De la multiterritorialidad a los nuevos muros: paradojas contemporáneas de la desterritorialización

Abstract

El espacio está en la agenda. Muchos, a partir la década de 1990, hablan de un «giro» o «vuelta» espacial. La más célebre referencia a este cambio fue Michel Foucault, siempre citado cuando se comenta el cambio de la «era del tiempo», o de la historia, referida al pasaje del siglo XIX al XX y la gradual asunción de la «era espacial», que él ya identificaba a finales de 1960de (Foucault, 2001de [original escrito en 1967). Entramos en esta «era espacial» tanto en el sentido de la exploración de los microespacios (de los genes a las micropartículas) como de los macroespacios (la exploración de la Luna o el big bang). Sin embargo, lo que nos concierne más de cerca, en cuanto geógrafos, es precisamente el énfasis actual en la espacialidad en una escala más específicamente «humana», la de nuestra reproducción y nuestra circulación como seres vivientes, móviles, que necesitan refugio, alimentos y que en todo momento, recrean el mundo para la propia resignificación y simbolización de su espacio-tiempo. «Espacio-tiempo»: ésta es la expresión que realmente nos interesa. Mucho más que un «giro espacial», ingresamos, desde Einstein, en la era del «espacio-tiempo», de la insociabilidad entre esas dimensiones de lo social. No podemos más referirnos a esas categorías mediante genéricas dicotomías como aquellas que separan el presente del pasado, sincrónico de diacrónico, fluidez de fijación, transformación de permanencia. ElDe la multiterritorialidad a los nuevos muros: paradojas contemporáneas de la desterritorialización 1 RogéRio HaesbaeRt 2Universidad Federal Fluminense, Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil.

Violence and value in the migratory passage through Central America: The Cadereyta massacre (2012) and the struggle to have the bodies returned

“…However, the latter are often overpowered by the dispositioning forces that configure this machinery of exploitation, which disgorges the remains of evermore exhausted, deceased, mutilated, and disappeared humans. This demonstrates the rich analytical potential of connecting the notions of field (Bourdieu, 2000) and territory (Haesbaert, 2011; Massey, 2009) within the framework of processes of transnational mobility that are marked by logics of violence, value, and sovereignty.…”

“…Two forms of violence stand out: one is of a direct, corporal nature and is associated with rent-seeking and value-extraction mechanisms. The other is of a symbolic nature, expressed as a form of representation and performative articulation of war and intended to generate a climate of terror (Di Méo, 1998: 47, cited in Haesbaert, 2011: 37) that feeds into mechanisms of classification and valuation (Kearney, 2004) and their forms of discrimination in border crossings (Heyman, 2008). Both are performed through the operations of, and even collusion between, state and criminal actors, who define an order based on “the generalized instrumentation of human existence and the material destruction of human bodies and populations,” through which people are selectively allowed to live or made to die (Mbembe, 2003: 14).…”

“…This case study is focused on the context of the Central America–Mexico migration corridor (Salazar Araya, 2017) and the forms of conflict that emerge around it, marked by logics of terror and death (Mbembe, 2003). This is a structuring condition in the contemporary dispute over space (Haesbaert, 2011)—especially in border areas (Kearney, 2009)—between a range of actors that includes the state, organized crime, and migration flows. In this field of transnational power (Jiménez, 2010), the dispute is about more than the control of a bounded territory; it revolves around the control of dynamics of circulation that are central to the regional configuration of the global capitalist model: those involving people and goods.…”

“…In this field of transnational power (Jiménez, 2010), the dispute is about more than the control of a bounded territory; it revolves around the control of dynamics of circulation that are central to the regional configuration of the global capitalist model: those involving people and goods. These dynamics give rise to complex processes of territorialization (Giménez, 2001; Haesbaert, 2011) associated with the dynamic configuration of sovereignty, in which the operation of organized crime, migratory mobility, and processes of state formation define a field of power that is characterized by a logic of war.…”

Doing mobile ethnography: Grounded, situated and comparative

“…Territory is a widely discussed term in Latin American urbanisms and is understood as a relational social product, deeply shaped by unequal power relations, yet, it is relatively unknown in the Anglophone context (see e.g. Echeverría and Rincón, 2000; Haesbaert, 2011; Porto Gonçalves, 2001, 2006; Raffestin, 1980; Santos, 1994; Schwarz and Streule, 2016). In its processual understanding, relational territory does vigorously resonate with conceptualizations of relational space (e.g.…”