Green
Part B1
CROSSLOCATIONS
ERC Advanced Grant 2015
Research proposal
Part B1
Crosslocations in the Mediterranean:
rethinking the socio-cultural dynamics of relative positioning
CROSSLOCATIONS
-
Sarah Francesca Green (PI)
University of Helsinki
60 Months
The Mediterranean, a key socio-cultural, economic and political crossroads, has shifted its relative position
recently, with profound effects for relations between the peoples associated with its diverse parts. Crosslocations is a
groundbreaking theoretical approach that goes beyond current borders research to analyse the significance of the
changes in relations between places and peoples that this involves. It does this through explaining shifts in the relative
positioning of the Mediterranean’s many locations – i.e. the changing values of where people are rather than who they
are. Approaches focusing on people’s identities, statecraft or networks do not provide a way to research how the relative
value of ‘being somewhere in particular’ is changing and diversifying.
The approach builds on the idea that in socio-cultural terms, location is a form of political, social, economic, and
technical relative positioning, involving diverse scales that calibrate relative values (here called ‘locating regimes’). This
means locations are both multiple and historically variable, so different types of location may overlap in the same
geographical space, particularly in crossroads regions such as the Mediterranean. The dynamics between them alter
relations between places, significantly affecting people’s daily lives, including their life chances, wellbeing,
environmental, social and political conditions and status.
The project will first research the locating regimes crossing the Mediterranean region (border regimes,
infrastructures; digital technologies; fiscal, financial and trading systems; environmental policies; and social and religious
structures); then intensively ethnographically study the socio-cultural dynamics of relative positioning that these regimes
generate in selected parts of the Mediterranean region. Through explaining the dynamics of relative location,
Crosslocations will transform our understanding of trans-local, socio-cultural relations and separations.
1
Green
Part B1
CROSSLOCATIONS
Section a: Extended Synopsis of the scientific proposal (max. 5 pages)
1. Introduction: why the topic of Crosslocations matters.
Life in the Mediterranean region, as elsewhere, is marked by people’s daily negotiation of rules and bureaucracy; of the
infrastructures that work or fail to work; of encounters with local markets, taxes, and debts, and the cost of daily life in
general; of engagement with various technologies, especially mobile phones and computers; of relations with friends,
kin, colleagues, perhaps strangers too, and the conventions which guide such relations; of the sights, sounds and smells
of local environments, which may include the sounds and effects of conflict. More widely, people both experience and
have a sense of how places compare with others across many different scales of evaluation, and how their relations
with, and separations from, those other places affects their relative position.
In short, daily life involves a density of multiple conditions, structures, regulations, environments, relations and
separations that generate many versions of what it means to be somewhere in particular. These conditions change all
the time. For the Mediterranean, there have been the newsworthy events, particularly the financial crisis since 2008 that
has especially affected southern Europe; and the political turbulence since the Arab Spring of 2011, which has
particularly affected north Africa. Of course the eastern Mediterranean, particularly involving Israel and its neighbours,
has been attracting news for far longer.
The less newsworthy events are equally significant. Two examples from the EU are worth mentioning. Euromed
redefined the economic and social ties between the EU and other Mediterranean countries, and the European
Neighbourhood Policy (ENP), aimed to create bilateral partnerships with specific countries, rather than the more
collective arrangement of Euromed (Kølvraa and Ifversen 2011). In more recent years, Euromed’s original role in the
‘peace and security’ of the Mediterranean region, always fairly muted, was transferred to the Instrument for Stability (IfS),
launched in 2007, which was replaced by the Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace in 2014 (IcSP).1
There are even less visible elements involved, such as the network of telecommunications cables running along the
seabed that provide access to the internet across the Mediterranean and the rest of the world.2 The Mediterranean has
some of the most densely packed submarine cable systems, involving both ‘local’ and long distance cables that
practically cover the whole globe. The cables are owned by dozens of companies, many of them multi-national, but
some based quite regionally. The details provide traces of past and present relations between diverse parts of the
Mediterranean. For example, there is a cable that directly links Libya and Italy, and another that goes from the UK to
India via the Mediterranean. As many have noted over the years, the types of entities that set up and manage these
kinds of infrastructures go beyond the boundaries and logic of earlier periods that divided the world according to state,
empire, or commercial structures.3
All of this is known and has been intensively studied. Yet remarkably little is known about how the co-existence of these
different structures are affecting the way places are socio-culturally located and given a value with respect to other
places. Even less is known about the effects of the engagement between these diverse systems that overlap in any
given geographical space. Crosslocations will both develop a new conceptual framework and an innovative research
methodology to tackle this question for the Mediterranean region. It will do this through researching changes in the
relative values of the multiple locations associated with the region and its many parts generated by these diverse
regimes; and then explore the dynamics of the relations between these locating regimes, with the ultimate aim of
explaining how all of this is affecting socio-cultural relations and separations between people and places. To do this
requires being able to skip between the global scale of submarine cable networks, the supra-state scale of EU protocols
and other regional arrangements and structures, and the everyday lives of people, who are always somewhere in
particular, but where that somewhere in particular is being established in multiply different ways these days.
2. The concepts of crosslocation and locating regimes
The novel concept of ‘crosslocation’ is the basis of the approach I will use to tackle this question. It refers to the
encounter, whether direct or indirect, between different locating regimes in the same geographical space. And a
locating regime refers to a knowledge system and/or structure that calibrates the relative meaning of locations.
The socio-cultural implications of the encounter between different locating regimes in the same geographical space is
not knowable in advance, but requires investigation. To use an example from above, this would require investigating
where state border regimes, maritime law, trading regulations and EU agreements and protocols encounter submarine
telecommunications networks; how that in turn affects the relative value and meaning, as well as the connections and
separations, between a given part of the Mediterranean region in terms of its relative location; and how that in turn
affects people’s everyday lives. The encounter between these regimes might be parallel, with no mutual effects; it might
be collaborative; it might be contradictory; it might be hierarchical; it might be fractal; it might be cumulative - building up
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/fpi/what-we-do/instrument_contributing_to_stability_and_peace_en.htm (last accessed 25.5.2015.
See http://www.submarinecablemap.com/, last accessed 28.5.15, for an interactive map
3 e.g. Brown (2010); Friedman (2003); Ong and Collier (2005); Sassen (2007); Stiglitz (2003); Tsing (2005); Trouillot (2003)
1
2
2
Green
Part B1
CROSSLOCATIONS
into something that is different from either one. And the outcomes of the encounter cannot be known in advance, either.
Crosslocations is designed to research these encounters.
3. How Crosslocations adds to state of the art
Broadly, existing research on related issues has focused either on people’s movements, identities, or subjectivities;4 on
states and transformations in political economy, particularly the implications of neoliberal ideals;5 on the impact of new
technologies, especially digital technologies;6 on developing new ways of thinking about the multiple, contingent,
networked, and flexible relations between things/places/people that either a new kind of political economy, or
postmodernity, or both, has brought about. This includes concepts such as ‘network society’ (Castells 1996), ‘space of
flows’ (Smith 1996), ‘assemblage’,7 various types of ‘scapes’ (Appadurai 1996), as well as Deleuzian-inspired ideas of
‘rhizome’ and ‘striated space’.8 There have also been analyses of how techniques for representing space and place have
both changed over the years and have influenced how space is thought about and treated.9 And there have been
excellent critical commentaries on space-defying concepts such as ‘global’ and ‘deterritorialization,’ critiques which
question the common habit of describing them as if they were space-less, or as if they were in some other kind of space,
different from the local or the here-and-now.10 In general, the key foci of all this work have been identities/subjectivities,
networks, and/or statecraft (especially as related to one or other new global political economy).
In all of this research, the focus on either abstractions and flexibilities of space and place on the one hand, or on global
(neoliberal) capital on the other, has left the shifting significance of being somewhere in particular, and the multiple
changes in the way relative values of locations are established, under-researched and under-theorised. Moreover, the
strong focus on movement and displacement in recent years has tended to mix together the activity of movement and
travel with its metaphorical meanings (Kaplan (1996)), which has also resulted in under-theorising changes in the
relative values of locations. In contrast, Crosslocations insists that location always matters, and that there is an urgent
need to understand what is happening to it a great deal better than we do at the moment.
Crosslocations rethinks socio-cultural approaches towards the relation between people and place in the
following ways: (1) in focusing on relative location rather than space or place as such, it allows the simultaneous
recognition that the same geographical space can be ascribed multiple locations (diverse relative meanings and values)
which regularly change, while maintaining the socio-cultural importance of being positioned somewhere. (2) It does not
tie questions of location to questions of identity/subjectivity, and thus it allows separate analysis of each. (3) It integrally
builds the idea of relation into the concept of being positioned: location is inherently relational, and so its meaning
always has to involve something other than itself. Logically, location identifies a ‘here’ which cannot be moved to ‘there’
without becoming a different location. (4) It provides a means for analyzing the engagement between diverse locating
regimes, rather than assuming there is an encompassing regime (e.g. global neoliberal capitalism) that determines how
other structures or regimes will operate in any given place. This arises from my previous research both in the Balkan
region and in the Aegean region, which demonstrated that there are rarely, if ever, any structures or ideologies that are
all-encompassing (Green 2015; 2005: Chapter 4; Green 2010a).
4. Key Objectives: (i) Fully develop and test a new theory of relative positioning (‘crosslocation’). (ii) Identify and
explain the socio-cultural implications of the engagement between multiple Mediterranean locating regimes. (iii)
Establish a new way to research relative positioning, which distinguishes the ‘where,’ from the ‘who’. (iv) Develop
innovative means to carry out cross-scalar ethnographic research to study the dynamics of crosslocations. This final
objective is discussed further in the methods section below.
5. The Challenge: how to cope with the Mediterranean – gigantic levels of detail and diversity
In considering the Mediterranean, many find it impossible to imagine successfully understanding the place, though
Braudel did his best (Braudel 1972; Braudel et al. 2001). Horden and Purcell also repeatedly described the impossibility
of adequately covering the subject (Horden and Purcell 2000: 4).
Yet there is a way around this challenge, a means of both researching and understanding region-wide relations and
separations, as well as much more localised ones, and the dynamic interactions between them. My past research on the
Balkans, and my subsequent work on borders provided me with a means to now take the radically different approach I
am proposing. In research on the Balkans (Green 2005), I analysed the different political, social, and conceptual logics
informing the relations between different places (i.e. the question of where places were in relation to elsewhere, rather
e.g. Clifford (1997); Banerjee (2010); Bhabha (1994); Candea (2010); Paasi (2011)
e.g. Harvey (2009); Glick Schiller and Faist (2010); Friedman (2003)
6 e.g. Fortunati et al. (2012); Hakken (2003); Kuntsman (2009)
7 De Landa (2006); Latour (2005)
8 Buchanan and Lambert (2005)
9 e.g. Pickles (2004); Navaro-Yashin (2012); Rumford (2006); van Houtum et al. (2005); Elden (2013); Massey (2005)
10 e.g. Sassen (2008); Moore (2004); Brown (2010)
4
5
3
Green
Part B1
CROSSLOCATIONS
than questions of their identity, as such) in a way that pays close attention to socio-cultural particularities and effects, a
clash between political ideals and how these change historically. In that case, I argued there was a logical clash between
Ottoman ideals that informed the structure of their political administration of empire, and the nationalist ideals that
formed the basis of generating independent states out of the collapse of the Ottoman empire. In recent years, I have
drawn on that insight to good effect in the multi-disciplinary context of border studies, to push forward debates about how
to understand border dynamics (Green 2010b; 2011; 2012; 2013b). I focused on what it is that gives political borders a
sense of ‘border-ness,’ how the sense of something being a border is conveyed in everyday life. I knew from my work on
the Greek-Albanian border that this sense changes historically, along with the logic informing the emplacement of
political borders.
The breakthrough to Crosslocations
Crosslocations is a major departure from my research on borders, in that it moves into the realm of attempting to
understand the located world of which political borders are just one part: political borders turn out to be only one
amongst many locating regimes, a fact that became especially clear to me while researching the complexity and
diversity of European Union border regimes within EastBordNet in recent years (Green 2013a).
The breakthrough was achieved by going back to my earlier work on the apparent complexity of the Balkans and
realising that research which showed that the creation of space and place is enormously complex, shifting and multiple,
while descriptively accurate, had missed two crucial points. First, that the multiplicity is at least partly the result of the coexistence of different logics. And second, that while geographical spaces do not physically move, which is an important
element to being somewhere in particular, their relative positions – their connections or disconnections with other
spaces, and their relative value according to some scale of measurement – do regularly move. Combined with the
realisation that there can be overlapping ‘locating regimes’ in the same geographical space, it became finally obvious
how to completely rethink the dynamics of the relations between people and places: focus on the locating regimes – i.e.,
the politically, historically and often technically and economically, inflected logic that informs where a location is, and
which calibrates its relative value.
Crosslocations is designed to develop a means to analyse and explain the dynamics of these calibrating systems that
set up multiple relative locations in the Mediterranean region and its bits and parts; to understand how they have been
changing, given the fairly radical changes in political, social and economic conditions in recent years (usually
summarised by using terms such as globalisation, neoliberal flexible capitalism, the digital revolution, the network
society, and even ‘post-secularism,’ ‘post-humanism’ and the ‘anthropocene’); and to look at how they work in practice.
The potential gains and the risks
As described above, the potential gains of Crosslocations are truly ground-breaking, both theoretically and in terms of
addressing a current urgent issue: a rigorous approach towards a socio-cultural understanding what is happening in
relations between places and people. The Mediterranean region has been selected for testing this theory for the obvious
reasons described above: it is a location that is defined by its status as a crossroads between sometimes profoundly
diverse places, and which in recent years has been confronted with multiple challenges that are related to changes in
the relative locations of the region and its many bits and parts.
The main risks are: (1) That the concept will prove too difficult to fully demonstrate in a 5-year project in a place as
intricate and entangled as the Mediterranean. I have addressed this question already in describing my approach.
Crosslocations is neither designed nor intended to replace detailed historical and ethnographic accounts. Rather, it is
intended to identify diverse locating regimes operating within, or at least overlapping, the Mediterranean region, and then
ethnographically analyse their socio-cultural dynamics in carefully selected locations. The aim is to both work out the
principles by which diverse locations are established and the dynamics of their mutual engagement in a few selected
areas. There is no aim to describe what the Mediterranean is, as such, for the implications of Crosslocations is that this
is the wrong question to ask. Rather, the aim is to work out the shifting significance of where it is (its multiple and
overlapping locations) and explain the dynamics of how it got there. (2) That current instabilities in the Mediterranean
region will make it impossible to research some elements of the Crosslocations involved. It is indeed likely that some
areas will be either too dangerous, too compromising, for site visits, either by the research team or the photographer.
This is discussed in more in the Ethical Annex, but in intellectual terms, it is not necessary to have access to the entire
region to research these dynamics. (3) That we will be denied access to the technical information we will need to fully
map all the border-related and infrastructural locating regimes crossing the Mediterranean region because of security
issues and commercial sensitivities. While this is a possible issue, it is unlikely to have a serious effect on the progress
of the research. First: the key information required for Crosslocations is not mostly the sensitive information, but instead
the kind that is usually explicitly and publicly shared: the logic and ideals informing the building of an infrastructure, and
the technical details of the places that it serves (often needed to attract trade for commercial companies, and is usually
quite useful for political purposes for state organizations). Second, it is not necessary to map the details of every locating
regime in order to test the premises of Crosslocations. Third: through my previous research on borders, I have
4
Green
Part B1
CROSSLOCATIONS
considerable experience in obtaining relatively inaccessible information.
6. The Crosslocations methodology: combine technical, mapping and visual techniques with intensive
ethnography
The key methodological challenge of this research is a problem of scale: how to deal with the very different scales
at which many of the locating regimes work in relation to people’s everyday lives in the Mediterranean region. I have
encountered this problem before, which has helped in developing a quite radical methodology for Crosslocations.
In collaborative work with a geophysicist, Geoffrey King (as part of the EU-funded ARCHAEOMEDES program) the
problem of scale was enormous. King studied tectonic phenomena and worked in timescales of millions of years,
whereas I dealt with social phenomena whose reach would at most go back a couple of hundred years, depending on
social memory. We had the task of trying to understand patterns of land degradation in the Mediterranean Basin. In
working out how to bring together our very different types of knowledge to help to understand contemporary perceptions
of land degradation, our approach was to try and map (sometimes literally) different epistemologies informing what could
be seen and understood of the landscape: the view from geophysics, the one from anthropology, and a third from the
people living in the area.11 Crucially, we did not assume that one or the other form of knowledge had to encompass the
others – that there had to be some kind of metanarrative that would explain all of them using a separate logic or
knowledge system. Instead, we looked to see how the differently-generated forms of knowledge might be usefully
employed to enhance an understanding of each perspective, without requiring them to be compatible: co-existence
rather than encompassment.
The methodological novelty. The research to identify the locating regimes and then ethnographically study how some
of them work in socio-cultural terms will switch between scales partly in a manner that is analogous to the research I
carried out with Geoffrey King. However, There are two innovations. First, the ethnographers will work collaboratively
with people in other disciplines to develop their precise research plans, informed by their data; and second, the
ethnographers with expertise in north, south and eastern Mediterranean areas will work collaboratively from the
start in developing their projects, with the explicit aim of making their research mutually compatible. Informed by this, the
post-doctoral researchers will identify specific field sites that matches the criteria set both by the technical experts and
the other two ethnographers. This goes far beyond the earlier research with King, which simply accepted that there are
different ways of understanding the same mountain (say), and just looked to see how the diverse knowledge systems
could enhance an understanding of each.12
How it will be done in practice. (a) Identifying Locating Regimes. The first year will be spent identifying the main
locating regimes currently operating in, or overlapping in, the Mediterranean area, describing them, and ‘mapping’ them
(both in terms of their ‘footprints’ – which geographical spaces they encompass, as well as the logic used to develop
them). This will provide both the key core data for the project, as well as train me and other members of the team in any
techniques needed to handle and interrogate the data.
Based on preliminary research, the most important ‘locating regimes’ are likely to be border regimes (EU-based, statebased, and international, especially the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and security measures and protocols; this
section will include migration issues); infrastructures (gas and oil pipelines, road and rail networks, energy grids,
sewage systems, digital network infrastructures, bureaucratic procedures); digital technologies (mobile telephony and
internet, particularly their ‘footprints’); fiscal, financial and trading systems (especially tax regimes, credit and debt
arrangements, and the movement of goods); environmental policies (especially concerning treatment of the
Mediterranean sea’s problems with pollution); and social and religious structures (including issues relating to kinship,
ethnicity and other social identities; and how organized religion configures the meaning and value of relative locations in
the Mediterranean region).
During the first year, I will also develop alternative visualisations of these regimes and their operations. A doctoral
researcher in anthropology will shadow the technical experts in their work and study the material they gather; she/he will
also be trained in mapping techniques. I will also gain technical mapping skills. The PhD researcher will continue
working on the technical and mapping details of the locating regimes for a period of four years.
A professional photographer with whom I have worked on a previous project (Green and Malm 2013) will also gather
visual data of the locating regimes identified by the technical experts. She will carry out five field trips a year for four
years, and then generate an exhibition and book from the results in the fifth year. The purpose of this will be to provide a
visual form of knowledge to complement that being generated by the other researchers.
11
Some results of that collaboration can be found in Green (2005: 31-2 and Chapter 3, "Moving Mountains"); Green and King (1996
and); Green and King (2001).
12
And that is similar to the distinction between analogy and comparison that Strathern makes in Partial Connections (Strathern
2004: 48-55), although what led Strathern to that conclusion was quite different from my own experience of ARCHAEOMEDES.
5
Green
Part B1
CROSSLOCATIONS
(b) Three post-doctoral researchers with expertise both in different parts of the Mediterranean region and in
ethnography will begin research towards the end of the first year. One will take overall responsibility for the North
Mediterranean (Southern Europe), one for the South Mediterranean (north Africa) and one the Eastern
Mediterranean (near East), but each will also specialise in a particular geographical location within these broad areas
and will carry out their own detailed ethnographic research there. (c) In Year 3, the ethnographers will specifically
study the Crosslocations between identified locating regimes. (d) Year 4 will involve crossover research that brings the
post-doctoral researchers together in their three respective field sites. The purpose of this fourth year will be to
track Crosslocations not only within single field sites, but also across such sites. That will enable me to carry out the
most difficult, but also the most innovative part of this research: working out the dynamics of the Crosslocations between
substantially different parts of the Mediterranean region, and most particularly across those which are known to have the
most divisions and separations. (e) The fifth year will be spent carrying out a full analysis of this material, writing it up
individually and then, just as importantly, coming together to co-write a joint report, which will later become a published
book that will demonstrate both how Crosslocations works, and the results for the Mediterranean region. Resources: will
be allocated according to the needs of this research, and will be within the limits set by the ERC.
References
Appadurai, A. 1996. "Global ethnoscapes: Notes and queries for a transnational anthropology." In Modernity at large: cultural
dimensions of globalization, edited by Arjun Appadurai, 48-65. Minneapolis, Minn.; London: University of Minnesota Press.
Banerjee, P. 2010. Borders, histories, existences: gender and beyond. London: SAGE. Bhabha, H.K. 1994. The location of culture.
London: Routledge. Braudel, F. 1972. The Mediterranean and the mediterranean world in the age of Philip II. New York,: Harper &
Row. Braudel, F. 2001. The Mediterranean in the ancient world. London: Allen Lane. Brown, W. 2010. Walled states, waning
sovereignty. New York: Zone. Buchanan, I. & G. Lambert, eds 2005. Deleuze and space. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Candea, M. 2010. Corsican fragments: difference, knowledge, and fieldwork. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press. Castells,
M.1996. The rise of the network society. Malden, Mass; Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Clifford, J.1997. Routes: travel and
translation in the late twentieth century. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. De Landa, M. 2006. A new philosophy of
society: assemblage theory and social complexity. London: Continuum. Elden, S. 2013. The birth of territory. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press. Fortunati, L., R. Pertierra & J. Vincent, eds 2012. Migration, diaspora, and information technology in
global societies. New York: Routledge. Friedman, J., ed. 2003. Globalization, the state and violence. Walnut Creek, Calif.: AltaMira
Press. Glick Schiller, N. & T. Faist, eds 2010. Migration, development, and transnationalization: a critical stance. New York:
Berghahn Books. Green, Sarah. 2005. Notes from the Balkans: locating marginality and ambiguity on the Greek-Albanian border.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. —. 2010a. "Performing Border in the Aegean." Journal of Cultural Economy, 3:2, 261-278.
—. 2010b. "Performing Border in the Aegean: on relocating political, economic and social relations." Journal of Cultural Economy,
3:2, 261-278. —. 2011. "Reciting the future: border relocations and everyday speculations in two Greek border regions." HAU:
Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 2:1, 111-129. —. 2012. "A Sense of Border." In A Companion to Border Studies, T.M. Wilson & H.
Donnan (eds), 573-592. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. —. 2013a. "Borders and the Relocation of Europe." Annual Review of
Anthropology, 42, 345-361. —. 2013b. "Money frontiers: the relative location of euros, Turkish lira and gold sovereigns in the
Aegean." In Objects and Materials: a Routledge Companion, P. Harvey et al (eds), 302-311. Abingdon: Routledge. —. 2015.
"Making Grey Zones at the European Peripheries." In Ethnographies of Grey Zones in Eastern Europe: Relations, Borders and
Invisibilities, I. Harboe Knudsen and M. Demant Frederiksen (eds), 173-186. London: Anthem Press. Green, Sarah & Geoffrey
King. 1996. "The importance of goats to a natural environment: a case study from Epirus (Greece) and Southern Albania." Terra
Nova, 8, 655-658. —. 2001. "Seeing what you know: changing constructions and perceptions of landscape in Epirus, northwestern
Greece, 1945 and 1990." History and Anthropology, 12:3, 255-288. Green, Sarah & Lena Malm. 2013. Borderwork: a visual journey
through peripheral frontier regions. Helsinki: Jasilti. Hakken, D. 2003. The knowledge landscapes of cyberspace. London:
Routledge. Harvey, D. 2009. Cosmopolitanism and the geographies of freedom. New York: Columbia University Press. Horden, P.
& N. Purcell. 2000. The corrupting sea: a study of Mediterranean history. Oxford: Blackwell. Kaplan, C..1996. Questions of travel:
postmodern discourses of displacement. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press. Kølvraa, C. & J. Ifversen. 2011. "The European
Neighbourhood Policy: geopolitics or value export?" In The Frontiers of Europe: a transatlantic problem?, in F.M. Bindi & I.
Angelescu (eds), Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press. Kuntsman, A. 2009. Figurations of violence and belonging:
queerness, migranthood and nationalism in cyberspace and beyond. Bern: Peter Lang. Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the social:
an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Massey, D.B. 2005. For space. London: Sage. Moore,
H.L. 2004. "Global anxieties: concept-metaphors and pre-theoretical commitments in anthropology." Anthropological Theory, 4:1, 7188. Navaro-Yashin, Y. 2012. The make-believe space: affective geography in a postwar polity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Ong, A. & S.J. Collier, eds 2005. Global assemblages : technology, politics, and ethics as anthropological problems. Oxford:
Blackwell. Paasi, A. 2011. "A Border Theory: an Unattainable Dream or a Ralistic Aim for Border Scholars?" In The Ashgate
research companion to border studies, D. Wastl-Walter (ed), 11-32. Farnham: Ashgate. Pickles, J. 2004. A history of spaces:
cartographic reason, mapping, and the geo-coded world. London: Routledge. Rumford, C. 2006. "Rethinking European Spaces:
Territory, Borders, Governance." Comparative European Politics, 4, 127-140. Sassen, S. 2007. Deciphering the global: its scales,
spaces and subjects. London: Routledge. —. 2008. Territory, authority, rights : from medieval to global assemblages. Princeton,
N.J.: Princeton University Press. Smith, N. 1996. "The space of flows and the politics of scale." Critique of Anthropology, 16:1, 6377. Stiglitz, J. 2003. Globalization and its discontents. New York ; London: W.W. Norton & Co. Strathern, M. 2004. Partial
connections. Oxford: AltaMira Press. Trouillot, M-R. 2003. Global transformations: anthropology and the modern world. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan. Tsing, A. L. 2005. Friction: an ethnography of global connection. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
van Houtum, H. O.T. Kramsch & W. Zierhofer, eds 2005. B/Ordering space. Aldershot: Ashgate.
6