Summary of Workshop 4, 2010 MEETING
WS4: Time: Pasts & Futures
Second Workshop 4 meeting
Interdisciplinary Center
Herzliya (Israel)
5-6 October 2010
Convenors:
Maoz Rosenthal
mrosenthal@idc.ac.il
+972-9-9602805
Zeev Rosenhek
zeevro@openu.ac.il
+972-9-7781727
Topic: The Path Dependence of Borders' Making and Breaking
Academic Content
On October 5-6 2010 the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya hosted a workshop within the framework of COST initiative IS0803 (EASTBORDNET). The workshop's theme was: "Time: Pasts & Futures" and its title was "The Path Dependence of Borders' Making and Breaking". This workshop was a second meeting discussing the theme of "Time: Pasts & Futures" and the third out of four in a series of workshop meetings taking place during 2010 throughout Europe, the Mediterranean and Europe's 'edges' : Berlin, Thessaloniki, Herzliya and Riga. Each workshop discussed a different aspect of borders' change. Our task was to think about the theoretical aspects of the influence of time over the process of bordering, re-bordering and de-bordering. For this task we were joined by scholars from Austria, Bulgaria, France, Finland, Germany, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Slovenia, Sweden and Croatia, and of course from Israel. Over 40 scholars applied to participate in the workshop and only 15 were accepted after several review rounds and administrative decisions.
We started our discussion by observing the theoretical progress achieved in the initiative thus far and suggested some new directions. The first and main assumption was that borders can (and should) be perceived as a dynamic process along space and time rather than a fixed physical point in space. Social and political borders are a fundamental social and political institution: they are the where and when of what and how social practices can happen. When observing institutions theoretically the contemporary analysis of institutions turned from studying them as socio-political focal points to the study of socio-political changes from one focal point to the next. Put differently, each institution is the final outcome of a previous process and the beginning of the next process.
The scholarly literature related to Institutional changes as an outcome of the occurrence of ‘critical junctures’ which yield changes in the agents’/power elites preferences or incentives (Katznelson and Weingast, 2005). It also studied them as an on-going process of symbolic interactions involving norms and values which relates to existing SOP and organizational ‘garbage cans’ as reference points along a path dependent process (March and Olsen, 1989). A different perspective on social institutions is that these change on the basis of an uncontrolled, random and chaotic process of quantum leaps and rhizomic interactions rather than a clear path of an historical cause and a socio-political outcome (Sorensen, 2005). However, this last perspective fails to recognize the way most social institutions are deeply political, and therefore the outcome of ongoing debate, negotiation, compromise and sometimes, conflict. Sorensen’s approach contrasts with the one outlined by Professor Green in her analysis, in which she suggested the understanding of borders as 'tidemarks' (Green, 2009).
Green related to a concept of Borderli-ness as a term which refers to border as a quality, rather than as an object, and more as ongoing activity, and not as a fixed 'thing’. Understanding the multiple qualities of borders, and how those qualities constantly change, is a key aim of the project. When one relates to the concept of Tidemarks it can be easily seen that they: "… combine space and historical time, and envisages both space and time as being lively and contingent. Borderli-ness in that sense concerns where things have got to so far, in the multiple, unpredictable, power-inflected, imagined and visceral way that everyday life tends to occur" (Green, ibid). While Sorensen’s definition is derived from Deleuze and Guattari’s analysis of social interactions, which emphasizes fluidity and change without focusing on the historical relationships between the people, places and ideas involved in these changes, Green’s approach emphasises the contingency and political character of the way borders move in time and space. This tension – between those who would see borders as part of an unpredictable and fluid, increasingly de-territorialised world; and others, who regard borders as the outcome of political, social, economic and, sometimes, cultural negotiation and interrelation, is one key aspect of EastBordNet’s work.
In this context, the workshop aimed at contextualizing the meaning of agency and power within the making (and breaking) of borders along space and time. Obviously as participants come for various epistemological and ontological perspectives the ways to frame that topic are many. In this workshop we tried to work along the lines of a methodological PERESTROIKA and to accept our own differences so as to search for new meaningful ways to study borderli-ness. In this light, the workshop was organized in four thematic panels: "Theory and concepts of borders' making and breaking", "Crossing and constructing borders through migration", "Border zones – encounter zones" and "Constructing and representing political and cultural borders". On each panel the participants (who were pre-assigned to the panels) presented empirical and theoretical papers while the discussants tried to connect the dots to our main question. Also, an additional panel presented the initial findings from the STSM that took place in Israel from the 28/9 to 4/10. The panel was led by Dr. Hani Zubida from IDC Israel, Dr. Aija Lulle from the University of Latvia and Lena Malm the STSM photographer. The many concepts we discussed with respect to other issues: migration, settlements, the state's power and agency were also present in that discussion.
On the theory and concepts panel Professor David Newman from Ben-Gurion University surveyed several important currents in the theoretical writings on borders. His main emphasis was that even if there are trends of change in the ability of states to rule and maintain their control over borders, still the question of bordering and re-bordering is in essence a question of political power. Dr. Martin van der Velde from Nijmegen University pointed at the rational and emotional aspects of bordering and de-bordering by individuals. Dr. Emilio Cocco from the University of Teramo, suggested that the proper approach for the study of borders is a Morphogenetic approach studying institutional changes as a complicated process incorporating micro-macro levels. The discussant for that panel Professor Gideon Doron from Tel-Aviv University. Professor Doron claimed that the analysis of borders and border changes should employ a multidisciplinary approach studying different levels of analysis (individuals, groups, countries) with various tools stemming from various methodological traditions.
The second panel delved into the issue of constructing borders through migration. Migration as a process reflects both the changes in borders and their flexibility in terms of accepting communities of immigrants inclusively, exclusively or in varying degrees of inclusion and exclusion. Professor Petros Petsimeris from the Sorbonne shown that cities all over Europe accept immigrants but confine them to specific sub-spaces defined as those associated with the low classes of society economically, socially and culturally. Dr. Carolin Leutloff-Grandits from the University of Graz shown how complicated has been the situation of Kosovo refugees who took refuge at Austria during the Kosovo crisis. She examined how that has affected both the Kosovo family structure, affected the people migrating to the EU and then returning again to a country which goes through rapid economic and political changes. Professor Eftihia Voutira from the University of Macedonia in Greece used her fieldwork on Pontic Greeks and shown how Diaspora communities maintain their identity despite being on continuous attacks from their environments. Moreover, she also showed that these communities develop a strong sense of empowerment and strength because of these attacks rather than the sense of victimhood expected in these cases. Dr. Eleni Sideri from the University of Thessaly explored using visual text analysis and participant observation changes in Georgian Greeks families' structure and in their networks of association during the process of migration from Georgia 'back' to Greece. The discussants were Dr. Aija Lulle from the University of Latvia and Dr. Zeev Rosenehk from the Open University of Israel. Both made specific remarks regarding the papers' framing and concepts. Dr. Rosenhek's discussion also pointed at the relative overlooking of the state in the papers. While all the phenomena presented in the papers were an outcome of the state's activities, the political contexts were left out. Hence, Rosenhek's discussion coincided with our basic queries and David Newman's review- point at a need for a greater emphasis on studying the political dimensions of such processes.
The next panel about "border zones-encounter zones" introduced two papers. The first paper was presented by Dr. Nikolai Vukov from the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. Vukov's paper presented the processes yielded by the Making and Breaking of the Bulgarian-Turkish Border in Communist Bulgaria. He described the population before the fall of the Iron Curtain and the population in that area afterwards, showing that the Bulgarian-Turkish border has turned from a place of an international conflict to a setting of transmigration of people and commodities. Professor Basia Nikofrova from the Culture, Philosophy and Arts Research Institute Lithuania presented her fieldwork on the Lithuanian-Polish-Belarusian borderland, were through a Rock festival an inter-cultural encounter happens exposing old identities, strengthening the search for new identities, breaking bridges yet constructing new bridges between these populations. As Professor Sumi, from the Institute for Multicultural and Jewish Studies in Slovenia who was the discussant in this panel claimed, this research and some other papers presented during the workshop has shown there is a void in the literature regarding the specific effects of the removal of the Iron Curtain on the border communities which were forged by the Cold War on their post-cold war strategies.
The last papers' panel was on "Constructing and representing political and cultural borders". In this panel Dr. Alexandra Schwell from the University of Vienna presented her paper "Austria’s Eastern Borders as a Bridge". In this paper she discussed the mistrust towards the East by those who define themselves as belonging to the West and how this mistrust is re-enforced by ongoing bureaucratic interactions between the West and the East. She showed that the formal accession of Eastern countries to the EU did not yield a mental accession. She also showed the complexity of Austria's place in that process: being ‘western’, a bridge to the East, a salient representative of a central European empire yet German nationalistic (and therefore anti Slavic). She illustrated how this complicated context is manifested in the way Austria leads an interstate police taskforce in which Austria is the only Western state. Austrian officials reports on east-west asymmetries and cleavages manifested in these joint efforts. Her conclusion was that Austria’s unique position allows it to lead east European countries and dominate their efforts in joining the EU. It does that in a mixture of attraction and rejection.
Ms. Orlada Obad from the Institute of Ethnology and Folklore Research in Croatia presented her paper on "The Importance of Being Central European". In that paper she claimed that the political process of Croatia’s accession to the EU is affected by the mental maps politicians have in mind with respect to Croatia’s position between ‘Europe’ and the Balkans. In that mental map, Europe is the desired model and the Balkans are perceived as a ‘Black Hole’. The process of accession to the EU is not only a pragmatic (rational) or interest based process, but a symbolic process based on culture and identity. She interviewed members of the political elite, students and entrepreneurs. She found that within the elite the will to be European calls for the use of Croatia’s Austro-Hungarian (imagined) Legacy on the one hand and the direct benefits they associate with entering the EU. Yet, she also found that students were more Euro-skeptic than the average population and were questioning the relevance and benefit of the whole process of accession to Croatia.
Dr. Anais Marin from the Collegium for Advanced Studies at the University of Helsinki presented her paper "Are Euroregions border breakers?" In that paper she presented the emergence of Trans-Border-Regions (TBR) in the Eastern parts of Europe, in which countries cooperate across borders so as to create and facilitate areas of economic cooperation which benefits the countries involved in it. Dr. Marin has claimed that TBRs' concerned with common public goods create cooperation while traditions of mistrust and hate hamper such processes. She also studied the reasons for the emergence of TBRs in terms of political psychoanalysis showing that post traumas of past conflicts between states were healed by cooperation.
These papers have pointed at the hidden side of political activities going beyond interests to mental maps, cultural norms and historical tradition which affect the cooperation patterns between these countries in particular and the whole process of the EU's expansion towards the east in general. Thus, all embedded politics in a socio-cultural space and historical pasts which affect the process of the EU's accession. They question its sources and usefulness and point at paths to successful cooperation.
In the final discussion led by Professor Irena Sumi and Professor Gideon Doron two themes were salient: the multidisciplinary nature for the study of borders and the necessity to ground our questions in clear contexts. Professor Sumi shown, while using as an example the processes in Slovenian society, the relevance and influence of historical frames, the way they change over time and the way these changes eventually affect internal and external border changes. Specifically this analysis needs to address how the past has influenced the turn from the 19th century empires, Socialism and post-Socialist societies turning to the accession with the EU. Yet, she also presented a quandary regarding that issue: if people are ignorant about the past, then how do they know what they should be affected from? Her answer- quite accepted by other speakers- was that they do so because they are told to do so by ruling elites who have more knowledge of the past and can manipulate this information for the good of the purpose they are trying to promote. In a similar line of thought yet with a different ontological perspective, Professor Doron emphasized the need to continue studying the interests belying the choice in borders. That is, assuming that borders separate between groups with conflicting interests. Therefore, borders are in essence an inter-group and intra-group equilibrium. There has been an emphasis in the final group discussion for a need to clarify concepts used in the study of borders such as ethnicity and class, as well as studying the way structure and agency affect borders' change. So do borders change in a path dependent manner? The overall agreement was that indeed they do. Yet, the path and the way it was proposed to society is not there as a natural being but is an outcome of a construction process that should be studied further.
Bibliography
Green, S. 2009. Lines, Traces and Tidemarks: reflections on forms of borderli-ness. EastBordNet Working Papers, No. 1, 1-18.
Katznelson, I. and Weingast B. R. (2005) 'Intersections between Historical and Rational Choice Institutionalism', in: I. Katznelson and B.R. Weingast (eds.), Preferences and Institutions. New-York: Russell Sage Foundation.
March, J. G. & J. P. Olsen (1984). 'The New Institutionalism Organizational Factors of Social Life'. American Political Science Review. 78(3): 734-749.
Sorensen, B. M. (2005). "Immaculate Defecation: Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari in Organization Theory". The Sociological Review. 53(1): 120-133.
Organization
The meeting was co-convened by Dr. Maoz Rosenthal for IDC and Dr. Zeev Rosenhek from the Open University of Israel. All administrative duties were carried out by IDC's affairs department and in coordination with Professor Green and Dr. Rozentals who lead the COST IS0803. The workshop members received an invitation letter so as to help them with visa issues and security checks. In most cases there were not any problems. Yet a Turkish citizen had problems in attaining a visa and at least one of the members was thoroughly checked at the airport. The costs were implemented on the basis of the approved budget which was sufficient for several collective meals, a shuttle from the hotel to IDC and back and administrative handling of the workshop at IDC. All in all we received full collaboration and a lot of good will (and patience…) from all involved and we thank all of our partners for that.
Planned Post-Meeting Activities
Besides the commitments of paper presenters to upload their papers to the password protected part of the website a month after the workshop, at the meeting's end the following tasks were assigned:
1. Path dependence (Cocco, Rosenthal and Sideri).
2. Victimhood (or its lack) in immigrants (Voutyra).
3. Iron Curtain research of borders- a research problem (Sumi).
4. Social Categories (Petsimeris)
5. Transborder regions (Marin and van der Velde)