In a forthcoming book, The Rest and the West, Neilson, and Sandro Mezzadra discuss the importance of state efforts to coordinate flows and extend supply chains at the transnational level. They argue that as states’ capacity to organize production and regulate competition has weakened, their efforts to coordinate flows and extend supply chains have become more important. Neilson argues that the current turn to industry-based geopolitics requires interpretation in this frame, as it does not necessarily follow standard scripts of international rivalry and competition. He further pointed out that the example of limited equipment for high-end silicon chips produced by the Dutch firm ASML shows that the rivalry between the two major continental states passes through complex global supply chains and attempts to control or influence these production networks. Neilson suggests that industry-based geopolitics is neither a form of statecraft nor an instance of extra-statecraft, but rather a branch of geopolitics that works in tandem with other forms of geopolitics. It cannot be fully delinked from statecraft and cannot be abandoned into the world of capital, standard-setting, or digital networking.

While there are many analytical frameworks to understand these dynamics, Neilson introduced the concept of political capitalism and argued that it should be the focus of industry-based geopolitics. This is because the concept examines how capitalism influences politics and the extent to which political actors frame, shape, and drive the valorisation and accumulation of capital across geographical scales. This concept allows for the identification of the differences between major political powers.

In summary, Neilson emphasizes that the current focus on industry-based geopolitics should not be reduced to traditional statecraft or seen as separate from it. He highlights the importance of understanding capital as a social relation and the role of class struggle in analyzing the political implications of capital operations.

Against this background, the motivation of the lecture is to empirically substantiate how contemporary power is produced and organized within and through logistical technologies and industries specific to contemporary capitalism. Professor Rossiter argues that an analysis starting with logistical episteme leads to a different comprehension of geopolitical formations at historical junctures that distinguish the variation in capital in epochal terms. He proposed a media theory of geopolitical formation that passed through the episteme of logistics, which they believed would scarcely be sketched by the end.

In summary, Professor Rossiter emphasizes the importance of understanding the logistical episteme as a geopolitical world system and its role in shaping contemporary society and the economy. Logistical epistemes are material conditions that influence institutional discourse, industrial objectives, cognitive tendencies, and social experience. It is underpinned and politically conditioned by cybernetic episteme, which is the logic of equivalence that flattens differences and eradicates externalities through the computational processes of interoperability. The technological functions of and are predicated on mathematical calculations specific to digital technology.

China’s rise in the 21st century through projects such as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has led to a revival of the discourse on Tianxia and Tianxia 2.0. President Xi Jinping called the BRI a project of the century. China’s BRI global infrastructure network includes the Maritime Silk Road, special economic zones (SEZs), and Digital Infrastructure. Maritime Silk Road led to the construction of 62 ports and 54 overseas ports, whereas Digital Silk Road led to the development of smart cities and digital surveillance technologies in more than 80 countries. Professor Liu emphasized that despite concerns about China exporting authoritarianism, 6,000 tech companies have registered on the Belt Road Initiative portal, and over 16 countries have signed the digital Silk Road memorandum and built 116 smart cities. China has also set up overseas police and service stations for police and Chinese affairs.

Professor Liu’s presentation also underscores that the BRI’s expansion has exposed the dark side of China’s global network, which includes corruption, collusion, illegal activities, and compound industry. Most SEZa are complex compounds interconnected with the local wealthy, elite, military junta, and local gangsters due to legal exceptions. In addition to corruption, promises of co-prosperity and substantial financial aid have resulted in debt traps, environmental pollution, resource extraction, scam compounds, and underground rezones.

In conclusion, Professor Liu argues that, similar to the illicit tributary trading system of the past, the new Tianxia system witnessed the same kinds of violence, exploitation, corruption, and so on. Professor Liu presented a new formula, V-M+, to understand the new form of capitalism that emerged from Tianxia 2.0. V represents the void with no cause and violence with no law, and there is no limit to the proliferation of capital and brutality through digital technology. Professor Liu emphasized that the concept V-M+ reflects the current state of Chinese capitalism.

Drawing from a historical analysis of hegemonic transition, Mezzadra argues that there will never be a straightforward happy ending with the new hegemon taking the place of the U.S. Mezzadra points out three reasons: a) the crisis of U.S. global hegemony coincides with the crisis of Western meta-hegemony, b) the current hegemonic transition has to do with finance and financialization, and c) disconnections and gaps between geopolitics and geoeconomics. Professor Mezzadra emphasizes the importance of understanding the current hegemonic transition through world system theory and empire. He further highlighted the significance of pole formation over established poles and multipolarity as a conceptual framework for analyzing current tensions and conflicts at the world system level.

Coming to the current formations of war, Prof. Mezzadra argues that contemporary wars can be analyzed from several points of view. However, a logistical perspective of the current state of war is particularly important. For instance, the pandemic has led to supply chain disruptions and the rhetoric of re-shoring and near-shoring, leading to high human costs owing to food crises in Africa and Latin America. The disruption of logistical routes and supply chains has been met with powerful attempts to remake the geography of capital space.

In conclusion, Professor Mezzadra maintained that the notion of a war regime allows us to grasp the penetration of war logic into economies and societies beyond the battlefield. In a situation characterized by the disruption of logistical routes, the war regime can become a global-level governmental regime or form of governance. In response to this hypothesis, Professor Mezzadra emphasizes the importance of understanding what such a regime of war means for the fight against war and identifying new bases for an internationalist approach. This existential conflict requires theoretical and practical approaches.

Regarding the Trincomalee port, Maheswaran stressed that the strategic value of the port is long known, yet little concrete action has been taken to develop the port, except for mining activities undertaken by international companies from India and Australia to extract timber. Maheswaran argues that this is primarily due to ethnic biasness of the Sinhalese government whose focused is on the development of southern region. The majority of Tamil population are located at the eastern coast. In fact, she further argued that Trincomalee expansion would have made much more sense than Hambantota expansion in terms of the route. Moreover, Trincomalee offers optimal protection from visibility. The local population at Trincomalee complained that besides mining activities, there was resettlement of the landless Sinhalese in this area.

Maheswaran concluded her presentation with the argument that Sri Lanka’s reconfiguration as a sovereign nation has led to violence and resource extraction due to its post-colonial capitalism projects. The Colombo Megacity Project, such as in Southern Hambantota, has a 40% Chinese workforce, creating Singapore in South Asia. The Special Economic Zone, a collaboration between the Sri Lankan ministries and the China Communication Construction Company Limited, has been delayed due to the pandemic and state bankruptcy in 2022, posing risks and no action to mitigate them.

In Poland, inequalities in ownership are more pronounced than inequalities in income. Thomas Piketty estimates that Western agents took over about one-fourth of the Polish general national wealth, including properties and enterprises. This externally controlled ownership resulted in a significant outflow of cash from the region’s economies to western countries. Professor Smoczynski argued that this ownership constrains capital accumulation in new economies and industries, and national policies are unable to create new ones because of a lack of resources and national capital investment. The research problem can be approached from various perspectives, including the cyclical patterns of radical ownership transformations occurring in the peripheries and semi-peripheries of the world and the stability of economic development in Europe since the middle Ages.

He further underscores that the company’s expansion into Southeast Asia, particularly in countries such as Thailand, Indonesia, and Vietnam, has implications for digital governance, sovereignty, and industry-based geopolitics between the global north and south. A company’s focus on hardware and repair services, rather than just software and data, is another significant strategy for success in the smartphone industry. Professor Qiu stressed that the concept of decolonial computing is being explored as a potential solution to address the issues of colonial biases in AI and excessive consumerism in industry. Market-driven decolonial computing is a potential approach that can self-sustain and outcompete colonial computing.

Professor Qiu argues that the success of the transformation in Africa and Southeast Asia is attributed to its market-driven approach, and the company’s mobile phone repair services have expanded globally, providing jobs and extending the lifespan of smartphones. The market-driven approach is not seen as a substitute for government responsibility, corporate social responsibility, or civil society movements but rather as a balance between these different models.

Regarding the human rights issue, Tsering contended that with increased Chinese influence in the Nepalese media landscape, there is growing digital repression in the reporting and publication of news related to the Tibetan issue. Chinese government officials in Nepal have threatened and intimidated journalists. Concerns have been raised about the increasing CCTV surveillance in Tibetan settlement areas, which was implemented with the help of the Chinese government.

Tsering argued that China’s digital cooperation with Nepal is driven by geopolitical issues and the control of Tibetan refugees. Companies like ZTE, Huawei, and Alibaba, leading China’s BRI project, dominate Nepal’s digital infrastructure. They raise concerns about data security and the complex relationship between digital power, democracy, and human rights abuses. Tsering suggested Nepal must balance development with the security and protection of democracy and human rights.

Civil society groups and farmers who protest these projects continue to face pressure from different groups such as politicians, gangs, and the government. With the increasing importance of the industry, development plans are linked to the issue of national security. In conclusion, Professor Tai stressed that the TMSC had established a farm in Japan, and the people in complained about the same challenges. Therefore, for future research prospect, one can do a comparative studies of Taiwan and Japan.

The second key word, technologies of land taking, the presentation underscores the role of local government and local economic players in creating high-tech zones. LI stressed that land expropriation laws were implemented to cater to the establishment of these high-tech zones and, consequently, created a new form of high-tech territorial governance. In the case of China, state-owned enterprises are given special power to not only acquire rural land at a low rate but also seek investment and loans from banks that often result in the creation of dependency and new kinds of land financing. In Taiwan, the government encourages participation of the local population in land development games through private and public partnerships.

The third key word, urban informal settlements, addresses the local population perspective and engagement in this technopoles phenomenon. The local population has its own strategy for negotiating compensation with the local government.

In conclusion, LI emphasizes that there are two critical dimensions of analysis for understanding the rapid development of technopoles: high-tech governance and intervention by the local government and population. One is the urban informalities method proposed by Indian schools of thought and the other is the eviction method proposed by Alexander Baker (2020).

Decolonization after World War II brought hope for anti-colonialism, anti-racism, and international cooperation, evident through South-South collaborations and institutions like UNCTAD and the G77. However, the resurgence of colonial dynamics in the 1990s, driven by neoliberal globalization, reignited ethnic conflicts and geopolitical tensions, particularly in regions like Afghanistan, Eastern Europe, and the Balkans.

Samaddar identifies three key elements of modern colonial warfare: territorial expansion, resource competition, and rapid infrastructure development, leading to widespread displacement in countries like Syria and Afghanistan. Technological sovereignty is now critical, as many civilian technologies have military applications. Control over resources such as lithium and cobalt is central to modern conflicts, as seen in China’s resource extraction and the Ukraine War.

Sovereignty remains a contested issue, no longer solely a matter of government logistics but involving juridical, institutional, and legal dimensions. The reappearance of colonial warfare in a new guise and the resurgence of mercantilism challenges traditional theories of sovereignty. Modern wars, intertwined with technological advancements and resource control, underscore the ongoing relevance of imperialist dynamics in global conflicts.

She further challenges theoretical frameworks that are not backed by empirical evidence, arguing they perpetuate myths about safe trafficking and migration. Empirical data show that most migrants, regardless of their status, face exploitation or danger during their journeys. The World Development Report 2023 similarly critiques the GCM for failing to address the complexities of migration and conflating different migrant categories.

Digital technologies such as blockchain, used by organizations like the IOM and ILO, are also flawed due to vulnerabilities like hacking, which undermine their effectiveness in securing labor contracts. In Southeast Asia, about 24 million people are engaged in migration, with nearly 12 million in the labor force, many from religious minorities, complicating efforts to combat trafficking. Banerjee emphasizes that trafficking often involves coercion into bonded labor through digital means, reducing individuals to commodities.

Banerjee also critiques the valorization of professions that commodify human bodies, a practice that persists historically and today. The prohibition of trafficking remains elusive, much like the idea of a revolution in the United States. She cites available statistics on trafficking, particularly focusing on the high prevalence of female migrant labor in Southeast Asia. Thailand leads with 61% of migrant labor being women, followed by Malaysia (57%), Cambodia (56%), and the Philippines (54%). Despite not producing the highest number of migrant workers, the region has the highest percentage of female migrants globally. International organizations like the ILO fail to distinguish between regular and irregular migrants, as many individuals may experience irregularity during transit. This rigid categorization is ineffective, as states can regulate migration processes to make them “regular.”

Banerjee introduces the concept of carceral topologies, describing how migrant workers are subjected to isolation and punitive measures, a concept she terms “carceral realities.” The case of the Rohingyas in South and Southeast Asia exemplifies the interplay of biopolitics and geopolitics. With significant Rohingya populations in Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia, she notes that Indonesia, despite having the largest Muslim population, hosts the fewest Rohingyas. This disparity highlights the disproportionate vulnerability of trafficked women and girls, who constitute 70% of all trafficking victims.

In her case study of Thailand, Banerjee highlights the limitations of digital justice mechanisms, noting that while Thailand has identified trafficking victims and processed numerous cases, many victims do not receive restitution. The Protect You app has identified 530 victims, leading to 312 cases, with significant involvement from law enforcement, victims, and NGOs. However, digital solutions alone are insufficient. She advocates for a human-centered approach to trafficking solutions, drawing from management theories, and proposes a theory of disruption to effectively address trafficking, focusing on practical solutions that prioritize victims’ wages and rights.

The European Union’s response to these shifts involves a new industrial policy, highlighted by the 2021 COVID-19 Recovery and Resilience Fund (750 billion euros), aimed at enhancing digital infrastructure and resilience, driven by competition with the US and China. Bojadzijev identifies six central themes in the EU’s resilience strategy: geopolitical, ecological, inclusiveness, cybersecurity, economic, and preventive. These guide resource allocation to enhance Europe’s strategic position.

Germany, particularly East Germany, has seen significant investments in digital technology and green industries, including semiconductors, batteries, and electric vehicles. This shift is driven by demographic decline and labor shortages, necessitating migration to meet workforce demands. The tension between migration needs and political resistance is growing, with controversial policies like the Common European Asylum System facing opposition.

Professor Bojadzijev recounted visiting Belgrade, where she witnessed the environmental consequences of proposed lithium extraction projects. Local protests against Rio Tinto highlight the clash between environmental activism and global industrial demands, especially after Germany’s interest in lithium for its automotive industry.

In summary, Bojadzijev illustrated the complex interplay between social movements, environmental concerns, and Europe’s geopolitical and economic strategies. The EU’s resilience fund and digital policy must navigate these intersecting challenges to achieve effective and sustainable outcomes.

The gig economy blurs the lines between personal and professional life, creating a fragmented labor market that yields small earnings per task. Workers are constantly measured by platform algorithms, which influence their work output and identity. This technological control amplifies the uncertainties and precarity of gig work, creating what the Chaudhry describes as “new worker subjectivities.”

In India, the gig economy has grown significantly. Entities like Zomato employ over 350,000 delivery partners, and reports estimate that by 2029-30, gig workers in India could number 23.5 million. While some Indian states, such as Rajasthan and Karnataka, have made legislative attempts to protect platform workers, structural inequalities persist, limiting their effectiveness.

Chaudhry connects these developments to the broader global trend of platformization, where digital capitalism fosters new hierarchies and perpetuates epistemic inequalities. He critiques the “necrocapitalist” framework, where worker debility and debt are commodified for economic gain, and questions whether a de-professionalization and decolonization of politics is needed to address these growing inequalities. Despite the challenges, platform workers continue to form marginal solidarities and engage in protests, reflecting ongoing struggles for better working conditions.

Today, Vietnam hosts 563 industrial parks, with major foreign investments from South Korea, Japan, Singapore, and Taiwan. Key industrial regions include Ho Chi Minh City, Dong Nai, and Binh Duong. Migration to industrial zones, primarily young female workers seeking better opportunities, has increased, impacting economic, social, and demographic factors.

The pandemic highlighted the vulnerability of migrant workers, particularly in southern Vietnam, where inadequate housing and vaccination coverage led to over 25,000 deaths. The government has since acknowledged these challenges and introduced new policies to improve housing and welfare for migrant workers. Plans to establish new industrial parks closer to workers’ hometowns aim to enhance their living conditions. While digital control measures have been implemented, they have not significantly improved working conditions, making further reforms necessary to support migrant workers effectively.

The research delves into the motivations for engaging with digital platforms and the forms of capital these workers leverage, while also exploring the risks associated with digital labor. For instance, many migrant workers face precarious employment conditions, with their legal status tied to their jobs, making them vulnerable to exploitation. Leung’s study reveals that microaggressions are particularly prevalent among platform workers, more so than in non-platform roles, with significant gender disparities in experiences of discrimination.

The paper underscores the persistence of colonial-era racial hierarchies in Hong Kong’s platform economy, despite the city’s return to China in 1997. Leung highlights how digital labor allows migrant workers to develop entrepreneurial identities, but this participation also comes with risks, including censorship and increased precarity.

Professor Leung references studies by Neff on entrepreneurial labor in new media, noting how these studies overlook the creative digital production by workers themselves. This production represents minority migrant subjectivity, capitalizing on platform algorithms while navigating racialized labor structures. The paper categorizes three case studies of vloggers: Afrikan, a Pakistani male born in Hong Kong; Contrains, an Indonesian domestic helper known for her viral Cantonese video; and Pon Chieng, a migrant health helper who produces multilingual labor-focused content. These vloggers raise awareness of labor exploitation and racial discrimination, offering a form of digital advocacy.

In conclusion, Professor Leung calls for a deeper understanding of the intersectional injustices faced by migrant workers, emphasizing how the platform economy perpetuates racial capitalism while simultaneously offering tools for resistance and solidarity. However, this digital engagement is fraught with risks, as workers’ residential status is often linked to their employment, making them vulnerable to both digital and offline repercussions.

A central focus of the project is collaborating with Indigenous Australians to explore the legacies of colonial injustice. The project aims to enhance social cohesion by developing new methods for sharing community histories and environmental changes. By integrating Indigenous perspectives, the project seeks to address the historical underrepresentation of these voices in national collections.

To transform Australian collections into dynamic knowledge platforms, the project emphasizes the development of new documentation standards and cross-disciplinary discoverability. This will involve exploring the applications of artificial intelligence and machine learning to improve research capabilities. By partnering with institutions like the Institute for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (IATSIS) and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), the project aspires to position Australia as a global leader in transdisciplinary collections research.

Comparative international efforts in provenance research and the decolonization of museum collections, particularly in France and Germany, provide a framework for Australia’s ambitions. The project aligns with the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) and CARE (Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, and Ethics) principles, ensuring that the digital transformation of collections benefits all communities, especially Indigenous ones.

Professor Message-Jones concludes by highlighting the symbolic importance of objects like Metthina’s doll, which represents the strength and resilience of Tasmanian people. This doll, currently in Britain, is subject to repatriation efforts. The project’s broader goal is to ensure significant objects like this are returned to their rightful custodians, bridging gaps in cultural narratives and restoring the rightful ownership of historically significant artifacts.

Key terminologies in Oen-Lee’s presentation include “takumi” (a highly skilled craftsperson), “technologi” (applied science, from Bahasa), and “technae” (Greek for knowledge through material practice). These concepts frame her discussion of integrating traditional craft with modern technological problem-solving.

Oen-Lee collaborates with James Jack, an artist engaged in ecological and archipelagic methodologies, whose work intersects with historical museum collections and anti-capitalist art production. Jack’s projects, particularly in Japan and Singapore, highlight community-based ecological practices and alternative modes of art creation.

The presentation also critiques TeamLab, a digital art collective known for immersive installations that prioritize sensory overload, contrasting this tech-oriented approach with the more grounded, artisanal focus of the “aquapologic” residencies.

Oen-Lee discusses projects such as the fishing dock initiative in the Tebrao Strait, which integrates climate adaptation and maritime knowledge sharing through the Club Alami. Additionally, she highlights the workshop of Shotoshima’s last boat repairman, a vital asset to the island’s fishing economy.

Oen-Lee’s concept of the “aquapologic future” envisions an interconnected archipelagic mindset, focusing on local ecological knowledge and creative practices. This future, supported by hydrohumanities discourse, aims to decommodify water and harness its potential for creativity, enhancing our understanding of the complex relationship between water, culture, and the ocean.

The authors propose that socio-political struggles involve practices of translation, which enable the formation of new organizational and institutional practices. They advocate for an epistemic viewpoint that clarifies the relational composition of borders as spaces of struggle and subjectivity formation through differential inclusion processes. However, the book acknowledges the need for further elaboration of the epistemic viewpoint, which may be influenced by systemic or subjectivist perspectives, or by computational and infrastructural conditions. Technologies such as satellites, the Internet of Things, and social credit systems exemplify how societal organization and calibration are achieved.

The epistemic viewpoint is described as cosmo-technical, encompassing our perceptual capacities and the potential planetary scope of our perception. It draws on concepts like the Gaia hypothesis and the work of Lovelock, Margulis, and others in Earth system science and biogeochemistry. Samaddar discusses the psychological and epistemic violence inherent in nation-building, proposing that the agent behind the episteme cannot fully encompass the system’s totality. He suggests that articulating the epistemic as a language—a constellation of component parts and heterogeneous elements—provides a framework for understanding the dynamic of contestation and transformation at the border.

Border as Method delves into the politics of translation, emerging continental spaces, and contemporary forms of regionalism. While the book is intellectually invigorating and fresh, it also prompts further inquiry into the future of multipolar world theories, such as those discussed in the forthcoming work, The Rest and the West: Capital and Power in a Multipolar World by Professor Sandro Mezzadra and Brett Neilson.

The traditional perception of borders as mere lines on maps delineating sovereign territories has evolved. The post-World War era has presented a zero-sum dynamic between globalization and borders. Notably, Ranabir Samaddar’s exploration of migration from Bangladesh to West Bengal and Sandro Mezzadra and Brett Neilson’s discourse on the multiplication of labor have significantly contributed to the ongoing discourse on the evolving nature of global order and disorder. Samaddar’s work emphasizes the relevance of migration experiences, including undocumented migration and controlled regimes along the India–Bangladesh border in South Asia. Similarly, Mezzadra and Neilson address the transformations of labor in the Euro-Atlantic context, focusing on themes such as care labor, precarity, the Hukou system in China, and the complex bordering systems affecting the Indian labor market.

Samaddar’s book delves into the twilight zone between legality and illegality, exceptionality and normalcy, and infiltration and migration within South Asia. By investigating migrants and their travels, Samaddar questions the post-colonial nation-state and explores alternative existences that traverse national boundaries. He argues that the mapping of South Asian nations has led to the erosion of alternative identities, with the modern sovereign nation-state replacing these identities with the concept of citizenship. Undocumented migrants challenge the nation-state in dual ways: by opting out of the nation and by defying national boundaries, leading to marginalization through seasonal or permanent migration, subsistence production, and peasant relations in community formation. Samaddar also highlights that efforts to preserve local traditions and kinship ties undermine not only landlord domination but also the very essence of the nation-state, linking it to sub-regional, internal household, and gender priorities.

According to Chaudhry, Samaddar’s and Mezzadra and Neilson’s works offer valuable alternative perspectives on borders and migration. Samaddar’s focus on the historical migration from Bangladesh to India complements Mezzadra and Neilson’s methodological approach to borders. Both books illuminate the illegal juridical status of cross-border migrant workers, creating additional borders that amplify the diversity of this workforce. They analyze the shifting border and migration regimes during a neoliberal era, where national borders increasingly fail to serve as the primary boundaries for labor mobility.

Chaudhry states that Professor’s Mezzadra and Neilson argue that borders have become instrumental in articulating global movements of people, capital, and goods. They examine the evolving nature of border and migration regimes in Europe, Asia, and beyond, addressing the long-standing issue of the relationship between the expanding frontiers of capital and territorial demarcations within the context of late capitalism. The financialization of capital, a key feature of the current global capitalist transition, necessitates a re-evaluation of dominant theoretical paradigms in political, economic, and social sciences. Mezzadra and Neilson’s concept of the multiplication of labor maps the geographical disruptions central to capitalist globalization. Their borderless method contributes to ongoing discussions about borders, migration, and global order and disorder. They emphasize the strategic significance of various geographies and their heterogeneities, characterized by control mechanisms and hierarchization, and suggest that marginal and micro-solidarities could potentially transform marginalized populations from states of precarity into states of resistance. In conclusion, these two works remain highly relevant, with future research needed to further explore the nature of borders and migration in an increasingly digitalized and panoptical society.

Mezzadra’s seminal work, Border as Method, extends beyond the traditional Atlantic focus of border studies—typically centered on the Mediterranean, European, and US frontiers, as well as the Mexico-US border and the Pacific solution in Australia. This book broadens the scope by addressing a variety of bordering practices and struggles, including those associated with border smuggling. Mezzadra asserts that this approach remains crucial for understanding the intricate dynamics of migration and border smuggling. The concept of the multiplication of borders highlights the heterogenization of borders, necessitating attention not only to conventional geopolitical boundaries but also to diverse bordering mechanisms. For instance, Chapter 7 of the book examines the processes involved in establishing special economic zones, with a focus on China and India—an area not typically covered in classical border studies.

The relevance of the concept of the marginal nation extends beyond the politicization of migration. It invites a re-examination of religious dimensions, particularly in South Asia. Mezzadra’s current research delves into the intersection of religion and border studies, exploring regions such as South Asia and Southeast Asia through innovative epistemic exercises that make regional and area studies viable. This engagement with critical regionalism and continentalism is integral to the ongoing work. Mezzadra expresses gratitude for the insightful synthesis of the two books, which has been facilitated by the York Google Live discussion.

Neilson highlights that borders should be understood as productive rather than merely divisive. They play a critical role in the structuring of commonality and communism, a concept intricately linked to the theme of translation and informed by Naoki Sakai’s work, Translation and Subjectivity. The book explores themes of political subjectivity, gender, and citizenship, positioning migration as a central issue that redefines our understanding of these topics.

Neilson notes that the book’s translation process itself reflects its theoretical concerns. For example, the Italian cover depicted a wall, while the Slovenian cover featured barbed wire, illustrating different interpretations of the border concept across cultures. This variation in cover imagery highlights the epistemic challenges and nuances in translating theoretical works on borders.

In conclusion, Neilson emphasizes the importance of considering the epistemic viewpoint proposed by the book. He invites readers to engage with the book’s insights on the role of borders in shaping political structures and the world market. By doing so, readers can better understand the complex interplay between borders and migration and appreciate the book’s contributions to the study of border struggles and migration dynamics.

The Marginal Nation has emerged as a significant contribution to the southern history of migration studies, although its historiographical impact remains underdeveloped. Western frameworks of legalism and sociologism have been extended to the Global South, often overshadowing the innovative insights of southern studies on migration and forced migration flows. Initially, forced migration studies in South Asia began as part of a critique of post-colonial nationhood and international law, which evolved into a recognized academic field with significant presence in universities and Western NGOs over the past two decades. However, the book’s original innocent tone, which avoided the complexities of knowledge formation, has been reexamined with a renewed focus on its content.

Originally, The Marginal Nation presented a series of migrant chronicles, capturing the essence of migration as a process. Now, 25 years after its initial publication, it reveals a seamless fabric of reality. Each chapter, dealing with distinct migrant experiences, contributes uniquely to the broader narrative of migration. Compared to earlier significant studies in South Asia, the book’s introspective examination highlights the role of the chronicler in representing migrant lives, echoing Gramsci’s call for a people’s literature.

The book critiques the nation-state by presenting a disquieting in-betweenness, which reveals the marginalized reality of nations constrained by borders and nationality laws. This marginalization generates conflicts and contradictions, reflecting the struggles of nations to achieve their national popular ideals. The book’s examination of migrant interrogation of nationhood is pivotal in southern migration studies, addressing the issue of decentered history and the creation of a new class of immigrants who challenge legal and social norms.

The emergence of race-based issues in India, particularly concerning Rohingya and Bangladeshi migrants, underscores the nation’s struggle to address perceived subaltern status and the binary divisions imposed by national phenomena. The performative drama surrounding migrant policies highlights the perpetual conflict between national states and mobile populations. Migrants, by their very act of moving, become adversaries, often facing detention or perilous conditions.

Samaddar emphasizes that migrant knowledge remains a subjugated history, and there is a need for further exploration of migrant experiences to understand global freedom. The Marginal Nation sought to critique nationalism, borders, and citizenship through chronicles of displacement, rather than portraying migrants heroically. The concept of “condition” is central to understanding the migrant experience, drawing parallels with Friedrich Engels’s analysis of capitalist urbanization and Hannah Arendt’s differentiation between Vita Activa and Vita Contemplativa. Engels’s critique of political economy and Arendt’s examination of active and contemplative life offer frameworks for analyzing the complexities of migrant conditions.

In conclusion, the notion of condition serves as a starting point for a critique of the marginalized state, providing insights into the interconnectedness of societal relations. By engaging with these theoretical perspectives, we can better understand and address the challenges faced by marginalized populations in our increasingly globalized world.

To address extended publication timelines, an alternative approach includes the development of digital platforms or concise publications. This would enable readers to engage with various concepts without being confined to a singular framework.

A further suggestion involves distinguishing between the organization of critical concepts and keywords. Reflecting on Raven Williams’ approach, which focused on prevalent terms rather than seminal ideas, Professor Samaddar proposes that similar methodologies could be employed to interrogate concepts widely utilized in contemporary discourse.

Additionally, collaboration between the Critical Research Group (CRG) and Monash University is proposed, with a focus on producing articles of approximately 1,000 to 1,200 words, published biannually. These articles, which are designed to be accessible and non-abstract, could be disseminated widely, reaching an audience of 200,000 to 300,000 readers. Potential topics might include the dynamics of urban development, refugee experiences, and the role of cities as sanctuaries. This collaborative effort would also involve international distribution and could benefit from contributions from a diverse range of authors.

The discussion highlights the need for a coherent strategy in capturing and organizing ideas, whether through traditional academic formats or innovative digital methods. The focus is on ensuring quality and relevance, with considerations for global perspectives, particularly from Asian scholars. The team has also explored the potential of short videos and photographs to complement written content, reflecting an openness to diverse media formats.

These workshops could function as preparatory centers or online courses, facilitating the development of a “family of concepts” and their historical and material connections. Drawing on Foucault’s analysis of security, territory, and population, the aim is to illustrate the interrelation of concepts and their evolution.

Samaddar also discusses the emergence of clusters and ambiguities within concepts such as politics, civility, and governance, and their adaptation to contemporary contexts involving digital technology and platforms. The identification of these clusters by Ned Rossiter is noted, with a recommendation to convene a workshop at CCA to further explore these concepts. This initiative would contribute to the ongoing discourse and inform future publications.

Professor Mezzadra advocates for a collective writing workshop that explores the subjectivation of writing and the potential for anonymity within this process. He highlights the challenges associated with collective writing, particularly the difficulties in finalizing and closing a piece of writing, and the fears that may arise from using collaborative tools such as shared documents.

In his discussion of critical concepts, Professor Mezzadra underscores the importance of understanding concepts as families with multiple components. He argues for a deeper examination of how concepts are constituted and opened up, suggesting the creation of tactical conceptual archives to better grasp their formation and evolution.

The role of languages and translation is also a focal point of his discussion. He notes that concepts can have dual facets: one that remains valid across different contexts and another that is context-specific. For instance, Sabyasachi’s exploration of digital platforms illustrates how concepts may vary in their application across global regions. Professor Mezzadra emphasizes that translation challenges are intrinsic to concepts and must be considered when developing the proposed volume. Understanding the geographic and linguistic determinants of concepts is crucial for appreciating their uniqueness and relevance.

Professor Mezzadra critiques conventional approaches to examining critical concepts, suggesting that concepts like vulnerability and resilience have sometimes contributed to counterproductive framing in fields such as migration studies. He proposes that these concepts be critically examined for their efficacy and potential transgressions into different spheres. This involves not only expanding and developing concepts but also revisiting and rethinking them over time.

Mezzadra introduces the idea of conjunctural concepts, which are those relevant to specific temporal and situational contexts. This approach requires a longitudinal perspective, emphasizing the need to continually reassess and refine concepts based on their practical and theoretical utility.

In conclusion, Professor Mezzadra stresses the necessity of embracing the diversity and complexity of critical concepts in writing. He advocates for a methodological approach that involves both developing and critically revisiting concepts, ensuring that they are effectively adapted to address contemporary challenges. He poses several reflective questions, such as how concepts become productive, their meanings, and how they can be advanced, underscoring the importance of a dynamic and iterative process in conceptual development.

In the discussion, Professor Manuela Bojadzijev, specializing in historical collections and archives with a focus on contemporary political impact, acknowledges their relative newness to the conversation and their need to engage more deeply with existing perspectives. They express a keen interest in the concept of pocketbooks, recognizing their potential benefits while also noting possible challenges, such as disruptions or limitations in their application.

Bojadzijev elaborates on the idea of “families of concepts” and the distinction between specific objects or historical materials versus contemporary ones. This differentiation is seen as crucial for understanding how various elements interact and manifest in different contexts. The reference to newspaper-type distribution methods, such as flyer dissemination, is highlighted as a means to explore how items can be adapted for diverse modes of sharing and production.

Bojadzijev notes that their approach comes from a slightly different field characterized by absurdist or dataist thinking, which contrasts with more informal and normalized publications. She argued that addressing issues directly through these emerging formats can offer significant insights and prevent the perpetuation of unresolved problems. The potential of pocketbooks and similar forms of communication to contribute to this dialogue is underscored, with an emphasis on their role in bridging gaps and facilitating more direct engagement.

In conclusion, Bojadzijev emphasizes the importance of considering various modes of sharing and production in the context of historical collections and archives. They advocate for the exploration of pocketbooks and other innovative formats as valuable tools for enriching the conversation and improving the dissemination and understanding of both historical and contemporary materials.