скачать книгу бесплатно
The field of research may be perceived as a socio-cultural space, which is characterized by variety of networks and actors producing it. So I fall on the idea of a multi-sited ethnography introduced by anthropologist George Marcus[41 - Marcus, George: Ethnography in/of the world system. The emergence of multi-sited ethnography, in: Annual Review of Anthropology, 24 (1995). S. 95—117.], who impugned the concept of culture as a closed entity and makes possible new ways of research.
In the field I explore not the space of urban or boundary milieu, but cross-border interaction, historical memory and actual self-identification. Field research is focused not on an enclosed entity, but on the interweaving of actors at regional and transnational level.
Post-socialism: Europeanization and modernization
If I take in respect the ideas of the anthropologist Gisela Welz, than the definition of Europeanization can be designated as «a process of EU-Europe making»[42 - Welz, Gisela: Ethnografien europäischer Modernen, in: Binder, Beate; Göttsch, Silke; Kaschuba, Wolfgang; Vanja, Konrad (Hrsg.): Ort. Arbeit. Körper. Ethnografie Europäischer Modernen, Münster 2005. S. 19.]. It means that I assume that the definition of «Europe» is beyond the scope of the institutional organization of the European Union.
Relying on the Wolfgang Kaschuba and Tsypylma Darieva[43 - Darieva, Tsypylma; Kaschuba, Wolfgang (Hrsg.): Representations on the Margins of Europe: politics and identities in the Baltic and South Caucasus states. Frankfurt/Main – New York 2007.], I understand «Europe» not as a fixed entity, but much more as flexible area with variable borders, which allow us to introduce the Europe as changeable socio-cultural structure. Europe may be designated as a symbolic figure or idea that shaped the identity formation in the national and European context[44 - Kaschuba, Wolfgang: Das alte und das neue Europa. Repräsentationen und Inszenierungen, http://www.kaschuba.com/texte/Altes_und_neues_Europa.pdf, S. 2—3.].
The anthropological and ethnological research of Europeanization take a wide vision on the phenomena of Europeanization, while the Europeanization was comprehended as a process, which takes place at different levels and contributes to more comprehensive understanding of the «making of Europe»[45 - Welz, Gisela: Ethnografien europäischer Modernen, in: Binder, Beate; Göttsch, Silke; Kaschuba, Wolfgang; Vanja, Konrad (Hrsg.): Ort. Arbeit. Körper. Ethnografie Europäischer Modernen, Münster/New York/München/Berlin 2005. S. 25—26.].
John Borneman and Nick Fowler[46 - Bornemann, John; Fowler, Nick: Europeanization, in: Annual Review of Anthropology 1997 (26), p. 489.] assume Europe as the research object, which still in the process of development. This research accepts the «making of Europe» as multifaceted process, which involves interdisciplinary approaches of historians, political scientists, sociologists and anthropologists. Unlike their colleagues, who primarily analyze governmental structures and its history, anthropologists are focused on the making processes of Europe either in interaction with, or apart of the European Union.
I perceive the Europeanization as Römhild primarily not as a political practice, but rather as a cultural practice[47 - Römhild, Regina: Reflexive Europäisierung. Tourismus, Migration und die Mediterranisierung Europas, in: Welz, Gisela; Lottermann, Annina; Baga, Enikö (Hrsg.): Projekte der Europäisierung. Kulturanthropologische Forschungsperspektiven. Frankfurt/Main 2009, S. 261—276.]. With my research on the Kaliningrad bordered region, I find myself on the «edge of the Europe». In this regard from the points of view of Regina Römhild and Gisela Welz[48 - Welz, Gisela: Ethnografien europäischer Modernen, in: Binder, Beate; Göttsch, Silke; Kaschuba, Wolfgang; Vanja, Konrad (Hrsg.): Ort. Arbeit. Körper. Ethnografie Europäischer Modernen, Münster/New York/München/Berlin 2005. S. 26—27.] the research on «edge» of the Europe contribute to new insights to how in frames of Europeanization articulated the cultural-public space and urban area. Consequently it can lead to a broader understanding of Europeanization itself.
Also the attribution of «edge» refers to the geopolitical dimension of the research field. Secondly, it refers to imagination and appreciation in politics, as Buchowski described it[49 - Buchowski, Michał: Hierarchien des Wissens in der ostmitteleuropäischen Anthropologie, in: Poehls, Kerstin; Vonderau, Asta (Hrsg.): Turn to Europe. Kulturanthropologische Europaforschungen, Berliner Blätter: Ethnographische und ethnologische Beiträge, Heft 41, Münster/Hamburg/Berlin/London 2006. S. 27—41]. However, the attribution of Kaliningrad as a «peripheral» or the «edge» located territory is not only an analytical category, but is also the procedure of self-attribution. The application of analytical categories such as «center» and «edge» or «periphery» contribute to self-attribution and self-perception and leads to corresponding spatial practices.
The frontier of the 1990—2000’s was a time when not only political but also social and cultural discourse about Europeanization emerged among academic, social, cultural, educational and youth organizations in Kaliningrad. Questions about: who we are, why we are here, how can we position ourselves in the plane relations of center, the region, neighborhood, and most importantly if we can provide habitat quality, which is comparable to ours surroundings?
A discourse on the Europeanness was formed to integral part of the public life of the region. For objective reasons, the main carriers of discourse are young Kaliningradians, who prone to mobility for travel, academic, cultural and economic reasons. The concept of Europeanization could be related with the theory of transition of post-socialist countries and regions, at that the transition is described as a transformation through modernization.
Modernization was performed as a process of technical modernization, development and formation during the transit from the starting point of post-socialism to the developed capitalism of the Western European sample. In more detail, it is the following: «Circumscribed by popular stereotypes, eagerly strengthened by western and neo-liberal discourses that reflect power relations between the East and the West, people on both sides of the former Iron Curtain simply define it as a transition from the authoritarian regimes to democracy, transformation from commanded economy to free market and a rapid change of social mentalities from communist to capitalists»[50 - Buchowski Michał: Rethinking transformation an anthropological perspective on post-socialism. Poznań 2001, p. 9—10.].
We can find the linkage of the Europeanization issue to the post-socialist urban space in focus of cultural-anthropological perspective of researches of Vonderau[51 - Vonderau, Asta: Leben im «neuen» Europa. Konsum, Lebensstile und Körpertechniken im Postsozialismus. Bielefeld 2010.]. I assume that a similar approach could be taken in respect to Kaliningrad. In this context, I take a view of Römhild on the Europeanisation from the «bottom», which means the understanding of cultural, social and political practices of Europeanization as a process of negotiation of different actors[52 - Römhild, Regina: Reflexive Europäisierung. Tourismus, Migration und die Mediterranisierung Europas, in: Welz, Gisela; Lottermann, Annina; Baga, Enikö (Hrsg.): Projekte der Europäisierung. Kulturanthropologische Forschungsperspektiven. Frankfurt/Main 2009. S. 262.].
Boundary modality
Significant attribute of the «edge» of the Kaliningrad region is boundary modality. In principle, borders are divided into the interrelated concepts of boundaries and frontiers, both of which are separating territories of different states. According to Prescott, «there is no excuse for geographers who use the terms „frontier“ and „boundary“ as synonyms»[53 - Prescott, John: Political frontiers and boundaries. London 1987, p. 36.]. He goes on to define border as the areas adjacent to the boundary, which «fringe» it[54 - Ibid, p. 12.], while the borderlands refers to «the transition zone within which the boundary lies»[55 - Ibid, p. 13—14.].
As Prescott[56 - Prescott, John: Political frontiers and boundaries. London 1987.] determined, boundaries are «the lines which demarcate state territory, and in most places they have superseded frontiers which were zones of varying depth which marked either the political division between two countries or the division between the settled and uninhabited areas within a country»[57 - Donnan, Hastings; Wilson, Thomas: Borders: frontiers of identity, nation and state. Oxford 1999, p. 45.]. It may be argued that boundaries can be compared one to the other as «the symbols and reality of the physical extent of the state, as social and political facts, with form and function different in minor details but similar in most major ways», as frontiers, on the contrary, are phenomena of history[58 - Kristof, Ladis: The nature of frontiers and boundaries. In: Kasperson, R.; Minghi, J. (ed.): The structure of political geography. Chicago 1969, p. 129.]. Frontiers cannot be isolated from their «particular historical circumstances because they are the products of historical forces which cannot be duplicated, and which in most cases are older than those entities which are framed by the modern boundaries of nation-states»[59 - Donnan, Hastings; Wilson, Thomas: Borders: frontiers of identity, nation and state. Oxford 1999, p. 49.].
As can be confirmed the border issues has appeared widespread by scholarly debate. On the one hand it concerns the boundaries of Europe. In this case the discussions include geographical, cultural or historical issues. First of all, they touch upon the broad question of European identity and the semantic dilemma of the term European. On the other hand the academic debate concerns the question of the European Union borders. Such diversity of areas results from the phenomena of boundaries[60 - Szymanski, Adam: The establishment of the final borders of the EU. In: Janczak, Jaroslaw. (ed.): De-Bording, Re-Bording and Symbols on the European Boundaries. In: Wissenschaftliche Reihe des Collegium Polonicum, Band 16, 2011, p. 115.].
Meanwhile, anthropological theories and methods enable ethnographers to focus on local communities at international borders in order to examine the material and symbolic processes of culture. This focus on everyday life and on the cultural constructions, which give meaning to the boundaries between communities and between nations, is often absent in the wider perspectives of the other social sciences[61 - Donnan, Hastings; Wilson, Thomas (ed.): Border Identities. Nation and state at international frontiers. Cambridge 1998, p. 4.]. Still the scientific studies devoted to the issue of Kaliningrad are characterized by the limited concern on the importance of daily cultural practices, which serves only as a facultative argument for the Russian political scientists and sociologists.
Thus, I would like to contribute to a broader understanding of Europeanization, which is not comprehended as an exclusively political or historical practice, but also as a cultural practice[62 - Römhild, Regina: Reflexive Europäisierung. Tourismus, Migration und die Mediterranisierung Europas, in: Welz, Gisela; Lottermann, Annina; Baga, Enikö (Hrsg.): Projekte der Europäisierung. Kulturanthropologische Forschungsperspektiven. Frankfurt/Main 2009, S. 262.], then the theoretical approaches of Verdery[63 - Verdery, Katherine: What was socialism and what comes next? Princeton 1996.] and Buchowski[64 - Buchowski, Michał: Rethinking transformation an anthropological perspective on post-socialism. Poznań 2001.] in contexts of post-socialist Poland and Romania are applicable in the field of post-socialist Kaliningrad transition under European surrounding. As is known, the «collapse of the Soviet Union changed the geopolitical, economic and mental maps, and withdrew the elementary ordering paradigm, historical basis»[65 - Verdery, Katherine: What was socialism and what comes next? Princeton 1996, p. 4.] in all abovementioned societies.
Nonetheless, for many «Easterners», the West continues to be a model they want to apply, in which democracy, free market, consumption and affluence prevail. But for quite a few among them the effective realization of this goal now looms as a menace over local economic interests and national, religious and cultural identity. The principle of hierarchy has come to dominate the redefinition of identities[66 - Buchowski, Michał: Rethinking transformation an anthropological perspective on post-socialism. Poznań 2001, p. 175.].
Regional culture of Kaliningrad enclave
In the 1990s, the studies of regional particularities were intensified in the Russian social sciences. Studies were promoted by the trend of regional sovereignty, requiring the development of a new regional cultural policy; as well as the need for understanding the specifics of regional development in the context of globalization.
The majority of Russian researchers agree: the distinctiveness of the culture of each particular region due to a variety of geographic, economic, historical and social factors, as well as the specifics of the socio-cultural experience and cultural consciousness of residents. In particular the problems of regional culture are discussed in the theoretical studies of cultural philosophy and cultural studies[67 - Kagan, Moisey: Filosofija kultury. Sankt-Petersburg 1996.].
Taking into account the objectives set out in this study should be made, first of all, the following concepts: region[68 - Voskressenski, Alexei; Porfiriev, Boris; Columbus, Frank (ed,): Russia on the Brink of the Millennium: International Policy and National Security Issues. New York 1998.]; regional culture[69 - Ljapkina, Tatjana: Region kak predmet mezhdisziplinarnogo analiza. In: Sozialno-gumanitarnyje znanija, 3 (2007).]; are applied to the Kaliningrad regional culture – enclave and exclave[70 - Vinokurov, Evgenij: Anklavy v mirovoj politike i ekonomike: opyt poslednich desjatiletij. In: Mezhdynarodnaja ekonomika i mezhdynarodnyje otnoshenija, 9 (2002).]; cultural landscape[71 - Zamjatin, Dmitrij: Kultura i prostransto: Modelirovanije geograficheskich obrazov. Moscow 2006.].
The concept – the region – is considered in the thesis as a socio-cultural phenomenon, which is caused by the specifics of the geopolitical, ethno-cultural, historical and cultural diversity of the Kaliningrad region.
Regional culture is understood in this thesis as original integrity of certain area, which is reflected in the human mind, representing the unity of the world of nature, and society. This totality has temporal and spatial characteristics.
Since the literature on various aspects of the Kaliningrad region often contains the term enclave/exclave and enclaveness/exclaveness, so in the dissertation analyzed the significance of these definitions and varied contexts of their application. According to fundamental research on this topic by Vinokourov[72 - Vinokurov, Еvgenij: Teorija anklavov, Kaliningrad 2007.], I define the enclave as part of the territory of the state, surrounded by the territory of another state. In cases if the area has access to the sea used the notion of half-enclave. The decisive criterion for enclave-defining is the sovereignty over a particular territory. Under the working theories of exclaves, an exclave is understood as a region separated from the mainland, surrounded by more than one other state: since Lithuania declared independence in 1990 the Kaliningrad region became an exclave of the Soviet Union, but after its collapse – an exclave of the Russian Federation.
Exclaveness, pogranichnost[73 - Pogranichnost’ – is finding yourself in a «bordered zone» between physical borders, which forms a specific psychological status.], multi-ethnicity, multireligious, multilayered ambivalence are hallmarks of the Kaliningrad region culture, that’s why has importance the concept of the Kaliningrad regional identity: it reflects the specific features of bordered region.
In this thesis to analyze the cultural space of the Kaliningrad region and to identify its specific was applied cultural approach, which allowed integrating accumulated research knowledge about the region. Cultural analysis involves a comprehensive study of the processes and trends taking place in the cultural space of the region.
Cultural analysis of complexly organized cultural space of the Kaliningrad region has caused a systematic approach to development, which had an important methodological significance for this study.
In this regard, was paid considerable attention to the concepts of enclave/exclave self-consciousness. Also in the thesis the influence of the enclave/exclave condition of the region on the identity of youth is shown. Therefore, the proposition is substantiated: in result of exclave character of region among young residents forming an identity, which is different from typical Russian – regional and local components are more significant than in other regions of Russia.
Thereby I perceive the region as a concentration of cultural reflection, which gives rise to new cultural meanings and creates new cultural texts that embody regional, Russian and all-European features.
I assume that the cultural space has integrative and evaluative properties. I share the point of view of cultural scientist Lotman[74 - Lotman, Yuri: Kultura i vzryv, Moscow 1992.]. He defined cultural space as a shared memory space from the standpoint of semiotic concept of culture. That is, culture is a collective memory and collective intelligence, which produces a supra-individual mechanism for storing and transferring of traditional texts, and developing of new texts.
However, time transforms the system of cultural codes, and thus changing the paradigm of memory – it is particularly the case within the Kaliningrad regional culture in the context of discussions about the relation to the German cultural heritage of the former East Prussia. Memory function allows restoring cultural dimensions. In the cultural space can coexist cultural dimensions of the present and of the past: their dialogue. It is about the coexistence of cultures, intercultural dialogue, which – given the meaning the pogranichnost of the regional culture and its historical specificity – is of particular importance for this study.
I distinguish and implement the following spatial couples, which, in my opinion, are specific especially for Kaliningrad regional culture: mainland/enclave, surrounding state/half-enclave, Russia/West, center /periphery, Königsberg/Kaliningrad.
Results of empirical studies show that in the case of Kaliningrad regional culture, in contrast to the typical Russian dichotomy of East/West and Europe/Asia, following semantic pairs have fundamental meaning – West (Kaliningrad region) /East (Russia) and Europe/ Russia (Kaliningrad region).
Identity: Transnational region
It should be taken into account that potential rivalries and conflicts between local, regional, national and supranational levels of co-operation must not be ignored. At best, these levels complement each other, creating a European identity in diversity[75 - Bort, Eberhard: Mitteleuropa: the difficult frontier. In: Anderson, Malcolm; Bort, Eberhard (ed.): The frontiers of Europe. London 1998, p. 103.]. We can find the increased attention to the «Europe of the regions»[76 - Keating, Michael: Is there a regional level of government in Europe? In: Le Gales/Lequesne 1998, p. 8—26.] in numerous studies. Generally, this attention is directed to the «interaction of memory culture and regional history»[77 - Schmid, Harald (ed.): Erinnerungskultur und Regionalgeschichte. München 2009; Lancaster et I al. 2007], as well as to political, economic, and social forces involved in constituting a region and establishing regional identities[78 - Mühler, Kurt; Opp, Karl – Dieter: Region und Nation: Zu den Ursachen und Wirkungen regionaler und überregionaler Identifikation. Wiesbaden 2004].
As I turned to the issue of the region and to Kaliningrad region as an example of it, than would be taken into account that the meaning attached to region can vary quite dramatically depending on the perspective from which it is considered. As Michael Keating notes, «there is consensus that the term refers to space, the notion of space itself can have several meanings: territorial space; political space and the space of social interaction; economic space; functional space»[79 - Keating, Michael: Is there a regional level of government in Europe? In: Le Gales/Lequesne 1998, p. 8.].
Identity is considered being a very versatile and controversial, capacious concept, which occupies a key place in the discourse of Kaliningrad (inside) and about Kaliningrad (from outside). The inevitable background of this discourse is the border modality of the region. If I turn to Barth, who pointed out that the differences between cultures, and their historic boundaries and connections, have been given much attention, I recognize that his study provided a significant impetus to expand the horizons of the state of research in the second half of the 20th century, with a focus on the «constitution of ethnic groups, and the nature of the boundaries between them»[80 - Barth, Fredrik: Ethnic groups and boundaries: the social organization of cultural difference. Long Grove 1998, p. 9.], which have not been correspondingly investigated before. Opinion that the borders are «meaning-making and meaning-carrying entities, parts of cultural landscapes which often transcend the physical limits of the state and defy the power of state institutions»[81 - Donnan, Hastings; Wilson, Thomas: Borders: frontiers of identity, nation and state. Oxford 1999, p. 4.] finds justification in a place like the ambivalent region of Kaliningrad.
Martinez[82 - Martinez, Oscar: Border people: Life and society in the U. S. – Mexico borderlands. Tucson 1994, p. 6—10.] based his concept of the borderlands milieu, on the study of the US-Mexico border. Such «milieu» can be affected by many cross-border and national factors, which can be grouped in such a way as to produce a typology of borderlands interaction. In the assumption of the concept of Matinez, depending on the political conjuncture the Kaliningrad region as borderland can be attributed to two groups. First, coexistent borderland is present when neighbouring states reduce tensions to a manageable level, and modest cross-border interaction occurs. Second is interdependent borderland, which involves a symbiotic relationship between border regions in adjacent countries. There is a binational economic, social and cultural system at work between the two border regions, and perhaps between their states, but a number of policies retain state separation at the boundary[83 - Donnan, Hastings; Wilson, Thomas: Op. cit., p. 51.]. The existence of binational economic, social and cultural system at work on the level of the two border regions allows us to stress, that the Kaliningrad region nowadays can move towards the tendency of an interdependent borderland.
In the issue, anthropological research on border cultures contributes to our knowledge of identity formation[84 - Ibid, p.13.]. Taking into account the concept of Martinez, it is worth to note that the Kaliningrad borderland is bears the imprint of ambivalence, which is reflected, cultivated and maintained in the mindsets of young Kaliningradians. Because of their transborder and transnational linkages, these border cultures are often treated suspiciously by states and their agents, many of whom believe in the traditional view of the convergence of state, nation, identity and territory[85 - Ibid, p. 53.]. As we know the stronger rulers belief was that strict control of the frontier was essential to the maintenance of their power[86 - Anderson, Malcolm: Frontiers: territory and State Formation in the Modern World. Oxford 1996, p. 5.]. The above is manifested in the Kaliningrad regional culture, forms it and affects the everyday practices.
It is certainly a commonplace in the interdisciplinary field of border studies that the border can only be conceptualized as being shaped and produced by a multiplicity of actors, movements and discourses. But most of these studies still perceive the practices of doing borderwork and making borders as «acts and techniques of state»[87 - Casas-Cortes, Maribel; Cobarrubias, Sebastian; De Genova, Nicholas; Garelli, Glenda; Grappi, Giorgio; Heller, Charles; Hess, Sabine; Kasparek, Bernd; Mezzadra, Sandro and al.: New keywords: migration and borders. In: Cultural studies. Vol. 29, Issue 1 (2015), p. 15.], more specifically state political institutions. Then from the empirical point, the politicization of cultural identity requires people to react against their own felt disadvantage and denigration, as well as occurring in characteristic economic and political circumstances[88 - Cohen, Anthony: Boundaries and boundary-consciousness: politicizing cultural identity. In: Anderson, Malcolm; Bort, Eberhard (ed.): The frontiers of Europe. London 1998, p. 31.].
During my empirical study I asked my respondents about the format of interaction within political, economic and cultural dimensions in the space of the borderland region and whether it is legitimate to talk about the hierarchy or the interdependence of these measurements. I have collected very different answers, which made the basis of empirical research in the light of the idea that the culture is but one element in the definition and reproduction of a political system.
I consider the point of Strassoldo relevant who concluded that the ambivalence of border life is a defining feature of border societies in several respects[89 - Strassoldo, Raimondo: Boundaries in sociological theory; A reassessment. In: Strassoldo, Raimondo; Delli Zotti, G. (ed.): Cooperation and conflict in border areas. Milan 1982, p. 152.]. Border people may demonstrate ambiguous identities because economic, cultural and linguistic factors pull them in two directions. They are also pulled two ways politically, and may display only a weak identification with the nation-state in which they reside. This ambivalent border identity affects the role that border communities play in international cooperation and conflict[90 - Strassoldo, Raimondo: Frontier regions: Future collaboration or conflict? In: West European politics. Vol. 5, no. 4, 1982.]. Everyday practice of young Kaliningradians and empirical research logically fall on this theoretical basis.
For Anderson, borders are both institutions and processes. Anderson also stresses that «borders are markers of identity, and have played a role in this century in making national identity the pre-eminent political identity of the modern state»[91 - Donnan, Hastings; Wilson, Thomas: Borders: frontiers of identity, nation and state. Oxford 1999, p. 5.].
The frontiers are markers of identity, in the twentieth century usually of national identity, although political identities may be larger or smaller than the «nation» state. Frontiers, in this sense, are part of political beliefs and myths about the unity of the people and sometimes myths about the «natural» unity of a territory[92 - Anderson, Malcolm: Frontiers: territory and State Formation in the Modern World. Oxford 1996, p. 2.]. These «imagined communities», to use Anderson’s[93 - Anderson, Benedict: Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London 1983.] phrase, are now a universal phenomenon and often have deep historical roots. These communities are defined by imagined boundaries, if we follow Cohen’s remark, that «where cultural difference was formerly underpinned also by structural boundaries, these have now given way to boundaries which inhere in the mind: symbolic boundaries»[94 - Cohen, Anthony (ed.): Symbolizing Boundaries. Manchester 1986, p. 17.]. To accept this assumption, we must proceed from the fact that «human consciousness and social organization are profoundly conditioned by territory and frontiers»[95 - Anderson, Malcolm: Op. cit., p. 189.]. I note the importance, of how Cohen estimates symbols as a resource for identity. According to his point of view they are «pragmatic devices which are invested with meaning through social process of one kind or another, they are potent resources in the arenas of politics and identity»[96 - Cohen, Anthony: Boundaries and boundary-consciousness: politicizing cultural identity. In: Anderson, Malcolm; Bort, Eberhard (ed.): The frontiers of Europe. London 1998, p. 23.].
I share the view, that in certain circumstances the frontier acquired a mythic significance in building nations and political identities, becoming, as Anderson signalized, the mythomoteur of a whole society[97 - Anderson, Malcolm: Frontiers: territory and State Formation in the Modern World. Oxford 1996, p. 4.].
For Barth[98 - Barth, Fredrik: Ethnic groups and boundaries: the social organization of cultural difference. Long Grove 1998.], ethnic groups are socially designed using individuals who adjust their cultural identity by emphasizing or underplaying it according to current context. Individuals can cross the boundaries between groups if they find it advantageous to do. Moreover they can maintain regular relations across them, but this does not affect the durability and stability of the boundaries themselves. Accordingly, «cultural emblems and differences are thus significant only in so far as they are socially effective, as an organizational device for articulating social relations»[99 - Donnan, Hastings; Wilson, Thomas: Borders: frontiers of identity, nation and state. Oxford 1999, p. 21.].
Here it is necessary to bear in mind that according to the discourse of anthropology the «boundary» is the word with the most general application; whereas the term «border» item is situationally specific and «frontier» has come to be reserved to fairly strictly limited geopolitical and legal applications[100 - Cohen, Anthony: Boundaries and boundary-consciousness: politicizing cultural identity. In: Anderson, Malcolm; Bort, Eberhard (ed.): The frontiers of Europe. London 1998, p. 26.]. At that point following question has considerable importance, «why inter-group boundaries are sharply marked even as people cross them and even as the cultural differences between the groups change»[101 - Donnan, Hastings; Wilson, Thomas: Borders: Op. cit., p.22.].
In this regard, I share the view of Sezneva who, in writing about Kaliningrad, takes the point that «there are no reasons to believe that a certain behavioral pattern will automatically lead to the formation of a particular political attitude, or learning about a history will automatically form a particular identity. How people categorize and identity the social world and themselves within it, and how these categories impact on their behavior are not the same issue. Categories of self-understanding do not always provide a basis for collective action and the formation of collective subject-ness»[102 - Sezneva, Olga: Modalities of Self-understanding, Identification and Representation in the Post-1991 Kaliningrad. A Critical View. In: Berger, Stefan (Hg.): Kaliningrad in Europa. Nachbarschaftliche Perspektiven nach dem Ende des Kalten Krieges. Wiesbaden 2010, p. 37.].
As Barth stressed, the critical focus of investigation should be «the ethnic boundary that defines the group, not the cultural stuff that it encloses»[103 - Barth, Fredrik: Ethnic groups and boundaries: the social organization of cultural difference. London 1969, p. 15.]. As known, Barth emphasizes that boundary-making involves two phenomena: self-ascription and ascription by others. But he tends to focus on one side rather than the other, emphasizing internal identification rather than external constraint and the shaping influence of wider structures, such as those of class and the state. However, it makes sense to distinguish «between two analytically distinct processes of ascription: group identification and social categorization. The first occurs inside the… boundary, the second outside and across it»[104 - Jenkins, Richard: Rethinking ethnicity: Arguments and explorations. London 1997, p. 23.].
Cohen takes the similar point as Barth. He stresses that «culture, identity and symbolism all converge on the concept of ethnicity» and makes a critic of the last one: «In some respects, this is the most difficult word of the three, since it appears to mean something – indeed, has been imported into lay usage for this reason – but, in practice, means either everything or nothing at all. Ethnicity has become the politicization of culture»[105 - Cohen, Anthony: Boundaries and boundary-consciousness: politicizing cultural identity. In: Anderson, Malcolm; Bort, Eberhard (ed.): The frontiers of Europe. London 1998, p. 23.].
Cooper and Brubaker argue that «identity» is always «situated» and «contextual»[106 - Brubaker, Rogers; Cooper, Frederick: Beyond «Identity». In: Theory and Society 29 (2000), p. 1 – 47.]. This related to approach of viewing identity as «a process that is a temporal and dynamic phenomenon, which has a history, and even is itself situated in history as experience»[107 - Sezneva, Olga: Modalities of Self-understanding, Identification and Representation in the Post-1991 Kaliningrad. A Critical View. In: Berger, Stefan (Hg.): Kaliningrad in Europa. Nachbarschaftliche Perspektiven nach dem Ende des Kalten Krieges. Wiesbaden 2010, p. 49.].
A combination of historical memory and geography provides a sense of commonality resulting in a perceived, distinct kind of groupness[108 - Ibid, p. 52.]. Does this thesis holds true in Kaliningrad? If Kaliningrad’s territorial isolation engenders a sense of «boundedness»? Borders operate as hard geographic facts and geographic borders translated into social boundaries. If the choice with whom to distinguish themselves (Russian or Europeans) is a choice between two temporalities for Kaliningradians?[109 - Ibid, p. 51.] These questions need to find their answer in this thesis.
Structure of thesis
The main part of the thesis consists of three chapters.
The first is «The Kaliningrad region and its historical background» illuminates the issues of historical background and birth of the Kaliningrad Oblast’. Significant attention paid to migration flows as a source of demographic capacity before the collapse of the USSR and the formation of regional society.
For a comprehensive review of the historical context attention is paid to the deportation of German population and analysis of the settlement of first Kaliningradians. In this regard, important sources are archival materials and the results of the project «Settlers tell» of Kaliningradian historians led by Kostyashov.
We have in the focus the period of formation of the urban landscape of Kaliningrad, its perception by residents and public authorities. During this period of time, the establishment of Kaliningrad as a typical Soviet city based on official model of development of socialistic urban communities occurred. Migration dynamics is experiencing fluctuations and has changed the essence of the regional society in 1950—1980’s.
The developing of generational change and perception of cultural and historical heritage among Kaliningradians and followed change of cultural paradigm are resulted from a complex social und public process. It may be distinguished the process of cognition under the signs of «complex of temporality», «outpost in the West» and «suitcase mood». Attention is given to the turn of 1960—70s, which I believe is appropriate to be designated as the beginning of the mastering of the cultural urban landscape.
This chapter also devoted to theoretical approaches to the Kaliningrad region as exclave in consequence of the collapse of the USSR.
The next two chapters are based on empirical material including interviews and participated observations. The chapter «Positioning between Europe and Russia: strategies and experiences of Europeanization and exceptionality of Kaliningrad everyday» discloses the issue under the motto «what is the European everyday life of Kaliningradians?»
The strategy of everyday practices is affected by the emotional sentiments under the slogans of «fragment of Russia», «poor neighbor» and «pilot region». The Small border traffic, which was put into practice as an example of cross-border «European» everyday life in Kaliningrad is disclosed under the title «Hallo, Lidl, hallo Bedronka». Motives, moods, expectations from trans-boundary movements are viewed through the prism of emotional perception of territorial marginality as the characteristic and inevitable property of daily life in Kaliningrad.
Through the content of the chapter come the issue of «separatist sentiment» as a manifestation of «distinctiveness» and consciousness of the «uniqueness» as part of the public discourse and issue of loyalty to state. The Spirit of «pilot-ness» among Kaliningradians plays role of justification and attribution of distinctiveness of regional culture. «Pilot-ness» is understood as a concept with mostly a positive connotation.
The issue of consciousness of the third generation of Kaliningradians is based on the historical heritage as an actor of the transformation of mentality, which nourishes the discourse about the significance of the historic core of the city and cultural heritage. We approach the potentiality to reflect the past in the present and affect the future.
During interviews the question of «how and who distinguish themselves as young Kaliningradians» was articulated, as well as the adequacy and applicability of the issue «periphery» and metaphor of «bridge» on the boundary of Russian-EU landscape.
Appeal to the issue of the Kaliningradian identification on the transnational space takes place through the prism of All-Russian National Census 2010, which uncovered and marked the phenomenon of nationality «Kaliningradian» as reflection of marginality, rootlessness, and ambivalence.
The last chapter «Kaliningrad regional culture: self-consciousness (Selbstverständigung) in transnational space» reveals positioning and self-identification in the context of Kaliningradians boundary modalities. The historical context and cultural transborder’s dialog plays a role through the prism of migration mobility after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The issue of borderland communities occupies a prominent place in the theory of anthropology and sociology. In this chapter, extensive attention is paid to the perception of the «space» and the aspiration of self-identity, as well as to the theme of Kaliningrad regional culture as a component (periphery) of the Russian national culture and as a link to the European cultural space.
The final part of the last chapter is devoted to empirical research in the «remote field» in relation to the «home field». During two years I had numerous interviews with Kaliningradians, which temporarily or permanently live in Berlin and find the field for the implementation of their motivations, ideas and projects. My respondents were young specialists and teams of professionals who implement and develop their startup initiatives and projects in the field of culture and innovative technologies.
I has spent considerable time searching for relevant respondents and localization of participating observation, because Kaliningradians in Berlin are not numerous and scattered among different co-working spaces and events. A process of search revealed that the consolidating center or space does not exist and is not even forming.
I study the role of startup scene as a channel of transnational mobility for young Kaliningradians and analyzed this role, within entrepreneurs’ initiatives of Kaliningradians in the Berlin startup-scene through theories of self-identity and transmigration.
2. The Kaliningrad region and its historical background
2.1. Birth of the Kaliningrad Oblast
The Kaliningrad regional culture is marked by the presence of ethno-cultural, geopolitical, and historical phenomena. It represents intensive cross-cultural interaction so that it has a considerable sociocultural dynamics and increasing cultural uncertainty. This comprehension is important for the study of the features of ethno-cultural particularity of the Kaliningrad region in terms of European neighbourhood. In this regard, the issues of correlation of national, local, and regional dimensions acquire urgency. The establishment of the region almost 70 years ago as a Soviet Oblast initiated the formation of peculiar social and cultural phenomenon.
The 20th century is characterized by significant and momentous changes on the map of Europe, which suddenly affected the way of life of millions of people and their domicile. The Kaliningrad region is one of the smallest regions of the Russian Federation, which has found a new history, cultural, and social profile due to incorporation to the Soviet Union in 1945. This fact was possible in consequence of World War II and of the diplomatic negotiations that took place between the US, Great Britain, and the USSR.
An intent look at this history is a significant step to grasp a full-scale perspective on the issue. How has the fate of former East Prussia been decided that resulted on the map of Europe a new territorial entity, the Kaliningrad region? Familiarity with this history provides an understanding of how ambiguous the process was. Appeal to the history helps us to understand the peculiarities of perception of this area by the first settlers and official Soviet authorities after the war, to estimate the origins of the contemporary post-Soviet identity of Kaliningradians and their interests in the neighbourhood countries of the European Union and their territorial isolation from the «large Russia».
The issue of East Prussia has appeared in the records of high-level diplomatic negotiations in the initial phase of World War II, when the outcome of the war was not known. On 5 December 1941, during the meeting with the Soviet ambassador in London, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill has explained his idea: «The main challenge is to once and for all eliminate the German threat. This task requires the complete disarmament of Germany at least within of one generation and the fragmentation of Germany, especially separation of Prussia»[110 - Sovetsko-anglijskie otnoshenija vo vremia Velikoj Otechestvennoj voiny 1941—1945. Moscow 1983. Vol. 1, p. 182.].
On 16 December 1941, Joseph Stalin in Moscow during negotiations with British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden proposed to add to the draft agreement on joint actions the secret protocol on separation of Germany after the war into few independent states. The part of East Prussia with Königsberg he proposed to transfer to the USSR under a term of 20 years as a guarantee of reimbursement of incurred losses from the war with Germany[111 - USSR i Germanskij vopros. 1941—1949. Мoscow 1996. Vol.1, p. 138.]. This attempt to probe English colleagues was not accident: In fact, it was based on the point of view of Churchill, who expressed his opinion a little earlier in conversations with Soviet representatives in London.
During negotiations, Anthony Eden said that Great Britain promised Poland that its borders would be settled at the final peace conference after the war. Stalin suggested that «the western border of Poland will include East Prussia and Corridor (Gdansk). Poland’s eastern border with the Soviet Union has to go along the river Neman, and Tilsit should be in the hands of Lithuania, which is constituted as a portion of the USSR. Further to the south this border should go roughly along the Curzon line[112 - The «Curzon Line» was recommended in December 1919 by the Supreme Council of the Entente as the eastern border of Poland. The project of boundary was named in honour of Lord Curzon, the British Foreign Secretary, who took into account the ethnic composition of population along boundary line. As a result of the offensive of the Red Army in August 1939 the state border of the USSR with Poland was set roughly along the Curzon line.], which can be partially modified to a certain point»[113 - Rzheshevskij, Oleg: Vizit A. Idena v Moskvu v dekabre 1941. In: Novaja i noveishaja istorija, №2, 1994, p. 91.]. By insisting on the immediate recognition of borders of the USSR by the British government, Stalin stated unequivocally that he «puts the conclusion of any kind of Anglo-Soviet agreement under condition of an agreement on this issue»[114 - Churchill, Winston: Vtoraja mirovaja vojna. Moscow 1991. Vol. 6, p. 325.].
Thus, from the very beginning of the war the issue of East Prussia became a part of the Polish question, which was of strategic importance for the Great Powers in framing East European policy. Despite East Prussia being part of Germany, the fate of Konigsberg in times of negotiations was dependent on the Polish question.
The dynamics of the negotiations on the subject can be tracked in the course of major conferences and meetings of representatives of the USSR, the USA, the UK, as well as those of the Polish government-in-exile.
At one of the meetings of the Moscow Conference of Foreign Ministers of the USSR, the USA and the UK (19—30 October 1943), which was actually a rehearsal for the Tehran conference, the issue of the fate of Germany was considered. This question was raised on the initiative of the US. Eden laid out the plan of the British government on the future of Germany: «We would like to divide the Germany into separate states; in particular, we would welcome the detachment of Prussia from the rest of Germany»[115 - Sovetskij Sojuz na mezhdynarodnych konferencijach perioda Velikoj Otechestvennoj voiny 1941—1945. Мoscow 1978. Vol. 1, p. 181.]. According to Eden, Franklin Roosevelt told him about the need of formation on the territory of Germany of three new states – Prussia, the Federation of Rhineland, and the South-German Union. The US government was divided on the question of the forms of decentralization of Germany, but its influential members were in favour of the fragmentation of Eastern Prussia.
Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov in reply said that the public opinion of the Soviet Union, «speaks for the dismemberment of Germany by addressing this issue on top of allies»[116 - Ibid, p. 183.].
The reference to public opinion in the Soviet Union is cynical, as it is obvious that it had no place and could not have any. However, this is a very important point, which is worth paying attention to. At that time, the military, party staff, and the civilian population began to form an idea of Prussia as a ’centuries-old bridgehead for aggression on Russia’, as «the main source of German militarism».
At the fourth session of the Tehran conference of the three Allied powers – the USSR, the USA and the UK (28 November – 1 December 1943), American President Roosevelt offered to discuss the issue of the partition of Germany. He said that in order to ’stimulate’ the debate on this issue, he would like to present the «plan for the dismemberment of Germany into five states» drawn up by him two months ago[117 - Sovetskij Sojuz na mezhdynarodnych konferencijach perioda Velikoj Otechestvennoj voiny 1941—1945.Teheranskaja konferencija. Мoscow 1984. Vol. 2, p. 148—149.]. He suggested, «Prussia must be weakened and possibly reduced in size»[118 - Ibid, p. 149.].
In Tehran, from the start of negotiations on the post-war borders in Europe, the issue of East Prussia was considered by the Allied powers as part of the Polish question.
Churchill strongly sought to reach the agreements that he could present to the representatives of the Polish Government-in-exile in London. According to his suggestion, a new Polish state should be located between the Curzon Line and the Oder, including East Prussia.
Stalin said, «Russians have no ice-free ports on the Baltic Sea. Therefore, Russians would need to have ice-free ports of Konigsberg, Memel and some part of the East Prussia. Moreover, historically this is originally Slavic lands. If the British agreed to transfer us mentioned area, then we will agree with the formula proposed by Churchill»[119 - Ibid, p. 150.]. Churchill reacted to this proposal with benevolent curiosity: «This is a very interesting suggestion, which I will look into»[120 - Ibid.].
Indeed, the agreement reached in Tehran largely determined the post-war fate of Eastern Prussia. However, at that moment the Western Allies believed that much was still to come and that they would be able to win back some positions. Nevertheless, the Soviet Union took the irrevocable and uncompromising course for the future inclusion of Poland and East Prussia into its own sphere of influence.
The prevailing practice of the international law permitted withdrawal of certain parts of the state aggressor as a sanction against this state. In this case, the sanction was imposed primarily on the territory, which was used as a springboard for attack to prevent the revival of aggression in future.
On 1 February 1944, Churchill informed Stalin in a message about the meeting with representatives of the Polish Government-in-exile in London: «I told them that we went to war to protect Poland, we went for it not because of any particular borderline, but for the establishment of a strong and independent Poland…»[121 - Perepiska predsedatelja Soveta Ministrov USSR s prezidentami USA i premier-ministrami Welikobritanii vo vremia Velkoj Otechestvennoj voiny 1941—1945. Moscow 1976, Vol. 1, p. 230.]
On 4 February 1944, Stalin, in his reply to Churchill concerning borders of Poland, reiterated, «As for your statement to the Poles that Poland could considerably extend its borders to the west and north, then, as you know, we agree with it, but with amendment. About this amendment, I spoke to you and President Roosevelt in Tehran. We claim the north-eastern part of East Prussia, including the ice-free port Königsberg, which should be ceded to the Soviet Union. This is the only piece of German territory, which we claim…»[122 - Ibid, p. 235.]
In a letter to Stalin, which was received in Moscow on 27 February 1944, Churchill for the first time explicitly stated that the British government supported the transfer of Königsberg and surrounding area to the Soviet Union and considered this claim «as fair»… «The land of this part of East Prussia stained with blood of Russian… therefore, Russian have historical and well-founded claim to this German territory». In the same message, Churchill for the first time spoke in favour of «resettlement of the German population»[123 - Ibid, p. 242—243.].
Winston Churchill and Minister of Foreign Affairs Antony Eden were on a visit to Moscow on the 9—18 October 1944. The head of the Polish government-in-exile Stanislaw Mikolajczyk, who was present during the conversations, asked if he could know which western boundary was defined for Poland in Teheran. Vyacheslav Molotov said that the border along Oder was considered without anyone’s objection. Eden said that «the idea had been that the frontier could be moved as far west toward the Oder as the Poles wished to go». Churchill assured him: «All of East Prussia west and south of Königsberg was to go to Poland»[124 - Feis, Herbert: Churchill. Roosevelt. Stalin. The war they waged and the peace they sought. Princeton 1957, p. 455.].
In early 1945, Soviet troops arrived at the borders of East Prussia. Because of «the East Prussian strategic offensive» of the Red Army (13 January—25 April 1945) on 9 April, the garrison of Konigsberg surrendered. The surrender of Konigsberg actually reinforced the political arrangements over East Prussia. From that moment onwards, the region was under the control of the Soviet Army.
After heated debates on the Yalta conference, the Allies agreed that the eastern border of Poland would have to pass on the «Curzon Line». Therefore, it can be argued that at Yalta Conference in February 1945, the head of the USSR, the USA, and the Great Britain almost solved the issue of the future borders of Poland and the fate of Eastern Prussia. President Roosevelt agreed with Joseph Stalin and Winston Churchill. On the fifth plenary session of the Yalta Conference, it was agreed that «compensation should be given to Poland at the expense of Germany, including that portion of East Prussia south of the Königsberg line…»[125 - Ibid, p. 525.]
The agreement in principle was reached – only the details remained to be discussed. This discussion took place at the Conference of Potsdam from 17 July to 2 September 1945. At the seventh meeting of the heads of governments on 23 July, the issue of the transfer of the region around Königsberg to the Soviet Union was discussed. Stalin recalled that «President Roosevelt and Mr Churchill at the Tehran Conference gave their consent in this regard, and this issue has been agreed between us. We would like to have this agreement confirmed at this conference»[126 - Teheran – Yalta – Potsdam. Sbornik dokumentov. Мoscow 1970, p. 161—162.]. In response to the exchange of opinions, the US and Great Britain delegations confirmed their consent given in Tehran.
According to an agreement in the communiqué of 2 August 1945 of the Berlin conference, the sixth section under the title «City of Königsberg and the surrounding area» stated the following: «The Conference has agreed in principle to the proposal of the Soviet government concerning the ultimate transfer to the Soviet Union of the City of Königsberg and the area adjacent to it as described above, subject to expert examination of the actual frontier»[127 - Potsdamer Konferenz, http://potsdamer-konferenz.de/dokumente/protokoll_en.php#VI, accessed on 23.02.2014.].
