Invitation to a Contrapuntal Dialogue on Expropriation
Ed Reither, Beezone
Preface
The origins of this essay are personal and, perhaps, a bit chaotic—fittingly so. It began as I found myself immersed in the tangled web of 19th-century European history: a landscape of shifting borders, clashing monarchies, and overlapping ethnic, religious, and national identities. But it wasn’t just Europe that confronted me with this density. As I read, the scope widened to include Egypt, North Africa, the Middle East, Russia, and the ever-complex Ottoman Empire—a sprawling theater of imperial ambition and resistance.
I began to feel what I can only describe as a kind of historical vertigo. It wasn’t confusion exactly—it was recognition. Recognition that what we often call “history” is not a single, linear melody but a series of overlapping, often dissonant voices. That led me to ask a question—not about any one nation or empire, but about how we even begin to think about such complexity without reducing it.
That question led me to the term “contrapuntal”—a word from music theory that suggests independent but simultaneous lines of expression, each distinct yet coexisting in dynamic relation. I had encountered the word in Edward Said’s writings on postcolonialism, where it becomes a metaphor for reading the world’s histories not as dominant narratives with footnotes, but as co-sounding voices, sometimes in tension, sometimes in unexpected harmony.
This essay—Invitation to a Contrapuntal Dialogue on Expropriation—emerged from that realization. It is not an argument against the concept of expropriation. Rather, it is a gesture toward a different way of holding it—in dialogue, in tension, in counterpoint. It seeks to move beyond the binary traps of contemporary discourse and offer a space for thoughtful, layered listening.
***
n recent years, the narrative of expropriation—particularly as examined within institutions like the New School for Social Research (NSSR)—has become a central framework for understanding the long, often brutal legacies of land seizure, settler colonialism, racialization, and capitalist accumulation. This narrative rightly centers dispossession as a structuring force of modernity, and it calls for a moral and historical reckoning with the forms of violence—material and symbolic—that have shaped our world.
Yet alongside this necessary critique, another question quietly lingers:
How might we speak of cultural borrowing, influence, or transformation without immediately invoking theft, erasure, or violation?
In other words: is there a space—an ethical, historically attuned space—for recognition without seizure, for engagement without appropriation, for polyphonic understanding rather than binary judgment?
We offer this not as a counter-argument but as a contrapuntal gesture—borrowing from the musical metaphor of punctus contra punctum, “point against point,” in which distinct voices co-exist without absorption, retaining their tension, texture, and integrity. This kind of listening does not resolve; it does not reconcile. It holds difference without collapsing it.
In that spirit, I propose a contrapuntal approach to the expropriation narrative. Such an approach would not dilute the critique of settler colonialism, racial capitalism, or Indigenous dispossession. On the contrary—it would deepen it by asking not only what was taken, but also how traditions survive, how meaning migrates, and how listening might become a form of reparation.
This is not a plea for cultural relativism or liberal syncretism. It is a call for attentive, historically informed, ethically grounded participation in the ongoing tension between inheritance and innovation, pain and possibility, memory and transformation.
I invite philosophers, artists, educators, and cultural historians—especially those working within and around the NSSR tradition—to explore these questions:
– Can we speak of influence without erasure?
– Is there a way to distinguish expropriation from resonant transformation?
– When does preservation become rigidity, and when does adaptation become exploitation?
– What does it mean to hear a tradition contrapuntally, rather than as a sealed or stolen object?
If our moment is marked by polarizing declarations, perhaps what’s most needed is a practice of contrapuntal thinking—a willingness to sit within discomfort, to trace multiple lines through time, to listen to what has been silenced, and to compose a form of ethical engagement that is neither passive nor possessive.
Let this be an opening line—not a final word.