Saskia Sassen: Disposable life. What comes to my mind is a set of dynam­ics, I think, that are mark­ing the cur­rent peri­od, that are mark­ing a dif­fer­ence in the cur­rent peri­od. And it is the mul­ti­pli­ca­tion of expul­sions. And once some­thing is expelled (and I’ll elab­o­rate) it becomes invis­i­ble. And that is part of the tragedy, I think. That it’s in the dra­ma of being expelled, invis­i­bil­i­ty sets in. And I’m sure that some ver­sion of sys­temic longevi­ty that is insured that way.

So, the start­ing point for this project, which real­ly is a ver­sion of dis­pos­able life, was this ques­tion of the more. More inequal­i­ty, more pover­ty, more home­less peo­ple, more traf­ficked peo­ple, more human bod­ies reduced to deliv­er­ers of organs for the rich. That more” sug­gests it’s more of the same. It strikes me that at some point, we’re on the oth­er side of the curve, and then it is not sim­ply more of the same. Then we do need to mark a dif­fer­ence, to name it dif­fer­ent­ly, to alert us that it’s not sim­ply a bit more and a con­di­tion that hence can reverse to an orig­i­nal con­di­tion or an orig­i­nal state where it might have been more benign or not as bad. So from poor you go to poor employed work­er,” for instance. No. Some of these cross­ings are tru­ly sys­temic edges, and once you cross it, you’re out. There is no return to a bet­ter condition.

Right now I’m clear­ly mak­ing a very absolute state­ment. The pur­pose of that absolute­ness is to cap­ture crit­i­cal­ly and to help the lis­ten­er to under­stand that I mean real­ly some­thing quite dras­tic hap­pen­ing. The sys­temic edges are not the bor­ders of a coun­try. The sys­temic edges can hap­pen right down­town London, down­town Beijing, down­town in the mid­dle or some­where else, or in the coun­try­side. They are not vis­i­ble by them­selves. But for me they rep­re­sent that moment in a tra­jec­to­ry when a con­di­tion that might already be slight­ly prob­lem­at­ic becomes extreme.

I chose those extreme moments as the place, the site, for my inquiry, under the assumption—which might not be right but it helps me—that the extreme con­di­tion makes leg­i­ble, in an unam­bigu­ous way, some­thing that might be far more ambigu­ous in a milder point in that tra­jec­to­ry. So yes, extreme con­di­tion and hence I’m call­ing it a sys­temic edge. And I see our cur­rent peri­od, I repeat, marked by a mul­ti­pli­ca­tion of sys­temic edges.

So, some of these sys­temic edges have to do with people—people los­ing every­thing. The 30% of the peo­ple in Greece who are out of homes, out of jobs, out of their pen­sion funds, out of futures. Many of these peo­ple were gov­ern­ment employ­ees. It is almost incon­ceiv­able when you stand back to think that the gov­ern­ment of the coun­try accept­ed the con­di­tions set by the IMF and the European Central Bank to say, You’re all out so that we can raise our cred­it rat­ing. So that the banks are again hap­py with us.” Is that real­ly what we under­stand by progress or by return­ing a bad con­di­tion into a bet­ter sit­u­a­tion, just expelling?

That expelling, however—and again I use Greece as the exam­ple here, as one exam­ple. The expelling allows the Central Bank, the IMF, and the cred­it rat­ing agen­cies eight or nine months lat­er to say, Greece is back on track. GDP per capi­ta is grow­ing. It’s grow­ing slow­ly, but it’s grow­ing.” What that for­mu­la­tion, what that stan­dard measure—GDP per capi­ta; a very respectable mea­sure, a mea­sure accept­ed by all gov­ern­ments in the world—leaves out is that 30% of work­ers, of spaces, of small busi­ness­es, the sui­cides, and all the oth­er things. 

What Greece cap­tures in our sort of Global North coun­tries (the devel­oped part of the world) in very extreme form is hap­pen­ing per­haps on a small­er scale in oth­er coun­tries. If you look at fore­clo­sures, peo­ple who lose their homes, peo­ple who get a notice say­ing, If you don’t pay, you’re out.” And most of those peo­ple can­not pay; that is why they’re not pay­ing, and hence they are out. Very dra­mat­ic num­bers in the United States. Thirteen mil­lion peo­ple, accord­ing to the Federal Bank, which is our cen­tral bank in the United States. In a short, bru­tal his­to­ry that last­ed sev­en years, thir­teen mil­lion house­holds los­ing their home, that is about thir­ty mil­lion peo­ple, count­ing it mild­ly. A house­hold can have one per­son, three peo­ple, it can be two fam­i­lies liv­ing there. And all that mate­ri­al­i­ty of bod­ies, of destroyed neigh­bor­hoods, of emp­ty hous­es, of bush­es grow­ing, weed growing—not the good weed, the bad kind of weed—weed is grow­ing there. All of that is invis­i­ble. Who would go vis­it an aban­doned neigh­bor­hood? Maybe there’s one per­son; okay, then very few will see it. 

The munic­i­pal gov­ern­ments that have put tent cities, thou­sands of peo­ple in them, same lit­tle tents as the tents of the inter­na­tion­al refugee sys­tem. Thousands of peo­ple there. How many peo­ple in the United States are aware of that? Almost nobody. Not even experts are aware of that. So these are all sys­temic edges. There are oth­er types of sys­temic edges.

Let’s go to the Global South. So from 2006, when the cri­sis real­ly begins, a cri­sis that is called the finan­cial crises for the finan­cial sec­tor. It last­ed for about two hours. (I exag­ger­ate, it was two years.) But the rest of the econ­o­my of the peo­ple, they are still in cri­sis in many of these coun­tries, even though it is get­ting a bit better.

So, when the finan­cial cri­sis starts, 2006, 2007, till 2011, those are the data we have, it turns out that fif­teen for­eign gov­ern­ments and about a hun­dred firms bought 220 mil­lion hectares of land in Africa; in South America; in cer­tain parts of Central Asia; cer­tain parts of Southeast Asia; Europe, also Europe—especially in Central and Eastern Europe. Now, a lot of these plots were—well, the basic mea­sure is at least two hun­dred hectare size, oth­er­wise you don’t count it. That is why you look at the fig­ures of Europe and you don’t see very much. Because a two hun­dred hectare plot is actu­al­ly a sig­nif­i­cant plot say, in the UK. In the UK, by the way, invis­i­ble to the eye of I don’t know the gov­ern­ment or…the Mormons of Utah are buy­ing vast stretch­es of land in rur­al areas, includ­ing Cambridgeshire. Ten min­utes out­side of Cambridge is a vast rur­al zone. The Mormons are buy­ing— The Mormons are an enter­prise, they are a glob­al firm. Very rich glob­al investor.

So let’s go back to Global South. What real­ly hap­pens when a coun­try, and quite a few coun­tries have done this, buys 2.8 mil­lion hectares to grow a plan­ta­tion? Of palm. Mostly palm. The most impor­tant crop right now, an indus­tri­al crop. There is an expelling of fau­nas, flo­ras, whole genealo­gies of mean­ing, of the rur­al peo­ple, the rur­al economies, their tra­di­tions. They are their land, etc., etc.—out. All of it, out. 

From com­plex nation­al sov­er­eign territory—territory being part­ly some­thing that gets shaped by the mean­ings that local peo­ples bring to a place; by the knowl­edge that they have about farm­ing; what can be farmed well in those par­tic­u­lar areas giv­en the land, the light, the sun and the water available—all that is erased. And one lit­tle ques­tion one might also ask is well, where do all those peo­ple go? Well, they also go to the cities.

So I always like to say, when we invoke, as so many politi­cians do nowa­days, the term urban­iza­tion…” All politi­cians now are able of emit­ting the sen­tence, Most peo­ple now live in cities.” They stick with just that, the city, and so do most experts on cities. What they leave out are these oth­er his­to­ries that are being made that are also feed­ing urban­iza­tion. Today when I hear the term urban­iza­tion” I can­not help but think about those 200 mil­lion hectares of land that have most­ly been tak­en out of oth­er forms of occu­pa­tion and oth­er forms of economies.

Now for me, there’s also an expul­sion there. There are expul­sions not just of flo­ras and fau­nas but of his­to­ries. And I repeat, ecolo­gies of mean­ing made by local res­i­dents. And on a more abstract lev­el, the expelling of the ter­ri­to­r­i­al. The ter­ri­to­r­i­al being a com­plex cat­e­go­ry with embed­ded log­ics of pow­er (the state), but also embed­ded log­ics of claim-making, which we in the West would think of as cit­i­zen­ship. All of that is out. So land: you go from ter­ri­to­ry, com­plex cat­e­go­ry; to land: com­mod­i­ty. Land for sale. 

One of the fea­tures of this last decade, that I see, is that more and more nation­al sov­er­eign ter­ri­to­ry, no mat­ter how creepy and cor­rupt the gov­ern­ments that occu­py that posi­tion, that more and more of that land now has these struc­tur­al holes where the ter­ri­to­r­i­al as con­struct­ed in our polit­i­cal moder­ni­ty in the West is sim­ply being dilut­ed. At what point do enough of these struc­tur­al holes rep­re­sent­ed by for­eign own­er­ships and real­ly era­sure of local his­to­ries… At what point does that whole ter­ri­to­r­i­al zone real­ly become a tis­sue that no longer works, that lacks mean­ing, that lacks pos­si­bil­i­ty? Not to men­tion all the peo­ple that have been expelled and wind up in shanties. 

A final major cat­e­go­ry, if you want, of expul­sions that I devel­op in this book has to do with the envi­ron­ment. We have been…slightly destruc­tive since we start­ed on this plan­et. But, until the last thir­ty years, and I think this is an extra­or­di­nary datum, until the last thir­ty years, the bios­phere man­aged to rein­tro­duce life, to rein­tro­duce a cer­tain kind of bal­ance into land, water, air. That has stopped. We have actu­al­ly man­aged now to expel bits and pieces of the bios­phere from her life­space. And mind you we are also biosphere. 

So we real­ly have scaled up our destruc­tion in a way that the bios­phere can no longer han­dle the cor­rect­ing of that lev­el of destruc­tion. And the boomerang effect is quite extra­or­di­nary. So, the per­mafrost of the Arctic is melt­ing. And the Arctic was actu­al­ly inno­cent in all of the pro­duc­tion of the neg­a­tives that are lead­ing to that melt­ing of the per­mafrost. Of course that per­mafrost is a dan­ger zone, actu­al­ly. We just dis­cov­ered the biggest virus ever, asleep in the per­mafrost. We don’t know what all else— This hap­pens to be, as far as we know now, it’s 30,000 years old or some­thing. It’s extra­or­di­nary, actu­al­ly, that it’s benign. But we now know that there are oth­ers; they might not be benign. And the methane. The methane gas cap­tured in the per­mafrost is far stronger than any­thing we have pro­duced thus far. So, we are capa­ble of enor­mous self-destruction as well, that’s clear. 

I want to wind up with a thought. And that is stand­ing back and look­ing at the globe today, how can it be that we allowed, and maybe even enabled at times, so much destruc­tion of bod­ies, of land, of water, and of air? So much destruc­tion of achieve­ments, col­lec­tive achieve­ments like a pros­per­ous work­ing class, a pros­per­ous mid­dle class, destroyed. Brought back into pover­ty and mis­ery, hunger. What is it about the DNA of of our human­i­ty that enables us to be wit­ness­es and to some extent per­haps be unable to actu­al­ly address­es this? 

And the image that comes to my mind that I have sort of devel­oped to cap­ture some of this is that it’s not just a ques­tion of preda­to­ry indi­vid­u­als, preda­to­ry firms, preda­to­ry elites. We’re real­ly deal­ing with preda­to­ry for­ma­tions. Even if we shot all the rich peo­ple, we would not solve our prob­lem. Because these are mix­tures, assem­blages, of tech­ni­cal net­works and capa­bil­i­ties, cer­tain very com­plex orga­ni­za­tion­al for­mats, and then yes, also indi­vid­u­als. These preda­to­ry for­ma­tions are going to take quite a bit in order to dis­place their cen­tral orga­niz­ing force that they are in our cur­rent culture.

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.