border-crossings and bordering processes take place, contributing to the negotiation of borders in the public sphere and constructing new configurations of belonging and becoming (Brambilla, 2015 : 24). This means that these aesthetic forms are central to the political process, the latter being characterised by the philosopher JacquesRancière as a partage du sensible , a ‘distribution of the sensible’ ( 2004 ) or, to retain the ambivalence of the original wording, a ‘sharing/division of the sensible’. What narratives and images make possible is identifying various
Border images and narratives: paradoxes, spheres, aesthetics
Johan Schimanski and Jopi Nyman
been somehow magicked away, and several of the contributors to our volume set store by complexity as a corrective to simplistic narratives (see among others chapters by Brambilla; Amilhat Szary; Schimanski). Complexity can suggest alternative concepts of the border as a place of encounter rather than purely a place of division and solidification (Müller-Funk; Brambilla), and of borderscapes as spaces of plurality and polyphony (Brambilla; Nyman). Political theorists such as JacquesRancière ( 2010 : 37–9) and Chantal Mouffe ( 2013 ) emphasise another form of
This book explores contemporary urban experiences connected to practices of sharing and collaboration. Part of a growing discussion on the cultural meaning and the politics of urban commons, it uses examples from Europe and Latin America to support the view that a world of mutual support and urban solidarity is emerging today in, against, and beyond existing societies of inequality. In such a world, people experience the potentialities of emancipation activated by concrete forms of space commoning. By focusing on concrete collective experiences of urban space appropriation and participatory design experiments this book traces differing, but potentially compatible, trajectories through which common space (or space-as-commons) becomes an important factor in social change. In the everydayness of self-organized neighborhoods, in the struggles for justice in occupied public spaces, in the emergence of “territories in resistance,” and in dissident artistic practices of collaborative creation, collective inventiveness produces fragments of an emancipated society.
spaces, however, are
meant to indicate that an overarching common world can be
identified with a specific society and condensed within its state
institutions. This world is supposed to be emphatically connected
with promises of social cohesion and peace. In urban public space,
contemporary forms of domination thus appear as legitimate,
productive, and suitable for the reproduction of the corresponding social order.
By this logic, public space becomes a site of contestation over
the very possibility of the common. JacquesRancière writes, for
example, that politics
consensus, who is subverting what? A post-political analysis is the opposite of searching for consensus in a democracy where, after an election, power is exercised on behalf of the entire community. In the post-political context, artistic intervention is considered powerful because the presence of the work makes it possible to renew the presence of contradiction within the political arena. Whilst nearing JacquesRancière's notion of ‘dissensus’ ( 2008 ), Chantal Mouffe goes further, insisting on the fact that art could be ‘agonistic’ inasmuch as, beyond stemming debate
Melbourne in 2010 – and also to my participation in Ciudades Paralelas , a series of performance interventions in functional urban spaces curated by Lola Arias and Rimini Protokoll artist Stefan Kaegi in the city of Cork (in Ireland) in 2012. My account of participation is based on JacquesRancière’s ( 2009a ) critique of the emancipated spectator and on Eco’s ( 1989 ) conceptualisation of the ‘open work’, and highlights the importance of dissensus as a key factor in the participatory outcome of both performance art and the machinic city.
Finally, in Chapter 6 I turn
experience, space concretizes relations between actually existing
people (“singularities” according to Paolo Virno – we will return
to this), which shape the horizon of the sensible. What JacquesRancière actually suggests is that the “distribution of the sensible”
is a socially regulated process which does not simply dominate
thought (as in the ideological dressage established by relevant
ideological apparatuses) but, crucially, experience, what is to be
experienced. Experience may become a social fact only when it is
shared, only when it is represented (expressed
Young people, subjectivity and revolutionary border imaginations in the Mediterranean borderscape
well as the itineraries of the mobile subjects that cross it (see also Strüver, 2005 : 8–10). Following this, within the borderscape, different stories are represented and different practices are enacted.
This corresponds to what JacquesRancière ( 2010 : 139) calls ‘politics as process’, which ‘occurs when there is a disruption of a hegemonic or dominant mapping of the sensible’ (Aitken, 2014 : 162), involving the constant inclusion of something new that ultimately prevents the emergence of a sedimented objectified political structure (see also