The «Journal of the Interdisciplinary Crossroads» has been published by the Allahabad Association for Historical and Cultural Studies (AAHCS) from April 2004 onwards. Despite its somewhat remote origin (remote at least from the perspective of an European based historian), it has managed to involve prominent scholars, such as Hayden White and Jörn Rüsen to name only two of them, in its publications.
Moreover the journal has so far addressed interesting methodological topics connected to the so-called cultural turn, to critical theory and modern historiography. Unfortunately, the remoteness of the Journal limits its accessibility, but the special issue «The Limits of Exile» makes all contributions available online.^[1]
The editors David Kettler and Zvi Ben-Dor outline the goal of (re-)mapping the «Limits of Exile» in a very intriguing introduction. While exile is a form of political punishment that was known already in ancient times, what Kettler, Ben-Dor and their contributors aim at is an analysis of modern exile prevalent in the twentieth century. One of the vital elements of this age of exile is the final triumph of the concept of the nation-state. The collapses of multi-national empires created new «homes» for some nations but also drove many into diaspora. The second pivotal cause of exile was the rise of modern «strong» states. Their strength was often enough converted into the «power to deny citizenship, expel, refuse entrance, and deny re-entrance and access to what was once one’s home» (P. 3).
Kettler and Ben-Dor lay some emphasis on the distinction between exile and the diaspora. While modern diaspora studies have merit, they seem to subsume other fundamental concepts, such as exile, under a broader cultural approach. Diaspora studies are part of a wider cultural turn and also informed by post-colonialism. Their research aims at deconstruction of historical essentials, such as nation, state and politics. They do not perceive migration as a one-way street or migrant groups as a challenge for a homogenous nation state. The research interests of diaspora studies can focus on migrant groups as well as their home countries or their interaction with their second, third or final surroundings. They do not take concepts such as acculturation or assimilation for granted or distinguish between migrant on the one hand and the majority group on the other. To the contrary, they put individual experience, intellectual resources and transnational networks of the diaspora into perspective. As the diaspora came to be evaluated in increasingly positive terms, use of the concept expanded to include any migration or dispersion experience, which diluted the term’s usefulness. In this context the exile approach of Kettler and Ben-Dor fit into ongoing discussions of the concept. The editors of «Limits of Exile» are critical especially of the blurred significance of exile within the broader cultural approach of diaspora studies. According to them, it is especially the political dimension of exile that could vanish beyond the non-political analytical framework of diaspora.
«Limits of Exile» thus aims at a re-introduction of the «political concept» of exile in its own right. Kettler and Ben-Dor remind us «that the first exile, the one that was translated as diaspora, was itself, at least in the way it was recorded, first and foremost a political event» (P. 4).
Despite of this ambitious outline there is no common argument within the contributions. It is hardly a surprise that the article of the eminent political scientist and exile expert Alfons Söllner on the West-German «Exilforschung» serves the politicized agenda of Kettler and Ben-Dor best. Söllner underlines the interrelations of scholarly «Exilforschung» and public «Vergangenheitsbewältigung» in Germany after 1945. This short exploration into the history of these terms in Germany integrates the notion of exile, public opinion and politics convincingly. Exiled Germans during the Nazi period have, moreover, been one of the main groups of interest in the research of exile in the twentieth century. The second group in focus has been the Russian exile community during the early years of Soviet power. Two articles in the volume are devoted to this subject. The first one by Alexander Dmitriev about the Western-oriented Logos Circle («European Exile for Russian Westernizers: The Logos,» Pp. 75-92) contradicts earlier works of Alfons Söllner. While Söllner discovered that German exiles during the Nazi period often turned from German nationalists into cosmopolitans in their environments abroad, for the Russian Westernizers, who longed for the assimilation of Western values during the late imperial period, the contrary was true. The members of the Logos Circle had been to the West before the revolutions of 1917, where they had excellent connections with prominent scholars. However, during their exile in Soviet times, they turned towards Russian nationalism. Because of this contradiction of Söllner’s thesis of the cosmopolitan impact of exile, Dmitriev calls for «analytical models in the comparative study of exiles, which possess sufficient subtlety to identify complex historical constellations, rather than generalizations derived from grand theories of system change» (P.75).
Such an analytical tool would also prove useful in the following article by Igor Martynyuk whose analysis of the Eurasianist ideologists in Soviet exile comes to a different conclusion («Toward Understanding the Art of Modern Diasporic Ideology Making: The Eurasianist Mind-Mapping of the Imperial Homeland (1921-1934),» Pp. 93-116). Martynyuk shows how far the exilic constructions of homeland, in this case «Russia No. 2,» interact with the ideological foundations of the movement, its world view and its understanding of history. The Eurasianists adjusted to the necessities of exile, for example, by decreasing the role of the orthodox faith within their ideology over the years. While Martynyuk uses the word «diaspora» in the title, this is a classical intellectual history of exile. The surrounding society of the diaspora remains faint, while the exilic mind is deeply explored.
Another very political contribution is Tibor Frank’s piece on Béla Balázs. Here Frank has written a conventional but very interesting sketch of an intellectual and political biography, focussing on the mode of survival of exiles caught between the Nazis and Stalinism. The question of Béla Balázs’ identity is answered with an argument that he was Hungarian. Frank does not consider the possibility of a double or triple exile because of his Jewish or German cultural origins, or, if he does, this remains implicit in his analysis. The missing awareness of identity in this regard distinguishes this article from the research interests of modern diaspora studies. Some of the contributions to this edition, however, meet those interests. Interestingly enough it is especially the contribution of Kettler and Ben-Dor that are most informed by questions of diaspora studies.
Ben-Dor offers an absorbing article about Iraqi Jews, who perceive themselves to be in exile in Israel. He explores the historical genesis of this Zionist paradox and rewrites the history of mass migration from Iraq to Israel, analysing the role of the Zionists in Iraq as well as in Israel. He takes the mindset of the Iraqi Jews, as well as the Iraqi non-Jewish population, into account and compares their expectations with the Zionist narrative prevalent in the state of Israel. This reading deconstructs concepts of exile and homeland and their twisted realities. Not only in the problem-oriented discussion of nation-building the piece is political but still seems to meet all the requirements of high quality diaspora studies as cultural sciences.
Almost the same can be said for the work of Kettler. He explores the role of returned survivors of German concentration camps in Dutch society through analysis of two films on the topic. He thus addresses the memory of exile and its course of action. The exiles experience conflict with the expectations of society in their «home» country. The political role they are granted is severely limited. This bitter account of a post-exile situation is stimulated by the historiography of memory and, thus, deals with cultural studies and the interaction with political problems as well.
Another article using the concept of memory is the intriguing piece of Jerry Zaslove on W. G. Sebald and the exilic memory. Zaslove reads Sebalds photographs as new genres of constructed memory because words proved insufficient for the task.
The reader here is confronted with a wide variety of exiles and approaches starting with Sebastian Faber’s interpretation of exile as a philosophical, intellectual or aesthetic model derived from the self-perception of Max Aub, Francisco Ayala, and Edward Said up to Eduardo Subirat’s reflection of «Exile without Borders.» From the point of view of methodological reasoning in cultural studies the most promising pieces are those who use the methodology of diaspora studies. It remains therefore an open question why the editors insist on a distinct analytical concept of exile, putting the political implications of the problem at the forefront.^[2] Apart from that, the compilation offers a wide variety of interesting research on various topics connected to exile and diaspora alike.
Some aspects are missing completely, though. The absence of female contributors creates a big void in gender questions connected to exile. The editors mention this shortfall in their introduction. They should correct this omission in their next mutual endeavour on exile. Colleagues from diaspora studies will look forward to it.