ABSTRACT

Uncertainty is often approached as an undesired condition that needs to be confronted and mitigated. This is particularly the case at the intersection of two key governance domains, mobility and security, where state actors concern themselves with minimalizing risk and uncertainty by streamlining the safe movement of people, goods and capital. But can uncertainty, in some cases, be also a condition desired by state security actors? This article proposes that uncertainty can be employed as a mode of governance, in which it is deliberately crafted in order to pursue controversial policies which differentiate and discriminate between different population groups. Using ethnographic data collected in 11 months of fieldwork at checkpoints in and around Jerusalem Jerusalem, I examine the role of (un)certainty in facilitating the mobility of some residents, while severely limiting the movement of others. I then proceed to analyse three distinct dimensions of (un)certainty as a mode of governance at the checkpoints: the opaque and interchangeable roles of public and private security actors; the parallel existence of unimpeded and streamlined mobility to designated populations; and the spatiotemporal movement of borders and their significance. I propose that uncertainty can be strategically employed and adjusted by means of irregular operation, managerial obfuscation, lack of accountability and contradictory or oft-altered directives, and regulatory framework by public and private security actors. I continue to explore how such a strategy can lead to a differentiall (re)distribution of rights, resources and privileges between different citizens and residents.

摘要

不确定性通常被认为是一种需要面对和减轻的不良情况。在流动性和安全性这两个关键治理领域的交叉点上尤其如此，在这些领域，国家行为者关心的是通过简化人员、货物和资本的安全流动来最小化风险和不确定性。但在某些情况下，不确定性是否也是国家安全参与者所期望的条件？本文提出，不确定性可以被用作一种治理模式，在这种模式下，它是故意设计的，以追求有争议的政策，在不同的人群之间进行区分和歧视。使用在耶路撒冷耶路撒冷及其周围检查站 11 个月的实地调查中收集的人种学数据，我研究了（非）确定性在促进一些居民的流动性，同时严重限制其他人的流动方面的作用。然后，我继续分析作为检查站治理模式的（非）确定性的三个不同维度：公共和私人安全参与者的不透明和可互换角色；对指定人群的畅通无阻的流动平行存在；以及边界的时空运动及其意义。我建议可以通过不规则操作、管理混淆、缺乏问责制和相互矛盾或经常改变的指令以及公共和私人安全行为者的监管框架来战略性地利用和调整不确定性。我继续探索这种策略如何导致权利的差异（重新）分配，