Atmospheric Border Politics: The Morphology of Migration and Solidarity Practices in Europe

Abstract

This paper seeks to expand recent interest in the material practices, policy techniques and technopolitics of borders, migration and solidarity initiatives in Europe by connecting this debate to Sloterdijk's spherological philosophy. With his thematization of enclosures, atmospheres, foams and life support Sloterdijk helps us to give a more morphological account of borders. We illustrate the benefits of this move by reflecting on the recent questions of hostile environment and the criminalization of migrant solidarity practices and movements. The paper also highlights certain limitations in Sloterdijk's thoughts, which appear when it is brought into migration research. Arguing that Sloterdijk remains somewhat sedantarist in his approach to atmosphere we introduce a concept of the envelope as a way to foster a more dynamic, agonistic and mobilityfocused conception of enclosure.

Introduction

“…Hence, recent work on borders demonstrates no single, unitarian organising logic at work; instead, it constitutes a site of constant encounter, tension and contestation (Mezzadra and Neilson, 2013). Consequently, we prefer to speak about bordering practices, thereby recognising the ongoing process involving social relations that are historically constituted and often politically contested (Dijstelbloem and Walters, 2019). Consistent with this viewpoint, a rich body of scholarship within political geography and beyond has developed to explain how these practices have transformed nation-states, economies, subjectivities and citizenship (Dauvergne, 2008; Kallius et al, 2016).…”

Epidermal politics: Control, violence and dissent at the biometric border

“…The goal of control apparatuses is not to block mobilities by building some kind of “Fortress Europe” but to trace, reconstruct and, ultimately, redirect it (in the form of deportation), a precondition of which is digital epidermisation. Through this process, the “morphology” (Dijstelboem and Walters, 2019) of Europe’s borders takes the shape of a network (Glouftsios, 2018), which is composed of the various spaces and times where/when migrants and asylum seekers are subjected to biometric control. This is perhaps best understood if one considers the sheer multiplicity of authorities that have access to data stored in Eurodac: border guards, immigration authorities, asylum services, and a variety of police departments, including criminal investigation and counter-terrorism centres (see OJEU, 2021).…”

De-confining borders: towards a politics of freedom of movement in the time of the pandemic

“…But the term 'bubble' being used should have been enough to indicate how volatile these partial re-openings would be. As Huub Dijstelbloem and William Walters have noted, bubbles do not designate 'fixed or permanent enclosures', but rather temporary, adaptable and fragile spheres (Dijstelbloem and Walters 2019). In effect, over the following months, transport bubbles expanded and retracted at the whim of states, and as a function of changing rates of infection and diplomatic bargaining (Sytas 2020).…”