And the confusion lingersā€¦
Photo by doctabu on Flickr

A training kit on intercultural learning has been published, there have been many training courses and even long-term training courses, and last but not least an expert-seminar (report: pdf) tried to deconstruct and reconstruct intercultural learning, searching for ways forward.

Ironically, in none of the publications available you can actually find a definition of intercultural learning. And there are signs that the interest in intercultural learning is waning: not much has happened after the report of the expert seminar was published in 2009—two years after the seminar itself—and the T-Kit on Intercultural Learning, while it has been heavily criticised and could definitely use some updating, remains untouched in its tenth year of existence.

At the same time, a new term, yet not so new concept, seems to be entering the European youth field: intercultural competence.

And the confusion lingersā€¦
Photo by pfaff on Flickr

Intercultural competence is an old star of international business. First definitions appeared around 1960, when the first steps of globalised economy were taken. A person who is interculturally competent, according to some researchers in this field, is rich in skills, knowledge and attitudes expressed by (among others): frustration tolerance, patience, communication skills, openness, tolerance of ambiguity, has self distance, speaks languages and so many many more characteristics that essentially describe an unachievable super-human perfectly equipped for any kind of social interaction, regardless where those that are interacted with are from. A problem of vagueness that in it’s core seems to be strangely familiar to the debates around intercultural learning, isn’t it?

One idea of putting intercultural competence at the focus of international youth work is that it is regarded to be the result of intercultural learning. Linguistically this seems to be quite logical. If learning leads to competence than evidently intercultural learning must lead to intercultural competence.

Not to step on anybodies toes, but it is difficult to fight back the thought that both concepts, learning and competence, are so conveniently vague (and can be so nicely attributed with ‘intercultural’) that by putting competence at the focus of discussions now, one can pretend to have progress in the discussions, while the confusion continues.

What is both interesting and confounding about intercultural competence is that definitions change from field to field (just as definitions about intercultural learning differ).

And the confusion lingersā€¦
Photo by marcoarment on Flickr

Economists refer to different sets of personal attributes than those active in developmental co-operation and probably those would again be different in the youth field. In fact, it is difficult to actually find definitions from the youth field. Is this simply owed to intercultural competence being a relatively new concept in the youth field, with many people not yet knowing what to do with it?

Simultaneously, the question arises whether intercultural competence is the purpose of international youth work. Since it is widely considered a key soft skill in the business field, this would make a lot of sense with regards to employability – admittedly a key motivation for the public support for international youth work.

And yet, scholars argue that intercultural competence is highly context-specific and context-sensitive and that using the term in a generalized manner only feeds the confusion already attached to the notion – among them Prof. JĆ¼rgen Straub in his German handbook on intercultural communication and competence.

Guo-Ming Chen and William J Starosta define intercultural competence as

“effective and appropriate interaction between people who identify with particular physical and symbolic environments” [source]

However, what is effective and what is appropriate does not only change from ‘culture’ to ‘culture’ but also depends on the specific context and the connected values, habits, implicit and explicit rules that are embedded implicitly and explicitly in these contexts.

And the confusion lingersā€¦
Photo by kanpeki on Flickr

In a business context, effective may mean to seal a deal quickly and sustainably and employ appropriate means to achieve that goal. But what does effective really mean in international youth work? And what does appropriate mean in international youth work?

Can intercultural competence acquired in the youth field— inyouth exchanges, seminars or training courses—become operational in an international business setting? Could it, possibly, even be contra-productive for the current economic system to be interculturally competent in a youth work style?

It is, this much is clear, a tricky and brave undertaking to put a fuzzy concept from one field and apply it to another. Let’s start to question some of the fuzziness.

I have never tried this, but I think an answer to the question ā€œWhat is the intercultural dimension of your project?ā€ that goes in the direction of

ā€œyou know, our youth exchange focuses on the environment as well as sustainable development and, frankly, we donā€™t have the time to deal with issues of culture to the extent necessary to really develop a meaningful intercultural learning dynamic. Of course we will facilitate the development of the group, which is made up of a diverse and multicultural mix of individuals so that they can learn from each other and everyoneā€™s valuable experiences. But we donā€™t want to half-heartedly pretend we will do intercultural learning when we donā€™t even have the time to cover our own topic. Iā€™d rather not pretend that the international evening will give us an intercultural learning result.ā€

might not be very pleasing to those deciding who gets funding.

Or would it? Why not?

So many topics are relevant to non-formal education with young people in (and beyond) Europe. Human rights, violence, participation, citizenship, gender equality, sustainable development, to name but a few, are incredibly important and each one deserves time, focus and competence. None of these topics, however, are mandatory to be included in publicly funded projects at the European level. No one asks you to cover sustainable development when your primary topic is gender equality.

Why is the story so different with intercultural learning?

Anyone who takes intercultural learning seriously will hopefully agree that digging deep into the topic of culture and the twisted side-paths of identity, politics and policy, communication and social interaction — that all this demands time, focus and a specific decision to do so. Real intercultural learning, like any profound learning experience, has to be planned and implemented in full knowledge of its complexity and the conditions of work these demand.

It is never as simple as ā€œwe do an international evening, therefore we have intercultural learningā€. There is a profound—and often confused—difference between intercultural learning within a project and the intercultural dimension of a project.

Almost any group of people that comes together has some degree of diversity. Depending on how strict you are with your definition of ā€˜cultureā€™ you will find an intercultural dimension in almost any group. The likelihood, however, that a group of people, where almost every person comes from a different geographical location, grew up in a different socio-political environment, with a different family structure and a different educational pathway, will require specific facilitation to overcome differences or obstacles to working effectively together as a result of their diversity is quite high.

There is always diversity in a group | Photo by Maistora

In other words:

An international group has in almost all cases a significant intercultural dimension that can be used as an educational vehicle.

Embracing the richness of diverse groups and using it for the purposes of learning—what-ever that may be constituted by—can offer great opportunities to participants to develop their communication skills, tolerance of ambiguity, empathy and to interpret situations from different angles and perspectives other than their own.

But could that already be considered real intercultural learning?

In my opinion (and experience) intercultural learning is not only and exclusively reflected in intercultural interaction, even though this should always be a part of it. It is, as mentioned above, linked to political education, knowledge about culture and the capacity for successful social interaction.

Maybe one of the problems of Intercultural Learning is itā€™s label or name, which is unclear and fuzzy as it describes a process: learning that is characterised by the adjective intercultural. I would, therefore, like to suggest to just leave Intercultural Learning aside for a while and call it Diversity Education. Take a look at it from a different angle.

Practitioners of Human Rights Education refer sometimes to their field of activity as educating for, about and through human rights. This differentiation can be helpful also when thinking about Diversity Education. In this light education about diversity could include topics such as culture, power relations, minority issues, communication, (social) inclusion policies, cultural rhetoric, conflict transformation and many more.

Education for diversity would have a clear political aim or fostering a culture of human rights and helping people in understanding the complexities of modern realities as well as supporting their desire to work for open societies and mutual respect among diverse people.

Education through diversity would use contexts with many layers of diversity as an educational vehicle for reflecting participantsā€™ own innate diversity. It would use co-operation and joint projects as challenging and catalysing stimulators for reflection and learning. If Intercultural Learning could encompass what I just described as Diversity Education, it could develop into a crucial and dynamic, complex but tangible field of educational praxis in Europe and anywhere else.

So, to conclude, and humble as this authorā€™s opinion may be, it is fine for institutions to ask how the intercultural dimension of the group will be handled. But this should not be confused with intercultural learning. There is only so much ground to cover in one week and youth workers should be honest with that in application forms, and funding institutions should be realistic as to how much they can expect. Particularly when the youth exchange, the seminar or the training course is not specifically on intercultural learning!

Strange as it may seem, giving intercultural learning the recognition that it deserves might mean it should no longer be mandatory.

If researchers, policy makers and educational practitioners can agree that intercultural learning is a field of educational activity that stands on the same line such as human rights or citizenship education; and if the tool-box approach to pressing 1.5 hours of intercultural learning into any gathering of young people is discouraged; and if we clearly distinguish between a responsible and sustainable management of a group’s intercultural dimension and intercultural learning…

then we might actually promote the understanding of complexity,
rather than the promotion of simplifications.

Wonderful! Everyone loves intercultural dialogue! It is the solution for fighting terrorism, it enhances social inclusion, and everyone is nice to each other and will respect each otherā€™s worldview. Wouldnā€™t it be great if it was that easy?

But what is intercultural dialogue, actually? A very difficult question and so far no one has provided a satisfying answer. This white paper will have to. At least it will have to come up with a working definition. The authors will in the beginning of the paper need to include something like

for the purpose of this white paper intercultural dialogue will refer to a communication process between people who, on the basis of their socialisation have diverging sets of values…

Otherwise anyone can take the white paper and instrumentalise it for their own purpose, whether or not that is in line with the values upon which the Council of Europe was founded.

Another aspect of Intercultural Dialogue that will have to be taken into account is the one of ascribed identity and representation. When I recently made an intervention in a discussion about the White Paper, I was referred to as “the young colleague”. I found this discriminating because I believed that being young is not something that would, in this context, have anything to do with my identity and with the role I was playing. However, apparently for the person who referred to my intervention “being young” was something that would describe me sufficiently in that context.

What I want to illustrate with this is the danger of ascribing a certain identity to someone with whom one is in a dialogue with. Individuals are very complex and reducing them to only one cultural membership is simply not good enough. Furthermore, “cultures” are not democratic groups, which elect representatives who can speak on their behalf. Whenever someone is invited to participate in an intercultural dialogue on behalf of a certain “culture”, the question of whom this person is actually entitled to represent has to be asked.

Some other questions are also important…

How much can be discussed in an intercultural dialogue? Are human rights negotiable? Can someone, and especially the Council of Europe, engage in intercultural dialogue, with the aim of fostering mutual respect, if the partner refuses to accept human rights? What are the boundaries? When does tolerance become ignorance and dialogue harmful to those whose rights are disrespected?

I believe that engaging in intercultural dialogue is also about having an opinion and knowing why one has that opinion. Being able to argue oneā€™s case and being able to agree to disagree are crucial in an honest Intercultural Dialogue that can lead to a mutual understanding and respect for each other. Human Rights are not negotiable. A friend once put it nicely by saying

The right to spin around with outstretched arms stops there where the nose of the person next to one begins.

A White Paper on a field that is not yet a traditional policy field and is not clearly defined is in so far problematic as it can become another piece of wood in the fire that letā€™s Huntingtonā€™s ideas of a clash of civilizations boil (too) loud and strong these days.

If the White Paper will be based on a clear working definition that takes into account multiple cultural memberships and complex identities, if it provides an action plan to make European societies more inclusive and places where everyone’s voice is heard and taken seriously — then it can become a great tool. However, in the same way that certain kinds of exercises in intercultural learning can enhance prejudice, so could this white paper.

Care that this does not happen will have to be taken.