非定位控制:迁移、不稳定性与控制的治理性

Joshua J. Kurz
{"title":"非定位控制:迁移、不稳定性与控制的治理性","authors":"Joshua J. Kurz","doi":"10.6094/BEHEMOTH.2012.2.1.653","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this essay, the author takes up William Walters’ (2006) incitement to theorize transmigration through the Deleuzian concept of control. The importance of mechanisms, or technologies, that modulate population flows are explored by paying close attention to novel strategies of migration policing and securitization in the United States, the European Union, Australia, and North Africa. These technologies no longer take the border as their \"proper\" site, but instead rely on processes of internalization, externalization, and excision to produce conditions of generalized precariousness. The author argues that these technologies of control resist simple categorization as biopolitics, and instead are more fruitfully considered through the lens of control societies and precarity. Ultimately, the inclusion/exclusion dialectic is put under erasure.","PeriodicalId":30203,"journal":{"name":"Behemoth a Journal on Civilisation","volume":"5 1","pages":"30-51"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"(Dis)locating Control: Transmigration, Precarity and the Governmentality of Control\",\"authors\":\"Joshua J. Kurz\",\"doi\":\"10.6094/BEHEMOTH.2012.2.1.653\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this essay, the author takes up William Walters’ (2006) incitement to theorize transmigration through the Deleuzian concept of control. The importance of mechanisms, or technologies, that modulate population flows are explored by paying close attention to novel strategies of migration policing and securitization in the United States, the European Union, Australia, and North Africa. These technologies no longer take the border as their \\\"proper\\\" site, but instead rely on processes of internalization, externalization, and excision to produce conditions of generalized precariousness. The author argues that these technologies of control resist simple categorization as biopolitics, and instead are more fruitfully considered through the lens of control societies and precarity. Ultimately, the inclusion/exclusion dialectic is put under erasure.\",\"PeriodicalId\":30203,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Behemoth a Journal on Civilisation\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"30-51\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Behemoth a Journal on Civilisation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.6094/BEHEMOTH.2012.2.1.653\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behemoth a Journal on Civilisation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6094/BEHEMOTH.2012.2.1.653","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

在这篇文章中,作者采用了威廉·沃尔特斯(2006)的激励,通过德勒兹的控制概念将轮回理论化。通过密切关注美国、欧盟、澳大利亚和北非的移民监管和证券化的新策略,探讨了调节人口流动的机制或技术的重要性。这些技术不再把边界作为它们的“适当”地点,而是依靠内在化、外在化和切除的过程来产生普遍不稳定的条件。作者认为,这些控制技术拒绝简单地归类为生命政治,相反,通过控制社会和不稳定性的视角来考虑更有成效。最终,包容/排斥辩证法被抹去。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
(Dis)locating Control: Transmigration, Precarity and the Governmentality of Control
In this essay, the author takes up William Walters’ (2006) incitement to theorize transmigration through the Deleuzian concept of control. The importance of mechanisms, or technologies, that modulate population flows are explored by paying close attention to novel strategies of migration policing and securitization in the United States, the European Union, Australia, and North Africa. These technologies no longer take the border as their "proper" site, but instead rely on processes of internalization, externalization, and excision to produce conditions of generalized precariousness. The author argues that these technologies of control resist simple categorization as biopolitics, and instead are more fruitfully considered through the lens of control societies and precarity. Ultimately, the inclusion/exclusion dialectic is put under erasure.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Louise Amoore: Cloud Ethics. Algorithms and the Attributes of Ourselves and Others Editorial: Futures of Critique in the Digital Age „Wie ist Geschichte a priori möglich?“ Algorithmische Vorhersage und die Aufgabe der Kritik Distributed Planned Economies in the Age of their Technical Feasibility Landnahme, analog und digital. Ursprüngliche Akkumulation in den Kontrollgesellschaften
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1