The political materialities of borders

New theoretical directions

Olga Demetriou, Rozita Dimova, Olga Demetriou, Rozita Dimova

• Publisher: Manchester University Press
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9781526123855
• eBook ISBN: 9781526125927
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Scienze sociali
• Subtopic: Sociologia

The political materialities of borders aims to bring questions of materiality to bear specifically on the study of borders. In doing this, the contributors have chosen an approach that does not presume the material aspect of borders but rather explores the ways in which any such materiality comes into being. Through ethnographic and philosophical explorations of the ontology of borders from the perspective of materiality, this volume seeks to throw light on the interaction between the materiality of state borders and the non-material aspects of state-making. This enables, it is shown, a new understanding of borders as productive of the politics of materiality, on which both the state project rests, including in its multifarious forms in the post-nation-state era.

1

Introduction: theorizing material and non-material mediations on the border

Olga Demetriou and Rozita Dimova

The border as process: tracing theoretical genealogies

Social analysis has always recognized that politics is invested in the material. Capitalism and nationalism are projects shown to be rooted in the materialities of production, consumption, commodification, and the reconfiguration of definitions of ‘the human’ in relation to the material world. We may trace a trajectory in the materiality-politics nexus from the Hegelian roots of historical materialism to the Marxist separation between infrastructure and superstructure, through the post-war work of the Frankfurt School on consumerism (Adorno and Horkheimer 1972; Benjamin 1999a; Benjamin 1999b; Marcuse 1991), French neo-Marxist takes on subjectivity (Althusser 1971), and critical theory strands on human-thing assemblages (Deleuze and Guattari 1987; Latour 2005). In this theoretical trajectory materiality is the result of power dynamics obfuscated by the seemingly non-material, which, however, also has material underpinnings. Analytical attention to these blurs the distinction between materiality and non-materiality but makes politics more visible in the process.

Space, architecture, and visual art have offered particularly strong examples of how the material and ideological consolidation of the modern capitalist state takes place (Harvey 2009; Gupta and Ferguson 1997; Thrift 2005). These fields of production have been scrutinized for their role as conduits between materiality and ideology, most notably since Benjamin’s studies of Parisian arcades (1999a). In this volume, we draw on insights from these strands of thinking to examine the implications of the material and non-material constitution of borders. For borders, being perhaps more immediately metonymic of ‘the state’, seem to have received an altogether different treatment from space, architecture, and visual art in the theorization of their materiality until very recently.

Borders have been widely conceptualized as symbolic of the ‘nation’ and/or ‘state’ since the pioneering work of Wilson and Donnan (1998). More recently, advances in technology and shifts in the definition of ‘security’ have prompted an interest in the ways in which borders change (see Rumford 2006 for an overview). An object-like materiality may not be the most appropriate way to conceptualize borders, it has been argued; borders should instead be seen as processes (Newman 2006). And yet their materiality, as lines on the ground or on maps, continues to be taken for granted. That is to say, discussion has all too often proceeded from the assumption of a smooth line of separation to questioning of the manifestations of governing difference and connection within the state. Thus, border studies often seem to take borders as de facto material manifestations of state apparatuses even though emerging literature has sought to question this. Paasi, for example, argues that new spatialities of networks that extend above and below the state are reconfiguring borders in globalization as ideological apparatuses for territorial power (Passi 2009). Agnew proposes a new conceptualization of borders stemming from a redefinition of political community ‘as not being co-extensive with nation-state’ (Agnew 2008: 186). Going further, Van Houtum suggests that we see the border as a lie, promising the desire for (comm)unity while masking the fear of incompleteness (Van Houtum 2010: 126). These studies effectively question the view of the border as the limit where the capitalist nation-state, contested and re-created at its centre, becomes fixed (see also Balibar 2009).

The fact that the state apparatuses congealing around a border actually hover between materiality and ideology in the forms of nation-state ideologies, territorial claims, or discourses of community alerts us to the need for closer scrutiny of borders as key structures in this mediation between materiality and abstraction. In this volume, we focus on exactly this mediation. Our emphasis is neither on the ontology of borders (what they are, or what they are not) nor on their function (what they do), but rather on the question of how the relationship between materiality and abstraction is established. We explore the relationship between what borders are and what they do and the ways in which function affects their perceptions and vice versa. We see, in other words, the processual aspect of borders as a question of this mediation.

In contrast to buildings, documents, films, statues, markets, bodies, or arcades, political philosophy has only recently turned to borders as a field within which to think materiality and politics. The scrutiny of capitalism, liberalism, and sovereignty, this volume shows, needs to take the border into account, most obviously because it is a node between the levels such scrutiny tries to connect: state, inter-state, local, supra-national, global, and so on. In pointing this out we also want to also address the persistence in border studies to dwell primarily on the connections between state, territory, sovereignty, and space but less on the more mediated ideologies they call forth (i.e. beyond the statist ‘us’ and ‘them’). In this volume we want to highlight the intrinsic question of materiality that underlies that of borders. Hence, our question here is how these connections produce frames of governance anew: how, in other words, the border comes to be a process.

Thinking borders through metaphors

In each of the cases that make up the present volume the materialities of the border are deeply implicated in the reproduction of political ideology, its shifts and changes. The borders in Greece, Turkey, and Cyprus, Olga Demetriou shows, which were erected on the premises of particular configurations in the Greco-Turkish dispute, are now being reconfigured in the frame of migration-control priorities. Yet this grand shift of frame is still grounded in both infrastructural and ideological premises. Rather than overhauling them, it appears to have been subsumed by them. Looking more closely at the intricate connections, analysed through the idiom of imbrication, between these infrastructures and ideologies we begin to see the contours of exclusion that provide the continuities between older and new frames and priorities: militarism, an ethnicity-citizenship dyad, a peripheral role within the West. In other case studies, we see continuities of colonialism and cascading hierarchies of state power. Chiara de Cesari exemplifies that in an Italy–Libya treaty that comes to silently index EU–sub-Saharan migrant relations. The materiality of the document makes a difference to what is stated and what remains unstated, and it is through another materiality, that of the Libyan desert, erased prison camps, and current migrant detention centres, that the silence gains its force. We are thus prompted to ask, as Tuija Pulkkinen does, what political materialities exist prior to the border and how they change after its establishment. Her examples of state and sexuality borders demonstrate clearly the problems involved in imagining ‘Finns’ or ‘homosexuals’ before the demarcations, political in different ways, established what is and what is not. These demarcations have been attended, as political projects, by materialities that drew lines on the ground and in law, and it was through those materialities that ‘Finns’ and ‘homosexuals’ came into being as specific kinds of people. The line then, as designation of the border, is in question. Sarah Green explores this central proposition by considering linear vis-à-vis other images of borders. Traces, she argues, are of particular relevance to the thinking of borders as process. But they need not replace the concept of line; rather, they can be read alongside it. Green posits that the critique of linear border thinking has shown precisely the salience of that linear image, especially as state-centred. In therefore exploring other venues, such as trace, we always need to open up the question of why lines persist. And in looking at the two simultaneously, Green offers the concept of ‘tidemark’ as a productive way for rethinking the line-ness and trace-producing processes that attend borders. Stef Jansen illustrates the implications of this as he examines bus routes and property purchases in Sarajevo that reinstate and solidify an otherwise absent border. The Inter-Entity Boundary Line (IEBL), he argues, is exemplary of how borders may be much more than just lines, but in the case of polity borders they are lines nevertheless. It is thus the salience of that line-ness that we must pay close attention to. On the Greek side of the Prespa Lake, Eleni Myrivili argues, the seeming lack of border policing infrastructures is deceptive: policemen and rifles emerge in fishermen’s imaginations as soon as steering a boat across an unseen but thoroughly internalized border is suggested. That line-ness of the border is for Myrivili replete with traces. And these traces are ghostly. Urging us to see the border as ghost, Myrivili is able to examine the processes of statecraft that are predicated on secrecy and the foreclosure of knowledge. And while these processes arise through specific materialities on the border, they point to the heart of state politics. They do this through a ripple effect, Rozita Dimova suggests in her chapter. She shows how the Greek–Macedonian dispute ripples to the centre of the city in the form of statues and monuments. Juxtaposing this monumentality to the lack of conflict symbols on the border, Dimova shows how the mediation between materialities and immaterialities takes on different modalities in the centre and at the borders of the state, which are nevertheless connected and reinforce each other. The economics of connection at the border, we might posit, amplify the economics of conflictual nationalism in the centre of Skopje.

In each of these cases, metaphors are the vehicles through which questions of materiality come to bear specifically on the study of borders: how do borders have presence if they are not seen, as in the Prespa Lake or Sarajevo? How different is this presence from that of the border which is seen, even feared, celebrated, or enjoyed, as in Nicosia, Skopje, or the Aegean? At those instants when a particular space is imagined as a border, it is a political imagination that is at work. Imbrications, lines, traces, ghosts, and ripples reference this political work. They each show in different ways that it is not only border guards, passport scanners, or stamps that enact the state at those points. It is also bodies, thoughts, gestures, comportment. The relation between one and the other is one of dependence, and it is this dependence that often falls by the wayside when we preference one viewpoint over another. Moreover, this dependence creates ‘publics’, both at the border and in the heartlands of states and communities. These publics may be xenophobic, or anti-racist if the dependence is rooted in the securitization of migration. Or they may be tourist or consumerist if the dependence is centred on the enjoyment of the border. They may be tax-paying or utility-dependent if the border is invested with infrastructure or delimits the extension of power and water grids. Scrutinizing how the materialities of soil, water, buildings, grids, paper, and so on are shaped by borders, but also how they reproduce them, sheds new light on the proposition that borders extend everywhere.

We thus want to examine borders as a political condition. For if the proliferation of borders is a sign of our age, then ‘borders’ cannot be taken as simply a ‘case’ for study, an example, a localized phenomenon. They should evidence an underlying arrangement. This arrangement, we propose, can be shown in the processes of mediation between materialities and immaterialities that take shape around borders. Through ethnographic and philosophical explorations of this mediation, the volume seeks to throw light on the interaction between the materiality of state borders and the non-material aspects of state-making. This enables, it is shown, a new understanding of borders as productive of the politics of materiality, on which the state project rests, including its multifarious forms in the post-nation-state era. We therefore explore materiality as a political site. This means inserting the analysis of borders and bordering into the question about what constitutes materiality, what escapes it, and whether the material can ever be seen in disjunction from the non-material. As we will show, materiality is enmeshed with immateriality. Consequently, borders exist on both material and non-material registers and produce material configurations, actions, and abstractions that straddle the material and non-material worlds. The notions of ‘difference’, ‘division’, and ‘connection’, which emanate from the border, wherever it may be located, are understood within this frame.

Symbolic (b)orders and the material

A binary opposition between materiality and immateriality (or non-materiality) is obviously a problematic position to start with. Can something be outside the material, and should we consider concepts, thoughts, or ideas as non-material? An important move beyond the Cartesian dichotomy is Lacan’s symbolic order, which he would claim is material. Lacan’s concept of the symbolic order – the order of language, signification and meaning – is a domain of materiality. Everything that is symbolized and signified (marked), either consciously or unconsciously, is material. And yet the symbolic order is predicated on an un-symbolizable element that resists being caught up in the symbolic web of signification (an excess). This immaterial, un-symbolizable element is actually the Lacanian Real, which becomes a leftover or a surplus generated by the symbolic order, and yet is not absorbed by it. What are the conditions that allow the possibility for resistance of this element(s) to being caught up in a web of material significations? In Lacanian thought, rather than making a distinction between material and non-material, we should see these two registers as mutually constitutive with the one depending on the other (or being operationalized through the other). This take on the negotiation between materiality and immateriality points to the moment at which critical theory comes to connect production to the politics of ideology. This insight hovers at the background of the theoretical discussions that many of the chapters of this volume engage in. It is certainly relevant to the Derridean take on ‘trace’, on which Pulkkinen, Green, and Myrivili dwell extensively. It is also relevant to the dynamics between the visible and the unsaid, explored by De Cesari and Demetriou. But it is also relevant to the philosophical and anthropological concerns of the volume as a whole, as it has implications for disciplinary borders too. The ethnographic examination offered by many of the contributions seeks to identify what happens when different regimes generate new materialities or webs of signification, and what kind of leftovers (surpluses) unintentionally emerge out of the processes of materialization and signification. Neither the cultural nor the psychoanalytic aspects of this question are ‘neutral’. There is a political assumption in Lacan when he frames the ‘surplus’ as formed out of ‘r...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of figures
• List of contributors
• Series foreword
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Introduction: theorizing material and non-material mediations on the border: Olga Demetriou and Rozita Dimova
• 2 Materiality, imbrication, and the longue durée of Greco-Turkish borders: Olga Demetriou
• 3 Memory as border work: the 2008 Italy–Libya Friendship Treaty and the reassembling of Fortress Europe: Chiara De Cesari
• 4 Ontologies of borders: the difference of Deleuze and Derrida: Tuija Pulkkinen
• 5 Lines, traces, and tidemarks: further reflections on forms of border: Sarah Green
• 6 Materializing the border-as-line in Sarajevo: Stef Jansen
• 7 Borders as ghosts: Eleni Myrivili
• 8 Materialities of displacement: borders in contemporary Macedonia: Rozita Dimova
• Index