ABSTRACT

The focus on migration ‘crisis’ in recent years has reinforced tropes of displacement as a concept that refers to involuntary movement, foreclosing the possibility of thinking through displacement in relation to the politicisation of place more broadly. Here, we take up two radically different case studies – a farmer and a refugee – to ask whether it is possible to speak of displacement beyond assumptions of involuntary mobility, and what theoretical insights doing so might reveal. By bringing attention to these cases, we show commonalities of displacement experiences that have little to do with involuntary movement but are, instead, intertwined in existential processes of having the teleology of life, and the sense of connection to place, disrupted by external forces of dispossession. We argue that, if anthropologists are to understand displacement as a condition, we need to focus on lived experiences of conflict between self, place, and contemporary modes of dispossession.

摘要

近年来对移民“危机”的关注强化了流离失所这一概念的比喻，该概念指的是非自愿流动，从而排除了通过更广泛的地方政治化来思考流离失所的可能性。在这里，我们采用两个完全不同的案例研究——一个农民和一个难民——来询问是否有可能超越非自愿流动的假设来谈论流离失所，以及这样做的理论见解可能会揭示什么。通过关注这些案例，我们展示了流离失所体验的共性，它们与非自愿运动几乎没有关系，而是交织在具有生命目的论的存在过程中，以及与地方的联系感，被外部力量破坏。剥夺。我们认为，