The Swamp logo

Where Worlds Meet

Borders

By Arjuna FournierPublished 2 years ago 7 min read
2
Photo: Leonid Afremov

Introduction

Borders are essential to the idea of the state. Without them there is no way for the state to control and exert its identity. Classic definitions of the state revolve around the state and its ability to control a monopoly on violence within a territory delineated by borders. Such is the western concept of the modern state. But when did this come about? And why do we need borders defined by the state instead of porous borders that follow community identities. These are decolonizing questions that seek to critically attack the modern day concept of the state. I argue that borders are inherently colonial. They were inspired by colonial imperial thought and have taken on a life of their own. The goal here is to engage in an exercise that goes “beyond rigid identities and imposed labels, as it will open the way for the existence of multiple knowledges rather than a monolithic one” (Capan 7).

Borders, State, and Community

What is most interesting about borders is their paradoxical nature. While they represent the height of state control. They are also places where the state might have the least ideological presence. This very fact is exemplified by the great walls and border protection agencies that are needed to uphold the artificial divide. If the identity of the community as part of the state was enough each side would probably mostly keep to themselves creating a natural community border not based on state centered division.

Languages, culture, histories, family, and much more are mixed at the border of state created worlds. Here only labels divide people or they would be the same being that they are inhabiting both time and space together thus sharing a temporal and spatial bond. These bonds could be argued to be the very basis of community. So we see that state defined borders are actually the antithesis of community and politics. Where community identity is the strongest the stronger the border need be to break up that identity. Further then the state itself is counter to politics as it becomes the subject of politics. Stripping the communities it claims to represent of an identity of their own. No longer are human bonds at the center of politics but instead as we see in IR, politics are re-framed as national competitions that have little to do with the communities along for the ride. Interestingly, the core which is furthest from the border is often most concerned with the border. The core emanates a national mythology and identity that holds the borders together regardless of the mixed nature of the borders themselves. This is why any attempt to move forward in a post colonial world requires the decolonization of borders.

Now, this does not necessarily entail the complete dissolution of borders. It could, but it doesn't have to. Instead decolonizing borders is an effort that involves taking away the state’s omnipotent power to separate communities at will. As mentioned before it requires a re-imagining of borders as fluid, porous, and responsive to the communities that live there. It involves separating borders from the idea of state control, state production, and state identity. Borders instead as tools that can be used to facilitate life between people. They can ease tensions, help with the organization of labor, etc… Things that benefit the communities but do not simply divide them for the sake of state sovereignty.

Many modern day borders inhabit diverse fluid communities confusingly organized along strict state lines. They are artificially produced and maintained by the often far away national core that requires the border to justify its own existence. So whats the alternative? What would allow for a natural formation of borders that doesn't require an ongoing violent reinforcement?

Natural and Cultural Borders

I have recently been become interested and exposed to the histories of Japan and Ancient Rome. Each representing to me an example of the existence of cultural and natural borders in the past that developed as a result of prolonged community interactions. This interaction does not exclude violence, war, and murder but it is also not specifically upheld by it. These natural and cultural borders I would call well-defined borders that have historical narrative and negotiation outside of the modern day capitalist state system. In opposition to these well-defined borders are imposed borders that have sprung up in synergy with the advent of western imperialism. These borders are directly a result of colonial interests not community interests.

What struck me about the history of Japan as a unified nation is the fact that before “modernity” and exposure to the west Japan was a patch-work of Asian communities. It was an archipelago that shared connections to each other but also the mainland. The idea of Japan started to emerge as the Japanese state sought to centralize its power and create the idea of a chosen pure Asian race. Tokyo becoming then the core of Japanese culture, economics, and identity emanating Japan outwardly and defining what it meant to be Japanese.

The only way to destroy the former cultural archipelago borders was to pull the people out of their homelands to a center that homogenized what it meant to be Japanese. The mega city of Tokyo served this purpose of destroying the natural borders for the benefit of the state which then used this new found identity to subjugate and claim superiority over their neighbors which had recently been their fellow community members. The destruction of these cultural borders which formed over hundreds of years is an immense loss of understanding on how to organize humanity, leaving the state as the only one to turn to. Interestingly, in Japan the youth are now leaving Tokyo to find a more diverse meaning of what it means to be a citizen outside of the Tokyo definition of it. Maybe in this way starting the long term formation of future borders that are once again negotiated by communities.

In Roman history I observed another interesting phenomenon. And that is the historic border between Rome and the Germanic states. To this day, where the Roman territory ended is essentially where modern day France ends. It is a natural border through geography (Rhine river) which has become a line where culture also seems to start to shift. It marks where the German cultures begin and to this day it is interesting how these borders are now mostly fluid but retain their distinction. It is this type of stability that historically negotiated borders provide. Much of Europe in general is a testament to this. It is a space where peoples and borders have been solidified not by an arbitrary modern map drawing but cultural negotiations over thousands of years. In part I would argue this is why today they are able to come together as the EU. Their long history together and respect for borders based on historically geographic features as well as cultural ones allows for a great amount of co-operation since endless amounts of time, money, and man power do not need to be diverted in order to uphold artificial borders by the way of state violence. Granted, Europe is not perfect and both examples have their flaws but, they help in exemplifying the type of border making that I imagine as having a decolonizing effect. That is an effect that re-orients the world of IR and statehood in ways that are not controlled by western enlightenment narratives revolving around the importance of private property, law and order, and thus the state as the paternal arbitrator.

Conclusion

To briefly conclude borders are places of immense political potential which is also why they are also so important to maintain for state control. A state control that is defined by a western concept of progress and modernity. Yet, politics was never made to serve the state or be identified by the presence of one. Politics isn't made at all. It is an event, an interaction between communities that engage in the negotiation of life building projects that facilitate living. In order to decolonize borders we need to focus on how at these borders there is a break down of state identity. The only uniform identity is coming from the states core as we see with the example of Tokyo in Japan. In order to tackle this conundrum I meditate on how over time we can learn to negotiate what I would call well-defined borders based on the geography of the earth and the geography of its cultures as-well. I believe in a decolonized definition of borders that embraces the tapestry of different world views that come together at points of intersection. Borders not defined by state violence but as useful tools for community organization and world making.

Works Cited

Zeynep Gulsah Capan (2017) Decolonising International Relations?, Third World Quarterly, 38:1, 1-15, DOI: 10.1080/01436597.2016.1245100

humanity
2

About the Creator

Arjuna Fournier

Political Scientist writing research proposals, theory essays, and sometimes your random short story.

Reader insights

Be the first to share your insights about this piece.

How does it work?

Add your insights

Comments

There are no comments for this story

Be the first to respond and start the conversation.

Sign in to comment

    Find us on social media

    Miscellaneous links

    • Explore
    • Contact
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms of Use
    • Support

    © 2024 Creatd, Inc. All Rights Reserved.