Constructions of ‘the ageless’ asylum seekers: An analysis of how age is understood among professionals working within the norwegian immigration authorities

Abstract

This article explores how professionals within the Norwegian immigration authorities conceptualise age when doing non‐medical age assessments. By using social constructivism, which challenges an ethnocentric quantifying understanding of age, we delve into how socially constructed perceptions of childhood and adulthood manifest in assessment practices and the implications of these. By examining how applicants’ physical appearance, body language and life experience are used as an assessment basis, we argue that the ways age is conceptualised relate to Western ideas and ideals while overlooking other social and cultural backgrounds in which age is embedded.

Age Assessment: Polish Practice and International Standards

“…The same applies to other than chronological ways of dating birth. 70 For these reasons, the most appropriate approach seems to be to combine non-medical and medical examinations and make a comprehensive assessment of the child's physical and psychological development. 71 The method of conducting the examination itself should be consistent with the rules of objectivity, independence, and professionalism.…”

Advancing children’s geographies through ‘grey areas’ of age and childhood

“…For example, as the table details, the ageless brings up contexts of displacement and refugeeism when accompanied minors may not have documents to prove their 'age' thus placing them in a precarious 'ageless' space (Sørsveen & Ursin 2020). Similarly, concepts like Yo-yoisation and Pinball Youth (Cuzzocrea, 2020;Ferreira, 2020)…”

“…For example, as the table details, the ageless brings up contexts of displacement and refugeeism when accompanied minors may not have documents to prove their ‘age’ thus placing them in a precarious ‘ageless’ space (Sørsveen & Ursin 2020). Similarly, concepts like Yo‐yoisation and Pinball Youth (Cuzzocrea, 2020; Ferreira, 2020) problematizes uni‐directional life course transitions from young people choosing to move in and out of certain LCTs like relationships, living arrangements, and certain educational opportunities during later life course stages which challenges Eurocentric conceptualization of ‘normal transitions’ based on chronological age.…”

“…To support this advancement further, nuances of age throughout this review are examined from liminal spaces of, age as a grey area. This approaches age through geographical conceptualizations that frame transitions across or being in, life course categories such as, young people‐in‐transition (Shubin & Lemke, 2020), ‘the ageless’ (Sørsveen & Ursin, 2020); the unchildlike child (Burton, 2019); childhood through the margins (Sarmento et al., 2018); the limit figure of childhood (Brown, 2011; Ruddick, 2003), which all complicates measuring age numerically. Additionally, grey areas in this review are approached from the framing of how the subfield of Children’s Geographies' theoretical experiences of ‘in‐betweenness’ with other (sub)disciplines, can be used towards further decolonizing Eurocentric age‐based research.…”