Dimitris Livanios Making Borders, Unmaking Identities: Frontiers and Nationalism in the Balkans, 1774 – 1913
I. Of Lines and their Uses: ‘Kresy’, ‘Ukraina’ and Russian Dolls.
It appears that few things agitate the modern imagination more than the sight of a line on a piece of paper. A line, that is, that demarcates the ‘frontier’ (or should it be called ‘boundary’?) between ‘states’, ‘nations’, ‘continents’ or ‘civilisations’. Such lines have stirred much passion not only among those who normally draw them (politicians, nationalists and soldiers) but also among those whose apparent preoccupation is to analyse or to cross them: historians and Mexican illegal immigrants, to name but a few. Historians have rarely resisted the temptation to think (literally) along these lines: whether they seek to identify ever shifting ‘fault-lines’, to chart elusive ‘border-lines’, or to pinpoint cultural ‘zones’, the discreet charm of a (straight or ragged) line, ‘black’ or coloured, on a (‘real’ or imaginary) map, seems to be quite appealing. After all, seeing is believing, and the drawing of lines, just as the production of maps, provides a ‘discourse of conviction’, whose alluring spell few have managed to escape.
The aim of this essay is to consider the drawing of a particular type of line in a particular type of paper, in a particular region: the invention of ‘boundaries’ and the demarcation of ‘nation’ and ‘state’ in ‘ethnological maps’ of the Balkans during the ‘Long 19th Century’, which stretches roughly from 1774 to 1913. This period witnessed the advent of modernity (of West European vintage) in the Balkans. Modernity, of course, did not come alone: it brought along a number of novelties, of which the Balkan peasants knew little and cared even less: state formation, nationalism, and constitutionalism. It also brought the drawing of such lines as ‘ethnological frontiers’ and ‘state borders’, which were absent before modernity. The very term ‘ethnological boundary’ may safely be counted among the many linguistic products of modernity, which include ‘factory’, ‘middle class’, and ‘statistics’. Just as ‘statistics’ was intended to be the ‘accurate’ and ‘scientific’ computation of a nation’s material strength, the ‘ethnological frontier’ was understood to be the ‘natural’ and ‘objective’ limes of the ‘Nation’, which should overlap with the territorial limits of the ‘Nation-State’. These concepts, and the notions that supported them, crashed on the Balkan shores during the course of the long 19th century. They arrived as a mild, barely perceptible, swell of water. They were understood, however imperfectly, only by few intellectuals, if at all. But they quickly developed into a tidal wave, which engulfed the entire region. In 1774, the meaning of the ‘national boundary’ was unclear, as was the concept of the ‘nation’. By 1913, men (and increasingly women too) were prepared to shed their blood, and that of others, for the defense of these borders. This essay will attempt to give some account of what had happened in-between.
I. Of Lines and their Uses: ‘Kresy’, ‘Ukraina’ and Russian Dolls.
It appears that few things agitate the modern imagination more than the sight of a line on a piece of paper. A line, that is, that demarcates the ‘frontier’ (or should it be called ‘boundary’?) between ‘states’, ‘nations’, ‘continents’ or ‘civilisations’. Such lines have stirred much passion not only among those who normally draw them (politicians, nationalists and soldiers) but also among those whose apparent preoccupation is to analyse or to cross them: historians and Mexican illegal immigrants, to name but a few. Historians have rarely resisted the temptation to think (literally) along these lines: whether they seek to identify ever shifting ‘fault-lines’, to chart elusive ‘border-lines’, or to pinpoint cultural ‘zones’, the discreet charm of a (straight or ragged) line, ‘black’ or coloured, on a (‘real’ or imaginary) map, seems to be quite appealing. After all, seeing is believing, and the drawing of lines, just as the production of maps, provides a ‘discourse of conviction’, whose alluring spell few have managed to escape.
The aim of this essay is to consider the drawing of a particular type of line in a particular type of paper, in a particular region: the invention of ‘boundaries’ and the demarcation of ‘nation’ and ‘state’ in ‘ethnological maps’ of the Balkans during the ‘Long 19th Century’, which stretches roughly from 1774 to 1913. This period witnessed the advent of modernity (of West European vintage) in the Balkans. Modernity, of course, did not come alone: it brought along a number of novelties, of which the Balkan peasants knew little and cared even less: state formation, nationalism, and constitutionalism. It also brought the drawing of such lines as ‘ethnological frontiers’ and ‘state borders’, which were absent before modernity. The very term ‘ethnological boundary’ may safely be counted among the many linguistic products of modernity, which include ‘factory’, ‘middle class’, and ‘statistics’. Just as ‘statistics’ was intended to be the ‘accurate’ and ‘scientific’ computation of a nation’s material strength, the ‘ethnological frontier’ was understood to be the ‘natural’ and ‘objective’ limes of the ‘Nation’, which should overlap with the territorial limits of the ‘Nation-State’. These concepts, and the notions that supported them, crashed on the Balkan shores during the course of the long 19th century. They arrived as a mild, barely perceptible, swell of water. They were understood, however imperfectly, only by few intellectuals, if at all. But they quickly developed into a tidal wave, which engulfed the entire region.
In 1774, the meaning of the ‘national boundary’ was unclear, as was the concept of the ‘nation’. By 1913, men (and increasingly women too) were prepared to shed their blood, and that of others, for the defense of these borders. This essay will attempt to give some account of what had happened in-between.
I. Of Lines and their Uses: ‘Kresy’, ‘Ukraina’ and Russian Dolls.
It appears that few things agitate the modern imagination more than the sight of a line on a piece of paper. A line, that is, that demarcates the ‘frontier’ (or should it be called ‘boundary’?) between ‘states’, ‘nations’, ‘continents’ or ‘civilisations’. Such lines have stirred much passion not only among those who normally draw them (politicians, nationalists and soldiers) but also among those whose apparent preoccupation is to analyse or to cross them: historians and Mexican illegal immigrants, to name but a few. Historians have rarely resisted the temptation to think (literally) along these lines: whether they seek to identify ever shifting ‘fault-lines’, to chart elusive ‘border-lines’, or to pinpoint cultural ‘zones’, the discreet charm of a (straight or ragged) line, ‘black’ or coloured, on a (‘real’ or imaginary) map, seems to be quite appealing. After all, seeing is believing, and the drawing of lines, just as the production of maps, provides a ‘discourse of conviction’, whose alluring spell few have managed to escape.
The aim of this essay is to consider the drawing of a particular type of line in a particular type of paper, in a particular region: the invention of ‘boundaries’ and the demarcation of ‘nation’ and ‘state’ in ‘ethnological maps’ of the Balkans during the ‘Long 19th Century’, which stretches roughly from 1774 to 1913. This period witnessed the advent of modernity (of West European vintage) in the Balkans. Modernity, of course, did not come alone: it brought along a number of novelties, of which the Balkan peasants knew little and cared even less: state formation, nationalism, and constitutionalism. It also brought the drawing of such lines as ‘ethnological frontiers’ and ‘state borders’, which were absent before modernity. The very term ‘ethnological boundary’ may safely be counted among the many linguistic products of modernity, which include ‘factory’, ‘middle class’, and ‘statistics’. Just as ‘statistics’ was intended to be the ‘accurate’ and ‘scientific’ computation of a nation’s material strength, the ‘ethnological frontier’ was understood to be the ‘natural’ and ‘objective’ limes of the ‘Nation’, which should overlap with the territorial limits of the ‘Nation-State’. These concepts, and the notions that supported them, crashed on the Balkan shores during the course of the long 19th century. They arrived as a mild, barely perceptible, swell of water. They were understood, however imperfectly, only by few intellectuals, if at all. But they quickly developed into a tidal wave, which engulfed the entire region. In 1774, the meaning of the ‘national boundary’ was unclear, as was the concept of the ‘nation’. By 1913, men (and increasingly women too) were prepared to shed their blood, and that of others, for the defense of these borders. This essay will attempt to give some account of what had happened in-between.
I. Of Lines and their Uses: ‘Kresy’, ‘Ukraina’ and Russian Dolls.
It appears that few things agitate the modern imagination more than the sight of a line on a piece of paper. A line, that is, that demarcates the ‘frontier’ (or should it be called ‘boundary’?) between ‘states’, ‘nations’, ‘continents’ or ‘civilisations’. Such lines have stirred much passion not only among those who normally draw them (politicians, nationalists and soldiers) but also among those whose apparent preoccupation is to analyse or to cross them: historians and Mexican illegal immigrants, to name but a few. Historians have rarely resisted the temptation to think (literally) along these lines: whether they seek to identify ever shifting ‘fault-lines’, to chart elusive ‘border-lines’, or to pinpoint cultural ‘zones’, the discreet charm of a (straight or ragged) line, ‘black’ or coloured, on a (‘real’ or imaginary) map, seems to be quite appealing. After all, seeing is believing, and the drawing of lines, just as the production of maps, provides a ‘discourse of conviction’, whose alluring spell few have managed to escape.
The aim of this essay is to consider the drawing of a particular type of line in a particular type of paper, in a particular region: the invention of ‘boundaries’ and the demarcation of ‘nation’ and ‘state’ in ‘ethnological maps’ of the Balkans during the ‘Long 19th Century’, which stretches roughly from 1774 to 1913. This period witnessed the advent of modernity (of West European vintage) in the Balkans. Modernity, of course, did not come alone: it brought along a number of novelties, of which the Balkan peasants knew little and cared even less: state formation, nationalism, and constitutionalism. It also brought the drawing of such lines as ‘ethnological frontiers’ and ‘state borders’, which were absent before modernity. The very term ‘ethnological boundary’ may safely be counted among the many linguistic products of modernity, which include ‘factory’, ‘middle class’, and ‘statistics’. Just as ‘statistics’ was intended to be the ‘accurate’ and ‘scientific’ computation of a nation’s material strength, the ‘ethnological frontier’ was understood to be the ‘natural’ and ‘objective’ limes of the ‘Nation’, which should overlap with the territorial limits of the ‘Nation-State’. These concepts, and the notions that supported them, crashed on the Balkan shores during the course of the long 19th century. They arrived as a mild, barely perceptible, swell of water. They were understood, however imperfectly, only by few intellectuals, if at all. But they quickly developed into a tidal wave, which engulfed the entire region.
In 1774, the meaning of the ‘national boundary’ was unclear, as was the concept of the ‘nation’. By 1913, men (and increasingly women too) were prepared to shed their blood, and that of others, for the defense of these borders. This essay will attempt to give some account of what had happened in-between.