Displacement and Belonging
Migration is universal to all animals, including human beings. Yet, nations haven't begun to ask if what they protect was ever worth protecting in the first place.
What does it mean “to be international”?
Following the German philosopher Martin Heidegger’s work on what it means “to be”, “being international” seems to mean different things to a corporation and an individual.
Here, it’s the individual that interests me — or at least their context. To avoid falling into the trap of mixing up the term “international” with “global” (which I find rather generalising), I’ll stick to using “international” in the sense of “between countries”.
Perhaps that makes it easier to understand. As in, “to be international” is “to be between countries”. For the corporation, this doesn’t hold up logically, since business is carried out within multiple countries and not literally in between countries. For the individual on the other hand, this makes perfect sense.
In the figurative sense, an individual between countries is never hegemonic, always heterogenous.
They are international because they belong in between, in the margins. This isn’t to say that “to be international” means to be an outcast or an outsider, but rather, it means “to not be at the centre”.
“To be international” entails not belonging to the core of a nation. (I might be digging my own grave here by using the word “nation” instead of “country”, as there are more countries in the world than there are nation-states. For the purposes of this essay, let’s just say a country has more cultural value whereas a nation, more political.) Hence, at this point we might be able to say that “to be international” is not a straightforward process.
How do you be “between countries”? This is where displacement comes into play, I think. Once you move, your place - or at least, the sentiment of your place - is forever changed. In contrast to objects, which remain the same atomically, be it in liquid, solid or evaporated form, the international individual can never go back to “being national”. Once you are between countries, you will always be away from the median, from the most common. You will always be displaced. You only belong in between.
“To have a place of one’s own” - is that attainable for the international individual?
My view is that it’s a fantasy. There are mainly two explanations.
The first is that “to have a place of one’s own” in one country is evidently reserved for nationals of that country. More simply, you have to be recognised by the laws of the state in order for you to belong to the nation. And once you belong to the nation-state, then — and only then — may you “have a place of your own” in that country.
The second is the heterogeneity of national bureaucracies. That is, some countries treat internationality (or “being international”) more harshly than others. A clear example is the number of passports allowed for a citizen to hold. Because this number differs depending on where in the world you are recognised as a national, it is impossible “to be international” on the one hand, and “to have a place of one’s own” on the other.
So what does it mean “to be international”?
If the international individual cannot “have a place of their own”, what is there for them to have?
For now, I’d like to think that the answer lies in something quite ancient. Looking towards our ancestry, our bloodline, our tribes. Not necessarily biological, more social.
“To have a family of one’s own” - that is possible when in between countries. A family, broadly speaking, is not required to be international. Nevertheless, to survive “being international” — to make it bearable — “having a family” is a modest, even honest, solution.
