Search

This article explores the magnifying lenses of the COVID‐19 syndemic to highlight how people racialized as migrants and refugees have been—and continue to be—disproportionally harmed. We use empirical evidence collected in our scholarly/activist work in Europe, Africa, South Asia, and the United States to examine migrant injustice as being produced by a combination of power structures and relations working to maintain colonial global orders and inequalities. This is what has been defined as "border imperialism." Our data, complemented by evidence from transnational solidarity groups, show that border imperialism has further intersected with the hygienic‐sanitary logics of social control at play during the COVID‐19 period. This intersection has resulted in increasingly coercive methods of restraining people on the move, as well as in increased—and new—forms of degradation of their lives, that is, an overall multiplication of border violences. At the same time, however, COVID‐19 has provided a unique opportunity for grassroot solidarity initiatives and resistance led by people on the move to be amplified and extended. We conclude by emphasizing the need for community psychologists to take a more vigorous stance against oppressive border imperialist regimes and the related forms of violence they re/enact. Highlights: People on the move have been, and continue to be, disproportionally harmed by the COVID‐19 syndemic.Migrant injustice is produced by a global system of border imperialism.The COVID‐19 syndemic has worked as a multiplier of border violences.The COVID‐19 has been a driver of grassroots solidarity and resistance led by people on the move.Community psychologists need to take a more vigorous stance against border imperialist regimes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Ireland the Direct Provision system segregates and excludes displaced people from the host community, and informal community solidarity initiatives (CSIs) were established nationwide to address this issue. We examined experiences of intergroup contact in CSIs and related contexts to identify how solidarity is produced, and for whom, through photovoice workshops (Study 1: n = 13) with displaced participants of two CSIs, and interviews (Study 2: n = 5) with resident/national stakeholders of four CSIs. In Study 1, we identified three themes: "Orienting to future and collective identities in Direct Provision," "Negotiating intersectional identities in public settings," and "Recognition of valued collective identities in the CSI." In Study 2, we identified two themes: "Negotiating privileged identities and power asymmetries," and "Facilitating change through social connections." CSIs offered temporary respite from the oppression and discrimination displaced people experienced in other contexts and enabled them to resist dehumanizing representations through expression and recognition of valued identities. Connections within and across groups fostered relational solidarity, shifted intergroup norms, and opened opportunities for displaced people to access resources. Accordingly, our findings have implications for public policy, community research, and action to create just and equitable conditions for displaced people in receiving countries. Highlights: CSIs offered temporary respite from the oppression and discrimination displaced people experienced in other contexts and enabled them to resist dehumanizing representations through expression and recognition of valued identities.Connections within and across groups fostered relational solidarity, shifted intergroup norms, and opened opportunities for displaced people to access resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Ireland, displaced people experience segregation, discrimination, and disempowering regulations within the Direct Provision system. Community solidarity initiatives (CSI) aim to address the segregation and discrimination displaced people face through collaborative contact with residents/nationals of Ireland. However, asymmetric power relations mean that residents/nationals and displaced people are likely to experience intergroup contact differently, which has implications for identity negotiation. We investigated how displaced people and residents/nationals negotiated their identities and oriented to social representations in talk about their experiences of a CSI in the West of Ireland. We interviewed 17 displaced people and residents/nationals and conducted a thematic analysis, informed by Social Identity Approach and Social Representations Theory. Then, we applied a discursive approach to understand how participants constructed social identities and social representations. Our analysis produced two main themes: 'Identity negotiation strategies in talk about intergroup contact' and 'Understanding and orienting to intergroup boundaries'. We found that residents/nationals and displaced people negotiated their identities to maintain positive identification in relation to negative social representations about their groups. Participants also oriented to shared group representations in their talk , which has implications for the development of political solidarity between residents/nationals and displaced people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It has been suggested that the continuing legal status of animals as property is at odds with our societal viewpoint of them, and fails to recognise the closeness of the human-animal bond. One area of law where this conflict manifests is in the provision of non-economic damages to pet owners, when a third party negligently causes their pet's death or injury. Traditionally, the law has disallowed damage recovery in this scenario due to the animal's proprietary legal status. However, judicial activism has occurred in some United States courts and recovery been permitted, resulting in the law being unclear and inconsistent. Australian sociological research demonstrates the depth of the public's affection for their animals and it is likely to be only a matter of time before Australian courts are faced with similar non-economic damage claims in relation to pet harm. This article seeks to discover what lessons from the US experience can be applied, with adaptation, to the Australian context. The proposal is that Australia should avoid the judicial activist approach, since this encourages unlimited liability and inconsistency. Instead, reform should be proactive and occur through legislative intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]