Social and Anthropological Background for Addressing Xenophobia

[265]Contemporary humanity is facing a new form of exclusion. If earlier protest caused total power and economic exploitation, today in place violent ways of assembling individuals in the collective body came new media technology. Globalization turns the new totalitarianism of planetary scale. The question arises, what does it mean to “be together”? Is the totality of the citizens, every four years, taking part in the elections, or something more-for example, people, nation or just fellow, existing according to the formula: live and not bother others live. It would be good to connect on a spiritual basis, as suggested by Russian philosophers of unity, but until the time is not ripe, should create more realistic projects. Today human Association are not built on spiritual unity, and at the organizational basis and fewer rely on solidarity. Your problem is the recognition of the other, which is not a romantic fction, and lives and works near to us in the context of a modern multi-ethnic society. It cannot be an absolute skeptic, of course, if it is not being driven into a corner, such as paring down his social rights, wages, and forces other think, drink, eat and dress, as do representatives of a big nation. The involvement of another is not only in the plane of the rational negotiation and political treaties, but also at the level of everyday communication, which is the best form of hospitality.

Conservative thinkers think that man is evil by nature, and only power can prevent the society from starting a war against everyone. On the opposite, socialists believe that man is kind, and suggest abolishing the state as such. Liberals consider man to be reasonable, able to compromise and live in peace. For this reason, Russophobia, Judaeophobia and other forms of xenophobia are subject to elimination. But humanism, morals, and human rights are regarded as measures of standardization and are taken with suspect. People tend to see “microfascism” in everything. But as we know, excessive expansion of any term causes inflation. That means, that instead of the spook stories intended to create and use the guilt complex for the “horrible past” even in consequent generations, it is necessary to set a question how memory connects to imagination in [266]construction of the past, and analyse the modern time on the basis of the analysis result.

The image of an enemy is a complicated psychopolitical construct. It is usually intensifed not only in the face of a real threat, but also as a method of concealing inner problems of a society. Instead of changing a policy, it is said to be correct, but held back by an enemy postponing the promised future indefnitely. The enemies are often presented as the representatives of marginal groups. The suggested solution of the alien problem is different from these common misconceptions. It states the necessity to look for deeper reasons than hostility of the aliens. The reasons can be external, such as emergency situations in the places where aliens come from, and disorders inside the society they come from. Hatred for the alien is majorly determined by a crisis inside the society and fear of disorder, which makes everyone fear each other. This is why the left-wing intellectuals associate xenophobia with globalization, i.e. with the expansion of capitalism and market relations that destroy friendly interpersonal relations. This position should be also critically reviewed. Some functional, professional dependences may connect people even tighter than friendship. They may serve as a basis for establishing families, small ethnic and spiritual communities united by affection. But they cannot support large superhuman systems, such as modern society. For this reason, the ways to address hostility and distrust should be sought for in the way of improving social spaces, where individuals can make their dreams of unity come true.

As xenophobia cannot be overcome with the strategy of multiculturalism and tolerance, escalation of humanism and ethics seems to be a way out. But it raises the question, why besides the Categorical Imperative, the moral philosophy of Kant also fnds a place for universal evil? One should not look for a connection with Gnosticism, since Christianity does not address the substantiality of evil. Human right to sin may be regarded as a doubt in the perfection of the creator. It is not coincidence that Luther once said that “no one gets saved”.

In Christianity, the indefniteness of power opposite to good created the fgure of the devil. It was necessary to explain why the promises have not come true yet. This opposition to good was frst introduced by Paul the Apostle. Demonization of the evil was caused by the need to imagine something that holds happiness back. Obviously, the obstacles on the road of good cause the need for the scapegoat, i.e. the victim. According to G. Blumenberg, is it more than just rhetoric. He supposes that in crisis situations there appear mycromyths and microreligions to justify the protest of the consciousness against the evil made by the authorities (Blumenberg, Sсhmitt, 2007: 167). The image of the alien remains a sort of a stigma, a code of an enemy being a threat.

Initially, the term of evil used to describe human nature means that all moral standards are reactive. History is driven by evil and powerful people; for this reason, with violence we cannot but cope. However, is does not mean that all forms of cruelty can be excused. On the opposite, the comparison of the present and the past demonstrates humanization of various forms of upbringing, normalization and control, which leads to overcoming the hostility of the alien.

The study of identifcation mechanisms reveals that the insider is detected only against the background or on the borderline with the outsider. The outsider is primarily perceived is something ontologically alien; it is a source of threat, bringing the “insiders” to unite and consolidate, to forget their domestic problems. This old way of strengthening the national, cultural, or any other identity needs special research. Europe that [267]recognized itself, frst of all, as the fort of culture, civilization, and Christianity, had to attack and defend itself, to explore and colonize. It suffered from such self-identifcation, too. Besides the outsiders that could be assimilated, Europeans had to face the outsiders unwilling to do any economic or cultural exchange; they were called barbarians, non-Christians, and the Holy War was declared against them. There is no surprise that the conquerors, adventurists, colonizers and other pioneers of Europe left only sad memory behind.

Fyodor Dostoyevsky remarked the “cultural imperialism” of European writers: “The greatest European poets could never express the genius of the alien, or, maybe, the neighbour nation, its spirit, the unrevealed depth of this spirit and the despondence of its fate with such a power as Pushkin could. On the opposite, turning to other nations, European poets normally converted them into their own nationality to understand them in their own way” (Dostoyevsky, 1972–1990: 145). In his speech of Pushkin, Dostoyevsky said that Western people had lost the genuine Christian faith and do not know Christ, while Russian people have retained the Holy Face and true Christian religiousness which may serve as a foundation for the future universal brotherhood. The superiority of Russian nation is explained by the “universal responsiveness”, that helps understand and, to the necessary extent, accept any national world outlook, to see the synthesis opportunity; this opens the way to brotherhood and the universal union of all people (Dostoyevsky, 1972–1990: 148). Let us remember that, like any other, Russian community formed such human qualities as love for labour, tolerance, patience, responsibility, solidarity, fairness, patriotism, being the producer of what is now referred to as social capital. In the Soviet Union, migrants were not just tolerated; their national identity and culture was deliberately developed. It brought the controversial result of the Soviet national policy. On one hand, it is being reproached of providing national autonomy inclining to division. On the other hand, it seems that if the Soviet Union had lived for several decades more, it would have defnitely melted all the nations into the “one and single Soviet People”.

There are different concepts of explaining xenophobia outbreaks. What is normally seen as a simple increase in the number of migrants, what is often experienced through fear and hostility by the locals, outbreaking in the forms of protests, conflicts or even bashing, is reconstructed by liberal theorists as a result of political propaganda, creating the enemy image in the order of the ruling elite. Conservative anthropologists, on the opposite, believe the enemy image development to be a preparation for a sacrifcial offering, consolidating the society infected with violence. According to R. Girard, our ancestors saw the way out from a crisis situation in a sacrifcial offering. Of course, today we cannot accept such a savage way of bringing the society together. We need efforts for development of economy and democratization of society. It should be admitted, however, that these measures do not heal the consciousness of people, living the poststress with a strong feeling of revenge, feeding collective violence, right away. When fear and suspicion hold away, there will always be the people willing to use these sentiments for their beneft. This is why psycho-historical studies are an up-to-date task of social science. Philosophic anthropology, accumulating such knowledge of the humankind as traditions, regulations, rituals, preventing traditional communities from falling apart, opens up an arsenal of traditional techniques for overcoming the fear of the alien and preserving one’s own identity. An important contribution of the philosophic anthropology into understanding of man is the indication of his “energetic” potential. A man is more than just [268]an accumulation of some social relations; he is also an “accumulator of wishes”. Getting ecstatic, excited, an individual infects others, making a group declare itself a nation and to distinguish between friends and foes. “Ecstaticity”, or, as Dostoyevsky put it, the “excessiveness” of man, expressed not only in a game, but also in violence, causes outrages. Instead of the instincts holding animals back from aggressive behaviour, people are guided by ethics and law. From the point of view of liberal political science, the society we know today emerged from hostility against everything estates nations referred to as the “motherland”. An example to farewell to the symbols of the motherland and the mother tongue is the birth of American nation. British, French and other roots were forgotten and replaced.
Even though the word “people” remained in the Constitution, the concept was replaced with sovereignty of nation. However, as we know, the new national integrity was accompanied with the elimination of “alien languages”, the orgy of violence and the deadly civil war.

According to the political virology principle, every people, just like every individual, has its own viruses dangerous for others. This is why immunity against aliens is compulsory. If aliens do not comply with the regulations and codes of the accepting country in their places of migration, they cause disorder. In fact, health of a culture is determined by its immunity against aliens, with simultaneous capacity to perceive useful external influences. The biological virology model may be applied to ulturology with certain precautions and supplemented with some immunology principles. The discovery made by Mechnikov is interesting for the postulate that antibodies may also play a defensive role. Safety of an organism depends both of the impenetrability of its borders and inner resistance. Any organisms, including cultural ones, are open systems; the alien, the external presents a threat for them, on the other hand being useful for their inner development. For example, staying behind the iron curtain reminds of a clinic ward, sterile of alien viruses. Its residents lose immunity and turn defenceless when the borders are broken. To perform the defensive function, the state develops suspiciousness and real methods of monitoring and supervising the aliens. An example of that is the evolution of customs, intelligence, political police. The customs differentiate between dangerous and safe things; the police, detects the dissidents. But in fact, any foreigner smuggles some ideas in his head; it is the luggage of ideas and outlook developed since his childhood. Similarly, the discontent with the regime may spawn inside the society or be stimulated from
outside. The absence of inner immunity reveals itself in the people looking at themselves through the eyes of an alien.

American political thinker F. Yockey insisted that there was another history, made parallelly to the political and economical events of the 19th-20th centuries. It was the process of developing a cultural parasite, causing distortion in Western politics and economics. By cultural distortion, he meant the conditions when “outer life-forms are warping the Culture from its true Life-path”. This is what happened to the West in the early 20th century, and it has to recognize that suffers from cultural distortion (Ulick Varange, Francis Parker Yockey, 2017: 381).

Yockey painted an impressive picture of a degrading American society. However, he remarked, America was not intended to be an empire. Geographically isolated, it was not tempered in fghts, and, basically, it has never had any real enemies. Reviewing American history, Yockey arrived at the following conclusion: their frst and main mistake was to write the Declaration and the Constitution on the basis [269]of the French template, containing the basic principles of bourgeois society. The second fatal mistake was the victory of the democratic North over the aristocratic South. And the third lifechanging mistake was Jewish capitalism. This caused such shocks as the racist war between the blacks and the whites, the class war of the trade unions against the employers; fnancial war of the money dictators; and, fnally, the life or death combat between the culture-destroying minority and the American nation.

The destructive consequence of fnancial capitalism, the exodus of the blacks into the cities, the fear of extinction made the thinker join the conservative side. Yockey quoted the letter of Baruch Levi to Marx published in 1928, where he writes that the Jewish nation would attain world dominion by the dissolution of other races, by the abolition of frontiers, the annihilation of monarchy, and by the establishment of a world republic in which the Jews will everywhere exercise the privilege of citizenship. In fact, one can fnd such assertions in other cultures and literatures. They should be treated with healthy sense of humour. Every nation may consider itself to be the Messiah, and they should not be feared. Once, Max Scheler was seriously frightened by the words of V.S. Solovyev that Russia will unite all nations in some religious international. He was not soothed by the words that it intends not to dominate, but to be friends. Having surrendered to resentiment, he remarked: if others refuse, Russians may hit them with a rock (Scheler, 1963: 220).

Politics should not be immoral. But if the morals are used cynically, they pervert the war and the politics itself, driving them to the level of brutality. It’s another matter that morals and values can be different. Let those be Russians, Jews or
Arabs, all of them are guided with the values of their own. For this reason, politics and war mean a combat for both economic and symbolic values. Yockey predicted an era of cultural politics, when an ultimate war between Europe and anti-Europe begins; it would be the war not for economy, democracy and human rights; it will be the fght for the world domination. It is very similar to the picture of the “civilizations way” painted by the modern American political scientists. Russian scientists were much more moderate about this (Trubetskoy, 1995: 309).

Attributing strategy and tactics of the world revolution to Zionists, Yockey simply exaggerated. After all, the Jewish people is not the only one who dreams of supremacy. The thing that matters is to achieve this aim by peaceful means. Powerlessly watching aliens suppressing the successors of the frst European pioneers, Yockey called for some decisive counteraction. Indeed, you should not watch the indigenous population degrading, but the task of a philosopher is to wake its ambitions and facilitate the upbringing of the national elite, instead of calling for an outrage. Hatred to the alien that still does not disappear completely is an open wound for humanists. They suffer of guilt, believing penance to be the best remedy of hatred. The guilt complex facilitates the development of tolerance but weakens the society overloaded with aliens. At frst, they prefer to stick to their own rules, then they insist on autonomy, and, fnally, come to dominate.

Contemplating on the facts and without surrendering to xenophobia, one should admit that an empire is different from an isolated nation state because it attracts representative of its conjoined provinces. As for Jews, they have been loyal servants of Austria and Germany. In the times of Rathenau, those were the Jewish fnanciers who ensured industrial growth. In Russia and beyond, not all the Jews used to be shylocks. The majority of them knew their business and had always been good specialists. Against this background, antisemitism outbreaks look absolutely strange. Reluctantly, one has to admit that a society still [270]turns to sacrifcial offerings when the sacrifced is a marginal member of the community.

Yockey described the development of culture in biological terms. Using the antibody metaphor, he arrived at the distortion theory, according to which aliens destroy the culture they intrude into. When their number exceeds a certain critical value, the vector of culture development changes from rise to degradation. Yockey referred to this fnal stage as to retardation, or a backwards reverse move. According to him, the external aliens who have launched retardation of Europe, are the Slavic people and Russians in particular. To describe aliens, Yockey turned to microbiological terms, but his perception is obviously one-sided: the emphasis is made on maliciousness, virality. However, in fact antibodies are not just enemies, many microorganisms also play a defensive role. For example, Northern nations believed frequent bathing to cause diseases. Our skin is a membrane protecting us from hazards of the outer world and absorbing useful substances. Those who have read books by H. Plessner carefully, have a more flexible idea of the borders between insiders and outsiders. The organism lives in an environment; from outside, it gets food to process and digest. It has special canals for this purpose. Similarly, it may contact with other organisms, not only in a fght, but also in a cooperation. In fact, there are predators and parasites, and the most hazardous ones are the microorganisms that cannot be fltered by the skin membranes and penetrate into the body. It is well-known fact that once large Cherokee tribe died of measles. Europe was attacked by dangerous microbes that arrived with oriental goods, and from time to time we still face epidemic outbreaks.

Similarly to the antibodies, Yockey associatedcancer cells with migrants, representatives ofalien cultures, that do not assimilate, do notdissolve, but crystallize and freeze in their initialstate. Like the Molokans, they remain loyalto their mother culture, while their historicalmotherland continues developing. As a result,they fnd themselves to be outsider for boththe previous and the new culture. For example,Yockey demonstrated that defning America asa melting pot of ethnicities and nations is onesided. Some ethnicities melt, and children of themigrants become Americans, while others, suchas Chinese, form enclaves and create a societywithin a society, sometimes criminal like Sicilianor any other mafa. But the most dangerous onesare those who can assimilate into the acceptingculture and use it for his own purposes. Accordingto Yockey, Russians barbarize culture, and Jewsdevelop it.

On the other hand, Nietzsche claimed thatnationalism was a disease, which, like moralism,was the reason for the decadence of Europe.“This most anti-cultural sickness and unreasonthere is, nationalism, this nevrose nationalewith which Europe is sick, this perpetuation ofEuropean particularism, of petty politics: theyhave deprived Europe itself of meaning, of itsreason – they have driven it into a dead-endstreet” (Nietzsche, 1990: 759). Besides makingother nations suffer, nationalism is dangerousfor Europe itself, for it stands for legitimizationof imperialism and colonialism. European kingsbelieved that Christianization was their maintask, while colonialists excused themselves withbringing civilization to the lagging peoples. Bothideas are based on the model of Europe as asacred or cultural Empire.

Nietzsche described the migration processesin a way unusual for his time. He satirized thepetty talks of Jewish invasion and Russian threat,criticized the British for their mercantilism andpaid a tribute to the aristocracy of the French.Nietzsche provoked anti-Semites, proving that dueto their history the Jews have greatly developedtheir spiritual power, that they are not inclinedto resentiment and now “that they unavoidably [271]intermarry more and more, from year to year,with the noblest blood of Europe, they will soonhave a good heritage of the manners of soul andbody so that in a hundred years already they willappear noble enough so that as lords… Thereforea settlement of their case is still premature…but also … at some time Europe may fall like aperfectly ripe fruit into their hand, which onlycasually reaches out…. They will be calledthe inventors and guides of the Europeans…”(Nietzsche, 1997: 503). Mocking at xenophobia,Nietzsche suggested that those are anti-Semites,not Jews, who need to be driven out of Europe,and encouraged mixed marriages.

As a form of indifference, equality ismore dangerous than benefcial. Accordingto R. Girard, the crisis of society emerges asdifferences are erased. Relying on a Greektragedy analysis, he demonstrated that it lies on aconflict emerging from destruction of differences:those are patricide and incest. In the opinion ofGirard, this fear conceals the genuine reasonsof miseries. “Patricide and incest provide thecommunity with exactly what it needs to representand exorcise the effects of the sacrifcial crisis”(Girard, 2010: 114). That is the expansion of thevicious circle of violence and revenge infectingthe society like plague. “To escape from the circleit is frst necessary to remove from the scene allthose forms of violence that tend to become selfpropagating and to spawn new, imitative forms”(Girard, 2010: 111). For this purpose, a scapegoatis found. Offering it as a sacrifce, people purifythemselves, simultaneously getting rid of thecollective guilt of the growing violence.

This pattern is also applicable tounderstanding the psychohistory of modernsocieties. The growing fear of decadence initiatesthe search for a scapegoat. After the offering hasbeen done, it becomes good, since it facilitated theescape from the crisis. We cannot but admit thatviolence still exists and that the victim archetypestill serves its purpose. Religious thinking is notinclined to moralism; it is more concerned aboutdisarming the anger of gods. The subject matter iscollective thinking. Before becoming a sacrifce,the disturber seemed to be flth itself, but havinggone through the violence he becomes valuableas the saviour of order. Having killed their victim,people believe to have got rid of flth. Today thescapegoat is an anachronism. However, sacrifceofferings still exist in Christianity, and even ina tolerant society there are some outlaws. Girardmakes a reference to a double bond: a prohibitioncreates a desire to break it. This is why he claimsthe totality of violence, when one violence causesanother; he believes that there is no better wayof conflict settling than a sacrifcial offering.Various regulations and prohibitions focus thedesire on some common examples, settlingthe arising conflicts. However, the violation ofrituals breaks the established order and increasesviolence, which can be only terminated with theoffering of a scapegoat.

If sacrifce can stop restructuration of an oldcommunity, it may serve as the beginning of anew one. This violence of foundation opens a newcircle of sacrifcial rituals that will never cometo an end. Legends of different nations tell thestory of one mythical creature killing another toestablish a new cultural order. There is no surprisethat a society always has a someone to sacrifce,a pharmakos. It was normally taken around theplace to absorb all the flth, and then drivenaway or slaughtered. The offering was precededby games or even fghts imitating the crisis oforder caused by mutual violence. The slaughtercannot be avoided. As the victim is expected tosave the community from violence, hostility isreplaced with glorifcation. A sacrifcial offeringis collective and bears a preventive character.Rituals are not manifestation of violence; they [272]are not ways of letting steam off. It is a way toprevent a worse violence. It can be referred to asort of a waste recycling factory.

But still, playing with the archaic, one has tobe careful. The sacrifcial offering rituals existedin the early history of any nation. The differencesbetween the clean and flthy were concentrated inthe aliens who were believed to be evil. There is abelief in evil spirits even in common Christianity.There is no surprise that dictators turn to cleaningthe country of the inner enemies. Goebbels saidJews were lice, condemning them to death in gaschambers. Besides the “purity issue” anotherway of strengthening the society was detectionof disruptors. So, political virology relies on themetaphor of purity, which is the base used invarious spheres. If there are any flthy ones, thereshould be places for isolation and purifcation.The most radical facilities were modelled byCatholic theology. That is hell and limbo. Strictlyspeaking, the camps of the 20th century werebased on the same infernal principle.

Hostility is a political term, whilefriendliness belongs to anthropology. It isdetermined by our present conditions. Friendshipis not established by human nature. Psychologistsclaim that aggression is more specifc to it. Kantwrote of evil and distrustful attitude of people toeach other and explained it by their selfshness.Often the political term relies on violence. Onthe opposite, the ethical and anthropologicalcontemplations are based on friendliness. InChristian heaven, there is no place for politics;but the Manichaean idea of substantial evil isrepresented in all religions in this or that way.This is why the saint and the warrior happen tobe complementary fgures.

As for the thesis of inherent violence andour ancestors’ inclination to violence, basedon the number of broken skulls found aroundarchaeological sites, it is contradicted by theethnic data of the surprising friendliness of theso-called savages. Therefore, in the post-heavenworld, a meeting in a neutral territory is not thatrisky any more. The tribe fellows recognize eachother by appearance and language. The aliens,as a rule, resided in remote territories and had astrange, undifferentiated habitus. Their presenceon the border of an occupied territory was a signof danger. The aliens turned into enemies onlywhen they caused any damage. If it didn’t happen,the affect of hostility did not arise.

According to Russo, friendliness, being anoriginal ethos of the humankind, was supersededby practical attitude to the aliens who were thewar game, subject to slaughter or slavery. Hegelexplained neutralization of hostility on the basisof hospitality with the underdeveloped legalawareness. It is not friendship, but fair exchangethat puts human relations into order and developsthe notion of “humanity”. And for real, the popularlaw, still retaining hospitality, is graduallyreplaced with the law of state that formulates thecode of aliens. The generosity being the base ofhospitality gives its place to economic exchange.The newcomers must join this or that groupand perform some certain functions. Accordingto one old hospitability rule, a traveller waswelcomed regardless of what land he came from.But gradually, the stranger turned into a citizen ofanother state, a foreigner, whose rights consistedof a mix of right and rightlessness. A foreignerwas seen as an alien if he did not know the lawsof his country of residence. At the same timethe alien is the person no one knows. He teetersbetween being rightless and enjoying the right ofbeing a guest. If an invited guest does not makeany psychological pressure, since any person mayonce be someone’s guest, an alien is not a guestof anyone, and, therefore, he looks suspicious andmay become a source of fantasies. This is whyBahr H.-D. in his Sprache des Gastes analysed [273]the history of an alien’s rights and concluded thatthey do not and cannot exist (Bahr H.-D., 1994:241).

In Medieval Europe the right of guest wasfrst determined by trade interests. In the Moderntime, the popular right that accepted a guest’simmunity broke into private and social law.It replaced the ancient law, established by theruling groups to justify the snatch of prisoners.An alien is rightless unless he belongs to a societythe rights of which are recognized. Right wasmonopolized by the state with a serious condition:an individual cannot be eligible for hospitality ifhe is a foreigner, i.e. does not belong to the saidlegal community. And even though human rightsassume equality to the law, de facto the rights ofan alien are limited to the asylum right. Despitethat, during the war the aliens were frequentlyinterned.

Since the16th century, a guest obtainsthe status of a foreigner. Gradually, a numberof recommendations and instructions on theprecautionary measures to be taken againsttravelling strangers are formulated. In foreignerregistrars, their name and origin, gender andage, profession and nationality are recorded. Thefrst identity of civilians were recommendationletters. For the military people, there wereassignments, stating their mission besides thename and rank. In Prussia, there was a passportlike document for migrants. In the early 19thcentury, Austria introduced the frst commonpassport. In contained some anthropometricfeatures, such as height, eye colour etc., all inall around 30 parameters. In the 20th century, anindividual passport is compulsory; it indicatesthe citizenship that does not always coincide withthe place of residence. The police keep a registerof law breakers. If previously, only delinquentswere to be registered, today the national database keeps extensive information on each person,including their incomes and expenditures, jobpromotion, biometric parameters and even thegeneric code.

According to the Enlightenment project,individuals may agree on rational basis and coexistin peace. The critics question the applicabilityof the human right concept established in theWestern culture of Enlightenment to otherhistorical periods and cultures. Are the universalhuman rights the mere Christian rights? The ideaof human rights should be understood as theintegrity of the certain and universal. It limitspluralism and non-conformism by recognizingthe common efforts making up the general notionof humanity.

Two hundred years after the “eternal peace”programme declared by Kant, there appeared someinternational organizations of peaceful conflictsettlement. The “peace-making interventions” ofdifferent sort doubt the justice of sanctions appliedby international organizations. Kant deniedthe possibility of eternal peace controlled by asuperpower. In “The Metaphysics of Morals” hedistinguished between the community of friendsand the community of profteers. The latter isexterritorial. For this reason, the right to trade inany territory does not mean the recognition of analien’s rights. As an alternative to imperialism,Kant came up with the right of guest (Kant, 1965:279). Sociability is inherent to a person from thebeginning as an anthropological constant. Peoplehave to cope with their neighbours; it gives us thereason to speak of a universal hospitality right.The idea of global citizenship relies on rationalitythat manifests itself in public conflict settling.

It seems like globalization has openedup some new opportunities of interculturalcommunication. In fact, globalization processerases cultural differences. It can be easily seenin international tourism industry, stampinghotels, beaches, markets and services on the basisof one and the same pattern. As a result, suchtrips make people more stupid, since they do not [274]learn something foreign, but forget their own. Asan encounter with the foreign never happens, theworld is still ruled by misrecognition. The fear offoreign does not disappear, and racism blossomseven more than before, especially in metropolisesthat have been considered to be the melting potsof nationalities, no matter how strange it mayseem. The migrants form enclaves to stick totheir rules. They see each other like enemies todefend from. As for the “indigenous population”,it cannot but turn into the victims of aggressionthat overcomes any permitted right to defence.

Right before the World War I, Russianphilosopher N. Fedorov came up with the strongestconcept of Pacifsm ever made. He declared thebeginning of universal brotherhood and end toorphancy: let “everything be like your own, notsomeone else’s”. Unfortunately, the associationsof people are based on organization basis, not onthe affnity of souls, and rely on solidarity lessand less every day. Are there any “organic” formsof unity today, haven’t they passed into obliviontogether with the “old order”, replaced by moreliberal associations referred to as “civil society”and “democracy”? Nation and the state are notnatural entities, growing organically like treeson the ground. They are product of sophisticatedcultural technologies making up a system ofdefence, a shell in which an individual nay feelsecure and not fear the alien. The main thing isnot to create an image of an enemy and not to fallinto resentiment. As an opposite to the commontalks of Jewish invasion and Russian threat, wemay suggest that the “kind Europeans” addresstheir xenophobia. A real positive consequenceof Asian migration could be the transfer ofsuch traditional values as industriousness toEurope. Unfortunately, normally it causes onlyexploitation of cheap labour resources from thethird world countries instead of healthy andcultural potential of the people not infected withEuropean resentiment and nihilism. For thisreason, the problem can be solved by recognizingsuch an Alien, that lives and works by our sidein a modern multinational society. He cannotbe absolutely strange, unless backed in a cornerby cutting off his social rights or forcing him tothink, eat, drink and dress as the “state-formingnation” representatives do. The foreigner getsincluded into the culture not only through rationalnegotiations and political treaties, but also on thelevel of daily communication, best manifested inhospitality. We need to create such social spaceswhere people feel as a nation, an audience, a civilsociety, and not a mass as in a supermarket orpublic transport.