Rauhan ja raudan rajoilla: nuorten tilallis- ja identiteettipoliittisia maailmanjäsennyksiä Suomen ja Venäjän sekä Ruotsin ja Suomen rajojen tuntumassa

Rauhan ja raudan rajoilla on vertaileva tutkimus kahdeksasta eri tapauskohteesta Ruotsin ja Suomen sekä Suomen ja Venäjän välisten rajojen tuntumassa. Kohteena ovat Haaparannan-Tornion seutu, Suomen ja Ruotsin Pello, Tohmajärvi, Haapalampi (Karjalan Tasavallassa Venäjällä), Lappeenranta ja Viipuri....

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Jukarainen, Pirjo
Other Authors: Aluetieteen ja ympäristöpolitiikan laitos - Department of Regional Studies and Environmental Policy, Taloudellis-hallinnollinen tiedekunta - Faculty of Economics and Administration, University of Tampere
Format: Doctoral or Postdoctoral Thesis
Published: Tampereen yliopisto 2000
Online Access:https://trepo.tuni.fi/handle/10024/67003
Summary:Rauhan ja raudan rajoilla on vertaileva tutkimus kahdeksasta eri tapauskohteesta Ruotsin ja Suomen sekä Suomen ja Venäjän välisten rajojen tuntumassa. Kohteena ovat Haaparannan-Tornion seutu, Suomen ja Ruotsin Pello, Tohmajärvi, Haapalampi (Karjalan Tasavallassa Venäjällä), Lappeenranta ja Viipuri. Esiin nostetaan näillä seuduilla asuvien nuorten käsityksiä itse rajasta ja sen takaisesta yhteiskunnasta. Pääasiallisena tutkimusaineistona ovat nuorten kirjoitelmat kotiseudustaan ja sen tulevaisuudesta 20 vuoden päästä. Lähtökohtana on, että nämä nuorten tuottamat tekstit ovat luonteeltaan poliittisia. Niissä tehdään poliittisia rajanvetoja 'meihin' ja 'heihin' kuuluvien ihmisten sekä 'meidän ja 'heidän' paikkojen välille. Tässä mielessä tutkimus kytkee yhteen politiikan tutkimuksellisen ja aluetieteellisen, määrättyjä tiloja (space) tarkastelevan tutkimusotteen. Kirja tuo esille sen, miten voimakas vaikutus valtiollisilla rajoilla on sen lähiseuduille. Rajan eri puolilla asuvat nuoret elävät eri maailmoissaan. Entiset valtioiden rajoja noudattamattomatkin seudut, Karjala ja Tornionlaakso, saavat nuorilta kansallisesti eriytyneet tulkintansa. Nuorille on myös kehittynyt erityinen rajaseutuidentiteetti, jonka kautta he erottautuvat, paitsi rajantakaisesta yhteiskunnasta, myös kansallisista keskuksista. Eri paikkakunnilla ja eri maissa asuvien nuorten välillä on kuitenkin eroja sen suhteen, miten jyrkkiä rajoja he eri kansallisuuksien ja valtioiden välille vetävät. Kirjassa tuodaan esille näitä vaihteluita ja pohditaan rajat ylittävän yhteistyön ja kansallisperustaisen ajattelun tulevaisuuden kehitystä. This research examines eight cases of national borderlands: four close to the Finnish-Swedish border and four close to the Finnish-Russian border. The basic principle underlying this research is that national borders (or boundaries) delineate national space and, thus, define the territorial space of a state. The other function of national borders is that they help to construct self-other relationships; borders are markers of national identities. However, neither spatial nor cultural borders need to be strictly separating lines; they can be of other types as well. As in the case of the U.S-Mexican border, even though the border creates social and economic asymmetry, it can also promote cultural integration and co-operation. Integrating, cross-border activities have a long history in Finnish-Swedish borderlands, first in the name of 'Norden', later in the form of the European Union's internal border cooperation. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Finnish-Russian border has, similarly, become more open and permissive for all kinds of cross-border cooperation, albeit the border traffic has been controlled as strictly as before. But does all this mean that boundaries no longer have any significance? This is hardly the case. In fact, it has been claimed that in spite of all the economic and administrative cross-border activity, cultural boundaries, stored in peoples' minds, can - and often do - remain unchanged. Cultural boundaries between identity groups are often handed down for centuries. This research examines how youth living in national borderlands interpret and map their worlds. How persistent or alternatively transient, are the boundaries that they construct? The analysis is based on a recent survey of textual material (essays and answers to a questionnaire), produced by young people (aged 10 to 16) living in borderlands. The research questions were: - How do young people define their worlds? What kind of spaces and identity groups do they construct? - What meanings do they give to national borders? How does the state boundary near which they live affect their spatial consciousness? - What kind of boundaries do they create between different spaces and identity groups? A hypothetical question was, whether the young people form such a political group that promotes a specific trans-border space and its identity? At first glance, it could be presumed that Finland's eastern and western borders are - more or less - clear antipodes. The western border exudes peace, harmony and free movement, and the eastern border reminds of the former Iron Curtain, a strictly controlled fence. However, when the spatial consciousness of borderlands youth was examined, these borders seemed to share more similarities than differences. National cleavages were evident even in the Finnish-Swedish borderland, Tornio River Valley and spatial identities (even local or regional ones) were constructed in relation to the different, 'other' nation or state, on the other side of the border. Despite the fact that there was practically no administrative barrier in the Tornio River Valley and the twin town Haparanda-Tornio was even infrastructurally integrated, local youth wanted to sustain the national-cultural boundaries between themselves, divisions into Finns and Swedes. Young people had also no interest whatsoever in moving across the border and living on the other side; in contrast, they were oriented towards national or provincial capitals. The cases along the Finnish-Russian border were even more extreme in this respect. Definitions of Finns and Russians where clear and protectionist patriotism flourished. Many literally turned their backs on the border. On the other hand, besides the fact that young people constructed cultural borders separating them from the 'other' side of the state boundary, they also built boundaries distinguishing their regions from the national centers. Therefore, the state boundary not only helped to create juxtapositional relations with the neighboring state/nation, but it had also encouraged a particular national borderlands mentality to develop. The latter aspect was experienced, however, both negatively and positively. For instance, the youth of Lappeenranta felt that their home district was a marginalized national periphery, or a transit zone of irritating and polluting cross-border traffic. The youth from the northernmost cases, of Lapland, in contrast, felt that their borderlands home was quiet and peaceful, an unspoilt natural reserve, far from urban and industrial problems, like congestion, heavy traffic or pollution. In sum, national state-boundaries have had a major influence on their surrounding country and communities; they have strongly differentiated the development of their adjacent areas. In each of the eight local cases, young people thought differently, and they had their own particular world views and spatial orders. Even if young people used the same place names and even if these places had a history of being trans-border (if not completely borderless) districts, like the Karelia or Tornedalia, these places were given completely different, both nationally and locally specific, meanings in the different localities. On the other hand, there were differences in opinions about the openness of the state-boundary. Russian youth seemed to be more outwards- and cross-border oriented than their Swedish or Finnish counterparts, albeit the possibilities for Russians to actually cross the border were - above all economically - more limited than in Sweden or Finland. Why was it meaningful to study youth in this matter? Shouldn't young people under voting age be treated as rather apolitical persons? Quite the contrary. This study was based on a broad conception of politics, adopted from Kari Palonen, according to which politics is an aspect, possible anywhere and practiced by anyone. In addition, every spatial representation and definition was seen here as a political act. Youth, however, have hardly been recognized as capable of making these kind of political statements. The significance of their 'us' - 'them', 'our place' - 'their place' dichotomies has been very much neglected. Therefore, this research contains a moral task of bringing forth the political voice of youth in this matter.