ABSTRACT

When one looks at the phenomenon of seeking asylum, it is hard to concur with the studies that have declared the death of the state or the loss of its significance in politics. In the field of human mobility, the state continues to play an important role (e.g. Mountz 2010; Puumala 2013). In their efforts to govern, regulate and control increased mobilities, states have introduced a wide range of new technologies at the border and in the processment of claims for residence (e.g. Ceyhan & Tsoukala 2002; Walters 2006). People’s rights are put on hold, restricted or limited in various spaces or states of exception (e.g. Agamben 2005; Bigo 2007; Dauphinee & Masters 2006; Nyers 2003). In order to fully appreciate these developments, we need to take a look at the state and the networked practices of governance and discipline that are put into operation to control migration and the human body. Sovereign power is dispersed in daily practices that intersect and entwine with one another. Such practices, whether disciplinary, bureaucratic or expressed through mundane relations, uphold and reinforce the state apparatus. At the same time, however, they can be studied in order to undermine the notion of the state as ‘structural’, beyond people’s control and a unitary disembodied entity.