| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
179369
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Over the past 15 years, the European Commission has poured millions of euros into Research and Development in border security. This article looks at the devices that are funded under this scheme. To this end, it applies Multiple Correspondence Analysis to a database of 41 projects funded under 7th Framework Programme. This method of data visualisation unearths the deep patterns of opposition that run across the sociotechnical universe where European borders are designed and created. We identify three rationalities of power at play: territorial surveillance aimed at detecting rare events in remote areas, policing of dense human flows by sorting out the benign from the dangerous, and finally global dataveillance of cargo on the move. Instead of trends towards either the hardening of borders or their virtualisation, we, therefore, find multiple rationalities of power simultaneously redefining the modalities of control at EU borders. A second finding shows where precisely critical actors are located in this sociotechnical universe and indicates that the structure of European R&D in border security keeps irregularised migrants off their radars. This finding calls for more caution as to the possibility to effectively put critique to work within the context of EU R&D.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
155447
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article argues for bringing struggles back into the practice turn in international political sociology. It will unpack a set of theoretical distinctions to respond to the following questions: How does one describe practices (relationalism vs. substantialism)? Where do practices occur (fields vs. communities)? How do practices change (disputes vs. struggles)? This article criticizes Pouliot and Adler for removing struggles from Bourdieu’s structural constructivism in order to frame practices as “the smallest unit of analysis” (Adler and Pouliot, 2011b, 10-13) in international relations (IR). The paper also takes stock of the constitutive differences between Bourdieu’s and Boltanski’s sociologies. It thereby faults Gadinger and Bueger’s practice theory for obfuscating these differences. Finally, in foregrounding struggles as a specifically social-constructivist concept, the argument will call for a more complex sociological understanding of conflict and change in IR. The analytical power of each set of theoretical distinction is illustrated through a case study of bordering struggles in post–Soviet Central Asia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|