Skip to main content

A World of Walls?: A World of Walls?

A World of Walls?
A World of Walls?
    • Notifications
    • Privacy
  • Issue HomeCES Volume 6, Issue 2
  • Journals
  • Learn more about Manifold

Notes

Show the following:

  • Annotations
  • Resources
Search within:

Adjust appearance:

  • font
    Font style
  • color scheme
  • Margins
table of contents
  1. A World of Walls?
  2. Unmaking Borders through Comparative Pedagogies
    1. Notes

A World of Walls?

Unmaking Borders through Comparative Pedagogies

Ilaria Giglioli

What is the value in teaching a comparative borders course? In a moment of intensified border fortification, is it not perhaps more important to address our local/national contexts, in order to focus on the proximate geographies upon which we might be able to exert the most agency? In this piece I will discuss the political and analytical value in teaching about borders comparatively at the current conjuncture in which both right-wing nationalist governments and supposedly more “open” centrist, neoliberal ones are furthering the hardening of material and symbolic national borders. These considerations led to the development of the syllabus for my course, A World of Walls? Dismantling Borders and Building Solidarity for Migrant Justice, included at the end of this piece.

Comparative thinking lies at the core of migrant rights activism, as this perspective allows for the creation of relationships of collaboration and solidarity between people affected by border violence in different parts of the world, and relationships between those affected by border violence and their allies. One example of this is the transnational organizing around freedom of movement that led to the creation of the World Social Forum on Migrations. Its eighth meeting, held in Mexico City in fall 2018,1 included a transnational forum of mothers of disappeared migrants in the Mediterranean Sea and on the US-Mexico border. My course, A World of Walls? Dismantling Borders and Building Solidarity for Migrant Justice, emerges out of similar organizing efforts, albeit at a more local scale. Its current iteration takes inspiration from two courses developed over the last decade in the San Francisco Bay Area, one taught in the Arab and Muslim Ethnicities and Diaspora Studies program at San Francisco State University in fall 2010, and the other—entitled From Palestine to Mexico: Bring Down the Wall—taught as a graduate-student-run DeCal course2 at the University of California, Berkeley in fall 2011. Both courses emerged as part of broader attempts to foster collaboration between Palestine solidarity groups, US-Mexico border activists, and Chicanx student groups. The classes were also connected to the organization of a conference panel on transnational bordering at the 2013 American Association of Geographers meeting that brought together Palestinian and Chicanx scholars to address common questions of border violence and urban surveillance. In brief, A World of Walls not only aims to foster the development of relationships of solidarity between scholars and activists at different sites of fortified borders but was also born out of these efforts.

The grounding of this course in activism informs my pedagogical approach. Examples of this include two exercises that I conduct in the first class in order to underline the connection between the academic content, the lived experiences of people directly affected by border violence, and advocacy for migrant justice. I begin the course with an activity designed to prompt a discussion of power, privilege, and positionality among course participants. Inspired by the Florida Immigrant Coalition’s University Without Walls curriculum,3 I ask students to pair-share information about their family’s or their own journey to their current place of residence (country, or the specific state and region): when they arrived, for what reason, and what their journey was like. Students also visually represent this information on a map that is visible to all and can volunteer to share their story with the larger group. Through this exercise, students begin to forge a sense of commonality through an acknowledgment that stories of differently situated migration are part of everyone’s family history. When the course is taught in a settler-colonial nation-state such as the United States, this exercise is particularly effective in demystifying any assumption that Euro-descendants are “natives” to the country. The second exercise I carry out during the first class session is a discussion about the value of lived knowledge. By this I mean the direct experience of dealing with the violent or exclusionary effects of borders through one’s own migration trajectory, family history, or experience in sponsoring visa applications, for example. This has the objective of centering the lived experience of students who may have more proximity to material and symbolic violence produced by borders. However, it also makes the argument that it is only possible to fully understand the working of contemporary borders by combining academic knowledge with lived experience. Thus it centers qualitative methodologies such as ethnography, but also cultural and artistic production of migrants and refugees as key instruments to understanding bordering processes.

From an analytical perspective, thinking comparatively across borders allows students to denaturalize the borders with which they are familiar and that they have come to take for granted. Studying the colonial history of borders across different geographies, in fact, pushes them to think more critically about the creation and naturalization of the borders with which they have more immediate proximity. This exercise can be particularly effective if the course is taught in a nonsettler-colonial setting, such as southern Europe, where students could analyze their own context alongside settler-colonial borders. In this case, it would be easy for students to see the violence and dispossession that underlie the creation of settler-colonial borders, such as the United States’ southern border with Mexico. Adopting a comparative approach, however, also would also allow students to critically reflect on the colonial histories and processes of racialization that allowed for the naturalization of the Mediterranean border as Europe’s southern boundary. A similar effect also occurs when comparing settler-colonial borders where the process of bordering happened at different moments. For students in the United States, for instance—where the borderline was defined over 150 years ago—studying settler-colonial contexts such as Israel/Palestine—where the 1948 Green Line was defined more recently and is not universally recognized as an official border4—allows them to more clearly see the processes of violence and dispossession that accompanied the creation of the US-Mexico border.

In addition to helping students denaturalize the borders with which they are familiar, thinking comparatively across borders also allows them to theorize the global nature of border fortification in a way that empowers them to take action for migrant justice. The course argues, in fact, that we should not understand single instances of bordering as manifestations of a global process, situated “up above,” and thus difficult to challenge and contest. Instead, it highlights the grounded sites in which a global process of bordering is forged, and in which it is thus possible to intervene. In order to make this argument, the course pays particular attention to the distinct political and economic conditions under which popular support for border fortification emerges in each of the borders studied. Thus students begin to understand that in order to successfully intervene in the public debate around bordering, it is important to have site-specific knowledge about the actors that support border fortification, and the context in which this support emerged. They also learn, however, that these distinct sites are connected by networks of expertise (such as security consultants) and transnational political organizing (such as collaborations between right-wing nationalist movements in different sites) that often lead to very similar strategies of border fortification being adopted throughout the world. This analytical approach allows students to clearly identify both transnational networks of actors and the site-specific processes through which the current worldwide proliferation of borders came to be and to subsequently think in concrete terms about possible avenues of intervention in order to advocate for migrant rights.

A World of Walls? Dismantling Borders and Building Solidarity for Migrant Justice is designed as a twelve-week course that meets for weekly three-hour sessions. In its current iteration, it is an interdisciplinary social science course appropriate for the advanced undergraduate level. With modifications, it could be adapted into either an introductory undergraduate course or a graduate seminar. The course’s content is divided into three thematic units. The first unit addresses broad questions about the current global nature of border fortification and critically analyzes the processes that led to the current securitization of borders, such as the roles of colonialism and nationalism, as well as the relationship between bordering and labor exploitation. In addition, it investigates the nature of violence produced by borders. The second section of the course analyzes the working of contemporary borders and, consequently, what the best methods are for analyzing these borders. It explores the potential of ethnographic, forensic, and cartographic methods as well as document analysis to analyze the hardening and externalization of land and sea borders, in addition to the networks of expertise that connect different sites of bordering. Finally, the third unit of the course focuses on the denaturalization of borders. It starts by analyzing the fraught issue of “smuggling,” and how this term is sometimes used to criminalize migrant solidarity movements. This unit then moves to a broader conceptual discussion about some of the theoretical premises through which we might begin to question borders. It counterpoises a cosmopolitan and “third space” approach that questions borders by emphasizing the hybrid nature of borderlands, with a decolonial approach that foregrounds material and epistemic decolonization as means through which to question the naturalness of nation-states enclosed by borders. By the end of the course, students are well equipped with a solid understanding of the working of contemporary borders, the conceptual tools to question the naturalness of borders, and concrete examples of initiatives that support migrant justice.

A World of Walls?

Dismantling Borders and Building Solidarity for Migrant Justice

Course Description

Over the past twenty years, the expansion of flows of people, capital, and goods has been met by a proliferation of fortified borders. How did this paradox come to be? What are the social, political, and economic forces that support border closure? Finally, how might we deconstruct borders, both symbolically and materially? This class will address these questions by combining insights from ethnic studies, geography, architecture, anthropology, and political theory to provide a multifaceted analysis of contemporary bordering processes. We will address themes such as the relationship between uneven development, racialization, and border closure; border militarization, incarceration, and the securitization of space; lived experiences of border crossing; and border solidarity. We will combine a conceptual analysis of these themes with a detailed study of grounded sites of bordering, focusing both on actors that support border fortification and on initiatives that support freedom of movement and call borders into question. By the end of the course, you will have a solid understanding of the forces that support bordering, the political and economic context in which this support for bordering emerged, and the strategies that have been most effective in questioning borders. This understanding will equip you with the skills and knowledge to advocate for migrant justice at both the local and transnational levels.

Course Overview

Unit 1

What Are Borders?

Week 1

A World of Walls? Global Processes of Border Fortification

Week 2

What Are Borders?

Week 3

Borders, Race, and Nationalism

Week 4

Borders and Violence

Week 5

Borders, Labor, and Inequality

Unit 2

How Do Borders Work?

Week 6

The Ethnographic Lens: Lived Experiences of Border Crossing

Week 7

Mapping and Forensics of the Border

Week 8

Transferring Models: Securitizing Sea Borders

Week 9

Transferring Models: Securitizing Land Borders

Unit 3

Questioning Borders

Week 10

Facilitating Border Crossing: Smuggling or Solidarity?

Week 11

Cosmopolitanism, Borderlands, and Third Space

Week 12

Borders and Coloniality

Unit 1. What Are Borders?

Week 1. A World of Walls? Global Processes of Border Fortification

In this introductory week, we will address the question of border fortification as a global process. In order to do so, we will read from political theorist Wendy Brown’s Walled States, Waning Sovereignty, in which she asks why the last twenty years—the triumphal years of globalization—have witnessed the multiplication of border walls around the world. As well as providing a general introduction to the course, Brown’s work will serve as a starting point to analyze alternative interpretations of the contemporary proliferation of walls (see Mezzadra and Neilsen’s work, in week 2, and Jones’s work, in week 5).

Readings

Wendy Brown, Walled States, Waning Sovereignty (New York: Zone Books, 2010). Chapter 1: Waning Sovereignty, Walled Democracy, 7–42; Chapter 4: Desiring Walls, 107–33.

Other Resources

Connected Walls Project website: http://www.connectedwalls.com/en/about.

Week 2. What Are Borders?

In order to analyze the forces that uphold or contest borders, it is important to have a clear understanding of what borders are. While this may appear to be a fairly intuitive concept, in practice it is more complex. When we think of borders, should we merely focus on the border line itself, or on a broader fortified physical space? Are the terms border, boundary, and frontier synonyms, or are they conceptually distinct? Why might it matter to make this distinction? Finally, how do borders reflect and reproduce social difference and geopolitical and economic divides? In order to address these themes, we will begin with the foundational work of Chicanx feminist scholar Gloria Anzaldúa, Borderlands / La Frontera, reading it in relation to French philosopher Étienne Balibar’s piece What Is a Border? We will then analyze how philosophers Sandro Mezzadra and Brett Neilsen draw on both Anzaldúa and Balibar to develop the concept of the “multiplication of borders.” Finally, we will go over a series of short pieces written by geographers that reflect on both the terminological differences between borders, boundaries, and frontiers and different methodologies for studying the border.

Readings

Gloria Anzaldúa, Borderlands / La Frontera: The New Mestiza (San Francisco: Ant Lute, 1987). Chapter 1: The Homeland, Aztlán / El otro México, 1–14.

Étienne Balibar, Politics and the Other Scene (London: Verso, 2002). Chapter 4: What Is a Border?, 75–86.

Sandro Mezzadra and Brett Nielsen, Border as Method, or The Multiplication of Labor (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2013). Chapter 1: The Proliferation of Borders, 1–25.

Alisdair Rogers, Noel Castree, and Rob Kitchin, A Dictionary of Human Geography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013). Entries: “border” and “borderlands.”

Maribel Casas-Cortes et al., “New Keywords: Migration and Borders,” Cultural Studies 29, no. 1 (2015): 55–87. Selections: Introduction, 54–61; Bordering, 66–68; Differential Inclusion, 79–80.

Corey Johnson et al., “Interventions on Rethinking ‘the Border’ in Border Studies,” Political Geography 30, no. 2 (2011): 61–69.

Week 3. Borders, Race, and Nationalism

Last week, when defining borders, we discussed how borders reflect and reproduce social difference and geopolitical and economic divisions. This week, we will deepen our analysis of this question, investigating how nationalism, racism, and ideas of “civilizational difference” serve to support border fortification, as well as how fortified borders reinforce material and symbolic inequalities. Benedict Anderson’s work will provide us with a working definition of the nation. We will then turn to Joseph Nevins’s and Mae Ngai’s analyses of bordering and nationalism in the United States.

Readings

Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities (London: Verso, 1983). Concepts and Definitions, 5–7.

Joseph Nevins, Operation Gatekeeper: The Rise of the “Illegal Alien” and the Making of the U.S.–Mexico Boundary (New York: Routledge, 2002). Selections: Introduction, 1–11; Chapter 2: The Creation of the U.S.-Mexico Boundary and the Remaking of the United States and Mexico in the Border Region, 12–31; Chapter 4: The Bounding of the United States and the Emergence of Operation Gatekeeper, 50–77; Chapter 5: The Ideological Roots of the “Illegal”: The “Other” as Threat and the Rise of the Boundary as the Symbol of Protection, 78–101; Chapter 7: Nationalism, the Territorial State, and the Construction of Boundary-Related Identities, 125–36.

Mae M. Ngai, Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2014). Introduction: Illegal Aliens: A Problem of Law and History, 1–14.

Week 4. Borders and Violence

When thinking of border violence, for many the first thing that comes to mind is physical violence against migrants committed by smugglers or by border guards. While this is its most visible form, it is not the only type of violence that occurs in relation to borders. What other types of violence occur? What does this violence look like, and who is responsible for it? This week we will answer these questions by reading selections of anthropologist Jason De León’s ethnography of violence at the US-Mexico border, in which he analyzes the multiple agents responsible for bodily violence toward migrants as well as the invisibilization of this violence. We will complement his analysis with geographer Reece Jones’s work on the multiple types of violence produced by borders.

Readings

Jason De León, The Land of the Open Graves: Living and Dying on the Migrant Trail (Oakland: University of California Press, 2015). Selections: Introduction, 1–20; Chapter 2: Dangerous Ground, 38–61; Chapter 3: Necroviolence, 62–85.

Reece Jones, Violent Borders: Refugees and the Right to Move (London: Verso, 2016). Selections: Introduction, 1–10; Chapter 1: The European Union: The World’s Deadliest Border, 12–28; Chapter 3: The Global Border Regime, 48–69.

Other Resources

International Organization for Migration’s Missing Migrants website: https://missingmigrants.iom.int/.

Undocumented Migration Project website: https://www.undocumentedmigrationproject.org/.

Week 5. Borders, Labor, and Inequality

We generally assume that borders stop flows of people. Some theorists, however, have underlined the filtering function of borders, distinguishing between people who are allowed to move and those whose mobility is denied. This distinction occurs along lines of nationality, class, race, gender, and sexuality. In order to analyze this theme, this week we will be reading the work of two geographers who theorize the relationship between borders, labor, and inequality. Matt Sparke’s work focuses specifically on the filtering work done by borders, which must allow for the seamless flow of goods and “desirable” travelers while stopping all others. Reece Jones, meanwhile, analyzes the relationship between wealth and mobility more broadly. In addition, we will study the work of Étienne Luibhéid, who analyzes similar dynamics along the lines of sexuality. Finally, Sandro Mezzadra and Brett Neilsen’s chapter connects the filtering work of borders with the exploitation of labor.

Readings

Matt Sparke, “A Neoliberal Nexus: Economy, Security and the Biopolitics of Citizenship on the Border,” Political Geography 25, no. 2 (2006): 151–80.

Reece Jones, Violent Borders (London: Verso, 2016). Selections: Chapter 4: The Global Poor, 70–88; Chapter 5: Maps, Hedges, and Fences: Enclosing the Commons and Bounding the Seas, 89–118; Chapter 6: Bounding Wages, Goods, and Workers, 119–39; Chapter 7: Borders, Climate Change, and the Environment, 140–61; Conclusion: Movement as a Political Act, 162–80.

Étienne Luibhéid, Entry Denied: Controlling Sexuality at the Border (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2002). Introduction: Power and Sexuality at the Border, ix–xxviii.

Sandro Mezzadra and Brett Neilsen, Border as Method (Durham, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2013). Chapter 4: Figures of Labor, 95–130.

Unit 2. How Do Borders Work?

Week 6. The Ethnographic Lens: Lived Experiences of Border Crossing

Many scholars use ethnographic methods in order to shed light on daily experiences of migrants. This week we will be reading two ethnographies of border crossing. We will continue to read Jason De León’s work, and we will combine this with Hans Lucht’s ethnography of Mediterranean border crossing. In addition, we will watch the ethnographic film Les Sauteurs, which depicts the experience of sub-Saharan African migrants in Melilla. Our aim in doing so is twofold. On the one hand, we will analyze the value of ethnography as a means of studying the border; on the other, we will gain an understanding of the lived experience of border crossing.

Readings

Jason De León, The Land of the Open Graves (Oakland: University of California Press, 2015). Selections: Chapter 4: Memo and Lucho, 89–106; Chapter 5: Deported, 107–45; Chapter 6: Technological Warfare, 145–66.

Hans Lucht, Darkness before Daybreak: African Migrants Living on the Margins in Southern Italy Today (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2012). Selections: Chapter 4: The Mediterranean Passage, 119–59; Chapter 5: The Maghreb Connection: Libya and a Desert, 160–76.

Other Resources

A. B. Sidibé, M. Siebert, and E. Wagner, dir., Les Sauteurs (Denmark: Christensen & Sorensen, 2016).

Humanizing Deportation website: http://humanizandoladeportacion.ucdavis.edu/en/.

Week 7. Mapping and Forensics of the Border

Over the past few years, researchers have started to use forensic and cartographic approaches as a means of studying borders and of advocating for migrant justice. This week we will carry out an overview of some of these approaches, ranging from Jason De León’s forensic and archaeological research on the US-Mexico border to the investigative work of the Forensic Architecture project, which uses remote sensing to document human rights violations in the Mediterranean Sea.

Readings

Jason De León, The Land of the Open Graves (Oakland: University of California Press, 2015). Selections: Chapter 7: The Crossing, 167–202; Chapter 8: Exposure, 205–19.

Eyal Weizman, Forensic Architecture: Violence on the Threshold of Detectability (New York: Zone Books, 2017), 8–11, 64–71.

Charles Heller, Lorenzo Pezzani, and Maurice Stierl, “Disobedient Sensing and Border Struggles at the Maritime Frontier of Europe,” Spheres: Journal for Digital Cultures 4 (2017): 1–15.

Other Resources

Forensic Architecture website: https://forensic-architecture.org/.

Watch the Med website: http://www.watchthemed.net/.

Week 8. Transferring Models: Securitizing Sea Borders

Some of the main contemporary migration corridors are through the sea. While sea borders may not be a site of spectacular walls and fences, they are nonetheless highly surveilled and marked by violence. This week we will be analyzing the fortification of maritime borders in the United States (the Caribbean Sea), Australia, and Europe (the Mediterranean Sea). This week is also the first of two weeks in which we will be thinking about “models” of border fortification—in other words, how different countries adopt similar techniques of border surveillance.

Readings

Alison Mountz and Nancy Hiemstra, “Spatial Strategies for Rebordering at Sea,” in A Companion to Border Studies, ed. T. M. Wilson and D. Hastings (Oxford: Blackwell, 2012), 455–72.

Jenna M. Loyd and Alison Mountz, Boats, Borders and Bases: Race, the Cold War and the Rise of Migration Detention in the United States (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2018). Chapter 5: Safe Haven: The Creation of an Offshore Detention Archipelago, 147–74.

Pete Chambers, “Shipwreck with Spectator: Snapshots of Border Security in Australia,” Global Change, Peace & Security 26, no. 1 (2014): 97–112.

Luiza Bialasiewicz, “Off-shoring and Out-sourcing the Borders of Europe: Libya and EU Border Work in the Mediterranean,” Geopolitics 17, no. 4 (2012): 843–66.

J. Khan, “The Caribbean Roots of European Maritime Intervention,” Hot Spots, Cultural Anthropology, June 28, 2016, https://culanth.org/fieldsights/the-caribbean-roots-of-european-maritime-interdiction.

Other Resources

Guantanamo Public Memory Project website: https://gitmomemory.org/stories/ira-kurzban/.

C. Bosch and J. M. Domènech, dir., Balseros (Barcelona: Bausan Films, 2002).

Week 9. Transferring Models: Securitizing Land Borders

Border walls are spectacular symbols of the contemporary proliferation of borders. Ample research has shown, however, that border enforcement goes well beyond the border line itself. In this section, we will be reading work by authors who analyze the simultaneous fortification of borders and the increased surveillance of the space surrounding the physical border. Once again, we will be thinking comparatively across different sites of bordering, focusing specifically on the United States and Israel, and investigating the relationship between these borders.

Readings

Eyal Weizman, Hollow Land: Israel’s Architecture of Occupation (London: Verso, 2007). Selections: Introduction: Frontier Architecture, 1–16; Chapter 6: The Wall: Barrier Archipelagos and the Impossible Politics of Separation, 161–82.

Stephen Graham, Cities under Siege: The New Military Urbanism (London: Verso, 2010). Chapter 4: Ubiquitous Borders, 89–152.

Alessandro Petti, Arcipelaghi e enclave: Architettura dell’ordinamento spaziale contemporaneo (Milan: B. Mondadori, 2007). Selections in translation.

Alejandro Olayo-Méndez, “Programa de la Frontera Sur and Interdiction,” Peace Review 29, no. 1 (2017): 24–30.

Other Resources

Decolonizing Architecture website: http://www.decolonizing.ps/site/.

Todd Miller, More Than a Wall: Corporate Profiteering and the Militarization of US Borders (Amsterdam: Transnational Institute, 2019).

Unit 3. Questioning Borders

Week 10. Facilitating Border Crossing: Smuggling or Solidarity?

Politicians and policymakers in countries of immigration often blame smugglers for the perils that migrants face when attempting to cross borders. This discourse is based on an image of smugglers as ruthless criminals who simultaneously defy immigration laws and take advantage of the vulnerability of migrants seeking their services. This week’s readings, however, paint a more nuanced picture. While not dismissing the real suffering inflicted on migrants by some smugglers, we will discuss the types of social ties that often connect migrants and their smugglers, sometimes blurring their roles. We will also analyze how the broad category of the “smuggler” allows for the criminalization of migrant solidarity activists.

Readings

Sheldon X. Zhang, Gabriella E. Sanchez, and Luigi Achilli, “Crimes of Solidarity in Mobility: Alternative Views on Migrant Smuggling,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 676, no. 1 (2018): 6–15.

Luigi Achilli, “The ‘Good’ Smuggler: The Ethics and Morals of Human Smuggling among Syrians,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 676, no. 1 (2018): 77–96.

Julien Brachet, “Manufacturing Smugglers: From Irregular to Clandestine Mobility in the Sahara,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 676, no. 1 (2018): 16–35.

Victoria Stone-Cadena and Soledad Álvarez Velasco, “Historicizing Mobility: Coyoterismo in the Indigenous Ecuadorian Migration Industry,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 676, no. 1 (2018): 194–211.

Martina Tazzioli, “Crimes of Solidarity: Migration and Containment through Rescue,” Radical Philosophy 2, no. 1 (2018): 4–10.

Resources on the Scott Warren Case

Curt Prendergast, “No More Deaths Volunteer Indicted on Human-Smuggling Charges,” Arizona Daily Star, February 20, 2018, https://tucson.com/news/local/no-moredeaths-volunteer-indicted-on-human-smuggling-charges/article_5797ade1-a5d3-5ea4-8ce3-95a647f35dd8.html.

“Scott Warren of No More Deaths Faces Retrial for Providing Humanitarian Aid to Migrants in Arizona,” Democracy Now!, July 3, 2019, https://www.democracynow.org/2019/7/3/no_more_deaths_scott_warren_retrial.

Henry Brean, “Not Guilty: Jurors Acquit Border Aid Volunteer Scott Warren on Harboring Charges,” Arizona Daily Star, November 22, 2019, https://tucson.com/news/local/not-guilty-jurors-acquit-border-aid-volunteer-scott-warren-on/article_f5100171-c1ee-58d2-84b8-9ab85e98ecea.html?hidenav=1&hidefooter=1&utm_source=nativeapp&utm_medium=mobile&utm_campaign=link&fbclid=IwAR3ciI5WMVWw4unh2RlyHxvV45xDHBz2h84421nvh_wM9EsZPYaa-mOp9t0.

Other Resources

A. Augugliaro, G. del Grande, and K. S. Al Nassiry, dir., On the Bride’s Side [Io sto con la sposa] (Rome: Doclab, Gina Films, 2014).

Alarm Phone website: https://alarmphone.org.

Week 11. Cosmopolitanism, Borderlands, and Third Space

At this point in the course, you have a strong understanding of what borders are, the actors and rhetoric that enforce them, and their effects on the lives and livelihoods of migrants. We will now instead focus on the work of theorists who call into question the very existence of borders. This week we will focus on a series of authors who have reframed the border from a dividing line to a cohesive space of exchange and interconnection that challenges assumptions of bounded national identities. To do so, we will return to Gloria Anzaldúa’s work on the border, complemented by urban theorist Michael Dear’s notion of the borderland as a “third nation,” and literary scholar Iain Chambers’s understanding of the Mediterranean as a postcolonial sea.

Readings

Gloria Anzaldúa, Borderlands / La Frontera. Selections: Chapter 5: How to Tame a Wild Tongue, 53–64; Chapter 7: La conciencia de la mestiza: Towards a New Consciousness, 77–91; Part 6: El Retorno: To Live in the Borderlands Means You, 194–95.

Michael Dear, Why Walls Won’t Work: Repairing the US-Mexico Divide (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013). Selections: Chapter 1: Monuments, Mexico, and Manifest Destiny, 1–15; Chapter 5: Third Nation before the Wall, 71–84; Chapter 9: Third Nation Interrupted, 147–69.

Iain Chambers, Mediterranean Crossings (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2008). Chapter 2: A Postcolonial Sea, 23–49.

Other Resources

Tanvi Misra’s article on the work of Estudio Teddy Cruz and Forman: “‘The Border Is a Way of Reinforcing Antagonism That Doesn’t Exist,’” CityLab, January 11, 2017, https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/01/the-urban-laboratory-on-the-san-diego-tijuana-border-teddy-cruz-fonna-forman/512222/.

Manifesto for Mediterranean Citizenship website: http://www.maydan-association.org/the-manifesto/.

Week 12. Borders and Coloniality

Last week we read the work of theorists who reframe borders from dividing lines to hybrid “third spaces” culturally distinct from the nation-states that meet at the border. This week, in contrast, we will read the work of scholars who use a decolonial approach to call into question the very existence of the nation-states that come together at the border. These scholars do so by shedding light on the colonial histories through which contemporary borders were created and the ongoing colonial processes through which they are sustained. Anthropologist Audra Simpson and Chicanx studies scholar Roberto Hernández use this framework in settler-colonial contexts, while my own work uses the same framework in nonsettler-colonial contexts.

Readings

Roberto Hernández, Coloniality of the US/Mexico Border: Power, Violence and the Decolonial Imperative (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2018). Conclusion, 181–94.

Audra Simpson, Mohawk Interruptus: Political Life across the Borders of Settler States (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2014). Chapter 5: Borders, Cigarettes, and Sovereignty, 115–45.

Ilaria Giglioli, “Producing Sicily as Europe: Migration, Colonialism and the Making of the Mediterranean Border between Italy and Tunisia,” Geopolitics 22, no. 2 (2017): 407–28.

Ilaria Giglioli is assistant professor of geography and international studies at New College of Florida. Her research is focused on migration, bordering, and coloniality at the Mediterranean border.

Notes

  1. Francois Soulard, “The 8th World Social Forum on Migrations—Mexico 2018,” 8th World Social Forum on Migrations, October 26, 2017, https://fsmm2018.org/8th-world-social-forum-migrations-mexico-2018/?lang=en.

    Return to note reference.

  2. DeCal courses are officially recognized student-run courses taken on a pass/fail basis. The origin of this program is in the early sixties’ free speech movement at the University of California, Berkeley.

    Return to note reference.

  3. Florida Immigrant Coalition (FLIC), accessed September 26, 2019, https://floridaimmigrant.org/.

    Return to note reference.

  4. I refer to the 1948 Green Line as a border not to reify its status as such, but because it functions in a similar manner to many other sites of walled borders. Its status as an international border depends on the “two-state solution” envisaged by the 1992 Oslo Accords between the State of Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization, which would have divided Historic Palestine between the State of Israel and the Palestinian Authority. This arrangement, however, is contested by Palestinian rights advocates who support a “one-state solution”—that is, a fully democratic and representative state in all parts of Historic Palestine. It has also been essentially undermined by ongoing projects of Israeli settlement in the West Bank, which are situated east of the Green Line but are politically incorporated and infrastructurally connected to the Israeli state.

    Return to note reference.

Annotate

Syllabus
Copyright 2021 by the Critical Ethnic Studies Association, https://doi.org/10.5749/CES.0602.syllabi
Powered by Manifold Scholarship. Learn more at
Opens in new tab or windowmanifoldapp.org