View allAll Photos Tagged Territory,
This hummer was arching his neck in order to get a better view of his/her territory. It had spotted another hummer. I think this is a juvenal Rufous.
Nightcliff, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia
Darwin /ˈdɑːrwᵻn/ is the capital city of the Northern Territory of Australia. Situated on the Timor Sea, Darwin is the largest city in the sparsely populated Northern Territory, with a population of 142,300. It is the smallest and most northerly of the Australian capital cities, and acts as the Top End's regional centre.
Darwin's proximity to South East Asia makes it a link between Australia and countries such as Indonesia and East Timor. The Stuart Highway begins in Darwin, ending at Port Augusta in South Australia. The city itself is built on a low bluff overlooking the harbour. Its suburbs spread out over some area, beginning at Lee Point in the north and stretching to Berrimah in the east. Past Berrimah, the Stuart Highway goes on to Darwin's satellite city, Palmerston, and its suburbs. The Darwin region, like the rest of the Top End, has a tropical climate, with a wet and a dry season. Prone to cyclone activity during the wet season, Darwin experiences heavy monsoonal downpours and spectacular lightning shows. During the dry season, the city is met with blue skies and gentle sea breezes from the harbour.
The greater Darwin area is the ancestral home of the Larrakia people. On 9 September 1839, HMS Beagle sailed into Darwin harbour during its surveying of the area. John Clements Wickham named the region "Port Darwin" in honour of their former shipmate Charles Darwin, who had sailed with them on the ship's previous voyage which had ended in October 1836. The settlement there became the town of Palmerston in 1869, and was renamed Darwin in 1911. The city has been almost entirely rebuilt four times, following devastation caused by the 1897 cyclone, the 1937 cyclone, Japanese air raids during World War II, and Cyclone Tracy in 1974.
(Source: Wikipedia)
Die Kathleen Springs sind Quellen im Watarrka-Nationalpark im australischen Northern Territory. Da hier in der Schlucht ständig Wasser vorhanden ist hatte sie schon vor tausenden von Jahren eine große Bedeutung für die Ureinwohner. Hier fanden sie Ihr Bushfood, ihre Nahrung wie Quandong, Plum Bush oder Buschfeigen.
Die Wanderung zu einem Wasserloch führt durch verschiedene Pflanzengemeinschaften. Man sieht Mulga und Grasland. Es geht vorbei an leuchtend roten Felsen, die im Nachmittagslicht besonders schön angestrahlt wurden. Die Hänge sind spärlich bewachsen, ab und zu ragt ein Ghost Gum aus den Felsspalten.
The Kathleen Springs are springs in the Watarrka National Park in Australia's Northern Territory. As there is a constant supply of water in the gorge, they were of great importance to the Aborigines thousands of years ago. This is where they found their bush food, such as quandong, plum bush or bush figs.
The hike to a waterhole leads through various plant communities. You see mulga and grassland. You pass bright red rocks, which are beautifully illuminated in the afternoon light. The slopes are sparsely vegetated, with the occasional ghost gum poking out of the crevices.
Rising 195 metres above the summit of Black Mountain, the Telstra Tower presents 360 degree views of the city and the Brindabella Ranges. Visitors taking advantage of he two open viewing platforms or the enclosed viewing gallery are presented with striking views of the city by day. From every angle at night the theatrics of the city's lights under the darkened sky provide a spectacular show of natural beauty and entertainment.
As well as offering visitors education, entertainment and spectacular views, the Telstra Tower has a functional role. The Telstra Tower provides essential communications facilities for the National Capital, including major trunk line radio telephony facilities, television transmitters for national and commercial services, FM radio transmitters, mobile radio telephone, and cellular phone base stations.
This elegant Tower on the summit of Black Mountain has won two awards for outstanding design. The first in 1979, for imaginative and effective use of concrete in a building. The Tower won its second award, the 1980 Civic Design Award of the ACT Chapter of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects.
The Tower incorporates a theatrette, cafe and gift shop and the Executive Briefing Centre; meeting rooms with state of the art AV, spectacular views and free parking.
Since opening in 1980, Telstra Tower has continually created an attraction of immense fascination and appeal, marking it one of the National Capital's most popular tourist and local attractions.
Source: Telstra.
Lahti. Lakhta ?This small village on the northern shore of the Gulf of Finland, about 15 km northwest of the city, is home to human settlements on the banks of the Neva. It was on the territory of Lakhta that the remains of a man’s parking site of three thousand years ago were found.
In official documents, a settlement named Lakhta dates back to 1500. The name is derived from the Finnish-speaking word lahti - "bay". This is one of the few settlements that has not changed its name throughout its 500-year history. Also known as Laches, Lahes-by, Lahes and was originally inhabited by Izhora. In the last decades of the 15th century, Lakhta was a village (which indicates a significant population) and was the center of the eponymous grand-parish volost, which was part of the Spassko-Gorodensky graveyard of the Orekhovsky district of the Vodskaya Pyatina. In the village, there were 10 courtyards with 20 people (married men). In Lakhta, on average, there were 2 families per yard, and the total population of the village probably reached 75 people.
From the notes on the margins of the Swedish scribe book of the Spassky graveyard of 1640, it follows that the lands along the lower reaches of the Neva River and parts of the Gulf of Finland, including Lakhta Karelskaya, Perekulya (from the Finnish “back village”, probably because of its position relative to Lakhti) and Konduy Lakhtinsky, were royal by letter of honor on January 15, 1638 transferred to the possession of the Stockholm dignitary, Rickschulz general Bernhard Sten von Stenhausen, a Dutchman by birth. On October 31, 1648, the Swedish government granted these lands to the city of Nyuen (Nyenschanz). With the arrival of the Swedes in Prievye, Lakhta was settled by the Finns, who until the middle of the 20th century made up the vast majority of the villagers.
On December 22, 1766, Catherine 2 granted Lakhta Manor, which was then in the Office of the Chancellery from the buildings of palaces and gardens, "in which and in her villages with courtyards 208 souls," her favorite Count Orlov. Not later than 1768, Count J.A. Bruce took over the estate. In 1788, Lakhta Manor was listed behind him with wooden services on a dry land (high place) and the villages Lakhta, Dubki, Lisiy Nos and Konnaya belonging to it also on dry land, in those villages of male peasants 238 souls. On May 1, 1813, Lakhta passed into the possession of the landowners of the Yakovlevs. On October 5, 1844, Count A.I. Stenbok-Fermor entered into the possession of the Lakhtinsky estate, which then had 255 male souls. This clan was the owner of the estate until 1912, when its last representative got into debt and noble custody was established over the estate. On October 4, 1913, in order to pay off his debts, he was forced to go for corporatization, and the Lakhta estate passed into the ownership of the Joint Stock Company “Lakhta” of Count Stenbock-Fermor and Co.
After the revolution, Lakhta was left on its own for a while, here on the former estate of the counts Stenbock-Fermorov on May 19, 1919, the Lakhta excursion station was opened, which existed there until 1932. In the early 1920s, sand mining began on Lakhta beaches, and the abandoned and dilapidated peat plant of the Lakhta estate in 1922 took over the Oblzemotdel and put it into operation after major repairs. In 1963, the village of Lakhta was included in the Zhdanovsky (Primorsky) district of Leningrad (St. Petersburg).
At the beginning of Lakhtinsky Prospekt, on the banks of the Lakhtinsky spill, there was the village of Rakhilax (Rahilax-hof, Rahila, Rokhnovo). Most likely, under this name only one or several courtyards are designated. There is an assumption that the name of the village was formed from the Finnish raahata - “drag, drag,” because there could be a place for transportation through the isthmus of the Lakhtinsky spill (we should not forget that not only the bridge over the channel connecting the spill with the Gulf of Finland was not yet here, the duct itself was many times wider than the current one). The search book of the Spassko-Gorodensky graveyard of 1573, describing the Lakhta lands, mentions that there were 2 lodges in the “Rovgunov” village, from which we can conclude that we are talking about the village of Rohilaks, which the Russian scribes remade into a more understandable to them Rovgunovo. The village was empty in Swedish time and was counted as a wasteland of the village of Lahta.
On the banks of the Lakhtinsky spill, near the confluence of the Yuntolovka River, from the 17th century there existed the village of Bobylka (Bobylskaya), which merged into the village of Olgino only at the beginning of the 20th century, but was found on maps until the 1930s. It is probably the Search Book that mentions it Spassko-Gorodensky churchyard in 1573 as a village "in Lakhta in Perekui", behind which there was 1 obzh. With the arrival of the Swedes by royal letter on January 15, 1638, the village was transferred to the possession of the Stockholm dignitary, Rickshaw General Bernhard Sten von Stenhausen, a Dutchman by birth. On October 31, 1648, the Swedish government granted Lahti lands to the city of Nyuen (Nyenschanz). On the Swedish map of the 1670s, in the place of the village of Bobylsky, the village of Lahakeülä is marked (küla - the village (Fin.)). The village could subsequently be called Bobyl from the Russian word "bobyl."
The owners of Bobylskaya were both Count Orlov, and Count Y. A. Bruce, and the landowners Yakovlev. In 1844, Count A.I. Stenbok-Fermor entered into the possession of the Lakhtinsky estate (which included the village of Bobyl). This family was the owner of the estate until 1913, when the owners, in order to pay off their debts, had to go for corporatization, and the Lakhta estate was transferred to the ownership of the Lakhta Joint-Stock Company of Count Stenbock-Fermor and Co. By the middle of the 20th century, the village merged with the village of Lakhta.
The name Konnaya Lakhta (Konnaya) has been known since the 16th century, although earlier it sounded like Konduya (Konduya Lakhtinskaya) or just Kondu (from the Finnish kontu - courtyard, manor). Subsequently, this name was replaced by the more familiar Russian ear with the word "Horse". In the Search Book of the Spassko-Gorodensky Pogost in 1573, it is mentioned as the village "on Kovdui", where 1 obzh was listed, which indicates that there most likely was one yard. On January 15, 1638, together with neighboring villages, it was transferred to the possession of the Stockholm dignitary, Rickschulz General Bernhard Steen von Stenhausen, of Dutch origin. On October 31, 1648, the Swedish government granted these lands to the city of Nyuen (Nyenschanz). In a deed of gift, Konduya Lakhtinskaya is called a village, which indicates a noticeable increase in its population. Later, on the Swedish map of the 1670s, on the site of the present Horse Lahti, the village of Konda-bai is marked (by - village (sv)).
The owners of Konnaya Lakhta, as well as the villages of Bobylskaya and Lakhta, were in turn Count Orlov, Count Ya. A. Bruce, and the landowners Yakovlev. In 1844, Count A.I. Stenbok-Fermor entered the possession of the Lakhta estate (which included Konnaya Lakhta. This family was the owner of the estate until 1913, when the owners had to go to corporations to pay off their debts, and the Lakhta estate became the property of Lakhta Joint Stock Company of Count Stenbock-Fermor and Co. In 1963, Horse Lahta was included in the Zhdanov (Primorsky) district of Leningrad (St. Petersburg).
As the dacha village of Olgino appeared at the end of the 19th century and initially consisted of both Olgin itself and the villages of Vladimirovka (now part of Lisiy Nos) and Aleksandrovka. In the first half of the 18th century, this territory was part of the Verpelev palace estate, which in the second half of the 18th century was granted to Count G. G. Orlov, then it was owned by the family of landowners the Yakovlevs, in the middle of the 19th century the estate was transferred to the counts of Stenbock-Fermor. In 1905 A.V. Stenbok-Fermor, the then owner of Lakhta lands, divided the lands around Lakhta into separate plots with the intention of selling them profitably for dachas. So there were the villages of Olgino (named after the wife of Olga Platonovna), Vladimirovka (in honor of the father of the owner; the coastal part of the modern village of Lisy Nos) and Alexandrov or Aleksandrovskaya (in honor of Alexander Vladimirovich himself). It is likely that on the site of the village was the village of Olushino (Olushino odhe) - a search book of the Spassko-Gorodensky churchyard in 1573 mentions that there were 1 obzh in the village of Olushkov’s, which suggests that at least one residential the yard. On behalf of Olushka (Olpherius). Most likely, the village was deserted in Swedish time and then was already listed as a wasteland belonging to the village of Lahta. Thus, the name of the village could be given in harmony with the name of the mistress and the old name of the village.
The villages were planned among a sparse pine forest (the layout was preserved almost unchanged), so there were more amenities for living and spending time there than in Lakhta. A park was set up here, a summer theater, a sports ("gymnastic") playground, a tennis court, and a yacht club were arranged.
In the 1910s about 150 winter cottages were built in Olgino, many of which are striking monuments of "summer cottage" architecture. In 1963, the village of Olgino was included in the Zhdanovsky (Primorsky) district of Leningrad (St. Petersburg).
Near Olgino, in the area of the Dubki park, there was a small village Verpeleva (Verpelevo), which consisted of only a few yards. In the first half of the XVIII century. this territory was part of the palace estate "Verpeleva", which in the second half of the XVIII century. It was granted to Count G. G. Orlov, then passed to the Counts of Stenbock-Fermor. The village has not existed for a long time, but the entire reed-covered peninsula (barely protruding above the water of the Verpier-Luda peninsula (Verper Luda (from the Finnish luoto - “small rocky island”)) still existed, and there was another spelling the name of this island is Var Pala Ludo).
Kamenka. The Novgorod scribal book mentions two villages in the Lakhta region with a similar name, referring to the possessions of Selivan Zakharov, son of Okhten, with his son and 5 other co-owners. On the lands of this small patrimony, which, unlike the estate was inherited, peasants lived in 3 villages, including: the village "Kamenka in Lakhta near the sea" in 5 yards with 5 people and arable land in 1,5 obzhi, the village "on Kamenka "in 2 courtyards with 2 people and arable land in 1 obzhu. For the use of land, the peasants paid the owners of the patrimony 16 money and gave 1/3 of the rye harvest. Thus, in the 16th century on the Kamenka River (another name for the Kiviyoki River, which is the literal translation of kivi - "stone", joki - "river") there was one large village of Kamenka near its confluence with the Lakhtinsky spill and the second, smaller, somewhere upstream. On the drawing of Izhora land in 1705, a village under this name is depicted in the area of the modern village of Kamenka. The village of Kamennaya in the middle reaches of Kamenka and on the map of 1792 is designated. Other name options are Kaumenkka, Kiviaja.
In the second half of the 18th century, Kamenka became a vacation spot for Russian Germans. Here in 1865, German colonists founded their "daughter" colony on leased land. Since then, the village has received the name Kamenka Colony (so called until the 1930s). In 1892, a colony near the village of Volkovo "budded" from it. The inhabitants of both colonies belonged to the Novo-Saratov parish and since 1871 had a prayer house in Kamenka, which was visited by 250 people. He maintained a school for 40 students. The house was closed in 1935 and later demolished.
Currently, Kamenka exists as a holiday village, located along the road to Levashovo. Since 1961 - in the city, part of the planning area in the North-West, from the mid-1990s. built up with multi-storey residential buildings and cottages.
Volkovo. The settlement is about southeast of the village of Kamenka - on the old road to Kamenka, on the bank of a stream that flows into Kamenka between the village of Kamenka and the Shuvalovsky quarry. In 1892, a German colony emerged on the territory of the village, "budding" from a nearby colony in the village of Kamenka. The origin of Volkovo is not clear, the village is found only on maps of 1912, 1930, 1939, 1943. and probably appeared no earlier than the 19th century.
Kolomyagi. Scribe books of the XV — XVI centuries and Swedish plans testify that small settlements already existed on the site of Kolomyag. Most likely, these were first Izhora or Karelian, then Finnish farms, which were empty during the hostilities of the late XVII century.
The name "Kolomyag" connoisseurs decipher in different ways. Some say that it came from the "colo" - in Finnish cave and "pulp" - a hill, a hill. The village is located on the hills, and such an interpretation is quite acceptable. Others look for the root of the name in the Finnish word "koaa" - bark - and believe that trees were processed here after felling. Another version of the origin of the name from the Finnish "kello" is the bell, and it is associated not with the feature of the mountain, but with the "bell on the mountain" - a tower with a signal bell standing on a hill.
The owners of Kolomyazhsky lands were Admiral General A.I. Osterman, Count A.P. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, a family of Volkonsky. In 1789, the Volkonskys sold these lands to retired colonel Sergei Savvich Yakovlev. On his estate S. S. Yakovlev built a manor and lived in it with his wife and seven daughters. The once-Finnish population of Kolomyag was “Russified” by that time - it was made up of descendants of serfs resettled by Osterman and Bestuzhev-Rumin from their villages in Central Russia (natives of the Volga and Galich) and Ukraine. Then the name "Kellomyaki" began to sound in Russian fashion - "Kolomyagi", although later the old name also existed, especially among local Finns. And not without reason the indigenous Kolomozhites associate their origin with the Volga places, and the southern half of the village is now called “Galician”.
Yakovlev died in 1818. Five years after his death, a division of the territory of the manor was made. The village of Kolomyagi was divided in half between two of his daughters. The border was the Bezymyanny stream. The southeastern part of the village of Kolomyagi beyond Bezymyanny creek and a plot on the banks of the Bolshaya Nevka passed to the daughter Ekaterina Sergeevna Avdulina.
Daughter Yakovleva Elena Sergeevna - the wife of General Alexei Petrovich Nikitin, a hero of the Patriotic War of 1812, who was awarded the highest military orders and twice a gold sword with the inscription "For courage", died early, leaving her daughter Elizabeth. The northwestern part of Kolomyag inherited the young Elizabeth, so this part of Kolomyag was practically inherited by the father of Yakovlev’s granddaughter, Count A.P. Nikitin, who in 1832 became the owner of the entire village. It is his name that is stored in the names of the streets - 1st and 2nd Nikitinsky and Novo-Nikitinsky. The new owner built a stone mansion on the estate’s estate - an excellent example of classicism of the first third of the 19th century, which became his country house and has survived to this day and has been occupied until recently by the Nursing Home. It is believed that this mansion was built according to the project of the famous architect A.I. Melnikov. The severity and modesty of the architectural appearance of the facades and residential chambers of the Nikitin mansion was opposed by the splendor of ceremonial interiors, in particular the two-light dance hall with choirs for musicians. Unfortunately, with repeated alterations and repairs, many details of the decor and stucco emblems of the owners disappeared. Only two photographs of the 1920s and preserved fragments of ornamental molding and paintings on the walls and ceiling show the past richness of the decorative decoration of this architectural monument. The mansion was surrounded by a small park. In it stood a stone pagan woman brought from the southern steppes of Russia (transferred to the Hermitage), and a pond with a plakun waterfall was built. Near the pond there was a "walk of love" from the "paradise" apple trees - it was called so because the bride and groom passed through it after the wedding. Here, in the shadow of these apple trees, young lovers made appointments.
Under the Orlov-Denisov opposite the mansion (now Main Street, 29), the structures of an agricultural farm were erected, partially preserved to this day, and the greenhouse. Behind the farm were the master's fields. On them, as the New Time newspaper reported in August 1880, they tested the reaping and shearing machines brought from America.
In the 19th century, the provincial surveyor Zaitsev submitted for approval the highway called the Kolomyagskoye Shosse. The route was supposed to connect the village, gradually gaining fame as a summer residence of the "middle arm", with St. Petersburg. The construction of the road ended in the 1840s, and then horse-drawn and country-house crafts became the most important articles of peasant income. In addition, peasants either built small dachas in their yards, or rented their huts for the summer. Located away from the roads, surrounded by fields, the village was chosen by multi-family citizens.
The income from the summer cottage industry increased from year to year, which was facilitated by the summer movement of omnibuses that opened on the new highway from the City Council building. They walked four times a day, each accommodated 16 people, the fare cost 15 kopecks. Even when the Finnish Railway with the nearest Udelnaya station came into operation in 1870, the highway remained the main access road through which public carriages pulled by a trio of horses ran from the Stroganov (now Ushakovsky) bridge.
The importance of the highway has decreased since 1893, when traffic began along the Ozerkovskaya branch of the Primorsky Railway, built by the engineer P.A. Avenarius, the founder of the Sestroretsky resort.
Historical research reveals that diverse political rationalities have framed the political means and objectives of state frontiers and borders, just as the difficult work of making borders actual has drawn upon a great variety of technologies
The single word ”border” conceals a multiplicity and implies a constancy where genealogical investigation uncovers mutation and descent. Historical research reveals that diverse political rationalities have framed the political means and objectives of state frontiers and borders, just as the difficult work of making borders actual has drawn upon a great variety of technologies and heterogeneous administrative practices, ranging from maps of the territory, the creation of specialized border officials, and architectures of fortification to today’s experimentation with bio- digitalized forms of surveillance. This chapter argues that we are witnessing a novel development within this history of borders and border-making, what I want to call the emergence of the humanitarian border. While a great deal has been written about the militarization, securitization and fortification of borders today, there is far less consideration of the humanitarianization of borders. But if the investment of border regimes by biometric technologies rightly warrants being treated as an event within the history of the making and remaking of borders (Amoore 2006), then arguably so too does the reinvention of the border as a space of humanitarian government.
Under what conditions are we seeing the rise of humanitarian borders? The emergence of the humanitarian border goes hand in hand with the move which has made state frontiers into privileged symbolic and regulatory instruments within strategies of migration control. It is part of a much wider trend that has been dubbed the ”rebordering” of political and territorial space (Andreas and Biersteker 2003). The humanitarian border emerges once it becomes established that border crossing has become, for thousands of migrants seeking, for a variety of reasons, to access the territories of the global North, a matter of life and death. It crystallizes as a way of governing this novel and disturbing situation,and compensating for the social violence embodied in the regime of migration control.The idea of a humanitarian border might sound at first counterintuitive or even oxymoronic. After all, we often think of contemporary humanitarianism as a force that, operating in the name of the universal but endangered subject of humanity, transcends the walled space of the inter-national system. This is, of course, quite valid. Yet it would be a mistake to draw any simple equation between humanitarian projects and what Deleuze and Guattari would call logics of deterritoralization. While humanitarian programmes might unsettle certain norms of statehood, it is important to recognize the ways in which the exercise of humanitarian power is connected to the actualization of new spaces. Whether by its redefinition of certain locales as humanitarian ”zones” and crises as ”emergencies” (Calhoun 2004), the authority it confers on certain experts to move rapidly across networks of aid and intervention, or its will to designate those populating these zones as ”victims,” it seems justified to follow Debrix’s (1998) observation that humanitarianism implies reterritorialization on top of deterritorialization. Humanitarian zones can materialize in various situations – in conflict zones, amidst the relief of famine, and against the backdrop of state failure. But the case that interests me in what follows is a specific one: a situation where the actual borders of states and gateways to the territory become themselves zones of humanitarian government. Understanding the consequences of this is paramount, since it has an important bearing on what is often termed the securitization of borders and citizenship.
Foucault and Frontiers
It is probably fair to say that the theme of frontiers is largely absent from the two courses that are today read together as Foucault’s lectures on ”governmentality” (Foucault 1991; 2007; 2008). This is not to suggest that frontiers receive no mention at all. Within these lectures we certainly encounter passing remarks on the theme. For instance, Foucault speaks at one point of ”the administrative state, born in the territoriality of national boundaries in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries and corresponding to a society of regulation and discipline” (Foucault 1991: 104).1 Elsewhere, he notes how the calculation and demarcation of new frontiers served as one of the practical elements of military-diplomatic technology, a machine he associates with the government of Europe in the image of a balance of power and according to the governmental logic of raison d’état. ”When the diplomats, the ambassadors who negotiated the treaty of Westphalia, received instructions from their government, they were explicitly advised to ensure that the new frontiers, the distribution of states, the new relationships to be established between the German states and the Empire, and the zones of influence of France, Sweden, and Austria be established in terms of a principle: to maintain a balance between the different European states” (Foucault 2007: 297).
But these are only hints of what significance the question of frontiers might have within the different technologies of power which Foucault sought to analyze. They are only fragmentary reflections on the place borders and frontiers might occupy within the genealogy of the modern state which Foucault outlines with his research into governmentality.2
Why was Foucault apparently not particularly interested in borders when he composed these lectures? One possible answer is suggested by Elden’s careful and important work on power-knowledge and territory. Elden takes issue with Foucault for the way in which he discusses territorial rule largely as a foil which allows him to provide a more fully-worked out account of governmentality and its administration of population. Despite the fact that the term appears prominently in the title of Foucault’s lectures, ”the issue of territory continually emerges only to be repeatedly marginalized, eclipsed, and underplayed” (Elden 2007: 1). Because Foucault fails to reckon more fully with the many ways in which the production of territory – and most crucially its demarcation by practices of frontier marking and control – serves as a precondition for the government of population, it is not surprising that the question of frontiers occupies little space in his narrative.But there is another explanation for the relative absence of questions of frontiers in Foucault’s writing on governmentality. And here we have to acknowledge that, framed as it is previously, this is a problematic question. For it risks the kind of retrospective fallacy which projects a set of very contemporary issues and concerns onto Foucault’s time. It is probably fair to speculate that frontiers and border security was not a political issue during the 1970s in the way that it is today in many western states. ”Borders” had yet to be constituted as a sort of meta-issue, capable of condensing a whole complex of political fears and concerns, including globalization, the loss of sovereignty, terrorism, trafficking and unchecked immigration. The question of the welfare state certainly was an issue, perhaps even a meta-issue, when Foucault was lecturing, and it is perhaps not coincidental that he should devote so much space to the examination of pastoralism. But not the border. The point is not to suggest that Foucault’s work evolved in close,
Humanitarian Government
Before I address the question of the humanitarian border, it is necessary to explain what I understand by the humanitarian. Here my thinking has been shaped by recent work that engages the humanitarian not as a set of ideas and ideologies, nor simply as the activity of certain nongovernmental actors and organizations, but as a complex domain possessing specific forms of governmental reason. Fassin’s work on this theme is particularly important. Fassin demonstrates that humanitarianism can be fruitfully connected to the broader field of government which Foucault outlined, where government is not a necessary attribute of states but a rationalized activity than can be carried out by all sorts of agents, in various contexts, and towards multiple ends. At its core, ”Humanitarian government can be defined as the administration of human collectivities in the name of a higher moral principle which sees the preservation of life and the alleviation of suffering as the highest value of action” (Fassin 2007: 151). As he goes on to stress, the value of such a definition is that we do not see a particular state, or a non-state form such as a nongovernmental organization, as the necessary agent of humanitarian action. Instead, it becomes possible to think in terms of a complex assemblage, comprising particular forms of humanitarian.reason, specific forms of authority (medical, legal, spiritual) but also certain technologies of government – such as mechanisms for raising funds and training volunteers, administering aid and shelter, documenting injustice, and publicizing abuse. Seen from this angle humanitarianism appears as a much more supple, protean thing. Crucially, it opens up our ability to perceive ”a broader political and moral logic at work both within and outside state forms” (ibid.).
If the humanitarian can be situated in relation to the analytics of government, it can also be contextualized in relation to the biopolitical. ”Not only did the last century see the emergence of regimes committed to the physical destruction of populations,” observes Redfield, ”but also of entities devoted to monitoring and assisting populations in maintaining their physical existence, even while protesting the necessity of such an action and the failure of anyone to do much more than this bare minimum” (2005: 329). It is this ”minimalist biopolitics,” as Redfield puts it, that will be so characteristic of the humanitarian. And here the accent should be placed on the adjective “minimalist” if we are not to commit the kind of move which I criticized above, namely collapsing everything new into existing Foucauldian categories. It is important to regard contemporary humanitarianism as a novel formation and a site of ambivalence and undecideability, and not just as one more instance of what Hardt and Negri (2000) might call global “biopolitical production.”The Birth of the Humanitarian Border
In a press release issued on June 29, 2007, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) publicized a visit which its then Director General, Brunson McKinley, was about to make to a ”reception centre for migrants” on the Mediterranean island of Lampedusa (IOM 2007). The Director General is quoted as saying: ”Many more boats will probably arrive on Lampedusa over the summer with their desperate human cargo and we have to ensure we can adequately respond to their immediate needs.... This is why IOM will continue to work closely with the Italian government, the Italian Red Cross, UNHCR and other partners to provide appropriate humanitarian responses to irregular migrants and asylum seekers reaching the island.”
The same press release observes that IOM’s work with its ”partners” was part of a wider effort to improve the administration of the ”reception” (the word ”detention” is conspicuously absent) and ”repatriation” of ”irregular migrants” in Italy. Reception centers were being expanded, and problems of overcrowding alleviated. The statement goes on to observe that IOM had opened its office on Lampedusa in April 2006. Since that time ”Forced returns from Lampedusa [had] stopped.”
Lampedusa is a small Italian island located some 200 km south of Sicily and 300 km to the north of Libya. Its geographical location provides a clue as to how it is that in 2004 this Italian outpost first entered the spotlight of European and even world public attention, becoming a potent signifier for anxieties about an international migration crisis (Andrijasevic 2006). For it was then that this Italian holiday destination became the main point of arrival for boats carrying migrants from Libya to Italy. That year more than 10,000 migrants are reported to have passed through the ”temporary stay and assistance centre” (CPTA) the Italian state maintains on the island. The vast majority had arrived in overcrowded, makeshift boats after a perilous sea journey lasting up to several weeks. Usually these boats
are intercepted in Italian waters by the Italian border guards and the migrants transferred to the holding center on the island. Following detention, which can last for more than a month, they are either transferred to other CPTAs in Sicily and southern Italy, or expelled to Libya.Finally, there is a point to be made about humanitarianism, power and order. Those looking to locate contemporary humanitarianism within a bigger picture would perhaps follow the lead of Hardt and Negri. As these theorists of ”Empire” see things, NGOs like Amnesty International and Médecins sans Frontières (MSF) are, contrary to their own best intentions, implicated in global order. As agents of ”moral intervention” who, because they participate in the construction of emergency, ”prefigure the state of exception from below,” these actors serve as the preeminent ”frontline force of imperial intervention.” As such, Hardt and Negri see humanitarianism as ”completely immersed in the biopolitical context of the constitution of Empire” (Hardt and Negri 2000: 36).Humanitarianism, Borders, Politics
Foucauldian writing about borders has mirrored the wider field of governmentality studies in at least one respect. While it has produced some fascinating and insightful accounts of contemporary strategies and technologies of border-making and border policing, it has tended to confine its attention to official and often state-sanctioned projects. Political dynamics and political acts have certainly not been ignored. But little attention has been paid to the possibility that politics and resistance operate not just in an extrinsic relationship to contemporary regimes, but within them.12 To date this literature has largely failed to view politics as something constitutive and productive of border regimes and technologies. That is to say, there is little appreciation of the ways in which movements of opposition, and those particular kinds of resistance which Foucault calls ”counter conduct,” can operate not externally to modes of bordering but by means of ”a series of exchanges” and ”reciprocal supports” (Foucault 2007: 355).
There is a certain paradox involved when we speak of Foucault and frontiers. In certain key respects it could be said that Foucault is one of our most eminent and original theorists of bordering. For at the heart of one of his most widely read works – namely Discipline and Punish – what does one
find if not the question of power and how its modalities should be studied by focusing on practices of partitionment, segmentation, division, enclosure; practices that will underpin the ordering and policing of ever more aspects of the life of populations from the nineteenth century onwards. But while Foucault is interested in a range of practices which clearly pertain to the question of bordering understood in a somewhat general sense, one thing the reading of his lectures on security, governmentality and biopolitics reveals is that he had little to say explicitly about the specific forms of bordering associated with the government of the state. To put it differently, Foucault dealt at length with what we might call the microphysics of bordering, but much less with the place of borders considered at the level of tactics and strategies of governmentality.Recent literature has begun to address this imbalance, demonstrating that many of Foucault’s concepts are useful and important for understanding what kinds of power relations and governmental regimes are at stake in contemporary projects which are re-making state borders amidst renewed political concerns over things like terrorism and illegal immigration. However, the overarching theme of this chapter has been the need for caution when linking Foucault’s concepts to the study of borders and frontiers today. While analytics like biopolitics, discipline and neoliberalism offer all manner of insights, we need to avoid the trap which sees Foucault’s toolbox as something ready-made for any given situation. The challenge of understanding the emergent requires the development of new theoretical tools, not to mention the sharpening of older, well-used implements. With this end in mind the chapter has proposed the idea of the humanitarian border as a way of registering an event within the genealogy of the frontier, but also, although I have not developed it here, within the genealogy of citizenship.
What I have presented previously is only a very cursory overview of certain features of the humanitarianization of borders, most notably its inscription within regimes of knowledge, and its constitutive relationship to politics. In future research it would be interesting to undertake a fuller mapping of the humanitarian border in relation to certain trajectories of government. While we saw how themes of biopolitical and neoliberal government are pertinent in understanding the contemporary management of spaces like the detention center, it would seem especially relevant to consider the salience of pastoralism. Pastoral power has received far less attention within studies of governmentality than, say, discipline or liberal government (but see Dean 1999; Golder 2007; Hindess 1996; Lippert 2004). But here again, I suspect, it will be important to revise our concepts in the light of emergent practices and rationalities. For the ways in which NGOs and humanitarians engage in the governance of migrants and refugees today have changed quite significantly from the kinds of networks of care, self-examination and salvation which Foucault identified with pastoralism. For instance, and to take but one example, the pastoral care of migrants, whether in situations of sanctuary or detention, is not organized as a life-encompassing, permanent activity as it was for the church, or later, in a secular version, the welfare state. Instead, it is a temporary and ad hoc intervention. Just as Foucault’s notion of neo-liberalism was intended to register important transformations within the genealogy of liberal government, it may prove useful to think in terms of the neo-pastoral when we try to make better sense of the phenomenon of humanitarian government at/of borders, and of many other situations as well.
williamwalters.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/2011-Foucau...
Our brilliant northern skies. Yellowknife, NT. 2011.
Join me on Facebook: www.facebook.com/davebroshaphotography
When he finished his song, he looked his territory over again. I wanted him to turn around and show off that colorful back. It would look like paint had been thrown on it with bright yellow, green, orange, red and blue colors. But he never turned & ended up flying over our heads with no warning. The only other time he sang while I was there, he was hidden behind leaves so all you could see was a tiny spot of red. Still, I am absolutely thrilled to have finally had a painted bunting encounter.
Male Painted Bunting (Passerina ciris)
My photos can also be found at kapturedbykala.com
Clougha Pike in Lancashire.A favourite area of mine to visit in early Spring.The grouse are on territory and the darker bird shown is giving it’s “go back ..”go back” call.A common sound on the Bowland Moors at this time of the year.
Climbed Tupshin Peak (center) last summer, yellow pup and I got to be on a seaplane and a canoe. It's one of the remote, beautiful, yet treacherous peaks among Washington's highest. It's not a canine-friendly place, so pup waited by the snowfield for me to return. Oh, and there's Goode Mountain, highest point in North Cascades National Park, in the left background.
A fantastic 1961 Holden EK Special Station Wagon.
On the way to the All Holden Day at Hall Showground.
Hall, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
SOOC [[: (besides the words of course)
this is another from the photoshoot with lauren and Elizabeth <3 see more pictures here --Facebook . Website . See how it's done.
Wolves mark their territory using scent and sound. They urinate and defecate at various points throughout the territory, with increased frequency along the borders. They also scratch with all four paws next to these markings - this is not to make their paw-prints look bigger as someone suggested, but to add scent from glands between the toes and to draw attention to the scent with the scrape-marks.
Massachusetts and Algoma Compass at 100th St. South Chicago. In her previous life as an American Steamship vessel she visited this spot many times.
DSC_6661. Taken in the wild at Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park, Northern Cape, South Africa.
My daughter Evelien saw this huge male lion walking in the direction of the top of the dune at a distance of about 150 or 200 meters. She, like my wife, is like a ranger/tracker on a safari vehicle and will notice any movement in the direct vicinity!
Just imagine you are leaving the unfenced camp at 06:58 and several cars in front scanning the area for early morning wildlife. All of a sudden your daughter calling "lion on the right" resulting in extreme (though controlled) excitement among the passengers (and especially the driver) and an immediately stop of our car! :D)
As the lion obviously walked in the direction of our unfenced camp we turned the car and waited for her on the road leading to the camp! We made several nice shots before other cars jumped in!
What a luck: a nice lion, blue sky and red dunes!
Please click on the photo to enlarge!
This is the first upload of this Kalahari lion. More to follow!
Copyright: Robert Kok. All rights reserved!
Please do not use my photos on websites, blogs or in any other media without my explicit permission.
It feels like it should be the mid 2000's with the blue and yellow power running around. Instead, it is just another shot from 2016 when a lot of the DM&E Geeps found their way back to their original territory. Most of the remaining DM&E power is now stored in St. Paul with DM&E fanatics like myself hoping CP will someday put them to use again.