Mojca Pajnik: Good evening. I will dis­cuss aspects of transna­tion­al­ism by main­ly explor­ing the notion of cit­i­zen­ship. Citizenship as a con­cept and also as a prac­tice nor­ma­tive­ly actu­al­ly stands for activ­i­ty in the pub­lic sphere, activ­i­ty in the polit­i­cal field, and it stands for mem­ber­ship in a polit­i­cal com­mu­ni­ty of equals. So this is an aspi­ra­tion with­in the notion of cit­i­zen­ship that we some­times for­get, because when we think of cit­i­zen­ship nowa­days, we most­ly see it as a con­test­ed notion for it being reduced to an admin­is­tra­tive cri­te­ri­on that is actu­al­ly selec­tive­ly dif­fer­en­ti­at­ed: inclu­sion in, or exclu­sion from the nation-state mem­ber­ship, from priv­i­leged mem­ber­ship of Western nation-states.

Photos of some European airport international arrivals areas, with signage for EU/UK passports and "all other passports"

I would argue that postmodern—so con­tem­po­rary, or sup­posed demo­c­ra­t­ic soci­eties that are char­ac­ter­ized by what could be called the hol­low­ing out of democ­ra­cy, the hol­low­ing out of demo­c­ra­t­ic poten­tial, have actu­al­ly enthroned cit­i­zen­ship as pass­port iden­ti­ty; we’ve already heard in James’ talk. And enthron­ing pass­port iden­ti­ty seems today… It has been repro­duc­ing a never-so-profound dif­fer­en­ti­a­tion between those with the right pass­port and those with the wrong one; those from the West and those con­sti­tut­ing the rest; those con­sti­tut­ing the we” and those mar­gin­al­ized as the oth­er. And you know, we could go along mak­ing sim­i­lar analogies. 

I will now dis­cuss how such dif­fer­en­ti­a­tion has been repro­duced and what it brings. I will call dif­fer­en­ti­a­tion prin­ci­ples and I will explore basi­cal­ly how nation-states have actu­al­ly enthroned cit­i­zen­ship as pass­port iden­ti­ty; how nation-states have actu­al­ly been rob­bing the poten­tial of cit­i­zen­ship from its equality-oriented aspi­ra­tions. And if we bring migra­tion in this dis­cus­sion, look­ing at how migra­tion is actu­al­ly man­aged today, how nation-states are man­ag­ing migra­tion, one would observe that migra­tion is pre­dom­i­nant­ly framed or under­stood as a sab­o­tage. It is under­stood as an unprece­dent­ed breach of bor­dered ter­ri­to­ri­al­i­ty and a breach of docile labor. 

So basi­cal­ly we are see­ing when we look at the reac­tions of the nation-states to migra­tion, to mobil­i­ty, we are see­ing that this nexus—migration/mobility—is actu­al­ly con­ceived as a threat to sovereignty. 

Consequently, the pri­ma­ry con­cern of hold­ers of pow­er is actu­al­ly how to make mobile subjects—so-called ungovern­able subjects—how to make them gov­erned. So turn­ing mobile sub­jec­tiv­i­ties into gov­erned indi­vid­u­als, basi­cal­ly this is the way to con­trol mobil­i­ty. And this is actu­al­ly also the way to sub­or­di­nate mobil­i­ty to fit var­i­ous nation­al­ist ide­olo­gies or labor mar­ket pro­duc­tiv­i­ty goals. 

I will now dis­cuss these four dif­fer­en­ti­a­tion strate­gies that are facil­i­tat­ing such goals. The first strat­e­gy can be called cat­e­go­riza­tion of cit­i­zen­ship or cat­e­go­riza­tion of people. 

Taking the exam­ple of migra­tion man­age­ment, we can see how states have pro­duced metic­u­lous cat­e­go­riza­tion of migrants into var­i­ous groups. So we have asy­lum seek­ers, refugees, ille­gal migrants, fam­i­ly reunion migrants, undoc­u­ment­ed migrants, work migrants, and the list goes on. Some of these cat­e­gories when you look at them more close­ly have a legal back­up. They have appeared as legal cat­e­gories and they are by law actu­al­ly used to lim­it human rights, to lim­it mobil­i­ty, for some of the cat­e­gories.” For exam­ple the case of the cat­e­go­ry” of the refugee or the asy­lum seeker.

On the oth­er hand, we see some of the cat­e­gories that do not nec­es­sar­i­ly have a legal back­ing but that have how­ev­er found wide­spread legit­imiza­tion in polit­i­cal dis­course and the relat­ed pub­lic and media dis­course, where they func­tion as metaphors for migrants,” for those over there, for the second-class people—for exam­ple the cat­e­go­ry of an eco­nom­ic migrant, or the cat­e­go­ry of an ille­gal or an undoc­u­ment­ed migrant. It is not actu­al­ly a legal cat­e­go­ry per se but has been used wide­ly, first­ly in the polit­i­cal and then in the media dis­course to again repro­duce differentiation. 

These cat­e­go­riza­tions, when we look at them what do they tell us? They point to pri­or­i­ti­za­tion of status-based cit­i­zen­ship ver­sus what could be called human-based, what could be viewed as human-based cit­i­zen­ship. And by doing so they’re actu­al­ly ground­ing the legit­i­ma­cy of the peo­ple’s exis­tence on the pre­described sta­tus­es, where one’s life is actu­al­ly depen­dent on the hold­ing of a spe­cif­ic sta­tus or the lack of a spe­cif­ic status.

So by doing so, cat­e­go­riza­tion regimes have actu­al­ly pro­duced cat­e­gories of under­peo­ple who are viewed in the words of the ris­ing pop­ulist polit­i­cal par­ties across Europe but also glob­al­ly, who have for exam­ple declared that of mul­ti­cul­tur­al­ism as impos­si­ble sub­jects of inte­gra­tion.” This is how the main­stream polit­i­cal speech in the pre­dom­i­nant polit­i­cal elite goes. So migrants are being viewed as impos­si­ble sub­jects to be inte­grat­ed. They’re viewed as such for the ascribed dif­fer­ence, the ascribed alleged­ly dif­fer­ent cul­ture, dif­fer­ent cus­toms and so on that obvi­ous­ly does not fit the norms of the civ­i­lized West. 

The sec­ond dif­fer­en­ti­a­tion strat­e­gy that I want to address can be called the con­trac­tu­al­iza­tion of cit­i­zen­ship. Let me make an exam­ple from migra­tion stud­ies. If a female migrant, a woman migrant, if we look at her we see that she’s depen­dent on the set of con­di­tions that go along with her spe­cif­ic sta­tus, if she seeks asy­lum, then sta­tis­tics tell us that she has less than 1% chance of being admit­ted into a sta­tus of refugee. Once get­ting the sta­tus of a refugee, the host country—so the state where she cur­rent­ly lives—decides the con­di­tions under which she can work, whether she can work. The state defines the con­di­tions if and under what terms she can get edu­ca­tion and so on and so forth. 

The sys­tem is actu­al­ly con­di­tion­ing her life with more…it’s invent­ing new require­ments for her to final­ly be able to fit in but this actu­al­ly nev­er hap­pens. I like this Balibarian notion you know, once a migrant always a migrant.” So the sys­tem has been repro­duc­ing the cat­e­go­ry of migration.

As an exam­ple I have the­ma­tized the cre­ation of migrants as wast­ed pre­cari­at, wast­ed pre­car­i­ty, in line with Zygmunt Bauman’s notion of the wast­ed humans, argu­ing that migrant pre­cariza­tion is orches­trat­ed at the inter­sec­tion of immi­grant sta­tus first. Second, the gov­er­nance of migra­tion and labor. And third, the fea­tures of the indus­tries that actu­al­ly employ migrant work­ers. We can see that the func­tion of this tri­an­gu­la­tion, the con­trac­tu­al, illu­sion­ary inclu­sion of mobile pop­u­la­tions, is actu­al­ly to cre­ate dif­fer­ent sub­jects of labor. This allows nation-states to care­ful­ly select the want­ed from the unwant­ed migrants, and we have been see­ing a trend glob­al­ly of chan­nel­ing migrant labor force into the so-called 3D jobs—so dirty, dan­ger­ous, and demanding. 

In these books we have referred to the cir­cu­lar con­di­tion­al­i­ty of migrants’ life that is actu­al­ly blunt­ly point­ing to what con­trac­tu­al­iza­tion of cit­i­zen­ship actu­al­ly means. Without a per­mit for work it’s not pos­si­ble to obtain a res­i­dence per­mit. If one does not have a res­i­dence per­mit, then your work­ing pos­si­bil­i­ties are lim­it­ed. If you don’t have a res­i­dence per­mit you’re not admit­ted to be fit for cit­i­zen­ship. If you don’t have cit­i­zen­ship, then you can­not be part of the med­ical insur­ance schemes, and so on and so forth. 

The third strat­e­gy of dif­fer­en­ti­a­tion that I want to dis­cuss can be called crim­mi­gra­tion. Generally, crim­mi­gra­tion points to the con­ver­gence of migra­tion laws and puni­tive laws. Or in oth­er terms, crim­mi­gra­tion exem­pli­fies con­tem­po­rary trends of crim­i­nal­iza­tion of mobility. 

Photos of various national borders, eg. razor wire in Slovenia, the wall between the US and Mexico, etc.

Various strate­gies can be observed as with­in this notion of crim­mi­gra­tion. One is the strength­en­ing of bor­der regimes while bor­ders, as I will try to show a bit lat­er, can have very dif­fer­ent mean­ings. One can play around the bor­ders, but his­tor­i­cal­ly we can admit that bor­ders have been an insti­tu­tion­al means for safe­guard­ing the rule of exclu­sion. The ter­ri­to­r­i­al bor­ders in this con­text appear as spaces where dif­fer­ences are repro­duced or as spaces where peo­ple are divid­ed and sort­ed. And con­se­quent­ly bor­ders in this con­text appear as man­i­fes­ta­tions of hege­mo­ny and its pres­sure to normalization. 

The pow­er to admit or to exclude non-citizens is inher­ent in bor­der sov­er­eign­ty, and late­ly if we look at the European con­text but also glob­al­ly, it seems that we are wit­ness­ing the hys­te­ria of bor­der­ing. For exam­ple rebor­der­ing at the sea, build­ing dou­ble or triple fences on land, togeth­er with soft, elec­tron­ic fingerprint-related bor­der­ing that are all strate­gies that are being legit­imized as secu­ri­ti­za­tion poli­cies. But we clear­ly speak here of state secu­ri­ti­za­tion, and the oppo­site would be human secu­ri­ti­za­tion. So bor­ders actu­al­ly here, by pur­su­ing secu­ri­ty and by repro­duc­ing the dan­ger­ous oth­er, can appear as a mech­a­nism of insti­tu­tion­al racism that is actu­al­ly erad­i­cat­ing, in Rancièr’s terms, the dif­fer­ence between the police and politics”—politics, poli­cies, has become polic­ing, basically. 

Other strate­gies of bor­der­ing include camps. Detention camps, refugee camps. The map here shows the steep rise in the num­ber of for­eign­ers’ camps in the last fif­teen years in a European con­text. We know that camps have been gen­tri­fied, built at the out­skirts usu­al­ly of life, and that as Foucauldian islands of the [fools?] are usu­al­ly sit­u­at­ed at the out­skirts of urban set­tle­ments. Often they do not have Internet facil­i­ties, med­ical care, legal advice. All these ser­vices are lim­it­ed. Meaning that indi­vid­u­als who are liv­ing there in a way have been robbed of their dig­ni­ty, and the bor­der­ing of the camps, peo­ple have been liv­ing with bare life” in the terms of Giorgio Agamben. 

And yet, we can see when we look at the polit­i­cal dis­course that camps have been cel­e­brat­ed as sol­i­dar­i­ty or as assis­tance of the glob­al­ized West, which to put it mild­ly can be viewed as lan­guage manipulation. 

I will move to the third strat­e­gy of dif­fer­en­ti­a­tion that I want to address, that can be called exter­nal­iza­tion of bor­ders. The exam­ple is the state agree­ments. For exam­ple the European Union a cou­ple of years ago had made an agree­ment with Libya, fol­lowed by an agree­ment with Morocco. Or if I men­tion the recent agree­ment of the European Union and Turkey, accord­ing to which Turkey has been keep­ing in camps more than two mil­lion peo­ple at the doors of the European Union. Here we can see that the EU from the posi­tion of the rule-maker actu­al­ly has been col­o­niz­ing the east and the south as the rule-taker by adopt­ing agree­ments to actu­al­ly stop mobil­i­ty or pre­vent­ing mobil­i­ty, before mobil­i­ty reach­es the bor­ders of the European Union.

By now I have most­ly addressed the polit­i­cal, the legal ways of con­struct­ing transna­tion­al­ism. But there is anoth­er way—which James has also men­tioned before—that I think is repro­duc­ing the out­comes, and that is by means of polit­i­cal, by means of media dis­course, and we are see­ing when media are report­ing about migra­tion, the spec­tac­u­lar­iza­tion of this phe­nom­e­non, which is large­ly an adopt­ed pop­ulist strat­e­gy both being adopt­ed by the polit­i­cal elite and the main­stream media.

When the polit­i­cal elite of the European Union began to pro­claim a secu­ri­ty threat by so-called mas­sive” migra­tion in 2015, 2016, dur­ing the func­tion­ing of the Balkan route, they con­ve­nient­ly oper­at­ed with the cat­e­go­ry of an eco­nom­ic migrant. It was inter­est­ing to see how he,” the mas­culin­i­ty was very pro­claimed here—was sym­bol­iz­ing a threats pen­e­trat­ing the alleged­ly eth­ni­cal­ly homo­ge­neous nation, threat­en­ing domes­tic work­ers, tak­ing away their jobs and social secu­ri­ty and so on. 

While on the oth­er hand, when the EU want­ed to show its human­i­tar­i­an, you know, more sol­i­dar­i­ty face, then the cat­e­go­ry of the refugee has been intro­duced into the dis­course. And this cat­e­go­ry actu­al­ly had this com­pas­sion at the moment. The dis­course was changed. Women and refugee chil­dren came into the debate. We need to feed the chil­dren, we need to take care of them,” but here we saw that the tol­er­ance end­ed. So not hun­gry any­more, we saw in the polit­i­cal dis­course that they should move for­ward or they would be, accord­ing to the sta­tus­es that we have dis­cussed before, deport­ed. We sym­pa­thize but if I quote the Slovenian Prime Minister, our inte­gra­tion capac­i­ties are lim­it­ed.” He was say­ing this and the media have been repeat­ing this. 

In the con­clud­ing remarks I would like to go back to the idea of transna­tion­al­ism and cit­i­zen­ship. And we can see that both these con­cepts, both these ideas, have become in the last ten or fif­teen years key­words in claims to sur­pass the state-centric per­spec­tive on ter­ri­to­ry, state-centric per­spec­tive on the under­stand­ing of the state and on human life. Still, we have shown how sig­nif­i­cant for­mal cit­i­zen­ship is [when one?] fails to fit a spe­cif­ic cat­e­go­ry, when a sta­tus is denied. So how this repro­duces pre­car­i­ty in the hier­ar­chy of an unequal cit­i­zen­ship market. 

Transnationalism I think has the poten­tial to actu­al­ly enact and to stim­u­late a trans­for­ma­tive agency…I mean stim­u­lat­ing us to think about the mul­ti­lay­ered sub­jec­tiv­i­ties con­test­ing the idea of scalar iden­ti­ties or of nest­ed iden­ti­ties. And migrants are embody­ing I think these ideas. 

Autonomy of migra­tion (Tsianos & Papadopoulos, 2013);
Border as a method (Mezzadra & Nielson 2013)

I would like to refer briefly to the lit­er­a­ture on auton­o­my of migra­tion that has been put for­ward about a decade ago. This lit­er­a­ture is inter­est­ing because it has taught us to view sub­jects on the move not as vic­tims, obvi­ous­ly, but as so-called nomads of the present” who are dis­rupt­ing cer­tain­ties, who are break­ing the rules, not at least who are cross­ing the bor­ders, who are rup­tur­ing the sta­tus quo and by doing so who actu­al­ly bring pos­si­bil­i­ties for crit­i­cal­ly rethink­ing con­tem­po­rary sit­u­a­tions and also think of future aspirations.

The mobile com­mons (Tsianos & Papadopoulos, 2013);
The con­nect­ed migrant (Diminescou, 2008);
Nano-media (Pajnik & Downing, 2008)

My Greek col­leagues from the MigNet project that was a project on migra­tion, Internet, and gen­der have pro­duced a video game, Banoptikon, which sim­u­lates migra­tion sit­u­a­tions which take place at bor­der cross­ings or in rur­al areas in cities, but above all which affect human bod­ies, as we’ve already heard today.

Bodies are actu­al­ly becom­ing the sub­ject on which con­trol is applied, and bod­ies today actu­al­ly remain the basic topos also to coun­ter­act con­trol. And these bod­ies, the trans­mi­grant, the transna­tion­al bod­ies don’t fit, obvi­ous­ly, the typ­i­cal pic­ture of the vic­tim, or migrant as a vic­tim, or the typ­i­cal pic­ture of migrant as a per­pe­tra­tor, as being a vio­lent per­son that is often repro­duced in the polit­i­cal discourse. 

Just one minute to stop, with some new con­cepts that I think are chal­leng­ing and that are relat­ed to the utopias of transna­tion­al­ism. For exam­ple the idea of the mobile com­mons. Mobile com­mons is actu­al­ly address­ing mobil­i­ty pop­u­la­tions who are exchang­ing knowl­edge on mobil­i­ty. We are see­ing migrants that actu­al­ly exchange knowl­edge about bor­der cross­ings, about routes. We see migrant tac­tics that are escap­ing sur­veil­lance regimes, for exam­ple that escap­ing fin­ger­print­ing. We see migrants prac­tic­ing con­nec­tiv­i­ty by using nano­me­dia, by using var­i­ous tech­no­log­i­cal devices, as well as mouth-to-mouth strat­e­gy which can which can embody the notion of the con­nect­ed migrant. So it’s far from migrant being a vic­tim, but is pro­duc­ing anoth­er set of think­ing where we see migrants as active sub­jec­tiv­i­ties that are actu­al­ly pur­su­ing the idea of world cit­i­zen­ship, welt­bürg­er­recht” in the terms of Immanuel Kant, which is meant to sig­ni­fy not a bright utopia or an ide­al life that is lift­ed away or that has noth­ing to do with real­i­ty. To the con­trary, we can see this trans­mi­grat­ing sub­jec­tiv­i­ty actu­al­ly rein­vent­ing what can be seen as world­li­ness of peo­ple, right, where peo­ple are judged by human secu­ri­ty and not to by nation-state secu­ri­ty. Thank you.

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.