refugee crisis

Live and let die: Did Michel Foucault predict Europe’s refugee crisis?

As the philosopher once described, states obsessed with the health of their own people often create the conditions for others to die.

In March 1976, philosopher Michel Foucault described the advent of a new logic of government, specific to Western liberal societies. He called it biopolitics. States were becoming obsessed with the health and well being of their populations.

And sure enough, 40 years later, Western states rarely have been more busy promoting healthy food, banning tobacco, regulating alcohol, organizing breast cancer checks, or churning out information on the risk probabilities of this or that disease.

Foucault never claimed this was a bad trend – it saves lives after all. But he did warn that paying so much attention to the health and wealth of one population necessitates the exclusion of those who are not entitled to – and are perceived to endanger – this health maximization programme.

Bio-politics is therefore the politics of live and let die. The more a state focuses on its own population, the more it creates the conditions of possibility for others to die, “exposing people to death, increasing the risk of death for some people”.

Rarely has this paradox been more apparent than in the crisis that has seen hundreds of thousands of people seeking asylum in Europe over the past few years. It is striking to watch European societies investing so much in health at home and, at the same time, erecting ever more impermeable legal and material barriers to keep refugees at bay, actively contributing to human deaths.

The conflict in the Middle East is a deadly war. Most estimates suggest 300,000 have been killed in Syria alone.

The conflict has shown us some of the most gruesome practices that war can produce, including the gassing of several thousands of civilians in Damascus in 2013. Extremist groups such as Islamic State display unimaginable levels of violence. They have beheaded people with knives or explosives, burned people locked in cages, crucified people, thrown people from the tops of buildings, or more recently exploded people locked in a car (a child supposedly detonated the bomb). This violence has been exported to Europe. Some of the biggest Syrian cities now look pretty much like Stalingrad in 1943.

Inevitably, people escape – just like, for example, the Belgians who fled their country in the first years of World War I (250,000 to the UK alone, with up to 16,000 individuals arriving per day).

This emigration is inevitable simply because normal life has become impossible in most parts of the country, and will continue for almost as long as there are people living in this war-torn region. Jordan – a country just short of 10 million inhabitants – currently hosts more than a million refugees. Turkey hosts almost two million.

Keep out and stay out

Faced with this disaster in its neighbourhood, what do the EU and its member states do? Exactly what Foucault predicted. Germany apart, they compete in imagination to design policies making sure refugees don’t arrive, and send ever-clearer deterrent signals.

Austria has unilaterally fixed quotas on the number of asylum seekers that will be accepted at its border each day, effectively leaving bankrupt Greece to handle the burden of the influx alone.

A week previously, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls announced that France and Europe “cannot accept more refugees”. His country originally agreed to receive 30,000 refugees over two years. To put that in perspective in terms of population size, if France was a village of 2,200 inhabitants, it would accept no more than a single person over that time.

Still in France, authorities are destroying parts of the settlements near Calais where migrants (many of them children) are living in appalling conditions.

In Denmark, police are now permitted to seize valuables from refugees, stripping them of almost all that’s left of their property. Slovakia wants only to accept Christian Syrian refugees, and no more than 200 of them, arguing that Muslims would never “feel at home” or be accepted by the local population anyway.

Meanwhile, the UK is more preoccupied than ever about “regaining the sovereignty of its border” (even though it isn’t in the Schengen area). Belgium has suspended its own participation in Schengen and reintroduced border checks.

Foucault: pessimistic prescience.  Thierry Ehrmann, CC BY
Foucault: pessimistic prescience. Thierry Ehrmann, CC BY

Western states are building an increasingly deadly border control policy and importing military technologies to design sophisticated control systems and impassable fences in Greece, Bulgaria or the Spanish enclaves in Morocco. This truly creates the “conditions of possibility for others to die”. Syrians are either left to struggle in Syria, or undertake highly risky journeys towards a safe but fully sealed place.

More or less complex justifications are built to justify this policy, but all can easily be rebutted on both rational and moral grounds. The only reasoning that remains is Foucault’s. Explaining why a society so obsessed by health is capable of (more or less indirectly) killing people who could actually contribute to this health, Foucault throws a powerful word: racism, broadly understood.

Later confirmed by thousands of experiments in social psychology, Foucault’s contention was that for people to find extreme policies normal and even moral, they have to perceive those who die as different, not as members of their own group.

This is why the UK welcomed 250,000 Belgians with tea and cake in 1914-1916, while today it in one way or another contributes, together with most other EU countries, to the deaths of thousands of human beings who have already escaped a war led by a dictatorial regime and the most violent (quantitatively and perhaps qualitatively) terrorist group of all time. What morality remains among European states is evaporating.

Stephane J Baele, Lecturer in International Studies and Security, University of Exeter

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Scroll+ here. We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Do you really need to use that plastic straw?

The hazards of single-use plastic items, and what to use instead.

In June 2018, a distressed whale in Thailand made headlines around the world. After an autopsy it’s cause of death was determined to be more than 80 plastic bags it had ingested. The pictures caused great concern and brought into focus the urgency of the fight against single-use plastic. This term refers to use-and-throw plastic products that are designed for one-time use, such as takeaway spoons and forks, polythene bags styrofoam cups etc. In its report on single-use plastics, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has described how single-use plastics have a far-reaching impact in the environment.

Dense quantity of plastic litter means sights such as the distressed whale in Thailand aren’t uncommon. Plastic products have been found in the airways and stomachs of hundreds of marine and land species. Plastic bags, especially, confuse turtles who mistake them for jellyfish - their food. They can even exacerbate health crises, such as a malarial outbreak, by clogging sewers and creating ideal conditions for vector-borne diseases to thrive. In 1988, poor drainage made worse by plastic clogging contributed to the devastating Bangladesh floods in which two-thirds of the country was submerged.

Plastic litter can, moreover, cause physiological harm. Burning plastic waste for cooking fuel and in open air pits releases harmful gases in the air, contributing to poor air quality especially in poorer countries where these practices are common. But plastic needn’t even be burned to cause physiological harm. The toxic chemical additives in the manufacturing process of plastics remain in animal tissue, which is then consumed by humans. These highly toxic and carcinogenic substances (benzene, styrene etc.) can cause damage to nervous systems, lungs and reproductive organs.

The European Commission recently released a list of top 10 single-use plastic items that it plans to ban in the near future. These items are ubiquitous as trash across the world’s beaches, even the pristine, seemingly untouched ones. Some of them, such as styrofoam cups, take up to a 1,000 years to photodegrade (the breakdown of substances by exposure to UV and infrared rays from sunlight), disintegrating into microplastics, another health hazard.

More than 60 countries have introduced levies and bans to discourage the use of single-use plastics. Morocco and Rwanda have emerged as inspiring success stories of such policies. Rwanda, in fact, is now among the cleanest countries on Earth. In India, Maharashtra became the 18th state to effect a ban on disposable plastic items in March 2018. Now India plans to replicate the decision on a national level, aiming to eliminate single-use plastics entirely by 2022. While government efforts are important to encourage industries to redesign their production methods, individuals too can take steps to minimise their consumption, and littering, of single-use plastics. Most of these actions are low on effort, but can cause a significant reduction in plastic waste in the environment, if the return of Olive Ridley turtles to a Mumbai beach are anything to go by.

To know more about the single-use plastics problem, visit Planet or Plastic portal, National Geographic’s multi-year effort to raise awareness about the global plastic trash crisis. From microplastics in cosmetics to haunting art on plastic pollution, Planet or Plastic is a comprehensive resource on the problem. You can take the pledge to reduce your use of single-use plastics, here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of National Geographic, and not by the Scroll editorial team.