The Other Side of the Fence: Reconceptualizing the “Camp” and Migration Zones at the Borders of Spain

Johnson, Heather L.

doi:10.1111/ips.12010

Cited by 24 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 26 publications

(45 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This methodological focus on practice is also an ethical reflection about our own practices as researchers in security studies and the possibility, or even inescapability of reifying and reproducing security even when engaging in a critical reading (Huysmans 2002). In light with this reflexive perspective, Eckl (2008: 185-186), Johnson (2013), andVrasti (2008, this volume) all discuss, in different ways, the normative aspect of conducting field research, that is of the researchers' responsibility to themselves/to the field/to people there. They argue that IR scholars in general, and we would argue security scholars in particular, should take lessons from experiences of anthropology and sociology if they want to 'leave the veranda' and pursue empirical research that pays attention to the reproductive danger of being part of the field.…”

Section: Methodological Developmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Routledge Handbook of International Political Sociology

Guillaume

Bilgin

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When compared to traditional approaches to security studies, critical approaches to security studies are often presented in terms of a deepening and widening of the security studies' agenda (Krause and Williams 1997). In that version of disciplinary history, traditional security studies scholars are represented as people focusing on state-centric approaches with a more solid ontology; with a clear understanding of key concepts such as national interest, national security, and so on, and their implications on international politics, as well as a less flexible epistemology. From that standpoint, critical approaches to security studies are seen as a disruption of that existing agenda. As part of the deepening/widening meta-narrative of critical approaches to security studies, the contributions of these approaches are represented in terms of the inclusion of different scales (human security, cosmopolitan security, urban security, etc.) as well as different issue areas (borders, environment, immigration, maritime security, etc.) into security studies' agenda. Our chapter concentrates on introducing how international political sociology has helped developed the critical agenda in security studies; we move away from a deepening/ widening perspective that is common in such review chapters and instead present a review of some of the thematic contributions in an international political sociology to security studies, in the form of a discussion of such concepts as materialities, practices, relationalities, reflexivity and the micro-politics of the everyday (for a broader reflection about security, see Burgess in this volume).International political sociology seems to enjoy an organic relationship with security studies, considered in the broader sense of the concept to include approaches that focus on discourses, practices and technologies of security. Most notably, those scholars interested in the political sociology of international security seem to focus on the everyday over the exceptional, as well as on the 'everydayness' of the exceptional in their studies of what counts as security today through reflexive lenses that regularly questions the ontological and epistemological assumptions of security's concepts and theories. This preference makes an international political sociology approach particularly engaging within the context of contemporary security studies scholarship. A majority of the all-time most-cited articles published in the journal International Political Sociology have a security focus (Dillon 2007;Salter 2007; Huysmans 2008, among others), yet unlike traditional approaches to security, these publications focus on the new materialities, practices, relationalities, reflexivity and the micro-politics of security in an attempt to see the effects of 'security' on the everyday. More specifically, a common theme is on the (in)security practices of security actors in

show abstract

Section: Methodological Developmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Routledge Handbook of International Political Sociology

Guillaume

Bilgin

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ghettos are run by people who might have been in one place longer than others and collect a fee that admits and protects. After a while, they are off and someone else takes over (Johnson, 2013). Johnson (2014, pp.151ff) calls these 'communities of mobility', since, even if people find themselves temporarily immobile, the idea of movement is always present for most of them (Andersson, 2014).…”

Section: Social Embryos Of Political Existence?mentioning

confidence: 99%

International Migration: Transit space - creative space?

Oelgemöller

2017

IJMBS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Is it possible to make illegal migrants intelligible as a force creating social space? What is transit space? Many migration experts seem to ignore the transit space beyond managing geopolitical borders. Much literature analyses this space in terms of the migrant's (in)capacity to act. I argue that transit space policies make possible both a particular kind of illegality of the transit space and ephemeral spaces of solidarity/creativity quite different from the places of citizenship (accorded or denied). Geopolitical transit space is intrinsically important to understanding how contradictory mobility practices are constructed. My speculation is informed by a postanarchist perspective and draws on selected ethnographic studies for illustration. Approaching transit space as contradictory constellation makes it political, in that abstract logics imposed by the European discursive order interact with ephemeral practices, producing violence and solidarity in a way that throws what is licit and illicit open to radical questioning.

show abstract

“…While it is important not to overlook spaces in which the possibilities for resistance are violently curtailed, critics of Agamben's homo sacer thesis are correct to insist on the inadequacies and dangers of drawing parallels between the subject positions of detainees in processing centres across EUrope today and those of Muselmanner in the Nazi lager (Puggioni 2013;Johnson 2013). This common criticism somewhat misses its ultimate target, however, as the latter is more characteristic of some secondary (mis)applications of Agamben's argument than its original formulation.…”

Section: Spaces Of Dehumanisation and The Animalisation Of Subjectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Perhaps more significantly still, as the analysis will go on to identify and investigate in greater detail, animalisation is a powerful and recurring discourse -understood as an assemblage of linguistic and material phenomena 4 -that structures many 'irregular' migrants' testimonies of their embodied encounter with diverse aspects of EUropean border security at various sites -particularly, though not exclusively, in the context of contemporary spaces of incarceration. While some testimonies feature political claims made in the name of a common humanity (Johnson 2013;Puggioni 2013), others are characterised by the reverse narrative of dehumanisation and the repeated demand of many 'irregular' migrants 'We are not animals'! (Borderline Europe 2013;Human Rights Watch 2011b;Médicin Sans Frontières 2013;Migeurop 2012;Pro Asyl 2012a, 2012b.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%