Wednesday, April 05, 2006

Anzaldua's definition of borders is disturbing in that it doesn't seem entirely accurate. She states that "borders are set up to define the places that are safe and unsafe, to distinguish us from them. A border is a dividing line, a narrow strip along a steep edge. A borderland is a vague and undetermined place created by the emotional residue of an unnatural boundary. It is in a constant state of transition" (FRT 106). First, borders do not always define safe versus unsafe. Consider, for example, that I live in the "borderlands" of Michigan and Ohio. I do not feel any shift in safety or lack of it when I enter or exit these two states. The border does distinguish an "us'" from "them" mentality and serves as a dividing line, however. The "vague, undetermined" place is evident upon crossing into Ohio, since there is no speed limit sign. A fewhndred feet into the state, the limit becomes 65 (from 70) in Michigan, but cops often sit at the border, leaving the traveler to simply guess at when the 65 becomes enforceable (and always opting to go slower, of course).
I'd like to suggest that borders can be created first (before cultural divides) and subsequently impose certain inevitable ideologies and cultural perceptions. The SW United States used to be part of Mexico, but an imaginary border was created, which in time became very real and now serves as justification for (in some cases) racism and the "us" versus "them" mentality. Can such divisions exists in cultures before borders are created, though? Pretend territory X has two groups that don't get along. Obviously the political tensions and social climate already exist. Then slap a border between the two groups as a means of validating the irreconcilable differences between the groups. I think it's important to realize that borders can are are created as a response to social climate, though they can also preexist and help create the cultural climate.
If we want a close to home example of how borders can cause great emotional turmoil and psychotic passionate tendencies, think of Michigan vs. Ohio football. That's an issue that's worthy of a book...
Bethany

1 Comments:

Blogger eliz25 said...

Bethany,
In your post, you said:
"borders can be created as a response to social climate, though they can also preexist and help create the cultural climate."

I think that borders--in the way Anzaldua defines them--definitely preexist the culture which shapes them. In fact, they are necessary for order. What if there were no borders or clear beginnings or endings to spaces? There would be chaos. That's why Julia Kristeva, in her discussion of the abject, argues that the abject (which questions and blurrs borders) is needed to help strengthen borders. For instance, the abject (like Anzaldua's borders) divides us from what is threatening or unsafe to us. The abject emphasizes what is not part of us, in order to have us distinguish what is part of our bodies and what is separate/foreign to them.
I agree that borders don't always divide safe/unsafe, but in this abstract theoretical sense, Anzaldua's theory works. But I don't think Anzaldua's using the term "borders" in a material sense, either, like the physical borders between the U.S. and Mexico. For some physical borders this theory can work, but I believe she's talking more theoretically and less concretely.

--eliz25

6:20 AM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home