MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2786708998 · doi:10.5250/symploke.25.1-2.0025

Reinventing the Stranger: Walls all over the World, and How to Tear them Down

2017· article· en· W2786708998 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Étienne Balibar

Notice bibliographique

Revuesymplokē · 2017
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueMigration, Refugees, and Integration
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSolidarityPoliticsCosmopolitanismXenophobiaRefugeeContext (archaeology)Political scienceCitizenshipSociologyHuman rightsLawPolitical economyHistory

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reinventing the Stranger:Walls All Over the World, and How to Tear Them Down Étienne Balibar As President Donald J. Trump seems to be somewhat backing away from his campaign promises to erect a mega-wall "closing" the border between the U.S. and Mexico in order (so it is claimed) to block the flows of migrations from entering the country, while deporting a greater amount of "illegal migrants" and families already living in the U.S., the question of migrations and refugees is clearly acquiring a new dimension all over the world. In the Mediterranean basin, with thousands of people dying every week in shipwrecks and hundreds of thousands awaiting in camps inside or (mostly) outside the European territory, it has acquired a truly dramatic proportion. This is not a temporary or marginal issue. It affects the very definition of citizenship and fundamental rights. It has juridical, political, moral, economic, and in fact anthropological dimensions, since it commands the articulation of residence and mobility for entire populations. It is overdetermined by questions of security and the development of a new wave of xenophobia, but also remarkable efforts of solidarity, which create a new cosmopolitanism. It is in this context that I offer the following reflections, taking their cue from analyses I had sketched some years ago (2006) under the title "Strangers as Enemies" in a workshop at McMaster University (Hamilton, Canada). At the beginning of a new cycle, full of (many) dangers and (some) promises, I try to assess what has changed and what remains pending in the global regime of borders and passports. What has certainly not evolved—or if it has, it is in the sense of increase, multiplication and complexification—is the proliferation of walls, their installation on the site of borders, which they fortify and redouble, but also displace, or fragment, in nearly every part of the world, East and West, North and South (and in fact their similitudes across these regional divides tends to considerably relativize their meaning, or to make it more complicated). Combined with discourses, technologies, institutions and policies, affects and collective opinions which sometimes support their existence and press for their development, but also denounce their violence and their inconvenience, they have become not only a burning political issue, but an essential [End Page 25] dimension of the "political" today, and in fact what anthropologists would call a phénomène social total, or a "comprehensive social fact," where the cultural, the symbolic, the material, the institutional aspects of social relations are combined, which contribute to the formation and dissolution of collective identities, the management of conflicts, the transformation of legal statuses. In a recent book, to which I will return, political theorist Wendy Brown has analyzed the constitution of "walled states" and proposed to relate it to a general historical trend of the waning of sovereignty, with dramatic effects on the citizens and their subjectivities. This is already an indication that the question of walls and their political functions harbors big stakes and deep ambivalence. Most of us, locating themselves on the left or rallying to a liberal discourse, in the widest possible sense of the term, are spontaneously critical of this phenomenon, which they see as inseparable from violent repressions, institutional discriminations, and a tendency to normalize the exception or the emergency measures. I agree with this critique, to which I am trying to contribute with conceptual elaborations, but I also think that it would be absurd and counterproductive not to examine and analyze in depth the rationales for the construction and defense of walls, walled borders, walled states and societies in today's world, in particular the idea of protection against threats, generally pictured as "invasions," material or immaterial, which is perhaps the main concept with which they become associated. This concept resonates very strongly, not only with individual and collective psychology, but with the function of the State as it was defined in classical legal and political philosophy. What we need is a thorough description of the modalities of wall constructions, to begin with the geography of their spreading, a careful examination of their analogies and differences with similar phenomena in the past, and a critical discussion...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,753
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,042
Tête enseignante GPT0,322
Écart entre enseignants0,279 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations33
Publié2017
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuesymplokēMême sujetMigration, Refugees, and IntegrationTravaux en français237 207