The idea of the “impossible subject” proposed by Ngai (2004) is important to understand the manner in which bodies have been constructed historically, in the United States, as desirable or undesirable. For Ngai the illegal alien is the “impossible subject”, “a person who cannot be and a problem that cannot be solved” (2004:5). This suggests that the “impossible subject” is at once slippery and ambiguous, while framed as a “problem” that has a particular function in the nation-state. The “impossible subject” is dehumanized (“a person who cannot be”) yet constructed in a particular manner (“a problem that cannot be solved”) as troubling the imagination of the nation. Such a subject is undesirable to the nation, and this concept allows us to think through “desirability” and “undesirability” in post 9/11 America. In this personal reflection I will attempt to demonstrate the manner in which the war on terror constructed “impossible subjects”, and the contradictions in the discourse of “desirability” and “undesirability” that such constructions produce.
When I first arrived in the in United States of America in 2006, I came on a cultural exchange visa, as the Ford Foundation funded my studies in the US. Entering the US as a student the visa application process was thorough and extensive. In South Africa the US Embassy determined my “desirability” and framed me as a particular type of migrant in the US. Upon entering the US for the first time I did not encounter any problems. The process was swift without any hassles. Being a student I presented my passport and other documentation that demonstrated a thorough check had been done and successfully passed. A friend who traveled with me at the same time on a visitor’s visa was not so lucky. He was ushered into the private room and questioned extensively before being allowed through customs. While settling into life in New York City, I met many travelers from around the work, many also on cultural exchange visas. I found out that many people on the same visa type as myself were subject to a two-year home residency requirement, which had to be fulfilled once their studies were completed. I was not subject to this rule! This baffled me and made me think about the purpose of this two year home residency requirement and those who had to fulfill them. Not surprisingly, most of those who had this requirement where Pakistani and Indian nationals. I am of Indian origin but I am a South African citizen, which placed me in a different category of “desirability”. However this was challenged on many occasions when I visited Canada.
Leaving the US through New York was not problematic at all. My passport was stamped and I was on my way to Toronto. However when I was leaving Toronto to come back to New York, I quickly discovered that the process was longer and more extensive. Being of Indian descent (not Middle Eastern or Pakistani), I was under more scrutiny. My passport was checked more thoroughly, I was looked at in peculiar ways and I was asked questions that my documentation provided. However, upon reentering the US I was perceived as threatening and my “desirability” was in question. My desirability was based on my “ethnicity”, not my nationality and I, like many others, was over-determined by my “Indian” features – dark hair, brown skin and accent. However, I noticed that I was perceived as being more threatening if I was not clean-shaven. Every time I traveled between the two countries and I had facial hair, my boarding pass was immediately marked with a highlighter at the check-in counter, and I was subsequently scrutinized and searched even further. Having traveled internationally often I performed the behavior of the “desirable” subject, smiling, patiently waiting, even though the looks I was given was hostile and at times threatened my entry into the US. What I encountered through these immigration checks is a slippage between my passport identity and my ethnic identity. Being South Africa was not problematic and constructed me as “desirable”, however being of Indian origin threatened my desirability (although it is ironic that at that stage I had never been to the sub-continent).
The events of 9/11 certainly constructed a newer image of the “undesirable” subject. The events also consolidated the US nation as a newly imagined community who could define the enemy as the other from the Middle East (Afghanistan, Pakistan and other “brown” people). Immigration policies were tightened; people were scrutinized more critically and new categories of “undesirable subjects” were constructed. From my observations men from the sub-continent and the Middle East posed the greatest threat. Women were next, especially Muslim women who chose to wear the hijab. However, I have often wondered how this post 9/11 panic has consolidated racial categories in the USA, especially in an attempt at constructing desirable and undesirable subjects, and the impact that this has had on immigration to the USA since 1994. Another point to think about is how has this re-created the category of the “migrant”, the alien, the impossible subject– with all its negative connotations – and how has this affected the lives of ethnic South Asians and people of Middle Eastern origin who are citizens of the USA. Although they may have assimilated, their ethnicity clearly marks them as the “other”. 9/11 constructed them as political threats to the nation.
Categorization appears to remain at the core of how citizens are constructed, racial categories are mobilized and subjects created. It is important to note that such constructions are nation-state based, and does not account for the multiplicity of identities that people navigate on a daily basis. Ngai’s book allows us to understand the power of categorization and the manner in which nation-states mobilize categories, more as a way of reflecting its own insecurities.
No comments:
Post a Comment