notions such as fragmentation, diversification, shrinkage of physical space and compression of time, less affluent people such as labour migrants depend on their ability to seriously engage with the other.
artificial situations occur. Simo (1993) describes how the ideology of solidarity in the former GDR created a „middle culture of dealing‟ that led to post-reunification xenophobia. The same artificial solidarity based on the ideology of Soviet Russia led to the high level of xenophobia in present day Russia. Simo describes the situation in the former GDR as follows:
[...] weil der Fremde nicht das sein kann was man von ihm erwartet, schlägt das Solidaritätsgefühl in Haß um oder bestenfalls in Gleichgültigkeit. So überrascht es nicht, wenn in der DDR der Fremdenhaß so grassiert, nachdem die Solidarität mit der revolutionären Dritten Welt jahrzehntelang als Staatideologie propagiert wurde. (Simo 1993: 27)
Artificial solidarity created by state propaganda is one way of polarizing people and creating distance – fundamentalist ideologies that adhere to non-negotiable frameworks of rules are another. And – strangely enough – a non-ideological postmodernist way of life that constantly re-invents itself with the help of modern technology is another. Here, the other is used as material for propaganda or self- enrichment, experienced via monitor or as a staged event. Real encounters do not play a central role.
Postmodernist lifestyles are attractive in that they present a freedom from any ideological framework – be it that of socialist solidarity, colonialist or nationalistic racial theories, religious fundamentalism, etc. Hagenbüchle (2002) notes: “War es ein Hauptanliegen der abendländischen Philosophie, Vielheit auf Einheit zurückzuführen, so vertritt der Postmodernismus die unaufhebbare Pluralität von allem.” (Hagenbüchle 2002: 128)
Another enticing characteristic of this lifestyle is its apparent lack of boundaries, be they cultural, historical or geographical. The postmodernist person can undergo a complete metamorphosis and re-invent himself/herself, crossing boundaries:
„Deterritorialisierung‟ verdeutlicht die Tatsache, dass für das postmoderne Subjekt die Qualität der Metamorphose als Möglichkeit ständiger kreativer
Verwandlung und Grenzüberschreitung konstitutiv geworden ist.
(Hagenbüchle 2002: 83)
The virtual artificiality of encounters with others (contacts rather than relationships), the exploitative tendencies of a selfish I-orientation when dealing with others remain, however, significant drawbacks when considering the postmodernist subject as a participant in intercultural encounters.
Hagenbüchle (2002) suggests an intercultural identity that is constructed on the dialectics of dialogue and remains open to negotiation: " Es scheint eine offene und immer wieder neu auszuhandelnde dialogisch-dialektisch konstuierte Identität gerade für die in unserer Zeit massiv zunehmende Grenzgängersituation zwischen den Kulturen als besonders vielversprechend [zu sein].“ (Hagenbüchle 2002: 42) Such an identity requires a productive, ambivalent approach to reality, seeking real encounters without sacrificing its own substance. In the course of a lifetime, such an identity will increase in complexity as tradition and modernity, ethnicity and universality are combined in a way specific to each individual. (Hamburger 1998: 136)
Intercultural competence has a strong emotional component that should be developed.
(Hagenbüchle 2002: 14) Instead of asking,“Who are we?”- a question that has been answered in various ways – the Cartesian way emphasizing rationality, “I think, therefore I am”, the African way emphasizing relationships “I am because you are”, and the I-oriented postmodernist way emphasizing individualism “I am because I am me”15 - we should rather be asking “How do we relate to one another?” Hagenbüchle suggests that the answer to this question will also answer the question of who we are.
He further suggests a certain emotional intelligence in dialogue based on empathy and withholding premature judgment as more important than superior knowledge or the better argument:
Voraussetzung bleibt allerdings, dass die Teilnehmer bereit sind, sich selber zurückzunehmen, zunächst einmal auf den Anderen zu hören und statt auf
15 Descartes, R. 1996 (1637). Discourse on the Method. (Cogito ergo sum). 275;
Broodryk, J. 2002 Ubuntu. Life lessons from Africa. (Ubuntu ungamuntu ngabanye abantu - people are people through other people). 13;
Funk, R. 2005. Ich und Wir. (Ich bin ich, weil ich ich bin). 160.
besseres Wissen und das „bessere Argument‟ zu setzen, eine Kultur der
„Urteilsenthaltung‟ zu pflegen. (Hagenbüchle 2002: 189)
Hunfeld (2004) talks about “Askese des Zuhörens” and “die Stille des sich Zurücknehmens”. (Hunfeld 2004: 297) His “hermeneutics of silence”(Hermeneutik der Stille) requires the reader to be silent, since reading means that we allow others to speak. Europe, I believe, will have to work through much backlog in the area of listening and withholding premature judgment or any judgment at all. At the Technical University (TU) in Berlin, intercultural competence is described as the realization that accepting others without judging them is extremely difficult: “Die Studenten sollen lernen, dass die bewertungsfreie Akzeptanz von anderen Kulturen sehr schwierig ist.”16
A second prerequisite for successful intercultural dialogue is what Hagenbüchle describes as „dual understanding‟ – allowing not only our perspective on others but the other perspective on us, a concept that has been realized in migration literature:
Es ist zweifellos erforderlich, über den eigenen Tellerrand hinauszublicken.
Was ebenso notwendig wäre, ist der Blick von ausserhalb des Tellerrands in den eigenen Teller hinein. Mit anderen Worten, „bifokales Verstehen‟ ist die unabdingbare Voraussetzung für ein fruchtbares interkulturelles Gespräch.
(Hagenbüchle 2002: 186)
Thirdly, he emphasizes the importance of constructing dialogue not so much around fixed cultural themes and values, but around the different historical conditions that led to different ideas about life, following the idea that information and knowledge about the other is different from understanding the other. Understanding relies on a combination of history and culture (see chapter one). The idea of a horizontal intercultural dialogue taking place between cultural entities is an artificial construction invented to maintain cultural boundaries as Köstlin (2000) points out:
“Die Benennung des Fremden und der fremden Kultur lässt sich als Erfindung und
16 Warnecke, T. 2003. ‟Vorsicht Fettnäpfchen! Was bedeutet es eigentlich, „Interkulturelle Kompetenz zu studieren?“‟.11.
Konstruktion beschreiben. Sie gehört zu einer Kulturtechnik des Abgrenzens in der Moderne.“ (Köstlin 2000: 380)
In his criticism of IG theory, Chiellino (2000b) reminds one that a monocultural dialogue about interculturality is a futile exercise: “ ein monokulturelles Gespräch über Interkulturalität ist eine wissenschaftliche Fehlleistung”. (Chiellino 2000b: 389) According to Chiellino (2000b), teaching intercultural literature requires lecturers whose intercultural knowledge is based on experience. (“Wissenschaftler, die in der Interkulturalität zu Hause sind und über erlebtes Wissen verfügen.”) (Chiellino 2000b: 396) The difference between knowledge and understanding is central to the intercultural approach and its treatment of time and space.
Finally, returning to Gadamer‟s notion of the „inter‟ as the true location of hermeneutics, we need to recognize that an intercultural society always produces hybrid identities built on a combination of different experiences in different places and at different times in their lives and the lives of the surrounding communities.
(Durzak 2004: 30) It is these identities that create a new, hybrid form of literature.
Interculturality and hybridity are important trademarks of migration literature.
Notions of Fremdes and Eigenes present a monocultural perspective and are inadequate to describe an intercultural literature.
Migration literature has made a contribution to intercultural dialogue by providing an outside perspective of what is presumed to be familiar, as well as insight into another culture. The other culture is often introduced as the underlying perspective, the lens that is used to let us see what seems familiar in a new light. In addition, its descriptiveness often allows the reader to draw his or her own conclusions, while its literariness facilitates a deep level of understanding – an important qualification to other genres or media that simply transmit information about other cultures or how others see us. One might say that intercultural hermeneutics has found its literary form in migration literature. The following chapters deal with themes and didactics of migration literature within its own context of production and reception (including its definition as intercultural literature, its evolution and social situation, e.g. the current integration debate in Germany). They further deal with the wider context of this literature as Germany‟s contribution to a world literature of authors who write in a
foreign language or in their mother tongue but outside their or their parents‟ culture of origin. (Chiellino 2000a: 62)