On passports and border controls

Abstract

In most cases, nation-states consider the possession of a valid passport to be a necessary, and legal, requirement for the crossing of borders, but there does not appear to be general agreement on the actual function of the passport. This paper proposes a variety of alternative interpretations of this document's role. It argues that the passport is not just a legal document—it is both a symbolic one which serves to uphold a cultural definition of national identity, and a political one which may serve to legitimate processes of exclusion. This is discussed within the context of contemporary world society, the erosion of nation-state borders, and transnational flows of people and practices.

Résumé

Passeports et contrôles frontaliers. Dans la plupart des cas, les États-nations considèrent la possession d'un passeport valide comme une condition nécessaire et légale pour traverser des frontières. Mais il ne semble pas exister d'accord général sur la fonction réelle du passeport. Cet article propose des interprétations variées du rôle de ce document. Il soutient que le passeport n'est pas seulement un document légal: il est à la fois un document symbolique qui sert à soutenir une définition culturelle d'une identité nationale et un document politique qui peut servir à légitimer des processus d'exclusion. On discute de cela dans le contexte de la sociéte mondiale contemporaine, de l'érosion des frontières des États-nations et des flots transnationaux de gens et d'usages.

Introduction

Very little appears to have been written within the social sciences about the passport. This seems odd, given that most international travel requires us by law to hold such a means of identification. The need for passports and border controls is often taken for granted. This seems to be a rather hasty assumption, as it implies that nation-state borders are legitimate. Given the recent debates over the meaning and extent of globalization (itself a contested but now quite common term; see Eade 1997:1–11; O'Byrne 1997:75 and O'Byrne (1997) for definitions), this also seems too rash a claim to go unchecked.

The absence of literature on passports may be of note in itself, but at the same time this void is detrimental because it denies a useful bridge between this interdisciplinary work per se, and a more focused analysis of tourism as a human right. This paper is intended both as a call for academics to adopt a more critical perspective on border controls, and as an attempt to fill the void which exists in this respect. A starting point for this enquiry is to ask what, exactly, is the purpose of a passport?

This discussion is, in part, a journey through anthropology, politics, literature, and law in search of potential common features of passports, in the hope that these might help to answer this question. Various inconsistencies are highlighted which accompany passport use. Some pertain to the official (legal, institutional) definitions and legitimations of the role of the passport. Others relate instead to more subtle, covert functions served by passports, which can be linked to the legitimation processes of the nation-state system. These pertain to the distinction between the state and the nation, and thus to the political and the cultural projects of the nation-state system. This paper claims that passport carries a significant political meaning, and a subtle cultural or symbolic one. A distinction is thus made between political inconsistencies in the use of passports in what is an increasingly interdependent world, and symbolic (cultural, anthropological) differences in the structure of the passport in terms of its representation of the nation.

In each of these categories, there are multiple inconsistencies. However, if passport usage is related to the expansion of mass tourism, it becomes evident how the increasing importance of this industry within the global capitalist economy has in some cases forced the relaxation of passport and visa requirements, resulting in apparent contradictions between the respective logics of the economic and political systems.

The origins of the modern passport seem to stem from the 11th century (Burns 1995), when the Spanish authorities issued the first guidaticum (from an Arabic word meaning friendship). In fact, safe conduct for foreign travel was only one of the functions performed by the guidaticum, and its use in Spain and other countries reflected in no small way relations between Christians and Muslims at the time. Subsequent developments occurred from the 16th century, when many (mainly neutral) states issued “passport letters” to grant safe passage to travelers during wartime. By the mid-19th century, France and other European countries began issuing travel documents for all citizens at any time. Italy and Turkey were among those countries which required, for entry, not a passport but a visa. Significantly, neither the United States nor the United Kingdom followed suit in granting such civil documents at first (Davis and Guma 1992:61). Pemble comments on how British travelers in the 19th century were frustrated by the formalities imposed upon them by foreign governments, particularly France and the Italian states, such as the need for passports and visas, and to endure customs inspections and immigration checks.

Until 1850 British passports were so difficult to obtain (they were to be had only on personal recommendation to the Secretary of State and at great cost) that most Britons found it more convenient to purchase French ones and travel, technically at least, under the protection of a foreign power (1988:33).

It would appear that at this time passports were luxuries, enjoyed by the rich, who could then travel under the protection of their government. This tells a lot about the relationship between state and citizen at the time. It should also cast some doubt as to whether or not the subsequent legal requirement for all travelers to hold passports was ever intended to be a protective measure for the citizen; instead, it could be argued that the practice emerged solely for the benefit of the international political system.

While at this time passports were solely “credentials of identity abroad”, other nations began to reconsider their requirements: “No passport was necessary to enter French territory after 1860, nor to enter Egypt after 1882 … and in Greece a visa was required only when embarking on a tour of the interior” (Pemble 1988:34–35). In the United Kingdom, by the second half of the century, Lord Palmerston had reformed the rules regarding passports, making it easier and cheaper to obtain one. By the early 20th century, passports were granted at the request of the traveler, but the First World War forced the “major” countries, and the United States in particular, to tighten their security measures and develop a stricter system of passport control (Davis and Guma 1992:61). Thus, the establishment of recognizable passport requirements is connected to the increasing infiltration of the state into everyday life:

Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission …. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police (Taylor 1965:1).

With the post-war demise of this ideal, people were forced to become “for the first time, active citizens”. From the Defence of the Realm Act of 1915, British citizens were required to possess passports whenever they entered or left their own country (Pemble 1988:2,34). Citizens were thus “required to serve the state instead of pursuing exclusively their own affairs” (Taylor 1965:2). This way, the state had infiltrated their lives; the system had begun to colonize their lifeworlds. For travelers at the time, as Fussell (1980) and others point out, these restrictions placed upon their individualism were reprehensible. It seems significant that Lash and Urry view this year as significant because of the emergence of both an “organized capitalism” and of an organized (mass) tourism industry (1994:268). It seems equally significant, though, that Taylor connects the emergence of the modern passport with the onset of a world war, as well as with the encroachment of the state in everyday life. Curiously, on remarking how 1922 saw a return to stability for the United Kingdom, with the removal of restrictions on foreign travel in all matters except for the requirement that the traveler be “burdened” with a passport, Taylor comments in a footnote:

The passport was, of course, required by foreign governments. British citizens do not need a passport to leave this country in peacetime nor to return to it, though the authorities try to conceal this (Taylor 1965:163).

It is easy to understand why in times of war nation-states felt the need to check people who were leaving and entering their territory. However the continued presence of border controls post-war seems to have more to do with the need for redefining and building a sense of nation. As such, there was a re-interest in ideas connected to citizenship, and the passport itself became a symbol for the declaration of citizenship.