‘Global talent’ or ‘labour migrant’?—Discursive noise and the strategic organization of difference in the competition state

Abstract

This article explores how migrant categorizations are (re)produced across distinct discursive terrains in public spheres and in the academic fields of migration studies and management and organization studies. It illustrates state-economy entanglements through the emergence of novel migrant labels, such as ‘global talent’, within the empirical context of Copenhagen, Denmark, and at a European scale. The findings suggest that the use and enactment of distinct categorizations in public discourse organizes social difference strategically: performative speech acts ascribe symbolic capital and status to foreign newcomers who are of economic value to the nation state, while not granting this privilege to others. Thereby, the ideological and discursive infusion of a human capital rationale into the state’s migration regime and at supra-national instances supports not only processes of Othering, but produces ontological effects. The use of certain designations in specific situations, such as ‘global talent’ in a mayor’s welcome address or ‘expat’ in housing adverts, seems inappropriate and unsettling. To grasp the fragmentation, accumulation and disturbing repetition of labels across distinct discursive spheres, the author introduces the concept of ‘discursive noise’. The denser the discursive assemblage becomes, and the more congruent categorizations across distinct spheres seem to be, the less perceptible underlying ambiguities are. The idea of discursive noise upholds that the repetition and circulation of consistent, yet conceptually incoherent migrant designations across commercial and political spheres is deliberate and strategically intended. Discursive noise conceals ideological underpinnings of migrant triage whilst backing politico-economic goals of the competition state.

Introduction

Migration, as a theme, has matured within and beyond the boundaries of the designated field of ‘migration studies’ and is thereby subjected to a multiplicity of disciplinary and paradigmatic specificities (Pisarevskaya et al. 2020), where researchers maintain their research focus and terminologies, whilst often neglecting complementary perspectives from neighbouring fields (Beck 2023). As Osseiran and Nimer (2024) demonstrate through the example of refugee labour, the study and articulation of phenomena through a monolithic lens favours certain political stances while disregarding alternatives. Nonetheless, disjointed and at times inconsistent analytical categories of ‘migrants’ and cognate terms circulate within and across distinct academic study fields, like migration studies and management and organization studies. Stielike et al. (2024) refer, for example, to a crisis of knowledge categories in migration studies. Moreover, categories of analysis that are used in academic scholarship might align with taxonomies in policymaking or business administration at times, but still, they often remain distinct from every-day discourse of laypeople (Božič, Klvaňová and Jaworsky 2023), distinct from so-called categories of practice (Bourdieu 1977; Brubaker and Cooper 2000).  As will be demonstrated, the fluctuation of meanings and the array of categories that occur in the context of labour migration across distinct discursive fields are revelatory. They generate what I suggest depicting as ‘discursive noise’: a term that highlights the ambiguity of ascribed labels and the disturbance they produce.

Certainly, understanding designations, such as ‘labour migrant’ and ‘global talent’, necessitates to grasp mutually constitutive processes of meaning-making. It furher calls for societal analysis (Maurice and Sorge 2000) and an ecosystem perspective, which can only be presaged and partially developed in the present article, in addition to, for example, structuralist ecosystem analyses on EU level, as conducted by Dodevska (2024) and others. The present study suggests that the ambiguity of categorizations manifests due to intertwined political and economic interests in so-called ‘receiving’ nation states; speech acts of labelling disclose intentions of employers, industry federations, and capital cities, that is, a myriad of actors who take part in cultivating the grand narrative of the ‘competition state’, a term coined by Cerny (1997). As social theory indicates, social actors consciously and non-consciously ascribe labels to others and to themselves. Scholars have demonstrated, for example, how meanings evolve according to social roles and interactions (Goffman 1990) and how representations circulate and fluctuate across social fields (Brubaker and Cooper 2000). As Vertovec (2021) summarizes, ‘representations’ are one out of three domains, which, together with ‘configurations’ and ‘encounters’ are constitutive for the ‘social organization of difference’. In this vein, the chosen pragmatist research approach of the here presented study allows a multi-scalar exploration of speech acts, and thereby illustrates the very phenomenon of a discursive, strategic organization of difference in the ‘competition state’.

My interest in the representation and categorization of migrants in the city of Copenhagen, Denmark, where I relocated to in 2018, was sparked by personal everyday observations, in situ, that is, from the standpoint of a ‘newcomer’, a ‘labour migrant’ an ‘international mover’—each of these designations might apply, depending on the meaning one seeks to convey. Vignettes from this specific local context illustrate in section three, how distinct labels are performed through speech acts in public discourse, across a variety of ‘discursive terrains’ (Butler 2015). What do these utterances reveal in the current context of labour migration, at this point in time? What does the increasing fragmentation and inflation of deployed migrant labels suggest? As a global mobility researcher in the field of management studies, how do these labels resonate with me when being designated in certain ways? Upon my arrival in Denmark, the occurrence of various labels in my daily life was intriguing. It added to the prevailing suspicion of inconsistent migrant classifications, which arose when discussing with peers from other disciplinary backgrounds during a joint research project. The observed occurence of management jargon such as ‘expatriate’ in housing adverts or ‘global talent’ in local political discourse suggests how economic and political spheres are not only discursively interwoven, but in fact increasingly entangled. This indicates that state affairs, that is, migration policies, are infused by a human capital logic, and that actors of the migration industry, for example, real estate agents mirror and reinforce the spatial segregation of residents according to their presumed migratory and employment status.

The present study is further motivated by the observation that text and public discourse, in general, operate as ‘vital sources of power’ (Alvesson 2002: 140) and that the discursive use of labels can serve the purpose of federating or dividing citizens, thereby operating as an alienating force to which individuals are subjected (Sonnis-Bell 2019). Nonetheless, few studies examine how specific migrant labels operate in context, how they transcend the broader public and popular discourse, and how they function in practice, beyond academic taxonomies (Beck 2018; Crawley and Skleparis 2018; Kunz 2020; Božič, Klvaňová and Jaworsky 2023). The ‘reflexive turn’ in migration studies, which has emerged over the past decade (Bojadžijev and Römhild 2014; Nieswand and Drotbohm, 2014; Horvath, Amelina and Peters 2017), as well as critical stances in human resource management studies, elucidate how underlying ideological positions are mirrored and symbolically conveyed through migrant categories of analysis (Guo and Al Ariss 2015; Crowley-Henry, O’ Connor and Al Ariss 2018). Migration scholars emphasize, for example, the polysemy, the elusiveness, and fluctuation of the term ‘migrant’ and its cognates in society (Kunz 2020; Dahinden, Fischer and Menet 2021; Gueye 2023), whilst few management scholars still claim the need for ‘business specific’ terms. McNulty and Brewster (2017), for example, insist on the distinctiveness of the term ‘business expatriate’, rather than accepting the IOM (2019) taxonomy that suggests the terms ‘business migrant’ or ‘short-term labour migrant’. In turn, critical management scholars have been calling for a more conscious and socially responsible use of potentially discriminatory categories such as ‘skilled migrants’ (Guo and Al Ariss 2015) and they critically review the academic use of categories, such as ‘self-initiated expatriate’ or ‘non-traditional expatriate’, and invite to consider more dynamic, less essentializing designations of humans on the move (Guttormsen 2018; Ozkazanc-Pan 2019; Martel 2022). Hence, scholars from both study fields demonstrate awareness about the ideological underpinnings of migrant labels. However, this debate rarely exceeds the boundaries of each study field and barely any conceptual interconnections are jointly addressed by management scholars and migration scholars together. Therefore, with the help of the present article, I advocate for the importance of fostering a post-disciplinary dialogue across both academic fields, and wish to nurture a common, critical debate for future theorizing and for an ever-deeper comprehension.

In the following section, I introduce the context of nation-states, which compete for the attraction of a highly qualified foreign workforce. Section two then reviews reflexive and critical approaches in migration studies and management studies, before presenting the research approach of problematization and pragmatist inquiry. The empirical findings in section three unveil the performativity of speech acts. They exemplify how discursively ascribed categorizations contribute to the construction of social hierarchies, and how the systematic circulation of terms such as ‘global talent’ nurtures attendant narratives. These and other findings provide grounds for the discussion in section four, which outlines the legitimization of human capitalist jargon in public discourse. The initial observation of migrant label inconsistency in academic analysis appears to be replicated in public discourse and is surpassed by a growing sense of disturbance and inappropriateness. This leads me to introduce and discuss the term ‘discursive noise’ in an attempt to pinpoint that seemingly fragmented speech acts constitute an assemblage of discourse that conceals ambiguities and underlying ideologies.

1. Context: the emergence of macro-level ‘talent management’

Employing organizations have been competing for skilled and highly skilled employees for many years, claiming the scarcity of ‘talent’. Since the early 2000s, strategy and management consultants, as well as business universities and management scholars, have been fostering the expression ‘war for talent’ (Michaels, Handfield-Jones and Axelrod 2001). The idea that employers need to ‘combat’ for ‘talent’ at a global scale has become a taken for granted assumption in the business world and the growing influence of international and multinational corporations has accelerated global workforce mobility globally (Mazzella 2016). Moreover, favourable governmental policies and multilateral agreements in the European Union (EU) or in the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), for example, attribute the privilege of geographic mobility to citizens and encourage labour force mobility across national borders. Beyond regional programmes the International Labour Organization (ILO) and International Organization for Migration (IOM) encourage temporary labour migration on a supra-national scale and the OECD policy report ‘Indicators for Talent Attractiveness’ (2019, 2013) claims to provide insights on which countries ‘provide the best talents’ to the ‘global labour market’. As these examples indicate, the competition for a qualified workforce exceeds the concerns of human resource managers in organizations. ‘Talent attraction’ has become a buzzword and a macro-level concern. Consequently, the demand for so-called foreign labour is favouring functionalist and contributionist classifications of migrants, which means that migrants are categorized according to their economic contribution to the ‘receiving’ nation state, as well as according to their potential to be granted membership as a citizen (Triadafilopoulos 2013).

Hence, one can state that contemporary migration regimes support the positioning of the nation state as competitive entity in the ‘war for talent’. The competition for foreign investments, as well as for the attraction of a qualified foreign workforce, manifest in an assemblage that Cerny and others designate as ‘the competition state’ (Cerny 1997). When investigating the notion of the competition state in the case of Denmark and Norway, Angell and Mordhorst (2015) recognize the nationalist orientations of ‘nation branding’ initiatives and affirm that these ‘move nationalism out of its traditional political, cultural, and ideological field and into the domain of global competition for prosperity—that is, into a commercial field’ (Angell and Mordhorst 2015: 186; emphasis added). Indeed, ‘nation branding’ initiatives (Anholt 1998) with a global reach and activities to enhance ‘national image reputation’ (Fan 2010) have been in place for more than twenty years in Nordic countries (Cassinger, Gyimóthy and Lucarelli 2021). These initiatives increasingly include so-called ‘talent attraction campaigns’ for cities and regions, as reports from private agencies like Future Place Leadership (2023, e.g. International Talent Map) exemplify. National governments, industry confederations and private-public consortia, for example Copenhagen Capacity (CopCap), have gotten increasingly involved in branding their countries and cities with the aim to attract international professionals’ attention. Moreover, private European business schools have provided country rankings since 2013: the Global Talent Competitiveness Index (INSEAD) and the Global Talent Ranking (IMD Lausanne) evaluate and promote the attractiveness of nation states for ‘global talent’.

In addition to the European Union’s Bluecard directive, the EU visa scheme for highly qualified migrants from third countries, numerous national initiatives co-exist and aim at attracting a foreign workforce. However, instead of designating the candidates for these schemes as highly qualified professionals, workers or migrants, the label ‘talent’ is omnipresent in regional and national initiatives such as ‘competent and talented’ (France, 2006), ‘passeport talent’ (France, 2016), ‘talent boost’ (Finland, 2020), or ‘SpAIn Talent’ (Spain, 2023). Surprisingly, programs like the one titled ‘Supporting Denmark to integrate and attract global talent’, which was funded by the European Commission’s Technical Support Instrument programme (2021–2024), do not only establish the term ‘global talent’ in macro level public discourse. This specific programme renders the intertwinement of regional, national and private economic and political interests most tangible. Recently, multi-scalar closely intertwined state-economy relationships, which involve private consortia, nation states and supranational institutions were made very explicit. As the highlighed terms in the related press release (IOM, May 15th, 2024) demonstrate, supranational and state affairs are systematically infused with management jargon, such as ‘talent retention’, talent mangement’ or ‘global competition for talent’:

Today, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) presented key recommendations for improving talent retention in Denmark, Germany, and other European Union (EU) Member States to public and private stakeholders involved in talent management. Amid global competition for talent, IOM, in partnership with Copenhagen Capacity (CopCap) and the European Commission, is encouraging the expansion of existing intra-EU mobility initiatives for talent from abroad and the scale-up of best practices on social inclusion and retention. ‘Enhancing the integration and social inclusion of skilled workers is essential for a dynamic economy. Our recommendations target a broad spectrum of stakeholders such as national authorities, municipalities, companies, and more,’ said Barbara Rijks, IOM Chief of Mission in Denmark. (IOM 2024, emphasis added)

All whilst accountability for attracting foreign labour is transposed from corporate businesses and cities to state institutions and to international organizations, academic discourse mirrors and seemingly supports this shift: ‘Denmark’s competitive strength depends on its ability to attract and develop human capital’, as Minbaeva et al. (2019) claim. Over the past years management scholars deliberately associate the notion of ‘talent management’ with the country level, with the nation state: ‘The book serves as a guide that orients the reader toward activities that increase their country’s global competitiveness, attractiveness, and economic development through strategic talent management’ (Vaiman et al. 2018: iii). These and numerous other examples illustrate how nation states’ involvement in migrant triage, that is, in the selective attraction of a foreign workforce, is discursively legitimized. Public spending is deployed to attract so-called ‘top talent’ from abroad, which implies that the state acts as a ‘quasi-enterprise association’, to use Cerny’s term (1997). The proliferation of human capital jargon, such as the flattering label ‘global talent’, dissimulates political and economic goals through a common, generic language. It indicates the ever-closer intertwinement of private economic interests and migration policies. Hence, as illustrated, performative speech acts in reports and scholarship support the utilitarian triage of migrants discursively when designating those who possess needed skills and qualifications as ‘global talent’. The term ‘global talent’ attributes merit and deservingness to labour migrants, acccording to the conventions of the competition state.

2. Research approach: reflexivity and problematization across study fields

2.1 Connecting reflexive migration studies and critical management studies

At times, conceptual lenses in academic research tend to reproduce predominant worldviews of studied milieus. In migration studies, academic jargon frequently mirrors categorizations that are coined by policymakers, whilst management and organization studies tend to adopt terminologies that derive from private sector organizations and the business world. Scholars have questioned and critically assessed mutually constitutive categorizations in academic knowledge production and policymaking (Bakewell 2008), for example, when elucidating how the use of analytical categories contributes to stigmatization, to the reproduction of power relations and to the maintenance of neocolonial assumptions (Schinkel 2018; Dahinden, Fischer and Menet 2021; Cranston and Duplan 2023). Still, Dahinden and colleagues insist that ‘how categorization works remains vague and undertheorized’ (2021: 537). Several calls for a more reflexive, that is, a de-centred application of categorizations in different study fields, go along with the observation that formerly class-centred designations and related emancipative efforts have shifted towards culturalized and individualized categorizations, for example, regarding the migrant/native dialectic (Romani, Zanoni and Holck 2021). As migrants within the ‘national container’ are understood as an ‘anomaly’, diversity research and social science investigations, in general, suppose that the label ‘migrant’ signifies ‘difference’ (Dahinden 2016). Therefore, the reflexive use of categories of analysis in academia and an effort of ‘de-migranticization’ are, as Dahinden (2016) suggests, crucial in order to detach academic research from nation-state interests.

In the context of contemporary migratory, diverse societies, management and organization scholars investigate ‘the imbalances of power and implicit assumptions’ that are conveyed through dominant discourse (Mahadevan and Kilian-Yasin 2017: 1157). They point to the importance of considering a multi-scalar lens regarding categorizations and invite to reflect on prevalent assumptions (Al Ariss and Syed 2011; Ghorashi and Sabelis 2013; Mahadevan and Kilian-Yasin 2017). In fact, the use of categorizations in the literature of Human Resource Management (HRM) reveals a historical construction of beliefs (Bevort, Darmer and Muhr 2018), as Inkson (2008) illustrates with the provocative question ‘Are Humans Resources?’. Critical scholars support the fluctuating nature of categorizations and are outspoken against essentialism in academic analysis, whilst drawing attention to underlying ideologies, inequalities, and relations of power; they call for considering historical and structural dynamics more systematically (Tatli and Özbilgin 2012; Zanoni et al. 2010). Scholars observe, for example, that the term ‘migrant’, as opposed to ‘self-initiated expatriate’, is applied ‘when discussing the work experience of unskilled individuals, having less educated backgrounds, and originating from less-developed countries’ (Al Ariss and Crowley-Henry 2013: 28). Others point to the need of accounting for the high diversity of underlying sociological profiles and life courses of those gathered under one single category, such as ‘expatriate’ (Beck 2018; McPhail et al. 2012), and emphasize the importance of semantics, the multi-faceted nature of global mobility situations (Martel 2022) and the politico-historical background of categorizations (Espahangizi 2022). Moreover, researchers confirm that ethnicity, racialization and stereotyping come into play when distinguishing ‘migrants’ from ‘expatriates’, which reveals social hierarchies and a lack of inclusiveness (Bell, Kwesiga and Berry 2010; Cranston 2017; Kunz 2020).

In line with Connell’s (2018) call for ‘decolonizing sociology’, this article shall nurture future conversations between the fields of migration studies and management and organization studies. Indeed, according to Favell (2007), an ongoing political and historical problematization of terminologies in the mobility and migration nexus can contribute to a theoretical renewal and to a post-disciplinary perspective. Raising awareness about politically contested categories has been an object of analysis in the social sciences, in general, and in migration studies more specifically (Brubaker 2013; Dahinden 2016; Löhr 2022). In line with these efforts, I suggest that the consideration of underlying economic reasoning and private sector logic, addressed in management studies, is crucial when problematizing migrant labels, when apprehending their meaning in globalized labour markets. The condensed review of scholarly debates in this article, combined with exemplary speech acts in a local context in section three, show that migrant categorizations are often based on assumptions which are rarely made explicit. This encourages to further problematize typologies along a continuum where ‘in-house assumptions form one end and field assumptions the other end’ (Alvesson and Sandberg 2011: 255). As the problematization of migrant categories will show, discursively conveyed difference is based on individuals’ presumed economic and symbolic capital. Hence, the here presented approach of problematization allows to reveal what Derrida (1972) calls violent hierarchies, that is hierarchies that constitute and are constituted by processes of othering: ‘In a classical philosophical opposition we are not dealing with the peaceful coexistence of a vis-à-vis, but rather with a violent hierarchy. One of the two terms governs the other (axiologically, logically, etc.), or has the upper hand’ (1972: 56).

2.2 Problematizing the discursive ascription of categories

Inspired by Foucault’s understanding of problematization, this article contributes to a broader ongoing, iterative process of scholarly reflexivity and critical studies through problematization across study fields and disciplines. Foucault states that the responses to the process of problematization are factions of objects, types of formulations, concepts, and theoretical options that are deployed in institutions, in techniques, in individual and collective behavioural conduct, in political operations, literature, scientific undertaking, as well as in theoretical speculations (1968: 751, own translation).¹ Moreover, I suggest understanding problematization as being not simply a method, but an object of study in itself (de Salies 2013). This allows for complementary methods, such as discourse analysis and pragmatist data generation in section three, to serve the purpose of problematization. Rather than solely focusing on exhaustively debated definitions or static boundary conditions of analytical, conceptual migrant categories, this approach allows the investigation of how and under which circumstances conceptual or novel categories occur in practice. In this sense, it enables us to ‘perceive the lines of fragility, to identify where the strengths are situated and where power is anchored’ (Foucault 1975:1627, cited by de Salies 2013). However, the problematization of ascribed migrant labels in the ‘competition state’, as is undertaken on an illustrative scale in this article, will never be exhaustive or completed because meanings are situationally and individually constituted and manifestations of labels dynamically transcend time, space, and social fields. Exemplifying and problematizing discursive practice does in fine allow for deconstruction because, as Derrida emphasizes (referred to by Butler 2010), only when one or several of the reiterations of discourses fail to perform, deconstruction of the term becomes possible.

In line with critical management scholarship, I further suggest understanding labels as ‘organizing devices’ that contribute to forming groups and denoting connections (Alvesson and Kärreman 2011). As Maurice and Sorge (Maurice and Sorge 2000) put forward through the approach of societal analysis, jargon that wanders from one domain to another, reveals relationalities between seemingly distinct spaces, for example, from the organizational space (corporate employers) to the political space (a city mayor’s discourse) to the commercial space (the housing rental market). Moreover, the following empirical inquiry demonstrates how the ‘researcher-mover-newcomer’ lens can be leveraged in line with Schütz’s ‘sociology of common sense’, that is, with the goal to initiate reflexive research in the mobilities and migration nexus. Rather than describing the density of daily life, Schütz (1953) adopts an approach of ‘scientistic sociology’, where the common sense of daily life is subverted and replaced with scientific attitude when exploring ‘life worlds’ of intersubjectivity and individual experience (Heeren 1970). Dewey likewise emphasizes the advantages that an insider viewpoint enjoys when he suggests ‘for scientific inquiry always start from things of the environment experienced in our everyday life, with things we see, handle, use, enjoy and suffer from’ (1929: 103). When observing the social world as researchers and when something suddenly affects us as a person, when moving to an unfamiliar place, the marginal position of ‘the stranger’ challenges our world views and amplifies our reflexivity, as Schütz (1944) discerns. Bewilderment and perplexity, sparked by everyday events, invite us to reflect on academic assumptions in a postdisciplinary way, in a way that ‘surpasses the boundaries of disciplinary thinking and opens up the possibility to question established phenomena that we take for granted’ (Pernecky, Munar and Wheeller 2016: 390), which goes beyond patterns of thought and allows us to think anew the field into which migration discourse is embedded (Siouti et al. 2022).

In the empirical case presented, the researcher’s position as mobility researcher, paired with lived experience as newcomer in Denmark nurtures a marginal, observatory insider-outsider position that makes a pragmatist, hypersensitive research approach an adequate choice (Carling, Erdal and Ezzati 2014). In such a situation the researcher is, as Sereke (2024) suggests, an ’insider Other’. In the present case, I suggest that the author’s ’pre-understanding’ (Alvesson and Sandberg 2022) of mobility in management studies constitutes a methodological resource. However, the limitation of this perspective is the researcher’s privileged position as a member of a visible white majority in the local context, as a highly qualified EU citizen able to freely move across inner-EU borders. Consequently, the sample of examined speech acts (in English language) that the researcher encounters is limited to her social sphere of interaction. Moreover, the presented sample is not meant to be exhaustive or representative of all labels that circulate in the given context. Rather, it is understood as a collage of visuals and utterances to which a non-Danish-speaking international knowledge worker is exposed to when settling in Copenhagen. This collage shows a high degree of fragmentation regarding ascribed labels and is meant to further prompt the reader’s reflexivity beyond the interpretation presented in this paper. The fact that many of the speech acts felt disturbing and alienating to me, the author, and to others, as will be exposed, leads us to discuss how labels resonate when superposing and seemingly competing against one another across discursive terrains.

3. In situ problematization of labels—a collage

3.1 ‘Expats only’ - how experiencing everyday labelling sparks reflexivity

My motivation to investigate the labelling of foreign workers in context was triggered by casual observations made as a foreign newcomer and flat seeker in Copenhagen in 2018.² Following recommendations from other international colleagues, I initially relied on housing listings on English-written websites³. To my surprise, multiple adverts were very explicit as to the type of profile as desirable tenant. Claims (see Supplementary Appendix 2) such as ‘The best view in Copenhagen—only for expats’, ‘Nice villa in Gentofte—for expats’, ‘Expats only, with no residence requirement’ or simply ‘Expats only’ made me wonder: who is meant by ‘expat’, who is targeted with these housing offers? Up-scale pricing, time limited rental periods (24–36 months) and precisions such as ‘only rented to international customers’ imply that the adverts aim at those who relocate to Denmark for a limited time, assumingly for a professional position and who are possibly supported by a housing allowance provided by the employer. Undoubtably, expensive rentals and three-month deposits allow for self-selection, I thought. I wondered if Danish citizens could rent such a flat if so inclined and happened to land on one of these websites exclusively written in English. Is it even legal to discriminate against and exclude those who do not fall into the ‘international customer’ category? Regarding my flat-hunting, was I eligible, even though I merely have a local contract with a local employer, without any housing allowance or other ‘expatriation benefits’?

When visiting some of these apartments, desperate to find a place to live, I learnt that it did not matter whether I had a valid local working contract or a minimum salary, as nobody ever asked me for proof. The piece of vital information that seemed sufficient to enter the pool of potential candidates, was that I worked for the local, prestigious business university. Being a European mover, a woman in her early forties, with white skin like the local majority, might have been part of the argument as well. To conclude the deal, however, one would need to accept the most uncommon financial conditions and upfront payments and would need to sign a time-limited rental agreement. This sparked my reflexivity: ‘Why do I feel uncomfortable with the idea of having to fit into the ‘international’ or ‘expat’ category, when being offered an apartment in this city? Shouldn’t it feel uplifting to be perceived as a high-status foreigner, a high net-worth individual?’ These adverts and associated rental practices affected me as a newcomer in this city, and the initial confusion transformed into a researcher’s curiosity on the workings of these labels. How can commercial speech acts convey a sense of segregation and exclusion? At a later stage, once I was already sensitive to the topic of labelling, I came across another situation that led me to pursue my exploration of the representations of foreign workers in the local context of Copenhagen. In reaction to a housing offer shared by an international colleague via email with a group of 400+ international staff members, I read the reaction of an upset recipient. The offer stated:

‘A potential home for expats, who are eager to explore the Danish Capital from within and live in a spacious and classic property. This apartment will allow you to enjoy all the nice restaurants, shops etc of Frederiksberg and Copenhagen. […]’

Within six minutes, a colleague replied to all:

‘Can I please be removed from any communication about unimportant and narrow-visioned things like luxury for (a minority of privileged) expats? Thank you.’

Whereas some of the following comments classified this reaction as harsh and angry, others were supportive:

‘[…] when the Assistant Professor salaries are what they are, announcing a rental property aimed at international staff, that costs almost as much as one month’s salary, is bound to offend some people.’

As this ordinary conversation shows, it is not the designation ‘expat’ that affects people and upsets them as such, but the category in a commercial context (relating to luxury goods and the tone of the advert), as well as the symbolic and economic status that it conveys within a specific economic and structural setting (the tense housing market and increasingly expensive and often unaffordable rents in Copenhagen). The reactions exemplify that the label ‘expat’ combined with a high rental does not systematically resonate with all highly qualified foreigners (here: academics). Instead, it apparently creates anger, is perceived as offensive by those who do not identify as expat, nor with the ‘minority of privileged expats’. It unveils a (possibly prevalent) frustration, triggered by a socio-economic situation (highly qualified academic on an ‘Assistant Professor salary’), which does not allow renting the up-market apartment as advertised. Despite the prestige and high symbolic status associated with a university professorship, there is a disconnect with the individual’s financial means. I wondered, ‘How would other lower-income workers be affected by such exclusive adverts?’ Available economic means might determine whether migrants and refugees from different backgrounds feel eligible. Stereotypical and essentializing categorizations of foreigners as, for example, ‘expats’ may indeed be disturbing when triggering feelings of non-belonging or exclusion. Above all, these everyday observations were a starting point for exploring and further problematizing the discursive organization of social hierarchies, beyond the common binarism of local/foreigner or native/migrant.

The confusion provoked through these and similar situations has stayed with me since my arrival in Copenhagen. The bewilderment has been further reinforced during episodes where anti-immigration laws⁴ and hostile political announcements against immigrants were re-iterated in the media and in political speech. In December 2018, for example, whilst I was searching for a flat in Copenhagen, the right-wing Danish government announced a highly symbolic measure. Media related: ‘Denmark plans to isolate “unwanted” migrants on remote island’. A photo of the island in question is followed by the explanation that ‘Denmark’s government struck a deal to move “unwanted” migrants to a remote uninhabited island once used for contagious animals.’ (CNN, Dec. 6^th, 2018; see Supplementary Appendix 1 and 2). Simultaneously, glossy nation branding campaigns advocated the country’s lifestyle and shared Denmark’s urgent need for ‘global talent’ and a webpage of the Confederation of Danish Industry titled ‘A stronger Denmark with Highly Skilled International Employees’ and invites members to ‘ensure that Denmark is an attractive country for highly qualified foreign employees to live, work and study’. The stark contrast that lays in the distinction of ‘unwanted migrants’ on one side and wanted ‘highly qualified foreign employees’ and ‘global talents’ on the other side, felt unsettling and disturbing to me and maybe to others. It appears that the coexistence of opposing migrant categorizations and different conducts towards migrant sub-groups can spark alienation and dissonance when observed through the eyes of the foreigner, the ‘stranger’, the newcomer.

3.2 ‘We need you!’—discursive dissonance in situ

The overview in Table 1 shows labels to designate labour migrants that were used in the English-speaking press and in public communications in Copenhagen (see Supplementary Appendix for detailed accounts and visuals). These samples not only exemplify the economic and work-related organization of migrant difference through discourse, but also focus on skills, qualifications, and above all ‘talent’. The commercial space within the migration industry, such as real-estate adverts, is associated with a high purchasing power for international customers and presupposes temporary settlement when ascribing the label ‘expat’ (Table 1.B). Similarly, salary levels determine who is labelled as ‘top talent’ by employer confederations (Table 1.D). The Academy of Technical Sciences states, for example, that they ‘understand international talent as highly qualified employees who are typically eligible for a residence permit in Denmark on the [legally defined] Pay Limit scheme, that is, ‘persons who have been offered a job in Denmark with a salary of at least 400,000 DKK/54,000 EUR per year’ (ATV 2019). This definition illustrates the close intertwinement between the demand for qualified labour in organizations and the national immigration regime (‘pay limit scheme’). It emphasizes an individual’s potential to accumulate economic capital as underlying labelling criterion, rather than skill level, education or other relational criteria. Both, up-market housing adverts and pay level criteria, introduce a class-centred perspective that contributes to the organization of difference amongst migrants and within the labour pool in general.

The meaning of the term ‘global talent’ is constructed as the representation of an elite type of migrant. These and similar classifications exclude all foreign individuals without corresponding skill levels, pay levels or work permits (e.g. refugees). Furthermore, the label ‘expat’ supports the assumption of temporary stays of ‘international customers’ and excludes local citizens and of those who envisage long-term settlement (beyond 24 or 36 months). Property managers explain to homeowners who wish to rent out their homes that ‘many consider foreigners as good tenants’, as they often move to Denmark for a specific work assignment hence short and determined duration (shorter period due to work), and then return. ‘We typically experience that an expat stays in Denmark between 12 months and 3 years’ (homeconnector.dk; see Table 1, B.2). These and other stereotypical perceptions and stigmatizing descriptions of ‘expat’ tenants are formulated in Danish language, not in English. In sum, it seems that labels such as ‘international labour’, ‘global talent’ or ‘expat’ attribute a certain symbolic capital and prestige to a selected group of migrants.

One can observe that the above listed terms are not only leveraged in a commercial context. They are similarly present in public and political discourse and in speeches that address newcomers in Copenhagen. The ‘welcome address’ of the city’s ‘mayor of employment’ in an English-speaking newspaper (C.2) confuses a more personal slant to new residents with a macro-economic label when she declares: ‘We need you! […] eligible international labour’ (C.2). This utterance normalizes an underlying contributionist rationale with regards to international newcomers. Several other vignettes (see Supplementary Appendix 1 and 2) show how local Danish politicians (C) and industry confederations (D) focus on the economic value that foreigners produce to maintain the ‘Danish welfare state’. Being designated as a ‘producing workforce for a stronger Denmark’ (D.1) or being ‘welcomed’ to ‘provide for the welfare that all Danes recognize and appreciate today’ (C.3) might instead backlash and alienate the designated workforce. The confederation of Danish Industry (D.2) declares to their members that ‘global talents bring value, knowledge and growth to Danish companies.’ This instrumentalist, human capital perspective stands in contrast to the term ‘international citizen’, used in communication by ‘International House Copenhagen’, the city’s entity that supports international newcomers (those who are financially autonomous and have a valid working contract and resident permit) with their administration upon arrival. In a similar fashion, the related annual event ‘International Citizen Day’ and the ‘International Citizen Service’ (C.1) emphasize a membership perspective through labels that relate to ‘citizens’, which at first sight suggest a closer alignment of this administration with state affairs, rather than economic affairs.

4. Discussion

Overall, this study contributes to reflexivity in the mobilities and migration nexus. It supports critical stances, exemplifies in situ reflexive practice and draws on two distinct study fields: international migration studies and management and organization studies. Debates from both study fields turn out to be precious when attempting to problematize labels, because ‘the boundaries of a given field do not lend themselves to be generalized, once and for all qualifications’, as Tatli and Özbilgin (2012) affirm in reference to Bourdieu and Wacquant, and ‘they can only be understood empirically at a specific point in time because these boundaries are in a dynamic flux of contestation’ (2012: 194). As illustrated, the ascription of identities through labels, such as ‘global talent’ or ‘expat’, which contain references to a human capitalist ideology is present in multiple discursive terrains of society. Thus, the phenomenon exceeds micro-economic private sector organizations where the managerial concept of humans as ‘resources’ originated. Generally, labels within a specific discursive terrain are informative, in the sense that they inform us about the interlocutor’s interest and intention, as well as about the general context. However, they are only performative when perceived and understood in a certain way. But how are they understood? As demonstrated, the use of buzz words and jargon from economic and business environments, for example, ‘global talent’, beyond the boundaries of this specific discursive terrain of corporate organizations, generates ambiguity and possibly alienation. When a label emerges in a context where one does not expect it, for example, when one is addressed as ‘foreign labour force’ in a city mayor’s welcoming address, it can be perturbing; the term seems inappropriate and is possibly not in line with how the addressees would self-identify. In such a given case, one can observe a shift from the register of hospitality (welcoming) towards the register of economic contribution (maintaining the Danish welfare system); the context of hospitality is disturbed by contributionist labelling. Moreover, in a foreign, unfamiliar context, the perceivable discourse for newcomers depends on linguistic capacities, and in the case of Copenhagen, the perceivable public discourse is often limited to communications in English.

One can affirm that the phenomenon of globalization manifests in the emergence of the competition state (Cerny 1997), as mentioned earlier. In addition, I suggest that it manifests in migrant categorizations that derive from the business world’s notion of ‘global talent management’, coined by private sector practitioners and management and organization scholars (Al Ariss, Cascio and Paauws 2014; Vardi and Collings 2023). When observing that international movers are designated or addressed as ‘global talent’, ‘labour migrant’ or ‘business expatriate’, one might get the impression that these terms designate distinct types of people. However, as shown, these categories are not mutually exclusive, but equivocal from an epistemological stance: all these terms may potentially be ascribed to the same individual—not only at different moments during a life course, but also in the same place at a specific point in time. From a sociological perspective in line with Bourdieu, attributed labels and underlying symbolism may reveal but also dissimulate or distort power relations. Hence, as soon as a certain non-economic capital, such as education or professional experience, is explicitly recognized as valuable, symbolic power is attributed to the individual who holds the skill or qualification. The exemplified labels or ‘categories of practice’ as Bourdieu (1977) calls them, are performative, when used in public and commercial discourse in the sense that they contribute, both, to forming and dissolving privilege and social status, ie, symbolic capital, within the boundaries of the nation state.

The emergence of social and cultural capital, along the Bourdieuan lens, strongly depends on individual relations within a given socio-cultural context, but economic capital allows one to literally acquire status—and thus symbolic capital—in multiple places, for example, by renting upmarket housing in a fancy neighbourhood, as illustrated earlier. Labels (e.g., ‘expat’) in everyday speech acts (e.g., housing adverts) function as operators, which segregate individuals and groups (e.g., potential tenants) according to their origin (non-Danish), their mobility status (temporary settlement), as well as based on their assumed economic capital (e.g., favourable tax scheme). Categories in this context are performative, as they either grant or deny access to a service (rental apartment) and thereby grant access to housing in a high-status neighbourhood within the urban space. The introduction of a class perspective, attributed through economic purchasing power and, thus, through access to housing in upper-class local neighbourhoods, attributes symbolic prestige to certain labour migrants. It is questionable, however, if purchasing power and high-status employment alone are sufficient to leave the category of ‘labour migrant’ or ‘economic migrant’ behind. Moreover, the role of characteristics namely of geographic origin, ethnicity or language skills is worth further exploration in future studies, to better comprehend the performativity of high-status labels.

Indeed, a person’s ‘repertoire’ of self-identities varies in importance and is circumstantial, as posited by Giddens (1991) and Goffman (1990): the salience of identity categories depends on life situations (e.g., employment status), cultural environments (e.g., recognition of qualifications) and social interactions (e.g., in the neighbourhood). Maurice and Sorge (2000) insist, for example, that social actors are surrounded by an interrelated ecosystem in which they interact, and which constitutes and constructs difference. More precisely, as Vertovec (2021) formulates it, encounters, acts of communication and representation, as well as institutional configurations, contribute to the ‘social organization of difference’. These acts and configurations are mutually constitutive. Nevertheless, the question remains as to how exactly a deliberately chosen political narrative (e.g., against immigration) performatively affects a social ecosystem and representations of designated individuals (e.g., migrants) when economic interests (e.g., attracting foreign labour force) are prevalent and entwined with state affairs. It is important to underline that those who have moved across locations and social fields, that is, transmigrants, are simultaneously exposed to a variety of narratives, which might create dissonance and alienation, rather than adherence to the local setting or nation state. As Anthias (2018) observes, a translocational sense of belonging of international ‘movers’ and their ongoing circulation across different places, virtual spaces, societies and social fields exposes them to numerous, distinct and possibly contradictory ways of belonging and identifying. In reference to Lyotard’s (1979) words one could claim that movers of all kinds are at the ‘nodal points’ of communications.

Hence, discursive acts of labelling that might make sense within a given setting and that seem coherent for long-term residents, might be alienating for ‘newcomers’, who have just moved or for those transmigrants who are just passing. In the illustrated case of Denmark, the discursive distinction between ‘migrants’ and ‘global talent’ seems deliberate and is embedded in the state’s entry rules that decreet who will be granted the privilege of residing on the territory and who will not, who deserves entering and working in the competion state, who not. In this context, the label ‘global talent’ stands out, as it is repeated across distinct discursive terrains. The term is rather vague and appears less bureaucratic, less rigid than the terms ‘labour migrant’ or ‘highly qualified immigrant’. ‘Global talent’ conveys not only a meritocratic ideology but seems euphemistic. It reminds that anthropologists affirm a romanticized idea behind ‘becoming through mobility’ (Glick-Schiller and Salazar 2013) that nourishes the grand narrative of global mobility as salvation, where Western individualistic imaginaries and ‘colonial imaginaries’ are being re-enacted (Salazar 2011). At times, utterances and visuals (see Supplementary Appendix) that are tied to labels such as ‘expat’ convey indeed an optimistic, rather than fatalist image of the mobile individual, the mover, that can be leveraged for self-identification (Cranston 2017; Ozkazanc-Pan 2019). By accepting to be addressed in a certain way, by responding to ‘expats only’ housing adverts, for example, individuals are committing to the rational of the competition state. They silently and non-consciously adhere to the system which promotes the centrality of being a human resource, a productive labour force, without necessarily being aware of the ambiguities of labels that designate them.

In turn, fragmented speech acts and the confusion of multiple labels might also provide room for individual identity strategies, that is, for those who arrive in a new context to position themselves according to specific situations (Pierre 2003). When individuals are repeatedly exposed to various labels that attribute symbolic value and status to a highly qualified labour force, the labels ‘global talent’, ‘international’ or ‘expatriate’ might spark a desire for distinction in a specific situation (e.g., when settling and participating in an unfamiliar social context). This does not necessarily mean that individuals identify with this category. Rather, in a specific situation and context, such as in the regime of the ‘competition state’ it is suitable and even advantageous to self-label as ‘global talent’, as ‘international’ of as expatriate. Indeed, those who are thus designated might accept or refute the suitability of the categorization for themselves (Brubaker, 2013; Cranston, 2017; Božič, Klvaňová and Jaworsky 2023). The interpretation of speech acts and ascribed categorizations infuses individual meaning systems and possibly produces self-identifications, resistance or rejection, as exemplified in the empirical case of highly qualified foreign knowledge workers, who reject being addressed as ‘expatriate’. This confirms that migrant representations and the performativity of classifications are context-dependent and situational. Whereas some labels continue to nurture the dialectic migrant/non-migrant, (e.g., ‘expats only’; ‘foreign labour’), others contribute to dissolving or at least softening this opposition to some extent (e.g., ‘international citizen’; ‘global talent’) by attributing symbolic capital through what one could call semi-inclusive categorizations.

However, as Butler (2015) emphasizes, we need to acknowledge that ‘lines of demarcation’ will always remain, resulting in the inclusion of some individuals and the renewed exclusion of others, especially as we understand categorizations as repeatedly enacted in a boundaryless and organic manner. Butler’s comprehension of performativity supports the here presented effort of problematization and reflexive practice in that she suggests that it is crucial to consider that acts of delimitation and differentiation operate ‘according to a performative form of power’ (2015: 6). The question of where performative power is anchored, which Foucault suggests addressing through problematization, cannot be answered in a univocal manner when it comes to the discourse of ‘global talent attraction’. However, when understanding performativity along the lines of Butler, one becomes not only aware of the intentionality of the interlocutor, but also all that exceeds intentionality. In the exemplified case, discursive reiterations of labels such as ‘global talent’ in macro political, as well as in corporate or micro commercial spheres, can be understood as perlocutionary speech acts. This means that their performativity does not solely depend on those who pronounce it, but that the discursive practice needs to be approached under consideration of ‘general conditions’, which allow for performativity, as Butler elucidates (2010: 151). Regarding the phenomenon of a globalized labour market, these ‘general conditions’ can be summarized, for example, as a high market demand for labour force, protectionist policies and nationalist or xenophobic sentiments.

The question arises whether the repeated ascription and iteration of specific labels in speech acts across distinct social spheres, such as academia, business, or politics, indicates performative patterns per se. Are categories performatively constituted or, in Butler’s words, are they ‘constitutive for the identities they are purported to be?’ (Butler 1997: 24). As stated earlier, the claimed economic value of ‘skilled’ and ‘highly qualified’ foreign individuals for local society is not only discursively performed, but also symbolically conveyed (see for example visuals of up-market housing, Supplementary Appendix 2). As such, the repetition of labels and visuals which support a human capital lens in public speech acts contribute to the transvaluation of migratory phenomenon, when associating positive values (skills, talent, up-scale housing) to the so-called ‘migrant’. In a literal sense this can be understood as ‘de-migranticization’ (Dahinden 2016), even if the distinction from non-migrant populations persists. However, the fragmentation and co-existence of a multitude of categorizations across various discursive terrains can be perceived as inappropriate, it might be disturbing and unsettling, due to the incongruence between the situational context and the meanings that a label conveys in the eyes of the perceiver.

Despite not necessarily grasping the source of this dissonance, one might still sense that something is wrong or inconsistent. There is an ambient ‘discursive noise’, as I suggest conceptualizing this phenomenon: ambiguous and vague labels create perplexities among those who are meant to be included and those who feel excluded. Within the ecosystem, actors are subjected to political discourse that they do not necessarily understand (due to linguistic constraints and lack of cultural capital), but which further contributes to the densification of the ambient discursive noise, that is, a superposition of distinct designations, which are either valorizing or depreciating non-native residents. With the term discursive noise, I attempt to grasp the disturbance that multiple omnipresent labels may create, in sum, as an assemblage, for example, when coinciding with alternative self-identifications or other migrant labels. Discursive noise is multilayered and complex, and it interferes with how international movers perceive themselves, forcing them to position themselves within the discursively created hierarchy of foreign workers. Therefore, it is contrary to Habermas’s ideal of a noise-free, modern society, in which communication conveys societal structures and common interests in a transparent manner. Instead, distinct high-prestige labels operate as an additional layer of communication in addition to local social structures and representations. The omnipresence of emerging categorizations such as ‘global talent’ in public discourse legitimizes and normalizes them, and their constant repetition across different spheres makes us forget about their existence. It remains omnipresent, without us noticing it, rather like a calming, ubiquitous ‘white noise’.

One might leverage the metaphor of white noise when a multiplicity of inconsistent, fragmented speech acts constitutes a dense assemblage, instead of performing as distinct, stand-alone utterances. Discursive white noise, as an extension of what I called earlier ‘discursive noise’, soothes us, deviates our (citizens’, scholars’, politicians’, voters’) attention away from structures of class, professional guild, or access rights to urban housing; away from social interactions among residents of all kinds, and from a citizen model of membership. Instead, it lulls us into unconditional support of the competition state, and its capacity to win the ‘global race’ of ‘talent attraction’. Under these circumstances discursive white noise of migrant categorization is performative, even when stand-alone labels fail to perform; it’s performativity as an assemblage is effective, even if diffuse. It brings about a new kind of reality. Thus, I suggest that the soothing effect of discursive white noise forces those who are exposed to accept it, yet without noticing its existence, without questioning its composition, its underlying goals and ideologies—except when leaping into it from the outside. For the ears of the outsider, the newcomer, the ‘stranger’ white noise might be audible.

It is important to note that performativity as per Butler, and such as observed in the given study, is a set of processes that produce ontological effects that bring into being certain kinds of realities (Butler 2010: 147). Thus, I argue that a deeper understanding of how migrant designations and categorizations that are dislocated across various discursive terrains operate, is not only of epistemological value but in addition, it informs our ontological comprehension. The ontological nature of competing labels which are infused by a human capital logic becomes tangible through empirical illustrations. For example, those who are designated as ‘economic migrant’ in search of a better economic outcome from their professional activity, ‘spark suspicion and hostilities’ (Achiume 2019), despite making life decisions based on economic reasoning, whereas those who are granted entry to the nation state via a ‘skilled labour attraction scheme’ are positioned as ‘global talent’, as shown in the exemplified case of Denmark. The international movers, newcomers are valued, because their professional qualifications are valued in the given context, as they correspond to the current economic demand of the competition state. In this regard, Butler’s (2010) approach helps clarifying how certain notions of ‘state’ or ‘economy’ are produced through state or economy effects, and it points to the need to re-think the ontologies with which we operate:

If such notions of the state are produced through state effects, then we must rethink the basic ontologies with which we operate. And the same goes for ‘the economy’ which only becomes singular and monolithic by virtue of the convergence of certain kinds of processes and practices that produce the ‘effect’ of the knowable and unified economy. (2010: 147)

In this vein, the ideological and discursive infusion of a human capital rationale into the migration regime of the state apparatus, organizes difference strategically, and hence, produces ontological effects. In the here presented case, the accountability for attracting foreign labour is shared between economic actors and the state, or even partially delegated from private corporations to the state, whilst the selection of ‘eligible international labour’ is organized through the migration regime of the bureaucratic state apparatus. By naming this process ‘macro talent management’ as some management scholars do (Vaiman et al. 2018), it produces ‘economy effects’ within the state apparatus, which means that it legitimizes the inflow of non-nationals into the state only if they ‘add value’ in an economic sense. Moreover, the dense assemblage of high prestige labels across state and economy domains, nourishes the myth that global mobility and international work create wealth, privilege and social status for the mover and for the receiving nation-state. In this sense, the idea of discursive noise, as introduced earlier, allows us to comprehend how designations and categorizations operate within a multi-scalar assemblage of a communicational reality. In other words, and in continuity of Löhr’s and Reinecke’s (2020) claim that migrant categories support the acceptance of migration as a ‘social fact’, I propose that the discursive fragmentation and strategic re-assemblage of migrant labels, that is, discursive noise, supports the acceptance of global mobility and migration as salvation. Prestigous labels, such as ‘global talent’, in public speech acts uphold the myth of professional global mobility as life aspiration. Thereby, conceptually ambiguous assemblages of migrant categorizations in public speech acts are performative. They nurture the grand narrative of the nation-state, which competes globally for ‘human capital’ and fights a battle to attract the best ‘global talent’.

Conclusion

As demonstrated, the discursive enactment of distinct migrant labels across economic and political spheres organizes difference strategically. The ascription of distinct labour migrant labels attributes symbolic capital and status to foreign newcomers who are of economic value for the nation, that is, for the maintenance of the welfare state, whilst declining to grant this privilege to others. The increasingly colloquial use of terms such as ‘global talent’ reveals the dominance of a contributionist, human capital perspective in the competition state. Moreover, the appropriation and normalization of a managerial jargon and terms like ‘expat’ in political discourse or in real estate adverts, that is, its circulation beyond the boundaries of human resource management departments, indicate ever closer state-economy entanglements. It appears that migrant representations are not only constituted by social configurations and interactions, but performative speech acts further reify representations and constitute novel hierarchies of difference among migrants and between migrants and residents. The repetition of narrative fragments that support the need for ‘global talent attraction’ and its entanglement across economy affairs and state affairs create an illusion of consistency and legitimacy. This produces an assemblage of discursive noise, that is, a perpetual, alienating circulation of designations of the newcomer that promotes global mobility as salvation by maintaining a reassuring, pacifying claim of equal access to global mobility through professional qualifications, through the contribution of one’s individual human capital. The ontological effects that this produces call for additional reflection and debate. Overall, the idea of discursive noise hereby developed, leads to questioning the modernist ideal of a noise-free, transparent communication in the nation state. It emphasizes that categorizations are in continuous flux, and that these representations are closely entwined with political and economic interests, all whilst dissimulating them. To deepen scholarly insights into these entanglements and into the performativity of migrant designations, it seems crucial to conduct empirical studies in distinct settings, all whilst fostering theoretical debates between the two academic fields, migration studies and management and organization studies. The established problematization and oscillation across multiple scales of analysis shall enable reflexivity across study fields and aims to contribute to post-disciplinary considerations.

Supplementary data

Supplementary data is available at Migration Studies Journal online.

Conflict of interest statement

None declared.

Funding

This research received funding from the Horizon2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Action fund and was conducted under the project ‘Global Mobility of Employees’, grant agreement 765355.

Ethical compliance

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee.

Notes

References