A Phantom Menace and The New Apartheid' The Social

See
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249713057
`A Phantom Menace and the New Apartheid':

The Social Construction of Asylum-Seekers in
the United Kingdom
Article in Discourse and Society July 2003
Impact Factor: 1.41 DOI: 10.1177/0957926503014004002
CITATIONS
READS
136
653
2 authors:
Nick Lynn
Susan J Lea
7 PUBLICATIONS 163 CITATIONS
King's College London
SEE PROFILE
30 PUBLICATIONS 681 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE
All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.
Available from: Nick Lynn

Retrieved on: 30 June 2016
Discourse & Society

http://das.sagepub.com
`A Phantom Menace and the New Apartheid': The Social Construction of Asylum-Seekers in the
United Kingdom
Nick Lynn and Susan Lea
Discourse Society 2003; 14; 425
DOI: 10.1177/0957926503014004002
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://das.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/4/425
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Discourse & Society can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://das.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://das.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations (this article cites 15 articles hosted on the
SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):
http://das.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/14/4/425
Downloaded from http://das.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on March 7, 2008

2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
A RT I C L E
425
A phantom menace and the new

Apartheid: the social construction of
asylum-seekers in the United Kingdom
N I C K LY N N A N D S U S A N L E A
U N I V E R S I T Y O F P LY M O U T H
Discourse & Society

Copyright 2003
SAGE Publications
(London, Thousand Oaks,
CA and New Delhi)
www.sagepublications.com
Vol 14(4): 425452
[0957-9265
(200307) 14:4;
425452; 033393]
A B S T R A C T . A succession of well-publicized incidents in Britain, and

elsewhere, has highlighted the dilemma of refugees and seekers of asylum. A
number of desperate human tragedies allied to some very dubious institutional
practices and decisions have been a cause for concern. Drawing upon that vast
corpus of information we call common knowledge, together with other more
exclusive sources of knowledge, British national newspapers and their readers,
among others, are involved in the social construction of asylum-seekers. Ideas
of citizenship, identity and Nation-hood are employed within a variety of
discursive and rhetorical strategies that form part of an elite discourse, one
that contributes to a new Apartheid. This article presents a discursive and
rhetorical analysis of letters written to British national newspapers by
members of the public. Asylum-seekers find themselves [re]positioned and
contrasted with a variety of other social groups in such a way as to justify
disregarding some of the central tenets of British democracy. Dissenting voices
and a counter discourse are evident although very much a minority. It is
argued that applied discursive work is necessary to bolster resistance and
deconstruct the new Apartheid.
KEY WORDS:
asylum-seekers, discourse, new Apartheid, refugees, resistance,
rhetoric
Britain has a long history of providing sanctuary to refugees and those in search
of asylum (Bloch, 1999; Holmes, 1991). Over time, attitudes towards those seeking asylum here have varied, as has the reception that has been given to them.
This article examines the social construction of asylum-seekers1 as they are currently [re]presented. A social constructionist view recognizes that everyday life
consists of social processes (Burr, 1995). The ideologies, opinions and attitudes
that constitute these social processes may be seen to be argumentative. They are
subjective, and at times, contradictory. Dilemmas and choices of all kinds abound;
view and counter-view exist to be defended or rebutted in a variety of ways. The
dialogical process that takes place ensures that these ideologies and opinions

426
Discourse & Society 14(4)
continually shift and alter (Bakhtin, 1981; Billig, 1991; Billig et al., 1988;
Myerson, 1994). Although it is the case that some have greater influence than
others, there is no single agent to which these changes or shifts in attitude and
ideology may be attributed. Making sense of the attitudes that currently prevail
requires an awareness and understanding of the wider discursive context within
which refugees and those regarded as asylum-seekers find themselves situated: for
a social constructionist perspective also acknowledges that understanding is both
historically and culturally specific.
During the last 50 years, it has been suggested that Britain has been in a
period of post-colonial decline (Hall, 1978). Those elements that have, until
now, comprised a United Kingdom are becoming increasingly separate.
Consequently, there has been a reaffirmation of national identity (Gilroy, 1993),
a revival in the concept of place. These ideas seek to establish a mystical bond
between a particular people and a particular location (Jackson and Penrose,
1993: 12). Such ideas are not new of course; they have always been at the heart
of Nationalism, Nationhood, or the Nation-State (Billig, 1995).
This contemporary reawakening of national identity together with ideas of
the Nation-State places an emphasis on geographically specific and bounded territory. An elaborate historical narrative accompanies this; one which is peopled
with heroic figures and dramatic events. A common heritage is gradually
evolved (Sarup, 1996: 18). As Scotland is the land of William Wallace or Robert
the Bruce; so England continues to be imagined as King Arthurs Isle or William
Blakes green and pleasant land (Sibley, 1997: 219); a metaphorical, if not a
genealogical link to those true inhabitants is established (Fenton, 1999).
Alongside these ideas, and particularly throughout the latter half of the
1990s, there has been a revived political and media interest in the number of
refugees coming to Britain. Indeed, the Conservative opposition sought to make
refugees and asylum-seekers a central issue throughout the general election
campaign of 2001. Conservative electioneering, sensationalist media reports and
several genuinely desperate human tragedies, have all encouraged the view that
a host of migrants were and still are, laying siege to British coastal ports.
Predominantly negative portrayals have presented asylum-seekers as a threat to
the stability of society: a challenge to British cultural distinctiveness and therefore, by implication, a serious social problem. A primary concern among
those who promote this view appears to be the ethnic origin of the people
coming here specifically their non-whiteness (Said, 1985). This is the rhetoric of an ideology that has been a part of British politics before (Rex and
Tomlinson, 1979). Although the ideology has remained, in essence, unchanged;
the rhetoric that accompanies it has altered. Prejudice and racism have become
social taboos, not to be mentioned (Balibar, 1991; Barker, 1981; Obeng, 1997;
Rapley, 1998; Reeves, 1983; Verkuyten et al., 1995). Ideology itself is something
of an elusive concept (McLellan, 1986). It is understood here, as a tangible lived
experience rather than an intellectual one; rooted in social mechanisms and
practices (Althusser, 1971; Burr, 1995). More than this, ideology may be viewed

Lynn and Lea: Social construction of asylum-seekers
as dilemmatic (Billig et al., 1988) in that ideas, opinions and ideologies contain
within them opposing or counter views (Billig et al., 1988; Burr, 1995). Finally,
ideology may be seen as knowledge in the service of power (Burr, 1995: 82),
allowing those groups with greater social power to maintain that position.
Focusing on ethnic origin or other differences develops an awareness of self,
which in turn cultivates an awareness of Other. It encourages a sense of identity; of us and them (Bakhtin, 1981; Foucault, 1967; Gergen, 1999; Riggins,
1997; Said, 1985; Sarup, 1996). Identity is neither singular nor permanent; we
may have several contradictory selves (Billig, 1991). These may be determined
or reinforced through different social institutions or social situations.
Zimmerman (1998: 91) stresses that: Parties to an interaction may recognize at
some level that they and their co-interactants can be classified in particular
ways. Most importantly perhaps, identity construction is increasingly dependent upon images (Sarup, 1996: xv; also Barthes, 1957). In this way, identity may
be initially determined or questioned by reference to ones appearance. More
than the granting of citizenship, acceptance into society, appears to depend upon
how closely prospective candidates resemble the image the stereotype of the
true inhabitant. Consequently, non-whiteness becomes a tangible barrier to
acceptance (Bhabba, 1994; Said, 1993). For some it challenges what it means to
be British or English. The making of a Nation requires the making of immigration policy (Smith, 1993). Strict border controls exclude. The granting of citizenship, whilst it celebrates membership and inclusion, also reaffirms exclusion
(Cook, 1993). Invoking the power of the Law legitimizes the means by which
inclusion and exclusion takes place. Transgressors find themselves criminalized
and stigmatized (Cook, 1993; Van Dijk, 1996). These measures provide a cogent
means to sustain a common heritage fostering an identity within.
In characterizing a British national identity a heavy reliance is placed upon
the concept of Englishness. To be English is not to be British (Angier, 1992).
Only in certain circumstances do the two become one. Such an abstract and
intangible notion as Englishness is frequently represented by way of metaphor
and analogy: the game of cricket, the ritual of afternoon tea, or the stiff upper
lip. The English are distinct from the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish. Englishness
is about language, class and a social hierarchy; above all, it is about cultural superiority (Holmes, 1991; McDonald and Uqra, 1999; Cohen, 1994; Sarup, 1996). It
is in times of crisis or triumph, when geographical or territorial boundaries are
breached and an Other is confronted or threatens, that a collective identity a
British identity is invoked: those characteristics that signify Englishness are
then transposed (Billig, 1995). What Cohen (1994: 7) terms the fuzzy frontiers
of national identity may remain just that when visible differences are minimal
and geography is shared. However, that fuzziness is soon pulled into sharper focus
when it relates to those from with-out; be they Muslim or Hindu; Arab or Asian;
immigrant or asylum-seeker (Bloch, 1999; Cohen, 1994; Fenton, 1999). The
language of culture and nation is then used to invoke a hidden racial narrative
(Barker, 1981; Verkuyten, 2001).

427
428
As knowledge and understanding are social processes (Billig, 1991; Billig et

al., 1988; Burr, 1995); ways of thinking and behaving are transmitted through
social institutions, cultural traditions and day-to-day interactions between individuals and groups. These quickly become part of everyday life; taken-forgranted; internalized as truth or fact; passed into the realm of common
knowledge (Burr, 1995). Principal amongst those institutions that construct and
dispense such knowledge is the media (Fowler, 1991; Hall, 1978; Van Dijk,
1991). The different versions of the world that the media provides are inherently
rhetorical; the assumption is made that society is consensual in its view
(Negrine, 1991). Entertainment, information and persuasion are their business.
With access to a wide and mostly unrestricted social audience, the media is a very
potent social force (Fowler, 1991). The consensual view it promotes is one that
corresponds, or so it is argued, to those values and ideas that maintain the status
quo. As a consequence the dominance of certain groups is maintained (Hechter,
1975; Negrine, 1991; Van Dijk, 1991, 1997a). It should be remembered that
such an intention, if indeed it is an intention, is not the prerogative of the media
alone. A variety of other powerful elites may have the same charge levelled
against them (Michels, 1911; Wright-Mills, 1959). Nevertheless, the media is the
thread that binds the issues the discourses surrounding refugees and seekers
of asylum together. In the production and construction of particular forms of
knowledge, the media has a pivotal role.
Images are at the heart of the contemporary media and a favourable or
acceptable appearance counts for much. In defining and categorizing those who
would be Other; visible difference, ethnicity, religious belief and language
(among other qualities) may all be used. There are no hard and fast rules: categorizations may also be particularizations; they are interchangeable as the rhetorical context determines (Billig, 1987). Identity and Otherness are therefore quite
malleable. Assigning the status refugee, asylum-seeker or illegal, however,
ensures that those so regarded become locked into a cyclic, stereotypical logic as:
. . . all subsequent interpretation of their actions is in terms of the status to which
they have been assigned (Jary and Jary, 1995: 236).
Fowler (1991: 94) reminds us that discourse is an extremely powerful means
by which to facilitate and maintain discrimination against particular groups of
people:
Language provides names for categories and so helps to set their boundaries and
relationships; and discourse allows these names to be spoken and written frequently,
so contributing to the apparent reality and currency of the categories.
For those who come to this country seeking asylum their acceptability as prospective citizens is dependant, in the first instance, upon fulfilling the criteria for entry
laid down by those in authority. Inevitably these definitions are formulated by
politicians, government and legislators. Immigration policy is never static. As political administrations change or economic cycles wax and wane, so immigration
policy is altered (Santa Ana, 1999). War or events such as those of September 11

2001 also change the criteria for entry. Mehans (1997: 267) contention that the
demise of the Cold War has encouraged an inward search for a new enemy
the undocumented immigrant, as a means to discipline the citizenry is equally
relevant. Thiesmeyer (1995: 320) rightly argues that political and legal discourse
. . . holds the agency to affect peoples lives; this is done in such a way as to render
it invisible or natural.
Acceptance as a prospective citizen is also dependent upon another, rather
more informal, but no less influential kind of approval that of the media. Hay
(1996: 261) explains that:
. . . media influence does not reside in the power of direct ideological indoctrination,
but in the ability to frame the discursive context within which political subjectivities
are constituted, reinforced and reconstituted.
Media and state selectivity promotes the idea of preferred immigrants (Hier
and Greenberg, 2002: 507). Although membership of a particular social category is negotiable and can be worked at (Rapley, 1998), non-whiteness allied
to Islamic beliefs conspires to produce a visibly distinct and culturally different
Other that does not sit easily with the image of the true Briton as it exists
within the realm of common knowledge. The differences are perceived as great.
There is much that is unknown or misunderstood; risk is heightened (Verkuyten
et al., 1995). Avoiding this kind of uncertainty and minimizing risk are achieved
by the imposition of order, as a way to sort out disorderly phenomena. Or to
put it another way: identifying a problem and then solving it. This results in the
discursive construction of a crisis (Hier and Greenberg, 2002: 492).
Discourses and interpretative repertoires permeate society, they are experienced by us all irrespective of social position or social power they pervade our
talk (Edwards, 1991). However, access to these discourses is not universal (Burr,
1995). Social status and the degree of social power held are significant factors:
questions of stake or interest play their part. A rhetorical and discursive
approach to the social world highlights the performative nature of language in
constructing the social world around us (Austin, 1962; Burr, 1995). Rhetoric
and discourse also acknowledge the importance of context as being specific to
both time and place (Leach, 2000): people, events and circumstances are of the
moment (Bakhtin, 1981).
Consequently, we argue that such an approach will enable us to deconstruct
the rhetoric surrounding those seeking asylum in Britain. By illuminating the
ideologies which inform those views and allow counter-arguments to be marshalled, fair and just practice may be developed. Specifically, our focus is on the
writing and talk of ordinary, everyday people, rather than those who may be
regarded as having any significant social and political power or influence.
Although the dilemma of stake or interest (Edwards and Potter, 1992) is one to
which we are all susceptible; those with greater social or political power are more
inclined perhaps, to play a political game; with a greater eye to the rhetorical
effect that their talk might have. Everyday talk, however, is the analytical first

429
430
base (Edwards and Potter, 1992: 56). In this article therefore, we ask the question: What is the writing and talk of ordinary, everyday people relating to
asylum-seekers being used to do?
Method
The persuasive power of the media, and specifically the newspapers, to construct
and dispense social knowledge has already been acknowledged (Fowler, 1991;
Hall, 1978; Van Dijk, 1991). Yet, as Morrison and Love (1996) observe, they have
not been the focus of much media discourse analysis. As a source of material for
research, British national newspapers are particularly useful. Easily accessible,
they express and reflect a range of political, social and institutional views and
ideas that are both current and topical. In addition, there is some scope for a
limited degree of interaction and engagement with the readership; newspapers,
like other commercial ventures, need to be responsive to the wants of their
readers (Negrine, 1991). From an ethical perspective, the value of the information and the material contained within newspapers is that it has already
entered the public domain. As such, it is available to be used.
In setting about the research task a range of national newspapers, tabloid and
broadsheet, was collected and read on a daily basis. The sample was drawn from
Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday, Daily Express, The Sun, The Guardian, The
Independent, The Telegraph and The Times. Over a 10-month period (March to
December 2001) all breaking news stories, editorials, features and readers letters
were collected that concerned issues of racism, immigration and asylum. By
January 2002 a large corpus of material (just under 2000 cuttings) had been collected. As might be expected, events dictated reporting around these issues to
some degree. For example, the issue of asylum was part of William Hagues election manifesto and, therefore, reporting on the issue of asylum ascended during
May 2001.
Within the corpus, the collection of readers letters proved particularly interesting for two reasons. First, readers letters constitute a site within which people
may articulate their views in public although it is acknowledged that the editor
still mediates the selection and editing of such letters (Morrison and Love, 1996).
As Richardson (2001: 144) has noted these letters conform to their newspapers
style policies. However, as such, they represent an interesting intersection of
everyday and mediated discourse (Richardson, 2001). Second, letters to newspapers afford us, as analysts, the opportunity to examine how the writer uses
argument to express their opinion or concerns on a sensitive topic whilst protecting the speaker against unwanted [negative] inferences about his or her ethnic
attitudes (Van Dijk, 1997a). Thus, the way in which the letter writers concerns,
stake and accountability are managed provide a fruitful line of analysis.
We decided to focus upon readers letters to the editor attending to the issue of
asylum, as asylum is a tightly focused issue within racism and immigration
debates. These letters comprised those written by members of the general public

and those written by people writing in their professional capacity with a vested
interest in articulating a particular position. Our decision was to focus on the
former category of letters, as people writing in their professional capacity are
explicitly advocating a particular political line and we were more interested in the
commonplaces surrounding asylum as evident in the general public. Owing to
the nature of letters, it was not possible to determine the biographical characteristics of the writers with the exception of gender in some cases. Of those where
the gender of the writer was evident, 62 percent were male and 38 percent were
female. However, it is unclear whether this distribution is typical of this type and
topic of letter writing. The final corpus of eight letters provided a small, manageable body of material with which to work. Although no deliberate effort was
made to ensure a representative mix of letters from tabloid and broadsheet newspapers, the end result was an almost equal split.
The letters were analysed using discourse analysis.2 Although there are
almost as many forms of discourse analysis as there are articles claiming its use,
the form adopted here aims to combine aspects of dominant bottom up and top
down approaches. Thus, we attempt to achieve an evidence-based analysis that
enables clear articulation of the link between individual subjectivity and social
ideology, and which is politically useful.
Various authors inform our discursive approach. First, the bottom up perspective of Potter and Wetherell (1987)3 and Edwards and Potter (1992) usefully
facilitates the presentation of evidence for the analysts assertions, although we
feel that such microsociological work fails to make explicit the ideological implications of talk and text. Here we would agree with Faircloughs (1992) criticism
that their approach is insufficiently developed in its social orientation to discourse. Second, the top down approach of Parker (1992: xi) advocates starting
with a wish to deconstruct power and ideology and examining discourse dynamics in order to achieve that objective. Rooted in Foucauldian discourse analysis,
Parkers approach enables a focus on the ideological. Indeed, he asserts that we
should talk about discourse and power in the same breath (Parker, 1992: 18,
emphasis in the original), but is short on providing evidence for the way in which
discourse is seen to construct relations of power. Third, the ideas of authors such
as Kristeva (1986), Bakhtin (1981), Fairclough (1992) and Billig (1987) draw
attention to the dialogic, intersubjective and intertextual nature of discourse
thereby enabling a dialectic view of subjectivity and ideology. Such a view is
important to us as it sees people as shaped by discursive practices, but also capable
of shaping and therefore structuring those practices. Thus, voices of dissent may
ultimately effect social change. As discourse analysts, our objective is
unashamedly political. Our aim in analysing discourse, and therefore power and
ideology, is to contribute to the challenge to dominant (and often oppressive) discourses thereby opening up spaces for resistance.
Each of the letters was analysed individually. Consideration was given to issues
of function, construction and variation (Potter and Wetherell, 1987), the identification of discourses, and to the rhetorical strategies or discursive features of the

431
432
texts. The letters were then considered together so that recurrent themes, discourses, motifs as well as disparities between the letters might be identified. A
research journal was kept by the first author during the analytic phase of the
research as making public ones interpretative resources and the processes renders the researcher more accountable for the analysis and places the reader of the
research report in a better informed position from which to situate and assess the
research as a whole (Gough and McFadden, 2001: 66). Aspects of Potter and
Wetherells (1987) method of validating the data were employed. In addition, the
letters were made available to the universitys discourse group and the analysis
generated was incorporated into the findings presented here.
Findings
In keeping with the method of discourse analysis advocated in this article, the
findings are presented in terms of discourses that construct particular ideological
positions and relations of power. These discourses are explicated through the
identification of rhetorical strategies that reveal two important facets of discursive work: first, how social identities are manifested in the discourse and second,
how social relations are exercised in and through these identities. Thus, stages in the
analytic process involve the identification of discourses, the examination of rhetorical strategies that work up a particular version of reality or construction of
events, and consideration of the ideological consequences of that construction.
The letters were found to contain both well-documented and new discourses
in their construction of asylum-seekers, and the impact of their immigration
upon the United Kingdom. Thus, a strong distinction between us and them was
present in all the letters, irrespective of the ideological stance taken by the letter
writer. Much excellent work has attended to the construction of otherness (e.g.
Said, 1985, 1993). Hence, the main focus of our analysis is upon the way in
which other and self are further differentiated in these letters, for it is in the discourses that we have termed differentiating the Other and in particular differentiating the Self that some complex yet ideologically powerful discursive work is
accomplished.
DIFFERENTIATING THE OTHER : GENUINE OR BOGUS ?
The existence of the bogus asylum-seeker or economic refugee as a tangible

entity has formed part of common knowledge for some considerable time. Van
Dijk (1997a) points out that the term first appeared around 1985 in relation to
Tamil refugees fleeing from Sri Lanka to Europe. As he goes on to suggest, the
appearance of the economic refugee proved to be a convenient rhetorical strategy by which governments and politicians could justify the enactment of strict,
and in some cases draconian, immigration controls; although these controls are
always couched rather benignly: . . . economic immigration is not restricted so
much because it hurts our interests; on the contrary, it is more persuasive to
construct their immigration as a threat to the interests of genuine refugees

(Van Dijk, 1997a: 45). Assimilated into an elite discourse (Van Dijk, 1993) its
usage is no longer confined to politicians, policy-makers or immigration officials;
the ordinary person-in-the-street is equally fluent with the concept.
The differentiation between bogus and genuine asylum-seekers resonated
throughout our readers letters to the editor, as is demonstrated in the following
extract:
Extract 1
Bad feeling occurs when refugees are housed ahead of homeless British citizens. Noone begrudges genuine refugees a home, but when bogus ones are housed within
weeks and UK citizens, black and white, are left to rot in hostels, it does seem unfair?
(Daily Express, 15 August 2001)
In this extract [taken from Letter 2] an apparent inequality over the way in which
refugees are housed in preference to British citizens is raised as a point of
concern. However, the text is achieving much complex ideological work. A
number of rhetorical strategies are employed here in an attempt to bring off a
position which is critical of asylum-seekers whilst simultaneously seeming reasonable (Billig, 1991). First, the writer makes several assertions that are presented as fact (Edwards and Potter, 1992). S/he declares that refugees are
housed ahead of British citizens. There is no evidence put forward to support this
claim; the expectation being that this is common knowledge; part of a consensual
view.
However, as Billig (1987) has noted, all arguments are constructed in relation
to their counter-argument. Therefore, the writer needs to counter the argument
that such a view may be seen as unreasonable, perhaps even prejudiced. The act
of seeking asylum is, after all, a legitimate activity with a long history. Indeed, the
USA celebrates the fact that theirs is a nation of immigrants (Santa Ana, 1999:
192). Thus, the writer invokes a distinction between genuine and bogus
refugees. Consequently, bad feeling is attributed only to bogus refugees, who
are constructed as the problem. The concept of the bogus refugee or asylumseeker is seamlessly entered into the argumentative process, without explanation
or qualification. Bogusness no longer needs to be explained it just is. Again, the
knowledge is commonplace (Billig, 1991) and as such has entered everyday discourse without question. Hence, we suggest that the concept of the bogus
asylum-seeker is one that has become so naturalized within the UK, that from
an argumentative viewpoint it is perhaps no longer necessary to defend the accusation that many asylum-seekers are not fleeing from oppressive and hostile conditions in their home country.
Rhetorically this common knowledge is both fortuitous and troublesome.
Fortuitous in that the writer relies upon a consensual view to ease the argument
along; thus making it more flowing and less contrived; giving it a naturalness or
an inherent rightness or logic. However, such an easy acceptance such [over]
familiarity with the concept has the drawback of allowing it to lose its persuasive
appeal. Without any further elaboration, such an assertion would have only

433
434
limited impact. A far greater sense of outrage is generated therefore, by illustrating exactly what such a policy means: Bogus ones are housed within weeks and
UK citizens . . . are left to rot in hostels . . . The use of two further rhetorical strategies, rhetorical contrast and extreme case formulation (Pomerantz, 1986), facilitates the construction of outrage: The image of Britons being left to rot in
hostels is clearly intended to stir emotions and to provoke a greater sense of
unfairness and resentment. One is left with the impression that the bureaucratic
system currently in place is discriminatory; worse still, it is skewed towards discriminating against Britons. Being a homeless Briton seems to count for nothing:
the presumption is that it should count for something. This, we are told, explains
why bad feeling, is now the [justifiable] end product of this inequality.
As noted, the distinction between the genuine and the bogus asylum-seeker is
simply asserted and, as such, enters everyday discourse without question. The
Other (asylum-seekers) is differentiated into those asylum-seekers who have a
genuine case and are entitled to various benefits, and those who are bogus and
are not so entitled. Indeed, the invoking of categories and their associated membership entitlements is a powerful rhetorical device (Edwards and Potter, 1992)
that facilitates the development of particular ideological positions. Asylum-seekers and refugees are a group without a home. Having relinquished citizenship of
their previous country to gain citizenship in Britain or the UK, they exist for a
time as non-citizens. If citizenship brings with it certain rights; then noncitizenship seems to imply a lack of them; placing the asylum-seeker or refugee
in a much more vulnerable position. Genuine asylum-seekers appear to earn their
claim to citizenship rights through yet another extreme case formulation
(Pomerantz, 1986) no one begrudges them but the bogus do not. Resentment
is presented as an understandable response to the seemingly unfair scenario that
is now constructed. British or UK citizens are being denied a birth right; a takenfor-granted entitlement that comes with their citizenship (Barnes et al., 2003) as
they are made to defer to those who are bogus. The writer knows these refugees
are bogus the commonplace view tells us so and yet they are still housed
quickly.
Finally, the writer explicitly orients to the notion, alluded to earlier, that moderation has a much greater persuasive appeal; that is, the argument needs to be
made within the bounds of a reasonable prejudice (Billig et al., 1988) if it is to
have credibility. In order, therefore, to defend their account against accusations of
racism, the writer presents a variation of the familiar rhetorical strategy, the disclaimer, Im not racist, but . . . (Hewitt and Stokes, 1975). Here, the disclaimer
takes the form No-one begrudges genuine refugees a home, but . . .. To allay criticism, and reinforce the credentials of the writer as having no racist agenda
(Hewitt and Stokes, 1975), the subtle reminder that UK citizens, black and white
. . . are affected is included. In addition, the framing of this sentence as a rhetorical question rather than a statement constructs the writer as questioning and
open, as willing to engage in further discussion on this topic. Thus, the voice of
moderation is maintained.

In Extract 2, below, the writer of Letter 2 appears to affirm his/her reasonable

position by suggesting that a policy reinforcing equality and fairness should be
considered. Moreover, the writer moves the reader to consider the consequences
of not adopting such a position:
Extract 2
Perhaps a policy for equal housing for all should be considered? This would give racists
no excuse for violence.
(Daily Express, 15 August 2001)
As was the case with the previous extract, a rhetorical question is used to frame
the issue at hand as part of reasoned debate. The use of the word perhaps at the
beginning of this question appears to situate the writer as one who is prepared to
consider alternatives in order to achieve an equitable solution. Indeed, recourse to
the notion of fairness serves to avoid accusations of prejudice or discrimination.
As Billig et al. (1988: 119) observe: . . . to be unprejudiced is to treat all people
equally. However, we know from the previous extract that this writers agenda is
that asylum-seekers, including bogus asylum-seekers, are housed before UK citizens and it is in the final sentence of Extract 2 that this agenda is again betrayed.
The writer asserts that a policy of equal housing for all would give racists no
excuse for violence. What is interesting about this assertion is that it again
appears to be reasonable against racists and against violence. It suggests that
the writer is attempting to find a solution that reduces violence and increases
equality. However, analysis of its construction again reveals a benign racism to lie
behind the gloss of equity and fairness. First, the sentence is formulated as an
extreme case (Pomerantz, 1986) and draws upon particular categorical constructions (Edwards and Potter, 1992). Racists are seen to give voice to their
dissent in relation to asylum-seekers being giving preference in housing waitinglists, not the average person on the street, or the letter writer who eschews a
racist identity through this rhetorical move. Moreover, this group will not just be
disgruntled, but will be moved to violence, an extreme reaction.
Second, an equal housing policy would give such people no excuse for violence. This account of racial violence shifts the blame for such violence away from
the racist and onto the policy-makers, and the asylum-seeker. Racists need an
excuse for violence, they need to be provoked, and unfair policies and those who
benefit from them provide that provocation. Thus, failure on the institutional side
appears to be one of policy or the lack of it, which prompts the writer to call for
the introduction of policy that ensures equal housing for all. However, reading
through both Extracts 1 and 2, blame is also shifted onto the asylum-seekers
themselves. As the writer notes, bad feeling is derived from the housing of bogus
asylum-seekers, in particular, ahead of Britons. Thus, the artifice of the bogus
refugee in avoiding detection ensures that the blame lies with them rather than
failure necessarily on the part of the immigration officials in spotting them.
Whilst some criticism of the government or the immigration authorities is implicit,
it is made less strident by having already shifted most of the blame onto the bogus

435
436
asylum-seeker or refugee for being dishonest in the first place. Asylum-seekers

and bogus asylum-seekers in particular find, as has been pointed out before, that
. . . all subsequent interpretation of their actions is in terms of the status to which
they have been assigned (Jary and Jary, 1995: 236). The strength of the letter
writers argument is reliant upon this being the case. The circularity of the argument is such that the blame for racist behaviour specifically racist violence
does not fall upon the racists themselves. It is shifted onto the refugees; brought
about by their dishonesty, allied to a housing policy that is presented as discriminatory and which refugees manipulate to their advantage. Meanwhile, the reasonableness of the letter writer is maintained through their attempt to distance
themselves from racists as well as through their apparent concern for UK citizens,
both black and white.
In summary, our analysis of this extract, which is typical of our corpus, has
aimed to demonstrate how the writer attempts to achieve a position of moderation and reasonableness through constructing a discourse which differentiates
the Other into those who are genuine and those who are not. The success or
otherwise of this construction is hinged around the writers use of a number of
rhetorical devices including fact construction, the invoking of categories and
categorical entitlements, rhetorical contrast, extreme case formulations, disclaimers, and the formulation of rhetorical questions. However, a second
pervasive discourse dominated our readers letter. Here instead of differentiating
the Other, the Self is differentiated instead.
DIFFERENTIATING THE OTHER : PLAYING SECOND FIDDLE
The discourse we have termed differentiating the self prevailed in the majority of
our letters, in particular those in which the author was opposed to the immigration of asylum-seekers into the UK, or to aspects of their immigration. This discourse revolved around the differentiation of British people into various groups,
and specifically involved those Britons who are commonly regarded as existing on
the margins of society, for example, those who have a disability or are without a
home. By highlighting the plight of members of these groups, this discourse enables
the author to appear to be concerned for the lot of others, while simultaneously
enabling an argument against allowing asylum-seekers into the country.
Extract 3 [Letter 8] is a direct response to a news story that detailed how a large
metropolitan area was withdrawing bus passes for the blind, while maintaining
bus passes for those who come here in search of asylum. As will be seen, typically
marginalized groups provide the impetus for an argument against asylum-seekers.
Extract 3
Blindness is one of the most cruel of afflictions and to stop anything which helps
make life easier for sufferers is disgraceful. Instead of accepting the situation why
dont those asylum seekers in question speak out against a system which sees handicapped British citizens playing second fiddle to them?
(The Sun, 21 April 2002)

In this extract, people with a visual disability are portrayed stereotypically, as sufferers in need of assistance to make life easier; while blindness itself becomes
that most cruel of afflictions. These dramatic figures of speech are used to create
a patronizing, almost Dickensian imagery and sense of shame that is reminiscent
of the unfortunate wretch of many an historical novel they exist in a bleak
world. This is disability in extremis (Pomerantz, 1986): as the writer asserts, these
people are more than disabled, they are handicapped disability is a stigma
(Goffman, 1963). In differentiating the self in this way, a typical feature of
racist talk is being reproduced in an untypical way. Within us and them scenarios positive self-presentations are usually followed by negative other-presentations (Van Dijk et al., 1997). Here, the letter writer, after differentiating the
self , inverts the usual process by depreciating the particularized (Billig, 1987)
group before then engaging in the more usual negative other-presentation. From
a rhetorical viewpoint, presenting the blind as handicapped affords a greater
opportunity to maximize the sense of injustice, and heighten the feelings of animosity generated. Those who would take from them appear all the more heartless.
It is, however, a strategy fraught with risk. The consensual view that the writer
relies upon to assist in the act of persuasion may no longer exist, as the discourse
of the handicapped is a much older discourse of disability, one that has had pejorative overtones for some time now. Consequently, at least some of the sentiments
expressed in this letter may not find universal acceptance in Britain today.
Apart from formulating this vignette in the extreme, by now a major feature
in our readers letters, this extract constructs people with visual disabilities as
reliant upon the charity and benevolence of others. Blindness may be a physical
disability, but the implication is that life is extremely difficult for these sufferers,
hence the disgrace of engaging in practice that may hinder making their life
easier. The handicapped seem incapable of speaking out. Indeed, the letter
writer urges the asylum-seekers to do so, but in the absence of such moves, our
letter writer acts for them through this letter to the editor. The patronizing tone
that typifies the discourse of the handicapped is similar to that which a parent
or teacher might adopt. Gill and Whedbee (1997) call this the persona of
mother, and mothers, by their status as mothers, are allowed a superior attitude
(Foss, 1987, cited by Gill and Whedbee, 1997: 167). Positioning the able-bodied,
as represented by our author, the handicapped and those asylum seekers in
question creates a clearly defined social hierarchy. One that the letter writer suggests is now being challenged by the actions, or more accurately, the inaction of
asylum-seekers.
Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1971: 80) have noted that argumentation
often relies, to varying degrees, upon the existence of hierarchies as in the idea
of the superiority of men over animals, of gods over men. They also point
out that hierarchies tend to be invoked when they are threatened or challenged,
and that there is no uniformity in the way in which they are formulated. The
principles used in formulating one hierarchy may not necessarily be used in
formulating another:

437
438

. . . thus, a hierarchic grouping of the animal genera by following one principle may
be completed by ordering the species within each genus by following a different principle. (Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1971: 80)
Events, or facts, as they have been constructed so far in Extract 3, now provide a
springboard that allows the letter writer to reassert this natural order and in so
doing attribute blame to asylum-seekers in the process. To that end, pathos is followed by the appeal to reason, with the suggestion that those asylum seekers in
question should speak out. The author, in differentiating the Other in this particular way, makes it clear that this is a local problem, so defusing suggestions
that all asylum-seekers are deemed to behave in this way. An apparent concession (Van Dijk et al., 1997: 170) sees the attribution of blame for this state of
affairs to fall initially to a system which appears to actively discriminate against
disabled Britons, forcing them to play second fiddle. But the concession goes only
so far before the blame is then returned to asylum-seekers, a common rhetorical
strategy when immigrants, asylum-seekers or ethnic events are reported (Van
Dijk et al., 1997). Of course, to make the presumption that refugees are actually
empowered or self-sufficient enough to be able to refuse what is a bona fide entitlement being offered to them, is realistically, quite absurd. Any shortcomings in
the logic of the argument are offset by the appeal to emotion that the rhetorical
construction of the letter is designed to engender. Extract 4 from the same letter
moves onto the effects of this social injustice highlighting the solution along the
way.
Extract 4
Perhaps if they learned to say no now and again instead of accepting every freebie
that comes their way any resentment would melt away.
(The Sun, 21 April 2002)
This extract highlights that these asylum-seekers have not learned to say no the
choice of words is careful here, constructing asylum-seekers and refugees as if
they have an inclination to be greedy or are unable to show restraint. The hyperbole, which portrays them as accepting every freebie, once again drifts towards
the extreme (Pomerantz, 1986). Indeed, the impression is given that it is this
tendency to greed that causes resentment rather than the asylum-seekers
themselves and so any accusation of a racist agenda is disclaimed. Conveniently,
the stereotypical behaviours described neatly match the commonplace view of
the bogus asylum-seeker, so when the question is begged as to why these asylumseekers do not speak out, common knowledge provides the answer. A conclusion
may be inferred that this local problem actually reflects a wider one.
Cause, effect and solution are all given a clear-cut simplicity. The potentially
transient nature of a frosty or cold atmosphere is articulated by the choice of
metaphor: any resentment would melt away if asylum-seekers refused to accept
bus passes in view of the local context. The idea is reinforced that no deep prejudice is involved. Of course, resentment as an ever-present threat or consequence
of a lack of compliance with what is deemed a reasonable request remains a

possibility. Any unwillingness to remove the causes of resentment may be construed as recalcitrance on the part of the asylum-seekers concerned.
In summary, the discourse of differentiating the Self , constructed using
many of the rhetorical strategies used in the discourse of differentiating the
Other, serves to highlight the plight of marginalized groups in order to work up
the social impact of the immigration of asylum-seekers to the UK. The rhetorical
upshot of using what are frequently stigmatized groups serves to disclaim an
uncaring and selfish identity for the writer while simultaneously enabling the
construction of asylum-seekers as out for all they can get. Furthermore, by particularizing these groups rather than making general claims about British citizens
as a whole, the argument is more difficult to rebut. A sense of reason is maintained and the act of writing a letter to the editor itself demonstrates the writers
degree of concern for the welfare of others.
Additionally, it is important to note the rich intertextuality of discourses
(Fairclough, 1992; Kristeva, 1986) both in terms of the historical chain of communication (Bakhtin, 1981) and in terms of the existence of multiple texts/discourses even within a single utterance. Whereas in the previous section our
concern was with explicating the discourse of differentiating the Other, it will be
noted that the letter writer there built his/her argument around concern for the
homeless. Thus these discourses are not discrete entities, but exist coterminously.
Such intertextuality becomes even more apparent in our final finding. Here, the
discourse we have termed the enemy in our midst draws variously upon both the
other and the self to achieve complex ideological opinions within mainstream
and counter discourse.
THE ENEMY IN OUR MIDST : DISCOURSE AND COUNTER - DISCOURSE
The third discourse that we identified in our readers letters to the editor revolves
around what we have termed the enemy in our midst. It concerns the processing of asylum-seekers and the implications of such processing both for asylumseekers and for citizens of the UK. However, as the analysis shows, precisely
whom the enemy in our midst is, depends upon the ideological persuasion of the
letter writer.
Extract 5 [Letter 3] addresses the practice of detaining asylum-seekers in
reception centres upon their arrival in the UK.
Extract 5
Asylum seekers who are genuine should have no qualms about being held in a reception centre.
(Daily Mail, 2 April 2001)
This seemingly innocuous statement is replete with complex ideological dilemmas (Billig et al., 1988). Although the discourse of differentiating the Other is
again at work, herein also lies the seeds of the discourse we define as the enemy
in our midst. An alternate and rhetorically adept means of differentiating the
Other is now being employed. Once again, the vignette is stated in the extreme

439
440
(Pomerantz, 1986), genuine asylum-seekers should have no qualms about being

held in a reception centre. The implication of this construction is that asylumseekers who protest at being held in a reception centre must have some other
agenda. Indeed, the phrase being held has a somewhat passive and benign quality. Thus, being a genuine asylum-seeker carries with it an expectation of compliance and a non-critical acceptance of the rules and procedures of the State.
Recalcitrance or dissent, therefore, becomes the indicator of a less than genuine
status. The stark circular logic at work creates an insoluble dilemma for the
asylum-seeker a Catch 22 situation. Accept the institutional process without
question or risk being discredited and labelled bogus. Total control is the result
power resides entirely with those who make the rules. This resonates with the
authoritarian discourse of zero tolerance; the argument being that only the
guilty, the criminal, or those with something to hide will fall foul of any
measures imposed. To civil libertarians who rail against such measures, this is a
frequent retort and one that is difficult to rebut convincingly.
Redefining bogusness also widens the scope for who might qualify as bogus.
Now all who come here seeking asylum are potentially suspect, the enemy in our
midst, as the writer goes on to stress.
Extract 6
But the fear is that, because such centres are to be open, any would-be-terrorist
could easily disappear and go undercover.
The temptation to escape and then succumb to some latent terrorist predilection
is mooted as sufficient reason for all who arrive here in search of asylum to be
held. That inherent trait, encapsulated in the phrase would-be-terrorist, which
common knowledge suggests is characteristic of bogus asylum-seekers, is now
extended to all asylum-seekers. Just as some radical feminists posit that all men
are potential rapists (Dworkin, 1981); so it is that all asylum-seekers are constructed as potentially greedy, dishonest or criminal. At the very least, it may not
be possible to discriminate the genuine asylum-seeker from the would-be-terrorist. The fear of terrorist activity becomes the means to instil unease. Unlike the
previous letters, the extreme case scenario that accompanies the differentiation
of the Other here, is a potential one. Any evidence to warrant the claim made is
purely circumstantial. What this writer is proposing via a circumlocutory route is
a serious curtailment of personal liberty. There is a certain care in the figures of
speech chosen. The concern that, such centres are to be open . . . for example, is
less oppressive than demanding that they be secure or closed; while, as noted earlier,
the notion that asylum-seekers are held in reception centres is casually entered
into the course of the argument with an uncritical ease that is disarming. According
to this writer, there appears to be nothing traumatic, controlling or disempowering
about this procedure for the genuine asylum-seeker. To reinforce this point, lest we
forget what recalcitrance on the part of the asylum-seeker might mean, a rhetorical question is posed, one which re-emphasizes a latent cultural superiority.


Extract 7
Those who arrive in Britain should abide by our rules. If these are not to their liking,
why come here?
The writer asserts that asylum-seekers should abide by our rules, and by reminding us that it is those who arrive in Britain to whom this is addressed s/he makes
clear that it is British rules that are at issue here. This statement is followed by a
rhetorical question. As Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1971: 112) note, begging the question is a means of postulating what one wishes to prove. The question takes the format of if x, then y (Wooffitt, 1992). The logic, and
asylum-seekers choice, is therefore clear. If they dont like our rules, then they
need not come to Britain. Of course, this construction privileges a view of
asylum-seekers as free agents, choosing to leave their home country, and their
subsequent destination after careful consideration, instead of seeing them as
people who have fled their home country in often horrific circumstances. Viewing
all asylum-seekers like this is an uncompromising stance to adopt, and likely to
attract, at the very least, some resistance. The author, as with the previous
examples, displays just such an awareness of the issues it raises by offering the
prolepsis that comes after.
Extract 8
The human rights issue crops up constantly in reference to asylum seekers, but what
about the rights of us Britons?
The text, written yet again as a rhetorical question, confers a sense of irritation
and annoyance. That the human rights issue crops up constantly has a tiresome
here we go again inflection. It is also reaffirms the idea that asylum-seekers
receive a disproportionate amount of attention or favour. Nevertheless, here is an
admission, albeit an indirect one, that human rights issues are a point of contention. An ideological dilemma (Billig et al., 1988) confronts the letter writer,
who espouses the virtues of British democratic rule our rules on the one hand,
whilst arguing for decidedly undemocratic ones, in relation to asylum-seekers, on
the other hand. Rather than elaborate on this dilemma, the emphasis is switched
instead to how the concern for asylum-seekers rights impacts upon the rights of
us Britons. The familiar refrain that asylum-seekers disadvantage or are a threat
to British people is used, here directly couched in the familiar us versus them
discourse (Mehan, 1997).
Asylum-seekers are then the enemy in our midst, either as latent terrorists
waiting to perpetrate crimes against us, or as people who do not play by our rules
and therefore disadvantage us at their expense. Indeed, Verkuyten et al. (1995:
265) in studying the construction of ethnic minority groups in the Netherlands
observed an identical rhetorical strategy: the position of the Dutch is presented
as one of subordination and powerlessness. Unlike the previous extracts, this

441
442
time there is no marginalized British group to which seekers of asylum may be

juxtaposed all Britons are affected; all Britons are the measure by which
asylum-seekers are now judged. Nationalist passions and sympathies rather than
logical reasoning are expected to do the work here emotion not reason prevails
(Billig, 1995).
However, although this view of asylum-seekers was clearly in the majority
within our letters, a counter-discourse was apparent in a minority of cases. In
other words, there are dissenting voices, as is revealed in the alternate and opposing perspective taken in the next two letters. In these, asylum-seekers are constructed quite differently. Letter 5 sets out to question Home Secretary David
Blunketts asylum reforms and like letter 3, referred to earlier, appeared in the
Daily Mail in response to a news story published the day before. Letter 4 constitutes a response to Australias controversial refugee and asylum policy.
Extract 9
While awaiting classification by the authorities, suspicious foreigners are to be concentrated into reception centres, many of them isolated camps with high-security
perimeter fences. For now we are told that this is for their own protection but barbed
wire works both ways, and what might happen in these camps under an even more
Right-wing government?
Extract 10
. . . we should remember that asylum seekers are locked up to have their claims
processed at the Oakington immigration reception centre. . . . This is a reception
centre in name only; even the Home Office has admitted that it is, in fact and in law, a
detention centre. People detained there include children, pregnant women, the
elderly, the ill and survivors of torture . . .
(The Guardian, 3 September 2001)
Both extracts concern themselves with the institutional process that confronts
those who come here seeking asylum. The point of contention in both is the practice of locking up those who arrive here, in secure prison-type conditions, without trial, having committed no crime. More than this, issue is taken with how this
practice is explained and legitimized the rhetoric that is used by those in authority. In Extract 9, the writer achieves his or her critique of current institutional
practice through the ironic use of government rhetoric, flagged by the use of
inverted commas. Welcoming and relatively benign, the image generated by the
phrase reception centre is at odds with the vivid description (Edwards and Potter,
1992) the writer generates in order to achieve the powerful imagery of Nazi
Germany during the Second World War. The writer describes current immigration practice in stark terms: asylum-seekers are described as suspicious foreigners, a category that justifies them being concentrated into reception centres.
Barbed wire and high-security perimeter fences further recall the disturbing
imagery and ideology of the Nazi concentration camp; an ideology based upon
notions of racial and ethnic superiority, and the preservation of racial purity.

The writer of the letter of which Extract 10 forms part attempts to construct
an account that cuts through official language, the institutional rhetoric, to
describe what a reception centre really is. We are reminded that asylum seekers
are locked up to have their claims processed . . .. Thus portrayed, the inhumanity
of being locked up, with its connotations of going to jail, whilst having ones
claim processed, a bureaucratic procedure, is apparent. Furthermore, the writers
clear statement that a reception centre is, in fact and in law, a detention centre
provides a convincing argument. Facts are difficult to refute (Edwards and Potter,
1992), and the law provides no room for argument. Indeed, the claim to this
being the case is warranted by the writers assertion that this fact has been
admitted by the authority involved; in this case, the Home Office. As Leishman
has noted (1999: 117) confession is the king of evidence. Finally, a vivid rhetorical contrast presented in the form of a list serves to highlight still further the
injustice of the reception centre. Those who are detained include children, pregnant women, the elderly, the ill and survivors of torture. Once again, images of
the concentration camp and the totalitarian state are brought to mind.
As the earlier letter writers employed marginalized social groups to increase
the contrast and emphasize dramatic effects to bolster their arguments, so the
same is done here. Lists and contrasts are powerful rhetorical devices, and a more
vulnerable and disempowered group of individuals as that [re]presented here,
would be difficult to find. There appears to be little that is bogus or threatening
about them; the image they conjure is contrary to that perpetuated by common
knowledge. Here then, is a counter-discourse, which emphasizes how asylumseekers are incarcerated, regimented and controlled in the most oppressive
fashion. They are denied the basic democratic freedoms and legal safeguards
which British citizens are accorded as of right. Hier and Greenberg (2002: 501)
found in the problemization of Fujianese migrants in Canada, that within elite
discourse they are: . . . subsumed under codified depersonalized tropes and
homogenized and objectified as things, subject to packaging, transportation
and disposal. Within the counter-discourse, they are made human once again,
this in turn emphasizes the stark face of a political ideology at work, or as
Foucault described it: power in practices (Fawcett, 1996: 92). We are returned
to the concept of category entitlements once more: for those letter writers who
subscribe to the counter-discourse, there is no sense of expectation or inevitability that such treatment as this, is all part of being an asylum-seeker or a refugee.
In these latter accounts, this counter-discourse imbues the government or the
immigration authorities with the qualities of artifice and duplicity that have previously been the preserve of the asylum-seeker. An implicit mistrust of those in
authority is mooted when the rhetorical question is posed: What might happen
in these camps under an even more Right-wing government? We are reminded
that politics and political ideology are transient and fickle: that context is all
important in determining the interpretation or rhetorical slant being adopted
(Bakhtin, 1981). Thus, high-security perimeter fences may be erected around
asylum-seekers for their own protection; but fences to keep people out, also keep

443
444
them in as the speaker suggests barbed wire works both ways. The Protagorian
maxim that there are at least two sides to every argument is being acknowledged
in that any attitude is more than an expression in favour of a position: it is also
implicitly or explicitly an argument against a counter-position (Billig, 1996: 71).
A critical gaze is now cast over such figures of speech as for their own protection.
This is the discourse of euphemism as the government apparently concedes:
This is a reception centre in name only; even the Home Office has admitted that
it is, in fact, and in law, a detention centre. Euphemism in argument is used as a
technique of restraint and as a means to elicit a desire for moderation. In politics, it has long been used to camouflage racist discourse (Billig et al., 1988;
Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1971; Reeves, 1983). In this case, the questionable practices and ideologies implemented by the immigration authorities and the
government are legitimized by giving them a non-threatening, reassuring rhetorical slant. Rojo and Van Dijk (1997: 528) point out that: . . . the socio-political act
of legitimation is usually accomplished by persuasive and sometimes manipulative discourse. In such legitimating discourse, institutional actions and policies
are typically described as beneficial for the group or society as a whole, whereas
morally reprehensible or otherwise controversial actions are ignored, obfuscated
or reinterpreted as being acceptable.
Dissenting voices are very much in the minority. Even so, the counter-discourse
they espouse is enough of a threat to warrant being marginalized still further.
Extract 11 (below) uses an interesting rhetorical strategy to do just this. The
writer holds firm to the commonplace view of asylum-seekers; however, they are
not solely to blame for the social malaise that is alleged to accompany them. Some
of that blame lies with the dissenting voices. The two are interdependent, the construction of one determines, to some degree, the construction of the other within
a dialogical process (Bakhtin, 1981). Initially, Extract 11 addresses the difficulties
of dispersing those who come here seeking asylum. A novel solution is proposed;
one which features the social group who are deemed to bear a considerable
responsibility for asylum-seekers in general the white liberal.
Extract 11
A solution to the problem of dispersing asylum-seekers is staring us in the face
namely, billet them free of charge on white liberals. That would have the advantage of
both dispersing asylum-seekers widely and to areas with no social deprivation. White
liberals will, of course, be only too happy to welcome them into their homes and to
support them. Indeed it is most odd that they have not been queuing up to offer their
services. Such a policy would free up social housing for the working class and allow
the money to be saved to be spent on our poor.
(Independent, 12 August 2001)
This letter shares many features with those that have gone before it. Here, too, the
self is differentiated. As before, asylum-seekers are seen in particular to disadvantage a marginalized group. This time, it is the working class or our poor. Here the
writers use of the personal pronoun, our, gives this construction Nationalist

overtones. The implication is that we must look after our poor, and indeed the
writer has a suggestion for doing just that. This solution would free up housing
and money, currently used on asylum-seekers, to be used on our more disadvantaged groups.
Thus, the enemy in our midst is again, to some extent, the asylum-seeker.
However, this writer differentiates the self further such that the enemy is truly
within, in the form of the white liberal. As Edwards and Potter (1992) observe,
categories are for talking and here the category of the white liberal is invoked, as
a purportedly politically and ethnically homogenous group, to service the writers
critique of those who espouse a humanitarian and welfarist discourse. The
account itself is allegorical and strongly sardonic; indeed, the term the white liberal is sometimes regarded as one of derision. There is a feeling that in describing
or proposing a solution which in this case would be the forcible imposition of
asylum-seekers onto white liberals such that they would incur financial expense
and responsibility the original process, whereby asylum-seekers or refugees
are forced upon British citizens and society, is mirrored or replicated. The text
is not entirely flippant in its approach. A more serious tenor is evident in the
last two lines, as humour is used to disarm the reader before the punch line is
delivered.
Construction of the white liberal is done in a stereotypical fashion, much is
made of the humanitarianism that defines this approach: White liberals will, of
course, be only too happy to welcome them into their homes and to support
them. Laden with irony, the parenthetical interjection of course lends an acerbic quality to the text whilst their being only too happy to welcome asylumseekers into their homes is again an example of an extreme case formulation
(Pomerantz, 1986). Yet, the writer suggests that benevolence alone is not what
allows them to do this. White liberals are defined as being a financially comfortable and geographically widespread elite; they can afford to do this: That would
have the advantage of both dispersing asylum-seekers widely and to areas with
no social deprivation. White liberals might be considered as not dissimilar to
rich patrons, existing at the opposite end of the social spectrum to those they
would patronize, or whose cause they promote.
More than simply having the resources that enable the white liberal to take a
humanitarian perspective on asylum-seekers, the writer postulates: Indeed, it is
most odd that they have not been queuing up to offer their services. Artifice and
deceit, which common knowledge inextricably links with asylum-seekers, is now
widened to include white liberals. The facts speak for themselves; the question
is posed and the truth will out (Gilbert and Mulkay, 1984). White liberals say
one thing whilst doing another. They have taken humanitarian and welfarist concerns too far, in that they disadvantage others, but not themselves: this is what
incurs the angst of the letter writer. The irony in all of this is that having criticized
the white liberal for promoting a welfarist discourse, the result of the novel plan
being proposed, to billet them free of charge on white liberals, would have a
similar effect: only this time it is our poor, our working class who would benefit.

445
446
The writers use of the term billet, with its military overtones, is particularly
suggestive of a forced practice, one in which white liberals will have little or no
say. Welfarism and humanitarian ideals are thus given an ethnocentric bias, one
that clearly favours us and not them. The qualities that define the white liberal
as a group become the means by which they are undermined or discredited.
Implicitly, the credibility of the counter-discourse is challenged as suspect, it is as
untrustworthy as the people who promote it.
In summary, the discourse we have termed the enemy in our midst draws
simultaneously and differentially upon constructions of the Other and of the Self.
Principally, the enemy is the asylum-seeker and the discourse is used to advance
racist arguments, although the writer attempts to disclaim a racist identity.
However, as noted, a counter-discourse is also in evidence. Within this discourse,
it is the State and its undemocratic practices that are called into question, and
become the enemy. The threat of this minority discourse does not go unnoticed.
Indeed, it becomes part of a complex set of arguments in terms of which not only
the asylum-seekers but also those who seek to represent their concerns are constructed as threatening the rights and welfare of UK citizens.
Conclusions
Identifying the three discursive strategies that we have called the differentiation
of the other, the differentiation of the self , and the enemy in our midst, has
allowed us an opportunity to examine how our letter writers construct their
argumentative positions, and the rhetorical devices that they use to do so.
Although the array of rhetorical devices available to our letter writers is large,
what emerges from the analysis is the striking predominance of the use of two in
particular: the extreme case formulation (Pomerantz, 1986), and the rhetorical
question. Quite why these two should be so frequently used is not entirely clear.
As letters to the editor, the format that is imposed upon the letter writers,
especially in terms of brevity, may well be a factor. Choice of subject matter or the
intended audience may also play their part in favouring these rhetorical devices
over others. Certainly, the way is opened for further research to be carried out into
this aspect of the findings.
Our three discourses also highlighted other issues. The question of integrity
was revealed as an important facet of the discourses that surround asylum-seekers. There is the integrity of the asylum-seeker or refugee (and those who would
support or promote their cause) to be considered, for it is this quality or more
specifically the lack of it which is used to justify and explain all else. There is also
the integrity of the State: the way in which power is exercised and legitimized in
a society that holds itself up as paragon of democratic freedom. In understanding
these issues, the influence and extent to which commonplace, taken-for-granted
views dominate and encompass social life is revealed. Consequently, the bogus
asylum-seeker may be differentiated from the genuine one; the latter is understood as being such a rarity as to be almost irrelevant. A biologically determinist

explanation hints at a latent tendency among asylum-seekers, bogus or otherwise, to succumb to a greedy, duplicitous and inherently criminal nature.
This is made all the more graphic by the use of real-life examples that illustrate which Britons apparently suffer as a result (Verkuyten et al., 1995).
Invariably, those affected exist on the fringes of society: the disabled, the homeless, the poorest of the poor. Unfairness and inequality, rather than prejudice,
seemingly drive and justify the grievances put forward. Race is rarely
mentioned.
[Re]establishing or re-ordering the social hierarchy is important in ensuring
that precedence is given to those true inhabitants (Fenton, 1999); for this seems
to be their birth right: indeed, the construction of ethnic minorities in the
Netherlands identifies a similar discursive process. Who is being discriminated
against is a major source of contention, for it seems that the wrong people are
benefiting (Verkuyten et al., 1995). Differentiating the Other, and the Self may
therefore be seen to serve another discursive purpose in that the power of hierarchies in the argumentative process is reaffirmed. Our letter writers have demonstrated how this can add an extra element of creativity to a number of rhetorical
strategies that are frequently used in texts and talk relating to asylum-seekers.
Whilst the social construction of asylum-seekers requires the reconstruction
and repositioning of other social groups; it also requires the legitimization of
some questionable institutional practices. That asylum-seekers and refugees find
themselves contained behind barbed wire for long periods, having committed no
crime, suggests that the government subscribes to the commonplace view.
Asylum-seekers, cast into the role of folk devils, find themselves surrounded by
a disaster mentality (Bloch, 1999; Cohen, 1972; Holmes, 1991). The conditions
are right for a moral panic to exist, and with it, the establishment of Fortress
Europe (Cohen, 1972; Goode and Ben-Yehuda, 1994; Van Dijk, 1996). As most
of the letters here demonstrate, public reaction is claimed to be one of concern.
Exaggeration, distortion and a heavy reliance upon stereotypes provide the context in which politicians, legislators and law-enforcement agencies tighten social
and legal controls. Meanwhile, refugees and asylum-seekers who as a group lack
significant speaking rights or voice are more easily oppressed, discredited, and
stigmatized (Goffman, 1963; Van Dijk, 1991). This is all part of the discourse we
term the enemy within that itself is part of a larger elite discourse which in creating a phantom menace constructs a new Apartheid in response (Van Dijk,
1996). It has become:
. . . the fundamental means of ideological reproduction and hence the very core of the
system of western exclusion which at the same time refuses to acknowledge what it
is: racism. (Van Dijk, 1996: 292)
As enabling as this environment might be for those who favour such draconian
measures, the contradictions and serious ideological dilemmas (Billig et al.,
1988) that are provoked do not go unchallenged; the tendentious language and
rhetoric that is employed in their service, does not escape censure either. It is as a

447
448
response to these things that the few dissenting voices speak out. Those who dissent construct a quite different image of the asylum-seeker. An ironic reversal of
roles takes place which recognizes them as being disempowered and vulnerable;
oppressed by institutional procedures and State practices. Here, it is the
Government and those acting on their behalf that are seen as untrustworthy and
Machiavellian.
It is clear that the majority of the letter writers featured here actively encourage discriminatory practices and the denial of basic freedoms to those who would
come here seeking asylum; all of which encourages the creation of this new
Apartheid. Identifying the dominant discourse[s] brings the counter discourse[s]
into view. Only by frequent [re]exposure to this counter-discourse; will commonsensical, taken-for-granted attitudes be challenged. If this proves a source of
annoyance or irritation to those who perpetuate the new Apartheid then we, as
social scientists and purveyors of knowledge, will have risen to the challenge that
Van Dijk set when he suggested that:
Keeping our eyes, ears and mouths shut (or our computers idle) makes us directly
responsible for, if not guilty of, ethnic inequality and injustice. (1996: 292)
The need to examine and re-examine the way in which asylum-seekers or

refugees are socially constructed becomes particularly important if one considers
the social world as Bakhtin (1981) envisaged it. In a heteroglot world which
insures the primacy of context over text (Bakhtin, 1981: 263) such constructions are seen as being of the particular time and place. As time passes, as the
influences change, so do the constructions. Transient and shifting, this analysis
serves to function as a social snapshot of asylum-seekers specific to the here
and now a result of our interpretative understanding and perception of the
social world. Already the context has changed as the events of 11 September
2001 remind us only too well. It is only through continued research that we can
hope to understand or provide insights into why certain groups of people at certain historical moments come to be perceived as posing a significant threat to the
stability of a countrys policies and procedures? (Hier and Greenberg, 2002:
507). More importantly still, through applied discourse studies we can seek to
practically tackle the social problem of racism, ethnocentrism and nationalism
in the media in general, or for specific media in particular (Van Dijk, 1997b:
452). The phantom menace may be just that, but the new Apartheid is tangible
enough. The Zen Buddhist maxim of doing not talking [about doing] has never
been more apt.
NOTES
1. The term asylum-seeker is used here due its widespread acceptance. However, we use it
with reservation as it often carries derisory connotations, particularly in the tabloid
press.
2. Discourse analysis is not concerned with sample size in the way that traditional
research methods are (Potter and Wetherell, 1987).


3. We acknowledge that Wetherell has subsequently moved somewhat away from the
original position formulated with Potter.
REFERENCES
Althusser, L. (1971) Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. London: New Left Books.
Angier, C. (1992) Jean Rhys: Life and Work. London: Andre Deutsch.
Austin, J. (1962) How to Do Things With Words. London: Oxford University Press.
Bakhtin, M.M. (1981) The Dialogic Imagination. Austin: University of Texas.
Balibar, E. (1991) Is There a Neo-racism?, in E. Balibar and I. Wallerstein (eds) Race,
Nation and Class: Ambiguous Identities, pp. 1728. London: Verso.
Barker, M. (1981) The New Racism. London: Junction Books.
Barnes, R., Auburn, T. and Lea, S.J. (2003) Citizenship in Practice, British Journal of Social
Psychology, submitted.
Barthes, R. (1957) Mythologies. London: Paladin.
Bhabba, H. (1994) The Location of Culture. London: Routledge.
Billig, M. (1987) Arguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Billig, M. (1991) Ideology and Opinions. London: Sage.
Billig, M. (1995) Banal Nationalism. London: Sage.
Billig, M. (1996) Arguing and Thinking. A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology, new edn.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Billig, M., Condor, S., Edwards, D., Gane, M., Middleton, D. and Radley, A.R. (1988)
Ideological Dilemmas: A Social Psychology of Everyday Thinking. London: Sage.
Bloch, A. (1999) As If Being a Refugee Isnt Hard Enough: The Policy of Exclusion, in P.
Cohen (ed.) New Ethnicities, Old Racisms?, pp 11331. London: Zed Books.
Burr, V. (1995) An Introduction to Social Constructionism. London: Routledge.
Cohen, R. (1994) Frontiers of Identity: The British and the Others. London: Longman.
Cohen, S. (1972) Folk Devils and Moral Panics. London: MacGibben & Kee.
Cook, D. (1993) Racism, Citizenship and Exclusion, in D. Cook and B. Hudson (eds)
Racism and Criminology, pp. 13657. London: Sage.
Dworkin, A. (1981) Pornography: Men Possessing Women. New York: Dutton.
Edwards, D. (1991) Categories are for Talking: On the Cognitive and Discursive Bases of
Categorization, Theory and Psychology 1(4): 51542.
Edwards, D. and Potter, J. (1992) Discursive Psychology. London: Sage.
Fairclough, N. (1992) Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fawcett, B. (1996) Women, Mental Health and Community Care: An Abusive
Combination?, in B. Fawcett, B. Featherstone, J. Hearn and C. Toft (eds) Violence and
Gender Relations: Theories and Interventions, pp. 8197. London: Sage.
Fenton, S. (1999) Ethnicity, Racism, Class and Culture. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Foss, K.A. (1987) Sojourner Truth, in B.K. Duffy and H.R. Ryan (eds) American Orators
Before 1900: Critical Studies and Sources, pp. 38590. New York: Greenwood.
Foucault, M. (1967) Madness and Civilization. London: Routledge.
Fowler, R. (1991) Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press. London:
Routledge.
Gergen, K. (1999) An Invitation to Social Construction. London: Sage.
Gilbert, G.N. and Mulkay, M. (1984) Opening Pandoras Box. A Sociological Analysis of
Scientists Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gill, A.M. and Whedbee, K. (1997) Rhetoric, in T. van Dijk (ed.) Discourse as Structure and
Process, pp. 15784. London: Sage.

449
450

Gilroy, P. (1993) Small Acts: Thoughts on the Politics of Black Cultures. London: Serpents Tail.
Goffman, E. (1963) Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. London: Penguin.
Goode, E. and Ben-Yehuda, N. (1994) Moral Panics: The Social Construction of Deviance.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Gough, B. and McFadden, M. (2001) Critical Social Psychology: An Introduction.
Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Hall, S. (1978) Racism and Moral Panics in Post War Britain, in Five Views of Multi-Racial
Britain. London: Commission for Racial Equality.
Hay, C. (1996) Narrating Crisis: The Discursive Construction of the Winter of Discontent,
Sociology 30 (2): 25377.
Hechter, M. (1975) Internal Colonialism. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hier, S.P. and Greenberg, J.L. (2002) Constructing a Discursive Crisis: Risk,
Problematization and Illegal Chinese in Canada, Ethnic and Racial Studies 25(3):
490531.
Hewitt, J. and Stokes, R. (1975) Disclaimers, American Sociological Review 40: 111.
Holmes, C. (1991) A Tolerant Country? Immigrants, Refugees and Minorities in Britain.
London: Faber & Faber.
Jackson, P. and Penrose, J. (1993) Introduction: Placing Race And Nation, in P. Jackson
and J Penrose (eds) Constructions of Race, Place and Nation. London: UCL Press.
Jary, D. and Jary, J. (1995) Collins Dictionary of Sociology. Glasgow: Harper Collins.
Kristeva, J. (1986) Word, Dialogue and Novel, In T. Moi (ed.) The Kristeva Reader, pp.
3461. Oxford: Blackwell.
Leach, J. (2000) Rhetorical Analysis, in M. Bauer and G. Gaskell (eds) Qualitative
Researching with Text, Image and Sound: A Practical Handbook, pp. 20727. London: Sage.
Leishmann, F. (1999) Policing in Japan: East Asian Archetype, in R.I. Mawby (ed.)
Policing Across the World, Issues for the Twenty First Century, pp 10927. London: UCL
Press.
McDonald, I. and Uqra, S. (1999) Its Just Not Cricket! Ethnicity, Division and Imagining
the Other in English Cricket, in P. Cohen (ed.) New Ethnicities, Old Racisms?, pp.
16379. London: Zed Books.
McLellan, D. (1986) Ideology. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Mehan, H. (1997) The Discourse of the Illegal Immigration Debate: A Case Study in the
Politics of Representation, Discourse & Society 8(2): 24970.
Michels, R. (1911) Political Parties; A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of
Modern Democracy. New York: Collier.
Morrison, A. and Love, A. (1996) A Discourse of Disillusionment: Letters to the Editor in
Two Zimbabwean Magazines After Independence, Discourse and Society 7: 3975.
Myerson, G. (1994) Rhetoric, Reason and Society: Rationality as Dialogue. London: Sage.
Negrine, R. (1991) Politics and the Mass Media in Britain. London: Routledge.
Obeng, S.G. (1997) Language and Politics: Indirectness in Political Discourse, Discourse &
Society 8: 4983.
Parker, I. (1992) Discourse Dynamics: Critical Analysis for Social and Individual Psychology.
London: Routledge.
Perelman, C. and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1971) The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on
Argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Pomerantz, A. (1986) Extreme Case Formulations: A New Way of Legitimating Claims,
Human Studies 9: 21930.
Potter, J. and Wetherell, M. (1987) Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and
Behaviour. London: Sage.


Rapley, M. (1998) Just an Ordinary Australian: Self Categorization and the Discursive
Construction of Facticity in New Racist Political Rhetoric, British Journal of Social
Psychology 37: 32544.
Reeves, F. (1983) British Racial Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rex, J. and Tomlinson, S. (1979) Colonial Immigrants in a British City: A Class Analysis.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Richardson, J.E. (2001) Now is the Time to Put an End to All This: Argumentative
Discourse Theory and Letters to the Editor , Discourse & Society 12: 14368.
Riggins, S. (1997) The Rhetoric of Othering, in S. Riggins (ed.) The Language and Politics
of Exclusion: Others in Discourse, pp. 131. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rojo, L.M and Van Dijk, T. (1997) There is a Problem, and It was Solved!: Legitimating
the Expulsion of Illegal Migrants in Spanish Parliamentary Discourse, Discourse &
Society 8: 52366.
Said, E.W. (1985) Orientalism. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Said, E.W. (1993) Culture and Imperialism. London: Chatto & Windus.
Santa Ana, O. (1999) Like an Animal I was Treated: Anti-Immigrant Metaphor in US
Public Discourse, Discourse & Society 10: 191224.
Sarup, M. (1996) Identity, Culture and the Postmodern World. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Sibley, D. (1997) Endangering the Sacred. Nomads, Youth Cultures and the English
Countryside, in P. Cloke and J. Little (eds) Contested Countryside Cultures: Otherness,
Marginalisation and Rurality, pp. 21831. London: Routledge.
Smith, S.J. (1993) Immigration and Nation-Building in Canada and the United Kingdom,
in P. Jackson and J Penrose (eds) Constructions of Race, Place and Nation, pp. 5077.
London: UCL Press.
Thiesmeyer, L. (1995) The Discourse of Official Violence: Anti Japanese North American
Discourse and the American Internment Camps, Discourse & Society 6: 31952.
Van Dijk, T. (1991) Racism and the Press. London: Routledge.
Van Dijk, T. (1993) Elite Discourse and Racism. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Van Dijk, T. (1996) Illegal Aliens, Discourse & Society 7: 2912.
Van Dijk, T. (1997a) Political Discourse and Racism: Describing Others in Western
Parliaments, in S. Riggins (ed.) The Language and Politics of Exclusion: Others in
Discourse, pp. 3165. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Van Dijk, T. (1997b) Applied Discourse Studies, Discourse & Society 8: 4512.
Van Dijk, T., Ting-Toomey, S., Smitherman, G. and Troutman, D. (1997) Discourse,
Ethnicity, Culture and Racism, in T. van Dijk (ed.) Discourse as Social Interaction,
14480. London: Sage.
Verkuyten, M., de Jong, W. and Masson, C. (1995) The Construction of Ethnic Categories:
Discourses of Ethnicity in the Netherlands, Ethnic & Racial Studies 18(2): 25176.
Verkuyten, M. (2001) Abnormalization of Ethnic Minorities in Conversation, British
Journal of Social Psychology 40: 25778.
Wooffitt, R. (1992) Telling Tales of the Unexpected: The Organization of Factual Discourse.
London: Sage.
Wright Mills, C. (1959) The Sociological Imagination. Harmondsworth: Pelican.
Zimmerman, D. (1998) Identity, Context and Interaction in C. Antaki and S. Widdicombe
(eds) Identities in Talk, pp. 87106. London: Sage.

451
452
L Y N N is currently conducting Postgraduate Research in the Departments of

Sociology and Psychology at the University of Plymouth. Originally trained as a fine artist
and sculptor, he has a particular interest in visual discourse. He is presently conducting
research on the rhetoric of British police officers.
NICK
S U S A N L E A , PhD, is Teaching Fellow in the Department of
Psychology at the University of

Plymouth. She previously lived and worked in South Africa where her concern for the
abuse of human rights originated. She has published articles on sexual violence, racism
and pedagogy in higher education. A D D R E S S : Department of Psychology, University of
Plymouth, Drake Circus, Plymouth PL4 8AA, UK. [email: slea@plymouth.ac.uk]


A Phantom Menace and The New Apartheid' The Social

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

A Phantom Menace and The New Apartheid' The Social

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

See

`A Phantom Menace and the New Apartheid':

7 PUBLICATIONS 163 CITATIONS

King's College London

30 PUBLICATIONS 681 CITATIONS

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

Available from: Nick Lynn

Discourse & Society

Downloaded from http://das.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on March 7, 2008

A phantom menace and the new

Discourse & Society

A B S T R A C T . A succession of well-publicized incidents in Britain, and

asylum-seekers, discourse, new Apartheid, refugees, resistance,

Downloaded from http://das.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on March 7, 2008

Discourse & Society 14(4)

Downloaded from http://das.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on March 7, 2008

Lynn and Lea: Social construction of asylum-seekers

Downloaded from http://das.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on March 7, 2008

Discourse & Society 14(4)

As knowledge and understanding are social processes (Billig, 1991; Billig et

Downloaded from http://das.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on March 7, 2008

Lynn and Lea: Social construction of asylum-seekers

Downloaded from http://das.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on March 7, 2008

Discourse & Society 14(4)

Downloaded from http://das.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on March 7, 2008

Lynn and Lea: Social construction of asylum-seekers

Downloaded from http://das.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on March 7, 2008

Discourse & Society 14(4)

The existence of the bogus asylum-seeker or economic refugee as a tangible

Downloaded from http://das.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on March 7, 2008

Lynn and Lea: Social construction of asylum-seekers

Downloaded from http://das.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on March 7, 2008

Discourse & Society 14(4)

Downloaded from http://das.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on March 7, 2008

Lynn and Lea: Social construction of asylum-seekers

In Extract 2, below, the writer of Letter 2 appears to affirm his/her reasonable

Downloaded from http://das.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on March 7, 2008

Discourse & Society 14(4)

asylum-seeker or refugee for being dishonest in the first place. Asylum-seekers

Downloaded from http://das.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on March 7, 2008

Lynn and Lea: Social construction of asylum-seekers

Downloaded from http://das.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on March 7, 2008

Discourse & Society 14(4)

Downloaded from http://das.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on March 7, 2008

Lynn and Lea: Social construction of asylum-seekers

Downloaded from http://das.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on March 7, 2008

Discourse & Society 14(4)

(Pomerantz, 1986), genuine asylum-seekers should have no qualms about being

Downloaded from http://das.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on March 7, 2008

Lynn and Lea: Social construction of asylum-seekers

Downloaded from http://das.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on March 7, 2008

Discourse & Society 14(4)

time there is no marginalized British group to which seekers of asylum may be

Downloaded from http://das.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on March 7, 2008

Lynn and Lea: Social construction of asylum-seekers

Downloaded from http://das.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on March 7, 2008

Discourse & Society 14(4)

Downloaded from http://das.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on March 7, 2008

Lynn and Lea: Social construction of asylum-seekers

Downloaded from http://das.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on March 7, 2008

Discourse & Society 14(4)

Downloaded from http://das.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on March 7, 2008

Lynn and Lea: Social construction of asylum-seekers