2008 Woodie Awards
Walls, borders and a philosophy 'on edge'
Eryk Salvaggio
Issue date: 3/27/08 Section: Style
Whether it is the environmentalist on the edge of extinction, artists on the edge of culture or immigrant workers on the edge of legality, everyone talks about edges. Leave it to a philosopher to ask us what the word actually means.
Edward S. Casey is the author of "The World on Edge," an exploration of what we mean when we talk about edges. If it seems like his focus is teetering on the edge of irrelevance, Casey asserts that our understanding of edges influences our embrace of borders - and in turn, global politics.
"We're never not on edge," said Casey, a Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Stony Brook University, who spoke as part of the University of Maine's Philosophy Colloquium.
Considering the subject of borders, Casey begins with the idea that these are imaginary lines drawn over a natural landscape. While Casey is careful not to dismiss the political and historical relevance of these lines, he notes that they are imagined by human kind and in turn can be re-imagined to suit humanity's own purposes.
Casey is critical of one such re-imagining: Walls. From the Berlin Wall to the U.S.-Mexican border, these physical barriers lock an imaginary line into place. A wall makes an abstract idea like a border into a solid, physical barrier - and one that is even less likely to change to accommodate human realities and lives.
"Consider a cougar encountering the wall at night," Casey suggested in a thought experiment. He proposed the animal would have no ability to comprehend the wall, and would become, as Casey put it, "Confused, and rightfully so." Cougars and ocelots all become unwitting nationalists to U.S. immigration policy with real impacts on endangered species. As a species thrives, it seeks to expand, but can't traverse the wall.
A wall is also evidence of a "besieged mentality," according to Casey.
There is no reason to solve political problems with unnatural physical barriers, Casey said. Instead of imagining these walls on our edges, Casey suggested a fuzzier concept for borders: A concept he differentiated as a "boundary."
A boundary is a border area, but defined in terms of its own space. As an example, Casey spoke of the Cordillera del Condor, on the Ecuador-Peru border. The area's ownership and governance have been contested since the 16th century, but battles over which border line was more accurate.
In 1998, the United States, Brazil, Argentina and Chile served as brokers over a deal which set the disputed territory aside as a "Peace Park." The solution seems to be working, with armed guards of both nations settling into park maintenance rather than fighting over a border. In the meantime, wildlife is thriving in the space providing mutual benefits to both nations.
This approach changes the idea of border disputes. Instead of being an argument over where a fixed edge ends and begins, it shifts the conversation into maintaining openness and permeability while maintaining national integrity.
Edward S. Casey is the author of "The World on Edge," an exploration of what we mean when we talk about edges. If it seems like his focus is teetering on the edge of irrelevance, Casey asserts that our understanding of edges influences our embrace of borders - and in turn, global politics.
"We're never not on edge," said Casey, a Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Stony Brook University, who spoke as part of the University of Maine's Philosophy Colloquium.
Considering the subject of borders, Casey begins with the idea that these are imaginary lines drawn over a natural landscape. While Casey is careful not to dismiss the political and historical relevance of these lines, he notes that they are imagined by human kind and in turn can be re-imagined to suit humanity's own purposes.
Casey is critical of one such re-imagining: Walls. From the Berlin Wall to the U.S.-Mexican border, these physical barriers lock an imaginary line into place. A wall makes an abstract idea like a border into a solid, physical barrier - and one that is even less likely to change to accommodate human realities and lives.
"Consider a cougar encountering the wall at night," Casey suggested in a thought experiment. He proposed the animal would have no ability to comprehend the wall, and would become, as Casey put it, "Confused, and rightfully so." Cougars and ocelots all become unwitting nationalists to U.S. immigration policy with real impacts on endangered species. As a species thrives, it seeks to expand, but can't traverse the wall.
A wall is also evidence of a "besieged mentality," according to Casey.
There is no reason to solve political problems with unnatural physical barriers, Casey said. Instead of imagining these walls on our edges, Casey suggested a fuzzier concept for borders: A concept he differentiated as a "boundary."
A boundary is a border area, but defined in terms of its own space. As an example, Casey spoke of the Cordillera del Condor, on the Ecuador-Peru border. The area's ownership and governance have been contested since the 16th century, but battles over which border line was more accurate.
In 1998, the United States, Brazil, Argentina and Chile served as brokers over a deal which set the disputed territory aside as a "Peace Park." The solution seems to be working, with armed guards of both nations settling into park maintenance rather than fighting over a border. In the meantime, wildlife is thriving in the space providing mutual benefits to both nations.
This approach changes the idea of border disputes. Instead of being an argument over where a fixed edge ends and begins, it shifts the conversation into maintaining openness and permeability while maintaining national integrity.
Be the first to comment on this story