The Thirst for Sovereignty in a Globalized World

      The idealized view of the world today is that of a transnational, international, global, even glocal economy that thrives through interactions across borders and economies. The reality is that in the face of all the globalization of the world today, often touted as a benefit of international relations, there exists a persistent need to protect the hegemonic world order in the face of sovereignty. This thirst for sovereignty can be seeen in the building of walls as illustrated in Walled States, Waning Sovereignty by Wendy Brown as well as in the creation of culprits as others as described in "The Production of Culprits: From Deportability to Detainability in the Aftermath of Homeland Security" by Nicholas de Genova.
     In Walled States, Waning Sovereignty, Brown provides various examples from theorists on the idea of sovereignty and the state. Her examples include John Locke and Carl Schmitt. But these examples of land ownership as necessary for civilization are inherently hegemonic and ethnocentric, as well as capitalist. Who gets to own land, including its acquisition and conquests? It also creates an idea of anything "beyond the pale", as other and therefore as as uncivilized, barbaric, odd, unholy, and other such perjorative descriptors. At best, it requires that these lands be conquered and civilized, extension of the pale. Brown describes beyond the pale as "where civilization ends, but...also where the brutishness of the civilized is therefore permitted, where violence may be freely and legitimately exercised (46)." The creations of walls, which can be both physical and metaphorical, works to legitimize otherization of "outsiders" and therefore violence, including in the name of civilizing these others. For example, the War on Terror. But first it required that a discourse  be created that leads to the necessity of exploiting other lands, outside the pale. The spreading of the idea of ending terrorism, which Genova compares to the spreading of the idea of endig communism, works to make a war seem necessary. Other actions are also legitimized, such as deporting and detaining, because even with the creation of the wall, it not only requires that you keep out, but also keep in certain ideals. When others live within your borders, you can easily restructure them as culprits through discourses that, if seen as those beyond the pale, those even within are painted as complicit with the barbarianism and idiocy of those without.
     Interestingly, before reading this book and the article, I held idealistic notions of a world without borders, with the ability to move freely. Brown realistically questions the efficacy of actualizing this ideal. But I continue to wonder how can we live within borders, even if we don't create walls, that does not exclude people and exploit resources leading to uneven distribution?