Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (2)
Language
- English (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2)
Keywords
- affect (2) (remove)
Institute
- Sozialwissenschaften (2) (remove)
This article explores the practice and political significance of politicians’ journeys to conflict zones. It focuses on the German example, looking at field trips to theatres of international intervention as a way of first-hand knowledge in policymaking. Paying tribute to Lisa Smirl and her work on humanitarian spaces, objects and imaginaries and on liminality in aid worker biographies, two connected arguments are developed. First, through the exploration of the routinized practices of politicians’ field trips the article shows how these journeys not only remain confined to the ‘auxiliary space’ of aid/intervention, but that it is furthermore a staged reality of this auxiliary space that most politicians experience on their journeys. The question is then asked, second, what politicians actually experience on their journeys and how their experiences relate to their policy knowledge about conflict and intervention. It is shown that political field trips enable sensory/affectual, liminoid and liminal experiences, which have functions such as authority accumulation, agenda setting, community building, and civilizing domestic politics, while at the same time reinforcing, in most cases, pre-existing conflict and intervention imaginaries.
Moving Forces
(2017)
Throughout a large part of the twentieth century, the body was interpreted as a field of signs, the meaning of which pointed to an unconscious dimension. At the height of the popularity of structuralism, Jacques Lacan deemed the unconscious to be “structured like a language.” Starting in the early 1990s, however, a deep shift occurred in the way the body was interpreted. A new movement cast tremendous doubt on the hegemony of language and instead advocated a performative, pictorial, and affective approach — the so-called material turn — which encompassed all of these. In the words of Karen Barad, this turn inquired as to why meaning, history, and truth are assigned to language only, whereas the movements of materiality are given less prominence: “How did language come to be more trustworthy than matter? Why are language and culture granted their own agency and historicity while matter is figured as passive and immutable?” With this shift toward the material, bodies began to be seen in a different light and their materiality understood as something that follows its own laws and movements, which cannot be understood exclusively in terms of social-cultural codes. Instead, these laws and movements call into question the very dichotomies of nature/culture and body/spirit.