In migration research, the word “human” can hide power claims—paper argues for a wider view

Arguments about “human” in migration

The paper argues that “human” functions as a category that hides in plain sight within Migration Studies. It states that past and present uses of “the human” have been used to legitimize elite interests in relation to migration, and that injustices in migration governance can be reproduced by—yet also despite—ideals associated with liberal humanism and humanitarianism.

As a contrast, the paper develops a framework for “the human” as a hybrid of biological species (“bios”) and social storytellers (“mythoi”), proposing a species-based but culturally plural approach. It further reports that attending to this category from southern perspectives reveals something about migration, illustrated through a short case study from Cameroon.

Why the word shapes governance

The paper’s relevance lies in how it frames debates over migration: it argues that what is assumed to be “human” is not neutral, and that these assumptions can influence how migration governance is justified and carried out. By proposing a redefinition that allows multiple cultural understandings, it aims to support more equitable directions for migration-related research and policy discussions.

Theory and a short case study

This is a theoretical and critical contribution to a special issue, relying on argumentation and engagement with existing scholarship (including Sylvia Wynter) rather than presenting new quantitative data or experimental results. Its empirical component is described only as a short case study from Cameroon, without details here about scope or selection. As a result, the concrete case is best read as illustrative of the paper’s conceptual claims, not as broad evidence about migration everywhere.