In Praise of Borders, Boundaries and Territories

Online dissolves borders, and laughs in the face of space and time. Everywhere and everyone is just a click away...

That is the undisputed assumption underpining the PR conversation. But history is written in borders. Wars are fought over borders. The Berlin Wall, Maginot Line, the privet hedge between the Jones and the Smith family gardens, they all define territories and focus tensions.

So can Border Theory inform thinking about online PR?

PR academics quickly realised that reach, transparency and porosity were key to understanding the changes online would bring. Some practitioners saw only opportunity in low cost networking and unlimited global penetration, others feared loss of control.

But as well as thinking about reach it is worth exploring the linked concepts of boundaries and borders. We do this a lot at an individual level, and there is great debate around the integrity of personal space, and the blurring of our public and private worlds, but this not always linked to consideration of borders on a geo-political or cultural level.

Just because an organisation's digital reach can extend anywhere in the world doesn't mean it is operating 'internationally' or 'transnationally' - not least because it probably doesn't want to.

OK, there are some truly global brands but most organisations that want to extend beyond local or national horizons will still actively target and engage with a limited number of territories.  The intent might be 'international' and the framing might be defined, for convenience, by countries (or 'nations') but the unifying characteristics will probably be at least as much down to culture as geography.

Sales uses concepts of territories, PR is more concerned with spheres of influence, and, as in geo-politics, influence is linked to trust and legitimacy. (This, of course is the nice end of border theory, the bit that dpesn't include tanks and guns).

Weber tells us that the state is an area in which it is posible to exercise a "successful monopoly of legitimate physical violence." Traditionally this area has been linked to physical geography. States whose boards confirm to natural borders - seas rivers and mountain ranges - are more likely to be strong nation states.

At the same time, market theory tells us that barriers to commerce are bad, as are shackles to innovation, but borders, too, are seen as good when concepts of homeland security demand them. Google 'border' from England and the first hit on the list is UK Border Agency: 'Matters relating to immigration and permission to stay...'

Borders define the boundaries of political entities or legal jurisdictions. Those outside are alien... which is not a word easily integrated into the positive, inclusive, welcoming language of PR! Likewise, the prevalent but unacknowledged technique of othering is not often included in the lengthy list of services provided by PR agencies.

Online communicators are by nature more comfortable with Bill Clinton's 2001 satement: "You live in age of interdependence. Borders don't count for much or stop much, good or bad any more."

Deterritorialisation is the term used to describe a cultural process where the break between the social and the geographical heralds a new age of unplaced human interaction. Anderson calls this the 'new medievalism' where boundaries are overrun and sovereignty is plural and overlapping.

"Traditional ideas about Borders are being challenged in complex and contradictory ways. Yet, borders remain pivotal to practical issues of economic development, social welfare, cultural identity, ethnographic-national conflict, political surveillance, sovereignty and democracy." Centre for International Border Research, Queen's University, Belfast.

Identifying the 'territories' in which targeted audiences or key stakeholders reside, and recognising the physical and cultural boundaries which define them is a challenge for communicators which will demand new cartographic skills.

Comments

[Paul Seaman]

Good post. Modern PRs seem not to know that communities are defined more by who they exclude than by who they include. Hence, most of what passes for online communities are not communities at all. Borders, barriers and exclusivity give communities their value - their sense of belonging to their members, as well as establishing their identity and position in the world. Of course, things are always changing and being redefined, but the principles behind how communities are made meaningful remain constant.

As for comparisons with the medieval world - back then the tension between neighbouring villages was the real tension (it was people like us who were feared and hated most and the source of most conflicts...it was so in parts of Africa until very recently).

[Richard Bailey]

Excellent post!

Through most of history, allegiances have been tribal - and tribes were not defined by physical boundaries.

Coins describing medieval kings as rex angliae meant that they were 'king of the English', not 'king of England'. The tribe, not the land.

Borders are the obsession of empires and nation states.

[Philip]

Thanks, Paul and Richard. This seems territory worth exploring (or invading, or annexing!). One of the factors that has driven border studies seems to be the development of ever more sophisticated cartography; I wonder who is using social media metrics and demographics to more sharply define borders and boundaries?

[PR Agencies]

Indeed an interesting post - however maybe things have changed?

@ Richard - has the situation changed in recent years in terms of the Queen being the Queen of England/British Commonwealth rather than the Queen of the English?