Theoretical Framework

In recent decades, the function of borders and their conceptualization in the scholarly literature and in public debates has shifted, as the notion of borders as a particular line in a particular space has transformed into a growing understanding of borders as processes, complex institutions, practices, and discourses (Wille Reference Wille and Kanesu2021). As Anne Amilhat-Szary (Reference Amilhat-Szary, Agnew, Mamadouh, Secor and Sharp2015, 14) argues the renewal of border studies in the 1990s was based on the shifting of boundaries toward critical studies that were questioning “the linear component of spatial divides.” Similarly, globalization processes—associated with flow, fluidity, deterritorialization, and networks—are determined by the porosity of borders. A border “has become one of the dominant spatio-legal metaphors of contemporary politics, either in their purported disappearance, rearticulation, or surprising persistence” (Salter Reference Schultz2010). Thus, borders are essential for social relations by making a difference between “us” vs. “them,” by regulating inclusion and exclusion, and thus, offering the answers who belongs to (ethnic, national) community and who is a stranger. Moreover, borders are key institutions within sovereign nation-states, as they bound territory, limit the space of law, political authority, responsibility, and regulate economic relations through taxes and duties. Through borders, the global mobility regime is structured by tools, such as passports, visas, and the ideology of citizenship, that are examined at the border (Salter Reference Schultz2010, 515–517).

According to Étienne Balibar (Reference Balibar2002), there are three aspects of the equivocal character of borders: overdetermination (they are impacted by political, economic, social, cultural, and linguistic factors), polysemy (they never “exist in the same way for individuals belonging to different social groups”) and heterogeneity (borders fulfil various functions simultaneously). The complex and diverse character of borders is noticed also by Anne Amilhat-Szary (Reference Amilhat-Szary, Agnew, Mamadouh, Secor and Sharp2015, 6), who points to the dialectical character of borders as they simultaneously undergo debordering and rebordering processes by opening up to let pass increased flows of people, goods, capital, and ideas, and by closing down for the purpose of providing security by controlling and filtering those flows.

To grasp the comprehensive nature of borders, the notion of borderscapes was introduced to mark the shift between understanding borders as territorial dividing lines and the notion of borders as socio-cultural and discursive processes and practices that arose from the need “to problematise the border not as a taken-for-granted entity, but as a site of investigation, by exploring alternative border imaginaries ‘beyond the line’” (Brambilla Reference Brambilla2015, 17). This concept allows, as Brambilla and Jones (Reference Brambilla and Jones2020, 289) argue, for a consideration of “the complexity of border processes as variously created, experienced, and contested by human beings.” Hence, the borderscape notion “provides a political insight into critical border studies that further problematizes the complexity of borders by accounting for the multiple dynamics of power that are involved in the border, which is reinterpreted not only as a site of the production of sovereign power but also of resistances and struggles” (Brambilla and Jones Reference Brambilla and Jones2020, 289).

Within such a perspective, our study is particularly focused on transnational borderscapes as representations of borders as discursive landscapes that highlight borders as both symbolic and material constructions arising from discourses, practices, and social relations. Thus, two particular aspects are addressed: first, the multiple forms of border experiences that mark the lives of individuals residing nearby and that often clash with official political rhetoric and state policies, and second, border representations in discourses. That being said, we are focused here not on the “big stories” of nation-state construction or European integration, but predominately on the “small stories” that arise from everyday border experiences and reveal hidden or silenced borders (Brambilla Reference Brambilla2015, 20–28). Anke Strüver (Reference Sum and Jessop2005, 2) emphasizes that narratives, images, imaginations about the respective “other side” influence the crossings and non-crossings of borders, allowing for an analysis of border discourse and imaginaries that reveals the reasons behind (in-)effective cross-border cooperation. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that borders are not only imaginary structures, but also real institutions—although not with a fixed function and status, still characterized by an ambivalence that “institutionally represents both closeness and aperture, or their permanent dialectical interplay” (Balibar Reference Balibar2010, 315–316).

In addition to the notion of borderscape, the concept of imaginaries is also significant for our study that was developed within borderland studies by Hans Joachim Bürkner, who states that “by analyzing how imaginaries are implemented and utilized within various types of discourse, it is possible to reconstruct the ideational shaping of borders, in particular in connection to bordering and the arranging of borderscapes” (Bürkner Reference Bürkner, Opiłowska, Kurcz and Roose2017, 94). The concept of imaginaries, initially borrowed by Bürkner from post-structural political economy (PSPE), is defined here as “the theoretical link between the everyday and multi-scalar power relations” (Bürkner Reference Bürkner2015, 28–29), which fills the void left by social constructivism and involves taking into account different dimensions of social practice, including politics and economy. Furthermore, the notion of imaginaries, similar to many other concepts used in social sciences, has been defined in different ways. For instance, there are studies on social (Taylor Reference Wassenberg2004), political, economic (Sum and Jessop Reference Taylor2013), and spatial imaginaries (Watkins Reference Wille, Gerst, Klessmann and Krämer2015; Scott et al. Reference Strüver2019), located within different theoretical approaches. Based on Benedict Anderson’s concept of imagined communities, Charles Taylor considers social imaginaries from the perspective of rather general categories, such as “the ways people imagine their social existence, how they fit together with others, how things go on between them and their fellows, the expectations that are normally met, and the deeper normative notions and images that underlie these expectations” (Taylor Reference Wassenberg2004, 23). A further development of the concept demonstrates that imaginaries can also be seen as sets of “basic ideas, images, symbols, and emotions tied to political projects” (Bürkner Reference Bürkner2015, 29) often derived from both broader ideologies, the ways in which institutions are organized and structured, and people’s ideas how it should be. Although imaginaries depend on political, economic, and social interests, the implementation of a semiotic approach allows for a more complex picture to emerge of the semiotic and extra-semiotic processes inherent to these imaginaries. As Ngai-Ling Sum and Bob Jessop state, “semiosis and imaginary are closely related, but not identical” as semiosis refers to the social production of intersubjective meaning, while an imaginary denotes both semiosis as well as extra-semiotic—material—practices (Sum and Jessop Reference Taylor2013, 165). Imaginaries can thus be understood as “semiotic systems that frame individual subjects” lived experience of an inordinately complex world and/or inform collective calculation about that world’ (Sum and Jessop Reference Taylor2013, 165).

Importantly, social imaginaries have a collective element: they are shared by large groups of people and thus generate a “common understanding that makes possible common practices and a widely shared sense of legitimacy” (Taylor Reference Wassenberg2004, 23). Hence, they are also vital for the actions of collective actors as a point of reference and guidance for their decisions. Both stakeholders and ordinary people, equipped with various resources, can construct different imaginaries, as well as refer to larger (sometimes contradictory) imaginaries, adjusting them to local contexts to help legitimize their views or promote their decisions and actions (Bürkner Reference Bürkner2015). Against this backdrop, imaginaries play a strategic role in the transmission and reproduction of power. As various imaginaries do compete against each other, it becomes important for different actors to strategically relate the visions and projects to given imaginaries to increase their influence (Sum and Jessop Reference Taylor2013).

In terms of the implementation of imaginaries within a border studies framework, Bürkner is most interested in social imaginaries, which “refer to the ways in which social relations, the condition of a society, the relations to nation states or the world society is imagined,” and spatial imaginaries, which “relate to geopolitics or economic restructuring; they address basic ideas about the shape of territories, the ‘natural’ relationship between societies or nations to territories, the way boundaries and borders are drawn, and processes of regionalization” (Bürkner Reference Bürkner, Opiłowska, Kurcz and Roose2017, 93–94). As such, spatial imaginaries can operate in a variety of spaces: from the very local to the supranational and global (Watkins Reference Wille, Gerst, Klessmann and Krämer2015), and—similarly to social imaginaries—they are collective and shared by a large number of people. Moreover, they can be interlinked and mutually dependent, as in the case of the imaginaries of globalization, a borderless world, and a Europe without borders. One of Bürkner’s important contributions is the development of a model of imaginaries (Bürkner Reference Bürkner2014, 7), wherein he distinguishes between big and small imaginaries, where the latter can be related to the former, but are ‘accommodated’ and more context-based. For example, the notion of a town divided by a border as singular transnational organism can constitute a small spatial imaginary which refers back to various larger imaginaries, such as that of a world of open borders or borderless world (Paasi Reference Paasi, Paasi, Prokkola, Saarinen and Zimmerbauer2019, 30–31). At the same time, such a transnational imaginary may clash with counter-imaginary of state borders as means to protect territory and ethnic-national community. And indeed, many governments resorted to border restriction rather than implementing domestic mitigation procedures. Thus, as Kenwick and Simmons point out, “the pervasive use of external border controls in the face of the coronavirus reflects growing anxieties about border security in the modern international system” (Kenwick and Simmons Reference Klatt2020, 1).

Furthermore, Bürkner argues that imaginaries participate in the development of both political projects (residing in the public sphere and exposed to multi-level competition) and personal projects (focused on personal living conditions). Considering that crises often create more favorable conditions for changes in bigger imaginaries (Sum and Jessop Reference Taylor2013), it can be assumed that the border closure may have caused certain existing imaginaries to be strategically used by individuals in their personal projects to justify their claims and needs, subsequently allowing new imaginaries to possibly emerge—what we are going to explore in the empirical section.

Methodological Approach

As elaborated in the theoretical section, by exploring discourse surrounding the closure of borders in response to COVID-19, it becomes possible to focus on and compare shifts in the imaginaries of two particular twin towns. Considering the variety of approaches to discourse analysis, it is vital to clearly define the research frameworks implemented here.

As imaginary is understood here in a broader sense—as a set of “basic ideas, images, imaginations, symbols and sentiments” (Bürkner Reference Bürkner2014, 4) tied to both the past, present, and future management of borders and the ways people imagine they should be organized—our analysis is focused on the discursive strategies used in the creation of various (non)border imaginaries. A discourse is comprehended here—according to the discourse-historical approach (DHA) —as “a cluster of context-dependent semiotic practices that are situated within specific fields of social actions” (Reisigl and Wodak Reference Salter and Turner2016, 27). This DHA is based on the principle of triangulation, which aims to minimize the risk of a researcher being too subjective by using multiple theories, methods, data, and background information to enable a full understanding of the complexity of the phenomena under study. Moreover, there is also a need to take into account different levels of analysis, including language and the broader socio-political and historical context (Reisigl and Wodak Reference Salter and Turner2016, 30–31).

As such, it is crucial to not simply focus on particular texts (official documents, political statements, news articles, social media posts, and comments), but to also consider their context, as well as the broader context in which they were produced. In the present analysis, the socio-political context of the pandemic and political decisions occurring in response to it is of primary importance, although other possible contexts within divided towns, including historical ones, also remain relevant to understanding and explaining the discursive strategies reflected in the analyzed texts. This study aims to reveal what kind of imaginaries (bottom-up, top-down, universal, and local-based) and argumentations appear in the statements produced by different actors.

As the analysis concerns the discursive strategies (Reisigl and Wodak Reference Salter and Turner2016, 32) about how (non)border imaginaries are (re)created and told in the case of twin towns, we decided on four main lines of inquiry:

1. 1. How are borders and rebordering process named and described by different actors?

2. 2. What arguments (counterarguments) are used by these actors and how do they justify their positions?

3. 3. What imaginaries can be distinguished from within the discourse?

4. 4. What stances do these actors represent in the discourse? From what point of view are their arguments expressed?

As the analysis is comparative in its intent, while exploring the above questions, we also aim to identify similarities and differences between both twin towns. Since the discourse on border closures is realized through a range of texts produced locally by various actors on the borderlands who present different (sometimes contrary) lines of argumentation, the analysis focuses on available materials to distinguish the various discursive strands, namely: (a) petitions and appeals published by local politicians and residents, 3 entries; (b) posts and comments on Facebook city profiles, where the border situation was discussed (Cieszyn i Śląsk Cieszyński: cieszy.pl [no. of entries: 19]; Město Český Těšín [6] entries; Nasze Słubice.pl [42]; Frankfurt und Słubice: Doppelt schön [16]); (c) selected media outlets reporting on the situation in the borderlands (Gazetacodzienna - Śląsk Cieszyński on-line [8]; Karvinský a Havířovský deník, [3]; Märkische Oderzeitung [6]; Oderwelle [1]; Gazeta Lubuska, [4] and Gazeta Wyborcza. Oddział Zielona Góra [1]; and (d) statements and interviews with local political and cultural elites commenting on the situation (Cieszyn [4]; Český Těšín [1]; Słubice [3]; and Frankfurt/Oder [2]). A sampling of the materials was preceded by preliminary desk research for sources that discussed the issue systematically and comprehensively. However, we are aware that, in the case of social media sources, we can only assume that the commentators live in the analyzed towns. The analysis captured the most dynamic period, starting with the border closures and including three individual weekend protests held between 15 March and 12 May, 2020. The scope of our analysis is local, making a bottom-up perspective and focus on the voices of individuals and collectives involved in the new border context imperative. Nevertheless, we assume that supra-national and national-level imaginaries, which we also aim to detect and explore, are reflected in the local discourse. The analysis was conducted with Atlas.ti software.

Discussion and Conclusions

The sudden border closure has revealed a fragility of local imaginary of transnational borderscape and the weakness of local actors vis-à-vis governmental authorities. As Table 1 demonstrates within the discourse on border closure, we could identify four discursive strands that show both opponents and supporters of rebordering politics.

Table 1.

Four discursive strands on border closure.

Source: Authors.

The critique of border closure was dominant throughout the entire debate and was represented by both local communities and elites. Their argumentation also influenced the way in which local media and politicians covered the issue. In their anti-rebordering perspective, actors referred to the imaginaries of the cross-border region’s uniqueness and a Europe without borders (including long-standing practices and Schengen regulations) as normalcy. Border communities used the arguments of their existential needs that could be met only by cross-border practices. Hence, border reinforcement was discursively constructed as a personal tragedy. The anti-rebordering discursive strand was also constructed by local cultural and political elites. However, they used rather the normative line of argumentation and the imaginary of an integrated Europe. Yet, the border closure was discussed within a local and European framework, regarding the imaginaries of twin towns, a unique borderland region, and a Europe without borders (limited to the EU).

Nevertheless, within the analyzed discourse we identified also two, more national-oriented, strands that supported the border closure. They were represented by ordinary inhabitants commenting the situation on Facebook pages. It should be mentioned that similarly to the anti-rebordering perspectives, they also used pragmatic and normative argumentation strategies. The former referred, in accordance to state argumentation strategy, to health and safety as primary values of societies reproducing the imaginary of a secure, bounded nation state, and the border as a protective barrier against the virus carrying by “the others.” The latter revealed, more openly nationalist and stereotype-based attitudes, including the revival of (regional and national) historical conflicts, as well as anti-migrant sentiments based on economic asymmetries. This pro-rebordering discursive strand did not resonate as much in the analyzed media and in public discourse. Importantly, the arguments here were constructed with reference to spatial imaginary limited by (safe) materialized national boundaries, without perceiving the space “beyond the line” (Brambilla Reference Brambilla2015, 17) as a part of their “own” world.

The distinguished discursive strands do not create black and white pictures. Although they encompass argumentations for or against border closure it is necessary to remember that the analysis grasped the first stage of rebordering and people’s reactions were dictated by their personal situations, interests as well as emotions. Normative argumentation strategy referring to the project of integrated Europe seems to be more internalized by local elites than borderland communities. They, in contrast, tend to use a more pragmatic orientation that is more contextualized and situational. What is more, it is the nation state and not the European Union that is perceived as a guarantor for security and order.

Nevertheless, taking into consideration the scale of border-based challenges, one can assume that the experience of closing borders has created more favorable conditions for further reproduction of imaginary of border as a problem rather than a protector. According to our findings, it can be argued that border closure manifested and made border residents more aware of how connected the twin towns were and are and, in line with our theoretical assumptions, it functions more as transnational, multifaced, and multilevel borderscape than a territorial separating line. What is more, it showed economic interdependences within regional cross-border imaginaries: restrictions in border permeability made transnational flows more complicated and hence, influenced both the individuals’ lives and regional economic situation. It is worth noting that the critique on rebordering by using the pragmatic perspective came predominately from Polish commentators and, thus, revealed the economic asymmetries along the two borders. These asymmetries were more noticeable in the Polish-German case, especially as more Poles work in Germany, leading also to a greater interdependency: some German companies, as well as health and social care institutions, rely heavily on Polish workers.

Moreover, the Polish-German cross-border cooperation in Słubice and Frankfurt/Oder, as well as political efforts toward integration and the construction of the image of a single transnational city (e.g., by using one city brand; Opiłowska Reference Opiłowska2017) testify to an advanced level of transnational integration. Cooperation in the Polish-Czech case is also an important factor, but it is most noticeable in cultural and infrastructural areas, most often funded by the EU. In addition, the imaginary of one Polish-Czech city is not as embedded in local politics and public discourse as in Polish-German case. It may result from the less developed institutionalization of cross-border cooperation or from the more regional-based legacy of conflict in Cieszyn Silesia.

As argued in the theoretical section, crisis can create advantageous conditions for (re)emerging imaginaries (Sum and Jessop Reference Taylor2013). Nevertheless, our analysis has demonstrated that different borderland actors tend to refer rather to “old” catalogue of available spatial imaginaries of the cross-border town, integrated Europe without borders, or a safe nation-state rather than create new ones. Taking into consideration that many borderlanders function within transnational borderscapes, the sudden rebordering has provoked debordering arguments approving the recent (defined as “normalcy”) status quo in everyday discourses. Hence, our study has shown how bigger imaginaries can be made useful in argumentation strategies of local actors.

Although our analysis reveals discourse on the border closures in only two selected twin towns in a specific moment of pandemic, other studies (Wille and Kanesu Reference Wille, Weber, Mein and Pause2020) suggest that similar reactions could be observed in a wide range of European border regions. Furthermore, it was an attempt to capture a dynamic situation, wherein any changes in border management are felt soonest by people in borderland regions. The context of borderlands as a space where at least two nations and different levels of governing (European, national, regional, local) meet and overlap demonstrates the importance for further research to focus on the consequences of the present situation on future cross-border cooperation, including its structure, opportunities, (new) strategies (Wille and Weber Reference Wille, Weber, Mein and Pause2020), as well as imaginaries and identities. Moreover, taking into consideration that crises and growing uncertainties create favorable ground for exclusionary nationalism, the further research should also focus on the impact of pandemic on border politics of nation-states as “it appears that the current pandemic has hastened movement away from international cooperation and reinvigorated a my-nation-first approach” (cf. Kenwick and Simmons Reference Klatt2020, E 55).