Throughout this course, we’ve discussed the various concerns that a filmmaker must ethically address when attempting to depict the difficulties that an immigrant faces when either trying to enter or assimilate into countries within the EU. In general, I believe we’ve established that filmmakers, particularly within European cinema as addressed by Higson’s “The Concept of National Cinema,” have a responsibility NOT to sensationalize or exaggerate the plight of an individual in the hopes of reaching the mass audience. However, I believe Blommaert’s “One Crisis: Three Photos,” raises the question: how should photography of the immigration crisis be done most impactfully, but also ethically?
Of the three photos that Blommaert identities as having been most impactful in turning public sentiment in favor of helping refugees, I agree with the idea that the vulnerability connecting each of those photos is necessary to challenge the public perception of the “adult male, economic-exploiter.” However, I think we also have to ask ourselves that extent to which these photos are helpful to immigrants. Yes, they garner sympathy, but do they also create a sense of superiority within Europe citizens? Does seeing fragile women and children from these areas, so dependent on others for aid as the photos depict, change actions in ways that helpfully shape the discourse by which we talk about immigration or does it further perpetuate stereotypes? If the latter is true, and to an extent I believe it is, then what ethical boundaries should we insist photographers have when discussing the immigration crisis? If a filmmaker is responsible for not dramatizing a story, how can this concept apply to photographers as well?
On a different thought, in the Vacchiano reading, I felt uneasy by his assumption that the immigrants who drowned would likely “have been entitled to asylum.” If “Fortress Europe” has imparted any lesson on me, it’s that there is no such thing as a guarantee of asylum, no matter how difficult the conditions from which the immigrant came. Particularly, in reflecting on last week’s discussion of the austerity measures that were placed on PIIGS economies, which were already weaker than Northern European economies, I believe that immigrants would have even less of a chance of entering say Greece during 2015 as Greece had to figure out how to support its own citizens on less welfare spending even without addressing the economic needs of the immigrants it would supposedly grant asylum to. To that extent, I imagine that it is quite easy for courts in PIIGS nations to reject asylum on the technicalities of “economic migration” vs. “refugee status” as demonstrated in the film “The Edge of Heaven.” What are the conditions that separate economic migration from refugees as one often causes the other? How do countries know specifically who are targets of persecution within an immigrants’ national countries? This seems like a very fine line that can easily be exploited.
(in response to the update readings for 4/9) “The View from Dover” raises questions about the UK systematically censoring the voices of the young “illegal” refugees that it houses within its Dover citadel. Presumably, this is done for political purposes, although I do wonder if concrete writing and opinions are necessarily more damaging than the perceived problems that the media only conjectures about. While surely every story is different about these young men who are being detained indefinitely, not for some violent crime but rather as a political concern, “Exit West” in part fills in the gaps of the sense of fear, hopeless, and anger that also may arise as function of the asylum rules that exist. To me, what was most interesting about Exit West was not the background or the journey that was depicted, but rather by the inward anxieties that seem to follow Saeed and Nadia wherever they go, even once they have arrived in England and then the US. Specifically, I think Hamid contrasts Nadia’s safety in finding a voice in different immigrant groups with Saeed’s fear of the “other”. Their differing opinions on finding fear or comfort by being surrounded by others ethnic groups likely stems from the relationship that people had with their own ethnic community when they were still living with their home country. For example, Nadia always felt rejected by society as she wanted to live an independent life and be a strong woman who wouldn’t be dictated by culture or religion. Of course, this made her an outsider to her local society, but perhaps this sense of strength is the very thing that let’s her easily bond with the Nigerian immigrants with whom she and Saeed are living with, as all refugees/immigrants can bond over necessary strength in the face of adversity. Saeed, on the other hand, was very comfortable living within his home country’s society, and as such, perhaps he never built up the same self-confidence that he needed to hold his own when surrounded by the unknown.
How then, can immigrant/refugee groups band together to hold their own against the political forces that surround them in these countries within the EU? Although there is temporarily relief in refusing to move when living in Kensington in England, Saeed and Nadia find that this meager force cannot alone conquer the power of the UK government. Moreover, this novel ask how people of even differing dispositions but similar cultures can come together for the most optimal outcome. Where should refugees go, and whom should they seek, to best navigate these new communities? Are the immigrant communities that exist within the EU helpful or harmful, as there is certainly a stigma that is associated with each of them, particularly as more new immigrants attempt to join these communities?
The Refugee Crisis has been a rising hot topic in Europe, and there has been an increasing amount of media coverage surrounding the migrants and their stories. We have seen throughout the course of this class the different angles that media has taken to portray migration within the EU nations, and from surrounding nations. I thought this week’s novel and documentaries showed yet another light into migration and the Refugee Crisis.
I found Exit West to be an extremely thought provoking in that it proved an insight into a different side of the refugee that we haven’t seen in this course yet. I found the character of Nadia the most intriguing because she represents the idea that the external appearance cannot fully describe the person. Nadia completely defies the stereotypes placed upon her based on her conservative appearance. I found it interesting that Nadia uses her religious robe as an escape of the sexual pressure from men, even though she fully enjoys an active sex life. Hamid is playing with the stereotype of migrants because it would stereotypical to think that Nadia would prefer to not wear her robes in order to blend more into society, when in fact she uses her robes as an advantage to protecting herself.
I think that the documentaries for this week did a great job cinematically showing the immigrant journey, an aspect that In Foreign Land lacked. Granted, the subject of the two documentaries were completely different, but I think that to make a documentary on migration, the journey is a big part of it. One of the supporters of migration, a self-proclaimed product of economic migration, spoke about how migration is a natural thing and that borders are no reason to cause animosity between people. I found myself, once again, question this idea of borders and who gets to patrol them. There is a constant flow of good, services, ideas, etc., constantly flowing through borders, but humans themselves cannot cross a border freely. Some even put their lives at risk to at least try. The images we see in the documentaries almost dehumanizes the migrants because they are kept in holding areas, not able to cross borders, while products, materials, can. The same woman stated that the migration journey dehumanizes migrants. And it does. What does this say about the valorization of people’s lives amongst some of the biggest nations in the world? How did a singular group of people get to decide who crosses and who doesn’t? It honestly seems like a such a privileged idea to read and watch about the migration journey, and not have to experience it. It is kind of like the horror film in that we are curious about the experience, but are glad we can just shut off the film or close the book and return to our regular lives. Some films can do a cinematically better job of appealing to emotion, or interviewing people actually experiencing the journey, but no film/documentary/novel/essay will actually do justice to what these migrants are feeling.
Particularly two things struck me when reading and watching the material for this week. Firstly, I was left with the belief that it is vital to break the barrier of immigrants’ stereotypes, which was emphasized heavily in “Exit West”. Secondly, the importance of the image of immigrants in fiction, media, and social media cannot be understated.
The portrayal of Nadia in “Exit West” especially breaks the barrier of prejudice when it comes to observing immigrants from a different culture. Nadia wears clothes that connotate with religious devotion and is therefore assumed to be deeply religious by strangers. However, she is not religious, and in fact has had a falling out with the family over this matter. I believe this is a significant parallel to the prejudice of immigrants in Europe. Under the constant influence of media and political parties, people are quick to believe generalizing, dangerous falsehoods about immigrants, thinking that they are arriving in Europe to take jobs away from the locals, commit crimes, or force their culture upon the host nation. This depiction of Nadia therefore raises an important question of the open-mindedness of Europeans. I do not believe that most Europeans opposing immigration have always feared “the others”. Instead, I believe they have not received all the information there is on the matter, specifically the migrants’ point of view.
I believe this is exactly what the short films and pictures provide. The public is given a platform to take in the hardships and true intentions of most immigrants, along with shocking and infuriating facts and observations of Europe neglecting the immigrants. I was especially drawn by the pictures posted on social media. It took only three pictures of suffering or dead immigrants to sway public opinion on the crisis at hand, sparking numerous demonstrations throughout Europe. In fact, it reminded me of social media’s significant role in the Arab Spring, and therefore underlines the power of social media in today’s society.
Whereas we criticized the approach of “In a Foreign Land” when depicting the struggles of immigrants, especially comparing Spanish immigrants in Scotland to immigrants seeking refuge in Spain, I believe the fiction, short films, and pictures on social media shaped a better narrative of the immigration crisis in Europe. We were able to observe the crisis from the refugees’ point of view, along with the neglection of European nations. But how do we continue to share this information effectively, especially as anti-immigration organizations, including far-right political parties, are also utilizing social media to communicate the opposing message?
In the article “The View from Dover”, David Herd brings up some very interesting points about detainment and removal centers relationship with the law. Though in place to carry out the law, they act outside it, with the detainees not granted the rights that even accused terrorists are; yet they have committed no crime other than illegally entering a country. This shadowy behavior is in stark contrast to the democratic ideas for which England and other democratic nations stand, however, in the interest of a “threat” to the nation’s security, democratic process and rights are thrown away. What threats these immigrants actually pose are not disclosed. The most surprising fact to me was that no records of the court appeals are recorded and that visitors are not allowed to bring a paper and pen to write down information. These regulations seem clear infringements on the rights of the detainees, and with the sole purpose of hiding the dirty nature of immigrant removal from the public. In the book “Exit West” we see a similar, if much more personal, example of how these camps often exist outside of the rules and regulations which with these nations pride themselves. Wherever immigrants are, they seem to be in limbo, outside the laws of the countries they are trying to enter, and often unable to be returned to the countries they fled. In the book doorways are written as portals, with the journey being omitted and only these various camps of limbo being described, increasing the feeling that the immigrants are never making any progress in their journey. Without shedding light on the immigrant’s struggle and the camps and detainment and removal centers they inhabit, they will never be given the rights which they deserve, and their journey will continue to be hidden from a public which seems happy to continue in ignorance to their treatment.
I also was interested in the way Hamid used doors and magical realism in Exit West and the ideas he wanted to get across by using these doors. I agree that in many pieces of work focusing on refugees, the struggle of migrating is a key component. Migrants oftentimes have to travel hundreds of miles by land or sea, or both. In fact, the entire plot of Welcome was based on making such an arduous journey. So then why did Hamid choose to have these sudden, magical doors appear that simply takes the characters to foreign lands? At first, it seems like this doesn’t do the refugee story justice, not without a detailed account of the struggles they take just to migrate. But this also conveys the risks that refugees are willing to take. They have to pass through a door without knowing where it will take them, not ask any questions, and trust that things will turn out all right or at least better than before. On the other side, I think that the public often sees refugees as almost magically appearing at the border. The public has this perception that refugees just show up because they want to or can. They often do not understand that they are seeking refuge, not invading. I think that Hamid uses the magical portal system to play on this notion. Yes, the actual journey itself was omitted in Hamid’s work. But by entering a magical doors, he shows that refugees aren’t really traveling in the normal sense of the word. They are, in this case more literally, taking a leap of faith into the unknown. The actual journey is not relevant. Hamid wants to show that refugees are desperate and courageous, and will go through any door they can find.
I find it interesting this week that many of the relevant sources are somewhat disjoint from reality, as the novel, Exit West, is removed from the frame of reality to a large extent, and Herd’s essay is in itself quite flowery, giving equal parts fact and analysis of the detention center’s location. Chez Nous, Le Haine, and Welcome all also have relevance to this week’s topic and my discussion. All these are cultural products, so my main inquiry is that of how well such constructed works mirror what is known to be happening in and around London, Dover, Calais, and everywhere where migration is occurring.
Both Herd’s essay and Hamid’s choice of location for the characters’ ‘magic door’ arrival location provide much discourse on the United Kingdom’s treatment and perceived opinion on migrants. This, in combination with the film Welcome evoke a negative, bleak, and consistently unsupportive image of Britain’s immigration policy and social reaction to working immigrants. I’m fascinated by Hamid’s portrayal of London, as it has interesting parallels to the reality we have come to understand in class. The notion that the novel presents of a “dark” vs “light” London reminds me of the distinction between an awareness and unawareness by the population of the various plights which migrants face once entering the UK. Herd’s essay makes such a distinction clear by highlighting the ways in which the stories of indefinitely detained migrants are not shared, and in fact are hidden by the UK’s judicial system and other groups. In this sense, there is a severe gap between what is happening and what is known, what is visible and what is enshrouded at the center of British immigration policy. The binary description of “light” and “dark” London also reminds me of the physical exclusion migrants face in large cities, such as the banlieue in Paris, where one exists within a certain space or neighborhood that is separated purely for the housing of “Others”. There is also the discourse presented by the novel about ‘reclaiming Britain for Britain’. As we so recently learned in class about right-wing populism, this is a very classic phrase for many political leaders of that ideology – specifically Marine le Pen (as touched upon in Chez Nous), Trump, and others which likely exist within Britain’s government as well. All of this goes to show that Exit West in some ways does a good job of framing the current affairs of migrants in the UK through literary devices.
In Mohsin Hamid’s novel Exit West, Nadia perfectly describes the black portal doors the first time she uses one, when she travels from her home town to Mykonos: that moving through one is like being born and dying at the same time. As a refuge seeker, Nadia is not trapped in limbo, as no government entity has a grasp on her travels, allowing her to freely move through these doors as she pleases. She can always open the door to the ‘other side,’ whether than be Mykonos, London, or Marin. Each time she moves through a door, her ‘old self,’ the one that was trapped in whichever city she was last in, dies, and she is reborn into a new city, with a new sense of hope. As her new, reborn self ‘grows up,’ this hope likely dwindles, depending on the treatment of refugees that she sees on the new side of the door.
If the immigrants described in David Herd’s short essay “The View From Dover,” who are ‘pending deportation,’ lived in Saeed and Nadia’s world, they would embody the greatest fear Nadia had when moving through her first door—being unable to open the door to the other side after having closed it on the original side. Being stuck in the middle, with no way to get back to either side. These immigrants from the Dover Immigration Removal Centre are those that the government wishes to get rid of but is unable to due to lack of travel papers, trapping them, therefore, in the DIRC. The doors in Hamid’s story give us a digestible, simplified image of the status of these immigrants. When they ‘opened the door’ that was intended to bring them from their birthplace to Britain, they were never fully able to step into the world of Britain, but had already closed the door on their hometown. They neither ‘died’ in their birthplaces nor came alive in the new land of Britain. Instead, they are stuck in limbo—the spot between living and dying during which a person cannot do anything but wait. But for these immigrants, the waiting is worse than it is in ‘limbo, because they don’t know what they are waiting for, and they may be waiting for the rest of their lives.
Most strikingly, to be stuck in this ‘limbo—to not have the ability to die and come back to life—an immigrant has not done anything wrong. In the eyes of the government, that is precisely what the problem is. These immigrants do not pose a threat—rather, the government would simply “prefer not to have them around.” This description matches that of a pest, such as a mosquito: unpleasant to have around but not threatening enough to be able to eliminate completely. Instead of allowing them to die and live, the government has them confined in a fly trap.
Perhaps one of the most striking features of this novel is how it builds a narrative about Saeed and Nadia in an unknown city. It was so bizarre that I re-read the first few pages thinking I’d simply missed it. Then I thought maybe the author forgot to name the city. Then i realized that would be incredibly silly and exceptionally improbable. Harry and Roberto would never assign us a book written by an author who simply forgets to name characters and cities. No, this was quite intentional.
So what is the purpose of leaving the city unnamed? Well, first we should acknowledge that the author name-drops several prominent cities, including Vienna and Tokyo. This seems to set up a contrast between the West and the unnamed city. Perhaps this unnamed city is so unimportant to the West that is ignored and hardly known if known at all. Further, the author could conceivably be attempting to dislocate politics from this unnamed city to an extent. Without an obvious socio-historical context, the reader cannot so easily ascribe his or her politics unto the storyline.
Little is even known about the conflict raging in the city. It does read to me that the government is less ‘bad.’ But for all the reader knows, there were ‘bad’ happenings under the government preceding the civil war. We just don’t know much of the context of this fight. It appears the militants are islamic fundamentalists given their imposed rules, so all the reader really concludes is this city is likely in the Middle East or some region of the world with a significant muslim population.
The way the author removes us from a specific country or city is fascinating. Especially considering his intimization with specific cities of the West. In some ways this novel reads like a horror. The foreboding atmosphere of this unnamed city as it descends into chaos, the terrifying and dehumanizing scenes of the city in the midst of the civil war, the jarring violence and fear in the West as the unrest bleeds across the world-It’s all kinda scary. The world is a horror.
I was thinking along the exact same lines as you were about the unknown city! At first, I thought I had missed it as well — until I realized that it was never named in the first place. I’m definitely in agreement with all of the points you made above, but just to expand a bit more on this, I think Hamid is also highly deft in subtly manipulating the the perspective of the reader, and the nameless city is one of the tools he uses to do so. Though Hamid employs a single, omniscient third-person narrator, through this narrator alone, he juggles several perspectives of the people involved in the issue of immigration into Europe, including both the immigrant themselves and the Europeans. In the opening scenes, one of the very first important objects we see is Nadia’s black robes. Immediately, associations are being made—not only on the part of Saeed, but also on the part of the reader—between Nadia’s clothing and her religion. So like you said, on the one hand, the nameless city dislocates the current politics from the story and allows the refugee experience to be presented as universal. Yet, on the other hand, it is also inevitable that the European and American audience will bring their own politics into the reading experience; then, at another angle, this nameless city—alongside the preemptive judgment of Nadia’s clothes before it is revealed that she does not wear them for religious reasons—becomes reflective of the initial assumptions that are ascribed on the immigrant on the part of the European citizens. The unnamed city, then, simultaneously becomes indicative of the conflation of their background and country/place of origins. In the eyes of Europe, it didn’t matter as much where the immigrants come from—only that they are not European. The scene of the woman in her home—with the home being such an intimate setting—once more echoes this idea of the threat of the outsider entering into Europe. Thus, though the story portrays the narrative and the perspectives of the refugee in many parts (which I won’t get into in this post), I find it interesting that, at the same time, beneath that, Hamid is also injecting these viewpoints of the European nations and people just beneath the surface.
At the beginning when the woman in Australia was sleeping and some man came out of her closet, I thought the story was going to go in a totally different direction. To be fair, at the beginning of the book I had no idea what I was reading most of the time because it did not seem to fit, but this scene really threw me for a loop. I was waiting for something to happen because I thought it was just some creepy man hiding in a woman’s closet as she slept. It was not until the doors were described that I realized the man was not a creeper, he was just trying to start a new life for himself. Which in itself speaks volumes about migrants. The man could have taken anything he wanted, he could have done anything he wanted to the woman as she slept alone, but he didn’t. He looked at his options of getting out of the house and left out the window. Not all migrants are dangerous, just like not all French people are dangerous. I know some like to spin the story and say migrants are mean and dangerous, they will steal the clothes off your back quicker than they will ruin our nations values (maybe a little extreme, but you get it). Yet this narrative is one that I find is much more realistic. A lot of migrants do not leave their home country because they want to, but because they feel as though they have to. The majority of them do not go around terrorizing the streets or the people they come across, many try to fit in as much as possible to make it easier for themselves.
Going off my point above, the book itself is a door into the life of migrants. The author tells narratives that are very likely today, people fleeing poverty, war, crime, etc. Across the globe there are people leaving their home countries and their stories are not told. Women who are sexually abused by people who are supposed to help them find a new home. Parents who must leave their young children behind because it is much too dangerous for them. People who must leave their jobs and homes only to experience poverty and possible homelessness wherever they end up. These stories go untold, but this book gives readers a little insight into some of the struggles migrants have to face. Makes the issue, not a crises because richer nations do not know how to handle the influx, but a crises because people are fleeing poorer nations, only to face different, and at times worse, issues in their new home.
This week’s topic focuses on the European refugee crisis and European immigration and integration as a whole. While we did not have time for much class discussion on the text, the group presentation outlined important themes about the importance of class in immigration. People who are wealthy and of higher social class almost always have more flexibility and opportunity. The presentation on Turkish immigration in Germany outlined this point with a discussion of the importance of language skills in successfully integrating and assimilating without a culture. While the German government does provide some language training skills, these are understandably limited. Prejudice aside and focused only on German linguistic skills, immigrants face an extremely uphill battle to learn the language and a high paying job. Because there are limited opportunities for people without extremely good German language skills, immigrants are often forced to take on blue collar jobs that tend to be lower paying. Low income jobs force immigrants to try to find cheap housing often in ghettos. One of the main critics of immigrants from European leaders is that they live in ghettos which does not allow them to integrate. While ghettos do isolate groups of people, many would likely not live in these communities if they had a socio-economic alternative. Low income immigrants are forced into ghettos, their children then grow up in these very ghettos and receive inferior education. Their children then with inferior education are forced back into blue collar low paying jobs and their social status continues to suffer. This can become a vicious cycle that is difficult to break for any generation of immigrant children that grow up in an immigrant ghetto.
There is a big difference between immigration of poor and wealthy families. Wealthy families have a far easier time integrating and assimilating. It is further easier to gain citizenship, rights, and opportunity as a wealthy citizen. Refugees and immigrants are often classified very strictly. Economic vs political refugees. Refugee vs immigrants. It is always important, however, to note how social class plays a role and which refugees and immigrants are more and less likely to be accepted and then succeed in a society.
The move Titanic is a microcosm of the importance Refugee and immigrant acceptance based on socio economic status. When the Titanic began to sink, everyone on board became a refugee who would die if they were not taken onto a lifeboat. The lifeboats were organized by class and many were not even filled to capacity. This basic premise seems eerily similar to the status of many refugees and immigrants today. Quotas are implemented determining who gets a new chance in life and who is sent back to possibly die. Socio economic status can play a huge role in determining who makes it onto these lists or “boats” and who does not. Even more literally, almost entirely what determines who can be smuggled into different countries is money. Socio economic status is a crucial part of immigration, assimilation and integration and is continuously relevant to the course work, reading, and discussion in class.
First and foremost I actually really enjoyed this novel. Moving towards its relation to the course, this book is extremely recent. While obviously fictional, the novel hits on many major points of the refugee crisis that are applicable today.
The first major point is how they occur. People to not migrate to new countries for no reason. Often times it is a result of economic failure, war, and political unrest. In the novel’s case, it’s more than one of these. While they don’t reveal what exact country they start in, it gives you the feeling that it is somewhere in the middle east. With heavy religious affiliations of the militants that eventually take over the city, their home becomes unsafe. Still, it is not enough to drive them out of the city. It is only when normal life can no longer be lived, as they no longer had jobs when they were forced to leave.
The first portal they take takes them to a refugee camp, where I would like to focus on. The refugee camp is large, crowded, and unsafe. Knowing only each other, Saeed and Nadia are forced to be skeptical of those around them, with good reason. Switching to real life, this is a common problem among refugee camps. After doing some research, there have been thousands of reports of violence from refugees towards others. However, they are not fully to blame. To me, the significance of this is to show that the conditions refugees are forced to live in, even though they have “escaped their harsh initial conditions,” are not much better. Living in tents, forced to fend for themselves, even in these camps they are put under immense stress just to gain the essentials to survive.
The doors in the novel represent a false hope, to me at least. The black door, that most people believe leads to a whole new change in lifestyle, is often just a false hope. Refugees seeking asylum across the world do not seem to have a rightful place in society, even when they are supposed to. This relates back to one of the central themes of the class that we have spoken on: the migrant story.
Many times we hear stories of the immigrant who made it. Went to school, got rich, returned home with amazing opportunities. However the harsh reality is that this rarely happens. Most times migrants work blue collar jobs struggling to just stay afloat.
And while by the time the novel ends, these two migrant actually ended up having decent lives, I am sure most of the people in that camp did not. While this may not have been the central theme of the novel, it definitely struck me as a point that the author was trying to make. This section left me questioning if we need to do more than just take in refugees. We cannot just shove them into the same area, as in reality we don’t help them too much. The refugee crisis has proven to cause problems for nations around the world, and there needs to be changes in policy in order to make our relief efforts actually effective.
I was surprised by the trajectory of Nadia and Saeed’s romantic relationship in Exit West, specifically the fact that it ended up failing. While reading the novel I viewed the relationship as mechanism to help humanize the two migrants and consequently make the reader feel empathetic for them – too often are migrants mostly described as numbers instead of actual human beings with complex emotions, desires and goals. As such, while I was reading I was expecting their romantic relationship to end happily ever once they got to their final destinations. The fact that it didn’t struck me as allegorical of the struggles migrants face, specifically how simply physically arriving in their final destinations is not the end of their problems.
When their relationship began to go south, Nadia and Saeed turn to migrating somewhere new as an attempt to fix things, representing the optimism migrants have about how their destinations will provide them with a better life than their old one. As we see, migrating does not solve their problem, and they eventually decide to part ways.
This idea of the end of migration not being the end to migrants’ problems is a common theme we’ve seen in the course – people leave their home countries due to things like violent conflict or lack of economic opportunity in hopes of creating a better life for themselves elsewhere, but instead find themselves in environments fraught with problems like racism, xenophobia, lack of economic opportunity, police brutality and more.
Exit West to me seemed to not be a novel focused on the journey – Hamid’s use of the magical black doors makes it so that the physical journeys between Nadia and Saeed’s destinations are not a main part of the story, allowing the novel to be a story of migrants without giving much importance to the journey itself. Instead, it seemed to me that the novel is more focused on fleshing out the problems that arise when migrants live in their destination countries. We see this in Nadia and Saeed’s struggle to make enough money to feed themselves in Mykonos, their battle with the nativist mob in London, Saeed’s feelings of being an “other” and the general emotional difficulties that comes with living in an entirely new culture while living in the mansion, the burning alive of migrants in the cinema by the police, and more. Despite making it out of their war-torn homeland and making it into Europe, Saeed and Nadia are still constantly encountering problems that make it hard to live a normal, happy life.
The struggles migrants face after they arrive in their destination countries is an issue(s) that that often takes a back seat (in the context of the focus of media and public discourse) to the difficulties migrants face on the journey to their destinations, and by making this the focus of Exit West Hamid fleshes out these problems and thrusts them into the spotlight so that they too can become part of the broader public discussion surrounding the European migrant crisis.
Throughout this course, we’ve discussed the various concerns that a filmmaker must ethically address when attempting to depict the difficulties that an immigrant faces when either trying to enter or assimilate into countries within the EU. In general, I believe we’ve established that filmmakers, particularly within European cinema as addressed by Higson’s “The Concept of National Cinema,” have a responsibility NOT to sensationalize or exaggerate the plight of an individual in the hopes of reaching the mass audience. However, I believe Blommaert’s “One Crisis: Three Photos,” raises the question: how should photography of the immigration crisis be done most impactfully, but also ethically?
Of the three photos that Blommaert identities as having been most impactful in turning public sentiment in favor of helping refugees, I agree with the idea that the vulnerability connecting each of those photos is necessary to challenge the public perception of the “adult male, economic-exploiter.” However, I think we also have to ask ourselves that extent to which these photos are helpful to immigrants. Yes, they garner sympathy, but do they also create a sense of superiority within Europe citizens? Does seeing fragile women and children from these areas, so dependent on others for aid as the photos depict, change actions in ways that helpfully shape the discourse by which we talk about immigration or does it further perpetuate stereotypes? If the latter is true, and to an extent I believe it is, then what ethical boundaries should we insist photographers have when discussing the immigration crisis? If a filmmaker is responsible for not dramatizing a story, how can this concept apply to photographers as well?
On a different thought, in the Vacchiano reading, I felt uneasy by his assumption that the immigrants who drowned would likely “have been entitled to asylum.” If “Fortress Europe” has imparted any lesson on me, it’s that there is no such thing as a guarantee of asylum, no matter how difficult the conditions from which the immigrant came. Particularly, in reflecting on last week’s discussion of the austerity measures that were placed on PIIGS economies, which were already weaker than Northern European economies, I believe that immigrants would have even less of a chance of entering say Greece during 2015 as Greece had to figure out how to support its own citizens on less welfare spending even without addressing the economic needs of the immigrants it would supposedly grant asylum to. To that extent, I imagine that it is quite easy for courts in PIIGS nations to reject asylum on the technicalities of “economic migration” vs. “refugee status” as demonstrated in the film “The Edge of Heaven.” What are the conditions that separate economic migration from refugees as one often causes the other? How do countries know specifically who are targets of persecution within an immigrants’ national countries? This seems like a very fine line that can easily be exploited.
(in response to the update readings for 4/9) “The View from Dover” raises questions about the UK systematically censoring the voices of the young “illegal” refugees that it houses within its Dover citadel. Presumably, this is done for political purposes, although I do wonder if concrete writing and opinions are necessarily more damaging than the perceived problems that the media only conjectures about. While surely every story is different about these young men who are being detained indefinitely, not for some violent crime but rather as a political concern, “Exit West” in part fills in the gaps of the sense of fear, hopeless, and anger that also may arise as function of the asylum rules that exist. To me, what was most interesting about Exit West was not the background or the journey that was depicted, but rather by the inward anxieties that seem to follow Saeed and Nadia wherever they go, even once they have arrived in England and then the US. Specifically, I think Hamid contrasts Nadia’s safety in finding a voice in different immigrant groups with Saeed’s fear of the “other”. Their differing opinions on finding fear or comfort by being surrounded by others ethnic groups likely stems from the relationship that people had with their own ethnic community when they were still living with their home country. For example, Nadia always felt rejected by society as she wanted to live an independent life and be a strong woman who wouldn’t be dictated by culture or religion. Of course, this made her an outsider to her local society, but perhaps this sense of strength is the very thing that let’s her easily bond with the Nigerian immigrants with whom she and Saeed are living with, as all refugees/immigrants can bond over necessary strength in the face of adversity. Saeed, on the other hand, was very comfortable living within his home country’s society, and as such, perhaps he never built up the same self-confidence that he needed to hold his own when surrounded by the unknown.
How then, can immigrant/refugee groups band together to hold their own against the political forces that surround them in these countries within the EU? Although there is temporarily relief in refusing to move when living in Kensington in England, Saeed and Nadia find that this meager force cannot alone conquer the power of the UK government. Moreover, this novel ask how people of even differing dispositions but similar cultures can come together for the most optimal outcome. Where should refugees go, and whom should they seek, to best navigate these new communities? Are the immigrant communities that exist within the EU helpful or harmful, as there is certainly a stigma that is associated with each of them, particularly as more new immigrants attempt to join these communities?
The Refugee Crisis has been a rising hot topic in Europe, and there has been an increasing amount of media coverage surrounding the migrants and their stories. We have seen throughout the course of this class the different angles that media has taken to portray migration within the EU nations, and from surrounding nations. I thought this week’s novel and documentaries showed yet another light into migration and the Refugee Crisis.
I found Exit West to be an extremely thought provoking in that it proved an insight into a different side of the refugee that we haven’t seen in this course yet. I found the character of Nadia the most intriguing because she represents the idea that the external appearance cannot fully describe the person. Nadia completely defies the stereotypes placed upon her based on her conservative appearance. I found it interesting that Nadia uses her religious robe as an escape of the sexual pressure from men, even though she fully enjoys an active sex life. Hamid is playing with the stereotype of migrants because it would stereotypical to think that Nadia would prefer to not wear her robes in order to blend more into society, when in fact she uses her robes as an advantage to protecting herself.
I think that the documentaries for this week did a great job cinematically showing the immigrant journey, an aspect that In Foreign Land lacked. Granted, the subject of the two documentaries were completely different, but I think that to make a documentary on migration, the journey is a big part of it. One of the supporters of migration, a self-proclaimed product of economic migration, spoke about how migration is a natural thing and that borders are no reason to cause animosity between people. I found myself, once again, question this idea of borders and who gets to patrol them. There is a constant flow of good, services, ideas, etc., constantly flowing through borders, but humans themselves cannot cross a border freely. Some even put their lives at risk to at least try. The images we see in the documentaries almost dehumanizes the migrants because they are kept in holding areas, not able to cross borders, while products, materials, can. The same woman stated that the migration journey dehumanizes migrants. And it does. What does this say about the valorization of people’s lives amongst some of the biggest nations in the world? How did a singular group of people get to decide who crosses and who doesn’t? It honestly seems like a such a privileged idea to read and watch about the migration journey, and not have to experience it. It is kind of like the horror film in that we are curious about the experience, but are glad we can just shut off the film or close the book and return to our regular lives. Some films can do a cinematically better job of appealing to emotion, or interviewing people actually experiencing the journey, but no film/documentary/novel/essay will actually do justice to what these migrants are feeling.
Particularly two things struck me when reading and watching the material for this week. Firstly, I was left with the belief that it is vital to break the barrier of immigrants’ stereotypes, which was emphasized heavily in “Exit West”. Secondly, the importance of the image of immigrants in fiction, media, and social media cannot be understated.
The portrayal of Nadia in “Exit West” especially breaks the barrier of prejudice when it comes to observing immigrants from a different culture. Nadia wears clothes that connotate with religious devotion and is therefore assumed to be deeply religious by strangers. However, she is not religious, and in fact has had a falling out with the family over this matter. I believe this is a significant parallel to the prejudice of immigrants in Europe. Under the constant influence of media and political parties, people are quick to believe generalizing, dangerous falsehoods about immigrants, thinking that they are arriving in Europe to take jobs away from the locals, commit crimes, or force their culture upon the host nation. This depiction of Nadia therefore raises an important question of the open-mindedness of Europeans. I do not believe that most Europeans opposing immigration have always feared “the others”. Instead, I believe they have not received all the information there is on the matter, specifically the migrants’ point of view.
I believe this is exactly what the short films and pictures provide. The public is given a platform to take in the hardships and true intentions of most immigrants, along with shocking and infuriating facts and observations of Europe neglecting the immigrants. I was especially drawn by the pictures posted on social media. It took only three pictures of suffering or dead immigrants to sway public opinion on the crisis at hand, sparking numerous demonstrations throughout Europe. In fact, it reminded me of social media’s significant role in the Arab Spring, and therefore underlines the power of social media in today’s society.
Whereas we criticized the approach of “In a Foreign Land” when depicting the struggles of immigrants, especially comparing Spanish immigrants in Scotland to immigrants seeking refuge in Spain, I believe the fiction, short films, and pictures on social media shaped a better narrative of the immigration crisis in Europe. We were able to observe the crisis from the refugees’ point of view, along with the neglection of European nations. But how do we continue to share this information effectively, especially as anti-immigration organizations, including far-right political parties, are also utilizing social media to communicate the opposing message?
In the article “The View from Dover”, David Herd brings up some very interesting points about detainment and removal centers relationship with the law. Though in place to carry out the law, they act outside it, with the detainees not granted the rights that even accused terrorists are; yet they have committed no crime other than illegally entering a country. This shadowy behavior is in stark contrast to the democratic ideas for which England and other democratic nations stand, however, in the interest of a “threat” to the nation’s security, democratic process and rights are thrown away. What threats these immigrants actually pose are not disclosed. The most surprising fact to me was that no records of the court appeals are recorded and that visitors are not allowed to bring a paper and pen to write down information. These regulations seem clear infringements on the rights of the detainees, and with the sole purpose of hiding the dirty nature of immigrant removal from the public. In the book “Exit West” we see a similar, if much more personal, example of how these camps often exist outside of the rules and regulations which with these nations pride themselves. Wherever immigrants are, they seem to be in limbo, outside the laws of the countries they are trying to enter, and often unable to be returned to the countries they fled. In the book doorways are written as portals, with the journey being omitted and only these various camps of limbo being described, increasing the feeling that the immigrants are never making any progress in their journey. Without shedding light on the immigrant’s struggle and the camps and detainment and removal centers they inhabit, they will never be given the rights which they deserve, and their journey will continue to be hidden from a public which seems happy to continue in ignorance to their treatment.
I also was interested in the way Hamid used doors and magical realism in Exit West and the ideas he wanted to get across by using these doors. I agree that in many pieces of work focusing on refugees, the struggle of migrating is a key component. Migrants oftentimes have to travel hundreds of miles by land or sea, or both. In fact, the entire plot of Welcome was based on making such an arduous journey. So then why did Hamid choose to have these sudden, magical doors appear that simply takes the characters to foreign lands? At first, it seems like this doesn’t do the refugee story justice, not without a detailed account of the struggles they take just to migrate. But this also conveys the risks that refugees are willing to take. They have to pass through a door without knowing where it will take them, not ask any questions, and trust that things will turn out all right or at least better than before. On the other side, I think that the public often sees refugees as almost magically appearing at the border. The public has this perception that refugees just show up because they want to or can. They often do not understand that they are seeking refuge, not invading. I think that Hamid uses the magical portal system to play on this notion. Yes, the actual journey itself was omitted in Hamid’s work. But by entering a magical doors, he shows that refugees aren’t really traveling in the normal sense of the word. They are, in this case more literally, taking a leap of faith into the unknown. The actual journey is not relevant. Hamid wants to show that refugees are desperate and courageous, and will go through any door they can find.
I find it interesting this week that many of the relevant sources are somewhat disjoint from reality, as the novel, Exit West, is removed from the frame of reality to a large extent, and Herd’s essay is in itself quite flowery, giving equal parts fact and analysis of the detention center’s location. Chez Nous, Le Haine, and Welcome all also have relevance to this week’s topic and my discussion. All these are cultural products, so my main inquiry is that of how well such constructed works mirror what is known to be happening in and around London, Dover, Calais, and everywhere where migration is occurring.
Both Herd’s essay and Hamid’s choice of location for the characters’ ‘magic door’ arrival location provide much discourse on the United Kingdom’s treatment and perceived opinion on migrants. This, in combination with the film Welcome evoke a negative, bleak, and consistently unsupportive image of Britain’s immigration policy and social reaction to working immigrants. I’m fascinated by Hamid’s portrayal of London, as it has interesting parallels to the reality we have come to understand in class. The notion that the novel presents of a “dark” vs “light” London reminds me of the distinction between an awareness and unawareness by the population of the various plights which migrants face once entering the UK. Herd’s essay makes such a distinction clear by highlighting the ways in which the stories of indefinitely detained migrants are not shared, and in fact are hidden by the UK’s judicial system and other groups. In this sense, there is a severe gap between what is happening and what is known, what is visible and what is enshrouded at the center of British immigration policy. The binary description of “light” and “dark” London also reminds me of the physical exclusion migrants face in large cities, such as the banlieue in Paris, where one exists within a certain space or neighborhood that is separated purely for the housing of “Others”. There is also the discourse presented by the novel about ‘reclaiming Britain for Britain’. As we so recently learned in class about right-wing populism, this is a very classic phrase for many political leaders of that ideology – specifically Marine le Pen (as touched upon in Chez Nous), Trump, and others which likely exist within Britain’s government as well. All of this goes to show that Exit West in some ways does a good job of framing the current affairs of migrants in the UK through literary devices.
In Mohsin Hamid’s novel Exit West, Nadia perfectly describes the black portal doors the first time she uses one, when she travels from her home town to Mykonos: that moving through one is like being born and dying at the same time. As a refuge seeker, Nadia is not trapped in limbo, as no government entity has a grasp on her travels, allowing her to freely move through these doors as she pleases. She can always open the door to the ‘other side,’ whether than be Mykonos, London, or Marin. Each time she moves through a door, her ‘old self,’ the one that was trapped in whichever city she was last in, dies, and she is reborn into a new city, with a new sense of hope. As her new, reborn self ‘grows up,’ this hope likely dwindles, depending on the treatment of refugees that she sees on the new side of the door.
If the immigrants described in David Herd’s short essay “The View From Dover,” who are ‘pending deportation,’ lived in Saeed and Nadia’s world, they would embody the greatest fear Nadia had when moving through her first door—being unable to open the door to the other side after having closed it on the original side. Being stuck in the middle, with no way to get back to either side. These immigrants from the Dover Immigration Removal Centre are those that the government wishes to get rid of but is unable to due to lack of travel papers, trapping them, therefore, in the DIRC. The doors in Hamid’s story give us a digestible, simplified image of the status of these immigrants. When they ‘opened the door’ that was intended to bring them from their birthplace to Britain, they were never fully able to step into the world of Britain, but had already closed the door on their hometown. They neither ‘died’ in their birthplaces nor came alive in the new land of Britain. Instead, they are stuck in limbo—the spot between living and dying during which a person cannot do anything but wait. But for these immigrants, the waiting is worse than it is in ‘limbo, because they don’t know what they are waiting for, and they may be waiting for the rest of their lives.
Most strikingly, to be stuck in this ‘limbo—to not have the ability to die and come back to life—an immigrant has not done anything wrong. In the eyes of the government, that is precisely what the problem is. These immigrants do not pose a threat—rather, the government would simply “prefer not to have them around.” This description matches that of a pest, such as a mosquito: unpleasant to have around but not threatening enough to be able to eliminate completely. Instead of allowing them to die and live, the government has them confined in a fly trap.
Perhaps one of the most striking features of this novel is how it builds a narrative about Saeed and Nadia in an unknown city. It was so bizarre that I re-read the first few pages thinking I’d simply missed it. Then I thought maybe the author forgot to name the city. Then i realized that would be incredibly silly and exceptionally improbable. Harry and Roberto would never assign us a book written by an author who simply forgets to name characters and cities. No, this was quite intentional.
So what is the purpose of leaving the city unnamed? Well, first we should acknowledge that the author name-drops several prominent cities, including Vienna and Tokyo. This seems to set up a contrast between the West and the unnamed city. Perhaps this unnamed city is so unimportant to the West that is ignored and hardly known if known at all. Further, the author could conceivably be attempting to dislocate politics from this unnamed city to an extent. Without an obvious socio-historical context, the reader cannot so easily ascribe his or her politics unto the storyline.
Little is even known about the conflict raging in the city. It does read to me that the government is less ‘bad.’ But for all the reader knows, there were ‘bad’ happenings under the government preceding the civil war. We just don’t know much of the context of this fight. It appears the militants are islamic fundamentalists given their imposed rules, so all the reader really concludes is this city is likely in the Middle East or some region of the world with a significant muslim population.
The way the author removes us from a specific country or city is fascinating. Especially considering his intimization with specific cities of the West. In some ways this novel reads like a horror. The foreboding atmosphere of this unnamed city as it descends into chaos, the terrifying and dehumanizing scenes of the city in the midst of the civil war, the jarring violence and fear in the West as the unrest bleeds across the world-It’s all kinda scary. The world is a horror.
I was thinking along the exact same lines as you were about the unknown city! At first, I thought I had missed it as well — until I realized that it was never named in the first place. I’m definitely in agreement with all of the points you made above, but just to expand a bit more on this, I think Hamid is also highly deft in subtly manipulating the the perspective of the reader, and the nameless city is one of the tools he uses to do so. Though Hamid employs a single, omniscient third-person narrator, through this narrator alone, he juggles several perspectives of the people involved in the issue of immigration into Europe, including both the immigrant themselves and the Europeans. In the opening scenes, one of the very first important objects we see is Nadia’s black robes. Immediately, associations are being made—not only on the part of Saeed, but also on the part of the reader—between Nadia’s clothing and her religion. So like you said, on the one hand, the nameless city dislocates the current politics from the story and allows the refugee experience to be presented as universal. Yet, on the other hand, it is also inevitable that the European and American audience will bring their own politics into the reading experience; then, at another angle, this nameless city—alongside the preemptive judgment of Nadia’s clothes before it is revealed that she does not wear them for religious reasons—becomes reflective of the initial assumptions that are ascribed on the immigrant on the part of the European citizens. The unnamed city, then, simultaneously becomes indicative of the conflation of their background and country/place of origins. In the eyes of Europe, it didn’t matter as much where the immigrants come from—only that they are not European. The scene of the woman in her home—with the home being such an intimate setting—once more echoes this idea of the threat of the outsider entering into Europe. Thus, though the story portrays the narrative and the perspectives of the refugee in many parts (which I won’t get into in this post), I find it interesting that, at the same time, beneath that, Hamid is also injecting these viewpoints of the European nations and people just beneath the surface.
The doors.
At the beginning when the woman in Australia was sleeping and some man came out of her closet, I thought the story was going to go in a totally different direction. To be fair, at the beginning of the book I had no idea what I was reading most of the time because it did not seem to fit, but this scene really threw me for a loop. I was waiting for something to happen because I thought it was just some creepy man hiding in a woman’s closet as she slept. It was not until the doors were described that I realized the man was not a creeper, he was just trying to start a new life for himself. Which in itself speaks volumes about migrants. The man could have taken anything he wanted, he could have done anything he wanted to the woman as she slept alone, but he didn’t. He looked at his options of getting out of the house and left out the window. Not all migrants are dangerous, just like not all French people are dangerous. I know some like to spin the story and say migrants are mean and dangerous, they will steal the clothes off your back quicker than they will ruin our nations values (maybe a little extreme, but you get it). Yet this narrative is one that I find is much more realistic. A lot of migrants do not leave their home country because they want to, but because they feel as though they have to. The majority of them do not go around terrorizing the streets or the people they come across, many try to fit in as much as possible to make it easier for themselves.
Going off my point above, the book itself is a door into the life of migrants. The author tells narratives that are very likely today, people fleeing poverty, war, crime, etc. Across the globe there are people leaving their home countries and their stories are not told. Women who are sexually abused by people who are supposed to help them find a new home. Parents who must leave their young children behind because it is much too dangerous for them. People who must leave their jobs and homes only to experience poverty and possible homelessness wherever they end up. These stories go untold, but this book gives readers a little insight into some of the struggles migrants have to face. Makes the issue, not a crises because richer nations do not know how to handle the influx, but a crises because people are fleeing poorer nations, only to face different, and at times worse, issues in their new home.
This week’s topic focuses on the European refugee crisis and European immigration and integration as a whole. While we did not have time for much class discussion on the text, the group presentation outlined important themes about the importance of class in immigration. People who are wealthy and of higher social class almost always have more flexibility and opportunity. The presentation on Turkish immigration in Germany outlined this point with a discussion of the importance of language skills in successfully integrating and assimilating without a culture. While the German government does provide some language training skills, these are understandably limited. Prejudice aside and focused only on German linguistic skills, immigrants face an extremely uphill battle to learn the language and a high paying job. Because there are limited opportunities for people without extremely good German language skills, immigrants are often forced to take on blue collar jobs that tend to be lower paying. Low income jobs force immigrants to try to find cheap housing often in ghettos. One of the main critics of immigrants from European leaders is that they live in ghettos which does not allow them to integrate. While ghettos do isolate groups of people, many would likely not live in these communities if they had a socio-economic alternative. Low income immigrants are forced into ghettos, their children then grow up in these very ghettos and receive inferior education. Their children then with inferior education are forced back into blue collar low paying jobs and their social status continues to suffer. This can become a vicious cycle that is difficult to break for any generation of immigrant children that grow up in an immigrant ghetto.
There is a big difference between immigration of poor and wealthy families. Wealthy families have a far easier time integrating and assimilating. It is further easier to gain citizenship, rights, and opportunity as a wealthy citizen. Refugees and immigrants are often classified very strictly. Economic vs political refugees. Refugee vs immigrants. It is always important, however, to note how social class plays a role and which refugees and immigrants are more and less likely to be accepted and then succeed in a society.
The move Titanic is a microcosm of the importance Refugee and immigrant acceptance based on socio economic status. When the Titanic began to sink, everyone on board became a refugee who would die if they were not taken onto a lifeboat. The lifeboats were organized by class and many were not even filled to capacity. This basic premise seems eerily similar to the status of many refugees and immigrants today. Quotas are implemented determining who gets a new chance in life and who is sent back to possibly die. Socio economic status can play a huge role in determining who makes it onto these lists or “boats” and who does not. Even more literally, almost entirely what determines who can be smuggled into different countries is money. Socio economic status is a crucial part of immigration, assimilation and integration and is continuously relevant to the course work, reading, and discussion in class.
First and foremost I actually really enjoyed this novel. Moving towards its relation to the course, this book is extremely recent. While obviously fictional, the novel hits on many major points of the refugee crisis that are applicable today.
The first major point is how they occur. People to not migrate to new countries for no reason. Often times it is a result of economic failure, war, and political unrest. In the novel’s case, it’s more than one of these. While they don’t reveal what exact country they start in, it gives you the feeling that it is somewhere in the middle east. With heavy religious affiliations of the militants that eventually take over the city, their home becomes unsafe. Still, it is not enough to drive them out of the city. It is only when normal life can no longer be lived, as they no longer had jobs when they were forced to leave.
The first portal they take takes them to a refugee camp, where I would like to focus on. The refugee camp is large, crowded, and unsafe. Knowing only each other, Saeed and Nadia are forced to be skeptical of those around them, with good reason. Switching to real life, this is a common problem among refugee camps. After doing some research, there have been thousands of reports of violence from refugees towards others. However, they are not fully to blame. To me, the significance of this is to show that the conditions refugees are forced to live in, even though they have “escaped their harsh initial conditions,” are not much better. Living in tents, forced to fend for themselves, even in these camps they are put under immense stress just to gain the essentials to survive.
The doors in the novel represent a false hope, to me at least. The black door, that most people believe leads to a whole new change in lifestyle, is often just a false hope. Refugees seeking asylum across the world do not seem to have a rightful place in society, even when they are supposed to. This relates back to one of the central themes of the class that we have spoken on: the migrant story.
Many times we hear stories of the immigrant who made it. Went to school, got rich, returned home with amazing opportunities. However the harsh reality is that this rarely happens. Most times migrants work blue collar jobs struggling to just stay afloat.
And while by the time the novel ends, these two migrant actually ended up having decent lives, I am sure most of the people in that camp did not. While this may not have been the central theme of the novel, it definitely struck me as a point that the author was trying to make. This section left me questioning if we need to do more than just take in refugees. We cannot just shove them into the same area, as in reality we don’t help them too much. The refugee crisis has proven to cause problems for nations around the world, and there needs to be changes in policy in order to make our relief efforts actually effective.
I was surprised by the trajectory of Nadia and Saeed’s romantic relationship in Exit West, specifically the fact that it ended up failing. While reading the novel I viewed the relationship as mechanism to help humanize the two migrants and consequently make the reader feel empathetic for them – too often are migrants mostly described as numbers instead of actual human beings with complex emotions, desires and goals. As such, while I was reading I was expecting their romantic relationship to end happily ever once they got to their final destinations. The fact that it didn’t struck me as allegorical of the struggles migrants face, specifically how simply physically arriving in their final destinations is not the end of their problems.
When their relationship began to go south, Nadia and Saeed turn to migrating somewhere new as an attempt to fix things, representing the optimism migrants have about how their destinations will provide them with a better life than their old one. As we see, migrating does not solve their problem, and they eventually decide to part ways.
This idea of the end of migration not being the end to migrants’ problems is a common theme we’ve seen in the course – people leave their home countries due to things like violent conflict or lack of economic opportunity in hopes of creating a better life for themselves elsewhere, but instead find themselves in environments fraught with problems like racism, xenophobia, lack of economic opportunity, police brutality and more.
Exit West to me seemed to not be a novel focused on the journey – Hamid’s use of the magical black doors makes it so that the physical journeys between Nadia and Saeed’s destinations are not a main part of the story, allowing the novel to be a story of migrants without giving much importance to the journey itself. Instead, it seemed to me that the novel is more focused on fleshing out the problems that arise when migrants live in their destination countries. We see this in Nadia and Saeed’s struggle to make enough money to feed themselves in Mykonos, their battle with the nativist mob in London, Saeed’s feelings of being an “other” and the general emotional difficulties that comes with living in an entirely new culture while living in the mansion, the burning alive of migrants in the cinema by the police, and more. Despite making it out of their war-torn homeland and making it into Europe, Saeed and Nadia are still constantly encountering problems that make it hard to live a normal, happy life.
The struggles migrants face after they arrive in their destination countries is an issue(s) that that often takes a back seat (in the context of the focus of media and public discourse) to the difficulties migrants face on the journey to their destinations, and by making this the focus of Exit West Hamid fleshes out these problems and thrusts them into the spotlight so that they too can become part of the broader public discussion surrounding the European migrant crisis.