Goyal, Yogita, “We Are All Migrants”: The refugee Novel and the Claims of Universalism, Johns Hopkins University Press, Vol. 66, No. 2, Summer 2020, pp. 239-259 (Article)
“In this essay, I draw on Said’s meditations on exile to critique Mohsin Hamid’s representation of the migrant as a universal figure in his acclaimed 2017 novel Exit West” (Goyal).
Yogita Goyal hopes to persuade the reader that Mosin Homid’s novel Exit West portrays modern immigration issues from an unrealistic perspective tying the argument back to Said’s argument that everyone faces movement and exile in life, thus immigration policies must be treated as such.
Goyal begins his article defining exile, migrant and refugee. He argues that exile is something everyone will face in life starting at birth. He uses Viet Thanh Nguyen’s writing to build credibility in this section. A migrant is someone who has had the privilege to enter a country legally in search of a new life. A refugee is someone who desperately flees their country due to war or natural disaster. Goyal claims that these three terms are ill defined in Exit West leading to generalized arguments as to how peaceful immigration can be portrayed. He then answers why he considers himself a refugee metaphorically not able to fit into American life and asks does the distinction between refugee and migrant change the historical context of immigration studies. (239-243).
Goyal adds historical context the story, discussing the slave trade sourcing the writing of Andrew Morrison, who connects the enslaved people of Americas problems to those are victimized to Xenophobia present day. Goyal claims that Homid uses his fictional elements to eliminate the historical context from the discussion of immigration. He claims that so called “foreigners” will always be treated poorly be nativists no matter the extent. (243-245)
Goyal continues with a lengthy summary of Exit West, pointing out the subtle details that blow the immigration story out of proportion. He starts by claiming that Exit West tends to generalize the migration experience to an optimal case scenario that takes away from the problems migrants face. He backs this claim up with rhetoric from Jia Tolentino. He uncovers writing from Benedict Anderson, writing that the use of the hidden stories from others around the world add an interesting element to the story showing how the world keeps moving no matter what happens. (245 and 250)
He then adds in areas of the novel in which he agrees with, such as Moving place to place being a human right linked to freedom of expression. He then analyses what Homid does well with his writing in general, speaking to his how to get filthy rich in Asia novel. He claims Homid has a way of sucking the reader into his topic helping in the retention on his reads. He claims that he targets greedy western readers to inform them of the world. He then speaks to Homid’s parallelism between the magic doors and phones, and praises how he connects decolonization with a progressive modern world. (245-249)
Goyal continues his list of reasons as to why he wishes to counter Homid’s novel by claiming how taking away the causes of war and conflict takes away from the legitimacy of his underlying beliefs. With writing from Lynn hunt to back him up, who states that the lack of diplomatic cause and effect takes away the concept of how war and change are inevitabilities in life, taking away from the realism of the book and glorifying the migration prosses. He goes on to argue the Homid should have done a deep dive into Islamic culture rather than adding a magic element to the book. He concludes the article by summing up how Homid polarizes the immigration issue by separating people into “refugees” or “nativists” when we should be looking at everyone as migrants through time and understand how the media radicalizes these issues(249-258)
Fine work, especially when you examine the way Goyal builds on other writers like Nguyen and Toni Morrison (not Andrew!). But you misunderstand Said when you paraphrase the thesis as building on “Said’s argument that everyone faces movement and exile in life, thus immigration policies must be treated as such.” Said does say the exile is a figure for our time, but he also warns against exalting the exile as a heroic figure when actually migrants face violence, exclusion, and rejection. Goyal is more interested in the warning that we shouldn’t too readily generalize the exile/migrant condition.
P.S. If you don’t know an author’s gender, look them up or use “they.” Goyal is a woman.
You don’t just write — you craft experiences. And this one left me quietly moved and deeply grateful.