Debilitating mobilities and the geographies of humanitarianism

What happens to migrant and refugee mobilities in military- humanitarian interventions, like the one in Brazil? While they are shaped by the circumstances leading them to move in the first place, once at the border, they cannot be separated from the socio- political relations that surround them nor the environments and spaces they begin to move through. There are, of course, myriad experiences of mobilities that materialize from embodied identities, aspirational decisions, and cultural and economic constraints, but what about the powers that try to govern these mobilities? How do overarching systems aim to manage and coordinate mobilities en masse? Especially when these mobilities are suddenly increased, when they are attached to populations in search of refuge, when they pose a risk to security and welfare, and when they (seemingly) represent the outcome of an unwanted politics: communism.

In Brazil, these incoming mobilities are not entirely prohibited, nor are they freely permissible. Governing these mobilities is neither wholly biopolitical nor necropolitical. They are not purely made to live, nor are they left to die. Rather, these mobilities are governed through a third significant axis: debility.

Guided by the work of Jasbir Puar (2017), I have applied the concept of debility to the study of mobilities. ‘Shooting to maim’ does not kill a person, it only debilitates them with injury. This is justified, given it is perhaps a more humanitarian practice than death itself. It is, however, debilitating nonetheless and may lead to ongoing physical injury and/ or exclusion. Mobility governance that follows this logic operates in much the same way.