 |
|||
 |
|||
|
deutsch | english
Central Europe – A Concept of HopeTo be academically proper, we should always begin with a definition. Defining Central Europe geographically, however, is a difficult thing to do. Here I propose to follow the system of movable bondaries, since every era has had a different image of Central Europe. Moreover, the German form of the name, «Mitteleuropa», is also burdened with a negative connotation, since it was coined by Friedrich Naumann in 1915 while he was developing a concept for the German Reich after World War I. In English and in French the matter is simpler, for «Central Europe» and «l’Europe Central» are not linked with historical perspectives any more than «Stredni Europa» or «Közép Európa». Today semantic confusion is especially rife, for Romania’s President Iliescu recently expressed the opinion that Southeastern Europe was not really Southeastern Europe, but rather South-Central Europe, and that «Southeastern Europe» was actually the correct term for the states of the Caucasus. The European Commission calls one part of the region the West Balkans, a term that you will not find in any history or geography book. The Italians, on the other hand, speak of the Eastern Adriatic Region, and on top of that, the Croatians deny that they belong to it at all. Instead, romantic definitions appear that are more like those oriented towards the old Habsburg Empire, such as that wherever you find Baroque churches, Holy Trinity columns and statues of St. John of Nepomuk on bridges, you’re bound to be in Central Europe. Alexander Gieysztor, the famous Polish historian, wrote: Central Europe is anywhere, where the names of Caspar, Melchior und Balthasar are marked on the top of door frames, where people sleep under feather comforters, and where a woman always receives an uneven number of roses in a bouquet. However, Central Europe really exists whereever this is of central importance for literature and language studies. «The tongue reaches farther than the hand»To the Pole Stanislaw Jerzy Lec we owe many witty sayings, but this one adapted from Karl Dedecius about the scope of words comprises an infinitely important piece of political wisdom. There is no doubt that literature conveys much of what today’s social sciences could never communicate, despite all the finesse of modern research techniques: a feeling for atmosphere, historical roots, perspectives of developments and, finally, inner understanding of a situation. No one will deny that our era, despite the general overabundance of written material, has trouble dealing with anything emotional and, therefore, also with words. This is probably one of the reasons why no one from the «West» is interested in the literature that has flourished and is still flourishing in Southeastern Europe. If, for example, Dobrica Čosić, the Serb author and short-term president of the Federal Public of Yugoslavia of Milošević favour, had been read sooner in the West, many of the differences between the Serb understanding of the world and of history and that of the rest of Europe would have been revealed earlier, and it would have been possible to develop strategies for coping with them. Čosić presented an almost triumphalist approach to the history of his country, which proposed that the reason for the suffering of the Serbs was their moral superiority over Europe; offered grounds for a socialist conception of society; and justified fighting and war. I personally am convinced that this ignorance on the part of free Europe about the «gorges of the Balkan» was and is considerable and that probably the way many picture this region is still coloured by their memories of reading Karl May, and when you add to that the horror images of the electronic media, it is impossible to form a discriminating opinion. Today’s transformation states, Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary, but also Russia, have been the objects of more interest because the literature of these countries has traditionally been translated into the languages of the West. Thus our perception of Eastern Central Europe and Eastern Europe, as far as literature is concerned as well, has long been very different from our perception of the southeastern part of the continent. The end of Central Europe?Ever since a certain round table discussion in Poland 14 years ago, as well as the opening of the Iron Curtain on the Hungarian-Austrian border, gave rise to a change which brought a great opportunity for Europe but which has not yet been dealt with yet by far, we have had the need to analyse the situation of Central Europe. In the era before the fall of the Iron Curtain, Central Europe was the great bridge over which Europeans from both sides approached each other. It was particularly the dissidents and intellectuals of Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, as well as those of Slovenia and Croatia, who used Central Europe as a meta-level of the mind for declaring, across political boundaries, that they were Europeans and demanding that they be accepted as such. It was Vaclav Havel and György Konrad, Andrzej Szczpiorski and the Slovenian Authors Association who initiated a revival of the concepts and ideas of Central Europe after this region had de facto lost its sense of existing as a result of the separation of East and West after 1945. Here lies the great merit of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), which not only made efforts to reduce the political tensions in Europe, but also, with the legendary Third Basket, promoted common interests in Europe across the Iron Curtain through cultural contact. Some commentators after 1989 expressed the opinion that since the transformation states were prepared to enter the European integration process, Central Europe had lost its topicality. But in reality the situation is just the opposite. As far as the future of Central Europe is concerned, the development of the continent is now facing a test. If we do not succeed in carrying out European integration, that is in stabilising the central part of Europe in this way, we shall not be able to give Europe a new countenance politically, economically, culturally and intellectually. There are definitely a number of questions involved. Up to now the integration process has been characterised by a relationship to our partner across the Atlantic, to the USA. It was a more or less Western orientation that dominated us all and that in the end led to democracy and freedom having been maintained in our part of Europe. The events of recent years – the instability of Russia, the Balkan wars and the unresolved question of how far Europe actually extends – have made us more aware of the central part of the continent. The transfer of the German seat of government to Berlin also resulted in a shift of focus on our continent. The maps have changed, new states have arisen and old problems have reappeared. What we now have to deal with is not neo-nationalism, but the very nationalism that came out of the 19th century, which for a long time lay in the deep freeze of Communism and is now thawing out, like the problems we used to have in South Tyrol, in the Basque Country and in Northern Ireland, which are still on our agendas. Central Europe can be a symbol for the safeguarding of multiple coexistence, but the economic component alone is not enough. The fall of Communism was facilitated by an intellectual process that was marked by the Charta 77, Solidarnosc, Magyar Demokrata Forum and other movements. Europe’s vrefinding of itself, too, can only be initiated through an intellectual process; our continent cannot exist without the Slavic element, without the intellectual and cultural achievements that have been made in all these countries. Let us not forget that the French Revolution based its declaration of human rights on a Polish constitutional document. Let us remember what a tremendous intellectual life existed in Prague, for example, in a conglomeration of Slavic, German and Jewish elements. Denying that Hungarians, Slovenians and Croats are Europeans actually means denying a goodly part of the cultural and intellectual wealth of Europe. All this is what is under discussion, not just the question of the expansion of the European Union, the transition periods, the European problems and the question of security. We don’t need to use «Central Europe» as a placatory heading, we just need to be aware that the central part of Europe needs stability if the existence of the entire continent is to be guaranteed. We cannot succeed in achieving stable political structures in Russia if such structures do not exist in the neighbouring countries of that great European partner. We are not going to be able to respond successfully to the Islamic-Arabic world if we do not recognise the bridging function of Southeastern Europe. All this connects up with Europe’s moorings in the middle of the continent. It is there that the path we have to follow begins, if we want to move in these directions. A tremendous European challenge – but has it been recognised? Helsinki and the Disintegration of the EastThere is no doubt that the Iron Curtain was also culturally effective. The Helsinki-Act and the legendary Third Basket, with the measures anchored in it, were definitely an important step in overcoming the division between East and West. The effects, however, run deep and are still perceptible today. It must also be noted that in a number of areas, from the business sector and tourism to political relations, Tito’s Yugoslavia was definitely an accepted partner, whereas culturally a great deal remained in which we did not take an interest, and for this reason the real situations of these countries remained hidden for us. We are all the more surprised today, particularly because, since the disintegration of Yugoslavia in 1991, there have been four Balkan wars, which in varying degrees resulted not only in devastating deaths and casualties but also in lasting instabilities and often reluctantly perceived obligations of Europe and the rest of the world. We could have seen it coming if the literature of this region had been read, and translated for the rest of Europe. Its topicality is more urgent than ever. A special chapter is the behaviour of the intellectuals of the free democracies. Despite a highly developed sensibility with regard to the history of the Third Reich, more or less general ignorance can be observed as far as the upheavals in the Balkans are concerned. As yet, no great novels have been written on the situation of the divided Europe, no works dealing with the recovery of our continent or the possibilities for shaping its future. The French intellectuals alone managed to effect a change of attitude in their President, François Mitterand, during the Bosnian conflict. In a bizarre way, certainly, Peter Handke also treated the subject, which basically deserves recognition, although I personally find it hard to make anything of his opinions on Serbia. Neither have I been able to understand why, after a long period of interest in Slovenian literature, he more or less abruptly turned away from this country and its authors and became, without prejudice, a supporter of Milošević’s politics. But we do have to be thankful to him, since his is one of the few reactions of a European writer to the situation that exist at all. It must be added that starting in the 1960s, taking the old Habsburg Empire as a starting point, a certain literary exploration of the region began and is still going on in Austrian literature, initiated by Claudio Margris with his work about the Habsburg myth. He, as well as Peter Esterhazy, have written in different ways about the Danube as a connecting element; similarly, a number of works have appeared in Polish and Czech literature which also refer to this. However, these works can certainly not be considered examinations of the divided political situation of the continent; they are more a mixture of reappraisal and rediscovery with a pinch of nostalgia, and for the Balkans they are irrelevant. But why is this even important in the current political situation? I should like to approach this question not from the point of view of a literary expert, which I am not, but definitely from a political perspective. There is no doubt that literature is of infinite importance in situations of radical change. What Robert Musil (The Man Without Qualities) and Stefan Zweig (The World of Yesterday) published about the waning Europe of the 19th century, certainly acted as a warning for the disasters of the 20th century. Even today, what Ivo Andric wrote about the cultural ruptures in Southeastern Europe in Bosnian Chronicle / The Days of the Consuls1 would help many a Western diplomat to understand political differences. In his essay «Helpless Europe», Robert Musil provided clues to a situation which was controlled with some success on one side of the Iron Curtain after World War II. Personally, I am convinced that in the German-speaking region, the fixation of the «generation of ’68» with the past and the struggle for late Marxist positions has obstructed the perception of realities in the European community until today. Whether it is because of the dream of the «third way» or because of other socio-political illusions, there exists, in any case, a certain blindness with regard to countries that are of infinite importance for the situation in which Europe finds itself today. But it is never too late to start dealing with it. Neighbours Need InterpretersIt must be acknowledged that, obviously as a result of the conflicts in this region, a great number of translations have appeared which, in the immediacy of the literature which they make accessible, convey the situation in which the rest of Europe has become involved in order to bring about lasting stability for the whole continent. This needs to be examined and explained, and Karl Dedecius, winner of the Peace Prize of the German Book Sellers, aptly described its significance in the foreword to his «Polish Library»: «The literature of a people is like a window out of which this people looks at foreigners, but through which a foreigner can also gain insight into the life of this people. Looking through the open windows of books into the intellectual reality of our neighbours is necessary and useful.» Why, in our information society, available literature is so rarely enlisted in order to gain understanding of others, of what seems foreign, particularly with regard to human experiences, prejudices and feelings, is a question worthy of serious consideration. In fact, it touches the key problem of co-existence in Europe. As a result of the changes of the past years, we are experiencing new or perhaps also old cultural mechanisms in our relations to our neighbours. The fact that what was previously a hermetically closed world that left few traces on us, has suddenly made direct contact with us has opened up a whole new field of possible tensions. Minority conflicts (Kosovo) and «ethnic cleansing» (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, etc.) are dramatic examples. What we can learn for the present-day situation in Europe is, how many different kinds of possible relations there are to our fellow human beings. When do we really call someone a «neighbour» today? When we live next door to them? Or is a person who lives in a neighbouring country, who perhaps, in the course of history, often shared our destiny and who today is bound together with us through common interests, also a neighbour? What seems foreign to us about this person, and what is familiar? What do we continue to consider foreign so that we do not have to think about and relate to this person? Whom do we welcome, and who, being welcome, may become our friend? An examination of these questions was needed long before 1989. The problems involved in terminology became obvious as soon as we had to deal with the question of the «correct» term for workers from another country: Should we call them «foreign workers» or «guest workers»? Sensitivity with regard to language is justified, but up to now it usually has not changed anything about the way people treat each other. Finding the right approach is difficult, even in comparatively simple situations. I always enjoy observing what happens when a Viennese is asked a question by a foreigner. If the question is asked in German, my compatriots always lapse into a very peculiar idiom, as though they had just learned the language themselves, saying things that sound something like: «You – going – right, then – turning – left...» And yet it could very well be, even though the person asking for information cannot speak German flawlessly – how many people can, after all? Even if they were born in Austria? – that he or she can certainly understand normal language. In such situations, a kind of «alienation phenomenon» seems to take hold. If the same dialogue takes place in English, there is less of a problem – apparently because English has become the lingua franca of our time. If the foreigner speaks German with an accent that clearly shows he comes from a country east or southeast of Austria, the use of this primitive form of language happens as a matter of course.
The opening of our borders has not brought with it any strong incentive to learn
the languages of our neighbours. Yet the differentiation between languages is
more in evidence today, for officially Serbocroatian no longer exists, and it is
necessary to differentiate between the Czech and Slovak languages. And of course
there must always be a university chair for Ukrainian in Europe today The Europe of the 19th century had it easier, because the coexistence of people speaking many different languages in a large region led to the fact that anyone who wanted to be successful in an administrative position had to speak several of these languages as a matter of course. Some people learned them while in military service, others learned additional languages through their families or their professions. As a result, translating the literature of these languages was more customary than it is today, although Europe in the modern sense did not yet exist. Why is this so important? Because it is more likely that our neighbours will learn our languages than vice versa, English as a matter of course, but German too, since economic necessities such as investments and tourism are gaining importance for them. If our neighbours also learn some Russian, they are well-prepared for future markets. Can we say the same? It would be too simplistic to reduce the problem to a question of economics alone. Being able to talk to someone from a neighbouring country, in order to be capable of understanding him and accepting him, at least inwardly, if not outwardly, surely is a natural prerequisite for peaceful coexistence on a continent. So is familiarity with our neighbours’ literature and the ability to read it, just as we expect our neighbours to be familiar with Herman Böll, Günther Grass, or Heiner Müller and Thomas Bernhard. A united Europe implies other aspects as well. If we want to shape Europe together, we have to develop a sensitivity for the languages and feelings of the people we are working with. We can no longer go through this Europe of ours with a cavalcade of interpreters; we need certain basic linguistic equipment. The EU’s «White Paper on Education» requires, therefore, and rightly so, that every European know three Community languages. The limitations of the EU are made apparent by the fact that in this white paper not a single Slavic language is mentioned. A Union Without Culture?The «others» must, however, also be made visible in today’s medial reality. It would be a fascinating contrast if the monotonous uniformity of TV programmes today could be brightened up with colourful glimpses of the various cultures of Europe. The world of theatre and music is more varied, but it is usually reserved to a certain social strata. Electronic means of mass communication could open up far more possibilities here. Wouldn’t this be a valuable chance for the state-influenced radio and television stations to do the right kind of «public broadcasting»? Positive things must also be mentioned: People participating in festivities in many cities of Europe today are bound to notice the presence of music and dance groups from various parts of Europe. By this I do not mean second-rate folklore, but a presentation of European diversity that is becoming more and more an accepted thing. In gastronomy the same thing is happening, despite various fads and trends. Getting to know and enjoy various types of European cuisine is becoming more common. Even if eating and drinking are relatively primitive expressions of lifestyle, they at least give us a frame of reference. Reading and understanding is actually the next step. By following a conscious and patiently persistent strategy we can arrive at the point where foreign countries and things no longer seem foreign to us, and people from what we used to consider «foreign» countries seem interesting, visitors become neighbours, and a kind of European friendship develops, without which the integration and stability of Europe cannot be achieved. Karl Schwarzenberg, European aristocrat and Vaclav Havel’s chancellor, once described Europe as a village in which one part had been separated by a wall. But now, he said, we have the opportunity not only to build streets and markets, by ways and squares together, to organise a common water supply and sewer system and enjoy an adequate supply of jobs and stores, but also to design our schools and pubs, set up a fire brigade and a police department, and, while we are doing so, not to completely forget the Church as a symbol of the values that a community needs in order to live together. The advantage of this image is that diversity remains, for there are larger and smaller houses to which we can retire under various circumstances. But we know that we have to live with our neighbours, and we want them to have good lives. The prophet Jeremia once said: «Wish the best for the town; then you, too, shall fare well!» Can we exclude one neighbour from such a wish? A prerequisite is that the inhabitants of a village are able to talk to each another and find a language for one another – communication and understanding go hand in hand. Now, one might say that this touches on questions that are actually irrelevant for us Western-oriented Europeans, with our more or less well-functioning integration process. A considerable number among us are even recommending that we leave the people in Eastern and Southeastern Europe alone and not bother about them any further. The words «Fortress Europe» are not used by politicians in public, it is true, but they are present in the minds and hearts of many. What they do not realize is that this whole issue is directly related to the identity of Europe (a term that has, unfortunately, been used to excess). We are currently in the process of writing down what we consider to be actually meant by the term «Europe». For example, the term is not consistent with the geographical exclusion of certain regions, especially not of cultural regions such as those characterised by Slavic languages or Orthodox traditions of thought. As irony will have it, we are at the same time complaining of the increasing influence exerted upon us by an Americanised civilisation. Those who are not happy about this can certainly find the appropriate answer in the diversity of Europe. The bottom line is: Without culture there will be no Europe! Between 1945 and 1989 Europe did not really exist. The democratic Western part was connected across the Atlantic with the USA and, we can probably say, culturally dependent upon it; the Eastern part was controlled by the Russian-dominated Soviet system; the middle of the continent was no more than a literary and intellectual memory. There was no question of diversity; the East-West conflict represented the binary differentiation of Europe. We can still see the difference today, if we travel through cities of the former «East» with open eyes. For the first time since 1989 we have been given the chance to see Europe as a cultural continent again and to take advantage of its diversity. And this changes the quality of Europe’s unification. While at the time of the European Coal and Steel Community (Montan Union) and the European Economic Community (EEC) unification first meant the resolution of the ongoing German-French conflict that had lasted since the 17th century, and later the idea of the unity of a free Europe as a stronghold against Communism, now, since Maastricht, it has come to mean the chance to join together voluntarily to create a new political reality. Once again, Europe has the chance to be Europe. This, however, shifts the accent from economy to culture, to the real intellectual and psychological condition of the old continent. The «euro»; cannot be the only deciding factor; culture is at least as constitutive. What makes us ask the question about the »diversity» of Europe, about its «cultural future»? A refusal to answer this question is foolishness – stupidity – just as it is foolish to believe that it is not diversity which is the constituting element of Europe, that it is not the question of «cultural future» that will determine Europe’s existence. At the present time we see a dichotomy, yes, even a schizophrenia of thought. We are proud of the diversity of culture, and at the same time we are constantly forced to observe how Europeans refuse to accept «others» – people and things that are different or »foreign». And yet our cultural landscape is so rich! On a horizontal plane, that is, simultaneously, we experience a diversity of peoples, languages and forms of expression. We know about the differences in our valleys just as we know about differences in fashion, literature and music. But the wealth of the cultural landscape also includes the vertical element, that is, the course of developments over the ages. How much has happened in this Europe of ours, through ancient times, the Judao-Christian world, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, until we arrived in our «postmodern» world! However, the EU has not yet given us effective measures for promoting the translation of literature. How can we prevent or break down xenophobia if we don’t even acknowledge the literary creations of our neighbours and make them accessible? It is essential that we call attention to those who represent a treasure trove for the better understanding of other Europeans, who convey to us primordial things of which, as a result of the civilisation process, we have lost awareness. In particular, this literary wealth would help us to better understand events and processes that have a tremendous influence on us whether we want them to or not. Let us hope, therefore, that we have seen the end of what Milovan Djilas once called a «one-way telephone»: «We spoke, they heard; when they spoke, their message was not received.»; Despite my love for my native country, I must say that the criticism expressed by Djilas applies to a great extent to Austria, whose propensity to dispose of history not only includes the seven years of the «thousand-year Reich» and what happened before that, but, unfortunately, also positive achievements resulting from mutual understanding in the past. As far as literature was concerned, the East was little known, if not self-contained. From the farthest reaches of the former Empire, authors found their way to the Austrian public only by way of Paris or Frankfurt. György Konrad, Ismael Kadaré, Paul Goma, Milan Kundera, Andrej Szypiorski, Bohumil Hrabal and many others had to take this path. It may be that the language barrier also played a role. Mirror of a RegionAlso worthy of interest are the topics authors choose that give us information not only about the history but also about the cultural roots of the region, usually through the medium of family-related accounts which, sometimes pointillistically, allow us to perceive a picture of the overall situation. In this way the diversity of the landscape becomes visible, a landscape which we are getting to know only slowly and with difficulty, for many Europeans are still amazed to find, for example, that there is so much diversity in the regions of former Yugoslavia, despite everything these regions may have in common. The situation is even more extreme with regard to authors whose national, historical and cultural backgrounds remained hidden to us for a long time. Who really knew anything about the Albanians, their Illyrian roots, and their presence not only in the «land of the Skipetars» but also in Yugoslavia and Macedonia, in Greece and even in Italy? Who knew anything about the situation of the minorities – in fact, despite all the publicity about the shameful developments in the Balkans in the 20th century, we are still not even really aware of the Jewish situation there. It was left to Aleksander Tisma (The Book of Blam) to cautiously point out some of the terrible things that happened to the Jews, in Vojvodina for example. Even more foreign to us is the world of Islam, which, for a long time – even after World War II – Austrians saw from the historical perspective of the second Turkish siege of Vienna in 1683, only to discover too late how close to us its cultural characteristics and the people who bear them actually are – living among us today, in fact. A highly diversified intellectual continent is waiting to be discovered through literature. The last Balkan wars have found expression in it as well, with soldiers described in the tradition of Rambo, to whom eradication and death are a habit and the destruction of cultural monuments such as churches, mosques and libraries is understood as being symbolic of superior power. It may be that the great modern novel of this region has not yet been written, but many different pictures come together to produce an overall view that impressively portrays the human destinies and the tragedy involved in these events. Today we have already forgotten the German Trümmerliteratur, the «literature of the rubble» after World War II, which showed us the terrible events of the first half of the 20th century and was, doubtless, necessary for psychologically coming to grips with the past. The experiences of the two generations before us ought, in fact, to make us all the more sensitive to and capable of dealing with what can be experienced and felt in our neighbouring countries today. With Europe now working towards the goal of reaching out to one another across old barriers, we need to be able to understand each other’s languages. Let the old Biblical image of the confusion of tongues at Babel be a warning to us, for the building of the Tower of Babel is a good illustration of our world today, and especially of Southeastern Europe. Translated literature from the problematic regions of Europe can be much like a pentecostal experience, in that «each one [hears] them speaking in his own language» – the prerequisite being, however, that we are even aware that it is there. 1) Translator’s note: Ivo Andric’s Travicka Hronkia (German title: Wesire und Konsuln) has been translated into English several times, first as The Bosnian Story, later as Bosnian Chronicle and in 1992 as The Days of the Consuls. |
|||
|
|||