Abstract
The empirical focus of Natasha King’s book is on groups articulating a ‘no borders’ politics – a refusal of restrictions to freedom of movement – in Athens and Calais. They include ‘The 300’ hunger strikers from Crete, Calais Migrant Solidarity, the Network of Support to Refugees and Migrants (part of the Greek anti-racist movement), and the Greek anti-authoritarian movement. Conceptually, the issues raised relate to what in state-centric terminology are the activities of ‘irregular’ or ‘illegal’ migrants, or people who move without permission. Focusing on mobility (prioritizing migrant agency) rather than control, King argues we must adopt critical language beyond state definitions of ‘migrants’, such as, in Calais, ‘people trying to cross’ or ‘people living in the jungle’, and, in Athens, ‘people without papers’. That is not to say, however, the state no longer matters, which it does in tangible ways, like making and upholding borders, granting and denying entry. Herein lies one of several dilemmas King addresses in the book, namely the fundamental tension that exists between practices seeking autonomy and escape from the state, and representational practices seeking to engage the state and transform it.
The difference between these two forms of collective action is reflected respectively in the distinction between the autonomy of migration approach and the acts of citizenship approach. In Athens, an apartment of people without papers provides a small example of autonomy. It was a place of mutual support, of sharing limited resources, and of safety from racially motivated street and state violence. As a space for people not supposed to be there, it involved practices of escape, creating a small community of those denied equality. Ultimately, King proposes, ‘the apartment was an important node in the mobile commons’ (p. 84). Likewise, she says, the migrant camps or jungles of Calais ‘are important hubs in the mobile commons’ (p. 107). King examines one such jungle called Tioxide; so named because of its proximity to a chemical works. She describes it as a place of life, creativity and beauty, but primarily a ‘community of care’ able to meet people’s needs collectively and cooperatively in the face of conflict and limited resources (pp.107–8). While she does not want to romanticize the jungle, which was a volatile, squalid and degrading place for some, King says, ‘the mobile commons existed there despite all this’ (p. 109, original emphasis).
Importantly, while people reproduce the mobile commons as a means of escaping state control, they are also trying to escape the mobile commons and the exclusion that entails (p. 131). That is why, for some, engagement with the state via acts of citizenship is regarded more productive. For instance, the campaign of ‘The 300’ hunger strikers in Greece ‘put the issue of legalization and migrant rights back on the political agenda’ (p. 98). Allied with the Network of Support to Refugees and Migrants, ‘the strikers’ demands for rights resonated with an approach that sought to challenge the structures of domination through demands for recognition’ (p. 93). In the end, the government was forced to engage with the strikers and give in to some of their demands, ‘and in the process recognize them as political actors’ (p. 138). The hunger strike therefore ‘created something that transformed the political terrain; that brought new possibilities into being’ (p. 91).
To effect political change, the hunger strikers and their allies had to speak the language of dominant power (p. 139), and engage in things like media and legal work (p. 93). By contrast, groups like the apartment practised a form of prefigurative politics oriented towards autonomy and negation of the state. Although early in the book King says she does not want to rely on a single theory to understand the diverse no borders movement (p. 9), and doubts the usefulness of the social movement studies lens for grappling with the diversity of the movement (p. 27), social movement scholars will nevertheless be familiar with the autonomy-engagement dilemma highlighted by King. Indeed, the book is replete with issues pertinent to social movement studies and, in particular, the work of Alberto Melucci.
First, there is what King identifies as a ‘dilemma of solidarity’ (p. 22), that is, how to coexist with other groups having different perspectives while remaining faithful to your own struggle. Related to that is the problem heterogeneity poses for building a collective identity, which, in communities seeking autonomy, does not enable the articulation of a ‘we’ very easily (p. 149). Secondly, King’s description of places like Calais’ jungles as nodes in the mobile commons, experimenting in cooperation and sharing, is reminiscent of Melucci’s depiction of movements as ‘cultural laboratories’. Also like Melucci, King shows how in contrast to more visible movements seeking political inclusion, subterranean communities striving to retain their autonomy rely on remaining invisible, and that the autonomy of migration is undermined when they become visible (p. 128).
Lastly, there are similarities with Melucci’s idea that because contemporary movements aim to challenge dominant cultural codes, it is their organizational form – the medium or movement itself – that is the message. Hence, to King, the apartment, for example, makes no proclamations except in its presence, simply saying: ‘we are here, and we will make our way regardless’ (p. 84). While she does not refer to Melucci or the social movement literature when making these various points, King’s book nonetheless provides a rich source of information about how the no borders movement matters to social movement studies; not least in highlighting the ongoing tensions that exist for activists in this field (as others) between movement autonomy and political incorporation.