Migration, subjectivity and identity: navigating power, agency and discourse in interviews with asylum seekers

1 Introduction

The aim of this paper is to explore the intricate interplay of power, agency and discourse both within interview settings and broader public and academic discourse and narratives and how it shapes, constrains and enables asylum seekers’ agency in the (re)construction of their subjectivities and identities.^[1]

I do so by the analysis of research interviews with Mamadou and Oumar (pseudonyms), two male Malian asylum seekers. The methodology employed consists of linguistic ethnography within migrants’ temporary reception centers in the north-west of Italy (2020-present), including participant observation, audio-recorded semi-structured and narrative interviews and casual conversations.

This study adopts a dual theoretical framework, integrating Judith Butler’s concept of performativity with positioning theory to analyze how Mamadou and Oumar resist, navigate and (re)construct the identity categories ascribed to them by migration regimes, bureaucratic apparatuses, media representations and academic discourse. By employing this approach, the analysis foregrounds the dynamic and situated nature of subjectivity and identity (re)construction, emphasizing how external socio-political structures intersect with the power relations and micro-dynamics of the interview setting to shape these processes.

In public discourse, asylum seekers are often portrayed in polarized ways: either as vulnerable individuals fleeing persecution and deserving of compassion, or as potential threats to national security, fueling xenophobic attitudes and justifying restrictive immigration policies (Holmes and Castañeda 2016). This duality is also debated in academic research, where asylum seekers are often discussed either in terms of vulnerability or in relation to security concerns. While much of the academic literature predominantly emphasizes the victimization of asylum seekers, some scholars critically analyze how they have been framed as security risks in public and policy discourse. Huysmans (2006), for instance, explores how migration has been increasingly linked to security agendas, highlighting the political and societal mechanisms that construct asylum seekers as potential threats. Rather than endorsing this perspective, such research sheds light on the processes that contribute to these securitized narratives. Similarly, Innes (2010) examines how such representations emerge within specific political and media contexts. These critical analyses demonstrate that while the victimization discourse is more prevalent in academic discussions, the securitization of asylum seekers remains a significant subject of inquiry. In addition, Innes (2010) critiques how political discourse further stigmatize refugees and asylum seekers by portraying them as dangerous and destabilizing, contributing to their marginalization. On the other hand, Rajaram (2002) focus on the “victimization” narrative, which predominates in both academic literature and humanitarian discourse. In this view, Ticktin (2011) argues that the humanitarian focus on bodily suffering legitimizes interventions but reduces asylum seekers to subjects of care, stripping them of political agency. Furthermore, Malkki (1996) claims that humanitarian organizations frequently portray asylum seekers as helpless victims in need of assistance, which can foster dependence on aid and diminish their sense of agency. Thus, this vulnerability-centered discourse tends to categorize asylum seekers as passive victims, reliant on humanitarian aid or state protection, reducing them to an essentialized identity marked by pain, vulnerability and powerlessness. In these simplified discourse and narratives, asylum seekers are depicted as passive figures, defined by suffering and trauma, rather than as active agents in their own right. Therefore, while dominant discourse and narratives may simplify or stigmatize asylum seekers, it is crucial to adopt more inclusive approaches that recognize their capacity for agency and their active role in shaping their own subjectivities and identities (Fiddian-Qasmiyeh 2016).

Previous research on language and asylum has provided valuable insights into how power, agency and identity are negotiated in interviews during the asylum procedure to proclaim who is and is not eligible for international protection, highlighting how language functions both as a tool of control and as a means of resistance (Baynham 2006). Within these contexts, asylum seekers are often compelled to present their narratives in ways that conform to rigid legal frameworks and linguistic norms imposed by the state or adjudicating authorities. Their experiences are often reshaped to fit pre-established legal categories, which tend to oversimplify their complex, nuanced experiences. As a result, asylum seekers must adapt their narratives to meet bureaucratic criteria that determine credibility, persecution and asylum status. Despite this, as Baynham (2006) argue, asylum seekers demonstrate significant agency by strategically adapting their stories to meet expectations. By doing so, they contest and navigate these institutional constraints, thereby challenging the oversimplified threat-victim dichotomy.

This study aligns with prior research on language and asylum, exploring how asylum seekers assert their agency within research interviews, in which they navigate, influence and resist the constraints imposed by interactional and discursive frameworks, constructing alternative forms of recognition via performative-positioning acts.

Within this framework, I examine the performative and positioning aspects of Mamadou and Oumar’s subjectivity and identity, focusing on the interplay between power, agency and discourse. This analysis is informed by Butler’s concept of performativity (1993; 1997; 1999) and positioning theories (Davies and Harré 1990). The integration of performativity and positioning approaches offers a cohesive framework to analyze the intricacies of asylum seekers’ subjectivities and identities construction. Although both approaches have distinct theoretical foundations and focal points, they complement each other by addressing interconnected aspects of subjectivity and identity formation during interactions.

Performativity conceptualizes subjectivity and identity as continuous processes shaped by repeated acts and behaviors within frameworks of power, social norms and agency, where constraints also allow for the (re)construction of subjectivities and identities. Positioning theory, on the other hand, focuses on how identities are constructed through interactions, emphasizing how individuals and groups position themselves and others within social roles, ideological frameworks and power structures.

From this dual perspective, the relationship between power and agency is crucial for understanding how Mamadou and Oumar negotiate meaning, assert control and resist dominant Discourse and narratives, showing how agency can emerge even within the constraints of power relations and social norms.

This paper is organized as follows: first, I explore the relationship of the theories of performativity and positioning and how they relate to one another around central ideas on discourse, power and agency. Next, I provide background information on context and participants as well as data and methodological premises of this study. In the next sections, I move to empirical analysis of data and present conclusions.

2 From norms to negotiation: the relational making of identity

The perspectives of performativity and positioning examine how subjectivity and identity are constructed through encounters and interactions. They both reject essentialist views of subjectivity and identity, defining them as discursive and relational constructs.

In her early work, Butler (1999) contends that subjectivity and identity, particularly gender identity, does not pre-exist its enactment but is instead constituted through performative acts – identity emerges in “the doing”. These acts are not merely individual choices; they are shaped by broader societal norms, power dynamics and dominant discourse (Butler 1997). For Butler, subjectivity and identity are not the expression of a pre-existing self but are continuously (re)constructed through the reiteration of norms, acts and behaviors to achieve social recognizability (Butler 1993: 95).

This anti-essentialist critique carries profound implications for the concept of agency. Butler situates agency within the very norms that regulate subjectivity and identity, illustrating that it emerges through unintended variations or “slippages” in the process of repetition (Butler 1999: 185). As she explains, agency is not about rejecting norms but about the capacity to transform them through their reiteration: “the task is not whether to repeat, but how to repeat” (Butler 1999: 189). By reworking these norms, individuals can challenge dominant social expectations – those practices that shape how people are expected to behave, identify or relate to others – thereby opening spaces for transformative change.

Agency and power, therefore, are deeply interconnected. Drawing on Foucault’s insight that resistance operates within power’s framework (Foucault 1978: 95), Butler argues that agency arises through power itself. Individuals navigate and contest the norms that define them, revealing how power not only constrains but also enables transformative possibilities (Butler 2005: 17).

Over time, Butler’s conceptualization of performative agency has undergone significant development. In her later work, she incorporates an ethical and relational dimension to subjectivity and identity, foregrounding its formation through encounters with the “concrete other.” Butler argues that subjectivity should be understood within a network of relational dynamics shaped not only by power but also by proximity and ethical responsibility (Butler 2007, as cited in Shams 2020: 29).

Positioning theory provides a complementary yet distinct lens for examining the construction of subjectivity and identity. Initially developed by Davies and Harré (1990) and later expanded by Harré and van Langenhove (1999), positioning theory suggests that individuals assume, assign, or contest positions within discursive interactions. These positions are not static but are dynamically negotiated and continually redefined within specific social and relational contexts. As Harré et al. (2009: 6) observe, positioning is an ongoing process, enabling individuals to renegotiate their roles in response to others and their environment. This highlights the fluid and ever-evolving nature of subjectivity and identity.

Like Butler, positioning theory underscores the central role of power in subjectivity and identity construction. Harré and Moghaddam (2003: 5) argue that the ability to assume or challenge a position is shaped by power relations and by what is considered socially acceptable or possible. Power, therefore, influences the availability of positions within a given context and defines the boundaries of discursive action.

Positioning theory, however, places greater focus on a more explicit and intentional form of agency. Individuals are not merely constrained by the discursive frameworks they occupy; they can actively assign, contest, or redefine positions within interactions. As Harré and Slocum (2003) note, agency is expressed through the capacity to renegotiate the social meanings and roles embedded in discursive exchanges.

The relational dimension of identity is a central principle of positioning theory. Davies and Harré (1990) argue that identities are formed reciprocally through interactions, as individuals position themselves and others within discourse. This process reveals the dialogical nature of meaning-making in real-time interactions, drawing attention to the situated aspects of subjectivity and identity negotiation within concrete social contexts. While Butler’s later work emphasizes ethical relationality – an approach that considers subjectivity and identity as shaped by encounters with and responsibilities toward the “other” – positioning theory maintains its focus on the immediate and practical negotiation of identity, prioritizing the dynamic interplay of discourse in shaping who we are within specific interactions.

Overall, Butler’s concept of performativity and positioning theory align in their treatment of power and agency within interactive contexts. Both frameworks recognize the interplay between power and agency as central to subjectivity and identity (re)construction. For Butler, agency emerges through the iterative resignification of norms, acts and behaviors, while positioning theory emphasizes the immediacy of agency within the interactional scene. In other words, Butler situates transformation in the broader resignification of norms, acts and behaviors over time, while positioning theory highlights localized redefinitions of roles and identities within specific interactions.

Moreover, relationality is another central pillar of both approaches, though framed differently. In Butler’s later work, relationality is tied to ethical responsibility and the individual’s dependence on norms, reflecting the broader structural and ethical dimensions of subjectivity and identity. Positioning theory, by contrast, foregrounds dialogical relationality, focusing on how subjectivities and identities are co-constructed in specific interactions.

To conclude, these complementary perspectives highlight how subjectivity and identity are shaped not only by larger societal norms and forces but also through the dynamic interplay of interpersonal exchanges. With this framework in mind, I now move to discuss the context and participants involved in the study.

3 Context and participants

Italy has historically served as a principal gateway for migrants seeking to enter Europe via the Mediterranean. The reception and governance of migrants in Italy are characterized by frequent adaptations due to the ever-changing dynamics of global migration patterns. Consequently, statistical data concerning migrant presence in the country is subject to constant revision. As of March 2023, 111,928 migrants had arrived in Italy, marking a substantial increase of 79,658 individuals compared to the corresponding period in 2022 (Openpolis 2023). The intricacies of migratory flows to Italy are shaped by a confluence of international political and socio-economic factors, local policy frameworks and evolving national legislation.

In recent years, Italian immigration policy has undergone a marked transition toward a security-centric orientation, primarily aimed at curbing irregular migration. This shift has been manifested in the enactment of laws and policies designed to strengthen border controls, impose stricter conditions on asylum procedures and reduce the approval rate of asylum claims. Among the most notable examples of this trend are the legislative reforms introduced since 2018, which have prioritized the regulation of migratory flows and the enhancement of national security. A significant outcome of these reforms has been the closure of numerous secondary accommodation facilities under the SPAR system (Protection System for Refugees and Asylum Seekers), which formerly provided essential support services and facilitated the integration of migrants.

The impact of these policies shapes the lived experiences of migrants. To explore these realities, this study focuses on interviews with two asylum seekers, Mamadou and Oumar (pseudonyms), both originally from Bamako, the capital of Mali. Their migration to Europe was spurred by the violence that erupted following the 2012 Malian coup d’état. Mamadou and Oumar undertook a perilous journey from Mali to Italy, traversing some of the most dangerous migratory routes used by West and Central African migrants. They began their journey in Bamako, choosing the northern route through Algeria to Libya, which involved the grueling desert crossing from Bamako to Tamanrasset. Their journey was further exacerbated by long periods of forced immobility in desolate, makeshift camps, where survival was reduced to meeting basic needs, such as eating, drinking and sleeping. The harshest experiences occurred during their detention in Libya, where physical and moral degradation reached its peak.

Eventually, Mamadou and Oumar managed to secure a passage to Europe. Departing from the Libyan coast near Tripoli, they braved the Mediterranean Sea, risking their lives to reach Italy. Upon arrival, they spent one and one and a half years, respectively, in temporary reception centers in northwestern Italy. During this period, both were granted residence permits on humanitarian grounds, allowing them to transition to more stable accommodation within family host homes for asylum seekers and refugees.

Their participation in this research was not straightforward, however. Temporary reception centers are difficult to access due to the vulnerability of the people living there, restrictive laws governing Italy’s reception system and the added complications of the COVID-19 pandemic. These challenges required me to adopt a flexible approach, using snowball sampling to reach participants through their social networks. Snowball sampling is especially effective when working with marginalized groups, who might be distrustful of institutions or difficult to identify using traditional methods (Atkinson and Flint 2001).

Mamadou and Oumar described their motivations for participating in the research as an opportunity to reflect critically on their migration trajectories and experiences, as well as the challenges they encountered. For them, participation was not merely about recounting their stories but about confronting and articulating the deeper social, political and personal dimensions of migration. They emphasized the need to move beyond superficial narratives, highlighting the complex realities that compel individuals to leave their homes. By sharing their stories, they aimed to challenge prevailing stereotypes and contribute to a more informed and empathetic discourse on asylum seekers, refugees and migration.

4 Data and method

The data in this paper come from an ongoing research project (2020–present) that explores the communicative practices, subjectivity and identity of asylum seekers and refugees. The focus is on the dynamics of forced mobility and immobility within temporary reception centers in northwestern Italy.

The project uses an ethnographic, qualitative approach, combining different research tools to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter. These include participant observation, field notes and audio recordings of both semi-structured, focus group and narrative interviews.

The dataset includes 10 individual interviews, three focus group discussions and conversations between participants and staff, such as cultural mediators. Furthermore, 6 h of audio recordings provide insight into informal, spontaneous conversations among asylum seekers, refugees and the operators and volunteers within these settings.

This study centers around two semi-structured interviews I conducted with Mamadou and Oumar. Interviews were conducted at my university office. Choosing to hold the interviews in an academic setting was not ideal but was dictated by practical concerns – privacy protocols, security measures and bureaucratic challenges often made it difficult to meet participants in their everyday environments. The university provided a space that was professional but also comfortable: we sat side by side at a desk, with a recording device placed between us, and I took brief, discreet notes to supplement the recordings. These notes helped me capture key moments during the conversation.

While the academic setting addressed these logistical hurdles, it also came with its own challenges. The formal nature of the environment introduced a sense of hierarchy that could have affected participants’ comfort or authenticity. To counter this, I structured the interviews to feel more conversational. I avoided academic jargon, validated the participants’ lived experiences and began with informal exchanges to build trust and rapport.

The two interviews, each lasting approximately an hour and a half, were conducted using a semi-structured format and audio-recorded with participant consent, adhering to established ethical standards.

They were transcribed verbatim to capture linguistic nuances, pauses and non-verbal elements, preserving the authenticity of the participants’ narratives. The transcripts were also translated into English by the researcher (me) to ensure accessibility for analysis, while striving to retain the original meaning and nuances of the participants’ expressions.

The interviews were conducted in Italian. At the time the research was carried out Mamadou and Oumar had received formal education, including Italian language courses offered at temporary reception centers, so both informants had acquired basic literacy skills in Italian. During our first meeting, I introduced myself in Italian and asked Mamadou and Oumar which language they preferred for our conversations. They chose Italian, explaining that it had become the main language of their daily routines and interactions.

5 Analysis

In this analysis, I examine key Excerpts from two semi-structured interviews with Mamadou and Oumar to explore how they (re)articulate their subjectivities and identities through performative-positioning acts. These acts are understood as iterative and relational practices through which norms and Discourse – conceived as dynamic structures of meaning shaped by power and agency – are continually reproduced, challenged and potentially transformed. The focus highlights the interplay between the reiterative force of normative frameworks and the contingent possibilities of performative agency.

The first Excerpt (1) I present is from a semi-structured interview with Mamadou (M), in which I (R) invite him to share his personal story and migratory journey from Mali to Italy (line 1). For individuals who have experienced displacement, dispossession, or trauma, the question “who are you?” can be particularly sensitive when asked in public settings, as it invites them to reflect on their identity while vulnerable to the scrutiny of others (Chouliaraki 2006; Eastmond 2007; Krause 2017). Yet, Mamadou responds to this invitation with a remarkable sense of confidence and responsibility (lines 2–3). As we shall see, Mamadou positions himself publicly as a knowledgeable and morally grounded individual by emphasizing key themes of individual coherence, responsibility and public action throughout the interview.

The flexible and dialogical nature of the interview format played a significant role in enabling Mamadou to construct and articulate this image of himself. As already observed, approaching interviews as co-constructed interactions, where both the researcher and participants actively shape the conversation, allowed Mamadou greater agency in deciding what to share and how to present himself. By invoking his surname and its connection to Mali’s cultural and political legacy, Mamadou articulates himself as part of a broader symbolic and normative frameworks of his familial, national and cultural heritage (lines 4–5).

On the other hand, Mamadou contrasts this strong sense of historical and cultural identity with those who, in his view, due to their lack of awareness and historical knowledge, have fallen into an identity crisis and lost touch with their cultural roots (line 5). By establishing himself as superior to those he critiques, Mamadou not only reinforces his own sense of agency but also reclaims authority over his narrative. This performative act allows him to position himself as a custodian of cultural and historical integrity, constructing his identity in opposition to those who forgot who they are (line 6).

At this point of the interview (Excerpt 2), I ask Mamadou about language use in Mali to further investigate his connection to cultural heritage. Mamadou’s legacy to Malian cultural lineage is evident in his emphasis on the Bambara language and its deep roots in Malian history. For Mamadou, Bambara serves as a symbolic resource, connecting to broader cultural values such as belonging and historical continuity (line 2).

Mamadou’s reference to Bambara is reinforced by his recounting of an encounter with an Ivorian asylum seeker who: “said he only spoke French/that Ivorians speak French ((laughs))” (lines 4–5). The choice ‘to speak French only’ is portrayed by Mamadou as a disconnection from a shared and original cultural and linguistic heritage (line 3–4), rooted in a lack of historical awareness about the colonial legacies embedded in the use of French (line 5). For Mamadou, by reinventing themselves as speakers of French, Ivorians risk losing their connection to their cultural roots and identity. The only way to recover, he argues “is to articulate the language you spoke before” (lines 6).

Mamadou’s call to speak Bambara highlights his agency in redefining (re)signifying linguistic heritage as a symbol of authenticity and belonging, illustrating how identity is negotiated through cultural and linguistic resources.

Further in the interview (Excerpt 3), I asked Mamadou about relationships within temporary reception centers (line 1). This allowed Mamadou to reconsider the concepts of coherence, responsibility and public action within both detention camps in Libya and temporary reception centers in Italy (Excerpt 4), as manifested through acts of solidarity and moral leadership, intersecting with his relational positioning as a figure of authority and compassion (lines 2–3).

Mamadou’s ethical and relational performative acts within detention camps in Libya enable him to construct an image of himself as a leader and a morally responsible figure, who acts ethically both for himself and for others (line 4). Rather than portraying himself as a passive subject of systemic violence, his narrative emphasizes his role as an active agent capable of fostering moments of solidarity. Through these acts, Mamadou not only redefines the social dynamics of the camp but also exercises his agency through performative-positioning acts of compassion and leadership (lines 5–6).

Through his acts of care and solidarity, Mamadou’s account challenges the systemic violence inherent in detention camps while simultaneously reinforcing his self-positioning as a moral guide, capable of offering solidarity and leadership in constraining contexts. His narrative constructs an agentive identity that resists victimization and instead foregrounds his ethical engagement and responsibility within precarious settings.

Mamadou’s sense of responsibility and leadership extends to the reception centers in Italy (line 6), where he assumes the role of a spokesperson for his fellow migrants (line 7). For Mamadou, the ability to act is framed as a contextually embedded process of social, ethical, and moral engagement that requires both accountability and relationality. Morality, in his self-representation, is inherently relational; he recognizes the impact of his actions on others and holds himself accountable for his behavior (line 8). His decision to accept the responsibility of being a spokesperson not only highlights his sense of agency but also underscores his ability to navigate complex social and bureaucratic structures on behalf of others, positioning himself as both an advocate and a leader within the migrant community.

Mamadou’s responses in the interview reflect how performativity and positioning work together to shape subjectivity and identity. Performativity establishes the cultural and normative structures that inform Mamadou’s actions, grounding his identity in historical and linguistic continuity. At the same time, positioning demonstrates his active negotiation of roles and relationships within these structures, turning constraints into possibilities for agency. This combined perspective shows how Mamadou affirms his cultural roots while adopting leadership roles in contexts of forced immobility (De Fina and Mazzaferro 2021). Through this process, he redefines his subjectivity and identity as both (re)shaped by external norms through individual actions, navigating the complexities of dislocation, advocacy and moral responsibility.

I now proceed to analyze Excerpts from a semi-structured interview conducted with Oumar

The question of gender identity emerges as a central theme in the opening of this interview with Oumar. In Excerpt 4, Oumar (O) responds to my (R) invitation to explain the reasons behind his decision to leave Mali (line 1) by situating his account within general norms and practices related to child-rearing and gender roles prevalent in Malian society. Oumar’s response draws on broader cultural frameworks, grounding his explanation in dominant gender norms and practices as well as widely recognized social and cultural expectations within Malian society. As the eldest male child in a family of eight in Bamako, he describes the significant pressures and responsabilities placed upon him regarding male responsibility and duty (lines 3–4). This statement underscores the societal pressures he faced to embody the cultural ideal of masculinity.

His decision to leave Mali is intricately intertwined with the societal framework of gender norms and practices which dictate the criteria for being recognized as a man highlighting his vulnerability and dependency to norms and Discourse of masculinity and femininity beyond his control (lines 4–6). This deviation from the expected gender norms caused Oumar to be labeled as gay by his peers, a label that carried heavy social stigma in his community (line 6), highlighting how non-conformity to gender norms and practices contributed to social exclusion and marginalization.

As testified in Excerpt 5, the creation of the ghetto represents the prerequisite for agency or the possibility to resist gendered discrimination and stigma (line 1). The ghetto is not only a means of asserting control over his self-perception and protecting himself from societal judgment but an inclusive and relational space with its own ethical and moral norms, such as friendship, loyalty, and mutual support (line 3).

By forming the gang, Oumar not only ensured his physical safety but also reclaimed a sense of self and belonging in a context of marginalization and stigma. Agency here is understood as the capacity to create meaning, negotiate identity and establish relational ties that challenge the dominant social order.

The creation of the gang, therefore, is both a practical and symbolic response to the constraints of his environment. It functions as a space of comfort and safety in which Oumar can be recognized by others, bringing himself back into the realm of intelligibility and reclaim his masculinity through the iteration of norms, behaviors and acts, which (re)align him to the social order.

The Bambara language plays a central role in Oumar’s construction of subjectivity and identity both within and outside the ghetto. In the opening of Excerpt 6, I ask Oumar about the languages used within the ghetto (line 1). Oumar replies that the gang has its own language, “inverted Bambara” (line 2), a form of slang in which words are spoken and/or spelled backward and through which the members of the gang develop a sense of sameness and belonging as well as autonomy and separation from the outside world.

Inverted Bambara serves to mark the boundary between in-group and out-group membership, distancing the members of the gang from mainstream culture and society (lines 2–3). Oumar and the rest of the gang are who they are also because of the way they talk (Cameron 1997: 49).

However, like Mamadou, Oumar’s subjectivity and identity is rooted in Malian languages and cultures. For Oumar, the former colonial language, French, represents a threat to his cultural identity and heritage intertwined with colonial legacies and axes of power inequalities such as education and social class (line 6).

Oumar’s stance toward French is reinforced by discrediting Ivorian people for pretending to pass as French speakers (lines 4–5). For Oumar, Ivorian people desire to speak French makes them culturally and linguistically unintelligible to other: “because people commonly don’t speak French” (lines 5–6).

This evaluative argument concludes with Oumar engaging in parody and linguistic mimicry imitating and exaggerating Ivorians’ speech patterns and accents reclaiming ownership over the French language. Oumar calls Ivorians “sboroni” (PDE ‘boaster, bragger’), an Italian obscene regional lexical item, which is used to metaphorically stigmatize people and behaviors related to ineptitude and vainglory (lines 8–9). His parody and mimicry have the performative power to (re)signify dominant discourse on French language, highlighting a sense of estrangement and disconnection from shared linguistic and cultural heritage with Malians.

Oumar’s antagonist use of we/them pronouns serves to carve an identity which is both built on distinction from Ivorian people and intertwined with the desire for recognition and legitimacy. As already observed, subjectivity and identity are inherently relational, as they rely on comparison and differentiation.

For Oumar, preserving his original linguistic and cultural background represents a powerful assertion of performative agency. Reclaiming agency over dominant discourse can serve as a means of maintaining a sense of belonging, continuity and connection to his cultural roots amidst the challenges of displacement experiences, reducing asylum seekers to mere statistics or threats.

To sum up, by challenging dominant gender discourse and practices, Oumar navigates societal constraints and asserts agency. While performativity anchors his identity within the cultural and gendered expectations of Malian society, his positioning demonstrates how he actively negotiates and redefines these limitations. The creation of the gang serves both as a practical and symbolic act, allowing Oumar to establish a space for belonging and recognition in the face of social stigma. This act illustrates his capacity to challenge imposed labels and reshape his identity through relational ties and ethical norms within the gang. Like Mamadou, Oumar asserts leadership, transforming a site of marginalization into a space of resistance and self-determination.

6 Conclusions

In this article, I have examined how asylum seekers navigate the complex interplay of power, agency and discourse in constructing their subjectivities and identities, focusing on the context of research interviews. Drawing on a performativity-positioning framework, I have integrated Judith Butler’s concept of performativity with positioning approaches to offer a nuanced understanding of how subjectivities and identities are (re)constructed. This dual focus has illustrated how performative acts and positioning strategies enable Mamadou and Oumar to contest and renegotiate identity categories imposed by dominant discourse, as well as to challenge the power dynamics inherent in the interview context. I have argued that, despite significant structural constraints, asylum seekers demonstrate meaningful agency by transforming existing norms and creating new spaces for recognition. Through an analysis of interviews, I have shown how Mamadou and Oumar strategically draw on cultural and linguistic resources to perform an agentive identity that challenges dominant narratives surrounding asylum seekers.

This analysis highlights how agency can emerge even within the confines of power structures. By foregrounding the interplay between performativity and positioning, this research emphasizes the importance of viewing asylum seekers not as passive subjects but as active agents engaged in the ongoing (re)construction of their subjectivities and identities. This perspective challenges reductive narratives and sheds light on the dynamic processes through which power, discourse, and agency intersect in the lived experiences of asylum seekers.