![]()
Jennifer Jackson
The points of departure for this volume were twofold: on the one hand, the dichotomy and interactions between geographical and other physical borders, and symbolic, political and socio-economic boundaries; and on the other hand, nationalism and ethnicity, namely distinguishing the national or ethnic self from the non-national or non-ethnic other as a form of boundary-making.
Geographic and other tangible borders are critical components in the making and unmaking of boundaries. However, symbolic or intangible boundaries along national, ethnic, political or socio-economic criteria are equally significant. National and ethnic categories can be used as tools in boundary-building, as well as boundary-deconstruction processes. Boundaries, both tangible and symbolic, influence the ways that national and ethnic categories are demarcated and vice versa. The fluidity or permanence of physical borders and symbolic boundaries, as well as the alignment or non-alignment of boundaries with those of nation and ethnicity are additional dimensions that add to a conundrum of factors that can escalate into conflicts. Tensions over the origins, formulation and enforcement or control of borders and over the drawing of boundaries through citizenship rules, symbolic representations and direct or indirect discrimination practices point to the need for further study of these aspects of nationalism and ethnicity.
Against this background, the book will seek to answer key questions including: Why and how are boundaries established and maintained? What are the dichotomies, overlaps and interactions between physical borders and symbolic or fluid boundaries? How do national and ethnic identity contribute to the making and unmaking of tangible borders and intangible boundaries? What are the implications and interactions between everyday bottom-up practices and top-down policies of boundary-making? How does the fluidity or permanence of borders and boundaries, and their alignment or non-alignment with national and ethnic categories, give rise to conflict or become transformed into some form of peace and reconciliation?
In order to answer these questions, this volume opens with a series of theoretical chapters which consider definitions of, and distinctions between, boundaries, borders and limits, and the dichotomy between physical and symbolic conceptions of each. The theoretical section also addresses understandings and applications of ethnicity and nationalism with reference to boundaries. The volume then moves on to explore several national and comparative case studies beginning with the UK, including Scotland, Israel, the formally Soviet titular republics, specifically Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan, and, finally, Ireland and Quebec. The case studies explore the relationship between bounded territoriality and ethnic and national identity. They also offer insight into the variability of boundary salience, permeability and persistence within different contexts, and attempt to account for these differences. Finally, the case studies also address the different role and meaning of boundaries and borders within cities as opposed to the nation state.
The literature uniting nationalism, ethnicity and boundaries is vast and draws from a range of disciplinary backgrounds. Specific to boundary studies from the field of social psychology, researchers have explored the ways that individuals engage in group categorization and identification, specifically how individuals evaluate their own groups in such a way as to secure superiority over other groups (Tajfel and Turner 1985; Brewer and Brown 1998). Social identity theorists have written about the permeability of boundaries and the effects that this can have on an individualâs social mobility (Ellemers 1993). There is also ample research on the role of group boundaries in social movements (Taylor and Whittier 1992; Melluci 1996; Gamson 1992) and specifically the mechanisms and processes that are involved in the production of boundaries which play a role in contentious politics (McAdam et al. 2001) and the creation of inequality (Tilly 1998). Much work has also been done by Bourdieu and his descendants on boundaries, and class differences (Bourdieu and Passeron 1972) and cultural practices (Bourdieu 1988). Bourdieuâs arguments stimulated several responses and critiques throughout the 1980s and 1990s, including Lamontâs innovative approach to studying class and other boundaries through interviews (Lamont 1992; Lamont 2000).1
Within the field of nationalism studies, there is research on the interaction between physical borders and boundaries, and symbolic boundaries and national culture (Gupta and Ferguson 1992; Wilson and Donnan 1998). Researchers have considered the important role of borders on the construction of difference as part of the process of nation-building, as well as the effects of decolonization and the unmaking of borders on the construction of national identities (Gupta and Ferguson 1992; Alvarez 1995; Kearney 1995). Scholars have also considered how the increasing permeability of national boundaries affects national identity formation and symbolic notions of national belonging (Malkki 1995; Bauböck 1998; Brubaker 1992; Zolberg and Long 1999; Hannerz 1992).
Specific to the field of ethnicity the Norwegian anthropologist Frederick Barth (1969) had a great influence with his seminal argument that the study of ethnicity should not concentrate on the âcultural stuffâ contained within ethnic categories, but instead on the boundaries between ethnic groups. Scholars who have applied this boundary approach to understanding ethnic identity include Hechter (1975) and Horrowitz (1985). Others have looked at the effect of external categorizations on individual identification, specifically the effects of state-level categories on the production and reproduction of ethnic and racial categories in the United States (Lee 1993; Gans 1999). Neo-Barthian approaches have also been applied more recently in an attempt to understand ethnic and national identity construction, specifically the relational effect of processes of self-definition and the assignment of collective identities by others (Cornell and Hartmann 1997; Portes and Rumbaut 2001; Cohen 1985). Finally, sociologists and anthropologists have examined the role of both internal and external definition processes and their interactions on modes of boundary-making, specifically in relation to ethnic identity formation (Jenkins 2008; Cornell and Hartmann 1997; Brubaker and Cooper 2000).
Although the literature on boundaries and borders in relation to nationalism and ethnicity is already plentiful, more theoretically driven scholarship together with more specific case-study work would be invaluable to further in-depth study of this field. This volume attempts to connect some important contributions from the above literature from across the disciplines by uniting considerations of territorial and symbolic boundaries, and borders with boundary-infused conceptions of ethnicity and nationalism. Studying ethnicity and nationalism through a boundary approach, while also accepting that the content of social categories informs how boundaries are drawn and vice versa, is vital. It shifts the focus towards understanding the various ways that category members, as well as non-members, understand which boundaries are relevant to that social category. Working with a boundary approach also has the effect of shifting the emphasis away from the objective cultural content associated with social categories, which can change over time. Instead, the focus turns to subjective attitudes and representations of the individuals within a certain category through a consideration of who they consider to be inside or outside of their peer group in relation to specific distinctions.
Studies that consider the various intersections between nationalism, ethnicity and boundaries in the social sciences can inform and enrich one another through comparisons of an interdisciplinary nature, which are greatly needed to enrich our understanding of boundaries. This volume contributes in particular a greater systematization when it comes to understanding boundary processes by incorporating a strong theoretical framework with case studies that shed light on these processes. This comparative approach helps to show under what circumstances boundaries assume particular characteristics and in what cases they become more or less permeable, salient, visible and/or durable. It also sheds light on how social actors construct groups and communities through the use of boundaries and how individuals understand their obligations towards the groups and categories they find themselves in. Also, this book helps to establish more concretely how individuals think of themselves in comparison to others and how they perform their differences and similarities. All of these issues have been identified in the literature as areas that deserve further attention (Lamont and MolnĂĄr 2002).
The first part of the book introduces important theoretical and conceptual considerations related to the study of nationalism, ethnicity and boundaries. In Chapter 2, Jenkins introduces one of the main themes explored in this volume by attempting to answer what appears to be a very simple question: What distinguishes between boundaries and borders? In his answer, Jenkins moves towards a model of boundary complexity that avoids the reification of boundaries that Barth, among others, warns against. In Chapter 3, Terrier explores the semantic transformations of the boundary concept in the human sciences throughout the twentieth century. This chapter compares debates on national identity and notions of categorization and classification, and explores the pronounced diffusion of the boundary concept in recent years. Drawing on the history of human sciences in three different contexts, France, Germany and the UK, this chapter addresses several pertinent questions including: Why are boundaries established? How are they to be maintained? In what circumstances are boundaries more or less salient? This chapter arrives at a provisional repertoire of possible understandings of the boundary concept that will prove useful to current researchers.
Conversiâs chapter explores the relationship between boundaries, nationalism and modernity. Conversi argues that nationalism belongs to a broad ideological discourse that came to prevail with the onset and expansion of modernity. He writes: ânationalism and modernity are both indulging in practices of classification, definition and delimitation, leading to the simultaneous destruction of old boundaries and the creation new onesâ (p. 57). Conversi also considers to what extent and in which ways globalization contributes to boundary-building and boundary-deconstruction processes. In Chapter 5, Banton explores how we can make use of concepts like ethnicity and nationalism in research. Drawing from a critical rationalist perspective, he suggests that it may not be useful to ask what ethnicity and nationalism as sociological concepts are supposed to do and how well they do it, but instead concentrate on the behaviour to be explained in particular contexts. Bantonâs approach, based on an understanding of social behaviour as a form of exchange, will interest those currently researching ethnicity and nationalism.
In Part II, Michael Skeyâs chapter considers âthe nationâ by examining its ongoing significance as a bounded and familiar space for established national groups. He draws on empirical interview data with members of the Anglo-white majority in England to show how debates around immigration demonstrate the importance of territorial limits in being able to identify and manage potential threats to the nation. In Chapter 7, Rosie explores limits to the apparently âinclusiveâ nature of Scottishness by reviewing existing evidence related to Scottish minorities, including people born outside of Scotland, as well as ethnic and religious minority groups. He considers to what extent people from these backgrounds choose to claim Scottishness, as well as what qualifications are placed on such claims by the broader Scottish public. Rosie draws on social survey data to identify patterns of exclusion from Scottishness on the grounds of birthplace, accent, and âvisibleâ ethnicity. This chapter also explores what kinds of people are more or less likely to adhere to exclusive versions of Scottishness and what impact this could have on multi-ethnic Scotland going forward.
In Chapter 8 Conforti examines how political decisions in the Yishuv period influenced the relationship between the ethnic and territorial components of the Zionist movement. He explores decisive events which defined the relationship between ethnic and territorial boundaries before the State of Israel was established, including the Sixth Zionist Congress, and the Peel Commissionâs proposal to divide Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state. Confortiâs analysis shows that while in both cases some political actors focused on ethnic interests and others focused on territorial interests, the central stream of Zionism sought to find a balance between the two. This chapter offers an interesting new perspective on the young state of Israel and its relationship to ethnic identity and borders.
In Part III, Brubaker compares nationalizing projects and processes in four post-Soviet states. He argues that in Kazakhstan, where ethnonational boundaries have been strong, quasi-racial and intergenerationally persistent, nationalization has served primarily to strengthen and empower the nation. Contrarily, in Ukraine, where ethnonational and linguistic boundaries have remained and...
