B/Ordering in der Großregion. Mobilitäten – Grenzen – Identitäten

The article is part of the anthology “Champs médiatiques et frontières dans la ‘Grande Région’ SaarLorLux et en Europe / Mediale Felder und Grenzen in der Großregion SaarLorLux und in Europa” edited by Vincent GOULET and Christoph VATTER.

Right at the beginning of his essay, Christian WILLE questions the inhabitants of the Greater Region's sense of belonging as predicted in the model for regional-political cooperation in the Greater Region. The author first explains the concept of identity on which the article is based. This is followed by an explanation of the term “B/Ordering.” This describes the implementation of social practices of (social-) spatial differentiation, “which results in codings of the here/there or of the self/other, which in turn represent certain symbolic orders of social reality (in the sense of ordering)” (Houtum, Naerssen 2002: 126). (p. 51 f.).

Based on the combination of a survey of cross-border commuters in the Greater Region and a representative survey of the Luxembourg resident population (both surveys are based on a combination of qualitative and quantitative survey techniques and have already been dealt with in other publications), the author examines identity constructions of cross-border commuters and identity constructions in the context of cross-border commuting.

After a brief introduction to the cross-border labor market and the special role of Luxembourg (concentration of commuter flows to Luxembourg and asymmetry of flows), WILLE questions “to what extent circular mobility affects the spatial identities of cross-border commuters” (p. 53). The questions are formed from the following partial aspects:

• Cross-border commuters’ affiliation to different spatial levels,
• Perception of the respective working region as “abroad,”
• Inhabitants’ characterization of their living and working region.

In order to investigate the spatial affiliations, the 458 cross-border commuters were asked to state their perceived affiliation to various spatial scale levels (world citizen, Europe, Greater Region, country of employment, country of residence, residential region, place of residence). While the greatest sense of belonging was found in terms of place of residence, residential region and country of residence, the lowest values were assigned to the Greater Region and the working region. When asked whether the cross-border commuters perceive the working region as “abroad,” the majority of them answer “no.” Nevertheless, some of the interviewees explain precisely what is different in the working region as opposed to the residential region. The author explores the question of perceptions of self and other using the example of cross-border commuters from Lorraine who work in Luxembourg. They were asked to explain their perceptions about Lorraine and Luxembourgers on the basis of a scale in which pairs of opposite attributes such as “closed/open” were found. As a rule, the “self” group was more likely to have positive characteristics, while the “other” group was more likely to have negative characteristics. Accordingly, “despite daily border crossings, the ‘ordering’ of the inhabitants of the working region (the others) on the one hand and the inhabitants of the residential region (the own) on the other hand is maintained” (p. 58).

In the next section, a change of perspective follows in which the Luxembourg resident population is questioned with regard to a possible cross-border identity. The points language, culture, economy and labor market are dealt with. With regard to socio-economic aspects, the results reflect a relatively positive perception. The author sees this attitude linked to the goal of securing prosperity. With regard to socio-cultural aspects, however, an exclusionary attitude of the Luxembourg resident population regarding cross-border commuters can be seen.