Summary: State-Society Relations and Internal Migration

2.2 Summary: State-Society Relations and Internal Migration

According to all the discussed analysts, state and society are constantly reproducing and transforming each other through their interactions. Internal migration is a process of society, which is characterised trough the practises of society. The reaction of the state on internal migration again is characterised by practices of the state which handle the migration process either with an encouraging, discouraging or controlling manner, and an interaction between state and society is emerging. Through these interactions, practices of both state and society in the context of internal migration influence and therefore reproduce each other. Restrictive registration systems are one way how state handles internal migration. The practices of the state in the registration system influence the practices of internal migrants, either reproduce or transform them. Interactions between state and society actors are emerging and society practices again reproduce state practices and therefore the registration system, since according to Mitchell (1991) the registration system is a set of structural effects which builds the state and which is reproduced by both state and society. The way how state and society reproduce each other again has implications for the social control and the struggle for domination between state and society (Migdal, 1993).

The abstract state is reproduced through concrete institutions and their practices, which is pointed out by Mitchell (1991; 1999) as well as by Gupta (1995). The registration system is one concrete institution where the abstract state becomes concrete and therefore visible as state, in form of the officials on different levels of bureaucracy who deal with the registration system as well as in form of police officers and other official workers who act their part in the registration system. Practices of state actors in relation to the registration system, its interactions with a part of society which in this case would be the internal migrants, and the practices of this part of the society itself constantly reproduce this institution of the registration system. The registration system is the place The abstract state is reproduced through concrete institutions and their practices, which is pointed out by Mitchell (1991; 1999) as well as by Gupta (1995). The registration system is one concrete institution where the abstract state becomes concrete and therefore visible as state, in form of the officials on different levels of bureaucracy who deal with the registration system as well as in form of police officers and other official workers who act their part in the registration system. Practices of state actors in relation to the registration system, its interactions with a part of society which in this case would be the internal migrants, and the practices of this part of the society itself constantly reproduce this institution of the registration system. The registration system is the place

To reveal the reproduction of the institution of the registration system through state, society and their interactions, all the above discussed theories should contribute to this analyse of state-society relations. Migdal (1993; 2001) focus on the mutual transformation and reproduction of state and society and the struggle for domination between them. His state-in-society approach of state and society practices which reproduce the image provide a first access to the analysis of state-society relations. Gupta, Mitchell and Foucault especially emphasize the importance to focus on the micro- level to detect the influences of state and society actors on the power relations between state and society. Gupta (1995) argues that the local level is the space where most state-society interaction takes place. As discussed later on, the implementation of the registration system differs from the legislation of the Kyrgyz state. The actual implementation of the registration procedure is conducted by local officials, thus state and society actors encounter on that local level. The everyday practices of state-actors dealing with the registration system affect the everyday life of internal migrants as a part of the society. Therefore not the macro-level of national legislation, but the micro-level of local practices should be examined in this research. Furthermore all the analysts but especially Gupta (1995) argues that state shouldn’t be seen as a unitary actor. He emphasizes the importance to take into account the differences between the levels of bureaucracy, and not to generalize them too strongly. Considering the mentioned disagreement between the Kyrgyz national legislation and the local practices, state should definitely be analysed differentiated and not as a unitary actor.

While Gupta (1995) generally pleads for lying the focus on the local level in order to detect how state and society interact, Mitchell ’s (1991; 1999) and Foucault’s (1977; 1978) focus is more on power generation on the micro-level which is called micro-power by Foucault (1977). By the hand of these approaches, the way how state and society reproduce the institution of the registration system in the context of disciplinary power can be analysed. Weber’s (1946; 1968) definition on state and the model of bureaucracy are the starting points and the basis for all those concepts; therefore it will also be integrated into analysis. On the hand of these discussed concepts, a comprehensive picture of the reproduction of the registration system should be developed.