The
etymology of ‘hospitality’ is from a Latin root. It is from two different
words. ‘Hostis’ means
stranger and ‘pets’ means to have power. So Hospitality is power over stranger.
It has also been derived from two proto-Indo-European words which
have the meanings of ‘stranger’, ‘guest’ and ‘power’. We can learn about
Hospitality from two different Epistemological shifts.
Hospitality—in the Pre-Derridian world
Hospitality in the ancient
world focused on the alien or stranger in need. The difficulty of aliens was
desperate. They lacked membership in the community, be it in the tribe,
city-state, or nation. As an alienated person, he or she had to often travel
and needed immediate food, and lodging. Widows, orphans, the poor, or
sojourners from other lands lacked the familial or community status. In the
ancient world the practice of hospitality meant graciously receiving an
alienated person into one's land, home, or community and providing directly for
that person's needs. In the Pre-derridian wordl Hospitality was given according
to the law, obligations and conditions. Hospitality was traditionally defined as a symbol of table fellowship,
charity, compassion, fellowship and accommodation for centuries. It was
confined only to guest-host dichotomy and poles. Church or organizations or
government were the agencies of Hospitality.
Hospitality—in Derrida:
Jacques
Derrida deconstructs Hospitality. In Derrida’s words, “come one, be my guest
and I will be yours”. Derrida calls us toward a new understanding of
hospitality—as an interruption. This new understanding of hospitality requires
a rethinking of the laws of common, conditional hospitality in contrast with
the law, an unconditional hospitality. Jacques Derrida deconstructed this traditional
(Christian) idea of Hospitality. It is different from what we traditionally understand.
It is not about accommodating the guest and giving fellowship but inviting and
welcoming the ‘stranger’/foreigner without any obligations or power.
When
Derrida define Hospitality he explains on different levels: the personal level
where the ‘stranger’ is welcomed into the home; and the level of individual
countries. It is political. Derrida questions in particular the restricted
nature of national hospitality to legal and illegal immigrants. The refugees,
immigrants and other vulnerable people are welcomed unconditionally not by
power but by accepting the rights and differences.
There
is a difference in treating guest and stranger or a foreigner. There is also
ethics which is involved in Hospitality. Derrida defines ethics as hospitality,
hospitality as ethics. Hospitality is not removed from ethics, nor is it a
specific area of ethics. It is the foundation, or “the whole and the principle
of ethics. For example, a foreigner is
a part of the community, But he/she is not like the citizen of the country.
State uses its power to provide conditional hospitality to the foreigners.
Therefore without ethics there is no hospitality. Thus, in the ‘destruction’ of
the word, there can be seen an essential ‘self limitation’ built right into the
idea of hospitality, which preserves the distance between one’s own and the
‘stranger’, between owning one’s own property and inviting the ‘other’ into
one’s home.
The
Guest is not welcomed by power or position. To Derrida then, the notion of
having and retaining the mastery of the house underlies hospitality: ‘Make
yourself at home’, this is a self-limiting invitation… it means: please feel at
home, act as if you were at home, but, remember, that is not true, this is not
your home but mine, and you are expected to respect my property.
Derrida
endorsed Immanuel Lévinas’ view that absolute hospitality requires the ‘host’
to allow ‘guests’ to behave as they wish; there must be no pressure or
obligation to behave in any particular manner. Absolute hospitality does not
make a demand of the ‘guest’ that would force them to reciprocate by way of
imposing an obligation. The language used by Derrida could be held to imply
that making a ‘guest’ conform to any rules or norms is a bad thing.
Theological Implications of Hospitality
What is
context of deconstructing the Hospitality? It is the Post-Colonial World. It is
a different world where people experience alienation, oppression and
marginalization. For colonized world meaning is given, life is given. But in
the postcolonial world there is no absolute meaning and meaning is not given.
Space of every individual is not given or space is not through your benevolence
but it their right.
We
always read Colonization from historical point of view. That is the critique
against postcolonialism. Colonization cannot be limited with political
oppression and subjugation in the history. Wherever the power is exerted over
the people, or marginalized due to the gender differences, caste, color, ethnic
differences, there is colonization. Postcolonial reads the empire and listens
the margins. The empire has created people as the charity of objects. Who
decides, for whom. Who takes the ownership the sacrifice, service and charity?
The powerful takes the decision for the powerless. For the members of the
charitable institutions have no voice. They need always an agency to talk. It
is the agencies (govt/church/movements) who decide for the vulnerable.
Colonization
is still a reality. We try to deconstruct Hospitality in a post-colonial world
where margins are always heard. Histories, memories and Metanarratives have its
own significance. Margins have their own
subjectivity. I define my own self and identity. There is no longer given or
absolute or singular meaning or homogeneity but only multiple meanings and
manyness. People to whom life was denied redefine their own life, even the
standards of life.
Socio-political Context: We
live in a divided world where Terrorism, war, violence create margins. The
relevance of Hospitality in the present socio-political scenario is significant
where profit, power, wealth are counted and violence, division, power are
appreciated. When we respond to the voices of the margins in the violent
situations and the most vulnerable situations, we deconstruct the language of
accommodation in the hospitality. We live in a technologically advanced world
where people are divided due to the connectivity. There is a world outside the
social networks. The lives of the margins, tribes, dalits, women and children
are ignored in the technologically advanced society.
Sexuality: the understanding of
sexuality is being challenged these days. Understanding of individuality and
family is being challenged. The space and rights of the gender minorities, LGBT
groups are not out of one’s benevolence but it is their right.
Coming to the discipline, counseling, There
is no longer power for the counselor. There was a clear cut difference between
counselee and counselor. Counselor was always powerful. But now counselor is like
a sojourner who shares an unconditional Hospitality. How do we treat the
disabled? First of all the term disabled
itself is a given identity. The disabled
are not the objects of compassion. They have their own subjectivity. For the disabled, church is like a
‘city on a hill’-physically inaccessible and socially inhospitable. Church
is beautiful and broken, impaired but powerful, complex and gifted. Church
incarnates the disabled God through Jesus, who embodied a commitment to
justice, who challenged all structures. We are always caught by ‘inclusion’ of
disabled or the needy in the community. But ‘Belongingness’ is something that
is suggesting now. Because to belong one needs to be missed and to miss to one
another, one needs to learn what it means to love.
Crucified image of Christ is the Ultimate
sign of Hospitality
We think it is easy to practice the
hospitality. The relational encounter of Levinas that for the one who
confronts the other is an essential Other who pleads not to be rejected and,
ultimately, not to be killed. He says it is in the face of the other one is
confronted by his/her own vulnerabilities and frailties. Denying one’s life or dying church is
the crucial culmination of Hospitality. That’s why Derrida says Hospitality is
impossible but we must always have an attempt, for an unconditional hospitality.
There is also Politics
of life over against death. For Derrida it is politics of difference.
Difference is appreciated and it is not a pluralism but a there is an
alternative vision of living together. The
other is not the object of charity, service, sacrifice but my death. Practicing
hospitality is like dying on the cross. Jesus fulfilled this unconditional
hospitality on the cross. Kingdom envisions this unconditional Hospitality.
This Paper on Hospitality was presented at Dharma Jyoti Vidya Peeth .
