Back to the journal2019 year №3

Specificity of Borderline Identity: Theoretical Constructs and Modern Challenges

Read the articleRead the articleDownload the article
The authors of the publication:
Vermenych Yaroslava
p.:
5-27
UDC:
316.374(1-192.2)+303.094.4
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15407/nte2019.02.005
Bibliographic description:
Vermenych, Ya. (2019) Specificity of Borderline Identity: Theoretical Constructs and Modern Challenges. Folk Art and Ethnology, 2 (378), 5–27.

Author

Vermenych Yaroslava

a Ph.D. in History, a professor, a head of Historical Regional Studies Department of the Institute of History of Ukraine (NAS of Ukraine)

 

Specificity of Borderline Identity: Theoretical Constructs and Modern Challenges

 

Abstract

The borderland phenomenon has not occupied a noticeable place in the historical analysis for a long time. The combination of globalization processes with the phenomenon of geo­cultural regionalism in the areas adjacent to the borders has changed the concept of the borderland into a fashionable brand. It is a fact that near the boundaries the zones of higher energetics have been noticed by the geographers for the first time. The author of the theory of cross­cultural communication V. Derhachov still at the late XXth century has written about the linearity as a strategic resource that produces energy of creation and destruction with a kind of ‘priorities competition’. In his vision, Ukraine is a typical frontier state, in which the ‘edges’ of the three geopolitical, socio­cultural and geo­economic spaces are converged in modern times: Western European, Eastern European and Mediterranean. Three socio­cultural areas that are now identified with Western, Eastern and Southern Ukraine are connected historically with Ukraine borders.

The concept of borderline communication introduced into scientific discourse has opened the way to the study of boundaries as peculiar topoi with inherent features of transition, instability, various political orientations. World science is now actively developing the borderland concept as an explanatory scheme, offering an understanding of local specificity through the historical reconstruction of the boundary spaces and the corresponding geo­cultural images.

Modern definitions of socio­cultural boundary are based on the fixation of the boundaries in a certain region, which indicates the limits of settling and the availability of carriers of different cultures and civilizations. It is considered as the result of a complex process of the ethnos rooting in a certain type of landscape. Besides that, the border and corridor conceptions are usually considered as synonymous. In parallels, there is an update of the terminological tools by the account of the modern view on the culture of conflict, the correlation of problems of self­determination, sovereignty, separatism, etc.

 

Keywords

borderline identity, geopolitics, regional specificity, Ukrainian­Russian relations, conflicts of interests and values.

 

References

  1. Aleksiyevets, M., Aleksiyevets, L., Yuriy, M. (2014) Society and Culture as Key Components of Civilization. Ukraine - Europe - World. An International Collection of Scientific Papers. International Relations Series. Ternopil, Iss. 14, 249-264.
  2. Breskiy, O., Breskaya, O. (2008) Essays on Deconstructing the «Eastern Europe» Concept. From Transitology to the Frontier Theory. Vilnius: EHU, 336 pp.
  3. Burlachuk, V. (2016) Dynamics of Openness and Closeness in Ukrainian Society. Ukrainian Society: Social Changes Monitoring. Kyiv: Institute of Sociology of the NAS of Ukraine, Iss. 3(17), pp. 100-102.
  4. Vermenych, Ya. (2015) Donbas as a Frontier Region: A Territorial Dimension. Kyiv: Institute of History of Ukraine, 69 pp.
  5. Wzhosek, W. (2011) History - Culture - Metaphor. On Historical Thought. Kyiv: Nika-Tsentr, 296 pp.
  6. Vovkodav, Yu. (2017) Others. The Mirror Weekly, May 20.
  7. Wojakowski, D. (2012). Mental Frontiers in Europe without Frontiers. Kyiv: Nika-Tsentr, 320 pp.
  8. Hetmantsev, D. (2016) Collision of Civilizations. The Mirror Weekly, March 26.
  9. Horbulin, V. (2016) Hybrid War: Everything Just Begins… The Mirror Weekly, March 26.
  10. Hrabovskyi, S. (2017) On What Capital Should Be. The Mirror Weekly, March 10-11.
  11. Grechko, P. (2012) Borderland as a Socio-Cultural Reality. Issues of Social Theory. Vol. 6, pp. 81-96.
  12. Dashkevych, Ya. (2016) Ukraine at the Crossroads of Worlds: Religious and Socio-Cultural Studies(compilers L. Moravska, I. Skochylias). Lviv: M. Hrushevskyi Institute of Ukrainian Archaeography and Source Studies NAN Ukrainy; Ukrainian Catholic University, 656 pp.
  13. Smoliy, V. (ed.), Danylenko, V., Kulchytskyi, S., Mayboroda, O., Yakubova, L., Yanishevskyi, S. (2016) 25 Years of Independence: Essays on History of Nation- and State-Building. Kyiv: Nika-Tsentr, 796 pp.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9789048532124-003

  1. Kotyhorenko,V., Kalakura, O., Kovach, L., Kotsur, V., Kochan, N., Rafalskyi, O. (2014) Donbas in Ethno-Political Dimension. Kyiv: I. Kuras IPES of the NAS of Ukraine, 584 pp.
  2. Horbulin, V., Vlasiuk, O. (eds.) (2015) Donbas and Crimea: A Return Price. Kyiv: National Institute for Strategic Studies, 474 pp.
  3. Donchenko, O. (2008) Structure of the Psyche as the Collective Unconscious. Social Psychology, no. 2, pp. 3-15.
  4. Donchenko, O. (2008) Institutional Matrices as Structures of the Collective Psyche. Social Psychology, no. 3, pp. 3-13.
  5. Yekelchyk, S. Why the Donbas? Why Crimea? URL: http://www.historians.in.ua/index.php/en/doslidzhennya/1817-serhii-yekelchyk-chomu-donbas-chomu-krym.
  6. Zarytskyi, T. (2002) Mosaic of Central Europe: A Comparative Analysis of Polish and Ukrainian Spaces. Globalization. Regionalization. Regional Politics. A Reader on Modern Foreign Region Sociology. Luhansk: Alma Mater; Znannia, pp. 499-540.
  7. Kalakura, Ya, Rafalskyi, O., Yuriy, M. (2016) Ukrainian Culture: A Civilizational Dimension. Ukrainian Historical Journal, no. 2, pp. 225-229.
  8. Kyrydon, A. (2016) Memory Heterotypies: Theoretical and Methodological Issues of Memory Studies. Kyiv: Nika-Tsentr, 320 pp.
  9. Kotyhorenko, V. (2005) Crimean Tartar Repatriates: A Problem of Their Social Adaptation. Kyiv: Svitohliad, 222 pp.
  10. Kryvytska, O. (2015) Discourse of Borderland in Socio-Cultural Studies: Theoretical and Methodological Aspects. Scientific Proceedings of the I. Kuras Institute of Political and Ethnic Studies of the NAS of Ukraine, Iss. 4(78), pp. 173-197.
  11. Kuzmin, N. (2006) Imagining a Region: An Analysis of Possible Grounds for Regional Identity. Relations between Ukraine's East and West: Past, Present, and Future. Luhansk: Znannia, pp. 149-156.
  12. Shapoval, Yu. (ed.) (2013) Culture of Historical Memory: European and Ukrainian Experiences. Kyiv: I. Kuras IPES of the NAS of Ukraine, 600 pp.
  13. Mace, J. (2016) Ukraine: Ghost Incarnation. Kyiv: Klio, 688 pp.
  14. At a Fracture of Civilizations. The Mediterranean - Black Sea - Caspian Regions. URL: http://www.ji.lviv.ua/n61texts/dyskusija.htm.
  15. Pivovarov, Yu., Fursov, A. (2001) The «Russian System» as an Attempt of Realizing the Russian History. Polis. Moscow: Politicheskie issledovaniya, no.4, pp. 37-48.
  16. Piliaiev, I. (2015) Armed Conflict in Donbas as a Manifestation of Soviet Development's Fractal Dualism. Scientific Proceedings of the I. Kuras Institute of Political and Ethnic Studies of the NAS of Ukraine, no. 1, pp. 129-138.
  17. Pokalchuk, O. (2017) Exasperation. The Mirror Weekly, February 25.
  18. Pokalchuk, O. (2017) At a Preparatory Bent. The Mirror Weekly, June 10.
  19. Pokalchuk, O. (2017) Don't Rouse the Owl! The Mirror Weekly, April 22.
  20. (2015) Political Aspects of the Donbas Crisis: State Diagnosing and Trends of Adjustment. An Analytic Report. Kyiv: I. Kuras IPES of the NAS of Ukraine.
  21. Popov, B. (2006) Socio-Cultural Heterogeneity of Ukraine in Industrial and Postindustrial Dimensions. Relations between Ukraine's East and West: Past, Present, and Future. Luhansk: Znannia, pp. 125-135.
  22. Bobkov, I., Naumova, S., Tereshkovich, P. (eds.) (2005) After Empire: Studies of East European Borderland: A Symposium. Vilnius: EHU-international, pp. 26-36.
  23. Rakhmanin, S. (2017) The Land of Stas. The Mirror Weekly, June 10.
  24. Svidlov, Yu. (2015) Problem of Ukraine's National Safety in Context of Military Confrontation (Methodological Aspects). Scientific Proceedings of the I. Kuras Institute of Political and Ethnic Studies of the NAS of Ukraine, Iss. 1(75), pp. 138-149.
  25. (2016) Season of Rebellion. Weekly Events: Outcomes and Facts, January 19.
  26. Smoliy, V., Yakubova, L. (2016) Donechchyna and Luhanshchyna: Their Place in a Modern Ukrainian National Project. Regional History of Ukraine, Iss.10, pp. 9-34.
  27. (2015) Contradictions of Identities in Ukraine and Ways of Their Reconciliation in Contexts of Policy of Ukrainian Nation's Civil Consolidation. An Analytical Report (I. Kuras Institute of Political and Ethnic Studies of the NAS of Ukraine). Kyiv, 408 pp.
  28. (2016) Public Interests in Ukraine: Their Group Dimension, Content, and Paths of Reconciliation. An Analytical Report of the I. Kuras Institute of Political and Ethnic Studies of the NAS of Ukraine. Kyiv: I. Kuras IPES of the NAS of Ukraine, 192 pp.
  29. (2013) Social Values of Ukrainian Population in Theoretical and Practical Dimensions. Kyiv: I. Kuras IPES of the NAS of Ukraine, 336 pp.
  30. Sukhorukova, A. (2017) Being on the Terms With. Rules of Cohabitation. The Mirror Weekly, June 10.
  31. Smoliy, V. (ed.) (2014) Eastern and Southern Ukraine: Time, Space, and Society: in Two Volumes (A Joint Monograph (Studies on Regional History)). Kyiv: Institute of History of Ukraine, Vol. 1, 378 pp.
  32. Tamash, P. In Current Situation, the EU Elites Will Speak in Favour of Russia rather than Ukraine. URL: http://fraza.ua.stenograms/14.01.2011/107595.html.
  33. Tkachenko, V. (2016). Russia: An Aggressor's Identity: A Monograph. Kyiv: Akademiya, 256 pp.
  34. Unkovska, T. (2017) A New Economic Strategy for Ukraine. The Mirror Weekly, February 25.
  35. Shvyrkov, A. (2014). Regularities of Ukraine's Breakup. Politeia, no.2 (73), pp. 34-47.

https://doi.org/10.30570/2078-5089-2014-73-2-34-47

  1. Shepieliev, M. (2004). Management Globalization as a Mega-Trend of Modern Global Development. Kyiv: Geneza, 512 pp.
  2. Shulha, O. (2016) On Formation of Political Democratic Consciousness in Context of Symbolic Universes' Transformation. Ukrainian Society: Social Changes Monitoring. Kyiv: Institute of Sociology of the NAS of Ukraine, Iss. 3(17), pp. 110-111.
  3. Hettne, B. (2005) Beyond the «New regionalism». New Political Economy, no.10 (4), pp. 543-571.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13563460500344484

  1. Snyder, L. (1982) Global multi-nationalism. Autonomy or independence. London: Greenwood Press.
  2. Zarycki, T. (2009) Peryferie. Nowe ujęcia symbolicznych zależności centro-peryferyjnych. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar.
© ІМФЕ