Where is Europe heading? What are the inner and outer barriers that stand in the way of the continent’s unification? What is it increasingly distancing itself from, in contrast to its own guiding principles? And what might constitute Europe’s fundamental unity, over and above institutional and bureaucratic sets of rules and regulations?
Questions such as these have been raised frequently over the last few months. At the same time, progress towards a satisfactory response has scarcely advanced one single millimetre. On the one hand there is the still widely touted idea of a supra-national union, the shared overarching shared core that rises above all ethnic and regional differences; on the other, the recently emerged tendency towards discriminatory and at times even openly racist renationalisation. It is tempting to conclude that where there is supranational universalisation, at the same time particularisation rooted in a sense of the familiar and one’s own “distinctness” will rear its ugly head. In this process the latter phenomenon not only encompasses increasingly questionable constructs of the nation but reaches deep into the political entrails of each Member State. One of the most striking paradoxes of this inextricable nexus currently lies in the way in which rightwing populism, which has been gaining ground for years, is beginning to be organised at the trans-European level, in other words, in a supranational framework.
Should we forget Europe? Concentrate more on its tendencies towards division? Highlight a more “provincialised” approach, not just vis-à-vis the outside world but internally too? All these provocative proposals cannot simply be dismissed out of hand, in as much as they have long accompanied talk of greater unity and consolidation– like dialectic shadows. It would seem to make sense to pay more attention to these concepts rather than simply dismissing them as defeatist charlatanism, for they could therefore help to hold up a mirror to the rightwing populist version of Europe, and reveal its true face. So you want a Europe of ethnically segregated differences, surrounded by secured borders? Then let us show you what these differences signify on a larger scale and the kind of disastrous scenario this has led to on the global level. A scenario, incidentally, in which the long-assumed predominance of Europe, for all its internal differences, played an important role.
While Europe, as an idea and as a reality, has faced a harsh new litmus test in the wake of the recent flows of migrants and refugees, its inner structure and external demarcation have always been subject to huge tensions. Critiques that challenge the centrality of European/Western values within the global framework also have a long historical tradition. One central aspect in this context relates to the attitude that Europe (whatever identity may be concealed behind this designation) adopts towards its “Other”; everything that lies outside its borders and thus calls its unity into question from its peripheries, along with everything that gives rise to abiding potential for conflict within Europe and seems to preclude an eternally pacified, all-embracing union.
The essays in this edition do not address this nexus of problems on the basis of an all-encompassing analysis of the entire situation, but are grounded instead in specific questions. Susanne Lummerding enquiries in her essay who is actually concealed behind the rhetorical “people” (“people think…” etc.) so willingly invoked in political discourse as the absolute essence of mainstream society (in this case in Austria and Germany)? Does an unfruitful distinction between outside and inside perhaps run even through the construct of the “welcome culture”, implicitly based as it is on a division into helpful “locals” and needy “others”? How can this perpetual boundary-drawing be overcome conceptually? That is a question that Fatima El-Tayeb and Mark Terkessidis also debate in conversation with Pascal Jurt. How is it possible to work constructively towards a society of diversity, once and for all overcoming the recurring cycles of “racialisation”? How it is possible to create viable coalitions among minority groups that take multiplicity into account and do not over-hastily sacrifice differences to the postulate of unity?
Christian von Borries carried out a kind of experiment on himself vis-à-vis other people\\\'s suffering. He spent some time as a crew member on a search and rescue ship in the Mediterranean and participated directly in the procedures involved in rescuing refugee boats in difficulties at sea. His discussion of this experience with Alice Creischer and Andreas Siekmann addresses not only the actual circumstances of such rescue missions but also the image-politics linked to these endeavours and the associated media coverage.
The way in which a repressed Other often also resonates in the identification “we refugees” is explored in Suzana Milevska’s essay, which above all recalls the anti-Roma sentiment that continues to circulate across Europe. Further essays in this edition tackle artistic reactions to Brexit (Marlene Riger) or—with a more positive slant—endeavour to make the idea of “Post-Otherness” fruitful in the realm of art (Dietrich Heissenbüttel on Bonaventure Soh Bejeng Ndikung’s multiple activities).
Moving beyond frustrating political findings, Europe’s Other seeks to glean cultural and artistic glimmers of light from the current constellation: does it make sense to insist on a genuine meaning for or value of the European dimension? Where would this begin, and where would it end? Wouldn’t it perhaps be preferable to start viewing Europe’s “Other”, which is so frequently invoked (in both positive and negative terms), as an integral element of Europe, one that has always been present and active within it?