Never before have so many moved so frequently as now. Mobility lies at the centre for the concern ofstates, business and technological development. Some even claim that we are witnessing a mobility turn inthe social sciences. However, as the capacity to move has increased so too has the control and surveillanceof mobility become more extensive. Since September 11, 2001 security has been the defining paradigm fora variety for actors. The mobility security regime implies among other things that passengers are in somesense always suspect. The securitization of mobility, however, is not a post 9/11 phenomenon. TheSchengen Convention has lead to a dismantling of the inner borders of the member states of theEuropean Union. The Constitution of the European Union guarantees the four freedoms of circulation –of goods, services, people and capital. At the same time Schengenland implies also that the mobility ofnon-Europeans is highly monitored and controlled.The paradox of “free” mobility and heightened control of movement is the major theme of this senioressay. Airports have emerged as a key channel and space for securing and sorting out mobilities. Thus, thesecuritization of mobility has made airports key spaces that enact differential mobility rights. How doesthe securitization of airports affect the mobility rights of individuals and what consequences do thebiometric and digital controls have for individual travellers? These are the questions that are examined inthis essay. Theories of mobility, security and images of threat provide the analytical context of this study.The empirical material draws on interviews made with individuals that have experienced “ethnic profiling”and have been the target of extra security checks. In order to provide a more nuanced picture of oursubject, we have also interviewed passengers who experienced “positive discrimination”. The material athand also includes on interviews with security staff as well as security training personnel.One of our conclusions is that people of foreign origin or with a non-Scandinavian look are morelikely to be the object of additional security checks. All of the informants substantiate that security checksat airports are not random and are convinced that the reason for the additional security check is fear ofcertain kind of people. Predictably, those responsible for the security maintain that this is not the case andclaim that the possibility of making subjective judgements and control people even if the metal detectordoes not give off an alarm signal, is a part of the security routine. Passengers are thus unaware of whetherthe extra controls are based on spot-checks or the subjective assessments of security staff. The subjectiveelement combined with media images and threat discourses increase the likelihood for “ethnic profiling”of passengers.Key words: airports, place, mobility, security, profiling, threat discourses
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA1/oai:DiVA.org:kau-2998 |
| Date | January 2008 |
| Creators | Skoglund, Christina, Nilsson, Jessica |
| Publisher | Karlstads universitet, Fakulteten för samhälls- och livsvetenskaper, Karlstads universitet, Fakulteten för samhälls- och livsvetenskaper |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | Swedish |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis, text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0032 seconds