The geopolitics of borders and boundaries

The growing interdisciplinarity of border studies has moved discussion away from an exclusive concern with geographical, physical and tangible borders. Instead, contemporary research appears to privilege cultural, social, economic, religious and other borders that, while often invisible, have major impacts on the way in which human society is (re)ordered and compartmentalized. Similarly, the traditional dividing lines between the domestic and the international and between what it is “inside” and “outside” specific socio-spatial realms have been blurred. This has given way to understandings of borders embedded in new spatialities that challenge dichotomies typical to the territorial world of nation-states. Contemporary borders are mobile: they can be created, shifted, and deconstructed by a range of actors. With this essay the authors engage a central question that characterises contemporary debate, namely: how are formal (e.g. state) and informal (social) processes of border-making related to each other? Borders are constantly reproduced as a part of shifting space-society relationships and the bordering processes they entail. Two aspects of these will be dealt with here: 1) the evolving process of reconfiguring state borders in terms of territorial control, security and sovereignty and 2) the nexus between everyday life-worlds, power relations and constructions of social borders. Both of these processes reflect change and continuity in thinking about borders and they also raise a number of ethical questions that will be briefly discussed as well.

Geografski zbornik, ISSN 0373-4498, 2000, letn. 40, pp. 82-98 [English ed., 2000, letn. 40. http://www.zrc-sazu.si/gi/GZ.htm, 2000

The article presents both classical and current dealings with boundaries and border areas in political geography. It is suggested that these conceptual usages are a suitable starting point in considerations of anthropological concept of boundary. The latter has been decisive in shaping the organisation of perspective on identity and belonging in anthropology since the publishing of Fredrik Barth's seminal Introduction to his 1969 edited volume. While there are nuances in understanding of the terminology in the two disciplines that they share (e. g. frontier, boundary, border), the geographical conceptual apparatus offers accents and anticipations characteristic of anthropological concept of boundary. The shared terminology can be said to have relatively wider implications in geography than in anthropology, much more so than many anthropologists of today are ready to acknowledge: it is argued that it is at least the geographical concept of borderland that must be credited with the notion of a dynamic boundary area: it is the notion that is built into the very base of the anthropological concept of boundary.

European Jnl of Social Theory, 2006

The renaissance of border studies during the past decade has been characterized by a crossing of disciplinary borders, bringing together geographers, political scientists, sociologists, anthropologists, historians, literary scholars, legal experts, along with border practitioners engaged in the practical aspects of boundary demarcation, delimitation and management. This growth in border studies runs contrary to much of the globalization discourse which was prevalent during the late 1980s and early 1990s, positing a new 'borderless' world, in which the barrier impact of borders became insignificant. The article points to the common use of terminology which can create a shared border discourse among a diverse group of scholars, such as boundary demarcation, the nature of frontiers, borderlands and transition zones, and the ways in which borders are crossed. The article also discusses the reclosing of borders which is taking place as a result of 9/11 as part of the stated war against global terror.

Agnew/The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Political Geography, 2015

change in theoretical underpinnings pertaining to border studies. Initially boundary study was descriptive in nature and focused merely on the study of its history and location. The approach has transformed with the growing as the dominant paradigm, the discipline of social sciences is also witnessing 'cultural turn'. Earlier border studies interrogation is apparent with the focus on 'why' for borders.

Suomen Antropologi: Journal of the Finnish Antropological Society, 2020

Langer, C. and FERNÁNDEZ-GÖTZ, M. (2020): Boundaries, Borders and Frontiers: Contemporary and Past Perspectives. eTopoi. Journal for Ancient Studies 7: 33-47.

Boundaries are a complex topic, with different categories being distinguishable depending on the language and with a number of terms often used interchangeably. This discussion paper offers an overview on definitions and introduces different types of boundaries such as geographic, political and social. Drawing on disciplines as varied as border studies, international relations, post-/decolonial thought, and on examples from anthropological fieldwork, insights can be derived for archaeological approaches. In this context, the role of boundaries in the dynamic construction of ethnic identities is highlighted. A discussion of ancient Egyptian terms and concepts of political boundaries underlines the comparative potential of studies in premodern political thought and lived experience.

The current renewed interest in the study of borders and border-lands is paralleled by a growing concern and debate on the possibility of a border model, or models, and of a border theory, or theories. Certainly, there is a new attention to theoretical consideration and discussion that could help sharpen our understanding of borders. In this essay, I argue that a model or general framework is helpful for understanding borders, and I suggest a theory of borders. The seeds of my arguments are grounded in a variety of discussions and in the works of border scholars from a variety of social science disciplines. My contention is that the literature on borders, boundaries, frontiers, and borderland regions suggests four equally important analytical lenses: (1) market forces and trade flows, (2) policy activities of multiple levels of governments on adjacent borders, (3) the particular political clout of border-land communities, and (4) the specific culture of borderland communities. A model of border studies is presented in the second part of this essay, and I argue that these lenses provide a way of developing a model that delineates a constellation of variables along four dimensions.

Geopolitics, 2022

Can the border be considered an epistemological starting point for the analysis of border theories and processes? Whether we look at Rumford’s ‘Seeing like a border’, Mezzadra and Neilson’s ‘Border as Method’, or at Mignolo’s ‘Border thinking’, the answer seems to be a positive one. Similar in their way of employing a different gaze to look at and from the border, yet radically divergent in their methods and outcomes, each of these approaches has indeed provided a unique perspective on borders. However, I argue, a more critical analysis of such approaches reveals how they tend to (1) reproduce those epistemological distinctions that have cut across border studies in the past thirty years and (2) selectively consider some aspects in the analysis of borders, while omitting or overlooking others. All of them appear therefore necessary to grasp the multiplicity of processes, networks, and conflicts that produce and shape – while being simultaneously produced and shaped by – borders. Drawing from, yet critical towards these works, the article will take the border itself as a starting point of investigation, in order to (1) empirically analyse the processes, forces, and conflicts unfolding across borders and (2) analytically interrogate the various epistemological approaches with their advantages and shortcomings. The paper argues that borders should be better thought of as ‘meeting points’, i.e., places of encounter, interaction/clash, and reassessment/redefinition of different theories and processes. Conceiving borders as such, the paper concludes, can provide a more comprehensive framework for the analysis of borders, capable of looking at them not just as passive places moulded by different forces and encapsulated through conventional theoretical approaches, but as active, complex, and variegated processes capable of generating social outcomes and changes.