About Programs Fellowship News Calendar
Salzburg Global Fellow Rafał Rogulski writes about the utility of natural and cultural-civilizational borders for stability, security, and identity
This op-ed was written by Rafał Rogulski, who attended the Salzburg Global American Studies program "Beyond the Nation-State? Borders, Boundaries, and the Future of Democratic Pluralism" from September 19 to 23, 2023.
Borders/boundaries allow us to live normally. Normally, that is, in accordance with the norms that we recognize as valid and that organize our life in all its spheres. The existence of borders/boundaries gives us a sense of stability and security, but also the chance to cross them if we consider it necessary and worth the risk. Borders/boundaries are therefore the physical and psychological structure within which we function and build relationships with the external and internal world - our self.
If one wanted to propose some kind of systematization of borders, the main division would be between natural borders and cultural-civilizational borders, i.e. those created by human intervention. The natural ones are mountains, rivers, lakes, oceans, but also the physical capabilities of people. Cultural-civilizational borders are those created by law, e.g. borders of countries, but also cultural borders. The third set are borders combining the two previous categories - ethical borders, religious borders, and cognitive borders.
Borders or boundaries allow people to persist, but at the same time, a key aspect of human development is to cross them. This is the only way we can change the world we live in, reorganize what is already organized and look for new, perhaps better solutions. However, new does not always mean better, and by crossing borders we are not always doing something good.
The term “border” therefore encompasses both restriction and closure, as well as stability and security; it includes the potential for development and opening up, but also chaos and destabilization. The border is thus a multifaceted and ambiguous issue.
The processes of European unification after 1945 were, and still are, an example of border-crossing in a symbolic and literal sense. Symbolically, because it was the first attempt in a long time to peacefully unite such a large part of the Old Continent, but also because in World War I and then World War II, Europeans reached a border of barbarism beyond which there seemed to be nothing. And in a literal sense, too, because the borders between countries gradually turned from dividing, demarcating borders into unifying ones. Today, they can be crossed back and forth while walking the dog, going shopping, or commuting to work. You do not need deep historical knowledge to understand how important this change is in European history. The easiest way to understand this is for anyone who has ever crossed the “Iron Curtain”.
While crossing borders between countries, one sometimes sees that the world on both sides looks similar - the same nature, landscapes, and architecture. But you also see differences - different languages, inscriptions on road signs, cemeteries, and architecture. In some simplification, we can say that in the borderland, what belongs to the natural world is similar, identical, and unifying, while what belongs to the world of culture or civilization, created by man, can be different and sometimes divisive. To make it a bit more complicated, I have included architecture in both categories, as it is sometimes very different on two sides of the border and sometimes quite the opposite.
In the case of the European Union, internal borders today unite rather than divide, and at the same time, their function of protecting the security of European citizens has shifted to the external borders of the EU. The issue of their protection has been an important topic of discussion in the European Union and its Member States in recent years.
A positive example of the existence of borders can be seen in the case of NATO. The redeployment of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's borders meant and still means a redeployment of security borders. The importance of continuing this process or not can be seen all too clearly today.
A good example of the positive aspect of crossing borders, while respecting them, is the history of the creation and modus operandi of the European Remembrance and Solidarity Network (ENRS). At the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries, a multifaceted discussion took place in Central Europe on the memory of the victims of World War II.1 As a result, the opinion was formed that there was a lack of international dialogue in Europe on the history of the 20th century and that European nations knew too little about each other. It was therefore decided to set up an initiative to promote international dialogue on the history of the 20th century through networking activities and projects. Despite a number of institutional and organizational ambiguities, ENRS has to date organized more than 200 international projects all over Europe and sometimes beyond - we cross national borders, but respect cultural boundaries related to historical sensitivity, memory, and national identity.
In summary, we need borders to feel safe, to be able to define our place in the universe, and to develop ourselves by crossing and shifting the borders. On the one hand, they give us the chance to live wisely and well, and on the other hand, to break out when we need to.
Just like in the film The Sound of Music.
1: The flashpoint was the German plans to commemorate the fate of the Germans who, following the decision of the Great Powers to shift borders in Central Europe, were displaced from the former eastern territories of the German Reich beyond the line/border of the Oder and Neisse rivers, into the then-occupation zones (American, British, French, and Soviet). In a nutshell, the vehement discussions were triggered by the fact that the concept of commemorating their fate consistently ignored the historical context of those displacements, i.e. the unleashing of World War II by Germany (in collaboration with the Soviets through the Hitler-Stalin Pact) and the fact that the displacements were a direct consequence of that war.
Rafał Rogulski is the director of the European Network of Remembrance and Solidarity in Poland. He has previously worked as an advisor to Professor Władysław Bartoszewski, first at the Polish Robert Schuman Foundation and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1998–2001), and later at the Chancellery of the Prime Minister of Poland (2008–12). From 2001 to 2005, he was secretary of the Culture Department at the Polish Embassy in Berlin. In the late 1990s, Rogulski worked as a journalist for the daily Życie (Life) and the bimonthly journal Europa. In 2010, Ministers Tomasz Merta and Andrzej Przewoźnik entrusted him with the creation and management of the ENRS Secretariat, which in 2015, became the Institute of European Network Remembrance and Solidarity.
Rafał attended the Salzburg Global American Studies program on “Beyond the Nation-State? Borders, Boundaries, and the Future of Democratic Pluralism” from September 19-23, 2023. The 2023 Salzburg Global American Studies Program focused on the contestations and renegotiations of boundaries beyond the nation-state, and how they are changing the representation of democratic pluralism.