多孔的边界,多孔的身体——Laila Halaby的《曾经有希望的土地》中的公民身份、性别和例外状态

IF 0.1 4区 社会学 Q4 CULTURAL STUDIES
Lea Espinoza Garrido
{"title":"多孔的边界,多孔的身体——Laila Halaby的《曾经有希望的土地》中的公民身份、性别和例外状态","authors":"Lea Espinoza Garrido","doi":"10.1080/13534645.2021.1995951","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The attacks on September 11 2001 have frequently been stylised as an unprecedented moment of national and global crisis. This ‘logic of exception’, as Evelyn Alsultany calls it, i.e., the presentation of 9/11 as ‘an exceptional moment of crisis [that] demands exceptional measures’ has not only engendered a fetishisation of ‘national victimhood’, but has also been used to justify state violence in the form of racial and religious profiling, increased surveillance, torture as well as multiple state invasions and other human rights violations. In short, it has produced what Giorgio Agamben refers to as a ‘state of exception’. Ironically, as Agamben claims, a state of exception constitutes a ‘space devoid of law [which] seems, for some reason, to be so essential to the juridical order that it must seek in every way to assure itself a relation with it’. In the United States, post-9/11 legislation has often invoked notions of American exceptionalism and an alleged patriotic duty to defend ‘the homeland’ in order to assume such an air of lawfulness. In fact, however, Agamben rightly maintains that the measures covered by the USA Patriot Act (passed in late October 2001) and President Bush’s ‘military order’ (issued in November 2001) have ‘radically erase[d] any legal status of the individual’. Although Agamben largely ignores race and racialisation as decisive factors in his discussion of the post-9/11 state of exception, it is particularly the suspension of Arab and Muslim civil and human rights that was facilitated by the disenfranchising legislation and its political, social and physical repercussions.","PeriodicalId":46204,"journal":{"name":"Parallax","volume":"27 1","pages":"176 - 197"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Porous Borders, Porous Bodies – Citizenship, Gender and States of Exception in Laila Halaby’s Once in a Promised Land\",\"authors\":\"Lea Espinoza Garrido\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13534645.2021.1995951\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The attacks on September 11 2001 have frequently been stylised as an unprecedented moment of national and global crisis. This ‘logic of exception’, as Evelyn Alsultany calls it, i.e., the presentation of 9/11 as ‘an exceptional moment of crisis [that] demands exceptional measures’ has not only engendered a fetishisation of ‘national victimhood’, but has also been used to justify state violence in the form of racial and religious profiling, increased surveillance, torture as well as multiple state invasions and other human rights violations. In short, it has produced what Giorgio Agamben refers to as a ‘state of exception’. Ironically, as Agamben claims, a state of exception constitutes a ‘space devoid of law [which] seems, for some reason, to be so essential to the juridical order that it must seek in every way to assure itself a relation with it’. In the United States, post-9/11 legislation has often invoked notions of American exceptionalism and an alleged patriotic duty to defend ‘the homeland’ in order to assume such an air of lawfulness. In fact, however, Agamben rightly maintains that the measures covered by the USA Patriot Act (passed in late October 2001) and President Bush’s ‘military order’ (issued in November 2001) have ‘radically erase[d] any legal status of the individual’. Although Agamben largely ignores race and racialisation as decisive factors in his discussion of the post-9/11 state of exception, it is particularly the suspension of Arab and Muslim civil and human rights that was facilitated by the disenfranchising legislation and its political, social and physical repercussions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46204,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Parallax\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"176 - 197\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Parallax\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13534645.2021.1995951\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CULTURAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Parallax","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13534645.2021.1995951","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CULTURAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

2001年9月11日的袭击事件经常被描述为一个前所未有的国家和全球危机时刻。这种“例外逻辑”,正如Evelyn Alsultany所说的那样,也就是说,将9/11描述为“需要采取特殊措施的特殊危机时刻”,不仅产生了“国家受害者”的崇拜,而且还被用来为种族和宗教定性,增加监视,酷刑以及多次国家入侵和其他侵犯人权的形式的国家暴力辩护。简而言之,它产生了乔治·阿甘本所说的“例外状态”。具有讽刺意味的是,正如阿甘本所言,例外状态构成了一个“没有法律的空间,出于某种原因,它似乎对司法秩序如此重要,以至于它必须以各种方式确保自己与法律的关系”。在美国,9/11后的立法经常援引美国例外论的概念,以及所谓的保卫“祖国”的爱国责任,以赋予这种合法性。然而,事实上,Agamben正确地坚持认为,美国爱国者法案(2001年10月下旬通过)和布什总统的“军事命令”(2001年11月发布)所涵盖的措施“从根本上抹去了个人的任何法律地位”。虽然阿甘本在讨论911后的例外状态时,在很大程度上忽略了种族和种族化是决定性因素,但剥夺公民权的立法及其在政治、社会和身体上的影响,尤其促进了阿拉伯和穆斯林公民权利和人权的暂停。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Porous Borders, Porous Bodies – Citizenship, Gender and States of Exception in Laila Halaby’s Once in a Promised Land
The attacks on September 11 2001 have frequently been stylised as an unprecedented moment of national and global crisis. This ‘logic of exception’, as Evelyn Alsultany calls it, i.e., the presentation of 9/11 as ‘an exceptional moment of crisis [that] demands exceptional measures’ has not only engendered a fetishisation of ‘national victimhood’, but has also been used to justify state violence in the form of racial and religious profiling, increased surveillance, torture as well as multiple state invasions and other human rights violations. In short, it has produced what Giorgio Agamben refers to as a ‘state of exception’. Ironically, as Agamben claims, a state of exception constitutes a ‘space devoid of law [which] seems, for some reason, to be so essential to the juridical order that it must seek in every way to assure itself a relation with it’. In the United States, post-9/11 legislation has often invoked notions of American exceptionalism and an alleged patriotic duty to defend ‘the homeland’ in order to assume such an air of lawfulness. In fact, however, Agamben rightly maintains that the measures covered by the USA Patriot Act (passed in late October 2001) and President Bush’s ‘military order’ (issued in November 2001) have ‘radically erase[d] any legal status of the individual’. Although Agamben largely ignores race and racialisation as decisive factors in his discussion of the post-9/11 state of exception, it is particularly the suspension of Arab and Muslim civil and human rights that was facilitated by the disenfranchising legislation and its political, social and physical repercussions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Parallax
Parallax Multiple-
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Founded in 1995, parallax has established an international reputation for bringing together outstanding new work in cultural studies, critical theory and philosophy. parallax publishes themed issues that aim to provoke exploratory, interdisciplinary thinking and response. Each issue of parallax provides a forum for a wide spectrum of perspectives on a topical question or concern. parallax will be of interest to those working in cultural studies, critical theory, cultural history, philosophy, gender studies, queer theory, post-colonial theory, English and comparative literature, aesthetics, art history and visual cultures.
×
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