2003): 189-207.
• Glick Schiller, Nina. Beyond Methdological Ethnicity: Local and Transnational Pathways of Immigrant Incorporation ). Malmo: Malmo University, 2008.
• Soysal, Levent. "Beyond the 'second generation': Rethinking the Place of Migrant Youth Culture in Berlin." Challenging Ethnic Citizenship: German and Israeli Perspectives on Immigration. New York: Berghahn Books, 2002. 121-36.