Evanescent expressions of the political

In this Piece I have argued against concentrating on the said and stressed the need to engage with the relations that voices evoke. With their voices the failed asylum seekers demand that we respond and relate to their presence. In all its simplicity this is a powerful demand, not easy to meet. Such a demand requires that the no-tion of the singular subject is abandoned, and the line of separano-tion between selves and others and thus also the (bodily) points of contact we share with others are explored. In articulating political life in terms of compearance the ontology of the body departs from the social theoretical view that actorhood is a given condition or attainment (cf. Meyer & Jepperson 2000: 101). Rather, these multiple enunciative positions that the body can adopt allow room for presenting oneself in unpredict-able ways and for projecting political life in unforeseen ways (Noland 2009: 185;

see also Schwarzmantel 2007: 471–472).

We can now contend that within IR ethnographic inquiries can make it possible to question the foundations of the logic of inside/outside and sensitise us to take note of the international working and taking form at a level, which more traditional approaches fail to explore. The insight thus gained can have important consequenc-es for our notions of how bodiconsequenc-es are created, marked and categorised. Furthermore, when we scrutinise our ‘ ndings’ from the eld through Nancy’s philosophy, we can see that even the apparently ‘excluded’ play a part in the spheres of the interna-tional. Failed asylum seekers’ fragmentary demand makes it immensely important to explore how the space of being-with is created through various everyday prac-tices and interactions together with the way this creation unfolds the possibilities of political life through corporeal conjunctures (cf. Tate 2007; Tabar 2007: 17). In terms of IR we must, then, refrain from conceptualising the international in terms of the sovereign state/a system of sovereign states and from framing failed asylum as a matter of categorical administrative identities capable of disclosing the sub-ject. Departing from this view I suggest that all of the voices that were taken up in this Piece creatively articulate with-being as a necessary element of political life.

Whether expressed in public with a political purpose or in a more intimate and emotional context, voice is a point of contact between bodies and bodily surfaces.

It articulates relational presence and the many senses that the international can gain and to which it gives rise. It can be a word exchanged on the bus, a nod to a ques-tion, a sweeping touch or a move towards. It might be nothing but an evanescent moment, in which two people cross paths, touch momentarily, sometimes tenderly and gently, sometimes violently and in anger. Be that as it may, bodies leave traces on one another. These traces are the remnants of various other voices, words and discourses. In mixing with other traces they remind us of shared existence. The in-ternational unfolds and takes place in daily bodily relations instead of solely being

an impersonal or institutionalised environment for action.

Eeva: What about here in Finland, have you had any trouble in your day-to-day life?

[...]

Tahir: [Tahir sighs] Yeah, I think it is a little bit hard, when you see a Finn, you [the Finns] take very little contact when they encounter a foreigner. And then they talk very little and that is why it is dif cult for us: like if we don’t talk with Finns, how are we supposed to learn the Finnish language? It would be better, if Finns talked more [Tahir laughs, and his laugh catches me too]. When they talk, I’m curious, all the time curious. I go on the street, meet a person who’s all quiet; I go straight to talk to him/her, even if s/he is frightened [Tahir laughs]. I tell him that I’m noth-ing dangerous. I wanna speak in Finnish, learn about the society and ameliorate my Finnish.

Eeva: Hmm-hm. What do people say, when you go talk to them?

Tahir: We-ell. [Tahir laughs], they laugh like “yeah, yeah”, some leave and go away, others talk a bit.

(Interview with Tahir, my translation, April 2007) Tahir’s determination to talk with people underlines the body’s capacity to articu-late its presence to others and establish multiple points of contact between politi-cally separated bodies. These contacts can be transnational, international or local, thus spanning from sending countries, via transit countries to target countries (also Squire 2009: 162). Stephen, for instance, told of having friends “all over; in Amer-ica and London”; they are always ready to help, if he needs something. He stated all his life being about friends. For his part, Shiva had a network on which to lean when eeing from Nepal to India, as “in Delhi, there are many people, who have left their home in Nepal because of this Maoist insurgency”. He received shelter and work from them. Abdi, again, had been able to rely on his countrymen in Fin-land to loan him money so that he could help his family in Somalia. And during his years in Norway Ahmed had come to know a woman, “who took care of me and has stood by me till now”, and whom he regarded as his step-mother. When mov-ing beyond the constraints and limits posed by the status B, Farzad told of joinmov-ing a local theatre group and having performed with them, which had enabled him to act (literally) beyond the label. Therefore, insisting that the political act of splitting and dividing is effective and claiming that the body of the failed asylum seeker is a singular, isolated one is a call far removed from people’s daily lives.

Eeva: [...] But what about when you think about the Finnish people? Do you think it’s easy to get to know them or is it…?

Benjamin: No, the Finnish people are shy. They are shy, they feel so shy. And, you know, it’s not easy to get to them, not that it would be so hard or something, they can talk to you alright, but to see a Finnish person – if you need attention for him to attend to you – they speak English, but it is not easy for him or for her

to talk to you unless you approach him. Then you [the Finns] get “oh, no no, I am not thinking [...] like that”. Finnish people they are good, because the reason why I say they are good, it’s not easy for somebody to trust you, from the rst day they see you; like my employer. The rst day we’d sit together like this, she get a trust in me and it’s never easy to. So, I like Finnish people, and de nitely, in anything there are bad ones and good ones. Yes, so, I take it like that.

(Interview with Benjamin, June 2007)

Benjamin’s story is indicative of the way in which the act of bodies coming togeth-er bears transformative potential. His voice disrupts the idea that political identities within the international would be xed and static. Engaging in a relation with oth-ers and receiving their presence affect the ways in which people place themselves in the world and what they make of their own being. Such an interpretation makes it crucial to account for the multiplicity of voices that the failed asylum seekers can adopt so as to understand that no voice is more characteristic of the failed asylum seeker, but each represents the connectedness of one body to an other.

This Piece illustrated that the voices that failed asylum seekers adopt both touch upon and exceed the practice of asylum politics and the logic that grounds our notions of the possibilities of political life within the international. The failed asylum seeker’s body is exposed to politics, but simultaneously it exposes itself as a speaker capable of voicing the international and speaking for/against/of its rela-tions. However, we cannot afford to limit our understanding of the failed asylum seekers’ agentive body politic solely or primarily to the verbal realm. We must explore what other forms it takes, if we aspire to grasp the constantly changing scripts of political life within the international.

Episode 4