{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025412960609911054, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0025412960609911056, 'mean_word_length': 5.818181818181818, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Socio-psychological reactions in the EU to immigration: from regaining ontological security to desecuritisation

ABSTRACT This paper examines the EU and EU member states’ reactions to the 2015 refugee crisis from an ontological security perspective while arguing that these reactions are the product of three socio-psychological lenses, which have led to various responses to the perceived threat. The first reaction, ascribed especially to the Visegrad Four, is the “securitise-the-self” reaction to feelings of anxiety and ontological insecurity and involves reaffirmation of national biographical narratives and national immigration policies at the expense of supranational European policies. The second reaction is illustrated by the European Commission's response to the refugee crisis and involves “managing securitisation.” Accordingly, the Commission's reaction to ontological insecurity when faced with the challenge of unmanaged migration was to reaffirm the EU's semi-sovereign identity (collective border control competencies) while preserving a global discourse on human rights and refugee-related inclusive norms. The third reaction stemmed from viewing the crisis with the lenses of “empathy” and “desecuritisation” and is best illustrated by Germany's temporary “open door” policy on refugees that was driven by a psychological lack of perceived threat from the “immigrant-other” and a “civilian power” collective identity. The paper argues that recognising these three lenses can help us to understand socio-psychological reactions to immigration in the EU.