FENCE AND GATES: Images and Metaphors of the Modern Russian Border

 

Abstract: In this article the author reconstructs the imaginary and ideological borders of the Russian Federation defined by Russian mass-media of the 1990s.

Keywords: Symbolic geographies, Russian Federation, geo-political borders

 

 

According to A. Giddens, state borders, as the ‘product’ of the project of modernity, separate the main political, social and cultural constructs of modernity – nation-states (Giddens, 1987). Borders not only demarcate national sovereignty, but also form a dichotomous structure of the perception of the world. From ‘our’ side the social world is perceived as homogeneous, universal, and as a result of that, relatively safe. At the same time existence of the border means recognition of the ‘other’, the ‘neighbour’.

In this paper I intend to reconstruct the discursive situation that has developed around the modern Russian border at the end of the 1990s in Russian mass media. According to M. Foucault, discourse represents “the practice that systematically forms the objects, which they /i.e. discourses . speak of” (Foucault, 1996:427-428). Discourse on border issues as the determined way of thinking and the limited set of conceivable concepts and categories reproduces an image of border and thus reproduces the border as it is between the states. In this work I have reconstructed the concept of border presented by the newspaper discourse and have analyzed the senses and meanings, as well as the statuses, attributed to it.

The fourteen most popular (published in large editions) all-Russian, St. Petersburg newspapers were selected for the analysis, viz Izvestija, Inostranets, Kommersant, Nezavisimaya gazeta, Novye Izvestiya, Obschaya Gazeta, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, Trud, Vechernij Petersburg, Vremya MN, Nevskoe vremya, Peterburgskij Chas Pik, Smena, and Sankt-Peterburgskie vedomosti. These editions represent ‘commonplace’, nonradical points of view. Moreover, the images of the border produced by these newspapers are virtually identical to each other. This enabled me to reconstruct the generalized concept of the Russian state border. A number of informative and analytical publications somehow or other dealing with the problem of the state borders of Russia were explored (148 publications in total, covering the period from January 1997 to May 2001).

 

Metaphoric of the Border

 

The metaphor is not only the means of poetic imagination and a resource of certain contrivance. The metaphors, having shifted from the sphere of creative work and poetic imagination, enter into everyday speech, become conventional and begin to play an important role in the definition of daily reality. Not realizing this, an individual can structure and understand any phenomenon (event, essence) in the categories of metaphor. The consequences of metaphor’s introduction into everyday life’s conceptual frame are real: an individual not only speaks of something in the terms of metaphor, but also acts according to such representations.

The texts of the mass media sources abound in poetic images and metaphors, in order to strengthen the impression to be produced. The analysis of metaphors used in the publications on border issues will help to decipher the senses attributed to the modern Russian border.

The metaphor of ‘home’ has become the basic one in the newspaper controversy. This metaphor is used for selecting one’s “own” space – well-known, familiar, habitual, predictable and safe. The house becomes the home: it acquires domestic features, first of all, due to the partition and the acquisition of certain space, that is, due to the fence of the house – the border. In case of emergency the home can become a fortress, the border being its advance post.

Metaphor is formed not only by direct borrowings and analogies; it is also constituted by the attendant linguistic frame. The direct comparison of the state frontier with a fence, as well as the indirect references and analogies, such as wicket, gate, doors, lock, etc., indicate the existence of the fence. For example, an article devoted to closing the checkpoints along the Russian-Ukrainian border is titled “The locks on the gate are getting rusty” (Izvestiya, 01.12.00). Another example: “When the iron curtain crashed down, the flow of migrants and cargoes has increased considerably, and Russia urgently needed to increase the number of gates to the outside” (Izvestiya, 07.07.99).

Setting the fence appears to be the basic problem of the arrangement of home. The fence should not be tight, solid and impenetrable: “Now fences made of prickly wire are not erected, the ‘iron curtain’ has left forever” (Rossijskaya gazeta, 15.03.2001). At the same time, the borders and the situation that has developed around them can change. With respect to this, “It was decided that the objects like those that were erected ‘for centuries’ in the former time, would never appear. Modular constructions, which can fast and easily be erected and demolished, and be transported to the other place, will be set up along the borders, instead of fundamental buildings” (Inostranets, 20.06.00).

The fence serves not only to fence off the home, but also to connect it with the rest of the world. That is why such characteristics as open or transparent are being actively exploited in conformity with the border-as-fence. Despite the apparent synonymies of these characteristics, the latter are used in different senses. The openness of the border reflects positive connotations and is associated with an opportunity of its free crossing: “Open borders appear to have been a symbol of mutual trust and goodwill in drawing together” (Nezavisimaya gazeta, 02.08.98). Contrary to openness, the transparency of the border implies a negative semantic. “One day the normal border might appear there, however, it is a ‘holey sieve’ so far. Transparency frightens . It’s too much transparent, it brings only troubles” (Izvestiya, 18.12.99).

The elaboration of the metaphor of home has stipulated the introduction of such categories as window, facade and show-window. In the newspaper discourse on border issues the windows of Russia open on the West. Certainly, this metaphor is connected with Pushkin’s metaphor of a ‘window to Europe’; however it has not become widespread with respect to the other borders of Russia. Therefore the Russian home overlooks only Europe. The facade, as the face of home, as well as the show-window, are intended for observation and estimation, therefore for demonstration and advertising. Thus, the predestination of the border is ‘to show the goods as they are’, to self-advertise, but only for Western Europe: “The participants of the workshop on border issues treated the border territories as the facade, or the face of Russia” (Izvestiya, 7.07.99); “It is a pity, that the foreigners enter Russia as if through the back entrance, instead of from the façade” (Kommersant, 11.04.01); “The Kaliningrad region could become a show-window of Russia to the West” (Izvestiya, 5.10.00).

The exploitation of the metaphors of home and fence in many respects determines the people’s attitude to the border and results in concrete social actions. Crossing the border is, first of all, an overcoming (and even an initiation to a certain extent). At the same time, the border implicates two senses ascribed to it: border as defense, and border as a linkage. The abroad, i.e., the space ‘beyond the fence’, is definitely another’s territory, everything is alien there. I believe that the metaphor of home has found its place in the discourse on the construction of nationalities; this metaphor reproduces notions about the nation, for which the safe existence of its own home is necessary.

Another widespread metaphor that describes the territory of Russia and its border is the metaphor of the family. Only mutual relations of the former Soviet republics are considered in the categories of kinship. Obviously, in many respects it is connected with the stability of ideological stamps of the Soviet time. However, the metaphor reproduces the ideas about naturalness and indissolubility of ties connecting the territories of the former Soviet Union. These relationships remain hierarchical – senior sister, deserted wife. At the same time, Russia is still presented as a center; it draws together and centers the space. Thus, the leading role is ascribed to Russia, and

paternalistic attitudes to the younger relatives are being legitimized.

The organic metaphor – the territory of the former USSR as a single living substance – is used nearly in the same sense: “a settlement, a garden – these living organisms – were partitioned” (Trud, 26.10.00); “Ivangorod and Narva like an accreted single whole. The city cut into two parts” (Kommersant, 11.04.01). The exploitation of these metaphors specifies even stronger ties than relationships. They reveal the pathological and irreversible consequences of the breakup. In connection with these metaphors, the new borders are considered as unreasonable and alien, and their setting up is painful not only for the inhabitants of the borderland, but also for all former citizens of the USSR.

 

Russia in-between: the place and the status

 

The cardinal and rapid transformations of the last decade have considerably changed the picture of the world, as well as the notions about the surrounding space, its countdowns and orientation in this space. The categories of classical geography, in which the world was conceived, have lost or have changed their meanings. For example, such categories as West/East, Europe/Asia, centre/periphery, or close/far began to mean somewhat different things than some years ago. And even the new geopolitical map, as it is, cannot reflect new spatial notions and connotations – obviously, a multidimensional space is required for this purpose. As a result of the expansion of spatial metaphors, the geographical space itself has turned to its own metaphor and has become identical to it. “Now the place, as a matter of fact, is hardly fixed in traditional geographical coordinates, it has its own image. A geographical product is various kinds of transformed (re-comprehended, interpreted) historical and cultural reflection” (Zamyatin, 2000:257-262).

The border that frames the space of Russia forms an image of its territory. I will attempt to reconstruct a new image of the space of Russia, its mutual relations with its neighbors and its entrance into the ‘global/world context’; I intend to select new important categories that can be used for the construction and reproduction of this image.

Russia in newspaper publications on border issues is presented as an interim space; its place and status is to be between: “Everyone dreams to get in prosperous Europe, Russia is only a middle stage” (Trud, 11.01.00); “Russia becomes a trans-shipping point for illegal migration” (Obschaya gazeta, 27.05-02.06.99); “Russia remains to be a through-pass courtyard for the countries of the third world” (Izvestiya, 02.12.99); “The Finnish border with the Russian Federation can serve as a convenient corridor for illegal penetration of migrants from Asia and Africa to the territory of the EC” (Severnyj torgovyj put’, N 12, 99).

Russia appeared to be between Europe on the one side, and the countries of the third world – Asia and Africa – on the other. This is the space of one-way movement; its vector is directed towards Europe, and not back: “Everyone aims to be in Europe, only one mad (author’s comment: this means pathology, abnormality) German was dying to be in Russia. For the last time such cases were registered in 1941” (Izvestiya, 22.03.01). The interim position of Russia is reflected also in the category of Eurasia. For example, the author of the article about the Russian-Estonian frontier, illustrated with the photos of the fortresses of Narva and Ivangorod, comments upon this as: “On the side is Europe, on another – Eurasia” (Kommersant, 11.04.01). However, this category has practically gone: it was seen only once.

 

Some attempts are undertaken to substantiate the integration of Russia and Europe, to work in one ‘team’:

 

The attempts of the EC to protect itself from illegal migrants by making the visa regime more rigid only aggravate the problem. The aid of the world community is necessary for Russia. Since the NIS countries themselves can not constrain illegal migration, the latter will be strengthened over the space of the prospering Europe, therefore it is necessary to protect the borders together. (Nezavisimaya gazeta, 02.08.98).

 

At that, an inversion of senses takes place – Russia acts not as a ‘supplier’ of illegal migrants for Europe, but as a defendant: the mission of Russia is to protect Europe. Thus the Russian boundaries become stronger, but at the same time they turn from the borders of Russia into the border of Europe, they ‘are missioned’ to it and they serve it: “At present the boundary of Russia protects Europe from the invasion of illegal migration and drugs-trafficking from Asia. Though the EC realizes it, it is Byelorussia and Russia that bear this burden” (Rossijskaya gazeta, 15.03.01)

 

The space is one-way: focused and directed towards the West. This refers only to illegal migrants from the countries of the third world. For the Russian citizens, the border of Europe and Russia appears to be an obstacle, an insuperable barrier, even a precipice. For example, an article about the Russian-Estonian border is titled: “Get out, you citizens, you have arrived…” (Kommersant, 11.04.01)

Europe is “unattainable”; in almost all the narratives its main characteristic is its well-being that separates “us” from “them.” By this very fact the border is strengthened. Europe is not only unattainable, it is also unreal, like the ‘other side of the mirror’ (Izvestiya, 5.10.00). This impression is intensified by the fact that the countries that are members of the European Union are practically not named. Russia borders with Europe, instead of with Germany, Finland or Estonia. One can assume that the European Union, as new territorial formation, has firmly settled in the Russian discourse, and that the unified Europe has ousted France or Germany – the states that were committed to memory during the lessons of geography and history.

I think, however, that Europe, as a spatial category, has been poorly ‘localized on the map’ so far (the changes take place so quickly that it is still unclear who has come into the EC, who is waiting in a queue, etc.). It is imagined as an indistinct and dim patch somewhere at the left. It is for this reason that it turns out to be a fiction to a considerable extent.

However Europe becomes real in the sense that it represents a countdown, a point of reference and comparison: “Europe searches for entering the third millennium without borders, without this atavism of the human community. Ukraine and Russia, poor as vagabonds, are strengthening the borders, competing in stupidity” (Nezavisimaya gazeta, 27.01.99). “The territory of the European countries had been partitioned up to centimeters long-long ago, while we can never delimit the border with Ukraine” (Trud, 26.10.00).

The other borders of Russia are less described and represented. The Russian borders with Byelorussia and Ukraine are relative and almost “artificial”: “Well, it’s a very ridiculous border. I am just in Russia, but if I only step forward – I am in Ukraine. Nothing has changed. The same rain, the same dirt. But still I am abroad” (Trud, 19.10.00). The main distinctions, divergence and differentiation (which, nevertheless, are perceived as legitimate) are connected with “the trade for grivnas from the one side and for roubles from the other” (Trud, 19.10.00). The borders with Kazakhstan are the source of, first of all, illegal (undesirable, criminal, morbid, etc.) migration. Thus the necessity of strengthening the border and making it more rigid is motivated by this. It is, however, only a desirable, ideal condition for which to aim.

It is interesting that the category of the neighborhood that characterizes relations with neighboring countries is hardly used in the newspaper discourse. One can assume that these relations are described in other categories or are in the stage of definition, registration and categorization. At the same time, Russia is entered into a global context, it gets in touch with the other states, regardless of the widespread metaphor of the modern geopolitics: “Russia as an island” (Tsymbursky, 1993; Iljin, 1995; and others).

The newspaper discourse has stated the change in the status of the borderland. The traditional dichotomy of centre/periphery ‘lowered’ and ‘determined’ the status of bordering territories as peripheral. The discourse on the border issues fixes these changes: “The Kaliningrad region, brought, as the history has willed it, to the centre of Europe, can not be an ordinary Russian province” (Rossijskaya gazeta, 15.01.99). The changes of senses and meanings of the borders (border as a “place for meeting and cooperation”, instead of the “end of the world”) raise the status of the borderland. One can speak of a new centralization; the border is a centre for one’s orientation and for correlation with one’s location. Just an example: the construction of the highway in Ivangorod in connection with the emergence of the border with Estonia is a bright illustration of ‘actual consequences’.

So the image, the metaphor of the space of Russia, is like an area that is strictly framed and limited from the northwest, and dim and diffuse from the southwest and southeast.. At the same time, there is a tendency to make the borders with Kazakhstan, China and Mongolia more rigid, the frontier zone being formed into a fixed state frontier. The border is not a periphery, not a precipice, but a space, a special statutory zone that frames the territory of Russia.

 

Concluding Remarks

 

As a conclusion, I would like to emphasize the most important senses ascribed to the border, as a result of the pubic debate in the newspaper discourse for the last five years. First of all, the borders ensure the national safety of the state, protecting its sovereignty and territorial integrity. The borders are also extremely important for constructing identities, for a spatial ’embodiment’ and ‘entering’ the global context. Thus the border has a significant symbolical semantic, marking and separating one’s ‘own’ space, and endowing it with sense and status.

The ‘old’ borders of Russia partitioned the space into ‘own’ and ‘another’s’. However, the borders of the post-Soviet territory are not so unequivocal and categorical; they have not entered the life of the people so far. Therefore they have another status than the ‘old’ borders. However, the ‘new’ ones have already begin to play a separating role and become the basis for the formulation of interboundary differences.

The transformation and dynamics of the borders of the post-Soviet space have changed the representations about the immobility of the borders – the nomadic borders can change their location.

The status of the bordering territories as peripheral zones has changed. Now the borders are not “the end of the world”; they have become a “place of meeting and cooperation”. And thus the borders participate in the process of decentering the space, the formation of new territorial principles.

The centric discourse that constitutes the border of Russia is, as formerly, the national discourse. However, one can state the occurrence of an alternative. The notions about the existence of certain social space (the space of social networks) that is not embedded into the national state borders are reproduced by means of the human rights rhetoric and discursive strategies. Both national interests and those of an individual conflict, contradict and are opposed to each other. Thus, the importance and the priorities of national and social spaces ‘compete’ and are being challenged.

 

 

References:

Giddens, A. (1987) The Nation-State and Violence. Berkley: University of California Press

Foucault, M. (1996) Arheologija znanija. Kiev: NIKA-ZENTR / originally: L’archeologie du savoir. Paris, 1969

Il’in, M. (1995) Problemy formirovanija “ostrova Rossii” i kontury ego vnutrennej geopolitiki. In: Vestnik MGU, seria 12, n.1, pp. 47-63

Cymburskii, V. (1993) Ostrov Rossiya (perspektivy rossiiiskoi geopolitiki). In: Polis, n.3, pp. 36-52

Zamjatin, D. (2000) Fenomenologija geographicheskih obrazov. In: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, n.6, pp. 255-274