Borders and the Rhythms of Displacement, Emplacement and Mobility
Borders and the Rhythms of Displacement, Emplacement and Mobility
复制标题
边界以及位移、安置和流动的节奏
DOI：
10.1002/9781118255223.ch22
复制
发表时间：
2012
影响因子：
2.3
通讯作者：
Pamela Ballinger
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Pamela Ballinger
390 PAMELA BALLINGER 拥有香烟、太阳镜和时尚风格（Stoller 1992：135）。然而，鲁什早期的桑海电影讲述了一个与世隔绝的村庄的不同故事，在这些村庄里，居民在相当有限的线路上旅行（Stoller 1992：131）。鲁什对桑海河的多样化电影反思突显了学术边界研究中的紧张关系，一方面，久坐主义观点优先考虑扎根性和固定性，另一方面，反久坐主义方法将运动和去领土化视为“固有”条件。问题在于，在以不平等的准入和能力为特征的全球地形或流动体制中，地点、家园和身份的含义。当学者们关注本文的主题——跨越国界的身体、情感、虚拟的位移时，这些久坐主义者/反久坐主义者的争论显得尤为紧迫。流离失所通常意味着一定程度的强迫或非自愿移民（Malkki 1995b：495），尽管学者们仍在争论流离失所、难民和强迫移民之间的概念关系以及流离失所研究在更广泛的移民学术领域中的地位（例如，参见 Adelman 和 McGrath 2007；Cohen 2007；Hathaway 2007；Chimni 2009）。无论学者们将流动和流动视为事物的断裂还是正常状态，许多关于流离失所的研究都被证明过于狭隘，只关注离开的人口和他们去的地方，而忽视了他们留下的家园和邻居。在 1995 年一篇关于难民和流亡的有影响力的评论文章中，马尔基概述了这种片面流离失所观点的局限性：“在许多难民研究著作中，有一个隐含的假设，即难民在与自己的文化‘撕裂’、与家园‘连根拔起’时，会失去与他们逃离的生活世界的所有联系。就好像留下的地方不再有人居住一样”(1995b: 515)。
390 PAMELA BALLINGER possessed of cigarettes, sunglasses, and style (Stoller 1992: 135). Rouch’s earlier Songhay films, however, tell a different story of isolated villages in which residents travel on quite restricted circuits (Stoller 1992: 131). Rouch’s diverse cinematic reflections on the Songhay highlight the tensions in scholarly studies of borders between, on the one hand, sedentarist perspectives that privilege rootedness and fixity and, on the other, anti-sedentarist approaches that take movement and deterritorialization as “inherent” conditions. At issue are the meanings of place, home and identity in a global terrain or regime of mobility marked by unequal access and capacities. These sedentarist/anti-sedentarist debates assume particular urgency when scholars focus on displacement–physical, emotional, virtual–across borders, the topic of this essay. Displacement generally implies a degree of forced or involuntary migration (Malkki 1995b: 495), although scholars continue to argue over the conceptual relationship between displacement, refugees, and forced migration and the place of displacement studies within the broader field of migration scholarship (see, for example, the debate between Adelman and McGrath 2007; Cohen 2007; Hathaway 2007; Chimni 2009).Regardless of how scholars locate displacement in the landscape of migration studies, or whether scholars posit movement and mobility as a rupture or the normal state of things, many studies of displacement prove too narrow, focusing on populations which leave and the places they go to the neglect of the homes and neighbors they leave behind. In an influential 1995 review article on refugees and exile, Malkki outlined the limitations of such a one-sided view of displacement:“In many works of refugee studies, there is an implicit assumption that in becoming ‘torn loose’from their cultures,‘uprooted’from their homes, refugees suffer the loss of all contact to the lifeworlds they fled. It is as if the place left behind were no longer peopled”(1995b: 515).