Closing cultural boundaries and international borders: deconstructing the immigration crisis
Photo by Ggia, dust spots/scratches removed by Kim Hansen. Obtained through Wikimedia Commons under a ShareAlike 3.0 license.
Anthropological research has highlighted the prevalence of cultural boundaries which characterise different communities, making them distinct and unique from others. When considering the current global immigration crisis, cultural boundaries become increasingly important as different communities with varying customs and beliefs come into contact and are forced to coexist and live in the same geographical space. Boundaries are formed and these are strictly maintained and preserved to protect the community. Immigration, however, is perceived as a threat to this cohesiveness.
Boundary marking is a mechanism through which individuals craft and create a collective identity. In his book, Symbolic Construction of Community, Anthony Cohen explains how, through the process of boundary marking, communities distinguish themselves from others and emphasise a shared common culture to foster cohesiveness and collectivity. Examples of boundary marking include ethnicity, religion and customs and rituals, amongst many others. However, while boundary marking can offer a sense of community and commonality, the process excludes those individuals who do not conform to the ideas and categorisations. Edward Said’s ground-breaking theory of ‘Orientalism’ explains how communities create a cultural ‘Other’ who is different and inferior. This creates dichotomies between ‘in-group and out-group members’ where one dominates the other. For example, Yiannis Papadakis’ research on Greek and Turkish Cypriot political movements demonstrates how they use boundary marking techniques (such as war commemoration rituals) to establish dichotomies between heroes and villains in the long-standing conflict between the two communities. Each group Otherises and paints the other as the enemy, demonstrating the role of boundary creation in communities. This demonstrates how marking techniques can be used to create different bounded cultural groups with common features that are distinct from other communities.
However, in the contemporary international system, increased globalisation and movement of people has instigated fear and uncertainty amongst communities. Societies fear the ‘pollution’ and ‘intrusion’ of foreign customs and therefore react by trying to ‘affirm old and construct new boundaries’ in an attempt to protect their own cultures. Therefore, communities maintain the idea of a cultural Other who is subordinate and does not belong in the dominant ‘in-group.’ This is a challenge faced by individuals displaced and forced to flee their homes as refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants as they are continuously excluded and Otherised within their new communities. In ‘Ritual, Media and Conflict,’ the authors explore how customs and cultural practices that ‘penetrate the public sphere’ in particular spark backlash as they pose a visible threat to other groups and are perceived as acts of aggression or attempts at domination. For example, the Muslim symbolic forms of dress such as the Burqa and Hijab have been a source of conflict as they are visible and public representations of a religion that counters the dominant, normative ideas. It is perceived as a form of ‘cultural pollution’ and ties in with fears of Western cultures and beliefs facing a decline with the rise of alternative, non-Western customs and practices. Therefore, these ideas of cultural Others and strict boundaries result in foreign individuals being viewed as a threat and creates the perception of immigration as a dangerous crisis.
The exclusion and alienation of Otherised out-group are exacerbated by the media which sensationalises and simplifies mass amounts of data to create narrow generalisations. As outlined in ‘Ritual, Media and Conflict,’ the means of representation through which the media presents debates is crucial in shaping public opinion and either limiting or inciting conflict and controversy. Because salacious gossip and conflict are more financially profitable, newspapers, films, TV shows, magazines and online webpages rely on generic stereotypes and negativity in an effort to generate headlines and attract audiences. The media therefore often offensively and inaccurately reinterprets cultural practices and customs. For example, the Muslim call for prayer (the Adhaan) has become a highly contentious and debated issue in the media as it is perceived as an attempt to spread and expand Islam. Viewed as a means of allowing Islam to infiltrate the public and private lives of non-Muslims, this cultural practice is depicted as posing a threat to non-Muslim beliefs and customs. The media chooses to tie these debates to wider social and political concerns about the dangers of immigration and the spread of foreign cultural practices and beliefs at the expense of the host communities which will face extinction.
Due to strict cultural boundaries and groups, the arrival of foreign individuals who may influence or change the normative practices and beliefs is viewed as a threat. Immigration and movement of people across the globe are therefore presented as a crisis and countries aim to close both their cultural and physical borders from outside influence. This is aggravated through media reporting and representations of foreign individuals and groups which prefers a dramatised and exaggerated interpretation of events.
