Räumliche Identifikationen und Identifizierungen in Grenzregionen. Das Beispiel der Großregion SaarLorLux - Étudier les identités spatiales pour étudier la frontière. Une analyse pluridimensionnelle

Border Region

Greater Region

Language(s)

Français

Allemand

Type

Note on a scientific paper, a conference paper, etc.

Main Category

Language – Culture – Identity

Theories – Concepts – Terms

Introduction

This paper analyzes the significance of national borders for spatial identities in border regions.

Summary

In order to analyze the importance of national borders for spatial identities in border regions, a multidimensional analysis model will be developed. Using the example of the SaarLorLux Greater Region, both the representation of space and the organization of the everyday practices of the residents of the region as well as the spatial projections in political discourses are examined. It becomes clear that, despite cross-border interdependencies, national borders play an important role in the residents’ processes of identification with and identification by/of. However, they are not regarded as rigid categories.

Content

The cross-border region of the SaarLorLux Greater Region is used as an example to illustrate the separating and uniting effect of national borders. After a brief description of the region, the institutional discourse, which is characterized by keywords such as “Europe in miniature” or “common past” and thus aims at relativizing national borders, is explained. From a social constructivist perspective, the author examines the extent to which a SaarLorLux Greater Region is identified in the context of national border demarcations and the extent to which the residents of the region identify with (cross-border) space.

In the beginning, an analysis model (4-field matrix) will be developed that enables the investigation of spatial identities as a Doing Identity. The model comprises the empirical levels “institutional dimension” and “everyday cultural dimension” as well as the conceptual approaches “identification of space” and “identification with space.” The heuristic central questions refer to institutional identifications (QA), everyday cultural identifications by/of (QB), everyday cultural identifications with (QC) and identifications with institutional categories (QD). The results are summarized below.

The study of institutional identifications (QA) is based on the results of Sonja Kmec’s (2010) work on the discursive constructions of the Greater Region (“Les constructions discursives de la Grande Région”). She states, among other things, that the Greater Region is a political construction of the 1970s and presents the “common Greater Regional identity” as a motive of political discourse. This general motive can in turn be subdivided into various sub-motives:

common past (l'Europe avant-la-lettre)
common present (l'Europe en miniature)
common future (l'Europe en harmonie)(Kmec 2010: 54pp.).

An interview series from Wille/Reckinger/Kmec/Hesse (2016) is used to record everyday cultural identifications by/of (QB), in which residents of the Greater Region were asked openly what they understand by “Greater Region.” Most of the respondents first tried to determine the geographical layout of the SaarLorLux Greater Region. In addition, some of the interviewees stated that they were familiar with the term “Greater Region” from media coverage. Furthermore, the term is associated with cross-border or European cooperation (predominantly the results of cooperation that can be experienced in everyday culture). Other topics include cross-border cooperation and the possibility to “be in another country quickly” (p. 9).

The analysis of everyday cultural identification with (QC) is based on quantitative results from Wille/Reckinger/Kmec/Hesse (2016). In terms of spatial appropriation, shopping for daily needs, (tourist) recreational practices in the countryside, attending cultural events and visiting friends were mentioned most frequently.

The analysis of identification with institutional categories (QD) is also based on results from Wille/Reckinger/Kmec/Hesse (2016). The main question is: to what extent do geopolitical spatial categories and spatial projections form a basis for residents’ identification with cross-border space? The results show that the residents feel the strongest sense of belonging in their country of residence. The sense of belonging to the residential region and the place of residence is also particularly pronounced. However, only one third of the residents surveyed identify themselves with the SaarLorLux Greater Region. The following is an assessment of the sub-motives by residential region of the respondents.

While Kmec (2010) identified a “common Greater Regional identity” as a motive of political discourse, it became clear that although the inhabitants’ spatial constitutions and appropriations refer to the Greater Region’s residents’ identifications with spaces beyond national borders, everyday practices are still most frequently carried out in the place of residence.

Contents

Introduction
On the Analysis of Spatial Identities
Institutional Identifications (QA)
Everyday Cultural Identifications by/of (QB)
Everyday Cultural Identifications with (QC)
Identifications with Institutional Categories (QD)
Borders and Spatial Identities
Bibliography

Conclusions

The investigation of institutional identifications shows that the Greater Region is a political construction of the 1970s. In the political discourse, the general motive of a “common Greater Regional identity” becomes clear. In response to the open question about the understanding of the term “Greater Region,” the inhabitants surveyed usually first try to determine the geographical layout of the SaarLorLux Greater Region. In addition, some of the interviewees stated that they were familiar with the term “Greater Region” from media coverage. The term is also associated with cross-border or European cooperation. Other topics include cross-border cooperation and the possibility to “be in another country quickly” (p. 9). In terms of spatial appropriation (everyday cultural identification with), shopping for daily needs, (tourist) recreational practices in the countryside, attending cultural events and visiting friends were mentioned most frequently. The results of the question on identification with institutional categories show that the inhabitants feel that they belong the most to their country of residence. The sense of belonging to the residential region and the place of residence is also particularly pronounced. However, only one third of the residents surveyed identify themselves with the SaarLorLux Greater Region. The political vision of a spatial sense of multiple belongings of the residents of the region is justified by everyday cross-border practices, although “identification with the region of residence (still) clearly outweighs identification with the cross-border region” (p. 19).

Key Messages

In order to analyze the importance of national borders for spatial identities in border regions, a multidimensional analysis model will be developed.
While Kmec (2010) identified a “common Greater Regional identity” as a motive of political discourse, it became clear that although the Greater Region’s residents’ spatial constitutions and appropriations refer to their identifications with spaces beyond national borders, everyday practices are still most frequently carried out in the place of residence.
Despite cross-border interdependencies, national borders play an important role in the residents’ processes of identification with and identification by/of. However, they are not regarded as rigid categories.

Lead

Christian Wille

Author of the entry

Christian

WILLE

Contributions

Sylvie Considère

Thomas Perrin

Links

http://hdl.handle.net/10993/31180

http://hdl.handle.net/10993/33789

Keywords