Page 74 [74]
Playing With Otherness: Within and Beyond Stereotypes in Visual Representations
moment a worker or a peasant underwent the process of "nationalization," his or
her ideas and sense of what was an appropriate subject for conversation were en¬
closed within certain boundaries, which excluded that which he or she deemed
necessary to leave unsaid (Ibidem: 14). This example of shifting views of reality (e.g.
moving from Romanticism to nationalism) highlights the issue of changing cultur¬
al conventions and their meanings, which could be recognized in visual data too.
Such conventions include the manner in which ethnical and nonethnical Others
are presented, both in the sphere of defining and perceiving them and in their verbal
and visual expression. The boundaries and the conventions evolved, broadening the
scope of worldviews or causing their regress.
Following Porter-Szuecs, I differentiate between practiced ethnicity, denoting
a set of certain cultural manifestations and the idea of a nation, which found its
significance in the sphere of sanctioned policy of the elites (Ibidem: 16-17). This is
worth noting because cultural practice determines social relations on the local and
the individual levels. The vision of the ethnic nation competed with the concepts of
social relations. Porter-Szuecs claims that this clash of two worlds did not denote a
confrontation of ideas and reality, or ideology and practice, and the locally expressed
and sanctioned ethnicity did not have to be related to the politicized notion of the
nation (Ibidem: 17).
The materials published in the press of that period reflected the debate, or at least
its part in the debate, which was closer to the politicized idea of nation and ethnic¬
ity. The print media, created by the town-based elites, was aimed at an intelligentsia
audience. Thus, the analysis of this material will provide us with information on the
elements of the debate and the conventions that were employed by the elites of the
time. I pass over the ways of defining a nation,° but I do turn to the ways of defin¬
ing, or rather to the convention of perceiving, the Other.
In general, the Other and alterity may be seen and represented in numerous
ways. I am convinced that the concept of Othering depicts the ways in which we
deal with the unknown or the unpredicted, and it consists of several distinct ac¬
tions, such as “keeping distance,” excluding, including, avoiding, and labeling—all
reflect the nature of confrontation with Others. How were these perceptions of the
Other expressed?
* asa distinct experience (not accessed by us)
® as what is unknown (beyond the limits of our cognitive horizon)
e as achievements gained in a distinct time and space (historical and distant)
* asa threat or an enemy (unaccepted/unacceptable)
e asan unfulfilled dream (unthinkable to realize)
e as an inspiration (a new way to follow)
* as curiosities and as rarities (monstrous and sacred)
6 For those interested in this, I recommend reading the book by Porter-Szuecs (2011).
71