COMPASS - Collective Memory & Planning: Across Social Separation

European spatial planning has emerged in a way that has (mostly) ignored the complexities associated with national borders, tending to take a monochromatic view of them as either `closed` (external borders of the EU) or `open` (internal borders of the EU), often rooted on a singular view of either a `space of places`, or a `space of flows`. But this view denies the much more complex, shaded reality of borders, which in reality are ambiguous human constructions, comprising a set of overlapping boundaries and which are moreover constantly in flux (more than might be imagined at first sight). This provides a certain understanding of why properly working cross-border networks are rarely found throughout Europe, despite the many financial support programmes and institutional frameworks set up by the European Union. Assuming that the planning systems mismatch is not the main root- cause of the problem, as can be learnt from successful cross-border cooperation projects, I am arguing that the missing of a truly trans-cultural understanding has to be regarded as one of the reasons why it is so difficult to build up long-lasting and effective cross-border cooperation networks. However as (planning) culture is constantly in flux and moreover beliefs, perceptions, feelings and emotions of different social groups and societies are hard to grasp, it is not surprising that these complex aspects so far have been recognised only as `taken-for-granted` elements of (planning) culture in the planning research debate. Arguing that this is not enough I have elaborated an analytical model, with which it appears to be possible to address this subconscious and `taken-for-granted` dimension of planning. The innovative aspect of my approach clearly lies in combining collective memory and planning culture theories and debates and provides an enlightening pathway of how to grasp and unpack `taken-for- granted` generalisations about `the others`, which are sometimes manifested in form of negative stereotypes or even prejudices within a planning culture. Doing so it contributes substantially to the building up of trans-cultural understanding in a particular border-region and consequently to the overcoming of social separation due to a (national) border. The main objective of this research endeavour is to examine the collective memory effect on cross-border cooperation practices in Europe and more precisely to figure out to what extent subconscious collective memories influence formal planning decisions in general as well as the quality and success of cross-border cooperation processes in particular. However, rather than searching for the cultural nucleus of cross-border planning practice throughout Europe, I want to look at the example of two concrete cross-border regions to understand how proper trans-cultural understanding can be build up. I am assuming that if this aspect is neglected, this may inadvertently legitimise the stereotypes we hold of `the others` but also vice versa and as a consequence hampers cross-border cooperation in practice.

All the maps and atlases with which we are familiar confront us with a particular geopolitical picture of the world. It is a worlds surface divided into distinct state territories, each clearly demarcated by a line, the border. It is this notion of the border which we usually take for granted. But borders are not just visible lines on a map; on the contrary they are complex social constructions with spatial implications. The COMPASS project has revealed that at borders a set of individual geopolitical, sociocultural, economic and landscape aspects are decisive. Two important lessons can be learnt from this finding. First, every border and every part of the border is unique (depending on which and how many of this spatially relevant aspects meet or overlay at the border). Second, the more spatially relevant aspects are coming together at a border the thicker and more oppressive it is and consequently the more difficult it is to cross, both physically and mentally. Considering that borders are over and over again breeding grounds for problems and conflicts, the emerging question then is, if we should try to eradicate them all together. The COMPASS research results have shown that this is neither desired nor needed. Not desired because borders are essential to our everyday life; they enable us to manage our lives collectively. Unbounded functional activities, be they social, cultural or economic, would be formless. How could we acquire an identity if we were not able to distinguish between us and them? And no territory could be administered unless it was clearly demarcated. How could we draw up a plan or develop a given territory unless the region was defined beforehand? Not needed because (cultural) differences do not automatically create insurmountable barriers, as long as the borderlanders (=people living next to a border) have the possibility to cross the border and as long as they interact with the borderlanders on the other side of the border on a regular basis. The problem, however, starts to emerge when outsiders (=people, who do not live/work in a border region) impose societal frames on the borderlanders. These frames often incorporate the outsiders subconscious collective memories and perceptions and in the worst case their negative stereotype pictures of the others behind the border. These stereotype pictures then get transmitted via media and politics to the borderlanders, where they create uneasy feelings when they land. What does this all mean for spatial planners? On the one hand spatial planners need to understand that there exists no one size fits all approach to border challenges across the world. Every cross-border region needs to be considered as unique and suggestions on how to overcome negative border effects need to be developed according to the contemporary and context-specific needs of the borderlanders from both sides of the border. This means that solutions need to be developed with and for the borderlanders. On the other hand spatial planners need to understand that cross-border regions are comparable with ecotones (a specific well studied ecosystem in ecology). Further research on how to transfer the ecotone-idea to cross-border planning in terms of how to manage diversity and how to allow transcultural spaces to emerge, in a better and more humane way is very much needed.