Summary
Draft summary of the Infotransfront conference held April 8th, 2011 in Metz
Vincent Goulet
This first conference in the ‘Infotransfront’ program was an opportunity to assess the current status of research on the conditions of crossborder circulation of information within the Greater Region and in Europe. The various communications presented also highlighted some axes for future investigation and introduced theoretical and methodological guidelines useful for research.
Warmest thanks to all participants to this conference for the quality of the presentations and discussions.
1. Background
Several communications presented the Greater Region, i.e., the framework of the information circulation (or non-circulation).
The Greater Region appears to be a particularly fragmented space.
First of all, there are language barriers, barriers made up of distinct national systems (in legal terms, in terms of social coverage, in terms of what makes people part of a specific state for matters relating to daily life: no more physical borders within the Schengen system, but a strong ‘administrative’ frontier)
- strong persistence of mental frontiers, of distinctive cultural areas.
But it is also an area of crossborder cooperation with a complex history (E. Auburtin).
Territorial planning based on the principle of networking, of complementary interconnection (governance and ‘win-win’ rationales between public powers in charge of organization) and not a policy of surface planning management with a tax-based redistribution power.
(C. Lamour)
- Little ‘territorialization’ effect and weak crossborder territorial identity (C. Wille, P. Zur Nieden)
Structural, economic and political reasons:
Strong flow of crossborder workers (the Greater Region represents ¼ of crossborder workers in the EU).
The circulation flow (work, consumption) results from a differential, an asymmetry between the various regions (Luxembourg).
However, the asymmetry, these differentials which trigger the circulations also create new segmentations at the same time, without necessarily creating common interests:
New frontier between urban areas of residence and deserted rural areas, perception by crossborder workers of the places where they work as a “place out there” which is not their “own” place (the rooting is in the place of residence). Enduring stereotypes on the “other”.
Role of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, at the heart of the Greater Region’s functional nucleus and policy of expansion of its sphere of influence without necessarily assuming the social costs of such policy.
Specific characteristics of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and of the city of Luxembourg: multiculturalism; cosmopolitanism; multilingualism; high standard of living (and cost of housing); service-based economy; salaried, intensely intellectual jobs; defense of Luxembourgish as a national language and culture.
Cities and regions in “coopetition”, (i.e. relationships involving cooperation when there is a common interest and competition when one of the players can maximize resources to the others’ expense) to define the territory and organize it. Strong institutional rationale in the construction of the ‘‘greater regional’’ common interest (D. Buzy, C. Lamour) with all the ensuing characteristics (top-down, governance, para-diplomatic approaches, strategic inertia). Also, influence of European financial and political incentives (InterReg).
Other types of fragmentation (not specific to the Greater Region, but which are also very effective): age and generation, social class and position within the production system, urban vs rural.
2. Which kinds of crossborder circulation of information?
Several communications presented the media-related flow of information within that Greater Region area.
The public’s interest is mostly based on their material conditions of existence (Daseingrundfunktionnen).
It is largely modeled on the differentiated and asymmetrical structuring rationales at work within the Greater Region area. Thus, there is a segmentation, a far-reaching fragmentation of the public whose vision of the GR area, besides, is just as fragmented (P. Wiermer: perception of the GR as an accumulation of more or less interconnected areas).
There is relatively little interest demonstrated for what is happening on the other side of the state borders unless there are strong structural reasons to do so (P. Zur Nieden, P. Wiermer, C. Wille).
The media ‘‘follow” the practical customs of the area and hardly influence them.
Besides, the conditions in which information is produced in the editorial offices of crossborder media are not directed toward crossborder circulation.
The question of languages and translation (M. Prinzing & R. Blum, J. Palmer), of editorial means (no correspondents, the editors themselves have to travel to the other side of state borders), poor physical circulation of the papers (the Badische Zeitung is available in Frankfurt and Paris before it is in Strasburg), absence of a “regional press agency” able to foster common interests and provide editorial support in the form of translation capacity (J. Palmer).
Journalists are in a ‘‘defensive position’’ vis-à-vis local authorities who would welcome a more intense promotion of the GR (P. Zur Nieden).
3. The role of local authorities
Dominance of the institutional strategy and of ‘‘governance’’ in this construction of the Greater Region’s media and public space.
Local authorities are the key players, with competing interests: multiplication of networks (such as Quattropole, Lela+).
Strong institutional communication, via press releases, internet sites (D. Buzy).
At the same time, weak political/democratic dynamics relying on civil society itself. Reason for the lack of public issues, which ‘‘lines of conflicting interests’’ that would make it possible to de/re-compose the traditional state or cultural divisions to create common interests via public discussions (S. Seidendorf)?
However, the role of crossborder workers’ associations should be assessed (pointed out by Ph. Hammann in reference to the TCE 2005 referendum. Their influence seems visible on the electoral map).
Conclusion
‘‘Frontiers cannot be erased,’’ some last and some recompose themselves while others are reconfigured (frontiers are forever redefining themselves).
Let’s not give in to the prescriptive approach on the disappearance of frontiers. Borders are useful because they contribute to the construction of the identity of individuals and groups, through their recognition as well as their transgression (ambivalence in the relationship to others – C. Wille).
The asymmetry is possibly at the origin of frontiers and their dynamics, namely in terms of physical and informational flows. Frontier territories such as the Greater Region are based on strong dialectics which need to be explored in depth.