The Difference Between Borders And Boundaries
According to Didier Fassin in Policing Borders, Producing Boundaries, borders represent clear lines drawn between states and people to create seperate, defined, and classifiable entities. With regards to states, borders separate territories from one another, marking the division of land. With regards to individuals, borders classify certain people according to their position in society as defined by the law, drawing the line namely between citizens and non-citizens. On the other hand, Fassin explains that boundaries are a social construct categorizing individuals based on their shared characteristics as perceived by society. Whereas borders are clearly defined according to specifiable criteria, boundaries represent less concrete classifications of individuals according to stereotypes, assumptions or commonly held beliefs. An example of the difference between borders and boundaries can be observed in Peter Redfield’s The Unbearable Lightness of Expats. This article shows the concept of borders in its explanation of how MSF expatriates, thanks to their wealth and proper documentation, can move between countries while others cannot.
The ability to cross territorial lines represents the ability to transcend borders. The concept of boundaries, meanwhile, is illustrated by the example of a Ugandan nurse named Grace who worked for MSF in her hometown. Many of Grace’s subordinates did not respect her as a leader because she belonged to the local community and was therefore viewed by community members as an equal. This is an example of a boundary because Grace experienced difficulty commanding control due to her perceived identity and place in society. At UVA, the serpentine walls represent both a border and a boundary. First, they represent a border because the walls physically separated slaves’ quarters from free places. Because of the walls, slaves could not easily interact with free people outside of the walls or escape from their physical segregation. This border worked to keep slaves physically contained. The serpentine walls also exemplify a boundary because they worked to socially separate slaves, symbolically reminding slaves that they were not worthy of being heard or being allowed to speak outside their “enclosure”. Slaves were kept separate, invisible and inaudible to ensure that they would be seen not as fellow human beings with equal rights, but as tools for labour best kept at a distance until they were of use. This boundary worked to dehumanize slaves and keep them socially constrained.
In The Unbearable Lightness of Expats, Peter Redfield discusses the “double bind” of humanitarianism. Drawing on Redfield’s article, explain in your own words what this “double bind” means. Then, draw on another class reading to give an example of a “double bind. ” Finally, consider the film Living In Emergency: What example of a double bind did you find here?In his article The Unbearable Lightness of Expats, Peter Redfield explains that Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) can never be truly without borders because of unavoidable contradictions, or double binds, in its operation. A double bind refers to a set of choices that are equally valid but neither can be fully accepted unless the other choice is neglected. One who faces the paradoxical dilemma of a double bind wishes to solve both problems, but the solution to one problem entails the creation of the other.
An example of a double bind can be observed in Miriam Ticktin’s The Illness Clause. Ticktin describes how the French government aimed to treat suffering refugees with compassion while remaining apolitical. However, in order to use compassion, people draw on their past experiences, biases, and societal influences. This makes it impossible for someone to be simultaneously compassionate and apolitical, which exemplifies an unsolvable contradiction, or double bind, in which both options are equally desired but incompatible.
In the film Living in Emergency, a double bind is depicted in MSF’s wish to provide high quality care while reaching as many people as possible. In order for the care to be of high quality, MSF would need to focus its funds on a limited number of operations, but to reach as many people as possible the funds would have to be dispersed and the quality of care diminished. Therefore, neither option can provide a complete solution and there is something of equal value (quality of care or quantity of people helped) to be lost or gained in both choices.
