|
Introduction:
Angela Khaminwa emphasizes the flexibility of meanings of the concept "coexistence," ranging from the mimimalist (they aren't killing each other) to a maximalist definition where the groups are highly interdependent and appreciative of each others' identities.
| |
This rough transcript provides a text alternative to audio. We apologize for occasional errors and unintelligible sections (which are marked with ???).
The Coexistence Spectrum
Angela Khaminwa and Sarah Peterson
Program Officer for Outreach and Communication, The Coexistence Initiative
| |
 |
A: Coexistence is a term that is used to
describe a state where more than one group of people are living together and
resolving their conflicts without resorting to violence. It is a very minimalist
statement because as you can tell it doesn't lend any weight to the quality of the relationship between the two groups. And because of that, coexistence can
be seen as a spectrum where on the one hand you have what that definition gives
us; two groups living together in a space without violence. It says absolutely
nothing about whether or not the two groups are interdependent on each other or
what their relationships are with each other.
On the other hand of the spectrum you have two groups living together without
recourse to violence with stronger relationships. They may inter-marry. They may
have political alliances and coalitions. They may be economically dependent on
each other. And the utility of coexistence becomes clear once you
understand the spectrum because what it allows us to do as people who are
building peace is to use it in situations where the far right meaning, and I
don't mean that ideologically, but the integrated, what I have been calling
social cohesion part of coexistence, can not be applicable. For example, right
after the genocide in Rwanda it would be seriously problematic to go in with a
peace building or social practice concept that promoted the solid
inter-dependence because it doesn't reflect the reality that people have just
experienced.
However, you can talk about coexistence at this other end where you are
saying well what we need to do now is stop the violence. And in your work move
the communities away from this very minimalist point to this very proactive
point where they're embracing their diversity and they are respecting their
differences. I think that is the strongest part of coexistence as a term. And
why I think it should be used more often is because it does have this amazing
flexibility that is very pragmatic. You know, there are a lot of people who have
derogatory terms for people who promote peace because it, you know, in promoting
peace you can be, you can some how miss the reality of conflict because you miss
the fact that there is a harshness to it and that people just can't put aside
their differences and get along. Coexistence gives us this wonderful
progression. As an organization we have located ourselves at the far
end of the spectrum that says you know, we are not just for this cold, passive
coexistence and we are not just for tolerance; we are promoting an active
embrace of diversity.
Q: So you don't want Cyprus, you want Canada, maybe?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay.
A: However, we recognize that this co-tolerance part of it does have a role
to play because again in situations where you have had massive violence, you
want people to get to this end of the spectrum but they are not going to get
there immediately. It is a step by step process.
|
