Frontier, Frontera, Borderlands

The concept of “Borderlands/La Frontera,” originating from Gloria Anzaldúa’s Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza (1987), explores the physical and metaphorical spaces of borders, where different cultures, identities, and systems of power intersect, often leading to conflict, hybridity, and resistance.

La Frontera and Borderlands are critical concepts that explore the complex dynamics of geographical, cultural, and social boundaries, as well as the lived experiences of individuals navigating these in-between spaces. La Frontera refers specifically to the border region between the United States and Mexico, shaped by violent histories of colonization, migration, and ongoing resistance. This region is marked by the intersection of Indigenous, Mexican, and settler-colonial worlds, creating unique cultural and political dynamics.

Anzaldúa’s concept of Borderlands extends beyond the physical border to encompass the socio-cultural, psychological, and political spaces where different identities and cultures meet, clash, and transform. Borderlands are spaces of conflict and negotiation, where identities are not fixed but are continuously contested and remade. These spaces represent the lived realities of marginalization and resilience, with resistance often emerging from the tensions of living between multiple worlds.

From a feminist materialist perspective, the frontier is not merely a space of cultural encounter but one of extraction, violence, and commodification. The concepts of commodity frontiers and body frontiers underscore how colonial expansion has historically exploited both land and bodies – especially those of women, Indigenous peoples, and other marginalized communities. This framework shifts the focus from abstract borders to the tangible effects of colonization and exploitation in border spaces.

By focusing on La Frontera and Borderlands, particularly through the lens of Anzaldúa’s work, we can explore how these spaces not only impose oppression but also serve as powerful sites of resistance, transformation, and survival.

From a decolonial perspective, the borderlands represent the ongoing legacies of colonialism that maintain divisions not only between nations but also between bodies, knowledges, and communities. This framework critiques the colonial imposition of borders that reinforce racial, gender, and epistemic hierarchies, marginalizing Indigenous, Black, and other non-Western ways of knowing and being.

Gloria Anzaldúa’s (1987) work has profoundly shaped the understanding of the borderlands, particularly through her analysis of la frontera as an “open wound” where the Third World grates against the first and bleeds. This metaphor captures the deep challenges and tensions faced by those living in these in-between spaces. Anzaldúa’s concepts of the “new mestiza” and “nepantla” offer transformative insights into identity and cultural negotiation, emphasizing the fluidity and multiplicity of identities that exist within the borderlands.

Rather than essentializing the mestiza consciousness, Anzaldúa’s work highlights the diversity of experiences in the borderlands, acknowledging the complexity of navigating intersecting systems of oppression. However, an important critique of her work is the potential to construct the border crosser or the hybrid into a new privileged subject of history, a figure whose fluidity may overshadow the continued struggles of those with less agency in navigating these spaces (Anzaldúa 1987).

María Lugones’ (1992) interpretive essay “On Borderlands/La Frontera” explores Anzaldúa’s work, which opens up a theoretical space for resistance within the context of the oppression faced by those living in the borderlands. Anzaldúa examines the oppressed subject not merely as a passive recipient of oppression but as an active participant at the moment of tension between domination and resistance. She highlights how oppression is embedded in the everyday lived experiences of those in the borderlands, while also acknowledging the ways in which resistance continually emerges from these experiences.

Anzaldúa conceptualizes the self as multifaceted, shaped by multiple and intersecting influences. These influences include the cultural legacies of Mexican/Indigenous worlds and anglo/colonial worlds, moving beyond a simplistic binary of tradition versus modernity. The self in Anzaldúa’s framework is in a constant state of negotiation and transformation, existing in a liminal space of resistance and becoming within the borderlands. Her reflections emphasize the intricate relationship between intimate experiences of oppression and the potential for empowerment that can arise from those very struggles (Lugones 1992).

Anzaldúa’s distinction between “Borderlands” (capital B) and “borderlands” (small b) introduces a nuanced understanding of the spaces where different cultures, identities, and knowledges intersect. “Borderlands” (capital B) refers to the geopolitical, physical spaces of national and cultural boundaries – literal sites of colonial imposition, division, and conflict. This concept speaks to the lived realities of marginalized peoples whose identities are shaped by these imposed borders, such as Chicanx communities navigating the U.S.-Mexico border.

On the other hand, “borderlands” (small b) refers to the metaphorical, internal, and more expansive spaces of crossing and negotiation – places where individuals, particularly those who are marginalized or hold multiple intersecting identities, navigate complex and fluid identities. It encompasses the psychological, emotional, and spiritual dimensions of living in-between worlds, not limited to geography but extending to identity, gender, sexuality, and epistemology.

Borderlands (capital B) emphasizes the material, colonial legacies that shape the literal and figurative spaces of oppression and resistance, making it essential when analyzing systemic and structural aspects of decolonization. borderlands (small b), however, allows for a deeper exploration of the internal and embodied experiences of those navigating trans and decolonial identities, particularly in how they resist and transform these imposed structures. The small b borderlands help to illuminate how trans and queer individuals of color experience and navigate the intersections of identity, power, and knowledge production beyond the geopolitical. This distinction enriches the understanding of how marginalized people move through and resist both external and internalized borders, offering a fuller picture of decolonial resistance.

In the context of Palestine, Anzaldúa’s distinction between Borderlands (capital B) and borderlands (small b) provides a powerful lens to analyze both the material and psychological dimensions of colonization and resistance, particularly through the frameworks of decolonial feminism and critiques of imperialist feminism.

Borderlands (capital B) in Palestine refer to the physical and geopolitical borders imposed through settler colonialism, most notably the Israeli occupation and the separation barrier. These borders are violent tools of control, displacement, and apartheid, marking the lived realities of Palestinians who are denied autonomy, mobility, and rights. This material aspect of borders speaks to the ongoing colonial project that seeks to fragment and erase Palestinian identity, land, and existence. The capital B Borderlands framework here becomes a crucial way to interrogate how state power, settler colonialism, and imperialism manifest in the daily lives of Palestinians through physical barriers, military checkpoints, and restricted movement.

In contrast, borderlands (small b), in the Palestinian context, refer to the emotional, psychological, and internal spaces that Palestinians and other marginalized groups navigate as they resist erasure and assert their identities. The concept of small b borderlands allows us to focus on how Palestinian people, particularly women, trans, and queer individuals, negotiate multiple forms of violence and oppression – colonial, patriarchal, and heteronormative – while creating spaces of survival, resilience, and solidarity. Here, it is a metaphorical space of in-betweenness, where identities are constantly negotiated and re-formed in response to ongoing violence, both from colonial forces and within their own communities.

Decolonial feminism offers a vital framework in this context, as it critiques both the local patriarchal structures and the broader colonial-imperial system that imposes gendered violence on Palestinian women and non-cisgender people. It seeks to center the voices, bodies, and experiences of those most affected by both colonization and patriarchy, advocating for liberation that is grounded in Indigenous, non-Western ways of knowing and being.

On the other hand, imperialist feminism represents a form of feminism that reinforces colonial and imperialist ideologies by framing Palestinian women’s liberation through a Western lens. This perspective often co-opts feminist language to justify interventions in the Global South, presenting Palestinian women as victims in need of “saving” by Western forces, while ignoring the root causes of their oppression – namely, the settler colonial occupation and global imperialism. Imperialist feminism upholds the structures of colonization by promoting a universalized, Eurocentric understanding of feminism that does not address or challenge the systemic and structural violence caused by occupation and colonialism.