» Is intercultural learning still useful today?

(Originally posted on November 29, 2007 – updated on July 3, 2009)

10 years ago, the «Ten Theses on the correlation between European youth encounters, intercultural learning and demands on full and part-time staff in these encounters» were published by Dr. Hendrik Otten of the «Institute for Applied Communication Research – IKAB».

Since 1997, these ten theses (pdf) have informed the discourse about intercultural learning in youth work.

At the occasion of the 2007 seminar of the Council of Europe’s Directorate of Youth and Sport entitled «Intercultural learning – which ways forward?», Dr. Hendrik Otten was invited to revisit, de-construct and re-construct the ten theses. And we recorded his intervention as a podcast for the world out there!

Download the podcast below to find out why intercultural learning has failed as a concept to balance cultures, why we will have to accept more unsatisfactory compromises while constructing a shared system of justice, why the ability for intercultural discourse has to be connected with a developed understanding of human rights, how intercultural learning can be used to help people live with dilemmas and ambiguity – and whether intercultural learning has a role and chance in addressing our inner-societal wars.

Enjoy listening, and stay tuned!

In case you need some help with what to do:

A podcast is nothing else than a digital recording of a radio broadcast or a similar programme which is then made available on the internet. While the name is coming from both broadcasting and iPod, a podcast is not restricted to an iPod or any other media player, in fact. You can listen to it easily, using one of many different ways.

If you wanna know more about podcasting, head over to Wikipedia.

The only thing that you need is a computer which can play mp3-files. Millions of programmes do that for you – Windows Media Player (or Jetaudio if you are on the outlook for a better and free alternative) on PC computers or Quicktime on MAC machines or iTunes on both.

Normally your computer knows very well what to do anyway, so just go ahead and download the mp3 file — your machine will take it from there, most likely. If not, ask a geeky character in your vicinity.

Just be aware that audio podcasts are usually not the smallest files (also true for ours: 13 Megabytes), so download might take a moment or two. The good news: It happens in the background, so you can continue to work away!

For you iTunes users out there, we have also included the iTunes link. For you nerdy friends of ours, we also have a more modern version of the soundfile available. And for all friends of RSS and feed readers, we also have a link especially for our podcasts.

At the DYS seminar entitled «Intercultural learning – which ways forward?», Ingrid Ramberg from the Multicultural Centre in Botkyrka, Sweden was invited to be the rapporteur. In that function, she presented some first reflections at the end of the seminar. Again, we recorded her intervention as a podcast for the world out there.

The other two podcasts are here and here.

Download the podcast below to find out some of the first conclusions and reflections by Ingrid (a full-fledged report will be available at some point in 2008).

standard version | mp3 version | Podcast Feed | iTunes Link

Enjoy listening, and stay tuned!

In case you need some help with what to do:

A podcast is nothing else than a digital recording of a radio broadcast or a similar programme which is then made available on the internet. While the name is coming from both broadcasting and iPod, a podcast is not restricted to an iPod or any other media player, in fact. You can listen to it easily, using one of many different ways.

If you wanna know more about podcasting, head over to Wikipedia.

The only thing that you need is a computer which can play mp3-files. Millions of programmes do that for you – Windows Media Player (or Jetaudio if you are on the outlook for a better and free alternative) on PC computers or Quicktime on MAC machines or iTunes on both.

Normally your computer knows very well what to do anyway, so just go ahead and download the mp3 file — your machine will take it from there, most likely. If not, ask a geeky character in your vicinity.

Just be aware that audio podcasts are usually not the smallest files (also true for ours: 7 Megabytes), so download might take a moment or two. The good news: It happens in the background, so you can continue to work away!

For you iTunes users out there, we have also included the iTunes link. For you nerdy friends of ours, we also have a more modern version of the soundfile available. And for all friends of RSS and feed readers, we also have a link especially for our podcasts.

In every training course, there is one morning where you wake up with a terrible headache.

While trying to orient yourself – Where am I? Where is my head? Is this my room? Who are you?! – you vaguely remember the previous night, and the enlightenment hits you right there and then: it was the Polish Vodka.

During the next training, you stay away from the vodka, but the Armenian Brandy is just the same… In fact, you can easily recognise regular training course participants – they are the ones who stay away from most of the drinks during the infamous, obligatory, intercultural night.

A night of drinks and snacks, songs and dances.

A night that is rightfully confronted with some fundamental questions: How to make sure that intercultural evenings do not become a parody of what intercultural learning is about? How to avoid the nationalization of culture in an international environment?

These are just two questions asked in the introduction to the seminar on

«Intercultural Learning – which ways forward?»

organised by the Directorate of Youth of the Council of Europe at the end of November 2007 in the European Youth Centre Budapest.

And it seems as if such questions are not asked very often: most intercultural evenings indeed are a parody of what intercultural learning is about.

They have little to do with the people,
they reinforce stereotypes,
they have no educational meaning.

As Laimonas writes in an article for Coyote
to be published in the beginning of next year:

«Recently hardly anyone takes into consideration whether or why such an evening is really needed.»

Laimonas uses the widely known – and also widely disputed – iceberg concept of culture to make his point in saying that

«the majority of intercultural evenings are keeping people just on top of the iceberg. The underwater parts of the iceberg simply remain undiscovered.»

You can dislike the iceberg concept as much as you want, Laimonas does have a point.

So we ask you: how can we do better?

Fire away with ideas – and in January, hold them against Laimonas ideas and experiences on how to get from floating on top of the iceberg to diving into the depth of the cold water underneath.

We can’t say no more but this: it is worth the wait (and we will obviously link to the article once it has appeared in print)!

Happily co-written by Laimonas Ragauskas, Bastian Küntzel and Andreas Karsten.

In his article «A White Paper on what?», Bastian Küntzel looked into intercultural dialogue and asked whether it is a solution, a problem, or mission impossible. In November 2006, international non-governmental organisations teamed up with local youth workers from Alsace and Baden to look at these questions — and many more — in their «Forum on Intercultural Dialogue».

Based on the work of the forum, a discussion document has now been produced by Andreas Karsten and Bastian Küntzel that has received great interest from the INGO Assembly of the Council of Europe, the convener of the forum.

In their first 2007 meeting, the representatives of civil society considered the document to be one of their prime contributions to the discussions of the Council of Europe on the White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue. But even beyond the context of the white paper, the text has something to offer for other discourses as well — not the least in relation to the European Union’s «Year of Intercultural Dialogue» in 2008.

Be warned that the INGO’s discussion document possibly is, in some ways, an unusual document — it was written by a general rapporteur with the invitation to be subjectively opiniated and critically reflective and is meant to be more of a recollection of ideas and discussions than a typical report. With that approach, it aims to bring together the thinking and ideas that lead to the forum with the experiences expressed and discussions held at the forum itself.

The paper looks at culture and dialogue, at intercultural dialogue, at anti-racism and at intercultural learning. It criticises the limited approach of the Council of Europe’s White Paper in seeing culture merely to

«include everything relating to ways of life, customs, beliefs and other things that have been passed on to us for generations, as well as the various forms of artistic creations,»

a perspective which ignores that culture not only determines who we are, but also how we judge others. Because of that, the notion of culture has well disguised, yet highly political implications. The paper argues that

«the notion of culture can therefore not only be considered as ‘our different ways of life’, but also has to entail the varying and often biased modes of framing and assessing these ways of living.»

The document also presents, among other things, a range of suggestions (based on the forum’s participants’ experience from practice) how intercultural dialogue needs to be conditioned to be successful.

Going beyond that, the text also identifies some questions for further discussion in the spirit of Jostein Gaarder, who said once that

«an answer is always the part of the road that is behind you; only questions point to the future.»

These questions, which are meant as the paper’s contribution to the discussion on intercultural dialogue which is only just beginning, we share with you here for thinking and discussion:

• Is dialogue enough to evolve from multi-cultural co-existence to intercultural co-production?
• Are discrimination and racism only a question of culture? Would such a claim not delude questions of power, power relations and structural issues?
• Does the current practice of intercultural learning support such delusion? Are we the fog of racism revealed by speaking of culture?
• Is the use of the notion ‘intercultural dialogue’ and in particular the connotations of the concepts of ‘culture’ so problematic that one should disengage and withdraw from this dialogue altogether?
• How could we reclaim the terms – if at all?
• What can we do to bridge the gap between community work and mainstream public discourses on intercultural dialogue?
• How can we bring together conceptual, educational, political discourses and controversies on intercultural dialogue – on all levels; practice, policy, media and academia?
• How can the imminent culturalisation of minorities be broken up – also in our own educational, political and/or scientific work?
• How is it possible to engage in intercultural dialogue and avoid cultural relativism? Is it possible at all?
• What are the limits of local level intercultural dialogue, and what are the limits of a European approach? How can local and international levels be brought together best, i.e. in complementary and informing ways?

To read further about all sorts of issues related to culture and intercultural dialogue, the Council of Europe’s book «Resituating Culture» may be a good starting point. It is currently out of print in the Council’s bookstore, but you can download the pdf-version (1.3 MB) here.

«The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reasons for existing.Albert Einstein»

Download the discussion document here or here.

The context of the project may sound very specific, but the outcome is a brilliant resource for any person facilitating processes of exchange, dialogue and discussion anywhere in the world!

The study was commissioned by the German Technical Cooperation Organisation (GTZ) in support to the HIV/AIDS Programme of the Nelson Mandela Foundation.

You may wonder what the work of Mandela’s foundation against AIDS has to do with dialogue. Well, promoting dialogue has been and remains one of the prime goals of the foundation’s HIV programme.

“Maintaining public interest in HIV and AIDS has proven to be a key to beginning to challenge individuals and organisations on an increasing and significant scale to help those who are affected and infected.”

It is in the framework of this thinking that an excellent toolkit on dialogue was produced which introduces itself by quoting the author of Sophie’s World and Norwegian intellectual, Jostein Gaarder:

“An answer is always the part of the road that is behind you. Only questions point to the future.”

The introduction continues to set the ground for the publication by observing that our modern world loves answers and quick solutions to problems, which we love to pass on to others through writing, teaching and lecturing. The authors continue to state, and I could not agree more, that this approach — while being useful in some situations — is problematic when addressing the challenges of our time – social and human, economic and political.

Why is that so?

Pioneers of Change and the GTZ have two reasons to give to the answer-craving audience:

Firstly, we live in a world of increasing complexity, where answers have a short life-span and problems are characterised by three types of complexity: dynamic complexity, social complexity and generative complexity.

Secondly, people seem to have an inherent desire to solve their own problems, which is why universal, formulaic responses imposed from the outside often fail — producing even more simplistic “solutions”.

So, dialogue is the ultimate solution then?!

Well, not so quickly! Let’s have a closer look at the two reasons and see where this takes us.

The idea of threefold complexity stems from Adam Kahane and his book «Solving tough problems: An Open Way of Talking, Listening, and Creating New Realities» about which Nelson Mandela said:

“This breakthrough book addresses the central challenge of our time: finding a way to work together to solve the problems we have created.”

In his book Kahane typifies complexity and in doing so differentiates between

• dynamic complexity, meaning that cause and effect are distant in space and time and suggesting that a systemic approach is needed to address this type of complexity and underlying problems,
• social complexity, meaning that there is no singular truth or ownership of an issue but rather many different and usually conflicting opinions and assumptions about the problem in question, suggesting that a participative approach is required to deal with this kind of complexity,
• generative complexity, meaning the problematic situation is constantly and unpredictably changing and therefore old solutions to previous problems are not working any longer, suggesting that a creative approach is necessary to cope with this form of complexity.

In other words, Kahane claims that today’s problems can only be solved by processes which are holistic, democratic and imaginative.

And how could you better combine these approaches than through shared experience and exchange? How could you better stimulate new ideas and utilise the wisdom of crowds than through genuine dialogue?

So here it is then, the spirit in which this handbook critically explores different tools and methods to engage in processes of authentic dialogue. Excitingly, the authors have not just described a couple of tools. They have done much more in looking at the stories behind the approaches and asking where they come from to put each approach into a context.

It is because of this contextualisation and historicisation that the book can also provide unique space for constructive and critical reflection by showing limits or pointing out weaknesses of the approaches described. At the same time, the publication gives hints on how to creatively combine different methods and strategies to best respond to the situation at hand.

Let me give you an example to illustrate the publication’s approach and my point. You all know very well the circle as a method of engaging in dialogue with groups of up to 30 people or so. Well, the book has something important to say on the circle:

“For many who are not used to the circle, the slowness of the conversation and thinking can be frustrating… It’s worth noting that social science research has actually been done to show that the first person to speak can have a large influence on what is said and the direction the conversation takes. The circle seems particularly prone to this dynamic. This can be useful, but it can also be problematic.”

To cut a long story short: In doing these things it is so much better than most toolboxes out there. Actually, by doing these things it is much better than most toolboxes out there.

So what exactly are you waiting for?
Right click, save as, print and read!

And obviously: try out and explore in practice, and if you have something to say
please do give feedback to the authors – it will surely be appreciated…

∞

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 other’s worldview. Wouldn’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 one’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 let’s Huntington’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.