Collective Discussion: Ferocious Architecture: Sovereign Spaces/Places by Design

Müller, Benjamin; Cooke, Thomas N.; Larrinaga, Miguel de; Frowd, Philippe M.; Iossifova, Deljana; Johannes, Daniela; Mutlu, Can E.; Nowek, Adam

doi:10.1093/ips/olv002

Cited by 14 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Following the problematization of state-centric representations of territoriality in international relations by Agnew (1994), academic studies have shed light on spatial modalities of political power. They opened theoretical frames and key concepts in international relations to explorations of, for example, material and spatial manifestations of peace (Björkdahl and Kappler, 2017), violence and security (Bilgin, 2004; Muller et al, 2016) and aid (Smirl, 2008, 2015). Authors have challenged dominant spatial understandings of sovereignty as constituted through enclosures (Brown, 2010: 45) and looked into technologies representing sovereign spaces in the form of maps, policies, surveys and concepts that simultaneously generate, order and hierarchize political spaces (Bilgin, 2004; Gregory, 2004).…”

Section: Emergent Geographies: About Circulation and Infrastructural ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Modular sovereignty and infrastructural power: The elusive materiality of international statebuilding

Bakonyi

2021

Security Dialogue

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article uses the example of the Mogadishu International Airport zone and takes a spatio-temporal lens to explore how (sovereign) power unfolds in international interventions that aim at building a sovereign state. I show that the Mogadishu International Airport zone emerges as an elastic frontier zone that contradicts the sovereign imaginary intervenors aim to project and undermines many of the taken-for-granted boundaries that states tend to produce. The Mogadishu International Airport and similar zones emphasize the centrality of logistics and circulation in interventions, but also point towards their temporal and liminal character. Modularity became the material answer to the demand to secure circulation while adapting to the rapid rhythm and short timeframes of statebuilding. Modular designs enable the constant adaptation of the intervention terrain, allow intervenors to deny their power and imprint and facilitate the commercialization of supply chains and intervention materials. Sovereign power that operates through such zones becomes modular itself. It is exercised as an adaptable, in parts exchangeable, and highly mobile form of power that operates through crises and emergencies. The spaces and materials created by modular forms of sovereign power remain elusive, but nonetheless stratify experiences of power and security.

show abstract

Section: Emergent Geographies: About Circulation and Infrastructural ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Modular sovereignty and infrastructural power: The elusive materiality of international statebuilding

Bakonyi

2021

Security Dialogue

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Yet from a biopolitical perspective, the retrieved and revalidated sovereignty looks very precarious. In light of the current crisis, it becomes increasingly lucid that the "power of the sovereign is most bare" (Muller et al 2016), which implies the fragility and vulnerability of the sovereign authority in times of emergency, and therefore outdates Carl Schmitt's valorization of sovereignty based on "political will. "…”

Section: Biopolitics As Overarching Theoretical Framementioning

confidence: 99%

Pandemic Politics in Eurasia: Roadmap for a New Research Subfield

Laruelle

Alexseev

Buckley

et al. 2020

Problems of Post-Communism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The sudden onset of COVID-19 has challenged many social scientists to proceed without a robust theoretical and empirical foundation upon which to build. Addressing this challenge, particularly as it pertains to Eurasia, our multinational group of scholars draws on past and ongoing research to suggest a roadmap for a new pandemic politics research subfield. Key research questions include not only how states are responding to the new coronavirus, but also reciprocal interactions between the pandemic and society, political economy, regime type, center-periphery relations, and international security. The Foucauldian concept of "biopolitics" holds out particular promise as a theoretical framework.

show abstract

“…Analytically, such a perspective chimes well with Deleuze's interests in contemporary processes such as the debordering of enclosures (globalization) and the intensification of the "problem of coexistence" (urbanization). Empirically, it empowers more holistic accounts of security apparatuses, for the notion of the urban space directs research to physical locations as well as their wider surroundings (Castels 1988); to technologies of different sorts (Amicelle, Aradau and Jeandesboz 2015) but also factors such as the built environment, human actors, legal codes, and social norms (Lefebvre 1968;Valverde 2010;Muller and al. 2016); and to configurations of local security apparatuses and, through the notion of the discursive space, their wider deliberative/political implications (Goodsell 2003).…”

Section: The Politics and Practices Of Securing Urban Spacesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Security in the Society of Control: The Politics and Practices of Securing Urban Spaces

Hagmann

2017

International Political Sociology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the view of some Deleuzian scholars, societal steering evolved from analogue disciplining of static enclosures into network-centric, privatized, digital, and global control. This article re-engages the control thesis from a decidedly empirical security studies perspective. In the age of globalization and urbanization, technological innovation and liberal policy ideals, how are security apparatuses reorganized, and in what relations do they stand to local societal and political orders? The article argues that the Deleuzian framework indeed proposes an impressively rich, integrative, and topical research agenda-but also that its security studies applications can benefit from further development. With a view to vindicating its analytical potential, the article first systematizes the control thesis. It then employs a spatial and empirical heuristic to inquire into the securing of three distinct urban spaces-a site of mobility, a public square, and a place of mass commerce-and to illustrate the actual (re-)configuration of contemporary security management. Forgoing articulation of universalisms about societal steering, the article makes the case for more nuanced engagements with security ensembles, their technological evolution, and their relations with democratic ideals, globalization, and de-territorialization, both in and beyond Western polities.

show abstract

Collective Discussion: Ferocious Architecture: Sovereign Spaces/Places by Design

Abstract: Many thanks to Javier Duran and the Confluencenter for Creative Inquiry for allowing Ben Muller the time and space to see this project to fruition. 2 Ben Muller brought the different authors together and edited the collective article. Muller, Benjamin et al.

Cited by 14 publications

References 49 publications

Modular sovereignty and infrastructural power: The elusive materiality of international statebuilding

Modular sovereignty and infrastructural power: The elusive materiality of international statebuilding

Pandemic Politics in Eurasia: Roadmap for a New Research Subfield

Security in the Society of Control: The Politics and Practices of Securing Urban Spaces

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About