Kitabı oku: «border and bordering», sayfa 7

Yazı tipi:

Conclusion

Borders are artefacts of dominant processes (Hayes, 2012) that have led to the fencing off of portions of territory and people from one another, but they are also an aspiration for individuals who are stateless. Longing to have borders for those who are stateless means claiming community through citizenship and nationality rights. Securing rights however, is not a straightforward and linear endeavour as legal loopholes in the current available legislation make it problematic if not impossible for stateless children to claim the legal safety that comes with having borders. Having borders for children who are stateless means access to education, housing and health care and legal protection from state and interpersonal violence (Policek, 2019). Borders, nonetheless, as this contribution has contended, are not simply practical phenomena that can be taken as given. They are complex human creations that are perpetually open to question. At an extreme, perhaps, existing borders are the result of processes in the past that are either no longer operative (Manby, 2012) or are increasingly eclipsed by transnational or global pressures (Li et al., 2010). In other words, borders are increasingly redundant, and thinking constrained by them restricts thinking about alternative political, social, and economic possibilities. It is paramount to change the way in which nation states think about borders to openly acknowledge their equivocal character (De Genova et al., 2014). In other words, a border should be seen not as that which is either fixed or as such must be overcome, but as an evolving creation that has both merits and problems that must be constantly reconsidered (Anderson & O’Dowd, 1999). Consequently, the reaction to what borders do should always be related to the overriding ethical concern that they serve and not undermine human dignity and what it is commonly understood as the right to a decent life embedded in the aspiration to belong to a community (Blitz & Lynch, 2011). From this standpoint, rather than reflecting an unambiguous sovereignty that ends/begins at a border or that must be overcome as such, border thinking should open up to consider territorial spaces as dwelling rather than national spaces (Brown, 2010). In this way, statelessness and the tensions between open borders and the claims of community can be fully addressed. Furthermore, political responsibility for pursuit of a decent life as extending beyond the borders of any particular state should be unquestionably granted to all human beings, irrespectively whether they have a state to call their own or they are stateless. Borders do matter both because they have real effects on individuals and their communities and because they trap thinking about and acting in the world in territorial terms (Anzaldúa, 1999).

When claiming community and borders for stateless children, the most common pathway is that a child’s birth is not registered in the country in which the child was born; that is, although the child may be entitled to citizenship, an official birth record has not yet been obtained (Allerton, 2014). Birth registration provides official evidence of a state’s recognition of a child’s existence within a country and as a member of a nation-state. It is the first and often the definitive step to citizenship and entitlements such as public education, health, and other state services (Ensor and Godziak, 2010). Often another scenario, pertinent to undocumented labour migration, is that a child is born in one country and travels without documentation across international borders to live in another country (ENS, 2015). Regardless of whether the child’s birth was registered in the country of birth, they lack citizenship rights in the country in which they now reside: they have become functionally stateless (Bhabha, 2011). This appears to be a common scenario for children who travel independently or who are trafficked, and for children of mothers and fathers who migrate across borders without documentation, and who often remain—with or without their parents—in the host country for a number of years (van Waas& De Chickera, 2017), rendering them functionally stateless.

As highlighted in this contribution, key hurdles associated with statelessness as experienced by children can be encapsulated in having no access to health care and in the lack of social and legal protection (Aird et al., 2002). Children are particularly vulnerable to negative sequelae of statelessness (Bokhari, 2008) because they cannot benefit from education, which in turn is translated into poor employment prospects, labour rights violations and ultimately poverty (Doná & Veale, 2011). Not having a national identity, makes children subjected to social stigma and discrimination. They are also vulnerable to trafficking, harassment, and violence (Policek, 2019).

In contexts of transnational labour migration, circumstances that have an effect on birth registration are mostly muddled by parents’ mobility within and between countries (Salter, 2010). Figures can only be estimated (Gibney, 2014) and, with ENS (2015) assessing that three percent of the world’s population are involved in documented transnational migration, some scholars (Sharma, 2006; Stumpf, 2006; Walters, 2010) put forward an estimated comparable scale of undocumented transnational migration.

Discussing statelessness and the need to have borders requires abandoning the either/or approach to borders that currently dominates most thinking about them. This approach does not redefine borders what borders “are” and “do”, on the contrary, by considering borders and bordering as instances of the same process, it not only brings to the surface their ambivalences and repositioning, but also the inexorable materiality of their linear inscription.

For those who live at the margin, for the redundant surplus (Mizruchi, 1983), borders do not only regulate movements of things, money, and people, but they also restrain the exercise of intellect, imagination, and political will (Ahmed, 2014).

References

Ahmed, I., ed. (2010). The Plight of the Stateless Rohingyas: Responses of the State, Society & the International Community. University Press.

Ahmed, S. (2014). The Cultural Politics of Emotion, 2nd ed., Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Aird, S., Harnett, H., & Shah, P. (2002). Stateless children: Youth who are without citizenship. Youth Advocate Program International.

Allerton, C. (2014). “Statelessness and the Lives of the Children of Migrants in Sabah, East Malaysia”, Tilburg Law Review, Volume 19, Issue 1-2.

Anderson, J., & O’Dowd, L. (1999). Borders, border regions and territoriality: Contradictory meanings, changing significance. Regional Studies, 33, 593–604.

Andrijasevic, R. (2010). ‘From Exception to Excess: Detention and Deportations across the Mediterranean Space’ in De Genova, N. and Peutz, N., eds., The Deportation Regime: Sovereignty, Space and the Freedom of Movement, Duke University Press, 147-165.

Anzaldúa, G. (1999). Borderlands: La frontera: The New Mestiza, 2 ed., San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books.

Arendt, H. (1958). The Origins of Totalitarianism, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Balibar, E. (2002). Politics and the Other Scene, London: Verso.

Balibar, E. (2004). We, the People of Europe?: Reflections on Transnational Citizenship, Translation/Transnation., English ed., Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Ball, J., Butt, L., & Beazley, H. (2017). Birth registration and protection for children of transnational labor migrants in Indonesia. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 15(3), 305-325.

Bhabha, J. (2009). Arendt’s children: Do today’s migrant children have a right to have rights?. Human Rights Quarterly, 31.2: 410-451.

Bhabha, J. (2011). Children without a State: A Global Human Rights Challenge, MA: The MIT Press.

Blitz, B. K. (2011). Neither seen nor heard: compound deprivation among stateless children. In: Bhahba, J., (ed.) Children without a state: a global human rights challenge. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 43-66.

Blitz, B. K., & Lynch, M. (Eds.). (2011). Statelessness and citizenship: A comparative study on the benefits of nationality. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Bloom, T., Tonkiss, K., & Cole, P. (Eds.). (2017). Understanding Statelessness. London: Taylor & Francis.

Bokhari, F. (2008). Falling through the gaps: Safeguarding children trafficked into the UK. Children & Society, 22.3: 201-211.

Brown, W. (2010). Walled States, Waning Sovereignty, New York: Zone Books.

Cai, Y. (2013). “China’s New Demographic Reality: Learning from the 2010 Census”. Population and Development Review 39 (September), pages 371-396.

Chacon, J. M. (2009). ‘Managing Migration Through Crime’, Columbia Law Review, 109, 135-148.

Chatty, D., & Mansour, N. (2011). Bedouin in Lebanon: Statelessness and Marginality, Refugee Studies Centre, Winter Newsletter.

Chen, T. (2009). “Palestinian Refugees in Arab Countries and their Impacts”, Journal of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies (in Asia), Vol. 3, No. 3.

Cody, C., & Plan-International. (2009). Count every child: the right to birth registration. Plan.

De Genova, N. (2013). ‘Spectacles of migrant "illegality": The scene of exclusion, the obscene of inclusion’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36(7), 1180-1198.

De Genova, N., Mezzadra, S., & Pickles, J. (2014). ‘New Keywords: Migration and Borders’, Cultural Studies, 1-33.

Diener, A. C., & Hagen, J. (2012). Borders. A very short introduction. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

Doná, G., & Veale, A. (2011). Divergent discourses, children and forced migration. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 37.8: 1273-1289.

Doty, R. L. (2011). ‘Bare Life: border-crossing deaths and spaces of moral alibi’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 29, 599-612.

ENS (2015). Ending Childhood Statelessness: A comparative study of safeguards to ensure the right to a nationality for children born in Europe, Working Paper 09/15.

Ensor, M. O., & Gozdziak, E. M., (Eds.). (2010). Children and migration: At the crossroads of resiliency and vulnerability. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Garelli, G., & Tazzioli, M. (2013). “Challenging the discipline of migration: militant research in migration studies, an introduction”, Postcolonial Studies, 16(3), 245-249.

George, J. (2013). Statelessness and nationality in South Africa, Lawyers for Human Rights.

Gibney, M. (2014). “Statelessness and Citizenship in Ethical and Political Perspective”, A. Edwards and L. van Waas (eds.), Nationality and Statelessness under International Law, Cambridge University Press.

Goris, I., Harrington, J., & Kohn, S. (2009). Statelessness: what it is and why it matters. Forced migration review, 32.6: 4-6.

Hayes, P., ed. (2012). The Making of Modern Immigration: An Encyclopedia of People and Ideas, Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO.

Hayter, T. (2000). Open Borders: The Case Against Immigration Controls, London: Pluto Press.

High, A. (2013). “China’s Orphan Welfare System: Laws, Policies And Filled Gaps” University of Pennsylvania East Asia Law Review vol. 8, pages 127-176.

Howard, D. M. (2017). Analyzing the causes of statelessness in Syrian refugee children. Tex. Int’l LJ, 52, 281.

IHRDA, (June 2011). 3 ½ years later, Mauritanian refugees still await restoration of citizenship, reparation.

Li, S., Zhang, Y., & Feldman, M. (2010). “Birth Registration in China: Practices, Problems and Policies”, Population Research and Policy Review, Vol. 29 (3), pages 297-317.

Manby, B. (2012). The Right to Nationality and the Secession of South Sudan: A Commentary on the Impact of the New Laws, Open Society Foundations.

McInerney, C. (2014). “Accessing Malagasy Citizenship: The Nationality Code and Its Impact on the Karana”, Tilburg Law Review, Vol.19.

Milbrandt, J. (2011). Stateless. Cardozo J. Int’l & Comp. L., 20: 75.

Miller, M. (2012). Ethnic and racial minorities in Asia. Inclusion or exclusion? London: Routledge.

Mizruchi, E. H. (1983). Regulating society: Marginality and social control in historical perspective. New York: Free Press.

Nguyen, L., & Sperfeldt, C. (2012). A boat without anchors—A report on the legal status of ethnic Vietnamese minority populations in Cambodia under domestic and international laws governing nationality and statelessness, Jesuit Refugee Service.

Paasi, A. (2011). A border theory: An unattainable dream or a realistic aim for border scholars? In D. Wastl-Walter (Ed.), The Ashgate Research companion to border studies (pp. 11–32). Farnham: Ashgate.

Policek, N. (2016). Turning the Invisible into the Visible: Stateless Children in Italy. In Ensor, M. O. and Gozdziak, E. M. (Eds.), Children and Forced Migration: Durable Solutions during Transient Years Studies in Childhood and Youth Series. pp. 79-102. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Policek, N. (2019). Identifiable challenges as global complexities: Globalisation, gender violence and statelessness. in Boskovic, M., Globalization and Its Impact on Violence Against Vulnerable Groups, IGI Global.

Policek, N., Ravagnani, L. & Romano, C.A. (2020). Victimization of foreign young people in Italy. In European Journal of Criminology.

Popescu, G. (2012). Bordering and ordering the twenty-first century. Understanding borders. Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield.

Ramalo, N. (2011). Stateless—Undocumented Indians, South East Asia Human Rights Watch.

Reed, A. (2006) ‘Documents Unfolding’ in Riles, A., ed. Documents: Artifacts of Modern Knowledge, USA: University of Michigan Press, 158-177.

Rigo, E. (2005). ‘Citizenship at Europe’s Borders: Some Reflections on the Postcolonial Condition of Europe in the Context of EU Enlargement’, Citizenship Studies 9(1), 3-22.

Rumford, C. (2012). ‘Towards a Multiperspectival Study of Borders’, Geopolitics, 17(4), 887-902.

Salter, M. B. (2008). ‘When the exception becomes the rule: borders, sovereignty, and citizenship’, Citizenship Studies, 12(4), 365-380.

Salter, M. B. (2010). ‘Borders, passports, and the global mobility’ in Turner, B. S., ed. The Routledge international handbook of globalization studies, New York: Routledge, 514-530.

Salter, M. B. (2012). ‘Theory of the /: The Suture and Critical Border Studies’, Geopolitics, 17(4), 734-755.

Schulze, J. L. (2017). Does Russia Matter? European Institutions, Strategic Framing, and the Case of Stateless Children in Estonia and Latvia. Problems of Post-Communism, 64(5), 257-275.

Sharma, N. R. (2006). Home Economics: Nationalism and the Making of ‘Migrant Workers’ in Canada, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Smith, P. A. (1986). “The Palestinian Diaspora, 1948-1985”, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 15, No. 3.

Southwick, K., & Lynch, M. (2009). Nationality rights for all: A progress report and global survey on statelessness. Refugees International. UNHCR Division of International Protection, UNHCR action to address statelessness, http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49c3646c155.html

Spivak, G. C. (1999). A Critique of Postcolonial Reason: Toward a History of the Vanishing Present, London: Harvard University Press.

Stumpf, J. (2006). ‘The Crimmigration Crisis: Immigrants, Crime and Sovereign Power’, American University Law Review, 56(2), 367-419.

Torpey, J. (2000). The Invention of the Passport: Surveillance, Citizenship, and the State, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tucker, J. (2014). Exploring Statelessness and Nationality in Iran. Available at SSRN 2441850.

Twomey, C. (2012). ‘Severed Hands: Authenticating Atrocity in the Congo, 1904-13’ in Batchen, G., Gidley, M., Miller, N. K. and Prosser, J., eds., Picturing Atrocity: Photography in Crisis, London: Reaktion Books, 39-50.

van Houtum, H. J., & Strüver, A. (2002). Where is the border? Journal of creative geography, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 20-2.

van Waas, L., & De Chickera, A. (Eds.). (2017). The World’s Stateless: Children. Wolf Legal Publishers (WLP).

Varsanyi, M. (2008). ‘Immigration Policing Through the Backdoor: City Ordinances, The “Right to the City,” and the Exclusion of Undocumented Day Laborers’, Urban Geography, 29(1), 29-52.

Vaughan-Williams, N. (2012). Border Politics: The Limits of Sovereign Power, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Walters, W. (2006). ‘Border/Control’, European Journal of Social Theory, 9(2), 187-203.

Walters, W. (2010). ‘Deportation, Expulsion, and the International Police of Aliens’ in De Genova, N. and Peutz, N., eds., The Deportation Regime: Sovereignty, Space, and the Freedom of Movement, Durham & London: Duke University Press, 69-100.

Wastl-Walter, D. (2011). The Ashgate Research Companion to Border Studies, Farnham: Ashgate.

Weissbrodt, D. S., & Collins, C. (2006). The human rights of stateless persons. Human Rights Quarterly, 28.1: 245-276.

Willen, S. S. (2010). ‘Citizens, “Real” Others, and “Other” Others: The Biopolitics of Otherness and the Deportation of Unauthorized Migrant Workers from Tel Aviv, Israel’ in De Genova, N. and Peutz, N., eds., The Deportation Regime: Sovereignty, Space, and the Freedom of Movement, Durham & London: Duke University Press, 262–294.

Rejection, Reconstruction and Erosion of Borders: The Identity Path of Grisélidis Réal

Salvatore Perri

« Je suis une prostituée. Je l’étais, je ne l’étais plus, Je le suis rede-venue.

On n’échappe ni à soi-même, ni aux autres.

Il faut s’assumer dans toutes ses dimensions, dans ses manques, dans ses évasions. »

(I am a prostitute. I have been one, I no longer was, I became one again. We cannot escape from ourselves, nor from others. It is necessary to affirm our own self in each of its dimensions, of its lacks, of its escapes.)1

This is how Grisélidis Réal describes herself in “Parle, nuditéviolée”, evoking an affirmation of multiplicity that has been central in her all existence. Born in 1929 in a middle-class family of Lausanne, Réal has exercised prostitution for over 30 years In Geneva. This activity, started as “accidental”, has become the cornerstone of the private and public life of the artist, and somehow the landing place of a restless identity research.

The large literary corpus produced by Réal—concerning the genres in which it is declined—is extremely heterogeneous: it is made of short compositions in prose, articles, poetries, a memoir and a great number of letters. The epistolary “portion” constitutes, in the perspective of my analysis, a first “structural sign” of the borderless nature of this written heritage. It is impossible, indeed, to treat it as ancillary, as a marginal attachment to poetry and prose, which, on the contrary, would be the theoretical “rule”, according—in particular—with the structuralist theorization proposed by Gerard Genette in his seminal text Seuils: in the latter, correspondence is labelled as “paratext” (and, more specifically, “epitext”), namely everything which gravitates outside the text itself. Réal’s letters, instead, must be interpreted as part—and a preponderant one—of a peculiar written geography, in which adopting a “compartmentalized” approach would inevitably impoverish the analysis. In this specific framework, indeed, I would probably call impossible—on a content level rather than on a merely structural one—to operate a distinction between text and paratext. Here, everything is text, which multiple forms continuously chase and recall themselves.

All these written elements, together with her own body of woman and prostitute, as we will discover, represent the ponderous, cluttered and polymorphic tale of Réal’s existence. There is no threshold (which means seuils, precisely, in French) in her work: while approaching the texts of Grisélidis Réal, the reader is always thrown in the middle of the “narrative room”, almost forcibly subjected to a display that might be rabid, tender, obsessive, vulgar, ironic, but that is never, in any of its manifestations, liminal compared to something else.

“The letter is a representation of the self”, Bernard Beugnot used to say; and it is through every written act that Grisélidis Réal represents herself, while avoiding the fear of being (again) represented by someone else. A mise en scène in which correspondence occupies a paramount role, in a way that coincides perfectly with the perspective expressed by Vincent Kauffman in his analysis of Antonin Artaud’s letters, where he effectively describes the « incontournable continuité entre les textes proprement dits et les lettres, presque toujours destinées à se confondre avec l’œuvre, à s’y substituer […] ». (“inevitable continuity between texts as such and the letters, nearly always meant to get confused with the literary work, and to substitute for it.”).2

A striking manifesto-life, that of Grisélidis Réal, whose initial trigger was precisely a ban to self-expression.

Ücretsiz ön izlemeyi tamamladınız.

₺1.009,65

Türler ve etiketler

Yaş sınırı:
0+
Litres'teki yayın tarihi:
26 mayıs 2021
Hacim:
500 s. 1 illüstrasyon
ISBN:
9783838274621
Yayıncı:
Telif hakkı:
Автор
İndirme biçimi: