Fragmented Citizens PDF Download

This study aims to specify the mechanisms by which sociolegal control affects group solidarity in two localities of urban marginality in Israel-Palestine: the Mahatta, a segregated Palestinian district in Lod, an Israeli "mixed" city, and the Jalazon refugee camp in the West Bank, only 20 miles from Lod. This research contrasts two distinct social morphologies: internal cohesion in the Jalazon camp and atomization in the Mahatta district. It also highlights the opposition between feelings of trust and pride in the camp and feelings of distrust and shame in the district. Both localities have internal lines of division. In the camp, there are divisions on the basis of place of origin, clan membership and political affiliation. In the urban district, there are divisions on the basis of ethnicity and oldtimer/newcomer status. Yet, Jalazon camp dwellers actively work to deactivate potentially paralyzing fractures, to develop and preserve internal solidarity, prevent or quench camp infighting, and purse collective actions while symbolically investing in the camp as a source of dignity and pride. By contrast, in the Mahatta district, residents experience social fragmentation, mutual distrust, and routine violence and blame one another for their failed attempts at collective organizing. I explain these different profiles of group solidarity, moral worldviews, violence, and politics as products of their distinct regimes of sociolegal control. By "sociolegal control," I mean the control exercised by the institutions of the ruling power and enshrined in its legal norms and dominant discourses. I argue that the Jalazon camp dwellers navigate a regime of sociolegal control that has (unintended) collectivizing effects while the Mahatta residents negotiate their existence against a regime of sociolegal control that has (mostly intended) divisive effects. There is a triadic structure of authority at work in the refugee camp, which includes the Israeli army, the United Nations Relief and Work Agency (UNRWA) and the Palestinian Authority (PA); camp dwellers are pushed by all three to valorize their group solidarity as a fundamental resource to both nourish from within and defend collectively against external threats. In contrast to the processes in play between Jalazon refugees and the authorities that influence their solidarity in the camp, the Israeli state's security apparatus is the only institutional actor at work in the Mahatta district, and I argue that it serves to create social fragmentation and mutual suspicion among the urban residents, thus pushing them towards strategies of individual exit. This study has a threefold relevance for theorizing mechanisms of group solidarity among marginalized populations in their connection to the role of the state as a "group maker." First, I propose that a given state can distribute different techniques of control towards different segments of a population cast or kept outside of the sphere of official or full membership. This focus on the state's distribution of forms of sociolegal control towards subcategories within an "unwanted" population helps us understand the formation of internal cleavages among people that otherwise recognize nationhood as a principle of membership. Second, by focusing on place-specific forms of sociolegal control, this study problematizes two distinctions: that between democratic and illiberal forms of state and that between the post-industrial Global North and the Global South. Using localities of urban marginality--refugee camps, squatter settlements, and urban districts of relegation--as a terrain for the theorization of group formation draws attention to how modern states, including democratic ones, might use illiberal practices and discourses driven by ethnoracial or ethnonational motivations towards segments of their citizenry. A third related theoretical point emerging from this study is that legal categorization, especially the opposition between the categories of refugees and citizens, does not have a fixed content in terms of its effects on group solidarity and political identities.