|
Migration, Borders and Technologies – An Introduction to Techno-Borderscapes
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Ayşe ÇağlarGiorgia Donà
|
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
|
The “Migrant” in the Middle: How the Struggle for Decolonization and the Struggle against Fascism Are Linked
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Ayşe ÇağlarGregory Feldman
|
|
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
|
|
The Precarious Lives of Syrians: Temporary Protection and the Turkey/EU Deal
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Ayşe ÇağlarFeyzi Baban
|
Register here
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
|
Researching 'Journeys': Challenges and Possibilities in Migration Studies
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Ayşe ÇağlarIshita Dey
|
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
|
The Conundrum of Trafficking and Statelessness in West Bengal
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Ayşe ÇağlarPaula Banerjee
|
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
|
Refugee Sponsorship: Will Civil Society Keep Stepping Up?
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Ayşe ÇağlarJennifer Hyndman
|
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
|
“We Are All Refugees”: Informal Settlements and Camps as Converging Spaces of Global Displacements
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Ayşe ÇağlarFaranak Miraftab
|
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
|
Contradictions in the Governance of Environmental Mobility: Evidence from African Cities
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Achilles KallergisAyşe Çağlar
|
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
|
The Afghan Crisis Reconsidered
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Ludger HagedornNergis CanefePaula Banerjee
|
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
When the U.S. government announced its withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Afghan government folded, the president abandonend his people and the army surrendered to the Taliban. Many people, including the U.S. president looked askance at this development. Banerjee argues that such a development was hardly surprising. When the U.S. attacked Afghanistan, it was to create a client state that would protect U.S. interests, not those of Afghanistan or its neighbours. In fact, the nascent process of nation-building was halted. The US wanted to impose its values and most Afghans who went along with it did so out of self-interest. At best, the U.S. created a “creamy layer of collaborators” that in no way had deep rooted impact. When the U.S. left, there was nothing to hold the amorphous group together and they could not think of themselves as one nation. Many have fled, the others have surrendered to the Taliban, portraying clearly that it was never their war. Rather, it was another episode of the great game.
Nergis Canefe discussed the history of the Afghan refugee crisis that predates the withdrawal of the U.S. troops and the regional containment and redistribution of the dispossessed Afghan populations.
Read more
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
When the U.S. government announced its withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Afghan government folded, the president abandonend his people and the army surrendered to the Taliban. Many people, including the U.S. president looked askance at this development. Banerjee argues that such a development was hardly surprising. When the U.S. attacked Afghanistan, it was to create a client state that would protect U.S. interests, not those of Afghanistan or its neighbours. In fact, the nascent process of nation-building was halted. The US wanted to impose its values and most Afghans who went along with it did so out of self-interest. At best, the U.S. created a “creamy layer of collaborators” that in no way had deep rooted impact. When the U.S. left, there was nothing to hold the amorphous group together and they could not think of themselves as one nation. Many have fled, the others have surrendered to the Taliban, portraying clearly that it was never their war. Rather, it was another episode of the great game.
Nergis Canefe discussed the history of the Afghan refugee crisis that predates the withdrawal of the U.S. troops and the regional containment and redistribution of the dispossessed Afghan populations.
Read more
|