Intensive Programme Reader 2025:

Overcoming Borders in Europe and Beyond

Once near a border, it is impossible not to be involved, not to want to exorcise or transgress something. Just by being there, the border is an invitation. Come on, it whispers, step across this line. If you dare. To step across the line, in sunshine or under cover of night, is fear and hope rolled into one. And somewhere waits a ferryman whose face can’t be seen. People die crossing borders, and sometimes just being near them. The lucky ones are reborn on the other side.

Kapka Kassabova, Border: A Journey to the Edge of Europe, Granta Press, 2017

Social phenomena are characterized by continuity and so is culture, with its foundations and expressions. Introducing separations and distinctions becomes necessary, in order to give meaning to the flow of phenomena, and it is exactly through distinction by juxtaposition that the idea of boundary takes shape: in the construction of individual and collective identities, recognition by opposition makes use of boundaries that define a space, carve it out of the whole, separate, create a distinction where none existed.

The border defines belonging and exclusions, circumscribes and orders; it is an archetype, a primary structural element of social life, a cognitive tool which allows the understanding of a reality otherwise blurred.

But it is also an ambiguous concept: separation implies closure and protection, but it also opens up infinite possibilities for discovery, openness and contact. It is often a rigid, impassable barrier, but it can transform into a hinge, becoming flexible until it disappears. It can be visible and concrete like a fence, a wall, a line on the ground that indicates here and elsewhere, us and them. But at the same time it is abstract, invisible, it hides in people's minds, it translates into distrust, fear, detachment, but also attention, curiosity, involvement.

Defining a boundary implies a formal organization of space: «a society without any kind of border, internal or external, is simply what we could call the earth or world: a purely pre-social, undivided surface. Accordingly, society is first and foremost a product of the borders that define it and the material conditions under which it is dividable» (Nail 2016, 4)

The first border is the one that defines identity, the limit that separates the Self from the Other, which distinguishes personal space from the social one and, in doing so, puts them in relation. Through the processes of identification and individuation, identity is formed and actively defines who we are, both as individuals and as members of a group and a social unit in a given historical period. Precisely because the simplest way to define identities is that of recognition by opposition, borders become indispensable in the construction of identities: they are the first tool for the formal organization of space, as they establish or reaffirm social, political, cultural and economic differences between human groups: «Theorizing borders involves an attempt to understand the nature of the social» (Rumford 2006, 156).

Exploring the concept of border

In the essay What is a Border? Etienne Balibar introduces the problematic definition of the concept of border by highlighting the impossibility of attributing to it a nature (essence, in the original) valid in all places and times, capable of being included equally in individual and collective experiences (Balibar 2002, 75). He identifies three reasons for the complexity of borders: overdetermination, polysemic character and their heterogeneity. Regarding the first aspect - overdetermination - Balibar moves from the observation that a border is not simply a boundary between two states: it is sanctioned, repeated, relativized by other geopolitical categories. And, precisely in this, lies its overdetermination (ibid., 79). Polysemy implies the possibility of interpreting the meaning of the border in a multiplicity of ways, to the point that Balibar asserts that nothing is less like a material thing than the border itself, although it is officially the same whichever way one crosses it (ibid., 81). Concretely, the border changes meaning, depending on who crosses it (ibid., 77). As Rumford points out, border lines abound, but, for many, they are experienced as non-boundaries, eventually losing their function as barriers (Rumford 2006, 156). The third element emphasized by Balibar is the heterogeneity of borders, their ubiquity; which means that political, cultural and socioeconomic borders do not necessarily coincide, but are located elsewhere rather than in their traditional geographical, political and administrative location (Balibar 2002, 84).

The production of borders is a characteristic of human sociality, and the contemporary approach to the study of borders - with its focus on the dynamic of border formation - is moving away from the idea of border as an object and rather emphasises the process and the phases that lead to border formation. This implies a shift from the concept of borders to that of bordering dynamics, i.e. the transition towards a conception of borders as social processes and practices. Brambilla speaks of a transition from the concept of border to that of bordering in terms of recognition of boundaries as dynamics of differentiation, where the bordering practices are defined as those activities that have the effect of establishing, supporting, modifying borders. What the author suggests is the shift from the conception of borders as lines dividing territories and as political institutions «to borders understood as socio-cultural and discursive processes and practices» (Brambilla 2014, 14-15). This focus on cultural issues has led to the conceptualization of boundaries not exclusively in terms of physical space, but rather as spaces of struggle between inclusion and exclusion: borders are themselves understood as dynamic functional processes, «multiple and mobile processes specific only to the post-Cold War and neoliberal globalisation period» (Yuval-Davis, Wemyss, Cassidy 2019, 19).

The IP conceptual framework

The conceptual framework within which the proposal for IP 2025 is developed is based on two elements:

The image of the border is not anchored in the idea of linearity and territorial fixity: borders are not merely lines or margins, but processes, sets of socio-cultural practices, symbols, institutions and networks that, precisely as such, are produced, reproduced and transcended. The meaning of border eventually expands to include practices and discourses, thus affirming the multiplicity of ways in which borders are socially produced: "instead of privileging linearity and functionality, contemporary border studies recognize the fluid and changing nature of borders, their increasing sophistication, and the complexity of border-making processes by different agents" (Scott 2020, 9). The concept of border, in its process meaning (bordering), is employed to study the process of border formation in the socio-political sphere and related practices within society. It follows that borders, far from being something static, are constantly constructed through political discourses, institutions, media representations, textbooks, and stereotypes (ibid., 10). We propose the adoption of this conceptual approach based on the assumption of border as a process; the study and analysis of borders as a political and social element need necessarily to adopt a multidisciplinary - if not post-disciplinary – perspective, capable of critically reflecting on the complex transformations of contemporaneity: «it has become virtually impossible to disentangle political, social, economic, technological, cultural and psychological processes in understanding how the world works» (Scott 2020, 3). The multidisciplinary approach also implies overcoming the distinction between political and socio-cultural boundaries, where the former are «objective markers of sovereignty, authority and police power over territory» (ibid. 5), while the latter are closely linked to identity-formation dynamics. Going beyond this distinction allows to explore the power of borders, both from the institutional and legal perspective and from the social, cultural and symbolic one: «Bordering, as a socio-spatial practice, plays an important role in shaping human territoriality and political maps – every social and regional group has an image of its own territory and boundaries» (Kolossov, Scott 2013, 3).

The border can become a political, cultural and symbolic resource and not necessarily a limiting element, or a constraint (Sohn 2020). For example, people living on a border often try to use it to their advantage: «The attention paid to the periphery (instead of the center) and the agency of people (instead of the state) has the merit of challenging the centrality of state-oriented approaches and sheds light on the capacity of local people to engage with the ongoing processes of border-making» (Sohn 2020, 71).

Bordering: Gorizia and its white line

September 16th, 1947: the Allied soldiers start drawing a white line that would separate Italy and Yugoslavia.

The history of Gorizia as a divided city begins in 1947, when the border between the Italian Republic and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is established. The border provides that the city centre remains in Italy, while the northern and eastern suburbs come under the control of Yugoslavia. The part of the border that crosses Gorizia has been defined as «by far the most delicate sector of the entire new border, because it involves an urban area that has been detached for the first time in history from its mounted hinterland (Valussi 1972, 229). The Author defines it as «one of the most absurd lines created in Europe during this century» (ibid., 231), originating from a fracture that deprived the city of Gorizia of its importance and attractive capacity (Gorizia is one of the Italian cities that did not experience the economic boom) and the hinterland of its economic potential.

The birth of Nova Gorica (1948), as the city is simply called, responds to the need to guarantee the administrative, economic and cultural functions of the Slovenian district. The construction of the new city, with a markedly modernist character, is entrusted to Edvard Ravnikar, an architect who has collaborated with Le Corbusier in Paris: symmetry, linear organization dominated by large avenues and a housing system based on the architectural models of Soviet working-class neighbourhoods characterize the city, which becomes the symbol of the new social and economic order - in clear antagonism with the old Gorizia.

Once established, the Gorizia/Nova Gorica border is in constant balance between openness and closure. This border also complicates the lives of many people who find themselves suffering the effects of these changes: it is not a simple division between states, but a division between two ideologies, which are progressively opposing each other. In 1950, when the borders are completely closed, frozen, occurs what is remembered as Broom Sunday: on the morning of August 13th at the Casa Rossa border crossing, on the Yugoslav side, an enormous crowd gathers, forces the blockade of the border police and spreads through the streets of Gorizia. Darko Bratina remembers that episode with these words: «It was immediately clear that the border had been forced by the heated mass of people on both sides, in a completely spontaneous way. The police forces had proven to be completely insufficient and inadequate to block such a huge crowd of people. The border had been rejected, rejected and denied with a peaceful invasion... Then another extraordinary event happened. The city, invaded by "customers" who had been forcibly absent for a few years, opened the shutters of the shops, as if it were a planned event. On that sunny August Sunday in the middle of the afternoon, the ancient and natural trade of the city miraculously flourished again, albeit for just a few hours... In the shops the exchanges, due to lack of money, often took place in kind: eggs, butter, grappa or some hen against utensils, coffee and many sorghum brooms. Towards evening we returned to the city centre observing long lines of people orderly returning towards Casa Rossa. From time to time, brooms held tightly on their shoulders emerged from the rows. All without the slightest accident...» (Bratina, 1994).

The history of Gorizia has always been strongly linked to that of the border and the new city built close to it. At an institutional level, the first example of administrative integration between the two cities dates back to 1964, but it was in the Nineties that the collaboration and integration between the two realities progressively strengthened. Cross-border cooperation is today a central theme of Gorizia's local politics: the Interreg cross-border programmes, the collaboration protocols to encourage the exchange of information and the coordination of joint activities between the two cities, Slovenia's entry into the European Union (2004) and in the Schengen area (2007), the establishment of the European Group of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC GO, 2011 - interested in enhancing the attractive elements of the cross-border territory) are initiatives that go in the direction of an increasingly solid bond between the two cities.

Nova Gorica and Gorizia European Capital of Culture 2025

The European Capital of Culture represents one of the most important symbolic initiatives created for the purpose of encouraging a cultural exchange and promoting cooperation among Member States to support the process of European integration. The overall objectives are to protect and promote the diversity of cultures in Europe; to enhance the common characteristics of these cultures; to strengthen the European citizens' sense of belonging to a common cultural area; and to promote the contribution of culture to the long-term development of cities. The European Capital of Culture is thus a concrete expression of the motto “unity in diversity”, an opportunity to enhance local (and national) cultural heritage and at the same time a tool for reflection on European identity (Sassatelli 2009; Immler, Sakkers 2014). It implies finding a balance between the desire to promote, including economically, a territory by leveraging the peculiarities that make it distinctive and unique (Richards 2000) and at the same time to give space to the European dimension of the project, capable of enhancing a shared narrative of the idea of Europe (Passerini 1998).

It is within this framework that the awarding of the title of European Capital of Culture 2025 to the contiguous cities of Nova Gorica and Gorizia can be understood. Two cities which function as a cultural laboratory within which the multiple meanings of the concept of border - from that of caesura and clash to that of integration and complementarity - have been experienced for decades. The assignment thus represents the recognition of the specificities and values that border cities carry, both consciously and unconsciously. This emerges clearly in the Bidbook prepared for the candidacy: «We want to show that border cities and regions can be an opportunity for Europe" (Bidbook, 3). "What is a border? The margin of a system. What is a system? Anything from a geographical area, a community, a group of people, a single person ... the identity of that person or, rather, the identities of that person (...). If the border is the margin of a system, then it can be open, like a cell membrane or closed like a black hole event horizon. It can be dynamic like the outer border of the expanding universe or static (...)» (Bidbook, 64).

Mandatory Background Readings

The below texts are crucial readings for constructing a frame of reference on the topic of this intensive programme. Therefore, they should be read by all students, regardless of their preferred subtheme of choice. Once you have selected the subtheme most suitable to your topic, you can supplement your readings with the texts correspondent to that particular subtheme. You can find links to the subtheme pages below: