The final day of the Moscow School of Civic Education's seminar in Berlin on The Idea of Europe - The Search for Identity between Liberalism and Conservatism in Berlin took up where the previous one had left off, with the question of how, having gone beyond walls to rivers, one works out where stand in relation to the landscape, which side to take, whether to join the flow or attempt to swim against it, and how to build and maintain bridges that unite both sides of the land which provides the boundary within which the river can flow freely.
German historian, journalist and author Eberhard Straub and Russian telejournalist Mikhail Fischman opened the day's proceedings with a provocative question: 'Are Russians the best Europeans?' followed by a session confrontatively entitled 'Is there a "clash of values" between Russia and the West?' in which Dr Andreas Schockenhoff and Andrei Kolesnikov (who was at pains to say he was speaking as an individual, not as a representative of any of the organisations for which he works) looked at the problem of similarity and difference from their respective positions as human beings, that of a professional politician, and that of an intelligent journalist.
Getting beyond duality without denying it involves either transcendence or following the thin line which separates opposing parts. Neither transcendence nor tightrope-walking were the chosen escape routes from the limits of dualistic thinking, but (refreshingly unexpectedly from my point of view) those who wanted to take an independent path found inspiration, just as Archimedes did, in seeking a fixed point. They may not have wanted to move the world, nor did they seem to be looking for a fulcrum to do so, but the importance of having a stable point on which to stand was clearly vitally important for many. There was a preponderance of containment metaphors from the speakers and a relative lack of linear 'continuum' metaphors (to draw loosely on George Lakoff's work on grounding metaphors). Dr Schockenhoff's autocratic choice of words included too many instances of 'should's and 'must's for most if not all of his listeners, judging from the questions and comments addressed to him from the floor and from the discussions I took part in in the break which ensued. Pointed questions were asked. One of the ones addressed to Dr Straub was, "If you think that government is bad and people are foolish, where do you stand?" "The view that 'The world isn't black and white, there are always exceptions, grey areas' has become such a commonplace mode of thinking, people have become daltonic." Clarity of vision and the ability to clearly and accurately reflect a personal view from a clear standpoint and position was obviously important to one delegate. Nods of agreement showed there was considerable support across the room.
"We've broken down walls, now where do we turn?" another delegate asked, echoing my impressions of the metaphoric path the intellectual journey the people in the room had embarked on over the last couple of days.
The speaker's views on the proper role of a journalist provoked heated responses from listeners. His statement that it was not a journalist's job to campaign to remove Putin from power, but simply to inform, enlighten and entertain readers, to convey a sense of cultural awareness resulted in one delegate responding, "Don't you think it's a journalist's job to question the extent to which Putin's rhetoric has changed the Russian cultural mindset?"
The question of who to stand with was also one that troubled many Russians. "I used to think I could fit in with the 25% or so of liberal-thinking people. Now I'm not so sure. I know I don't fit into the 75% of conservative thinkers. I definitely don't want to be bundled up with the 2% of people who have been labelled 'foreign agents'. I'm going to have to think hard about where I stand, re-evaluate my position." Another delegate whom I talked to during a break said he didn't want to find himself saying 'moya khata c krayu' (I'm keeping out of it) or 'it's none of my business', but felt more and more marginalised in an increasingly homogonised intellectual environment.
Lena Nemirovskaia, the School's founder, contributed a telling comment - people are the same everywhere. Institutions work differently in different places. For her, it wasn't simply a question of the grass being greener on the other side of the fence, though. It was more about where you're standing, how far you can see, your clarity of vision and the directions in which you can turn and move. For her, there was no fence, there were just possibilities, however impossible they seemed. Where others might have seen a bleak field, I suspect she saw what could be cultivated in it, and what could grow from a bit of tender loving care as a result.
'Miy pastavili tochku' (we've marked a spot) said Fischman. The chair of the second session ended it on a darkly comic note, "perhaps the point of agreement we've reached is that the Americans are worse than either Europeans or Russians."
It was unfortunate that due to Dr Schockenhoff's alienating stance, a particularly important point he made did not resonate as much as it might otherwise have. "Europe and Russia need to become part of a pluralistic world unit" - had he used a more enabling form, such as 'can' or 'can easily', rather than yet another imperative form masked as a declarative one, he would have had more 'takers'. As it was, the opportunity to rise above dualistic thinking was somewhat wasted.
The final session left people with more questions than answers, which was not a bad thing. After all, it was from doubt that Descartes reached the point from which he was able to say, "I think, therefore I am".
It was clear from delegates' and hosts' final comments that there had been a shift in thinking. "To have been able to hear such a range of well-articulated, dissenting views presented intelligently was a privilege I'm not accustomed to having in Russia," said one delegate. "It's at times of crisis, when people are most scared - scared of losing their position, that it's most important to find a way of helping them find their own way. We are at such a point, and we need to understand what the right path to follow is, not just for ourselves, but to come to a joint understanding of it, together," concluded Matthias Platzeck, of the German-Russian Forum, one of the host organisations.
"You've made me think differently" was a common refrain from all sides. It was no different for me, but my learning point, or realisation, was that once I have a solid place to stand, the next step is to orient myself. It's a word that was conspicuous by its absence, despite it being common to both of the languages in which the seminar was conducted. Orientation, not occidentation.
In order to orient ourselves, we turn towards the place from which the sun rises, from whence light comes. The School's mission is to provoke enlightenment. It's no surprise their motto is 'Sapere aude', dare to think. The inner light of universal values on which the democratic institutions so dear to the hearts of the School's founders, unlike the light of the sun, comes neither from the East nor from the West.
It comes from within. I was privileged to experience the awakening of that light in many of the delegates' personal statements of the journeys they had taken over the three days that enabled them to see the world more accurately, more clearly, and thus orient themselves more confidently in relation to their perception of the world, each in their own way.
P.S.: Photos
нет комментариев