Disappearing Borders: Ethics of Power Invisibility
Abstract
As an agent of “a strategic effort to make difference in space,” and instrument to acknowledge and mark the limits where “normative values of different systems meet” (Van Houtum and Van Naerssen, 2022:129), architecture always performs certain kind of ‘border-work.’ It materialises, spatially defines, and gives form, shape, and type. It makes certain normative territorial and legal claims, structures, systems, procedures, and programs evident, designating boundaries of the given ‘power-authority.’ Therefore, it shares principles with the border ontology and epistemology. This bordering role of architecture, historically used to spatially reinforce different acts of political, military, administrative, economic, social and cultural division, as well as private-public one, has significantly been altered by the introduction of virtual spatial control and design. Technological move towards ‘virtuality’ and ‘soft control’ questioned the position of architecture as a material instrument of b...order-making and privacy protection.
The border developed its virtual double, which progressed into completely autonomous entity. It ceased to represent power spatially and materially, largely resorting to invisible forms of control and bordering, extending simultaneously modes of border-power representation by digital technologies. Rethought under the imperatives of transparency and dematerialisation (Aureli, 2012), digitality, globalisation, supranationality, and open economy, additionally being split between the real/actual and virtual realms, the border acquired different status and architectural properties.
Within these conditions, is the experience of the border as we new it completely disappeared under the urge of ‘being digital’ (Negroponte, 1996) or is this just an illusion and rhetorical claim while traditional borders are stronger than ever? Do control and surveillance theories (Van Houtum, 2011) explain ‘power in operation’ changing its principles and strategies by hiding traces of physical existence and impact? What happened to ‘right to privacy,’ quite violated by the mechanisms of dematerialised power ‘not being much about the rear window ethics’? What is the role and position of architecture within this context while performing transition from massive forms of control towards less visible ‘smartness’ and ‘intelligence’ of non-physical cyber-environment?
Keywords:
Borders / Power / Virtuality / Digital Ethics / Digital Identity / Surveillance / Smartness / IntelligenceSource:
Going digital: innovation in art, architecture, science and technology [Elektronski izvor] : conference proceedings, 2016, 91-107Publisher:
- Belgrade : STRAND - Sustainable Urban Society Association
Collections
Institution/Community
Arhitektonski fakultetTY - CONF AU - Ćirić, Dragana PY - 2016 UR - https://raf.arh.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/2217 AB - As an agent of “a strategic effort to make difference in space,” and instrument to acknowledge and mark the limits where “normative values of different systems meet” (Van Houtum and Van Naerssen, 2022:129), architecture always performs certain kind of ‘border-work.’ It materialises, spatially defines, and gives form, shape, and type. It makes certain normative territorial and legal claims, structures, systems, procedures, and programs evident, designating boundaries of the given ‘power-authority.’ Therefore, it shares principles with the border ontology and epistemology. This bordering role of architecture, historically used to spatially reinforce different acts of political, military, administrative, economic, social and cultural division, as well as private-public one, has significantly been altered by the introduction of virtual spatial control and design. Technological move towards ‘virtuality’ and ‘soft control’ questioned the position of architecture as a material instrument of border-making and privacy protection. The border developed its virtual double, which progressed into completely autonomous entity. It ceased to represent power spatially and materially, largely resorting to invisible forms of control and bordering, extending simultaneously modes of border-power representation by digital technologies. Rethought under the imperatives of transparency and dematerialisation (Aureli, 2012), digitality, globalisation, supranationality, and open economy, additionally being split between the real/actual and virtual realms, the border acquired different status and architectural properties. Within these conditions, is the experience of the border as we new it completely disappeared under the urge of ‘being digital’ (Negroponte, 1996) or is this just an illusion and rhetorical claim while traditional borders are stronger than ever? Do control and surveillance theories (Van Houtum, 2011) explain ‘power in operation’ changing its principles and strategies by hiding traces of physical existence and impact? What happened to ‘right to privacy,’ quite violated by the mechanisms of dematerialised power ‘not being much about the rear window ethics’? What is the role and position of architecture within this context while performing transition from massive forms of control towards less visible ‘smartness’ and ‘intelligence’ of non-physical cyber-environment? PB - Belgrade : STRAND - Sustainable Urban Society Association C3 - Going digital: innovation in art, architecture, science and technology [Elektronski izvor] : conference proceedings T1 - Disappearing Borders: Ethics of Power Invisibility SP - 91 EP - 107 DO - 10.5281/zenodo.10939067 ER -
@conference{ author = "Ćirić, Dragana", year = "2016", abstract = "As an agent of “a strategic effort to make difference in space,” and instrument to acknowledge and mark the limits where “normative values of different systems meet” (Van Houtum and Van Naerssen, 2022:129), architecture always performs certain kind of ‘border-work.’ It materialises, spatially defines, and gives form, shape, and type. It makes certain normative territorial and legal claims, structures, systems, procedures, and programs evident, designating boundaries of the given ‘power-authority.’ Therefore, it shares principles with the border ontology and epistemology. This bordering role of architecture, historically used to spatially reinforce different acts of political, military, administrative, economic, social and cultural division, as well as private-public one, has significantly been altered by the introduction of virtual spatial control and design. Technological move towards ‘virtuality’ and ‘soft control’ questioned the position of architecture as a material instrument of border-making and privacy protection. The border developed its virtual double, which progressed into completely autonomous entity. It ceased to represent power spatially and materially, largely resorting to invisible forms of control and bordering, extending simultaneously modes of border-power representation by digital technologies. Rethought under the imperatives of transparency and dematerialisation (Aureli, 2012), digitality, globalisation, supranationality, and open economy, additionally being split between the real/actual and virtual realms, the border acquired different status and architectural properties. Within these conditions, is the experience of the border as we new it completely disappeared under the urge of ‘being digital’ (Negroponte, 1996) or is this just an illusion and rhetorical claim while traditional borders are stronger than ever? Do control and surveillance theories (Van Houtum, 2011) explain ‘power in operation’ changing its principles and strategies by hiding traces of physical existence and impact? What happened to ‘right to privacy,’ quite violated by the mechanisms of dematerialised power ‘not being much about the rear window ethics’? What is the role and position of architecture within this context while performing transition from massive forms of control towards less visible ‘smartness’ and ‘intelligence’ of non-physical cyber-environment?", publisher = "Belgrade : STRAND - Sustainable Urban Society Association", journal = "Going digital: innovation in art, architecture, science and technology [Elektronski izvor] : conference proceedings", title = "Disappearing Borders: Ethics of Power Invisibility", pages = "91-107", doi = "10.5281/zenodo.10939067" }
Ćirić, D.. (2016). Disappearing Borders: Ethics of Power Invisibility. in Going digital: innovation in art, architecture, science and technology [Elektronski izvor] : conference proceedings Belgrade : STRAND - Sustainable Urban Society Association., 91-107. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10939067
Ćirić D. Disappearing Borders: Ethics of Power Invisibility. in Going digital: innovation in art, architecture, science and technology [Elektronski izvor] : conference proceedings. 2016;:91-107. doi:10.5281/zenodo.10939067 .
Ćirić, Dragana, "Disappearing Borders: Ethics of Power Invisibility" in Going digital: innovation in art, architecture, science and technology [Elektronski izvor] : conference proceedings (2016):91-107, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10939067 . .