Borderlands, agonism and cosmopolitanism
Anna Cento Bull responds to an article by Simon Lewis, ‘Border Trouble: Ethnopolitics and Cosmopolitan memory in Recent Polish Cinema’, published in East European Politics and Society and Cultures, and seeks to clarify the fundamental differences between agonistic and cosmopolitan modes of remembering.
The recent article by Simon Lewis (‘Border Trouble: Ethnopolitics and Cosmopolitan memory in Recent Polish Cinema, East European Politics and Society and Cultures, 33:2, 2019, 522-49), raises important issues of direct relevance to the DisTerrMem project, particularly as regards the role of memory work in re-imagining ‘troubled’ borderlands in ways that challenge cultural uniformity and the revival of ethnopolitics.
Furthermore, the author claims that his argument “shares common features with the notion of agonistic memory proposed by Anna Cento Bull and Hans Lauge Hansen”, yet he also states that he prefers the term ‘cosmopolitan memory’ as in his view “it better conveys the border-crossing effects articulated in the films under discussion; moreover, the adjective ‘cosmopolitan’ is better suited to a discussion of the globalized medium of film” (Note 37, p. 546).
While Lewis acknowledges that Cento Bull (myself) and Hansen oppose agonistic to cosmopolitan memory, he appears to sidestep the issue of how these two modes of remembering differ fundamentally, seemingly reducing the controversy to a simple choice of terminology. This raises the interesting question of whether the kind of memory work Lewis brings to light in the Polish films he analyses in his paper does indeed share features with the concept of agonistic memory as he claims, or has in fact much more in common with the cosmopolitan mode critiqued by Cento Bull and Hansen.
Cosmopolitan and agonistic memory: the main differences
Before I briefly summarise Lewis’s arguments, let me recap the main differences between cosmopolitan and agonistic memory. A good starting point for those new to the subject is Shauna Robertson’s brief introduction. For an in-depth discussion, the exchange between one of the main theorists of cosmopolitan memory, Natan Sznaider, and the proponents of the concept of agonistic memory, Cento Bull and Hansen, also clarifies these differences. See Natan Sznaider’s ‘Response to Understanding Agonistic Memory’, and Anna Cento Bull and Hans Lauge Hansen’s ‘A Reply to Nathan Sznaider’.
Natan Sznaider
Sznaider argues that in order to challenge antagonism, polarised societies, in which a few divisions cut deep, need to be replaced with more fragmented societies characterised by overlapping identities and loyalties. A society “cut by thousands of little divisions” is better able to promote individuation: “such individuation fosters personal ties that reach across and further knit together social divisions. This is how memory in modern societies works”. According to Cento Bull and Hansen, however, “memory in modern societies sometimes works in this way but in the political sphere, it more often works to construct strong collective identities pitting US against THEM and fuelling social and political grievances. Society is imbued with asymmetrical power relations, and politics and identities are by force divided between hegemonic and counter-hegemonic positions engaged in conflict and competition”. In their view, this “validates agonism’s argument that to defuse antagonism we need to turn enemies into adversaries rather than hoping that fragmented identities will be able to trump political polarisation”. In his paper, Sznaider emphasises the role of common norms, human rights and humanitarian goals in promoting civil peace and stresses the compenetration of universalism and particularism: “the mutual influence of nations through the institutions of globalization produces both sides of cosmopolitanization: the central but growing core of common values; and the globalized variations of local meaning”.
Hans Lauge Hansen
In their reply, Cento Bull and Hansen contest Sznaider’s emphasis on a ‘harmonic relationship’ between the universal and the particular, arguing that “the relationship can be conflictual and confrontational, and the outcome can be total rupture”. In their conclusion, however, Cento Bull and Hansen acknowledge the existence of different strands of cosmopolitanism as well as different strands of agonism, and accept that a fruitful dialogue between some of these strands is both possible and desirable.
Simon Lewis on ‘border trouble’ in Polish cinema
Let me now briefly summarise Lewis’s arguments. He coins the expression ‘border trouble’ to refer to “a form of cultural trauma that transcends binaries of perpetrator/victim and oppressor/oppressed”. In relation to Polish borderlands, the concept refers to the need to address “Poland’s double status as colonizer as well as colonized”, as well as explore the ways in which Polish identity is contested “between self-reflective remembrance that allows the possibility of guilt, and hegemonic martyrdom that places collective suffering at its core” (p. 525).
In light of these considerations, how do the films he analyses deal with Polish contested identity? Lewis takes into consideration two films by Wojciech Smarzowski (Róża, 2011; Wołyń, 2016) and two by Agnieszka Holland (Pokot, 2017; W ciemności, 2011). He classifies the former as ‘negative cosmopolitanism’ and the latter as ‘positive cosmopolitanism’.
Smarzowski’s films ‘depict the violent suppression of difference’ (p. 529) in the Polish borderlands, addressing “the specter of ethnic violence, deportations and migrations after 1945” (p. 528). Far from being seen through the idealised lenses of a ‘pre-war cosmopolitanism’ the past in the borderlands is depicted “as a colourful canvas of mixed and hybrid ethnicities […] but also lays bare the tensions and uneven distributions of cosmopolitan sensitivity” (p. 533). In addition, violence is attributed to all sides, thus blurring the clear-cut distinction between perpetrator and victim.
The films by Holland, by contrast, reinsert cosmopolitanism in the borderlands’ past, for instance by protraying the city of Lviv/Lwòw as multilingual, multiperspectival and “deterritorialized from the national imaginery” (p. 538). According to Lewis, Holland reimagines the “Polonized borderland as a space of multiple interlinked heritages” (p. 539). In the conclusion, the author argues that “in the globalized present in which ethnopolitics is returning with a vengeance, these filmic gestures find alternative ways of remembering the ambivalent border space” (p. 542).
Which mode of remembering: cosmopolitan or agonistic?
Going back to my original questions, does the interpretation of these four films by Lewis have many points of contact with the agonistic memory approach (regardless of his choice of terminology) or does it represent a truly cosmopolitan vision of the past and the present? I would say that Lewis’s interpretation draws on both modes of remembering, yet ultimately it leans heavily on cosmopolitanism.
In relation to Smarzowski’s films, Lewis argues that they are “portraits of multi-ethnic borderlands at the point of their destruction” (p. 528), caused by the unleashing of nationalist violence from all sides. As such, the films can be seen as “defying binaries of meaning” (p. 534). This chimes with agonistic memory’s emphasis on contextualising perpetratorship and introducing complexity and reflexivity in the way we address the past. However, Lewis’s main preoccupation seems to be with what the films have to say about cultural difference and hybridity, rather than perpetratorship, and he appears to espouse the views of the young generation portrayed in the films, “who embody a hybrid, transnational and ultimately idealistic sensitivity that sees no borders between religious denominations and ethnolinguistic groups” (p. 532). Is the ultimate goal a borderless society, as envisioned by cosmopolitanism? Or should we accept that borders are a part of collective identity constructions and that our aim should be to construct them as contingent and flexible, thin boundaries delimiting temporary socio-political groups rather than thick ones dividing essentialised communities?
Lewis is ambiguous on this issue. At one point he claims that cosmopolitanism is not about the absence of divisions but (quoting Chris Rumford), “the ability of individuals to cross and re-cross borders” (p. 538). I find this quotation rather problematic as it suggests that borders are a given, and it also puts the emphasis on individuals, ignoring group and collective identities. In his analysis of Holland’s film, Lewis’s propensity for cosmopolitan memory is even more in evidence. As he states, “In W ciemności, nationalities are trumped by individuality”, and “the characters are less of interest as Poles, Jews, Ukrainians, etc., and more as human beings” (p. 537). The films also portray universal values. This interpretation has much in common with Sznaider’s view, as outlined above, that ethnonationalism is best countered by individuation. The agonistic approach, by contrast, considers individuation unable to counter the constant process of construction and re-construction of collective identities, with the accompanying process of bordering, de-bordering and re-bordering. What is needed, therefore, is to ensure that collective identities and political hegemonic/counter-hegemonic projects are constructed as contingent, internally plural and changeable, and do not view the other as an enemy.
Conclusion
In conclusion, as mentioned above, it is both possible and desirable to promote a dialogue between strands of cosmopolitanism and agonism and Lewis’s work can contribute to such a dialogue in a positive way. However, it is also important to bear in mind the differences, at times quite radical ones, between the two approaches, so that they can be worked through at the theoretical level. Blurring such differences by reducing them to a question of terminology is somewhat unhelpful.
Anna Cento Bull is Professor of Italian History and Politics at the University of Bath, UK. She has examined the legacy of 1960s-1970s Italian terrorism, exploring issues related to reconciliation, memory, truth and justice and comparing the views of victims, perpetrators and politicians close to the right. Anna is the co-author, with with H L. Hansen, of ‘On Agonistic Memory’ (Memory Studies, 2016, 9: 4, 390-404).
Discover more at www.disterrmem.eu/university-of-bath