各国为何对难民群体区别对待?了解德国和波兰如何看待叙利亚和乌克兰难民

IF 0.9 2区 社会学 Q3 SOCIOLOGY American Journal of Cultural Sociology Pub Date : 2024-07-29 DOI:10.1057/s41290-024-00221-z
Daniel Drewski, Jürgen Gerhards
{"title":"各国为何对难民群体区别对待?了解德国和波兰如何看待叙利亚和乌克兰难民","authors":"Daniel Drewski, Jürgen Gerhards","doi":"10.1057/s41290-024-00221-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Previous studies hypothesize that countries discriminate between refugee groups of different backgrounds depending on cultural similarity to the host population and whether they flee from a rivaling regime. We argue that these explanations miss how political actors frame the collective identity of the host nation and the refugees in political discourse, and the nation state-specific cultural repertoires they draw on. The different responses of the German and Polish governments to Syrian and Ukrainian refugees are a case in point. While Poland welcomed Ukrainian and rejected Syrian refugees, Germany differentiated relatively little between Syrian and Ukrainian refugees in terms of its admission policy. Based on a qualitative analysis of parliamentary debates in Germany and Poland, we show that the German government employed mostly “cosmopolitan” frames by highlighting Germany’s humanitarian orientation, the commitment to international law, and the principles of liberal democracies. In contrast, the Polish government employed mostly “communitarian” frames by highlighting Poland’s national sovereignty and drawing strong cultural boundaries.</p>","PeriodicalId":45140,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Cultural Sociology","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why do states discriminate between refugee groups? Understanding how Syrian and Ukrainian refugees were framed in Germany and Poland\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Drewski, Jürgen Gerhards\",\"doi\":\"10.1057/s41290-024-00221-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Previous studies hypothesize that countries discriminate between refugee groups of different backgrounds depending on cultural similarity to the host population and whether they flee from a rivaling regime. We argue that these explanations miss how political actors frame the collective identity of the host nation and the refugees in political discourse, and the nation state-specific cultural repertoires they draw on. The different responses of the German and Polish governments to Syrian and Ukrainian refugees are a case in point. While Poland welcomed Ukrainian and rejected Syrian refugees, Germany differentiated relatively little between Syrian and Ukrainian refugees in terms of its admission policy. Based on a qualitative analysis of parliamentary debates in Germany and Poland, we show that the German government employed mostly “cosmopolitan” frames by highlighting Germany’s humanitarian orientation, the commitment to international law, and the principles of liberal democracies. In contrast, the Polish government employed mostly “communitarian” frames by highlighting Poland’s national sovereignty and drawing strong cultural boundaries.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45140,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Cultural Sociology\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Cultural Sociology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41290-024-00221-z\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Cultural Sociology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41290-024-00221-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

以往的研究假设,各国会根据难民与东道国人口的文化相似性以及他们是否逃离敌对政权来区分不同背景的难民群体。我们认为,这些解释忽略了政治行动者如何在政治话语中构建收容国和难民的集体身份,以及他们所借鉴的民族国家特有的文化传统。德国和波兰政府对叙利亚和乌克兰难民的不同反应就是一个很好的例子。波兰欢迎乌克兰难民,拒绝叙利亚难民,而德国在接纳政策上对叙利亚难民和乌克兰难民的区别相对较小。基于对德国和波兰议会辩论的定性分析,我们发现德国政府主要采用 "世界主义 "框架,强调德国的人道主义取向、对国际法的承诺以及自由民主的原则。与此相反,波兰政府主要采用 "社群主义 "框架,强调波兰的国家主权并划定强有力的文化界限。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Why do states discriminate between refugee groups? Understanding how Syrian and Ukrainian refugees were framed in Germany and Poland

Previous studies hypothesize that countries discriminate between refugee groups of different backgrounds depending on cultural similarity to the host population and whether they flee from a rivaling regime. We argue that these explanations miss how political actors frame the collective identity of the host nation and the refugees in political discourse, and the nation state-specific cultural repertoires they draw on. The different responses of the German and Polish governments to Syrian and Ukrainian refugees are a case in point. While Poland welcomed Ukrainian and rejected Syrian refugees, Germany differentiated relatively little between Syrian and Ukrainian refugees in terms of its admission policy. Based on a qualitative analysis of parliamentary debates in Germany and Poland, we show that the German government employed mostly “cosmopolitan” frames by highlighting Germany’s humanitarian orientation, the commitment to international law, and the principles of liberal democracies. In contrast, the Polish government employed mostly “communitarian” frames by highlighting Poland’s national sovereignty and drawing strong cultural boundaries.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
3.40%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: From modernity''s onset, social theorists have been announcing the death of meaning, at the hands of market forces, impersonal power, scientific expertise, and the pervasive forces of rationalization and industrialization. Yet, cultural structures and processes have proved surprisingly resilient. Relatively autonomous patterns of meaning - sweeping narratives and dividing codes, redolent if elusive symbols, fervent demands for purity and cringing fears of pollution - continue to exert extraordinary effects on action and institutions. They affect structures of inequality, racism and marginality, gender and sexuality, crime and punishment, social movements, market success and citizen incorporation. New and old new media project continuous symbolic reconstructions of private and public life. As contemporary sociology registered the continuing robustness of cultural power, the new discipline of cultural sociology was born. How should these complex cultural processes be conceptualized? What are the best empirical ways to study social meaning? Even as debates rage around these field-specific theoretical and methodological questions, a broadly cultural sensibility has spread into every arena of sociological study, illuminating how struggles over meaning affect the most disparate processes of contemporary social life.Bringing together the best of these studies and debates, the American Journal of Cultural Sociology (AJCS) publicly crystallizes the cultural turn in contemporary sociology. By providing a common forum for the many voices engaged in meaning-centered social inquiry, the AJCS will facilitate communication, sharpen contrasts, sustain clarity, and allow for periodic condensation and synthesis of different perspectives. The journal aims to provide a single space where cultural sociologists can follow the latest developments and debates within the field. The American Journal of Cultural Sociology is indexed by SCOPUS, a database listing journals and country scientific indicators and rankings, and is also indexed in Thomson Reuters’ Web of Science Core Collection, in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI). SSCI provides searchable author abstracts for the leading journals in 55 social science disciplines, with a comprehensive backfile of cited reference data from 1900 to the present. AJCS’s inclusion in the SSCI provides greater discoverability for the journal and allows for real-time insight into the citation performance.We welcome high quality submissions of any length and focus: contemporary and historical studies, macro and micro, institutional and symbolic, ethnographic and statistical, philosophical and methodological. Contemporary cultural sociology has developed from European and American roots, and today is an international field. The AJCS will publish rigorous, meaning-centered sociology whatever its origins and focus, and will distribute it around the world.
期刊最新文献
Theory of society and cultural sociology. Niklas Luhmann and after From heroism to victimhood: Sèvres narrative and trauma of victimization in Turkey Higher education and the transition to adulthood: socioeconomic inequality in college students’ self-narratives Why do states discriminate between refugee groups? Understanding how Syrian and Ukrainian refugees were framed in Germany and Poland Orientalism reimagined: a semantic network analysis of slum tour reviews
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1