Arguably, borders stem out of the affinity of a nation to exercise power and sovereignty. As noted by Megoran, contemporary borders are a distortion of much more complex and refined boundaries. It is critical to note that the world’s current presentation does not resonate with earlier forms of borders. According to Megoran, the existing barriers emerged out of the destruction of the old borders based on kinship and responsibility. Much worse, modern cartography and other geopolitical demarcations conceal the history, flexibility, and complexity embodied in early boundaries.
As notes, borders exert a significant influence on national, social, and cultural identities. Drawing from an analysis by Megrogan on the border relations between Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, there is a noticeable border impact on national identity. For instance, Families residing in Chek consist of members from the two countries. Although they identify as a single unit, they maintain their particular national identities (Megoran). Such proves the divisiveness fostered by geopolitical borders. In examining the happenings during and after the Cold War in Germany, it is clear how far boundaries can define people from different perspectives. While West Germany’s society developed and advanced in industry and technology, East Germany remained conservative, socialist, and resistant to change (Bedarhl). For many years in the United States, borders play a fundamental role in defining nationality, citizenship, and belonging (Luna-Firebaugh). While indigenous communities initially traversed freely from southern to northern America, the colonizers’ creation of physical borders resulted in a confusing and challenging scenario for the indigenous communities. For those in North America, they became Canadians and American Indians (Luna- Firebaugh). Other indigenous communities remain cut off by strict border and immigration policies. In the era of the Soviet Union, Central Asia could be defined as a single region under Moscow. However, with the collapse of the USSR and independent states’ formation, nationality shifted from a universal status to many narrow definitions (Dierner& Artman).
At the intimate level, border identity fosters a sense of belonging and therefore ties a person or a group of people to a particular geographical area. Diener and Artman note that Central Asians fall within numerous definitions founded on geographical locations. In Prince Hutt’s altercations with the Australian government, it is crucial to note that he formed an independent entity recognized as the Hutt River Province and used it as a tool in preserving his territorial and trading freedom. Alternatively, border identity contributes significantly to strengthening the concept of citizenship and nationality. For instance, the United States government focuses on documentation procedures and militarization of its borders to keep out illegal immigrants. Such actions have greatly inconvenienced indigenous Indian communities while at the same time endangering the lives of foreign citizens (Luna-Firebaugh& Eileen). A similar situation plays out in the Uzbek-Krgyztsn border, where families and relatives remain separated due to border identity connectedness (Megoran).
Most people perceive borders only as physical demarcations determining the size of a particular territory. However, national boundaries create other boundaries that exist in different contexts. According to Paasi, borders exist as physical and social, political, cultural, and cognitive. Political borders are the instruments mostly used in exerting national prestige, power, and ideology across the world. For instance, as O’Dowd suggests, existing nations exhibit varying degrees of statehood due to various factors. Such situations occur as nations aim at expanding their political borders.
Similarly, the continuous strife in the Middle East and other parts of the world paints a clear picture of physical boundaries’ intersection with politics. As Paasi notes, political borders stem from an infusion of power with territoriality. It is agreeable that political borders bear significant implications on the lives of civilians. For instance, the creation of political boundaries in the United States disrupted the lives of natives, most of them adopting new ways of life as immigrants in a country they initially trod without restrictions (Luna-Firebaugh& Eileen).
Like political borders, social borders emerge out of physical boundaries (Paasi). Arguably, physical barriers create a social sense of belonging, or what scholars term as the ‘” us and “them” perception. Consequently, people start identifying as natives of a particular country. For instance, after colonialists drew the maps in America, the United States transformed into a multicultural society, with all communities collectively living as Americans (Luna-Firebaugh &Eileen). Again, people residing within the Uzbek-Kyrgyzstan signify a social rather than a physical border as they freely worked and lived on either side (Megoran).
Cultural borders emanate from collective memories and reflections on the struggles of forming a particular state or nation (Paasi). For instance, the Soviet Union created cultural boundaries in client states, resulting in the spread and adoption of socialism in Europe and Asia. Presently, cultural borders expand by disseminating information and culture between developed and developing states. In response to cultural mobility, some countries have enacted restrictions to contain the influx of foreign ideas within their borders. A perfect example is Kazakhstan’s decision on regulating all media affiliated with Russia in avoiding seemingly political interference and infiltration (Diener &Artman).
Cognitive borders refer to an individual or collective psychological perspective of a boundary. According to Paasi, cognitive borders play a critical role in shaping identity because they a more significant influence than social, political, and cultural barriers (216). For instance, as Megoran asserts, a section of people living within the neutral zone in Chek assume, or else identify themselves as stateless as both Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan lack jurisdiction over their residence. Chek and other disputed territories in the world lie under a cognitive border, one that cannot be defined by cultural, political, or social dimensions.
In the context of borders, there is an increasing interest in mobility. Much attention lies on the ability of globalization to transcend boundaries and the creation of a borderless world. However, as countries attempt to realize such a possibility, the real problem is regulating mobility (Diener& Artman). Although physical borders may control human and resource mobility, they are powerless against ideological and economic mobility. By employing a collaborative approach between countries, it is possible to maintain and promote mobility (Luna-Firebaugh). However, as O’Dowd suggests, such agreements often favor stronger nations that can influence border relations between and among countries (1041).
From the readings, it is notable that borders represent more than territorial boundaries. In as much they are useful in recognizing the sovereignty and uniqueness of separate statehood, they are limited in defining the people living within the countries. Much more importantly, they are a problematic subject, one that requires a multidimensional approach.
Works Cited
Alexander C. Diener and Vincent Artman. Boundaries, Borders, and Identities (n.d)
Berdahl, Daphne. “‘(N) Ostalgie’for the present: memory, longing, and East German things.” Ethnos 64.2 1999: 192-211.
Luna-Firebaugh, Eileen M. “The border crossed us: Border crossing issues of the indigenous peoples of the Americas.” Wicazo Sa Review 17.1 2002: 159-181.
Megoran, Nick. “Rethinking the study of international boundaries: A biography of the Kyrgyzstan–Uzbekistan boundary.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 102.2. 2012: 464-481.
Paasi, Anssi. “Bounded spaces in a ‘borderless world’: border studies, power and the anatomy of territory.” Journal of Power 2.2 .2009: 213-234.
