a thought on coexistence.
coexistence is not a meeting between two religious leaders that smile and shake hands and shower flowery words on each other. coexistence is not an alliance between two tribal leaders that were previously part of opposing tribes. coexistence is not tolerance.coexistence is a social phenomenon. a recognition. an adaptation. a realization. an acceptance. an acknowledgement. and as such, it has to be said that there has been no constructive and conscious and continuous effort to foster a notion - any notion - of coexistence within today's and yesterday's and tomorrow's generation of lebanese; this is becoming increasingly clear, and recent events are partly a reflection of that. the most unfortunate aspect of all this is that "lebanon" will remain an idea until social paradigms undergo a tectonic shift.
posted by Lazarus, 11:17 AM
9 Comments:
glad comments are allowed... will take the chance to say: really like your blog...:)
agree: coexistence is viewed by many of us as "tolerating" the other. i think coexistence on the base level, between the masses can only come from knowledge of the other, from refular encounters and dealings. we are scared from what and who we don't know.
By
Maya@NYC, at 2:03 PM
let me speak for your adoring fans when I welcome the return of the comments section ... :)
The pasha post is perhaps the best I have seen in my six months in the Lebanese blogosphere ...
By
Unknown, at 6:59 PM
hahah, let me first join the voices that welcome the return of the comments section.
My two cents on coexistance is that it is a very nasty concept of itself, it inherently assumes that we are somehow all different as individuals and need to make an effort to be genial with each other.
I am not sure how to phrase this correctly because my thoughts on the matter are a litte "raw" still, but for now I can just say that the word itself is not one that encourages us to hope for a bright future. The fact that it has to be constitutionally binding is even more ridiculous...
By
R, at 11:18 PM
thanks guys :)
a. - those two letters were very humbling with regards to the current situation. in fact, the whole book i "recommended" was a gem.
maya, r, bodhisattva - we have alot of work to do :)
By
Lazarus, at 7:08 AM
Sorry Laz, but coexistence is a useless concept.
Eg. of a sentence using coexistence: By building a wall, the Israelis will be able to have coexistence with the Palestinians.
What is needed in Lebanon is co-operation between ALL Lebanese towards a common goal. Eg.: Co-operation is the only way to have a viable country.
Therefore, the first step is: Find a common goal. Any ideas?
By
Ms Levantine, at 8:11 AM
ms l. - valid points, as usual, although i disagree with your example. in addition, cooperation, although necessary, is not sufficient - for example, our current confessional system can be used as an example of cooperation, which some have referred to as a failed system.
regardless, i don't see a need for a common goal, but there needs to be an arena in the form of institutions which can be used to voice disagreements. perhaps that in itself is a goal different parties can agree on, and it is definetly a start.
By
Lazarus, at 8:34 AM
Laz,
The wall exemple is extreme, but my point is that given all our problems we cannot afford a passive approach anymore (co-habitation/co-existence...). We need to be pro-active.
Lebanon is hopelessly fragmented, I really don't think there is any kind of meaningful co-operation at any level (political/social/economic).
Instead of a country, suppose you have a company. Can you manage it by saying: we do not have a common goal, but all employees will have cubicles where we expect them to stay, do their thing and respect their fellow employees. I for one will not invest in your firm.
I totally agree that institutions are a worthy goal, but not the only one. Plus how do you make them solid and efficient in the land of fawda and wasta? Which institutions do you start with? I just hope we can use blogs to discuss potential solutions to our problems.
By
Ms Levantine, at 10:13 AM
ms l. - i don't disagree.
let's just say that a company's goal is to make profit, please its shareholders, etc. that doesn't define a strategy, and if there are too many competing entities within the company, then any strategy will keep jumping around, and any investment would have been dead on arrival. likewise, if society and "leaders" agree on reaching for a "better lebanon" - which some probably do - how would that create a required path? i don't know. goals may not be enough.
you made a comment back in the day about grassroots effort, and you are right in what you had said then. i don't think however that such efforts can make dents on a political or economic levels (although that may just be a lack of vision on my part), at least not with the current set of "leaders". economies need infrastructure, and even that is a function of politics. what we can influence is the third level you mention in your comment: the social level. this however needs time, and is more longterm. moreover, with various ideas that can be used to develop social solutions - which aren't enough on their own, but are necessary - where would funding be available for something like that? this summer war people in general were charitable, and alot was raised, but it went to aid, and none of it was invested. it can be argued that there was a situational priority, but how hard would it have been to invest a portion of it in a foundation, and use the resulting interest for longer term projects? in short, you are right in that proactiveness is needed, but proactivity requires financing, and i would be lying if i say i haven't looked for sources over the past year (just under) for a few projects. obtaining funding for projects in the US requires almost no effort when compared to obtaining a much smaller amount for projects in lebanon.
By
Lazarus, at 2:05 PM
unfashionably late to the comments party again...Laz, great blog. this post got me thinking about the local war between multiculturalism (fear of large-scale sameness) & assimilation (fear of small-scale difference). "tolerance" has been used to death & rarely seen for the divisive word that it is. what the multiculturalists & assimilationists have managed to do collectively is become fixated on difference, whether they champion it of fear it. the elephant in the room is our fundamental, ordinary & often ugly sameness. I think the only sustainable society would be one with coexistence minus the prefix, but in today’s Lebanon, that really is a pipe-dream. In fact, I’m struggling to think of a nation in which it isn’t...
By
m.i., at 1:07 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home