Anubandh: Hello! My name is Anubandh KATÉ. I am an engineer based in Paris and often I do interviews with different authors. And today, with me, I have an author named Marie-Caroline
SAGLIO-YATZIMIRSKY. We are here
because Marie Caroline… Well, she has
already written several books but her very latest book is named "Family reunification". Today we are going to discuss this book.
First, I
would like to briefly introduce you to my audience. You are an anthropologist
and a clinical psychologist. You are a
professor in anthropology at INALCO (National Institute of Oriental Languages
and Civilizations). You are a researcher at the laboratory CESSMA (Center for
Social Science Studies of the Africans,
Americans, and Asians worlds). You are
also a clinical psychologist at the regional psychotrauma center at Paris North
(Avicenne Hospital, Bobigny, Paris).
You are working on questions of migration and social exclusion in India, Brazil and France.
You have written several books. I am going to list
them one by one. This is because it is
the first time that we are speaking and
I think it is important that my audience
knows the scope of work that you have done.
We are going to talk today about the book "Family Reunification". Before
that, there is also "Bombay", a novel that you wrote in 2023. Next, “Lingua (non) grata: Languages, violence
and resistance in migration spaces”, in 2022.
“Violence and narrative: to speak, to translate, to convey the genocide
and the exile,” in 2020. "The voice
of those who cry out, a dialogue with asylum seekers," in 2018. “Mega city slums: Social Exclusion, Space and Urban policies in
Brazil and India”, in 2014. Afterwards, “Dharavi:
from mega slum to urban paradigm”, in 2013. And then, "Maharashtra, between
tradition and modernity". And yes,
one day, I would also like to talk to you about this book. It is because I come from the state of
Maharashtra. That was in 2003. Next, "Untouchable Bombay, the shantytown
of the leather workers”, in 2002. And
another, "India, Population and Development", also in 2002.
Marie-Caroline, do you have a word on
this? About all these books? Have I forgotten anything?
Marie-Caroline: Listen, thank you for this very, very good
presentation which is both excellent and comprehensive. Just to point out. I edited a number of these books, and in
fact, I am not the sole author. Since
you mentioned these works quite extensively, almost all of them were there, including
the books I wrote alone as an author.
Indeed, there are such books, in particularly those based on India which
was my subject of interest in anthropology
for 30 years. These include "Maharashtra", "Bombay" and
"Dharavi". So, there indeed is
something between a dedicated study and a novel which for me is very personal as well. And then there is this work on my clinic,
with asylum seekers. And this issue of
"The Voice of Those Who Cry Out" and then more recently "Family
Reunification", which indeed are books
of which I am the sole author. That is it.
Anubandh: Okay. Thank you.
Well, I read this book and I loved it. I will begin by briefly introducing what is this
book all about.
You have… when I say “you”, I mean you and your
whole family who welcomed a large
migrant family of 7 people. It is the
DIALLO family that came to France from the African country of Guinea
Conakry. And certainly, this family was
plunged into irregularity after an
administrative error. This book
is a story as much about welcoming of a migrant family in France as much it is
about administrative uncertainty towards
the status of immigrants in France.
But I am going to jump now to the end of this book where you say that this
book was not meant to be a storytelling
and even less so a personal account.
This was supposed to be an analysis of the “cost of integration”. Its social cost for newcomers but also for the
hosts.
So, how did it all go? Firstly, because there is an experience that you
lived together. And you decided also to
write it down and share it with us. Could you please tell us about this
experience?
Marie-Caroline: Thank you very much for this presentation which is actually very true and which is indeed reminiscent of the beginning of this experience which then becomes this story. In fact, I have been working for almost 20 years regarding migration issues and I receive individuals for consultations who are in situations of exile, whether they are seeking exile, exiled refugees, rejected, it doesn't matter. The question of the nature of their
documents, of their status, comes often
as a hindrance in the presence of these
people in France. And then, their
(psychological) rebuilding, when they have endured extreme violence. And in this regard, so far I have
addressed these questions in the form
of nonfiction studies. So, with "The Voice of Those Who Cry
Out" and then we, my husband and I,
we had a lot of opportunities because
when we host, firstly, we have to have
the desire, and secondly, we should have
the means to do so. Of course…We
had… At that time, a few years ago, we had a Parisian apartment which allowed
someone to be welcomed and often we had
people as guests who were in the process
of immigration, waiting for the
paperwork or who were in asylum
application processes and elsewhere, of
any nationality and it was a pleasure to
exchange ideas. Even though, working a lot with my husband we finally had,
there you go, not a crazy amount of time
either to exchange with these
people, but it was a pleasure to welcome
them.
And then, the story goes like this. One day, I received a phone call from a very old patient who I had obviously no
longer as a patient but who was giving
news from time to time and who was
thrown on the street when on the other
hand he had successful secured with the
administration his family reunification.
In other words, to bring in legally his family in France that had
remained in Guinea Conakry. In fact, it
is this experience where we decided, with my husband, to host them for a year, while all this, more or less, settles down.
I mean all the paperwork and also the autonomy of this family. The experience was so new for me and so sensitive, perhaps also because we were hosting a
family and no longer a single person, a
single adult, that it entailed a lot
more…. I would say, exchanges and
intense emotional experiences. Also,
there were children. And children have a
perspective on everything, which is the
gaze of childhood, also of surprise, of
discovery, sometimes even of fear which means that when I started to… I was in the process to write a book which was called "the price of
integration". On this
question, what does it mean to welcome
immigrants? But to welcome on both
sides, to be welcomed and to be the one welcoming. Having lived through this experience, I thought it would be much more understandable if it were more sensitive and what if, ultimately, instead of passing through an academic study and
conceptualization… In any case, a significant
streamlining of everything that had
happened. Well, I was doing it or I was
taking along a little bit the reader in
this exchange, which is a very emotional experience, of course. And also it is filled with many, many surprises and questions, since it was between two families, about living with that family, it was also about discovering another religion, another culture, other forms of life.
Anubandh: Very good. Thank you.
It must also be said that many among us wish to
help others, but in general, these are gestures that are quite definite in nature. In the sense that it is often a solitary
gesture and it ends there. But what you
had is instead a commitment. And we do not know what was going to happen in
future. Neither the DIALLO family knew nor you. Therefore, that is why for me this experience
is really very exceptional.
I must also say that when you were talking
about children, then these are also of different age groups. There are, of course, the little boys, but
also teenage girls. We will visit this
aspect a little later. But for me, that is quite important.
I think that before we begin, perhaps we should
also talk about all these sufferings that Mr. DIALLO had to endure and also
those that his family who lived in Guinea had to undergo. So, Mr. DIALLO, for me, as you write in the
book, is a political refugee who was tortured.
He finally managed to escape and then came to Europe via Spain and later
in France. And then for around 5
years, once he was here in France, he had to face a lot of administrative problems and paperwork, for housing aid, for the CAF which is the "Family Allowance Fund", for the CMU, which is the "Universal
Health Coverage" and for all the
other administrative procedures, so as
to bring over his family in France.
First, the task was to prove that it was indeed his family and then to
bring it here in France.
On the other hand, for Mrs. DIALLO, therefore
for Fatima DIALLO, she also had many difficulties to face. Firstly, because Mr. DIALLO was perceived as an anti-national. And she had to make several trips back and
forth, between Guinea Conakry and Ivory Coast. There was huge administrative
paperwork as well, involving those for the fingerprints and the long distances
between towns. So, there you have
it. That is roughly the situation I have
come to understand.
Could you please tell us more about this
family? What did they have to endure
before coming to France?
Marie-Caroline: Yes, listen, you said it well. What we no longer see, in fact, in a
political debate which has stigmatized nonetheless the issue of immigrants and
that is very much of a concern. This is
because this debate confuses quite a few things, and they forget, by the way, that
this issue of refugees, finally, it is of
people who are seeking asylum and the
four official categories that grant
long-stay permits, they are numerically
very insignificant. It is nothing at all.
Especially if we compare with the number of people from other categories. And in short, these
people are actually in situations of having to leave their country. You have it there. You just reminded us by
talking about it in particular regarding the situation of Mr. and Mrs.
DIALLO. It requires a lot courage to
organize so as to ultimately leave.
Because one is under serious threat.
So, this is about Guinea Conakry, a country
where a part of the population was stigmatized, for a long time, which is not the case for people throughout this part of Africa. Therefore, since several governments, particularly that of Alpha CONDÉ, it is a population which is in a very, very dangerous
situation and which very swiftly
was imprisoned and tortured, especially if it was in the political
opposition. Therefore, this is one sort of people we have in consultation for a
long time in particular because of what is known as the “stadium massacre”. So, in 2009,
this particular population was an imprisoned in one of the large stadiums in Guinea
Conakry, and which then was tortured,
raped and it had to endure other appalling atrocities. And so, a portion of this population decided to come even to a former colonial country that is
France, at least whose language they speaks in public schools, in the administration and so forth. And where this population believes to have
found something. And obviously, in the
context of the current asylum policy,
this population is very poorly received.
As violence also takes place in
the host country where people are
asked to conform to a certain format and
procedures.
It turns out that Mr. DIALLO got the
paperwork almost immediately, thanks to
OFPRA, which is "the French Office
for the Protection for Refugees and
Stateless Persons”. And this is actually
quite rare. We did not even have to go
through the CNDA, the "National
Commission for the Right of Asylum",
if there had been a rejection by OFPRA.
Mr. DIALLO was able to say, in fact,
very quickly, he was able to convince
the French asylum authorities
that he absolutely needed protection.
But by doing that, he was separating himself from his family, which was already a family of six since he had his children, including a
youngest, a very small child, Bala, who he had never met. Since this little Bala, he was born while his father was in prison. And so, starting from there, in fact, he
arrives with an appalling feeling of separation and abandonment.
And in the current political migration
situation, there is very little
migration that happens without loss,
without abandonment, without separation.
It is very difficult. And he was able to rebuild a part of his life in France. He began here what is called in France as a family reunification. In other words, a type of family reunification that
involves, which is for the
refugees, for those who obtained their
legal political documents. And it takes
a huge amount of time. It is a matter of
a lot of paperwork. Exile and asylum in
France are a matter of red tape, of
course, of a lot of paperwork, and yet
one which appears to be entirely possible.
However, the current problem is that these documents and the type of administration are extremely
slow. This is in particular because this is an administration of suspicion. It actually manufactures, or it is the one
that has the propensity to create
illegal or undocumented immigrants. That
is something I might come back to later.
That is to say, it took huge time
to get things done. There have
been a lot of hurdles, also due to Covid,
as the government offices were no longer responding. There was the problem of everything being
online. All of this. The requirement of
having to go through systematic
digitization, which is very complicated
for many people who do not speak French
well, who do not have access to the
internet so easily and so forth. It is
very bureaucratic. This leads to many people finding themselves, due to this cumbersome paperwork, in inexplicably difficult situations. In short, Mr. DIALLO successfully managed his reunification to the extent that
he managed to train himself and
succeeded to get a job. He got his legal papers.
And on the other side, in Guinea, you have a lonely mother who was also trying to move forward in order to have an entry permit, through the French consulates and who was trying to organize all of this,
legally. And then came the nasty
blow from the administrative red
tape. So, when this family arrived in
France, I mean this mother and her children, who had not seen their father for 5
years. Well, they were told, the French administration told them; “listen,
you have made a declaration of a
religious marriage. What we see however
is that there was not any religious wedding.
Rather, it is a traditional marriage.
How do we trust that this is
your wife and your children?” In other
words, the family is pushed in the void
of red tape. Now, this family has to
start all over again. Somewhere in
France this time, but without any social
assistance that would allow them to settle.
So, in fact, there is a double
violence somewhere. There is the
political violence experienced in the country of origin where this family had no choice but to
leave and then there is this violence by
the French administration that
treats “files” rather than
“individuals”.
And when these individuals arrive without any
social safety net and when there are children,
the situation can quickly become dramatic, if not tragic. So, That is the central issue of the
book. It is about showing this
discrepancy somewhere, which is completely unbearable and insane.
It is about administrative matters,
that we keep telling ourselves,
we should be able to resolve. As a colleague said, but can’t we correct this mistake by using
tippex? The mistake with the little
cross? Mr. DIALLO can barely read and
write. He was not the one who filled the
reunification form in the first
place. I mean, the administrative person
must be someone kind but who simply
ticked the wrong box. Which made it to
be a religious marriage and not a
traditional marriage. And so all this
has led to an year of hardship. We needed to pay a lawyer, we had to start all over again, and so
on. The initial judgment had to be
overturned which claimed that It is not
the family of Mr. DIALLO who arrived in
France, although all of this was stamped
and validated by the embassies. So,
there is something inexplicable with
respect to the right of asylum and
regarding the law of foreigners. And
then, on the other side, I would like to
say that Mr. DIALLO is rather lucky because you have situations where this process lasts for years and
years. And in the meantime, the
family is not eligible for any possible government aid. That is it.
Anubandh: Thank you.
I think it is also important to mention that on
the other hand, the French administration is also under equipped in terms of
its resources. And the complexity in
these kind of cases is not entirely exclusive either. It is almost invasive and is present everywhere in the French
administration. Further, there is also
this political pressure which is very
much present in such matters. Thus,
there are a lot of things that are involved.
Nevertheless, thank you also because unfortunately
in India, we do not talk enough about
Africa. And it is really being
here, in Europe, in France, that I have the opportunity and the possibility to know a little more of these topics. So, thank you.
To move forward, I think I would also like to visit that moment when you had Mr. DIALLO as a patient, during your consultations. There is
something very important and interesting
that you mentioned about the truth of
his narration, about the veracity of the
facts narrated. I propose to read a
short passage and then you could tell me what you think of it. You say that "the vagueness of his
narration is at the same time the
product of his imagination and the lack
of information.” Then you say in another passage that, "This is not the narration that he told me during the consultation. And I know that because the truth of the story
is nothing other than that of the patient. It has nothing to do with the veracity of the
facts. That is not the story either that Mr. DIALLO told to the OFPRA, "The French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Apatrides. » This may not even be the story he tells himself. You need a personal mythology to get out alive from the (psychological) nightmare."
So, as a reader, how should I understand and
interpret these things? How will you
explain these details to us?
Marie-Caroline: That is a very good question which had also been asked in the film "The Story of
Souleymane", of the director Boris
LOJEKINE. The film ends with this
mind-blowing interview where we realize
that, well, Souleymane, in fact,
came in France for other reasons. These were more personal, particularly
concerning his mother's situation and so
on. Well, what I mean is that in these departures… with these kind of departures… I work in a
psychotrauma consultation which is open to everyone. Furthermore, we also have French patients
who, for example, were victims of
terrorism and so on, which has nothing to do with these questions of
exile. For example, what I mean by that
is that there is an administration that
is waiting for a narration. And a
narration of the asylum seeker with verifiable elements, policies and so
forth. The reality, the complexity, is
sometimes such that that this coherent
narration is not graspable. An
administration, and even though this
administration is very, very well informed
on the subject of truthfulness.
Finally, the questions are complex.
And the choices made by families in situations of extreme violence are sometimes
extraordinarily complex.
Furthermore, when people were
tortured, when people have been
subjected to violence… And mind it. This
is a violence between men, it is about men.
It is a human inflicted violence on other humans. This is something that should not be
forgotten. These are intentional acts of
violence. Those of cruelty. It is
terrible. It is not at all… I am not
just talking about a… Let’s say, what
happened during a tsunami which would
have razed a village. I am talking here
about human violence. And It is very,
very difficult.
So this violence tends to be… we arrive at something unimaginable. For
instance, when our own neighbor who
killed, when we saw our children in a
situation of extreme violence, that we
couldn't save them, and so on. This is
the heart of what constitutes psychotrauma.
In other words, a moment when
frameworks of thought are… We can no
longer even make a connection with… I
want to say with the common world, a world
where one would trust the word of the other human being. A world where, ultimately, space-time would indeed be that which has always been, a stable daily life. Here, everything is simply blown up in the minds of patients that we encounter. I mean through this human violence, their entire framework of thought has been destroyed. And so, there is this quite astonishing thing
that happens when one is clinically, in
a state of psychotrauma. In such a
state, there are actually several accounts.
There are the narrations that we
ask these people which are of course
imbued with truth and that is what we
are looking for. But well,
sometimes, you know, the cognitive suffering of the patient is enormous. It is very difficult for them to
remember. Things are confusing. One does
not even understands anymore why was it
necessary to do all this, or why was this demanded of us. For example. There you have it. There is this first account which is the one
that OFPRA wants. It wants, along with
CNDA, a narration. Thus, that makes it
the two main asylum institutions in France. These are stories that are often
formatted and that is quite problematic.
Furthermore, I would like to say, the more the person is “traumatized”, that is to say, the more violence s/he has experienced which affected psychologically his/her frameworks of thought, the cognitive structures and also the
memory, the more difficult it is, in
fact, to tell. It is even less
possible to have a coherent and a
spontaneous speech. That is the great
paradox of these administrations that want a
coherent and a spontaneous narration.
The one that you have in all the
reports; "The gentleman was unable
to speak coherently about what happened
". Except that if the person is
really very and still completely in the
traumatic shock, s/he will not be able
to to say it. This is unspeakable violence. Therefore, that
is exactly the work of a psychologist.
There is a second narrative which is; “What can the gentleman say to
himself?”. There are many stories where people had to make choices all the time. So, there are some great psychologists
who talk about it very well. For example, a psychoanalyst like Nathalie
ZALTMAN, she does not work with the
drive of death, nor really with the life force either. Well, I mean, of course she works with that
as well since that is the basic
idea. However, she works with what she
calls, the "anarchic impulse"
which is that of a situation of extreme
violence. And she thinks a lot about the
choices made in such situations. For example,
when talking about that, she says that
it is the impulse, a kind of a survival
instinct which leads us to make quick
decisions. It remains a matter of choice
and yet we are almost in the oxymoron of a forced choice. And during these situations, things are
moving very fast and we are no longer in
a framework at all of coherent choice
organization. For example, we must save
our dear ones. We must manage to get out
of an accident or violence, an inextricable situation. I think back to certain moments. As sometimes we receive people who really were in situations you have been with your own friends or your own family, while crossing the Mediterranean (on a
makeshift boat), where it was necessary
to hold on, by the tip of the arms his/her
own child who is slipping and is going
to get killed in the icy sea and
one does not know how to swim.
Finally, it puts you in front of unimaginable scenarios. What remains of this trauma is ultimately the vision of these horrific images where ones has been the protagonist, or at least
where one tried to be a protagonist, but
could barely manage it. So, what are these people saying to themselves of all this when, especially when they have lost someone close
to them.
And then there is a third narration which is the one we do not dare to go
to. That is to say, it is a narration that of the consultation. Really, in other words, it is so
violent. It is about everything that
cannot be said. So, what I mean by that, by those words, I mean that of course, the asylum administration today is made in
such a way… And in my opinion, it is
amendable. In my opinion, a number of things need to change in that administration. Just last week, I was at CNDA, to the National Court of Asylum, to reiterate how much, in many, many
cases, the “coherent and spontaneous
narration” that we expect, is not possible. To reiterate that another way is needed probably, in order to have access to a form of
confession and to a form of truthful
storytelling, but that today the means
for which are absent. I firmly believe
that the means are not there. And in
fact, when one is in a situation of a consultation, when you are a psychologist, you couldn't care less about the truth. That is not the point. We do not care. That is not at all our priority or our object of attention. We start with the question of the patient's
sufferings. Why this person is in a state of extreme suffering? Why can't s/he get back on track with life anymore? Severely depressed people have psychological
trauma which prevents them from living.
Sometimes they have suicidal tendencies.
So, in fact, the real aim of a consultation is not to find the truth of the story. Does it fit to what happened in reality? No, it is not about that. However, it is about; how can we do to revive something within the realm of possibility, to make the speech possible again for this
person, and perhaps also a social link.
To make a possibility where you could
confide something to the other person
because at a certain point you completely lose the possibility of trusting the other
person. This is what is called an
“object relation”. A situation where the
whole world has become a world of total adversity. So, what I mean in all these little phrases is that they are indeed
there to make the reader think a
little. Yes, that is when one believes that the question of asylum is a question of truth and reality. No, then we are completely mistaken. We are completely on the wrong track. First, one believes that we have access to
this truth, if it is a factual
truth, then the situation is so
confusing that very often, we can not
imagine what mental resources it took to
get out and sometimes these are
unimaginable resources. We have seen
cases where it was necessary to register
the children under other names,
taking an alias for the father's name.
After that we do not know what to do anymore with this name of the father who died on the
way. Anyway, all of that puts the person
in very intense psychological situations.
And It is very hard for the persons themselves who were indeed forced to have one's own story to survive all this violence.
Anubandh: Yes, exactly! I was going to say that for
me, it is important to understand
that the possible inconsistency in the narration also has quite a complex effect on the person
him/herself. And this possible
inconsistency must weigh on the person themselves. So, there you have it, it is all very
complex.
But I would also like to speak now of this decision to host that you made
collectively, especially with Nicolas,
your husband. And all the emotions you
experienced during those times. And I
chose a few short excerpts from the book.
I am going to read them so that
we can revisit these moments together.
So, you asked Nicolas to go meet Mr. DIALLO. After the visit, he said, "I did not see
a migrant. I did not see a refugee. I saw a father of a family who is very
afraid for his children.” And then he
said that "the children, they are
not responsible for this situation. They
did not ask for anything.” But on the
other side, there was also the practical
question of how to welcome them. You
say, "but here, we have seven people,
including five children without any legal documents. There is also time that will be needed to be
shared. Time is already too scarce and our own, grown up children need our attention as well. Nicolas replies "it will be an experience for them
too. "And anyway, the story has
already begun." And then, the
original purpose of this house that you
dedicated to welcoming them, it
was completely different. "It was
promised to our parents for moments of
countryside and family peace, promised
to our plan of a new life in the countryside.
Then, "there are also the people
who tell us that we “saved” them
from the streets, as they say in this
exasperating vocabulary of social work.
Exasperating because it misses the essence of what makes a meeting/encounter (with another
person). Yet, we are driven by the
need to establish a framework.” And then you even tried to do a contract with them. Even if the idea did not really work. But then, we see all these emotions, all the complexities, both at the individual and then at the
collective level, from their side and
from your side. And this is where comes
this special encounter and this decision to host.
So, how do you see these things? How do you see this decision? Those
times?
Marie-Caroline: Listen. I think you are doing very well by
quoting these key phrases.
In fact, this gap between what could have been a rational decision. And for me, it was difficult to tell
myself, “look, it is about a family and
the father whom I met during the
consultations.” In principle, this world is hermetic between the
psychiatrist and her personal life. And then, there it is, this space of the consultation which must be very well protected from all of that. Even though it had been over for a long time. And then there was this house. We had lots of plans for this house. Indeed, we had the idea of moving
completely to this house at some point. My parents, I still had my father and my stepfather in 2023.
So, at that point, when it all
began in october 2022, at the beginning of the story. And then,
my stepfather died. Anyway. We
still had family plans for this big
house, which took us a little bit out of
Paris, allowed us to implant our foot in something that looked like countryside. And then, I have a husband who loves the greenery.
So, all of this was going through my mind. It is true that there is a kind of a special
meeting, an encounter… That is what a
special meeting is all about. An encounter is so... That is the nature of an encounter. I want to say, this is very different than
all the other meetings. Maybe because it
is so unlikely, because it is so unique,
so… There is something happening which
is so… That is, at the same time it is
so implacable. It is because with such a
meeting, starts a set of incredible things. And then, on the other hand, it is so
unpredictable. And perhaps so many stars
are needed to be aligned so that a
meeting can take place. There you go! I
mean, all day long we meet people. And
then suddenly, there is a real one.
There is an encounter, A meeting! And
so, in my opinion, that is what happened with this family. That is to say, Nicolas went to meet
them because, all the same, I was frankly, a bit too much involved in this. I was thinking that this concerns a lot of
people. It is no longer just about one
person. And then, what a
responsibility! And then, after all, if there really are any serious
problems… I want to say, we were very lucky.
The family was doing very well.
The family was very happy. The
family members got along well. There was
no serious illness. This tuberculosis
that we discovered along the way is
actually completely under control.
Firstly, it is thanks to the children! But we
knew that… However, an encounter, it is
all about the unknown. And in this
particular case, there was that leap
there, into the uncertain, into the unknown.
And yet, somewhere there was also this incredible trust which is as well in a meeting, I think. We... well, Nicolas went to see them, he saw a worried father, there were children
and our house was big. So, we went to
receive them, and then, somewhere along
the line, everything fell into place.
So, throughout the entire book there is this discrepancy between a
rational reflection which is that it is
absolutely necessary that this family finds its independence. In other words, that they find a house of
their own and they begin to immerse in a
host country that will be their country
of residence. In any case, there was no
going back. And then on the other side,
for us, it was an encounter, that is to
say, a daily gift… filled with
many wonderful things. But that
was in particular thanks to the
children. And there you have it. Between the practical demands of reality and
between the kind of freshness brought by children, brought about by the discovery of an entirely new world and somewhere also brought about by the discovery, by the parents with new opportunities. So, there was always a kind of a game,
which was potentially conflictual,
which anyway we had to
thwart.
And then some very unique cultural
elements which is a characteristic of
this family. In fact, their ability to
live in the present, a present which
was a joyful present. It was a joy of a reunited a family. So, there you have it. There is something
quite unique here. In any case, this was
completely new to me despite my 15 or 20
years of work involving migration
issues. In fact, I had not seen or
experienced it.
Anubandh: Yes, and precisely, this encounter, this
was also a meeting of the two cultures,
in terms of different habits, ways of
thinking, ways of reacting… And there, I
found some very fascinating aspects.
Because, I also notice these differences
between India and France. I propose
to quote a few events from the
book.
So, the first thing is that when you went to
fetch the family who was housed provisionally
at another African family's house.
And, several round trips were necessary
because the car had limited seats.
You said, "finally, we embarked first the children and the parents and left the young girls behind. This choice was not obvious to me.”
The second example is when Mr. DIALLO was going to receive his family, the whole family at the airport, after a separation of several years. And there, he chose not to go to the airport
right away. Instead, he spent several
hours, I think around 5-6 hours at the
mosque, praying! And his family had
absolutely no idea. This was not
communicated to the family.
Then there is one thing that Mrs. DIALLO had
said. In France, she noticed that the
written word works better than the
spoken word.
Now, precisely on this subject of time. How do we experience time? And there, you say how the time is perceived; "Yet we can sense it. The DIALLO
family expects something different from
us. They expect a time spent
together, without any other purpose,
without schedules. And often, when you
are not available, you say no, you
can't. And that they will have to leave. And there used to be this response from these girls, "Okay. We will wait for the right time to come." And you say, "I think that they wait for
the time and we do not know how to waste
the same. We are obsessed to organize
our time. Meticulously plan our time, so
as not to lose it. This expectant
time and always this urge about doing
something, always looking ahead. To be
one step ahead. To think about what is
to be done next, to keep thinking about
it. That is my proposal. Sometimes, I
tell Nicolas that we are completely overwhelmed. Even before listing the problems, they are already in front of us, by the
dozens. And yet it all holds.” So there
you have it.
And then, for my part, coming from India, this
whole new relationship that I am experiencing,
this new relationship with the time,
with this modern time, something that is so much an integral part of the Western or the French society.
So, in relation to all these cultural
differences, how did you experience
them? What memories do you have of
it?
Marie-Caroline: Listen, ha
ha… That is perhaps where we shared the most. I mean even though sometimes it was unimaginable for us, to let it happen this time,
which was also of frequent
prayers, and to us it was about, this time which for us was all about
slowness, this time which was for
us… there you go… Sometimes, we judged it to be even a waste of
time, especially keeping in mind all the
pragmatic obligations for this
family, who absolutely had to move
forward in these multiple paperwork and
other issues. But that is probably where
we had the biggest challenge, in
confronting this other culture, another
way of family organization, another way
of life, a way also of enjoying the present
moment. And that is probably where
we tasted the most in this encounter.
That is to say, there, they were
defeating us with a score of 20-0! In
fact, when we were together, this family
had this capacity, let's say to fill
this time, through encounters, through
exchanges, through sharing, with
absolutely nothing substantial
actually. Whereas we, we were
always in the mindset of; we need to do this, we need to do that. We have time from such and such an hour
until such and such a hour, and so on. So, I think that… It had often been tasted… since the
question, we have often experienced
it in an exasperating way… and
then, at exactly the same moment, we
knew very well that we were taking a
lesson as well regarding what does it
really mean to be a well optimized day?
With a time well optimized of a
shared present, of a shared present that
is discovered together, of course. Well,
children are great at that. I mean, to
tell you the truth, they would say, I
want to do that, so stop everything
around you and there you go. For
example, taking the time to read a book.
But It is true that when it comes to
the family organization, the time had not at all, not at all the same connotation between them
and us. But not at all, not at all with
the priorities which were not at all the
same and with a chronology that had
nothing to do with it.
I think that when it comes to the time, the duration and the chorology of time, there
were huge cultural gaps between the
DIALLO family and us. There were
significant cultural differences. So, I
would like to tell you that this was lived,
at least by us, sometimes almost
like an act of violence. Sometimes, this
violence had to be done to this family
to move forward, sometimes by demanding
explicitly. Otherwise, there would
happen absolutely nothing else during
the whole day, than sharing a meal. It seemed excessive to us, and in the end, I
think, we learned a lot from that.
Anubandh: Of
course, and to talk a little more of
these gaps or of these cultural
differences, it should also be
emphasized that Mr. DIALLO's family
is a practicing Muslim family. And you say that you are an atheist, a republican French family. So, there are also these important differences which are very much
there.
And then, there is also this fascination for having a son
that Mr. DIALLO had. And in this
context, there happened the birth of
little Ousmane and in truly incredible
circumstances.
You say in the book that, "on a village road, my husband improvised as a midwife and a little blessed creature is born." And when you told your colleagues about this
fantastic event, there was one among
them who said, "So, that means
anything is still possible!"
Could you please tell us more about this event? About this major event which is the birth of
this baby?
Marie-Caroline: So, actually the book opens with that
event. Because, I found it to be the
most astonishing thing in this story.
Perhaps it was in the middle of the year
that we spent together. So, this
was the birth of their sixth child, a
little boy. And in fact, it is very
interesting that this birth did not happen
at the hospital. Although the mother was
being monitored regularly by the hospital staff. There was supposed to be an induced
labor. That is very interesting. It means really that the formats, somewhere the
administrative procedures, the hospital formats, other in general formats and so on, they all had trouble with this kind of
situation. I mean the family was far
away. The family was 25 km away from the
hospital at Fontainebleau where the
mother was being treated. And then,
finally, it is like everything else in
this story. It happened in a somewhat
improbable way. My husband, very luckily
actually, finds himself there, on that
particular evening and puts her in the car
and then she gives birth in the car!
And so, what I also mean by that is that, yes,
everything is a bit… everything is a bit
out of format in this story of welcoming
this family. Because the family is
unconventional. Because this family did
not fit within the usual framework where we might have been, there you go, where we would have
organized everything meticulously so
that this event may take place in the
Hospital. But well no, that was very
funny. I told this to my mother who said,
“well, ultimately, it is just
like in our times!”. Except that we are
no longer in her times. It has already
been 50 years where one could still give
birth at home in the countryside. My mother comes from the countryside. We are no longer in wartime, that is to say
where we gave birth wherever we could.
No. Today, we are in something which is
highly medicalized and monitored, except that this family, and its
organization, you said it very
well. It is a Muslim family. Also, there
are many things that are absent
somewhere in the daily life of this
family. It is very important and it escapes the hyper-classic format, that we are used to these days. And so, finally, the birth takes place in a somewhat extraordinary manner. A bit like an accident somewhere. But anyway, it was an accident for us. Perhaps not everywhere, if it had been in other countries, maybe not so much. That is what I found most surprising in this story.
So, in the book I describe at length how this birth was welcomed. And in fact, this birth is going to get
together a whole set of cultural traits in order to be able to to perform the baptism of this child, as the parents say. To be able to welcome this child according to the rites. And there again, we are going to be very far away from all that. But in
many aspects, I would say, for
both the families. So, I mentioned all
this in the book, especially to show how
somewhere, our way of living and of
being, do not really match. That is it. Other such events… I mean, all such things do happen, right close to where we live, every day. So, perhaps this is also to say, to cast a glance that we do not always care to spare on those families that are culturally not yet completely within a framework that is hyper-westernized with all the
technical procedures, the
administrative formats, that are ours (French).
And even if that happens every
day in France. I am tempted to say, all
you need to do is to look a little bit
more carefully and to tell oneself
that it is quite extraordinary. Finally,
it is absolutely magnificent that
this birth could happen like this. I
would like to say, it is just that we were
not expecting it. We did not know.
We did not realize it.
Anubandh: Obviously, it was certainly magical the way you narrated it in the book. And I think, this was afterwards followed by
the task of accompanying these children
and that is an important aspect.
Unfortunately, we do not have much time but I would still like to bring up this subject. Basically, you had a lot of difficulties convincing the school administration at the
logistical level, also in deciding which
school was better and in which city, whether
it was next to the house or not, served
by buses or not, the issue of lack of cars, etc. And then, since these children had very varied skill levels, very disparate
abilities. This was also because they
came from Guinea where education is not
the same as in France. So, there were a
lot of administrative problems.
You taught them, Nicolas and you, at home you taught these children
mathematics, French, history and
geography and there were certain
observations that you wrote. For you, "The category, the baby of a
pig or of a sheep, of a horse that
children around the world play with, is
it not taught the same way for everyone? Is that not how everyone is taught? And you saw that it was difficult for
them to understand, to learn this vocabulary. You thought that maybe this vocabulary of the
babies of animals does not exist in
their peul language. And I remember that
even in India this was not very obvious
to me when I was little. I remember we
have had a few examples but not for all
the animals. And as you say, the wolf,
the crow… these are not really the
buffaloes and the antelopes! So, we also see these cultural differences at
the school education side.
And that is why
you said that the DIALLO children
are awakened to the world in different ways and through other forms of rationality, other sensitivities.
And then, Mr. DIALLO, he was very attached to the religious, Muslim
education. And you kept telling him that
the two were compatible. I mean the
French public school and the Muslim
education. There was also this question
of who will pay for the canteen for the
children at school. Obviously, you paid
a lot, you helped them a lot but you did not want to take care of
everything. And there were also discussions about that.
And then,
one last thing which had
profoundly caught my attention. This
refers to that visit to the ophthalmologist.
You write, "several months after their entry into school, we realized that neither Linda nor Zayab could understand the difference between a letter and a
number.”
Marie-Caroline: Thank you for taking time to discuss about
school. School is a crucial topic in the
book because it is somewhere through
school that the children enter in a
shared, social world in France. That is
it. It is the school which makes
the integration frameworks in France for
children. And this is where they meet
other children. In fact, this is how it
became the essential space of
sociability for this family which
otherwise remained isolated, which had
arrived in France from outside and so on.
And in fact, for someone like me and for my entire family, who have been the product of the French public school. It is true that we had high expectations from the public
school. Therefore, in this encounter
with the public school, we realized how
our expectations were, ultimately full
of preconceived notions and ideas. And I never cease to discover new things with
these children, of other ways of
thinking, other ways of doing, other ways to play, all the other ways and so on.
Thus, there are some very cultural things, like
the story of the wolves, of wolves and lambs which is completely unrealistic
for these children. Everything is
improbable in the story of the wolf and
the lamb. For children, firstly, it is the moral. It is rather unbearable for the girls. They do not understand why.. Ha ha… there you go… Why the mighty is always right, but… For them, it is appalling. They saw soldiers disembark in families and to be indeed, the strongest in terms of weapons. And how do we explain to them that they need to learn that the mighty is always
right. So, they questioned it a
lot. Furthermore, a lamb, in the very end, even if, there was this little lamb that was
sacrificed there for the baptism. They did not really feel comfortable with
that name. So, well, everything was
mixed up somewhere in the references in this fable of Jean de La Fontaine and which they found unbearable. At the same time, here too,
what we were able to learn from
that? And obviously, to also ask
ourselves questions about our own ways
of thinking… It is clear that a child is
immersed in a world where s/he has
his/her own frame of reference. That is
the beauty of the cultural difference.
I would like to say that this is where the
richness lies as well of these differences. And somewhere, in those highly regulated places, otherwise it wouldn't work. A school is a very standardized place. The ways in
which a French public school works, well
sometimes, their ways do not match with
these children's way of being. And thus, there is a need of some adaptation
there. So, I find that there are
as well these exciting cultural bridges.
For example, when in school we
propose to teach these children
Arabic or when you ask your
children, what is their favorite cake.
And there, they discover the French
cakes. And they learn some new recipes.
So, in fact, all these little
encounters. But It is true, sometimes we
get stuck. For instance, regarding this
matter of the letters and numbers.
Here, we were caught in a real
conundrum. That is to say, there were
things that just wouldn’t make any sense
for them. Few concepts that were so
alien for these children. But why was it so? I do not know.
We also gradually realized that behind these ideas of the children there was also the fact that they had
attended very few public schools in the
past. This is because of their father's
problems, who was imprisoned. And
thus, they had to travel with their
mother. And also because some of these
children had been to the Koranic
schools. Thus, they had gone through other learning methods which meant that these children had a world
view, a sensitivity to the world and to the countryside, which was very
unique. It was magical with them. However, with other, highly regulated
structures, they had a tough time to
adapt. That is what had put us in a prolonged moment of doubt. That is it.
Anubandh: Thank you. The question of education and values,
it is truly central and very
important in France. And also, if I
compare this situation with the one in India,
because I remember and it does
happen in France. In fact, it already has happened when I saw that someone reprimanded children saying, "It is not your fault. It is your parents' fault because they
failed to give you a good education and
good values”. This kind of remark, I do not recall ever having heard in
India. It was only here.
And on this subject, I have an example. Because… you quote this in the book with Linda. Perhaps when she refused to buy a subway
ticket or something similar. That
time, you asked her, "What is a
public utility service?” Zénab answers
without hesitation, “It is when it is
for everyone!” “Yes, do give me an
example.” “The school and the metro.”
“And is that good? “Yes, because it is
for everyone.” “So why don’t we all
participate a little bit to make it
function? Especially if it is good for
all? You do not have this in
Guinea. Here, you have it, so we respect
it, we participate.”
Well, I found this dialogue fascinating because when I did my studies in Lille
(France), a few years ago, rather twenty
years ago, there too I saw students who
did not want to pay for the metro
tickets. And I was thinking at that time that
Lille is so small compared to many cities in India. And yet, the city has a metro. While in
India, we do not have one. So, we have
to contribute so that it continues to function. Thus, I see the same spirit there on your part.
Please tell me how was that dialogue.
Marie-Caroline: It was very beautiful. Because here, you are also talking about
Linda. Linda is a teenager. She is also going to have her slightly cheeky
side. Although benign, but a slightly rebellious side. And,
indeed, there is a whole issue of
imparting values that was there all the
time. For instance, we do not throw
paper on the ground. we tidy up after we
are done doing our activity and other
similar things. And then, we are kind and careful towards others. So, we respect everything
that is public property and public
service. Well, and I also think that education towards… I think that education regarding public
spaces is different depending on the
country. I really think it this way. I think that today, we try to impart this to the children. In any case, when it pertains to the school
and so on, we try to raise children's
awareness towards this public space, to
everything that concerns a shared public space.
For these children, who were arriving
in a new set up, it was not
obvious at all for them. So, we had a
lot of discussions with these
children. And what was wonderful that these were.. these were real
discussions. That is to say, one could think with them.
These children were discovering other types of public space. They were learning another way of
thinking. Also, the public space here in France is well organized, it is safe.
There is also one thing to consider…
I receive a lot of people in consultations who come from
other countries. Often, these are
countries where politically there has
been many problems. And in fact, there is immense mistrust towards the state. There is immense mistrust in relation to public services,
precisely because they do not work or because there is corruption or because the State, in any case, is a
dishonest State. And so, having arrived
in a country where, in principle, the
State works is perceived as something strange.
In any case, we expect certain things from the
State, or where the things are supposed to be correct because there are taxpayers who pay to make sure that things work
well. In fact, this is something quite
foreign for many of these families. And that is a real difference that we often forget completely. That is to say, the expectation in relation
to the public service and the
State, it can be very, very, very
different. There may be much more
mistrust and ultimately we do not
believe in these public services when sometimes one comes from a country, for example, Africa or from Asia where the State is corrupt and that it does not work. Therefore, I think
that there are some discrepancies
here that are due to, of course, especially differences in family values being different in education, which teach them something else. For instance, these values can teach a child or a young person to be much more cunning than what we would learn here in France. We learn to respect or we learn to fulfill our civic duties, you know. And so, all this had become themes of our conversations.
Anubandh: Okay. Absolutely. The collectivism and the relationship with the State, in India, in Africa and here in France are completely different. And that is precisely why I find it very, very fascinating this meeting of different cultures!
I would like to conclude this discussion by asking you what the situation is
today.
For example, where is the family today? Where are these children? How are your meetings and relationships with
them? Rather, do you still meet
them? What are the future prospects for
them? How is it going?
Marie-Caroline: The family is doing well. They are all
together, at least the parents and the smallest ones, in this social housing society. It is not a big place but it is very well
located, towards Juvisy (a suburb of
Paris). All children go to school. So
the youngest ones continue their
schooling very well. And they are doing
very good progress indeed. The children
have discovered newer activities, for
example, sports. Little Bala is a very good swimmer now. He goes three times a week for swimming. So, that is funny because I talked in the book how difficult it was the beginning of this swimming pool experience.
And then, I feel like saying that the transition
for those in their mid-adolescence was
more complicated. For example, for Linda and for the older Hawaii. Hawaii is still in
France, hoping to organize the arrival
of her husband and her child. She has not seen them since past 3 years.
She works for that to happen.
Thus, it would be a family reunification. This might be more problematic for her.
And then Linda.
So Linda, who after her 8th standard will go for a professional training. And she will start that at the end of the
year, in June, so in a very short time
from now. She will be doing a nursing
assistant diploma, which is a very good
degree in France. She succeeded her training. And she has a dream, which I find to be very sweet. It is about
appearing one day for her 12th
standard exam and succeeding it. I think
that is fantastic. And she will achieve it. I am sure of it.
There you have it. This is a family that is
doing well. This is a family that is
moving forward. Their mother can read
and write. She (Fatima) did not know
that when she arrived in France. Thus,
it is a family who made most of all
these opportunities that they were
offered to them during their integration
in France.
Of course, it does not happen without problems. For instance, for such a large family, they
still have a meagre salary, an extremely
limited salary. There are some real
problems. But on the other hand, I think
there is also a glimpse of what France is capable of offering.
A job, an education. The children will build their future
well. I find it magnificent. The big ones too. And so, I think it is a landing which ultimately went very well, although with this somewhat bumpy
transition. But which will remain in any
case for their family and for our family, a very beautiful moment together. And so yes, we see them a lot. For example, we spent the Easter holidays all together, with
notably the children who each
time, whenever they come to that house, they actually feel at home. Here too, there is a very strong connection
to this world. They feel very attached to this house.
Anubandh: Okay. Thank you.
And have they read this book? And if so, what do they think about it?
Marie-Caroline: Of course, they have read this book. In particular, the girls. The girls who read it the most, somewhere along the line, these are Linda and
Zénab. There you go, these are the
girls who devour books and who really enjoyed this book. And they asked me a question, which actually stumped me. Ha ha… They said, why did you change our first
names? I told them, it was because I
thought perhaps you would have liked some anonymity? But they say,
“No, actually, we would have
preferred that it be our real names!”
Okay, fine, ha ha. I think that
is a very nice remark, That is all.
Anubandh: Great!
Before closing,
I would like to broaden our discussion a bit so that it is also relevant to the audience in India or perhaps in
Brazil. We know that this whole
discussion regarding the reception of
migrants is a very sensitive and
complicated subject. Above all, we do
not want to talk about immigrants. They
are often stigmatized. As you know in India
with the Rohingya or other (for example, Bangladeshi) migrants. There was also this CAA – Citizenship
Amendment Act. In France, we hear the
statement by Marine LE PEN (French right
wing politician); "We (France)
cannot take in the entire world's misery."
So, how do we put all these things in a
context? Including, regardless of whether
a country has a colonial past or not?
Taking into account the collective responsibility of a country, of governments, who in the first instance created these
difficult situations in those
countries, especially in a world that
is very interdependent.
And also on a human level, at the citizen level, how can we re-contextualize the arrival of migrants in our society, in our country and their reception?
Marie-Caroline: So, you asked a lot of big questions to which I will try to provide a brief answer. Marine LE PEN's statement is originally a
statement by Michel ROCARD (former
French Prime Minister), who at that time
had… His sentence had two parts. "We cannot accommodate the entire
world's misery but everyone must do
their part.” So, that was the initial
sentence.
And today,
you said it very well. We are in
a context of extreme politicization
which is in fact completely,
thanks also to the fake news and all the sensationalisation by the media outlets that are exaggerating the
situation. The huge influx, the
invasion, the incessant flow of
migrants, all of that is completely
distorting the reality. The reality is that yes, immigration continues. This is a major social phenomenon in the
world. There have always been massive migrations, that is how… And thankfully so, because that is how everything in the world was constructed. The trade, the entire global economy, and so
on. The cultural diversity, the cultural encounters, the culture. So, yes, It is still going on.
Yes, there has been an increase in migration
instances but which are not massive
either. And we are very far behind, I
mean France which is in the northern
hemisphere, we ultimately experience it
the least. Migration, as you know, the vast majority of migrations are taking place in those neighboring
countries from where there are actual
problems. So, that is absolutely right. It must be remembered that all the real
migrations occur particularly in the
southern hemisphere, right next to the
countries where there are tragedies. So,
it is Jordan, Lebanon and for the
problems that are in Syria. Finally, it
is all these countries. It is these
neighboring countries that are in fact
facing the real migration issue. In
order to migrate far away, it is
necessary to have other types of
means, we need other migration
routes. So, it is very, very
complex. In France, we have politicians who are promoting an idea of a Europe which
would benefit from being a “fortress
(closed) Europe”. We realize that we
have absolutely no interest in doing
that. That only adds to the number of deaths, the number of deaths in the seas and so forth. Since anyway,
when people have to leave, they leave.
And when they have to go far away,
they are going far away. Even if
it means dying. We must not forget
that. So, the more walls we build, the more deaths there are. But that does not stop immigration. Thus, there were some issues with slightly different thinking. But what I also believe is that, because, in any case… If we were coldly rational, then we would
realise one thing that for
economical and demographic
reasons, Europe has no interest in
limiting its migrations. On the
contrary, it has an interest in
welcoming them more. Since we know that
we will find ourselves, in a few decades
from now, lacking young people
and with a shortage of workers.
Thus, coldly speaking, we should keep only one interest in mind which is what Spain is doing right
now. To integrate, which in turn means to
reintegrate; it means to regularize and
to train people, so as to ensure maximum
integration, to have a population which
works.
And I remind
that I do not know a single
patient during my consultations who does
not have a desire, but a crazy one, to
pay his taxes! And why I say paying taxes,
it is because, for them, it is
the sign that they are integrated. When you pay taxes, that is it, they feel they are integrated into the
state. There you go. It is even stronger than having the legal documents. It is
because they feel that they are
integrated into the economy when they
pay their taxes. So, That is what they
say. They say it loudly, "I would like to pay my
taxes." That is it. It is very
powerful. Therefore, I think that
today, unfortunately, with this
policy and with this politics in
particular, we cannot see the real
arguments. We can no longer think
rationally. On the other hand, a real policy of integration for me, for the issue of immigration today, it is a
question of integration. A
genuine integration policy, since we are
on the subject, we should also think about
the qualifications of these people,
knowing that we also have many
jobs which are occupied by the newly
arrived migrants. Here too, I am in favour of coldly doing the economic calculations. We need skilled workers, we also need less skilled jobs. In many areas, in many in-demand professions. We are very lucky because we have a type of migration which is at the same time moderately skilled and highly skilled. Finally, we only have one interest that is precisely to integrate this type of migration. And unfortunately, we
are doing very limited in that regard,
because of this false rhetoric.
Therefore, being also the director of the "Migration
Convergence Institute" which brings together in France the CNRS (National Center for Scientific
Research), INSERM (The National
Institute of Health and Medical Research),
the School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences (EHESS), the PHE,
etc. Finally, these are eight major
French research institutes and some 800
researchers who are working on these issues.
Research today has just one
argument that is to recall that in the
public debate and especially in all
those political speeches, where they
twist the question a bit, it is to remind that
an objective, neutral and efficient way of thinking would mean that the migration phenomena is in fact very beneficial to our country.
Besides that, you added something which is the citizens' perspective. In France, we have a right to asylum. We have in France something that is called the right to asylum and which today has suffered a lot of sprains, although not through ill will. I want to say all those big asylum administration institutes of the law
that we were talking about. This
is because there is also a backlog in
the justice system, there are also
sometimes lack of resources. There are also things that need to be dusted
off, I think. Again, how to listen to an asylum application,
how do we work together between
different public service instances? I
think that it is necessary that the public services, for example, the hospitals, who often see cases of these people, may sometimes be interlocutors, by saying,
"This person will have difficulty answering you because s/he is in a very complex psychological state of
mind." Well, that is the kind of
thing, I think, that we need to
work. This has to be in a much more
positive et constructive way, towards
a phenomenon (of migration) which is a
phenomenon, that is something that has
been going on for centuries and which
today can only be beneficial to our society, if we do not make it a contentious
issue. And the moment it becomes a contentious issue, in terms of moral values and so forth, and in economic terms as well, then, in my opinion, we no longer benefit in
its natural flow and that is a real shame.
Anubandh: Absolutely.
I would say that the necessity of
economic, social and even cultural
migration is very obvious and
necessary. It is about not only a
recognition at the level of State, or at
the administrative level, but as much at
the societal level, at the level of
people.
So, thank you very much. Now, really
to conclude this discussion, I
suggest that I will read one last passage that
I loved from your book and I would like
to conclude our discussion with it.
And then, you could share your thoughts about it.
So, this is about the psycho-trauma, about hyper vigilance. "I wonder where actually evil resides for these obedient and docile children. They saw their parents suffer who were separated for more than 5 years. They saw the anguish of the room closing in
on them, imprisoned in a hostile
country and their father who no longer
dared to look in the eyes of their
mother. They saw anger, then fear in their mother's gaze. It made them grow up all at once. The French hospitality, instead of giving
them the necessary framework for a carefree childhood, brought them to their senses, towards
the distorted reason for exile. Always,
in the middle of a discussion where
their childlike voices break through,
where their eyes begin to shine with envy, to play, with a desire for pleasure, a single
word from an adult abruptly stops them
in their tracks. They know the
insurmountable limit, the one which is
brandished constantly by their parents,
that of chaos, they then wither
away. And a black veil extinguishes the
light in their eyes. They often remind
me of an animal facing danger. All their
senses are on an alert. In psychotrauma,
this is called hypervigilance.”
Marie-Caroline: Perhaps, that is what actually held up this whole story and what one might think more generally, that is to say, generations who have to, who live with this danger. This danger of not being welcomed and also of violence. Once again, we are talking about political
violence. These are acts of human
violence which stop what is the most beautiful thing in life, which is sensitivity, amazement, which is precisely what children bring so much to the fore. I want to say
and I believe that, I think that
is something we can also think about in
this major issue of migration. What are
we teaching our children, in a broader
sense, to the next generation? I dare to
hope that it is more open-minded,
actually which preserves somewhere the beauty of an encounter, of a cultural encounter, of a social
encounter. I hope so, I hope so. There
you go.
Anubandh: Yes, thank
you so much for having written this
book. Because it must not be an easy
task since you were also a protagonist
in this story. And you managed to look
at things with a little bit of distance.
What a splendid gift you have offered to
us with this book!
Thank you very much for agreeing to speak to
me, to discuss and to exchange
ideas. I hope that these
discussions, this dialogue will
continue. Thank you very much.
Marie-Caroline: Thank you so much. Thank you again for your wonderful
reading and for offering this space. It was truly a tremendous pleasure and
honor.
Anubandh: Thank you
very much and I hope the audience is
interested in this book. And I invite
them to live this experience themselves.
Marie-Caroline SAGLIO-YATZIMIRSKY
For 15 years, Marie-Caroline has worked in the
psychotrauma clinic at Avicenne Hospital (Bobigny) with exiles. Her work focuses
particularly on migration issues and social exclusion in India, Brazil, and
France.
Author of about ten scholarly books published
in French, English, and Portuguese, she has notably directed or published
research on the links between trauma, language, violence, and exile. Among her
recent works are The Voice of Those Who Cry Out: An Encounter with Asylum
Seekers (Albin Michel, 2018), Violence and Narration: Speaking, Translating, Transmitting
Genocide and Exile (Hermann, 2020), and Lingua (non) grata: Languages,
Violence, and Resistance in the Spaces of Migration (Inalco, 2022), and most
recently Family Reunion (Aube, 2026), a book devoted to contemporary
experiences of hospitality for exiles.
