Borderlands

Abstract

There are different ways of characterizing the vast area occupied by the former Soviet Union. However this remains difficult due to completely opposed categories of classification. Nowadays the region consists of countries with diametrically divergent foreign policies, from those that are fully integrated into the EU and NATO to those having joined the Russian inspired Eurasian Economic Union. Concepts as different as “common neighbourhood”, “near abroad”, “newly independent states”, and “post– Soviet space” semantically compete with each other, which betrays a high volatility of various discourses in this part of the world. Our analysis is premised on the concept of post–Soviet borderlands, that is countries located at the crossroads of different cultural, ethnic, religious and civilizational systems, with flexible and contested “in-between” identities. They are borderlands not only geographically, but also culturally, socially and politically. On the one hand, borderland identities are embedded in a dense fabric of cross-border communication that allows them to adapt to intense multi–cultural dynamics. From a historical viewpoint, borderlands developed as communicators and translators of the exterior into the interior, and were homes to various languages, religions and ethnicities. All this not only enhances cultural pluralism and hybridity, but also constitutes one of the preconditions for democratic practices in borderland countries. Yet on the other hand, in spite of this predisposition to accommodate differences and flexibly adjust to culturally variegated environments, the post–Soviet borderlands are also producers of well– accentuated national discourses that contain a meaningful bordering and exclusionary potential. It is this tension between the two sides of the borderland identity storylines, the pressure of inclusivity and exclusivity, welcoming differences and constructing homogenous communities that we highlight as a pivotal point for our analysis and an interesting research puzzle to tackle. In light of this controversy, our main intention is to problematize nation building discourses and imageries that we consider to be a deeply cultural phenomena. Each collective identity necessitates two essential components, construction and deconstruction of boundaries with multiple Others, and in the meantime the exclusion of certain domestic content from the Chapter I