The neoliberal transformation that swept through the world economy during the 1980’s, and along with it the globalization process that picked up speed, brought with it a deep transformation in cities all over the world. For this new finance-centered economic structure, urban land became a tool for capital accumulation, which had deep effects on major cities of developing countries. In Istanbul, which already lacked a tradition of principled planning, the administrators of the city blindly adopted the neoliberal approach that put financial gain ahead of people’s needs; everyone fought to get a piece of the loot; and the result is a megashantytown of 15 million struggling with mesh of life-threatening problems.

Armed with new powers never before imagined, TOKI (State Housing Administration), together with the municipalities and private investors, are trying to reshape the urban landscape in this new vision. With international capital behind them, land plans in their hands, square meters and building coefficients in their minds, they are demolishing neighborhoods, and instead building skyscrapers, highways and shopping malls. But who do these new spaces serve?
The huge gap between the rich and the poor in Istanbul is reflected more and more in the urban landscape, and at the same time feeds on the spatial segregation. While the rich isolate themselves in gated communities, residences and plazas; new poverty cycles born in social housing communities on the prifery of the city designed as human depots continue to push millions to desperation and hopelessness. So who is responsible for this social legacy that we are leaving for future generations?

In 1980 the first plan for Istanbul on a metropolitan scale was produced. In that plan report, it is noted that the topography and the geographic nature of the city would only support a maximum population of 5 million. At the time, Istanbul had 3.5 million people living in it. Now we are 15 million, and in 15 years we will be 23 million. Almost 5 times the sustainable size. Today we bring water to Istanbul from as far away as Bolu, and suck-up the entire water in Thrace, destroying the natural environment there. The northern forest areas disappear at a rapid pace, and the project for a 3rd bridge over the Bosphorous is threatening the remaining forests and water reservoirs giving life to Istanbul. The bridges that connect the two continents are segregating our society through the urban land speculation that they trigger. So what are we, the people of Istanbul, doing against this pillage? If cities are a reflection of the society, what can we say about ourselves by looking at Istanbul? What kind of city are we leaving behind for future generations?
Ecological limits have been surpassed. Economic limits have been surpassed. Population limits have been surpassed. Social cohesion has been lost. Here is the picture of neoliberal urbanism: Ecumenopolis.
Ecumenopolis aims for a holistic approach to Istanbul, questioning not only the transformation, but the dynamics behind it as well. From demolished shantytowns to the tops of skyscrapers, from the depths of Marmaray to the alternative routes of the 3rd bridge, from real estate investors to urban opposition, the film will take us on a long journey in this city without limits. We will speak with experts, academics, writers, investors, city-dwellers, and community leaders; and we will take a look at the city on a macro level through animated maps and graphics. Perhaps you will rediscover the city that you live in and we hope that you will not sit back and watch this transformation but question it. In the end this is what democracy requires of us.

Source: http://www.ekumenopolis.net

To fully understand the scope of these matters, it is crucial in this essay to shed light on the issues of cultural clashes, differences and the phenomenon of cultural hybridity. One needs to examine the individual’s possibility of maintaining and preserving parts of the ‘original’ culture, while simultaneously unshackling oneself from the unwanted forces of the traditional collective. Moreover, it is important to ask whether there is a way to favour and pursue the individual dedication to very own personal aspirations over those of the collective without cutting the ties with the culture of origin.

The theoretical approaches of these concepts are supported and backed up by examples from the film. Applying cultural semiotics appears as a suitable method suitable to examine and grasp the various distinct differences between the Turkish culture of origin and the German host culture that cause Sibel’s inner turmoil.

Nora Haedicke

Marija

- Igor

Etienne Balibar, one of the principal theorists of European border studies, who combines the study of borders in Europe with the questions of identity, the meaning of transnational citizenship, and the democratic deficit of the EU, maintains that borders change in a lot of different ways. According to Balibar, borders can be found where we don’t expect to find them, they are multiple, diffused and polysemic.  There is no clear line drawn between the interior and the exterior. He also claims “a border can take many forms and operate on different groups in different ways” (Rumford, 2008, p.41).

Moreover, Rumford agrees with Balibar, and adds that one should no longer focus on national borders but instead look into the multiplicity of new borders and bordering processes. He maintains that Europe´s borders are becoming progressively cosmopolitan and that the EU sometimes also seek to influence the other side of its own borders, which it has no formal jurisdiction over (ibid p.53). Besides he suggests that the “borderwork” of Europe is a business that includes different actors.

Following this line of ideas I will analyze the shift and the making of the European Union´s exterior borders by taking the Moroccan-Spanish border as a case of study. The aim is to analyze how the “borderwork” at the Spanish-Moroccan border has been, and is being, conducted, and also in which directions it could/should develop in the future.

Since the entering into force of the Schengen agreement, EU has enlarged to a great extent, thus expanding and making its external borders all the more permeable. But along with amenities that Schengen brought, there were problems as well, mostly related to increasing waves of migration from third countries. The abolishment of EU internal borders put a lot of stress on its external ones, problems that have become all the more relevant especially after 9/11 and recently the Arab Spring. In order to coordinate the operational cooperation between Member States in the field of border security[i], EU established a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the EU Member States (herein after FRONTEX).

This paper will attempt to comprehend the role of FRONTEX as a tool for securitizing migration. It will do so by analysing the origin, tasks and practises of FRONTEX and how these fit (or do not) with securitization theories. Since its creation in 2005, FRONTEX has been given more and more power and money (from € 6.2 million in 2005 to approximately € 90 million in the recent years)[ii]. I will argue that the Agency’s practises accompanied by this budgetary increase can be considered as securitizing moves.

The methodological approaches used in this paper will be policy and discourse analysis, mostly because securitization is regarded as a speech act by scholars of the Copenhagen School such as Wӕver et al[iii]. Nevertheless, activities carried out by FRONTEX make it important to employ a sociological approach towards securitization, as defended by the Paris School of Security Studies[iv].

Mars Gj. 

Ever since the Maastricht Treaty of 1991 European politics have been serving ambitious visions of a far-reached European integration. The unstoppable drive for enlargement and internal unification – such as the invention of Euro-zones – to create an inclusive togetherness based on false illusions of reinvented traditions have opened borders has – if the optimist academics are to be believed – resulted in a steady fading or blurring of border areas. These areas have become once more what made them so genuinely attractive during the middle ages: intercultural meeting points instead of heavily guarded lines of demarcation. Or are they?

I agree with Redei’s explanation of the Tartu school tradition in defining identity. Culture, whether individual or in a group, is based on its counterpart – non-culture.[1] The ego-culture of an individual would not admit to non-culture when it gets exposed to it, but it would rather reinforce. As people in porous European border areas are increasingly exposed to ‘the other’, they would naturally intensify the exclusion of ‘the other’ and thereby continuously reaffirm the own identity to the extreme.

In my paper I will attempt to show that under the influence of the current economic, political and social crises solutions to the ‘identity question’ should not be looked for in the ‘inclusion/exclusion’ equation of national versus supranational, but rather in the cosmopolitan logic of both/and – following the theory of Ulrich Beck and Edgar Grande.[2] It should not be the task of the EU to socially integrate EU member states, but rather to create understanding, tolerance and respect for other cultures. Demarcation lines between cultures should be left intact – but crossable.

Structures of power limit the individual’s citizen rights as Danish people living in Sweden cannot vote for governmental elections either. My point with the article is that minorities living in borderlands are often marginalized in political decisions which affect the directly as they are in a grey zone not belonging neither here nor there.

It is furthermore important to inspect how the people react to this legislation and limitations. Since many are benefiting from exactly from being extorted from them i.e. Danish citizens marrying citizens of non-European countries and being neglected the possibility of residing with their spouses in Denmark and thereby moving to Sweden. Is it problematic that they lose their voting right, under which grounds are they excluded and do they perceive it as being so?

Even though there will be four more years before next elections, I hope this paper can set precedent to what I consider to be unjust, unfair and undemocratic!

Lina

Along with the growth of sub-state entities in the European Union, cross-border regions have captured the attention and imagination of policy makers and researchers. Bridging Sweden and Denmark, two of the most developed countries in Europe, the Oresund region has been considered a model of EU regional integration (Lofgren 2010). Various researches have been conducted to find out the pros and cons of the Oresund link from political, economic, and cultural perspectives.

This paper studies the everyday life of two Danish-Swedish families in both sides of the Oresund region, seeking to contribute to the growing but sometimes forgotten body of literature on the anthropology of borders. The study at such a micro level is helpful in the sense that it can elaborate “the sense of difference and distinctiveness”, in other words, the border in the minds of people (Donnan and Wilson 1999), complementing the macro-level approach of political scientists, social scientists, and economists.

The paper, based on some theoretical concepts like border, identity, nationalism and transnationalism, the historical background of the Oresund region, two in-depth interviews and some participant observation, seeks to find out how national borders are negotiated in transnational families’ everyday practices and what factors determine the types and permeability of such borders. It argues that between the two countries with similar cultures and development levels, the sense of national or bi-national identities can be manifested and negotiated in a practical or pragmatic, thus unconscious, way. It then proposes the wider use of the concept “banal transnationalism” as a good complement to “banal nationalism”, first coined by Michael Billigand, “banal Europeanism” by Laura Cram in European studies.

Tra Pham