An intro note:
I don't believe in essentialism, but rather relationism (a better name for 'relativism'). This outlook basically says that something is defined in relation to differences with something else, in short, identity hinges on decision about what a thing is by priveliging some elements over others (which are ignored) and in this sense forming a concept of a thing. This concept can then be further refined by contrasting itself with what it isn't. The highest possibility of contrast is when one thing conflicts with the existence of another. In human terms this means the declaration of war, when the friend is distinguished from the enemy.
No one will deny that the Slavs have had (continue to have?) conflicts with Germanics and Turks, and that for a relatively long period of time Slavic power has been centered in Russia, an Eastern Slavic nation (Poland being a Western Slavic nation, in contrast). However, Prussia, for example, was a nation formed out of two elements: its aristocracy descended from the Teutonic Knights (correct me if I'm wrong, but they were definetly Germanic) and its Slavic populace. The Slavic base for that State were later Germanicised (we can define this once we've reconceptualised what 'Slavic' is) and were expelled from Prussia by the Red Army after World War 2. Why were these originally Slavic Prussians expelled and considered Germans, when compared to the fairly Westernised Catholic Poles (I don't want to get into a Pole-slandering contest here) who remained? Can we defined the ethos or style, so to speak, of the Slavic culture (both east and west) as a whole? What are the core values which enable one to discriminate between a Slavic and a Germanic nation? Or is the idea of 'Slavic' simply a historical construct built out of fairly consistent political alliegences during wars?
I have a feeling this will be a good topic
- Jack
Bookmarks