Contemplating the Uncontemplatable

By Julia Kemp
 

“How was Kosovo?”, people keep asking me. “Indescribable”, I kept answering. “Why?”, they kept asking. Why, indeed, I kept thinking. Unable to put all that I had experienced in Kosovo into words, I wondered what it was that made me unable to pinpoint all that I had seen, heard, and felt during our ten-day field-trip in Kosovo. As such, I rambled on about why we were there.  Bearing in mind that Kosovo is a newly born state in which positive peace has yet to be established, however, I wondered whether the peace in Kosovo was really that different from that upheld in other states.

Yes, Kosovo is a newly born state in which ethnic conflict is looming. Having been annexed, occupied and oppressed by Serbia for most of history, most Kosovar-Albanians continue to consider Kosovar-Serbs as their enemies. In the meantime, most Kosovar-Serbs continue to view Kosovar-Albanians as those who took their homes and ruined their country, unjustifiably. Bearing this in mind, the political turmoil in Kosovo is considered to be the result of ethnic tensions. Because of ethnic tensions, Kosovo appears to be subject to a form of negative peace. Though there is an absence of war, there is little to no willingness to reconcile the wide variety of ethnic groups. With more than 90% of the Kosovar population consisting of Kosovar-Albanians, Kosovar-Serbs are pushed to form enclaves throughout the Kosovar region. Partly because of these enclaves, Kosovar-Serbs and Kosovar-Albanians remain separated. How can they be united, I thought, when their name already presupposes a difference?  

Difference. It is needless to say that Europeans are different from Americans. Americans are different from Asians. Asians are different from Africans. Africans are different from Australians. Australians are different from Germans. Germans are different from the French. The French are different from the Indonesians. The Indonesians are different from the Chinese. The Yin-Chinese are different from the Uyghurs. The Uyghurs are different from the Turks. The Turks are different from the Albanians, and, in the same way, the Albanians are different from the Slavs.

Though all human in nature, they differ by virtue of nurture. The question remains whether the latter is contrary to nature itself. This is, to revisit psychoanalysis, because the “I” is constructed in the mirror stage. It is by seeing the reflection of a unified whole that represents oneself but is, in fact, not oneself, that distance from the self is born. As a mirror gives oneself the illusion that what one sees is him/her/it-self, identity is constructed on the basis of a form of alienation. In the same way, it is argued, identity is construed by virtue of that which it is alienated from. For this reason, one can argue, identity is formed on the basis of that which it is not: African, American, Asian, Australian, European, and so on and so forth.

If identity can only be formed on the basis of that which it is not, everything in this world is at once different and similar from and to something else. From this perspective, all humans are unique, yet identical in so being. Because all human beings are unique, yet identical in so being, the Other presupposes the One to the extent that the One presupposes the Other. Humans develop an identity that is based on not being what the Other is.

For the Other to be respected within society, it is often argued, the One must adopt an attitude of tolerance. Only this way, can stability be established and prosperity ensured. Nevertheless, I keep thinking, the whole notion of tolerance necessitates the dominant One to decide what ought to be tolerated. In this respect, the One merely condones the – what is often viewed as – ignorant, wrongful and less acceptable behaviour of the Other. Because this presupposes the existence of a dominant group of tolerators, who “know” where the line is to be drawn, it differs from acceptance. Though those who tolerate exclude the possibility of learning something positive, fruitful and/or positive from the Other, those who accept truly embrace this possibility.

Bearing this in mind, one might state that those who accept, live in positive peace. In contrast, those who tolerate create a sphere of negative peace. Seeing that most  – if not all – contemporary liberal democracies appear to embrace multiculturalism by virtue of tolerance, one can question whether the peace that enshrines Kosovo is different from the peace that is kept in, say, the Netherlands. The uproar against the newly-elected mayor of Arnhem – a Dutchman of Moroccan origin – seems to affirm that both Kosovo and the Netherlands have yet to advance (mutual) reconciliation and acceptance. It is only after reconciliation and acceptance is embraced, one might argue, that difference is overruled. It is only after difference is overruled, then, that long-lasting, utopian, and positive peace can be established.

...

“How was Kosovo”, you might now wonder. “Indescribable”, I would insist. “Why”, you might again ask. Well, for one thing, because it made me question all that I thought I knew.  All hail experiential learning.