Metrika

  • citati u SCIndeksu: 0
  • citati u CrossRef-u:0
  • citati u Google Scholaru:[]
  • posete u poslednjih 30 dana:6
  • preuzimanja u poslednjih 30 dana:4

Sadržaj

članak: 1 od 9  
Back povratak na rezultate
2022, vol. 56, br. 1, str. 260-281
Reartikulisanje postpandemijskih granica
Institut za političke studije, Beograd

e-adresadjordje.stojanovic@ips.ac.rs
Projekat:
Demokratski i nacionalni kapaciteti političkih institucija Srbije u procesu međunarodnih integracija (MPNTR - 179009)

Ključne reči: granice; postpandemijske granice; država; "koronokratija"; COVID-19
Sažetak
U radu se teoretski razmatra transformacija razumevanja granica u okviru COVID-19 (post)pandemijskog konteksta. U prvom delu rada se analizira imunitarni diskurs kao nova forma upravljanja i interpretacije "koronokratske" države. U drugom delu se propituje prednost dinamičnog/kinetičkog u odnosu na statično tumačenje granica i značaj njihovih hibridnih i polimorfnih atributa u prelasku na postvestfalski međunarodni poredak. Na kraju se razmatraju implikacije pandemijskog metanarativa po kome se COVID-19 tretira kao dominantno spoljna pretnja, kao specifična vrsta neprijatelja. Konačno, rad se zaključuje identifikovanjem dvostrukog procesa u njihovoj percepciji. Taj proces, sa jedne strane obuhvata redukovanje kinetičkih potencijala granica, a sa druge njihovu eksternalizaciju na teritorije alohtonih/"trećih" zemalja.

Introduction

Although fabricating the semantic dimension of "fatal-times" is partly based on the absurd possibility of ignoring or not recognizing the type and scope of "world-fatality" in the same world detected and projected, everything is completely different today. The "fatal-time" metaphor has become a redundant stylistic burden. It coincided with the conjuncture or "spirit" of the world we live in. "Fatal-time" has become heuristically equal to "world-fatality".

Indeed, today we live in a turbulent pandemic context triggered by a Coronavirus mutation, better known as SARS-CоV-2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2), which causes COVID-19 (COronaVIrus Disease-19). The zero-time point is the last day of 2019, when late ophthalmologist Dr. Li Wenliang announced on social network Weibo that a cluster of mysterious cases of viral pneumonia has been registered in the Chinese city of Wuhan (Fang, 2020; Hegarty, 2020). Since 11th March 2020, when the World Health Organisation declared the pandemic (WHO, 2020), we have belonged to an era of intense, irreversible and comprehensive global shock-metamorphoses.

We are existentially framed by the immunitary paradigm with its resultant strategies of biopower and psycho-power (Brown, 2019; Han, 2017; Foucault, 1990; Esposito 2011; Orr, 2006). At the time this paper was written, highly contagious BA.1 omicron mutation and the still under-tested BA.2 subtypes are active, the cumulative number of infected people stands at 453 million, the number of fatal cases at 6 million, while the total number of administered vaccine doses is 10.6 billion (Coronavirus Resource Center, 2022).

Generally speaking, this is a panic-like dynamics of destabilizing pandemic scenarios of the new millennium's "fluid modernity" (Bauman, 2012) and/or "disaster capitalism" (Klein, 2007) marked by repressive, radicalized and post-humanized biopolicies/psychopolicies. They can be extremely drastic and perceived as a pandemic dictatorship over the population (Agamben, 2020; Sarasin, 2020), but can also be affirmatively interpreted as decomposing of public power without the totalitarian consequences (Esposito, 2020; Tierney, 2016). We are absorbed by the "(bio)political dream" of pandemic intensification and power ramification for the sake of the far-fetched idea of ideal governance of society and the state (cf. Foucault, 1995, pp. 197-198).

Appreciating the "space production" paradigm (Lefebvre, 1991), we can say that the pandemic/"corona" factor qualifies as a discursive key in the spatial rearticulation/reconfiguration of post-COVID-19 states/societies as "coronocratic" immuno-states/societies, immuno-spaces and immuno-territories (Peters and Besley, 2020).

In such a highly complex context of the pandemic imaginaries, vocabularies and immune-spatial restructuring of the world, the perception of spectacularized borders and border regimes/mechanisms/practices/assemblages, i.e. heterogeneous processes of COVID-19 bordering, debordering and rebordering1, become the issues of ultimate importance. Although the transboundary nature of viruses is unquestionable, the pandemic/viral/immune/corona boundaries become the most important element of reanimated territorial grammars.

Centrifugal and centripetal transmission of border practices outside their original geographic coordinates, discrepancy between border functions and border locations, indicate their mobile/kinetic dimension and a shift from the tradition of fixed/static nature in time and space (Amilhat Szary and Giraut, 2015; Nail, 2016).

When it comes to borders, and aside from the pandemic, the re-flourishing o interest in their study over the last fifteen years has been spurred by militarism, terrorism, economic/war migration and migration related to climate change (Dodds 2021; Jones, 2012; Jones, R. et al., 2017).

Taking into account the above-mentioned, this paper will be structured by first analyzing the basic characteristics of the global pandemic environment/context and the neologism operatively termed as "coronocracy".

The second set of issues addressed in this paper examines the intrinsic hybridity and polymorphism of (corona-)borders and the processes of (post-)pandemic corona-bordering/corona-borderscaping.

Coronocracy: A conceptual sketch

The underlying logical premise of public health has been reformulated. The premise of dangerousness, characteristic for the first half of the twentieth century has been substituted with the premise of risk, characteristic for the second half of the twentieth century (Castel, 1991, pp. 281-286; Hooker, 2007, pp. 187-188). Particular neutralization/isolation of the specific infected entity has been replaced by the collective reduction of the abstract pandemic risk. Ergo, biological identity has been normatively/symbolically recalibrated. The point is that rigid pandemic biopolicies now "precede" pandemics. They have become autonomous from dangerousness, as well as the essential axioms of the medical-political composition of post-COVID-19 societies/states.

The planetary pandemic condition is a fertile semiotic environment. The semiurgical generation of pandemic cultures has qualified for one of its most important qualities (for example, national cultures of isolation - lockdown or specific pandemic subcultures based on age or professional criteria). In that sense, we can distinguish between the universal metanarrative of the "natural course of the pandemic" and the plural and vernacular narratives of the "cultural courses of the pandemic".

There is an evident tendency to use the state of frantic pandemic fear in order to exploit the state of emergency as a situation of standard/normalizing paradigm or organization and management (Agamben, 2020). Ergo, this is definitely a permanent (self-)invention of the pandemic extralegitimacy of the ruling structures and biomedical elites. Michel Foucault analyzed responses to three infectious diseases and treated them as models for different forms of rule/power (Foucault, 2007; Sarasin, 2020). These are leprosy, plague and smallpox.

The "Leprosy model/regime" implies the establishment of a leprosarium. Sovereign power is manifested by separating/isolating/segregating the healthy from the sick, i.e. by excommunicating the sick. The "Plague model/regime" prioritizes disciplining power: a total society administration based on rigorous discipline. The "Plague model" is based on unconditional control of all boundaries and mobility. Whoever denies these measures risks being infected or punished. The "Smallpox or inoculation model/regime" substitutes the issue of isolation or "hard" disciplining with the probability/statistics of population infection. The aim is no longer elimination, but a coexistence with pathogens/germs.

Let us now set aside the controversy of Giorgio Agamben's biopolitical paradigm and focus immanently on its content (Agamben, 1998; Finlayson, 2010). The era we belong to explicitly suggests the total abolishment of the ostensible distinctions between natural life (zoe) and political life (bios). Today, our natural "pandemic body" is absorbed by our political and/or politicized "pandemic body", i.e. a culture of "bare life"/"bare survival".

Therefore, politics is a sphere where the universal biological life is transposed into a qualified political life. Through the "state of emergency" optics, sovereign power is manifested by deciding whether a modality of life is worth living at all (Agamben, 2005; Vaughan-Williams, 2009). That can be used to interpret and underscore the need for COVID-19 e-passports.

For the United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, we are not living in a post-racial world and the free market is unable to deliver adequate health care to everyone (Guterres, 2020). Based on the rhetoric of national homogenization, on populist parables and hyperboles, the "omnipotent, redeeming and sacrosanct" paternalistic state is back in the spotlight. Disciplining and/or controlling state discourses/metanarrative have intensified.

Authoritarianism gains pandemic legitimacy. It is as if the genuine democratic politics has been deactivated/suspended. It is intoxicated by the "banal" nationalist populism, growing nativism and racism (Billig, 1995; Casaglia and Coletti, 2021; Jones and Merriman, 2009; Paasi, 2016), i.e. by their pathogenic-immunitary variants. This generates the spatialization of politics through the nation-state territorial trap algorithm. The intense territorialization of the pandemic dangerousness positions borders as a crucial place for the level/quality of national security.

A general attempt to discursively essentialize/standardize the biomedical/health-sanitary component makes it possible to define any post-pandemic rule as a coronocracy.

As noted above, on one side there is a despotic reflex of the ruling elites, inclined toward the disciplining "state of emergency" or escalating the "containment pOchoaolicies" of hygienic-sanitary borders (Tazzioli and Stierl, 2021). On the other side there is the strategic sphere of "palliative biopolitical choice" which does not lead to the annulment of democracy and an imbalance of power in favour of its executive side, i.e. administrative apparatus.

Given the above-mentioned, we should finally mention that we can distinguish three state post-pandemic discourses: (1) "democratic coronocracy"; (2) "authoritarian/populist coronocracy" and (3) "hybrid coronocracy". Coronocratic democracy will be predominantly based on the legitimate "institutional struggle" for the survival of the "man-citizen" and society. The authoritarian/populist coronocracy will rely on the pseudo-legitimate "directed struggle" for the survival of the "man-subject" and the community. Hybrid coronocracy will combine these two principles to the extent it suits the interests and preferences of locally profiled elites.

Each of the above discourses may include different variants/sub-discourses of the political system. Thus, "democratic coronocracy" comprises: "polarized democracy", "consensual democracy" and "non-binary democracy" (Krastev and Leonard, 2021). The first one prioritizes fragmentation to different ideological groups, is marked by mistrust in the government's restrictive pandemic measures and fear for freedom. The second one implies a formal/superficial agreement between the parties and other political actors, which may also mask different degrees of dissatisfaction. The third variant is marked by significant shifts in the political philosophy of the main ruling and opposition parties.

Border statics vs. border dynamics

Multidimensional processes of respatialization/deterritorialization derogate the static and petrifying border discoursed based on the premises of Westphalian sovereignty (Shachar, 2020). The post-Westphalian situation is characterized by an unclear distinction between the "outer" and "inner" spacing of the state (the case of Canada, Australia, EU or US). Therefore, border penetration can be centripetal: deep within the state territory, but also centrifugal: far beyond the perimeters of state territory.

Borders are often perceived as policies of plotting the presumed "once and for all" differentiation, compartmentalization and/or discourses of historical pseudo-necessities and univocal policies/cultures of memory. They are exposed to the static discourse of "naturalization/physicalization" and are more implied than discussed.

Unlike this still frequent understanding of borders, at least equally worthy today is the view that borders are more "processes/verbs" than "situations/nouns". They are highly flexible, highly complex and highly liquescent processes of heterogeneous policies of spatial aggregation and disaggregation, construction and deconstruction or interpretation and reinterpretation. Borders are in a state of perpetual emergence/bordering. They are then exposed to the kinetic discourse of "denaturalization/dephysicalization" and are more discussed than implied.

This includes a distancing from "vertical epistemology" of borders understood as palimpsests: the static, quasi-rooted and cartographic historical standards of consolidated aggregations of past movements, toward the dynamics of "horizontal epistemology"; current processes that define the matrix of understanding borders and the resultant historical environment (Amilhat Szary and Giraut, 2015, p. 6).

In addition, they are one of the main constructive elements or prerequisites for the design and realization, namely narration, of some particular or group identity formula or strategy. In fact, it is an inevitable positioning/situating, search for coordinates of our spatial Self (and the related spatial We-Them), which, without these spatial aspects would lose their own self. This indicates that borders are the result of the interaction of institutional discourses, historical metanarratives and individual identity narratives.

Borders are processes of constant semantic composition, decomposition and recomposition of: (1) a closed "interpretive circle" of generically understood semantic/symbolic matrices; (2) acquired or lost vectors of power; (3) material components, and (4) "arena" of broader institutional border regimes/technologies and everyday vernacular border practices. From the semantic point of view, borders are never total, finished or completed.

The processes and dynamics of state bordering have a dual and discontinuous nature (Popescu, 2012, pp. 7-15). They simultaneously refer to both territorial/material/physical aspects of state boundaries and to the symbolic/cultural/identity aspects of state boundaries. State boundaries may be "overdetermined", may overlap with other boundaries, but they are never a simple sum of all other boundaries, nor are they the most crucial boundaries for human functioning (Balibar, 2002, p. 93).

Borders are never what they seem to be, nor are they where we are convinced they are. Although geostructured, borders are never predefined and pre-set. In sum, they are not "revealed", but situationally/contextually "demasked". Borders are not static social algorithms, but are constructed, reconstructed and deconstructed, i.e. legitimized, re-legitimized and de-legitimized. The idea is that borders are simultaneously coded as both opening and closing, exclusive and inclusive.

What is often overlooked is that this is not just a possibility to substitute one border metanarrative with another border metanarrative and the implied practices, but that borders are always regimes and/or scaling strategies of both.

"Janusian" borders and borderd metaxis

The intrinsic conceptual duality/equivalence of borders, a theoretical commonplace in numerous academic debates, is often illustrated by the "ontological" use of the metaphor of their "Janusian mentality" (Houtum, 2010; Houtum, 2011; Houtum, 2012; Houtum and Eker, 2015; Houtum and Pijpers, 2007; Sohn, 2016)2. The Janusian-profiled borders are in fact discursive/metanarrative formats of the interpretive continuum which "starts" with the collected cultural matrices of security and cohesion, or the strategies of border "restyling" of fear, ending in the individual desiderata cultures or strategies of border "restyling" of freedom and disaggregation.

They therefore coincide with the establishment of a protopolitical (1) discursive/metanarrative, (2) symbolic/metacultural and (3) material/meta-economic order, as an initial overcoming of chaos or dis-order through designing a semantic horizon that constitutes the space for being and arranging things, for the emergence and representation of various entities and for complex/multi-layered mutual relations perceived as some internal/external power geometry. Thus, paradoxically, borders can be discussed through both ontological and ontic optics. They not only enable, but also "live" the enabled space.

Janusian border perspective suggests broad cultural networks (assemblages) in the selection of understanding the hybridity of borders as open or closed. These networks are based on and produce certain regimes of border practices that can be sources of spatial/political repulsion or attraction. In this sense, the hybrid Janusian nature of borders requires disciplining political coherence and territorial/border "linear" continuum; it is always a single, firmly defined, visible/performative "face" of borders of two possible and simultaneously present variants.

In addition to the "Janusian" approach to border hybridity, it is also possible to refer to the ontological dynamics of border polymorphism, best described/expressed through the metaphor of metaxis/metaxy. Essentially, the polymorphous understanding of borders is aimed at (re-)formulating border control as an expression of their multidimensionality/complexity and mutuality between borders, territory, politics and governance. Such narrative perception is comprehensive and eclectic in the use of spatial metaphors and refers to territorial, site-based, scalar and network conceptualizations depending on the border quality explored (Burridge, Gill, Kocher and Martin, 2017, p. 245).

The term metaxis was first used by the ancient Greek philosopher Plato to position spirituality "between" human and divine attributes (Plato, 2008). According to him, metaxis is a dynamic/transfigural/mediative space that prevents the disintegration of the universe. It is a tension that cannot be positioned either in the subject or in the realm of objects, but between the extremes: man - the reality experienced (Voegelin, 2011, pp. 96-101). In our times, this can be extended to a whole network of polarities: from immortality and mortality, to truth and untruth.

The state of simultaneous belonging to disparate, parallel and autonomous worlds/orders/border assemblages is implicit (Sohn, 2016, pp. 183-189). It is thus possible to be "here, there and nowhere" at the same time. Of course, the cultural rather than the existential perspective of the previous contention is more important for this paper.

Thus, Canada and the US, through the common Multiple Borders Strategy, radically reformulate/deterritorialize their own borders, no longer treating them as a "geopolitical line, but as a continuum of checkpoints along the travel route to Canada or the United States from the country of origin" (The Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the U.S. Department of State, 2003).

Boundary polymorphism and boundary hybridity are interdependent boundary attributes, where the former attribute precedes the latter one. Border hybridity therefore refers to the potential of open or closed border modes. It concerns homogeneous parallel border regimes of accessibility or inaccessibility of a territory. Intrinsic polymorphism indicates a "non-linear" heterogeneity of borders which are simultaneously open and closed, visible and invisible, here and there, depending on who, how and where approaches them (Johnson et al., 2011).

Thanks to metaxis, they function as "discontinuity" gates for a unique trans-territorial connection similar to Einstein Rosen's wormholes in modern astronomy (Benton, 2010, p. 108). To achieve that, the newly created border settings rely on capillary branched networks of "national, subnational, supranational, transnational and international" instruments/mechanisms/apparatuses (Shachar, 2020, p. 11).

Coronocratic bordering/borderscaping: "Antiviral wars"

As noted earlier, the pandemic/Coronavirus attribution of meaning of borders is becoming extremely important (Stojanović, 2018). It is the most conspicuous in the initiation of the "medical-health-immunitary" borderscaping process.

The concept of borderscaping, or conditionally speaking - borer landscape, can be defined as an alternative paradigm in understanding de-essentialized hypermobile borders, perceived as crucial factors in the production of modern political subjects/imaginaries divested from the rigid territorial restrictions in terms of space (re-)configuration for new political and social aspects of organization and of consideration of the multiplicity of symbolic and material ties and relations inside, outside or at the borders themselves (Stojanović, 2018, pp. 137-138).

The process of "medical-health"/immunitary borderscaping involves metanarrative designing or fabrication of COVID-19 as the dominant external threat. The hermetic/occluded borders are perceived as the most important national political tool for increasing the immunitary-security potential of a state. Transnationality is immanent to the dangerousness of the pandemic, so "responding to the pandemic by closing borders is like hiding from fire in a wooden closet when the house is on fire" (Ochoa Espejo, 2021).

There is an accumulation of information of different ranks and an extremely fast dissemination of falsified, fabricated or trolled (written and video) pandemic news (Alaoui, 2020). These are usually "grey zones" of the conspiracy theory where science "passes" into pseudoscience and pseudoscience "tries" to be science. The former is associated with the professional science scene, while the latter is of amateur, non-scientific provenance. We should also add the hyper scientific constructs, such as "new normal" and "pandemic populism" (Vieten, 2020).

Along these lines, the pandemic pretext of reduced/impermeable borders, the notion of prophylactic "antiviral" walls/fortresses and the delusions of state autarchy, may provoke hybrid regimes of explicitly violent and banal populist, nativist, nationalist or racist border walls (Brambilla and Jones, 2020).

Genealogically, pathogenic war/militaristic vocabulary is not an exclusive feature of this time. It was also the narrative component of the Hellenic historian Thucydides in describing the plague epidemic that struck an Athenian polis during the second year of the Peloponnesian War in 43 BC (Thucydides, 2009, pp. 96-101). Ancient Greek verbs eispiptō/εἰσπίπτω and epipiptō/ἐπιπίπτω were used to describe both military invasions, as well as the sudden infectious onset of the plague (Greenwood, 2020).

Today, "smart walls"/"virtual fortresses" equipped with hi-tech technologies such as: omnidirectional (360 degree) cameras; sensor pole; long-range acoustic devices or "sound cannons"; border drones with wide coverage of border zones/belts which register activities that may be missed by fixed or mobile land sensors; robotic patrol dogs, etc. (Phippen, 2021; Molnar and Miller, 2016).

Notwithstanding if these are land barriers or, as in the case of Greece, even a "maritime" floating one (Smith, 2020), border walls are certainly not "solid"/"sterilizing"/"immunizing" to stop viruses. However, although the tightening of borders is not substantially effective, it is symbolically "strong" enough to make borders ideological icons/emblems of the state of emergency and to awaken and legitimize the strategies/platforms of the crisis-related restriction of mobility and the state's democratic capacities.

Is there any basis for equating the pandemic with war against the invasion of the invisible "virus-aggressor" in which each individual is both a friend and an enemy, on both sides of the border? Although the similarity between the aggressive "biological warfare" and the defensive "viral warfare", between bioweapons and naturally caused viral infections is evident, the trend of their synonymous use is by no means justified. This goes so far that, by totalizing the cliché "war against COVID-19" has become a securitized dictate of the media, colloquial and even scientific vocabulary.

The former actually implies border coding that includes: (1) institutional restriction or suspension of internal and external mobility i.e. migration flows, both at the state level and at the level of internal regions and cities; (2) distance from cosmopolitanism, public advocacy and promotion as particularly important policies of xenophobia and xenelasia; (3) destabilizing and introducing the currently valid, outdated and anachronistic Westphalian international order into the process of reconsideration and reconfiguration; (4) repositioning borders as an integral/constitutive element of everyday life and finally, (5) the proliferation of futuristic surveillance technologies and means based on artificial intelligence.

Conclusion

The pandemic (bio, psycho and geo) political prescriptions and proscriptions are transposed in the generic code/matrix for understanding, organizing, normalizing and governing states permanently exposed to real, potential or implied "immuno-apocalypses/cataclysms". Strategies of "analog" pandemic danger elimination are substituted with strategies of "digital" pandemic risk control.

This also implies the favouring of the platial nature of space, its pandemic reduction to place (cf. Heidegger, 1971, pp. 141-161). At the political, moral and economic level, the transnational space/borders of cosmopolitanism change with the nationally attributed space/borders, "immuno-claustropolitanism" (cf. Virilio and Lotringer, 2008, p. 211), the sum of "purified", administered and supervised places "bridged" by certain medical/health protocols.

The deconstruction of borders as hybrid phenomena indicates their dual "either-or" capacities, the ever-present possibility of deterritorialization/reterritorialization through closed/restrictive or open/borderless border regimes. Deconstructing borders as polymorphic phenomena points to the extraterritorial/intra-territorial stretching of borders that changes the spatial matrix of their understanding. Borders are simultaneously both open and closed depending on by whom, how and where they are approached, they are in an "either-or" situation.

In any case, the pandemic "geography" of contagious spaces is not "biologically apolitical", but each contaminated zone is politically conditioned and designed. Thus, the pandemic rearticulation/intensification of "sovereignty" of the state of emergency changes the border genotype from an increased degree of neoliberal openness toward a strictly controlled, restrictive border closure. The "Ontic DNA/algorithm" of borders is metanarratively transformed in such a way that they regress from a mobile/kinetic mode to its immobile/static counterpart, but with a possibility of their externalization/relocation of their functions to the territories of non-native/"third" countries.

Dodatak

Acknowledgement

This paper was written within the project “Democratic and national capacities of political institutions of Serbia in the process of international integrations”, No. 179009, funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development. I would like to take the opportunity to express my gratitude to Professor Dr. Mamoru Sadakata from one of the best Japanese universities – Nagoya University, for making me not only a better scientist, but also a better man during my one-year stay there as a visiting researcher.

Endnotes

1The concepts of bordering and borderscape/bordescaping will be elucidated later.
2Janus is a two-faced Roman deity looking in the opposite directions at the same time, thus symbolizing the entry and transition from one fragment of time and/or space to another. Hence the “Janusian” attribute metaphorically indicates the coexistence of ambivalent qualities in an entity. We will leave aside the fact that, during the reign of Emperor Hadrian, Roman god Janus was presented with four faces of the same head instead of two.

References

The Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, the U.S. Department of State (2003). Statement of Mutual Understanding on Information Sharing. Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/mandate/policies-operational-instructions-agreements/agreements/statement-mutual-understanding-information-sharing/statement.html.
Agamben, G. (2005). State of Exception. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Agamben, G. (1998). Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Agamben, G. (2020). The Invention of an Epidemic. European Journal of Psychoanalysis. Retrieved from https://www.journal-psychoanalysis.eu/coronavirus-and-philosophers/.
Alaoui, S. (2020). Immunizing the Public Against Misinformation. United Nations Foundation. Retrieved from https://unfoundation.org/blog/post/immunizing-the-public-against-misinformation/.
Amilhat, S.A.L., & Giraut, F. (2015). Borderities: The Politics of Contemporary Mobile Borders. In: A.L. Amilhat Szary, & F. Giraut, (Ed.). Borderities and the Politics of Contemporary Mobile Borders. (pp. 1-23). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Balibar, E. (2002). Politics and the Other Scene. London: Verso.
Bauman, Z. (2012). Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity.
Benton, L. (2010). A Search for Sovereignty: Law and Geography in European Empires, 1400-1900. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Billig, M. (1995). Banal Nationalism. London: SAGE.
Brambilla, C., & Jones, R. (2020). Rethinking Borders, Violence, and Conflict: From Sovereign Power to Borderscapes as Sites of Struggles. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 38(2), 287-305. [Crossref]
Brown, N. (2019). Immunitary Life A Biopolitics of Immunity. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Burridge, A., Gill, N., Kocher, A., & Martin, L. (2017). Polymorphic borders. Territory, Politics, Governance, 5(3), 239-251. [Crossref]
Casaglia, A., & Coletti, R. (2021). Territorializing Threats in Nationalist Populist Narratives: An Italian Perspective on the Migration and Covid-19 Crises. Space and Polity, 1-21. [Crossref]
Castel, R. (1991). From Dangerousness to Risk. In: G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller, (Ed.). The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. (pp. 281-299). London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Coronavirus Resource Center. (2022). COVID-19 Dashboard. Johns Hopkins University. Retrieved from https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html on March 7.
Dodds, K. (2021). Border Wars: The Conflicts that will Define our Future. London: Ebury Press.
Esposito, R. (2020). Cured to the Bitter End. European Journal of Psychoanalysis. Retrieved from https://www.journal-psychoanalysis.eu/on-pandemics-nancy-esposito-nancy/.
Esposito, R. (2011). Immunitas: The Protection and Negation of Life. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fang, F. (2020). Wuhan Diary: Dispatches from a Quarantined City. New York: HarperVia.
Finlayson, J.G. (2010). 'Bare Life' and Politics in Agamben's Reading of Aristotle. Review of Politics, 72(1), 97-126. [Crossref]
Foucault, M. (1990). The History of Sexuality: An Introduction. New York: Vintage.
Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage.
Foucault, M. (2007). Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collège de France 1977-1978. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
Greenwood, E. (2020). Thucydides in Times of Trouble. Retrieved from https://yalereview.yale.edu/thucydides-times-trouble.
Guterres, A. (2020). Retrieved from https://twitter.com/antonioguterres/status/1284494828034760706.
Han, B.C. (2017). Psychopolitics: Neoliberalism and New Technologies of Power. London: Verso.
Hegarty, S. (2020). The Chinese Doctor Who Tried to Warn Others About Coronavirus. BBC New. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-51364382 on February 6.
Heidegger, M. (1971). Poetry, Language, Thought. New York: Harper & Row.
Hooker, C. (2007). Drawing the Lines: Danger and Risk in the Age of SARS. In: A. Bashford, (Ed.). Medicine at the Border: Disease, Globalization and Security, 1850 to the Present. (pp. 179-196). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Johnson, C., Jones, R., Paasi, A., Amoore, L., Mountz, A., Salter, M., & Rumford, C. (2011). Interventions on Rethinking 'the Border' in Border Studies. Political Geography, 30(2), 61-69. [Crossref]
Jones, R., & Merriman, P. (2009). Hot, Banal and Everyday Nationalism: Bilingual Road Signs in Wales. Political Geography, 28, 164-173. [Crossref]
Jones, R. (2012). Security and the War on Terror in the United States, India, and Israel. London: Zed Books.
Jones, R., Johnson, C., Brown, W., Popescu, G., Pallister-Wilkins, P., Mountzand, A., & Gilbert, E. (2017). Interventions on the State of Sovereignty at the Border. Political Geography, 59(1), 1-10.
Klein, N. (2007). The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. New York: Metropolitan Books.
Krastev, I., & Leonard, M. (2021). Europe's Invisible Divides: How Covid-19 is Polarising European Politics. European Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved from https://ecfr.eu/wp-content/uploads/Europes-invisible-divides-How-covid-19-is-polarising-European-politics.pdf.
Lefebvre, H. (1991). The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Molnar, P., & Miller, T. (2016). Robo Dogs and Refugees: The Future of the Global Border Industrial Complex. Retrieved from https://www.theborderchronicle.com/p/robo-dogs-and-refugees-the-future?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share on February 17, 2022.
Nail, T. (2016). Theory of the Border. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ochoa Espejo, P. (2021). Retrieved from https://twitter.com/POchoaEspejo/status/1467860305325740044.
Orr, J. (2006). Panic Diaries: A Genealogy of Panic Disorder. Durham: Duke University Press.
Paasi, A. (2016). Dancing on the Graves: Independence, Hot/Banal Nationalism and the Mobilization of Memory. Political Geography, 54, 21-31. [Crossref]
Peters, M.A., & Besley, T. (2020). Biopolitics, Conspiracy and the Immuno-State: An Evolving Global Politico-Genetic Complex. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 54(2), 111-120. [Crossref]
Phippen, W. (2021). A $10-Million Scarecrow': The Quest for the Perfect 'Smart Wall'. Politico. Retrieved from https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/12/10/us-mexico-border-smart-wall-politics-artificial-intelligence-523918.
Plato. (2008). The Symposium. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Popescu, G. (2012). Bordering and Ordering the Twenty-First Century: Understanding Borders. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Sarasin, P. (2020). Understanding the Coronavirus Pandemic with Foucault?. University of Zurich. Retrieved from https://www.fsw.uzh.ch/foucaultblog/essays/254/understanding-corona-with-.
Shachar, A. (2020). The Shifting Border: Legal Cartographies of Migration and Mobility: Ayelet Shachar in dialogue. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Smith, H. (2020). Greece Plans to Build Sea Barrier Off Lesbos to Deter Migrants. Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/30/greece-plans-to-build-sea-barrier-off-lesbos-to-deter-migrants on January 30, 2020.
Sohn, C. (2016). Navigating Borders Multiplicity: The Critical Potential of Assemblage. Area (Oxf), 48(2), 183-189. [Crossref]
Stojanović, Đ. (2018). Post-Modern Metamorphosis of Limological Discourses: From 'Natural' Borders to Borderscapes. Nagoya University Journal of Law and Politics, 276, 97-161. [Crossref]
Tazzioli, M., & Stierl, M. (2021). We Closed the Ports to Protect Refugees: Hygienic Borders and Deterrence Humanitarianism During Covid-19. International Political Sociology, 15(4), 539-558. [Crossref]
Thucydides,. (2009). The Peloponnesian War. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tierney, T.F. (2016). Roberto Esposito's 'Affirmative Biopolitics' and the Gift. Theory, Culture & Society, 33(2), 53-76. [Crossref]
van Houtum, H., & Pijpers, R. (2007). The European Union as a Gated Community: The Two-Faced Border and Immigration Regime of the EU. Antipode, 39(2), 291-309. [Crossref]
van Houtum, H., & Eker, M. (2015). Redesigning Borderlands: Using the Janus-Face of Borders as a Resource. In: C. Brambilla, J. Laine, J. Scott, & G. Bocchi, (Ed.). Borderscaping: Imaginations and Practices of Border Making. (pp. 41-53). Farnham: Ashgate.
van Houtum, H. (2012). Remapping Borders. In: T.M. Wilson, & H. Donnan, (Ed.). A Companion to Border Studies. (pp. 405-419). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
van Houtum, H. (2011). The Mask of the Border. In: D. Wastl-Walter, (Ed.). The Ashgate Research Companion to Border Studies. (pp. 49-63). Farnham: Ashgate.
van Houtum, H. (2010). The Janus-Face: On the Ontology of Borders and B/ordering. Simulacrum, 18(2-3), 124-127. Retrieved from https://henkvanhoutum.nl/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/JanusFace.pdf.
Vaughan-Williams, N. (2009). The Generalised Bio-Political Border? Re-Conceptualising the Limits of Sovereign Power. Review of International Studies, 35(4), 729-749. [Crossref]
Vieten, U.M. (2020). The 'New Normal' and 'Pandemic Populism': The COVID-19 Crisis and Anti-Hygienic Mobilisation of the Far-Right. Social Sciences, 9(9), 1-14. [Crossref]
Virilio, P., & Lotringer, S. (2008). Pure War: Twenty-Five Years Later. Los Angeles: Semiotext(e).
Voegelin, E. (2011). Autobiographical Reflections. Columbia: University of Missouri Press.
World Health Organisation (WHO). (2020). Listings of WHO's Response to COVID-19. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/news/item/29-06-2020-covidtimeline.
Xinhuanet. (2021). Xi Focus: XI Vows to Win People's War Against Novel Coronavirus. Retrieved from http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-02/11/c_138771934.htm.
Reference
Agamben, G. (2020) The Invention of an Epidemic. European Journal of Psychoanalysis, Available at: https://www.journal-psychoanalysis.eu/coronavirus-and-philosophers/
Agamben, G. (1998) Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Stanford: Stanford University Press
Agamben, G. (2005) State of Exception. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press
Alaoui, S. (2020) Immunizing the Public Against Misinformation. United Nations Foundation, Available at: https://unfoundation.org/blog/post/immunizing-the-public-against-misinformation/
Amilhat, S.A.-L., Giraut, F. (2015) Borderities: The Politics of Contemporary Mobile Borders. u: Amilhat Szary A-L., Giraut F. [ur.] Borderities and the Politics of Contemporary Mobile Borders, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1-23
Balibar, E. (2002) Politics and the Other Scene. London: Verso
Bauman, Z. (2012) Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity
Benton, L. (2010) A Search for Sovereignty: Law and Geography in European Empires, 1400-1900. New York: Cambridge University Press
Billig, M. (1995) Banal Nationalism. London: SAGE
Brambilla, C., Jones, R. (2020) Rethinking Borders, Violence, and Conflict: from Sovereign Power to Borderscapes as Sites of Struggles. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 38(2): 287-305
Brown, N. (2019) Immunitary Life A Biopolitics of Immunity. London: Palgrave Macmillan
Burridge, A., Gill, N., Kocher, A., Martin, L. (2017) Polymorphic borders. Territory, Politics, Governance, 5(3): 239-251
Casaglia, A., Coletti, R. (2021) Territorializing Threats in Nationalist Populist Narratives: an Italian Perspective on the Migration and Covid-19 Crises. Space and Polity, published online, 1-21
Castel, R. (1991) From Dangerousness to Risk. u: Burchell G., Gordon C., Miller P. [ur.] The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 281-299
Coronavirus Resource Center (2022) COVID-19 Dashboard. Johns Hopkins University, Available at: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html
Dodds, K. (2021) Border Wars: The Conflicts that will Define our Future. London: Ebury Press
Esposito, R. (2011) Immunitas: The Protection and Negation of Life. Cambridge: Polity Press
Esposito, R. (2020) Cured to the Bitter End. European Journal of Psychoanalysis, Available at: https://www.journal-psychoanalysis.eu/on-pandemics-nancy-esposito-nancy/
Fang, F. (2020) Wuhan Diary: Dispatches from a Quarantined City. New York: HarperVia
Finlayson, J.G. (2010) 'Bare Life' and Politics in Agamben's Reading of Aristotle. Review of Politics, 72(1): 97-126
Foucault, M. (1990) The History of Sexuality. New York: Vintage, Volume 1: An Introduction
Foucault, M. (1995) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage
Foucault, M. (2007) Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collège de France 1977-1978. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan
Greenwood, E. (2020) Thucydides in Times of Trouble. The Yale Review, Available at: https://yalereview.yale.edu/thucydides-times-trouble
Han, B.C. (2017) Psychopolitics: Neoliberalism and New Technologies of Power. London: Verso
Hegarty, S. (2020) The Chinese Doctor Who Tried to Warn Others About Coronavirus. BBC New, Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-51364382
Heidegger, M. (1971) Poetry, Language, Thought. New York: Harper & Row
Hooker, C. (2007) Drawing the Lines: Danger and Risk in the Age of SARS. u: Bashford A. [ur.] Medicine at the Border: Disease, Globalization and Security, 1850 to the Present, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 179-196
Johnson, C., Jones, R., Paasi, A., Amoore, L., Mountz, A., Salter, M., Rumford, C. (2011) Interventions on Rethinking 'the Border' in Border Studies. Political Geography, 30(2): 61-69
Jones, R., Merriman, P. (2009) Hot, Banal and Everyday Nationalism: Bilingual Road Signs in Wales. Political Geography, 28: 164-173
Jones, R. (2012) Security and the War on Terror in the United States, India, and Israel. London: Zed Books
Jones, R., Johnson, C., Brown, W., Popescu, G., Pallister-Wilkins, P., Mountzand, A., Gilbert, E. (2017) Interventions on the State of Sovereignty at the Border. Political Geography, 59(1): 1-10
Klein, N. (2007) The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. New York: Metropolitan Books
Krastev, I., Leonard, M. (2021) Europe's Invisible Divides: How Covid-19 is Polarising European Politics. European Council on Foreign Relations, 20-21, Available at: https://ecfr.eu/wp-content/uploads/Europes-invisible-divides-How-covid-19-is-polarising-European-politics.pdf
Lefebvre, H. (1991) The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers
Molnar, P., Miller, T. (2016) Robo Dogs and Refugees: The Future of the Global Border Industrial Complex. Available at https://www.theborderchronicle.com/p/robo-dogs-and-refugees-the-future?utm_ source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share
Nail, T. (2016) Theory of the Border. New York: Oxford University Press
Orr, J. (2006) Panic Diaries: A Genealogy of Panic Disorder. Durham: Duke University Press
Paasi, A. (2016) Dancing on the Graves: Independence, Hot/Banal Nationalism and the Mobilization of Memory. Political Geography, 54: 21-31
Peters, M.A., Besley, T. (2020) Biopolitics, Conspiracy and the Immuno-State: An Evolving Global Politico-Genetic Complex. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 54(2): 111-120
Phippen, W. (2021) A $10-Million Scarecrow': The Quest for the Perfect 'Smart Wall'. Politico, Available at: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/12/10/us-mexico-border-smart-wall-politics-artificial-intelligence-523918
Plato (2008) The Symposium. New York: Cambridge University Press
Popescu, G. (2012) Bordering and Ordering the Twenty-First Century: Understanding Borders. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers
Sarasin, P. (2020) Understanding the Coronavirus Pandemic with Foucault?. University of Zurich, Foucault Blog-Blogging platform of the peer-reviewed open-access journal Le foucaldien, Available at: https://www.fsw.uzh.ch/foucaultblog/essays/254/understanding-corona-with-
Shachar, A. (2020) The Shifting Border: Legal Cartographies of Migration and Mobility: Ayelet Shachar in dialogue. Manchester: Manchester University Press
Smith, H. (2020) Greece Plans to Build Sea Barrier Off Lesbos to Deter Migrants. Guardian, January 30, 2020, Available at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ jan/30/greece-plans-to-build-sea-barrier-off-lesbos-to-deter-migrants
Sohn, C. (2016) Navigating Borders Multiplicity: The Critical Potential of Assemblage. Area, 48(2): 183-189
Stojanović, Đ. (2018) Post-Modern Metamorphosis of Limological Discourses: From 'Natural' Borders to Borderscapes. Nagoya University Journal of Law and Politics, 276: 97-161
Tazzioli, M., Stierl, M. (2021) We Closed the Ports to Protect Refugees: Hygienic Borders and Deterrence Humanitarianism During Covid-19. International Political Sociology, 15(4): 539-558
The Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, the U.S. Department of State (2003) Statement of Mutual Understanding on Information Sharing. Available at: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/mandate/policies-operational-instructions-agreements/agreements/statement-mutual-understanding-information-sharing/sta
Thucydides (2009) The Peloponnesian War. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Tierney, T.F. (2016) Roberto Esposito's 'Affirmative Biopolitics' and the Gift. Theory, Culture & Society, 33(2): 53-76
van Houtum, H. (2010) The Janus-Face: On the Ontology of Borders and B/ordering. Simulacrum, 18(2-3): 124-127, Available at: https://henkvanhoutum.nl/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/JanusFace.pdf
van Houtum, H. (2011) The Mask of the Border. u: Wastl-Walter D. [ur.] The Ashgate Research Companion to Border Studies, Farnham: Ashgate, 49-63
van Houtum, H. (2012) Remapping Borders. u: Wilson T.M., Donnan H. [ur.] A Companion to Border Studies, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 405-419
van Houtum, H., Pijpers, R. (2007) The European Union as a Gated Community: The Two-Faced Border and Immigration Regime of the EU. Antipode, 39(2): 291-309
van Houtum, H., Eker, M. (2015) Redesigning Borderlands: Using the Janus-Face of Borders as a Resource. u: Brambilla C., Laine J., Scott J., Bocchi G. [ur.] Borderscaping: Imaginations and Practices of Border Making, Farnham: Ashgate, 41-53
Vaughan-Williams, N. (2009) The Generalised Bio-Political Border?: Re-Conceptualising the Limits of Sovereign Power. Review of International Studies, 35(4): 729-749
Vieten, U.M. (2020) The 'New Normal' and 'Pandemic Populism': The COVID-19 Crisis and Anti-Hygienic Mobilisation of the Far-Right. Social Sciences, 9(9): 1-14
Virilio, P., Lotringer, S. (2008) Pure War: Twenty-Five Years Later. Los Angeles: Semiotext(e)
Voegelin, E. (2011) Autobiographical Reflections. Columbia: University of Missouri Press
World Health Organisation (WHO) (2020) Listings of WHO's Response to COVID-19. Available at: https://www.who.int/news/item/29-06-2020-covidtimeline
Xi, F. (2021) XI Vows to Win People's War Against Novel Coronavirus. Available at: http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-02/11/c_138771934.htm
 

O članku

jezik rada: srpski, engleski
vrsta rada: pregledni članak
DOI: 10.5937/socpreg56-37008
primljen: 16.03.2022.
prihvaćen: 22.03.2022.
objavljen u SCIndeksu: 29.04.2022.
metod recenzije: dvostruko anoniman
Creative Commons License 4.0