Toward a “Care-ful Geopolitics” of La Frontera in the Era of Trump

Abstract

Utilizing a decolonial feminist lens, I develop an account of a “care-ful geopolitics” as alternative approach to considering La Frontera in the era of Trump. Differing from “Great Wall geopolitics,” which relies on a colonial and imperialist imaginary, a care-ful geopolitics engages in a multiscalar analysis through a decolonial imaginary, attends to complexity and contextuality, and takes seriously interdependency. Prescriptively, I argue that a care-ful geopolitics entails a global “duty to care” for and about those humans, nonhumans, and ecosystems that will be impacted by the construction of Trump's “Great Wall.”

Medical Colonialism and the Power to Care: Unsettling Participatory Inclusion in the Settler-State Care Paradigm

“…If the normative dimension of a decolonial care ethic, as we saw, centers the “local practices of care by those who are historically marginalized and oppressed in colonial contexts” (Velez 2020, 344), this would include the Cowessess and Tk'emlups te Secwépemc First Nations’ use of ground-penetrating radar to locate those whose lives were lost because of the residential school system—a technology frequently used by colonial archaeologists, and in this case, claimed and redirected toward Indigenous care and justice on Indigenous terms. It would include blockades and encampments that resist pipeline construction, Indigenous-led partnerships that give full decision-making and economic power to Indigenous communities as well as refusals to enter into partnerships at all, mutual support networks, peer addiction-counseling programs, and the reappropriation of settler techniques like land trusts to give land back.…”

“…For this reason, Christine Kelly writes that we should not limit ourselves to asking “how care is embedded within systems of oppression,” but should also consider “how oppressions and violence may be embedded within the very concept of care,” with caring relations, practices, and material demands influencing how care-workers and care-receivers conceptualize care (Kelly 2017, 98). This is why there is a growing feminist literature theorizing the limits of care, interrogating what it can describe, where it can intervene, and where it simply “recapitulates paternalistic logics that justify systems of oppression” (Velez 2020, 333)—whether or not such oppressive dynamics are intended. Theorists like Tronto and Selma Sevenhuijsen have been clear that care is not synonymous with the intention to care—caring “judgment” must have the receptivity to recognize when caring acts are not being received as care or are enacting relationships of power.…”

“…A decolonial care ethic would thus disrupt assumptions about the nature, source, and directionality of care 15 . As Emma Velez writes, decolonial care is “contextualist, and informed by the local practices of care of those who are historically marginalized and oppressed in colonial contexts” (Velez 2020, 344).…”

From care ethics to pluralist care theory: The state of the field

“…Miller here maintains care ethics' commitment to particularism and context-sensitivity while maintaining a strong sense of obligation. Given the frequency with which international humanitarian aid efforts enact a neo-colonial dynamic by overriding local interests and further entrenching global hierarchies, Emma Velez argues that Miller's cosmopolitan care helps respond to Narayan's early concern, supporting instead a decolonial politics of care (Velez, 2020). 35 Relatedly, Eva Feder Kittay's most recent work ties the normativity of care to the successful uptake of the care-receiver (2019, p. 191).…”