Ontologies of borders:
the difference of Deleuze and Derrida
This chapter is about the concept of border. I will not approach border as if I was
going to conceptualize something that we already empirically know about, and
nor will I concentrate solely on geographical and political borders. Instead, I will
take a step back and consider border in an abstract sense: as a separation of one
into two dissimilar entities. This means that I will take the study of border into the
area of philosophy and, in particular, into problems of ontology and
Materiality has long been tied to the political projects of nationalism and capitalism. But how are we to rethink borders in this context? Is the border the limit where the capitalist nation-state, contested and re-created at its centre, becomes fixed? Or is it something else? Is the border something, or does it instead do things? This volume brings questions of materiality to bear specifically on the study of borders. These questions address specifically the shift from ontology to process in thinking about borders. The political materialities of borders does not presume the material aspect of borders but rather explores the ways in which any such materiality comes into being. Through ethnographic and philosophical explorations of the ontology of borders and its limitations from the perspective of materiality, this volume seeks to throw light on the interaction between the materiality of state borders and the non-material aspects of state-making. This enables a new understanding of borders as productive of the politics of materiality, on which both the state project rests, including its multifarious forms in the post-nation-state era.
that are at the centre of the critical research agenda, be it on terrorism or violent extremism. First is a concern with content of reason, or the need for reflexivity of emancipatory, ontological and epistemological content. Second is a concern with how, or from where, a critical research agenda on violent extremism obtains the necessary justificatory force to assert its normative function . In other words, how can a critical approach to violent extremism produce methodologically rigorous knowledge, and how does it justify and legitimate its normative function
The fourth dimension of power concerns the creation of the social ontology of social subjects. As social subjects, agents have certain predispositions, which make them more likely to structure and confirm-structure in a felicitous manner than others. Like the other dimensions of power, the fourth dimension is not inherently dominating or conducive to empowerment. Rather, it has elements of both, often as a duality. In this chapter we will focus more on the enabling and constitutive aspects. In Chapter 8 , we will look at extreme forms of 4-D domination. We
A feeling for things: objects,
And things, what is the correct attitude to adopt towards things?
–Samuel Beckett, The Unnameable
Recent years have seen an explosion of scholarly interest in things. From the
‘new materialisms’ to ‘object-oriented ontology’, from ‘thing theory’ to ‘actor-
network theory’, much of contemporary thought is turning its attention to the
world of objects. What are the reasons for this shift? One of the principal motivations behind the turn to objects is a reaction against the ‘cultural turn’ and its
As with all social actions of conscious subjects, the sciences for Weber
function in a rational way not only because they reflect upon their own means
and ends, but mostly because they also bear the infinite potential to reveal
the consequences of their social character, addressing themselves as well as
The triangle of means, ends and consequences, embracing the sciences
in Weber’s work, establishes a solid social ontology for the sciences, and
attributes to society an instigative role with regard to the scientific oeuvre.
For there to be any
Ontological coordination and the assessment of consistency in asylum requests
). How assessments of inconsistency
manage to achieve truth-value is the main puzzle that concerns me
The argument put forward in this chapter is twofold.
First, I borrow the notion of ontological coordination from the work of
Dutch philosopher Annemarie Mol (1999, 2002a) to spell out a further
reason to doubt the use of inconsistency as justification for denial. I
expected consequences’, which reproduces the classical view of sciences by clearly separating a realm of subjects from a realm of objects. In doing so, this logic creates distance, both ontological and geographical, between the securitis ers – the security practitioners at the federal and local level – and the securitis ees – the individuals securitised and considered at risk of being radicalised. To put it differently, the securitisers are remote from their securitisees in the sense that a Remote Other is constructed and essential to securitising the Muslim population
freakish’ versus ‘laggard’ strategies of SDS action (see, for example, contributions to Jordan and Adelle, 2013).
The ambition of the chapter therefore is to address these twin challenges
of place and value-content of SDS through offering an alternative assessment
grounded in an inclusive ontology as proposed in the Introduction to this
book (Carter et al., 2015; Kauppi, 2010). My starting point is to replace realist
assumptions about the SDS with constructivist ones and argue that, like Europe
itself, sustainable development is not a thing. ‘Sustainable Europe’ too only
-binary spatial ontologies or identities that can help groups break through barriers of enmity? Scholars of Israel and Palestine have already done this, for example, by looking at the history of Arab Jewish/Mizrahi ways of living or Jewish–Palestinian civil society cooperation. But those roads reify identity as the key driver of human behaviour. My suggestion is that there are other ways to ‘use religion (and the secular) to think about’ about war, conflict and peace, too. We need not reify identity to explore relationships between religion and violence.