A Visual Approach

In the analysis of humanitarian discourse(s), I use ‘discourse’ in a Foucauldian sense as a system of representation of knowledge and meanings situated in a particular time and space (Foucault 1971, 1972, 1980). According to the philosopher, the concept of discourse is strictly interrelated with the production of truth and relations of power: “What I mean is this: in a society such as ours, but basically in any society, there are manifold relations of power which permeate, characterise and constitute the social body, and these relations of power cannot themselves be established, consolidated nor implemented without the production, accumulation, circulation and functioning of a discourse. There can be no possible exercise of power without a certain economy of discourses of truth which operates through and on the basis of this association. We are subjected to the production of truth through power and we cannot exercise power except through the production of truth (Foucault 1980, 93).

Threatening – The Refugee as a Threat

Contemporary media and public accounts have increasingly framed the refugee ‘crisis’ in terms of security, with refugees considered as masses to be managed and controlled, migrants pointed at with generic allegation of terrorist threat, and state borders closed and militarized. Securitization of migration may not be a new phenomenon (Saunders 2014) but it is one that has recently received a great deal of attention (see among others Bigo 2002; Pugh 2004; Huysmans and Squire 2009; Huysmans 2000; Musarò 2017; Vaughan-Williams 2015; Watson 2009). What all these scholars have in common is that they highlight different ways through which refugees are represented, described, and thought of as threat. Media and public accounts have consistently represented refugees through words such as plight, invasion, flood, hordes, or waves (Friese 2017). The “highly heterogeneous and (too) strongly mediation-dependent European politics created an array of – in most cases negative – interpretations of the Refugee Crisis” (Krzyżanowski et al. 2018). In line with this narrative, at the visual level, the images that have accompanied the news on refugees have mostly included overcrowded boats, long lines of people in need, and looming masses of people crammed at border fences.

Humanitarianism, Securitization and Humanitarian Communication

To unpack the role that transnational humanitarian NGOs play in contemporary systems of governance and highlight how they contribute, through their visual production, to the securitization of the refugee issue, it is important to introduce the notions of humanitarianism, global governance, and securitization. Also, since NGOs do not operate in a vacuum but within a highly competitive media environment, it is equally important to reflect on the ways in which humanitarian ideals are translated into their communication strategies and how these fit within the larger communication landscape. This chapter presents the literature and the theoretical framework on which this book is based.

Introduction

Abstract“How do we see refugees? The refugee has become a multifaceted symbol, the most prominent political figure of our time” states the brochure of an art retrospective by Khaled Hourani, a Palestinian artist reflecting on the reduction of refugees to abstract symbols of victimhood by humanitarian representations. In the eyes of the artist, the blue figure (Fig. 1.1), so common in relief organizations´ visual depictions, is the migrating human being, without a specific national, religious, ethnic, or gender identity. Yet, the visual landscape of contemporary displacement is anything but abstract. Images of overcrowded boats in the Mediterranean, refugee camps, improvised shelters along migration routes, children and families in need, and people stranded behind fences and walls have come to constitute a powerful reminder of contemporary conditions of displacement for people on the move. Yet, the question remains: how do we see refugees?

Conclusion

The investigation of the four relief agencies’ organizational models – undertaken by combining analysis of websites, strategic documents and policy guidelines with fieldwork and interviews with NGO staffers – has shown the different ways in which each organization works. Exploration of the different sectors of intervention has highlighted the different roles NGOs want to have not only in the lives of their beneficiaries but more generally in the governance system of their communities. As illustrated in Chap. 10.1007/978-3-030-71143-6_5, the spectrum of activities is quite wide. Save the Children focuses on education and child protection (mainly through psychosocial support) complementary advocacy to secure policy change to enable a better world for children; Oxfam prioritizes ‘giving voice’ to the voiceless, water and sanitation, psychosocial support, legal counselling, combined also with a vigorous advocacy and influencing program to create lasting solutions to injustice and poverty. CARE has a similar focus on voice and empowerment especially for women and girls. Its gender transformative approach informs its work on protection, responses to gender-based violence) distribution of relief items, and, to a lesser extent, water and sanitation. As with Save the Children and Oxfam, CARE sets store by advocacy for policy reforms to end poverty and gender inequality. For its part, MSF operations focused on medical assistance, ranging from primary health care, surgery, mental health and psychosocial support, and medical evacuation. For MSF, belief in the power of témoignage has driven denunciations of those who hinder humanitarian action or divert aid and also critique of the wider disfunctionalities of the humanitarian system itself.

Humanitarian NGOs and Global Governance: One, No One and One Hundred Thousand Humanitarian NGOs

To understand the role that NGOs’ representation of Syrian displacement plays in global governance before getting into the visual analysis it is important reflect upon the aspirations of emergency organizations. How do relief agencies intend, perceive and present their role to the public? Are they interested in participating or influencing global governance? Do they consider their role as promoters of universal values or technical agents performing a specific task? Answering these questions is important to unpack their distinctiveness and the different ways in which different NGOs conceive and perform their mission in the international arena. In this sense, it is extremely interesting to look at how relief organizations accommodate their humanitarian role and the humanitarian principles within contexts that are inescapably highly political (e.g., situations of violence, displacement, political contestation or belligerent occupation). Not only do NGOs work within a complex web of political interests, international relations and systems of power, but, for better or worse, their humanitarian and advocacy actions have practical political implications. The investigation of how different organizations negotiate their relationship with politics allows us to better understand where each positions itself within the heated debate around the interrelations of humanitarianism and politics discussed in the first chapter.

Threatened, the Refugee as the Referent Object

Since its inception, humanitarian communication has consistently represented beneficiaries as referent objects of a threat, as threatened. Images of victims, whether in the traditional representation of a sea of humanity’ (Malkki 1996) or in the more recent aesthetic style of the individual portrait, have consistently constituted the large bulk of humanitarian NGOs’ visual production. This chapter focuses on the representation of Syrian refugees as ‘threatened’ to show how this depiction of refugees is just another form of securitization, whereby Syrians are depicted as infantilized and passive victims in need of external intervention. In order to do so, it is worthwhile digressing to understand how remarkable have been the structural changes that humanitarianism has undergone over the last quarter century and how new relief assistance’ modalities, while seeking to putting individuals and their rights center stage have also primarily represented them in terms of victimhood.

The (In)Visibility of Migrants

Bruno Catalano’s sculpture Voyageurs brilliantly catches an impalpable, yet pervasive, feature of refugees’ representation: their invisibility. This may seem an oxymoron but throughout my visual analysis, and while looking for what was represented in the images studied, I have been struck by what is not there. Susan Sontag has defined photography as “grammar and, even more importantly, an ethics of seeing!” (Sontag 1973, 1). If Sontag is right when she affirms that photography makes things represented worth being seen, we may be led to think that, on the contrary, what is not photographed is not worth seeing. On this arbitrary decision over presence and absence, visibility and invisibility, hinges a very important dimension of the power of photography.