Page 98 - IJPS-9-3

International Journal of
Population Studies Refugees’ voices in Brazilian cities

Paradoxically, the enunciation of the flaws within 2010) because they are represented as populations existing
the legal system is absorbed by it, allowing for a certain outside the idealized (and universal) community of a
“victory” for individuals or groups who were previously given nation (Anderson, 1983 apud Bidaseca, 2010). Their
marginalized and silenced concerning the protection of (political) presence and cultural differences are frequently
their human rights. In the case of refugees and refugee denied (Bravo, 2000 apud Bidaseca, 2010; Bidaseca, 2010).
applicants, the path to achieving their recognition and, According to the philosopher Todorov (1981) and Bidaseca
consequently, the effectiveness of their right to participate (2010), individuals who are seen as the “other” (distinct
in urban life lies in acknowledging the exclusionary from the “universal standard”) are murdered or led to
character of the Brazilian legal system in relation to collective suicide, or even phagocytized in his cultural
such individuals. This involves using the very “channel difference, in a constant process of depersonalization
language” of the rights that is meant to defend the groups (Bhabha, 1970 apud Bidaseca, 2010).
excluded from it.
However, considering that those in subordinate
Therefore, the struggle for the effectiveness of the right positions are denied political agency, they are silenced,
to the city and the affirmation of the identity of these and their subjectivity is blocked. One cannot recover
individuals through formal recognition should involve the voices and conscience of such individuals from their
both the use of the existing right and its reinterpretation memories, which are only records of the domination they
to employ a new meaning. It represents a quest to have suffered. Moreover, even if their voices exist, they are
reinterpret the law in another sense, based concretely, denied a space of enunciation within the world-system
rather than merely perpetuating the positive norms that (Spivak, 2006; Bidaseca, 2010).
instrumentalize and sustain social, economic, and cultural
inequalities disguised as universality. In this sense, when the subalternized individuals speak,
they merely express the voices of domination and the
6. Subalternity and the wearing of the resulting “universalized” representation. This is because
mask: The struggle for voice in the city the liberal legal discourse mentioned earlier fosters a false
notion of equality and representation, which deludes the
In the context of masked social power and the domination subjugated individuals into the illusory idea that they are
of individuals who do not conform to the “universal the “authors” of the State and, consequently, the creators
standard,” the group of refugees and refugee applicants can and addressees of the city where they live (Brown, 1995).
be categorized as one of the subordinate groups, as first
listed by Gramsci (2002). According to the author, the term However, as soon as these individuals acquire their
“subaltern” refers to any person who positions themselves own voice and begin to express their identity, they liberate
at a lower level than another, and in cases involving themselves from this false representation and cease to be
relative denomination, it can be applied to situations of subalternized (Spivak, 2006; Bidaseca, 2010). Consequently,
domination, not exclusively limited to questions of class, ceasing to be subalternized, the individual becomes the
which differs from what the Marxist studies have pointed protagonist and narrator of their own life, narrating their
out (Bidaseca, 2010). daily experiences, as well as those of their group, and
recording their authentic memory (Benjamin, 1994).
Therefore, the term describes diverse and heterogeneous
groups that experience domination and exploitation within In this way, the right to the city for refugees and
the current hegemonic system, often lacking a consciousness refugee applicants can only be effectively realized through
of class (Vega, 2003 Bidaseca, 2010) — consciousness their concrete (political) participation in shaping and
of their identity, more precisely. Spivak, 2006 apud contributing to the urban environment in which they reside.
Bidaseca, 2010, Bidaseca (2010) considers that subalternity This participation extends to their effective involvement in
represents a situation where individuals are distant from the elaboration of public policies aimed at their integration
any social mobility or inhabit a non-homogeneous space into the community, with careful consideration of the
of difference, which cannot be generalized and does not specific identities within their group. The simple elaboration
configure a position of identity conducive to forming a of government policies for the integration of this group of
basis for political action. In this paper, however, the term individuals, without affording them the opportunity for
“subordinate” is used instead of “subaltern” since the former influential political participation, only keeps them as an
alludes to an imposition on these individuals, rather than a object, distant from the policymakers and distant from the
voluntary or conscious self-placement. reality itself (experience) they seek to regulate.
Similarly, ethnic and sexual minorities, migrants, and It should be noted that the granting of rights to a
refugees are also considered subordinate subjects (Bidaseca, certain group of impoverished and “vulnerable people,”

Volume 9 Issue 3 (2023) 92 https://doi.org/10.36922/ijps.438