DOROTHEA MüLLER'S BOOKS. L.A. Guards by Amélie Duval. Verführerische Sehnsucht by Kate Sunday. Die Wandlung Des Eisbaren by Eve Langlais.
Table of contents
- Register Now
- War, Violence, and Population: Making the Body Count
- One Night In His Bed Christina Hollis Kindle Store
- Pedigree QUESTION!!!!!! - Page 2 - German Shepherd Dog Forums
Does it matter that Nico Von der graf in my females pedigree the bottom one I know not much of inbreeding if you would even call it that and how far back it matters or not? Quote message in reply? In order to be able to post messages on the German Shepherd Dog Forums forums, you must first register. Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below. BB code is On. For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome.
Remove Advertisements Sponsored Links. Page 2 of 2. Options Quote message in reply? Password Please enter a password for your user account. Gerald Tyner and Dr. Even after all these years, they continue to provide invaluable support and encouragement. Thanks also to my brother, David, and my aunt, Karen.
Still closer to home, I thank my wife, Belinda, for her support and inspiration. Given my double faults of procrastination and absent-mindedness, I would not be able to function without Belinda. Special thanks are extended to our daughters, Jessica and Anica Lyn. They are still very young—just 6 and 7 years old, respectively. Now, their problems center on broken toys, or of trying to stay up past bedtime. I hope, in some way, that this book will help them understand their ever-expanding world, and that this book will contribute to the ongoing discussions and initiatives to bring about a more peaceful world, not only for my children, but for all children.
And it is because of this hope that I dedicate this book to Jessie and Anica. The Cambodian Genocide Program, based at Yale University, maintains a database of prisons, mass-grave sites—including approximately 19, grave pits—and 76 sites of post memorials to the victims of the genocide During the years of the Khmer Rouge — , Democratic Kampuchea—as Cambodia was then called—witnessed a genocide of remarkable proportions see Chandler, ; Kiernan, An estimated one to three million people, out of a base population of perhaps eight million, died from starvation, disease, and execution.
The peacefulness and solitude of Choeung Ek today belie its horrific past, a history that nonetheless may be tangibly grasped upon closer inspection. The landscape at Choeung Ek is a rolling field of grass-covered mass graves—86 in all. A marker at Grave No. Traitors to the party. Nearby, at Grave No. On the edge of a slight depression I knelt down. Embedded in the dry, dusty earth was a piece of faded cloth: I looked closer at the ground and saw more pieces of cloth. Pieces of bone fragments bleached by the sun, vivid reminders of the horrors that occurred here.
Some of the pits—such as Graves Nos. The mounds and depressions remain as earthen memorials to the dehumanizing practices of the Khmer Rouge. Nearby is a gnarled chankiri tree. Surrounding the trunk are small, white kernels: Hundreds of baby teeth glittering in the sunlight. During the genocide, the Khmer Rouge simply smashed infants and small children against trees—a technique cheaper than using bullets. And for what reason? It was death by association. Visually, Choeung Ek is dominated by a tall, glass-faced, stupashaped mausoleum that has been erected to commemorate those who died.
Approximately 9, skulls and other human remains are arranged, tier upon tier, organized by age and sex. Most of the skulls reveal visible fractures, cuts, or bullet holes. The display is a grim visualization of the demographics of death. While the Khmer Rouge were in power, prisoners from Tuol Sleng—a former school converted into a secret interrogation and torture facility—were trucked to a Chinese graveyard: According to David Chandler The number of people executed at Choeung Ek on a daily basis varied from a few dozen to over Trucks would arrive, often at night, carrying three or four guards and perhaps 20 to 30 prisoners.
Those condemned would assemble in a small building where their names were verified against an execution list. Prisoners were then led in small groups to ditches and pits that had been dug earlier by workers stationed at Choeung Ek. Him Huy, a former Khmer Rouge guard, describes the scene: Their hands were tied behind them.
They were beaten on the neck with an iron ox-cart axle, sometimes with one blow, sometimes with two. One of the most chilling aspects of the Cambodian genocide, and similar to the Holocaust, was the systematic management of torture and executions. The prison at Tuol Sleng, for example, contained three main Journeys from the Killing Fields 3 units: Between April and January at least 14, men, women, and children were held at Tuol Sleng; only seven are known to have survived.
On leaving Choeung Ek I was surrounded by a half dozen Cambodian children. Their faces were dirty, their clothes tattered. With hands outstretched, they asked for dollars. These children embody the past, present, and future of Cambodia—as well as dozens of other war-ravaged countries. As Cambodia begins the 21st century, its population continues to struggle with its past. Today, approximately 97 per 1, infants in Cambodia will die before their first birthday.
The under-5 mortality rate is estimated to be as high as per 1, live births and the maternal mortality ratio is per , live births; some hospitals report rates in excess of The lifetime risk for Cambodian women of dying from maternal causes is 1 in 50 Yanagisawa, Most women and children die from preventable diseases, compounded by an ill-equipped medical system.
Many more people are grievously injured or killed as a result of land mines or unexploded ordinance. During the reign of the Khmer Rouge there was a saying: If you die there is no loss. The phrase speaks to the wanton disregard for human life, the indiscriminate killing of human beings, the discipline of individual bodies, and the regulation of populations. Restricting their study to just one year , they found an estimated 1. Overall, their findings reveal that violence-related deaths were highest in sub-Saharan Africa and lowest in the established market economies.
- Hush Money (Talent Chronicles Book 1).
- War, Violence, and Population: Making the Body Count - PDF Free Download.
- Register Now.
Indeed, violence accounted for a greater proportion of total deaths in sub-Saharan African than in any other region of the world Reza et al. Among their various other findings, Reza and colleagues The Reza and colleagues study is important for two main reasons. First, it strikes at the heart of my concerns, namely, the geography of population. Second, it highlights one particular form of oppression that is often overlooked by theorists of social justice: Members of some groups, often times marginalized, such as gays and lesbians, are subject to harassment, intimidation, physical and verbal abuse, and murder.
And geographers have made substantial contributions to this area of study Koskela and Pain, ; Pain, ; Valentine, However, despite the scale and scope of violent acts, Young p. She suggests that violence and harassment are usually viewed at the level of the individual, as singular acts perpetrated by people; violence typically is not viewed as involving institutions as found in the exploitation of groups structural inequalities in the capitalist division of labor or marginalization resultant from systemic racial prejudices or patriarchy.
And yet, for Young p. What makes Journeys from the Killing Fields 5 violence a phenomena of social injustice, and not merely an individual moral wrong, is its systematic character, its existence as a social system. Making the Body Count is both narrow and broad. Numerous review articles and books exist on this subject and I believe that the field is well plowed see, for example, Bailey, ; Gober and Tyner, ; White et al. More broadly, this book is an attempt to promote solidarity between those scholars geographers and nongeographers who are fundamentally concerned with questions of social justice and those who are interested in the discipline of populations.
Considerable work within academia, both inside and outside of geography, is being conducted on population-related issues. Why is this salient? I believe there are two reasons. First, I agree that academic labels are not terribly relevant—unless one is speaking to a university administrator. Throughout my academic career, for example, I have been labeled both by myself and by others as a population geographer, a political geographer, a social geographer, a gender geographer, and an Asian geographer.
Certainly the bulk of my work, both research and teaching, falls under these categories, but I would be hardpressed to separate any particular article or book into just one domain. My writings on the politics of gendered Philippine labor migration, for example, overlap easily in all of the aforementioned subdisciplines of geography. Knowledge is produced not discovered within these communities and it is necessary to understand the construction of these knowledges. In other words, communities of scholars contribute to discursive formations, and it is through an understanding of these formations that we may better understand why some questions are asked as opposed to others.
As I demonstrate throughout this book, many areas of study—such as sexuality—have been excluded from population geography or geography more generally because they are not considered part of the field. And yet, outside of the circumscribed field of population geography, we find many scholars forwarding important contributions to the study of population-related issues, many of which do in fact fall within the traditional domain of population geography.
These include war-related deaths and rapes, aerial bombing campaigns, or state-sanctioned terrorism. My questions thus echo those working in feminist and queer studies, those who study critical race theory and Marxism, and those informed by poststructuralism and postcolonialism. Consequently, War, Violence, and Population: Making the Body Count speaks to one audience; this audience is not composed of population geographers or nonpopulation geographers.
It is composed of those who want to intervene in the struggle against societal injustices and specifically violence. My hope is to maintain a balance between being critical and being complimentary. On the one hand, I want to acknowledge the significant contributions of earlier work. Research does not proceed in a vacuum. On the other hand, there is space to expand, clarify, or even to forsake certain ideas, attitudes, or avenues of research. I agree, in part, with Don Mitchell Wilbur Zelinsky, in , asked: How many and what sorts of people inhabit different parts of the world?
What meanings lie behind these areal patterns? These questions dominated conventional population geography for the better part of four decades.
War, Violence, and Population: Making the Body Count
It is time, however, to concentrate on other questions, questions that grapple with the killing fields of Cam- Journeys from the Killing Fields 7 bodia and the rape of Tutsi women. How, for example, is space manipulated to facilitate the disciplining of people? For what purposes are populations constructed and subsequently regulated by institutions? How are the so-called demographic events of fertility, mortality, and migration modified for political and economic purposes?
Before setting off, however, a roadmap is in order. The remainder of this chapter is a lengthy and rather winding path that will visit the various themes and concepts that guide subsequent chapters. Next I provide the basis for a philosophical reorientation, one that is buttressed by insights provided by poststructuralism and postcolonialism.
I argue that population geography must place the body at the center of its concerns. Fourth, and consistent with my concern with violence, war, and genocide, I provide an overview of violence and the spaces of moral exclusion. Lastly, I return to where I began, the killing fields of Cambodia, and reaffirm why I write and why I argue that a retheorized population geography is required. Specifically, it was their contention that population geography had remained steadfastly isolated from current theoretical debates in human geography and that any serious engagement with feminism, structuration theory, postmodernism, or postcolonial studies was all but absent.
Population geographers, White and Jackson The answer, of course, is complex and multifaceted. It is population which furnishes the focus. Geography was the study of areal differentiation and the focus was largely anthropocentric. Population, with a focus on resources, would provide the link between physical and cultural geography. Instead, as Bailey Distribution patterns and arithmetic densities alone were insufficient; instead, he suggested that population geographers study a gamut of characteristics, including areal natality and mortality patterns and differentials; areal change and variability of population; age pyramids as indicators of future growth; areal patterns involving crude rates of natural increase and net reproduction rates; population distribution by settlement types; patterns of migration; and qualities of population for example, body size, form, color, sex balance, health and disease, marital status, customs, and so forth and their regional patterns of distribution pp.
By the s several population geography texts had appeared and the number of population-related papers at the annual meetings of the AAG steadily increased Jones, First, Zelinsky linked population geography to broader social agendas. In his conclusion, for example, Zelinsky p.
Little as yet has been done in this direction, but it is safe to predict that geographers will soon become immersed in such problems as how population structures and dynamics act differently in different places to affect habitat and resources; how the population factor reacts upon the economic behavior of a community and, particularly, the type and direction of its current economic development; its impact upon the political and other aspects of social geography; and the effects of changing population characteristics upon the basic structure of the total culture.
Third, Zelinsky believed that culture was the key element in an account of population geography. Fourth, he stressed the development of appropriate methodologies. These were largely positivist, with the mapping of population attributes assuming a key role. For practical purposes, we may equate the resulting list of human characteristics [to be studied] with those appearing in the census enumeration schedules and vital registration systems. These are such facts as can be quickly and reliably collected from individual respondents by enumerators or registrars with only a moderate amount of training.
Journeys from the Killing Fields 11 Zelinsky p. By the early s, Bailey The field was moving from inductive to deductive ways of contributing positivist knowledge and had made some brief forays into feminist and political economic literatures. It had contributed both macro-level and, increasingly, micro-level analyses of population behaviors, notably migration. In a survey of articles that appeared in the Annals of the Association of American Geographers, the Geographical Review, and the Professional Geographer, White and his coauthors noted that 77 10 percent focused on population-related topics.
Furthermore, they noted that there was an increased use of inferential statistics and quantitative methods, although more than half of the articles were essentially descriptive or review pieces. In their conclusion, White and colleagues p. Geographers might disagree about the most significant topics within population geography, the most appropriate research questions, and certainly the most appropriate research methodologies.
However, it is clear that despite these honest differences, population-geography research has grown rapidly since , and shows no signs of slowing. Undoubtedly, population geography is pivotal to an understanding of the cultural landscape. First, there is no mention of philosophical sea changes within population geography, nor is there any sense that such a philosophical reorientation is necessary.
Population geography, for over three decades, had been dominated by empiricist and positivist approaches. And while there was a call for greater social relevancy, there was no indication that this entailed either an epistemological or an ontological change. Second, the legacy of Zelinsky remained. Population geography had a mission to facilitate an understanding of the cultural landscape and the areal differentiation of demographic events.
Third, and perhaps most salient, is the overall optimistic spirit of the review. If there were concerns over the current health and future prognosis for population geography, the symptoms were not identified. Nonetheless, it is remarkable to juxtapose the White et al. It is also extremely important to note that many of the challenges to population geography originated not in the United States, but in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
Journeys from the Killing Fields 13 Population geography, by the late s and early s, had reached a crossroads Bailey, Some population geographers advocated a continuity in focus and approach; a second group of population geographers saw the field as supporting pluralistic approaches to familiar topics; and a third, more critical, group pressed for a radical shift in the field to include more explicitly recent developments in feminist and social theory.
Unfortunately, as Bailey p. A call went out for population geographers to engage in the broader debates that permeated other disciplines, namely, an incorporation with social theory. One early call was for a direct engagement with feminist thought. In Ruth Fincher addressed the importance of gender relations and the geography of migration.
But any direct and explicit engagement with gender was lacking. Fincher was forced to look elsewhere. In conclusion, Fincher pp. Nearly a decade later Elspeth Graham and Paul Boyle Such a pessimistic overview may be overstated. There are, in fact, many young particular female scholars who have successfully escaped established norms and have moved beyond the traditional and limited confines of population geography.
Rachel Silvey , for example, finds that critical geography has assessed, among other topics, the interconnections of gender-differentiated migration processes Tyner, , ; the construction of citizenship and transnationalism for example, Bailey et al. For me, this raises two key issues.
On the one hand, ongoing work is testimony to the salience of topics that broadly fall within the realm of population studies, including the trinity of fertility, mortality, and migration. On the other hand, the unwillingness to be identified as a population geographer suggests something of the use of labels and categories to define our work. For a retheorized population geography, it is imperative to critically evaluate the philosophical underpinnings of our work. Why have certain questions been asked by demographers, population geographers, and other researchers concerned with population-related topics?
Why are other questions and topics seemingly shunned? Often, the asking of these questions will reveal a particular understanding or belief about the way in which the world works, and the way in which future worlds should be. Population geography and demography have almost always been empirical disciplines. Indeed, writing of demography specifically, Caldwell maintains that population studies are somewhat unique in their adherence to 19th-century positivist attitudes throughout the 20th century. I propose a population geography situated within a context of poststructural and postcolonial ontology and epistemology.
Poststructuralism, first, refers to a collection of theories based largely on the writings of Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Roland Barthes, and Judith Butler, among others. Poststructuralism—and, relatedly, some feminist theory and queer theory—forwards the idea that all knowledges are partial and situated. All knowledge-claims, and hence all truth-claims, are contextual, contingent, and often contested.
Poststructuralists thus are interested in how some knowledge-claims come to be seen as natural, normal, and truthful. Postcolonialism, relatedly, provides a critique of knowledge. However, postcolonialism more specifically has been concerned with the elaboration of theoretical structures that contest the dominance of Western ways of approaching knowledge Young, Postcolonialists, according to Young Social theory is radical; it is revolutionary. Social theory seeks to disrupt meanings, to challenge authority, and to advocate change that are largely socialist in orientation.
Postcolonial and poststructural perspectives critique the status quo, one that is still dominated largely by structures of patriarchy, white privilege, Eurocentrism, and heterosexual normativities. Academia in general and geography in particular—despite repeated claims by certain political administrations—are very conservative institutions. Change comes slowly, in part because those in the mainstream are not willing to relinquish their hegemonic positions.
It threatens privilege and power. It refuses to acknowledge the superiority of western cultures.
- The Great Famine: Northern Europe in the Early Fourteenth Century!
- The Fugitive Race: Minority Writers Resisting Whiteness!
- Other Books in This Series.
- The Alien Codex.
Its radical agenda is to demand equality and well-being for all human beings on this earth. Why are some subjects addressed for example, the geographic variation of fertility differentials while others are not? Established practices in academic disciplines, David Sibley writes, favor the cautious and the conservative.
The concerns of Sibley reverberate throughout discussions of academia and the conduct of research. In other words, what research questions are considered appropriate for study? As Matt Bradshaw and Elaine Stratford We are all members of interpretive communities that involve established disciplines with relatively defined and stable areas of interest, theory, and research methods and techniques.
If one were to ask what is the subject matter of population geography, one would get a relatively straightforward answer. By convention, most population geographers study population-related events, namely, fertility, mortality, or migration. It is ironic that population geographers rarely study people. Indeed, as John McKendrick McKendrick notes that practitioners generally are concerned with the standardized classifications that are routinely deployed.
The more one deviates from an established position, the more one is likely to be marginalized from the interpretive community. Consequently, those scholars who work outside the accepted boundaries may be subjected to various forms of exclusion, harassment, or potentially even violence Dear, ; Longhurst, ; Valentine, Consider, for example, the topic of sexuality. Given the traditional domains of population studies—most especially fertility and nuptuality—one would assume that population geographers would have much to say on the topic of sex and sexuality.
And yet, as Chris Philo The dominant interpretive community of population geographers has not, in general, deemed sexuality a fundamental area of enquiry. Sex acts, what sex itself entails in its many possible permutations, but also the specifics of how sex is translated into the discourses of medicine, health and public policy: Beginning in the late s and continuing especially throughout the s, a handful of remarkable individuals, including David Harvey, Gordon Clark, Michael Dear, Richard Peet, William Bunge, Ron Horvath, Wilber Zelinsky, Susan Hanson, and Janice Monk, among others, attempted to incorporate diverse perspectives into the field.
In Wilbur Zelinsky brought attention to the existence of gender inequalities within geography. In the late s Richard Peet, Michael Dear, and Gordon Clark, in particular, waged a lengthy war of words regarding the future of radical geography see Clark and Dear, ; Peet, , The incorporation of feminist and Marxist thought, however, was not merely ignored; indeed, it was vehemently attacked. If we admit the first two, on what basis do we exclude the next? It has nothing to do with geography as such and should be excluded from our meetings as irrelevant to geography. When engaging in their gay behavior they are not acting as geographers.
Our exclusion of such groups cannot be taken as a moralistic stand on the part of the Association, but simply as a professional one. The comments of Carter were not isolated see, for example, the commentary by Wolf Roder, ; nor are these attitudes absent from contemporary research. Given such a climate, is it any wonder that some academics may self-censor their research questions? The history of geography indeed reveals itself to be a contestation of inclusion or exclusion: What counts as legitimate scholarship?
What topics are acceptable? Both poststructuralism and postcolonialism are concerned with the construction of knowledge and the attendant truth-claims that are forwarded to justify certain actions for example, colonial policies and practices. These claims may be those of American military strategists conducting war in Vietnam, or the Khmer Rouge and Hutu extremists justifying the slaughter of thousands upon thousands of men, women, and children.
Likewise, these claims may be those of a few practitioners of geography in their attempt to establish normative standards for generations to come. Consequently, I find in both approaches postcolonialism and poststructuralism an opportunity to set a new agenda for population geography. Therefore, to rephrase my opening statement to this section, What is the subject matter of population geography to be? One such approach is a population geography that is sympathetic to the concerns of social justice, violence, and the building of peace.
As such, it must by necessity begin with the body. Population geography should focus, first and foremost, attention on the body. Such a repositioning would place the field in line with recent advances in social theory, and especially those informed by poststructuralism and postcolonialism. As Linda McDowell Too often population geographers continue to uncritically use and refine standard demographic analyses Graham, ; Underhill-Sem, Such uncritical usage is found within the genealogy of population studies and an academic inertia that has stunted the asking of alternative questions.
Recently Chris Philo , and Stephen Legg have argued for the importance of a Foucauldian engagement with population geography. In fact, it is already one of the prime effects of power that certain bodies, certain gestures, certain discourses, certain desires, come to be identified and constituted as individuals. This is an ontological position that critiques biological essentialism and the belief in a transcendental subject. The individual, with his [sic] identity and characteristics, is the product of a relation of power exercised over bodies, multiplicities, movements, desires, forces.
In this way, men and women, to continue the example, literally embody norms of masculinity and femininity—or Journeys from the Killing Fields 23 are assumed to embody or are expected to embody them Domosh and Seager, Instead, the body, along with social laws, nature, and the self, is seen as always open to history and culture, and always negotiable and changing.
Instead of one truth of the body or of ontology, there are competing truths that are productions of time, space, geography, and culture. That said, it is important to not lose sight of the materiality of the body. Indeed, as McDowell p. The challenge, as Yvonne Underhill-Sem The subjected body, according to Foucault This political investment of the body is bound up in accordance with complex reciprocal relations, with its economic use: Discipline, according to Foucault The subjugation of bodies, however, is not necessarily repressive.
Indeed, Foucault goes to great lengths to show that the exercise of power through discipline is often very productive. The question, of course, is: Who benefits from any particular exercise of power? A well-known example is the discipline meted out by parents to their children.
Children must be taught to look before crossing a street, to not touch a hot stove, and so forth. Discipline, in this context, is restrictive, yes. But it is probably understood that this, in the long run, is a beneficial form of discipline for the child.
The point, therefore, is to consider the context and the contingency of discipline. Discipline, from a Foucauldian perspective, is not random. Instead, disciplinary techniques are used for specific purposes by specific individuals, groups, or institutions. Discipline, though, is directed at bodies. As explained by Foucault This occurs, in general, through the classification of bodies into larger collectives, including both social groups and populations. Population as a term is thus dependent on the establishment of practical equivalences among subjects, objects, or events Curtis, It is concerned with aggregates and regularities.
As an object of knowledge, population is primarily a statistical artefact.
The establishment of practical equivalences means that population is connected to the law of large numbers, which causes individual variation to disappear in favour of regularity. Population makes it possible to identify regularities. It is only on the grounds of constructed and enforced equivalences that one body comes to equal another, that each death, birth, marriage, divorce, and so on, comes to be the equivalent of any other.
Population is coincident with the effective capacity of sovereign authority to discipline social relations. Furthermore, the scientific study of population—as manifested in the writings of John Graunt, William Petty, William Farr, and Thomas Malthus—coincided with an ideological shift concerning the nature of governance.
In particular, governments increasingly supplemented their concern with singular bodies with that of whole populations. As Stephen Legg There emerged the concept of a population, a large body of people constituting some kind of definable unit to which measurements pertain Caldwell, Population-related issues had long occupied human thought. From Plato to Confucius, from St.
Thomas Aquinas, philosophers and political theorists considered the implications of population growth and stability as matters of society and governance. However, it was only during the Renaissance that governments finally undertook the collection of population data, and that statistical studies based on these data were rapidly improved James and Martin, The timing was not happenstance.
The elaboration of a notion of the population was a gradual process that was both technical and theoretical, relying on the development of statistics and census taking, and the techniques of epidemiology, demography, and political philosophy Dean, The emergent field of demography blossomed during postfeudalistic Europe for several interrelated reasons. First, the economic changes that accompanied the period were vitally important to the development of population studies.
In particular, disciplinary control and knowledge of bodies and populations were unquestionably connected to the rise of capitalism Dreyfus and Rabinow, Colonialism was fundamental to mercantilism. Colonies provided instant wealth, access to resources, cheap labor in the form of indentured servitude and slavery, and ready-made markets Weeks, Merchant capitalism was a self-propelling growth system in which the continued expansion of trade was vital: Consequently, mercantilist writers sought to encourage population growth by a number of means, including penalties for nonmarriage, encouragements to get married, lessening penalties for illegitimate births, limiting outmigration, and promoting inmigration of productive laborers Weeks, Hence, on sugar plantations and in silver mines, in textile factories and dockyards, it was the disciplining of populations that underlay the growth, spread, and ultimately triumph of capitalism as an economic venture.
Without the insertion of disciplined, orderly individuals into the machinery of production, the new demands of capitalism would have been impossible without the fixation, control, and rational distributions of populations on a large scale Dreyfus and Rabinow, Furthermore, the ascension of mercantilism and, later, capitalism in Western Europe led to the widespread practice of insurance and life annuities.
As Paul Knox and his coauthors Consequently, as Bourdelais Dean explains that the construction of demography coincided with liberalism as a political economic philosophy. Governments were no longer primarily concerned with the proper distribution of things, by which Dean means an ordering and regulation of humans in their relations to various heterogeneous entities for example, wealth, industry, land and orderly settlement and movements between and within territories.
In other words, population becomes its own entity. Furthermore, it is here that we can locate the construction of populations into subgroups that contribute to or retard the general welfare and life of the population as a whole. As Dreyfus and Rabinow explain, the history, geography, climate, and demography of a particular country became more than mere curiosities.
These became crucial elements in a new complex of power and knowledge and, subsequently, the development of academic fields such as demography, sociology, and geography. Most secret was the size of the population. The concept of population introduces several key elements that will have broad ramifications on the art of governance. First, the idea of population introduces a different conception of the governed. The members of a population are no longer subjects bound together in a territory who are obliged to submit to their sovereign.
Instead, they are also conceived as living and working social beings, with their own customs, habits, and histories. Second, populations are defined in relation to matters of life and death, health and illness, propagation and longevity, all of which can be known by statistical, demographic, and epidemiological instruments Dean, Third, the concept of population imparts the idea of a collective entity, the knowledge of which is irreducible to the knowledge that any of its members may have of themselves.
This is a crucial ontological shift in the formation of population studies. As John Caldwell writes, those scholars who came to identify themselves as demographers were suspicious of the study of individuals and small groups; they believed that such bodies were significant only when it could be shown what fraction of a larger population they constitute. Demographers, consequently, would look for regularities in populations or subpopulations, as well as for contrasts between subpopulations p. Given such an ontological position on population, Dean In short, we can know a population, and its industry, customs and history, as a collective identity that is not constituted by political or governmental institutions or frameworks.
It is these processes— the birth rate, the mortality rate, longevity, and so on—together with a whole series of related economic and political problems. Not surprisingly, it was at this point that demographers began to measure these population events in statistical terms. Biopolitics emerged with the constitution of the population as a field of knowledge as seen in political economy, statistics, and the like and a domain of regulation and action in technologies of the management of its health, hygiene, and welfare Dean, This emergence was predicated on the institutionalization and standardization of censuses and population-related concepts.
As Bruce Curtis It is only on the grounds of such constructed equivalences that it is possible for statistical objects to emerge in the form of regularities and to become the objects of political practice. And the purpose of these techniques, according to Foucault This could be accomplished through various regulatory mechanisms that operate at a larger aggregate scale. For population geographers, we now see that two technologies of power exist: This exercise of power produces individualizing effects and manipulates the body as a source of forces that have to be rendered both useful and docile.
A second set brings together the mass effects characteristic of a population, and tries to control the series of random events that can occur in a living mass for example, births, deaths, and illnesses Foucault, Biopolitics therefore does not exclude considerations of the anatomopolitics of the human body. Rather, the two forms of power are seen as complimentary; they exist on different levels, one directed toward the body, the other toward the population. A retheorized population geography therefore has two overlapping concerns: What, though, is the specific contribution that population geographers can make?
My agenda, as indicated earlier, prefigures an intervention in the struggle against societal injustices and, specifically, violence. My intent is to highlight the underlying population geographies that are made in the discipline of bodies and the regulation of populations through the control of space. Concurrently, it will be possible to develop a theoretically informed population geography that may more fully engage in overturning structures of injustice and work toward the building of a more peaceful society.
We need to establish, therefore, a respatialized population geography while we concurrently retheorize population geography. Such a repositioning, likewise, will entail an engagement with the body. Our lives are, in a sense, made of time. But we are also physical, corporeal, mobile beings. We inhabit a material, spatial world. We move through it. Each of us is weaving a singular path through the world. The paths that we make, the conditions under which we make them, and the experiences that those paths open up or close off are part of what makes us who we are.
Delaney prefigures a discussion of self and space and opens a window on the idea of embodied practice. Through our daily activities we encounter other peoples and other places; our thoughts and actions are influenced by these encounters. Concurrently, however, our presence, our interactions, likewise reflect back upon those spaces.
In short, we produce and are produced by space just as we produce and are produced by discourse Tyner, b: The meanings and uses of space are never separate from the contestations over bodies and populations: Who, or which group, is granted or denied access to certain spaces? What activities are deemed acceptable or not? And who has the authority, the ability, to define such spaces? Philosopher Henri Lefebvre suggests that space may be viewed in two basic forms: The former refers to conceptualized spaces, the spaces of scientists and planners.
In this light, space is purposefully representational of certain societal ideals, and therefore the holders of these ideals attempt to control its use Lefebvre, The Khmer Rouge leadership, for example, developed particular ideals as to the spaces of Democratic Kampuchea: Cambodia was to be remade as a modern, socialist utopia Tyner, Consequently, this entailed a massive project of social engineering.
Likewise, the Hutu perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide worked with a particular representation of a post-Tutsi society. Representations of space are not simply produced via the machinations of state institutions. Often we are socialized, or trained, into a recognition and understanding of these representations of space. Public parks, for example, are considered to be appropriate for children and families but generally inappropriate spaces for teenagers.
These socially produced divisions of space—which may be physically demarcated through signs, gates, or other markers—become naturalized and normalized. This does not negate, however, the observation that these spaces remain highly regulated and contested spaces. Authorities often expend considerable investment in the policing of these spaces. Despite the efforts of those in dominance, representations of space are far from complete.
Attempts to normalize space are never complete; the hegemonic control of space is always open to exposure, confrontation, reversal, and refusal through counterhegemonic or disidentifying practices Natter and Jones, According to Lefebvre Redolent with imaginary and symbolic elements, they have their source in history—in the history of a people as well as in the history of each individual belonging to that people. Rather, the two spaces coexist—albeit tenuously and contested.
The construction of community and the bounding of social groups are part of the same problem as the separation of self and other Sibley, As Young explains, the social ontology underlying many contemporary theories of justice is methodologically individualistic; it presumes that the individual—the self—exists ontologically prior to the social group.
Such a challenge is critical because, at the social level, as at the individual level, an awareness of group boundaries serves to marginalize and exclude other people Sibley, According to Young More precisely, groups are expressions of social relations; groups exist only in relation to other groups.
However, as Young p. However, not every person or group is necessarily included within the scope of justice. Three dimensions of moral exclusion are particularly salient: First, there is the extent of moral exclusion. This refers to the scope of collective inclusion or exclusion and is seen, for example, in sociospatial practices that marginalize both people and groups of people. According to social psychologists, the process of us—them thinking originates with social categorizations.
First, people who identify themselves as part of an ingroup tend to perceive other ingroup members as more similar than outgroup members.
One Night In His Bed Christina Hollis Kindle Store
Second, people likewise perceive members of outgroups as all alike; generalizations, moreover, are often based on one or two members. Third, perceived differences between ingroups and outgroups tend to be accentuated, or exaggerated. These differences, furthermore, may be augmented spatially. The imposition of black codes in the United States following Emancipation, and later, Jim Crow laws, were attempts to fix the meaning of space, reflecting a hegemonic cultural norm that is, white supremacy. Spaces in this sense were color-coded and imbued with particular meanings.
Fourth, the mere act of dividing bodies into groups or populations inevitably sets up a bias in group members in favor of the ingroup and against the outgroup p. The process of social categorization does not proceed based on natural divisions of humanity. Rather than presuming that such categorizations for example, racial and ethnic are simply present, social cate- Journeys from the Killing Fields 37 gories do not simply include groups, but rather produce those groups.
In other words, there are no ontological bases to social categories. There is, consequently, an immediate spatiality to the process of social categorization. To be sure, certain physical markers, presumed as natural, have been widely utilized for example, skin color , but even here, people must be socialized into a belief that this is an appropriate marker of distinction. Subsequent examples will further clarify this point. During the months and years leading up to the Rwandan genocide, for example, differences between Tutsis and Hutus were routinely played up, with deadly consequences.
One extreme form of moral exclusion, also readily evident in the Rwandan genocide, is the outright denial of self as manifested in practices of dehumanization. This involves the categorizing of a group as inhuman either by using categories of subhuman creatures for example, cockroaches or by using categories of negatively evaluated nonhuman creatures for example, demons and monsters.
Moreover, this process of dehumanization is most likely to occur when target groups can be readily identified as a separate category of people Waller, The Chams, a minority people living in Cambodia, for example, were visually easy targets for Khmer Rouge violence.
Through practices of dehumanization isolated groups are stigmatized as alien. It is a waste, and its removal is a matter of sanitation. There is no moral or emphatic context through which the perpetrator can relate to the victim. This is seen vividly in the historical stigmatization of Jewish victims prior to the Holocaust.
Statisticians and public health authorities frequently would list corpses not as corpses but as Figuren figures or pieces , mere things, or even rags. These degrading, often ritualistic, processes remake the individual self in the institutional image of something less than a full person.
Both served to physically and symbolically separate and dehumanize perceived outgroups. More concretely, the placement of bodies in cages or other torture facilities serves, symbolically, to further dehumanize people. In Cambodia, during the killing times, people were forced to live in work camps that worked to dehumanize people.
A doghouse was better than where we were staying. Bushes were our walls.
Pedigree QUESTION!!!!!! - Page 2 - German Shepherd Dog Forums
We slept on rice hay. Thick bags made of hemp that held rice seed were our blankets. The bags smelled, and mine was completely stained and falling apart. Every night I could hear the footsteps of Khmer Rouge soldiers walking around. They were laughing and drinking, and they enjoyed the killing. I got into my bag. A rat came in and ate my toenail.
Those prisoners confined to torture facilities fared worse if such a statement can be made. Those interned at Tuol Sleng, or any of the other centers throughout the country, were kept chained to the floor, in make-shift cells. Both prior to and during their interrogations—and before their near inevitable executions—prisoners were made to lie in their own urine and feces. Such practices served to dehumanize the Journeys from the Killing Fields 39 prisoners.
As explained by Opotow Of particular importance is how violence is enacted toward morally excluded bodies and groups. An exercise of violence is totalizing. When violence is applied to a body, subjugation is complete. It removes the possibilities for active subjects to resist. To this end, Barker Furthermore, structural violence does not necessarily maim or kill directly, but it has the potential to do so, and sets up divisions. Practices of moral exclusion and political violence are legitimized and sustained through complex imaginative geographies Graham, ; Gregory, , As Derek Gregory Consequently, questions of engagement relate directly to the idea of impunity.
Strictly defined, impunity refers to the exemption from accountability, penalty, punishment, or legal sanctions for a crime. Such an understanding necessarily focuses attention on alleged perpetrators of violence for example, Pol Pot in Cambodia. A culture of impunity is supported by imaginative geographies. As Joseph Nevins He argues that social distance and geographic distance combine to make the plight of others more peripheral and, by extension, less relevant.
The violence in Darfur, we say to ourselves, is unfortunate; but it is their problem, not ours. A lack of engagement operates within and simultaneously produces a culture of impunity. Once established, a culture of impunity Journeys from the Killing Fields 41 serves to legitimate nonaction. Various studies have documented the tendency of both participants and bystanders of mass violence to blame the victims Waller, In other words, the social categorization of bodies into populations, and the concomitant dehumanization of people, not only recategorizes bodies into subhuman groups, it also carries with it an understanding that victims deserve or require their own victimization Waller, One need not look solely at psychological explanations.
Indeed, the belief in a just world is itself a discourse, one that is promoted by various institutions to legitimize questionable policies and practices. How do we explain, for instance, the plight of the poor and homeless? Those who display a strong belief in a just world are most likely to blame the poor and homeless for their own suffering. The basis of just-world beliefs are many and varied. For the most part, however, we are simply socialized into such a belief.
As children, we are taught that good behavior—telling the truth, cleaning your room, doing your homework—is rewarded, while bad behavior—lying, stealing, teasing your little sister—is punished. The family, consequently, is a major component in our socialization of what is just and unjust. Other institutions, including the media, religion, and academia, however, also provide salient lessons. The consequences of a just-world belief are foundational to exclusionary practices, the discipline of bodies, and the regulation of populations. Such a belief permits a level of indifference to—and thus a lack of engagement with—the plight of others.
Hence, members of the ingroup may not actually perceive the oppression of outgroup members as an act of oppression. Pol Pot, for example, genuinely believed that the genocidal regime he oversaw in Cambodia was justified; those who were killed were deserving of their fate. Consequently, interventions on behalf of the ingroup members is not warranted, so strong is the belief that the dehumanized, excluded Others are responsible for their own conditions.
In summary, then, it is possible to more clearly articulate my retheorized and respatialized population geography: Through an engagement with specific case studies of how bodies are disciplined and populations are regulated through a control of space, population geographers may be better positioned to intervene in the struggle against spatial and moral exclusionary practices that serve to categorize, discriminate, oppress, and, ultimately murder those who are perceived to be Others.
In so doing we will necessarily contribute to the ongoing efforts to challenge a conservative culture of impunity that condones the existence of societal injustices and violence, including war and genocide. Why I Write If we are to envision a less violent world, we must first understand how violent the world is. To this end, Jonathon Glover For those of us whose everyday life is in relatively calm and sheltered places, the horrors of Rwanda or Bosnia or Kosovo seem unreal.
The atrocities can be put out of mind. The television news reports torture or a massacre and we feel relief when it moves on to political scandals or sports. We bystanders look away. Repressing each atrocity maintains the illusion that the world is fundamentally a tolerable place. Yet it is almost certain that, as you read this sentence, in some places people are being killed and in others people are being tortured. To do nothing is to cultivate a culture of impunity. Consequently, a retheorized population geography must empirically and theoretically engage with the historical and contemporary disciplining and regulation of people and populations through the management, administration, and control of space.
Ethical, and not simply empirical, questions must be asked as to the beneficent or maleficent exercise of biopower in particular contexts. To affect the promotion of these values, however, it is necessary to critique and overturn those institutions that perpetuate injustice, composed of two forms of disabling constraints: Both are intimately associated with the violence perpetrated against bodies and populations. Findlay is absolutely correct when he states that population and demographic issues are at the center of much work in academia.
How is it possible to talk of war or genocide without talking about people?