31
2B-Model of the Borderland
considered from the position of the border influence, i.e. a certain objective imperious
order; 2) subjectlessness of social processes arising due to the substitution of the subject
by its status.
Depolitization of Research
Depolitization of the analysis of social space of Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova al-
lows to view these subjects as intricately differentiated communities with the account of
internationally recognized borders and numerous boundaries formed, first of all, by non-
political subjects as factors of their coming into being and further existence. This specific
method encourages the revealing of real actors forming this region in social relations, as
well as institutions and their representation mechanisms.
In Eastern Europe societies the problem of subjectlessness is posed by both post-
modernist criticism of the subject [21] and the theory of transit placing emphasis on in-
stitutional changes in the countries of transition. For example, P. Bourdieu claims, that
social space is “the field of forces which necessity is imposed on the agents involved in
the given sphere; it is also the field of struggle inside of which the agents resist each other
using their own means and purposes differing in accordance with their position in the
structure of the force field, thus participating in the preservation or transformation of the
structure of these positions”. However, the statement about the existence of social space
and some of its properties does not resolve the problem of studying Eastern Europe and
the Borderland. It does not liberate such space from anonymity. It is not only the problem
of creation of bases for the subject acquisition of its status, but it is also the realization of
the necessity to overcome the full replacement of the status by the subject in the analysis
of social relations; it is also the problem of typologization of relations between the subject
and its status.
Status
Not-status
Subject
Real actorship
Potential actorship
Not-subject
Fictitious actorship
Not-actorship
The given table represents the typology of subject-status relations forming the Bor-
derland. Subjects can participate in the realization of the 2Â-model, which really or po-
tentially have their actorship, forming boundaries (the system of representations) and
relying on their own normative modus. However, the process of space formation of East-
ern Europe presupposes the participation of fictitious subjects (created from the outside
due to an administrative order; they do not have their own existence resources operating
only by way of manipulation), and also the participation of pseudo-subjects which pos-
sess neither the status, nor the properties of the subject (masses, “population”, atomized
individuals, countries, peoples, etc.). Fictitious subjects do not rely on their own norma-
32
Oleg Bresky and Olga Breskaja
tive modus and, consequently, are not capable of forming boundaries in the border-space.
Pseudo-subjects are excluded from public space which in this case is defined only by the
border factor.
Typologization of subject-status relations allows to create a number of models of the
organization of Eastern Europe space.
Status
Not-status
Subject
Real actorship
Legitimized
boundary,
Borderland
Potential
actorship
Not legitimized
boundary,
Borderland
Not-subject
Fictitious actorship
Domination of border-space,
pseudo-boundary,
not-Borderland
Not-actorship
Total
border-space,
not-Borderland
Thus, Eastern Europe can develop either as the Borderland or as the Not-Borderland.
The Borderland is a positive model of the structure of a complex differentiated commu-
nity, acting as the form within the limits of which there are subject practices in social and
public space. Absence of the Borderland is organic for primordial society and unnatural,
in the context of the independent subject logic, for complex-differentiated communi-
ties which include Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova. Intricately differentiated communities
which do not build the Borderland are compelled to resort to irrational practices for
society mobilization and maintenance of its integrity; they are also compelled to use vio-
lence.
In this case the context of the Borderland research is defined by actorship providing
for the ability to understand social space thus taking beyond the limits of this research
primary non-intelligible situations which presume the absence of the subject of social
action. The understanding of social space becomes the main condition of its actual exis-
tence for the subject. The statement about the understanding of social space is a boundary
statement (the limit statement). M. Mamardashvili writes that “Besides the imperious need
to be, take place or exist as philosophers say, an individual still has a need to understand.
Basically, an individual cannot live in the world which is not clear to him. But the principle
of this understanding is always combined with the fundamental attitude of the human be-
ing to himself and in the sense of the need to identify himself and in the ability to respect
oneself”[23].
33
2B-Model of the Borderland
Intelligibility
The presence in the table of the Not-Borderland zone shows rather terrifying alter-
natives of Eastern Europe development, relying on not-subject practices forming in the
not-normative [24] and irrational environment. These alternatives become so terrifying
only because Eastern Europe communities are intricately differentiated presented by a
set of subjects possessing actorship. For them the development in the direction of these
alternatives means social regress and fragmentation of their own life space. First of all, this
regress is connected with the coming into being of non-intelligible space which H. Arendt
described as follows:
“What kind of fundamental experience from the sphere of public life of people
forms the spirit of the totalitarian regime the essence of which is terror while the
principle of action is the logicality of ideological thinking? This experience has two
points of support, namely, loneliness and falsely consistent logic. It is not that kind
of loneliness that, in fact, is fruitful solitude that supports the internal dialogue of
our “I” with itself when we are guaranteed the recognition of our individuality in the
community of people. I refer to that kind of loneliness that has attributes of the loss
of “I” when a person “loses both trust in oneself as an internal interlocutor, and that
elementary trust in the world without which any experience becomes impossible”.
“I” and the world, abilities to think and perceive experience are lost simultaneously”
[25].
Live experience of the participation in a human community is replaced by the violent
self-evidence of logic reasoning, by relationships of cause and effect, general determina-
tion or tabooing. In this case the necessity to have an effort of thought and decision-
making is lost. All forces are directed only towards the achievement of the result, and any
result appears acceptable. “Domination of clichés of logic reasonings in the conditions of
mass loneliness” became the formula of totalitarian experience found by H. Arendt [26]. Z.
Bauman in “Individualizirovannoe obshchestvo” speaks about the presence of this expe-
rience outside of totalitarianism”[27.] H. Arendt called the situation of non-intelligibility
“languageness” in which there cannot be an individual but a madman.
In essence, this main difference of the two models, the Borderland and Not-border-
land is based on the assumption of difference between an individual and his status. Here
an individual becomes a being in the process of formation “doomed” to interaction with
borders which he builds and others build. The Borderland cannot be created without in-
dividual efforts. The Borderland is the effect of this constant creation process; therefore, it
cannot exist without actions and outside of the actions of the subjects. The Borderland is
the condition needed to address subject practices allowing to create intelligible situations.
It is obvious, that there are only two conditions of practicability of these practices.
Dostları ilə paylaş: |