Thanks to Manfred for sharing his presentation with us (ppt 2.2 MB). For your convenience, we have also embedded the slides right here for a fast click-thru:

| View | Upload your own

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.

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.