Five Gazes on the Border: a Collective Auto-Ethnographic Writing

Depósito de Investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla https://idus.us.es/ This version of the article has been accepted for publication, after peer review and is subject to Springer Nature’s AM terms of use but is not the Version of Record and does not reflect post-acceptance improvements, or any corrections. The Version of Record is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42087-018-0010-1 Five gazes on the border. A collective auto-ethnographical writing. Luca Tateo Centre for Cultural Psychology, Aalborg University (Denmark) Orcid: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3207-6312 Alicia Español Universidad de Sevilla Orcid: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9831-2915 Katrin Kullasepp University of Tallinn (Estonia) Giuseppina Marsico Centre for Cultural Psychology, Aalborg University (Denmark) and University of Salerno (Italy) Orcid: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8683-2814 Hannes Palang University of Tallinn (Estonia) Orcid: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1981-2071 Abstract. In this paper is presented an innovative form of collective and interdisciplinary academic writing about a field work on the Estonia-Russia border. The authors have been traveling one week in three different Estonian border areas to observe the everyday life of people living in border zones. The different perspectives of Cultural psychology and human geography illuminate the multifaceted nature of borderscapes and the special processes of meaning-making that take place on the border. Keywords: Cultural psychology; border studies; collective academic writing; affective semiosis; identity. Corresponding author: Luca Tateo, [email protected] Room 4.225, Research Center on Cultural Psychology, Department of Communication and Psychology Aalborg University, Kroghstræde 3 D- K-9220 Aalborg Ø (Denmark) INTRODUCTION Is liminal writing the most appropriate way of writing about borders? When you have researchers from different countries (Estonia, Denmark, Italy and Spain) and from different backgrounds (geography, history, psychology), you will probably produce very different views of an object of interest, which is per se complex and multifaceted. Is this a problem or a epistemic resource? It probably depends on how one will appreciate the complementarity of views (Tateo & Marsico, 2014). During the first week of July 2017, an international workshop on “Identity at the borders and between the borders” has been organized by the University of Tallinn and by the Centre for Cultural Psychology at Aalborg University. The purpose was to TALK ABOUT borders while EXPERIENCING, borders in a particular geographical area that has been characterized by several historical, social and ethnic events. Thus, our group travelled more than 600 kilometers in 5 days (see figure 1) visiting three special regions of Estonian territory, discussing and doing field work (observations, interviews, autoethnography). Figure 1: the itinerary of our field work While collecting materials and exchanging our views, we realized that our personal experience was an interesting object of reflection in itself. The fluid and complex nature of our object of interest - namely the people living on the ever-changing Eastern border of Estonia, that happens to be also the current border of European Union – was slowly emerging exactly from the weaving of our gazes. We have been traveling, eating, sleeping and working together for several days. Some of us never met beforehand. Yet we were writing a storytelling and each one of us was adding an episode, a nuance, an interpretation step by step. Were we doing science? Were we building knowledge about that people? Was traditional academic writing able to account for the richness and fuzziness of that object, of that atmosphere? We decided that such a new experience required new tools for acknowledge its phenomenology. So, we decided to test ourselves against a new form of academic writing. In the following sections, each of the authors have autonomously told his/her personal version of the field experience. The reader will of course find overlapping, contradictions, nuances and repetitions. Yet as in a cubist painting, the different perspectives are at the same time all present and all integrated into a whole, that provides not a representation rather a refraction of the object observed. This special multiple gazes will bring to the fore some features and restitute to the spectator an unusual and thoughtful perspective on the everyday border life. After untangling the single threads of the story, we will try to weave them again into a new design with the joint conclusions of the paper. Borders in time, space and scale: Hannes Let me start this contribution with making three points. First, borders, while separating, also act as means of communication between the parties they separate. Second, borders have hierarchies and/or scales. Third, borders also exist in time. And each of the sites we visited proves these three points in one way or another. The emotionally most impressive of these three, the state border between Estonia and Russia in Setumaa is an artificial one, i.e. it has no clear historical background. It was drawn on a map after WWII to separate two units within the USSR, OK, the rationale being leaving Estonian-speaking villages on one side and Russian-speaking ones on the other. Still, it divided a historical unit in parts. Until the line stayed on the map, it had little influence on everyday life, but after Estonia became independent and border regime enforced, a former hectic line on paper gained quite another meaning – it now separates two civilisations, Russian world on one side and European Union on the other. It cuts off many things – even the road to Saatse passes Russian territory twice. Here scale comes to play. The whole Setumaa could be seen as a border zone (see Palang et al 2009 for longer analysis) – it works as a cultural buffer or interlock between the two countries. The border separates – road network was centered in Petseri now on the other side, many people have relatives buried on the other side. The border itself is a thin line both on map and demarked on terrain by poles; one is not allowed to come closer than some 10 m to a pole, and movement in the vicinity is monitored. However, it also connects – on one hand, Setu people use the words ‘the other side’ to denote the Russian part of Setumaa and even the border guards – the ones who are supposed to shoot each other should any conflict break out between the two countries – have to call each other every now and then just to discuss some very practical matters, like which side should clear a tree that has fallen across the border strip due to some storm and who is going to get the timber. Scale and time issues appear again in Sagadi, a manor that serves as a (forestry) museum these days. It was built during the last decades of feudalism, and the whole estate bears the imprint of those times. Here, knowledge is the key to noticing borders. The main building has just one main floor (the attic is there but used for a completely different purpose); you cross from a hall to a corridor, and that doorway happens to be the border between the space of leisure and the space of service. The corridor opens not to the main entrance, but to a side door at one end of the building, and the corridor as if continues outside via an access path that is separated by stone fences from both the frontyard and the park at the back of the manor. A similar pattern is repeated at the other end of the building. This is very practical – you cannot carry firewood, foodstuff etc into the house through the front door, and one does not want to expose those supply vehicles in front of the house. There are two different zones both in the house and out in the territory – one meant for the noblemen and the other for service and peasants. They interfere; there are (or should I write were) communications across these boundaries, but these days the boundaries can be discovered not at the first glance, but with the help of some background knowledge. And as in all estates, the boundary system also indicates power. One can only imagine these days the embarrassment of a peasant who had to have a word with the landlord – crossing these invisible spatial borders back then must have taken quite some bravery… The third case is mostly about isolation and then opening up. The Starovery is a religious minority, who started to settle on the shores of Lake Peipsi after the reforms of the Russian Orthodox church in late 17th century. Those not happy with the reform were persecuted by the new rulers, and they started to escape to the margins of the Russian empire, and sometimes beyond the borders. At that time Estonia was still a part of the Swedish kingdom, and the local Baltic German landlords allowed the Starovery to inhabit the seldom-used not fertile shallow lands on the shores of the lake. From now on all sorts of invisible borders were used to create isolation. “Our landscape reaches maximum five kilometres from the lake. Then forests and bogs begin. No, we are not afraid of those people living behind the forest, we do communicate with them, but there is not much to do there. Our life has face towards the lake and back towards the mainland.” – this is how Zosima Jotkin, the leader of the Old Believers’ community in the early 2000s defined the landscapes of Old Believers (in Printsmann, Palang 2016). This isolation created a distinct food culture and a distinct landscape, the whole life was based on three pillars – onions, fish, and religion. Yes there were people other than Starovery living in the area, but they stayed separately. One corner of a village where the Estonians lived was called Chuhonski konets, but again, people lived together, but separately. Religious buildings were kept as modest as possible to avoid unnecessary attention. Communications worked – men went out to work on constructions in summer (and came back to fish from the lake ice in winter), food products were sold in St Petersbourg and other places, younger folk went to study in Tartu and live and work in Tallinn, but came back to spend the last part of their life home. The distinction between us and them is kept very clear – strangers should not be involved in our matters. During the last decades, however, these strict invisible borders are becoming to dissolve. There are not enough people left to keep our religion, one old lady commented. This loosening of the borders has brought in tourism, visitors are now let into prayer houses, backyards, even ordinary houses. Re-creation of borders: the historical “voices” in an identity: Katrin Travelling across the country can be an enlightening experience regarding exploring the identities of travelers and the borders within and around them. Namely, it is assumed in this part that the different geographical locations like the sites/places (e.g. a town), by presenting the external borders to a person, form the conditions empowered with potential to initiate an inner dialogue within the self. The aim here is to gain an insight regarding the phenomena of borders in relation to construction of identity at the intrapsychological level on the example of national identity. To begin, the word border indicates to separation of different areas (XXXX). Application of the concept of border in the studies on humans’ psychological functioning, the emerging border can indicate to the genesis of mental representation of particular phenomenon that acquires its semantic content within the time separating it from other phenomena. As a result of a genesis, the phenomenon becomes identified as X or Y (e.g. this is a manor, and not a lake, I am Estonian, and not Latvian). However, although the borders (border zones) can be socio-culturally constructed externally existing structures in a physical surrounding, like a manor, these borders need to emerge intrapsychologically to function as the “distinguishers”. Without the mental representation of a site (location), and appearance at the intra-psychological level, the external border is lacking potential to guide a person’s responses, including positioning itself in relation to the world. In terms of the semiotic approach, creation of the borders is meaning making process embracing also making sense of the self that rises awareness of what is self and nonself; in other words - drawing the border between (I) and other (non-I). Identity, thus, can be viewed as inseparable from drawing borders, including within the self. Specifically, the dialogical self model (Hermans, YYY) describes the self as the whole that consists of different I-positions that emerge from different experiences. Differentiation within the self, formation of I-positions, is guided through the dialogues with the socio-cultural surrounding. It enables to expect that with transition from one site to another and expanding cultural experiences the dynamics within the self will follow. The responses can be diverse: emerging new I-positions, intensified dialogue between particular I- position, to name some. The model, namely, says that due to the “voices” that every I position is supplied with, I-positions can carry out the dialogues with each other (conflicting, harmonious). To sum up, transition into the different sites as to the socioculturally distinct zones for negotiation on the borders within the self can manifest in dynamics in a person’s national (Estonian) identity. To discuss the relations between identity, border and site, three different sites in Estonia were taken under analysis as the distinct socio-cultural settings that possibly activate the negotiation on idiosyncratic version of Estonian identity of Estonian: Sagadi manor, the area at Peipus lake, and Setumaa. Aside from differences, common to all these sites is a collectively cultivated traditional atmosphere that emphasizes the historical dimension of the site nowadays. It is achieved by the social presentation of local traditions, life style, everyday practices etc. in one or another way that fortify the identity of the site. These sites, thus, represent the externally set borders where formation of differentiation within the self can potentially occur. When travelling in a homeland is to cross the externally set borders then what could be the promoter(s) leading to creation of the inner borders within the self; not every external border initiates negotiation on a national identity. A conjecture posed here is that one of the possible promoters can be the exactly explicitly displayed historical dimension of the site as it can lead to US-OTHER, ME–not-ME differentiation in the intra-psychological level. All above mentioned sites in Estonia provide experience of “historical voices”: by emphasizing the past they create the external socio-cultural structure where the central element is the traditions related to the history of the site. The restored manors are inherently multivalent sites. They provide the aesthetic experiences (e.g. decorated rooms for leisure time activities), but can also evoke reflections on the historical power relations between peasants and rulers who owned the manors. If the aesthetic aspects may not activate an inner dialogue on a national identity (I as Estonian), then, for instance, the physical environmental elements (see image/picture of corridor) can guide to formation of I-position “I as successor of the former peasants”, if the continuity with the past is constructed by a person. The corridor on the picture functioned as a border, a distinguisher, as it separated two different cultural worlds, and was one of the “reminders” of the status. Namely, moving around the building was regulated, and the corridor was used by servants to enter into the living rooms when they were on duty. What is a psychological result of recognized border (a corridor) nowadays depends on a person. It can be vitalization of the former borders and differentiation within the self (creation of the new inner borders). Emergence of differently oriented perspectives within the self “I as Estonian in 21st century (who enjoys the years one of my most refined “senses” as researcher. Suddenly, any small detail becomes relevant, any action that cannot be understood because I do not get the language, becomes a potential novelty to be explained. When I arrived in the Tallin old city center, this mixed feeling of familiar and unfamiliar became completely part of the environment (fig. 5). *Insert Figure 5 around here* Figure 5: historical city center of Tallin I was walking the streets of an apparently familiar historical north-European town in which people and signs were speaking a completely alien language. Yet the overwhelming presence of tourist gave me again the reassuring feeling of a warm and friendly ”globalization”. Yet this feeling was doomed to change in the continuation of the journey. Travelling through Estonian flat landscape is very similar to a navigation: the main connection roads go through endless “seas” of woods (figure 6A) for many kilometers and are seldom interrupted by “islands” of anthropic activity, like the Sagadi manor (figure 6B), a remnant of the German dominion over Estonia, in which we spend the first night of our journey. *Insert Figure 6 around here* Figure 7: Estonian forests and Sagadi manor (1753) The feeling of “floating” in this environment grows while travelling with my colleagues - the second day - on a minibus towards the area of lake Peipus (Peipsi in Estonian) on the border between Estonia and Russia. I found this place extremely meaningful. It gave me the idea that human borders are mostly build on the sand and the blood. A lot of things have been going on around and over Peipus lake: it has been the place in which Estonian, Russians, Germans - and god knows how many other civilizations - have met, battled, fished, traded for centuries. In all the languages of the people that Figure 6: historical city center of Tallin have contended this land, the name of the country means nothing but “land of the East”. Depending on the perspective, on the direction I consider, East can be the farther border of my land, or can be the origin of something Thus, expansion can go towards the East (as in the case of Germans) or can come from the East (as in the case of Russians). Yet this does not happen on a solid ground, rather on the floating shores of a lake, fluid in summer and iced in winter. The first stop of the Peipus lake visit is focused on the communities of Old Orthodox Believers in the villages of Kolkja and Varnja (figure 7). *Insert Figure 7 around here* Figure 8: the community of Old Orthodox Believers The story of this community is that they escaped persecution because they did not want to comply with Russian Reformation in the 17th Century. Some of them found refuge in the Peipus area and were able to maintain intact with obstinacy their lifestyle for centuries. The solidity of their identity is made possible by the fluidity of the environment. It is a Russian speaking enclave in the fierce Estonian nation, yet paradoxically, they have been historically threatened by the Russian Orthodox state. They have survived in a borderland, which is at the same time a no-man’s land and a every-man’s land. In this fluidity, the link with the solid ground becomes fundamental, and in this area is represented by the graves: the physical form of continuity of collective memory through precariousness of individual life. The last stop of our journey is a bit more South. The navigation of the sea of forest brings us to the shores of the Setumaa region (the land of Setu people). We were all eager to visit this peculiar piece of land (and water), which is today the external border of Europe with Russia. Setu people are a linguistic minority who inhabits the area on the border between Russia and Estonia. Yet before 1989, the area was all Soviet Union, so the border didn’t really matter. Yet now the border becomes real, though real means that the border is “floating” somewhere in the middle of the forest (figure 8A) and in the middle of the lake (figure 8B). *Insert Figure 8 around here* Figure 9: the border between Estonia and Russia runs on a geographically homogeneous territory Here comes again this image of something “floating”, literally. While Old Believers escaped Russia and found safeness thanks to the natural border represented by a land that nobody really wanted, Setu people where living in a region that has been at a certain point cut in two by a border arbitrarily overlapped to the real territory. This operation was so customary that while driving on some roads, you can penetrate for some hundred meters in Russian territory (figure 9A), yet you cannot stop by risk of being arrested. You must continue driving as soon as you are “back” into Estonian territory. *Insert Figure 9 around here* Figure 10: paradoxes of Setumaa border Suddenly, Setu towns and villages have been cut out on the Russian side of the border and have become reachable only through few checkpoints. Apparently, if someone wants to see some relatives or visit the graves located few hundred meters over the border, shall drive hundred kilometers to get to the nearest checkpoint. Yet what once again is “anchoring” this floating life to the solid ground are the cemeteries. It is very common to find “multi-religious” and “multi-ethnic” cemeteries in Setumaa area (figure 9B). Estonian, Setu and Russian surnames, different writings (Cyrillic and Western), different types of crosses lay side by side, though in specific areas of the cemeteries. The sense of floating continues as I understand that neither physical nor conventional borders are the distinctive traits of this part of European continent. Physical borders never stopped human mobility, rather they have always become challenges to win. In the Peipus lake area, is for instance very common to see some special pickups with modified big wheels to run over the icy lake and go fishing or to reach the opposite shore. Conventional borders can be more effective in regulating human experience, as they can become internalized (Marsico & Tateo, 2017). Old Believers still do not mix easily with their Estonian neighbors or with other orthodox that they consider “impure”. Yet I think that the key to understand this experience is not the concept of border, rather the range of human activities that take place in that zone. When taking place in those special areas that we call borders, human activities acquire a special character. They both link and discriminate. They establish relationship with people that maybe we do not like – as for instance in the case of the Estonian border guards we met in a Setumaa checkpoint, talking about their Russian counterparts. They create opportunities and value differences, as in the case of the woman that was biking across the border to pick mushrooms in Estonia and sell back in Russia under the benevolent gaze of the border guards. Bordering also create wide range of human affective experiences: “othering” (us and them), nostalgia (for the other side), secrecy (what is visible and invisible). Semiosis of the In-between: sign processes in social "membranes": Pina The last planned visit in our “on the road” international seminar was an area called Setumaa close to the border between Estonia and Russia (in the most south-easterly part of Estonia). Since the very beginning -when the initial plan of the seminar was outlined- I had the feeling that specific place could give me some empirical clues for supporting my comprehension of what does it means living on the two side of the border. So, the caravans moved and reached Setumaa after have done already hundreds on Estonias kilometres. Here some my ethnographic discoveries interwoven with some theoretical elaborations European social membranes: the Setumaa case The construction of individual and collective identity on the border, is the human arena for exploring sign processes in what I call “social membranes”. This notion offer a new understanding of the complexity of the semiosis in-between. In my perspective the “space in between” is neither a cuttable and divisible presence into discrete things, nor a mere “nothing” that could be cut off our conceptualization; on the contrary it allows the crossing phenomenon and semiotic processes (Marsico, 2011; 2016). In the next pages the special case of Setumaa (which is actually an European Borderzone where the borders on the map does not really coincide with the "cultural" border) will be discussed in order to see how the social membrane provides the content for new form of belonging and becoming and for understanding the process of sign making and sign negotiation. The Setus are a small Finno-Ugric nation. Several features distinguish Setus from Estonia and many of them are not visible borders. Firstly, in contrast to primarily Lutheran or atheist Estonians, Setus are traditionally Orthodox. Secondly, the language they speak differs from the Estonian written language in a way that makes it difficult for Estonian to understand, and almost impossible for them to learn to speak. The Russian language has also had its impact on the Setu language. Historically, Setumaa was Russian territory and Slavic culture has somewhat influenced the clothing, cooking, architecture and music of Setu People. However, Setus have remained a separate area and have not been subsumed by Russia. Setumaa has always been on the periphery (as a Borderland that in my terms are turn into Social Membranes) location on the boundary between East and West. Territory is divided between two countries: Estonia and Russia. Historically, the territory of Setus (Pechory County) has covered about 1700 km2. Nowadays, about ¾ of the historical range belongs to Russia Federation and about ¼ to Estonia Republic (figure 10). *Insert Figure 10 around here* Figure 11: the region of Setumaa as it looks today At the beginning of the 20th century, After World War I, Estonia fought for and won its independence and on 2 February 1920 concluded a peace treaty with the Soviet Russia. According to the treaty, the area around Pechory was given to Estonia. The area become to be named Pechory county (Petserimaa) which was divided into 11 rural municipalities in 1922- partly along administratively decided lines, as the Setu villages ad the Russian villages were interspersed. During the World War II, the Soviet Union occupied Estonia and united about three fourths of Pechory County. Together with Russian villages many Setu villages and Pechory, the centre of Setumaa, were included in the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. At the end of 1980 up to today a sort of Setu self-awareness raise and a lot of Setu organization started to be officially registered (i.e. Setu Society in 1987, Union Rural Municipalities of Setumaa and even the Setu Congress that counts of 105 elected delegates. The most important decision of the Setu Congress have included selecting the Setu flag and anthem and declaring the Setus a nation (figure 11). These are example of semiotic process in the social membranes. At the beginning of 1990s a Setu Kingdom Day was established in which Setus demonstrate their skill in the improvisation of the Setu song, in playing instrument, in dancing, in making handmade foods and the Setu strongman is determined. The highlight of the Kingdom day is however, the election of the King of Setus who is the most important and highly respected person in Setumaa and his/her role is to represent the entre Setu people. In 1993, the administrative borders bisecting Setumaa was renamed as border line that is subject to state border regime (figure 8A above). This caused fundamental changes in everyday life: the radial road network based in Pechory could not longer be used as such, and many people were no longer able to attend their home church. Visiting the next-of- kin and honouring the deceased has always been very important in the Setu culture. *Insert Figure 11 around here* Figure 12: Setumaa's flag and anthem In cooperation between the Setu congress, the union of the Rural municipalities of Setumaa, the Pechory support group into the Parliament, the Estonian and Russian foreigner ministries and the Estonian Police and Border Guard Board it was agreed that about 8.000 persons can cross the borders during church feast days visa-free on the basis of a list. Since 2000, annual visas for the Russian Federation are issued free of charge to 2.000 people who have justified region for going in Pechory region (like visit the graves or the relatives etc).The consulate of Estonia in Russia issues long term visa (up to 4 years) on the same ground and to as many people. These are a clear examples of sign making and sign negotiation in social membranes and this appears even more evident if we zoom at micro scale and looking at the everyday borders and at the ordinary complexity of borders and bordering processes (Marsico & Tateo, 2017). Living and making sense to the borders in every day life: semiosis in between In the field of Border study, scholars usually approach borders as an abstraction located somewhere at the fuzzy intersection of power, society and territory. As a result, our conceptualizations of borders often stress their multifaceted, ever-changing, and contradictory nature and our work habitually results in complex and hyper-coded representations of border realities. We tend to forget that at the border, millions of people are just living their daily lives; dealing and coping with the ordinary complexity of borders and bordering. Every day, people cross borders to shop, play, study or work; and many even lose their lives in the attempt, and every day, many face scrutiny and even harassment, while others cross without even noticing the border. Daily life on the border is embedded in the everyday construction and deconstruction of borders through ideology, cultural mediation, discourses, institutions, attitudes and social practices (Español, Marsico, & Tateo, submitted). Bordering is a multilevel process manifested by physical borders and visa regimes, as well as in media debates over national identity, migration, gender, ethnic diversity, citizenship, cooperation, and other personal and collective ways of understanding, living and acting borders. Clearly, borders are not just abstractions, they are concrete realities where lives unfold and the daily routines of people, businesses, and institutions run their course. How borders shape and impact the daily life of border communities? Who borders who and which borders, new and old, material and intangible, are being enforced/reinforced and where? What narratives are being wielded in the ongoing struggle to reborder/deborder the contemporary world? What conditions determine the resilience of border communities and their agency? How can scholars learn from those working in public, private and community organizations dealing with borders on a daily basis? How does border research remain theoretically relevant, while closely examining the concrete manifestations of bordering? All these questions were the intellectual turmoil that affected me after seeing a very ordinary crossing border and apparently insignificant event at the Borderpost between Estonian and Russia in the last days of our itinerary. Zooming at micro scale. In the middle of the apology of the borders…something happens We stopped at the checkpoint where we were welcomed by two border guards. The first was a tall and experienced guard of about 55 years old, and the other was a very short and young guard of 6 mounts working experience. What a strange couple I thought, but then I realized that the two of them were displaying the different “era” of border management in this particular European region and the current need of strengthening the border control that is concretely ending up with the ongoing construction of fences along the borderline line between Estonia and Russia (nowadays basically demarcated with strips and posts, see figures 8A and 9A). We spent half an hour, standing next the borderline and talking with the two border guards under a thin, but persistent rain. Nobody around, no noise, no traffic, just a bunch of curios international scholars in the middle of a remote Estonian forest at the edge with Russia. I felt like being in a sort of suspended atmosphere which was in contrast with the discourse (and even the physical postures) of the two guards. They told us their daily activities and the relevance of their surveillance, the connection with the “Russian colleagues” on the other side of the border, their need of be ready to kill the “enemy” if necessary and all the expected apology of the important role in keeping the control over the region for safety reason. But then, while this depiction of the border control was going on, I saw a bike ridden by a beautiful young girl, with a child (probably the sister) on her back and a basket on the front. She was just biking under the rain, coming towards us along the unpaved path. She passed by and stopped next to the little post showing probably her permission. Then she quickly moved on, disappearing from my sight (see yellow arrow in figure 12). *Insert Figure 12 around here* Figure 13: biking through the border It was such a surrealistic scene, similar to a Pasolini’s movie. She just smoothly cross the border form Estonia (and then Europe) to Russia while we were discussing of the strictness of border system between countries. I was totally hypnotized of what I have just observed (see Figure 12) and then I was told by the oldest guard that there is a lot of people that (especially in that period of time) cross the border, coming from Russian villages to Estonian forest for picking up mushrooms or berries, sell them to the Estonian local market and coming back home. So, the beautiful girl on the bike has spent probably her day picking mushrooms and selling them for making money on the other side of the border. Something very ordinary! Yet, was exactly this absolutely normality or ordinariness that surprised me very much. That girl and the younger sister on her back, live their lives incorporating the borders and the two sides of the borders in their own daily routines. They go “in and out” and the crossing experience is part of their everyday course of actions. What if at the certain point in time and for some reasons (for example a potential national threat), she is prevented to cross the borders? What would happen to her little business and to the family economy? How this would affect the personal feeling of what surrounds her, her freedom (despite the control), her sense of belonging and social identity? This little episode that we observed by change that day, made me thinking of the temporal fixing and unfixing the border on the basis of a set of norms established as a results of a socio-political agreements. What about if something suddenly change in the border control system? What would happen to the girl on the bike who easily crossed the border? There was something hidden that regulates what was going on there in that specific Estonia/Russian border post and this calmness and suspension could dramatically change as a consequence of the modification of the rules settled somewhere else far away.