Cassandra Stumer

Geog. 495
The Questionable Inevitability of the Disposable
In a modern economy it is impossible to seal oneself off from injustice.
Julian Assange

Throughout the readings, a common thread appears - that of disposability. Particularly,

the disposable nature of bodies. Walia describes the plight of the migrant worker: commodified
and exploitable; flexible and expendable. (Walia,72, 2010.) The migrant worker exemplifies the
nature of disposable bodies in a very corporeal sense. Perhaps it could also be argued in a globalsystem that entire nations are disposable, utilized by the Global North, or Core nations
simply for the extraction of resources of numerous kinds - including people. What comes to mind
concerning this abhorrent disregard for human life is necessity. Is the disposability of people, and
even nations, simply a necessary evil which upholds the foundations for our (in the core)
very comfortable lives? In my life particularly I find the excuse of plain and simple unfair
neoliberal market forces comforting. If we regulate capitalism in such a way, (admittedly I have
no idea how, though Im sure someone might) the disposability can be mitigated, and harm
reduced. However, I have a strong feeling its an issue of greater complexity. Great ancient cities
were built on the backs of slaves. The monuments we cherish were painstakingly built by the
unwilling. Colonialism is the foundation for the very wealth and success Core nations enjoy to
this day, and conversely the hardships of the Periphery. Slave labor eventually turned into
exploited labor; the railroad tracks of early North America were literally laid by the hands of
vulnerable immigrants. In other words, is our modern economy as we know it inevitably reliant
upon disposability itself? Are our everyday lives in the Global North dependent on exploitation?
Can we still buy fruit out of season, drive our cars every day, and play with our five-hundred

dollar cell phones without violating another persons basic human rights? The Julian Assange
quote above asserts that, no, we cannot live our lives the way we do without harm, in a neoliberal
world wherein disparity is the form and function.

The focus of the readings on migrant workers and immigration in North America zone in

on a particular facet of exploitative global market forces with concrete and corporeal
consequences. This focus allows a greater understanding of these consequences in a manner
which produces a certain kind of empathy and solidarity which comes less easily in a discussion
about economics. Introduction by Varsanyi and Nevins sheds light on the larger contradictory
nature of neoliberalism, which allows free trade of capital, but not people. The system
successfully creates an unfair playing field, while simultaneously blaming the victims of these
circumstances. This quote from the essay states it succinctly: The unauthorised migrant is
perhaps, therefore, the embodied evidence of the Janus-faced nature of the neoliberal
state. (Nevins & Varsanyi, 225, 2007.) The plight of the migrant, like the militarized border
itself, are concrete manifestations of the larger forces and structures at work. Examining the
dangers these people put themselves through, the stories of suffering and injustice, along with the
greater forces at play allow us to paint a better picture. Without this lens, the case of the migrant
can be over-simplified. A story that doesnt look at the bigger picture easily misjudges the
intentions of this marginalized working class. So many times Ive heard the argument If they
dont like how they are treated, why dont they just leave? These misunderstandings and
oversimplifications of the global system which creates these situations leads to the creation of
social death. The dehumanization of the victims of neoliberal globalization breeds the racism and
intolerance of people in the core who benefit greatly from their labor. Is this how we make
ourselves feel better about the disposability of human life? Consciously or unconsciously,
2

perhaps we can allow ourselves the luxuries of modernity on the backs of the marginalized if we
view them as the lesser.
Loyd and Burridge discuss the link between racism and immigration thoroughly in La
Gran Marcha. I relate greatly to their identification of the denial of racism in much immigration
reform. Im not a racist, I just support law-and-order in immigration led us to interrogate the
connection between law-and-order, nationalism, and racism. (Loyd & Burridge, 6, 2007.) Being
from California, I experienced the influence of migrant workers greatly, and certainly that comes
along with the experience of racism. Racism towards Latin immigrants I experienced was not so
outward, but more of a quiet segregation. In high school there was certainly a type of cliquish
separation between spanish and non-spanish speakers. In a certain part of town, you could
always see the day laborers waiting in large groups for someone to give them a job. However,
passing by this sort of thing daily produces a sense of normalcy. One doesnt necessarily begin to
think of why these people are there, they just are. I can see how without broadening the lens as to
why this situation exists, there is a sense of constructed differential inclusion, a lack of full
social membership into society. Why does this happen? As Loyd and Burridge describe, the key
technologies of social death are citizenship and criminalization. Therefore, in terms of
citizenship, nationalism itself breeds exclusion. Keeping workers illegal is a tool to
dehumanize and marginalize. On the surface, however, it seems like another system which seeks
to simply mitigate law and order. As Walia describes it, this is the Apartheid of Citizenship,
Today the denial of legal citizenship through temporary migrant worker programmes ensures
legal control over the disposability of laborers, which, in turn, embeds exploitability of labor as
an inherent feature of such programmes..This assures a pool of highly exploitable labor excluded

from the minimal protections of the welfare state, and readily disposed of without
consequences. (Walia, 73, 2010.) This again, speaks to the contradictory nature of neoliberal
globalization. Work can be legally traded from one nation to the next in the case of migrant
workers, an In-gathering of off-shore labor, but the humans that produce that labor cannot.
These people experience this apartheid of citizenship, dangerous working conditions, and
ultimately the racialized exclusion of social death - the criminalization of their very being.
How can we, beneficiaries of this system, reconcile these atrocious facts? The case in
North America is one of many. Periphery countries are being exploited just as migrant workers
in Canada and the United States the world over. The Coltan in our electronic devices, unethically
mined and responsible for conflict in the Congo. The cheap clothes we wear, produced by
sweatshop workers in Bangladesh. Our addiction to oil, unabashedly destroying the environment.
Globalization has produced a disparity of, and within nations. The injustices are endless and
overwhelming. It seems like the world would stop turning without injustice, and the
disposability of the marginalized. Perhaps our entire way of life in the Global North should then
come into question. Is it possible that there can at once be equity and affluence?
This especially brings to mind the recent discussions about disparity in the United States.
The main crux of that debate is that the total share of wealth is primarily owned by the richest
Americans. In 2011, Politifact stated that the wealthiest 400 Americans "have more wealth than
half of all Americans combined." The disparity we have generally seen on a global level in my
lifetime is coming back to our own soil. This is a frightening idea coupled with the complacency
of various companies, who have lately been in the news, for refusing to pay their workers a
living wage. Though unlike migrant workers, these people have citizenship to fall back on, which

grants them welfare of certain kinds. However, this not only puts a burden on the state, it
produces a type of disposability. If you dont like working at Wal-Mart, why dont you just
quit?. Perhaps a solidarity will be formed with the growing marginalized American class and the
marginalized migrant workers of Latin America. I sure hope so. Building empathy and solidarity
with those who may have previously been disposable is the first step in taking action against
the notion of their disposability.
Moreover, does disposability have to be a necessary evil in order for our survival as we
know it? Just as Im sure Mcdonalds and Wal-Mart can cut back some of their profits to actually
pay their employees, I also believe we can mitigate and lessen what seems like the inevitable
nature of disposability. Its an incredibly optimistic but not wholly unrealistic outlook. Its not
something that will happen all at once, but beginning by fighting for the basic rights of humanity
where we are able is a good start. In fact I prefer the end of that Julian Assange quote, which
evokes responsibility to change what seems inevitable: The whole universe or the structure that
perceives it is a worthy opponent, but try as I may I can not escape the sound of suffering.
Perhaps as an old man I will take great comfort in pottering around in a lab and gently talking to
students in the summer evening and will accept suffering with insouciance. But not now; men in
their prime, if they have convictions are tasked to act on them.