Kolossov

Downloaded by [Universiteit Leiden / LUMC] at 23:08 15 June 2014

Geopolitics, 10:606–632, 2005

Copyright © 2005 Taylor & Francis, Inc.

ISSN: 1465-0045 print

DOI: 10.1080/14650040500318415

THEORIZING BORDERS

Border Studies: Changing Perspectives and

Theoretical Approaches

VLADIMIR KOLOSSOV

Centre of Geopolitical Studies, Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences

The author considers the stages of development and the progress in theory of border studies from the early twentieth century to the present. He characterises the content of each stage, new ideas, the main achievements and practical applications. The essay is particularly focused on postmodern approaches that have emerged during the last 15 years.

INTRODUCTION

Border studies, also known as limology, have now been transformed into an interdisciplinary field developed in parallel by political scientists, sociologists, ethnologists, psychologists, anthropologists, lawyers, economists, physical geographers and even specialists in technical sciences. It is recognised that borders are a complicated social phenomenon related to the fundamental basis of the organisation of society and human psychology. The continuing differentiation of border studies is leading scholars to consider that it is time to create a theory overcoming narrow disciplinary confines, unifying various aspects of the world system of political and administrative boundaries, and explaining its evolution.1 Even common terminology and discourse raise a problem, because each discipline has its own objectives and priorities in border studies. Though a new interdisciplinary theory embracing all directions of border studies would be highly problematic to

Address correspondence to Vladimir Kolossov, Head of the Center of Geopolitical Studies, Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences, Staromonetny per., 29, 119017, Moscow, Russia. E-mail: vladk@online.ru

Downloaded by [Universiteit Leiden / LUMC] at 23:08 15 June 2014

formulate, this difficulty does not prevent the emergence of new theoretical frameworks or approaches that transcend the partitions between disciplines.

Geography was probably the earliest discipline to study boundaries and borders. Problems of boundaries and their delimitation are fundamental to both of geography’s main branches – physical and human. It thus accumulated a rich theoretical heritage in the field of border studies. Geographers historically played a pioneering role in practical studies of political boundaries. The objective of this essay is to give an overview of contemporary theoretical approaches in border studies and their development, with an emphasis on new ‘postmodern’ concepts that have appeared during the last 10–15 years. The author will focus on the innovative elements of such new approaches and their contribution to the progress of border studies within the wider field of political geography.

The history of humanity is the history of wars and most wars have had boundary change as at least one objective. ‘La géographie, ça sert d’abord à faire la guerre’ (‘Geography serves first to make war’) – this title of a wellknown book by French political geographer Yves Lacoste2 resounds with symbolism. To justify territorial claims and annexations, governments and politicians have usually needed a rationale. In addition, the redrawing of boundaries has always provoked a need in applied studies to delimit and demarcate borderlines. Geographers have been practically irreplaceable in carrying out this task. Nowadays, international organisations and governments still invite outstanding geographers to act as experts in questions of boundary delimitation.

The so-called new political geography, renovated and more analytically rigorous than its predecessor, emerged in the mid-1970s3 and is closely related to other social sciences and, in particular, to political science and international relations.4 It is traditionally interested in an analysis of the influence of boundaries and their stability on international relations, as well as in the resolution of territorial disputes and conflicts, peacemaking and peacekeeping. In most cases, the leading experts on boundary issues are political scientists and specialists.

RICH TRADITIONS AND PREMISES FOR NEW APPROACHES

It is possible to distinguish several consecutive theoretical approaches in border studies (Table 1), which can be designated as traditional or postmodern. At each stage of their development, new approaches are applied together with, and not instead of, traditional, well-developed ones, which are not superseded and do not lose their value.

Traditional approaches include historical mapping, typological, functional and political methods.5

The approach based on the historical mapping of the evolution of boundaries, their morphological features and an analysis of the human

608

609

610

Downloaded by [Universiteit Leiden / LUMC] at 23:08 15 June 2014

geography of border regions emerged from numerous case studies and applied researches related to boundary allocation, delimitation and demarcation that took place after the First World War. Its main achievements consist, first, of the combined study of borders in space and time, focusing on the formation and stability of the border-line. Second, we have the relations between the functions of the boundary and the political regime and foreignpolicy orientations of neighbouring states, which were analysed in depth for the first time. As the well-known French geographer Jacques Ancel noticed in 1938, ‘ce n’est pas le cadre qui importe, mais ce qui est encadré’ (‘it is not the frame which matters but what is framed’).6 Thus, it was then shown that border studies have an interdisciplinary nature. Third, it was proved that a deep relationship exists between the regime, the functions and sometimes even the morphology of the boundary, and the balance of the economic, political and military might of neighbouring countries. A stronger state often imposed the line and the functions of the boundary upon its weaker neighbour. Fourth, it was extremely important that experts came to the conclusion that it was not possible to establish or reach ‘natural’ boundaries matching physical limits like mountain ranges, or large rivers, nor to set boundaries perfectly coinciding with ethnic delimitations. Fifth, geographers demonstrated the possible political implications and use of careful studies and the mapping of border regions. Sixth, the concepts of ‘frontier’ and ‘border’ were defined.

Countless typologies of political boundaries have had as long history as their mapping. Geographers and politicians have distinguished numerous types of boundary by their morphology, natural features, origin, history and ‘age’, historical circumstances of allocation and delimitation (for example, post-war, colonial, imposed, etc.), and functions. They have also tried to combine various characteristics of boundaries and their classifications have led to useful generalisations. These have contributed to a better understanding of, on the one hand, the impact of the physical and social characteritics of a region and the history and politics of neighbouring states on the boundary’s allocation and delimitation and, on the other, of the boundary’s influence on human life and the physical and social landscape.

Knowledge gained from the historical mapping and typologies of boundaries was widely applied to the allocation and the delimitation of the colonial possessions of the European powers and of international boundaries after the First World War. The European concept of the boundary as a strictly defined line was imposed on regions in Asia and Africa that had never known it before.

Several generations of researchers began to develop the functional approach, mainly in the period after the Second World War. Special attention was paid to the functions of boundaries and to the political and territorial factors that determine them. The works of John House, who suggested an operational and efficient model for the study of trans-boundary flows,7 brought this approach to maturity. Usually it accepts the allocation of a

Downloaded by [Universiteit Leiden / LUMC] at 23:08 15 June 2014

boundary as a given reality and focuses on its permeability for various purposes and on its impact on economy and society. The main practical application of the functional approach was cross-boundary cooperation and the management of social processes in border areas.

The political approach to border studies was created mainly by political scientists.8 In recent times they have studied the relationships between the main paradigms of international relations and the functions of state boundaries. In the ‘realistic’ paradigm, the states are perceived as the most important actors on the international scene, and boundaries between them are interpreted as strict dividing lines protecting state sovereignty and national security. According to ‘liberal’ views, states are not the only and sometimes not even the major political actors, and the principal function of state boundaries is to connect neighbours and to enable various international interactions. Therefore, it is necessary to eliminate territorial disputes and border conflict and to develop cross-boundary communications and infrastructure.

Finally, the global paradigm pays special attention to international networks connecting all kinds of economic and political actors – state and non-state. Due to the development of networks, state boundaries are being gradually transformed into virtual lines and are being replaced by economic, cultural and other boundaries.9

Despite the accumulation of abundant information and important theoretical publications,10 border studies have, until recently, suffered from a lack of theoretical reflection. Traditional approaches explained the phenomenon of state borders first of all by political factors, interpreting them as a mirror of the neighbouring states’ military, economic and political power. The essence of states, their policy and their hierarchical relations at the global and macro-regional levels were seldom taken into account. States were considered as given realities, or ‘natural’ regions, acting as an integral entity. Such a view of space is typical of traditional positivist positions. From the positivist perspective, space is analysed as an independent object that influences social phenomena through a system of causal links. In practice, a country’s borders and internal administrative boundaries have always been considered separately, corresponding to a strict separation of studies on international and domestic policy.

Over time, it became clear that boundaries cannot be studied merely at the national level and the situation in the border zone cannot be explained only in terms of a boundary between two countries. On the one hand, supranational organisations play a more significant role than earlier. On the other, economic globalisation and unification of cultures are awakening regional consciousness, which often contributes to the development of separatist or irredentist movements disputing the existing system of political boundaries.

In total, despite rich historical traditions, traditional approaches became unable to explain why, in some cases, even a small change in the state territory and its boundaries provokes a deep emotional reaction in the society,

Downloaded by [Universiteit Leiden / LUMC] at 23:08 15 June 2014

leading to territorial conflict, while in other cases, new boundaries are perceived by public opinion as definitive and are not disputed. Traditional approaches could not find an answer to why some border areas, which for a long time have seemed to be peaceful, can be rapidly transformed into the foci of conflicts and provoke bloodshed, or why governments and public opinion are often so painfully sensitive toward all questions concerning political boundaries. The appearance of postmodern concepts was a natural reaction to the methodological and analytical problems of the recent decades.

The postmodern trend in limology emerged around the late 1980s. It was based on a great number of concepts proposed by political scientists, philosophers, sociologists, social psychologists etc., and is a manifestation of the increasingly interdisciplinary character of contemporary social science. As with the case of political geography as a whole, border studies were influenced, first, by the theory of world systems developed by I. Wallerstein, P. Taylor and others, and especially by the idea of the interdependence and the role of spatial scales. Second in importance for border studies were the ideas of the structuralist theory – in the interpretation of A. Giddens – proposing that societal and global structures leave a certain freedom of actions within a system to each of the economic and political agents. Third, border studies now widely use the notions of discourse and the social construction of space. as defined by the postmodernist theory of M. Foucault and his followers. The postmodern tendency in border studies can be divided into separate approaches listed in Table 1 – although, of course, in a rather conventional manner. Most often, elements of different approaches are applied together, and the matter is only one of focus.

WORLD SYSTEMS, IDENTITY AND BORDERS

A synthesis of the world system theory and the theory of territorial identities was the most remarkable achievement of the studies of state borders during the 1990s. It is based, first, on a combined analysis of the role of a given boundary in the whole system of world boundaries at different territorial levels – from global to local.11 Many geographical studies focused on the newest objective trends in economic development – such as the deepening international division of labour and the improvement of transport and telecommunications. These processes were interpreted as the creation of global networks based on hierarchical relations of domination between centre and periphery.12 At the same time, theories of integration stressed the leading role of subjective factors in this process, like political will and political institutions.13

Economic internationalisation and the rapid growth of transboundary flows of people, information, goods, energy (and pollutants) is accompanied by an increase in the influence of transboundary actors, delegating to international

Downloaded by [Universiteit Leiden / LUMC] at 23:08 15 June 2014

organisations more and more important capacities in different fields. As a result, the functions of state boundaries change, and they become more permeable. State boundaries are losing a part of their barrier functions. It is considered a manifestation of the general crisis of the Westphalian system of nation-states14 that the state passes its functions to regional and international organisations. Therefore, the external boundaries of their members acquire a new role. Economic and political groupings of states are being created along the dividing lines between civilisations and cultural areas. Besides, neighbouring countries usually have natural common interests. No country can now be absolutely isolated from its neighbour. Even if bilateral relations between two neighbouring countries are very cold, there are almost always particular common interests either related to transit and communications, or to border rivers and/or the assessment of natural risks and the struggle against natural hazards. As there are now no walls hermetically separating one country from another, there almost always exist local interactions between people living along the boundary.

Second, one of the cornerstones of contemporary border studies is the study of the emergence and the evolution of territorial identities. The importance of the boundary in the everyday life of people cannot be understood without an analysis of its role in social consciousness and the people’s selfidentification with territories at various levels (countries, regions, localities). This approach was backed by achievements of other social sciences, and especially in the works of F. Barth in the field of cultural anthropology and ethnology. The works of Ansi Paasi (1996), devoted to the boundary between Finland and Russia (the USSR),15 contributed greatly to the development of this approach in limology. They were based on the hypothesis that nationalism, according to a happy expression of D. Harvey, is a form of ‘territorial ideology’ and the basis of state-building. Nationalism always supposes the struggle for territory or the defence of rights to it.

Paasi showed that social representations16 in an ‘indigenous population’, together with its culture, state security, perceived or real external threats, historical myths and stereotypes, influenced the attitude of people and of the political elite to the concrete boundary.

Paasi’s studies distinguish among three views on the relationships between state and nation, which, in their turn, determine the view on the evolution of boundaries. All three relate the activity of the state to selfidentification of its people with it.

Primordialists consider the state as a place where one of the principal human rights is realised – the right of ethnic groups to self-determination, as well as being a means to achieve this objective. The primordial view is, in fact, at the basis of the concept of the nation-state. In such a state, the morphology and the functions of boundaries depend on the loyalty of citizens – in other words, on the ethnic and political identity of the population on both sides of the boundary, because most countries of the world are multiethnic, and few ethnic groups have their own individual statehood.