| Article | |
|---|---|
| Article name | Ethno-cultural Transboundariness: A Geographer’s View |
| Authors | Gerasimenko T.I. Doctor of Geography, Professor, tanyag26@yandex.ru |
| Bibliographic description | Gerasimenko T. I. Ethno-cultural Transboundariness: A Geographer’s View // Humanitarian Vector. 2017. Vol. 12, No. 1. PP. 152–160. DOI 10/21209/1996-7853-2017-12-1-152-160. |
| Section | HUMAN GEOGRAPHY AND PHILOSOPHY OF TRANSBOUNDEDNESS |
| UDK | 332.122130.1 |
| DOI | 10.21209/1996-7853-2017-12-1-152-160 |
| Article type | |
| Annotation | The article deals with the phenomenon of transboundariness as an interdisciplinary problem. It emphasizes the role of geography in its study. The theoretical and methodological tools of this discipline allow the author to generalize different approaches and study the problem in a comprehensive and integrated manner. The article describes the transformation of border functions and roles, as well as their conditional character in the modern globalized world. The author gives a definition of transboundariness and a trans-border region (TBR), including ethno-cultural regions through a systematic perspective. Trans-border regions are different-sized parts of the geographical envelope, which have the properties of the system (such as internal unity, cooperation, predominance of centripetal tendencies). Ethno-cultural trans-border regions (ECTBR) can be multicultural and monocultural. The article presents the regularities of the development and formation of ethnic and cultural trans-border regions, as well as the specificity of their development in post-Soviet space. Ethno-cultural trans-border regions have a dual role: they act as bridges between cultures (“windows” to “other” worlds) and at the same time sources of problems and secessionist tendencies. The author expresses a point of view of the impossibility of delimitating ECTBR and proves the necessity of their theoretical, methodological and practical study. |
| Key words | border, trans-border region, ethno-cultural trans-border region, delimitation |
| Article information | |
| References | 1. Amurskie evenki. Bol’shie problemy malogo etnosa: sb. nauch. tr. / pod red. G. V. Bykovoi. Blagoveshchensk: Izd-vo BGPU, 2003. Vyp. 1. 266 s. 2. Anisimov A. M., Vardomskii L. B., Kolosov V. A. Prigranichnoe sotrudnichestvo regionov Rossii, Belarusi i Ukrainy: sostoyanie i perspektivy // Evraziiskaya ekonomicheskaya integratsiya. 2013. № 4. S. 77–96. 3. Badenkov Yu. P. Transgranichnye gornye territorii v usloviyakh globalizatsii: Altaiskii sindrom // Izvestiya RAN. Ser. Geogr. 2002. № 3. S. 21–24. 4. Baklanov P.Ya., Ganzei S. S. Prigranichnye i transgranichnye territorii kak ob”ekt geograficheskikh issledovanii // Izvestiya RAN. Ser. Geogr. 2004. № 4. S. 27–34. 5. Bakhtin M. M. Formy vremeni i khronotopa v romane // Literaturno-kriticheskie stat’i. M.: Khud. lit., 1986. 543 s. 6. Vardomskii L. B. Rossiiskoe porubezh’e v usloviyakh globalizatsii. M.: Librokom, 2008. 212 s. 7. Gerasimenko T. I. Problemy etnokul’turnogo razvitiya transgranichnykh regionov. SPb., 2005. 235 c. 8. Gerasimenko T. I. Transgranichnye etnokul’turnye regiony: metodologicheskie podkhody k izucheniyu // Izvestiya RGO. 2005. T. 137, vyp. 1. S. 73–83. 9. Gerasimenko T.I Transgranichnye etnokul’turnye regiony: spetsifika mezhetnicheskogo vzaimodeistviya i problemy integratsii // Geografiya v shkole. 2006. № 5. S. 11–18. 10. Gerasimenko T. I. Transgranichnye regiony // Gumanitarnaya geografiya: nauch. i kul’turno-prosvetitel’skii al’manakh. M.: In-t naslediya, 2006. S. 343–346. 11. Gerasimenko T. I. Vmeshchayushchii landshaft i komplimentarnost’ etnosov – osnova formirovaniya regional’noi identichnosti // Vestn. SPbGU. Spetsvypusk. 2012. S. 31–41. 12. Gerasimenko T. I. Etnokul’turnoe prostranstvo orenburgsko-kazakhstanskogo transgranichnogo regiona v istoriko-geograficheskoi dinamike // Vopr. geogr. 2014. Sb. 136. S. 339–355. 13. Gerasimenko T. I. Transformatsiya etnokul’turnogo prostranstva orenburgsko-kazakhstanskogo porubezh’ya // Strategiya razvitiya prigranichnykh territorii: traditsii i innovatsii. Kursk: Kursk. gos. un-t, 2014. S. 25–32. 14. Gerasimenko T. I. Vliyanie novoi gosudarstvennoi granitsy na razvitie etnokul’turnogo prostranstva (primer Orenburgsko-Kazakhstanskogo porubezh’ya) // Nauka. Innovatsii. Tekhnologii. 2015. S. 109–121. 15. Gerasimenko T. I., Lapaeva M. G. Formirovanie transgranichnykh regionov kak prostranstvennovremennoi rezul’tat transgranichnogo vzaimodeistviya // Vestn. OGU. 2012. № 2. S. 298–302. 16. Gerasimenko T. I., Filimonova I. Yu. Orenburgsko-Kazakhstanskoe porubezh’e: istoriko-etnograficheskii i etnogeograficheskii aspekty. Orenburg: OGU, 2011. Ch. 1. 160 s. 17. Gettner A. Evropeiskaya Rossiya. Antropogeograficheskii etyud. 1907 // Aziatskaya Rossiya v geopoliticheskoi i tsivilizatsionnoi dinamike XVI–XX veka. M.: Nauka, 2004. S. 152–154. 18. Gumilev L. N. Etnogenez i biosfera Zemli. M.: Airis-Press, 2004. 557 s. 19. Dergachev V. A. Geopolitika. M.: Yuniti-Dana, 2004. 526 s. 20. Zamyatin D. N. Diskursnye strategii v pole vnutrennei i vneshnei politiki // Kosmopolis. 2003. № 3. S. 41–49. 21. Zamyatina N.Yu. Kartografirovanie otkrytykh gorizontov: frontir s tochki zreniya kognitivnoi geografii // Kniga kartiny Zemli: sb. st. / pod red. T. N. Dzhakson, A. V. Podosinova. M.: Indrik, 2014. S. 117–131. 22. Zemskov V. B. Odnoglazyi Yanus. Pogranichnaya epokha – pogranichnoe soznanie // Kanuny i rubezhi. Tipy pogranichnykh epokh – tipy pogranichnogo soznaniya: v 2 ch. Ch. 1. M.: IMLI RAN, 2002. S. 6–21. 23. Kaganskii V. L. Situatsiya granitsy i logiko-semioticheskie tipy granits // Granitsy i pogranichnost’ v kul’ture: mezhdunar. zhurn. issledovanii kul’tury [Elektronnyi resurs]. 2015. № 4. Rezhim dostupa: https://www.docviewer. yandex.ru/?uid=3962771&url=yamail (data obrashcheniya: 21.10.2016). 24. Kolosov V. A., Turovskii R. F. Tipy novykh rossiiskikh granits // Izvestiya RAN. Ser. Geogr. 1999. № 5. S. 39–47. 25. Kuvakin V. A. Retrospektiva virtual’nosti // Tsifrovoe obshchestvo kak kul’turno-istoricheskii kontekst razvitiya cheloveka: sb. nauch. st. / pod obshch. red. R. V. Ershovoi. Kolomna: Gos. sotsial’no-gum. un-t, 2016. S. 215–219. 26. Kul’turnaya geografiya / pod red. Yu. A. Vedenina i R. F. Turovskogo. M.: In-t naslediya, 2001. 192 s. 27. Pain E. A. Etnopoliticheskii mayatnik. Dinamika i mekhanizmy etnopoliticheskikh protsessov v postsovetskoi Rossii. M., 2004. 327 s. 28. Popkova L. I. Prigranichnoe prostranstvo kak osobyi tip territorii (na primere rossiisko-ukrainskogo prigranich’ya) // Izvestiya RGO. 2005. T. 137, vyp. 1. S. 83–89. 29. Rodoman B. B. Gosudarstvennye granitsy v SNG i prigranichnaya politika // Polyarizovannaya biosfera: sb. st. Smolensk: Oikumena, 2002. S. 298–302. 30. Russkie Kurily: istoriya i sovremennost’: sb. dokumentov po istorii formirovaniya russko-yaponskoi i sovetsko-yaponskoi granitsy. Izd. 2-e, rassh. i dop. M.: Algoritm, 2002. S. 43–44. 31. Rossiiskoe pogranich’e: sotsial’no politicheskie i infrastrukturnye problemy / pod red. V. A. Kolosova i A. B. Volodina. M., 2016. 188 s. 32. Sotsial’no-ekonomicheskie, geopoliticheskie i sotsiokul’turnye problemy razvitiya prigranichnykh raionov Rossii / otv. red. V. N. Streletskii. M.: Eslan, 2016. 344 c. 33. Penk A. Die naturlichen Grenzen Ruβlands. Ein Beitragzurpolitischen Geographie des europaischen Ostens // Meereskunde. 1918. Heft 1. Berlin. S. 1–39. |
| Full article | Ethno-cultural Transboundariness: A Geographer’s View |
| 0 | |
| 0 | |
