From Border as Method of Capital to Borderscape as a Method for a Geographical Opposition to Capitalism

In the introduction of his article, Brambilla observes the lack of critical reflection on the link between capitalism and territory. In this respect, she refers to Neil Smith (2008) who argues that capitalism survived the 20th century because the specific development of space led to the unequal development of landscapes, which is an essential condition for capitalism to thrive. Brambilla stresses that this unequally developed landscape is also based on key geographical concepts such as “borders” and “landscapes” as well as on the way they structure the world. She concludes that geography should also offer alternative concepts able to oppose capitalism. In her article, she questions the mutual impacts between capitalism and geography, while attempting to produce an alternative perspective with the borderscape concept.
She explains the relations between State, border and capital by reference to Mezzadra and Neilson (2013), Harvey (2014) and Agnew (1994). Mezzadra and Neilson consider the border as a capitalist method on the one hand, and as an epistemological method on the other hand. This double notion allows for a critical examination of the complex relation between modern States and capitalism. According to Harvey, the creation of political borders led to the control of people, goods and money crossing over them. For this reason, State and capital often feature contradictory spatialities, e.g. with regard to migratory policies. Agnew’s concept of a “territorial trap” refers to the modern geographical vision by which borders are natural and static lines which therefore limit State law and sovereignty. According to Andrew, this border epistemology centred on the State leads to territorial fixity and binary oppositions, such as internal/external or centre/outskirts, which in turn contribute to the unequal development of the landscapes connecting State and capital.  Brambilla now suggests that borders should no longer be limited to political geographical lines between States, but should be thought over by taking into account its multidimensional meanings in order to lead to a more complex perception of the relations between State and capital.  Brambilla’s concept leads to a heterogeneous geography of globalised spaces within which borders can constitute the starting point of theoretical and empirical reflections allowing for a better understanding of modern capitalism.
Like Turri (2008) and Turco (2010), she sees the landscape as an intermediary between humans and territories, as a cultural process and as communication capital. Landscapes reflect the social conflicts characterising global capitalist geographies. They can also be perceived as a liminal space, characterised by movement and transformation, and could also potentially shed a light on the link between territory, borders and capital.
Finally, Brambilla develops her “borderscape” concept, which offers a method to oppose capitalism geographically. This concept is conceptualised with reference to the various “scape” notions which Appadurai (1996) understands as the dimensions of “global cultural flows”. For Brambilla, this “scape” notion allows for the representation of the fluid and unequal shapes of globalised landscapes. This is also the way she considers the borderscape: a processual and de-territorial border concept and the associated practices. The “borderscape” notion is still in the making, expressing spaces and times typical of global capitalism. At the same time, it is a shared resource which can constitute a place of anti-capitalist resistance. In conclusion, Brambilla explains that the borderscape can become a place generating new political spaces opposing globalised capitalist geographies, which implies the necessity to think over relations between space and political matters.