From this perspective, I will argue that, like any other spaces, the border has a symbolic and material dimension, and that the specific features of this space shape the collective actions of social movements mobilizing for the rights of migrants. More precisely, my central argument relates with the changing features of this space. As it is shown by Lefebvre (1991), the material and symbolic dimensions of space vary in time and place. This is the case with European borders in the last decades: in the ways they are organised and conceived, they transform into a diffuse space regulated by control policies (Bigo, 2002; Walters, 2006). I will thus argue that the recent changes in the border spaces (specifically at the European level) have significant consequences on the strategies of protest for the rights of migrants. Relying on the concept of claim making” (Tilly, 2000), I will show that the transformation of “spatial borders has led social movements to launch collective actions which aim to demonstrate the multi-faceted material and symbolic existence of borders and to challenge their construction as exceptional spaces. I propose thus to bridge border studies and more precisely those – related with immigration with a recent interest in the of contentious politics” – “spatialities (Leitner, Sheppard and Sziarto, 2008; Sewell, 2001). For that, I focus on the activities of a set of European groups and networks which mobilize against border controls, and which strategically locate their protest the border’. ‘at The next part of the article will present the methods and data that have been used for this study. I will then show how the spatial dimension of contention can be related with a analysis of the border. I will then present the specificities and recent changes of the border spaces. Finally, developing on the example of the groups and networks mobilizing against EU border controls, I will show how these specificities and changes affect the strategies of protest for the rights of migrants. In particular, relying on Barry (1999) and
From this perspective, I will argue that, like any other spaces, the border has a symbolic and material dimension, and that the specific features of this space shape the collective actions of social movements mobilizing for the rights of migrants. More precisely, my central argument relates with the changing features of this space. As it is shown by Lefebvre (1991), the material and symbolic dimensions of space vary in time and place. This is the case with European borders in the last decades: in the ways they are organised and conceived, they transform into a diffuse space regulated by control policies (Bigo, 2002; Walters, 2006). I will thus argue that the recent changes in the border spaces (specifically at the European level) have significant consequences on the strategies of protest for the rights of migrants. Relying on the concept of “spatial claim making” (Tilly, 2000), I will show that the transformation of borders has led social movements to launch collective actions which aim to demonstrate the multi-faceted material and symbolic existence of borders and to challenge their construction as exceptional spaces. I propose thus to bridge border studies – and more precisely those related with immigration – with a recent interest in the “spatialities of contentious politics” (Leitner, Sheppard and Sziarto, 2008; Sewell, 2001). For that, I focus on the activities of a set of European groups and networks which mobilize against border controls, and which strategically locate their protest ‘at the border’. The next part of the article will present the methods and data that have been used for this study. I will then show how the spatial dimension of contention can be related with a analysis of the border. I will then present the specificities and recent changes of the border spaces. Finally, developing on the example of the groups and networks mobilizing against EU border controls, I will show how these specificities and changes affect the strategies of protest for the rights of migrants. In particular, relying on Barry (1999) and
Spaces%20of%20contention%20final.docx