Kriminalizacija »proimigrantskih« iniciativ: Reduciranje prostora človeškega delova

The article addresses the problem of the surveillance, disciplining and criminalization of practices of non-governmental initiatives which offer help to irregular migrants, asylum seekers and refugees in Slovenia and four neighbouring countries. Based on original empirical work – interviews with members of NGOs – it analyses the dynamic of these processes through several stages of the “continuum of criminalization”. Five types of crimmigration policies and practices of authorities and other actors were identified which produce cumulative effects and reduce space for both political and human action as well as spontaneity.Članek naslavlja probleme nadzorovanja, discipliniranja in kriminaliziranja nevladnih akterjev, ki v Sloveniji in štirih sosednjih državah pomagajo nedokumentiranim migrantom, prosilcem za azil ali azilantom. Na podlagi izvirnega empiričnega raziskovanja – intervjujev s člani NVO – analizira dinamiko krimigracijskih procesov. Ugotavlja, da kriminalizacija akterjev civilne družbe, ki solidarizirajo z nedobrodošlimi migranti, poteka kot kontinuum petih tipov politik in praks oblasti ter drugih akterjev, ki povzročijo kumulativni učinek in reducirajo prostor tako za politično delovanje kot tudi za človeško spontanost

Evropska zapuščina Afriki, afriška zapuščina Evropi: postkolonialno nasilje in pošast genocida

This article focuses on selected elements of the European legacy in Africa that frame the twentieth century in a crucial way. They mark the “Western” picture of the world during that period, and they contributed to the perpetration of major atrocities on the African continent on a scale that invites comparison with the Holocaust – that is, the genocide of Namibian Hereros at the beginning of the twentieth century and the genocide of the Rwandan Tutsis at its end. This paper also discusses elements of the African legacy in Europe – particularly the emergence and transfer of a new form of power that depends on the experience of imperialism as central to the “Western” worldview – and the question of how one can explain this. The Rwandan genocide in 1994 did not represent a repetition or even an approximation of the European Holocaust, just as the Herero genocide (1904–8) cannot be seen as its forerunner, although they all share many points in common. The Rwandan genocide is qualitatively different from both: it represents a new development in the nature of the atrocity, in which the victims become the killers. A better understanding of it could therefore also shed light on some related, but different, events, such as “humanitarian interventions” and the “war against terror.” This contribution draws on some recent historical studies and builds on the analysis of imperialism, race, and bureaucracy in Hannah Arendt’s work; it is also inspired by the works of some authors that adopted the Arendtian analysis of totalitarianism, such as Mahmood Mamdani. The article focuses on the organization of the colonial and postcolonial bureaucratic apparatus of rule, its special form of non-state power, and its connection with “race,” “tribe,” and “tradition” as crucial elements of post-totalitarian forms of government and new forms of identitarian collective violence. The main aim is not so much to analyze the Rwanda genocide as such as to counter some common notions about its significance, which maintain that it represents a phenomenon of “black Africa” and thus just “does not matter” in “our” regional context because it is “remote” or that it involved such cruelty that it defies comparison. The various subplots of postcolonial power, racism, and tribalism in the Great Lakes region and their specific potential to mobilize the masses are deeply interwoven with European and global narratives, especially the manner in which the group that faces the risk of extermination becomes politically marginalized. Not only were Western political forces participants in these events, but their underlying dynamics and consequences were all implicated in the Western post-totalitarian power structure. This article therefore stresses the crucial connectedness of the “African” and “European” structure of this new form of power, which is still termed a “state” but which in fact – in the time of transition from the nineteenth to the twentieth century – assumed or indeed usurped the role of the modern nation-state. The processes that create the conditions for the new forms of domination and for the local and global undermining of politics and (political) responsibility can also be understood in the same way

REMix: The university as an advocate for responsible education about migration in Europe: Inclusive societies: A textbook for interdisciplinary migration studies

With the support of the Erasmus+ Programme of the European Unio

Refugees today: superflousness and humanitarianism = Refugiados hoje: superfluidade e humanitarismo = Refugiados hoy: superfluidad y humanitarismo

Este artigo discute algumas questões relativas à abordagem humanitária para “resolver” a chamada crise dos refugiados na Europa no Outono de 2015, quando milhares de refugiados partiram em jornada rumo à UE, a maioria deles para a Alemanha, pela chamada rota migratória dos Balcãs. Quando alguns Estados europeus, como a Eslovênia, começaram a colocar cercas de arame farpado nas suas fronteiras meridionais, os outros retomaram o controle de suas fronteiras internas da UE e quase todos introduziram mais restrições às leis existentes para a proteção internacional de refugiados e asilados. Ao abordar a questão do que é o elemento central do “problema dos refugiados” de hoje, o principal argumento se baseia no conceito de supérfluo de Hannah Arendt como a característica-chave da nova forma de governo global. Há dois lados do fenômeno da superfluidade que são cruciais para entender a situação na qual nos encontramos em relação às assim chamadas “migrações em massa”, o problema de “refugiados”: os “migrantes” e “nós”. Independentemente da necessidade de uma dose de humanitarismo nesses momentos, o foco na “solução” humanitária do problema esconde a questão-chave: como proporcionar, o quanto antes e em longo prazo, que os excluídos das unidades políticas e da lei sejam incluídos (tenham o direito a ter direitos) em uma comunidade política

Arendt, Koselleck in Begreifen: ponovni premislek politike in pojmov v času krize

Reinhard Koselleck has long been regarded as a particularly eminent theorist of socio-political concepts, while Hannah Arendt had not been in focus as a conceptual author until recent times. This article explores the common thinking space between Arendt and Koselleck through their thesis about the gap, rupture, crisis, or break in the tradition of political thinking and historical periods and how this is linked to their notion of conceptuality, i.e. Begreifen (understanding). Despite the impression that each of them focused on the one main break between the past and the future, Arendt and Koselleck both studied multiple breaks and crises in the Western political tradition. The article attempts to show how their distinctive thinking and rethinking of political concepts (Begreifen) are related to these breaks through several direct and indirect encounters and how these are both close and apart at the same time. While they have different concepts of politics and the political, their understanding of the breaks in time and crises can be read as complementary, especially considering their concern with returning the responsibility for actions and concepts to the human sphere.Reinharda Kosellecka so imeli dolgo časa za posebej eminentnega teoretika političnih pojmov, medtem ko so se na Hannah Arendt kot konceptualnega avtorja osredotočili šele nedavno. Članek raziskuje skupni prostor razmišljanja med Arendtovo in Koselleckom skozi njuno tezo o vrzeli, rezom, krizo ali prelomom v tradiciji političnega mišljenja in zgodovinskih obdobij ter to, kako je vse to povezano z njunim pojmom pojmovnosti, tj. Begreifen (razumevanja). Navkljub vtisu, da se je vsak od njiju osredotočil na glavni prelom med preteklostjo in prihodnostjo, sta tako Arendt kot Koselleck preučevala različne prelome v zahodni politični tradiciji. Članek skuša pokazati, kako sta njuno različno mišljenje in premislek političnih pojmov (Begreifen) povezana s temi prelomi s številnimi direktnimi in posrednimi srečanji, ter kako sta si oba avtorja istočasno blizu in narazen. Medtem ko oba različno pojmujeta politiko in politično, lahko njuno razumevanje prelomov v času in kriz beremo kot komplementarno, zlasti glede na njuno prizadevanje, da bi odgovornost za delovanje in za pojme vrnila nazaj v človeško sfero