‘They tell us to keep our distance, but we sleep five people in one tent’: The opportunistic governance of displaced people in Calais during the COVID-19 pandemic

IF 2.4 2区 社会学 Q2 GEOGRAPHY
Martha A. Hagan
{"title":"‘They tell us to keep our distance, but we sleep five people in one tent’: The opportunistic governance of displaced people in Calais during the COVID-19 pandemic","authors":"Martha A. Hagan","doi":"10.1080/14649365.2022.2107228","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT When COVID-19 hit France, over 1,000 migrant people were living in insalubrious encampments in the northern city of Calais. A national lockdown was declared in March 2020, and in the face of the health risks the virus posed, it seemed the ongoing struggle between police and displaced people at this border might come to a halt. This article however argues that rather than appeasing tensions, the state leveraged the exceptional mobility regimes the pandemic brought about to strengthen its border deterrence. Drawing on 5 months of ethnographic research in Calais in the first half of 2020, and on interviews with displaced respondents and humanitarian workers through 2020 and 2021, I conceptualise the biopolitical mode of governance mobilised by the state against displaced people during this period as one of necropolitical opportunism. The lockdown period saw displaced people’s survival at the border compromised by continued attacks on their encampments and access to services, as well as on the work of autonomous humanitarians seeking to hold the state accountable for its violence. This article contributes important new insights to debates on border biopolitics and the specific necropolitical agenda pursued by the French state at its northern frontier.","PeriodicalId":48072,"journal":{"name":"Social & Cultural Geography","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social & Cultural Geography","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2022.2107228","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GEOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

ABSTRACT When COVID-19 hit France, over 1,000 migrant people were living in insalubrious encampments in the northern city of Calais. A national lockdown was declared in March 2020, and in the face of the health risks the virus posed, it seemed the ongoing struggle between police and displaced people at this border might come to a halt. This article however argues that rather than appeasing tensions, the state leveraged the exceptional mobility regimes the pandemic brought about to strengthen its border deterrence. Drawing on 5 months of ethnographic research in Calais in the first half of 2020, and on interviews with displaced respondents and humanitarian workers through 2020 and 2021, I conceptualise the biopolitical mode of governance mobilised by the state against displaced people during this period as one of necropolitical opportunism. The lockdown period saw displaced people’s survival at the border compromised by continued attacks on their encampments and access to services, as well as on the work of autonomous humanitarians seeking to hold the state accountable for its violence. This article contributes important new insights to debates on border biopolitics and the specific necropolitical agenda pursued by the French state at its northern frontier.
“他们告诉我们要保持距离,但我们五个人睡一个帐篷”:新冠肺炎大流行期间加莱流离失所者的机会主义治理
摘要当新冠肺炎袭击法国时,1000多名移民居住在北部城市加莱的不健康营地。2020年3月宣布全国封锁,面对病毒带来的健康风险,警察和边境流离失所者之间正在进行的斗争似乎可能会停止。然而,这篇文章认为,该国非但没有缓和紧张局势,反而利用疫情带来的特殊流动制度来加强边境威慑。根据2020年上半年加莱为期5个月的民族志研究,以及2020年和2021年对流离失所的受访者和人道主义工作者的采访,我将这一时期国家针对流离失所者动员的生物政治治理模式概念化为一种死政机会主义。在封锁期间,流离失所者在边境的生存受到了持续袭击,他们的营地和获得服务的机会,以及寻求追究国家暴力责任的自治人道主义者的工作。这篇文章为关于边境生物政治和法国政府在其北部边境推行的具体亡灵政治议程的辩论提供了重要的新见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
16.00%
发文量
99
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信