|
| Wehwalt
Koslovsky
|
| Just
another contemplation...
A few weeks ago ? due to circumstances that surely make a story
of their own ? I had to move into a new apartment within my hometown,
Düsseldorf, Germany. To me, moving is quite an annoying experience
for I consider myself a lazy person, and the fact that I had very
little time to make all the necessary arrangements made it all seem
worse; not to forget: the new apartment offers way less room for
my belongings, definitely not enough room to keep all of them. This,
inevitably, left me with the ? more than distracting ? job of making
up my mind and developing or, more recently, re-checking my value-system
to, finally, be in the position to decide which things will visit
the garbage once and for all and which things must be kept at any
expense.
Now what do my belongings or properties, in general, have to do
with ? at least a few of ? the questions posed for Pontes 00? Let?s
see...
Of course ? the individual is ?the bearer of culture?. From the
other end of this sentence, with a slightly different angle, we
can even claim that culture ? even though it is something very common
which is only perceived individually (which, again, is not meant
to deny the fact that ?perception? may very well and very often
be quite similar in more than one individual) ? is the only property
an individual may call his or her very own. Nevertheless, individuals,
including the exceptions to the rule, do not, cannot exist on their
own and, therefore, seek interaction of any form with other individuals.
Together they form social groups that may ? and, in fact, do ? end
up in populations that are called national according to their distinctive
features (geographical, linguistic, religious, etc.). These features
to a large extent shape the specific culture of such populations
and ? as far as the individual as ?the bearer of culture? is concerned
? they also shape the individuals and their lives. But these features
are not the only ones to shape cultures. The individuals ? the internal
influences ? do, too (and be it only in a ritual act of re-creation!).
Thus, we?re dealing with a coherent system of influences; a system
that keeps us ? the individuals ? in its centre with its ends and
boundaries far out of sight.
So far, none of this is very new. Therefore, let?s turn back to
my little space-problem...
If we look upon the term ?cultures? ? as we find the majority of
them in our days ? as ever-growing complexes of information-exchange
(in the broadest sense), then there are ? due to the abundance of
information ? virtually moment by moment decisions being made on
what has to be stored ? since it is accepted as valuable or necessary
? and what is disposable. (Remember: I am talking about culture.)
Now, one might, legitimately, object that there is not really a
problem with space or storage-capacity for information when ? in
these times of electronic data-processing and Internet ? we have
seemingly unlimited possibilities and all the tools to incorporate
the latter?
Well, it is not all about storing information and making it available.
It?s after all still about understanding. Understanding, however,
never comes without experience and experience is not based on simple
facts or raw information ? even though these two do play their role
within this process.
The point is that understanding ? which of course is not the same
as perception ? inseparably tied to the individual ?, sooner or
later, leads to diversity: diversity in perception, diversity in
opinion, diversity in interest, and, finally, diversity in the decision-process
as to what is of value and what is not; and, as we have mentioned
before more than once, the individual is the bearer of culture.
That means the decision ? in the end ? is all up to the individual,
although the individual may and will be influenced in certain ways.
Now, what is the true purpose of these thoughts of mine, one might
ask at this point?
I have tried to describe ? admittedly, in a very unimpeded way ?
several aspects of the mechanisms of influence between culture as
a phenomenon perceived by a ?group? of individuals and its smallest
?unit?, its ?bearer? ? the individual itself. But that?s all bones
and cartilage. What we need now, is some flesh and blood.
I have mentioned the terms ?interest? and ?opinion?. These are terms
depict two factors which give a new quality to our so far rigid
system. They add a depth or maybe a dimension that takes the system
beyond the categories of pure logic, because they stand for the
very subjectivity within every individual ? and it is, naturally,
the same kind of subjectivity that helps me conduct my little contemplation.
It is asked where European nations will head to at the end of this
century (which, by the way, is also the end of the millennium ?
whatever that may mean) and, more specifically, whether there are
possibilities to create in Europe ?a unified space of unlimited
flow for national cultures, free of destructive conflict, where
competitiveness is not articulated through negating the other?.
Idealistic as I am, I say it is possible. But it is only possible
if we succeed in making this goal a common interest. And the motto
will have to be: everybody is invited!!! ? thus, every individual
may decide for him or herself.
Realistically enough, this is a task that might very well take a
decade, maybe a century to be accomplished, since there will be
a lot of convincing and negotiations necessary with other groups
that have other interests. And of course we will have to be the
living example that there is the possibility of co-existing without
negation of foreign values. And that?s where the literature is in
all of this. It?s our job to spread these ideas and to create awareness
amongst the people of Europe. As long as we write, people will read.
As long as people read, we will write. And we won?t even have to
move to do it.
|