Advertisement

Between Fear and Empathy

  • Krzysztof JaskułowskiEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter focuses on interviewees whose attitudes towards refugees were ambivalent (the ambivalents). It demonstrates that on the one hand the ambivalents were afraid of refugees and reproduced the dominant hegemonic Islamophobic discourse, succumbing to moral panic and fear. On the other hand, driven by empathy and humanitarian reasoning, they considered welcoming refugees. Consequently, this chapter discusses the ways in which interviewees negotiated contradictory discourses, coping with both fear and empathy. It reveals how some ambivalents were hesitant of answering unambiguously. It also demonstrates that other ambivalents formulated various reservations and conditions under which refugees could be admitted to Poland.

Keywords

Refugees Islamophobia Muslims Humanitarianism Fear Empathy 

References

  1. Bobako, M. (2017). Islamofobia jako technologia władzy. Studium z antropologii politycznej [Islamophobia as a technology of power: A study in political anthropology]. Kraków: Universitas.Google Scholar
  2. Chebel d’Appollonia, A. (2015). Migrant mobilization and securitization in the US and Europe: How does it feel to be a threat? London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fallaci, O. (2002). The rage and the pride. New York: Rizzoli.Google Scholar
  4. Fozdar, F., & Low, M. (2015). ‘They have to abide by our laws … and stuff’: Ethnonationalism masquerading as civic nationalism. Nations and Nationalism, 21(3), 524–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Göle, N. (2016). Islam and public controversy in Europe. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hage, G. (1998). White nation: Fantasies of white supremacy in a multicultural society. Annandale: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  7. Kapralski, S. (2016). The evolution of anti-Gypsism in Poland: From ritual scapegoat to surrogate victims to racial hate speech? Polish Sociological Review, 1(193), 101–117.Google Scholar
  8. Legut, A., & Pędziwiatr, K. (2018). Sekurytyzacja migracji w polityce polskiej a zmiana postaw Polaków wobec uchodźców [Securitization of migration in the Polish politics and the change of attitudes to refugees in Poland]. In R. Jończy (Ed.), Sami swoi? Wielokulturowość we współczesnej Europie [Our folks? Multicutluralism in contemporary Europe] (pp. 41–51). Gliwice: Dom Współpracy Polsko-Niemieckiej.Google Scholar
  9. Mavroudi, E., & Nagel, C. (2016). Global migration: Patterns, processes and politics. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mayblin, L., Valentine, G., & Winiarska, A. (2016). Migration and diversity in a post-socialist context: Creating integrative encounters in Poland. Environment and Planning A, 4(5), 960–978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Orsini, F. (2006). Cannons and rubber boats. Oriana Fallaci and the ‘clash of civilizations’. Interventions, 8, 444–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Pratt, D., & Woodlock, R. (2016). Introduction: Understanding Islamophobia. In D. Pratt & R. Woodlock (Eds.), Fear of Muslims: International perspective on Islamophobia (pp. 1–17). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Saeed, T. (2016). Islamophobia and securitisation: Religion, ethnicity and the female voice. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Arts and Social SciencesSWPS University of Social Sciences and HumanitiesWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations