nation and movements

i have been trying to put a paragraph together for the last hours in an attempt to complicate malkki's idea of the sedentary metaphysics of the state (i love that concept and malkki's work), and set of notions with which -she argues- transnational migrants and refugees clash in their relocations.
so one thing to consider would be that nations are not detached form the production of globalization of capital, as kay anderson but also many others (quienes eran todos lo que rescataban a la nacion en el debate, no me acuerdo), say. nations have a role to play and are not just "threatened " in the process of globalization. thus we cannot think of the sedentary metaphysics without thinking its simultaneous tensions with the constitution of more fluid forms of economy and sociability which are also part of national projects.
this can be thought for movements within the nation, which could also be thought in relation to malkki's concept. sedentarism can be also connected to practices of seclusion and segregation of marginalized societies as one of the aspects of generating ghettos was to restrict movement and interactions with social others by fixing them in the space of the ghetto which further marks the population as a marginal, racially different, characterized as delinquent and a source of contamination, in sum "subaltern other". this segregation is not just a detention of migrants intending to get into the city as virilio proposes but also has showed to be a process of separation of what was not clearly separated (as in mawani who presents the way a city composed of the cohabitation of indigenous, white settlers and migrants, that then are constituted as spaces of white settler hegemony through racial segregation). this was also the case in the sedentarization of the chaquenian populations which were not only an internal other whose territory had to be radically reduced in order for the sate to appropriate it, but also as nomads they had to be sedentarized.
but again the state also promotes movements of population form one region to satisfy the demand of work in other. thus sedentary metaphysics is there and is useful, but these other ways of dealing with movement may be considered as part of the type of power generated from the state.
a last tension with her notion can be seen in relation to foucault's ideas of power and the way there is a turn towards considering governmental forms of power as playing a fundamental role in contemporary societies. so if the power resulting form disciplinarian technologies in which the fixation, separation and delimitation of people in a transparent place was one of its features, governmental forms of power are based in even more diffuse forms of control, based in the decay of institutions and the emphasis in the control of all movement and choice, which is presented as an individual free choice, thus the conduct of conduct. The type of mechanism are thus the delimitation of access and the definition of areas of circulation through particular dispositions of people and things, subjected by detailed monitoring of action through deployment of an ad hoc technology. thus sedentary metaphysics challenges were responded by the cosntitution of more fluid forms of power that are effective in shaping subjectivities even by "let them free" to move. which is what i read from deluze in the postcript on societies of control that i already commented.

so as a conclusion what can i say? that sedentary metaphysics is there but that i shouldn't make the generalization of state as a sedentary space which intends to control any form of movement as "counter" to power. i have though thsi a fwe months ago but what else, then? the governmental forms of power and the characterization of contemporary society as one of control, does not however make invalid a type of disciplinarian power that is also in the base in the practices of spatial segregation of "others" (in the interesting things i read form mawani, peters, kay anderson, dt goldberg). so maybe is the combination of how things are disposed in space to regulate movement as well as what is what is fixed and what is the importance and which are the locations that demand a "password" for entry. what type of subjects result from the circulation of this paths and the navigation through the broken walls of the former disciplinarian institutions, what prevails in their crisis but is monitored, what mediates the glance, how many simultaneous planes does it take, what collective social subjects result form it, were is difference in this and how does it come together.

a final note is that of course sedentary metaphysisc resonate in the idea of the state as a space of sedentarism and striation maybe a question is again what type of movement is going on, if it a movement with direction set within straition, that does not open up a space to go through the "buildings" and its weight. so maybe malkki is having this in mind. however it is that refugees are nomads? i am not sure. the question for deleuze and guatari is whether nomad is any real subject, not the ones they refer to in thier text for sure, but maybe nor are they just "nomads thinkers", very nice but laking the intensity they seem to be implying. i guess for me the closed to nomad they describe would be some collective states of mobilization, not for food or water.

wellme fui a la mierda, de vuelta ahora.