Terms

The term intercultural dialogue is fuzzy, to say the least. The Platform in fact prefers the notion of ‘living and creating together’, or ‘cultural cooperation’: dialogue alone is not enough. Anything intercultural is by its very nature ”in dialogue”; intercultural action - and competence - implies exchange of experience, ideas, dreams, as well as personal and organisational challenges. We have to build a shared community – underlining the active verb ‘to build’ - implying tools, effort and shared working practices, blueprints, plans, architects, craftspeople and artisans, funders, thinkers and eventual inhabitants. Interculturalism is about ‘doing’, not just ‘thinking’. This happens in real places, in real time, between real people. It is not abstract.

Given the huge “intercultural” challenges of our trans-cultural age, we, the Platform, wish to focus on the new kinds of diversity in Europe, due to migration and shifting geographies. There is no greater global challenge today than the permanent interaction and cooperation required between diverse cultures, religions and peoples moving into contact with each other in our cities and countryside. The European Union also, urgently, needs to build this into its internal but also emerging external policy. The “European agenda for culture in a globalised world” and its related “inter-cultural” agenda are a first (but significant) step forward.

We are concerned about the notion of culture in the current debates. Why is the encounter between cultures considered the root cause of social discontent and conflict? What has happened to the discussion of more endemic factors such as economic differences and social inequalities? The new divides are more than cultural, ethnic or religious, and intercultural dialogue will not solve these broader social challenges. In a real sense, all cultures in the globalised world must face the same issues (economic, social, environmental) together. Blaming culture - or indeed instrumentalising culture - will not “do the trick”. Referring to cultural differences may in fact become a strategy of scapegoating, thus avoiding deeper analysis and taking possibly radical but constructive steps.

Thus, the Rainbow Paper rallies Platform participants behind the following understanding of Intercultural Dialogue: “a series of specific encounters, anchored in real space and time between individuals and/or groups with different ethnic, cultural, religious, and linguistic backgrounds and heritage, with the aim of exploring, testing and increasing understanding, awareness, empathy, and respect. The ultimate purpose of Intercultural Dialogue is to create a cooperative and willing environment for overcoming political and social tensions, whether through new or existing structures (administration, governance, public opinion, values, attitudes)”.
(Definition from Rainbow Paper I)

Intercultural dialogue asks us all to answer a difficult question: What are the social conditions in which we live? Intercultural action cannot be separated from human rights, citizenship and social equality. Inclusion and equal opportunity are pre-conditions for a dialogue worthy of the name.

On the other hand, economic and social divides cannot explain the emotional “energy” and persistence of conflicts. Culture is about “meaning”. Culture is about aspirations, cohesion and sharing. Interculturalism is by extension about interest in and openness towards these differences. Therefore, the Platform pays special attention to the role of culture and the arts in analysing the current challenges related to diversity. It would like, to explore the “power of culture”, civil society 1) and the arts in “negotiating, not managing diversity” in our societies.

1) Civil society refers to the arena of uncoerced collective action around shared interests, purposes and values. In theory, its institutional forms are distinct from those of the state, family and market, though in practice, the boundaries between state, civil society, family and market are often complex, blurred and negotiated. Civil society commonly embraces a diversity of spaces, actors and institutional forms, varying in their degree of formality, autonomy and power. Civil societies are often populated by organizations such as registered charities, development non-governmental organizations, community groups, women's organizations, faith-based organizations, professional associations, trade unions, self-help groups, social movements, business associations, coalitions and advocacy groups (London School of Economics Centre for Civil Society working definition).

Discussion

David Boromisza-Habashi, University of Massachusetts Amherst, 2008/05/10 00:08

I teach “intercultural communication” at the university level and therefore my contribution is made from the perspective of the university instructor. I think this section is a tremendous opportunity to educate European policy-makers about the Platform's unique and revolutionary vision of culture and interculturality. When I say “revolutionary” I am not exaggerating. The conception of “culture” as a site of action (beyond difference and otherness) and the conception of “intercultural dialogue” as the preferred or optimal mode of that action represent the cutting edge in intercultural communication research. I am genuinely impressed by the Platform's ideas about culture. I also feel validated by them as a researcher. Having said the above, I also think that this section must be made much tighter. With all due respect to those who had wrestled with these extremely difficult concepts and composed the above section of Rainbow Paper II (RPII), when my students read statements like “Culture is about “meaning”” they simply tune out, their eyes glaze over and they turn the page. The best way to turn the above section into a learning moment for policy-makers is to pick out key concepts and link them together into a story, a story that the Platform tells about culture and intercultural dialogue, and story that can inspire policy-makers to want to engage culture, intellectually and pragmatically, as a site of action. I have pulled out 6 key concepts from RPII that, to my mind, can serve as the main building blocks of the Platform’s story of culture. Some of these concepts are link together tighter than others. My list is as follows: (1) intercultural challenges (2) culture - cultural identities, (3) intercultural competence – interculturalism, (4) intercultural dialogue. The skeleton of the story looks something like this: (1) The people of Europe deal with problems in their interactions with others inside and outside Europe. They often make sense of these problems as intercultural challenges, that is, challenges that arise out of cultural differences. (2) Understood as such, these challenges tend to reify the view of culture as a realm of difference, and the view of cultural identities as essentially irreconcilable. This is an unproductive path. (3) Intercultural competence and interculturalism implies the willingness to move beyond solidified “cultural” identities and the readiness to make sense of identity as multiple (“multi-layered”) and in constant transformation. (4) The next step, intercultural dialogue, places intercultural competence (interculturalism) into the service of concerted, joint action within and beyond the borders of Europe. In my opinion, telling the above story (or any version of it the Platform sees fit) would help move this section beyond conveying a sense of general “fuzziness” into a concise statement of, I will say it again, a revolutionary vision of culture and intercultural dialogue. The concepts may be fuzzy, but the vision can be clear.

Yudhishthir Raj Isar, 2008/05/16 12:45

Thank you David for having said what I would have said, only better! I too deal with the various tropes of the 'intercultural' in my teaching and public speaking.

Agreeing, then, with David, I urge you also not to use the term 'fuzzy', which is too colloquial for a public advocacy text such as this… Who considers the encounter between cultures to be the root cause of social discontent and conflict? This rhetorical question is totally off focus. Intercultural dialogue can't 'ask' anybody anything – this is a classic case of reification… Please avoid such usage. Why would the Platform 'like to explore the “power of culture”…? Isn't it affirming something about what the three can do? But what is the articulation between them. The passage is woolly: who is going to explore what? Then the scare quotes themselves, you should not only remove them bu also explain what that means