The Neighbour Cultures in the Light of the Locality Principle
Asya Syrodeyeva

There is one point about the neighbour cultures that intrigues me - thc ambiguity of relations between them, the difficulty to describe their relations in terms of either integration or differentiation. In fact, there is a feeling that if one is to speak about thc neighbour cultures the non-fixed logic of Both/And is to be used as an appropriate one. The neighbour cultures objectively exist near each other, thus being closely interconnected. At the same time some alienation, that makes them cultures in the strict sense of the word — with their own specific image, features, is inevitable. Under certain conditions the differences may lead even to tension, hostility.

An attitude towards a neighbour culture could be compared with an attitude towards a stranger. As G. Simmel and Z. Bauman have shown in their beautifully done texts, the stranger may not be classified strictly as a friend or an enemy, never fully belonging to any of these camps (groups), but on the contrary, combining features of the both. For these reasons one can not say for sure what dominates in the relations with a stranger: the feeling of unity, based on common aspects, or alienation, determined by significant differences. I am inclined to think that the stranger is quite an expressive figure for duality of any form of existence in the society. And Simmel's thesis that "the union of closeness and remoteness involved in every human relationship" is patterned differently in each specific social situation, supports this presupposition.

Every historical moment, I believe, suggests its own grounds, principles according to which the dialectics of "nearness and distance", "indifference and involvement" (Simmel) functions. For the second half of the 20th century quite representative in this sense is the principle of locality. Further on I shall try to demonstrate how it actually "structures" the relations between the neighbour cultures.

To begin with, locality presupposes some reference to a specific place, area, zone in the social reality. To a certain extent it is by a place that the tendency of integration, mutual attraction of neighbour cultures is determined: the places to which such cultures belong to are adjoin in the social space. How significantly integrative objective closeness of the places, on which the neighbour cultures are based, becomes evident if we take into consideration that the social place is very meaningful for the formation of the cultural identity. According to the Russian sociologist V. Glazychev, the Place is marked by a specific spiritual atmosphere (due to that scholar prefers to use capital letter in referring to this notion). The social rhythm and the laws that have ever "ruled" on its territory form the traditions attached to it. One is to follow the "language" of the place he (or she) steps on to if there is a will to find home in it along with others. Moreover, the Place supplies the social subjects with stable, deep, archetypical features of their self-image, since such significant factor of stability as the roots is related to a certain Place. Respect towards historically native land, no matter socially mobile or settled people of a culture are, is an example of how generations pass over to generations the meaning of the attachment to a certain Place.

Any Place is inseparable from its own surroundings, which are not part of it but tightly connected to it. Surroundings are no less unique than the Place itself: since no Place has the same surroundings. The Place becomes nonsense without the surroundings which frame it. Consequently, the cultures of the neighbourhood objectively have a special status in existence of each other. They supply one another with the context in relation to which the self-identity develops. It is another question, whether in the long run this context would be in use or ignored. Neighbour culture is the closest addressee, it is the partner by fate. Playing not the least role in "we-image" formation it leaves a vivid trace in history of cultures that have ever been next to it.

Along with the reference to the specific place the principle of locality includes an indication of limits: nothing lasts for ever or extends everywhere. In case of the neighbour cultures the limitation factors are directly related to the differentiation, pulling tendency which counterbalances the integrative one. The social elements that work as limitation-differentiation factors are practical or ideal borders as well as gaps, ruptures — all that becomes an obstacle for mutual understanding, contact, expansion on to the foreign grounds. The borders surround every culture, making it an integral social structure. To a certain extent due to them plurality of the social reality becomes evident. They guarantee, defend specificity of each social structure, prevent mixture of cultures, intervention of one over the territory of another. They defend from external colonization and at the same time indicate that beyond certain points the world of the Other or otherness starts. Acquaintance with the limits of own existence helps to regard terra of otherness not as something generalized but as a fragmented one, where each part needs an individual approach.

I would suggest to make now one step further and regard the two above mentioned connotations of the locality principle not as the two poles but as the two sides of a medal. In this case it could be noticed that together they represent relativity, contingency, historicity. Awareness of a specific place, of all sorts of limitations opens up diverse and at the same time changeable character of the social reality. Plurality and dynamics leave no place for pure social forms that could be perceived through strict oppositions, fixed hierarchies, once and for ever settled rules of social behavior.

"The borders" (in their general sense) today are not hermetic, not obvious as they used to be in the past. The principles, the criteria, according to which they have been drawn, are partly discredited or erased by time. No one can "construct" a strict, one dimensional borderline, for example, between art and non-art, norm and pathology, male and female nature. This state of things is present practically in every sphere of the social reality. We are surrounded today by social forms that combine features of different cultural worlds. Such hybrids, centaurs are not the results of someone's individual practice of playing with fragments of different nature. Rather the interconnection between cultures is becoming today more tight and at the same time more complex.

As to an integrative role of the adjoin places it should be said that nowadays social structures, which are distant from each other in space can easily get in contact with the help of the latest modern technologies. Great and short distances almost simultaneously could be covered by different means. Moreover, visual techniques allow the representatives of one culture to stay beside the other unlimitedly.

The locality principle does not suggest any optimal strategy of relations between neighbour cultures for all the times or for all the partners of such relations. Rather this principle provides a number of perspectives from which to look at the neighbour culture. Enriched perception makes us somewhat closer to the actual diversity and complexity of the relations between the neighbour cultures.

Social Sciences. vol. XXVI, № 1, 1995