On the affective ambivalence of living with cultural diversity

Abstract

Living with cultural diversity is characterized by a fundamental affective ambivalence. On the one hand, there is existential unease in the face of cultural strangeness, which is linked to our human dependence on 'common sense' -the shared background of understanding from which we derive ontological security about the world and our place in it. Through cultural contact, common sense loses something of its self-evident character, and certainties about what is normal are put to the test. On the other hand, contact with unfamiliar practices and forms of expression can equally give rise to positive feelings of wonder and fascination, as in the urban context. This affective ambivalence stems from an existential paradox: the experience of both meaning and lack of meaning are dependent on contact with transcendent realities -in other words, realities that cannot be fully encompassed within our cognitive and manipulative horizons. This leads us to the question as to what the conditions are in which cultural diversity is experienced as a positive social given. The hypothesis is that cultural strangeness cannot in any event fascinate those who perceive the presence of this strangeness, rightly or wrongly, as an acute threat to their own psychological integrity, their vital integrity and/or to the national integrity.

Imagining pedagogy in public space: visions of cultural policies and practices in a city in transformation

“…The taken-for-granted understanding of cultural and artistic codes are intentionally questioned and displaced. Yet, even here, practices of inclusion and continuity are connected to disjunctive practices, because inevitably 'meaning' and 'lack of meaning' have to be combined somehow (Van Leeuwen 2008). Efforts are made to let the participants 'feel at home' and their cultural codes are always taken as a point of departure for explorations beyond the familiar into the unknowable and unforeseeable.…”

Issues of citizenship: coming‐into‐presence and preserving the difference

“…'Common sense refers to the unproblematic patterns of interpretation that incorporate a deep familiarity with a certain social and natural world. "Unproblematic" means that this embodied knowledge does not function as a "hypothesis" or "representation" but rather as a direct understanding' (Van Leeuwen 2008).…”

Re-working encounter: the role of reflexivity in managing difference

“…As noted in the following narratives, cultural knowledge and action that informs the nature and outcomes of encounter with others can be a dynamic, mutable set of procedures and understandings. The reflexive agency of judgement and decision-making can also be seen as part of an attempt to untangle the ambivalence of change (Van Leeuwen, 2008). In practice, this approach reduces the abstract quality of affect, habit and theories of reflexivity more broadly.…”