Summary of Work Group 3 2009 MEETING
Differences and Inequalities
Ljubljana, 8-9 May 2009
Convenor: Irena Šumi
Institut za Narodnostna Vprasanja /
Institute for Ethnic Studies, Erjavceva 26,
1000 Ljubljana. Slovenia
irena.sumi@guest.arnes.si
Topic: Borders as Histories Condensed: The Central European Rim
Summary
The main aim of this meeting was to address the lingering differences in legal/political cross-border situations, language differences and barriers, minority issues and regionalism at the inner and outer EU borders. Progressive outwards movements of EU borders are leaving behind a legacy of diverse human and political situations that lead to re-appearance of differences and inequalities. The participants were invited to think towards, and question the interrelatedness between, internal and external EU borders; the sufficiency of the policies and strategies for dismantling the internal EU borders in bordering situations, and the ways to ‘de-borderise’ the internal EU borders; and the legal, political and civil initiatives that are needed to surpass the lingering and/or reappearing historical, political/legal differences along the EU borders. The participants were asked to reflect on these questions in concrete situations which were systematised into three interrelated sections: the lingering/reappearing differences in legal/political cross-border situations; the shifting linguistic boundaries; and minority issues.
The meeting conjoined 14 presentations (with 1 presenter withdrawing due to his other engagements), coming from different disciplines such as political science, sociology, contemporary history, human geography, economics, linguistics, demography, ethnology and anthropology. The variety of interdisciplinary perspectives and knowledge has brought to our meeting many lively debates on the accounts on a number cross-border situations in various parts of European peripheries.
The participants are specialists either in Eastern Europe, the Baltic, or post-soviet Russia. The topics presented spanned from the political and legal differences that appeared in the contemporary bordering processes between Slovenia and Croatia; regionalism and the local imaginaries of Europe and EU among Greek speaking population in southern Albania; the issues of Euroregions on the border between Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia-Greece-Albania, the Bulgarian-Greek border, the Austrian-Hungarian-Slovak border, and Belorussian borders; language barriers that became visible in post-soviet Latvia; negotiations of citizenship in Estonia; conceptual reflections of the notion of Central Europe; the politics of inclusion and exclusion of Roma people in the EU space, and the processes of de- and re-borderisation; the role of EU development programmes and various NGO’s on the Slovenian-Croatian border; the economic and social meaning of the border in the context of international mobility and cross-border interaction.
Structure of the meeting
The thematic sessions were moderated by the Slovenian action members: Duška Kneževi? Ho?evar, who moderated the first session, Damir Josipovi?, who led the second one, and Nataša Gregori? Bon who moderated the third one. Before the beginning of the first session, the convenor, Irena Šumi, greeted the participants, summarised the main topics of WG3 meeting, and invited the participants to briefly diagnose their case study bordering situation instead of presenting in the standard form, and then apply this insight to specific questions, ideas or reflections which they see as important for their future research. The sessions were divided along a day and a half. Two sessions were held on the first day and the third section and concluding debate on the second. Except for the first section, which conjoined four presentations, the second and third each conjoined five. They lasted about 20 to 25 minutes and concluded with a 5 to 10 minutes of debate. As debates after each presentation were sometimes longer than planned in the schedule, the time allotted to the first and the second general debate following the first two sessions was shortened. In the concluding debate of the meeting, we discussed the suggestions for Wiki entries which were proposed and discussed throughout our meeting. We identified 15 possible Wiki entries that we found of importance when dealing with bordering processes.
Summary of the presentations and discussions
The abstracts of papers can be reached at http://www.eastbordnet.org/events/workgroups/WG32009/index.htm. The full texts of the presentations are planned for web publishing by mid-August 2009.
Presentations Session 1
The presentations of the morning session of day 1 concentrated on the lingering differences in legal and political cross-border situations, and the notions of localicity and localhood in Eastern Europe.
Damir Josipovi?, human geographer whose fields of interest comprise of demography, political geography, ethnicity and nationalism, migrations, and minority issues at the Slovenian-Croatian border, addressed the issue of the bordering processes as one which has of late become an inflammable subject in the political and public debates in Slovenia and Croatia. Dr Josipovi? discussed the problem of the land and sea border that straddles the river Dragonja and continues into the Adriatic sea. At the time of our meeting, this border was, and remains, a ‘hot’ subject of political negotiations and contestations between Slovenian and Croatian politicians, now mediated by Olli Rhen, the EU Commissioner responsible for enlargement. The contested area lies along the south bank of the river Dragonja. This rural area is severely depopulated with only an elderly population remaining. Most of the residents are bilingual, have double citizenship; they own fields and forests located on both side of the border, and they pay double taxes, etc. These ambiguities that became visible after the dissolution of Yugoslavia and the formation of the state border in lieu of the old administrative border between the two former Yugoslav republics, became considerably more prominent with the Slovenian inclusion into the EU, and are subject of heated political negotiations as well as public interest. Locally, the process of disambiguation resulted in people’s claims to ‘autochthony’ and distinctiveness of their area and their communities. They seek to define their area as an ‘enclave’ or an isolated island which, according to their statements, does not belong either to Slovenia or Croatia.
Dr Josipovi? presented various techniques and documents which strive to determine the state border and which, in doing so, generate a multiplicity of borders. He presented a concept of ‘cadastral border,’ which refers to the border as documented in the land register and contains data about agricultural land. The cadastral or ‘natural’ (in terms of land ownership) borders often do not coincide with the geopolitical ones, especially when mapped in different periods. Such contradictions between cadastral and geopolitical borders are the main subject of negotiations and contestations between Slovenian and Croatian border policy makers. While the Slovenians seek to determine the border according to the cadastral maps, the Croatians strive to draw it according to the geopolitical maps.
Most of the participants’ questions pertained to the current moment in the border dispute between Slovenian and Croatian politics. One participant raised the issue of cadastral borders and different techniques of bordering processes. The participants agreed that the term should be considered for a Wiki entry. The presentation illustrated how a border conflict contributes to the significance of the border on the one hand through political discourse constructing the ‘sovereignty’ of the state, and constitutes, through the people’s daily life on the other hand, the ‘in-between space’ that produces ambiguities which are managed and manipulated by the locals in such ways as to bring them practical, personal or social benefits.
The issue of fluidity and porousness of borders was also raised by Nataša Gregori? Bon. Based on her ethnographic fieldwork in the coastal area of Himara in post-communist Albania, she presented the Himara people’s constructions and re-constructions of localicity which they define according to the spatial-temporal hierarchy, where Greece is often synonymous with EU, and axiomatically related to ‘modernity’, ‘civilisation’ and economic development. She presented the complexity of minority issues in Himara where bilingual residents (Greek and Albanian speakers) are, according to the Greek policy and the mainstream public opinion, considered ‘omogheneis’ (co-ethnic) Greeks living in Albania, while Albanian politics sees them as merely Albanian citizens. The status of ‘co-ethnicity’ gives them the right to apply for special identity cards that designate them as ‘co-ethnics’ and allow them unrestricted passing of Albanian-Greek and other Schengen borders: This status also entitles them to Greek pensions and Greek health and social insurance.
Dr Gregori? Bon showed us how the mechanisms of state empowerment – such as special identity cards - corroborate the local reconstruction of history, and how both redefine the Albanian-Greek as well as EU borders. The Himara locals experience the border more like ‘a road’ (in local Greek dialect they refer to them as ‘roads’) than a barrier, a road which symbolically ties their area with the people and places in Greece and EU. The state and supra-state borders are in local discourses redefined as local or internal boundaries upon which social differences are generated. The sea strait and the mountain range that surround the villages of Himara area are constituted as external boundaries which divide them from Albania. This continuous shifting of boundaries causes the ambiguity of the area in the minds of the locals that is resolved by their claim to ‘distinctiveness’ of their region which they relate to ‘Europe’ as an imaginary entity.
The presentation opened a debate on the concept of ‘localicity’ or ‘localhood,’ whose importance was already raised by Dr Josipovi?. The differences and inequalities that continuously appear, disappear and reappear, leave in their wake specific ideation in the thinking of particular people and places. They are in local discourses often reflected through peoples’ claims to ‘autochthony’ and ‘distinctiveness’ of their area which is in the contemporary processes of EU enlargement often referred to Europe as an imaginary, all-important, standard-setting, or all-encompassing entity.
The processes of Europeanisation were also addressed by ethnologist Meri Stojanova who is working in the Prespa region situated on the border between the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), Albania and Greece. With Greece’s accession to the EU and the expansion of EU borders south- and eastwards, the historical, economic, political, and social differences and inequalities became visible again in this region. While in the political discourse these differences are growing, often leading to tensions, on the local level there appears the need for a type of conservation, for instance for the development of a ‘natural and cultural park’ which could, according to Ms Stojanova, help overcome the political discordancies and ensure the economic benefits and development for the region of Prespa. Showing a number of images of the Prespa region, Ms Stojanova exposed the role of the NGO’s that are investing in the development of this region by renovating houses, organising training on tourism and sustainable development etc. Preservation and promotion of ‘common culture’ and ‘tradition’ would, according to Ms Stojanova, help surpass the differences and inequalities among the Prespa residents who are divided among three different states. Ms Stojanova also addressed the issue of the EU outer border between FYROM and Greece, and the FYROM’s aim for recognition and inclusion into the EU. This would help resolve the economic and social problems the in Prespa region of the FYROM.
One of the participants posed a question on the role of the NGOs and their aim to pacify the boundary producing practices in this area. She explained that the role of the NGOs often does not surpass differences and inequalities between people and places but, quite to the contrary, generates them. She presented the local people’s opinion and role in such activities and suggested that it would be interesting to focus on the local peoples’ perception of ‘commercialisation of culture’ and tourism in this area, and the cross-border co-operation in general. Namely, as it was demonstrated in the first two presentations, people always redefine and reconstruct the differences into the contexts of their own making in ways that bring them either practical, personal or social benefits. Another participant offered a comment on the images presented from this area which showed nicely renovated stone houses, rebuilt museums that are monumentalising ‘traditional’ arts and crafts and generating the common regional ‘culture’ as being ‘unique’ for this cross-border area. The participant drew attention to the ways in which these mechanisms are contributing to transformation and monumentalisation of the past which is in turn presented as the ‘authentic’ ‘culture’ and ‘tradition’ of the region.
Ruža Toki?, a doctoral candidate working on Greek-Bulgarian border, presented the identity-generating processes amongst Pomaks, a Slavic-speaking Muslim community living in Northern Greece. Pomaks are settled over the Rhodope mountain range which stretches from Southern Bulgaria to Northern Greece. Politically and bureaucratically, they are claimed by Greeks, Bulgarians and Turks alike. Ms Toki? exposed the multitude of bureaucratic and political definitions of Pomakness, which all serve the Pomak people to manage and manipulate their identity according to different social, political and historical contingencies. Their identification varies across a range of pragmatic personal and societal meanings. The paper again raised the issue of ambiguity which is continuously managed and appropriated by the Pomak society while simultaneously marginalised by the Greek and Bulgarian state who endeavour to assimilate them into the respective ‘dominant’ societies. In 1919, a clear demarcation line of the Pomak society was drawn by the Bulgarian-Greek state border, following which they were gradually assimilated into the dominant society in Bulgaria, while on the Greek side of the border, they were integrated into the Turkish minority in Western Thrace. Until 1995, the Pomaks on the Greek side of the border lived in controlled military zones wherein their connections with Pomaks on the Bulgarian side were strictly controlled and limited. After 1995 and with the expansion of EU borders, various initiatives were launched to improve the cross-border movement and to establish the so-called ‘Rhodope Euro-Region’. While on the bureaucratic and political level the differences and inequalities have disappeared, they reappeared again within the Pomak communities living in Greece and Bulgaria. Overall, the presentation clearly demonstrated how different regimes of power and different techniques of managing a state border constitute the dynamic of boundary maintenance, and reconstruct differences and inequalities between people and places. These regimes produce the visibility of borders and serve the state to exercise its power and sovereignty on its territory.
One of the participants discussed how people within different political and administrative regimes (of divisions and separations of people and places) negotiate and shift their identity. Again the presentation showed how the processes of bordering and de-bordering of Pomaks and Pomakness constitute ‘interstitial’ spaces which are manipulated and managed by the people in ways that bring them social and/or individual benefits.
Presentations Session 2
The papers presented in Session 2 held in the afternoon of day 1 generally referred to language differences and barriers in the post-Soviet Baltic.
Irena Saleniece discussed the bordering processes in the post-Soviet Latvia. She outlined the historical background of Russian speakers who settled in Latvia because of Stalin’s plan of unification and integration of the Baltic republics into Soviet Union. According to population counts, the number of Russian speakers has, since Stalinist times, grew drastically and nowadays comprises up to 45% percent of the population. While in the Soviet era their social status brought them privileges, they became de-privileged and marginalised shortly after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and following Latvian independence. The language differences which were a silent process up till then due to the programmatic Russification of Latvian language, became salient again when Latvian official policies began to stimulate Latvian nationhood by presenting the Latvian language as one of te key markers and constituents of Latvian-ness. Following independence, some Russian speakers returned to Russia, but the majority remained and formed the Russian speaking minority. According to new Latvian language policy, they were, overnight, expected to learn Latvian as a condition of continued employment in public institutions. Professor Saleniece exposed the role of language differences and inequalities that are generated through political and public discourses of post-Soviet Latvia, and through which intolerances as a heritage of past totalitarianisms are being generated.
The presentation raised the question of the effects that the EU external borders – between Russia and Latvia – exert on the bordering processes in this particular area. A question was raised as to how the formation of the state border between Russia and Latvia led to the shifting of power positions that became most visible through language differences. Moreover, Professor Saleniece showed how the power is temporally and spatially defined and how it can be related to speaking or not speaking a particular language. She then returned to the issues of code switching and identity shifting that were addressed in most presentations of the WG3 meeting. The debate concentrated on how multiculturalism and cultural differentiation became the cornerstones of the proclaimed integration policy in EU, while differences and inequalities remain the basic mechanism of stratification in many Member States.
Similar issues, but from a different perspective, were addressed by Joni Vikkunen, a geographer who has carried out research in the Estonian-Russian borderland. While the previous presentation showed the processes of state-building in post-independent Latvia that is constituted through language boundaries, Dr Vikkunen showed that in Estonia, they can be constructed through the absence of formal border regimes with the Russian Federation. The constant changing of border regimes between Estonia and the Russian Federation reifies the ‘eastern’ boundary and generates social differentiation between Russian- and Estonian-speakers. With Estonia’s accession to the EU, and the adoption of the Schengen regime, the Russian-speakers have, due to often unpredictable changes in visa regulations for travel to Russia, begun applying for the Estonian citizenship, which gives them access to other countries of the EU that have entered the Schengen regime.
The paper opened a debate on citizenship, namely its continuous negotiation and shifting for a variety of reasons from personal to social, practical etc. Again the issue of the ability to cross the borders was raised in relation to the processes of construction and reconstruction of differences and inequalities between people and places. This differentiation is imbued with notions on geopolitical hierarchy wherein Europe and the EU often represent a ‘cornerstone’ of ‘modernity’ and economic opportunities.
Aija Lulle, doctoral candidate, has in her presentation returned to the meanings of linguistic boundaries in post-Soviet Latvia. Ms Lulle focused on linguistic boundaries and differentiation which are being recreated through the labour migration in post-independent Latvia. While in the Soviet era there was primarily immigration from the Soviet Union resulting in Sovietisation of the Latvian population, in post-independent Latvia with its membership in the EU, migrants come primarily for economic reasons. Because of geographical proximity and language skills, most of immigrants come from the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). Most of them are working and living in Latvia using the Russian language and many employers are facilitating their immigration by preferring them over other labour migrants whose languages are other than Russian. Nowadays, many Russian-speakers are applying for Latvian citizenship which allows them to travel and work in other EU countries. As most of them, similar to labour migrants from other countries, have no knowledge of the Latvian language, public life in Latvia is becoming trilingual. Signage in many public places is trilingual: Latvian, Russian and English. Ms Lulle raised the issue of fluidity and ambiguity of belonging to cultural, linguistic, political and bureaucratic realities. She pointed out the relation between the centre and periphery which is continuously shifting according to social, economic and political contingencies.
The discussion focused on linguistic practices and their relation to identity processes. The dynamic and subtle interplay between power and resistance in linguistic practices is creating and articulating new forms of identification and notions of belonging. One of the participants expanded on of labour migration in reconstituting and redefining the social and political meaning of borders and boundaries. With EU expansion, the borders are becoming economically significant agents as they both ‘enhance’ and ‘constrain’ the mobility of particular people in particular places while they reproduce and maintain socio-political differentiation and inequalities (inclusion to, and exclusion from, Europe, both as geopolitical as well as ideational entity).
Philosopher Tomas Ka?erauskas presented a discussion on the contemporary meaning of Central Europe. The term is loaded with historical meaning as it used to mark a geographical region; nowadays it is laden with metaphorical and symbolic meanings. In his definition of Central Europe Dr Ka?erauskas referred to the contemporary sociologist Delanty (1995) who conceptualised it as a discourse rather than identity. Delanty’s Mitteleuropa is not a concept but a cultural mode of interpretation. Dr Ka?erauskas reflected this term in the Lithuanian context which, according to him, as being neither Eastern nor Western Europe , and thus ideationally belongs to Central Europe. According to Delanty the concept of Mitteleuropa has become important for the new EU member countries. Rather than to a nation-state, as was the case in Communism, Mitteleuropa relates to civil society. In the contemporary political context of Lithuania as one of the nation-states that were formed relatively late, the discourse on Central Europe represents an opportunity to surpass the ideologies of nation-building, and to open possibilities to develop civil society and enhance cosmopolitanism. As Dr Ka?erkauskas noted, Lithuania could go in the direction similar to that which the notion of Central Europe denotes, namely a multiethnic and multi-religious space of cosmopolitan attitudes.
One of the participants drew attention to the historical meaning of Mitteleuropa which has been contested in the past. Namely, the very term has pan-Germanic origins and mainly relates to Austrian cultural and historical discourse. Other participants added that the term is laden with negative ideology which brought about many strives and intolerances. For example, the term Mitteleuropa was a major concept employed in the Third Reich.
Tihana Rubi?, a doctoral student, made a summary review of the literature on borders and boundaries and their relation to labour migration. Many anthropologists (Bell 1973, Myles 1990) have questioned how the changes of border policies are shaping the labour market and how these processes are influencing the life and aspirations of labour migrants. Some (Dunn 2004, Lee 1998) have focused on motivations for movements and migrations, while others (Myles 1990, Robertson 1998, Jackson 1999) directed their studies towards changes in labour market and their relations to social values in light of gender, family and kinship. In her forthcoming fieldwork research Ms Rubi? intends to explore the labour migration in Croatian (transnational) society in the time after independence when EU membership is a steadily approaching goal. Following Croatian independence (1991), the political, economic and social transformations reshaped the labour market. High levels of unemployment, social insecurity and unforeseen political changes introduced new differences and inequalities that appeared as a consequence of labour emigration. Ms Rubi? intends to focus on these new differences and social boundaries and document how they are reflected upon and how they shape peoples’ everyday life, their families, identities and hopes.
One of the participants noted the importance of anthropological location and suggested to Ms Rubi? to identify the location of her fieldwork. This term does not apply solely to a geographical locale, but rather, to a conceptual map that would enable her to profitably deploy labour migration theory.
Presentations Session 3
On the second day of conference, the last group of presentations was made during the morning session that concentrated upon the expansions of EU borders and the lingering differences that the process leaves in its wake.
Hagen Schulz-Forberg, whose field of interest is international history, addressed the issues and consequences of the Roma people integration in the ‘European societies’ over the last two decades. During the last few years, the Roma culture and their rights (or the lack thereof) became subject of several anthropological, cultural and legal studies. With the expansion of the EU and the accession of new Member States, new ‘vertical’ and ‘horizontal’ networks between Roma, the NGO’s, local and national authorities, the EU, the Council of Europe, World Bank and other institutions are being formed. The complex relations between them constitute a new space for transnational activism which on the one hand de-borderises the existing state borders while on the other hand constitutes social differentiation and boundaries. Dr Schulz-Forberg explored how these dynamic processes and transnational activism are shaping the existing, and forming the ‘new’ borders and boundaries which accompany the processes of ‘Roma identity’ formation.
Again, the issue of ‘interstitial’ spaces was raised as being constituted through continuous re-negotiations and re-definitions of Roma culture and their rights. These spaces often serve as the so called ‘manoeuvre space’ within which Roma people manipulate and manage their identity. One of the participants exposed the meaning of ‘Roma identity’ which should be understood as a process rather than a ‘closed and fixed’ entity, and drew attention to the differences and inequalities that are being shaped between Roma themselves, and to the meaning of these processes.
The effects of the EU expansion and the processes of re-borderisation with respect to ethnic minorities populating the border between Austria, Hungary and Slovakia were addressed by a doctoral student of linguistics, Katharina Tyran. She presented an outline of her forthcoming fieldwork research where she will focus on linguistic practices of Burgenland Croats. Centuries ago, this ethnic minority used to live on the common territory of historical West Hungary. They populated this area until the end of the WWI. With the formation of nation-states after 1918, the Burgenland Croats were divided between Austria, Hungary and Slovakia. Different political and historical divisions and separations of people and places have shaped the peoples’ lives and their sense of belonging. Ms Tyran sees the expansion of the EU borders as an opportunity for the Burgenland Croats to reconstruct and ‘reunify’ their belonging, and reconstitute their area as common living space.
One of the participants again exposed the issue of identity that is often understood as a fixed and static entity, a defined state of being, or an ideal state of existence that people must strive to achieve, rather than a processual figment of inter-human relations. The participant noted the lingering differences which are being constituted as a consequence of different administrative and political divisions of people and places, and the role of minority political elites who shape and publicly advance their political programmes, often in the guise of ‘culture and identity’ issues. Such perusal of these terms has little to do with analytical concepts of either ‘culture’ or ‘identity’: instead, they are deployed as legal and political categories. The analyst needs to exercise caution not to fall for such programmatic understanding of what should be analytical tools, but which have sunk into everyday language and adopted entirely new meanings.
The issue of Euro-regions and their role in shaping cross-border co-operation was also addressed by Anaïs Marin, a political scientist dealing with post-Soviet transition, international relations theory and EU-Russia relations. In her presentation, Ms Marin focused on the Belarus border areas (especially borders with Latvia, Lithuania and Poland) where the minority population has no room for development of a cross-border region because of the Belarus centralist policy. Although four of five border areas are in the process of arranging a system of cross-border co-operation with the intent to develop Euro-regions, these efforts are still met with manifold legal, bureaucratic and diplomatic constrains. By using data from a study of a comparable situation on the Finnish-Russian borderland, Dr Marin showed one of possible ways to surpass such discordances that at Belarus border relate to the minority issue, depopulation, regional development, etc. She suggested that Euro-regions could act as ‘incubators’ leading towards Europeanisation and democratisation of Belarus border areas. As there are many local factors that favour cross-border co-operation, Dr Marin suggested that the inclusion of Belarus to the EU could help the regional population to surpass and overcome many legal and institutional constraints they are facing at the moment.
Again the presentation raised the issue of inclusion into, and exclusion from the EU. Similar to Ms Stojanova, Dr Marin also listed several kinds of cross-border constructions and developments (e.g. parks, museums, etc.) that in various ways promote the ‘natural environment’, reconstruct the cross-border, joint ‘traditional culture’, and seek to waken or redefine the boundaries. The participants agreed to include the notions of cross-border construction and border management as Wiki entries.
The anthropologist Duška Kneževi? Ho?evar continued with the problem of cross-border co-operation which she analysed from a different angle. As a specialist for the Slovenian-Croatian border she addressed the obstacles for cross-border co-operation in the context of the Cross-border Co-operation Operational Programme between Slovenia and Croatia 2007-2013 (OP). This development programme is co-financed by EU through the Instrument of Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA). IPA is a new legal and financial EU instrument applicable to candidate countries, potential candidate countries, and member states that share the cross-border programme. Dr Kneževi? Ho?evar addressed the discrepancy between bureaucratic and scientific discourse and the consequences of such discrepancy. Ideally the OP’s main objective is to support and promote sustainable development in cross-border areas, enable inhabitants to profit from the ‘potential of EU market’, surpass development disadvantages they are facing in their region, help the people to develop ‘common identity’ etc. Dr Kneževi? Ho?evar pointed out that when designing this OP programme the authors did not consider the knowledge of researchers who specialise in the area. Instead, they chose to rely on SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) analysis and ‘questionnaires to identify project ideas’. The core problem of their analysis was that it did not include the border area alone, but encompassed the whole eastern part of Slovenia with the capital, Ljubljana, and the western part of Croatia with the capital Zagreb. Unsurprisingly, the results of the SWOT analysis showed diametrically opposed results for the situation at the Slovenian-Croatian borderland. While the SWOT results showed that the system of education and training is well developed, the present situation at the border clearly shows that it remains firmly rural and faces severe population decline and ageing issues. Dr Kneževi? Ho?evar questioned the actual goals and the meaning of such OP which systematically leaves out the body of data from long term research that has been done in this area.
Several participants dealing with similar issues noted comparable problems about EU development programmes which seem to be self-serving rather than fostering serious research, and seeking to benefit from it. The debate on the possibilities of surpassing these anomalies developed.
Dr Martin Van der Velde, who is an expert in economic, social and political meanings of borders and boundaries in EU Members States and Euro-regions, presented his research on cross-border mobility in the EU. One of the main objectives of the EU policy is to remove borders between the Member States and enhance international mobility. In the study on consumer mobility in Europe (Spierings and Van der Velde 2008), Dr Van der Velde and his colleague studied the discouraging and encouraging factors in cross-border shopping mobility. Their results have shown that the EU policy of international cross-border mobility has the opposite effects from that intended in the border areas, which once were the centres of cross-border shopping. Differences, ‘rational’ and ‘emotional’ alike, between people and places play an important role in decreasing cross-border shopping. Dr Van der Velde presented a concept of ‘bandwidth unfamiliarity’ as very pertinent here. The ‘bandwidth unfamiliarity’ stands for the differences perceived by shoppers which encourage or discourage cross-border mobility. As these perceptions are influenced and informed by various economic, socio-cultural and political contexts, the concept is dynamic and changeable. The results of the study show that in cases where perceived differences are irrelevant to the shoppers, the cross-border mobility is low. The same happens where the shoppers perceive these differences as unacceptable. This leads to a so called ‘border paradox’ where increasing cross-border integration (e.g. in the form of regional ‘homogenisation’) could coincide with increasing cross-border immobility” (Spierings and Van der Velde 2008).
The presentation opened a debate about the meaning and significance of perceived and constructed differences and their effects on human behaviour, ranging from the private individuals to bureaucratic systems. This debate addressed the core questions posed at WG3.
Conclusions
One of the main achievements of the WG3 Ljubljana meeting was undoubtedly the very successful identification of idiosyncrasies that define the spaces around geopolitical borders: the notion of ‘localicity’ that was coined on the spot intended to affirm the message that there are indeed not only differences and inequalities, but also paradoxes and adverse effects inhabiting such spaces that call for theoretical systemisation. This, in turn, successfully led the debates towards thinking about borders and boundaries that may have less material or legally encoded substantiality than international borders. The inclusion of language and culture difference (‘minority issue’), such as they are perceived by laymen and scholars alike, how they are managed and have always been historically shifting, and are often legally encoded, proved a well chosen context of the debate on difference and inequality. All but omitted was also the more practical or pragmatic side of these matters: thinking towards inventing the administrative and legal measures to facilitate integration and universalise equality may in the end be a question of keeping a step ahead of the unexpected, adverse, paradoxical and unforeseen effects of bureaucratic and political actions.
The chance to compare research on Central Europe with the north-western and north-eastern rim of the EU likewise proved fruitful in that an inventory of problems was examined that defines the north and eastern borderlands of the EU. The presentations walked us through, so to speak, the entire current EU periphery from the Baltic states down to the Balkans and further east.
Future plan
The work group shared many ideas and experiences and our debate often continued at unofficial gatherings later on. In one of them some of the participants discussed the possibilities of working out an interactive multilingual glossary on bordering processes in the European peripheries. One of the participants, Anaïs Marin, suggested that our WG3 could form a multilingual glossary on bordering processes which would - as she later on developed - include translations and etymological definitions of the terms border, boundary, frontier, etc. in up to 20 national languages and dialects. This means that every participant of the WG3 and later also other action members could contribute a term on border, boundary and frontier in his/her own language. This glossary could gradually be upgraded by topographic notions which indirectly relate to bordering processes (such as names for the mountain range, river, road, fortress, stone, wall, church, etc.). The aim of this multilingual glossary would be not only to show the linguistic importance of the terms denoting the bordering processes but also to serve as an analytical tool for cross-cultural comparisons and interpretations. The glossary could be part of the Wiki.