|
Democracy and Conspiracy
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Tobias Haberkorn
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
|
Vicious and Virtuous Circles in the Rural Economy of East European Borderlands (19th-20th Century)
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Irina MarinRolf Bauer
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
|
Liberalism Challenged: Debating the Causes That Weaken Liberalism, and Illiberalism’s Amplifying Feedback Loop Effect
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Clemena AntonovaMarlene LaruelleYavor Siderov
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
|
‘Patriotic Science’: The COVID 19 Pandemic and the Politics of Indigeneity and Decoloniality in Sri Lanka
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Harshana RambukwellaLudger HagedornSaurabh Dube
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
|
Telling History: On Creating the Polish History Museum and its Exhibitions
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Dariusz StolaLudger HagedornRobert Kostro
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
|
Social and Ecological Movements in “Apocalyptic Times”
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Adam RamsayLudger HagedornMatyáš Křížkovský
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
|
Europe’s Futures Colloquium IV
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Bernd MarinLeszek Jazdzewski
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
|
Learning From the Prespa Agreement
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Ioannis ArmakolasIvan Vejvoda
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
|
Letters to Enver Hoxha
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Nikolai AntoniadisMiloš Vec
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
|
Forced Migration, the Antinomies of Mobility, and the Autonomy of Asylum
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Ayşe ÇağlarNicholas de Genova
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
Rather than seeing the ever more devious reaction formations of border policing and militarization, migrant detention, immigration enforcement, and deportation by state powers as if these were purely a matter of control, it is instructive to situate this economy of power in relation to the primacy, autonomy, and subjectivity of human mobility on a global (transnational, intercontinental, cross- border, postcolonial) scale. This is true, I contend, as much for refugees as for those who come to be derisively designated to be mere “migrants.” If we start from the human freedom of movement and recognize the various tactics of bordering as reaction formations, then the various tactics of border policing and forms of migration governance can be seen to introduce interruptions that temporarily immobilize and decelerate human cross-border mobilities with the aim of subjecting them to processes of surveillance and adjudication. Indeed, it is this dialectic that reconstitutes these mobilities as something that comes to be apprehensible, alternately, as “migration,” or “asylum-seeking,” or the “forced migration” of “refugees” in flight from persecution or violence – which is to say, as one or another variety of target and object of government. Yet, even under the most restricted circumstances and under considerable constraint, these human mobilities exude a substantial degree of autonomous subjectivity whereby migrants and refugees struggle to appropriate mobility. Even against the considerable forces aligned to immobilize their mobility projects, or to subject them to the stringent and exclusionary rules and constrictions of asylum, the subjective autonomy of human mobility remains an incorrigible force.
Read more
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
Rather than seeing the ever more devious reaction formations of border policing and militarization, migrant detention, immigration enforcement, and deportation by state powers as if these were purely a matter of control, it is instructive to situate this economy of power in relation to the primacy, autonomy, and subjectivity of human mobility on a global (transnational, intercontinental, cross- border, postcolonial) scale. This is true, I contend, as much for refugees as for those who come to be derisively designated to be mere “migrants.” If we start from the human freedom of movement and recognize the various tactics of bordering as reaction formations, then the various tactics of border policing and forms of migration governance can be seen to introduce interruptions that temporarily immobilize and decelerate human cross-border mobilities with the aim of subjecting them to processes of surveillance and adjudication. Indeed, it is this dialectic that reconstitutes these mobilities as something that comes to be apprehensible, alternately, as “migration,” or “asylum-seeking,” or the “forced migration” of “refugees” in flight from persecution or violence – which is to say, as one or another variety of target and object of government. Yet, even under the most restricted circumstances and under considerable constraint, these human mobilities exude a substantial degree of autonomous subjectivity whereby migrants and refugees struggle to appropriate mobility. Even against the considerable forces aligned to immobilize their mobility projects, or to subject them to the stringent and exclusionary rules and constrictions of asylum, the subjective autonomy of human mobility remains an incorrigible force.
Read more
|