This issue examines politics and practices that challenge the European border regime by contesting and negotiating asylum laws and regulations, practices of separation in refugee camps and accommodation centers, as much as political acts by undocumented migrants and activists seeking alternative ways of cohabitation. The different contributions all highlight the role of civil society initiatives during the migration movements in 2015 and 2016 in Europe by discussing critical perspectives on the European border regime and by looking at migration as a contesting political force. Topics related to mobilization and the appropriation of public spaces to actively declare one's solidarity, political activism to contest borders and boundary-making approaches (no border movements) and the engagement into voluntary work are critically reflected.
The active involvement of local residents in development projects has become a keystone in current rural governance arrangements in the European Union. The latter’s rural development programme LEADER is an example of this, as it requests local residents to take action in the development process. Yet, despite the strong emphasis on ‘participation’ in policy texts and rhetoric, there is only a formalistic definition of what ‘participation’ as involvement and activation of local residents actually means and how it should be put into practice. Drawing on data gathered during ethnographic fieldwork in two LEADER regions and the insights of practice and performance theory, this article argues that because of this indeterminacy, ‘participation’ as a social practice must first be realised and defined in a performative way, i.e., it must be practiced, negotiated and legitimised in specific physical‐spatial settings. These settings serve as local arenas of participatory rural governance in which local residents are activated and involved in the implementation of LEADER projects. Assuming certain roles and carrying out specific activities related to material artefacts, they negotiate the meaning of ‘participation’ as a social practice.
In response to critiques of the ‘slavery versus freedom’ binary and its limitations, researchers at the international Bonn Center for Dependency and Slavery Studies (BCDSS—www.dependency.uni-bonn.de) at the University of Bonn tentatively employ the analytical concept of ‘asymmetrical dependency’ in their investigations of coercive social relations, such as slavery, debt bondage, and servitude. In this paper, we discuss some basic theoretical assumptions that undergird this analytical concept. In outlining an approach to asymmetrical dependency that is grounded in social and cultural theory, our goal is to provide a framework within which individual researchers can situate their projects and further develop their theoretical understanding of this phenomenon. To this end, we first introduce the analytical concept of asymmetrical dependency and explore its potential in light of the current state of research of slavery studies and related fields. We then conceptualize asymmetrical dependency as a dynamic relational process and employ a chiefly praxeological methodology to identify and describe some fundamental dynamics of these relations. Finally, we argue that the interdisciplinary study of asymmetrical dependency requires a broad practice of comparative analyses. We, therefore, consider several recent critiques of and models for comparison while relating them to the analytical concept of asymmetrical dependency we propose.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.