A discussion of Edward Said’s and Hannah Arendt’s views on exile and refugees.

My grandfather said to me that to be forcibly removed from one’s home was the most dehumanizing experience one could ever encounter. For background information, my grandfather was a Palestinian refugee during the first Israeli-Palestinian war. He fled from his native Palestine to Egypt and then had to flee Egypt as a political refugee since my grandmother, Lebanese-born Egyptian-raised, was no longer welcome to stay due to significant political changes in the country. This idea of exile my grandfather expressed to me all of his life and the feelings surrounding it is present in both Edward Said’s work Reflection on Exile and Hannah Arendt’s commentary We refugees.

Said argues forcefully against the notion that we are all migrants. For him, to be exiled is to be fundamentally without an anchor, and those not displaced cannot understand the damage exile does to one’s psyche. Furthermore, exile requires a profound amount of self — reconfiguration as, for many refugees, homecoming is simply out of the question. Said discusses how even though expatriates, migrants, and exiles all share the commonality of physical displacement from one’s homes, the association of banishment with being an exile and the emotionally scarring feelings that come with it is what truly differentiates an exile from a migrant. Although Said’s statement is sensical, I cannot help but question his logic. Said defines an exile as “one who lives an anomalous and miserable life with the stigma of being an outsider” (144). I can’t help but think that these sentiments of isolation and an atypical experience in another country are not necessarily reserved for exiles. For a political or economic migrant, although they may have left on their volition, fleeing one’s country is not always a choice.

Look at the news.

How many stories have we seen about migrants fleeing from violence, political changes, economic troubles, climate etc. Said’s view is that these migrants don’t have this deep emotional scarring exiles possess. Even though I have never been a migrant and cannot personally make a claim to the statement, I can’t help but think about how there might be some fault to his logic. Although these migrants were not exiled — there will always be a degree of emotional turmoil associated with leaving home.

Said is a realist; he looked at the world as it has produced violence against pariah populations and argues against the convention that exile enriches culture. When we look at the stories of refugees, we have often looked at exile as an enriching experience fuelling stories and the art of storytelling. However, instead of exile causing the inspiration for the stories, people who experience exile are ultimately being enriched through their own skills and thus can create impactful stories and works of art. He cites The Divine Comedy, the works of James Joyce, the Odyssey, and more as examples. Exile may shape the subject matter of the story, and although exile is traumatic, it is not the thing that enriches human culture.

This idea of storytelling in exile and stories resulting in exile is fascinating to me. Personally, I have never experienced exile, forced migration, or displacement of any matter. Therefore, I cannot understand my grandfather’s experiences and the stories I read; however, I have found that these stories give me perspective. If I cannot personally relate to the feelings of being exiled, I can read about it. Ultimately, stories resulting from exile are more rich, dynamic, and fascinating for those who have experienced exile, as they can relate to the message being told and those who have not as they can learn and gain perspective.

In his essay, Said comments on the temporal aspect of the notion of “we are all migrants.” He states that “White settlers in Africa, parts of Asia, and Australia may once have been exiles, but as pioneers and nation — builders, the label “exile” dropped away from them.” When I think of the word exile, I think of it being isolated in a generation. My father feels no connection to being a Palestinian exile, although he grew up in a household where it was discussed constantly. His experience is similar to Said’s comment on the ultimate disappearance of the status of being an exile. However, I do not think that the disappearance of being an exile happened solely because of being “a pioneer and nation — builder.” In my opinion, it can occur because of stagnation. The definition of an exile is “the state of being barred from one’s native country, typically for political or punitive reasons.” Once born in a new country, the next generation claims a new native homeland. For the status of exile to be regained, there must be a secondary form of banishment or emotional disconnect that occurs in the next generation. This is why I believe Said would disagree with the statement that we are all migrants. The basis of his argument about exile is that it is experienced and can be understood by only a small group of people.

The title of Arendt’s work, “We refugees,” acts as an introduction to the general idea presented in the text. Arendt argues that there is a collective “we” that goes through the migratory experience. While Said focuses on the despair associated with being an exile, Arendt concentrates on an abnormal positivity present in the Jewish community during World War II and how the feelings surrounded by the refugee experience can be observed as commonalities between different groups. She states, “our proclaimed cheerfulness is based on a dangerous readiness for death.” That line was haunting when I read it. Here Arendt presents another emotion felt by refugees yet one less evident than the despair presented by Said. She focuses on the cruel irony given in being a refugee. Through presenting a general positivity, Arendt reveals a tragic hopelessness in the refugee condition. In reflecting on Arendt’s message, I cannot help but wonder if much has changed since then. This idea of hidden despair seems to still be quite prominent in the modern world. Although the information is more accessible and modern media covers many aspects of refugee crises, I have yet to see images and stories of positivity surrounding the migrant crisis.

At the beginning of her text, Arendt states that “we do not like to be called refugees” and defines a refugee as “a person driven to seek refuge because of some act committed or some political opinion held.” I feel like that definition is susceptible to change, especially looking at a modern context. For example, doesn’t fleeing from violence, natural disasters, or even major economic issues qualify people as refugees? Syrian refugees fleeing from political violence, Indonesian refugees fleeing from rapidly rising sea levels, or Venezuelan refugees fleeing from excessive inflation rates and inflating economic crises; looking at the modern world, what qualifies a refugee is much larger than in the context of when Arendt was writing her piece.

In reference to the statement “We are all refugees,” I believe Arendt would agree to some extent with it. Except for disagreeing with the use of the word refugees, Arendt presents in her commentary a general human condition of a refugee, therefore, expanding on the statement itself. She discusses how refugee populations are stripped from “familiarity of daily life, confidence, the naturalness of reactions, the simplicity of gestures, etc.” and often conform to the nationalities of the host countries — Arendt cites Jewish populations in France as an example. She discusses how most migrants are ready to pay any social price or accept any social standards to be accepted into society, whereas Said states the opposite and insists on how exiles refuse to belong as there is an intrinsic pull to one’s homeland.

Although they have differing opinions on the subject, Said and Arendt both imply the same overall message: when one becomes an exile or a refugee, their identity becomes a tool to be used, and the identity formed in the culture is immutable. In realizing how culture and identity can be used as a mechanism, the refugee can make the personal decision to present themselves however they please. In reflecting about both Said’s and Arendt’s commentaries on refugee’s and exiles, I believe they are both right. Even though their ideas may appear contradictory, there is truth in both of their statements yet can be applied to different contexts and are heavily situational.

Well, that’s it for me! If you liked this article feel free to connect on Linkedin or send me an email!