Having produced an analytical model, I next sought to identify the specific
outcome sought by sister city peace actors. The question posed was: ‘What
exactly are people trying to achieve when they set up a sister city peace
relationship?” In keeping with the characteristic vagueness of sister city
discourses, the primary goal of the movement is frequently cited as ‘building
peace through understanding’, but the processes through which understanding
translates into peaceful relations is not rendered explicit. Furthermore, history
is replete with instances of human individuals and populations living in close
proximity and understanding each other well, but not liking or approving of
what they understand. How, then, might positive and productive understanding
between people from diverse cultural and political perspectives be facilitated
by means of sister city relationships? A broad sweep of the sociological
literature on communication across difference revealed a promising pathway in
the form of Star and Griesemer’s (1989) analytical concept of the ‘boundary
object’. A product of symbolic interactionist theory, the concept of the
boundary object highlights the importance of processes of meaning and
knowledge construction for the success of cooperative endeavours between
diverse social actors. Introduced by Star and Griesemer (1989) within the
sociology of science and technology, the concept has since been taken up and
developed in a wide cross-disciplinary literature.
An ‘object’ in the general sense can be “anything that can be indicated,
anything that is pointed to or referred to” (Blumer, 1967:10). It might be a
concrete entity, such as a book or a river, or an abstraction, such as a country,
It may for example, undermine the integrity of interpersonal bonds, as in the
case of consumption-based romantic attachments (Illouz, 1997), but in other
contexts, such as with human relationships with the natural world, it can serve
to situate, stabilise and connect the human subject (Knorr Cetina, 1997).
Objects become boundary objects by virtue of their location at the intersection
of two or more systems of meaning. As common referents that are broadly
meaningful to all participants in a joint project, but in different ways for
specific groups, they facilitate cooperation between interacting groups of
people who hold discrepant understandings of what the project is about. A key
feature of boundary objects is that they are “both plastic enough to adapt to
local needs and the constraints of the several parties employing them, yet
robust enough to maintain a common identity across sites” (Star and
Griesemer, 1989:393). In order to be successful, only enough of the meaning of
the boundary object needs to be shared to make it recognisable, thereby
orientating all participants to the task at hand.
Boundary objects “have different meanings in different social worlds
but their structure is common enough to more than one world to make them
recognizable, a means of translation” (Star and Griesemer, 1989:393). As
Buzelin (2007) citing Latour (1986) explains, the term ‘translation’ “refers to a
process of mediation, of ‘interpretation’ of objectives, expressed in the
‘languages’ of the different intermediaries engaged in a project/process of
innovation – intermediaries who, at the beginning, do not necessarily have the
same points of view or interests. It refers to the strategies that make it possible
for objectives to change and evolve, ensuring the participation of the
Cooperative engagement around a boundary object can therefore drive
creativity and innovation, since the outcomes sought are understanding and
perspective taking, which facilitate problem solving across meaning systems,
rather than consensus, which maintains the status quo. As common
denominators, boundary objects can also serve as tools for the creation and
management of new forms of identity that allow for shared and dual loyalties
(Hepsø, 2008). They frame, stabilise and strengthen relationships between
disparate social actors (Harvey 2006) by bridging the interpretive boundaries
that would otherwise divide them. Everyone involved can then “get behind the
boundary object and work together toward some goal” (Gieryn, 1995, cited in
Frost, Reich and Fujisaki, 2002:91).
The creation of boundary objects is therefore of central importance for
the development and maintenance of coherence in projects where diverse
interests intersect (Star and Griesemer, 1989). Examples of boundary objects
identified in the cross-disciplinary literature include animals (Star and
Griesemer, 1989) maps (Roth, 1995), a multi-causal model used in
epidemiology (Shim, 2002), musical scores (Winget, 2007), the category of
rare diseases (Huyard, 2009) and the concepts of property (Lash, 2009) and
ecological modernization (Giorgi and Redclift, 2000). Boundary objects may
have an existence prior to and independent of human involvement, as in
Goodwin’s (2005) study of scientists from separate fields who work on, with
and in the sea, or may be consciously set up in specific problem solving
contexts, as in the use of a controlled vocabulary constructed to coordinate
patient care in a multidisciplinary team of physicians (Sampalli, Shepherd and
restricted communication pathways, as demonstrated by Gibbons’ (2008)
example of two people walking their dogs, whose shared interest in dogs
establishes enough commonality for them to initiate a conversation, which may
subsequently develop into a more lasting acquaintance, or even into a
friendship.
The principles of the boundary object can be seen to operate in sister
city relationships at both local and international scales. At the international
scale, they may function in a way that is similar to Gibbons’ (2008) dog-
walking interlocutors, with the formalised relationship serving as a talking
point and pathway to deeper and more extensive interactions. The relationship
between Glen Falls (U.S.) and Saga City (Japan), for example, began with a
visit from the Glen Falls team for the World Hot Air Balloon Championships,
but soon developed into exchanges of officials, health care workers, firemen,
business people, teachers, students, videos, artwork, pen pals and educational
projects (Benson-Wright, 2003). Former war-time enemies, such as Japan and
Australia, who remain culturally and politically distinct, whose sister city
models differ and who hold different understandings of what sister city
relationships are and should be for (O’Toole, 2001) have nevertheless achieved
decades of successful exchange and cooperation between their respective urban
governments and citizens. Cremer et al’s (2001) notion of ‘municipal-
community entrepreneurship’, through which the ‘economic and social
vibrancy’ of cities can be mutually constituted and enhanced, is also suggestive
of boundary object potential.
At the local scale, urban authorities may perceive particular
expanding its potential for attracting international tourism and trade. For
citizen groups involved in the same project, they may function more as a
vehicle for fostering hybrid identities, as in the case of migrants reconnecting
with their country and culture of origin. Still other citizen groups might engage
with the same sister city relationship as a means of accessing a satisfying
aesthetic experience from the comfort and safety of home (see for example,
Privett, 2000). Theorising sister city relationships as boundary objects at both
scales thus opens up new possibilities for understanding the processes that
drive existing relationships, and provides a framework for establishing criteria
of their success other than in terms of economic return. Existing sister city
relationships are, however, outside the primary scope of this study, other than
the brief discussion of alternative trends in chapter seven. Instead, I focus on
the formative processes through which sister city peace-based proposals
involving Western and Middle Eastern cities come to be consolidated as
communicative spaces that are potentially hospitable to the formation of
boundary objects, engulfed by nationalist sympathies, or banished from
Western municipal agendas as unacceptable risks.