Reinventing the Stranger: Walls all over the World, and How to Tear them Down
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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...
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".