Tweet
Cyprus Mail, Cyprus
Jan 13 2008
Identity is real, not imagined
By Katherine McElroy
`ISN'T it funny we are all European now?' Stefanos Evripidou asked on
these pages a few Sundays back (`Europe: creating an imagined
geography', December 23).
This shared identity, he added, could prove `quite entertaining' when
you put 27 people in a room; one from each of the member states.
In `Europeville' as he calls it, there really isn't that much tying
us together, other than the similarities among people all over the
world. We all require shelter, we need to eat, defecate and keep
family and loved ones close.
Basically, he's saying that this shared identity is a joke. That
there is no glue. That a shared identity among any 27 people from
around the world would be equally a joke. That finding himself in a
room with a suicide bomber who craves his 72 virgins, a burqa-clad
woman, a Hutu and a Tutsi would be exactly the same for him. Everyone
eats, defecates and dies.
Thus, a common European identity is dismissed on the basis of an
argument that to me is as clear as mud.
Next he dismisses European history.
What do Eastern Orthodox Christians have to do with the Crusades, he
asks.
Well, it was Eastern Orthodox Christians that initiated the Crusades,
by way of Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos who asked Western
Christendom for help against the Muslims.
In response, Pope Urban II preached and set in motion the Crusades.
The fact that things didn't quite pan out as expected for Alexios or
Byzantium, which in the end was overrun by Muslims, does not negate
the fact that Alexios got the ball rolling.
More on the supposed non-existent historical links in a few lines as
this issue becomes compounded with Christianity as well as geography,
which is also in line in this supposed turkey shoot.
`In today's Europe, Christianity can no longer be the glue that makes
us stick,' he proclaims. Why? Well, because there are a number of
religious organisations and Europe is `United in Diversity'.
He then hits us with a dragon-slayer. `What I'm trying to say, and
forgive me if I'm stating the obvious [trust me, you're not] is that
large multinational communities and identities like ours are created
through everyday laws and dominant discourses that support them. It's
what Edward Said likes to call `imagined geographies' where the
perception of space is created through certain images, texts or
discourses. Similarly, `imagined communities' refers to creating a
nation among strangers. How? By simply constructing the notion of a
nation and repeatedly reinforcing that notion through symbols, words
and other codes.'
Finally, I'm getting the point. This is all about postmodernism.
But before I go on, I need an image of my own concerning
multinational communities and identities. Take the Ottoman Empire,
which consisted of many nations, many identities. Truly, a nation
among strangers. But did the Ottoman Empire create a `nation' among
Turks, janissaries, their parents, the giaours, the enslaved harem
girl, the eunuch, the Christians and the Armenians by simply hoisting
a Turkish standard and repeating something like, `Allah bless the
Sultan', along with other words and codes? According to the
paint-by-numbers instructions given by Said, this should have been as
easy as pie. But no multinational nation emerged, as far as I know.
Just the Sick Man of Europe.
While the Ottoman Empire existed, was its geography `imagined'
concocted through the perception of space created through certain
images, texts or discourses?
Tough question.
This kind of `imagined geography', we are told, can be used as a tool
of power to control and subordinate the subjects of that space as
well as dictate behaviour to those outside that imagined space.
Well, every nation controls space, though not all nations subordinate
their subjects. And every border affects those outside it. But
national space is tangible. It can be likened to extended personal
space.
Tell Cypriot villagers that the boundaries of their particular land
holdings are mental constructs created through images, texts or
discourses, and they'd call the village priest for an exorcism.
My own personal take on postmodernism is that it is a rational abyss.
Thus while maintaining at the outset that there is no European
identity and no history, the author has no problems stating quite
clearly further down that Russia's history is entrenched in Europe.
If Europe's history isn't identifiable, why is Russia's? And how can
it be entrenched in Europe's?
Is there any reason at all why some of the population of the world
consider themselves to be European, or Western in general, which
would include North America and Australia? Even though these people
do not have identical histories, nor necessarily profess the same
religion, (which, by the way, is for the most part Christian), the
definition of European, or Western, is certainly not a meaningless
construct.
So, what is this European glue? Is it perhaps that Europeans share a
broad range of values, some of which have been forged by history AND
Christianity? I realise that for some, saying that cultures are
different in tangible ways and that they can be ranked according to
objective criteria is politically incorrect. Postmodernism would tell
us that all cultures are equally valid. Perhaps they are; perhaps
not. But again, I would seek criteria.
Those of us who are not politically correct can say that
manifestations of a `valid' culture, for example, Female Genital
Mutilation, is a bad thing. Such `cutsie' practices so deviate from
human norms it's difficult to imagine who, and in what state of mind,
could come up with this stuff.
I'm certainly not saying that in Europe all is rosy, or that it never
fought religious wars, or that the Inquisition (the Spanish
Inquisition was a different ballgame) did not happen, or that all
Europeans took part in it. It's just that Western philosophy (going
back to the Greeks and then Christian and secular philosophers
throughout European history), Roman law, the Renaissance, the
Reformation and the Enlightenment, to touch on only a few things,
taught a lot. Not everyone agreed all the time. The culture has moved
along, but the history, the philosophy, even the Inquisition, have
played a part in it. Even because of the disagreements. Because they
were largely overcome. This is glue.
It was religious persecutions that partly entrenched secularism which
is a common European/Western value, not necessarily shared by the
rest of humanity, even if everyone eats, requires shelter etc.
To return to Edward Said and his `imagined' communities, identities
and geography: Said was born in Jerusalem. He has described himself
as a Christian wrapped in a Muslim culture. A matter of confused
identity?
I'll only quote from Martin Kramer. He notes that in one of Said's
books, Said makes a contemptuous reference to media `speculations
about the latest conspiracy to blow up buildings, sabotage commercial
airliners, and poison water supplies.' However, when commercial
airliners were used to blow up the World Trade Center four years
later, Kramer says Said withdrew from public view and declined to
answer his phone.
I think Said must have been thinking about `imagined' Muslim cultures
too, in line of course with the rest of his `imagined' communities.
But Europe (or anywhere else for that matter) isn't an identity-less,
geography-less, history-less, free-for-all. Far from being some kind
of meaningless place, most Europeans want it. What they don't
entirely agree on is on issues that impinge on their own individual
identities. The larger issues do not appear to be in question.
Returning to the issue of borders, a Schengen visa now costs 60
whereas it was five previously. `Here we are apparently seeing real
changes on the ground in relations between people from different
`imagined geographies'.' (Inverted commas not mine). The point? That
perhaps Schengen is costing more money? Or that Europe has no real
boundaries and that Schengen is invalid? If so, then all borders in
the world are equally invalid.
The rest? The author cries discrimination because the UK apparently
is fed up with visitors who end up staying as illegals. So it is
considering charging some people a cash deposit if a non-EU relative
comes to visit. Why is it discriminatory? Perhaps the policy would
target people from countries where such abuses are more prevalent?
Since when does non-discrimination mean everyone has to take leave of
their senses?
The author's final point? Illegal migrants are drowning in their
rickety boats to enter Europe and we somehow don't care. Their plight
is not common fare in the mainstream press, apparently because `our
imagination doesn't stretch far enough to include those we do not
want in our space or community'. (Note, the author says space here,
not the perception of space, nor does he refer to an `imagined
community'.)
Human tragedy is regrettable. But I'm not sure what imagination has
to do with it. Either we want to include illegal immigrants, or we
don't. Is he saying we should include them? How many? All of them?
Even as they keep coming? Perhaps the author thinks it doesn't
matter, because he thinks Europe has no glue anyway. And Cyprus and
all the other member states soon to be overrun. It's a simple matter
of numbers. Then there truly wouldn't be any glue left.
Get real here. Europe has its values and liberties and principles to
defend. Neglecting this would surely create an imagined Europe.
Jan 13 2008
Identity is real, not imagined
By Katherine McElroy
`ISN'T it funny we are all European now?' Stefanos Evripidou asked on
these pages a few Sundays back (`Europe: creating an imagined
geography', December 23).
This shared identity, he added, could prove `quite entertaining' when
you put 27 people in a room; one from each of the member states.
In `Europeville' as he calls it, there really isn't that much tying
us together, other than the similarities among people all over the
world. We all require shelter, we need to eat, defecate and keep
family and loved ones close.
Basically, he's saying that this shared identity is a joke. That
there is no glue. That a shared identity among any 27 people from
around the world would be equally a joke. That finding himself in a
room with a suicide bomber who craves his 72 virgins, a burqa-clad
woman, a Hutu and a Tutsi would be exactly the same for him. Everyone
eats, defecates and dies.
Thus, a common European identity is dismissed on the basis of an
argument that to me is as clear as mud.
Next he dismisses European history.
What do Eastern Orthodox Christians have to do with the Crusades, he
asks.
Well, it was Eastern Orthodox Christians that initiated the Crusades,
by way of Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos who asked Western
Christendom for help against the Muslims.
In response, Pope Urban II preached and set in motion the Crusades.
The fact that things didn't quite pan out as expected for Alexios or
Byzantium, which in the end was overrun by Muslims, does not negate
the fact that Alexios got the ball rolling.
More on the supposed non-existent historical links in a few lines as
this issue becomes compounded with Christianity as well as geography,
which is also in line in this supposed turkey shoot.
`In today's Europe, Christianity can no longer be the glue that makes
us stick,' he proclaims. Why? Well, because there are a number of
religious organisations and Europe is `United in Diversity'.
He then hits us with a dragon-slayer. `What I'm trying to say, and
forgive me if I'm stating the obvious [trust me, you're not] is that
large multinational communities and identities like ours are created
through everyday laws and dominant discourses that support them. It's
what Edward Said likes to call `imagined geographies' where the
perception of space is created through certain images, texts or
discourses. Similarly, `imagined communities' refers to creating a
nation among strangers. How? By simply constructing the notion of a
nation and repeatedly reinforcing that notion through symbols, words
and other codes.'
Finally, I'm getting the point. This is all about postmodernism.
But before I go on, I need an image of my own concerning
multinational communities and identities. Take the Ottoman Empire,
which consisted of many nations, many identities. Truly, a nation
among strangers. But did the Ottoman Empire create a `nation' among
Turks, janissaries, their parents, the giaours, the enslaved harem
girl, the eunuch, the Christians and the Armenians by simply hoisting
a Turkish standard and repeating something like, `Allah bless the
Sultan', along with other words and codes? According to the
paint-by-numbers instructions given by Said, this should have been as
easy as pie. But no multinational nation emerged, as far as I know.
Just the Sick Man of Europe.
While the Ottoman Empire existed, was its geography `imagined'
concocted through the perception of space created through certain
images, texts or discourses?
Tough question.
This kind of `imagined geography', we are told, can be used as a tool
of power to control and subordinate the subjects of that space as
well as dictate behaviour to those outside that imagined space.
Well, every nation controls space, though not all nations subordinate
their subjects. And every border affects those outside it. But
national space is tangible. It can be likened to extended personal
space.
Tell Cypriot villagers that the boundaries of their particular land
holdings are mental constructs created through images, texts or
discourses, and they'd call the village priest for an exorcism.
My own personal take on postmodernism is that it is a rational abyss.
Thus while maintaining at the outset that there is no European
identity and no history, the author has no problems stating quite
clearly further down that Russia's history is entrenched in Europe.
If Europe's history isn't identifiable, why is Russia's? And how can
it be entrenched in Europe's?
Is there any reason at all why some of the population of the world
consider themselves to be European, or Western in general, which
would include North America and Australia? Even though these people
do not have identical histories, nor necessarily profess the same
religion, (which, by the way, is for the most part Christian), the
definition of European, or Western, is certainly not a meaningless
construct.
So, what is this European glue? Is it perhaps that Europeans share a
broad range of values, some of which have been forged by history AND
Christianity? I realise that for some, saying that cultures are
different in tangible ways and that they can be ranked according to
objective criteria is politically incorrect. Postmodernism would tell
us that all cultures are equally valid. Perhaps they are; perhaps
not. But again, I would seek criteria.
Those of us who are not politically correct can say that
manifestations of a `valid' culture, for example, Female Genital
Mutilation, is a bad thing. Such `cutsie' practices so deviate from
human norms it's difficult to imagine who, and in what state of mind,
could come up with this stuff.
I'm certainly not saying that in Europe all is rosy, or that it never
fought religious wars, or that the Inquisition (the Spanish
Inquisition was a different ballgame) did not happen, or that all
Europeans took part in it. It's just that Western philosophy (going
back to the Greeks and then Christian and secular philosophers
throughout European history), Roman law, the Renaissance, the
Reformation and the Enlightenment, to touch on only a few things,
taught a lot. Not everyone agreed all the time. The culture has moved
along, but the history, the philosophy, even the Inquisition, have
played a part in it. Even because of the disagreements. Because they
were largely overcome. This is glue.
It was religious persecutions that partly entrenched secularism which
is a common European/Western value, not necessarily shared by the
rest of humanity, even if everyone eats, requires shelter etc.
To return to Edward Said and his `imagined' communities, identities
and geography: Said was born in Jerusalem. He has described himself
as a Christian wrapped in a Muslim culture. A matter of confused
identity?
I'll only quote from Martin Kramer. He notes that in one of Said's
books, Said makes a contemptuous reference to media `speculations
about the latest conspiracy to blow up buildings, sabotage commercial
airliners, and poison water supplies.' However, when commercial
airliners were used to blow up the World Trade Center four years
later, Kramer says Said withdrew from public view and declined to
answer his phone.
I think Said must have been thinking about `imagined' Muslim cultures
too, in line of course with the rest of his `imagined' communities.
But Europe (or anywhere else for that matter) isn't an identity-less,
geography-less, history-less, free-for-all. Far from being some kind
of meaningless place, most Europeans want it. What they don't
entirely agree on is on issues that impinge on their own individual
identities. The larger issues do not appear to be in question.
Returning to the issue of borders, a Schengen visa now costs 60
whereas it was five previously. `Here we are apparently seeing real
changes on the ground in relations between people from different
`imagined geographies'.' (Inverted commas not mine). The point? That
perhaps Schengen is costing more money? Or that Europe has no real
boundaries and that Schengen is invalid? If so, then all borders in
the world are equally invalid.
The rest? The author cries discrimination because the UK apparently
is fed up with visitors who end up staying as illegals. So it is
considering charging some people a cash deposit if a non-EU relative
comes to visit. Why is it discriminatory? Perhaps the policy would
target people from countries where such abuses are more prevalent?
Since when does non-discrimination mean everyone has to take leave of
their senses?
The author's final point? Illegal migrants are drowning in their
rickety boats to enter Europe and we somehow don't care. Their plight
is not common fare in the mainstream press, apparently because `our
imagination doesn't stretch far enough to include those we do not
want in our space or community'. (Note, the author says space here,
not the perception of space, nor does he refer to an `imagined
community'.)
Human tragedy is regrettable. But I'm not sure what imagination has
to do with it. Either we want to include illegal immigrants, or we
don't. Is he saying we should include them? How many? All of them?
Even as they keep coming? Perhaps the author thinks it doesn't
matter, because he thinks Europe has no glue anyway. And Cyprus and
all the other member states soon to be overrun. It's a simple matter
of numbers. Then there truly wouldn't be any glue left.
Get real here. Europe has its values and liberties and principles to
defend. Neglecting this would surely create an imagined Europe.