Introduction, pages 16-22

A World Without the Other


Volf discovers, in visiting the newly formed country of Croatia, that he could not just relax and enjoy the pleasure of being proud of his heritage. Instead, he discovers that having friends in Serbia and living in the United States somehow disqualified him: "I must be Croat through and through, or I was not a good Croat."
I think it is easy to see parallels to this struggle within the United States today. If you question a decision of the government, you're not being "patriotic;" if you call for an end to the presence of military personnel in Iraq, you're not "supporting the troops." We must be all for the country all the time, with no room for critical thinking or disagreement. We must be American through and through, or we are not good Americans.
Yet this type of thinking can only lead to a very narrow field of vision, and, in fact, leads down a dangerous path for everyone. What does it mean to be Croat through and through? What does it mean to be American through and through? How far back do you have to trace your ancestry in order to have the "right" blood? Where do you have to live? What do you have to believe? What kind of life experiences must you have in order to completely qualify? All of these are questions of identity, and are asked with the goal of creating the same identity, a suitable identity, for every single person.
I think it is fair to say that this is not what God intends. The sheer variety and difference among people around the world must be part of a creative Creator's intentions. Our effort to fit everyone into tidy little boxes is clearly at odds with God's work. And yet, we keep at it, seemingly unable to help ourselves. Only when we can begin to recognize that each person is fundamentally different than the next person, even the person you grew up with and know "everything" about, can we begin to break out of the trap of universality.

Social Arrangements, Social Agents

To this end, Volf examines three current options: 1) Universalism, 2) Communitarianism, 3) Postmodernism. All three options fall short, though, because they "share a common concentration on social arrangements." This concentration on structure instead of content misses the struggle that is at the heart of Volf's work. "Instead of reflecting on the kind of society we ought to create in order to accommodate individual or communal heterogeneity, I will explore what kind of selves we need to be in order to live in harmony with others."

This change in emphasis makes simple sense. We know that the only thing we can change in the world is how we act and react within the events taking place around us. We cannot force other people to change, at least not in ways that are healthy and appreciated, but we can choose to change ourselves. Focusing, therefore, on how we can change in order to live in harmony with others allows us to approach the difficulties of difference from a practical point of view.