Blog

How society manufactured ‘them’ and ‘us’, and spread the myth that it couldn’t be anything different

Here's a book which challenges the idea that the division between citizens and migrants is fundamental and couldn't be any other way. Bridget Anderson argues that 'them' and 'us' are constituted out of different groups in different ways at all points in history. Progress has always meant overcoming these divisions, and building new forms of solidarity.

Us and them by Bridget Anderson

Bridget Anderson’s work on immigration (Oxford University Press) is something you turn to if you are looking for approaches which challenge all the conventional prejudices which see it as a business in which those on the outside come across to grab stuff that belongs to those of us who live on the inside. 

There is no real ‘outside’ anymore according to Anderson.  The global processes of trade, commerce, financial markets, production supply chains, and the exploitation of labour resources wherever they are available has made everything into one vast ‘inside’.  The real issue at stake is whether you are a relatively privileged insider who operates with the notion that you have a superior claim to all the good things that are lying around, or one of those who can be safely told to stand a long way back and keep their hands off.

Liberal lefties and outright conservatives are inclined to go along with notional divisions into ‘them’ and ‘us’ on the grounds that it supports a competitive economic system which facilitates rapid growth.  There might be some injustice involved in telling Bangladeshi clothing workers that they can’t expect to fully participate in the enjoyment of the wealth they have helped create with their labour, but we can at least encourage them with the hope that some of it might trickle down to their children or grandchildren.

Bangladeshis working at the end of the long subcontracted chains that extend outwards from the high streets and the shopping malls of the developed world are probably going to be sceptical about the terms of this deal, but from the standpoint of the politicians who govern the lands of mature capitalism, they don’t really figure (or at least short of the mishap of watching their broken and twisted bodies dragged out from the rubble of the collapsed buildings they were condemned to work).

Social justice

From the standpoint of the national political elites, the genie that really has to be kept bottled up is the concern about the sense of social justice that exists amongst the citizen-consumers of their own lands, who might be troubled if they ever grasped to its fullest and truest extent the fact that their wealth and security has depended on cruel exploitation of those further down the line.

Anderson’s new book, Us and Them?  The Dangerous Politics of Immigration Control, is a polemic that aims to upset the ideological applecart that supports the notion that we owe greater duties of solidarity to those who have gone through all the bureaucratic procedures of modern, mass society and duly certified as being part of ‘us’ and thereupon relegating what is due to ‘them’ to the sort of activity associated with wearing red noses and singing along with Bono once a year. 

Her very substantial contribution is to lay bare the social and economic processes which made us into ‘us’ in the first place.  “The history of the world is unavoidably a history of mobility” she tells us.  Peasant farmers are ‘liberated’ from the social relations which bound them to the land today just as they were 600 years ago in Britain when the Tudor magnates fashioned capitalism from out of their landed assets.  In doing so they opened up vagrancy, marginality, criminality and insecurity as the routes which led, over time, to the production of a vast population of property-less wageearners who would service the profit-hunting needs of business.  Out of these fires the first ‘us’ was forged.

However, emerging capitalism society presented 17th century England with a startling new crisis when it was discovered that the cultural mores of feudalism were no longer sufficient to secure the class solidarity needed between the greater and lesser castes of property owners who now existed.  Power had to be shared, and that meant an expanded role for the Parliament which kings and queens had once suffered to exist only to obtain a degree of consensus over the extortion of taxation from the population.  Parliament, rather than the monarch, was judged to be sovereign, and that meant that the few percent which was entitled to participate in elections now needed to adopt new frames of thinking to support the developing sense of obligation and duty they had to one another.  That frame was called ‘nationalism’ – the idea that membership of the same nation was the precondition for the trust and fellowship needed to order and secure society.

Rise of national solidarity

Anderson weaves the story of immigration into these historical segments, explaining that the genesis of our modern system of passports lay in the control the Tudor state wished to assert over the movement of its own subjects, rather than in dealings with foreigners.  Under Parliament, as the Atlantic world was forged out of empire-building and the displacement of rival powers, the space for being one of ‘us’ was extended to those who were still two centuries away from having the vote, but whose loyalty and identification with the imperial mission needed to be obtained to provided the manpower for the ships of the Royal Navy and the foot soldiers of the chartered companies.

As modern stated became more bureaucratic to the notion of ‘us’ became embedded in the paperwork and filing systems which were needed to govern growing, potentially unruly populations.  Anderson explores this in the context of the development of nationality law and, more recently, points-based systems of immigration control.  To legitimise the complexity of the emerging system, with all its costs and infringements of personal liberty, a sense if the threat posed by the hoards of uncivilised others had to be ramped up.  With the constant fear of having to deal with ‘them’, it seems that citizens have been made willing to carry the increasingly heavy burden of a security state which is less capable of providing welfare to its people, but which, at a minimum, can still be relied upon to keep ‘us’ safe.

Anyone reading this book should be prepared to encounter a tumult of ideas and insights which can be overwhelming at times, as Anderson is carried forward by the floodtide of her own logic.  It is a long way from being a finished work.  Its 180-odd pages are the sketch of a theory and approach to immigration which moves us far beyond the idea that this has to have the story that ‘them’ and ‘us’ are fixed categories that arise from the fundamental nature of things. But much more is there to be said about, for example, the logic of the welfare state, with its need to determine who merits the benefit of the services it provides, further structures and conditions our sense of ‘them’ and ‘us’.

This book challenges us to follow up by filling  in and deepening the record of our own experiences of how modernity has fated us to live our lives as ‘us’ and ‘them’.  What a gain it will be as we move to fill in all the blank spaces in this story, offering the hope that we can act and build on other principles of human solidarity as we understand more, and strengthen the hope that we will move beyond the confines of the divisive template that history has imposed on us all. 

Other users went on to read:


Comments

I might not read this book

That´s alright Anonymous - you can always wait until the movie comes out later this year..... 

This book is pure common sense. People have always been on the move and no immigration barriers will ever stop them. A tour of the former attemps to restrict immigration (Hadrian's Wall, Offa's Dyke, the Chinese Wall, the Berlin Wall and the Ellis Island, for instance) could be useful for all those who think they can stop the flow.

Immigration has existed since time began. The difference between then and now is that in ancient times immigrants knew they would have to stand on their own two feet and work if they wanted to survive and prosper.
Nowadays a good percentage of immigrants infiltrate other peoples country and demand their human right to housing, food etc.
A great system as long as you are not the hard working soul paying for all this largesse.

At the time, databases fell in to two camps: IBM's IMS (Information Management System) used a hierarchical system of associating related types under a top-level identifier. So, if you were a bank, for example, this identifier might be a person’s name with all related data – address, children, other accounts, and address – hanging off, underneath. CODASYL was the second approach, and used a navigational database model which allowed you to define your database’s schema and its language.

A note on commenting

Due to recent increased commenting activity we have taken the decision to disable commenting on old blogs. As we are a small office it is simply impossible to fight spam and keep removing comments that don’t comply with our house rules on what is now an archive of over 800 pieces.

We have also decided to take a more proactive role in enforcing our blog house rules on the blogs where comments are open. The rules are there for a good reason and we want to make sure we are consistent and apply them across the board. 

This is not in any shape or form meant to stifle debate, but to make sure that it remains civil and on topic.

Thanks and best regards,

--MRN Team

http://www.migrantsrights.org.uk/about/blog-rules

MRN blogging and comments – Policy and House Rules

Your comments

1. Please be civil– we will remove anything that:

  • Is considered likely to provoke, attack or offend others
  • Is racist, sexist, homophobic, sexually explicit, abusive or otherwise objectionable
  • Contains swear words or other language likely to offend
  • Breaks the law, condones or encourage unlawful activity or which could endanger the safety or well-being of others
  • Impersonates someone else
  • advertises products or services

2. Comments that could damage the reputation of a person or organisation, that risk prejudicing on-going or forthcoming court proceedings or that could place MRN in contravention of its legal and/or regulatory obligations will be removed.

3. Please make comments relevant to the subject of the article. We may remove comments that we consider to be spam or which are unrelated to the article content against which they are posted.

4. Please keep the number of comments you make on a topic reasonable. Too many posts from an individual or small group can discourage other readers from joining the conversation.

5. In exceptional cases we may get a high volume of similar comments on a post. In these cases we may close comments for that post, adding a note letting you know that further comments will not be published.

6. By submitting comments to this site, you warrant that such comments are not defamatory nor infringe any law. You agree to indemnify MRN against all legal fees, damages and other expenses that may be incurred by MRN as a result of your breach of the above warranty.