Project Context and Relevance

I have always been interested in everyday bordering (Yuval-Davis et al., 2019), and I was looking for an example of a border when I ended up witnessing one unexpectedly. It turned out to be an effective one. It happened at 5:15 a.m. at a boarding gate in Prague airport, while I was on my way home by plane. The airline is especially popular with students, workers, and budget travellers, and it competes mainly on price rather than on comfort or personal service.

Shortly before boarding, we passengers were instructed to exit the gate area to begin a “pre-boarding” procedure, which was new to me. I knew that the airline had been tightening the enforcement of its baggage rules, but I did not expect the boarding gate itself to be temporarily transformed into a kind of controlled checkpoint (cf. Salter, 2008). Actual access to the gate was suspended and made conditional on compliance with baggage regulations.

The case is relevant because it shows, in a small and mundane setting, how a border works: passage stopped being automatic and began to depend on conformity to rules. It invites us to look at bordering practices beyond national frontiers (Yuval-Davis et al., 2019) and at how economic logic can translate directly into bodily discipline.

The case

Element	Description
Where and when	Boarding gate, Prague airport, 5:15 a.m. Flight departing at 5:55 a.m., so roughly 40 minutes before departure.
Who	Passengers of a low-cost airline popular with students, workers, and budget travellers; airline staff; the author as a student and low-cost traveller.
What happened	A “pre-boarding” procedure, new to the author: passengers exit the gate area, are split into priority and non-priority lines, and have all baggage checked with standardised sizers.
Duration of observation	Well over 20 minutes, during which the barrier continuously structured circulation, waiting, and access.
Background	The airline had been tightening the enforcement of its baggage rules. Other companies tend to use sizers only through random controls, not systematically.

General Objective

The project aims to examine how a seemingly mundane airport procedure functions as a powerful border, how it mirrors the way states control international borders, and how such disciplinary practices become internalised at all levels of social experience. In particular, it seeks to: i) describe how the gate was physically and symbolically transformed into a barrier; ii) analyse the procedure through the notions of border spectacle (De Genova, 2013), rhythm (Lefebvre, 2004), and spatial governmentality (see Foucault, 1991); iii) reflect on how status (student, low-cost traveller, migrant, business traveller, airline employee) shapes the bodily experience of the same space; iv) understand how humour and irony on the company’s social media contribute to normalising control.

Research Question

How does a low-cost airline’s pre-boarding baggage control work as a border spectacle, and how do space, power, and rhythm shape the embodied experience of passengers according to their status?

Three sub-questions guide the analysis:

i) Space. How does the gate become a barrier, and what does it mean that access is conditional rather than automatic?

ii) Power. How do staff commands, visible rules, and the anticipation of fines produce discipline without frequent punishment?

iii) Rhythm and body. How do time pressure and unequal queues shape movement, attention, and bodily reactions?

Methodology

The study uses a qualitative, autoethnographic approach (Ellis et al., 2011). It combines a direct observation lasting well over 20 minutes with a reflection on my own bodily reactions and positionality, followed by a short consultation of the airline’s social media pages. The analysis is informed by rhythm analysis (Lefebvre, 2004), by the idea of spatial governmentality (see Foucault, 1991), and by the notion of border spectacle (De Genova, 2013).

A note on the case: I did not verify when this procedure was introduced, or whether it is applied in the same way at other airports. The analysis therefore rests on what I observed and on how I experienced it, not on a claim about the procedure’s history.

COMPONENTS OF THE METHOD

Component	What it involved
Direct observation	Observing the gate area, the lines, the sizers, the staff’s verbal commands, and the movements of passengers for more than 20 minutes.
Embodied reflection	Paying attention to my own physical reactions, such as the noticeable increase in heart rate caused by the fear of being sanctioned.
Positionality	Reflecting on how my status as a student with limited economic resources and as a low-cost traveller shaped what I felt and noticed.
Rhythm analysis	Reading the gate as a space imposing a new temporal order, with different speeds for different passengers.
Digital follow-up	Consulting the airline’s social media pages, where memes and irony are used to narrate the disciplinary practice.

The Observation: From Gate to Checkpoint

The sequence below summarises what I observed. The key change is that the gate stopped being a place you simply walk through and became a place you have to be cleared to enter.

TABLE 1 · TWO WAYS OF BOARDING

	Usual boarding	Pre-boarding procedure observed
Access to the gate	Automatic; passengers wait in or near the gate area.	Suspended; passengers are asked to exit the gate area first.
Baggage checks	Often random; other companies tend not to check systematically.	Systematic; every bag is checked with the standardised sizers.
Organisation of bodies	Relatively loose queuing.	Priority and non-priority lines, with bodies, bags, and movements directed by staff.
Condition for passage	Boarding pass and identity.	Compliance with baggage regulations, with the possibility of immediate fines.
Staff role	Mostly procedural.	Repetitive, clear verbal commands enforcing the rules.

The staff issued standardised commands: “put the bag in the sizer”, “step aside”, “next”. The observation lasted well over 20 minutes, during which the barrier continuously structured circulation, waiting, and access.

Analysis: Space, Power, and Rhythm at the Gate

A border spectacle

In my opinion, the company also had to communicate a strong shift from a “flight-oriented” policy to a “baggage-oriented” one. At the same time, its competitive model rests mainly on price rather than on customer service, which allows it to perform unpopular practices without losing clients, since its prices remain competitive. In this context, the pre-boarding operation worked as a clear example of what can be described as a border spectacle (adapting De Genova, 2013).

The procedure was obvious, predictable, and theatrical in its aim to internalise the new baggage rules. Three features made it so:

• the presence of the sizers, a visible and widely hated standardised tool;
• the public nature of the compliance checks, which are popular on social media for the reactions of some travellers (and, in my opinion, this is not irrelevant);
• the possibility of immediate sanctions (fines), which worked less through actual punishment and more through the anticipation of it.

Anxiety and the internalised norm

What struck me most was how few passengers were actually fined compared with the pervasive atmosphere of anxiety. Nervous laughter, hesitant movements toward the sizers, and repeated self-checking of bags revealed how effectively the norm had been internalised.

My own body reacted strongly. Even though I have flown many times, I experienced a noticeable increase in heart rate because of the fear of being sanctioned as a student with limited economic resources.

Rhythm: a new temporal order

Using rhythm analysis (Lefebvre, 2004), the gate can be read as a space that imposed a new temporal order. The threat of fines, combined with the awareness of having only around 40 minutes before departure (the flight was at 5:55 a.m.), accelerated movements and intensified attention. Time was not evenly distributed: it governed access and privilege.

SCHEME 2 · ASYMMETRIC RHYTHMS OF MOBILITY

	Priority line	Non-priority line
Speed of flow	Faster and smoother.	Long and slow.
Experience of time	Time as a resource that is protected.	Time as pressure: about 40 minutes to departure and the threat of fines.
Bodily effect	Likely more relaxed, with little need for self-checking.	Accelerated movements, heightened attention, nervous laughter, repeated self-checking of bags.
What it shows	Privilege translated into time.	Economic position translated into waiting and anxiety.

State-like power and spatial governmentality

The staff’s standardised commands enacted a form of state-like power. This power resembled state bordering practices: it regulated access, disciplined bodies (cf. Foucault, 1995), and controlled movement through clear rules and visible, virtual enforcement, based more on threats than on actual consequences. The boarding gate became a site of spatial governmentality (see Foucault, 1991), where economic logic translated directly into bodily discipline.

SCHEME 3 · WHAT THE COMMANDS DO

Command	Reading in terms of power
“Put the bag in the sizer”	Turns compliance into a visible, measurable act; the passenger’s own body performs the check.
“Step aside”	Separates bodies that do not conform from the flow and exposes them to the gaze of others.
“Next”	Sets the pace of the line and reminds everyone that time and access are managed from above.

Interpretive reading of the three commands heard at the gate.

SCHEME 4 · THE LOGIC OF THE GATE, STEP BY STEP

The effect of the procedure rests on anticipation rather than on punishment: few fines, but a pervasive atmosphere of anxiety.

1Economic modelCompetition on price, not on service

2Policy shiftFrom “flight-oriented” to “baggage-oriented”

3Border spectacleSizers, public checks, visible staff

4AnticipationFear of fines, anxiety, self-checking

5InternalisationThe norm becomes bodily habit

Reflection: Status, Embodiment, and Normalization

How status shapes the experience of the border

My experience of this border was clearly shaped by my status as a student and low-cost traveller. The fear of fines affected my body, slowing my movements while at the same time heightening my alertness. If I had been a business traveller or an employee of the airline, the gate would likely have appeared neutral, or even efficiently organised, rather than a source of anxiety.

SCHEME 5 · ONE GATE, DIFFERENT POSITIONS

Position	Likely experience of the gate
Student or low-cost traveller (my case)	Fear of sanctions, increased heart rate, slowed movements and heightened alertness.
Business traveller	The gate appears neutral or even efficiently organised.
Airline employee	A routine, orderly procedure; the border is seen from the side that enforces it.
Person with precarious legal or economic status (imagined)	Possibly an even stronger bodily impact: surveillance, public exposure, and time pressure may intensify vulnerability and exclusion.

Imagining the experience from the position of a migrant or of someone in a precarious legal or economic situation may suggest an even stronger bodily impact. The combination of surveillance, public exposure, and time pressure would likely intensify feelings of vulnerability and exclusion, suggesting some kind of inequality (cf. De Genova, 2002).

Humour and normalisation

After the observation, I consulted the airline’s social media pages, where the company extensively uses memes and irony to narrate this disciplinary practice. This strategy initially surprised me, but it ultimately seemed to reinforce the logic of the border spectacle. By making control humorous, the company normalises it and depoliticises its power, making the disciplinary space appear inevitable and even predictable. As a humanised aeroplane character says in one post: “you know the consequences”.

Proposed Paper Structure

Section	Content
Introduction	The unexpected encounter with a border at Prague airport; research question and relevance.
Methodology	Autoethnographic observation, embodied reflection, positionality, and the follow-up on social media.
Description of the observation	The pre-boarding procedure, the priority and non-priority lines, the sizers, and the staff commands.
Analysis: space, power, and rhythm	Border spectacle, internalised anxiety, asymmetric rhythms, state-like power, and spatial governmentality.
Reflection: status, embodiment, and normalisation	How status changes the experience of the gate, and how humour on social media normalises control.
Conclusion	The gate as a spatial device that organises bodies, time, and access, and what it reveals about borders beyond national frontiers.

Theoretical Framework

The framework relies on four ideas, each of which helps to read a different aspect of the gate. Some of them were developed for other contexts, such as state borders, and are adapted here to a private setting.

Concept	Core idea	Where it appears in the case
Border spectacle (De Genova, 2013)	Control is staged publicly and theatrically, and works through anticipation of sanctions rather than through punishment.	Sizers, public checks, the possibility of immediate fines, visibility on social media.
Rhythm analysis (Lefebvre, 2004)	Spaces impose temporal orders; time is unevenly distributed and governs access and privilege.	The 40-minute window, the fast priority line versus the long non-priority line.
Spatial governmentality (Foucault, 1991)	Space is organised so that economic logic becomes bodily discipline.	Commands, lines, and the conditional access to the gate.
Autoethnography (Ellis et al., 2011)	Personal, embodied experience is used as data to understand wider social structures.	My heart rate, my fear of fines, my positionality as a student and low-cost traveller.

Conclusion

This observation demonstrates how, in my opinion, a seemingly mundane airport procedure functions as a powerful border and how it mirrors state control of international borders. It also gives an idea of how these disciplinary practices are internalised at all levels of social experience.

The boarding gate is not a neutral infrastructural element but a spatial device that organises bodies, time, and access. Through embodied rhythms, visible control, and normalisation via humour, the airline successfully transforms mobility into a disciplined practice, revealing how borders operate far beyond national frontiers.

Call for Contributions: Share Your Experience

This recommendation is also an invitation. I would like to collect other people’s experiences of everyday borders, such as airports, boarding gates, queues, checkpoints, or similar spaces, written in the form of autoethnography (Ellis et al., 2011).

What is autoethnography?

Autoethnography (Ellis et al., 2011) is a qualitative method in which the author uses their own lived experience, including bodily and emotional reactions, as material to understand broader social and cultural dynamics. The personal story is not the end point: it is the starting point for a reflection on power, space, and inequality.

WHAT A SHORT CONTRIBUTION CAN INCLUDE

	Element	Guiding question
1	The situation	Where and when did it happen? What exactly happened?
2	The body and the emotions	What did you feel physically and emotionally in that moment?
3	Your position	How did your status or position (student, worker, traveller, migrant, and so on) shape the experience?
4	The wider picture	How does the episode connect to broader structures of power, space, and mobility?

Send your experiences to:

matteo.rosadi@edu.unifi.it

Submissions will be used only for research purposes, kept confidential, and quoted only anonymously and with your consent. You can ask for their deletion at any time at the same address.

References

De Genova, N. P. (2002). Migrant “illegality” and deportability in everyday life. Annual Review of Anthropology, 31, 419–447. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.31.040402.085432

De Genova, N. (2013). Spectacles of migrant “illegality”: The scene of exclusion, the obscene of inclusion. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36(7), 1180–1198. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2013.783710

Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2011). Autoethnography: An overview. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 12(1), Article 10. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-12.1.1589

Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 87–104). University of Chicago Press.

Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Vintage Books. (Original work published 1975)

Lefebvre, H. (2004). Rhythmanalysis: Space, time and everyday life (S. Elden & G. Moore, Trans.). Continuum. (Original work published 1992)

Salter, M. B. (Ed.). (2008). Politics at the airport. University of Minnesota Press.

Yuval-Davis, N., Wemyss, G., & Cassidy, K. (2019). Bordering. Polity Press.