165 culture and identity in anthropology: reflections on 'unity'

VAN MEIJLcharacteristic of the contemporary global era. For that reason, too, it can best be verifiedwith ethnographic examples of <strong>in</strong>ter-cultural dilemmas. Thus, the same po<strong>in</strong>t could bemade on the basis of my own ethnographic studies of the problems faced by youngMaori people, who are alienated from the traditional <strong>culture</strong> that is currently be<strong>in</strong>grevived <strong>in</strong> contemporary New Zeal<strong>and</strong>, but who at the same time feel obliged to makean effort to familiarize themselves with the Maori language <strong>in</strong> order to becomeconversant with ceremonial protocol (Van Meijl, 2005, 2006). On the one h<strong>and</strong>, Maoriyoungsters are <strong>in</strong>cl<strong>in</strong>ed to acknowledge the need to ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> Maori ceremonies <strong>in</strong> orderto cont<strong>in</strong>ue Maori cultural traditions which they consider an essential part of Maorisociety <strong>and</strong> Maori <strong>identity</strong>. On the other h<strong>and</strong>, however, they are reticent <strong>in</strong> mak<strong>in</strong>g aneffort to learn the Maori language <strong>and</strong> the pr<strong>in</strong>ciples of traditional protocol necessaryfor Maori ceremonial life because they also th<strong>in</strong>k it is archaic <strong>and</strong> thereforeunnecessary. Yet it would be unfair to criticize these youngsters for be<strong>in</strong>g contradictoryor <strong>in</strong>consistent. In my view, they are fac<strong>in</strong>g an irresolvable dilemma that is <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>glycommon <strong>in</strong> the present day, when people are cont<strong>in</strong>uously mov<strong>in</strong>g across culturall<strong>and</strong>scapes. People liv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> cross-cultural circumstances are mediat<strong>in</strong>g the differencesbetween <strong>culture</strong>s, also with<strong>in</strong> their – dialogical – selves, but they realise more <strong>and</strong> morethat some differences cannot be <strong>in</strong>tegrated <strong>in</strong>to a whole. As a corollary, they attempt tocome to terms with their multiple identifications, but they are <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>gly aware thatthe pursuit of unity <strong>in</strong> the self is an illusion, ma<strong>in</strong>ly because the different culturaldimensions of their life are irreconcilable.The implications of these ethnographic examples for the theory of the dialogicalself are not negligible. Instead of liv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> one particular society that may becharacterized by a rather homogeneous k<strong>in</strong>d of <strong>culture</strong>, more <strong>and</strong> more people are liv<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong> the contact zones of different <strong>culture</strong>s <strong>and</strong> societies. The <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>terdependencyof societies around the world <strong>and</strong> the cultural networks transvers<strong>in</strong>g them not only<strong>in</strong>volve an <strong>in</strong>tensification of contact between different cultural group<strong>in</strong>gs, but also astrengthen<strong>in</strong>g of cultural contact with<strong>in</strong> the self of <strong>in</strong>dividuals. Increas<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong>terculturality, so to speak, is reflected <strong>in</strong> the rise of different cultural positions with<strong>in</strong>the self of <strong>in</strong>dividuals, which <strong>in</strong> turn deepens the dialogue between these positions thatall have a voice with<strong>in</strong> the self. And these voices are <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> complicatedconversations that reflect the differentiation of <strong>culture</strong> <strong>in</strong> the global world. Negotiations,tensions, conflicts, agreements <strong>and</strong> disagreements not only take place between differentcultural group<strong>in</strong>gs at the social level, but also with<strong>in</strong> the dialogical self of multicultural<strong>in</strong>dividuals. And s<strong>in</strong>ce the world is becom<strong>in</strong>g more heterogeneous <strong>and</strong> multiple, the selfalso becomes more heterogeneous <strong>and</strong> multiple with due consequences for the <strong>in</strong>ternalorganisation of the self. Cultural differentiation <strong>and</strong> multiplication requires more thanever before a well-developed dialogue, but the chances that this will lead to a coherentunity of the self have not <strong>in</strong>creased over the years. Indeed, strong cultural differences,contrasts <strong>and</strong> oppositions <strong>in</strong>dicate more than ever before that unity is no longer the182