Скачать книгу

section discusses the concept of ‘necropolitics’, first proposed by Achille Mbembe but recently taken up by numerous scholars seeking to understand the role of violence, suffering and (especially) death, particularly ‘letting die’, in migration governance. Collectively, these perspectives disrupt many of the dominant ideas about displacement and forced migration within the field and ask us to rethink both how we understand refugee histories and what that then means for how we understand the present.

      Chapter 6 examines the relationship between security and borders as part of the colonial present. The chapter responds to work on border security and the ‘securitization of migration’ which has become an expanding area of scholarship in the context of the global ‘war on terror’ since 2001. In order to challenge some of the assumptions of this research agenda, the chapter maps out how engagement with postcolonial, decolonial and non-Eurocentric scholarship can change how we analyse the seemingly rapid expansion of border security. It does so by demonstrating how border security should be considered part of the reformulation of colonial rule, grounded in an analysis of colonial racism and what this means for studies of border security in both the Global North and South. Through engaging explicitly with Islamic and decolonial African scholarship, the chapter also seeks to challenge how we understand borders, security and political violence labelled ‘terrorism’.

      Finally, the conclusion brings the key themes and threads together and calls again for readers to appreciate the urgency with which migration studies scholars need to engage with the history and ongoing structures of colonialism.

      Introduction

      This chapter discusses a central concern for scholars working with postcolonial and decolonial theory: modernity. These debates are vital for centring colonialism in migration studies. The idea that some parts of the world became modern through, inter alia, the Renaissance, the French Revolution, the Industrial Revolution, and beyond, and that others did not, is fundamental to much social scientific enquiry (Bhambra 2007). Some of the key features of modernity are scientific progress, democracy, human rights and capitalism. Where these features are absent, it is often suggested that they must be promoted in order that societies who are ‘behind’ might ‘catch up’. This distinction between the ‘modern’ world and the ‘traditional’ world endures today in distinctions between developed and developing countries. It has also structured the academic division of labour in terms of the legitimate objects of study, and particularly the legitimate societies for different types of enquiry. Sociology, for example, tends to focus on ‘modern’ societies such as France or Australia, countries which are not within the purview of development studies. In turn, this framing then has significant implications for how migration is researched and understood in, and between, different parts of the world.

      The penultimate section discusses a specific idea, that of ‘development’, and how ideas of development follow colonial ways of understanding the world. The final section asks whether Eurocentrism can be overcome since, as Walter Mignolo argues, we are all trapped in the colonial matrix of power. We present some perspectives that have sought to overcome or think from the borders of modern/colonial thinking as indications that this work is indeed being done already. As a whole, these discussions lay the groundwork for much of what follows in the book and as such the discussions follow through and are elaborated through the subsequent chapters.

      Colonial expansion led to the proliferation of forms of knowledge for making sense of the world, as well as ways of organizing this knowledge (Mignolo 2005). As the social sciences developed through the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the divisions between the disciplines often followed colonial modes of thinking about the world in relation to ‘modern’ societies and, conversely, ‘traditional’ societies. For example, sociology historically (and to a large extent contemporaneously) dealt with ‘modern’ societies and the conditions of living in modernity (Bhambra 2007), while anthropology and human geography dealt with ‘traditional’ societies and ‘primitive’ peoples (Asad 1979; Deloria 1988). Disciplines such as political science and economics started from the position of understanding politics as a western phenomenon (usually originating in ancient Greece), or the capitalist economy as a product of modernity, and later expanded out from this geographical starting point (Hay 2002; Marx 1990 [1887]; Skinner 1979; Waltz 1959; for debates on this in international politics, see Anievas and Nişancioğlu 2015; Hobson 2004).

Скачать книгу