Background
Millions of people are on the move in today’s world. As a result migration has become our cultural, social and political reality. Mobility – what we might call ‘interculturalism’ in practice – increases every day. First, second and third generation immigrants with one foot in several cultures, mixed couples and their children etc. - these are becoming common in European societies. Slowly, they are changing and enriching what it means to be European.
The Platform believes that this mobility enriches European society – new people, new ideas, new cultural expression, new resources, new kinds of identity. But the impacts are still uncertain. Mobility may well decrease the importance of ethnicity. Or it may lead to ethnicity being moved centre stage in individual and group experience. Time will tell. Interculturalism, our focus in the Rainbow Platform, is not about assimilating these cultural differences, nor about dismissing them, but about creating a framework to talk, listen, learn, and be inspired by our differences. Of course, mobility leads to increased tensions, and inequalities. Of course the recomposing of European identity is sometimes painful, complicated and tense – but it is also exciting, energising and enriching. In any case, such tensions are part of Europe’s historical experience. There is no single European identity. Many distinct cultural groups have been present in Europe for millennia.
Intercultural ambitions for Europe are not about creating a heightened sense of the ‘other’ but of understanding the reality and authenticity of everyone’s experience. Each of us has “ethnic” or national background(s) but we also possess personal identities: as parents, as (non-) believers, as men or women, as citizens, with different positions on the work floor. We have professional and cultural identities and life-styles. We share aspirations and meet in a diversity of groups. These myriad identities, fragile or robust, are in continuous negotiation and transformation. They should define and build our self-assurance and, urgently, our interconnectivity.
Respect for diversity and for human rights helps to exercise our capacity for change. Confrontation with other realities is an excellent preparation for meeting an unknown – and ultimately shared – future. Intercultural competence 1) both on the part of individuals, organisations and collectives, needs a supportive framework, an equal opportunities strategy, education and funding. Today, we have scarcely started the process seriously. There are even some reasons to be seriously concerned about the possibility of this exchange in Europe. Exclusion and “cultural” divides seem to dominate public policies and debate; yet, “we ourselves” may often be part of the system of neglect, ignorance, segregation or exploitation, which – mostly unwillingly – feeds hidden new forms of apartheid in our midst.
Europe needs its citizens to be proud of who they are – and to share that pride in the complex geography of every day life. We weave our way – as individuals or members of groups – through this cultural map, complicated by (local or global) power struggles, and we are required to relate to one another from various, ever-changing positions. Note: within this process of mobility, change and transformation, there is no implicit hierarchy of cultures, no ‘better’ or ‘worse’. There must be on the other hand some basic, generally accepted principles. Agreeing them (or rather finding the language to discuss them – is a key challenge). Within our ‘non-hierarchy of cultural identities’ there is an increased need for tools, languages and systems of exchange and discussion.
A person who is interculturally competent captures and understands, in interaction with people from foreign cultures, their specific concepts in perception, thinking, feeling and acting. Earlier experiences are considered, free from prejudices; there is an interest and motivation to continue learning (Wikipedia definition).
Discussion
The Platform believes that this mobility enriches European society – new people, new ideas, new cultural expression, new resources, new kinds of identity. But the impacts are still uncertain. Mobility can well decrease the importance of ethnicity. Or ethnicity may move centre stage.
Intercultural action, the Rainbow Platform's focus, is not about assimilating cultural differences, nor dismissing them. It is about creating frameworks to talk, listen, learn, and be inspired. Mobility can lead to increased tension and injustices. Re-composing European identity is apparently painful, complicated and fragile – but also energising and enriching. We know these tensions. They are part of Europe’s historical experience. No single European identity can prevail. Many distinct groups have been present in Europe for years, both as peoples and as nations.
In addition to the problem of assimilating a growing number of migrants, European societies need to develop ways of facilitating and completing the integration of citizen of second and third generation immigrant origin. This we can do only by reaching out to these young people, and ensuring thay are made aware of the potential they represent for “host” societies, and the role they can play in fostering the next step, from intercultural tolerance and dialogue to intercultural cooperation.
In the above, please replace “assimilating” with “integrating”
Some woolly bits here, but also a couple of howlers. It is totally unacceptable to use the term 'second and third generation immigrants' – if anything the text should point out how egregiously wrong this idea is but that too many people still use, unthinkingly. Nobody born in a country is an 'immigrant'!! The word 'ethnicity' should be explained; not everybody is familiar with the Platform's meaning (there are a range of understandings of the term, including very derogatory ones). The first sentence beginning 'Of course…' isn't clear. Why 'of course'? Why NOT create 'a heightened sense of the other'? In the following para., don't repeat the word seriously from one sentence to the next. 'Hidden new forms of apartheid' is not acceptable language – don't trivialize what 'apartheid' really was/is… Why the 'complex geography' of everyday life? What has geography got to do with it? Not just 'power struggles' but also inequalities and inequities…
My comments target a certain 'journalese' in the wording – slick sound-bite sort of stuff, that isn't always appopriate… Of course journalese is much better than 'generalese', but stil…
First let me commend the authors for putting together such a fascinating and positive document, and the many contributors of sharp comments which aim improve it further.
I'm not entirely clear what is meant by 'geography'of everyday life either in this context. I can guess (see below), but I think this formulation requires a bit more precision. The two really tricky words for me in this section are 'ethnic' and 'national'. Nevertheless, I quite appreciate that you need some flesh on the bones of multiple identity by way of example or explanation. However, I agree with Raj that 'ethnic' needs a bit of explanation.
But 'national background(s)'? After a show last night I spent some time in conversation with six fellow-citizens, British Asian actors and their Director (the play, a good piece of political theatre, is about the devastating effects of the agricultural revolution and multinational companies on the Punjab - land and people). The actors were describing the hugely different audience reactions and levels of engagement in the last three English cities where they had performed the piece (Birmingham, Plymouth and Southampton). Regional (even local) difference is also a complex and changing construct - even if that is often about where you live rather than who you feel you are. In overcentralised 21st century states like France or the UK (where centralisation is always the default response to significant change), the texture of life in the capital may be wholly different from the rest of the country, irrespective of history, cultural origins or whatever, but the media will tend to propagate a 'national' image which is nothing of the sort while pedalling ludicrous stereotypes about the rest of the country. So actually 'the 'national' also, I would say, needs to include some sense of mobility as well.
There is recent cultural policy research in Britain (NE England) which suggests that many of the alleged 'problems' in relation to globalisation as perceived nationally by politicians and metropolitan commentators are not recognised, let alone shared, by local people - provided they have some secure sense of their own cultural identity. Perhaps the Cornish contributors on other aspects of this document would share that. The relevant reference to 'our cities and countryside' in the next section of the paper picks this theme up, but I still feel that the unmoderated planting of the 'national' flag at the top of page 3 (admittedly I am a citizen of the country with the original 1801 compromise flag!)takes more for granted than is justifiable in the context.