This article analyzes the discourse of the radical left on migration, examining the extent to which it reproduces mainstream conceptualizations of migrants. The study draws on corpora compiled by the Genealogies of Knowledge project to examine the usage of terms like "refugee" and "migrant" in left-wing internet sources, comparing this with the usage in translations and commentaries on ancient Greek texts. The approach is informed by Foucault's work on discourse and power, emphasizing the relationship between discourse, truth, knowledge, and power. While acknowledging the dominance and contagious nature of discourses produced by powerful institutions, the study explores the possibility of creating alternative discourses that challenge the current regime of truth. Foucault's approach to the ancient world is relevant; while not viewing the past as exemplary, it can be used to show that patterns presented as self-evident are not indisputable and can be re-envisioned.

The study references Patrick Page's observation on the contagious nature of dehumanizing language used in mainstream discussions of migrants, even influencing those who oppose government policies. It also draws upon existing research highlighting the ideological charge and stigmatizing nature of terms like "refugee crisis" and the tendency to frame migrants primarily through economic or legal lenses. Additionally, the study notes previous corpus-based research that has analyzed the representation of refugees and asylum seekers in the media, showing similar patterns of dehumanization and quantification.

The study uses two primary data sets: a subcorpus of articles from 15 left-wing internet sources (the Internet Corpus) and a corpus of modern English translations and commentaries on ancient Greek texts (the Greek-English Corpus). The analysis involves generating frequency lists for both corpora, manually identifying key items related to "outsiders to the polity." The full frequency lists were examined to capture unexpected patterns of vocabulary. The study uses various software tools developed by the Genealogies of Knowledge team, including the Mosaic visualization tool for analyzing collocates and the Metafacet tool for filtering concordance lines based on metadata. The Mosaic tool provides a visual representation of word collocations, highlighting their frequency and significance, while Metafacet allows filtering of concordance lines based on factors like source or publication date. The study analyzes the full frequency lists initially to identify unanticipated patterns before closer examination using the concordance browser.

The analysis of the Internet Corpus reveals that left-wing discourse often reproduces mainstream patterns, accepting terms like "refugee crisis" uncritically and framing migrants primarily as economic or legal challenges. The distinction between political refugees and economic migrants is reinforced. Refugees are often depicted as fleeing conflict, associated with terms like "UNHCR" and "fleeing," while migrants are linked to terms like "workers," "economic," "undocumented," and "illegal." The use of legal classifications like "undocumented" dehumanizes migrants by indicting their entire existence rather than specific actions. Furthermore, both refugees and migrants are repeatedly quantified, erasing individuality and playing into the politics of numbers that create a sense of crisis. Refugees are often presented as passive victims with no agency. While some left-wing sources attempt to challenge these dominant discourses, the study highlights the difficulty of doing so effectively while remaining intelligible to a wider audience. The analysis of the Greek-English corpus shows a different conceptualization of exiles and refugees, with greater agency and recognition of their political subjectivity. Exiles are presented as a force to be reckoned with, holding power to shame those who disregard their needs. The study contrasts this with the prevalent patterns in the Internet Corpus, highlighting the potential of historical models for reshaping contemporary discourse.

The findings show that the radical left often fails to challenge the dominant discourse surrounding migration, instead inadvertently reinforcing the existing power structures. The study highlights the tension between critically engaging with dominant terminology and maintaining intelligibility and engagement with wider audiences. The comparison with the ancient Greek corpus suggests that alternative conceptualizations of migrants and refugees are possible, emphasizing agency and human dignity. The study's success in identifying these different patterns underscores the value of using corpus linguistics to analyze discourse on sensitive social issues.

This study reveals how the radical left's discourse on migration often mirrors mainstream narratives, reinforcing dehumanizing representations of migrants. It suggests the need for a new language, potentially inspired by historical models such as those from ancient Greece, to counter dominant discourses and rehumanize the migrant experience. Further research could investigate the discourse of other political groups or explore different linguistic strategies for promoting more nuanced and empathetic representations of migrants.

The study is limited by its focus on a specific subcorpus of left-wing internet sources and a specific set of translations of ancient Greek texts. The conclusions may not be generalizable to other political groups or historical periods. The analysis also relies on specific software tools with inherent limitations, particularly in handling variations of compound terms.