The rain kept me from the wall today, spent the time working on he prramming of the installation and reading. This from Michael Ignatiefff's book Blood and Belonging:
" When Nationalists claim that national belonging is the overridingly important form of all belonging, they mean there is no other form of belonging that is secure if you do not have a nation to protect you... Belonging by this account is first and foremost protection from violence. Where you belong is where you are safe and where you are safe is where you belong."
This theme of security is recurrent. The peace lines are now seen as national lines that offer each of the bordering communities their protection. So many of the people that I have spoken to echo this - without the wall how could we ever live with a sense of security? But Ignatieff makes another key point about nationalism, that belonging also means "being recognised and being understood". The walls equally guarantee that there will be a clear understanding, that the dialogues of both sides will not be dilluted through the confusion of inter communication. Here is where the walls stand for acoustic insulation. Our language, our sounding world will remain contained.
In this respect at least I agree with the fellow I met yesterday who said that the walls will never allow for a peace. Reconcile comes from the Greek Kattalage "to exchange" which is derived from Allos "the other". To reconcile is to allow passage freely between ourselves and our other. Theologian David Stevens writes: "We need to tell our stories to each other and listen intently to what we are told".
1 comment:
There are ways of telling stories that permeate the walls, but how is it possible to ignite "listening intently" if there is an adequate completeness in one's view of the world and no desire to know the others story. As in the "Chrysalides" the mythology becomes the wall. Those who are able to listen to the minds of others break through.
Post a Comment