Their " Crisis " and Ours: The Proliferation of Crises and " Crisis " Formations (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Autonomy of Migration within the Crises (by N. De Genova, G.Garelli, M. Tazzioli)
There has been an unrelenting proliferation of official discourses of "crisis" and "emergency" over the last several years. The historical era for our concerns may be understood to properly commence with the enunciation of an effectively global state of emergency with the promulgation of the War on Terror in the aftermath of the events of September 11, 2001 in the United States, which marked a watershed in the reconfiguration of the global geopolitical landscape of the post-Cold War world order. Those events have served as the authorizing pretext not only for paroxysms of "antiterrorist" securitization, surveillance, and political repression but also for unnumbered major and minor military invasions, wars, occupations, civil wars, proxy wars, remotecontrol (drone) wars, (pseudo-)revolutions, palace coups, covert operations, psy-ops, and counterinsurgency campaigns on a global scale. In the midst of that protracted and massively destructive series of politico-military disruptions of the world geopolitical order, the systemic convulsions that have wracked the world capitalist economy, especially since 2008, subsequently became perhaps the premier and dominant referent for "the crisis" everywhere. Then, in 2015, alarmist reactions to an ostensible "migrant" or "refugee crisis" in Europe lent an unprecedented prominence to the veritable and undeniable autonomy of (transnational, cross-border) migrant and refugee movements, replete with their heterogeneity of insistent, disobedient, and incorrigible practices of appropriating mobility and making claims to space (Bojadžijev and Mezzadra 2015; De Genova Acknowledgments: We are grateful to Stephan Scheel for his careful, thorough, and thoughtful critical feedback on an 1 earlier draft of this essay.
Recuperating the Sideshows of Capitalism: The Autonomy of Migration Today
This text is a reflection on our 2007 contribution to the TRANSIT MIGRATION research project, ÒThe Autonomy of Migration: Ten Theses Towards a Methodology.Ó 1 Within the project, we analyzed the movements of migration and the migration policies deployed against them at the edges of the EU, in order to decipher the contours of a new regime of emerging migration politics. We were interested in investigating, from the perspective of social theory, what was symptomatic in movements of migration. We were interested in tracing the crossing of borders, the traversing of territories, the enmeshing of cultures, the unsettling of institutions (first among them nation-states, but also citizenship), the connecting of languages, and the flight from exploitation and oppression Ð interested, in other words, in investigating what migration teaches us about the conditions of contemporary forms of sociality, and that which goes beyond them. With this article, we pick up the thread and offer some furt...
The Migrant Crisis and Philosophy of Migration - Reality, Realism, Ethics
The Migrant Crisis and Philosophy of Migration - Reality, Realism, Ethics, 2018
"The Migrant Crisis and Philosophy of Migration: Reality, Realism, Ethics" is a PhD thesis by Dario Mazzola in the field of Moral and Political Philosophy, Ethics of Migration. The thesis is divided into an introduction, three main sections, two appendixes and general conclusions. The introduction presents the extent, the tradition, and the relevance of philosophy of migration and refuge, on both analytic and historical standpoints. The main body of the thesis is devoted to characterizing and criticizing the migrant crisis, to elaborate a suitable theory to deal with it normatively, and then to defend the right to free movement or open borders in the face of realistic and nationalistic objections. The two appendixes reinforce the argument, while the conclusions resume it and broadly show its implications on methodology and substantial political issues. Chapter one, which constitutes section I, is devoted to the migrant crisis and reconstructs the main problems and dynamics which constitute the phenomenon, mainly by drawing on critical and empirical literature. Chapter II and III, which compose the second section on realism, deal with the tradition of realism and the attempt at elaborating a realistic theory from within migration ethics respectively. Chapter IV and V, the most purely normative component of the thesis, defend the open-borders ideal in the light of the previous presentation of the subject-matter and of the main methodological problems. This is done by reconstructing the critiques to freedom of movement advanced by realists, proponents of freedom of association, and liberal nationalist most relevantly. In conclusion, a threefold ethical arguments defend the right to migration: the presumptive favor for liberty over restrictions, an extended version of the classic open-borders overlapping consesus between main ethical standpoints, and an argument for the integration of the right to free movement with human rights in general. The import and implications of the thesis are read and constrained in the realist(ic) way descrived in section II. Appendix I changes the perspective on the migrant crisis from the abstract to the personal and individual, and does so by showing the relevance of refugee stories to restore empathy and, by doing this, to strengthen social solidarity. Appendix II deepens the thesis that natural law theory would be comprehended within the pro open-borders consensus. In conclusion, with the same qualifications which hold for any other right, and while recognizing its subordination to more fundamental ones such as rights to life or to personal liberty and security, the right to free movement is analyzed, vindicated, and defended, even in the face of the migrant crisis.
Migration in the Age of the Nation-state: Migrants, Refugees, and the National Order of Things
2014
This article attends to the historical and contemporary relationship between migration and the global international order. It takes as its point of departure the argument that comprehensive analyses of migration must not only transcend the traditional subjects, objects, and assumptions of international relations theory, but also interrogate and historicize that which conditions the possibility of the international order, namely, the nation-state. As such, it attends to the emergence and consolidation of the international order, to the role of migration in its production, and to the manner in which it continues to structure the field and practices of migration, and conditions the possibilities of migrant populations. Thinking about migrants and refugees from an international perspective has usually entailed thinking about the technologies (the laws, statutes, and practices) that govern the crossing of internationally recognized territorial borders; thinking about trans-or international legal frameworks and conventions that attempt to govern international population movements; identifying, mapping, and analyzing migratory routes, patterns, and types; and identifying and attending to the ways in which international migration has, in the words of Stephen Castles and Mark J. Miller, reforged societies. 1 In this last instance, what is attended to is the manner in which migrants and refugees transform the economic, political, and sociocultural complexion of immigrant-receiving societies; the economic, political, and sociocultural responses of these societies to the aforesaid changes; and the ways in which the identities of the migrants and refugees and the complexions of immigrant-sending societies are likewise transformed and reforged. Taking the issue with the methodological and ontological assumptions and frameworks that guide these studies, Castles and Miller level against them the fundamental criticism that they artificially rupture and compartmentalize the ''migratory process.'' 2 In The Age of Migration: International
Migraciones Internacionales, 2023
Within a global context, the increase in migrations in different regions of the world during this century has led to an increment in academic production on migration. The aim of this article is to analyze the autonomy of migration from the approaches of two of its greatest exponents, Mezzadra and De Genova, who investigate migration's political condition, addressing the relationships of mutual influence between migrants, borders, and the State. The contribution of this paper is to show how this theoretical approach focuses on two fundamental processes to understand migration. On the one hand, it refers to the actions, strategies, and practices of those involved in shaping cross-border migration. On the other hand, it considers the role of States and borders as legal-political and historical constructs in shaping international (often irregular) migratory flows.
THE AUTONOMY OF MIGRATION AFTER ITS SUMMER
It has been two years that Germany's and Austria's governments opened their borders following the pressure of migration movements. Since then, a lot has changed, and not much for the better. Did the demarcations and enclosures of the nation states win once and for all? How does the present situation differ from the one of 2015? And what has migration got to do with social networks, affect and forms of commons?
Migrant Citizenships and Autonomous Mobilities
2015
The study of the political agency and subjectivity of refugees and migrants has become an increasingly important topic within migration studies. Migration involves struggles around fundamental social and political issues, namely mobility, residence, and citizenship rights. Expressions of this struggle can be found in local actions against detention, deportation, and other border controls; campaigns for regularization and status; the revival of sanctuary cities; and global struggles for freedom of movement. However, the traditional concepts and frameworks of migration do not adequately take into account the full dynamic range of migrant practices of political subject-making. This article analyses the “autonomy of migration” literature within migration studies and critically assesses whether the concepts from this perspective can be mobilized to understand the political agency and subjectivity of migrants. While the autonomist approach to migration makes vital and dynamic contributions to our understanding of migrant political agency, its dismissal of citizenship as an exclusionary concept would benefit from a more nuanced approach.