Affects of Objectivity: Decision-Making Practices in the Dutch Asylum Procedure

Abstract

This article explores the pursuit of objectivity in the Dutch asylum procedure, where asymmetrical forms of intimacy and techniques of suspicion are used to gather sensitive information from asylum applicants and evaluate their case files. Firstly, I examine the procedural design and how objectivity is pursued in producing distance, detachment, and the rotation of several Immigration and Naturalization Department (IND) officers in and out of applications. Secondly, I focus on the authority granted to a specific kind of trained IND subjectivity, well-versed in a critical and intuitive reading of the ever-suspected asylum applicant. By analysing the entanglement of objectivity and subjectivity, this study contributes to existing scholarship on the interplay between emotions and legal judgment, as well as to scholarship on borders and bureaucratic practices within contexts of heightened control and securitization. By doing so I challenge the notion of ‘emotion management’ as a means to enhance objectivity, arguing that pursuing objectivity in these state practices is not merely managed affective work; more crucially, it privileges affects of suspicion.