Liszka József (szerk.): Az Etnológiai Központ Évkönyve 2000-2001 - Acta Ethnologica Danubiana 2-3. (Dunaszerdahely-Komárom, 2001)

1. Tanulmányok - Schippers, Thomas K.: A határok egyenlőtlensége s annak módszertani következményei az európai etnológusok számára

ders as they show how Nation-States apply endless effort in translating political decisions into topographical realities „in the field“, and also how these borders „imposed from above“ are experienced in everyday life by the people involved. While the old nations and empires, which lacked cartographic precision, were generally surrounded by more or less controlled „buffer zones“ called „marches“ (Denmark, Ostmark,...) where the inhabitants often enjoyed specific privileges, the modem improvements in both topographic and cartographic techniques have paradoxically created „in the field“ frequently totally arbitrary situations of separation9 10 11. The ethnographic data in these border areas equally seem to suggest that borderlines decided in central capitals or at faraway conferences generally need quite some time to become „culturally significant“. On the other hand fieldwork in European regions where national borders have been dissolved, as between the two former Germanies (Korf 1995; Bomemann 1992), indicates that the „disappearance“ of these types of spatial markers can provoke uncertainties and doubts about one’s identity or even worrying nationalistic or regionalist fallbacks.

A last example of the fractal nature of borders and boundaries in Europe concerns the various degrees of „closure“ or „openness“ in regard to the circulation of people, goods or cultural phenomena. The many changes in the last decennia in the „ontological nature“ of many borders in Europe seem to have affected the feelings of identity and belonging of many Europeans. Some national borders like those inside so-called „Schengenland”'0 have lost their traditional emblems and personnel; on others like those of the former „Iron Curtain“, policemen, customs officers and even armed forces have moved to the „other side“". In still other cases such as Spain or as the Russian Federation, regional or provincial boundaries have become „national“ borders or even „international“ borders like those between the Czech Republic and Slovakia or between the newly founded sovereign states established since the dissolution of former Yugoslavia12 or the Soviet Union. These „ontological“ changes of many European borders have in their turn modified both auto-ethnonyms and hetero-ethnonyms, which of course have restructured perceptions of Self and Others: new „national“ categories have appeared in the queues at passport controls in airports and terrestrial borders, old (sometimes forgotten or re-invented) regional emblems have been revamped in order to decorate public spaces or differentiate various brands in supermarkets, etc.. At the same time the „weathermen“ on television daily show that clouds are able to cross the limits of the cartographic icon which for many has represented since one’s childhood the national space as a secure island. Even technical achievements like the opening of the Eurotunnel linking Britain to France seems to have troubled the identity of many Britons (Darian-Smith 1999). All these changes create new uncertainties as they challenge the familiar form of belonging as a neatly-bounded space.

9 A tragic example here is the spatial separation of the Palestinian „autonomous territories“ within and around the various Israeli borders (cf. Rabinowitz 1999, 237-248)

10 This popular neologism refers to a European Union treaty ratified in the Belgian town of Schengen, which stipulates a total absence of border controls for individuals at the national borders of the countries who are signatories of the treaty and a reinforced control at borders with non-signatory countries.

11 At least where these borders have become those of the European Union.

12 Cf. for example Nikocevic 1999, 135-158, Bufon 1999, 159-177.

177