Kaliningrad – an ambivalent transnational region within a European-Russian scope

As Welz considers «participating observation is used by the European ethnology often only to provide additional background and contextual knowledge»³⁹. Through those events and holidays I was looking for this background and knowledge, and my search led me to respondents and interviews, which I did not plan and did not expect at all.

I undertook periodic visits to the «field», and constantly visited and left again. I considered this approach as appropriate, taking into account the peculiarity of the study and issues, which stood in front of me. During my empirical research new developments took place: «field» was updated and expanded. Actually it was formed «additional field» – Small border traffic, which is not only spatially enriched the participating observation (allowing more intensively include the border areas of Poland), but also qualitative diversified the research in the «original field» directly in Kaliningrad, made it more complex and multifaceted, especially in the context of cross-border mobility.

If in Kaliningrad I was presented as a «guest» of the field, then in Berlin, the «guests» were Kaliningradians: there was the opposite context. I had the opportunity to experience it during the final phase of empirical research of startup entrepreneurs from Kaliningrad in Berlin. I chose this example of cross-border mobility for the following reasons: it is a novel focus of the study, which has not previously covered; IT – initiatives are a key part of the discourse on Russia’s modernization as a vector of post-socialist development; Kaliningrad (besides Moscow) declared as a «pilot region» of the modernization.

Participating observation provides the context and collection of background information, as well as provided me with initial ideas on self-identification strategies of young Kaliningradians in the context of the regional culture of the transnational space.

Looking to the study of self-consciousness (Selbstverständigung) the following methods showed their relevance. As Margarethe Kusenbach⁴⁰ did, I actually exercised go-alongs in time of participating observations. Go-alongs, participant observation, and the abovementioned interviews served to provide an actual view on the daily emotional practices, as well as on the patterns of expression of personal views on cultural memories.

Theoretical and methodological basis of research: Theoretical approach of field

When writing the thesis it has been used a wide range of sources due to the intended objective and tasks.

In this dissertation the following are analyzed: theoretical works of cultural studies, sociology and anthropology, in which the basic examined ideas and approaches to the analysis of problems of this study; archival sources; historical and political studies of regional scientists; periodic regional and national press; statistical publications, which contains factual information about the Kaliningrad region.

I pay intent attention to the dynamics of tradition of the Kaliningrad region’s cultural study, which has its specific features that are directly related to the distinctive social and cultural situation in the region. Complex solving of research’s tasks and analysis of socio-spatial form of the regional community required the implementation of following approaches:

– a systematic approach, which helped to identify and clarify the features of everyday self-positioning of actors under conditions of Kaliningrad’s regional culture;

– historical and cultural approaches have allowed analyzing the relation between self-positioning of Kaliningrad youth and cultural/historical traditions of exclave society.

The field of research may be perceived as a socio-cultural space, which is characterized by variety of networks and actors producing it. So I fall on the idea of a multi-sited ethnography introduced by anthropologist George Marcus⁴¹, who impugned the concept of culture as a closed entity and makes possible new ways of research.

In the field I explore not the space of urban or boundary milieu, but cross-border interaction, historical memory and actual self-identification. Field research is focused not on an enclosed entity, but on the interweaving of actors at regional and transnational level.

Post-socialism: Europeanization and modernization

If I take in respect the ideas of the anthropologist Gisela Welz, than the definition of Europeanization can be designated as «a process of EU-Europe making»⁴². It means that I assume that the definition of «Europe» is beyond the scope of the institutional organization of the European Union.

Relying on the Wolfgang Kaschuba and Tsypylma Darieva⁴³, I understand «Europe» not as a fixed entity, but much more as flexible area with variable borders, which allow us to introduce the Europe as changeable socio-cultural structure. Europe may be designated as a symbolic figure or idea that shaped the identity formation in the national and European context⁴⁴.

The anthropological and ethnological research of Europeanization take a wide vision on the phenomena of Europeanization, while the Europeanization was comprehended as a process, which takes place at different levels and contributes to more comprehensive understanding of the «making of Europe»⁴⁵.

John Borneman and Nick Fowler⁴⁶ assume Europe as the research object, which still in the process of development. This research accepts the «making of Europe» as multifaceted process, which involves interdisciplinary approaches of historians, political scientists, sociologists and anthropologists. Unlike their colleagues, who primarily analyze governmental structures and its history, anthropologists are focused on the making processes of Europe either in interaction with, or apart of the European Union.

I perceive the Europeanization as Römhild primarily not as a political practice, but rather as a cultural practice⁴⁷. With my research on the Kaliningrad bordered region, I find myself on the «edge of the Europe». In this regard from the points of view of Regina Römhild and Gisela Welz⁴⁸ the research on «edge» of the Europe contribute to new insights to how in frames of Europeanization articulated the cultural-public space and urban area. Consequently it can lead to a broader understanding of Europeanization itself.

Also the attribution of «edge» refers to the geopolitical dimension of the research field. Secondly, it refers to imagination and appreciation in politics, as Buchowski described it⁴⁹. However, the attribution of Kaliningrad as a «peripheral» or the «edge» located territory is not only an analytical category, but is also the procedure of self-attribution. The application of analytical categories such as «center» and «edge» or «periphery» contribute to self-attribution and self-perception and leads to corresponding spatial practices.

The frontier of the 1990—2000’s was a time when not only political but also social and cultural discourse about Europeanization emerged among academic, social, cultural, educational and youth organizations in Kaliningrad. Questions about: who we are, why we are here, how can we position ourselves in the plane relations of center, the region, neighborhood, and most importantly if we can provide habitat quality, which is comparable to ours surroundings?

A discourse on the Europeanness was formed to integral part of the public life of the region. For objective reasons, the main carriers of discourse are young Kaliningradians, who prone to mobility for travel, academic, cultural and economic reasons. The concept of Europeanization could be related with the theory of transition of post-socialist countries and regions, at that the transition is described as a transformation through modernization.

Modernization was performed as a process of technical modernization, development and formation during the transit from the starting point of post-socialism to the developed capitalism of the Western European sample. In more detail, it is the following: «Circumscribed by popular stereotypes, eagerly strengthened by western and neo-liberal discourses that reflect power relations between the East and the West, people on both sides of the former Iron Curtain simply define it as a transition from the authoritarian regimes to democracy, transformation from commanded economy to free market and a rapid change of social mentalities from communist to capitalists»⁵⁰.

We can find the linkage of the Europeanization issue to the post-socialist urban space in focus of cultural-anthropological perspective of researches of Vonderau⁵¹. I assume that a similar approach could be taken in respect to Kaliningrad. In this context, I take a view of Römhild on the Europeanisation from the «bottom», which means the understanding of cultural, social and political practices of Europeanization as a process of negotiation of different actors⁵².

Boundary modality

Significant attribute of the «edge» of the Kaliningrad region is boundary modality. In principle, borders are divided into the interrelated concepts of boundaries and frontiers, both of which are separating territories of different states. According to Prescott, «there is no excuse for geographers who use the terms „frontier“ and „boundary“ as synonyms»⁵³. He goes on to define border as the areas adjacent to the boundary, which «fringe» it⁵⁴, while the borderlands refers to «the transition zone within which the boundary lies»⁵⁵.

As Prescott⁵⁶ determined, boundaries are «the lines which demarcate state territory, and in most places they have superseded frontiers which were zones of varying depth which marked either the political division between two countries or the division between the settled and uninhabited areas within a country»⁵⁷. It may be argued that boundaries can be compared one to the other as «the symbols and reality of the physical extent of the state, as social and political facts, with form and function different in minor details but similar in most major ways», as frontiers, on the contrary, are phenomena of history⁵⁸. Frontiers cannot be isolated from their «particular historical circumstances because they are the products of historical forces which cannot be duplicated, and which in most cases are older than those entities which are framed by the modern boundaries of nation-states»⁵⁹.

As can be confirmed the border issues has appeared widespread by scholarly debate. On the one hand it concerns the boundaries of Europe. In this case the discussions include geographical, cultural or historical issues. First of all, they touch upon the broad question of European identity and the semantic dilemma of the term European. On the other hand the academic debate concerns the question of the European Union borders. Such diversity of areas results from the phenomena of boundaries⁶⁰.

Meanwhile, anthropological theories and methods enable ethnographers to focus on local communities at international borders in order to examine the material and symbolic processes of culture. This focus on everyday life and on the cultural constructions, which give meaning to the boundaries between communities and between nations, is often absent in the wider perspectives of the other social sciences⁶¹. Still the scientific studies devoted to the issue of Kaliningrad are characterized by the limited concern on the importance of daily cultural practices, which serves only as a facultative argument for the Russian political scientists and sociologists.

Thus, I would like to contribute to a broader understanding of Europeanization, which is not comprehended as an exclusively political or historical practice, but also as a cultural practice⁶², then the theoretical approaches of Verdery⁶³ and Buchowski⁶⁴ in contexts of post-socialist Poland and Romania are applicable in the field of post-socialist Kaliningrad transition under European surrounding. As is known, the «collapse of the Soviet Union changed the geopolitical, economic and mental maps, and withdrew the elementary ordering paradigm, historical basis»⁶⁵ in all abovementioned societies.

Nonetheless, for many «Easterners», the West continues to be a model they want to apply, in which democracy, free market, consumption and affluence prevail. But for quite a few among them the effective realization of this goal now looms as a menace over local economic interests and national, religious and cultural identity. The principle of hierarchy has come to dominate the redefinition of identities⁶⁶.

Regional culture of Kaliningrad enclave

In the 1990s, the studies of regional particularities were intensified in the Russian social sciences. Studies were promoted by the trend of regional sovereignty, requiring the development of a new regional cultural policy; as well as the need for understanding the specifics of regional development in the context of globalization.

The majority of Russian researchers agree: the distinctiveness of the culture of each particular region due to a variety of geographic, economic, historical and social factors, as well as the specifics of the socio-cultural experience and cultural consciousness of residents. In particular the problems of regional culture are discussed in the theoretical studies of cultural philosophy and cultural studies⁶⁷.

Taking into account the objectives set out in this study should be made, first of all, the following concepts: region⁶⁸; regional culture⁶⁹; are applied to the Kaliningrad regional culture – enclave and exclave⁷⁰; cultural landscape⁷¹.

The concept – the region – is considered in the thesis as a socio-cultural phenomenon, which is caused by the specifics of the geopolitical, ethno-cultural, historical and cultural diversity of the Kaliningrad region.

Regional culture is understood in this thesis as original integrity of certain area, which is reflected in the human mind, representing the unity of the world of nature, and society. This totality has temporal and spatial characteristics.

Since the literature on various aspects of the Kaliningrad region often contains the term enclave/exclave and enclaveness/exclaveness, so in the dissertation analyzed the significance of these definitions and varied contexts of their application. According to fundamental research on this topic by Vinokourov⁷², I define the enclave as part of the territory of the state, surrounded by the territory of another state. In cases if the area has access to the sea used the notion of half-enclave. The decisive criterion for enclave-defining is the sovereignty over a particular territory. Under the working theories of exclaves, an exclave is understood as a region separated from the mainland, surrounded by more than one other state: since Lithuania declared independence in 1990 the Kaliningrad region became an exclave of the Soviet Union, but after its collapse – an exclave of the Russian Federation.

Exclaveness, pogranichnost⁷³, multi-ethnicity, multireligious, multilayered ambivalence are hallmarks of the Kaliningrad region culture, that’s why has importance the concept of the Kaliningrad regional identity: it reflects the specific features of bordered region.

In this thesis to analyze the cultural space of the Kaliningrad region and to identify its specific was applied cultural approach, which allowed integrating accumulated research knowledge about the region. Cultural analysis involves a comprehensive study of the processes and trends taking place in the cultural space of the region.

Cultural analysis of complexly organized cultural space of the Kaliningrad region has caused a systematic approach to development, which had an important methodological significance for this study.

In this regard, was paid considerable attention to the concepts of enclave/exclave self-consciousness. Also in the thesis the influence of the enclave/exclave condition of the region on the identity of youth is shown. Therefore, the proposition is substantiated: in result of exclave character of region among young residents forming an identity, which is different from typical Russian – regional and local components are more significant than in other regions of Russia.

Thereby I perceive the region as a concentration of cultural reflection, which gives rise to new cultural meanings and creates new cultural texts that embody regional, Russian and all-European features.

I assume that the cultural space has integrative and evaluative properties. I share the point of view of cultural scientist Lotman⁷⁴. He defined cultural space as a shared memory space from the standpoint of semiotic concept of culture. That is, culture is a collective memory and collective intelligence, which produces a supra-individual mechanism for storing and transferring of traditional texts, and developing of new texts.

However, time transforms the system of cultural codes, and thus changing the paradigm of memory – it is particularly the case within the Kaliningrad regional culture in the context of discussions about the relation to the German cultural heritage of the former East Prussia. Memory function allows restoring cultural dimensions. In the cultural space can coexist cultural dimensions of the present and of the past: their dialogue. It is about the coexistence of cultures, intercultural dialogue, which – given the meaning the pogranichnost of the regional culture and its historical specificity – is of particular importance for this study.

I distinguish and implement the following spatial couples, which, in my opinion, are specific especially for Kaliningrad regional culture: mainland/enclave, surrounding state/half-enclave, Russia/West, center /periphery, Königsberg/Kaliningrad.

Results of empirical studies show that in the case of Kaliningrad regional culture, in contrast to the typical Russian dichotomy of East/West and Europe/Asia, following semantic pairs have fundamental meaning – West (Kaliningrad region) /East (Russia) and Europe/ Russia (Kaliningrad region).

Identity: Transnational region

It should be taken into account that potential rivalries and conflicts between local, regional, national and supranational levels of co-operation must not be ignored. At best, these levels complement each other, creating a European identity in diversity⁷⁵. We can find the increased attention to the «Europe of the regions»⁷⁶ in numerous studies. Generally, this attention is directed to the «interaction of memory culture and regional history»⁷⁷, as well as to political, economic, and social forces involved in constituting a region and establishing regional identities⁷⁸.

As I turned to the issue of the region and to Kaliningrad region as an example of it, than would be taken into account that the meaning attached to region can vary quite dramatically depending on the perspective from which it is considered. As Michael Keating notes, «there is consensus that the term refers to space, the notion of space itself can have several meanings: territorial space; political space and the space of social interaction; economic space; functional space»⁷⁹.

Identity is considered being a very versatile and controversial, capacious concept, which occupies a key place in the discourse of Kaliningrad (inside) and about Kaliningrad (from outside). The inevitable background of this discourse is the border modality of the region. If I turn to Barth, who pointed out that the differences between cultures, and their historic boundaries and connections, have been given much attention, I recognize that his study provided a significant impetus to expand the horizons of the state of research in the second half of the 20th century, with a focus on the «constitution of ethnic groups, and the nature of the boundaries between them»⁸⁰, which have not been correspondingly investigated before. Opinion that the borders are «meaning-making and meaning-carrying entities, parts of cultural landscapes which often transcend the physical limits of the state and defy the power of state institutions»⁸¹ finds justification in a place like the ambivalent region of Kaliningrad.

Martinez⁸² based his concept of the borderlands milieu, on the study of the US-Mexico border. Such «milieu» can be affected by many cross-border and national factors, which can be grouped in such a way as to produce a typology of borderlands interaction. In the assumption of the concept of Matinez, depending on the political conjuncture the Kaliningrad region as borderland can be attributed to two groups. First, coexistent borderland is present when neighbouring states reduce tensions to a manageable level, and modest cross-border interaction occurs. Second is interdependent borderland, which involves a symbiotic relationship between border regions in adjacent countries. There is a binational economic, social and cultural system at work between the two border regions, and perhaps between their states, but a number of policies retain state separation at the boundary⁸³. The existence of binational economic, social and cultural system at work on the level of the two border regions allows us to stress, that the Kaliningrad region nowadays can move towards the tendency of an interdependent borderland.

In the issue, anthropological research on border cultures contributes to our knowledge of identity formation⁸⁴. Taking into account the concept of Martinez, it is worth to note that the Kaliningrad borderland is bears the imprint of ambivalence, which is reflected, cultivated and maintained in the mindsets of young Kaliningradians. Because of their transborder and transnational linkages, these border cultures are often treated suspiciously by states and their agents, many of whom believe in the traditional view of the convergence of state, nation, identity and territory⁸⁵. As we know the stronger rulers belief was that strict control of the frontier was essential to the maintenance of their power⁸⁶. The above is manifested in the Kaliningrad regional culture, forms it and affects the everyday practices.

It is certainly a commonplace in the interdisciplinary field of border studies that the border can only be conceptualized as being shaped and produced by a multiplicity of actors, movements and discourses. But most of these studies still perceive the practices of doing borderwork and making borders as «acts and techniques of state»⁸⁷, more specifically state political institutions. Then from the empirical point, the politicization of cultural identity requires people to react against their own felt disadvantage and denigration, as well as occurring in characteristic economic and political circumstances⁸⁸.

During my empirical study I asked my respondents about the format of interaction within political, economic and cultural dimensions in the space of the borderland region and whether it is legitimate to talk about the hierarchy or the interdependence of these measurements. I have collected very different answers, which made the basis of empirical research in the light of the idea that the culture is but one element in the definition and reproduction of a political system.

I consider the point of Strassoldo relevant who concluded that the ambivalence of border life is a defining feature of border societies in several respects⁸⁹. Border people may demonstrate ambiguous identities because economic, cultural and linguistic factors pull them in two directions. They are also pulled two ways politically, and may display only a weak identification with the nation-state in which they reside. This ambivalent border identity affects the role that border communities play in international cooperation and conflict⁹⁰. Everyday practice of young Kaliningradians and empirical research logically fall on this theoretical basis.

For Anderson, borders are both institutions and processes. Anderson also stresses that «borders are markers of identity, and have played a role in this century in making national identity the pre-eminent political identity of the modern state»⁹¹.

The frontiers are markers of identity, in the twentieth century usually of national identity, although political identities may be larger or smaller than the «nation» state. Frontiers, in this sense, are part of political beliefs and myths about the unity of the people and sometimes myths about the «natural» unity of a territory⁹². These «imagined communities», to use Anderson’s⁹³ phrase, are now a universal phenomenon and often have deep historical roots. These communities are defined by imagined boundaries, if we follow Cohen’s remark, that «where cultural difference was formerly underpinned also by structural boundaries, these have now given way to boundaries which inhere in the mind: symbolic boundaries»⁹⁴. To accept this assumption, we must proceed from the fact that «human consciousness and social organization are profoundly conditioned by territory and frontiers»⁹⁵. I note the importance, of how Cohen estimates symbols as a resource for identity. According to his point of view they are «pragmatic devices which are invested with meaning through social process of one kind or another, they are potent resources in the arenas of politics and identity»⁹⁶.

I share the view, that in certain circumstances the frontier acquired a mythic significance in building nations and political identities, becoming, as Anderson signalized, the mythomoteur of a whole society⁹⁷.

For Barth⁹⁸, ethnic groups are socially designed using individuals who adjust their cultural identity by emphasizing or underplaying it according to current context. Individuals can cross the boundaries between groups if they find it advantageous to do. Moreover they can maintain regular relations across them, but this does not affect the durability and stability of the boundaries themselves. Accordingly, «cultural emblems and differences are thus significant only in so far as they are socially effective, as an organizational device for articulating social relations»⁹⁹.

Here it is necessary to bear in mind that according to the discourse of anthropology the «boundary» is the word with the most general application; whereas the term «border» item is situationally specific and «frontier» has come to be reserved to fairly strictly limited geopolitical and legal applications¹⁰⁰. At that point following question has considerable importance, «why inter-group boundaries are sharply marked even as people cross them and even as the cultural differences between the groups change»¹⁰¹.

In this regard, I share the view of Sezneva who, in writing about Kaliningrad, takes the point that «there are no reasons to believe that a certain behavioral pattern will automatically lead to the formation of a particular political attitude, or learning about a history will automatically form a particular identity. How people categorize and identity the social world and themselves within it, and how these categories impact on their behavior are not the same issue. Categories of self-understanding do not always provide a basis for collective action and the formation of collective subject-ness»¹⁰².

As Barth stressed, the critical focus of investigation should be «the ethnic boundary that defines the group, not the cultural stuff that it encloses»¹⁰³. As known, Barth emphasizes that boundary-making involves two phenomena: self-ascription and ascription by others. But he tends to focus on one side rather than the other, emphasizing internal identification rather than external constraint and the shaping influence of wider structures, such as those of class and the state. However, it makes sense to distinguish «between two analytically distinct processes of ascription: group identification and social categorization. The first occurs inside the… boundary, the second outside and across it»¹⁰⁴.

Cohen takes the similar point as Barth. He stresses that «culture, identity and symbolism all converge on the concept of ethnicity» and makes a critic of the last one: «In some respects, this is the most difficult word of the three, since it appears to mean something – indeed, has been imported into lay usage for this reason – but, in practice, means either everything or nothing at all. Ethnicity has become the politicization of culture»¹⁰⁵.

Cooper and Brubaker argue that «identity» is always «situated» and «contextual»¹⁰⁶. This related to approach of viewing identity as «a process that is a temporal and dynamic phenomenon, which has a history, and even is itself situated in history as experience»¹⁰⁷.

A combination of historical memory and geography provides a sense of commonality resulting in a perceived, distinct kind of groupness¹⁰⁸. Does this thesis holds true in Kaliningrad? If Kaliningrad’s territorial isolation engenders a sense of «boundedness»? Borders operate as hard geographic facts and geographic borders translated into social boundaries. If the choice with whom to distinguish themselves (Russian or Europeans) is a choice between two temporalities for Kaliningradians?¹⁰⁹ These questions need to find their answer in this thesis.

Structure of thesis

The main part of the thesis consists of three chapters.

The first is «The Kaliningrad region and its historical background» illuminates the issues of historical background and birth of the Kaliningrad Oblast’. Significant attention paid to migration flows as a source of demographic capacity before the collapse of the USSR and the formation of regional society.

For a comprehensive review of the historical context attention is paid to the deportation of German population and analysis of the settlement of first Kaliningradians. In this regard, important sources are archival materials and the results of the project «Settlers tell» of Kaliningradian historians led by Kostyashov.

We have in the focus the period of formation of the urban landscape of Kaliningrad, its perception by residents and public authorities. During this period of time, the establishment of Kaliningrad as a typical Soviet city based on official model of development of socialistic urban communities occurred. Migration dynamics is experiencing fluctuations and has changed the essence of the regional society in 1950—1980’s.