Today we live in a world of territorial borders whose main purpose is to mark spatial differ-ences. Our lives have long been spatially ordered by a nested hierarchy of territorial borders neighborhood, city, county, region, state. (Popescu 2012: 10.) Borders are built every day through ideology, discourses, attitudes and political institutions. This process is referred as bor-dering, and physically it appears as concrete borders and visa regimens. It is also visible in public discourse for example related to identity, language rights and immigration. (Scott 2009:
235.) State borders are probably the best-known territorial borders, and they are mostly
19
considered as self- evident. This means that they are usually seen as unquestioned facts, and therefore are rarely challenged, and when they are, it is in order to change them, not to re-move them altogether. (Popescu 2012: 10)
Borders are also geographical depictions of power relations and are reflected in the minds of the people who live with borders. Thus, borders are not only physical, but also social construc-tions. Mentally borders separate people between native and foreign, known and unknown, and therefore also between us and them, and therefore borders point to mental divisions that are constructed among people on each side of the border. (Yndigegn 2011: 48.) Thus, Bordering is a concrete manifestation of reterritorialization, both mentally and physically. (Scott 2009: 235).
At the same time with territorial borders, we also live in a world defined by mobility, and where constant border crossing is necessary. As Gabriel Popescu points out, in a way it is ironic, how people have been busy surrounding themselves with borders, only to realize the need to cross them. (2012: 10). Lately, the meaning of borders has heightened in an era of globalization.
Borders are central in the changes related to globalization. Globalization is creating new ways people and societies relate to the space surrounding them in the twenty-first century. During the early 1990s there was a vision of a borderless world (debordering). Nevertheless, in the early 2000s it became clear that borders were conserving their significance, however in new ways.
(rebordering). Despite the world is now open to various globalization flows, borders are far from disappearing. Instead, they are going through both a qualitative and a quantitative trans-formation. Borders are changing their nature and multiplying in number, but at the same time some linear aspects are diminishing. In addition, borders are at the same time obtaining more regional and network like characteristics. (Popescu 2012: 11.)
Deterritorialization and reterritorialization, as well as debordering and rebordering are spatial demonstrations of these changes in territorial organization and social life. (Popescu 2012: 63).
As stated before, it has been claimed that there is an ongoing rebordering process in Hungary.
On the other hand, the country faced a major debordering process after the Soviet Union col-lapsed. In addition, the fact that today’s Hungary is part of the EU and globalized world creates a process of debordering. Thus, it is relevant in my study to open the concepts of rebordering and debordering, as well as reterritorialization and deterritorialization.
Deterritorialization indicates social relations that are escaping from a traditional conception of state territoriality. This happens mainly by overcoming the role of state territories have played before. Debordering, on the other hand mainly indicates the diminishing role of the border as a
20
barrier or even the disappearing of the border itself. The meaning of debordering is more spe-cific, and it focuses on the geographical actions related to borders, while deterritorialization refers to the wider territory of the State and social relations of the citizens of a State. Neverthe-less, deterritorialization and debordering are not viewed as separate processes since it is difficult to have one without the other. Territories are identified through their borders, and thus, the deterritorialization of social relations indicates the removal of territorial barriers and also the other way around. (Popescu 2012: 63.) Deterritorialization and debordering are usually linked with globalization. Hence, it is often suggested that the pressures of globalization have dimin-ished the meaning of national territories, when it comes to economics, politics and culture. In wider sense this development points into decreasing importance of national territory, thus cre-ating ways of understanding territoriality (i.e. regionalism) in the modern era. (Paasi 2009: 466–
467.)
Like deterritorialization and debordering, reterritorialization and rebordering are inseparable concepts. Reterritorialization basically indicates to the restructuring of modern territorial or-ganization of social life. Rebordering, on the other hand means the reappearance of borders as barriers or the construction of new borders. It is significant to note that rebordering is not only about supporting the existing state borders, but also about various ways of bordering that in-clude new types of borders and new actions related to borders (Walters 2006: 187). When stud-ying the current bordering processes, it must be recognized that nation-state system and territo-rial states as well as borders are affected by globalization and its flows. As global flows meet territorial states, that reterritorialization and rebordering happens. (Popescu 2012: 63.)
It is important to understand deterritorialization, reterritorialization, debordering and reborder-ing as processes that unravel at the same time. Some spaces might be experiencreborder-ing deborderreborder-ing while some are experiencing rebordering. Likewise, the same space might experience both debordering and rebordering simultaneously. (Popescu 2012: 66.) In present European politics, rebordering and debordering are simultaneously existing processes. From the beginning, when the EU/EEC was formed in 1957, debordering and mobility has been a major European goal.
The Rome Treaty and the four freedoms it enabled people to settle, work and study in other EU countries, and the Schengen agreement, first signed in 1985 removed some of the physical bor-der control between the participating states. These actions have made it easy for citizens in Europe to cross borders. (Yndigegn 2011: 47.)
21
On the other hand, worries related to losing control over local issues, national identity and sov-ereignty have been brought up in European debates more and more. Due to that, we can cur-rently see a phenomenon that could be referred as rebordering of national states within the EU, and also, within the whole EU, a raised demand for more protective borders, for example against irregular immigration. (Scott 2009: 233.) This dualism is also visible in Hungary’s present pol-itics. The country is experiencing both rebordering and debordering processes at the same time.
In addition, there is a debordering process going on outside Hungary’s borders, while the coun-try carries on its own rebordering process, for example by building walls to its borders.
Recently, anthropological, sociological and geographical research has widely addressed glocal-ization as a phenomenon. The term itself is not very commonly used, but nevertheless, scholars have discussed about the theme widely. It has been argued, that although global and local are often separated from each other, in real life, local-level life is often influenced by global-level affairs. Also, these global-level affairs do not exist autonomously without local-level influ-ences. Thus, global and local cannot be separated from each other. Instead, they are understood as connected phenomena, that have effect on each other. (Eriksen 2007:2.) In my thesis, I also understand global and local as connected factors, that influence each other.
The approach of this study is transnational. The transnational approach takes account both global and local aspects, and therefore, in this context, globalization can also be referred as glocalization. In today’s world, an increasing number of people are living in transnational and mixed contexts, and thus blending specific ethnic identifications with worldwide bonds. Due to this development, the societies are currently facing the challenge, how to cope with co-existing processes of globalization and localization, integrity and diversity, assimilation and multicul-turalism. unity and diversity, assimilation and multiculmulticul-turalism. Thus, in this approach, the con-cepts such as ethnicity, multiculturalism and transnationalism point to a growing understanding of cultural diversity as one of the most essential aspects in globalized world. (Molina &
Rodríguez-García 2018: 1.)
Transnational approach enables studying people’s everyday life as a globally connected pro-cess. The world is global and local at the same time: people have become more global and borderless; on the other hand, they want to emphasize their own culture in comparison to others.
Also, political borders are as relevant as ever in the globalized era; thus, the world is global and local at the same time and not “borderless”, although the distances have diminished, and mo-bility is greater than ever. (Appadurai 1996.) Hence, transnational approach is advantageous for
22
my study. In this thesis, I examine the informant’s identities and local-level everyday lives as globally connected processes. I also understand mobility and other transnational processes as meaningful factors in building their identity.