In her 1996 article in Cultural Anthropology, Liisa Malkki argues that refugees are “speechless emissaries.” Draw from Malkki’s article, lectures, and tutorials to explain this argument. Your explanation should address the following questions:
How does Malkki draw from her observations to conclude that refugees are “speechless emissaries”? (2)
Malkki draws from her observations of refugees to conclude that they are "speechless emissaries" by highlighting the ways in which they are often silenced or marginalized in mainstream discourse. She argues that refugees are frequently portrayed as passive victims in need of saving, rather than as agents with their own agency and perspectives. This portrayal silences their voices and reduces them to mere objects of pity or charity.
Furthermore, Malkki points out that when refugees do speak out, their voices are often dismissed or delegitimized. They are seen as "unreliable" narrators of their own experiences, with their accounts of displacement, trauma, and loss often being called into question. This lack of credibility further silences refugees and reinforces their status as "speechless emissaries."
Malkki also argues that refugees serve as "emissaries" because they carry with them a message or story that can challenge dominant narratives and assumptions about displacement and belonging. Their presence in host countries can disrupt existing hierarchies and power structures, forcing people to confront the complexities and contradictions of issues such as immigration, nationalism, and humanitarianism.
Overall, Malkki's argument is that refugees may be "speechless" in the sense that their voices are often marginalized or ignored, but they are also "emissaries" who have the potential to disrupt and subvert dominant discourses and ideologies. Through their lived experiences and narratives, refugees can offer a powerful critique of the systems that have displaced them and continue to shape their lives.