Article
Empowerment without
Emancipation: Performativity
and Political Activism among
Iranian Refugees in Italy
and Turkey
Paola Rivetti1
Abstract
This article examines the centrality of political activism in the identity of Iranian refugees and
investigates how they perform and incorporate it by considering the interlocked pressure of
international politics, personal networks, and the assistance provided by civil society organizations.
The case of Iranian political refugees in Italy and Turkey is of particular interest because of the
international visibility of the Green movement, the Iranian people’s historical experience of
emigration, and the fact that Iran is a subject of great interest for a number of human rights nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs). It shows how the process of ‘‘being a refugee’’ works not only
through classical forms of institutional pressure but also through ‘‘unexpected’’ forms such as NGO
efforts to empower refugees politically. Despite the positive value attached to it, in this context
political activism can force refugees into preestablished roles, such as ‘‘human rights defenders’’ or
‘‘Green movement activists.’’ Paradoxically, refugees act within a context that dominates them even
when it tries to empower them.
Keywords
Iranian refugees, political activism, Green movement, Italy, Turkey
Introduction
Political refugees are actors of growing importance in international politics, and scholars have
devoted their attention to this subject producing a rich and diversified literature. Studies range from
theoretical issues to sociological accounts of the refugees’ everyday life, highlighting the concerns
related to policy making, international, and human security.1
The number of people applying to
receive asylum has sharply increased and the relevant legislation has become more and more
complex, distinguishing among different forms of international protection and ‘‘labels’’ of asylum.2
Different national and international actors are involved in ‘‘managing refugees,’’ from the
1
Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland
Corresponding Author:
Paola Rivetti, Dublin City University, Collins Avenue, Glasnevin, Dublin 9, Ireland.
Email: paola.rivetti@dcu.ie
Alternatives: Global, Local, Political
2013, Vol. 38(4) 305-320
ª The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0304375413519191
alt.sagepub.com
at Masarykova Univerzita on February 15, 2016alt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
application to get political asylum to the last stage of their new life in a foreign country, namely local
integration. The world that refugees inhabit is highly institutionalized, and governmental or nongovernmental
actors at both national and international level norm a massive part of their life. This is
true not only for the administrative process the refugees and asylum seekers must go through in order
to get asylum. It is valid for their personal and everyday life as well, since local nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs) and charity organizations often assist them in different fields of their lives,
from job search to housing and mental health.
This article examines this institutionalized world and the relations of power that compose it by
focusing on the process of identity construction among Iranian refugees in Turkey and Italy. It
demonstrates that the contexts in which refugees live play a fundamental role in orienting this
process and in shaping the refugees’ identity. The article examines the incorporation of such an
identity by the Iranian refugees through the analysis of the ‘‘microphysics of power’’ to which they
are subjected3
as well as the subversion refugees may enact against these mechanisms.
A number of studies have already examined the idea of ‘‘a refugee’’ as a social and political construction
rather than as a generalized definition.4
This essay draws from this literature, but examines
in detail the construction of ‘‘refugeeness’’5
by considering three different levels. First, the study
focuses on the role of refugees’ own network and connections, such as family and friends, in shaping
a given definition of ‘‘a refugee.’’ Second, it focuses on international politics, which has been enhancing
the representation of Iranians as repressed, in particular after the 2009 uprisings and consequent
regime repression. Third, the research looks at the role of NGOs, specifically voluntary and charity
organizations assisting refugees at the local level, which socialize the refugees to ‘‘refugeeness’’
through everyday practices. In the case of Iranian political refugees, the interlocked effect of these
three levels is particularly powerful in showing how ‘‘refugeeness’’ may be enhanced among, or
imposed on, refugees. Indeed, the high number of Iranian political refugees around the world favors
the flow of information toward Iran regarding political asylum and emigration, making this experience
part of the collective psyche in Iran. Furthermore, the dominant idea that people from Iran flee
from dictatorship informs both public opinion and the civil society organizations dealing with them.
The article examines two different aspects of the entwined play of these levels. First, drawing on
Michel Foucault’s notion of biopolitics,6
it contends that this complex system of national, international,
governmental, and nongovernmental actors limit refugees’ option for an autonomous process
of identity construction, conflating their identity toward ‘‘refugeeness’’ which, in this case, is
strongly linked to political activism.
Second, elaborating on Judith Butler’s account of ‘‘performativity,’’7
this research examines the
mechanisms of subversion and criticism that the refugees put forth. It is observed that criticism is an
option for refugees, who often claim autonomously their rights and oppose the current international
policies on asylum and the NGOs’ activities. Yet these claims are performed through reiterated
‘‘scripts of refugeeness,’’ the ultimate element that legitimate any criticism. They do not reverse the
‘‘grammar of domination’’ they went through: acting in ways a refugee is expected to act remains
what actually legitimates them and their claims.
Linking Agency and Structure in Refugee Studies
Refugees, and in particular political refugees, have significantly changed in numbers, origins, and
social background over the last decades. Asylum legislation has changed along with international
politics after the Cold War, and so has the way in which social sciences study political asylum and
refugees, enlarging the topics under consideration and enriching the disciplinary approaches.8
Refugee studies constitute a growing body of literature that is under constant redefinition as a
consequence of the crucial relationship they hold with policy making and public opinion.
306 Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 38(4)
at Masarykova Univerzita on February 15, 2016alt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Many studies underline the condition of extreme domination in which refugees live: forced to flee
their own country, they are later subjugated to tight legislation in the receiving countries and often
live in harsh conditions.9
Others studies underline the refugee’s agency, arguing that a focus on their
capacity of reaction is useful in order to avoid generalization and an incorrect representation of
refugees as passive victims.10
Following this last strand, Carolina Moulin and Peter Nyers defined
the contestations organized by refugees as actions of a ‘‘global political society,’’ thus granting the
refugees, ‘‘who are usually denied the status of political beings,’’11
with the capacity of critically
review the asylum-related policies over a number of issues.
Other studies focus on legal, moral, and institutional implications of political asylum,12
exploring
the opportunity for enlarging its legal definition,13
and examining the impact of asylum policy on the
international system.14
A separated but connected body of literature elaborates on the relation
between refugees’ movements and human security15
in the context of environmental degradation,
where the refugees are both the cause and the consequence of environmental problems,16
poor food
security,17
or ethnic conflicts.18
On one hand, the focus on refugees’ political and social agency means that the conceptualization
of the politics of asylum is centered on the refugees themselves. This approach underlines the
refugees’ capacity of choice and strategic thinking but neglects the degree to which refugees are
merged in a context that often dominates them. On the other hand, the focus on the structure of political
asylum, whether this analysis may be policy-oriented or legally driven, is very much centered on
the structure of political asylum, neglecting the issues connected to refugees’ everyday life, room for
action and needs.
However, far from being two distinct spheres, refugees’ agency and the political/legal structure of
political asylum interact and are implicated in each other. This is particularly relevant if we consider
how the refugees’ individuality and agency are managed by international, national, and local legislations
and actors, which compose a complex system of multilevel governance. In line with those
studies arguing that the legislation and bureaucratic practices do not only norm reality but create the
objects they aim to regulate,19
this article examines how institutions and organizations working with
refugees also participate in creating the subject of their action and assistance.
Political refugees and asylum seekers deal with institutions at an international level, such as the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), with international nongovernmental
actors such as Frontline or Amnesty International, and with ‘‘closer’’ actors such as national governments,
local NGOs, and policy makers receiving them in the host country. Recalling the Foucauldian
idea of biopolitics, which roughly speaking refers to a set of institutionalized practices through
which people’s lives are (self) governed and (self) disciplined,20
this article contends that it is within
this context that the performativity of ‘‘being a refugee’’ takes shape and develops, bridging the refugees’
agency and the political and legal structure of political asylum.21
In particular, international
politics, the refugees’ personal networks, and local NGOs assisting them provide a clear definition of
‘‘refugeeness,’’ which is offered (if not imposed) to the refugees.
But this process does not only come about through classical forms institutional pressures, it also
takes shape through the efforts of empowering the refugees politically. International politics,
personal connections, and local NGOs play a significant role in setting political opportunities for
refugees. In the case of Iran, the internationally dominant discourse of democracy and human rights
has been particularly powerful in framing the political claims of the Green Movement and of the
refugees coming from that context,22
somehow promoting a superficial identification of the Iranians
leaving Iran after 2009 with ‘‘Green movement activists’’ or ‘‘human rights defenders.’’ Relying on
this same democratic rhetoric and political imaginary, the Iranian activists from the Diaspora,
NGOs, and ‘‘civil society organizations’’ play a regulative role as well, often by providing to the
refugees the necessary social capital in a new country for continuing with their political activities.23
Although this context seems to offer political opportunities for action and criticism to the refugees,
Rivetti 307
at Masarykova Univerzita on February 15, 2016alt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
empowering them to reclaim rights and ‘‘play strategically’’ with their status,24
in reality it forces
refugees in the clothes of ‘‘democratic activists and human rights defenders.’’ Instead of ‘‘liberating’’
them through political empowerment, such a context may produce a never-ending ‘‘performance
of activism,’’ through which refugees are acknowledged with a status. This is similar to
the notion of ‘‘gender performativity’’ as developed by Judith Butler, who understands gender as
a social constructed identity formed and incorporated through fixed and reiterated performances
or ‘‘gendered doings.’’ Such a performativity, Butler argues, can be subverted through a process
of re-signification and reinvention of gender acting outside of the given scripts.25
However, in this
case study, not the process of ‘‘empowering refugees politically’’ nor refugees’ criticism to the policies
they are subjected to result in a re-signification or in a contestation of ‘‘refugeeness’’ itself,
despite the positive role attached to political agency. Quite to the contrary, contestations and
empowerment foster the dominant relations of power that see refugees engaged in performing what
a refugee is expected to be and acting as they are expected to act.
In order to bring evidences and shed light on these dynamics, the case of Iranian political refugees
in Turkey and Italy will be examined. The choice of these two countries is motivated by the different
conditions they offer. The Italian government recognizes Iranians as refugees, whereas Turkey still
adopts the geographical limitations on political asylum. In Turkey, non-European refugees
are granted as such by the local UNHCR branch only and wait for resettlement in a third country
in Europe, North America, or Oceania.26
Furthermore, because of the rollback of the welfare state,
in Italy political refugees are assisted by charity organizations and NGOs that follow them in many
aspects of their life, providing different services and expertise. In Turkey, the number of NGOs and
civil society organizations assisting refugees is growing but still, they are less relevant to policy
making, integration, and welfare policies than in Italy.27
Such differences enhance the relevance
of the three levels of analysis (personal connections, local assistance, and international politics)
in shaping Iranians’ identity as political refugees. In the case of Italy, where Iranian refugees are less
in number but have a greater access to rights, the role of local NGOs is very relevant to the process of
identity construction. In Turkey, where many refugees or asylum seekers spend years waiting for
resettlement, the importance of personal connections is enhanced. Family and friends can indeed
provide information, the necessary social capital for connections within Turkey or outside of it, and
this may speed up the process of resettlement. The relevance of the international level is present in
both settings, and it acts powerfully by influencing the institutional and NGOs’ attitude toward Iranians
and by shaping the refugees’ frames of behavior and self-representation.
Methodology
This article rests on semistructured interviews and fieldwork with Iranian refugees in Italy and
Turkey conducted between 2009 and 2012. The fieldwork in these two countries has been preceded
by fieldwork in Iran, where I conducted research on ‘‘civil society activism’’ and dissent between
2005 and 2008. Fifty-two interviews compose the main body of interviews, but many refugees have
been repeatedly interviewed and a significant part of my fieldwork has been characterized by participant
observation, since many refugees both in Turkey and Italy have shared with me their everyday
life for a number of months. Like the majority of Iranian political refugees or asylum seekers, they
share a general commitment to a democratic reform of the Islamic Republic, supported Moussavi or
Karroubi’s candidature at the 2009 presidential election and oppose Ahmadinejad’s government.
This multisited field research in different countries and periods allowed me to follow the
developments of successful and unsuccessful asylum applications, witness the refugees’ efforts to
conform to the idea of ‘‘a refugee’’ and the exchange of suggestions on how to behave and what
to say before the commissions granting the status of political refugee. However, teaching how to
perform refugeeness does not only take place within the asylum seekers’ communities but also
308 Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 38(4)
at Masarykova Univerzita on February 15, 2016alt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
through the relations the refugees hold with local NGOs and UNHCR. This relation was often characterized
by references to the fact that ‘‘Iranians have struggled for democracy, everyone knows.’’28
I also witnessed refugees’ contestations against local policies as well as against NGOs’ behavior. I
worked as social worker assisting Iranian political refugees for two Italian organizations between
2009 and 2012, and so I observed the shaping of refugees’ identity closely. As a matter of fact, I
had an active role in it.
Furthermore, I conducted some interviews with privileged witnesses such as experts or social
workers from organizations rescuing Iranian activists in The Netherlands and United States of
America, in order to cross-verify the information I gathered in Turkey and Italy. Finally, I want
to make clear that I am well aware of the ideological heterogeneity of the Iranian communities living
outside of the Islamic Republic. However, the majority of the individuals I interviewed share a common
support for the reformists. The Iranian Diaspora is indeed ideologically diversified and there are
sharp contrasts among Marxists, liberals, monarchists, and reformists. This article does not overlook
this political diversity but focuses on the reformists because those preferring this political allegiance
seem to be the majority of those who left Iran in the aftermath of the 2009 crisis.29
However, this
might not be a case. According to the dominant perception, it is the reformists and the Green movement
members who suffered the most because of the regime repression following the 2009 electoral
crisis. Therefore, the reformists and ‘‘Greens’’ have become somehow the prototype of those forced
to leave Iran because of their political beliefs.
Iranian Refugees in Turkey: The Relevance of Personal Networks and
International Politics
Since the Islamic revolution, the image of the refugee has been crucial in identifying Iranians
abroad. Iranian re´ssortissants are normally divided into different waves, the most relevant being
the one following the 1979 revolution.30
The biggest Iranian population outside of Iran is in the
United States, followed by Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, Australia, and Sweden, where
it is estimated that some four millions Iranians leave in total.31
But beyond these Western countries,
Turkey is another top destination for Iranians. According to Koser Akc¸apar,32
it was estimated
that 300,000 to 1.5 million Iranians entered Turkey after the 1979 and stayed there until
the end of the 1980s.
Since 1979 however other flows of Iranians have increased the ranks of ‘‘exiles’’ both in the
Western world and in Turkey. During and after the 2009 protests, many have decided to leave Iran
and became asylum seekers or refugees. According to the statistics of the Iranian Refugees’
Alliance,33
in 2009, almost 16,000 Iranians applied for asylum worldwide and in 2011 the applicants
were almost 25,000. Iranians constitute the highest number of asylum applicants in Turkey, and
unofficial statistics estimate the number of Iranians currently living in Turkey as somewhere
between 200,000 and 500,000.34
According to the UNHRC, in 2010, the rate of new arrivals to
Turkey from Iran increased from 7,840 in 2009 to 9,230. For the year 2013, the organization estimates
that there could be over 25,000 people of concern in Turkey coming from Iran.35
The issue of Iranian migration has undergone different waves of attention by the media and public
opinion. Having the 2009 protests been broadcast all over the world, they appealed to the international
public opinion and constructed a stereotyped image of the Iranian people as engaged in
dissent. Those leaving the country have so been attached to the image of the opponents, generally
represented as young, democratic, ‘‘modern,’’ and educated in contrast with a regime portrayed
as backward, antimodern, and above all illegitimate.36
For Iranians, emigration stands often in between a rational investment and a urgent necessity.
Activists live in a highly hostile context and risk long-term imprisonment, but at the same time share
with non-activists harsh economic and social conditions of life. Family and personal connections
Rivetti 309
at Masarykova Univerzita on February 15, 2016alt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
play a relevant role in shaping and developing the idea of emigrating, and above all in addressing the
re´ssortissants toward political asylum, which seems the best option available.
My family knows that I am here. But they are happy, somehow, they knew that I could not live in Iran.
They educated me according to European standards. So I cannot live in Iran, and they are aware of this.
My mother says I will have better chances in Europe and she is right. Before I left, we went to a lawyer
and they explained me everything about political asylum.37
Of course I miss my family. But they gave me so much money for leaving that now I cannot disappoint
them. I would like to go back, but I cannot live according to the Islamic Republic’s standard, I never
could. That’s why they supported my decision to leave.38
I was a well-known activist in Iran, so my family was kind of prepared to this. Before me, my older
brother left Iran because of politics [ . . . ]. So my parents knew that. I have always known that they have
been saving money for the last years for this purpose [ . . . ] I left for a better future: university, well paid
job and decent life [ . . . ] I knew from my brother and parents that all this is easier when you are a
refugee.39
Considering the role of the families and financial savings, emigration seems a real investment for a
new, better life outside of Iran. This consideration echoes the studies arguing that migration is more
and more interlocked with human rights abuses, highlighting the problematic nature of a practical differentiation
between the ‘‘ordinary migrants,’’ who theoretically have not been forced to emigrate, and
refugees.40
Indeed, the grip of the Iranian regime on society exerts a powerful pressure toward emigration
by both sanctioning political activism and limiting social freedom. The poor economic performances
of Iran are of course another pushing factor for emigration. The forced nature of emigration
and the will of looking for a better existence abroad are two overlapping elements. Iranian refugees
themselves wave between these two narrations. It is difficult to keep divided the ambition for a better
life (find a good job, have access to education and language) and pure political commitment as the
reason for leaving Iran. This seems more relevant if we consider that some of the most politically
active interviewees stated that they would leave political activism when resettled in the third country,
where they would think only to university to assure a bright professional future.41
Within the political economy of migration, be it forced or not, the arrival in the host country is an
important moment. Generally speaking, having friends or contacts arranged by the family of origin
means to be hosted in a place and easily get information about the process of asylum application. In
the case of Iranian asylum seekers in Turkey, if there are no friends or relatives helping them, the
smuggler plays a fundamental role by giving ‘‘survival information’’ about the country. But personal
connections are also important to receive the right training: behaving and saying the right things
before the UNHCR commission is often a major concern for Iranians. I participated in a trip to Van
(Eastern Turkey) in November 2011 with a group of Iranian refugees who wanted to document their
national fellows’ conditions of life after the earthquake.42
One of the most frequently discussed
topics within the Iranian community in Van was the application for asylum to the UNHCR, its time
length and possible results. One of the refugees was particularly active in offering suggestions on
how to perform ‘‘refugeeness’’ at best:
You need to know your rights [ . . . ] the UNHCR values this as an element indicating your previous political
engagement. If you don’t show them that you know what political asylum is, they will be sure that
you are pretending to be an activist [ . . . ] And try to collect letters and statements that prove you have
been doing political activities in Iran.43
Another participant, a refugee waiting for resettlement in the United States, explained that:
310 Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 38(4)
at Masarykova Univerzita on February 15, 2016alt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Many people here do not have a strong dossier [meaning strong evidences that they were doing political
activities in Iran] so they need to be the most convincing possible. For example, put forth a big name of
Iranian politics is a good strategy [ . . . ] or saying that you were working for a human rights group, or
reformists’ electoral campaign . . . 44
The political affiliation is a very important element in determining the success and the rapidity of
the decision process on the asylum seekers’ application:
It works like ‘‘bands’’ (band-ha): if you are a monarchist, you get the Pahlavi Foundation’s support and
they are powerful and care about you. Marxists are practically forgotten here, their resettlement takes many
years. No country in the West wants them. For reformists, it depends on your connections [ . . . ] [for] those
who were embedded in high-level political circles, life in Turkey is easy because they normally have
money. And they leave Turkey quickly thanks to their contacts. [But even if you were generally supporting
reformists without any affiliation] it is always better to say that you are a reformist and human rights
activist.45
This ‘‘preference’’ is somehow confirmed by a social worker of a charity organization based in
Nevs¸ehir: ‘‘we have precise policies and expectations [ . . . ] it is clear that our main goal is the
respect of human rights [ . . . ] and the protection of human rights defenders [ . . . ] of course, we help
anyone is in need.’’46
This becomes clearer considering that the protection of human rights defenders
is a top concern for the European Union, the United Nations, and for many other institutions elaborating
policies or offering funding for humanitarian action.47
The obtainment of the status of political refugee is not the only reason for performing the role of
activist at best. Within the community of refugees, being recognized as a political activist determines
inclusion or exclusion from the group. Those who benefit from such a reputation are well welcomed
in the community, whereas those suspected of faking can be excluded. This is also evidenced
by the internal differentiation determined by how refugees joined Turkey. Contrary to those who
legally crossed the border, those who were obliged to turn to a smuggler for entering Turkey suffered
harsh judiciary persecution in Iran and therefore enjoy a positive and sometimes a-critical reputation
of activist.48
Although it seems that by playing strategically with their status refugees exert an independent
agency and elaborate options, the efforts of fitting the role of activist reproduce the existing set
of relations of power according to which refugees have to perform a certain role in order to be
accepted or considered as worth of help. ‘‘Refugeeness’’ thus becomes a performative process,
which is embedded and negotiated within a net of unequal relations among different actors: the families
expecting their efforts to be rewarded by a successful life abroad; the institutions granting political
asylum, which expect the refugees to ‘‘fill out’’ the preestablished role of human rights activists;
and the asylum seekers and refugees’ communities, which internally teach how to behave and speak
correctly, or in other words, how to perform refugeeness.
There are some peculiar elements helping Iranians in performing refugeeness. Considering the
widespread international representation of Iranians as activists and the world-broadcast repression
against the Green movement, political asylum is quite easily granted to Iranians. For example, it
holds true that Iranians are political refugees because it is widely known that the Islamic Republic
is a repressive regime, whereas Afghans are regarded as humanitarian refugees or migrants escaping
from poverty caused by the enduring war and violence. Furthermore, the flexibility of the Green
Movement in terms of internal organization leaves room for claiming a role within it, and the
ambiguity of jobs or activities such as the journalist, a profession which is poorly qualified in Iran,
or the blogger, may offer the opportunity of pretending a role. I am a journalist or I am a human
rights activist are among the most popular answers to the question ‘‘why did you leave Iran?’’49
Rivetti 311
at Masarykova Univerzita on February 15, 2016alt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Regardless of a real engagement in political activities, the well-established representation of
Iranians as freedom fighters allows single individuals to reclaim a role in and eventually feel like
part of a wider, collective struggle for democracy. The relevance of ‘‘being a political activist’’ is
such that sometimes Iranian refugees perceive themselves as more entitled of rights and protection
than ‘‘ordinary migrants.’’ This process of differentiation is often performed at the expenses of other
national groups.
There’s a huge difference between us, the Iranians, and for instance the Afghans. Afghans are migrants;
they emigrate from Afghanistan because they look for work and possibilities to earn money. We do not
leave Iran for this same reason. We were obliged to leave Iran because we are politically committed and
struggled for democracy in our country. [But here in Turkey the Afghans] enjoy more rights than us [ . . . ]
this is not fair from the point of view of what we sacrificed: we should enjoy more rights than Afghans,
and the UNHCR should grant to us the rights it gives to Afghans.50
We were told that the Italian government would look after us . . . we came to Italy and though that this
was a first world country. They say us that because we enjoy free accommodation, free education and a
small amount of money every week, we should be happy. They compared us to Somali! They said that
those people have less than us. No free accommodation, for example. But we are not like them. They
should not compare us to them! We are Iranians and they black people left their country because of hunger,
not because of a struggle against dictatorship.51
I heard that a social worker compared Iranians to Somali . . . why she did it? It is normal that the Iranians
got angry. [The social worker] must respect Iranians, she should not compare us to African people. We
fought for freedom and were forced to leave Iran for this, while they did not . . . they left their countries
because of poverty. And still in Italy Iranians enjoy less protection and respect than Somali do.52
Even if these declarations can be considered as exceptional, the examples mentioned above are
relevant in showing how the international representation of Iranians can become the dominant and
only frame informing the refugees’ self-perception and self-representation. This mechanism is
enhanced by the refugees’ poor living conditions, which may loosen their commitment to universal
values such as human equality and rights, highlighting the dark side of refugeeness.
The Paradox of Political Empowerment: Refugees in Italy between
International Politics and NGO Assistance
Beyond being subjected to mainstream representations and peers’ pressure, refugees are forced into
predetermined roles through other means too. One of these, paradoxically, is political empowerment
which, under certain circumstances, pushes the Iranian refugees into the preestablished category of
‘‘Green movement activists.’’
In Italy and many other countries, NGOs and non-state actors have over the last two decades
assumed a growing importance in substituting the rolling-back welfare states in many fields of social
policies. Assistance to refugees is one of them.53
NGOs and other civil society actors play a relevant
role at the local level by mediating among the policy makers, public opinion, and the refugees’
communities. They often are the direct interlocutor for refugees and play an important role in shaping
their identity. NGOs continuously frame the definition of ‘‘a refugee’’ by offering them services
and establishing dependency and implicit reciprocity.54
Furthermore, NGOs often have the political
capital needed in order to structure the political field of action for refugees, thus heavily influencing
refugees’ political capabilities and mobilization horizons.
This was particularly evident in the case of an Italian NGO which, in partnership with a network
of European NGOs focusing on human rights, rescued some Iranian ‘‘human rights defenders’’ from
312 Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 38(4)
at Masarykova Univerzita on February 15, 2016alt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Iran and Turkey between late 2009 and early 2010. The refugees were indicated by a human rights
NGO based in the United States as politically relevant within the Green movement and in danger of
life. Their survival would have eventually been crucial for the future of Iran. The NGO’s motivations
for rescuing the activists waved between a humanitarian concern over the lack of respect of human
rights in Iran, and a more opportunistic will of ‘‘becoming an important voice on Iranian politics
[ . . . ] because Iran stands at the very centre of the current Western political concerns.’’55
In order to carry out a successful project, it was therefore quite important that the Iranian refugees
did not abandon their political activism. Many studies have revealed how NGOs’ assistance
depoliticizes the refugees’ personal biography, turning them into mere objects of care.56
In this case
study, on the contrary, ‘‘being an activist’’ was an element the NGOs wanted to protect and
strengthen. For this reason, the Italian organization provided contacts and organized conferences
by making available its social capital to the refugees, setting a de facto field of activism and determining
political opportunities for the refugees. Among the NGO’s workers and leaders, indeed, the
shared idea was that the refugees needed their guidance in order to know how politics works in Italy,
or for changing their own conditions as refugees and influence the Italian politics toward Iran.57
Some scholars consider refugees’ contestations, which normally revolve around issues related to
asylum and welfare policy, as an evidence of growing empowerment and emancipation.58
However,
in the case study explored, the efforts for empowering politically the Iranian refugees have resulted
in a further strengthening of the role they had to play, namely ‘‘being activists of the Green movement.’’
Although this role was evidently becoming a too tight and uncomfortable identity, the refugees
never criticized it directly. On the contrary, they perpetuated the embodiment of the profile of
activists as expected by the NGO. This is of course partly linked to the rewarding aspects of ‘‘refugeeness’’:
the label of political refugee may indeed grant some facilities, such as receiving financial
support, education, or providing networks and contacts. However, the decision of conforming to the
standard expected by the NGO in order to enjoy the connected advantages is only a pale expression
of agency. Indeed, the strategy of noncooperation with the organization has a cost being far higher
than the one of cooperation, and determines risks the refugees are unlikely to bare.
This mechanism was evident in the occasion of a conference organized by the NGO on the Green
movement and human rights abuses in Iran held in June 2010 before the Commission for Human
Rights of the Italian Senate in Rome.59
Some refugees expressed their dissatisfaction with a number
of issues revolving around the political strategy chosen by the NGO. Talking of their own political
biography before the Parliament was not the political action they liked the most. They would prefer,
instead, organizing public demonstration or sit-ins, in order to attract the people’s attention on the
ongoing repression in Iran. Institutions, according to them, would never act significantly against the
Islamic Republic.60
However, they were aware of the strategic importance that this event had for
the NGO and, after receiving pressures and assurance by the organization that they would also
receive advantages such as public visibility and political credibility from taking part in it, the event
took place.
The refugees also contested the NGO’s attempt at denying their abilities of pointing out a set of
political opportunities autonomously. As a matter of fact, the NGO was very active in discouraging
independent political initiatives, and even the refugees’ contacts with media such as BBC Farsi or
Voice of America were a source of tension and concerns for the NGO. The refugees expressed this
discontent by repeatedly affirming their political credentials and the consideration they enjoyed in
Iran as well-known activists and journalists. Further conflicts exploded because, prior the audition to
the Italian Senate, the director of the NGO asked the refugees to read the drafts of their talks. This
was interpreted as an attempt of controlling what they had to say and they felt ‘‘treated like
children,’’ whereas they enjoyed very high-level political contacts in Iran.61
Generally, the many meetings and conferences the NGO organized were criticized by the
refugees on the basis of the fact that they were not acquainted with the NGO’s political network.
Rivetti 313
at Masarykova Univerzita on February 15, 2016alt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Conflicts erupted in December 2010 as the NGO organized a charity Christmas dinner to rise funding
for a project called ‘‘The Shelter,’’ a program of protection for human rights defenders expected
to provide future funding and assistance to the Iranian refugees as well.62
All the invitees were
people acquainted with the NGO and part of its local network. The refugees would have performed
the waiters, the parking attendants and the cookers, and during the dinner, they would have told their
story to the invitees. The refugees’ reaction was critical. Being at the center of the attention made
them to feel uneasy, because they did not know ‘‘who the invited persons are’’ and whether these
would be ‘‘on my same party if they were in Iran.’’63
Similar remarks were made after their participation
in another event, the Italian 2010 Peace March, where the refugees where invited as guest
stars and told their story before the numerous participants on a public stage.64
Although they felt quite imprisoned in the political proposal the organization set up for them, the
Iranian refugees never subverted the ‘‘scripts of refugeeness’’ the NGO expected. Their claims were
justified by their political past and by their present legal status, so that they did not radically review
the NGO’s expectation. The refugees were well aware of this, to the point that the few Marxist
refugees assisted by the NGO never expressed publicly their annoyance with the overpresence of
the ‘‘Green movement’’ and ‘‘reformist’’ rhetoric in every event and initiative on Iran.65
The discontent the refugees voiced did not take place outside the performativity of refugeeness
and perpetrated the existing unbalanced relation of power among the actors. On one side, the refugees
did not feel entitled with the right of choice between acting politically or not. They limited their
criticism to the practical aspects of the political initiatives the NGO designed for them, without questioning
their activism. On the other side, the NGO kept on shaping the refugees’ field of action,
‘‘demanding activism.’’
Conclusion
This article brings further evidence to confirm that refugees are merged in a context that dominates
them. This domination takes two shapes: it determines the refugees’ identity and limits their agency
in modifying such identity. The first element is linked to the influence that the rhetoric related to
democracy and democratization exerts on the refugees’ identity and on the humanitarian agendas
of international organizations and local NGOs. In particular, the insistence of international politics
on the discourse of human rights and democratization and the Iranian Diaspora’s capability of
exploiting it, have played a crucial role in defining Iranian refugees as pro-democratic activists. Notwithstanding
some differences, the case of Kurd refugees is similar to the Iranian one in that the
Kurds also have refashioned their self-representation and ideal cause in terms of human rights,
reacting proactively to the pervasiveness of such rhetoric.66
Second, the context limits the refugees’
agency in modifying the assumption that equates Iranian refugees to activists. Indeed, this article
points out that refugees are subjected to a number of pressures that push them toward the incorporation
and the performance of a role. Even if there is room for resistance and criticism, the emancipation
from this type of domination is an overly hard task.
However, these two forms of domination change in terms of intensity according to the contexts in
which the refugees are merged. In particular, the intensity of domination is linked to the presence of
strong or weak ties.67
In certain contexts, indeed, the refugees are freer to reject or criticize the label
of political activists and to stress its extreme flexibility. This happens in those contexts in which the
refugees have strong ties, hold personal relations and contacts with their respondents. On the
contrary, it seems that the performativity of ‘‘being a political refugee’’ increases its strength and
normativity in a context in which the refugees have weak ties.
For instance, in a context characterized by strong ties, such as the family, refugees seem to be
allowed to downplay their identity of activists and to put on the clothes of young people willing
to win better life conditions. As it has been pointed out in the article, the refugees’ families are well
314 Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 38(4)
at Masarykova Univerzita on February 15, 2016alt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
aware that getting political asylum could trigger further opportunities for education and work to their
sons and daughters. Therefore, families often encourage them to leave the country and apply for
political asylum. In such a context, the refugees are less pressurized to perform refugeeness,
although such a performance remains crucial when dealing with the world outside that particular
context. In the case of contexts characterized by weak ties, the refugees are less allowed to downplay
their identity of activists. This is the case of local NGOs assisting refugees and of international organizations
granting the status of refugee. In such contexts, refugees are obliged to perform a ‘‘plain’’
identity and to stick to the script of refugeeness which, in the case of Iranian refugees, has political
activism at its core.
In the middle of these two contexts, we find the peers’ community which is characterized by a
mix of strong and weak ties. Considering Granovetter’s definition, the ties characterizing the peers’
communities both entail and lack the elements making a tie strong (amount of time, emotional intensity,
intimacy, mutual confiding, and reciprocal services).68
Within these communities, refugees and
asylum seekers are exposed to two opposite pressures. On one side, the label of refugee is quite criticized
and it is not strictly taken as ‘‘actual’’ to the point that the refugees teach to each other how to
perform refugeeness at best in order to convince the institutions granting the status. On the other
side, ‘‘being an activist’’ is a matter which is taken rather seriously. The refugees’ communities are
indeed normed by mechanisms of reward or punishment adopted in the case of well-known or
‘‘fake’’ activists, respectively, and these mechanisms push the refugees and asylum seekers to perform
their identity of activists. In the context of the peers’ community, the label of refugee and the
one of activist seem to distance one from the other to become independent. However, this does not
mean that the refugees are able to increase their agency: as a matter of fact, their adherence to the
identity of activists does not allow the emersion of a complete, complex identity.
The room for criticizing the labels and roles linked to political asylum thus changes according to
the strength of the ties characterizing the context in which the refugees are merged. However, this
does not result in a subversion of such labels and roles, because they prove to be strategic. In particular,
this is true for those contexts characterized by weak ties, in which asylum seekers and refugees
limit their actions and identity to the preestablished standards they are required to fit. Seen
under this light, the political empowerment programs carried out by the organizations assisting the
refugees seem to be even more paradoxical. On one side, these programs aim to norm a relevant part
of the refugees’ life and suppose strong ties between the refugees and the organization personnel. As
the article has suggested, controlling the political activities the refugees wanted to carry out autonomously
was crucial to the NGO assisting them, which tried to impose to the refugees a predefined
set of political opportunities for undertaking political activities. But on the other side, the establishment
of such a close relation in terms of control was not rewarded by the possibility of letting a complex
identity to surface. The Iranian refugees, indeed, were considered only as activists by the NGO
plans and personnel. In conclusion, despite being normally associated to a positive function, political
empowerment does not always entail emancipation.
List of Interviews
A: 24, former member of the Central Committee of the Daftar-e Tahkim-e Vahdat (antiAhmadinejad
student union), political refugee. Interviewed in Van, July 2011.
B: 26, member of the youngster section of the party Mojahheddin-e Enqelab (reformist party).
Interviewed in Van, July 2011 and in Kayseri, April 2012.
C: 25, member of the Advar-e Tahkim-e Vahdat (reformist organization) and of the One Million
Signatures Campaign, member of the 2009 Karroubi’s presidential campaign, political refugee
in Turin, Italy. Participant observation between March 2010 and February 2011.
Rivetti 315
at Masarykova Univerzita on February 15, 2016alt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
D: around 45, political refugee in Van, Turkey. Interviewed in November 2011.
E: 28, journalist, member of Karroubi’s campaign, political refugee in Turin. Participant observation
between March 2010 and February 2011.
F: former member of the International Campaign of Human Rights in Iran, former UNFPA
National Project Director in Iran, former member of the Center for Women’s Participation.
Interviewed in January 2011.
G: 25, journalist, civil society activist. Political refugee in Turin. Participant observation between
March 2010 and February 2011.
H: 33, activist and political refugee, Association of Solidarity among Exiles. Repeatedly interviewed
in Eskisehir and Van, Turkey, between November 2011 and April 2012.
I: 24, deputy for women’s affairs in Karroubi’s presidential campaign, political refugee in Turin.
Participant observation between March 2010 and May 2011.
J: 34, member of Moussavi’s campaign, political refugee. Repeatedly interviewed in Eskisehir and
Van, between July 2011 and April 2012.
K: 33, former member of the United Front of Students, former Islamic Association of Students/
Tabarzadi’s group, political refugee. Repeatedly interviewed in Eskisehir and Van, between
November 2011 and April 2012.
L: 31, former member of the legal advisory group of the Daftar-e Tahkim-e Vahdat, political refugee
in Turin. Participant observation between March 2010 and February 2011.
M: 30, former member of the Central Committee of the Daftar-e Tahkim-e Vahdat, political refugee.
Repeatedly interviewed in Eskisehir and Van, between July 2011 and April 2012. Social
worker, human rights NGO, Nevs¸ehir, Turkey, Interviewed on February 2012.
Acknowledgment
The author would like to thank Sandro Busso for his very useful comments on the early versions of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication
of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication
of this article: The author is grateful to the Gerda Henkel Foundation for supporting this research in the
context of the programme ‘Islam, the Modern Nation State and Transnational Movements’.
Notes
1. Compare Bhupinder Chimni, ‘‘The Birth of a Discipline: From Refugee to Forced Migration Studies,’’
Journal of Refugee Studies 22, no. 1 (2009): 11–29; James Hathaway, ‘‘Forced Migration Studies: Could
We Agree Just to Date?’’ Journal of Refugee Studies 20, no. 3 (2007): 349–69. Douglas Massey, Joaquin
Arango, Hugo Graeme, Ali Kouaouci, Adela Pellegrino, and Edward Taylor, ‘‘Theories of International
Migration: A Review and Appraisal,’’ Population and Development Review 19, no. 3 (1993): 431–66;
Alejandro Portes, ‘‘Immigration Theory for a New Century: Some Problems and Opportunities,’’ International
Migration Review 31, no. 4 (1997): 799–825; Joaquı´n Arango, ‘‘Explaining Migration: A Critical
View,’’ International Social Science Journal 52, no. 165 (2000): 283–96; Philomena Essed, ‘‘Gender,
Migration and Cross-Ethnic Coalition Building,’’ in Crossfires: Nationalism, Racism and Gender in Europe,
ed. Helma Lutz, Anna Phoenix, and Nira Yuval-Davis (London, UK: Pluto Press, 1995), 48–64.
2. Roger Zetter, ‘‘More Labels, Fewer Refugees: Remaking the Refugee Label in an Era of Globalization,’’
Journal of Refugee Studies 20, no. 2 (2007): 172–92.
316 Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 38(4)
at Masarykova Univerzita on February 15, 2016alt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
3. Michel Foucault, Surveiller et punir. Naissance de la prison, part III (Paris, France: Gallimard, 1975);
Claire Edwards, ‘‘Cutting off the King’s Head: The ‘Social’ in Hannah Arendt and Michel Foucault,’’ Studies
in Social and Political Thought 1, no. 1 (1999): 3–20; Ciaran Cronin, ‘‘Bourdieu and Foucault on Power
and Modernity,’’ Philosophy Social Criticism 22, no. 6 (1996): 55–85.
4. Zetter, ‘‘Refugees and Refugee Studies. A Label and an Agenda,’’ Journal of Refugee Studies 1, no. 1
(1998): 1–6; Lisa Malkki, ‘‘Refugees and Exile: From Refugee Studies to the National Order of Things,’’
Annual Review of Anthropology 24, no. 1 (1995): 495–523; Jeremy Hein, ‘‘Refugees, Immigrants, and the
State,’’ Annual Review of Sociology 19 (1993): 43–59; Stephen Castles, ‘‘Twenty-first-century Migration
as a Challenge to Sociology,’’ Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 33, no. 3 (2007): 351–71; Kevin
Johnson, ‘‘Aliens and the U.S. Immigration Laws: The Social and Legal Construction of Nonpersons,’’ The
University of Miami Inter-American Law Review 28, no. 2 (1996): 263–92; Gareth Mulvey, ‘‘When Policy
Creates Politics: the Problematizing of Immigration and the Consequences for Refugee Integration in the
UK,’’ Journal of Refugee Studies 23, no. 4 (2010): 437–62.
5. Alice Szcepanikova, ‘‘Performing Refugeeness in the Czech Republic. Gendered Depoliticisation through
NGO Assistance,’’ Gender, Place & Culture 17, no. 4 (2010):461–77.
6. Foucault, The History of Sexuality, vol. 1, trans. Robert Hurley (New York: Vintage, 1990); Foucault, The
Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the College de France, 1978-1979, trans. Graham Burchell (New York:
Picador, 2008).
7. Judith Butler, ‘‘Gender as Performance: An Interview with Judith Butler,’’ Radical Philosophy 67 (1994):
32–39.
8. Anthony Richmond, Global Apartheid: Refugees, Racism and the New World Order (Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press, 1994); Nicholas Van Hear, ‘‘Forcing the Issue: Migration Crises and the Uneasy
Dialogue between Refugee Research and Policy,’’ Journal of Refugee Studies 25, no. 1 (2011): 2–24; Richard
Black, ‘‘Fifty Years of Refugee Studies: From Theory to Policy,’’ International Migration Review 35, no. 1
(2001): 57–78; Giulia Scarlettaris, ‘‘Refugee Studies and the International Refugee Regime: A Reflection on
a Desirable Separation,’’ Refugee Survey Quarterly 26, no. 3 (2007): 36–50; Stephen Castles, ‘‘Towards a
Sociology of Forced Migration and Social Transformation,’’ Sociology 37, no. 1 (2003): 13–34.
9. Barbara Harrell-Bond, ‘‘The Experience of Refugees as Recipients of Aid,’’ in Refugees: Perspectives on
the Experience of Forced Migration, ed. Alistair Ager (London, UK: Pinter, 1999), 136–68; Prem Kumar
Rajaram, ‘‘Humanitarianism and Representations of the Refugee,’’ Journal of Refugee Studies 15, no. 3
(2002): 247–64.
10. Philomena Essed, Georg Frerks, and Joke Schijvers, eds., Refugees and the Transformation of Societies:
Agency, Policies, Ethics and Politics (New York: Berghahn Books, 2004).
11. Carolina Moulin and Peter Nyers, ‘‘We Live in a Country of UNHCR. Refugee Protests and Global
Political Society,’’ International Political Sociology 1, no. 4 (2007): 358.
12. Matthew J. Gibney, The Ethics and Politics of Asylum. Liberal Democracy and the Response to Refugees
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); Emma Haddad, The Refugee in International Society.
Between Sovereigns (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008); Mayron Weiner, ‘‘Ethics,
National Sovereignty and the Control of Immigration,’’ International Migration Review 30, no. 1
(1996): 171–97.
13. Guy S. Goodwin-Gill and Jane McAdam, The Refugee in International Law (Oxford and New York:
Oxford University Press, 2007), 421–46.
14. Daniel Joly, ed., Global Changes in Asylum Regimes (New York: Palgrave, 2002).
15. James Milner, ‘‘Refugees and the Regional Dynamics of Peacebuilding,’’ Refugee Survey Quarterly 28, no.
1 (2009): 13–30.
16. Martin Adrian, ‘‘Environmental Conflict between Refugee and Host Communities,’’ Journal of Peace
Research, 42, no. 3 (2005): 329–46; Leah Berry, The Impact of Environmental Degradation on
Refugee-Host Relations: A Case Study from Tanzania, New Issues in Refugee Research Working Paper
no. 151 (Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 2008]).
Rivetti 317
at Masarykova Univerzita on February 15, 2016alt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
17. Emma Hooper, Pakistan’s Food Crisis. Water, Energy, Agriculture & Power: The Conflict Ahead, Notes
Internationals CIDOB no. 25 (Barcelona, Spain: CIDOB, 2010).
18. James K. Gasana, ‘‘Natural Resource Scarcity and Violence in Rwanda,’’ in Conserving the Peace:
Resources, Livelihoods and Scarcity, ed. Richard Matthew, Mark Halle, and Jason Switzer (Winnipeg,
Canada: International Institute of Sustainable Development, 2002), 199–246.
19. Cris Shore and Susan Wright, ‘‘Policy: A New Field of Anthropology,’’ in Anthropology of Policy: Critical
Perspectives on Governance and Power, ed. Cris Shore and Susan Wright (London, UK: Routledge, 1997),
3–39; Cynthia Hardy, ‘‘Refugee Determination: Power and Resistance in Systems of Foucauldian Power,’’
Administration & Society 35, no. 4 (2003): 462–88; Randy Lippert, ‘‘Governing Refugees: The Relevance
of Governmentality to Understanding the International Refugee Regime,’’ Alternatives: Global, Local,
Political 24, no. 3 (1999): 295–328.
20. Thomas Lemke, ‘‘The Birth of Bio-politics: Michel Foucault’s Lecture at the Colle`ge de France on
Neo-liberal Governmentality,’’ Economy and Society 30, no. 2 (2001): 191, Mark Salter, ‘‘The Global Visa
Regime and the Political Technologies of the International Self: Borders, Bodies, Biopolitics,’’ Alternatives:
Global, Local, Political 31, no. 2 (2006): 167–69, 173, 178–80, 184–85.
21. Zetter, ‘‘More Labels, Fewer Refugees,’’ 2007.
22. Hamid Dabashi, The Green Movement and the USA. The Fox and the Paradox (London, UK: Zed Books,
2010); Ramin Jahanbegloo, ed., Civil Society and Democracy in Iran (London, UK: Lexington Books,
2011); Eva Østergaard-Nielsen, ‘‘The Politics of Migrants’ Transnational Political Practices,’’ International
Migration Review 37, no. 3 (2003): 760–86; Paola Rivetti and Francesco Cavatorta, ‘‘The Importance
of being Civil Society:’ Student Politics and the Reformist Movement in Khatami’s Iran,’’ Middle
Eastern Studies 49, no. 4 (2013): 645-660. See also http://www.ned.org/events/democracy-award/2010-
democracy-award.
23. For example, see the collaboration the Dutch NGO Hivos has established with Iranian refugees. Accessed
January 15, 2013, http://www.hivos.nl/dut/community/partner/10011166. See also Paola Rivetti, ‘‘Coopting
Civil Society Activism in Iran,’’ in Civil Society in Syria and Iran: Activism in Authoritarian Contexts,
ed. Paul Aarts and Francesco Cavatorta (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2013), 187–206.
24. Zetter, ‘‘More Labels, Fewer Refugees,’’ 2007.
25. Butler, ‘‘Gender is Burning: Questions of Appropriation and Subversion,’’ in Dangerous Liaisons. Gender,
Nation, and Postcolonial Perspectives, ed. Anne McClintock, Aamir Mufti, and Ella Shohat (Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota, 2004), 381–95; Butler, ‘‘Imitation and Gender Subordination,’’ in Cultural Theory
and Popular Culture: A Reader, ed. John Storey (Edinburgh, Scotland: Pearson Education Limited,
2006), 255–65; Nayak Anoop and Mary J. Kehily, ‘‘Gender Undone: Subversion, Regulation and Embodiment
in the Work of Judith Butler,’’ British Journal of Sociology of Education 27, no. 4 (2006): 459–72.
26. Ahmet Icduygu and Kemal Kirisci, ed., Land of Diverse Migrations: Challenges of Emigration and
Immigration in Turkey (Istanbul, Turkey: Bilgi University Press, 2009); Didem Danis¸, Integration in
Limbo, Iraqi, Afghan, Maghrebi and Iranian Migrants in Istanbul, MiReKoc Research Projects (Ankara,
Turkey: Koc University, 2006).
27. Tiziana Caponio, ‘‘Policy Networks and Immigrants’ Associations in Italy. The Cases of Milan, Bologna
and Naples,’’ Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 31, no. 5 (2005): 931–50; Ic¸duygu, ‘‘Demographic
Mobility and Turkey: Migration Experiences and Government Responses,’’ Mediterranean Quarterly 15,
no. 4 (2004): 88–99.
28. Personal communication with a social worker, Nevs¸ehir, February 2012.
29. This is what resulted from the fieldwork. Marxists wait for resettlement for a longer time than ‘‘reformists’’
or ‘‘human rights activists,’’ as I could observe during my fieldwork in Turkey. The reformist affiliation
may be used as a strategy but still, it is the most often cited affiliation by the refugees I met in Turkey,
Italy, and elsewhere.
30. Halleh Ghorashi, ‘‘Agents of Change or Passive Victims: The Impact of Welfare States (the case of The
Netherlands) on Refugees,’’ Journal of Refugee Studies 18, no. 2 (2005): 181–98.
318 Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 38(4)
at Masarykova Univerzita on February 15, 2016alt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
31. Halleh Ghorashi and Kees Boersma, ‘‘The ‘Iranian Diaspora’ and the New Media: From Political Action to
Humanitarian Help,’’ Development and Change 40, no. 4 (2009): 674.
32. Sebnem Koser Akc¸apar, ‘‘Rethinking Migrants’ Networks and Social Capital: A Case-study of Iranians in
Turkey,’’ International Migration 48, no. 2 (2010): 163.
33. Iranian Refugees’ Alliance, ‘‘Statistical Data on Iranian Refugees and Asylum Seekers (last updated
September 2012),’’ 2012, accessed January 21, 2013, http://www.irainc.org/iranref/statistics.php.
34. Koser Akc¸apar, ‘‘Rethinking Migrants’ Networks and Social Capital,’’ 165.
35. Accessed January 21, 2013, http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e48e0fa7f.html.
36. Said Rahnema, ‘‘Civil Society versus the State: The Face-off in Iran Continues,’’ The Mark, August 5,
2009; Nazenin Ansari, ‘‘Six Factors, Four Questions,’’ Open Democracy, June 22, 2009; Jahanbegloo,
ed., Civil Society and Democracy in Iran, 2011; Jahanbegloo, ‘‘Iran and the Democratic Struggle in the
Middle East,’’ Middle East Law and Governance 3, no. 1–2 (2011): 126–35; Karim Sadjadpour, ‘‘The
Ayatollah Under the Bed(sheets),’’ Foreign Policy, May-June 2012, accessed January 15, 2013, http://
www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/23/the_ayatollah_under_the_bedsheets.
37. Interview with O, political refugee.
38. Interview with L, political refugee.
39. Interview with A, political refugee.
40. Van Hear, ‘‘Forcing the Issue,’’ 2011; Scarlettaris, ‘‘Refugee Studies and the International Refugee
Regime,’’ 2007; David Turton, Refugees, Forced Resettlers and ‘Other Forced Migrants’: Towards
a Unitary Study of Forced Migration, New Issues in Refugee Research, Working Paper no. 94 (Geneva,
Switzerland: UNHCR, 2003); Oliver Bakewell, ‘‘Research beyond the Categories: The Importance of
Policy Irrelevant Research into Forced Migration,’’ Journal of Refugee Studies 21, no. 4 (2008):
432–53; Roberta Cohen, ‘‘Response to Hathaway,’’ Journal of Refugee Studies 20, no. 3 (2007):
370–6.
41. Personal communication with E, I, A, political refugees, Italy and Turkey.
42. In comparison, ‘‘Strong earthquake hits Turkey, up to 1,000 feared killed,’’ Reuters, October 23, 2011;
‘‘Iranian refugees stranded in quake-stricken city,’’ Radio Zamaneh, November 11, 2011.
43. H, political refugee, addressing to a family of asylum seekers, in Van, November 2011.
44. Personal communication with M, political refugee.
45. Personal communication with H, political refugee.
46. Personal communication with a social worker, Nevs¸ehir, November 2011.
47. Michelle Pace, Peter Seeberg, and Francesco Cavatorta, ‘‘The EU’s Democratization Agenda in the Mediterranean:
A Critical Inside-out Approach,’’ Democratization 16, no. 1 (2009): 3–19.
48. Fieldwork in Turkey, participant observation.
49. This consideration is beyond my awareness of the fact that among Iranians in Turkey and Italy—and in
Iran, when they start plan their journey—there is a huge portion of activists who suffer violence because
of their political activities. This author does not suggest that asylum seekers are liars or that asylum is given
improperly to people who do not deserve it. My purpose is the one of highlighting the processes ‘‘behind
the curtains’’ that are part of the politics of asylum.
50. Address of D during a public meeting among Iranians, Van, November 2011.
51. Personal communication with G, political refugee, Turin, December 2010.
52. Personal communication with F, Turin, January 2011.
53. Eve Lester, ‘‘A Place at the Table: The Role of NGOS in Refugee Protection. International Advocacy and
Policy-making,’’ Refugee Survey Quarterly 24, no. 2 (2005): 125–42; Mark Raper, ‘‘Changing Roles of
NGOs in Refugee Assistance,’’ in Refugees and Forced Displacement. International Security, Human
Vulnerability, and the State, ed. Edward Newman and Joanne van Selm (Paris, France: United Nations
University Press, 2003), 350–66.
54. Nelson Phillips and Cynthia Hardy, ‘‘Managing Multiple Identities: Discourse, Legitimacy and
Resources in the UK Refugee System,’’ Organization 4, no. 2 (1997): 159–85; Jennifer Hyndman and
Rivetti 319
at Masarykova Univerzita on February 15, 2016alt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Malathi De Alwis, ‘‘Beyond Gender: Towards a Feminist Analysis of Humanitarianism and Development
in Sri Lanka,’’ Women’s Studies Quarterly 31, no. 3/4 (2003): 212–26.
55. Personal communication with the president of the NGO, Turin.
56. Dorsh M. de Voe, ‘‘Framing Refugees as Clients,’’ International Migration Review 15, no. 1/2 (1981): 88–
94; Harrell-Bond, Imposing Aid: Emergency Assistance to Refugees (Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press, 1986); Peter Nyers, Rethinking Refugees. Beyond States of Emergency (New York: Routledge,
2006); Nevzat Soguk, States and Strangers: Refugees and Displacements of Statecraft (Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press, 1999); Hyndman, Managing Displacement. Refugees and the Politics of Humanitarianism
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000).
57. Participant observation, Turin.
58. See, for instance, Moulin and Nyers, ‘‘We Live in a Country of UNHCR,’’ 2007.
59. accessed January 15, 2013, http://www.flarenetwork.org/act/events_with_flare/article/iran_one_year_
after_the_elections.htm, and also accessed June 14, 2012, http://www.pietromarcenaro.it/index.php?
option¼com_content&task¼view&id¼889&Itemid¼245.
60. Participant observation, March–April 2010.
61. Participant observation, May 2010.
62. Accessed June 14, 2012, http://terradelfuoco.org/2010/12/cena-e-asta-di-beneficenza/., see also accessed
January 15, 2013, http://www.flarenetwork.org/act/flare_events/article/oc_corruption_and_human_rights_
conference_at_the_eu_parliament.htm.
63. Participant observation, Turin, May 2010.
64. AccessedJanuary15,2013,http://www.macondo.it/2010/della-marcia-perugia-assisi-2010/;accessedJanuary
15, 2013, http://www.perlapace.it/index.php?id_article¼4333.
65. Personal communication with I, political refugee, March–April 2010. The same critic was expressed by a
monarchist political refugee settled in Nevs¸ehir (February 2012).
66. Østergaard-Nielsen, Transnational Politics. Turks and Kurds in Germany (London, UK: Routledge, 2003).
67. Mark Granovetter, ‘‘The Strength of Weak Ties,’’ The American Journal of Sociology 78, no. 6 (1973):
1360–80.
68. Ibid., 1361.
Author Biography
Paola Rivetti is lecturer of Middle East Politics and International Relations at the School of Law
and Government, Dublin City University (Ireland). Her research interests focus on political change
and authoritarian resilience in the Middle East and Iran and on transnational activism in the Iranian
Diaspora.
320 Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 38(4)
at Masarykova Univerzita on February 15, 2016alt.sagepub.comDownloaded from