Questioning Planetary Illiberal Geographies 9781032392202, 9781032392219, 9781003348863

Citation preview

Questioning Planetary Illiberal Geographies

This book engages with current debates on 'planetary urbanization' and the nature ofurban political theory but notably considers the implications ofilliber­ alism on space, territory, and power. Such a focus is timely, as illiberalism (across various settings and terrains) is producing, and embedded in, increasingly com plex, hybrid, multi-scalar, non-linear, and globally networked flows. Through ordinary explorations drawn from diverse empirical case studies (China, the United States, India, South Korea, and Singapore) and via mixed methodologies, the chapters in this volume seek to advance theory that moves beyond assumptions and certainties of what illiberalism is, how and where it operates, what it looks like, and how it is experienced and embodied in different contexts, offiine and online. Chapters critically reflect upon themes like author­ itarianism and the spatialization of illiberal power, from the grassroots up to national governments, and stress the need to move beyond normative under­ standings and portrayals of these terms and concepts. Presciently, this volume looks back on recent history, pre-dating the Covid-19 pandemic and some ofthe shocking political transformations now underway: as such, the chapters offer a valuable lens to critically consider issues like public health policies, surveillance and policing, borders and bordering, and activism and resistance. The chapters in this book were originally published as a special issue of Terri­ tory, Politics, Governance. Jason Luger is Assistant Professor of Human Geography at Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. His research focuses on the production, experience, and contestation ofurban space, especially the relationship between urban space and illiberalism. Jason's research draws from comparative urban­ ism, ethnography, and theories from across urban, political, social, and cultural geographies.

1:)()

A

Regional Studies

� Association

A leading & 1mpactful community

Questioning Planetary Illiberal Geographies

Territory, Space and Power

Regions and Cities

Series Editor in Chief Joan Fitzgerald, NortheaJtem University, US.ti Editors

Roberta Capello, Politemico di Milano, Italy Rob Kitchin, Maynooth University, Ireland Jorg Knicling, Ha.fo11City U11ivmity Hamburg, Germa11y Nichola Lowe, University ofNorth Carolb,a at Chapel Hill, USA

Edited by Jason Luger

In today's globalised, knowledge-driven and networked world, regions and cities have assumed heightened significance as the interconnected nodes of eco­ nomic, social and cultural production, and as sites ofnew modes of economic and territorial governance and policy experimentation. This book series brings to­ gether incisive and critically engaged international and interdisciplinary research on this resurgence of regions and cities, and should be of interest to geographers, economists, sociologists, political scientists and cultural scholars, as well as to policy-makers involved in regional and urban development. About the Regional Studies Association (RSA) 1l1e Regions and Cities Book Series is a series of the Regional Studies Associ­ ation (RSA). The RSA is a global and interdisciplinary network for regional and urban research, policy and development. The RSA is a registered not-for-profit organisation, a learned society and membership body that aims to advance re­ gional studies and science. The RSA's publishing portfolio includes five academic journals, two book series, a Blog and an online magazine. For more information on the Regional Studies Association, visit www.regionalstudics.org 1l1ere is a 30% discount available to RSA members on books in the Regions am/ Cities series, and other subject-related Taylor & Francis books and e-books including Routledge titles. To order, simply email Luke McNicholas (Luke. McNicholas@tand£co.uk), or phone on +44 (0)20 701 77545 and declare your RSA membership. You can also visit the series page at www.routlcdgc.com/ Regions-and-Cities/book-series/RSA and use the discount code: RSA225

155 Questioning Planetary Illiberal Geographies Territory, Space and Power Edited by Jason Luger

For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.com/ l}..,.,.,.;,..._nf"-•U·u-Lr:..�"... /1-...........1 .. .-n..:� ... /DC' I\

1� }

��f�:�i:uP

LONDON AND NEW YORK

� Regional_ stu_dles

Assoc1at1on

A leading & 1mpacrful community

VI

LUN 1 t.N l ::,

Afterword: comparing and connecting territories of illiberal politics and neolibern1 governance A1a t t h e w Sparke

I11dex

121

Citation information

127

'Ihc chapters in this book were originally published in the journal Territory, Politics, Govemance, volume 8, issue 1 (2020). When citing this material, please use the original page numbering for each article, as follows:

Introduction Quutio11i11g planetary illiberal geographies: territory, space: mu/ power

Jason Luger

Territory, Politics, Govermmce, volume 8, issue 1 (2020), pp. 1-6

Chapter 1 Stale territorialization through shequ community centres: bureaucmtir ro11Jusion in Xinjiang, China

Sarah Tyncn

Territory, Politics, Governance, volume 8, issue 1 (2020), pp. 7-22

Chapter 2 Neoliberal exception to liberal democracy? E11trepre11eurial territorial governance i11 India

Ashima Sood and Loraine Kennedy Territory, Politics, Govemance, volume 8, issue 1 (2020), pp. 23-42

Chapter 3 Co1111/eri11g illiberal geographies through /oral policy? 1he political e.fferts of sanctuary cities

Janika Kuge

Territory, Politics, Govemance, volume 8, issue 1 (2020), pp. 43-59

'/ , Cover image cied1t: CHUNYIP WONG / Getty Images

Contents

First p11blM1ed 2023 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Parl,., 1\bingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 'llnrd Avenue, Ni,w York, NY 10158 Routledge u a11 impmu ofthe Ta_vlor & Fra,uu Group, a11 infarn111 brmneu

Preface © 2023 Jason Luger

Introduction, Chapters 1-5 and Afterword el 2023 Regional Studies Association All rights reserved. No part of tlm book maybe reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter in\'cnted, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

Citatiot1 it1Jormatiot1 Notes o n r o ntrib11tors Prefare:planetary illiberal geographi es, arrelerated and viral jaso11 Luger

Tradm1ark ,10/frr: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered tr.ulemarks and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

1

State territorialization through shequ community centres: bureaucratic confusion in Xinjiang, China Sarah Ty11e n

2

Neolibernl exception to liherol democracy? Entrepreneurial territorial governance in India Ashima So o d a11d Loraine K e 11 n e dy

3

Countering illiberal geographies through local policy? 'Ihc

DOI: 10.4324/9781003348863 Typeset in Sabon by coc:lel\hntra Publisher's Nore ·n,e publisher accepts responsibility for any inconsistencies that may have arisen during the conversion of this book from journal articles to book chapters, namely tlu: inclusion of journal terminology. Disclaimer Every effort has been made to contact copyright holders for their permission to reprint marerial in this book. 11,e publishers would be grateful to hear from any copyright holder who is not here acknowledged and will undertake to rectify any errors or omissions in future editions of this book.

,.v -'ti

Introduction: questioning planetary illiberal geographies: territory, space and power jasot1 Luger

British Library Cataloguiitg i,1 Publi,atio11 Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBNl3: 978-1-032-39220-2 (hbk) ISBNIJ: 978-1-032-39221-9 (pbk) ISBNl3: 978+003-34886-3 (cbk)

'llii

political effects of sanctuary cities

]at1ilrn K uge 4

When the illiberal and the neoliberal meet around infectious diseases: an examination of the MERS response in South Korea

So Hyung Lim and Kristill Sziar to

5

Planetary illibcralism and the cybercity-state: in and beyond territory Jason Luger

9

29

54

76 97

viii

CI TATION INFORMATION

Chapter 4

When the illiberal and the moliheral meet aro1111d infectious diseases: an examination ofthe MERSresponse in South Kon!a

Notes on contributors

So Hyung Lim and Kristin Sziarto Territory, Politics, Governance, volume 8, issue 1 (2020), pp. 60-76

Chapter 5 Pla11etary illiberalism and the cyhercity-state: in and beyond territory

Jason Luger

Territory, Politics, Governance, volume 8, issue 1 (2020), pp. 77-94

Afterword Compari11g and co1111ecting territories ofilliberal politics and neoliheral governa11ce

Matthew Sparkc

Territory, Politics, Governance, volume 8, issue 1 (2020), pp. 95-99

For any permission-related enquiries please visit: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/ hclp/pcrmissions

Loraine Kennedy, Centre d'Etudcs de !'Incle ct de l'Asie du Sud (CEIAS), UMR 8564 CNRS/EHESS, Paris, France. Janika Kuge, DepJrtment of Human Geography, University of Freiburg, Germany. So J-lyung Lim, Department ofGeography, University ofWisconsin-Milwaukee, USA. Jason Luger, Department of Geography and Environmental Sciences, North­ umbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. Ashima Sood, Centre for Urbanism and Cultural Economics, Anant National University, Ahmedabad, India. Matthew Sparkc, Politics Department, University of California - Santa Cruz, USA. Kristin Szinrto, Department ofGcography, University ofWiscon�in-l'\'l ilwaukee, USA. Sarah Tynen, Department ofGeography, Univcrsit)' ofColorado Boulder, USA.

PREFACE Planetary illiberal geographies, accelerated and viral Jason Luger The Special ]ssue in Territory, Politics, Gover11a11ce entitled 'Qyestioning plan­ etary illiberal geographies: territory, space and power' was published online in February 2020. Its provocations and arguments rested on a few key premises. First is the suggestion that illibcralism is planetary, bordcrless, multi-scalar, materially textured and virtually imagined, not relc!,>aled to nation-states, or the prescribed characteristics of world regions or political boundaries. Second is that illibcralism is not inevitable and that political trajectories arc not linear, nor arc they necessarily cyclical. Rather, global political geographies arc dynamic, combi­ natory, and always in flux. Third is that the normativity of these categories should be questioned. Liberalism is rife with contradiction; it is not a stable category. As Zakaria (1997) noted, 'illiberal democracy' is not, in fact, oxy moronic. Authoritarian and fascistic regimes often come to power through democratic elections, for example, and even the most liberal-progressive contexts contain il­ liberal facets and outcomes. Illiberalism is likewise contradictory and frequently paradoxical, containing spaces for possibilities and variegated outcomes and surprises as they arise in daily life. Fourth is that illiberal geographies arc sometimes banal, hard to see, expe­ riential rather than descriptive, and embodied and operationalized via currents of power that manifest in gestures as simple as an everyday neighbourhood en­ counter. Too often, portrayals of illibcralism focus on the spectacular, the violent or the revolutionary, far-sighted caricatures which overlook the mundane, and small-scale processes through which democracy falters (or democracy itself be­ comes illiberal). Violence and revolution, after all, come in different shapes and sizes, felt by some more than others. Finally, is the suggestion that the fallacies of global 'West' or 'East' as containers of essential moralistic or cultural values like 'Western-liberalism' or 'Eastern-authoritarianism' desperately need a correc­ tive. Moving beyond the 'territorial trap' (as Koch, 2016 frames), we posit that post-post-colonial flows are multidirectional and hybridized, and, furthermore, 'Western-liberalism' has been a reactionary architecture from its origin story lo the present (Mondon and Winter, 2019). The Special lssue was conceived, curated, and published during (and in re­ sponse to) the political reigns of Trump (US), Bolsonaro ( Brazil), Dutcrtc (Philippines), Boris Johnson's 'Brexit' (UK), Orb;in (Hungary), Putin (Russia),

xii PREFACE Netanyahu (Israel), and others - alongside shifts like Xi Jinping's China increas­ ingly cracking down on dissidents and the Uyghur community. We as authors felt these politics deeply and were brought organically together by a desire to understand the moment and its implications not only for geographies (as places) but also for Geography (as a field ofstudy). 1he Issue did not claim to be especially prescient or foresighted, but rather, of­ fered a snapshot in time; voices, and case studies and moments emblematic ofan illiberal shift, from Indian urban planning regimes to the U.S./Mexico border. Yet, reflecting back on the Issue, two years after its publication and four years after its inception (at the 2018 AAG Annual Meeting in New Orleans, USA), its prescience is unmistakable, albeit, unsettlingly troubling. For here is what had not yet occurred at the time the Special Issue and its component chapters were conceived (2018) and written and then published, ominously, in February 2020. Within days of the Issue's publication, news spread of a new virus, called the Coronavirus, from Wuhan, China. Images of that city under full lockdown quickly mutated from a far-away curiosity to a global facet of daily life across East, West, North, and South. The pandemic, presenting a public health threat not experienced in decades, catalysed myriad illiberal responses, even ifthey were justified on the grounds of keeping vulnerable populations safe from the death and suffering wrought by the pathogen. Hyper-surveillance and biosecurity were rapidly normalized via phone apps and testing regimes, social distancing orders, and mask mandates. Normally accessible public spaces and social worlds were restricted and enclosed; in some cases, further perpetuating and accelerating the illiberal processes already underway, like the privatization and sccuritization of urban space (Luger and Lees, 2022). It was clear that authoritarianism was un­ moored, circulating, and converging - the experience ofthose locked indoors or particularly vulnerable to the viruses' harms was relatable, comparable, across global geographies. 6th January, 2021: one year after the Issue's publication, illiberal rioters bashed their way into the United States Capitol building, attacking and desecrating a global symbol of democracy and liberalism (a powerful symbol, no matter how deeply flawed and imperfect the institution). The taken-for-granted process of installing a newly elected head of state seemed, as the world gasped, in dan­ ger offailing. Running beneath and alongside the ghastly specraclc of the des­ ecrated Capitol, though, were the webs of conspiracism and lies reverberating across landscapes, offiine and online, like QAnon, a modern antisemitic blood libel, pulling vulnerable minds down dangerous rabbit holes of chaos and fear. Christian Nationalism and other religious fundamentalisms have grown in many global contexts (albeit with contextually diverse characteristics, from a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan, to Hindu Nationalism in India, to religious violence in the US) and with it, efforts to roll back rights for women, LGBTQ_populations, migrants ofcolour, and secular humanists. 24th February, 2022: Russian forces invaded Ukraine, a sovereign nation, cat­ alysing the most dramatic armed conflict on the European continent since the Second World War. At the time of this writing, the war is ongoing, with an

PREFACE

Xlll

estimated 47,000 deaths as of 22 June (Reuters). Far-right pundits, politicos, and media personalities in the West cheered Putin's authoritarian, anti-democratic strength, as Ukrainians fled their homes in terror. Meanwhile, on Europe's Atlantic fringe in Britain, plans were made to forcibly deport migrants to (au­ thoritarian) Rwanda and to geo-tag those migrants desperately seeking refuge, arriving on the UK's shores. It seemed to get harder to point at a map and say where illiberalism exists and where it docs not. The truth is, of course, it exists everywhere. To drive home this point, observe the social media platforms, like the corpo­ ration called 'Meta' (formerly Facebook), that continue to collect the information ofbillions ofglobal users as those users post, like, share, and tweet. They also scan faces and body parts in a web of profitable metrics, sometimes using the same technology (or even officially partnering with) those government entities polic­ ing airports, borders, and crime archives. Not only docs the 'smart city' animate our streetlights and traffic systems, but it also tracks our movements and hands urban governance and management (and our data) over to algorithms and artifi­ cial intelligence. But these are dramatic things and turns of events. We remind, again, that Runciman's (2018) hot take on how democracy ends, via 'coups, catastrophes, and technological take-overs', is neither an inevitable trajectory nor is it a shift that happens overnight. Illiberalism is not irreversible, and anyway, coups, ca­ tastrophes, and take-overs take contextually specific forms from the micro-scale to the grandiose. Such things need not look like what happened on 6th January 2021 in Washington, or in February 2022 in Mariupol, Ukraine. What about a forced residential eviction? Or a 'random' police stop and search? Or a hostile, reactionary take-over of a local school board or urban planning council? lhese, too, can fuel coups and catastrophes. We remind, also, that insofar as the march toward planetary illibcralism may seem troubling and induce despondency and nihilism, there is still reason (and necessity) for hope. Indeed, there is a whole industry now on predictive illiberal futures (e.g., Sunstein, 2018 in an American context, but others arc jockeying to make the moJt dire forecast for democracy's death). Nonetheless, activism, resist­ ance, and efforts to advance progressive and emancipatory futures remain vital, vibrant, and resilient. 1he circumvention around, and fight against, illibcralism's grip is as interesting, important, and dynamic as the ebb and flow of illiberal structures and outcomes. These efforts also inspire. Look at some other things that have happened since the publication of the Special Issue in February 2020. The global demand for Black lives Matter, for one, has upscaled into a broader awareness and reckoning of current and histori­ cal racial violence and injustice, not limited to the West. Observe the communities of mutual aid and webs of care and solidarity that blossomed during the pandemic when, faced with limitations on daily life, we rediscovered our local communities, bonded with neighbours, reconnected with friends and lovers in new ways, and formed new layers of democratic politics and practices, some without academic names yet. Notice the resurgent labour

xiv PREFACE movements where diverse workers form coalitions coalescing around shared demands - a unionized Starbucks has much symbolic power! Witness the fights against fascism, the far-right, and authoritarianism which have seen social progressives elected across South America in 2022, most recently with the socialist Petro victorious in Colombia, and a resurgent Lula defeating Bolsonaro in Brazil. Yet resistance to illiberalism need not look like millions gathered in city streets or a stunning electoral win. As we suggested in 2020, the soft gestures, daily interactions, and small victories - which Scott (1987) termed 'weapons of the weak' - arc powerful, when upscaled and taken together into a larger victory. All this is to say that history surprises.Just as we did not attempt to predict the future in 2020, nor do we make an attempt now: illiberal geographies are a plan­ etary story-still-unfolding. But it is ever more important to question normative assumptions about territory, politics, and governance and to allow multitudinous stories to emerge. The stories addressed in the Issue arc as pertinent now as they were when they were first outlined in 2018. 1he themes covered include the circular (rather than just top-down) operation of authoritarian power, via neighbourhood centres as loci ofUyghur repression in China (Tynen, 2020), thereby raising larger, compa­ rable questions about the role of the neighbourhood scale in illiberal reactionary practice. Sood and Kennedy (2020) consider how neolibcral urban planning in the context of Hyderabad, India, allows for illiberal outcomes; the relationship between urban planning, the free market, and antidemocratic mechanisms can certainly be seen globally (just look at how urban policy and space arc provisioned in ways that harm the urban vulnerable). Kuge (2020) asks important questions about the complex and contradictory roles of'sanctuary' cities in a paradigm of surging human migration. It goes without saying that Lim and Sziarto's (2020) exploration of South Korea's authoritarian response to the 2015 MERS (virus) epidemic has much relevance to how the world responded to Covid-19 and learned the language oflockdown, mandates, and distancing. Luger (2020) illustrates the way illiberal rhetorical configurations (like Trumpian 'fake news' bluster) can merge, via social media platforms, with territorially anchored state governance, through the case ofSingapore's reach into cyberspace to stifle dissent. These papers, along with the conceptual architecture and arguments contained in the Issue, are more fully introduced in the Editorial which now follows.

REFERENCES Koch, N. {2016). We entrepreneurial academics: Governing globalized higher education in 'illiberal ' states. Territory, Politics, Governance, 4(4), 438-452. Kuge, J. (2020). Countering illiberal geographies through local policy? The political effects of sanctuary cities. Territory, Po/itia, Governanu, 8(1), 43-59. Lim, S. & Sziarto, K. (2020). When the illiberal and the illicit meet around infectious diseases: An examination of the botched MERS response and public health crisis in South Korea. Territory, PolitiCJ, Governance, 8(1), 60-76.

PREFACE xv Luger, J. (2020). Planetary illiberalism and the cybercity-�tate: In and beyond territory. Territory, Politics, Governance, 8(1), 77- 94. 2020 Luger, J. & Lees, L. (2022) Revisiting urban public space through the lens of the 4. 2.207308 20 2723638. 10.1080/0 DOI: , � global lockdown. Urban Geography . far Mondon, A. & Winter, A. (2019). Reactirmary democracy: How rawrn 1111d the populut right bec11111t mainstream. London: Verso. Orwell and Runciman, D. (2018). Politiral hypocrisy: The mmk ufpower, from Hobhtr to Press. University Princeton : Princeton heyo11d (Revised ed.). Haven and Scott, J. (1987). Weapom ofthe weak: Everydayfarms ofpeara11t remta11re. New London: Yale University Press. Entrepre­ Sood, A. & Kennedy, L. (2020). Neoliberal exception to liberal democracy? 23-42. 8(1), e, Gover11a1u Politicr, Territo'}', India. in e governanc neurial territorial tic Tynen, S. (2020). State tcrritorialization through Shequ community centres: Bureaucra 7-22. 8(1), e, confusion in Xinjiang, China. Territory, Politics, Govema11c Zakaria, F. (1997). The rise ofillibcral democracy. Foreig,1Ajfairs, 76(6), 22-43.

Introduction Q,!lestioning planetary illiberal geographies: territory, space and power Jason Luger

In the news media, stories abound of nationalist outbursts, of authoritarian repression, of populist eruptions and of closures/enclosures of space, and offree doms. Strikingly, these stories have and continue to be amplified and mobilized by social media. When publics around the world demand thefreedom to express themselves and generate online opinion, it can be difficult to distinguish between genuine public sentiment and manufactured outrage. Governments around the world from Donald Trump's America to Rodrigo Duterte's Philippines arc prov­ ing adept at 'rigging' outbursts, generating repressions and unleashing populist arrows (e.g., 'Send them home', 'Lock her up). Before predicting the demise ofliberalism and the dawn ofa new, more illiberal age, it is necessary to pause and reflect on the weight, meaning, and construction of these terms and concepts. It is salutary to recall that the term 'illiberal democ­ racy' was first coined in 1997 by the Indian-American journalist Farced Zakaria (Zak.aria, 1997). Zakaria argued that all around the world there were democrat­ ically elected regimes routinely avoiding constitutional limits and restraints. His point was simple: democracy is flourishing but constitutional liberalism is not. Twenty years later, we might ask whether normative understandings of illib­ cralism be made or unmade? Is illiberalism appropriate as a frame for a compar­ ative approach to territory, space and power, given the trouble of categories such as 'East', West', and the associated (mis)conceptions about moral geographies and politics? W here arc illiberalism's origins, influences, endpoints, boundaries and limits? Certainly, things such as the postcolonial reordering and rescaling of nation-states and the advent of 'do-it-yourself' geopolitics via social media (which has upended hierarchies, rescaled borders and allowed for new types of political encounters) suggest that such a rethink is necessary. Second, before heralding the planetary nature of illiberalism, it is important to zoom in on the local and reconsider the role of situated context, and the embedded/embodied flows ofpower attached to place. To what degree, for exam­ ple, arc Chinese state-society relations and the oppression of the Uyghur people comparable (or not) with other states, with other oppressions? What lessons can, or cannot, be learned from such a comparison? And docs such a comparison per­ petuate an East-West moral hierarchy, a sort of illiberal Orientalism? Third, moving away from the mainstream news, from the spectacular and from the violent, we seek to look more closely at the ordinary, the mundane and the

2

QUESTIONING PLANETARY ILLIBERAL GEOGRAPHIES

everyday operations, flows and embodied performances of illibcralism and illiberal power - in other words, a popular geopolitics (e.g., Agnew & Shin, 2019). Through mechanisms as seemingly ordinary and banal as community centres, public health infrastructure, urban planning strategics, WhatsApp conversations and the local geographies of sanctuary, the relational processes of illibcralism come into view. I Iowevcr, just as important arc the exceptions, the surprises and the ways in which illiberal structures arc circumvented, upended and resisted by both public and secretive forms ofprotest - those gathered by the thousands in city streets, and ordinary, small daily gestures and actions that, taken together, comprise what Scott (1987) called 'weapons ofthe weak'. Finally, 'illibcralism'is a catch-all rather than a given. Illiberal places, processes and policies contain liberal openings and possibilities, and so-called liberal insti­ tutions, structures and places contain repressive, regressive and non-democratic features and closures/enclosures. Illibcralism is not reducible to a linear or cyclical pattern or process but rather a lived and encountered facet ofdaily life that is spa­ tialized and performed in multifaceted ways across context, territory, space and scale. 1his is why it is essential lo resist the temptation to Orientalizc and to move away from assumptions about one place versus another, or the portrayal of any one political frame as containing essential characteristics. Illibcralism moves between place, actors and agents and is formatted and reconstituted as it moves. West and East arc no longer appropriate comparative categories (where is West' or 'East', an yway?) and likewise, we seek to move beyond an illiberal/ liberal dichotomy, since this is falsely constructed and as Kuge (2019, in this issue) suggests is 'ossified'. Qiicstions emerge such as where is illiberalism and where docs a researcher go to encounter it (and how docs it encounter the researcher even when they arc not looking for it)? Social media firestorms can, after all, come looking for the researcher, such as the way academics find themselves increasingly disciplined around issues offree speech, or the way right-wing web 'trolls' sometimes choose and attack academic targets. Illibcralism is place based and placeless; mandated as a set oflaws or practices; performed through the Twects ofglobal leaders such as Trump or through quiet conversations taking place over a dinner table; in the home, the workplace, the public plaza or market. lllibcralism operates through the corporeal and biological; the surveillance of public spaces; the censorships both demanded and self-imposed; the comments responding to a Facebook post; the co-creation of a 'meme' or a public artwork. This presents a complicated ontology, but also a rich field ofpossibility for comparison and critical enqui ry. It can also be a dangerous arena to be caught up in. Despite the illusion ofacademic safety and institutional protections, researchers tread perilous and sometimes fatal ground in illiberal contexts (as in the shocking case of doctoral student Giulio Rcgeni's murder in Egypt in 2016).

BEYOND ILLIBERAL NORMATIVITY? THIS SPECIAL ISSUE 'Ibis special issue of Tt!rritory, Politics, Governancl! contains five papers that engage both with the current debates on 'planetary urbanization' and the nature

QU ESTIONING PLANETARY ILLIBERAL GEOGRAPHIES 3 ofurban political theory, but importantly, the implications on space, territory and power in an age where illibcralism (in authoritarian and democratic settings) is increasingly embedded in complex, hybrid, non-linear and globally networked ways. Through ordinary explorations drawn from diverse case studies and mixed methodologies, the papers seek to advance theory that moves beyond assump­ tions ofilliberalnormativity. The five papers arc situated at the junction ofseveral overlapping and pressing debates: namely, the (re)emergcncc of the political as a central anchor of urban geography; the tension between planetary theory and site-based contextual com­ parison; the rise of digital space as a real and powerful political space; and the continued task to decolonize a political geographical theo ry that has been built on, and remains trapped by, the skeletons ofcolonial power relations, viewpoints and ideas (e.g., Gregory, 2004). The papers in this issue explore diverse terrains of illiberal geographies: specifically, how illiberal regimes articulate territory and space at scales both global and local through lenses such as city planning, policy, surveillance, digital encounters or economic devclopment. 1his issue thus engages with several current and recent debates in Territory, Politics, GovemanCI! and beyond in the wider dis­ cipline, including the recent (re)turn to the political within urban geography and the relationship between politics, space and territory (e.g., Eaton, 201 5, on Peru; Obydenkova &. Swcnden, 2013, on Russia and Europe; Cartier, 201 5, on China; Clare, Habermehl, &.Mason-Deese, 2017, on Latin America). We situate within (bur critically against) the planetary turn (e.g., Brenner, 2013) and with reference to the comparative gesture in urban studies (e.g., Mcfarlane & Robinson, 2012). The papers in this issue question the link between illibcralism and territory and probe the degree to which illiberalism is embedded in relationally networked and multilateral global flows at a variety ofscales, speeds and textures. Rightand left-wing populism and right/left-wing authoritarianism arc combining and overlapping in novel ways, forming both territorial and aterritorial hybrids, for example: the symbolic representation of Singapore as a territorial b:1ckdrop for Trump and Kim Jung Un's 'durian diplomacy' (Luger, 2019, in this issue} or the way that 'sanctuary' (as a space ofexception) becomes both an urban policy ('safe cities') and a global imaginary (Kuge, 2019, in this issue). First, we propose in this issue that illibcralism is an embodied, performed and encountered process rather than a fixed outcome that is not necessarily conceived in one place and delivered to another, or the brainchild of a political leader or ideology - it need not be operated through 'the authoritarian personality' ofa po­ litical leader such as Dutcrtc (Adorno, Frenkcl-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950). Rather, we frame illibcralism as a networked landscape ofmundane state­ society relations, operations and encounters that define the human everyday, in cities big and small, in democracies :ind non-democracies. Recent studies such as Runciman's How Democ racy Ends (2018), for example, outline the ways th;tt states can disintegrate from liberal democracies to authoritarian autocracies via various characteristics and pathways. We do not believe that such a path is either straightforward, linear, inevitable or irreversible. We propose that Runciman's

4 QUESTIONING PLANETARY ILLIBERAL GEOGRAPHIES 'coups, catastrophes and technological take-overs' may happen in subtle and hard-to-read ways that may be incommensurable. We portray Hliberalism as a banal, ordinary, global condition that is brought into being and experienced through mundane processes such as seeing a doctor, attending a meeting at a community centre, 'liking' a Facebook post or negotiating an urban planning strategy. Indeed, we build from Hannah Arendt's (Arendt, 1958) proposal that illiberal power is circular, stemming nol only downward from powerful despots or autocratic governments but also upwards and sideways from societys intersti­ tial spaces and micro-places and practices. Second, global politics are often ascribed to territory, and we propose it is time to move beyond a territorial fixation. This does not mean abandoning territori­ ally based case studies (as most of these papers do, indeed, focus on place-based cases). Rather, it is trying to look across and beyond territory and scale to find commonalities, trends, hybridities, connections and convergences/divergences in the way illiberalism is a set ofrelations, processes and flows; the way illiberalism in one place informs another; and the way that illiberalism operates through illttr alia local and global scales. We propose that, for example, illiberalism is deeply embedded in what is left of the global neoliberal project; deeply enmeshed in global democracies; and in often portrayed 'liberal' institutions. Understanding these hybrid forms arc crucial to understand specific places better. The places ex­ plored in this issue are Hyderabad, India (Sood & Kennedy, 2019, in this issue); rural China (Tynen, 2019, in this issue); Korea (Lim and Sziarto, 2020, in this issue); Singapore (Luger, 2019, in this issue); and the 'Sanctuary Cities' of the United States (Kuge, 2019, in this issue). Finally, we seek to expand the definition and scope/scale ofilliberalism and to broaden under-standing beyond what is normally discussed in political science and political geography. For example, how illiberalism informs public health policy and thus crosses into health geographies (Lim, In Press, in this issue); the way that cyberspace has allowed illiberalism to stretch and reconfigure digi­ tal conversations and identities, thus pushing into the geohumanities and media studies (Luger, 2019, in this issue); the way that illiberalism is experienced via community planning and the grassroots, thus bridging the political with plan­ ning (Sood &Kennedy, In Press, in this issue; Tynen, 2019, in this issue), and the way that illiberalism merges with the debates on immigration and place (Kuge, 2019, in this issue). In broadening and c.xpanding how to frame illiberalism, we suggest incorporating much broader concepts such as 'welcome' or 'inclusion/ exclusion', and the way these can create spaces across place/territory into a dis­ cussion on illiberalism (echoing, for example, Gill, 2018, on spaces of 'welcome' versus 'unwelcome' for refugees; or Gokariksel & Smith, 2018, on spaces of exclusion). In the afterword, Matthew Sparke synthesizes the key debates within this special issue and connects with some wider questions and proposals in (and beyond) political geography (Sparke, 2019, in this issue). In this expanded framing, illiberalism can be seen as more process oriented and experiential - pockets ofmicro-interactions and small, ordinary encounters. Zooming into these banal, quotidian spaces can help one zoom back out to the

QU ESTIONI NG PLANETARY ILLIBERAL GEOGRAPHIES 5 planetary to build and reconsider theory. We prefer to think ofthis as zooming rather than scaling in a vertical or horizontal sense. Illiberalism is defined, in part, by the experience of intensities and t�e ramifications of ampli � ca_tion. It and can help one to (de)terrorialize and decolomze, even as we (re)temtonahze continue to engage with site-specific cases. The following papers also identify and grapple with some conceptual gaps in urban political theory. Writing about liberal democratic contexts, Lefebvre (1979/2009) argued that state territorial control facilitates capital accumulation. But what happens in the relationship between the state, territory and capital in illiberal political contexts? While some scholarship in geography has addressed the relationship between sovereignty and territory (Yeh, 2013), such as in the context of violence (Elden, 2009) and state power Uessop, 2007), more scholar­ ship is needed to address the implications ofauthoritarian governance on multi­ ple scales in relationship to territory and economic development. Furthermore, political geographers such as Koch (2013, 2016) have stressed the importance of moving beyond 'territorial traps' and 'moral geographies' to understand better the relational nature of illibcralism and the circular, rather than hierarchical, flows of power (Foucault, 2007) in and across various scales. Furthermore, illiberalism is not limited to particular places, global regions or physical territory at all. Various forms of illiberalism, from authoritarian state-society relations to religious fundamentalism, show up in 'East and West', 'North and South', in cyberspace and in urban neighbourhoods, in both Western-liberal and non­ Western-illiberal settings, but more importantly, the spaces in-between and the autonomous geographies that might offer contradictory and surprising examples ofhybridization and transnationalism. The papers in this issue are diverse not only in terms of geographica l cases and territorial versus aterritorial approaches to state and society but also in their methodologies and range of empirical findings. Sarah Tynen (Tynen, 2019, in this issue) draws from interviews and site-based observation in western China to suggest that community centres are powerful mechanisms for Chinese state rerritorialization and the induction of control and discipline of the minority, Muslim, Uyghur population. Tynen's portrayal ofthe ordinary, local community as a powerful biopolitical agent reconfigures traditional conceptions of the top­ down and monumental nature ofChinese authoritarianism. Contrasting Tynen's look at illiberal community structures, Janika Kuge (Kuge, 2019, in this issue) critically deconstructs the 'liberal ' assemblage of the 'Sanctuary City' as a re­ sponse to Trump's illiberal antimigration policies (and the way the movement has grown beyond the United States). However, Kuge also urges caution in fall­ ing back into the liberal/illiberal dichotomy, suggesting that the Sanctuary City movement is not always progressive or inclusive, more a dialectic ofemancipatory openings and exclusive closures. 1his complexity is also probed by Ashima Sood and Lorraine Kennedy (Sood & Kennedy, 2019, in this issue) through the lens of the urban planning and economic development process in Hyd abad. They_explore the way _ th_at •ena11&a�llfl}.1rJ.en P» �;-wttln non-democratic neoliberal development a(e

6

QUESTIONING PLANETARY ILLIBERAL GEOGRAPHIES

otherwise-liberal local governments through the form of 'special-purpose enclaves' that create spaces of exception and become loci for illibcrnl governance in the name of cntrcpreneurialism. This paper also thereby expands the discus­ sion on undemocratic urban growth structures {such as 'opportunity zones' aided and abetted by 'crony capitalism'), commonly explored in North American or European contexts, to the Global South. Public health policy and infrastructure as an illiberal state-society apparatus forms the basis for So Hyung Lim and Kirstin Sziarto's case (Lim and Sziarto, 2020, in this issue), which focuses on South Korea and the authoritarian response to the MERS outbreak in 2015. Public emergencies such as MERS {a respiratory virus), Lim and Sziarto argue, can stimulate rapid illiberal responses in places such as South Korea with a history of authoritarian governance. Authoritarian governments often animate their national security doctrines with references to disease and pathogens. The lethality and transmissive qualities of disease arc then transferred onto the bodies and institutions of those who oppose their rule. Dutcrtc's drug war in the Philippines is also a war against disease. Finally, I conclude the set of papers with the question of where a place begins or ends if its politic!> !>tretch into cyberspace. As Singapore is a territorially bound and geographically small city-state, its legal mechanisms apply to a territory that is rooted in place and, increasingly, atcrritorial. Singapore's recent 'fake news' legislation shows how the rhetoric emanating from Trump's administration has globalized, attaching to Singapore's unique authoritarian state-society fabric. Illiberal rhetoric and authoritarian enclosures in cyberspace and on social media arc thus combined, hybrid and multidircctional. If Singapore is place-based and planetary, then where docs anyplace really exist? And where arc politics located? What to make of social media emerging as a political 'place' which functions as both an extension ofbut also a challenge to the nation-state? The implications of these explorations lead to conclusions that illibcralism cannot be so easily charted or prognosticated. Recent events in Hong Kong arc just one indication that the daily battle for or against illibcralism is far from over; democratic recession is not inevitable. We hope this special issue pushes research further as new questions arise. We argue to move beyond cycles , linear pathways or predictable stages, beyond sensational coups or catastrophes, to look more closely at everyday illiberal processes and experiences in, and across, places both ordinary and extraordinary. The times arc perilous, and we feel these ques­ tions arc crucial. ln sum, we feel that by deterritorializing and engaging with the planetary scale, we can then rctcrritorialize and return to place with renewed theoretical, empirical and epistemological vigour.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

lhe guest editor thanks the authors of this special issue: Sarah Tynen, Janika Kuge, Ashmina Sood and Lorraine Kennedy, and So Hyung Lim. The papers be gan as a set ofAmerican Association of Geographer's (AAG) conference sessions in 2018, co-organized and chaired by the guest editor and Sarah Tynen doubly

QUESTIONING PLANETARY ILLIBERAL GEOGRAPHIES

7

Sarah is thanked for her collaboration and vision for the sessions. The guest editor also thanks Matthew Sparkc sincerely for writing the afterword, which follows the papers and concludes the special issue.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

ORCID Jason Luger

41D http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0250-7011

REFERENCES

Adorno, T., Frenkd-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D., & Sanford, N. (1950). 1be a11thorttarra11 perso11a/1ty. New York: Harper. Agnew, J., & Shm, M. (2019). Mappi11g pop11lism: Taking politics lo the people. London: Rowman and Littlefield. Arendt, 1-1. (1958). 1be h11man cor1ditio11. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Brenner, N. (2013). Theses on urbanization. Public Culture, 25(1 (69)), 85-114. Cartier, C. (2015). Territorial urbanization and the party-state in China. Territory, Polttics, GO'Uema11u, J(3), 294-320. Clare, N., Habermehl, V., & Mason Deese, L. (2017). Territories in contestation: Relational power in Latin America. 'flrritory, Politics, Gowmm,u, 1-20. http:// theconversation.com/a-mysterious-death·in·argentinadraw,• attention-to·indigenous• land·struggles-86028 Eaton, K. (2015). Disciplining regions: Subnational contention in ncoliberal Peru. Territory, Politics, Govema11ce, J (2), 124-146. Elden, S. (2009). Terror and territory: 1bt spatial ex/ml of sO'llerdgnty. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Foucault, M. (2007). Suurit;•, territory, population: Lectures at the College de Fra11ff, 197778. London: Springer. Gill, N. (2018). The suppression ofwelcome. Fe1111i11 - lt,tematio11aljo11r11al ofGeography, 196(1), 88-98. doi:10. 1 1143/fcnnia.70040 Gokariksd, B., & Smith, S. (2018). Tiny hands, tik.i torches: Embodied white male: supremacy and its politics of exclusion. Political Geqgraphy, 62, 207-215. Gregory, D. (2004). The colonialpment. Oxford: Blackwell. Jes5op, B. (2007). State power. Bristol: Polity. Koch, N. (2013). Introduction field methods in 'closed context�•: Undertaking research in authoritarian states and places. Area, 45(4), 390-395. Koch, N. (2016). We entrepreneurial academics: Governing globalizcd higher education in 'illiberal' states. Territory, Politics, GO'Uema11ce, 4(4), 438-452. Kuge, J. (2019). Countering illiberal geographies through local policy? 1he politi· cal effects of sanctuary cities. Territory, Politics, GO'Utrt1anu, doi:10.1080/21622671. 2019.1604255 Lefebvre, H. (2009 (19791). Dialectical materialism. Minneapolis: University of Minne­ sota Press.

8 QUESTIONING PLANETARY ILLIBERAL GEOGRAPHIES Lim, S. & Sziarto, K. (2020). When the illiberal and the illicit meet around infectious diseases: An examination of the botched MERS response and public health crisis in South Korea. Territory, Politfrs, Govema11ce. doi;l0. 1080/21622671.2019.1700825 Luger, J. {2019). Planetary illiberalism and the cybercity-state: In and beyond tenitory. Terri/or)', Politics, Governa11ce, doi;l0.1080/21622671.2019.1627906 Mcfarlane, C., & Robinson, J. (2012). Introduction - Experiments in comparative urbanism. Urba11 Geography, 33 (6), 765-773. Obydenkova, A., & Swenden, W. (2013). Autocracy-sustaining versus democratic feder­ alism: Explaining the divergent trajectories of territorial politics in Russia and Western Europe. Territory, Politics, Govtrna11ce, J (1), 86-112. Runciman, D. (2018). Politkal hypocrisy: 1he mas// ofpower,from Hobbes to Orwell and beyo11d (Revi$ed ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press. Scott, J. (1987). Weapom ofthe weak: Everydayfarms ofpeasa,11 resistanu. New Haven and London: Yale Univer�it}' Pres�Sood, A., & Kennedy, L. (2019). Neoliberal exception to liberal democracy? _ . . Entrepreneurial territorial governance in lndia. Territory, Polillcs, G0'1Jema11u. doi:10. 1080/21622671.2019.1687323 Sp� rke, M . {2019). Comparing and connecting territories of illiberal politic� and neo­ hberal governance. Territory, Politics, G1XJernanu. doi:10.1080/21622671.2019.1674182 Tynen, S. (2019). State territorialization through Shequ community centres: Bureaucratic confu�ion in Xinjiang, China. Territory, Politics, Governan((, doi:10.1080/21622671. 2019.1643778 Yeh, E . T. (2013). Tami ng Tibet: Landscape tramfarmation a11d the gift ofChi11ese droelop­ me11t. Ithaca: Cornell Universitv Pre�s. Zakaria, F. (1997). 1he ri�c of illiberal democracy. Foreig11 Ajfairs, 76(6), 22-43.

State territorial ization through shequ community centres: bureaucratic confusion in Xinjiang, China Sarah Tynen

'J)O/ /JO· 43z..4 /q:J-BllC0 3?:> 1 � & G 3- 2Abstract

The shequ community centres in Xinjiang, China, provided services, safety and employment to the community. Yet, their heavy-handed con­ trols through administration ancl policing created fear and confusion. How did Uyghur citizens experience and navigate state bureaucratic power at the neighbourhood level in their everyday lives? How did ba­ nal state bureaucratic power manifest i n the lives of urban residents, and how did they react? This paper draws on ethnographic ficlclnotes and interview data collected over the course of24 months between 2014 and 2017 in north-west China. In examining the politics of mundane and banal everyday state practices, it is found that state territorializa­ tion practices through the community centres shape daily life and social relations. Through encounters with community centres, ethnic minor­ ity Uyghur research participants experienced and perceived the state as irrational and arbitrary, on the one hand, and powerful and violent, on the other. Despite a rhetoric of safety and service, the fear and confusion of bureaucracy allowed for the limitation of citizen freedoms for ethnic minorities and the Uyghurs engaged in the process lo navigate the sys­ tem. 1liis paper offers an example of the fragmentation of the state and structural violence of bureaucratic dispossession on a minority popula­ tion in an illiberal context.

INTRODUCTION I have replaced the notion that bureaucracies represent the rationalization of power in a disciplinary society with a very d ifferent picture - one in which the entire process is shot through with contingency and barely controlled chaos. (Gupta, 2012, p. 14) In Oriimchi, the capital of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region in north­ west China, bul- letins in Chinese and Uyghur announced government and police

10

QUEST IONING PLANETARY ILLIBERAL GEOGRAPHIES

services at the entrance of every building: 'Dear respected resident: You arc the object ofour service. We hope that in your daily life when you come across any type of problem that you will contact us. We arc at your service!' Fam- iliar messages of 'at your service' and 'for your safety' echoed on the ubiquitous announcements put up by the employees of the neighbourhood-level community centre (tl:IK Jhequ; ahaliler komteti). 1 Besides housing local security personnel, the main duties of the sheq_u in Oriimchi included distributing social welfare and registering rural migrants.2 The shequ in China serve as a window into how the ideological and material aspects of state power manifest in the lives of neighbourhood residents through the rhetoric of community-building and public participation. The mate­ rialities of the state effect arc realized through bureaucratic regimes of rationality and care, as well as police surveillance (Mitchell, 1999). Neighbourhood sherp, arc not unique to the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region; they arc located throughout China's cities. In each city, neighbourhood residents elect preselected candi- dates to head the 'management committees' and 'resident committccs'3 that run the shequ. As the lowest level of government administration and public security, the Jhequ function as key bridges between the local government and city residents. In addition to their main duties of welfare dis- tribution and migrant registration, they hold trainings for the un­ employed, schedule vaccinations for children, and manage subsidized fruit and vegetable markets. The centres also function as important sources of employ­ ment in the local community. The sherp1 arc often referred to in the literature as places of 'community building' and 'public participation' in China (Boland & Zhu, 2012; Heberer & Gobel, 2011). This study investigates the role of the Jhequ for ethnic min- ority Uyghur residents in an autonomous region, noting �!1at significant differences exist between the role of the shequ for Uyghurs in Urumchi when compared with other cities in eastern China. Despite the rhet­ oric of safety, service and community of the sheq11, a significant prevalence of fear and confusion existed about the role of the shequ in the daily lives of the Uyghur residents. This paper focuses on how the shequ in Orumchi functioned with arbitrary and confusing bureaucracy that limited citizen freedoms, and how Uyghur res­ idents navigated the system. The process that Gupta (2012, p. 14) calls 'barely controlled chaos' exemplifies what I call the 'bureaucratic dispossession' of the most vulnerable. I define 'bureaucratic dispossession' as the combination of ad­ ministrative and security branches on the neighbourhood level that function as tools that perpetuate the resilience of illiberal authoritarian state power:1 Mean­ while, the bureaucratic dispossession of the Uyghurs was not inescapable. Rather, Uyghur participants took an active role in 'hacking' the system. They did not necessarily passively accept or fall victim to the structural violence of the chaotic bureaucracy of the shequ (Weinberg, 2017). Uyghurs navigated the paradox of the shequ in Orumchi: the shequ provided services, safety, food and employment to the community. Yet, their heavy-handed controls through adminis- tration and policing that limited citizen freedoms

QUESTIONING PLANETARY ILLIBERAL GEOGRAPHIES

11

exemplified illiberal state power through social control of one's time and space in everyday life. Uyghurs developed tools to circumvent the system, as exemplified in three cmic terms used during interviews and participant observation: awar­ i,hilik (troublesome), ,mmasiwet (connections) and hesib bar, heqiqe yoq (there in word, but not in reality). These three main repeating themes reveal the attitudes ofUyghurs toward the bureaucracy and the ways they actively participated in the process of bureaucracy by discovering and enabling 'hacks' to the system. The paradox of the Jhequ as both be� evo!cnt care�akcr and stron? state pm�e� that die- tatcs citizens' time and location m space illustrates that liberal and 1lltberal governance occurs in overlapping spaces and times (Mawdsley, 2016).5 The re­ search questions that evolved from this study arc: How do citizens experience and navigate state bureaucratic power at the neighbourhood level in their everyday lives? I-low docs banal state bureaucratic power manifest in the lives of urban residents, and how do they react? State power was experienced and perceived by Uyghur research participants as scary, confusing, irrational and arbitrary. Meanwhile, the shequ tactics facilitated the slow elimination of Uyghur cultural and social spaces through its oppres­ sive and confusing embrace in both red tape and police control. The shequ in Oriimchi provide an example of bureaucratic dispossession where state bureaus control minority bodies through confusion and fear. The shequ shed a light on the com- plex, circular and banal nature of Chinese fragmented authoritarianism (Licberthal & Lampton, 1992). Meanwhile, as Uyghurs learned to navigate the system, the irrational, in certain contexts, allowed for loopholes that temporarily alle'Uiated the oppressive embrace of control and surveillance. lhe Chinese state's implementation of neighbourhood bureaucracy illustrates overlapping lib- cral and illiberal governance manifested as fragmented author­ itarianism. 1hc shequ illustrate the disjunction between the rhetoric of service and the practice of arbitrary regulations. Showing this disjunction reveals frag­ mented and banal state power. First, ethnographic examinations decon- struct the perception of bureaucratic power as 'rational' and 'logical'. Next, the paper discusses the implementation of state power on the neighbourhood level and the perspectives of residents. Finally, it concludes that ethnic minority Uyghur re­ search participants experience and perceive the state through encounters with community centres as irrational and arbitrary, on the one hand, and powerful and violent, on the other. The shequ as local bureaucratic offices served as key sites of encounter between citizens and the state. The fear and confusion perpetuated by bureaucracy al­ lowed for the limitation of citizen free- doms, and the Uyghurs engaged in the process to navigate the system. These findings complicate existing discussions of fragmented state power where state terror and cultural freedom exist in con­ stant tension.

12

QUESTIONING PLANETARY ILLIBERAL GEOGRAPHIES

ETHNOGRAPHY OF STATE BUREAUCRACY: FRAGMENTED AUTHORITARIANISM In the previous literature on she'Ju in China, scholars agree that the she'fu func­

tion as a crucial bridge between state authoritarianism and city residents, both as a physical contact point with the people and also as a method ofdistributing welfare aid and social services (Bray, 2008; Read, 2012). In China where freedom ofspeech is not possible, the she'JU arc meant to provide a medium for airing griev­ ances and facilitating public participation in a non-democratic context (Boland & Zhu, 2012). According to previous scholarship, shequ have increased state in­ frastruc- tural power and regime legitimacy in urban China (Heberer & Gobel, 2011). However, these studies were conducted in eastern China with majority Han ethnic residents. One exception isJoniak-Liithi and Bulag (2016), who pro­ vide an introductory exploration ofneighbourhood gov- ernance in north-west China. The she'JU in minority autonomous regions illustrate fragmented state power through an analysis ofhow governance practices affect everyday lives. Scholars ofXinjiang have found that economic inequalities and spreading ur­ banization have affected majority-minority relations and social life (Kobi, 2016; Pawan & Niyazi, 2016). Tibetan autonomous counties have also experienced shifting power relations caused by shequ governance away from minority com­ munity leaders and towards the state (Kojima & Kokubun, 2002; Makley, 2018). Similar findings have been recorded in Tibetan and Hui autonomous counties in Qinghai province (Grant, 2018). Nonetheless, there have been no previous studies specifically focused on the she'lu in Uyghur areas of north-west China, providing a spotlight onto the state's periphery and key insights into China's statecraft (Cartier & Oakes, 2010). The shequ politics in Uriimchi also shed a light on the urban politics of community participation and governance in closed or illiberal contexts, The state effect: uneven material and ideological state power W��ile the Chinese state maintains a significant presence in Uyghur people's lives in Urumchi, 1 also emphasize the gaps in space and time ofthat presence. I notice a fracturing of state power that may seem counterintuitive in an authoritarian context (more on the term 'fragmented authoritar- ianism' below). Ethnographic research shows how state power is both repressive and uneven in working at the level ofthe neighbourhood and body. When it comes to the 'state', the everyday story of uneven, fractured and segmented power shows the effects on people's lives in even more nefarious ways than visible policing (Martin, 2018). Social science scholars have countered the misconception ofthe state as a un­ ified entity. Instead, they emphasize that the state is a multiplicity of disjointed actors and often incongruous institutions (e.g., Althusscr, 2006 (1970]; Abrams, 2006 [1988]). Mitchell (1999, p. 77) reasons that the abstract and ideological forms ofthe state cannot be separated from the material everyday practices that produce

QU ESTIONING PLANETARY ILLIBERAL GEOGRAPHIES

13

the reifiecl 'state' and make the state a reality in people's lives: Toe phcnom- enon we name "the state" arises from techniques that enable mundane material practices to take on the appearance ofan abstract, nonmaterial form.' For example, citizens experience state power in the mundane, material aspects of bureaucracy, such as going to the D�V (De_vartment of�otor Vehicles). M_canwhile, citizens comply with bureaucratic requirements, partially because the 1deol- ogy of the state as an abstract entity enforces or controls our actions through laws, surveillance and punishment ofits citizens within a circumscribed te�ritory. . . The empirics of this paper show the ways in which the Chmcse state .1s dis­ organized, multiple, fragmented and chaotic. Drawing on these observations, I employ the analytic ofthe 'state effect' to describe the multiple and fractured state: 'Ihe state is an object of analysis that appears to exist simultaneously as material force and as ideological construct. It seems both real and illusory' (Mitchell, 1999, P· 76). The paradox of the state as tang��)�, but_ at the sam� time �!early ephem­ eral, is described by the state effect. In Urumch1, the state 1s experienced as both close and distant. Through the she'fu, the state appears as caring and inclusive, as well as arbitrary and violent. I pro- vide an ethnographic basis for understanding how banal and fragmented state power affects people on the ground in an ethnic minority context that has largely been ignored in previous literature. Fragmented authoritarianism Strong state presence and fragmentation are not mutually exclusive, but rather complementary. Chaos was part ofthe system. Uyghur people used connections, such as friends and family who worked at the shequ or in the police, to help them navigate the system, get paperwork pushed through or circumvent the rules. This reflects what has been observed in the previous literature on a strong �tale presence with different capacities on local and national scales. For example, Lie­ berthal and Lampton (1992) theorize a concept called a model of 'fragmented authoritarianism'. 1he model describes decentralization in post-Mao China, when lower level officials were granted more economic decision-making power. Under the 'fragmented authoritarianism' model, bureau- cratic bargaining over resources means that no single government body has authority over the others. According to their model, China's central power is weaker than was previously assumed, and local governments arc more powerful than was thought. 'Fragmented authoritarianism' describes the ways that Uyghur citizens expe­ rienced state power on the ground. First as fragmented: the state was described as irrational and chaotic, which they saw as a troublesome nuisance to be ignored and avoided at every opportunity. Second as author- itarian: scary, powerful and violent on the other hand, where surveillance meant that they had to be careful about every move they made and word they said. I found in Onimchi that there was chaos and confusion that allowed for the limitation of citizen freedoms, as well as loopholes that allowed for some reprieve from the oppression. Lieberthal and Lampton (1992) find that the central gov- ernment is not all-powerful and describe the ways that lower level officials jockey for resources. In other words,

14

QUESTIONING PLANETARY ILLIBERAL GEOGRAPHIES

QUESTIONING PLANETARY ILLIBERAL GEOGRAPHIES

decision-making is not top-down but rather more horizontal. In Uriimchi, people encountered and navigated the state through the bureaucratic surveillance and police system, where they found loopholes. People experienced the state as chaotic and irrational to the point that they could move around it and avoid it the best they can. 1hc findings illustrate the continu- ing need to complement meso­ level analysis with micro-level analysis to move away from gener- alizations and toward the complexity ofthe particular.

J conducted the semi-structured interviews, I had informal convcrsa- tions with 52 additional Uyghurs who gave informed consent to quote them. Sec Ryan and Tyncn (2019) for more information on ethics, state surveillance, knowledge pro­ duction and methods during that time. J am a white, American woman fluent in Chinese and proficient in Uyghur, which affected my experiences in the field and data collection. These data arc not meant to be a representative sample size or demographic. l11ey arc not meant to be wholly objective or free of bias. Rather, they arc meant to be understood within the context in which they were collected. Nonetheless, the data cited here were collected by the researcher under best practices for ethical standards, and to the best ofmy knowledge, the most accurate and truthful picture ofthe workings and perspectives ofthe shequ.

Ethnography of state bureaucratic power Other scholars using ethnography to study state power have pointed to how local bureaucratic offices serve as material sites ofencounter between the people and the state (Hull, 2012), where 'care' and inclusion through bureaucracy inex­ tricably results in structural violence (Gupta, 201 2). The state shapes everyday practices, and vice versa (Das & Poole, 2004). In my observations, I noticed that in addition to the police stations and military patrols, the confusion of the papenvork that was required to register for legal residency in the city was also a nefarious and hidden - though still material - way that the state apparatus maintained control. Ethnography is one of the best ways to study the invisible, mundane and ordinary forms of state power because I recorded daily aspects of life that go unnoticed by most people (Das, 2007; Reeves, Rasanayagam, & Beyer, 2014). 1hrough ethnography, 1 found a system ofregis- tration, paperwork and surveil­ lance that laid the groundwork for the mass interment of Uyghurs (Sudworth, 2018). I specifically analyse the points ofencounter between state and citizen as not clean cut but instead as messy, overlapping and complex. My project observes the encounters as situated in a particular context, the bounds of my neighbour­ hood field site.

METHODS lhe primary mode ofinvestigation used in this paper is ethnographic participant observation over the course of living in Oriimchi, Xinjiang, for a total of 24 months from 2014 to 2017.6 During that time, I conducted 91 formal, semi­ structured interviews with 46 Uyghurs and 45 Han par- ticipants. l11e interviews with Uyghurs usually took place over the course of at least three meetings to allow for a gradual build-up of mutual trust, and to allow for spontaneous con­ versations to arise. While I asked everyone the same questions, these meetings were conducted in a conversational format that allowed for diversion and insights into other aspects oftheir lives that were not nccess- arily covered by the inter­ views. Often these meetings sparked a friendship, and we would meet a dozen or more times after the interview was completed. With their informed consent, some of the conversations that arc quoted in this paper arc taken from informal conversations that took place after the interview was conducted and were not related to the interview questions. In addition to the 46 Uyghurs with whom

15

BANAL STATE POWER THROUGH BUREAUCRATIC CENTRES: SERVICE AND CONFUSION Background information on community centres While some may assume that state power in the shequ was solely represented by eth nic majority Han people, Uyghurs worked there as well. Uyghur shequ employees complicated a simply binary ofHan versus Uyghur in terms ofstate power. Uyghur employees facilitated the bureaucracy and surveillance among Uyghurs who did not speak Chinese. While state power might appear hegemonic, Uyghur employ­ ees showed the ways that state power is multifucetcd rather than monolithic. The fuzzy distinctions between state territory and Uyghur spaces arc not discrete and bounded, but rather overlapping. For example, 1 found the spatial aspects of the shequ infra- structure as located in apartment buildings or within walking distance ofeach home in its jurisdic- tion was an important aspect ofestablishing the mate­ rial and ideological 'state as your ncighbor'prcsencc (Tomba, 2014). Especially in low-income and Uyghur-majority neighbourhoods, the shcrp1 in Uriimchi admi- nistercd welfare. The main tasks of the sheq11 were summed up in one placard posted around the city: '1) Manage the Floating Population [ru­ ral migrants], 2 ) Obtain residence permits, visitors permits, or travel pcr�_its, 3) Spread propaganda and publicity, and 4) Serve the masses' (poster seen in Uriim­ chi, March 2017).7 These placards announced the 'service activities' that were tar- getcd towards rural migrant populations. These arc examples of territorial aspects of shequ control designed for poor populations. Drawing on Mbcmbe (1992), I examine the banality of state power. Specifically, 'one must examine the orderings of the world it produces; the types of insti- tutions, knowledges, norms, and practices that issue from it; the manner in which these insti- tutions, knowledges, norms, and practices structure the quotidian' (p. 4). While Mbcmbc draws on particularities of a postcolonial state in a certain African context, his idea ofthe quotidian is applicable to the mundane tasks ofpaperwork and regis­ tration that, while a frightening form ofstate surveillance, became normal rou­ tine in the city. lhc materiality ofpaperwork forms a site and network of power

16

QUESTIONING PLANETARY ILLIBERAL GEOGRAPHIES

QUESTIONING PLANETARY ILLIBERAL GEOGRAPHIES

relations between the state and society, which highlights the banality of state power through bureaucracy and administration (Mbembe, 1992).

on the other hand, were the most vulnerable to police harassment and under almost constant surveillance in Oriimchi. Conducting a large survey was impossible due to the political context. The following are some preliminary findings. For this section, I present the data from the two main categories ofUyghur interviewees: urban h11ko11/nop11s holders who owned their homes, and rural h11ko11/nopw holders who were renting. 1he col lected main answers to the interview questions about the shequ from Uyghur participants arc shown below (Table 2): In summary, Table 2 shows that Uyghurs with urban huko11/nop11r who were home owners experienced less police harassment and bureaucratic headaches than Uyghur rural migrants. This shows that shequ policies differed according to class: the wealthier, urban residents did not have to worry as much about shequ inspec­ tions nor registration. Poor, rural migrants, on the other hand, were subject to increased surveillance. This shows that the bureaucracy specifically tar- geted the poor and created institutional barriers of access to the resources ofthe city. 1l1e results in terms of ethnic discrimination at the sheq11 are telling when compared with the Han interview data. First, consider the demographics ofmy Han inter­ viewees (Table 3). I include Table 3 to show that there were some Han participants who lived in Uyghur-majority districts. These responses were different because Uyghur­ majority districts had stricter shequ regu- lations. However, there were not enough responses from Han living in Uyghur-majority districts to include here. The interview responses to show the variances in responses and compare them to the Uyghur responses (Table 4), 1l1e goal is to give a general overview of the shequ for most of the people I interviewed, rather than a comprehemive or rep­ resentative survey.

Findings According to my interview data, shequ policies differed according to socioeco­ nomic status as measured by ethnicity, homeownership, urban or rural household registration status, and Uyghur-majority or Han-majority neighbourhood. The urban or rural household registration sta- tus is called hukou in Chinese or no pus in Uyghur. Those four demographic factors (Table 1) affected shequ policies according to class and ethnicity. Society functions and interacts with the state not as separate spaces but as constantly overlapping spaces. While ethnic cate­ gories coincided with religion and everyday practices, they also greatly impacted administrative policies around resi- dential permits that affected life trajectories in the city through police harassment and evictions. Table 1 shows that there were variations across socioeconomic demographic groups of the interviewees: some urbanites did rent homes and some rural migrants owned homes. Overall, consistent patterns emerged in terms of homeownership and urban status, and renting and rural status (see also Tomba, 2014, on the relationship between ur­ ban status and homeownership in other parts of China). Most homeowners had urban hukou and most renters had rural huk.ou. While accurate statistics on the exact numbers of the relationship between urban/rural status and homeowner ship are not available, other authors speak to the relationship between urbanites and homeownership (Yan, 2008). These categories correlated with shequ policies: homeowners were not subject to home inspections, and urbanites did not have to register with the shequ. Ren- ters and migrants ofboth ethnicities were subject to home inspections and registration regulations. Rural migrants who are Uyghur,

Table 2. Interview re