When Help Hurts: Moral Disengagement and the Myth of the Supportive Migrant Network

Abstract

This study aimed to uncover how harm is normalised in migrant communities using rationalisations, power imbalances, and emotional distancing. This research counters the dominant discourse that migrant communities are cohesive, altruistic, and protective by critically analysing the psychological and moral mechanisms of intra-community harm. Migration scholarship has long extolled the contribution of migrant networks to settlement, employment, and integration. Using a qualitative ethnographic approach, data were gathered using participant observation and semi-structured interviews with twelve purposively sampled migrants. The aim of applying a primary qualitative study was to capture a detailed, first-hand understanding of participants’ lived experiences and social relations. It permitted the in-depth examination of how people rationalise and navigate intra-community harm in the actual contexts of their lives. Thematic analysis yielded four significant findings: one, injustices in the community are frequently met with silence and inaction due to fear and moral disengagement; two, assistance is extraordinarily situational and gendered, often falling disproportionately on women or being mediated by institutions; three, internal exploitation—like rent gouging and manipulation of aid—is justified through community narratives; and four, people increasingly feel isolation, emotional burnout, and only symbolic unity at communal events. The research suggests that, although migrant networks can offer critical resources, they are not invulnerable to internal hierarchies and moral collapses. To create effectively inclusive and nurturing settings, future interventions must account for more than mere structural barriers, intra-group processes, and psychological rationalisations allowing intra-community injury.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

This paper examines how migrant communities may rationalise internal exploitation through moral disengagement, challenging dominant assumptions of intra-group solidarity. Migrant communities are often celebrated in academic and policy circles as resilient networks of mutual aid and cultural solidarity. These portrayals, while partially valid, risk oversimplifying the internal dynamics of such communities. This paper challenges the conventional assumption that migrant groups are inherently protective and supportive by exploring how harm, exploitation, and neglect can emerge from within. It focuses on the psychological and moral mechanisms—specifically, moral disengagement—that enable these communities to justify or ignore internal harm.

In this paper, the term “migrant” is used in line with its administrative and legal classification in the UAE, referring to non-citizen residents, most of whom are South Asian males engaged in low-wage and labour-intensive sectors. While the term encompasses a wide range of social classes and nationalities, including both low-income labourers and high-income professionals, this study focuses specifically on underprivileged and precariously employed migrants. This focus does not attempt to generalise all migrant experiences but rather sheds light on a highly marginalised subset within the broader migrant population. The term is used with caution, and its limitations are acknowledged.

The migrant network theory in migration scholarship and policy practice has been demonstrated to be intrinsically helpful and essential to migrant welfare and integration. These networks—consisting of relatives, friends, and other community members who are ethnically, linguistically, or nationally similar—tend to be defined as primary sources of affective, economic, and practical support (O’reilly 2022). They are thought to provide a safety net that benefits migrants through resettlement, employment, housing, and legal processes. However, this dominant discourse represses the complex and sometimes exploitative relationships that frequently occur within these networks (Simeone and Piper 2021). By drawing attention to only the positive aspects, the literature risks neglecting the real-life experiences of large numbers of migrants who are subjected to manipulation, coercion, and abuse by other members of their communities.

The traditional perspective of migrant networks has been developed mainly through the “network theory” of migration, which focuses on the instrumental use of social connections to organise migration, reduce costs, and provide social capital in new locations (Staring and Kox 2023). Scholars such as Robinson et al. (2025) have commented upon the ways that migrant networks offer not only practical help (e.g., housing and employment referrals) but also emotional support and cultural continuity, thus facilitating the process of integration in receiving societies (Robinson et al. 2025). Networks are primarily characterised as solitary, autonomous entities where individuals help one another because of identity, family, or civic loyalty. From this perspective, migrant networks are protective bulwarks against systemic discrimination, economic instability, and cultural displacement (Boutier and Maganaris 2025).

Research into diaspora communities has particularly reinforced such a vision of solidarity. For example, “social remittances”, values and norms passed through the medium of such networks, aim to enhance trust, cohesion, and unofficial government amongst migrant communities (Hajj 2021). Similarly, intra-ethnic links, particularly at the early stages of settlement, act as survival strategies for ease of work and adjustment to host-country bureaucracies. However, more recent and critical scholarship has detracted from this idealised notion. Scholars such as Johanna (2021) believe that not all social capital is beneficial—“bonding capital” in migrant communities can be equally likely to produce exclusion, gatekeeping, and exploitation (Johanna 2021). While close ties offer immediate support, they do so at the cost of encouraging conformity, suppressing dissent, and maintaining internal hierarchies. This is especially so in settings where an illegal status, economic marginalisation, or cultural pressure restrict access to alternative support networks. By observing and comprehending such arguments, one can picture a prison-like situation where informal hierarchies form among prisoners; migrant networks lack formal authority but still enforce real control.

Recent studies on “migrant precarity” and exploitation among groups also recognise these tensions. For instance, Adair and McLaughlin (2025) explain how ethnic enclaves are both places of empowerment and vulnerability, and how settled migrants can take advantage of newcomers in black labour markets (Adair and McLaughlin 2025), complicating help as a concept in caregiving and domestic work economies, where co-migrants or co-ethnics may serve as middlemen to exploitative employers or even turn into abusers. A previous study by Teixeira (2024) argued that exploitative arrangements are generally shrouded in cultural or familial obligation, and, therefore, challenging to discover or refuse (Teixeira 2024). It is perceived that migrants exploit each other in hidden, informal systems, and it is hard to blame governments for what is concealed and normalised within communities themselves.

Additionally, the previous study by Roes et al. (2022) demonstrates that gendered geographies of power assist in revealing ways that the convergence of gender, class, and migration status can generate unbalanced power arrangements even in otherwise homogeneous migrant communities (Roes et al. 2022). Newer or weaker members—who are often women, youth, or undocumented individuals—may become subject to manipulation, underpayment, and coercion by more established members in the same ethnic or national group. One could question what justifies women and undocumented migrants being treated as inferior although they are from the same race, which provides evidence for sexism and classism. Inferior migrants, viewed as such by their own communities, are left as the most vulnerable in hidden systems where migrants exploit each other, making it hard to blame governments for what is concealed from within.

1.2. Problem Statement

Although migrant networks are no longer seen as purely supportive, most research still focuses on external barriers like legal status and discrimination. What remains overlooked is how harm is justified and maintained from within—through silence, unequal support, internal exploitation, and symbolic unity. This study explores how moral disengagement operates inside migrant communities, challenging the myth of collective solidarity.

1.3. Research Gap

Though the literature has increasingly accepted the ambivalence of migrant networks, it is nevertheless predominantly concerned with structural barriers such as legal status, segmentation in the labour market, and outside discrimination. Little effort has been made to consider the internal moral and psychological processes whereby individuals of the same group justify and maintain harm (Tsuda 2024). This gap hides an essential part of the migrant experience: the emotional and ethical disagreement that results when solidarity becomes a tool of domination. Additionally, the assumption that shared identity automatically equals altruism is essentially flawed. It overlooks community power dynamics and how people can use symbolic narratives of kinship or cultural loyalty to promote their agendas. The actions are not necessarily performed with ill will but instead facilitated by internal mental justifications that dilute the sense of guilt or moral unease. This is where Bandura’s moral disengagement theory provides a theoretical explanation for how destructive behaviour becomes psychologically legitimised in intra-community settings.

1.4. Research Aim and Objectives

The research aim is to explore how narratives, power dynamics, and emotional strategies enable intra-community harm within migrant populations, particularly in Muwailah, Sharjah. The objective of this research is to examine how intra-community harm is rationalised and normalised among migrant workers in the United Arab Emirates. By focusing on lived experiences, the study aims to uncover how individuals justify or excuse exploitative actions within their own ethnic or social groups. It seeks to identify specific moral rationalisations, emotional coping mechanisms, and social hierarchies that structure this internal exploitation.

1.5. Research Questions

This study is guided by the following central questions:

• How do vulnerable migrants justify or emotionally navigate intra-community exploitation and moral disengagement in their day-to-day lives?
• How is moral disengagement articulated among migrant groups to justify intra-group exploitation and neglect?
• How is support within migrant networks situational, gendered, and institutionally mediated rather than interpersonal solidarity?
• What social and psychological processes enable the misuse of resources and power hierarchies within migrant networks in the guise of community support?
• How extensive are economic insecurity and survival consciousness in shaping social cohesion and collective responsibility among migrants?

1.6. Research Contributions

This research offers a new way to conduct interdisciplinary research on the synthesis of migration studies and social psychology to shed light on the not-so-obvious dynamics of migrant networks. It not only turns around the myth of impenetrable support but also requires a finer grasp of intra-group dynamics—one that does not sentimentalise nor spiritually interrogate the moralities of solidarity, survival, and social reproduction in migrant communities. This study aims to uncover how harm is normalised in migrant communities using rationalisations, power imbalances, and emotional distancing. Using a qualitative ethnographic approach, data were gathered using participant observation and semi-structured interviews with ten purposively sampled migrants.

1.7. Research Argument

The paper argues that intra-community exploitation is not a deviation from the norm but is structurally embedded in migrant life. Using moral disengagement, participants create psychological distance from the harm they cause or endure, allowing exploitative dynamics to persist under the illusion of solidarity. This study proposes that migrant networks, while essential, are also sites of hidden power and emotional burnout, especially when resources are scarce or social expectations are weaponised.

2. Literature Review

The operation of migrant networks in aiding settlement and overseas migration has long been debated in the migration literature. Network theory informs these networks, which are often described as social organisations that minimise migration risks and costs by providing logistical support, information, work, and affective support (Sha 2021). These networks typically consist of kinship ties, friendship, and ethnic or religious allegiances presumed to form long-term relationships and solidarity. Plusnin (2022) has argued that migrant networks are self-reproducing structures of social capital on which informal integration into a host country can rely (Plusnin 2022). Such networks are presumed to be altruistic in orientation, and such an assumption has informed family reunification and community-oriented sponsorship networks. Escribà-Folch et al. (2022) also coined the concept of “social remittances”, which explains how norms, values, and practices are shared across borders through such networks and provide material as well as ideological sponsorship networks of migrants (Escribà-Folch et al. 2022). Such observations support a predominant narrative of inter-group cohesion, collective resilience, and co-ethnic migrants’ shared moral responsibility to care for one another.

2.1. Image of Migrant Solidarity

However, recent and more negative voices have dissented from the idealised image of migrant solidarity by underlining the ambivalence and complexity of migrant social life. They dissect the homogenising effect of “community”, claiming that it generally conceals internal power relations, inequalities, and exclusions operative among migrant groups (Phiri 2024). It is noted that social capital in such networks may not be accessible to all members and can re-inscribe hierarchies on the grounds of gender, age, class, and legal status. Similarly, Grygierczyk (2024) argues that migrant networks are not always altruistic; instead, they lie on a spectrum of obligation, expectation, and coercion (Grygierczyk 2024). The literature argues that while help is indeed a part of migrant networks, it comes with strings attached: the expectation of return, conformity to group norms, and acquiescence to those in positions of informal power. These dynamics are particularly disconcerting when more established or older migrants use their social capital to manipulate or exploit more recent migrants, enacting instead of reducing vulnerability (Asirvatham 2024).

Several empirical studies substantiate this more critical reading by documenting cases of intra-community exploitation within various migrant contexts. For example, Tan (2022) highlights the operations of informal brokers—frequently within the same ethnic group—mediating migrant domestic workers’ placements in a manner that subjects the latter to abusive situations under the disguise of “help” (Tan 2022). Discussing migrant domestic workers in the UK, Anderson shows how the discourse of responsibility and kinship language is used to justify unpaid labour, excessive working hours, and restrictions on personal freedom. Kussy and Comas-d’Argemir (2024) also reveal how ethnic enclaves, despite being generally understood as refuges, are sometimes “precarity traps” where migrant workers are subjected to exploitation through underpayment, non-payment of wages, and denial of labour rights, sometimes at the hands of fellow members of the community (Kussy and Comas-d’Argemir 2024). It is perceived that various transactions that are illegal, never mind unethical, are taking place silently in migrant-dense areas that are not reported to the authorities. However, the response is usually silence, as if it is normalised. Older migrants who exploit newer arrivals often display moral disengagement, rationalising their actions as acceptable given their difficult circumstances. These arguments can propose the following:

P1: Injustices within migrant communities are frequently met with silence and inaction, driven by fear, dependency, and mechanisms of moral disengagement.

These activities are not only promoted by economic need but also by cultural scripts disincentivising victims to report exploitation or to cause a disturbance to community harmony (Preston 2021). Moreover, “gendered geographies of power” bring to light how women migrants generally carry the heaviest burden of these internal power inequalities, compelled to conform to patriarchal cultural norms and exploitative labour needs within the borders of their communities (Buijs 2024). Although evidence of sexism is limited in the previous literature, this research will try and capture a better understanding of the situation and gendered assistance by proposing the following:

P2: Help and support within the migrant network are highly situational and often gendered, placing disproportionate emotional and caregiving burdens on women, or deferring support to external institutions.

Despite the mounting acknowledgement of such issues, the key gap in the literature is limited attention having been devoted to the psychological mechanisms that make such damaging behaviour patterns viable. Most of the literature highlights structural risks—like an unauthorised legal status, linguistic isolation, or exclusion from the formal job market—but leaves unexplored sufficient explanation for how actors in migrant networks moralise their abusive conduct. It is here that Bandura’s (1999) theory of moral disengagement proves helpful. Under the theory of moral disengagement, individuals employ cognitive processes that allow them to justify actions that would otherwise be morally unacceptable (Knoth and Javidan 2024). Mechanisms like moral justification, euphemistic labelling, and responsibility displacement enable the perpetrators to disengage mentally from the act of causing harm.

While this theory has been used widely in criminology, organisational research, and military ethics, its application within migration and intra-community violence is poorly documented (Magazzini et al. 2025). Migrant community members can morally disengage by way of justification for exploitative behaviour as survival, framed as a cultural tradition, or excused as “helping” less experienced individuals deal with harsh realities. For example, an older migrant who short-changes a new arrival may see it as a learning experience that builds resilience, and not exploitation (Ayalon and Rapolienė 2022). Similarly, village elders who shut up victims of abuse can justify their actions as being in the interest of maintaining communal solidarity, rather than condoning harm. It is perceived from the literature that abusive behaviours and manipulations are normalised, which should not happen in an altruistic environment. These instances combat the belief that migrant communities are supportive, and are far away from suggesting nurturing. Thus, they lead to the following proposal:

P3: Exploitative practices such as rent inflation or manipulation of aid are internally justified and normalised through shared community narratives that obscure accountability.

Furthermore, cultural norms such as respect for age, collectivism, and gender roles may once more lead to cognitive and social tolerance of abusive behaviour. Within tight-knit migrant networks, these same values can be turned against dissenting voices and the voicing of abuse to silence them and quash allegations (Mehdi 2024). Victims become accountable for bringing shame on their community or defaulting on their community through protesting. This fosters a culture of complicity and silence that never finds a voice in mainstream migration discourse. Even migrant diaspora groups and migrant organisations claiming to speak on behalf of migrant interests can continue this trend unknowingly by highlighting exterior discrimination while refusing to acknowledge interior abuse (Gatwiri and Anderson 2021). This silence is then further intensified by social exclusion threats, economic vulnerability to community relations, or deportation threats to the undocumented. Moral disengagement in migrant communities is thus not so much an individual cognition issue but is embedded deeply within social and cultural institutions that structure perception and action (Knoth and Javidan 2024). Thus, this justifies the following proposal:

P4: Despite surface-level communal rituals, individuals increasingly experience emotional isolation, burnout, and disillusionment, with collective identity reduced to symbolic unity.

Wolf (2023) implies a pressing requirement to reevaluate the assumption that migrant networks are inherently beneficial (Wolf 2023). Although they inevitably extend necessary support and solidarity, they also have built-in hierarchies, power structures, and psychic forms through which harm and exploitation can be waged. By applying Bandura’s moral disengagement theory, this study adds a critical psychological approach urgently needed in current sociological research, providing a more holistic model with which to understand the complexity of migrant life (Paciello et al. 2023). In performing this, it not only fills a general theoretical void but also defies the hegemonic discourse equating common identity with inherent solidarity.

2.2. Albert Bandura’s Theory of Moral Disengagement

The current study is based on Albert Bandura’s theory of moral disengagement. This psychological theory describes how individuals morally disengage from ethical principles to justify immoral acts without feeling guilty or self-punishment (Moslehi and Ruhani 2021). Bandura (1999) deems that disengagement of morality is achievable through various cognitive processes that enable individuals to switch off their short-term self-regulation of morality. These mechanisms include moral justification, euphemistic labelling, comparative advantage, displacement and diffusion of responsibility, biassing of consequences, dehumanisation, and blame attribution (Etaywe 2024). Using these mechanisms makes it possible for individuals to see harmful action as socially justifiable, or at least unavoidable, thus safeguarding them against psychological unease or moral responsibility.

For instance, moral rationalisation is placing harmful behaviour in the guise of being for a noble or greater good—like describing the exploitation of an arriving migrant as having to “toughen them up” so that they will make it. Euphemistic labelling describes immoral behaviour in sanitised words, i.e., describing low-paid work as “training” or “volunteering” (Ochasi 2024). Displacement of responsibility enables offenders to justify their actions based on impersonal authorities, norms, or traditions, and diffusion of responsibility diffuses blame among a group, lessening personal accountability. Additional mechanisms such as dehumanisation (perceiving victims as lesser or less worthy) and victim-blaming (blaming the victim for the exploitation) also support the weakening of ethical judgement (Groot 2023).

Together, these tactics produce a psychological buffer that allows people to behave in their self-interest while maintaining a good self-image. Within the context of migrant networks, these moral disengagement mechanisms are central to the explanation of how exploitation and harm can take place within communities that are otherwise viewed as cohesive and supportive (Firmin et al. 2022). Migrant networks tend to have informal systems where power asymmetries are founded upon age, legal status, economic security, and social capital (Sha 2021). More settled migrants might take advantage of the newer migrants by means of mentorship, cultural expectations, or financial survival.

Bandura’s model can explain how such migrants cognitively rationalise the commissioning of exploitation by minimising harm, blaming others, or invoking community expectations (Chaudhry 2025). This theory is particularly relevant in the study of migration because it shifts the attention of analysis from structural and institutional sources of harm to individual and group thought patterns that facilitate intra-community harm. It emphasises that harm is not necessarily a result of explicit hostility or ill will, but, in most cases, is subtle, normalised, and psychologically justified by the abusers (Salzberger 2022). Additionally, the theory illustrates how moral disengagement becomes institutionalised when entire communities are involved or complicit in abusive conduct, promoting an impunity culture. Applying Bandura’s moral disengagement theory to migrant networks, this research presents a new approach to how psychological and sociocultural dynamics converge to facilitate exploitation from within (Rosebraugh 2023).

It places value on more critically examining accounts of solidarity and is a plea for scholars and practitioners to remain vigilant to the moral nuances in the migrant population (Baban and Rygiel 2024). It does this in a bid to make space for more productive interventions that not only oppose sources of harm coming from outside a migrant community as the causes of their pain but also sources of harm that are coming from within that are veiled under the guise of communal care.

3. Methodology

This ethnographic research is theoretically grounded in Bandura’s theory of moral disengagement, specifically concentrating on how harm is legitimised for survival in tightly knit migrant communities. During participant observation and interviews, the focus was not just on the visible behaviours and narratives but also on the underlying rationalisations, justifications, and cognitive mechanisms used by participants to explain or justify intra-community exploitation.

The data-gathering instruments—particularly the semi-structured interviews—were intended to draw out narratives of moral justification, like how people constructed exploitative behaviours (e.g., overcharging, neglect, and remaining silent in the face of injustice) as a requirement or inevitable for survival. This was noticed in what they said directly and in the non-verbal signals observed. In practice, this involved coding specifically for appearances of themes reflecting Bandura’s mechanisms (e.g., moral justification, euphemistic labelling, and displacement of responsibility) within participant responses, particularly where harm was presented as an unfortunate but reasonable response to economic struggle, social pressure, or community solidarity. This permitted the study to map how the appearance of solidarity exists alongside morally disengaged practices presented as survival strategies.

3.1. Research Design: Qualitative Ethnography

This study adopts a qualitative ethnographic design and does not intend to offer statistical generalisations. Rather, it aims to provide in-depth insights into lived experiences within migrant communities. It is considered appropriate for studying complex human behaviour, cultural practices, and social dynamics in natural settings. Ethnography, with its anthropological and sociological roots, entails the extensive field observation of social occurrences because a researcher can fully immerse themselves in participants’ everyday worlds. Compared to quantitative research aiming at generalisability from numerical information, ethnography is more interested in meaning-making, context, and participants’ voices. Ethnography allows researchers to seize rich, descriptive descriptions of participants’ experiences that unfold in their everyday settings. Ethnography proves helpful while studying communities, organisations, or subcultures where common sense, routines, and interactions contribute considerably to what shapes behaviour.

The ethnographic method is robust in its participatory intensity, bridging the action–talk gap. Watching participants in situ and interviewing them face-to-face, a researcher gains a complete understanding of the phenomenon being researched. This setup enables an interpretive epistemology whereby knowledge is conceived as being co-constructed by researchers and participants, and subject- as well as context-mediated.

3.2. Sampling Strategy: Purposive Sampling

The study focused on migrants residing in the Muwailah area of Sharjah, one of the seven emirates of the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Muwailah is a densely populated suburban district known for its concentration of low- to middle-income migrant communities, primarily from South Asia, including Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan. The area hosts a significant number of shared accommodations, labour camps, and small family units, making it a key hub for studying informal labour dynamics and intra-community relations.

Sharjah, unlike Dubai and Abu Dhabi, maintains more conservative social and legal norms, which can affect migrant behaviours and access to formal support structures. Muwailah specifically has grown around industrial zones and educational institutions, yet remains under-researched in terms of migrant social life and vulnerabilities. Its mix of transitory and long-term residents, combined with minimal governmental outreach into informal sectors, makes it an ideal location for observing the hidden moral and psychological mechanisms at play within migrant networks.

Importantly, the selected area allowed for ethnographic immersion and interaction with participants in their lived environments, providing rich, first-hand accounts that could not have been easily accessed through formal institutions or more visible communities.

With thematic analysis, the focus was placed on identifying language and conduct patterns of moral disengagement, especially when participants explained or legitimised destructive behaviour as necessary for survival at the personal or communal level. This research uses a purposive sampling method, a non-probability sampling type wherein participants are chosen against certain specifications pertinent to the issues being inquired about. It is highly suitable within qualitative research; statistical representativeness is not pursued, but a rich understanding is gained through individuals having copious information or first-hand acquaintance with the phenomena being examined.

Participants were selected depending on whether they were situated in the community or organisation, whether they possessed an active association with the topic, or if they could deliver rich and varied views. A sample of 12 participants was deemed enough to reach data saturation, i.e., where no more ideas or themes were being yielded from the data. This precise selection enabled the research to aim for depth and quality over quantity, where participants’ voices are explored in detail.

The sample included 12 participants: 9 men and 3 women aged between 27 and 52, from India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. Most worked in construction, maintenance, or informal delivery services. The majority had resided in the UAE between 5 and 15 years. Furthermore, consistent with established qualitative methodologies, data saturation was observed after 10–12 in-depth interviews. The aim was depth, not breadth.

3.3. Data Collection Techniques

The study used a dual-method data collection approach centred on participant observation and semi-structured interviews to provide an in-depth description of the research setting and participants’ lives.

Participant observation: As a central ethnographic tool, participant observation involves research engaging in participants’ ordinary lives and systematically collecting the observed actions, interactions, rituals, and spatial dynamics. This method permits the researcher to observe first-hand social practices and norms that participants might take for granted or are forced to justify. Field notes are taken descriptively, describing verbal and non-verbal behaviour, settings, and interpersonal interactions. Observations produce repeated patterns, contradictions, and underlying meanings of daily life over time.

Semi-structured interviews: Besides observation, the researcher conducted semi-structured interviews with 10 carefully chosen participants. These interviews explored participants’ meanings, motivations, issues, and views in greater depth. An open-ended, flexible interview guide kept things organised while allowing flexibility for new material to emerge. Probing and follow-up questions enabled exploring ideas that naturally arose through discussion. Interviews are digitally recorded (with permission), verbatim transcribed, and cross-checked with observational data. This triangulation of methods lends credibility to the findings by collecting data from many perspectives and ensuring that conclusions are made based on self-reported and observed phenomena.

3.4. Data Collection Method

The data collection occurs in two broad phases to enable in-depth and context-rich understanding.

1. Stage 1—participant observation: The researcher engaged in intensive and repeated observation of the natural settings of the participants, becoming embedded in day-to-day routines where relevant and taking systematic field notes. These involved descriptions of behaviour, interactions, routines, and physical as well as social environments. The aim was to become immersed within the cultural climate and sensitised to subtle cues and underlying social norms that guide behaviour.

2. Stage 2—semi-structured interviews: All participants were asked to participate in a single interview session. Interviews took place in relaxed and familiar settings to initiate free-flowing conversations. The semi-structured interview approach guaranteed that all matters of relevance were covered, with room for interesting avenues left open by participants to be followed. Interviews lasted between 45 and 90 min and preceded reflexive notes with impressions, affective responses, and contextual descriptions.

In combination, these techniques yielded a dense, multidimensional dataset that reflected observable behaviour and subjective meaning.

3.5. Data Collection Instrument

Data were collected through field observations and informal conversations by using an open-ended observation guide and a field diary. These instruments allowed the researcher to capture emergent themes and behaviours in real time, while maintaining flexibility in a culturally sensitive setting. Moreover, the questions asked of the participants were as follows:

• Can you describe a time when you felt someone in the community was being treated unfairly? How did people around them respond?
• How do people in your community usually support each other when someone is struggling—financially, emotionally, or otherwise?
• Have you ever seen situations where people take advantage of others in the community? Why do you think that happens?
• In your experience, do people here feel more like a team or more like they’re on their own trying to survive?

3.6. Data Analysis

Analysis was facilitated via thematic analysis, a well-established approach to identifying, exploring, and interpreting themes within qualitative data. The process started with immersion in the data, with field notes and interview transcripts being read multiple times. This process allowed the researcher to become familiar with the material and begin making initial notes. The second procedure was open coding, in which the data were cut up and coded descriptively in terms of salient ideas, actions, or feelings. The initial codes were examined and collated into groups, which were then developed into general themes that encapsulate repeating patterns and underlying signification.

Ongoing comparison throughout is utilised—between transcripts and between codes—to achieve consistency and highlight variations. Data from observations were employed to corroborate and flesh out themes emerging from the interviews, adding richness to the analysis and assisting its validity. The researcher kept analytic memos for recording interpretations, theoretical links, and emergent findings. The final process was synthesising themes into a rich account that captured the diversity and unity of participants’ experiences. Direct quotations and detailed descriptions support the account, so the participants’ voices were kept centre stage when reporting the findings.

3.7. Ethical Considerations

As a UAE-based researcher, I occupied a position of both proximity and distance from the participants. Shared geographical familiarity enabled rapport-building, yet differences in socioeconomic background, nationality, and class required constant reflection to mitigate bias. Field interactions were carefully structured to reduce power imbalances, with an emphasis on listening, maintaining cultural sensitivity, and avoiding assumptions about participants’ lived realities. Ethical integrity guided this research and was regarded on several dimensions:

• Anonymity and confidentiality: The rights of participants were made known to them, and consent forms were supplied that provided the purpose of the study, the procedures for data handling, and the right to withdraw at any time. All data files and publications use pseudonyms, and information that is identified is removed or changed to safeguard participant privacy. Data are stored securely and accessed solely by the researcher.
• Reflexivity of the researcher: Reflexivity of the researcher refers to being constantly aware of personal assumptions, beliefs, and background, which can be used to sway the interpretation of data. Reflexive notetaking is being kept so that changes in knowledge, emotional experiences, and ethics raised during the fieldwork can be recorded. Being open helps build credibility as well as the genuineness of the research.
• Navigating insider/outsider status: Insider/outsider researcher status may be the most significant threat to ethnographic analysis. If the researcher has a social, cultural, or linguistic affinity with participants, this can increase rapport and access and potentially overidentification or bias. Alternatively, as an outsider, more effort must be put into establishing trust and interpreting contextual nuances. The researcher is aware of this dynamic and attempts to manage it by taking a critical distance while promoting respectful interaction. This double vision enhances the research process by facilitating empathic understanding and analytical precision.

3.8. Reflexivity

The researcher’s positionality as an academic based in the UAE and ethnically distinct from the participant group was a crucial factor in the research process. While cultural and linguistic differences created initial distance, a shared understanding of marginalisation in the Gulf context allowed for rapport-building. Reflexive journaling was maintained throughout the fieldwork, documenting the researcher’s assumptions, role, and impact on participant responses. No incentives were offered, and the interview tone remained neutral to minimise social desirability bias.

4. Results and Thematic Analysis

The following findings are based on ethnographic observations and informal conversations with South Asian migrants in Muwailah, Sharjah. Organised around four core propositions, the results reveal how moral disengagement and informal power structures shape internal harm within migrant networks, challenging the myth of collective solidarity. While the sample may appear demographically similar, notable intra-group differences—such as nationality, religious background, and years of experience in the Gulf—shaped their perceptions of solidarity and harm. These variations were reflected in how moral disengagement, reciprocity, and blame were discussed. The findings reflect the lived experiences of low-income South Asian migrants and should not be extrapolated to represent the entire migrant population in Sharjah or the Gulf, including more affluent expatriates or other cultural groups.

4.1. Theme 1: Diffusion of Responsibility

The findings in the first theme were the result of asking the first question, which asks the participants the following: “Q1: Can you describe when you felt someone in the community was unfairly treated? How did people around them respond?” The responses were “Yes, sure. I recall seeing a young widow being deprived of her inheritance of property by her in-laws. Most neighbours kept quiet for fear of conflict” (Participants 1, 4, 6, 7, and 8), which shows how normalised fear is, and the instance of moral disengagement is stealing the widow’s inheritance and taking advantage of the widow as she has no one else left in her life. Moreover, another incidence took place where several respondents mentioned the same story and the direct quote was “Oh sure! One day, a vendor was accused of stealing falsely. Some elders attempted to intervene, but most simply stood by” (Participants 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, and 12). This is evidence that migrants act as if they are here for the show but will never participate. In addition, the participants seemed astonished when the researcher pointed out the hypocrisy. The participants just replied by saying different variations of “This is how it is, and we are too busy to do anything else”. Moreover, the same issue extends towards schooling. As the researcher observed a schoolgirl crying near a staircase, the researcher approached the crowd around the girl and asked about the reasons for the girl hysterically crying, and the collective response was “Yes, definitely. A young girl was blamed for someone else’s mistake at school. Some friends supported her, but the teachers did not listen” (Participants 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, and 12). The researchers felt that everything kept moving, but somehow it all felt paused, like life is still playing but slightly out of sync.

Table 1. Diffusion of responsibility coding table.

Theme	Code	Description
Community silence	Passive bystanders	People witness unfairness but avoid involvement due to fear or indifference.
Selective support	Limited intervention	A few individuals try to support, but the majority stay uninvolved.
Gender and social bias	Discrimination	Unfair treatment often targets women and youth due to cultural power dynamics.

shows the codes and themes that combine to form Theme 1: Diffusion of Responsibility, with a brief description.

In migrant society, as seen in Table 1, injustices tend to go unnoticed. Informants provided instances in which the wrongfully accused and those wrongly deprived of rightful inheritance received minimal or no sympathy from others. Silence can be explained by considering the process of moral disengagement—community members psychologically disconnect from others’ pain to maintain their distance. Instead of standing up to injustice, they withdraw into the security of non-intervention, permitting systemic or interpersonal injustices to continue.

Another primary reason for the community’s silence in the presence of injustice is fear—fear of reprisal, social ostracism, or confrontation. Respondents indicated that even when individuals knew someone was being unfairly treated, they remained silent, fearing that involvement would jeopardise their social status or relationships. This means that assistance is usually withheld not because of a lack of empathy but because of a strategic choice not to become a target. It suggests a survivalist mindset in which people safeguard their place by keeping a distance from other people’s misfortunes. The following findings explore and illustrate “P1: Injustices within migrant communities are frequently met with silence and inaction, driven by fear, dependency, and mechanisms of moral disengagement” through ethnographic observations and participant narratives.

This form of coercive obligation reflects Bandura’s (1999) theory of moral disengagement, where individuals justify harmful actions—such as exploiting others in need—by reframing them as morally acceptable. Here, older or better-established migrants position their actions within a narrative of sacrifice and loyalty, creating a false moral economy where help is expected, not chosen. These patterns highlight that emotional debt becomes a currency of exploitation, particularly within tightly knit migrant circles where silence is the cost of perceived honour.

4.2. Theme 2: Situational Generosity

The question asked to explore this theme was “Q2: How do people in your community usually support each other when someone is struggling—financially, emotionally, or otherwise?” to which the participants responded “Yeah, sure. If somebody’s in debt, neighbours chip in money—such as for doctor bills or funerals” (Participants 3, 6, 8, 10, and 12). However, this appears to contradict the first theme, which emphasises a diffusion of responsibility among migrants. This could indicate that they provide support with issues that do not matter much or could be described as minimal. Moreover, another group of participants claimed “Yes, they check in emotionally. When my mom was sick, women from the neighbourhood brought food every day” (Participants 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 12). It is hopeful to see that there is some kind of communal support that seems to be religiously related. For instance, another group stated “Oh yes, the mosque committee tends to come in. They run charity drives or even subsidies school fees” (Participants 5, 8, 10, 11, and 12). This raises another question—what if the migrants are non-Muslim?—a topic largely overlooked by participants.

Table 2. Situational generosity coding table.

Theme	Code	Description
Financial solidarity	Collective aid	Neighbours contribute money in times of need.
Emotional support	Compassionate care	The community offers emotional and domestic support during crises.
Institutional help	Religious/community org	Local institutions play a key role in formal and informal aid distribution.

shows the codes and themes that combine to form Theme 2: Situational Generosity, with a brief description.

Respondents frequently portrayed community charity as strongly situational, as seen in Table 2. Acts of assistance—especially material assistance—only emerge for powerful crises such as illness or death. While this demonstrates the capacity to rally support in times of crisis, it also reveals a reactive, not proactive, mentality for assisting others. Such assistance is usually short-term, transactional, and crisis-oriented, and does not have the stability and quality required for maintaining long-term community well-being. Support in these migrant communities tends to be gendered, with women shouldering the emotional caregiving burden.

As participants noted, women are responsible for cooking, visiting, and comforting those in need. This results in an imbalance where emotional labour is not only expected of women but also usually goes unacknowledged and unsupported. It highlights that even in migrant networks, classic gender roles still linger embedded within, and how the emotional binding of the society is placed squarely on the shoulders of a very few, in many cases overstretched, members. Support becomes mediated more through formal or quasi-formal setups like mosques, charity organisations, or community councils. While institutions provide some reliability, they do come at the cost of some interpersonal support. The participants observed that individual assistance is becoming a luxury, substituted by institutionalised aid. This institution-based dependence demonstrates the erosion of interpersonal bonds, where collective responsibility is outsourced and the illusion of close interpersonal relationships becomes increasingly untenable. The theme presented above corresponds to one of the study’s core propositions, “P2: Help and support within the migrant network are highly situational and often gendered, placing disproportionate emotional and caregiving burdens on women, or deferring support to external institutions”, offering insight into how these dynamics unfold in real-life migrant experiences.

The gendered nature of intra-community expectations aligns with intersectionality theory (Crenshaw 1991), where overlapping vulnerabilities—such as gender and migrant status—create compounded burdens. In these settings, women are often cast as caregivers without institutional support, absorbing emotional labour for communities under strain. These findings challenge the assumption that migrant networks are equitable or communal; instead, they reveal invisible hierarchies that shape who gives, who receives, and who breaks.

4.3. Theme 3: Internalised Exploitation

The following question was asked to explore internalised exploitation: “Q3: Have you ever seen people exploit others in the community? Why do you think that happens?” However, the responses were disheartening as the first responses were: “Yes, unfortunately. Some individuals act poor to receive more charity. It occurs frequently during Ramadan” (Participants 2, 5, 8, 10, and 12), hence using religious celebrations as scamming techniques. Moreover, another collective response stated “Yes. Landlords also overcharge tenants, knowing they won’t complain. It’s exploitation.” (Participants 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, and 11). It is evident that the buildings in those areas are primarily managed by South Asian real estate agents who raise the prices without the landlord’s approval to acquire a few thousand Dirhams without the landlord even knowing, as it is an illegal commission earned in an illegal economy. “Oh, definitely. Politicians utilise their connections to acquire more resources than they require” (Participants 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12). It is important to note that the politicians they are referring to are not local Emirati politicians, as they are instead migrant business owners who control the land and alert government officials with false reports, so the exploitation goes unnoticed.

Table 3. Internalised exploitation coding table.

Theme	Code	Description
Resource misuse	Charity fraud	Individuals exploit social welfare meant for the truly needy.
Power exploitation	Economic manipulation	People in power (e.g., landlords) use their position to take unfair advantage.
Corruption	Political privilege	Politically connected individuals benefit disproportionately from aid/resources.

shows the codes and themes that combine to form Theme 3: Internalised Exploitation, with a brief description.

As shown in Table 3, concerns were raised regarding individuals who exploit the community’s generosity, especially during religious seasons like Ramadan. Such a misuse of trust is evidence of weakness in informal support systems, whereby emotional appeals are exploited to manipulate them. It signifies the requirement of accountability within the processes of community aid. Economic relations of power, like landlords raising rents or employers not paying wages on time, were also brought up. Such actions are most likely taken under the belief that the victimised groups will not report them out of intimidation or social standing. This is a marker of an overarching theme of system accountability where socioeconomic standing is involved in presenting oneself as able to challenge unequal treatment. Some participants cited political corruption as an implicit source of exploitation. When politically connected individuals consume more than their fair share of local resources, they undermine trust and cause resentment. This drains the limited resources and creates an unequal game, which shuts out the non-privileged individuals to a greater degree. The analysis above is structured around “P3: Exploitative practices such as rent inflation or manipulation of aid are internally justified and normalised through shared community narratives that obscure accountability”, with each finding highlighting how the themes emerged through lived experiences in the field.

Together, these themes suggest that intra-community harm is not an anomaly but a structurally embedded feature of migrant life in informal economies. Thematic links to moral disengagement, emotional labour, and gendered hierarchies reveal a system of survival that often normalises silence and suppresses dissent. These findings not only question romanticised views of migrant solidarity but also call for interventions that go beyond structural access to include emotional, psychological, and relational dimensions of well-being.

4.4. Theme 4: Individualism and Survival Mentality

The following question was asked to understand the individualism and survival mentality of the participants: “Q4: In your experience, do people here feel more like a team or more like they’re on their own trying to survive?” The first collective response stated “Yeah, sincerely, everybody else is just surviving for themselves. There’s a survival mentality.” (Participants 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 11, and 12). This shows how the participants are forced to live in survival mode instead of casually working and reaping the benefits that come with it, although we already established that the economy is informal, so having good benefit schemes is questionable. Moreover, “Well, occasionally they gather together—like on festivals—but day-to-day life is quite lonely. (Participants 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 12). This shows how they seem to be a community during festivals but, in reality, they are alone, which complements the previous quote on being in survival mode, which can activate undesirable traits. Furthermore, “Yes, people want to be united, but economic stress keeps them too busy for real connection.” (Participants 5, 8, 10, 11 and 12). This quote can sum up the situation.

Table 4. Individualism and survival mentality coding table.

Theme	Code	Description
Individualism	Survival mentality	People prioritise personal survival over community unity.
Occasional unity	Event-based togetherness	People show collective spirit only during specific occasions.
Economic pressure	Disconnection due to strain	Financial stress prevents deeper social bonding or cooperation.

shows the codes and themes that combine to form Theme 4: Individualism and Survival Mentality, with a brief description.

Several participants, as shown in Table 4, pointed out that individuals usually feel alone in their difficulties, concerned with their survival, not the collective good. The “every man for himself” culture implies an erosion of social cohesiveness, most likely resulting from economic strain and overcrowded daily routines. Whereas such mutual empathy may be present in principle, it is frequently overridden by individual suffering. Although the prevailing survival mentality is generally the case, there are instances of cohesion, usually at festivals, weddings, or religious rites. These briefly rekindle the sense of community, demonstrating that cohesion can be achieved under the proper conditions. Still, this unity tends to be shallow and fleeting and lacks the cohesion required to generate solid communal connections. Participants said financial stress is a primary source of why people do not grow strong social attachments. With restricted resources and greater demands, individuals tend to become too busy attending to their issues to provide care for others. This economic hardship fosters isolation even in densely populated settings. This study unpacks “P4: Despite surface-level communal rituals, individuals increasingly experience emotional isolation, burnout, and disillusionment, with collective identity reduced to symbolic unity” by presenting the key findings that reflect its presence in the data.

The dissonance between symbolic unity and lived disconnection recalls Durkheim’s ([1912] 1995) concept of mechanical solidarity—where rituals sustain cohesion but fail to resolve systemic inequalities. While communal events may offer temporary relief or celebration, they obscure the underlying exploitation and emotional detachment faced by many. This duality shows how shared identity can be performative, masking intra-group fractures that remain unspoken but deeply felt.

5. Discussion

In cases in which members of the migrant population face apparent injustice—e.g., a widow being deprived of her inheritance or a child unfairly accused—the typical reaction, reported by participants, is a thundering silence (Adekunle 2024). This group avoidance is most sensibly explained concerning moral disengagement. Instead of standing up for justice, witnesses tend to justify their silence based on personal fear or the attitude that it is “not their place” to act (Vera et al. 2023). The psychological distance allows others in the community to escape guilt while permitting harmful dynamics to continue. The threat of conflict or social backlash prevents one from acting, since assisting a marginalised member can incur a social or economic price (Lee et al. 2023). The community is thus complicit in allowing harm to continue. In these situations, support is not only not present but is applied selectively based on one’s social capital or sense of importance.

Vulnerable group members, also often women and children, bear the brunt, their marginality further silencing their narratives. This differential compassion discredits the myth that migrant communities are always in solidarity with their own. Although migrant communities express generosity in times of overt crisis—such as illness, death, or economic misfortune—this assistance is short-term, ad hoc, and highly situation-dependent (Bhabha 2022). Financial solidarity tends to occur as a reaction to a single event, e.g., raising money for hospital fees or funeral costs. Such generosity is never sustained or systematic, though. It also rests heavily on the visibility of the crisis and the social visibility of the individual in the community (Pill 2021). In addition, caregiving that involves emotions typically defaults to women, who take on time-consuming roles such as cooking, caregiving, and emotional labour—jobs not often valued or returned.

Such unpaid, frequently invisible work makes up the fabric of support at the community level but strengthens gender hierarchies. When formal, interpersonal support declines, religious and communal institutions (e.g., mosques or committees) lead efforts in coordinating aid (Abideen and Abbas 2021). Whereas such buildings deliver efficiency, they also facilitate emotional detachment through subcontracting moral responsibility. Here, community solidarity turns procedural instead of personal, further eroding the concept of a close-knit migrant network (Buijs 2024). Hidden beneath the façade of communal care is a more sinister trend of manipulation and exploitation, often disguised as help. Members shared anecdotes of people who inflated difficulty to gain access to assistance or of politically connected individuals and landlords taking advantage of their influence for their benefit.

These illustrations reveal how internal hierarchies in migrant networks—like economic status, political connections, or legal status—produce unequal access to resources. In other instances, the exploiters rationalise their actions through moral disengagement techniques such as euphemistic labelling (e.g., “it’s the way things are done here”) or attributing the blame to “tradition” or “necessity” (Knoth and Javidan 2024). These justifications water down individual responsibility while reinforcing structural injury. The most disturbing thing is that such exploitation frequently takes place under the guise of mentorship or community leadership (Frierson 2022). Effectively, those most valued in the community—sponsors, elders, or established migrants—occasionally become gatekeepers of opportunity and agents of coercion, by extension. The abuse is subtle and veiled in social obligations. Hence, it takes a lot of effort for victims to expose the perpetrators, and they risk isolation or blame.

Unlike the myth that migrant communities function as a single family, respondents uniformly testified to a state of isolation where people are chiefly concerned with their survival. Although fleeting instances of being together occur during cultural or religious celebrations, these are symbolic and not structural—brief halts in otherwise fractured lives (Sancken 2022). On the other hand, daily life is marked by isolation, economic unease, and emotional depletion. Even individuals who say they want to help confess to being too overwhelmed or financially strapped to provide adequate support. This syndrome, referred to here as “support fatigue,” illustrates how chronic crises and systemic abandonment foster emotional numbness and disconnection. Community cohesion deteriorates as individuals pull back into their worlds (Viora 2025). The illusion of unity is sustained by performance, not practice—rituals, events, and symbolic gestures conceal the disconnection that lies beneath. The result is a community that looks unified from the outside but is, in practice, fractured and fatigued, with support conditional, temporary, and disproportionately shouldered by a few (Ingham et al. 2022).

6. Conclusions

This research critically revisits the idealised tale of migrant networks as inherently supportive, only to uncover a far more intricate and frequently contradictory reality. Using Bandura’s (1999) theory of moral disengagement as a conceptual lens, this study reveals that exploitation, neglect, and moral compromise are not anomalies but rather features that can emerge within these ostensibly protective systems. The thematic analysis illustrates how injustices are frequently overlooked, emotional and economic support is unevenly distributed, and assistance is sometimes used as a mechanism of social control. A fractured image emerges, one of a community struggling to survive, where solidarity is conditional, gendered, and shaped by hidden power hierarchies.

Rather than discarding the notion of migrant networks altogether, this research calls for a more nuanced understanding of how harm is internalised and rationalised within communities. Migrants are not only passive victims of structural forces but can also become agents of harm, consciously or unconsciously reproducing systems of inequality within their own circles. The findings challenge overly romanticised assumptions of intra-community unity and reveal the survival costs, symbolic gestures, and unspoken trade-offs that underpin daily life in migrant enclaves.

By drawing attention to moral silence, emotional fatigue, and situational altruism, this study reframes intra-community relationships as both sources of resilience and sites of vulnerability. This conclusion reinforces the central aim of the paper: to interrogate the moral and psychological processes that allow exploitation to persist even within groups presumed to offer refuge. It urges scholars, policymakers, and practitioners to move beyond surface-level community-based approaches and consider the deeper ethical and emotional landscapes that shape migrant lives. In doing so, it contributes to a growing body of critical migration scholarship and lays the groundwork for more just and context-sensitive interventions.

6.1. Recommendations

Community organisations need to integrate internal mechanisms of accountability and trauma-informed practices in controlling intra-community violence. Programmes must incorporate power relations and gender equality training into support networks while creating peer-facilitated spaces where safe disclosure and respecting each other dominate over performance solidarity or cultural silence.

6.2. Future Implications

Follow-up studies must study moral disengagement in migrant communities using mixed methods and longitudinal analysis. Studying how the next generation experiences intra-community exploitation and resistance can yield crucial details about changing norms, allowing researchers to co-design ethical protection and support models within migrant networks. While this paper critically engages with the social dynamics of migrant networks, it does not conduct formal network analysis (e.g., graph-based mapping). Future research could complement this approach with computational or visual network methods to better quantify relational structures.

6.3. Limitations and Strength

This study recognises the limitations of using “migrant” as a broad category and acknowledges that the findings may not be generalisable to privileged expatriates or white-collar migrant groups within the UAE. Therefore, the small sample size and qualitative study scope limit generalisability. It is representative of individual migrant participant experiences in a certain context, but it may not be representative of the diversity of global migrant communities. The ethnographic methodology, rich in depth, is interpretive and context-dependent. A major strength of this study, “When Help Hurts: Moral Disengagement and the Myth of the Supportive Migrant Network”, is its critical and subtle examination of support systems among migrants, undermining the common precept of solidarity in the community. Through thematic analysis, this research accurately portrays migrants’ everyday lives and uncovers how moral disengagement works in so-called supportive networks. This method not only brings to the fore covert manifestations of exploitation and asymmetrical power relations, but also offers important insights into the psychological and social processes that facilitate harm in the guise of assistance. Finally, this research does not aim to extend its findings to white-collar or privileged migrant populations, commonly referred to as “expatriates” in the Gulf context. These groups often benefit from more secure legal statuses, employer protections, and institutional privileges, making their experiences structurally distinct from the precarious realities examined here.