Lifeboat politics in the Pacific: Affect and the ripples and shimmers of a migrant saturated future

Affect is explored in relation to the governance of irregular migrants and asylum seekers that turn such vulnerable individuals into a feared category. How are emotions as practices developed, fostered and enacted? The examples developed in the article focus on ‘illegal maritime arrivals’ (asylum seekers arriving by boat) and the emotionally charged response to them in Australia. The article argues that the state, far from embodying a detached and neutral arbiter utilising various steering mechanisms of care and due process, instead governs through fear and anxiety generated in relation to outsiders. The state draws on, and indeed creates, dispositions and feelings, generating a distinct politics of affect. The motif of the lifeboat is an example of a diversion from the anxieties and fears in everyday life; a metaphor for scarcity and a battle for survival. The asylum seeker as ‘illegal maritime arrival’ (boat person) is the exemplar of such a lifeboat politics in the Australian case.     

Playing to their strengths: Can focusing on typical in-group strengths be detrimental to people of colour?

With increasing awareness about racism, portrayals of communities of colour are shifting away from negative representations. Emphasizing their strengths could counter negative stereotypes about who they are and low expectations for who they can be, but could also backfire. In two experiments centring adolescents (n = 198) and adults of colour (n = 321), the effect of reflecting on a typical strength was moderated by perceived misalignments between racial/ethnic and ideal future selves (i.e., ethnic–ideal self-discrepancy). For participants perceiving them as aligned, reflecting on a typical in-group strength reduced actual–ideal self-discrepancy. However, for participants perceiving them as misaligned, reflecting on a typical in-group strength increased actual–ideal self-discrepancy. Reflecting on a typical strength also indirectly influenced engagement, through actual–ideal self-discrepancy. Reflecting on an atypical in-group strength did not yield significant effects. Thus, emphasizing typical aspects of stigmatized communities, even when positive, sometimes impede identity and motivation.