On borders’ multiplicity: A perspective from assemblage theory

Openness to critical social theory and interdisciplinary research has allowed the field of border studies to develop significantly. Borders are no longer considered as static political and territorial lines: they are multiple in nature and are characterised among other things by various socio-cultural practices, as is the discourse in this respect. Borders are therefore fluid and multifaceted structures which illustrate both geopolitical issues and daily practices. In his article, Sohn applies the assemblage concept, which was developed by philosophers Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari (1987) to the border in order to achieve a better understanding of its ontological multidimensionality (p. 1).

The border is often seen as a synecdoche, which means that its representation is limited to merely one of its functions, such as exclusion, or that a whole system, such as State surveillance, is assimilated to a partial aspect, namely the border (p. 4). The author criticises this essentialisation of the border and its limitation to a function of exclusion and division function on the one hand and of openness and connection on the other hand. While the concept of a borderless world was theorised in the 1990s following globalisation and the general development of the neoliberal economic system (p.3), the concept of omnipresent borders essentially appeared in the 2000s with the strengthening of border controls, which no longer apply solely to external State borders. According to Sohn, this approach to borders is simplistic and does not take into account its multiple roles and significations, nor its multidimensional and changing nature (p.4). A border does not exist in itself, but solely through the meaning assigned to it; it is determined by the links between meanings and practices, as well as by the manner in which such practices gain more influence and legitimacy. It is through this relational approach to borders that Sohn sees the opportunity to better understand them (p. 5). The author uses the assemblage theory as a “conceptual toolbox” which contributes to perceiving the complexity of borders (p. 6). He mentions four characteristics of the assemblage approach which can apply to borders.

1. An assemblage is constituted by heterogeneous groups composed of different parts which do not form a consistent whole. In a similar manner, borders are composed of very different elements and practices, such as physical infrastructures, control practices and purposes, surveillance technology, transportation networks etc. Furthermore, a border can be present in different locations, areas and networks simultaneously; it can be strengthened and shaped through rituals, symbols, practices and physical entities (ebd.).
2. Assemblage elements are linked by relations which can be described as “contingently obligatory” rather than “logically necessary” (p. 7). Some pieces of the assemblage can also detach themselves and establish links with other assemblages. Therefore, rather than seeking to define what a border is, one should seek to define what constitutes a border, with a particular focus on how it is modified by new or disappearing practices and relations (ebd.).
3. The assemblage perspective focuses on processes and transformations rather than on form and structure. These transformation processes are referred to as territorialisations and de-/re-territorialisations. With regard to borders, this means they are not static entities but are subject to a permanent development process within which the practices which constitute a border, which are repetitive and institutionalised, tend to stabilise it (territorialisation), whereas other processes, such as cross-border regionalisation or the smuggling of goods, may tend to destabilise it (deterritorialisation) (ebd.).
4. The assemblages and their parts are related to what Deleuze and Guattari refer to as being virtual and up to date (ebd.), which means the properties of the assemblage components correspond to updated characteristics, whereas their abilities are virtual and therefore likely to become real. For example, an updated border assemblage characteristic could be the ability to control immigration. Should the border opening ability be updated, the border assemblage would be modified and other border characteristics would emerge (p. 8).

In conclusion, Sohn explores the role of power relations and borders, which appear in a different light from the perspective of assemblages (p. 8). The primary focus is no longer the State and its decision-making power with regard to borders, but the power or ability of individual parties to influence and negotiate the meanings, practices and movements linked to borders (ebd.). This opens up new flexible and multidimensional perspectives with regard to border research.