Introduction

Humanitarianism is understood as a form of ‘soft power’; its perceived absence is a source of stigma that damages state reputations on the international scene. Governments proudly declare and celebrate the humanitarian qualities and actions of the nation-states they represent. In his speech to the 2016 UN Summit for Refugees and Migrants, the Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull declared that Australia has a ‘generous’ humanitarian programme and the best refugee policy in the world (The Australian, 2016a). Speaking in 2015 on the UK's response to the refugee crisis, the former British Prime Minister, David Cameron, stated that ‘this is a country of extraordinary compassion always standing up for our values and helping those in need’. Yet despite this boasting, the UK and Australia have faced sharp critiques over their refugee and asylum policies. Meanwhile, although at the UN Summit in September 2016, President Obama implored people to ‘open up their hearts’, his administration oversaw the largest number of immigration deportations in US history (Nicholls et al, 2016). This chapter explores how governments have legitimated the withholding of compassion from undesired migrants and refugees in the context of their public commitments to compassionate policies.

While a broad definition of compassion may be generally agreed on – it is a painful emotion directed towards alleviating another's suffering – there is significant ambiguity in this definition. This has led to a contestation of the emotional script of compassion and debate about: a) the criteria that need to be fulfilled to be seen as someone worthy of compassion; b) the terms of that relationship, including the power disparity; and c) the desired interventions and outcomes.

Continuing with the theme of compassionate refusal from Chapter Five, this chapter examines how a narrow and highly conditional definition of compassion has been used to justify the expulsion of people from the circle of concern. Drawing on Hochschild's theory of emotional regimes, this chapter explores the structure of compassion as an emotional regime in government discourse and its use in governance. It examines how ‘feeling’ and ‘framing rules’ (Hochschild, 1979) are used to establish who we are supposed to feel compassion for and under what circumstances. It is argued that models of compassion in government discourses enable the dual maintenance of both compassionate and hostile discourses and practices in ways that can be reconciled and legitimated.