Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais

120 | 2019
Número semitemático

Tracing the Contexts of Imprisonment:

Perspectives on Incarceration between the Human
and Social Sciences. An Introduction
Elisa Scaraggi, Daniel Lourenço, Susana Araújo and Cristina Martínez
Tejero

Electronic version
URL: http://journals.openedition.org/rccs/9698
DOI: 10.4000/rccs.9698
ISSN: 2182-7435

Publisher
Centro de Estudos Sociais da Universidade de Coimbra

Printed version
Date of publication: 1 December 2019
Number of pages: 107‑116
ISSN: 0254-1106

Electronic reference
Elisa Scaraggi, Daniel Lourenço, Susana Araújo and Cristina Martínez Tejero, « Tracing the Contexts of
Imprisonment: Perspectives on Incarceration between the Human and Social Sciences. An
Introduction », Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais [Online], 120 | 2019, Online since 12 December 2019,
connection on 25 September 2020. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/rccs/9698 ; DOI : https://
doi.org/10.4000/rccs.9698
 Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais, 120, dezembro 2019: 107‑116

ELISA SCARAGGI, DANIEL LOURENÇO, SUSANA ARAÚJO,

CRISTINA MARTÍNEZ TEJERO

Tracing the Contexts of Imprisonment:

Perspectives on Incarceration between the
Human and Social Sciences. An Introduction

Western academia has shown an increased interest in the question of

incarceration throughout the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
Michel Foucault’s Surveiller et punir (1975) sparked renewed discussions
of carceral institutions as key to the political architecture of western
modernity and as phenomena which demand critical and theoretical
attention in genealogical as well as in structural and infra­‑structural
terms. Since the book’s publication, many scholars across different areas
of inquiry have engaged in historical, sociological, political and cultural
analysis of the carceral. Emerging from what was the burgeoning field
of cultural studies, during the seventies Stuart Hall’s co­‑authored book,
Policing the Crisis (1978), with its focus on the political manipulation
of anxieties regarding small crime in Britain and its denunciation of the
highly mediatized hegemonic constructs which underpinned the crimi‑
nalization of working­‑class racialized subjects, was a pioneering work
which opened new paths to those studying security and punitive systems.
Gilles Deleuze’s short essay on control societies (1992)1 proved to be an
important theoretical reference for anyone working on security and puni‑
tive systems: a historical successor to the disciplinary societies presented
by Foucault, the logic of control drafted by Deleuze has been highly
suggestive as a means of articulating a range of shifts in the organization
of power, conveying the new mechanisms of control as a broader, highly
diffuse and technologically supported system of security and surveillance
upheld by corporate interests.

1
This essay was first published in L’autre journal in 1990 and was re­‑published in Pourparlers
in the same year. It was later translated into English as “Postscript on the Societies of Control” and
published in the journal October in 1992.
108 | Elisa Scaraggi, Daniel Lourenço, Susana Araújo, Cristina Martínez Tejero

More recently, Jacques Derrida’s “Death Penalty” seminars, conducted

from 1999 to 2001, sought to deconstruct the theologico­‑political logic of
the death penalty and offered an important contribution to the revision of
the social, moral and political assumptions of punitive systems (Derrida,
2013, 2016). Derrida’s work established a stimulating dialogue with other
post­‑structuralist theorists such as Judith Butler (2004), whose work became
concerned with notions of “indefinite detention” after the terrorist attacks
of 9/11. From a different strand of French theory, closer to a Bourdieusian
approach, authors such as Loïc Wacquant (1999, 2009) traced the circula-
tion of slogans, theories, and measures of punitive technique fueled by
Reaganomics in the United States and exported worldwide as part of a
global “consensus” on economic deregulation.
More importantly, it was through the articulation between activism and
academic work, and by drawing directly from counter­‑cultural and social
movements of the 1960s and the 1970s in the United States, that some of
the most powerful contributions to the field of prison studies emerged.
We must not underestimate how much most of the above authors – and
critical prison studies in general – owe to author and activist Angela Davis.
Davis’ work, firmly founded upon radical acts of political resistance, such as
her affiliation with both the Black Panther Party and the Communist Party,
as well as her involvement in the women’s movement, offered and continues
to offer a poignant critique of the prison industrial complex (Davis, 2003,
2005; Davis and Shaylor, 2001). Critical prison studies have further been
reinforced by many valuable recent contributions such as those of Dylan
Rodríguez (2006) and Khalil Muhammad (2010) and, more forcefully,
by the work of Ruth Wilson Gilmore (2007a, 2007b), another major figure
in contemporary carceral geography and a key public spokesperson for
prison abolition.
Prison abolitionists, such as Davis and Gilmore, not only imagine a world
without prison, but they labor towards social change, including access to
jobs, housing, education, and healthcare so as to transform their commu‑
nities and society at large, thus rendering prison obsolete. Drawing from
the experiences of abolitionists and other activists, we – in our double role
as witnesses and writers – must revise and reattune our awareness of how
carceral institutions and practices have actively contributed to the oppres‑
sion and exclusion of people not conforming to the social, economic and
political norm, including the poor, non­‑white people, LGBTQ subjects,
and political dissidents of various kinds. The establishment of detention
as the primary form of punishment has, in fact, been essential to nurture
the interests of dominant social groups and to determine their success,
 Perspectives on Incarceration between the Human and Social Sciences. An Introduction | 109

including economically. This is patent in the economic interests which

characterize contemporary carceral institutions, as they tend towards pri‑
vatization. Recent works, such as Jackie Wang’s Carceral Capitalism (2018),
go so far as to question the precise definitional limits between prison and
general society, contending that carcerality is something engrained in
the very economic and lived fabric of contemporary society. The need to
multiply multifocal and multifaceted forms of critical perspectivation on
the question of the carceral ultimately informs initiatives such as our own.
The dossier presented in this issue of Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais
approaches contexts of imprisonment with a keen sense of the generative
possibilities of interdisciplinary conversations between the Human and the
Social Sciences, something which energizes ensuant questions and objects
of inquiry. The analytical and discursive frameworks across this dossier
range from the sociological or the ethnographic to the speculative and
philosophical, even the literary. Our contention is that it is the very material
and temporal intricacy of this nexus of interdisciplinary encounters which
endows this dossier with its critical cogency and political identity.
This is not to disavow delimitations between the Human and the Social
Sciences as distinct, autonomous fields of critical inquiry and knowledge­
‑production, as much as to key into how intervals between the two surprise
many of the reified tenets of either as broad epistemic formations, thus
precipitating other modes of attention, other kinds of intervention and other
forms of critical narrative. The disciplinary differences and eventual discrep‑
ancies between the Human and the Social Sciences make up precisely that
differential which enables their less likely cross­‑sections to become potent
opportunities to grasp at that which might exceed either’s epistemic reach
according to their respective sense of totality. We hold that such opportuni‑
ties are fundamental for an integrated understanding of the phenomenon of
incarceration – on an international scale – as systemic, yet heterogenous. This
implies tracing alternate critical pathways and disrupting congealed, crystal‑
lized disciplinary formations, as sets of internal as well as of external relations.
Recontextualizing the convergences and divergences between multiple stand‑
points and methods allows us to raise the question of imprisonment differently.
Ours is an implicated, imbricated approach. We are a group of Humanities
scholars, in the professional as much as in the scientific sense of the word,
whose pathways have crossed through Project CILM – City and Insecurity in
Literature and Media, a project funded from 2010 to 20132 by the Portuguese
Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT, in the Portuguese acronym)

2
The project was supported under grant PTDC/CLE­‑LLI/110694/2009(CILM1).
110 | Elisa Scaraggi, Daniel Lourenço, Susana Araújo, Cristina Martínez Tejero

which has, since then, developed three new lines of research under the plu‑
riannual funding of the Centre of Comparative Studies at the University
of Lisbon. CILM is concerned with figured and actual urbanscapes in the
contemporary post­‑9/11, neoliberal societal paradigm and subtending
cultural narratives of terror, insecurity, fear and precariousness across
diverse regimes of representation. As part of CILM, this dossier is specifi‑
cally located within a research line entitled “Prison States and Narratives
of Captivity” which explores the material and discursive construction of
prisons and other carceral spaces and examines the historical, economic and
psychological contexts which shape the social and legal status of imprisoned
subjects. Within this approach, questions about representation are necessa‑
rily questions about subjectivity, sociality and hegemony as well. We depart
from the necessary politicization of cultural, literary and artistic studies to
ascertain how both our objects of study and our very own epistemic precepts
are engrained in wider architectures of power. It follows that our work is,
by necessity, interdisciplinary, multidimensional and multifocal: it is as
bound to texts as it is to contexts, and it is as motivated by the problematic
of the word as it is by the world as a problem.
In September 2017, we organized the international conference “Prison
States and Political Embodiment” at the School of Arts and Humanities,
University of Lisbon. Our aim was to question the political structures and
infra­‑structures of carceral institutions and to stimulate a fruitful conversation
on subjection, embodiment and affectivity within contemporary prison con‑
texts. In doing so, we were concerned with the necessary work of institutional
critique as well as with rapports pertaining to the experiences, the emotions,
the relations, the impressions and ultimately the very narratives of incarcer‑
ated subjects themselves. We mobilized the concept of political embodiment
precisely to emphasize that corporeality is always already political, attentive to
how the subject’s making (and unmaking) as the effect of systemics of power,
governance and sovereignty remains an urgent question. Moreover, as the
legal scholar Muneer Ahmad suggests, the body is also the ultimate stage on
which the spectacle of dehumanization can be performed. Evoking Giorgio
Agamben’s notion of “bare life” and Achille Mbembe’s necropolitics to com‑
ment on the lack of rights and conditions experienced by the prisoners in
Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp, Ahmad states: “The site for confrontation
between the individual and the state is the body, for once the mediating force
of rights is removed, only the body remains” (2009: 1759).
The dossier that we present here follows through from the initiative of
the international conference, while taking a material form and internal logic
of its own. By calling attention to the inscription of the apparatus of power
 Perspectives on Incarceration between the Human and Social Sciences. An Introduction | 111

in senses, sensations and significations articulated by subjects confined to

the carceral context, we breach the problem of imprisonment as a mode of
social life – or truthfully: as a mode of social death – which demands situ‑
ated, mediated forms of critical narrative. How prisoners account for, voice,
conceptualize and resist their objectification and erasure within imprison‑
ment through distinctive strategies of subjectivation and survival, and par‑
ticularly how they do so in mediation with specific conditions of material
deprivation, destitution, isolation and quotidian aggression, is the question
at the core of the present dossier. Independently of reformist or rehabilita‑
tive orientations, incarceration is, in and of itself, an act of political violence,
as regulated and normalized by the state’s monopoly on the distribution
of violence. What, then, do incarcerated subjects – be it individually,
or collectively – make of this violence? How do they articulate the experi‑
ence of confinement, and how do they articulate themselves, in the widest
sense of the word – expressively, corporeally, psychically and relationally
– in such conditions of social death? This requires thinking through ques‑
tions of place, perspective, and position. And even interrogating what our
own specific responsibilities as academics towards the incarcerated are and
may come to be, as we examine and critique prison systems in their hetero‑
geneity. Contributions collected in this dossier, across diverse theoretical,
textual, contextual and cultural positions, engage in this necessary under‑
taking, while dramatizing the heuristic and hermeneutic tensions at stake.
In the opening essay, “Incarceration as Violence: Inflicting Pain in
Portuguese Prisons”, Catarina Frois and Afonso Bento confront the very
definition of “prison violence” and emphasize the need to conceptualize it
as a multidimensional and multifaceted phenomenon, both context­‑specific
and integrated into a continuum which cannot be conscribed to the limits
of carceral space and time. Addressing the structural contradictions unique
to the Portuguese prison system, as well those belonging to the political
discourse governing it, Frois and Bento emphasize how the national prison
system’s orientation towards reintegration was legally crystallized as an
“abstract ideal” with the Carnation Revolution of 1974. Such an abstract
ideal remains an organizing principle in the carceral context, just as the
opposition between the deprivation of freedom and the deprivation of
dignity persists as a polarity, which describes – or determines – the legitimacy
of institutional violence. Yet their analysis demonstrates the contradictions
governing carceral sociality, as shifting institutional dynamics implement
incremental forms of partition, division, separation and demarcation. The dis-
cretionary and discriminatory distribution of violence within intra­‑institutional
economies of judgement and punishment results in a strained field of relations.
112 | Elisa Scaraggi, Daniel Lourenço, Susana Araújo, Cristina Martínez Tejero

Ultimately, a second­‑order system of moral authority, diffuse as it is, con‑

founds the institution’s stated intentionality. If the onus of imprisonment
is presumed to be the subjective sensation of punishment – that is to say,
if suffering one’s way through incarceration is defined as that which endows
it with its deterrent capacity, understood as pre­‑condition for reintegration
into society at large – then here, the plurality of incongruous versions of
what this entails results in the fragmentation of incarcerated subjects’ experi‑
ences and the manipulation of their expectations.
In turn, in “Undoing the ‘Cemetery of the Living’: Performing Change,
Embodying Resistance through Prison Theater in Nicaragua”, Julienne
Weegels presents us with a discussion of the notionally rehabilitative and
recuperative disposition of Nicaragua’s governmental policy of reeducación
penal (penal reeducation, in English): a system of recompense which pres‑
sures prisoners towards a cambio de actitud (i.e., a change of attitude),
based on the rejection of criminal activities and on conformation to specific
psychological, societal and behavioral exigencies. A necessary, normalized
“socio­‑morally acceptable script”, in the author’s words. Participating in
diverse forms of occupational training under the rubric of reeducación,
prisoners are attracted by the advantages of good conduct time (sentence
reduction according to what is commonly described as “good behavior”),
as much as by the opportunity to diversify their experience of the quotidian
in confinement. This “progressive privilege system” creates its own specific
emotional dynamics, altering inmates’ perceptions of prison­‑time and shap‑
ing their affective relations to the fact of confinement and to the conjectural
possibility of early release. Weegels centers her characterization of these
structures and regulations, as well as of the first­‑person accounts produced
by “prison­‑participants” around her long­‑term ethnographic fieldwork with
a prison theater project articulated by her husband. Through direct and
privileged access to contexts and conversations outside the realm of the
publicly avowable, which actively entailed sustaining a fiction of compliance
with Sandinista authorities so as not to lose institutional grounding, Weegels
points to how prison theater reiterates and reifies systemic authority and
administrative control while nonetheless affording conditions for expres‑
sion, communication, critique, and change. In the process, she bears witness
to inmate’s subjective rapports and the specific vocabularies they conjure
to describe their experiences. Distinctively, when prisoners perform before
outsiders (i.e., not before other inmates, prison wardens or prison staff),
a wider social and relational horizon is conjured, shifting their sense of the
practice’s very value and of their own conditions of articulation beyond
the scope of confined social death.
 Perspectives on Incarceration between the Human and Social Sciences. An Introduction | 113

In “Writing Resistance, Writing the Self: Literary Reconstruction in

United States Prison Witness”, Doran Larson, the principal investigator of
the American Prison Writing Archive (APWA), traces that archival project’s
material history and argues for its profoundly transformative potential
for studies of mass incarceration in the United States today. As an online,
not­‑for­‑profit database of prisoners’ written testimonies, this digital platform
allows for public access to first­‑person accounts of imprisonment as offered
by the inmates themselves. And this, Larson contends, with minimal editorial
input and none of the publishing market’s economically­‑based requirements.
Acknowledging the tradition of black radical thought in the United States
and its opposition to the prison industrial complex, Larson first points to
published works authored by former prisoners, such as Malcom X, Eldridge
Cleaver and George Jackson. At stake in these autobiographical projects is
the mediation – both literary and lived – of self­‑identity, through processes
of recuperation and restoration which are construed as approximations to
“collective sociality”. These processes likewise shape the texts amassed in
the APWA as documents of contemporary mass incarceration, yet in quite
different terms: they are not bound up with habitual critical grammars (such
as those of intellectual literacy or political affiliation), they are not motivated
by the feasibility of literary publication, and finally, they do not ensue from
release as the pre­‑condition for crafting and sharing life narrative. These
texts attest to the thought of social death in strikingly intimate ways, as they
do to the ultimate possibility of the social as that which defines life, and its
value. Distinguishing between “writers” and “witnesses”, to better discern
and describe the specificities of the latter discursive corpus, Larson’s ulti‑
mate challenge is that academics themselves, as ethically implicated media‑
tors of knowledge, bear witness to prison testimony – and that such imparts
specific demands on their own praxis. This is vivid in his own compositional
decision to feature as much source material as possible, while minimizing
commentary: what the author himself describes as indexing.
Finally, Zakaria Rhani’s contribution, “The Inmate’s Two Bodies:
Survival and Metamorphosis in a Moroccan Secret Prison”, concentrates
on an individual’s experience of incarceration and provides an in­‑depth
engagement with a singular counter­‑formation to the material and psychic
pressures of prison violence at its very limits. Rhani writes of a survivor from
the political prison of Tazmamart, which was a key apparatus of political
censorship under the repressive rule of King Hassan the II during Morocco’s
so­‑called “Years of Lead” (1960s­‑1980s). Drawing from personal, ongoing
and open­‑ended conversations with “Kawni” (a deliberately selected alias
which stands as a concept of its own), the author posits that the latter’s
114 | Elisa Scaraggi, Daniel Lourenço, Susana Araújo, Cristina Martínez Tejero

experience is expressive of a process of transformative de­‑subjectivation

which proved to be conditional for his survival, rather than the very proof
of his nihilation. Rhani implicates himself in a distinct filament of European
literature and philosophy (threading a line through Kafka, Nietzsche,
Foucault, Deleuze and Guattari) to think through the possibility of corporeal
transformation and of subjective transmutation as key to resisting social and
psychic death. Or even as key to vivification, to revisit Erving Goffman’s
important concept of mortification (1961). However, this movement towards
“collective enunciation” which binds together various voices and signatures,
including “Kawni” and Rhani’s own, is not congealed around the Western
cannon. Rhani attends to the impact of Sufist asceticism, Muslim cosmology,
or Buddhist ethics in Kawni’s sense of self­‑relation, and of relation towards
others. How Kawni’s lived, felt and imagined horizons surpass – or trespass –
the structures of confinement towards nature, world and alterity brings up
difficult and urgent questions about the phenomenology of incarceration,
about regulated and regulative versions of “freedom” and “dignity” and,
in fact, about personal truth in the most intimate sense. By probing into
challenging onto­‑epistemic terrains, weaving a multidimensional rapport,
Rhani questions the idioms of critical narrativity and gestures towards lines
of flight which exceed dominant cartographies of knowledge.
The idiosyncratic arch construed from the first to the last of these texts
is important, as is the way they are collectively presented and organized
together. One of our concerns when selecting the articles for this dossier was
to offer a range of case­‑studies that conveyed carceral practices in different
national contexts. By including examples from so­‑called peripheral Europe
(Portugal), Central America (Nicaragua), North Africa (Morocco) and from
North America (the United States), we also aim to invite comparative read‑
ings of carceral experiences in countries shaped by different political realities
as well as specific colonial legacies. This will allow readers to consider the
extent to which the far­‑reaching claws of the prison industrial complex
intersect with global economy without obliterating the national, regional
and local realities that may invite or challenge such transnational tendencies.
Overall, the conjugation and juxtaposition of divergent, even disparate per‑
spectives on incarceration attests to the heterogeneity of carceral institutions
and to that of the carceral as analytic. These authors are working at distinc‑
tive cultural and disciplinary crossroads, and according to different ethos,
methods, theories and objectives. If theirs are often combinatory approaches
adapted to specific instances, the combinatory logic on which this dossier
itself is predicated attests to the extant diversification of efforts to retrace
portraits of incarceration as well as to rewrite conceptions of how to do so.
 Perspectives on Incarceration between the Human and Social Sciences. An Introduction | 115

In many ways, the critical processes of witnessing, documenting, remembering,

and registering are vividly patent in the interventions collected – just as they
are deliberately accentuated by our own editorial framework and the textual
form this dossier subsequently assumes. As we present this dossier to readers,
we propose that such processes are necessary in the project of constructing
a multidimensional, palimpsestic archive of incarceration which challenges
the foreclosure of incarcerated subjects’ own truths as other to the study
of the prison as institution. Academic and critical literature on incarceration
and resistance makes up a textual corpus of its own, with its own genealogies and
its own potentialities, which must be acknowledged in its own materiality
and its own implication in systemics of power – and of possibilities for change.

Edited by Scott M. Culp

References
Ahmad, Muneer I. (2009), “Resisting Guantánamo: Rights at the Brink of Dehumanization”,
Northwestern University Law Review, 103, 1683­‑1763.
Butler, Judith (2004), Precarious Lives: The Powers of Mourning and Violence. London:
Verso.
Davis, Angela Y. (2003), Are Prisons Obsolete? New York: Seven Stories Press.
Davis, Angela Y. (2005), Abolition Democracy: Beyond Empire, Prisons, and Torture.
New York: Seven Stories Press.
Davis, Angela Y.; Shaylor, Cassandra (2001), “Race, Gender, and the Prison Industrial
Complex: California and Beyond”, Meridians: Feminism, Race, Transnationalism, 2(1), 1­‑25.
Deleuze, Gilles (1992), “Postscript on the Societies of Control”, October, 59, 3­‑7.
Derrida, Jacques (2013), The Death Penalty. Vol. I – The Seminars of Jacques Derrida.
Edited by Geoff Bennington, Marc Crépon, Thomas Dutoit. Chicago: University
of Chicago. Translated by Peggy Kamuf.
Derrida, Jacques (2016), The Death Penalty. Vol. II – The Seminars of Jacques Derrida.
Edited by Geoff Bennington, Marc Crépon, Thomas Dutoit. Chicago: University of
Chicago. Translated by Elizabeth Rottenberg.
Foucault, Michel (1975), Surveiller et punir. Naissance de la prison. Paris: Gallimard.
Gilmore, Ruth Wilson (2007a), Golden Gulag: Prisons, Surplus, Crisis, and Opposition
in Globalizing California. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Gilmore, Ruth Wilson (2007b), “In the Shadows of the Shadow State”, in INCITE!
(ed.), The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the Non­‑Profit Industrial Complex.
Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 41­‑52.
Goffman, Erving (1961), Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and
Other Inmates. New York: Anchor Books.
116 | Elisa Scaraggi, Daniel Lourenço, Susana Araújo, Cristina Martínez Tejero

Hall, Stuart; Critcher, Charles; Jefferson, Tony; Clarke, John; Roberts, Brian (1978),
Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State, and Law and Order. London: Macmillan.
Muhammad, Khalil Gibran (2010), The Condemnation of Blackness. Boston: Harvard
University Press.
Rodríguez, Dylan (2006), Forced Passages. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
Wacquant, Loïc (1999), Les prisons de la misère. Paris: Raisons d’agir.
Wacquant, Loïc (2009), Punishing the Poor: The Neoliberal Government of Social
Insecurity. Durham/London: Duke University Press.
Wang, Jackie (2018), Carceral Capitalism. South Pasadena, CA: Semiotext(e).

Elisa Scaraggi
Centro de Estudos Comparatistas (CEC), Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Lisboa (FLUL) |
Projecto CILM – City and Insecurity in Literature and Media, CEC­‑FLUL
Alameda da Universidade, 1600­‑214 Lisboa, Portugal
Contact: elisascaraggi@gmail.com
orcid: https://orcid.org/0000­‑0002­‑1411­‑8929

Daniel Lourenço
Centro de Estudos Comparatistas (CEC), Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Lisboa (FLUL) |
Projecto CILM – City and Insecurity in Literature and Media, CEC­‑FLUL
Alameda da Universidade, 1600­‑214 Lisboa, Portugal
Contact: d.h.lour@gmail.com
orcid: https://orcid.org/0000­‑0003­‑3359­‑0820

Susana Araújo
Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Coimbra (FLUC) | Centro de Estudos Comparatistas (CEC),
Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Lisboa (FLUL) | Projecto CILM – City and Insecurity in
Literature and Media, CEC­‑FLUL
FLUC, Largo da Porta Férrea, 3000­‑530 Coimbra, Portugal
Contact: s.i.a.araujo@gmail.com
orcid: https://orcid.org/0000­‑0002­‑9046­‑2211

Cristina Martínez Tejero

Universidade da Corunha | Centro de Estudos Comparatistas (CEC), Faculdade de Letras da
Universidade de Lisboa (FLUL) | Projecto CILM – City and Insecurity in Literature and Media,
CEC­‑FLUL
Campus da Zapateira, Faculdade de Filologia, Galiza, Espanha
Contact: cristina.martinezt@udc.gal
orcid: http://orcid.org/0000­‑0001­‑8651­‑4990