Jansen and Antinationalism

I found Jansen's reading to be extraordinarily successful; these chapters call into question issues and concepts, which we've been discussing all semester, yet really push us to reformulate those issues. I'd like to start the discussion on Monday by doing just that--reassessing some of the questions we've raised, but forcing ourselves to restructure the context in which we evaluate those questions, and our answers, for that matter.

In The Human Condition, Hannah Arendt emphasizes (and this is simply my own reading; Vlad, perhaps you can elaborate much better than I can) the risk of blurring the public and the private spheres. The public, she says, is a crucial arena necessary for humanity to unfold, but at the same time, the public realm is dependent on the private. Thus, not only if the private sphere is destroyed do we, in turn, destroy the public, but if these two spheres are blurred, the interdependent relationship between the two realms is destroyed as well. Arendt argues that the public realm is needed to equalize. As a member of the public sphere, unity and understanding can be created by distinct individuals who can act in that world together. If people are deprived of being able to act in the public sphere, inequality prevails.

At the same time, the public sphere, in my reading of Arendt, is not confined to a physical space. Instead, it's a world where human relationships form, where people may act together, possibly towards some sort of worldly objective. This action does not belong to the private sphere--only the public. Both worlds are places for certain activities, but activities in the private, for instance, should not be blurred with the public, and vice versa.

Jansen's research and some of the interviews with informants reveal that in former Yugoslavia the national issue, for one, came to be appropriated both in the public and private spheres of life; ergo, "Antinationalist narratives then proceeded to explain that nationality, sadly, had become a key issue in people's everyday lives, even in the intimate sphere of love and romance." My questions, then, are as follows: Is it even possible, in the world in which we live, to keep the public and private spheres separate (perhaps, even, think in terms of the John Edwards scandal, just as an American example that we're all familiar with)? Furthermore, do we "buy" Arendt's argument that the two should be separate? How personal, or private, is nationality in terms of one's identity? Do we live in a world where nationality is still only one element of our identities? If nationality is a private part of identity, for example, is it actually and can it be completely private? If nationality is such a crucial societal issue when we think in terms of former Yugoslavia, or anywhere for that matter, if that privacy is violated, is our ability to act in the public sphere, together, doomed?

Building on this, as well as on Ugrešić's novel, I think it would be useful to discuss memory and nostalgia in terms of their vulnerability and interdependence. We have seen, throughout the semester, how vulnerable and arbitrary memory can be. That said, is it possible in today's world to not define ourselves--and others--by a moment through memory? Is it still possible to envision our memories and longing, and the way we perceive ourselves individually and in the context of others through a narrative instead of by, in Jansen's terms, "a defining moment" ? Is Ugrešić's approach to this issue of memory successful in portraying a narrative? Or can we pinpoint one or two moments in the novel by which the narrator defines herself?