Chris Rumford

Introduction: Citizens and Borderwork in Europe

In March 2007, a broadsheet newspaper carried the story that the UK security and intelligence service MI5 had been training supermarket checkout staff to detect potential terrorists (Goodchild and Lashmar, 2007). According to the article, the aim of the training was to enable supermarket staff to identify “extremist shoppers”, clues being the mass purchase of mobile phones or bulk buying of toiletries “which could be used as the basic ingredient in explosives”. Shock value aside, there are two aspects of this story which are particularly interesting. The first is the obvious desire demonstrated by agencies of the state to be seen to be doing something in order to appease public anxieties in the face of heightened perceptions of a terrorist threat. The other is the suggestion that the supermarket checkout now resembles a border crossing or transit point where personal possessions, goods and identities are routinely scrutinised. More pertinently, perhaps, the story suggests that the techniques and practices regularly employed at the border are being introduced to the supermarket. The supermarket checkout has come to resemble a border; a border in the midst of society. The story illustrates an important aspect of the study of borders in Europe (in keeping with borders elsewhere) which is that the focus of late has shifted away from the state’s external borders—or, more accurately, the assumption that borders are to be found at the edges of a polity—towards a concern with the ways in which borders are becoming generalised throughout society. This change of emphasis follows Balibar’s insight that borders are increasingly diffuse, differentiated and dispersed. In common parlance, ‘borders are everywhere’—at railway stations, at airports, in internet cafés, along motorways and throughout city centres and shopping malls. Everyday life has become heavily securitised and the presence of surveillance equipment in public spaces and along transport networks has become commonplace. In addition, we are habituated to routine security checks and the need to obtain ‘access’ (Rifkin, 2000) in order conduct key elements of our lives: shopping by credit card, arranging travel abroad, surfing the Internet. For John Urry, this securitisation of everyday life equates to living in a ‘frisk society’ in which travelling through public spaces has come to resemble our experience of passing through the airport (Urry, 2004).

Towards a Multiperspectival Study of Borders

The paper develops a non-state centric approach to the study of borders, building upon Balibars ‘borders are everywhere’ thesis. It offers a critique of the assumption of consensus (mutual recognition of borders) in border studies. It is argued that borders do not have to be visible to all in order to be effective. The case for a multiperspectival border studies is then outlined: borders cannot be properly understood from a single privileged vantage point and bordering processes can be interpreted differently from different perspectives. A key dimension of a multiperspectival approach to border studies is examined in detail: borderwork, societal bordering activity undertaken by citizens. This is explored at several UK sites in order to demonstrate the ways in which borders are not always the project of the state, that they can exist for some (but not all), and can link people to the world beyond the ‘local’ border.

Cosmopolitanism and Europe

Cosmopolitan perspectives on contemporary social and political issues have made inroads into EU studies, despite official EU discourse making no reference to Europeans as cosmopolitans. There are three main dimensions to the cosmopolitanization of the EU studies agenda: (i) a rethinking of transnationalism and globalization in relation to the EU; (ii) an increasing interest in the social dimensions of Europeanization; and (iii) a growing multi-disciplinarity in the study of contemporary Europe. There are several reasons for the increased interest in cosmopolitanism: a growing disenchantment with nationalism; recognition of the importance of global civil society; the ‘cosmopolitan democracy’ thesis advanced by Archibugi and Held; and the growing importance of human rights as a benchmark for democracy. Cosmopolitanism encourages a shift from a concern with the role of the nation-state in Europe to a broader sense of its role in the world, and relativizes Europe and the EU by placing them in a global context.

Does Europe Have Cosmopolitan Borders

Current thinking on Europes borders is characterised by a tension between, on the one hand, the idea of ‘network Europe’, in which the importance of internal borders is much reduced as a result of the flows and mobilities characteristic of the single market and the ‘four freedoms’, and, on the other, the idea that Europe is being ‘rebordered’ as the result of security concerns over the threat of terrorism, illegal immigration, trafficking in drugs and people, and so forth. As a result there is a tension between the idea of Europe as a space of networked mobility and a ‘fortress Europe’ of securitized threats. It is argued that cosmopolitanism can offer another perspective on Europes borders that takes us beyond debates on networks and territorial security. A cosmopolitanism perspective focuses on the importance of borders and border crossings in our daily lives and argues that borders and mobilities are not antithetical: borders also facilitate connectedness and mobility, albeit in a selective way. What is a border to some is a gateway to others. The paper will focus on the multiplicity of borders in contemporary Europe: the dispersal of borders throughout society alluded to by Balibar; the idea of ‘borderlands’ as new spaces of EU governance; and the mobility of borders themselves. The paper will also deal centrally with the question of ‘who borders?’, arguing that in contemporary Europe (and elsewhere) bordering is no longer the preserve of nation-states: societies, citizens, advocacy groups, and supra-national institutions are also implicated in processes of bordering and rebordering. La opinión sobre las fronteras de Europa se caracteriza por un lado, por una tensión entre la idea de una ‘red europea’ en la cual la importancia de sus fronteras internas está muy reducida como resultado de las corrientes y características móviles de un mercado unitario y las ‘cuatro libertadades’, y por el otro, la idea de que Europa se ha ‘vuelto a delimitar’ como resultado de las preocupaciones de seguridad ante la amenaza del terrorismo, inmigración ilegal, tráfico de drogas y de personas, etc. Como resultado, hay tensión entre la idea de Europa como un espacio de red móvil y una ‘fortaleza europea’ de amenazas a la seguridad. Se plantea que el cosmopolitanismo puede ofrecer otra perspectiva a las fronteras europeas, lo que nos lleva más allá de los debates en red y de la seguridad territorial. Una perspectiva cosmopolita se enfoca en la importancia de las fronteras y el tránsito entre ellas en nuestras vidas cotidianas y sostiene que las fronteras y las movilidades entre ellas no son opuestas: las fronteras también facilitan conexiones y movilidad, aunque sucedan de una manera selectiva. Lo que es una frontera para algunos, es una entrada para otros. El artículo se enfocará sobre la multiplicidad de fronteras en Europa contemporánea: la dispersión de fronteras a través de la sociedad se refiere a Balibar; la idea de ‘zona fronteriza’ como nuevos espacios de autoridad de la Unión Europea; la movilidad intrínseca de las fronteras. El documento también se concentrará en la cuestión de ‘¿quién limita?’ sosteniendo que en Europa contemporánea (y cualquier otro lugar) el hecho de trazar las fronteras, ya no establece el dominio de las naciones-estados: las sociedades, los ciudadanos, los grupos defensores y las instituciones supranacionales también están implicados en los procesos de delimitar y volver a delimitar.

Many Europes: Rethinking multiplicity

This article advances a non-reductionist theorization of Europe as ‘multiplicity’. As an object and category of political reality, Europe is made (and re-made) within specific spatio-temporal configurations. For this reason, the first section argues that Europe should be approached as an instance of ‘historical ontology’. This counters a reductionist tendency to ‘fix’ Europe with definitive political and cultural characteristics or historical trajectories. The second and third sections of the article interrogate a few of the ontological ‘lines of flight’ taken by contemporary Europe. The article discusses Europe’s multiplicity through its fields, imaginaries and ways of being in the world. Such a preliminary sketch of European multiplicity is not meant to be exhaustive. Rather, it suggests a new ethos in the study of European politics that privileges historicism, practice, and Europe’s recursive relationship to the world/globe.

Globalization and the Limitations of European Integration Studies: Interdisciplinary Considerations

This is a post-print version of a paper that appears in the Journal of Contemporary European Studies, Vol.11, No. 1: 85-93, 2003 -http://www.journalsonline.tandf.co.uk/(3tuwem55puxkq0vwwosc3yjq)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parentbjournal,9,9;linkingpublicationresults,1:109429,1

Human Rights and Democratization in Turkey in the Context of EU Candidature

Introduction European Union (EU) reports typically conclude that ‘no substantial progress has been achieved as regards human rights and the democratic reform process in Turkey’ (CEC 1996 and 1998a). The Commission report which paved the way for Turkey’s promotion to candidate status at the Helsinki Council in December 1999 concluded that there were still ‘serious shortcomings’ in terms of human rights and the protection of minorities (CEC 1999a). When consideration is given to Turkey’s candidature some of the biggest barriers to accession are thought to exist in the fields of democracy and human rights.1 This paper examines the importance of EU expectations regarding human rights and democratisation within the context of Turkey’s EU candidature in the postHelsinki period. Human rights constitute an important part of the self-identity of the EU, and applicant states are expected to share in these values. For the EU, human rights are universal values applicable to all peoples in all places and, as such, no country should be free to invoke sovereignty or interference in internal affairs to prevent the people under its jurisdiction from fully enjoying their human rights (EU 2000). It is this aspect of EU human rights policy which causes particular friction with Turkey. We will examine the February 2000 events surrounding the arrest of three elected mayors representing HADEP (People’s Democracy Party), a political party drawing its support from the Kurdish population of southeastern Turkey. For the EU the arrests were evidence that the democratization process had stalled. For the Kemalist elites in Turkey the EU’s criticisms constituted interference in the legitimate business of maintaining domestic law and order. Con-

Monumentalising the Border: Bordering Through Connectivity

Abstract Existing accounts of the relationship between cosmopolitanism and borders tend to assume that cosmopolitans are able to cross borders with ease, or even live across borders. Consequently, such accounts bring to the fore a cosmopolitan agency that, by definition, renders borders easier to cross but crucially, in doing so, fail to take into account the changing nature of borders. This paper challenges the traditional relationship between borders and cosmopolitanism by focusing on the changing nature of contemporary border processes. Using this as a framework, it is asserted that focusing on post-national border monuments can generate new perspectives on borders. More specifically, in order to understand post-national border monuments, it is argued that borders must be viewed less as markers of division and more in terms of mechanisms of connectivity and encounter. To this end, the paper offers some novel intellectual resources – namely ideas concerning interfaces and scale – that capture the ways in which borders are able to connect well beyond that which is proximate. The paper also considers the rationale behind two recently proposed border monuments - the ‘Star of Caledonia’ situated on the English/Scottish border and the ‘White Horse’ at Ebbsfleet in the south of England – in order to show how certain borders, some of which are located in non-traditional locations, are being (re)configured as visibly welcoming and ‘outward looking’.

The Politics of (Un)fixity and the Vernacularisation of Borders

The paper offers an alternative interpretation of borders, one not centred on a familiar state–security–mobility nexus. It outlines a “vernacularised” border studies which emphasises the role of ordinary people in bordering activity and the potential for connectivity that borders often display, coupled with a recognition that borders are not always a possession of the nation state. The paper outlines ways in which border politics are manifest in processes of fixity/unfixity; in a “world in motion” borders are structures of fixity that lend order to everyday interactions (ontological security). Moreover, borders are a political resource that a range of actors can draw upon in everyday life. The framework for a vernacularised border studies is applied to three cases: the “Stroud pound”, an example of bottom-up securitisation via a vernacular border; and the EUs Frontex border and the UKs offshore border, both of which show an ambivalence between fixity and unfixity. In these cases the intentionality of the borders is not matched by their accountability. The paper ends by relating the discussion of vernacularised borders to Appadurais interpretation of “production festishism” in order to further highlight the complex interaction of the local and the global in bordering practices.

Placing Democratization within the Global Frame: Sociological Approaches to Universalism, and Democratic Contestation in Contemporary Turkey

The process of democratization in Turkey is enhanced by both proximity to the European Unions enlargement process and universalistic discourses of personhood rights, and, at the same time, compromised by a nationalistic rejection of global human rights and democratic norms and state-led resistance to political pluralism. One key feature of the democratization process is the way in which contending parties – the Kemalist elite, religious and ethnic minorities, the European Union – attempt to legitimise their claims by appeals to universal principles. The paper examines three sociological/social theory approaches to universalism (Beck, Laclau, Robertson) and demonstrates their usefulness for an understanding of political contestation in contemporary Turkey. It is argued that the work of these theorists allows us to move beyond a simplistic polarisation of the universal and the particular, where the state represents the universal and minorities the particular. The conceptualisation of universalism advanced by Beck, Laclau and Robertson points to the need to understand the processes of democratization within a sociologically informed globalization framework.