15,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Sprache: Englisch
The migration crisis of recent years has elicited a double response: on the one hand, many states have responded by tightening border controls, in an attempt to restrict population movements, while on the other hand many citizens have responded by welcoming new arrivals, offering them shelter, food and whatever help they could provide. By so doing, they have re-awakened an old form of anthropology that was long-considered to be dead - that of hospitality. In this book, Agier develops an original anthropology of hospitality that starts from the reality of hospitality as a social relationship, albeit an asymmetrical one, in which each party has rights and duties. He argues that, with the decline of state and religious support, hospitality is now making a comeback at individual and municipal levels but these local initiatives, while important, are insufficient to respond to the scale of migration in the world today. We need a new hospitality policy for the modern era, one that will regard hospitality as a right rather than a favour and will treat the stranger as a guest rather than as an alien or an enemy. This timely and original book will be of great interest to students and scholars in anthropology, sociology and the social sciences generally, and to anyone concerned with migration and refugees in the world today.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 226
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2021
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
Title Page
Copyright Page
Acknowledgements
Introduction: Hospitality When Least Expected
Notes
1 Making the Stranger My Guest
The conditions of unconditionality
The elementary forms of hospitality
From domestic hospitality to public hospitality
Notes
2 Hospitality: The Challenge of the Present
Encounters of a new type
Hospitality: causes and effects
The emergence of municipal hospitality
From ghetto to migrant houses
Hospitable municipality versus hostile state
Notes
3 The Need for Cosmopolitics
Cosmopolitanism today
The principle of hospitality and cosmopolitics from a philosophical perspective
Banal cosmopolitanism: an anthropological point of view
Notes
4 Becoming a Stranger
The death of Stavros or the birth of Joe Arness
Three times a stranger
The migrant poet and the spectre of the alien
Notes
Conclusion
Notes
Postscript: The Stranger after Covid-19
Note
Index
End User License Agreement
Guide
Cover
Table of Contents
Begin Reading
Pages
iii
iv
vii
viii
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
128
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
129
130
131
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
132
133
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
134
135
136
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
137
117
118
119
120
121
122
138
123
124
125
126
127
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
The Stranger as My Guest
A Critical Anthropology of Hospitality
Michel Agier
Translated by Helen Morrison
polity
Copyright Page
Originally published in French as L’étranger qui vient. Repenser l’hospitalité © Éditions du Seuil, 2018
This English edition © 2021 by Polity Press
Polity Press
65 Bridge Street
Cambridge CB2 1UR, UK
Polity Press
101 Station Landing
Suite 300
Medford, MA 02155, USA
All rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purpose of criticism and review, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.
ISBN-13: 978-1-5095-3988-8- hardback
ISBN-13: 978-1-5095-3989-5- paperback
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Agier, Michel, 1953- author. | Morrison, Helen (Langauge translator), translator.
Title: The stranger as my guest : a critical anthropology of hospitality / Michel Agier ; translated by Helen Morrison.
Other titles: Étranger qui vient. English
Description: Cambridge, UK ; Medford, MA, USA : Polity Press, 2021. | “Originally published in French as L’étranger qui vient. Repenser l’hospitalité, Edition du Seuil, 2018 .” | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Summary: “A well-argued case for a new hospitality policy that welcomes foreigners as guests rather than treating them as aliens or enemies”-- Provided by publisher.
Identifiers: LCCN 2020028924 (print) | LCCN 2020028925 (ebook) | ISBN 9781509539888 (hardback) | ISBN 9781509539895 (paperback) | ISBN 9781509539901 (epub) | ISBN 9781509544929 (adobe pdf)
Subjects: LCSH: Hospitality. | Immigrants--Government policy. | Refugees--Government policy. | Emigration and immigration--Social aspects. | Strangers.
Classification: LCC GT3410 .A4313 2021 (print) | LCC GT3410 (ebook) | DDC 395.3--dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020028924
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020028925
by Fakenham Prepress Solutions, Fakenham, Norfolk NR21 8NL
The publisher has used its best endeavours to ensure that the URLs for external websites referred to in this book are correct and active at the time of going to press. However, the publisher has no responsibility for the websites and can make no guarantee that a site will remain live or that the content is or will remain appropriate.
Every effort has been made to trace all copyright holders, but if any have been overlooked the publisher will be pleased to include any necessary credits in any subsequent reprint or edition.
For further information on Polity, visit our website: politybooks.com
Acknowledgements
This essay is the result of various encounters. I would like to thank Patrick Boucheron and Alain Prochiantz for inviting me to take part in the symposium ‘Migrations, asile, exil’ (‘Migration, Asylum, Exile’) held at the Collège de France in November 2016, where my ideas on the social form and the politics of hospitality began to take shape. Cyrille Hanappe and the whole team at Actes & Cité invited me to participate in their project on ‘La Ville accueillante’ (‘The Welcoming City’) organised by PUCA (Plan Urbanisme Construction Architecture) and by Ville de Grand-Synthe, thereby allowing me to discover the practical issues around municipal hospitality. My thanks to the whole team. Alain Policar offered me the opportunity to explore cosmopolitanism, in the company of a range of philosophers, for an issue (201) of the journal Raison Présente for 2017 and for a symposium on the same subject, ‘Cosmopolitisme ou barbarie?’ (‘Cosmopolitanism or Barbarity?’) (Cevipof/Sciences Po, June 2018): I am deeply grateful to him. Reflections on the theme of becoming a stranger and cinematographic representations of the subject were presented at the Festival des 3 Continents/Cinémas d’Afrique, d’Amérique Latine et d’Asie (Nantes, October 2017). My thanks go in particular to Claire Allouche, the programme planner, and to Jêrôme Baron, the artistic director, for their invitation.
This essay is based on discussions held in the context of the Babels research programme (Agence nationale de la recherche, 2016–19): our focus was on what has been referred to as ‘the migration crisis’, and we drew on research conducted in the field, largely open workshops, and short essays published by Éditions du passage clandestine in the series ‘Bibliothèque des frontières’, which I codirect with Stefan Le Courant. I would like to thank the forty or so researchers, students, and representatives from the voluntary sector who together made up the Babels collective from which I drew the inspiration and the enthusiasm for this book. Finally, it was in the context of my course ‘Anthropologies de l’hospitalité’ (‘Anthropologies of Hospitality’), held at the École des hautes études en sciences sociales during the years 2016/17 and 2017/18, that the overall concept for this book gradually emerged. I thank the many people who participated in such a lively manner, and to my colleagues who brought us their own insight.
Finally, I would like to thank Bruno Auerbach at Éditions du Seuil for his attentive and perceptive reading of the French manuscript.
IntroductionHospitality When Least Expected
Since the stranger who is my guest, the one arriving now, is by definition an outsider, someone who has literally come from outside, there is always the risk that, in that first glimpse, no matter how distant or indistinct that person’s silhouette appears, he or she will be seen as an intruder by the people who witness that arrival, even though this would not be the stranger’s own perception. Hospitality represents a response to this ambiguity, to the doubts and uncertainties that stem from it. It is the moment where a single gesture can transform the stranger into a guest, even if he or she still continues to be a stranger to some extent, and therefore continues to embody certain elements of the intruder. It is through the various manifestations and experiences of this practice of hospitality (still to be defined in the details of its implementation, its impact and its limitations) that each individual gradually forms their own conception of the stranger, of the different rules and regimes and of the extent of their strangeness, and therefore of the relationship that can be forged with him or her, both during and beyond the initial gesture of hospitality. Whatever its limitations in time and space, this ‘space–time’ of hospitality is a vital element in determining the nature of the ensuing relationship.
The observations made by the philosopher Jean-Luc Nancy on the intruder as a foreign body that is ‘grafted’ onto and into my own body provide the most concrete and comprehensive starting point from which to approach the problem, along with some ideas for its eventual solution:
Something of the stranger has to intrude, or else he loses his strangeness. If he already has the right to enter and stay, if he is awaited and received, no part of him being unexpected or unwelcome, then he is not an intruder any more, but then neither is he any longer a stranger. To exclude all intrusiveness from the stranger’s coming is therefore neither logically acceptable nor ethically admissible.
If, once he is there, he remains a stranger, then for as long as this remains so […] his coming does not stop: he continues to come and his coming does not stop intruding in some way […] a disturbance, a trouble in the midst of intimacy.
We have to think this through, and therefore to put it into practice: the strangeness of the stranger would otherwise be reabsorbed – would be an issue no longer – before he even crossed the threshold. To welcome a stranger, moreover, is necessarily to experience his intrusion. For the most part, we would rather not admit this […] This moral correctness presupposes that, upon receiving the stranger, we efface his strangeness at the threshold: it aims thereby not to have received him at all. But the stranger insists and intrudes. This fact is hard to receive and perhaps to conceive.1
The sense of intrusion that Nancy is trying to capture here emerges in the context of a highly complex heart transplant operation, followed by a raft of complications over a period of many years. The philosopher has drawn on this experience to produce a powerful work on identity and the stranger, on what is ours and what is different, on the inside and the outside that will be useful here (although any substantial analogies should be avoided). Let us see how this works.
The two concepts of guest and of stranger must not be confused if we wish to be able to describe, according to the anthropological tradition, what is meant by making the stranger a guest (‘[i]f he already has the right to enter and stay, if he is awaited and received, no part of him being unexpected or unwelcome’, then ‘he is not an intruder any more’). This also means that, for us, hospitality represents a test (‘[t]o welcome a stranger, moreover, is necessarily to experience his intrusion’). It is not a matter of behaving as though the stranger were not a stranger, so that ‘we efface his strangeness at the threshold’. It is, on the contrary, a matter of acknowledging, on the basis of the sense of intrusion experienced, the very political dimension of hospitality, which involved making the decision to offer the stranger a welcome. It is a solution to a potential conflict (hostility towards intrusion), but a temporary solution, which has a beginning and an end. For, ‘[i]f, once he is there, he remains a stranger, then for as long as this remains so […] his coming does not stop’, nor will it stop being ‘a disturbance, a trouble in the midst of intimacy’. We need therefore to step outside the space and time accorded to hospitality. Later, after many years – as Nancy tells us, speaking of the foreign body that was transplanted into his own and enabled him to live longer – the intruder ceases to be an intruder, but I myself have changed, I am both the same and another.
It is this combination of paradoxes, of tensions and ambiguities that is revealed by the gestures and the efforts made all over Europe, in the name of hospitality, in the face of what has been called ‘the migrant crisis’, which I identify as being, more fundamentally, a crisis of the nation states in response to the challenges posed by increased mobility.
From the year 2000 onwards, and especially since 2015, the majority of European countries have seen a divergence between national governments and some of their citizens on the subject of the welcome extended to migrants and refugees. On the one hand, governments have sought to demonstrate a certain protectiveness towards their citizens by portraying migrants as a threat to the security and identity of their countries, reviving a symbolic theme highlighted a few years ago by the American philosopher Wendy Brown2 – namely that of the strong (and masculine) state protecting the fragile (feminine) nation… Walls, expulsions, mass checks, a dissuasive police presence, all intended to reassure nervous inhabitants, and they were ready to give up some of their own freedom when confronted with the spectre of the dangerous stranger, who would thus be kept at a distance. In France in particular, the lack of enthusiasm or expertise demonstrated by government authorities in providing a dignified and peaceful welcome to migrants and refugees and the confusion provoked by the arrival of migrants to Paris, Ventimiglia or Calais – admittedly on a large, though by no means overwhelming or catastrophic scale – seem to have been both a response to, and a way of nurturing, a widely felt anxiety of the sort most clearly expressed by parties of the extreme right. In accordance with the supposed expectation of the population at large, there was a clear need to demonstrate all possible reticence and distrust towards the intruder, which meant not providing shelters, reassurance or food, all of which could have been made available, from a material and economic standpoint, without any special difficulty. And yet this same attitude provoked another section of the population to act in precisely the opposite manner. Some people felt deeply concerned by the state of the world and by the hostility displayed by their governments towards certain strangers (comments made by certain elites and images of neglect or of police violence). These people wanted to take action rather than remain indifferent, to show solidarity to the peoples or individuals in danger, the ones they were seeing arriving in their immediate neighbourhood, coming across their mountains, onto their coasts, into their streets. As a result, it has become possible – and by no means uncommon – to join forces and criticise states from a standpoint of hospitality, at a societal, community-based or micro-local level. This politicization of hospitality is, as we shall see, an alternative way of defining the ‘politics’ of hospitality and of understanding the contemporary meaning of a practice at once ancient and constantly transforming.
The entire history of hospitality demonstrates that, through a gradual process, the responsibility – on a family, community, or local level – for the duties of hospitality has been distanced from society and instead delegated, and at the same time diluted, within the functions of the state. That responsibility has been replaced by the rights of asylum seekers or refugees. Subsequently these rights have themselves ended up being diluted in the politics of control over borders, territories and movement and are now so far removed from any general principle of hospitality that they have become virtually unrecognisable. This is what lies behind the ‘resurgence’ of hospitality that, in what might be described as a complete reversal of direction, goes from politics to society and from the latter to the private, domestic world.
So how do we go about rethinking hospitality in this new context? In order to grasp both what has been lost and what is now emerging, to understand the meaning of actions carried out in the name of hospitality associated with solidarity and politics, it is important to understand hospitality, in its current form, against the background of how it has long been portrayed by history and anthropology. We need to begin with a critical examination of the notion of ‘unconditional hospitality’ advocated notably by Jacques Derrida in the mid-1990s. Not that I fail to acknowledge the scale and the power of what, in the context of public debates, this strong injunction (‘unconditional welcome’) represents, but the conditions in which this ‘unconditional’ law is formulated and the impact it has, both on the host societies and on those to whom welcome is extended, need clarification.
Even though hospitality implies provisionally giving up some share of what by rights belongs to the host for the benefit of the guest (space, time, money, goods), we will need to identify the limits, both social and political, of this voluntary and unbalanced relationship, particularly when it is offered on an individual or local scale. What are these limits? Is it possible, desirable, and enough to make the stranger my guest in a world that is theoretically open and globalised but that, where human rights are concerned, remains closely tied to the national context? What impact can such a principle have in the light of the crisis faced by states confronted with contemporary migrations? A shift of focus from the standpoint of a local resident, citizen of a given national territory, who is offering welcome towards that of the individual who arrives, remains for a time, then stays or moves on – will lead us into a philosophical domain that is already rich, albeit still poor from a political point of view: that of cosmopolitan life.
Finally, a consideration of hospitality within a global context will logically take us to the central role occupied today by the ‘stranger’ – the one who becomes the guest within the relationship established by hospitality, the one who disappears as that absolute other, nameless, unreal and dehumanised (an alien) in the geopolitics of contemporary crises, or the one who arrives at my door today or tomorrow and who embodies the most ordinary, widespread and universal condition of the contemporary world. We will need therefore to rethink together the three principles of mobility (the outsider), of otherness (the stranger) and of belonging (the foreigner) in order to reflect on the stranger who is in all of us, to a greater or lesser degree; and, by doing so, we will place ourselves in a better position to understand our proximity to the radical, absolute and dehumanised stranger (alien) who is embodied in the other, but who, in a different historical context, could just as easily be myself.
The stranger who arrives at my door is the one who is there now, in my street, outside my house, the one I cannot leave to die of hunger or of cold without intervening in some way.
The stranger who arrives at my door is also a reference to this condition, increasingly widespread throughout the world, which means that we live in more than one society, in more than one culture, and which requires us to think differently about societies, cultures and each person’s place within the world.
A final word before embarking on this journey, whose purpose is to explore and link theories and fields, philosophy and anthropology. Hospitality is an agreeable subject, and one on which a consensus is generally reached. For me, there are two reasons for this. The first is that we feel better about ourselves when we are able to see ourselves as welcoming and generous. The second is that hospitality calls on concepts of integration and focuses on an exchange of gift and counter-gift, of relationships and shared experiences. It is therefore a concept worth thinking about, yet one that it is difficult to put into practice. It is ‘elusive’, wrote René Schérer in 1993, in a text as erudite as it is flamboyant and indispensable to any consideration of hospitality; it ‘slips from our grasp as soon as we try to restrict it to a single form, to capture it in an unequivocal sense. It is private and public, present and absent, welcoming and hypocritical; it takes many different forms and often appears precisely where it is least expected’.3 For a more accurate portrayal, it should therefore be described in more concrete terms, whereupon it would inevitably transpire to be less beautiful, less kind, less consensual perhaps. But a discussion of the practice and politics that go under the name of hospitality might well lead us to implement concepts and conceptions of a better life for everyone, a peaceful life, and a life that is more egalitarian on the world scale. That would already take hospitality to another level.
Notes
1
J.-L. Nancy, ‘The Intruder’, in J.-L. Nancy,
Corpus
. New York: Fordham University Press, 2008, pp. 161–2.
2
W. Brown,
Walled States, Waning Sovereignty
. New York: Zone Books, 2010.
3
R. Schérer,
Zeus hospitalier: Éloge de l’hospitalité
. Paris: La Table Ronde, 2005, p. 19.
1Making the Stranger My Guest
If, in recent years, the notion of hospitality has reappeared in social debate in the context of the social sciences, and in particular of anthropology, it is because it is perceived to be in short supply. An ancient concept makes a comeback, but in an implicit form, as a question or as a protest triggered by the panic of European governments faced with the sudden surge in migrant numbers in 2015, then with the agreements between Europe and Turkey in March 2016 or between Italy and Libya in February 2017. These agreements were drawn up in order to keep out migrants, and even potentially those with legal status as ‘refugees’, as in the case of the Syrians or Eritreans who were turned away from European borders before any asylum applications could be made. The word of the law must be applied, and the law, insofar as it has stamped its name on what had previously been the subject of political debates and decisions, reminds us that its decrees could always take a different direction. For it is as a direct result of the law and of what it fails to address that citizens all across Europe, out of a sense of obligation and a conviction that they were in the right, have found themselves thinking and acting in ways that are often at odds with or in the place of the state.
As a result, examples of hospitality have re-emerged here and there, in a spontaneous, if slightly haphazard and ill-defined form. Some people have taken it upon themselves to welcome migrants into their homes without paying any attention to their legal status, thus transforming their gesture into an act of civil disobedience or, in the case of France, into a ‘crime of solidarity’ with attendant legal consequences.1 The threat of sanctions destabilizes the apparent consensus surrounding hospitality, which is generally extolled as a virtue. Between morality and politics, between the implementation in a domestic context of personal convictions regardless of their broader significance and the championing of a welcoming and open society, the notion of hospitality conjures up all sorts of more or less coherent interpretations and a raft of different issues. As long as hospitality remains no more than a word and an abstraction, all is well. In reality, anthropologists and sociologists see more dissensus than consensus on the subject within their specific fields.
A first form of dissensus will involve us in a re-examination of the notion of unconditional hospitality. Of course, the words ‘condition’ and ‘unconditional’ have two possible meanings. In the first interpretation, I welcome you without condition, in other words without knowing who you are or where you come from, simply because your situation demands such an approach: this is the sense of the recurrent controversy that exists in France on the subject of unconditional access to medical treatment or to accommodation for the most vulnerable. ‘Unconditional’, this humanitarian or compassionate cause logically requires the other to be vulnerable before aid can be offered. In the second interpretation, I welcome you regardless of any conditions, that is, regardless of the contexts, places, systems, laws, and so on in which that welcome takes place: this is the sense of an ethical injunction, one that is decontextualized, deliberately freed from any dependence on place, one that exists by itself and is therefore sacred – a position defended in particular by the French philosopher Jacques Derrida.
We need in the first instance to examine and, if possible, to resolve this moral and political issue of unconditionality before we can attempt to understand in any detail the anthropological relationship that links the two sides, the one extending welcome and the one welcomed and that, in fact, turns out to be … anything but unconditional. We will need therefore to look in detail at the conditions in which hospitality takes place and at its practical manifestations, whether it be in a domestic context (in my home), in the context of the close community (in my social group), or in that of the wider community (in my village, in my town).
The conditions of unconditionality
The claim that hospitality should be ‘without conditions’, that it should be imposed on everybody as a ‘superior law’ implies a definition of the stranger as an absolute entity, self-contained – in other words, sacred. In the 1990s, in order to oppose the stance taken by the current European policies on migration, Derrida drew inspiration from the traditions of ancient Greece, which allowed him to set out and to reiterate the duty of hospitality, taken in an absolute, pure, or infinite sense, with regard to the other, conceived of as equally absolute, unknown, anonymous – to use some of the adjectives chosen by the philosopher.2 Many today vie with each other to invoke this ‘duty of hospitality’ as a fundamental truth without its being clear to whom exactly this exhortation is addressed. Is it meant for ‘us’, the citizens of Europe? Our governments? Our public institutions? All those countries where migrants arrive? Nor is there any consensus over the forms it is supposed to take – private or domestic, public, ‘political’? And, in order to be really sure that this ‘duty’ is indeed self-evident, would it not make sense for such a ‘superior law’ to be set out in law? All these are matters worthy of clarification.
