Preface: Remapping Sortavala from Below
In the post-Cold war era, the construction of new state borders, on the one hand,as well as the changing significance of old borders, on the other hand, have been at theheart of border studies. The parallel processes of de- and re-bordering, together with thechanges in the nature of European borders that they have implied, have been interpreted
in terms of competing projects of identity building related to traditional nation building, as well as the results of emerging trends of European integration and globalisation.
In the context of this type of binary vision, national perspectives have been linked tosecuritized views of territorial integrity, while de-bordering and cross-border regionalisation have been related to a new post-Cold war era, and even a post-modern politics.
When applied to the re-definition of post-Soviet borders, such a template accentuatesa juxtaposition between the supposedly nationalising identity politics promoted by theRussian federal centre and the politics of de-bordering and cross-border regionalisation
represented by the European Union and its neighbourhood policies.
This study of Alexander Izotov brings at least two important elements to this discussion: the role of local identity and the importance of analysing Soviet era traditions.
Izotov’s study of the Soviet border town of Sortavala in the post-war period stresses thesignificance of local identity building by bringing to light rich evidence of how broadand expansive patterns of national and political identification are in fact deeply embedded in local institutional and discursive practices. Perhaps even more importantly,
Izotov goes behind the party-led symbolic construction of Soviet identity and uncovers
in detail the every-day mechanisms of identity building in their local setting. His analysis shows that Soviet identity cannot be understood just as a mask on the surface of an
ethnic identification and something which can be thrown away overnight, but instead
as something that is much more deeply rooted and far-reaching.
Izotov does an exceptional job in illustrating the complex nature of this identity
building process with a number of empirical examples. He reveals the various ways inwhich the local identity of this garrison town, once situated in closed border zone, islinked to the traditional image of ‘defenders of the socialist motherland.’ His in depthanalysis, however, goes further than this in revealing several other layers of the Sorta­vala identity, which is related to the socialist production system and the position of thetown in it and the particular ethnic-cultural traditions of the region. Izotov demonstrates
the well-known paradoxes of Soviet nationality policies with examples showcasing
antiquarian Karelian ethnic traditions in a town of immigrants that had no roots in thearea. Besides general observations of official Soviet policies and the propaganda modes
typical to the Karelian Autonomous Soviet Republic, a special feature of Izotov’s analysis is the much needed, but often ignored perspective from below that allows him tobetter capture the complex history and positioning of the town.
The town of Sortavala was part of the Finnish areas ceded to the Soviet Union after WWII. When Finnish troops retreated, its old inhabitants were evacuated to Finland,and newcomers from Belarus, Ukraine and other parts of the Soviet Union settled in thetown. Like Kaliningrad, it formed in this sense a true Soviet town, where the new community had very thin links to earlier history and traditions. The narratives examined byvii

Izotov demonstrate how a diverse community of migrants has actually produced newforms of locality while the initial feelings of unfamiliarity and alienation have given
way to manifestations of local patriotism.
However, it is remarkable, as Izotov shows us, that despite this exceptional situation, the Finnish heritage, architecture, town infrastructure and even nature was partof the milieu of local identity formation. The most interesting aspect of all this, in myreading, is not however merely the survival of certain features of Finnishness in theidentity of the town as a contrast or competing element to Sovietness, Karelianness orRussianness, but rather the striking manner in which Izotov demonstrates how all theseelements are at the same time present in the everyday construction of identity of thissmall Soviet border town.
It is this part of his analysis that opens up an important perspective for us to better
understand the post-Cold war changes that have taken place in certain border regions.
In the Finnish discussion, the Sortavala region has often been conceptualised as a ‘lostland’ while the broader post-Soviet developments have been interpreted in rather national terms through a juxtaposition of Finnish and Russian cultures. An alternative‘European’ reading has in turn emphasised the shared Karelian traditions on both sidesof the border. It is exactly this perspective of joint traditions that have been taken as
the main building blocks for the future of the area in terms of a European cross-borderregion within the framework of EU neighbourhood policies.
However, instead of taking these commonly used perspectives for granted, Izotov’s study illustrates that from the standpoint of localities on the Finnish-Russian
border, such as Sortavala, these processes and questions of identity construction are actually far more complicated and multifaceted. He demonstrates in a convincing mannerthat ethnic-cultural traditions are not just ready-made packages of competing identities
but elements in an on-going process of identity construction where local, national andEuropean aspirations are mixed and constantly transfigured. At times, official local
discourses served to reproduce the national ones seeking to depict Sortavala first andforemost as a Soviet town. At the same time, however, some elements of the local Finno-Karelian traditions were incorporated into the narrative of Sortavala’s Sovietness,and in doing so altered the limits within which elements of the social, economic, cultural and architectural history of the town were considered as acceptable.
Coming back to today’s debates within the field of border studies, the story ofidentity formation in Soviet Sortavala certainly questions interpretations on bordering
processes where supranational, national and regional perspectives are pit against one
another. It neatly verifies the findings made in globalisation studies that global is not
merely something that happens at the supranational level, high up above our heads, butinstead something that is present at all levels, and perhaps most tangibly at the local
level as a part of our everyday life. Instead of focusing only on the supranational policy initiatives and the global scale dynamics of integration, which downplays the roleof borders, or relegates the implications of the enduring nation-state system and thenational-level projects that sustain this system, the recent border studies literature has
underlined that these perspectives must be combined, because the processes of de- andrebordering are not exclusionary, but occur simultaneously.

viii

As Izotov’s work hightlights, the processes of bordering and cross-border integration interact with each other in the midst of several contextual factors that intervene
and influence the dynamics and processes taking place within a particular cross-borderspace. The territorial rearrangements implied by globalisation force us to rethink ourlayered analysis and seek to understand how borders contribute to a nested system of
territoriality produced by various actors on different scales, from the global to local.
It is necessary to focus on the emerging epistemologies of how state borders are understood, perceived, experienced, and exploited as not only political but also socialresources—bottom-up just as much as top-down—in order to gain a more thoroughunderstanding of why borders have endured in spite of global pressures, and how theyreflect, and thus help us interpret, both the tensions and points of connection withinintercultural and interstate relations.
In the midst of the post-Cold War ‘disorder’ the nature of borders has been changing, and it is important to understand the complex roles and realities of borders toaddress both how they are changing and their strategic, economic, and cultural implications. Izotov’s work fits neatly within the contemporary border studies literature for
it provides clear evidence that borders are far more than just formal political markers
of sovereignty, but multifaceted social institutions, products and processes of a continuous social and political negotiation of space and practice. Borders frame social andpolitical action, help condition how societies and individuals shape their strategies andidentities; and are re- and de-constructed through various institutional and discursive
practices at different levels and by different actors.
Through regional responses to globalisation borders are often reproduced in situations of conflict where historical memories are mobilised to support territorial claims,
to address past injustices, or to strengthen group identity. At the same time, however, itis important to remember that through new institutional and discursive practices contested borders can also be transformed into symbols of cooperation and common historical heritage. In order to better understand the complexity of the present situation, it isalso necessary to pay more attention to changes in the governance of borders and border regions, as well as to the regional responses that are linked with such developments.
Although throughout the world most borders are subject to precisely the same global
phenomena, there are various context-specific responses to these trends, meaning thatgeneralised border narratives can obscure more than they illuminate.
The Sovietisation of the local identity Izotov describes does not per se condone orreify the Soviet identity politics but rather allows the people to forget its contingency.
In Sortavala, the Soviet leadership was confronted with a demanding task, having tobuild a Soviet community out of people of various origins in a socio-spatial environment prone to injurious influences, in terms of both history and geography. Even so,
Izotov’s study shows that it was the discourses and practices linked to the defence ofthe socialist Motherland that became of particular importance for Sortavala’s borderland identity. In this process, the state border with Finland gained a symbolic meaning
and a status of a sacred boundary protecting the Motherland from the foreign capitalist
enemy.

ix

Part of the significance of Sovietisation lies in its power to uphold the belief
systems that people have about their own country and its neighbours. Izotov’s study
illuminates how in the case of Sortavala it moulded a border area into a Soviet space,affecting not only the people living in Sortavala but also having an impact on the reconceptualisation of the city neighbouring Finland. The powerful Soviet ideology wasemotionally charged and certainly helped construct meaning in this particular borderland context. In this process, the border in between becomes increasingly a marker ofdifference, on the opposite side of which different modes of belongingness are acted
out and performed. Being a border town thus gave Sortavala a preeminent role in theSoviet project of national identity. The narratives studied by Izotov illuminate how inthe local identity construction process in Sortavala the self-identification of an ethnically and socially diverse community became (re)shaped in accordance with the goals of
the Soviet project of national identity through communist socialisation and the indoctrination of core socialist values.
Consequently, the exciting challenge for research is to recognise the various ways
supranational and national level processes are present in local everyday institutionaland discursive practices. For me, this is precisely what Izotov does in his analysis ofSoviet nationality policies and the multifaceted dynamics of identity formation in theSoviet border town of Sortavala. We might conclude that, if this kind of multiplicity isconceivable under the extreme regulation of Soviet circumstances, then a closer lookat local and everyday processes of identity formation might have relevance today inseeking alternatives to the hardening discourses of East-West division and national
juxtaposition in Europe and in particular on the Finnish-Russian border.
Jussi Laine
Assistant Professor, University of Eastern Finland
Executive Secretary and Treasurer of the Association for Borderlands Studiesx