Imageries of the ‘Schengen State':

A study of everyday encounters between The Schengen visa

system and Jordanian visa applicants

“Dear Reader, please assist dear Sehs [name] in completing the official documents.”
Artist credit: Cartoonist, Omar Al-Abdalat

Master Thesis in Advanced Migration Studies

By Mille Flensted-Jensen
Supervisor: Birgitte Stampe Holst
Keystrokes: 129.394
31.12.2019
 ABSTRACT

This thesis explores how the European Schengen visa system comes to be constituted through everyday
encounters between visa authorities and subjects. With a focus on Jordan it examines imageries of the
Schengen visa system among Jordanian visa applicants and the thesis thus interrogates this visa system
as it is experienced, understood, and interpreted by applicants holding a Jordanian passport. As part of
the conceptual framework for this investigation, the thesis argues that the Schengen visa system is best
understood as a form of state and that Jordanian visa applicants in relation to the process of applying for
a visa are best understood as subjects relating to this state. The thesis argues that “the Schengen state” is
constituted as opaque, devious and corrupt in the perspectives of Jordanian visa applicants and that they
as subjects of this state find themselves reduced to securitized and dangerous agents just as their
interactions with this state threatens to corrupt them and their moral standards.
 Table of Contents

Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................1
The Outline of the Paper ........................................................................................................................3
Context: The Schengen Area ..................................................................................................................5
The formation of Schengen ....................................................................................................................5
The Schengen Visa .................................................................................................................................5
The legal framework ..............................................................................................................................8
Theoretical Framework ...........................................................................................................................9
Conceptualising the state through state-subject interactions ..................................................................9
Securitization theory.............................................................................................................................12
Methodology ...........................................................................................................................................14
Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................14
Initial reflections – towards an inductive approach to the field of research .........................................14
Defining the field, access to the field and acquiring informants ..........................................................15
Framing the interview situation ............................................................................................................16
Characterising the informants ..............................................................................................................18
Chapter I: Common narratives about the invisible power, lack of sight and profound
uncertainties ...........................................................................................................................................19
Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................19
The bureaucratic maze and the emotional tax ......................................................................................20
Images of the state as corrupt and conspiratorial .................................................................................27
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................31
Chapter II: Being Arab in an (in)securitized world - experiences of humiliation, misrecognition
and mistrust ............................................................................................................................................32
Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................32
Threatened identities - experiences of humiliation and feelings of inferiority ....................................32
Anticipating the future – experiences of securitization and mistrust ...................................................39
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................43
Chapter III: Accounts of unlawful behaviour and contested moralities ..........................................45
Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................45
 Accounts of unlawful behaviour ..........................................................................................................45
Contested, shifting moralities ...............................................................................................................48
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................50
Conclusion...............................................................................................................................................52
Bibliography ...........................................................................................................................................54
 Introduction

“We are living in one small village, but people are locked in a house in this village.”
– Mohammad, informant

In January of 2017, I moved to Jordan to take up an internship with an international humanitarian- and
development organisation. One day, during the first couple of weeks as an intern, a coworker of mine at
the time had brought kanafe, a popular dessert in Jordan, to the office because she had something to
celebrate and share with the rest of us. She had been issued a visa to travel. At the time, the reason for
the celebration came as a surprise to me. On another occasion, a different colleague of mine at the time
had won a prize at a British documentary film festival and was invited to participate in an official award
ceremony. My colleague was going to give a speech related to the movie she made. However, she got
rejected a UK short term visa the first two or three times she applied despite an official letter of invitation
and other required information and documentation. Within my social networks in Jordan, stories similar
to the ones above are common and no longer strike me with surprise.

Episodes like these gradually made it clear to me that getting a visa issued to a ‘Western’ country was a
big deal, and that international mobility was not a given as I had been used to as someone holding a
strong, in this case Danish, passport. As a ‘third’1 country national, applying for a visa to Schengen area
requires a relatively large amount of money and a comprehensive body of information and documentation
as outlined further in the chapter Context: The Schengen Area. Following those experiences, within my
private and professional social network I frequently encountered the topic. Since then, I have once again
worked and lived in Jordan, altogether for around two – two and a half years, and it has become very
clear that the issue of getting a visa is ever-present among individuals and groups presented with the
opportunity to travel, and articulated and experienced in a variety of ways. Based on these informal
observations and conversations, I was interested in exploring the experiences of the applicants from a
critical academic standpoint. I set out to systematically gather empirical data complementing the informal

1
Defined as countries outside the EU and the EEA (European Economic Area).

1
fieldwork, adding a theoretical academic lens. This resulted in 15 qualitative interviews among Jordanian
Schengen visa applicants.

This paper does not examine long term migration, but short term mobility among Jordanian citizens and
their encounter with the external Schengen borders. It examines how the Schengen visa system is
perceived by Jordanian2 visa applicants and in extension of this it theorizes how, what I call, “the
Schengen state” in the perception of my Jordanian interlocutors is constituted as a specific kind of “state”
through the encounters my interlocutors have with the Schengen visa authorities. The paper focuses on
applicants with the intention of visiting one or more Schengen Member State for a short-term period,
either for the purpose of business/work, study, leisure/holiday, or visiting loved ones, including friends,
family, and partners, among other reasons. The mentioned purposes of traveling does not always stand
alone and are potentially interlinked and naturally overlap. The thesis seeks to investigate Schengen visa
policies from an on-the-ground, qualitative, case based perspective, paying specific attention to the
construction of the European Schengen visa system as experienced, interpreted and perceived by
Jordanian Schengen visa applicants. More specifically, the research question is as follows:

Which imageries of the Schengen visa system, i.e. the state, are forged in Jordanian
applicants’ encounter with the Schengen visa authorities, and how are their understanding
of self affected and negotiated in the process?

This thesis aims to contribute to a discussion and already existing body of literature examining the
external European borders, and how the European ‘state’ and Schengen visa system is perceived from
the perspective of ‘third’ country nationals wishing to enter the Schengen area (see for example, Infantino
2019; Andersson 2014; Okwenje 2019; Zampagni 2011; Jileva 2003).

This paper indirectly aims to contribute to the debate of freedom of movement and equality in
opportunities for global mobility by offering an alternative perspective representing the voice of the less
privileged in a world of increased international mobility. It furthermore seeks to demonstrate the weight
that certain passports carries and the contrast between privileged and less privileged passports and the

2
Refers to individuals holding a Jordanian passport, recognising other national identities such as Palestinian or
Iraqi.

2
inequality in access to global mobility, as examined by a wide range of migration scholars (Friedman
2002; Bauman 1998; Holtug 2010 etc.).

This paper does not aim to investigate and critically examine the policies in place or whether or not
rulings of visa applications in the cases included in the study are fair in accordance with the legal
framework in place, or the like. It likewise does not examine the ‘truth’ in applicant accounts or take on
a representative study of all Jordanian applicants to the Schengen Area. Thus, the study does not claim
to be conclusive of an exhaustive number of Jordanian applicants to the Schengen Area and generate
knowledge regarding general tendencies.

What the paper does present and examine is the Schengen visa system and the system as a form of ‘state’
as this ‘state’ comes to appear to Jordanian visa applicants included in the research. I argue that the
specific kind of ‘state’ appearing through the eyes of my interlocutors is opaque, devious and corrupt and
that Jordanian visa applicants as subjects of this state find themselves reduced to securitized and
dangerous agents just as their interactions with this state threatens to corrupt them and their general moral
standards.

The Outline of the Paper

In order to capture and highlight the most significant and explicit themes and notions characteristic to
the applicants’ experiences with the Schengen visa application process, i.e. what I call ‘the Schengen
state’, the analysis section is divided into three thematic chapters. Albeit the sharp division into chapters,
the main thematic areas and additional sub themes overlap and are all interlinked and intertwined with
one another reflecting the complexity of the Jordanian Schengen visa applicant’s experience and
perception of the Schengen visa system. Chapter one is dedicated to the applicants’ understandings and
interpretations of the application process and the bureaucracy involved, addressing perceptions of visa
requirements, understandings of rejections of visa applications, and questions about transparency and the
assessment of visa applications. Chapter two explores the experiences of certain kinds of treatment from
visa authorities, experiences of being subject to prejudices and reduced to securitized objects, and notions
of applicants’ contested self-expressed identity in relation to the interaction with the Schengen visa
system. Chapter three illuminates ways of coping with and responding to the barriers applicants say they
face by presenting examples and narratives of, sometimes, unlawful behaviour, applied strategies, ‘visa

3
shopping’, and how applicants’ moral compass is expressed and enacted in the meeting with the
European visa system and how their morality is contested and renegotiated in the interaction with what
I call ‘the Schengen state’.

4
 Context: The Schengen Area

The formation of Schengen

At the time of writing, the Schengen constellation consists of 26 nation-states. Not all Schengen Member
States are EU Member States. Likewise, not all EU Member States have signed the Schengen Agreement
and are therefore not a part of Schengen. Bulgaria, Cyprus, Croatia, Romania, (the United Kingdom)3
and Ireland are all EU Member States, but not Schengen Member States. However, once an EU Member
State, the nation-state is legally bound to join the Schengen area, but the aforementioned countries are
yet to join due to a variety of political reasons. Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, and Liechtenstein are
currently not members of the EU, but have become a part of the Schengen area. For a country to become
part of Schengen, it has to give up some degree of national sovereignty in the form of independent control
of its national borders and the power to manage the mobility of people and goods crossing its nation-
state borders, which are now part of the internal Schengen border regime, sharing external borders with
all Schengen Member States. As stated in the Implementing the Schengen Agreement convention of June
1985, the Contracting Parties (Belgium, Germany, France, Luxemburg, and The Netherlands) were to
gradually abolish “checks at their common borders” (Schengen Agreement 1985: headline). Thus,
crossing the border of one Schengen state is de facto like crossing the border to all member states (Zaiotti
2011: 3; EU 1985). Sharing external borders comes with common immigration and visa policies, rules
and regulations regarding the admission of individuals into the Schengen area. A brief overview of the
legal framework is presented below.

The Schengen Visa

When wishing to enter one or more Schengen Member State(s), nationals from a wide range of ’third’4
countries are required to hold a Schengen visa, including airport transit Schengen visas. The list includes
104 third countries required a visa and 63 third countries exempt from visa requirements (including
“[e]ntities and territorial authorities that are not recognized as states by at least one Member State” (EU,
Community Code on Visas), such as Palestine or Taiwan), at the time of writing. In some cases, the
exempt from visa requirement only applies when being in possession of a biometric passport and other

3
The UK in brackets due to current Brexit negotiations.
4
Defined as countries outside the EU and the EEA (European Economic Area).

5
specified conditions. Thus, the number of countries are subject to modifications. Jordan is considered a
third country, and all civil Jordanian citizens needs a visa to enter the Schengen area. A Schengen visa
is a short stay visa to any Schengen Member State not exceeding 90 days within a 180 days period. Thus,
a Schengen visa is always subject to the common Schengen visa laws and regulations applied to all
Schengen Member States. It furthermore means that all stays within a Schengen Member State exceeding
90 days or for the purpose of employment, residency or the like is subject to separate national regulations
and not a part of the common Schengen visa policies. Schengen visa holders are hence, in any case,
present in the Schengen area short term for purposes falling under the categories of holiday/leisure, visit
of family members/friends/partners etc., exchange programmes and study/work/business related, among
others. Officially, there is one type of visa, the uniform Schengen visa granting access to all Schengen
Member States without being subject to internal border control. Being in possession of a Schengen visa
does not, however, guarantee the visa holder access to the Schengen area as border officials still have the
right to deny access to a Member State at the border. Depending on the purpose of entering the Schengen
area, the documents required for applying vary and the visa, then, is often labelled as different ‘visas’
such as a tourist visa, visit visa or business visa.

In order to obtain a valid visa to the Schengen area, one needs to have a “legitimate interest to enter the
EU territory” (EU website “Border Crossing”, 14.11.2019). When applying for a visa, a wide range of
documentation is needed and may differ depending on the type of visa applied for. Typically, as a
minimum, applicants are required to submit the following documents and information5:

 Passport
 The visa application form
 A visa fee (60 EUR)6
 In the case of applying at VFS or other secondary service providers, there is typically an
additional fee. In Amman, the fee is 23 JOD, equivalent to app. 30 EUR
 Photograph

5
Sources: Fieldwork; The European Commission; Royal Norwegian Embassy Amman (2019): Checklist –
Visitor’s Visas to Norway, Denmark, Finland or Iceland; Netherlands Visa Application Center (used Dec. 2019):
Checklist for visa application – Tourism; among other embassy checklists.
6
At the time of writing

6
  Bank statements showing sufficient financial means and frequent transactions. In the case, the
applicant is not able to provide this, a sponsor letter is sufficient, guaranteeing financial support.
 Documentation of occupation (employment letter, admission letter from one’s institution of study
etc.)
 Confirmed flight tickets / other means of transportation
 Confirmed accommodation
 Medical insurance covering the stay in the Schengen area
 If applicable, proof of assets/property
 Information on applicant’s family members
 An invitation letter – in the case of applying for a ‘visit visa’
 Documentation of planned activities in the case of business/work, exchange, study or the like.
For example in the form of an admission letter or official invitation.
 In the case of tourism, planned itinerary
 In the case of visiting family, partners or friends, it is required to describe when and how you are
related and how you met and the relationship the applicant has to the main person of the visit.

Every statement and piece of information has to be documented. The applicant is likewise required to
provide biometric data such as fingerprints and facial image if physically possible. The application is
then assessed in accordance with the legal framework presented in the following section. The applicant
is required to apply at least 15-25 days before planned departure and no longer than three months prior
to planned departure. In the case of a rejection to one’s visa application, the applicant is not financially
reimbursed in a any way, thus risking to lose the amount spent on application expenses, which can reach
up to around 150 – 200 EUR7.

In some cases, the administrative tasks related to Schengen visa applications have now been outsourced
to private service providers such as VFS Global. VFS Global is a private company making it possible for
embassies for instance to outsource some tasks regarding visa application processing. Those tasks are
mostly administrative and do not include any decision-making regarding denying or granting visas. VFS

7
Estimated calculation including the following minimum expenses: 60 EUR for the visa itself, return
flight tickets, accommodation, and medical insurance.

7
Global in Amman handles visa application for some Schengen Member States. In other cases, applicants
are applying directly via the embassy. The cases included in this study have applied either visa VFS or
directly via the given embassy, which will be stated explicitly where considered relevant.

The legal framework

Regarding external border control and visa policy, all Schengen Member States are currently subject to
follow the Community Code on Visas, also referred to as the Visa Code. This legislative document is
considered ‘hard’ law, meaning that it is legally binding and all Schengen Member States must
implement its visa regulations according to the Visa Code. The Visa Code is self-executive and establish
rules and regulations on the examination of applications, assessment of applicants, and the issuing of
visas. It therefore regulates and directly influences implementation and practice in the national external
border institutions, such as consulates, embassies, or private companies handling part of the Schengen
visa application process, e.g. VFS Global (Infantino 2019; 45). The EU officially states that the external
border policies are founded on and implemented as a uniform, “harmonized” “single set of rules” (EU
website, “Border crossing”, 14.11.2019). Scholars have argued, however, that this is not the case when
implementing the policies on the ground (Infantino 2019; Bigo & Guild 2003, referenced in Infantino
2019). The term ‘uniform’ also simply refers to the visa being “valid for the entire territory of the Member
States” (The Visa Code, article 2.3). The Visa Code is the latest legislation regarding EU visa policy and
amends the former EU visa legislative document, which is the Common Consular Instructions (Infantino
2019: 45). Supplement to the Visa Code, which is the only ‘hard’ legislative document, are the Handbook
for the processing of visa applications and the modification of issued visas and the Handbook for the
organisation of visa sections and local Schengen cooperation, non-legally binding (EU webpage “Visa
Policy”, 14.11.19; Infantino 2019). The handbooks contains specified, guiding “operational instructions”
(Infantino 2019: 36).

8
 Theoretical Framework

Conceptualising the state through state-subject interactions

Regarding conceptualising and taking on a critical view of ‘the state’, there has been a shift among
scholars in ways of understanding and examining the state. Scholars such as Whyte (2011), Gupta (1995),
Ismail (2011), and Culic (2010) to name a few, are moving away from conventional ways of
conceptualising the state. Gupta (1995: 376) argues that those ways also rest upon colonisation,
essentialist views, and Western scholarship. As argued by, for instance, Ismail (2011), the state should
no longer be understood as a “theoretical abstraction” (ibid.: 846) simply existing in a vacuum, external
to and isolated from its actors and subjects. This conceptualisation is founded on a “methodological bias
that privileges top-down inquiry into formal structures and policy-making institutions” (ibid.: 846). Thus,
‘the state’ is understood as a social construction (Ismail 2011) in the sense that it is consisting of, created
and shaped by actions and interactions between state institutions, agents and agencies and its subjects,
and is examined as such. It is furthermore not considered an abstract ‘unity’, but as consisting of multiple
spaces and arenas of construction (Culic, 2010; Gupta 1995; Ismail 2011) such as immigration
institutions, including visa issuing institutions. As suggested by Ismail (2011), the shift in
conceptualising the state makes it possible to “grasp political dynamics and fields of action that are not
captured in the juridico-political view of government and that escape a neat division between state and
society” (Ismail 2011: 846). Crucial to the way of theorising and understanding the state in the approach
suggested here is a shift in perspective. As the state is not understood as separated from its subjects, an
understanding of the state should be arrived at from the “perspective of its subjects [...] based on daily
experiences” (ibid.) and how people “come into contact” (Gupta 1995: 376) with the state and how this
shapes images of the state. Gupta (1995) calls for studying the state ethnographically, which makes it
possible to conceptualize and study the state from a bottom-up perspective through different
bureaucracies and its subjects. The “mythicisation” (Ismail 2011: 846) and abstraction of the state is
criticized and contested. Studying the state and the practices and processes of power at a ‘micro-level’
(ibid.) through the eyes of its subjects captures the subjects experiences, interpretations, and
‘imaginaries’ (ibid.) of the state, as well as “the ongoing production of the state” and “informs subjects’

9
understandings of and feelings about state power as exercised by its agents” (ibid.: 849). Along those
lines, in a study of a North Indian village and notions of corruption, Gupta (1995) suggests doing “an
ethnography of the state” likewise conceptualising the state by analysing “everyday conversations of
villagers” (ibid.: 475). He argues that the state has become embedded in the everyday life of citizens.
Thus, he advocates for studying the state through the encounter between state bureaucracies and
institutions, and citizens, as well as how the state is constructed outside the physical state-subject
encounters in conversations and narratives about the state.

The paper furthermore focuses on certain subjectivities constructed in the process of state-subject
interactions. The state is conceptualized in the making of subjectivities and the subjects’ understanding
of self during the encounter with the state (Culic 2010; Ismail 2011; Whyte 2011). In Culic’s words, it
explores “the workings of the self” (Culic 2010: 343), the “re-making of the self” in relation to the state,
and how the state is “traced in the making of [...] subjectivities” (ibid.: 352). As it is argued by Culic
(2010), Ismail (2011), and Whyte (2011) among others, interactions between state and subject create
subjectivities and “these subjectivities generate understandings of self in relation to the apparatuses of
power” (Ismail 2011: 845), and identities are negotiated and contested. Particular subjectivities and
understandings of oneself in relation to the state might also influence beliefs, behaviour and actions of
subjects (Culic 2010; Ismail 2011; Whyte 2011). This paper focuses on the construction of subjectivities
from the perspective of the subjects, i.e. Jordanian visa applicants.

Thus, central to conceptualising and studying the state is also a matter of studying the relationship created
between the state and its subjects in the interactions. Specifically the processes and practices of the state
exercising power over its subjects. In this paper, I draw on Foucault’s notion of the panopticon and
discourses of visibility and sight when analysing the experiences and imageries of the state from the
perspective of Jordanian applicants to the Schengen area. The analysis furthermore draws on a
contribution to Foucault’s panoptic conceptualisation of the state by Whyte (2011). In a study of asylum
seekers in Denmark and their encounter with the institutions and authorising power associated with the
Danish asylum system, Whyte (2011) suggests the notion of a myopticon. According to Whyte (2011),
the state, and the way it exercises its power in the asylum system, should in this case be characterized as
myoptic. Central to the myopticon as suggested by Whyte (2011) is the ‘hazy gaze’ of the hovering eye
and the lack of sight as opposed to Foucault’s panoptic all-seeing eye. The myoptic state is only ‘partially’

10
seeing its subjects and “has a much narrower range of vision” (Whyte 2011: 18). Thus, the subjects of
the myoptic state are “fundamentally skeptical about the system’s ability to recognize truth” (ibid.: 20).
“[B]lurriness and incomplete sight” (ibid.: 21) are central to the myopticon. Consequently, asylum
seekers experience a profound uncertainty and mistrust, and Whyte suggests that the “myopia of the
asylum system works as a technology of power” (ibid.: 18) and “misrecognition is an aspect of the
operation of power” (ibid.: 21). Thus, he suggests, the uncertainty is structural and strategically
implemented by the state. Likewise central to the myoptic state is the subjects ability to ‘glimpse’ and
speculate about the state.

The theoretical framework of this paper takes it outset in the described conceptualisation of the state,
focusing on state – subject interactions from the perspective of the subjects, which are Schengen visa
applicants holding a Jordanian passport. With the described theoretical approach to the state in mind, this
paper examines and analyzes how what I call ‘the Schengen state’ come into creation through everyday
encounters between the Schengen visa authorities and its subjects. It focuses specifically on Jordanian
passport holders’ encounters with the Schengen visa system. Those encounters likewise include, as
suggested by Gupta (1995), constructions of the state outside (physical) encounters with the European
visa system, i.e. through common narratives and discourses circulating among applicants and within their
social networks. The Schengen area, consisting of 26 Schengen Member States, is in this paper
understood and studied as one ‘state’ when studied through the subjects’ interpretation of the everyday
implementation of the common visa policies enacted by the visa authorising power. It is examined as
such through on-the-ground, tangible experiences, perceptions and interpretations by Jordanian passport
holders’ interactions with the Schengen visa system. I suggest to study the Schengen visa system as one
‘Schengen state’ based on the common visa policies practiced by all Member States as well as on my
interlocutors perception of the Schengen area and the Schengen visa system as both expressed during the
formalized interviews and the informal fieldwork. Although the Schengen area is conceptualized as a
unit by my interlocutors and analyzed as such, I recognize that the Schengen visa system is also in some
cases experienced and understood as a constellation of independent nation states. It is perceived as such
based on narratives and experiences of variations in visa application assessments depending on which
embassy is applied through. However, these narratives and experiences challenge the applicants’ view
of the Schengen visa system as a unified entity implementing the same visa policies, which is how it is

11
understood by my interlocutors. Thus, I argue that the Schengen visa system is best understood as a form
of state and Jordanian visa applicants in relation to the process of applying for a visa are best understood
as subjects relating to this state.

Securitization theory
The paper furthermore draws on securitization theory when analysing the encounters between ‘the
Schengen state’ and its subjects. With the power of issuing and denying visas and controlling national
borders comes the power to categorize people and create certain profiles eligible or non-eligible for
admission. Thus, profiling and the categorisation of people are political and symbolizes “discredited top-
down techniques” and have real consequences for real people (Collyer & de Haas 2012: 468). One way
of categorising and profiling individuals and groups are labelled ‘securitization’ and encompasses
discursive and political processes. This paper draws on Bigo’s (2002; Bigo & Tsoukala 2008) definition
of securitization theory, focusing on not only on a ‘politics of terror’, but likewise on a ‘politics of
unease’. Securitization is understood as discursive processes of labelling individuals or groups as a threat
to national security. Securitization theory does not determine whether a securitized object is or is not an
actual threat to national security. It describes the processes and consequences of discursively and
politically constructing individuals or groups as threats. In the process of securitizing, the focus is on the
prevention of danger, and thus, the future of the securitized object(s) is read as a ‘past-future’ already
known (Bigo & Tsoukala 2008: 2), not necessarily made on the basis of former actions or informed
choice. Bigo and Tsoukala (2008) argue that cases of securitization is not only found in the “politics of
exception”, but also in “the routine [and] the everyday [political] practices” (ibid.: 4) and “the more
mundane bureaucratic decisions of everyday politics” (ibid.: 5). They suggest a notion of a ‘politics of
unease’ and a “different way of conceptualizing the (in)securitization process, far from freedom from
fear and terror, but concerned with insecurity as risk and unease” (ibid.), refuting Buzan, Wæver, and de
Wilde’s narrow focus on a politics of exception and terrorism. Bigo and Tsoukala (2008) argue that
“some (in)securitzation moves performed by bureaucracies, the media, or private agents are so embedded
in these routines that they are never discussed and presented as an exception but, on the contrary, as the
continuation of routines” (Bigo & Tsoukala 2088: 5). Constructions of securitized objects are
constructions by language, policies, and technologies, and detecting and analysing securitization
processes is typically done by analysing discourses and policies (Bigo & Tsoukala 2008).

12
However, in the research at hand, the way securitization theory is applied to the analysis is different from
the traditional way. As accounted for above, the paper takes its outset in the perspective of the applicants
and their experiences, interpretations and imaginaries of the state. In this regard, securitization theory is
applied as a way to describe the applicants’ understanding of their own position and identity in the
encounter with the Schengen visa system. Thus, the paper does not examine whether securitization of
the applicants occurs in practice in accordance with the components described above. Rather, it discusses
whether applicants experience themselves as being reduced to securitized objects in the process of
applying for a visa to the Schengen area. The analysis draws on securitization theory in describing the
experiences as they are understood and interpreted by the applicants.

13
 Methodology

Introduction
In the following chapter, I will present the methods and approaches employed in the research. The choice
of methods and approaches will be discussed, evaluated and justified. The chapter likewise elucidates
continuous reflections and choices made regarding methodology throughout the research process,
demonstrating how the choice of methods and approaches are renegotiated and subject to change in the
case of unanticipated scenarios and new acquired knowledge, and as the object of study becomes clearer.
This chapter consists of reflections about the methodological choices made, including: acquiring
empirical data, access to the field, sampling of informants, and designing the interview guide.

Initial reflections – towards an inductive approach to the field of research

The paper takes its outset in the researcher’s personal interest in inequality in freedom of movement and
Jordanian/Arab applicants to the Schengen area, stemming from personal experiences with applicants’
or potential applicants’ frustrations and common narratives of visa rejections and general struggles with
getting a visa to the Schengen area and other countries. The concepts I initially perceived as relevant and
was interested in exploring reflects certain presumptions already embedded in the original research
question specifically questioning the transparency, logic and equality in the Schengen visa application
process. In the research question itself were the underlying presumptions and expectations that there
might be a lack of transparency, unspoken rules, and a hidden logic to the Schengen and other visa
application systems, reflecting a (structural) inequality in the issuance of visas. These originated in
personal experiences and informal observations and conversations occurring as a part of my everyday
life in Jordan. Based on those, I intended to systematically gather additional empirical data useful for
academically exploring this particular field of research, producing academic knowledge critically
examining the experiences and narratives encountered. The research was finally designed to be primarily
inductive in its approach leaving room for unanticipated characteristics, reflecting the openness to the
field and to the informants’ individual experiences and perspectives. As the research design and the
research itself unfolded, the character of the main research question changed and likewise took on a broad
and inductive approach, now broadly examining what characterizes the application experience and ‘the
state’ from the perspective of the applicants, not specifically whether or not there is an experienced lack

14
of transparency or inequality in the process, for instance. This particular approach have turned out to be
very effective in terms of discovering and unravelling unanticipated themes and angles I was not initially
aware of, such as experiences of negative treatment, questions of identity, and narratives of document
fraud and strategic approaches to applying for a Schengen visa, as shall be presented in the analytical
chapters. Although based on a primarily inductive approach, the theoretical framework lays out the
foundation for the research and defines the analytical object (Hastrup 2010: 15).

Defining the field, access to the field and acquiring informants

The object of study, i.e. the field itself, is the external borders of the ‘Schengen state’ manifested in the
common control of individuals’ mobility via visa policy and the implementation of such policies,
specifically from the point of view of Jordanian Schengen visa applicants. The external Schengen borders
are studied through the applicants’ interactions with the Schengen visa authorities, representing what I
call the ‘Schengen state’.

As I had been living in Amman on and off for more than two years at the time of planning the research
project and carrying out additional fieldwork, further access to the field was easily provided through
already established social and professional networks. The formal collection of empirical data
supplements the informal fieldwork carried out prior to the commence of the formalised research. Having
a life in Amman and being embedded in many social constellations, I had unique access to the field prior
to collecting additional empirical data through formal interviews, witnessing Jordanians’ encounters with
the Schengen visa system first hand as part of my everyday life for more than two years. During this
period of time, I have gained valuable experience with and knowledge about the field included in the
paper as empirical data. I have witnessed several social situations where constructions of the Schengen
visa system from the view of its subjects was presented in the form of conversations, stories, jokes,
celebrations, emotional outbursts and reactions, discussions and so forth. At times, I myself contributed
to and was part of those. Thus, the research and the systematically gathered empirical data are based on
knowledge and understandings acquired prior to the designed research project, likewise informing the
research, including the research design.

Being interested in a rather broad group of research subjects, i.e. individuals having applied for a short-
term Schengen visa holding a Jordanian passport, it was relatively easy to acquire informants fitting the

15
chosen requirements. Likewise smoothing the formal access to the field was the fact that I, via two
academic internships in Amman with international NGOs, had established a wide network of people with
Jordanian passports traveling to the Schengen area as part of their professional life and consequently in
some cases as part of their private life as well. Therefore, the primary method utilised to acquire
informants was to draw on my personal networks using snowball sampling by requesting informants by
interacting with people face-to-face and by posting a call for informants on my personal social media
account advancing the outreach, yet still based on the snowballing method for accessing informants.
Thus, getting further access to the field was rather easy and generally unproblematic. However, applying
the snowballing method consequently means that there is a risk of informants knowing each other and
having mutual friends and acquaintances, which poses certain challenges to the study regarding
guaranteed anonymity. However, all names used in the paper are pseudonyms, and I have strived to
ensure anonymity by leaving out potentially revealing information giving away the informants’ identity.
It is likewise important to mention that although using the snowballing method, the outreach did stem
from more than one initial informant, hence broadening the scope of the method and decreasing the risk
of biases and threatened anonymity among informants. The paper draws on 15 semi-structured qualitative
interviews with Jordanian applicants to the Schengen area, supplementing the informally gathered
empirical data.

Framing the interview situation

As the research design is primarily inductive in its methodology and approach and seeks to explore the
informants encounter with the Schengen visa system as experienced, interpreted and understood by they
themselves, the choice of method for systemically collecting empirical data additional to the informal
fieldwork fell on semi-structured qualitative in depth interviews. This choice of method is based on a
desire to one; get “insights into the subjects’ lived world” (Kvale 1996: 109) and understand the
application process and the imageries of the ‘Schengen state’ from the perspective of the applicants, two;
allow experiences, opinions, and perceptions significant to the informants to come to the surface
independently, and three; allow the interviewer to guide the conversation based on “a sequence of themes
to be covered” (ibid.: 109). The initial plan was to obtain and analyse personal documents related to
Schengen visa applications with the aim of investigating the assessment of applications. However, the
challenges associated with such an investigation and getting access to such documents quickly became

16
clear. The challenges regarding visa documents involved informants’ own access to the documents,
which in most cases had only existed as hard copies and submitted to a given European visa consulate or
embassy directly or via the private visa service provider, VFS Global. Thus, I decided to concentrate my
efforts solely on applicants’ personal accounts of encounters with the Schengen visa system, putting their
individual experiences in focus for the analysis of the Schengen visa system understood as a form of
state, resulting in 15 in-depth interviews.

Designing the interview guide, I decided to open the interview with some background questions covering
the informants’ socio-economic background after elaborating on the research area and the purpose of the
interview, including notes on anonymity. I also walked the interviewee through how the interview was
going to unfold. Here, I made it clear that I would go through themes chosen by me prior to the interview,
but that there was as much room as needed for other topics and anecdotes related to the application
process. This was done to encourage a free conversation and in an attempt to avoid restricting the
informants’ accounts of their experiences. Then, turning to the visa application process, I asked the
interviewee to introduce me to their experience with the Schengen visa system by walking me through
their applications, i.e. when they applied, to where, for what purpose(s) etc. including describing how to
apply, which documentation is needed and the like. From here, themes like prior knowledge, narratives
about the process, how the applicant experienced the process and so on were covered. Typically, a range
of themes, understandings and experiences naturally came to the surface when the interviewees were
describing the application process step by step.

When carrying out the interviews in practice, the location was typically at a café, either chosen by the
interviewer or the interviewee. Interviews were also conducted in office spaces or via Skype calls as
some informants were not present in Jordan at the time of interviewing. All interviews were recorded via
a recording device and subsequently transcribed. The technique of transcribing was by writing down
every word, though correcting for grammar and other spoken mistakes. Some parts were left out if
assessed as irrelevant to the study, such as talking in details about a European music festival or women’s
rights in Jordan during the interview8. Likewise, body language and other unspoken language were only
included in the transcripts if assessed as relevant. Each interview typically lasted about an hour, allowing

8
Both examples from actual interview situations.

17
the “interaction to get beyond merely a polite conversation” (Kvale 1996: 110), resulting in around 200
standard written pages of interview material.

Characterising the informants

The typical informant in this research is between 20 – 30 (one informant is 38) years old, lives in Amman
(the capital) or in nearby cities. S/he has or is undertaking a university degree, either BA or MA, and
employed if not studying. Thus, all informants are well educated, have great English language
proficiency9, and generally express a global political awareness, including reflections regarding their
own positions. The interviewed informants include five applicants (out of fifteen) having received one
or more rejection to their visa application.

9
All interviews were conducted in English.

18
 Chapter I

Common narratives about the invisible power, lack of sight and profound uncertainties

Introduction
Applying for a Schengen visa with a passport from a wide range of ‘third’10 countries is characterised by
long waiting time, tons of bureaucratic measures, a wide range of specific requirements, and researching
and obtaining knowledge about the application process and on which terms applications are assessed. It
furthermore brings about feelings of frustration, confusion, exhaustion, and uncertainty (gathered
empirical data; Infantino 2019; Okwenje 2019; and others). Turning to the present empirical data, this
reflects a general experience of a lack of transparency and clear information about the decision-making
process and on what grounds visa applications are assessed. Empirical accounts characterising the
Schengen visa process as being “complicated”, “impossible”, “comprehensive more than what is needed”
and “exhausting”, to name a few examples, and experiences of finding it challenging to navigate the
bureaucracy are many and well documented in the collected data. One informant characterises his own
experience of applying for a Schengen visa to Denmark via the Norwegian embassy in Amman as a
“nightmare” due to bureaucracy, lack of clarity, and waiting time. In continuation of, to the informants,
the blurry image of the (bureaucratic) system, rumours, narratives, and interpretations of what counts as
important factors in obtaining a visa are common and widespread as well as accounts of applicants being
refused a visa albeit fulfilling all official and formal requirements, altogether generating insecurity and
uncertainty among applicants.

The following chapter attempts to do an ‘ethnography of the state’ (Gupta 1995) by examining Jordanian
Schengen visa applicants’ experience of coming into contact with the visa system and the image of the
state constituted through these experiences and the “everyday interaction with the state bureaucracies”
(ibid.: 378). The chapter draws on scholars such as Foucault, Ismail, Whyte and Gupta, among others,
and state theory concerning conceptualisation through interactions between ‘the state’ and its subjects
with a particular focus on degrees and modes of visibility and sight, and how “power operates with and

10
Defined as countries outside the EU and the EEA (The European Economic Area).

19
through the interplay of visibility and invisibility” (Whyte 2011: 19). It does so by discussing the
bureaucracy of the Schengen visa application process, the requirements for application approval and
granting of visas, including a focus on rejection of visa applications, as understood, experienced and
interpreted from the perspective of Jordanian applicants. Central to the analysis is the theorisation of the
state concerning how “images of the state are forged” (Gupta 1995) through on the ground interactions
and practices. The chapter furthermore addresses the creation of collective narratives about the
application process based on interviews and field notes, and how these narratives, interactions, and
understandings shape the experience and perception of the Schengen visa system, i.e. the ‘Schengen
state’.

The bureaucratic maze and the emotional tax

To demonstrate the challenges encountered by the interviewed visa applicants, two cases are presented,
both representing certain hardships faced regarding the heavily bureaucratic and nontransparent
application process, demonstrating certain experienced state-subject interactions between Jordanian
Schengen visa applicants and the European visa system. Together, the case of Mariam and the case of
Sara represent an aspect of what is labelled the ‘emotional tax’ (Okwenje 2019) applicants have to pay
whenever they wish to apply for a visa to Europe. ‘Emotional tax’ is a notion referring to the price paid
by individuals with less privileged passports, such as passports with high requirements for requesting
visas to most (Western) countries, the price being emotional exhaustion and distress due to a variety of
factors. This section aims to elucidate some of these factors as experienced by Jordanian applicants.
Mariam’s case is utilised to exemplify the bureaucratic maze and the invisible state power and a feeling
of being out of sight (Foucault 1977, referenced in secondary sources such as Whyte 2011; West &
Sanders 2003; etc.) as experienced by applicants, and the consequences hereof. Sara’s case illustrates the
frustration and emotional exhaustion associated with having to be subject to the same comprehensive
and personally intimidating bureaucratic and security measures including the exhaustion of repetition
when traveling rather frequently. Sara’s case likewise illustrates feelings of being misrecognised by the
European visa system. Both cases bear witness to a general feeling of great uncertainty experienced
among Jordanian applicants to the Schengen area. The cases presented and examples included in the
forthcoming chapter “give a concrete shape and form to what would otherwise be an abstraction (“the

20
state”)” and therefore offers “one of the critical components through which the state comes to be
constructed.” (Gupta 1995: 378).

Mariam is a 21 year old Jordanian female living in East Amman, studying English language and literature
at university and volunteering for a local non-profit youth organisation. She was selected among the
volunteers to participate in a cultural exchange programme in Poland in 2017. She was one among a
number of volunteers from the organisation participating in the programme and was responsible for not
only her own but also the additional participants’ visa applications to the Schengen area. As she explains,
she was selected for the task due to her seniority in the organisation and due to her excellent English
skills granting her a better chance of locating channels of information and navigating the application
system. Describing the various steps of her first encounter with the European visa system via the Polish
embassy, she emphasizes the challenges faced when trying to contact the embassy. Both in terms of
getting access to the correct contact information and regarding the responsiveness of the embassy itself.
After struggling to get assistance on how to find the correct application forms, how to fill them out and
exactly which documents to submit, she decides to seek external help from a visa agency since she does
not see any other way although it puts additional financial expenses to the already expensive procedure.
She explains:

It was really our last option because we tried to contact them, we tried to email them, we
tried to call them on the phone and you wouldn’t get any responses, neither on the phone nor
on the email, and when we went to the embassy, they wouldn’t even let you go to the front
gate.

Mariam continues:

[T]hey offer no help. Actually they gave us the wrong email address to write them so that
was even weirder, like what's wrong guys? We were traveling on an Erasmus Plus project,
it was a cultural exchange, and so we got the Polish organisation to write [The Polish
embassy] so they could respond to us. And they didn’t do so, and that is when we went to the
agency. They did everything and tried to book the appointment and everything, and because
it took them forever to actually... even to book an appointment was like hell to do because

21
 there are no available appointments, like for months, they wouldn’t have any available
appointments, so how am I supposed to get things done?

Mariam experiences resistance from the Polish embassy in terms of assisting her with the process, even
grating her with basic information that could help ease the struggle she is facing. She additionally
questions the lack of available appointments and, to what seems to her unnecessary, waiting time,
ultimately finding it “funny because [the Polish embassy] is always empty, and you wonder, like, if the
appointment only takes ten minutes, why did you make me wait for this long?” Lack of understanding
and frustration due to the bureaucracy, long waiting times and no available appointments at the embassies
are echoed among the majority of applicant accounts, reflecting the non-transparent nature of the
application process as it is experienced by applicants. The mechanisms and rationales behind the
application process seem, to many applicants, to be blurry or completely out of sight. The only tiny
glimpse Mariam gets of the Schengen state is when the Polish embassy grants her with the wrong contact
information. The lack of visibility of and enthusiasm from the Polish embassy makes Mariam wonder if
she and her fellow travellers are actually welcome in Poland. According to her, “They're just like really
weird and they don’t want anyone to travel to their country”, which she finds ironic since “they have all
these posters saying ‘Come visit Poland’ and then I’m like ‘How do I go to Poland?’” Experiencing the
bureaucratic measures to be overwhelming, unnecessary, and hard to navigate combined with the lack of
visibility and transparency consequently brings about feelings of being unwanted. As if the heavy
bureaucracy and lack of transparency were strategically implemented to keep people from applying. The
applicants’ experiences and interactions, or rather lack of interactions, with the Schengen visa system,
i.e. the ‘state’, inform their understandings of the state and in this case foster a perception of the system
as opaque and hard to penetrate and comprehend. The system has ultimate agency and power over the
subjects and hence have the power to see, control, and affect the applicant. The applicant, on the other
hand, are trapped in a position where one does not have the equal power to see, control, and affect the
system, creating strong experiences of unequal modes of interaction, underscoring the experiences of a
‘blurry image’ and lack of visibility in the visa system (Whyte 2011). Thus, the Schengen visa system
becomes a ‘closed off’, almost esoteric entity in the eye of the applicant. In this sense, the authorising
power is comparable to Foucault’s (1977, referenced in Whyte 2011) central tower in the sense that
“[m]ost had very little sense of what went on within” (Whyte 2011: 19) and to Whyte’s (2011) myopticon

22
in which the applicants are “able to glimpse and speculate about” (Whyte 2011: 19). However, in
Mariam’s case she does not feel “partially seen” by the authorising power – she feels like she is not at
all seen or paid attention to in any way. The state is in this case perceived and experienced as a closed
off entity, (not) appearing to be invisible and impossible to interact with. Likewise, Mariam’s
understanding of self and identity in the view of the state is challenged as she fears that she is likewise
‘out of sight’ and invisible to the state. In some cases, the applicant might have access to and actually
does see the agents of the state if one is called for an interview at the embassy. However, this physical
face-to-face interaction does not necessarily increase the visibility of the system, it might as well smudge
it even more since the applicant is still subject to what is experienced as incomprehensible procedures
and measures, not knowing exactly what the visa authorities are looking for or how they themselves are
seen, creating further uncertainty. In several cases, the procedure is experienced as confusing and
nontransparent. Informants are questioning certain measures and procedures because they either do not
see the logic behind them due to the lack of understanding or transparency, which creates a fear of doing
something wrong that will ultimately affect their application negatively.

In the case of several informants and as clearly exemplified in Mariam’s case, the (lack of) interaction
with the authorising power, i.e. the Polish embassy, is linked to what West & Sanders (2003) refers to as
the ‘invisible’ power, ‘hiding’ itself from view of its subjects, operating in secrecy and surrounded by
mystery and ‘conspiracy’, in accordance with Foucault’s central tower raised above the ground and out
of sight of its ‘inmates’. Following West and Sanders’ (2003) point, it ultimately leads to the belief that
there is “more to power than what meets the eye” (ibid.: 7). The actual and metaphorical wall Mariam
encountered unable to climb when trying to get inside and ‘see’ the machinery behind the visa process
symbolises a wider experience among interviewed applicants of a lack of transparency, visibility, and a
clear view of the European visa apparatus. West & Sanders (2003) further suggest that the invisible
power and the lack of transparency foster “suspicions of power” (ibid.: 7) bringing about scepticism.
They refer to Hellinger addressing the conspiracy believer, stating that “conspiracy theorists might be on
to something even if they cannot clearly see the details; the fact that they cannot clearly see the details is
precisely the point.” (Hellinger 1994, referred to in West & Sanders 2003: 25). My point here is not to
suggest that either the Schengen visa system is corrupt or that the experiences and narratives of suspicion
are not real, but part of a farfetched conspiracy among visa applicants. Rather, the point is to suggest that

23
the concealing veil, the experiences of a lack of transparency, and the seemingly arbitrary rulings
resulting in confusion and lack of clarity in the visa process as experienced by the informants play an
important factor in how the state is perceived and the narratives, understandings and interpretations
created among applicants. In other words, the dominating scepticism, speculation, and general confusion
demonstrated in the empirical data. Thus, in the perspective of the applicants, the Schengen visa system,
i.e. ‘the state’, appears as potentially corrupt, illicit, and unable to make just and informed assessments
of visa applications.

Turning to Sara’s case, the intention is to illustrate part of the reasons for a common emotional exhaustion
and so-called emotional ‘tax’ (Okwenje 2019) experienced among applicants. Sara is a 26 year old
Jordanian female with a Bachelor in engineering from the German Jordanian University in Amman,
currently employed at a university in Jordan. She has experience in political activism and in working
with and being engaged in several social projects in Jordan. She has three Schengen visas (Germany,
Austria, and Denmark) and one student visa (not considered a Schengen visa) to Germany for when she
was on exchange as part of her university programme. The purpose of all of her Schengen visas were
academically or work related and were within a rather short period of time, each of them valid only for
the days of the event she was traveling for, e.g. three or four days. Several times during the interview,
she highlights how the procedure is “tiring” and takes its toll on her, and notes, “It's exhausting. Filling
the same table each time, clearing the same things. It is exhausting.” Partially, it causes exhaustion
because of “the time wasted” and the money wasted when being subject to repeating the same procedures
and measures over and over again, not seeing the point of it all since her information has already been
stored. She notes:

I always think it's so funny because I could have one year or two years and that would be
easier and less costly for me. Each time I have to pay 60 euros or something like that and I
have to go and wait in line.

However, what is more is the sense of emotional and personal exhaustion due to a number of factors.
First of all, Sara explains how the feeling of always being in a state of limbo whenever waiting for the
response is mentally exhausting:

24
 I'm okay with filling the requirements, it's not so hard. At the end of the day, you only have
to submit the papers, but it's exhausting for you to keep doing the same thing for just
traveling. [...] it’s always what if, what if, what if. So it's hard and if they are late, you think
you are screwed, like you are in this… is there someone who has said something about me?
So it's not a nice feeling to wait for the visa.

Elaborating on the ‘not nice’ feeling, she describes a feeling of constantly being uncertain about what to
“do right”, the fear of doing or saying something wrong, resulting in an all-encompassing feeling of
unease and although she “love[s]” going to Germany “because [she has] friends and [has] a lot to do
there”, she “always think[s] twice before doing this because of the visa.” The application procedure is
furthermore characterised as emotionally exhausting as the system is experienced as overwhelming and
intimidating, crossing personal boundaries. Adding to the exhaustion of waiting and being in a constant
state of uncertainty, “you have to be very transparent, like telling everything.” Sara tells me about the
time she applied for a visa to Germany to go to a conference, she was asked to fill out some sort of
security questionnaire. I ask her what it is, and she continues:

There are these kinds of questions like 'are you part of a terrorism'… like even if I was, I
wouldn't say yes. And then, they ask you 'do you feel empathy for these kind of
organisations?’, and that was a question that I had to think about, like, do I feel, like, how
do I feel about this? I don't know. Like, there are a set of organisations in Germany that I
didn't even know that they existed and now they are asking me if I feel… I don't know them,
I don't know what they do to feel anything about them. But the safest thing was to say no of
course. They ask very weird questions like 'did you come here alone or with someone?' and
when I think about it, first time I went with my friends, we were a group, but I was alone as
well, so these kinds of questions are very hard and you don't know how to answer them. You
feel trapped, like what if I answered this, they will… This is not the whole truth.

The system forces her to relate and respond to something she herself has no prior knowledge about,
contesting her knowledge in a way that she experiences as unjustified or illogical. She is forced to relate
to and take a stand on matters, which she does not know how to. It channels a groping suffocating feeling
in her, positioning her in a situation she cannot escape, yet is uncertain how to overcome. Mariam

25
likewise states “it was too personal” when recalling the visa interview. While if she puts a foot wrong,
she is scared, she might fail. Drawing on Whyte’s (2011) notion of the myopticon, I argue that the state
in this case is experienced to have a “much narrower range of vision” (ibid.: 18) as opposed to Foucault’s
panoptic all-seeing eye. Sara worries that she is only “partially seen by the eye of the authorities” (ibid.:
19) because of the power to choose the information relevant to constituting a true, whole image of her,
the applicant, which she feels “trapped” in, not able to present herself rightfully, leaving her with the
experience of the authorities only having a “hazy” (ibid.) view of who she truly is and what her intentions
are. Ultimately, she experiences the interaction with the European visa system, i.e. ‘the state’ to be
exhausting on a personal and private level, and to make matters worse, she has to go through it all every
time she applies. Puzzled by all the fuzz she has to go through, Sara notes at the end of the conversation:

I have seen them taking the stickers, like the visa, they took it in front of me and they put it
on the passport. I was like 'That's it?’ We usually do aaall of this just to get this done?

Unlike Mariam, Sara is confronted with a system, which she fears might misrecognise her, and she
“worrie[s] about what it [is] the central gaze [is seeing] when it [does] observe” her (Whyte 2011: 20).
In contrast to Mariam who experience uncertainty and frustration due to the experience of feeling
invisible and not seen at all, Sara’s experience of uncertainty and frustration is in this regard linked to
the narrow view of Whyte’s myopticon and the doubt about “the system’s ability to recognize truth.”
(Whyte 2011: 20). Thus, the ‘Schengen state’ is in the view of its subjects constructed as either blind or
narrow-sighted, which creates uncertainty about one’s position and a fear of being misrecognized.

Sara and Mariam furthermore represent a general opinion and common feeling of inequality in access to
global mobility among Jordanian visa applicants. In their perspective, the extensive measures one has to
be subject to simply to travel, in Sara’s case down to four days, to Europe seem unnecessary and
unjustified. Especially, in the applicants’ perspective, when comparing the Jordanian visa requirements
for European citizens who can get a visa on arrival by presenting one’s passport and paying what equals
to around 50 EUR without any additional expenses or documentation of one’s background or intentions
(participatory observation 2015 – 2019; Jordan Tourism Board 2019).

26
Images of the state as corrupt and conspiratorial
Accounts of seemingly arbitrary rejections, and an all-time present narrative regarding the difficulty of
going through the process of getting a Schengen visa creates uncertainties and channels speculations
about under which criteria applications are assessed. The focus now turns to the subjects’ understanding
of how they are seen by the state when seen, what the hovering ‘eye’ pays attention to, and how it
interprets what is within its gaze. The following section concerns discourses of ‘corruption’ and
‘conspiracies’ constructed as a consequence of the lack of a clear vision of the system as outlined above.
It highlights common thoughts and speculations regarding how the system operates and how one either
succeeds or fails in obtaining a Schengen visa.

As demonstrated in the introduction to this chapter, there is a strong profound narrative and conception
that getting access to the Schengen countries is troublesome if not impossible. Prior to conducting
interviews, within my social networks I frequently encountered people joking about getting a visa to
Europe or the US, including coping with the absurdity of a rejection by turning it into a joking matter,
one implication being that you might as well give up. Getting a visa is seen as “lucky” and it is common
to assume that “most probably you will be rejected.” Experiences of the application process as a
battleground where one is taking part in an ongoing fight with the system in an attempt to prove one’s
contested innocence and worth are dominating and contribute to the construction of the common
narrative about the Schengen state. As expressed by some informants, there is an understanding of oneself
as a Jordanian applicant to the Schengen area to be rejected by “default” and kept out whenever possible.
Mohammad, a young man working in the NGO sector, having applied for visas (all of them granted) to
the Schengen area (Denmark and Lithuania) four times puts it like this:

But the thing is they want to pressure you to the max, so they want you to just give them one
reason to not give you the visa. I feel that the process is you go and first you are rejected
until you prove something else.

This common conception contributes to a constant fear of being denied a visa, fostering strong feelings
of unease when waiting for one’s application to be assessed, as demonstrated in Sara’s case as well. The
point here is to highlight the all-enveloping narrative framing the European border and specifically the
Schengen visa process as a battleground wrought with physical and mental obstacles, making the process

27
characterised by fear and unease. Cases representing examples of narratives of visa assessment will be
presented. The case introduced above, Mariam, states,

I think it's sad that you have to live in fear all the time. Whenever someone is coming to check
your passport, you just have to have a mini heart attack waiting for the response.

She is referring to the action of waiting for your visa application and crossing international borders in
general. This fear is enforced and accompanied by an understanding that getting rejected a visa to the
Schengen area and thereby having it on your personal record will affect one’s future prospects of getting
a visa and hence limit one’s options in terms of international mobility, ultimately having a potential
negative influence on several aspects of one’s life. The fear of getting rejected a visa is likewise the fear
of the beginning of a vicious circle inhibiting one’s opportunities. Thus, applying for a Schengen visa
becomes not only a matter of the trip itself, but of the applicant’s future regarding access to international
mobility, which can have a significant impact on other aspects of one’s life. Consequently, having so
much at stake and the uncertainty associated with the procedure, applicants are constantly wondering and
paying attention to what it takes to get a visa and hence how one can influence the assessment of one’s
application in favour of an approval, constituting narratives about which criteria one should fulfil to
ensure approval.

Zooming in on specific thoughts and perceptions concerning what it takes to get access to the Schengen
area, the following cases serve as examples of common assumptions and the widespread speculations.
While highlighting and summarising particular conceptions regarding getting one’s visa application
approved, the following section furthermore illustrates the myriad of understandings, representing one
informant’s notion: “It is so confusing because everyone has different experiences”, underscoring the
‘mystery’ and ‘conspiracies’ (West & Sanders 2003) surrounding the Schengen visa application process.
The first case is Ahmad, a 31 year old Jordanian male, living in Amman and employed in the bank sector
for a successful banking company and also the owner of a real estate company. He has applied for a
tourism Schengen visa once, to Greece, got his application approved and got the visa. However, he
approaches the application process with the assumption that “it's really hard to get the Schengen, it's not
easy, there are many difficult steps and you have to do this and you have to pay money, and there are a
lot of things” speculating about how the visa application is assessed and evaluated. Common

28
understandings include having sufficient economic capital, status of employment, physical appearance,
former visa rejections affecting one’s current application, and ensuring proof of return, or to put it more
accurately, to prove that the applicant have no intention of staying in the Schengen area beyond the visa
expiration date. Regarding the last point however, there seem to be little way of knowing what that
exactly entails. In Ahmad’s perspective, his profession as a banker is what made him make the cut.
According to him,

Especially when you work for a bank, then it might be the Schengen or the application, like
to apply is much easier than being one of the other let's say small companies and with small
salaries, so the banking sector is well known from the embassies, more than any other
companies.

It can be argued that Ahmad is of the perception that banking is a particularly favoured profession
because that is specifically what he experienced in his case, but more importantly because there is a lack
of clear guidelines and requirements guaranteeing approval. This is likewise explicit in the case of Rahaf,
a 29 year old Jordanian female, living in Amman and employed with an international NGO. She applied
for and got a tourism visa to the Schengen area in 2017. According to her,

[I]t is easier for people working in the NGO sector to get a visa [...] Because they know that
you are working with professional people and with international human sector and they know
that you should be connected to come back to your country, so it's easier and also because
in NGO sectors, there is a big opportunity to travel worldwide, so they know that you will
come back.

However, this reflects Rahaf’s particular experience and not any official criteria, reflecting a lack of clear
guidelines aiming at ensuring visa issuance. Returning to Ahmad’s case, his profession and financial
status is one major factor, as interpreted by Ahmad, yet he as well expresses physical appearance, among
others, as potentially having an influence on the ruling. He mentions that “there was no problem […]
maybe because I don’t look very Arab, do you think that?” which as well is a part of a wider negative
discourse concerning Arabs and Muslims, elaborated further in chapter 2. Lastly, there is a widespread
understanding that the decision-making process and one’s prospects of getting a visa application
approved varies significantly between embassies. Some embassies are known for being ‘easy’ and less

29
strict, e.g. the Italian, other are known for the opposite, e.g. Germany. This fosters applicants to speculate
in so-called ‘visa-shopping’, further touched upon in chapter 3.

The next case represents applicants having received one or more rejection to their application(s) and how
this contribute to the construction of certain narratives regarding assessment. It likewise contribute to the
feelings of great uncertainty and unease associated with the application process. Saif is one of the five
rejected applicants interviewed. In 2018 he applied for a visit visa to Germany with the purpose of visiting
his brother who lives, studies and do academic research associated with a German university there. Saif
lives in Dubai and holds a strong position in an international technology company, has a generally strong
socioeconomic background and is a frequent traveller. Saif’s Schengen visa application was rejected,
according to him, “for no apparent reason.” He submitted all required documents, filled the application
form correctly, paid all required fees etc. However, only four days after submitting the application, he
got a call to go pick up his passport only to discover an empty page and a letter stating the rejection. At
this point, Saif had bought the plane tickets and the insurance, paid the visa fee, planned the trip with his
brother etc. All for nothing. His experience of receiving the refusal was “shocking” and “traumatising”,
making him feel “depressed” and unjustly treated. Officially, he says, the stated reason for refusal was
the following:

Your intention to leave the territory of the Member States before the expiry of the visa could
not be ascertained. The submitted documents were not able to rule out any doubts in regards
to your familial or financial ties in the United Arab Emirates.

However, the doubt of return is not elaborated on or justified. Germany determine Saif as such a
significant risk that they decide not to let him cross the external Schengen borders. His interpretation of
the reason for refusal was that Germany did not “feel” like issuing him a visa, to which he asks, “How
do you base your rejection on how you feel? On what basis did you feel like I'm not eligible for the visa?”
The reason for this interpretation is that, according to him, he did not receive any concrete information
on what he did wrong and where he failed to fulfill the requirements. He says,

They didn't clarify, for example, oh the bank statement is wrong, or the flight is fake or you
brother doesn’t have a place to accommodate you. Just something, but no, we just felt like
we don’t want to give you the visa which honestly doesn’t make sense.

30
Throughout the interview, Saif several time highlights the fact that he can only make assumptions “based
on absolutely nothing” about why he was refused since he himself does not understand exactly why. His
brother and he tried to file for an appeal, however unsuccessfully. The vague reasoning and lack of
concrete justification experienced by Saif and other rejected applicants leaves applicants with a feeling
of little or no agency, supporting feelings of anger and despair.

Thus, in Saif’s experience, despite many speculating about which criteria guarantee a Schengen visa, one
can never be certain that certain qualifications or requirements fulfilled, such as working in the bank or
NGO sector or having a strong socioeconomic background, can guarantee the issuance of a visa to the
Schengen area. This and similar experiences among Jordanian applicants to the Schengen area
contributes to the overall narrative of the Schengen visa as being very difficult to obtaion, while
supporting experiences of the notion of Whyte’s (2011) myopticon and the authorising power’s inability
to see clearly and recognize truth. Likewise, it supports the experience of a lack of transparency within
the visa system and the authorising power being partly out of sight to its subjects.

Conclusion
This chapter has demonstrated that applicants to the Schengen area holding a Jordanian passport
experience a lack of transparency in the European visa system. Consequently, Jordanian applicants
experience a profound uncertainty and unease being subject to the Schengen visa application process,
which is emotionally exhausting for many, supporting the notion of paying an ‘emotional tax’ (Okwenje
2019) as a third national applying for a Schengen visa. Furthermore, there is a variety of narratives
concerning what it takes to get a visa plus an all-encompassing narrative of the Schengen visa as being
particularly hard to obtain. I argue, inspired by West and Sanders (2003), that these narratives and
speculations are partly a product of the lack of transparency and visibility experienced and hence the lack
of certainty of getting a visa issued. In conclusion, the imageries of the state forged are one; the state as
invisible to the applicant (subject) and the applicant as invisible to the state and two: the state partially
visible to it subjects, and the subject likewise being subject to a narrow/selective-sighted state creating
fears of misrecognition. The ‘Schengen state’ appears as opaque, potentially corrupt, illicit, and unable
to make just and informed assessments of visa applications, in the eyes of the applicants.

31
 Chapter II
Being Arab in an (in)securitized world - experiences of humiliation, misrecognition and
mistrust

Introduction
Experiences of systemic humiliation, mistrust, miscategorisation, and securitization is central to the
Jordanian applicants’ experience of the Schengen visa application process. Drawing on the notion of the
panopticon (Foucault) and the myopticon (Whyte) and a focus on sight and visibility, the following
chapter examines more specifically the applicants’ understanding of how they are seen by the visa
authorities, i.e. ‘the state’, when seen, focusing on subjectivities, identity(ies) and categories experienced
and produced in the process. The chapter likewise sheds light on a highly common experience among
applicants of feeling “humiliated”, “inferior”, and like “less of a human” reflecting an experienced threat
to their individual identity and dignity. Furthermore, the chapter at hand elucidates applicants’
experiences of being reduced to a securitized object, subject to mistrust and prejudice, in the encounter
with the Schengen visa system.

Threatened identities - experiences of humiliation and feelings of inferiority

At some point it's so humiliating, you know, like you're being treated like less of a
human for no apparent reason

These are the words of Mariam, introduced in the previous chapter, explaining the weight of the process
and reflecting to herself whether the emotional tax is too high in comparison to what is gotten in return.
The following section seeks to illustrate the profound humiliation felt and experienced among applicants
as shared with the interviewer. Two cases are presented with the aim of exemplifying and highlighting
experiences of feeling humiliated, inferior, and like an underdog begging for something, willing to do
whatever it takes to get something one ultimately feels like one has the right to and is entitled to. It is
furthermore outlined how applicants feel their self-perceived identity11 is contested in the process.

11
‘Self-perceived identity’ is understood as “individuals’ having a state of cognitively, emotionally and
behaviourally consistent interpretation of themselves, the environment and all factors of their lives” (Ersanh, K.
& Şahn, E. 2015: 184)

32
The first case presented, Khaled, is a 27 year old Jordanian male, at the time of the interview studying a
master’s degree in Conflict, Security and Development Studies at a university in the UK. Prior to his
studies, and at the time of applying for Schengen visas, he has been employed with several international
humanitarian and human development organisations in Jordan over the past seven years. Khaled has
applied for a visa to the Schengen area three times. The first time he applied was in 2012. At that time,
he applied for a business visa to Denmark, as he was going with his current workplace, and received a
rejection. The second time, in 2013, Khaled was invited by the University of Malta and the Mediterranean
Academy for International Studies to attend a summer school in Malta. When asked to pick up his
passport a week after submitting the visa application, he received yet another rejection to which “[t]hey
didn’t give any reason” according to him. However, the University of Malta called the embassy and
stressed the urgency of the situation and Khaled got the application approved, as he explains it. He
applied for the visa directly via the Italian embassy in Amman. The third time he applied, he was once
again invited for a training in Denmark with the same organisation. This time, he got the Schengen visa
to go to Denmark. Both times when applying for a visa to Denmark, he applied directly via the Norwegian
embassy in Amman, which at that time and at the time of writing is handling visa applications on behalf
of Denmark, Finland, and Iceland. During the interview, I shared with Khaled the feelings of former
interviewed applicants, and I asked him whether he had any experiences of encountering “negative” or
“arrogant attitudes” during the visa application process, to which his direct reply was the following:

At some point it really feels like you are a refugee and you are heading to the UNHCR tent
to receive your food supply or, you know, it feels like you are begging them and that it's not
a right for you to get the visa and to get into that country to participate in whatever you're
going there to do.

He later adds:

[...] you go there and you feel like you need to beg them to get this shitty visa to get to the
country. That was the feeling.

Central to Khaled’s and the interviewed applicants’ experiences are feelings of being humiliated, inferior,
undermined, and reduced, ultimately resulting in a sense of their individual and self-perceived identity
and personal qualities as being questioned and challenged by the visa authorities. Khaled experiences

33
feelings of being inferior and humiliated in several ways. However, a certain topic reoccurs in his and
other informants’ stories – the act of desperately begging for something and being willing to do nearly
everything and to go extreme lengths in order to get it. That ‘something’ is a visa, i.e. legal access to
international mobility, which the applicants believe they should have the right to like so many other
young people in the world, and as European citizens entering Jordan have, in their perspective. As echoed
in multiple interviews, young Jordanians likewise have an interest in, and urge to, “discover and see
other cultures”, “explore a new lifestyle, new culture, new people”, and “to see more than [the
neighbouring countries]. Europe, America, Australia, anywhere. I'm not going to be just going to Egypt,
Egypt, Egypt” as expressed by Malik, another informant. The point is that applicants perceive themselves
as entering a position inferior to and lower than how they see themselves, bringing about feelings of
humiliation, worthlessness, and vulnerability in requesting something they see as their fundamental
individual right.

This point of view is echoed in a number of accounts. One informant, Tariq, expresses the feeling of
need and desperation by saying “like I will go to heaven through him”, ‘him’ being an employee at the
Polish embassy, when explaining how he experienced and interpreted the attitude and behaviour of the
embassy staff. Similar to Tariq’s version, another informant, Kareem, uses the divine metaphor of
receiving holy blessings and ‘going to heaven’ reflecting a certain treatment and attitude of employees
making the applicants feel humiliated and inferior, adding doubts about whether the price paid is worth
the hardships, since it is not the gates of ‘heaven’ they are attempting to enter. Kareem says:

[A]t some point you feel like you don’t want to go, like, it's not that I'm killing myself to go,
it's not that I'm going to heaven. I'm going there to work.

Khaled, Tariq, Kareem and other interviewed applicants experience their identity as being challenged,
questioned and undervalued when going through the Schengen visa application process. They feel
inferior to the authorities based on what they perceive to be the identity attributed them by the authorities,
i.e. the employees encountered in the given embassy, and the treatment and attitude as they in many cases
interpret as negative and demeaning. They feel as if their “human entity is not valued” as expressed by
yet another informant. In Khaled’s experience with the European visa system, it is clear that he is subject
to feelings of lack of individual and independent recognition. He experiences that his self-perceived

34
identity is not done justice because it is predetermined, overlooked, mass categorized, and reduced to a
helpless individual whose only purpose in life is getting access to the sacred European territory. In this
case, applicants see themselves as only ‘partially seen’ by the hazy, narrow gaze of the authorities and
hence miscategorised and misrecognised if recognised at all (Whyte 2011). This is furthermore
demonstrated in the point of view presented below. As explicit in the following quote, Khaled is
additionally clearly filled with resentment and frustration when stating:

At some point I felt that I don’t really need this shit, I don’t really need to go visit that country
because sometimes you might be a very important person or you might be a good person who
is making a great impact in your country or who is trying to make a change or who's trying
to make things right in your country and then you go [to apply for a visa] and those people
make you feel like you are nothing, you are not appreciated and they underestimate you.

Here, the experienced misrecognition is explicitly expressed by Khaled. He feels particularly attacked
and as if it is necessary for him to defend his intellectual and academic skills, his job skills and his
humanitarian enthusiasm and efforts, and the sympathetic and solidary nature of his self. Thus,
completing the application process and interacting with the European visa authorities combined with
receiving two, in his perspective unjustified, rejections, Khaled feels constantly ‘stuck’ in a narrow, one-
sided category lacking nuances and depth (Collyer & de Haas 2012: 475), threatening his identity and
dignity, consequently making him feel “underestimated” and “vulnerable”, fragile, “worthless”, and
“angry”. Offering further reflections on his own identity and position in relation to the Schengen state
and the application assessment, he elaborates as follows:

This stupid, silly category division of countries based on their economy and based on their…
basically based on their economic situation. I doesn’t make sense to me as someone who
studies international relations. It doesn’t, because for me, as a Jordanian citizen, I see myself
with the education and the work experience and the background that I have, I see myself as
a very well educated person, I see myself… For example, I am an Arab citizen or Jordanian
citizen and I can speak English, Arabic and other languages, and I meet, like half of the
British people that I'm meeting here, they can't speak any language but English. How do you
decide that those people just because they were born in a different land or a different area

35
 and they have a different citizenship or passport, they are more privileged than… or they
have more services or think about me in a certain way because I was born in Jordan for
example. So this so stupid international or globalised categorisation system […] ... To me, it
doesn’t make sense at all.

Khaled is taking a critical standpoint and questions what he believes to be the rationale behind the
systemic miscategorisation and reduction of his identity and personal history, which he interprets as an
essentialist view. As mentioned above, Khaled demonstrates anger and an urge to clarify what, in his
perspective, is characteristic to his identity in this context. According to Taylor (1994) identity can be
defined as “something like a person’s understanding of who they are, of their fundamental defining
characteristics as a human being.” (Taylor 1994: 25) More importantly, he argues that “our identity is
partly shaped by recognition or its absence, often by the misrecognition of others, and so a person or
group of people can suffer real damage, real distortion, if the people or society around them mirror back
to them a confining or demeaning or contemptible picture of themselves. Nonrecognition or
misrecognition can inflict harm, can be a form of oppression, imprisoning someone in a false, distorted,
and reduced mode of being.” (ibid.). It can be argued that these dynamics are present in the case of
Khaled and other applicants. Jordanian applicants to the Schengen area experience feelings of
humiliation and inferiority due to a lack of recognition of their otherwise rich and nuanced self-perceived
identities, which in turn channels strong emotions and reactions.

What is more, Khaled’s perspective reveals a particular worldview and way of seeing his own position
regarding global mobility as a universal human right. As a “Jordanian citizen” with the agenda of
crossing international borders with the purpose of temporarily travelling to another country, here a
Schengen country, he believes he has the right as any other global citizen to move freely without being
subject to extra scrutiny and suspicion solely based on his nationality, which is how he himself interprets
his experiences. Adding to this point, he rejects what he experiences as a categorisation of countries and
its people based on the countries’ economy. In comparing himself and his academic and language skills
to “like half of the British people that I'm meeting here”, who according to Khaled is less ‘talented’ or
less ‘worth’, or at least not more valuable than himself, he implies that he should be assessed based on
qualities, skills, and achievements rather than nationality. Thus, he feels subject to one; a state exercising
power based on essentialist views and on a division and categorisation of the world that Khaled does not

36
subscribe to, two; a misinterpretation of his individual identity, and three; to a global injustice in freedom
of movement.

Having established that applicants are subject to experienced subordination and humiliation, “absence of
recognition” (Taylor 1994: 25), and misrecognition and deprivation of individual identity, this section
now turns to elucidating the mechanisms behind this experience, i.e. how demonstrations of domination
are expressed (Scott 1990) as interpreted by the interviewed applicants. Central aspects commonly
mentioned are treatment by and attitude of authority employees encountered during the application
process. Oftentimes, the treatment by and attitude of the staff is described as cold, harsh, condescending,
and arrogant. In a number of cases, applicants highlight how this behaviour is interpreted as an attempt
to establish their power position as superior to the applicants (ibid.), consequently making the applicants
feel unfairly treated and subject to inequality and, in their perspective, unnecessary condescending and
impolite behaviour and attitude.

The following case aims to serve as an illustrative example of these characteristics. Mohammad is a 25
year old Jordanian male. He has a bachelor’s degree in software engineering and has been employed in
the humanitarian development sector for several years. His job is the primary reason for his trips to the
Schengen area. In particular, he has applied for three Schengen visas to Denmark and one to Lithuania.
The purpose of going to Denmark was work related and the purpose of going to Lithuania was as part of
an exchange programme. The first time, he requested to cancel the application assessment process since
it took too long, and he would then miss the work event he was invited for. The following three visa
applications were accepted and visas issued. During the interview, it is important to Mohammad to let
me know and make it clear that he experiences the process as humiliating. He shares an experience from
the German embassy where he went to apply for the Lithuanian visa:

[...] there is no privacy. And again, this systematic humiliation... there was [another
applicant] standing there [in the German embassy located in Amman]. This person is an
engineer, he works in an aircraft company, stuff like that, and he wanted to apply, and he
was... why were they asking “why do you want to go to Germany?”, and he was like "Because
I like Germany, I like them, I even follow their [football] league, I watch their national team
play bla bla bla", and [the interviewer] kind of made fun of that.

37
 How? Was he laughing?

No it was like "haah you like Germany, you like Germans bla bla bla" and I felt like it was
just a very embarrassing situation and literally people in the room were laughing, in the
waiting room, people were laughing at him somehow. It just... like why?? Why don’t you
have any sort of privacy, why don't you create the infrastructure? [… ] The set up is
humiliating.

Mohammad’s account demonstrates a situation where his memories of humiliation is connected to the
content of what is being said as well as expressions, gestures and voice. In this case, the employee is
exercising power in a humiliating, demeaning, and hurtful way, which is supported by and works because
there is an audience also inflicting the humiliation when laughing. In addition to this very specific
situation, Mohammad also mentions a more general situation making him feel humiliated and
disenfranchised:

Whenever I am in the embassy and they ask about my bank account, I feel like the world is
getting disgust from me, and this is somehow… this is what you do. No one wants you if you
are poor [...] again your human entity is not valued.

Thus, the action itself of submitting and being open about his personal (lack of) finances is bringing
about feelings of humiliation and subordination. Lastly, Mohammad experiences the authorities’
demonstration of power when being subject to what he interprets as condescending and unnecessary
questions about his background:

Because in the end these kinds of questions are just ridiculous. I have all my papers, I have
all my references, ok? It does not make sense to ask me "Why did your organisation chose
you and not another person of your colleagues?" First, like, what is the point of this
question? Second, in the end, I'm not here to defend myself and whatsoever, like you can ask
me why I am travelling, then I will justify it for you, but I am not there to defend myself, to
prove something, you know. The procedure, I will understand why, why you're... to a certain
extent I will understand why you want to do all of these steps, but I won’t understand ever

38
 that your systematic approach of humiliating people. [...] and like questions like "Oh you
study software engineering, why do you work with NGO's?”

Like they're being condescending?

Yeah yeah yeah, it's like condescending. They look down at you. There is this power relation,
which is pretty much humiliating, at least for me.

The recollection among interviewed applicants of going through the Schengen visa application process
shows how applicants view and interpret the power relations between them and the European visa
authorities. To sum up, what makes the process of applying for a Schengen visa appear as humiliating
are experienced unequal power relations and forms of domination (Scott 1990; Abu-Lughod 1990). This
is expressed in, roughly, three ways. Firstly, in the applicants’ opinion, they encounter questions in the
application process, which seem arbitrary or irrelevant in the context regarding assessing their visa
application. Secondly, the way these seemingly random questions are asked, as the applicants interpret
and understand it, comes off as rude and condescending. And finally, the overall negative, harsh, cold,
and prejudiced attitude demonstrated by the staff encountered in the various embassies, as interpreted by
the interviewed applicants. What is more, the power relations experienced in the visa process are
‘diagnosed’ and ‘revealed’ through the resistance exercised by applicants (Abu-Lughod 1990).
Applicants simultaneously resist and support the power relations in place (ibid.: 47) – supporting them
by the action of applying and following the rules and regulations in place, resisting them by verbally and
explicitly criticising the practices making them feel inferior and humiliated.

Anticipating the future – experiences of securitization and mistrust

Through the application process and in the encounter with the ‘Schengen state’, the applicants are subject
to forms of categorisation (Collyer & de Haas 2012), and certain identities are produced in a range of
ways. Taking its departure in securitization theory, the section at hand presents accounts of experienced
negative prejudice and stereotypical generalisations regarding Arabs and Muslims. Particular attention
is paid to the notion of return, anticipating applicants’ ‘past-future’ (Bigo, D. & Tsoukala 2008: 2) and
how applicants are constructed as securitized objects, i.e. as ‘threats’ (Bigo, D. & Tsoukala, A. 2008) to
the nation states of the Schengen area.

39
The first case presented is Malik, a 30 year old Jordanian male, working as a jewellery designer and co-
owner of an entertainment company. At the time of the interview, he had applied for three Schengen
visas, two of them refused and the third still being under assessment. A few weeks after the interview,
Malik got the third visa application refused, although a friend of his with whom he was going to Budapest
on holiday with, got his visa issued. To my knowledge, they provided the same documents. They likewise
have a very similar background – both working as Jewellery designers and being co-owners of the same
company. Differences include Malik’s friend originally being from Iraq, migrating to Jordan during his
childhood, whereas Malik’s background is Palestinian, born and raised in Jordan. Furthermore, Malik
has two rejections to the Schengen area and four to the United States, his friend has none, only issued
visas, both to the Schengen area and to the United States. The first two visa applications were to
Switzerland and the third to Hungary. All three times, he applied directly via the respective embassies in
Jordan. The main reason for Malik’s rejections is, according to him, the fail to ensure proof of return
before the expiration of a potential visa. Moreover, the first rejection seem to have started a vicious circle
of rejections. When asked about how it makes him feel when he receives visa rejections, he replies:

I feel bad because at some point I hate my passport, because they treat me like… they don’t
look at me as a person

Malik’s interpretation of the rulings of his visa applications, being refused short term entrance to Europe
multiple times based on his nationality and on an impersonal bunch of papers, is an example of how
Jordanian applicants to the Schengen area feel securitized and treated as an object of ‘unease’ when being
subject to “bureaucratic decisions of everyday politics” (Bigo & Tsoukala 2008: 5), i.e. Schengen visa
policies. Receiving a rejection to one’s visa application based on the vague reasoning of failing to ensure
return is likewise an example of how applicants feel securitized based on no former bahviour as such,
anticipating the unknown future of applicants, claiming to be able to “read a past-future” (ibid.: 2), i.e.
foregrounding applicants future actions based on what is experienced as unjustified reasoning. There is
a common understanding among applicants, rejected or not, that it is very important to ensure proof of
return. There is also, however, a lack of official information and knowledge about how one does so,
according to the Jordanian applicants. Denying individuals like Malik or Saif (introduced in chapter 1)
entrance to the Schengen area based on assumptions about their future behaviour is experienced and
interpreted as being unjustly and illegitimately reduced to securitized objects.

40
The following examples represent experiences of being subject to securitization in the form of
experiencing prejudice and mistrust based on one’s nationality and/or religious affiliation, as interpreted
by the applicants. This is another way in which Jordanian applicants to the Schengen area encounter
experiences of being presented and constructed as a threat and a source of ‘unease’ to the Schengen area
and the widespread narrative concerning this (Bigo 2002; Bigo & Tsoukala 2008).

Kareem, an informant having travelled to Europe mainly for work, with only one rejection on his record
due to a misunderstanding with a document, talks about physical appearance at the embassy and mentions
being under the impression that –

... lots of people shave before they go, even the ones who are not religious or affiliated with
any religious parties or movements, they shave their beard. [...] I think this is responding to
the negative stereotypes that people have around religious Muslims and all of that. So this is
like a message from them to the embassy, like 'we are not those', 'don't worry, we are not
terrorists'.

I also ask him whether he has faced any experiences of racism or negative prejudice to which he replies:

I've never had any situation like this, but I have always had the fear of experiencing such a
situation and especially when I'm walking around in the European countries with a woman
with hijab, the fear grows bigger.

Kareem’s accounts illustrates a common experience and idea about prejudice and securitization of Arabs
and Muslims in general and in the encounter with the European visa system.

Analysing or ‘diagnosing’ forms of domination (here securitization and categorisation) by examining

forms of resistance and lack of resistance, as suggested by Abu-Lughod (1990), reveals experiences of
being reduced to securitized objects, subject to narrow stereotypical generalisations. Mariam, introduced
in chapter one shares her personal experiences concerning Arab and Muslim stereotypes:

it's really sad to feel like I have to prove that I am an innocent person for anyone or to prove
my religion or being an Arab, my origins and stuff to everyone else. And even that day [of
going to the embassy], I even dressed in a different manner. [...] I was like - I shouldn’t look

41
 too religious that day because I need them to feel like I am... I am a modest, I am a Muslim
girl and I know that and I'm not upset with this but to them I can sound very strict. Usually,
I wear stuff like this and that, I don’t have a certain style, I don’t wear Jilbab12. Sometimes
I wear skirts if I am in the mood, sometimes I wear long dresses if I am in the mood, and
sometimes I wear like short shirts, and that day, I chose my shortest shirt and my coolest
jeans, I guess, and I was wearing sneakers and stuff just like 'I'm such a normal kid, I'm not
too religious'. Because I was really worried that the way I look, like the way I dress is going
to give them more reasons to reject me.

Mariam’s account demonstrates a common fear of being subject to stereotypical conceptualisations

concerning Arabs and/or Muslims. Along the lines of Abu-Lughod (1990), in this case, Mariam does not
resist the experience of being subject to prejudice. However, her account of how she interprets her actions
does reveal the fear and the power relations in place concerning which actors are in a position to
categorize and to define security (Wæver & Buzan 1998). An additional example is Mohammad who
refuses to shave his beard although he is advised to do so with the implication that his physical appearance
could serve as grounds for refusal because his beard makes him look extra religious, extra Muslim. He
comments on friends of his advising him to shave:

My friends, because they have the assumption that because I look very Arab, I have a big
beard or whatever, so people will assume that... the wrong assumption, you know. Which is
very much objectifying and I always refuse to do that. [...] And people even like, when I
travel, they ask me to do so, and I was like “Hell no.” [...] I am never ever going to do that.
I'm not going to look like something else other than who I am.

Mohammad’s account of resistance tells us that there is a common narrative of securitization of (Arab)
Muslims, which applicants are aware of and also do not wish to support by giving in to the securitization
narrative. Those experiences and the applicants’ interpretations and reflections about securitization of
Arabs and (Arab) Muslims are inevitably connected to and influenced by a wider, global political
discourse and context securitizing Muslims and individuals from Arab countries, not only exercised in
immigration and visa policies. Applicants themselves take this into account and reflect upon their

12
A particular type of female Islamic dress in loose hanging fabric covering the entire body.

42
experiences in the light of a wider political context and negative public discourse. The following quote
from Mariam is an example hereof:

... you always hear about these hate things, you read comments, like awful comments about
Arabs and stuff and like you hear stories from your cousins living in the U.S. that people are
not very friendly to you. And because you also hear stories about how people are really…
really thinks that Arabs in general are terrorists, and this gives you the idea that you have to
prove to everyone that you're not a terrorist, you're a normal human being with the right to
choose the religion and who just comes from the Arab region and, like, I don’t know where
my felony is, I don’t know what I did wrong. It's just about the hate speech all over social
media and especially because also at the time we were travelling to Poland, we were
supposed to travel in 2017, there were these protests.

Feeling like one has to ensure proof that one is not “dangerous” or a “terrorist” posing a violent threat to
the Schengen Member States when going through the application process is yet again an example of how
some Jordanian applicants feel securitized and experience their unknown future to be unjustly anticipated
and “read as a past-future” (Bigo & Tsoukala 2008: 2). The point here is to illuminate individual and
shared experiences and narratives of securitization, not to suggest that there is evidence claiming a
systematic securitization among Jordanian, Arab, or Muslim Schengen visa applicants within the
European visa system. The research at hand is not qualified to do so. It does, however, offer important
qualitative empirical data highlighting experiences of unfair treatment, unjustified rulings, and the
construction of stereotypes and securitized identities.

Conclusion
This chapter has demonstrated that Jordanian applicants to the Schengen area experience feelings of
being humiliated, inferior, undermined, subject to mass categorisation and prejudice, and reduced to
securitized objects, ultimately resulting in a sense of their individual and self-perceived identity as being
questioned and challenged by the visa authorities. Coming into contact with ‘the Schengen state’,
applicants perceive themselves as entering a position inferior to and lower than how they themselves
understand their self and their position, which channels experiences of humiliation and unjust treatment.
Jordanian applicants to the Schengen area experience feelings of humiliation and inferiority on the basis

43
of being subject to what is interpreted as a particularly negative and demeaning treatment and attitude
exercised by the physically encountered agents of the state. Drawing on securitization theory, the chapter
has argued that applicants experience themselves as being reduced to securitized objects in the encounter
with the Schengen visa system. This is expressed through experiences of being subject to securitization
in the form of prejudice and mistrust based on one’s nationality and/or (presumed) religious affiliation
and on unjustified and illegitimate anticipations about one’s “past-future” (Bigo & Tsoukala 2008: 2), as
interpreted by the applicants. Furthermore, feeling like one has to ensure proof that one is not
“dangerous” or a “terrorist” posing a violent threat to the Schengen Member States when going through
the application process is yet again an example of how some Jordanian applicants feel securitized.
Applicants experience and understand themselves as being subject to the construction of particular
subjectivities, consequently feeling ‘partially’ and wrongly seen by the hazy, narrow gaze of the
authorities and hence miscategorized and misrecognized if recognized at all (Whyte 2011).

44
 Chapter III
Accounts of unlawful behaviour and contested moralities

Introduction
The present and final analytical chapter sheds light on experiences, conceptions, rumours and narratives
among applicants regarding practices of strategising about going through the Schengen visa application
process by applying certain, sometimes unlawful, approaches and measures, such as carefully choosing
a particular embassy to apply through, fabricating false documents or being untruthful in other ways. The
chapter aims to highlight known practices and narratives of unlawful behaviour and of strategising about
the application process and to discuss the mechanisms, rationales, and concerns associated with these
practices. The chapter takes in analytical outset in the study of morality and how applicants’ moral
compass is expressed and enacted in the meeting with the European visa system and how morality is
“conceive[d] of, negotiate[d], and practice[d]” (Zigon 2008: 3) in different cases.

Accounts of unlawful behaviour

The first time I encountered notions of this particular way of counter reacting to the Schengen visa
narrative of exclusion, uncertainty, and arbitrary rejections was at a private house party in December of
2018. Prior to this personal encounter, I had no knowledge of these practices of ‘cheating’ the visa
system, which I later learned were quite well-known among interviewed applicants. If not actual actions
of illegal behaviour, then common narratives concerning unlawful behaviour when navigating the visa
system and personal knowledge of visa applicants being untruthful in their application. At the house
party, I shared the topic of the idea for this thesis with a fellow party participant. The first thing he
mentioned was the fact that to his knowledge, ‘a lot of’ Schengen Visa applicants fabricate false
application documents, which is, in his perception, a rather common and well-known phenomenon.
However, I was personally quite sceptic about the frequency and awareness of this practice since it was
the first time I was made aware of it myself despite the fact that I, at the time, had spent nearly two years
in Jordan, often discussing the Schengen visa and other visa applications with friends and acquaintances.
Nevertheless, the topic reoccurred during the qualitative interviews and it became clear to me that it was

45
a narrative necessary to pay attention to and apply this particular spectacle to the research and investigate
the phenomenon further.

The following section illuminates practices of strategising about the application process and applying
illegal and untruthful methods as the empirical data uncovers. Applicants’ opinions and reflections about
why and which limitations, uncertainties, and mechanism paving the way for the described actions taken
are furthermore included, as well as implications of morality. As argued by Zigon (2008: 16), “moral
articulates”, i.e. ways of expressing notions of morality, and moral vocabulary come in various
expressions such as “in phrases or narratives”. During the interview with Ahmad, the banker and real
estate agent introduced in chapter one, he told me about someone from whom he had sought advice when
applying for the first time. As discussed in chapter one, Ahmad was of the perception that getting an
approval to one’s visa application was highly uncertain and wrought with obstacles. If he were refused a
visa, not only would he be disappointed, he would likewise lose all the money spent on applying, which
is why he thought to himself that it was necessary to seek assistance from someone with great experience
in the Schengen visa system. This someone was Tariq who I likewise interviewed, and whose case serves
to illuminate ways of cheating the system as well as thoughts and concerns related to those practices.
Tariq’s case is an example of a contesting perspective and behaviour regarding breaking the rules and
regulations. Tariq is a 38 year old Jordanian male. He has a bachelor degree in IT and has managed his
own IT company for several years, at the time of the interview. Traveling to Spain to watch an important
football match was his first experience with the Schengen visa system. Subsequently, he has applied for
Spain once again, then for Poland and twice for the Netherlands. Needless to say, he is experienced in
applying for a Schengen visa. What is more, he is likewise experienced in providing informal assistance
to anyone else wishing to apply for a variety of visas, including a Schengen visa. When doing so, Tariq
typically gives the following advice:

So many people they wanted to take a Schengen visa and my friends tell them to go ask me
what to do. For example, if you come to me and ask me, and this is the first time you want to
apply for a Schengen visa, I will tell you to go to the Spanish embassy and chose a date that
have a Clasico or another important [football] match. Really. Do this and there is a 90%
chance that you will get the visa. Just go and for example, there is Real Madrid vs. Barcelona,
you will get the visa. Choose a big match, not just a stupid match. Choose this date, and 90%

46
 of the times, you will get the visa. It is easy. And of course, you will need the same papers
saying you have good work, you have money, you have bank statement.

When advising potential applicants to apply for a Schengen visa via the Spanish embassy, i.e. by stating
that one will spend the majority of time in Spain, Tariq is implicating that this does not have to be the
reality. Rather, regardless of where and for how long one is intending to stay (although a maximum of
90 days), the safest thing is to pretend, get fake confirmed booking- and other documents, and follow the
advised steps provided by him. Then, once the visa is issued, there is, in most cases, no follow-up on the
applicant’s whereabouts and control of whether one actually spends the majority of time in the country
of applying. By stating that his plan is “90%” bullet proof, he is likewise stating that if one does
otherwise, there is less than a “90%” guarantee for approval of one’s application. Tariq explains further:

The majority of people ask me for example what to do if they want to go to France first. I tell
them, don't go to France. First, go to Spain. [...] Look. Schengen visa - if I want to go and
stay the majority of time in Spain, I have to apply in Spain. This is the right thing. But no.
There are no borders. So I can go… Everyone [I advise] until now [are saying], if this is the
first time I took visa, I have to enter from Spain airport. No you don't have to. You can book
your ticket through Greece. Why? Because it is cheap, It's normal. And after Greece, no one
knows exactly where you are. In Spain, Netherlands, Germany, nobody knows so you can go
everywhere. So if you will stay in two countries, for example Spain and Germany, even if you
write this, don't mention that you will stay in Germany more than Spain because they will
refuse your application, so don't mention it. Just… Just don't mention it. Just say you will go
to Spain, just Spain and say that you will stay there for two weeks. And then, stay one day in
Spain. You can do what you want. But many people are afraid to go from another airport
[than what they applied for], but I tell them it is normal, even single, multi, whatever. […]
They will not ask why you come here. It's normal. But the embassy told you that you have to
enter from our country, but it is not important.

Tariq’s visa ‘recipe’ is in his experience the most certain way to get a visa. In other words, lying and
providing false documentation, i.e. breaking the law, is perceived to be one; potentially a necessary
measure (and risk) to be taken in order to get a short term Schengen visa issued and two; in Tariq’s

47
perspective nothing out of the ordinary in the sense that he does not believe of it to pose a major risk to
the applicant or as being morally unacceptable. Implicit in Tariq’s standard model for applying is likewise
a perception that even trying to apply in the regular way one is supposed to, and in accordance with the
legal framework, is a waste of time. In this case, the rationale behind this practice originates from
concerns regarding time, planning, and general convenience. In other cases it is associated with financial
risks. In both cases, the intention is however to follow the rules and obtain what is required when actually
travelling. Thus, based on the empirical data at hand, when visa applicants do commit acts of illegality
in the application process, the intention is not to commit any unlawful activities such as overstaying one’s
visa and staying undocumented in the Schengen area or the like. However, Tariq’s case illustrates a
certain conception of morality in the interaction with the Schengen visa system, i.e. the ‘Schengen state’.
In his perspective, his actions of unlawful behaviour, including advising others to take up similar
practices of navigating the application process, are morally legitimate and justified. His ‘moral choices’
(Zigon 2008) are perceived as morally justified because they are based on an, according to Tariq, unfair,
illogic, “stupid” procedure, not treating him morally justifiable.

Contested, shifting moralities

In contrast to Tariq’s absence of moral qualms concerning breaking the law in order to what is perceived
as ensuring an approval of one’s visa application, there are cases such as Sara’s (introduced in chapter
one). As demonstrated in the previous chapters, it is a common belief that the application procedure is
unfair in several ways. And so does Sara believe. However, in comparison to Tariq’s way of
conceptualising what is morally accepted regarding bending and breaking the rules and regulations in
place, Sara’s moral standards does not perceive Tariq’s practices as morally justifiable although they
both agree that there is something wrong with the visa system. This is indicated, for instance, in the
following statement by Sara:

You have to be very transparent, like telling everything. Where you will be living. And some
people lie. They get a fake booking or something like this. I don't like to do this.

Sara does not ‘like’ lying. According to her morality in this context, lying about the circumstances of
one’s trip to Europe is morally ‘wrong’, which is echoed among other informants. Sara elaborates on
what constitutes her moral judgement, when she says:

48
 [...] if there is a law, I love to go through the law. I have this like right and thing…

What is implied here is that Sara’s moral compass reflects an acceptance and belief in a system of law
and common legal rights. Thus, although Sara is criticising the visa procedure, other dominating moral
standards stands in the way of contesting the system by breaking the laws and regulations implemented.
There is however also an expectation of moral reciprocity between applicant and immigration authorities,
i.e. the applicant believes that if s/he is truthful and loyal to the rules, the authorities should have no
reason to refuse the visa application and likewise see the applicant’s moral excellence and good
intentions. This might as well offer an explanation to why interviewed rejected applicants feel “shocked”,
puzzled, and “surprised” when receiving what in their perspective is a rejection on arbitrary and unfair
grounds.

Many other applicants’ moral views are in accordance with Sara’s. However, there is a tendency to
renegotiate one’s moral views based on one’s position in and experience with the visa system. Saif, a
rejected applicant introduced in the previous chapters, states the following:

If you apply all the correct documents and you don’t get a visa, definitely you have to go
through the back door and the other ways. So if I would ever apply again, I would go through
tourism visa or any other visa, but not through Germany.

Prior to the unexpected refusal of his visa application, Saif thought:

[W]hy should I go through back doors if I'm just going to visit my brother?

Malik, also rejected (several times), likewise states,

As you know, most of Arabs they start applying for Italy I guess, because it is much easier,
but I didn’t think like that because I hadn't done anything wrong, I was honest with them.

He is refraining from lying or applying via another embassy as a strategic choice in accordance with his
moral judgment in the given context. However, this moral judgment changes based on his experiences:

I was surprised. […] After that, I thought the Arabs are right, when they start applying for
countries much easier.

49
As Zigon (2008: 17) argues, morality is “continually shaped and reshaped as one has new and differing
life, that is, social experiences.” In the case of rejected applicants, or applicants addressing the rejection
of other applicants, the boundaries for what can be morally justified are pushed further towards Tariq’s
morality, meaning that cheating can be morally justified in the case of the applicant experiencing what
is believed to be unjustified treatment. Being refused one or multiple visas, applicants often feel locked
in that particular position, they feel unjustly treated while simultaneously feeling powerless in relation to
the visa system and regarding changing their position in relation to the Schengen state. Up until this
point, they have followed the rules, and if they continue to do so, likewise do they continue to be trapped
in the position of the forever rejected applicant. In this context, applicants express notions of shifting
moral standards and judgment.

The contrasting moralities implied here is likewise supporting the argument that morality is dynamic,
fluid, contextual, and individual. Also within the same societies or communities (Zigon 2008). It could
be argued that Tariq behaves immorally, which is true if you ask Sara, i.e. based on the judgement of
Tariq’s actions in accordance with Sara’s moral principles in this given situation. However, I argue that
this statement is normative and projects Sara’s moral codex and a “narrowly conceived view of morality”
onto Tariq’s actions and individual, situational morality. Likewise, as Zigon (2008: 15) drawing on Cook
(1999, referenced in Zigon 2008) argues, the motives behind one’s actions are what determine the
morality of the actions. Thus, it does not make sense to uncritically compare Sara and Tariq’s actions
and determine if any of them are behaving ‘less’ morally correct. From Tariq’s point of view, his actions
are justified because he is a victim of the bureaucracy and furthermore has no illegal or harmful intentions
(motives). He is acting out of what he believes to be fair (Zigon 2008: 14). Although Tariq’s case stands
out in terms of actually carrying out illegal practices and is not representative of the rest of the informants’
morality, he offers insights into a less studied phenomenon and reveals and uncovers irregular practices
of applying for a visa to the Schengen area, which to him is morally justified.

Conclusion
This chapter has demonstrated how there are cases of Jordanian Schengen visa applicants with the belief
that applying unlawful and illicit measures, such as document fraud, visa shopping, and telling lies are
measures necessary to be taken in order to reduce the uncertainty associated with applying for a visa to
the Schengen area. It has furthermore highlighted present moralities expressed among interviewed

50
applicants and how those moralities are justified, conceived of, and (re)negotiated in the specific context.
The chapter seeks to speak from applicants such as Tariq’s and rejected applicants’ point of view in
seeking to understand why it, in some cases, is seen as justified to break and bend the visa laws and
regulations. The experienced interactions with the visa authorities and the visa system itself, i.e. the
Schengen state, have the potential to shape and reshape the moral standards of applicants. This chapter
has demonstrated that illegal and illicit actions to some applicants are justified according to their
individual moral standards, which are constituted as a result of experiences of being subject to what they
perceive as unjustified and unfair procedures and treatment in the encounter with the Schengena
application process. Thus, in some cases, applicants apply their own moral compass for what is ‘right’
and ‘wrong’, which exists above the established laws and regulations, judging the ‘fairness’ and
legitimacy of the visa system and their own actions based on what can and cannot be justified according
to their personal morality. This demonstrated morality triumphs the existing legislation in place. The
illegal practices and narratives of those practices elucidated in the present chapter has furthermore offered
insight into potential reactions to the hardships and barriers faced as examined in the previous chapters.

51
 Conclusion

This paper has examined how the Schengen visa system, understood as a form of state, is experienced,
understood, and interpreted by Jordanian visa applicants. Through everyday encounters between visa
authorities and subjects, it has explored the imaginaries of the ‘Schengen state’ constituted in the process
of applying for a Schengen visa. It has furthermore examined subjectivities generated in the process and
how the subjects’ understanding of self is contested and negotiated when relating to the ‘Schengen state’.

As concluded in chapter one, the imageries of the state forged are one; the state as invisible to the
applicant and the applicant as invisible to the state and two: the state partially visible, and the subject
likewise, being only partially visible in the view of the state, subject to a narrow and selective-sighted
state creating fears of misrecognition. Applicants experience a lack of transparency in the Schengen visa
system and perceive ‘the Schengen state’ as mysterious, opaque, and devious. Consequently, Jordanian
applicants experience a profound uncertainty and unease when coming into contact with ‘the Schengen
state’. I argue that the mystery and uncertainty experienced is a product of the lack of transparency and
visibility experienced. ‘The Schengen state’ furthermore appears as corrupt, illicit, and potentially unable
to make just and informed assessments of visa applications, in the eyes of the applicants.

Chapter two has demonstrated that Jordanian applicants to the Schengen area experience feelings of
being humiliated, inferior, undermined, subject to mass categorisation and prejudice, and reduced to
securitized objects, ultimately resulting in a sense of their individual and self-perceived identity as being
questioned and challenged when interacting and relating to ‘the Schengen state’. Drawing on
securitization theory, the chapter argued that applicants experience themselves as being reduced to
securitized objects in the encounter with the Schengen visa system. This is expressed through experiences
of being subject to securitization in the form of prejudice and mistrust based on one’s nationality and/or
(presumed) religious affiliation and on unjustified and illegitimate anticipations about one’s “past-future”
(Bigo & Tsoukala 2008: 2), as interpreted by the applicants. Furthermore, interactions with the Schengen
visa system generate experiences of having to ensure proof that one is not “dangerous” or a “terrorist”
posing a violent threat to ‘the Schengen state’ when going through the application process. Applicants
experience and understand themselves as being subject to the construction of generalized, stereotypical

52
and securitized subjectivities, consequently feeling ‘partially’ and wrongly seen by the hazy, narrow gaze
of the authorities and hence miscategorized and misrecognized if recognized at all (Whyte 2011).

Chapter three has highlighted present moralities expressed among interviewed applicants and how those
moralities are justified, conceived of, and (re)negotiated in the everyday encounters with the ‘Schengen
state’. The experienced interactions with the visa authorities and the visa system itself, examined as a
form of state, have the potential to shape and reshape the moral standards of applicants. Thus, it concludes
that illegal and illicit actions are justified according to applicants’ individual moral standards, which are
constituted as a result of experiences of being subject to what they perceive as unjustified and unfair
procedures and treatment when relating to the ‘Schengen state’. The experienced interactions with the
‘Schengen state’ affects applicants moral compass for what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, which come to be
constructed as being above the established laws and regulations. The illegal and illicit practices and
narratives of those practices elucidated in the final chapter has furthermore offered insight into potential
reactions to the hardships and barriers faced as examined in all three chapters.

As demonstrated in the analysis of the empirical data, applying for a short stay Schengen visa with a
Jordanian passport is subject to a wide range of challenges and barriers in the perception of my
interlocutors. Those challenges inform the understandings my interlocutors have of the Schengen visa
system, what I have theorized as the Schengen state. The thesis argues that ‘the Schengen state’ is
constituted as opaque, devious and corrupt in the perspectives of Jordanian visa applicants and that they
as subjects of this state find themselves humiliated and their self-perceived identity to be contested. They
also interpret themselves as being reduced to securitized and dangerous agents just as their interactions
with this state threatens to corrupt their moral standards.

53
 Bibliography
Abu-Lughod, L. (1990)
The romance of resistance: tracing transformations of power through Bedouin women, American
Ethnologist, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 41-55

Agamben, G. (1998)
Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life, Stanford University Press, pp 1-15 and 119-144.

Andersson, R. (2014)
Time and the Migrant Other: European Border Controls and the Temporal Economics of Illegality,
American Anthropologist Vol. 116, No. 4, pp. 795–809

Baumann, Z. (1998)
On Glocalization: Globalization for some, localization for others, Thesis Eleven, Number 54, August
1998, pp. 37–49, SAGE Publications

Bigo, D. (2002)
Security and Immigration: Toward a Critique of the Governmentality of Unease, Alternatives 27 (2002),
Special Issue, 63 – 92

Bigo, D. & Tsoukala (2008)

Terror, insecurity and liberty illiberal practices of liberal regimes after 9/11, Routledge

Bryman, A. (2012)
Social Research Methods, 4th edition, Oxford University Press

Buzan, B.; Wæver, O.; de Wilde, J. (1998)

“Security Analysis: Conceptual Apparatus” in Buzan, B.; Wæver, O.; de Wilde, J. (1998): Security. A
New Framework for Analysis, Lynne Reinner

Collyer & de Haas (2012)

Developing Dynamic Categorisations of Transit Migration, Population, Space and Place, No. 18, pp. 468
– 481

Culic, I. (2010)
State of imagination: embodiments of immigration Canada, The Sociological Review, 58:3

Ersanh, K. & Şahn, E. (2015)

“Self-Perceived Identity Scale: A Scale Development Study” in American International Journal of Social
Science (Vol. 4, No. 6), Center for Promoting Ideas, USA

Friedman, J. (2002)
From roots to routes - Tropes for trippers, Anthropological Theory, Vol 2(1): 21–36, SAGE Publications

54
Gupta, A. (1995)
Blurred Boundaries: The Discourse of Corruption, the Culture of Politics, and the Imagined State,
American Ethnologist, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 375-402
Hastrup, K. (2010)
“Introduktion” in Hastrup (2010), Ind I verden. En grundbog i antropologisk metode, 2nd edition, Hans
Reitzels Forlag.

Holtug, N. (2011)
The Ethics of Immigration Policy, Nordic Journal of Migration Research, Vol. 1(1), pp. 4 – 12, Centre
for the Study of Equality and Multiculturalism, University of Copenhagen

Ismail, S. (2011)
Authoritarian Government, Neoliberalism and Everyday Civilities in Egypt, Third World Quarterly,
32:5, 845-862.
Kvale, S. (1996)
The Interview Situation. In Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing, London
SAGE
Infantino, F. (2019)
Schengen Visa Implementation and Transnational Policymaking. Bordering Europe, Pelgrave
Macmillan
Okwenje, B. (2019)
Visa applications: emotional tax and privileged passports, The London School of Economics and
Political Science
Rubow, C. (2010)
”Samtalen. Interview som deltagerobservation” in Hastrup (2010), Ind I verden. En grundbog i
antropologisk metode, 2nd edition, Hans Reitzels Forlag

Scott, J. (1990)
Domination and the Arts of Resistance - Hidden Transcripts, New Haven: Yale University Press
Taylor, C. (1994)
“The Politics of Recognition” in Gutmann, A. (1994) Multiculturalism, Princeton University Press
West, T.; Sanders, H. (2003)
Transparency and Conspiracy. Ethnographies of Suspicion in the New World Order, Duke University
Press Durham and London
Whyte, Z. (2011)
Enter the myopticon. Uncertain surveillance in the Danish asylum system, Anthropology Today Vol 27
No. 3

55
Zaiotti, R. (2011)
Cultures of Border Control: Schengen and the Revolution of European Frontiers, University of Chicago
Press
Zampagni, F. (2011)
A Visa for Schengen’s Europe. Consular Practices and Regular Migration from Senegal to Italy, CARIM
- Euro-Medetaranian Consortium for Applied Research on International Migration.
Zigon, J. (2008)
Morality – An Anthropological Perspective, Berg

Internet based sources

Jordan Tourism Board (30.12.2019): Visas To Jordan:

http://international.visitjordan.com/page/4/VisasToJordan.aspx

The European Commission (14.11.2019): Border Crossing:

https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-and-visas/border-crossing_en

The European Commission (14.11.2019): Visa Policy:

https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-and-visas/visa-policy_en

Royal Norwegian Embassy Amman (2019): Checklist – Visitor’s Visas to Norway, Denmark, Finland or
Iceland: https://www.norway.no/contentassets/0860b5d1471141b3950793e4c531789e/visa-and-residence-
permits/checklist---jor-and-irq.pdf

Netherlands Visa Application Center (used Dec. 2019): Checklist for visa application – Tourism:
https://www.vfsglobal.com/netherlands/jordan/pdf/Checklist-Tourist-Visa.pdf

EU Legislation

ANNEX to the Commission Implementing Decision amending Commission Decision No C(2010)

1620 final of 19 March 2010 establishing the Handbook for the processing of visa applications and the
modifictaion of issued visas: https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/what-we-
do/policies/borders-and-visas/visa-policy/docs/20140709_visa_code_handbook_consolidated_en.pdf

56
COMMISSION DECISION of 11.6.2010 establishing the Handbook for the organisation of visa
sections and local Schengen cooperation: https://ec.europa.eu/homeaffairs/sites/home-
affairs/files/pdf/policies/borders/docs/c_2010_3667_en.pdf

CONVENTION IMPLEMENTING THE SCHENGEN AGREEMENT of 14 June 1985

REGULATION (EC) No 810/2009 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code)

REGULATION (EU) 2018/1806 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of

14 November 2018 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when
crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement

57