Biosecure citizenship: politicising symbiotic associations and the construction of biological threat

Abstract

Biosecurity politics in New Zealand is implicated in the constitution of a new dimension of citizenship, a biosecure citizenship. This form is distinct in that the political determinants of citizenship do not fully rest on the individual body, but on the body’s connections to other entities, the inter‐ and intra‐active symbiotic condition of human‐non‐human ‘living together’. Through its constitutive role in enabling the ‘dangerous’ mobility of pathogens, viruses and invasive species, symbiotic individuality has become politicised as a matter for state determination and control. Contemporary articulations of biosecure citizenship emphasise a variety of contractual and non‐contractual responsibilities, which augment the national coordinates of citizenship, reconstitute symbiotic individuality, and justify the state penetration of the private sphere. Drawing on biosecurity legislation, public education campaigns and research with community weed removal projects, I chart the reinforcement and practice of this biosecure citizenship. I argue that there is an urgent need to democratise decisionmaking about the construction of biological threat, about where and how to make cuts in our symbiotic associations with different species, and between species and spaces. By articulating biosecure citizenship not only as a discourse of ecological responsibility but of rights, biosecurity could be reinvigorated as ‘bios‐security’, the inclusive politics of continually questioning the ecological good life.

Book Reviews

“…Since that time, the literature has continued to grow both in its breadth and depth. In addition to normative theorising from the liberal, republican and cosmopolitan traditions, a host of recent works take a critical approach to the concept to reveal its role in contemporary projects of governmentality, racialisation and biosecurity, to name a few (Baldwin 2012;Barker 2010;Rutherford 2007 Sustainable Development, the State and Ideology, singles out the work of normative theorists as the foil against which he writes; while less than fair to the field, the comparison is a productive one. Scerri begins by identifying five claims 'central to normative theories of green citizenship' which include the erosion of the nature/culture and public/private dualisms, the rejection of social contractualism and territorialism, and the grounding of justice 'in awareness of the finiteness and maldistribution of ecospace' (p. 9).…”

Green Harms and Crimes

“…Hinchcliffe and Bingham, 2008), it could be argued that such retributive actions toward animals "out of place" (Douglas, 1966: 36) may be on the rise (Barker, 2010)' (Cassidy and Mills, 2012: 504). In a way, the depiction of and blending in of a human in a context that is designated for non-human suffering in the ADI advert can be seen as a transgressive symbolic act of a human 'out of place' that 'requires' a strong response.…”

Mobilising the welfare machine: Questioning the resurgent socialist concern in China’s Public Rental Housing Scheme

“…In today’s post‐Westphalian society, citizenship, with its legal, cultural and social dimensions, is situated in the intersection of sedentary nations, heterogeneous cities and an interconnected world (Cresswell, ). As such, new concepts have been introduced to account for the patchwork of rights and statues in reconfigured territories, exemplified by Cresswell’s () denizen and shadow citizen, Barker’s () biosecure citizenship and Deckard and Heslin’s () market citizenship.…”