Population+Geography+I+Surplus

8/12/2019 Population+Geography+I+Surplus

1/12

Progress report

Population geography I: Surpluspopulations

James A. Tyner

Kent State University, USA

Abstract

The subject of population is undergoing a renaissance in geography; this is seen, for example, in the voluminousstudies addressing marginalized populations, including but not limited to refugees, internally displacedpersons, and children. In short, scholarship has focused on those lives rendered wasted, precarious, orsuperfluous. Population geographers have made substantial contributions; however, more can be done. Inthis and the next two progress reports, I suggest that population geographers reflect more deeply on thespatiality and survivability of vulnerable populations. More specifically, population geographers should con-sider the politics of fertility, mortality, and mobility from the standpoint of a layered demographicquestion:within any given place, who lives, who dies, and who decides? In this first report, I resituate the conceptsurplus population within the broader domain of population geography. In subsequent reports, I considermore closely population geographys association with related subject areas (i.e. biopolitics and necropolitics).I maintain that, by addressing vulnerability and survivability, we join others in geography and allied fields whoare writing about populations not as biological, pre-given entities, but instead as political subjects at risk ofpremature death.

Keywordsabandoned lives, disposable lives, surplus populations, survivability

I Introduction

The coordinates of population geography are

fairly well established, if not always agreed upon.

At a most basic level, population geography is

concerned with fertility, mortality, and migration

though certainly not in that order (Bailey, 2005;

Gober and Tyner, 2004; James, 1954; White

et al., 1989). Two dominant trends, one episte-

mological and the other topical, are readily

observable. On the one hand, population geogra-

phy has been largely grounded in an empiricist

epistemology. Population geography, as Bailey

(2005: 73) explains, has been dominated by

measures of and depictions of population con-

centration and dispersion; the relative size and

proximity of urban areas within a population;

density and overpopulation; [and] the decompo-

sition of population characteristics, includingflows of population. To this end, population

geographers continue to make important contri-

butions to the scientific study of demographic

events. On the other hand, population geography

has a long, productive relationship with the sub-

ject of migration (Collyer et al., 2012; Smith andKing, 2012), as population geographers continue

to make significant strides in the understanding

of human spatial mobility at a variety of scales.

Corresponding author:

Department of Geography, Kent State University, 413

McGilvrey Hall Kent, OH 44242, USA.

Email: [email protected]

Progress in Human Geography37(5) 701711

The Author(s) 2013Reprints and permission:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0309132512473924phg.sagepub.com
http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navhttp://phg.sagepub.com/http://phg.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav


2/12

Parallel to these two strengths, however, hasbeen the repeated some might say tired call

for a (re)theorized population geography(Findlayand Boyle, 2007; Findlay and Graham, 1991;

Graham, 2000, 2004; Graham and Boyle,

2001; Tyner, 2009; White and Jackson,

1995). White and Jackson (1995: 111), for

example, argue that population geography has

paid insufficient attention to recent philoso-

phical and methodological discussions that

make their mark elsewhere in human geogra-

phy, and in the rest of the social sciences. Such

calls have sparked some flurry of activity for

example, population geographys engagement

with the work of Michel Foucault (Legg,

2005; Philo, 2001, 2005a; Tyner, 2009). Ironi-cally, many of these debates over a (re)theor-

ized population geography often coalesce

around renewed interests in the study ofmigra-

tion. Environmental issues, such as climate

change (Bailey, 2010) and deforestation (Carr,

2009), for instance, are frequently contextua-

lized within the study of migration. So too are

discussions of other populations for exam-

ple, that of illegal migrants (Anderson and

Ruhs, 2010), detention (Kahn, 1996; Silvermanand Massa, 2012), transit migrants (Collyer

et al., 2012), domestic workers (Yeoh and

Huang, 2010), and migrant sex workers (Tyner,

2004). Indeed, even the recent call to bridge

childrens geographieswithpopulation geogra-

phy emphasizes the theme of spatial mobility(Holt and Costello, 2011; see also McKendrick,

2001). Most of these studies highlight that, at acertain level, the field has engaged with many

of the pressing issues of our time and demon-

strate ever more so the continued salience of

population geography both to the field of geo-

graphy and beyond.In this and the next two progress reports, I

call population geographers to reflect more

directly on the spatiality and survivability of

vulnerable populations (Findlay, 2005; Hogan

and Marandola, 2005; Philo, 2001, 2005b) within

the context, broadly conceived, of biopolitics and

necropolitics (Coleman and Grove, 2009; Espo-

sito, 2008; Foucault, 1990; Hinchliffe and Bing-

ham, 2008; Legg, 2005; McIntyre and Nast,

2011; Mbembe, 2003; Mitchell, 2009; Nast,

2011; Rose, 2007). Biopolitics, for example, may

be understood asthe political negotiation of life;

how life, its existence and vitality, is linked to the

regulation and contestation of who has priority to

live and flourish, and who might be left to wither

and die. In particular, I am drawn to governmen-

tal policies and practices that impinge on fertility,

mortality, and mobility, those regulations that

impinge on the materiality of life and death from

the standpoint of a layered demographic ques-

tion: within any given place, who lives, who dies,

and who decides?Consider the following trends. Two-thirds of

Americas total income gains from 2002 to 2007

went to the top 1% of US households; indeed,

the inflation-adjusted income of the top 1% of

households grew more than 10 times faster than

the income of the bottom 90% of households.

The last time such a disproportionate share of

income gain went to the top 1% and such a small

proportion went to the bottom 90% was in the

1920s just prior to the Great Depression.Whereas the bottom 90% of US householdsincreased by US$1,206 (adjusted for inflation),

the top 1% rose by US$520,127. The increase for

the top 0.1% of households was even more spec-tacular, growing by US$3,455,384 during the

same period (Feller and Stone, no date). So

remarkable has been this growth among the

super-rich that the United States income equal-ity gap is 39th in the world (at time of writing).

Indeed, the gap between the rich and the poorwas less pronounced in many countries of the

so-called Third World, including Burundi, Mali,

Tunisia, Tanzania, and even strife-torn Pakistan.1

As the income chasm continues to widen, pov-

erty is deepening in the United States. In 2008,39.8 million people lived in poverty, up from

37.3 million in 2007; the 2008 poverty rate

(13.2%) was the highest since 1997; and over

15 million Americans lived in extreme poverty,

702 Progress in Human Geography 37(5)


3/12

defined as having an income less than half of thepoverty line or, in other words, earningless than

US$10,000 a year for a family of four.2 More-over, such income inequalities have come at a

steep price. While the United States ranks first

in the world both in gross domestic product and

in health expenditures, the country is 18th in the

world in the percentage of children in poverty,

22nd in the world in low birthweight rates, and

25th in the world in infant mortality.3 The

National Center for Children in Poverty calcu-

lated that approximately 21% of all children in

the United States lived in poor households

defined as income below 100% of the federal

poverty level which, in 2010, was set at

US$22,050 for a family of four. Of these chil-dren, more than one-third lived in households

in which neither parent was employed.4

Poverty translates directly into prospects for

life and death. In 2008, an estimated 17 million

households 14.6% of all households were

food insecure; moreover, about one-third of

these households exhibited very low food secu-

rity. Consequently, these households relied

extensively on government programs, such as

the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program(SNAP; formerly known as the Food Stamps

Program), the Special Supplemental Nutrition

Program for Women, Infants, and Children

(WIC), and the National School Lunch Pro-

gram.5 In fact, for impoverished households,

these social programs literally meant the differ-

ence between life and death. Income inequality

and poverty are themselves unequally distrib-uted throughout the American body-politic. A

recent study released by the Pew ResearchCenter found that the median wealth of white

households was 20 times that of African-

American households, and 18 times that ofHispanic households. In addition, the dispari-

ties are increasing for Americas non-white

population. From 2005 to 2009, for instance,

inflation-adjusted median wealth fell by 66%

among Hispanic households and 53% among

African-American households, compared with

just 16% among white households.6 These fig-ures speak directly to life and death; a white

male infant born in the United States in 2009has a life-expectancy of 76.2 years, whereas

an African-American male infant has a life-

expectancy of just 70.9 years.7

Although these data are subject to debate,

and limited to the United States, they do, as a

whole, point to a rather bleak picture but a pic-

ture that brings into focus the continued impor-

tance and relevance of population geography.

Ones likelihood to escape premature death is

deeply, irrevocably spatial. For example, the

work of Danny Dorling and Amy Glasmeier,

among others, has empirically demonstrated

how social exclusion, geographic isolation,rigid class-based institutions and political cro-

nyism contribute to povertys persistence and

hence, to premature death (Glasmeier et al.,

2008: 10; see also Day et al., 2008; Dorling and

Thomas, 2004; Glasmeier, 2005). Likewise, the

contributions to a recently themed issue ofAnti-

pode(guest edited by Heidi Nast, 2011) bring to

light the salience of population geography. In an

introduction to that issue, McIntyre and Nast

(2011) call for:

[a] reexamination of Marxs notion of surplus

populations in light of contemporary capitalism

and a world marked by tremendous global shifts

in fertility rates, almost unprecedented rates of

outmigration to hegemonic nation-states and

enclaves, heightened levels of investment in (and

hyper-exploitation of) formerly colonized

nations, and massive degradation of the environ-

ment. (McIntyre and Nast, 2011: 1465)

Such global flux requires that we apply and

expand the insights of population geography

to consider those unwanted populations thatoccupy the bottom rungs of the inequality pyra-

mid. To achieve this goal, we need to find waysof addressing how certain groups are considered

expendable, for today many lives have been ren-

dered disposable, wasted, or precarious. In this

initial report, I argue that population geography

Tyner 703


4/12

may benefit by engaging with Marxs conceptof surplus population; Marxs writings, I main-

tain, provide a powerful theoretical avenue fromwhich to explore vulnerability and, I would

add, survivability (cf. Heynen, 2006; Mitchell

and Heynen, 2009), both of which are insepar-

able from two of population geographys long-

standing concerns: biological reproduction and

mortality. In addressing vulnerability and sur-

vivability, we join others in geography and

allied fields who are writing about biopolitics,

biosecurity, and reproductive politics. In sub-

sequent reports, I consider more closely popu-

lation geographys association with these other

subject areas; in this report, I provide a frame-

work for a reconfigured (surplus) populationgeography.

II (Surplus) Populations

It is somewhat curious that population geogra-

phers have not engaged in any sustained way

with the writings of Karl Marx that deal with

population issues (but see Jones, 1986; Rossini,

1984). For, whether one agrees or disagreeswith his analysis of capitalism, Marxs theory

of population provides a salient counterpointto Thomas Malthus an individual who figures

prominently in our research and teaching of

population geography (Robbins, 1998). Malthusargued, in part, that, because populations grow

exponentially whereas agricultural production

increases geometrically, resource scarcity and

overpopulation would result. Marx countered

by arguing that capitalism reveals its own lawof population; that every particular historical

mode of production has its own special lawsof population (Marx, 1990: 784; see also

Harvey, 1974).8

InCapital, Volume I, Marx argued that:

it is capitalist accumulation itself that constantly

produces, and produces indeed in direct relation

with its own energy and extent, a relatively redun-

dant working population, i.e. a population which

is superfluous to capitals average requirements

for its own valorization, and is therefore a surplus

population. (Marx, 1990: 782)

Marxs statement has received considerable

empirical attention over the years, and these

debates need not detain us at this point (cf.McIntyre, 2011; McIntyre and Nast, 2011; Nast,2011). What is most relevant for my present

purposes is not the particularities regarding theaccumulation of capital, debates over rates of

growth, and the growth of a surplus population;

rather, it is the concept surplus population thatis important. For it is through the concept ofsur-

plus population that we see (1) that populationgeographers have written extensively on the

subject, but (2) this engagement has been some-what scattered and unfocused.

So what is meant by the concept surplus

population? A good starting point is Marxs

own definition. Again, turning to Capital, Vol-

ume I, Marx (1990: 794) wrote that the relative

surplus population exists in all kinds of forms

and that every worker belongs to it during the

time when he [sic] is only partially employed

or wholly unemployed. In other words, any

population geography study that has addressed

unemployment has, indirectly, been writing a

(surplus) population geography. But for Marx

it is not the fact of surplus populations, but

rather theprocessesby which these populations

come into existence (cf. Merrill, 2011).

Marx (1990: 794 passim) classified surplus

populations into three categories: floating,

latent, and stagnant. The floating population

consists of those workers cycling in-and-out of

the labor force; the latent population includes

those with insecure employment; and the stag-nant population is composed of those workers

who are only rarely employed. It is the stagnant

population, in particular, that forms the massiveranks of the inexhaustible reservoir of disposable

labor-power (p. 796). To these three categories

of surplus populations Marx adds a fourth: thelumpenproletariat.9 Distinguishedmorallyfrom

the working-class proletariat, this lowest



5/12

sediment of society includes vagabonds, crim-inals, and prostitutes (p. 797); those able to work

but do not (e.g. paupers); and those unable towork because of particular incapacities (p. 797).

This latter subset was composed of people who

have lived beyond the workers average life-

span; and the victims of industry, whose number

increases with the growth of dangerous machin-

ery, or mines, chemical works, etc., the mutilated,

the sickly, the widows, etc. (p. 797). The point,

again, is not necessarily to agree or disagree with

Marxs analysis; rather, the point is that Marxs

work addresses the economic vagaries of life

within capitalist society, a project in keeping with

many population geographers concerns to

explain the creation and migration of economi-cally vulnerable populations.

How do surplus populations come into exis-

tence? This is a crucial question one that has

garnered considerable attention both within

and beyond geography in recent years. Fun-

damentally, a Marxist perspective begins from

the standpoint of primitive accumulation,

itself a term subject to much debate (Glassman,

2006; Hall, 2011; Harvey, 2003; Li, 2009;

Neocleous, 2011; McIntyre, 2011). In general,however, following Marx, this entails the

historical process of separating workers from

the means of production; this primitive accu-

mulation may be accomplished via the usur-

pation of common property, enclosures of

common land, and the destruction of domes-tic, artisanal production. An important and

growing body of empirical case studies withinpopulation geography and beyond is addressing

these practices of displacement and dispossession

that are part-and-parcel of ongoing processes of

primitive accumulation (Hall, 2011; Li, 2009;

Rigg, 2007).McIntyre (2011: 14981500) describes such

processes in ways that speak to the traditional

scholarly strengths of population geography.

Imagine, for example, the stalwart assumption

of an isomorphic plain in which space is fric-

tionless and labor is perfectly mobile. Presume

also (as Marx does initially) that all labor is

abstract; in other words, there is no possibility

of mismatch between skills because all laborers

are substitutable and there are no hierarchies

around race, ethnicity, sex, gender, sexual

orientation, and so on. In short, all people are

equal and space is rendered inconsequential.

In such a world, the unequal distribution

between employment and unemployment could

be readily resolved. People would migrate from

areas of high unemployment to areas of low

unemployment. Indeed, such an understanding

is embedded both in structural models of migra-

tion and neoclassical accounts of supply and

demand.

But what happens when such conditions donot obtain? We know that space is not friction-

less (McIntyre, 2011: 1499), but is highly varie-

gated and intensely regulated, predicated in part

on the continued defense of the sovereign state,

as seen in the regulation of immigration (e.g.

Bauder, 2006; Merrill, 2011; Tirman, 2004).

Moreover, Doty (2011: 599) shows how states

have, by imposing restrictions meant to make

unauthorised border crossings difficult and dan-

gerous attempted to halt migration. Meanwhile,the recent militarization of borders (Dunn, 1996)has contributed to what Joseph Nevins (2008) has

described as a shifting geography of migrant

fatalities (see also Mitchell, 2007). Regulatingmobility has, likewise, resulted in the discursive

construction of surplus migrant population cate-gories: unauthorized, undocumented, irregu-

lar, illegal (cf. Khalid, 2010). The work of

Anderson and Ruhs (2010), Drever and Blue

(2011), Merrill (2011), Mountz (2004), and Salt

and Stein (1997) is, here, notable to the degree

that it highlights the processes by which surplus

populations come into existence in the service

of the state.

Other population processes and practices,

including the operations of various state migra-

tory apparatuses (Lindio-McGovern, 2004;

Tyner, 2004; see also Rodriguez, 2010) and

social networks (Blue and Drever, 2011; Croes

Tyner 705


6/12

and Hooimeijer, 2010) feature prominently inthe variegated geographies of dispossession

topics that population geographers continueto address. Lastly, we know that labor is

never truly abstract, but rather is segmented

into, for example, skilled or unskilled migra-

tion another body of scholarship that is rich

within the subfield of population geography

(Ho, 2011; Khoo et al., 2011; Riemsdijk,

2012; Scott, 2004). In short, embedded

within the concept of surplus population are

concerns that have, arguably, surprisingly,

shaped much of the scholarship within popu-

lation geography. To round out this report, I

consider more closely two concepts that have

emerged within the rubric of surplus popula-tions, these being the ideas of abandonment

and disposability.

III Abandoned women,disposable women

Throughout history, in a range of geographic

settings, the poor and destitute have been mar-

ginalized; so too have been prostitutes, the

homeless, and runaways (cf. Watts, 2011). Inthe late 19th century, in the United States, for

example, numerous categories idiots, lunatics,

inebriates, paupers, tramps, vagrants, the aged,

the sick, the feebleminded, the disabled,

orphans, and criminals were constructed in the

service of the state as a means of providing or

declining social assistance (Dear and Wolch,

1987). Membership in one or the other oftenmeant the difference between (assisted) life or

(accelerated) death. While certain populationsin a place were frequently considered to be part

of an undifferentiated whole, a moral division

tied to economic success persisted and affected(state) policy responses. Those who were

able-bodied but out-of-work, for instance, were

typically castigated as morally corrupt and unde-

serving of assistance, while lunatics, widows,

orphans, and the sick were deemed unfortunate

and worthy only of philanthropic aid.

In many societies, including the UnitedStates, the egregious laws and punitive mea-

sures of the late 19th century remain in place,

albeit in different guises. Those persons deemed

outside of respectable society the lumpen-

proletariat continue to be marginalized and

represented as unworthy of assistance. Indeed,

as Wacquant (2009) writes, these:

castaway categories unemployed youth left

adrift, the beggars and the homeless, aimless

nomads and drug addicts, postcolonial immi-

grants without documents or support have

become salient in public space, their presence

undesirable and their doings intolerable, because

they are the living and threatening incarnation

of the generalized social insecurity produced by

the erosion of stable and homogenous wage work

and by the decomposition of the solidarities of

class and culture. (Wacquant, 2009: 4. Emphasis

in original)

To address those who have been excluded from

society, a number of geographers including

population geographers have turned to the the-

oretical insights of Giorgio Agamben and, in

particular, his formulation ofhomo sacer(Doty,2011; Ek, 2006; Minca, 2006; Mitchell, 2009;

Rajaram and Grundy-Warr, 2004; Tyner,

2012). For Agamben,homo sacer an obscure

figure of ancient Roman law is one who can

be killed with impunity, one whose death con-

stitutes neither homicide nor sacrifice. Homini

sacri, accordingly, are situated outside both

human and divine law; they are included insociety only through their exclusion. They

constitute, in Agambens (1998: 73) terminol-

ogy, bare life.

In an especially salient article, Geraldine

Pratt underscores the exploitation and oppres-sion of migrant workers and prostitutes through

the context of bare life (cf. Pratt, 2005; see also

Lee and Pratt, 2012). However, of greater sig-

nificance is Pratts reworking of homo sacer

from a feminist standpoint. As Pratt (2005)

identifies, despite the prominence of public



7/12

and private separations in Agambens work,he makes little of gender. Yet, through a focus

on Filipina migrant domestic workers and mur-dered female prostitutes in Vancouver, Canada,

Pratt (2005: 1058) argues that it is often women

who are cast into bare life. Rather than simply

acknowledging these womens plight, Pratt

takes an additional, political step, to explore

how violence and abandonment are articulated

in democratic practice. Specifically, Pratt (p.

1058) demonstrates that the ineffectiveness of

legislative victories for domestic workers sug-

gests the violence of exclusion through non-

citizenship while the case of the murdered

women tells domestic workers that citizenship,

in fact, guarantees no protection. We are notallsusceptible to being rendered to bare life; rather,

survivability results from the violent intersec-

tionality of gender, race, and sexual orienta-

tion, to name but three.

A similar example is found in Mexico. The

streets of Ciudad Juarez represent a particu-

larly grim and tragic geography of human

loss. In the early 1990s, an average of three

women were murdered each year; however,

by 1993 the death toll skyrocketed, with anaverage of two women being murdered each

month. By 2001, there was at least one

woman found dead every week; and by

2003 Amnesty International estimated that

approximately 400 women at a minimum

had been murdered during the previousdecade. And the killings continue. For over

a decade, Melissa Wright (1999, 2001,2004, 2006, 2011) has written on femicide

in Ciudad Juarez. She notes that there is a

profound publicness to the femicide: most

victims have been young women, many

apparently abducted between home and work;and most of the victims corpses were found

in public places. Wright locates the brutal

violence within the ongoing and uneven

industrialization of Mexico. Associated in

part with Mexicos Border Industrialization

Program, multinational corporations

relocated to cities such as Ciudad Juarez to

take advantage of reductions in labor costs

through the (selective) employment of

women. These workers, in short, constituted

a highly vulnerable surplus population; and

it is the temporariness of their employment

that, according to Wright, merits some atten-

tion. Multinational firms benefit from the hir-

ing of temporary workers or, in other

words, from the deliberate promotion of high

labor turnover. For Wright, women represent

workers of declining value since their intrin-

sic value never appreciates into skill but

instead dissipates over time (1999: 455). She

concludes that women workers of the maqui-

ladoras personify waste in the making.Beginning in 1995, in response to the contin-

ued death of young women, local community

organizers, including the feminist group Ocho

de Marzo, organized marches composed of

maquila workers, students, professionals, mid-

dle- and upper-class residents, labor activists,

and artists. These groups pressured local and fed-

eral politicians for action and demanded that the

police and the mayor dedicate more resources to

murder investigations. They also met with themaquiladora association to discuss changes inemployment shifts that might help ensure

womens safety and other security measures

(Wright, 2001a: 556). According to Wright (p.557) it was crucial to establish a connection

between the murders and the organization of pro-duction within the maquiladoras. She argues that

the maquila system, which revolves around the

reproduction of disposable women, draws from

many of the same discourses that are utilized to

exculpate the maquila industry from the violence

against women that continues to pervade Ciudad

Juarez (p. 558); it is this connection, also, that

activists have made, arguing that the physical

violence was exacerbated by a social and eco-

nomic violence against women. The work of

Wright exemplifies what one possible (surplus)

population geography might look like as well

as providing a model for more engaged

Tyner 707


8/12

community-level participation. Crucial to the tra-gic story of Ciudad Juarez are processes of rural

migration, land displacement, labor force partic-ipation, gendered divisions of labor, and, bluntly

put, mortality. What connects these fundamental

processes so widely studied within population

geography is that of surplus population and

the accumulation of capital.

IV Conclusions

In a series of books, Giorgio Agamben (1998,

2002, 2005) expands upon the concept of

the state of exception, a conceptual advance-

ment that provides insight into the spatiality of

structural violence and, by extension, an under-standing into the calculated valuation and man-

agement of life and death within contemporary

society (see also McIntyre and Nast, 2011, on

spatialities of exception). This concept calls

attention to the paradox of sovereignty, namely

that the sovereign is both outside and inside the

juridical order. Given that the sovereign has the

legal power to suspend the validity of law,

the sovereign may also situate itself outside of

law. This produces a state of exception wherebylaw may be suspended in the name of societys

protection from internal or external threats.

Increasingly, these threats are embodied by (sur-

plus) populations whether defined by race,

sex, gender, class, or national origin. As Mitchell

(2009: 244) writes, once defined as at-risk

populations, these lives constitute a biosecurity

threat to society and, accordingly, individualsand populations can be forcefully and, more

importantly, justifiably removed from com-

monly held spaces and resources in a contempo-

rary liberal form of sovereign dispossession.

Whether characterized as bare life (Agam-ben, 1998), wasted lives (Bauman, 2004;

Neocleous, 2011), humans-as-waste (Yates,

2011), abandoned lives (Pratt, 2005), disposa-

ble lives (Chang, 2000; Wright, 1999, 2004,

2006), precarious lives (Butler, 2004), or any

of the other myriad terms currently being

introduced, thecommonality is that somepopula-

tionsare legally relegated to the realm of surplus

and thus rendered expendable. As Evelyn

Ruppert (2011: 218) explains, people are not

governed in relation to their individuality but as

members of populations. The embodied individ-

ual is of interest to governments insofar as the

individual can be identified, categorised and

recognized as a member of a population.

Accordingly, we must critically interrogate those

calculated bodies that become the object the

target of governmental interference: surplus

populations.

Acknowledgements

Thanks are extended to Heidi Nast, Joshua Inwood,and Chris Philo for critical and helpful comments

and suggestions on earlier drafts of this report.

Thanks also to Michael McIntyre, Heather Merrill,

Melissa Wright, Melissa Gilbert, and Nik Heynen for

discussions more broadly on the topics of surplus

populations and survivability.

Notes

1. CIA World Factbook, https://www.cia.gov/library/pub-

lications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html.

2. World Hunger Education Service, Hunger in America:

2011 United States Hunger and Poverty Facts, http://

www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/us_hunger_facts.

htm.

3. Center for Family Policy and Research, The State of

Children and Families, 2011, http://CFPR.missouri.

edu.

4. National Center for Children in Poverty, Demographics

of Poor Children, http://nccp.org/profiles/US_profile_

7.html.

5. World Hunger Education Service, Hunger in America.

6. Kochhar R, Fry R and Taylor P, Twenty-to-One:Wealth Gaps Rise to Record Highs Between Whites,

Blacks and Hispanics, Pew Research Center, http://

www.pewresearch.org.

7. Kochanek KD, Xu JQ, Murphy SL. et al. Deaths: Pre-

liminary Data for 2009, National Vital Statistics

Reports, Volume 59, No. 4 (Hyattsville, MD: National

Center for Health Statistics, 2011), Table 6.

8. It would be interesting indeed to follow up this assertion

of Marx. To my knowledge,no (population) geographer



9/12

or any other social scientist has undertaken such a

project.

9. As Denning (2010: 87) writes, Marx was no sympathi-

zer of the lumpenproletariat. Indeed, in his support of

the proletariat, the legitimate moralworking class,

Marx viewed the lumpenproletariat as an unproductive,parasitic layer of society.

References

Agamben G (1998) Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and

Bare Life. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Agamben G (2002) Remnants of Auschwitz: The Witness

and the Archive. New York: Zone Books.

Agamben G (2005) State of Exception. Chicago, IL: Univer-

sity of Chicago Press.

Anderson B and Ruhs M (2010) Researching illegality andlabour migration. Population, Space and Place 16:

175179.

Bailey A (2005) Making Population Geography. London:

Hodder Arnold.

Bailey AJ (2010) Population geographies and climate

change.Progress in Human Geography35: 686695.

Bauder H (2006)Labor Movement: How Migration Regu-

lates Labor Markets. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bauman Z (2004) Wasted Lives: Modernity and its

Outcomes. Cambridge: Polity.

Blue SA and Drever AI (2011) Subcontracting work viasocial networks: Migrant Latino labour and the rebuild-

ing of New Orleans. Population, Space and Place 17:

489504.

Butler J (2004)Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning

and Violence. New York: Verso.

Carr D (2009) Population and deforestation: Why rural

migration matters.Progress in Human Geography 33:

355378.

Chang G (2000)Disposable Domestics: Immigrant Women

Workers in the Global Economy. Cambridge, MA: South

End Press.

Coleman M and Grove K (2009) Biopolitics, biopower,

and the return of sovereignty. Environment and Plan-

ning D: Society and Space 27: 489507.

Collyer M, Duvell F, and de Haas H (2012) Critical

approaches to transit migration.Population, Space and

Place18: 407414.

Croes H and Hooimeijer P (2010) Gender and chain migra-

tion: The case of Aruba. Population, Space and Place

16: 121134.

Day P, Pearce J, and Dorling D (2008) Twelve worlds: A

geo-demographic comparison of global inequalities in

mortality. Journal of Epidemiology and Community

Health62: 10021007.

Dear MJ and Wolch J (1987) Landscapes of Despair:

From Deinstitutionalization to Homelessness. Prince-ton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Denning M (2010) Wageless life. New Left Review 66:

7997.

Dorling D and Thomas B (2004) People and Places: A

2001 Census Atlas of the UK. Bristol: Policy Press.

Doty RL (2011) Bare life: Border-crossing deaths and

spaces of moral alibi. Environment and Planning D:

Society and Space29: 599612.

Drever AI and Blue SA (2011) Surviving sin papeles in

post-Katrina New Orleans: An exploration of the chal-

lenges facing undocumented Latino immigrants in newand re-emerging Latino destinations. Population,

Space and Place17: 89102.

Dunn TJ (1996) The Militarization of the U.S.Mexico

Border, 19781992. Austin, TX: Center for Mexican

American Studies and the University of Texas Press.

Ek R (2006) Giorgio Agamben and the spatialities of the

camp: An introduction. Geografiska Annaler 88:

363386.

Esposito R (2008)B os: Biopolitics and Philosophy. Min-

neapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Feller A and Stone C (no date) Top 1 percent of Americans

reaped two-thirds of income gains in last economic

expansion. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Available at: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?

faviewandid2908.

Findlay AM (2005) Vulnerable spatialities. Population,


Findlay AM and Boyle P (2007) Thedifferenceof popula-

tion, space and place.Population, Space and Place13:

12.

Findlay AM and Graham E (1991) The challenge facing

population geography. Progress in Human Geography

15: 149162.

Foucault M (1990)The History of Sexuality: An Introduc-

tion. New York: Vintage Books.

Glasmeier AK (2005)An Atlas of Poverty in America: One

Nation, Pulling Apart, 19602003. London: Taylor and

Francis.

Glasmeier AK, Martin R, Tyler P, et al. (2008) Poverty and

place in the UK and the USA. Cambridge Journal of

Regions, Economy and Society1: 116.

Tyner 709
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=viewandid=2908http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=viewandid=2908http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=viewandid=2908http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=viewandid=2908http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=viewandid=2908http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=viewandid=2908http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=viewandid=2908http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=viewandid=2908


10/12

Glassman J (2006) Primitive accumulation, accumulation

by dispossession, accumulation by extra-economic

means.Progress in Human Geography 30: 608625.

Gober P and Tyner JA (2004) Population geography. In

Gaile G and Willmott C (eds) Geography in America

at the Dawn of the 21st Century. Oxford: Oxford Uni-versity Press, 185199.

Graham E (2000) What kind of theory for what kind of

population geography? International Journal of Popu-

lation Geography6: 257272.

Graham E (2004) The past, present and future of popula-

tion geography: Reflections on Glenn Trewarthas

address fifty years on. Population, Space and Place

10: 289294.

Graham E and Boyle P (2001) Introduction: (Re)theorizing

population geography: Mapping the unfamiliar. Inter-

national Journal of Population Geography7: 389394.Hall D (2011) Land grabs, land control, and Southeast Asian

crop booms.Journal of Peasant Studies38: 811831.

Harvey D (1974) Population, resources, and the ideology

of science.Economic Geography50: 256277.

Harvey D (2003) The New Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Heynen N (2006) But its alright, ma, its life, and life

only: Radicalism as survival. Antipode38: 916929.

Hinchliffe S and Bingham N (2008) Securing life: The

emerging practices of biosecurity. Environment and

Planning A40: 15341551.

Ho EL-E (2011) Migration trajectories of highly skilled

middling transnationals: Singaporean transmigrants in

London.Population, Space and Place17: 116129.

Hogan DJ and Marandola E (2005) Toward an interdisci-

plinary conceptualization of vulnerability.Population,


Holt L and Costello L (2011) Beyond otherness: Exploring

diverse spatialities and mobilities of childhood and

youth populations. Population, Space and Place 17:

299303.

James PE (1954) The geographic study of population. In:

James PE and Jones CF (eds) American Geography:

Inventory and Prospect. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse Uni-

versity Press, 106122.

Jones H (1986) Evolution of Scottish migration patterns: A

social-relations-of-production approach.Scottish Geo-

graphical Magazine102: 151164.

Kahn RS (1996)Other Peoples Blood: U.S. Immigration

Prisons in the Reagan Decade. Boulder, CO: Westview

Press.

Khalid K (2010) Dimensions and dynamics of irregular

migration.Population, Space and Place16: 181193.

Khoo S-E, Graeme H, and McDonald P (2011) Skilled

migration from Europe to Australia. Population, Space

and Place17: 550566.

Lee E and Pratt G (2012) The spectacular and themundane: Racialised state violence, Filipino migrant

workers, and their families.Environment and Planning

A44: 889904.

Legg S (2005) Foucaults population geographies: Classi-

fications, biopolitics and governmental spaces.Popula-

tion, Space and Place11: 137156.

Li TM (2009) To make live or let die? Rural dispossession

and the protection of surplus populations.Antipode41:

6693.

Lindio-McGovern L (2004) Alienation and labor export in

the context of globalization: Filipina migrant domesticworkers in Taiwan and Hong Kong. Critical Asian

Studies36: 217238.

McIntyre M (2011) Race, surplus population and the

Marxist theory of imperialism. Antipode 43:

14891515.

McIntyre M and Nast HJ (2011) Bio(necro)polis: Marx,

surplus populations, and the spatial dialectics ofrepro-

duction and race.Antipode43: 14651488.

McKendrick J (2001) Coming of age: Rethinking the role

of children in population studies.International Journal

of Population Geography7: 461472.

Marx K (1990)Capital: A Critique of Political Economy,

Volume1, translated by Fowkes B. New York: Penguin.

Mbembe A (2003) Necropolitics.Public Culture 15: 1140.

Merrill H (2011) Migration and surplus populations: Race

and deindustrialization in northern Italy. Antipode 43:

15421572.

Minca C (2006) Giorgio Agamben and the new biopolitical

nomos.Geografiska Annaler88: 387403.

Mitchell D (2007) Work, struggle, death, and geographies

of justice: The transformation of landscape in and

beyond Californias Imperial Valley. Landscape

Research32: 559577.

Mitchell D and Heynen N (2009) The geography of sur-

vival and the right to the city: Speculations on surveil-

lance, legal innovation, and the criminalization of

intervention.Urban Geography 30: 611632.

Mitchell K (2009) Pre-black futures.Antipode 41: 239261.

Mountz A (2004) Embodying the nation-state: Canadas

response to human smuggling. Political Geography

23: 323345.



11/12

Nast H (2011) Race and the bio(necro)polis. Antipode

43: 14571464.

Neocleous M (2011) War on waste: Law, original accumu-

lation and the violence of capital. Science and Society

75: 506528.

Philo C (2001) Accumulating population: Bodies, institu-tions and space. International Journal of Population

Geography7: 473490.

Philo C (2005a) Sex, life, death, geography: Fragmentary

remarks inspired by Foucaults population geogra-

phies.Population, Space and Place11: 325333.

Philo C (2005b) The geographies that wound. Population,


Pratt G (2005) Abandoned women and spaces of the excep-

tion.Antipode37: 10521078.

Rajaram PK and Grundy-Warr C (2004) The irregular

migrant as homo sacer: Migration and detention in Aus-tralia, Malaysia, and Thailand.International Migration

42: 3364.

Riemsdijk M (2012) (Re)scaling governance of skilled

migration in Europe: Divergence, harmonization, and

contestation. Population, Space and Place 18:

344358.

Rigg J (2007) Moving lives: Migration and livelihoodsin the

Lao PDR.Population, Space and Place13: 163178.

Robbins P (1998) Population and pedagogy: The geogra-

phy classroom after Malthus. Journal of Geography

97: 241252.

Rodriguez RM (2010)Migrants for Export: How the Phi-

lippine State Brokers Labor to the World. Minneapolis,

MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Rose N (2007) The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine,

Power, and Subjectivity in the Twenty-First Century.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Rossini RE (1984) Space and population. In: Clarke JI (ed.)

Geography and Population: Approaches and Applica-

tions. Oxford: Pergamon, 3542.

Ruppert E (2011) Population objects: Interpassive sub-

jects.Sociology45: 218233.

Salt J and Stein J (1997) Migration as a business: The case

of trafficking.International Migration 35: 467494.

Scott S (2004) Transnational exchanges amongst skilled

British migrants in Paris.Population, Space and Place

10: 391410.

Silverman SJ and Massa E (2012) Why immigration deten-

tionis unique.Population, Space and Place 18: 677686.

Smith DP and King R (2012) Re-making migration theory.

Population, Space and Place18: 127133.

Tirman J (ed.) (2004)The Maze of Fear. New York: New

Press.

Tyner JA (2004) Made in the Philippines: Gendered Dis-

courses and the Making of Migrants. New York:Routledge.

Tyner JA (2009) War, Violence, and Population: Making

the Body Count. New York: The Guilford Press.

Tyner JA (2012) State sovereignty, bioethics, and political

geographies: The practice of medicine under the Khmer

Rouge. Environment and Planning D: Society and

Space30: 842860.

Wacquant L (2009) Punishing the Poor: The Neoliberal

Government of Social Insecurity. Durham, NC: Duke

University Press.

Watts MJ (2011) Planet of the wageless.Identities: GlobalStudies in Culture and Power18: 6980.

White P and Jackson P (1995) (Re)theorizing population

geography. International Journal of Population Geo-

graphy1: 111123.

White SE, Brown LA, Clark WAV, et al. (1989) Popu-

lation geography. In: Gaile G and Willmott C (eds)

Geography in America. Columbus, OH: Merrill,

258289.

Wright MW (1999) The dialectics of still life: Murder,

women, and maquiladoras. Public Culture 11:

453474.

Wright MW (2001) A manifesto against femicide. Anti-

pode33: 550566.

Wright MW (2004) From protests to politics: Sex work,

womens worth, and Ciudad Juarez modernity.Annals

of the Association of American Geographers 94:

369386.

Wright MW (2006) Disposable Women and Other Myths

of Global Capitalism. New York: Routledge.

Wright MW (2011) Necropolitics, narcopolitics, and femi-

cide: Gendered violence on the Mexico-U.S. border.

Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 36:

707731.

Yates M (2011) The human-as-waste, the labor theory of

value and disposability in contemporary capitalism.

Antipode43: 16791695.

Yeoh BSA and Huang S (2010) Sexualised politics of

proximities among female transnational migrants in

Singapore.Population, Space and Place16: 3749.

Tyner 711


12/12

C o p y r i g h t o f P r o g r e s s i n H u m a n G e o g r a p h y i s t h e p r o p e r t y o f S a g e P u b l i c a t i o n s , L t d . a n d i t s

c o n t e n t m a y n o t b e c o p i e d o r e m a i l e d t o m u l t i p l e s i t e s o r p o s t e d t o a l i s t s e r v w i t h o u t t h e

c o p y r i g h t h o l d e r ' s e x p r e s s w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . H o w e v e r , u s e r s m a y p r i n t , d o w n l o a d , o r e m a i l

a r t i c l e s f o r i n d i v i d u a l u s e .

Documents

Population+Geography+I+Surplus