- Citation:
- Permalink:
Response to Athens Dialogues: Identity and Difference (Idenitite et Difference)
Historical approaches to the issue of “Identity and Difference” have dominated many of this session’s interventions. I found this extremely useful since many contemporary debates on identity and difference, on “us” versus “the others” are recorded in History or are legitimized through the evocation of History and intermittently dominant historical paradigms. These are debates which cover all aspects of public life, be that social, political, academic, cultural and especially what we refer to as pop culture.
I would like to present some examples:
1. A few days ago, Chancellor Angela Merkel speaking to an audience of young Christian Democrats, stated that multiculturalism has failed. She said “we are living side by side” (with the others) “but this approach has failed”. She added: “We feel we are linked to the Christian values. He who does not accept this, has no place here”. In this way, the Chancellor defined the “us” in relation to the “others” through the use of European religious identity as a point of distinction. At the same time, she identified national citizenship with cultural identity, provoking us to assert (something Mrs. Katerina Stenou has already addressed in her intervention); that a number of societies exacerbate differences to such an extent as to make them incompatible with a common and collective life.
2. National identity is also the focus of a great debate which is taking place in France in relation to President Sarkozy’s plans for the creation of the ‘Maison de l’Histoire de France’. In this case, a political leader is resorting to the instrumental use of history and national past in order to justify the establishment of a space for national identity where citizens may find their “soul” and “origins”.
3. On an academic level, the debate on Black Athena and the Stolen Heritage, which focus on the issue of whether the origins of Greek thinking derive in Afr ica, while dating from the end of the 1980s, is constantly being renewed, as was evident in a recent conference held at the University of Warwick, at every mention of race, racism, de-colonization, etc. This debate shows how a historical theory can be transformed into a debate on race and identity and how the issue of race becomes identified with the issue of knowledge. As we know, this debate has created new narratives and the conviction that every narrative has equal value to another, irrespective of its cognitive or scientific credentials.
4. In a similar case, a historical survey in France on how Europe was Hellenized, putting in context the contribution of Arab intellectuals and elevating the role of Western centres such as Chartres, Toledo, Oxford, Saint Michel and their direct contact with Greek texts, has been transformed into a great debate on identity.
5. In brief, I will also refer to the recent debate on the mosque-cathedral in Cordoba, Spain or, on a pop culture level, the great debate caused by the film “300”. The film was based on a graphic novel with the same title, in which the Battle of Thermopylae and the contrast of two worlds, East and West reflect the contemporary East-West conflict and more specifically the confrontation between the United States and Iran. May I remind you that this film was appropriated by right-wing organizations and supporters of racial superiority throughout the world as well as in Greece.
I could mention many more similar debates in order to illustrate my initial argument. Perhaps this is however, not so important. For me, it is more important to note that as these debates are reproduced by the Media, through both traditional and new social networking media, they in turn gain the dynamic of independent narratives. They become distanced from their initial framework and are then disseminated as general beliefs or general assumptions. It is these exact narratives which often dominate, influence or even dictate public debates. I believe that today, within the framework of a debate on identity and difference, the role of the Media is particularly crucial. This is due to how information is being globalised in addition to the abolition of the single information system (the term system used as in systemic theory) regarding both their normative and, at the same time, their deconstructive function.
The title of this session is “Identity and Difference”. I am not sure as to whether the choice of the term “difference” is accidental or whether it has been used consciously in order for the term “diversity” to be excluded or, at least, left on the sidelines. In “Metaphysics” Aristotle, as we were reminded by Mr. Odorico in his intervention, makes a distinction between “difference” and “otherness” when talking, of course, about the exact sciences. And it is this distinction which is crucial. Difference presupposes identity. Recognizing the identical makes difference possible. We discerned this in the historical examples presented by several of the speakers such as Mr. Odorico, who presented difference and not diversity between the Byzantine Greeks and the other Europeans. I would add that recognizing the identical makes difference possible and allows for dialogue. This can be discerned in many successful or unsuccessful dialogues among diversities with a shared cultural background. It can for example be applied to the various Christian churches, or even in intercultural dialogues, which often result in a fragile tolerance as we were reminded by Mrs. Stenou’s intervention which focused on the demand for the missing link in this dialogue. What happens, however, when there is no shared background, when there is no difference but only diversity? This is where the major issue confronting our societies lies. The different degrees are interesting as they range from the assertion of a new national introversion to exclusion through tolerance. We saw Chancellor Merkel, albeit for minor political reasons, announcing the end of ‘multikulti’, the multicultural model for social organization upon which the entire post-War German miracle was based. And this is not an issue for Chancellor Merkel alone. The public debate in Germany today is characterized by similar assertions as demonstrated by the great resonance of the book by Mr. Sarrazin, a banker. On the other hand, the Anglo-Saxon approach to diversity via political correctness – already mentioned by Mr. Odorico – creates a hypocritical situation whereby the recognition of diversity – on an institutional, quota, vocabulary level – is sufficient, without ever reaching the dialogue.
Those of you who have visited the old city of Jerusalem, where worshipers from all three monotheistic religions coexist in a space measuring but a few square metres, like a palimpsest, where the new hasn’t erased the old, will have noticed that Christians, Jews, Muslims pray in the same way. Identical body posture, identical movements of the head. Through this personal experience I come – and I will close here – to Monseigneur Kallistos Ware’s intervention on the unexpected similarities between the natural, physical, techniques and the psychosomatic methods during the mystical experiences of Orthodox Hesychastes, Indian yogis and Arab and Persian Sufis. For here contrast and dialogue coexist. Of course, it is a dialogue via spiritual transcendence which is absent from the contemporary reality of anthropological diversity. It is however particularly useful and we thank him for the knowledge he brought to us here today, because it equips us with new arguments and reinforces the field of the different variations from where we could, perhaps, find the missing link of the dialogue.