INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE

AND EDUCATION OF EUROPEAN CITIZENS

Marita Rampazi

(International Seminar for Teachers

Bardonecchia, October 4, 2007)

1. European Year of Intercultural Dialogue: Pre-assumptions and Objectives of the Communitarian Decision

Following a proposal by the European Commission, the Decision of the European Parliament and Council on December 18, 2006 designated 2008 European Year of Intercultural Dialogue.

The documentation that outlines and promotes the initiative defines the meaning of “intercultural dialogue”. The Decision 1983/2006/EC itself (downloadable on: for example, highlights that:

(1) The Treaty establishing the European Community gives it the task of creating an ever closer union between the peoples of Europe and of contributing to the flowering of the cultures of Member States, while respecting their national and regional diversity and also highlighting their common cultural heritage.

(2) The combined effect of the successive enlargements of the European Union (EU), the increased mobility resulting from the single market, old and new migratory flows, more significant exchanges with the rest of the world through trade, education, leisure and globalisation in general, is increasing interactions between European citizens, and all those living in the EU, and the various cultures, languages, ethnic groups and religions in Europe and beyond.

(3) European citizens, and all those living in the EU temporarily or permanently, should therefore have the opportunity to take part in intercultural dialogue and fulfill their potential in a diverse, pluralist, solidarity-based and dynamic society, not only in Europe but also in the world.

(4) At the heart of the European project, it is important to provide the means for intercultural dialogue and dialogue between citizens to strengthen respect for cultural diversity and deal with the complex reality in our societies and the coexistence of different cultural identities and beliefs. Furthermore, it is important to highlight the contribution of different cultures to the Member States' heritage and way of life and to recognise that culture and intercultural dialogue are essential for learning to live together in harmony.

The first part of the Decision explains that intercultural dialogue is a praxis concerning two different arenas. The main arena where experts and citizens focus their attention today is the relationship “between European citizens, and all those living in the EU, and the various cultures, languages, ethnic groups and religions in Europe and beyond”. The second arena, that the Decision properly recalls, concerns “the flowering of the cultures of Member States, while respecting their national and regional diversity and also highlighting their common cultural heritage”.Intercultural dialogue is a corner stone of the European Union. This has always been an objective and an instrument of the European pacification project as intended by the founding fathers at the end of World War II. This project was able to be initiated and then consolidated thanks to the fact that all the Member States voluntarily relinquished the exclusive exercise of their sovereignty -a standard of traditional power politics in international relations. Instead, they adopted a shared project of peaceful cohabitation, through the assertion of “unity in diversity”.Thus, nations have, in theory, also given up their claim to assert their cultural identity through the contempt or belittlement of others. As we shall see later, just as the European project is founded on the overcoming of national exclusiveness, Europe is a very favourable context for experimenting with models of cohabitation based on dialogue between cultures, rather than on contraposition.

The promotion of dialogue between the many cultural entities within Europe was and still is a priority (see in particular art. 1), especially as we take into account that, half a century after the beginning of the integration process, Europe and the world have changed profoundly. In particular, those generations who believed in the European project as an instrument for achieving an end to war and totalitarianisms in Europe have almost died out and the sense of those tragic events is far from the new generations’ everyday reality. Unlike the founding fathers, who matured and asserted the value of living together by experiencing dramatic events during their lifetime, today’s young people have to learn to appreciate the importance that this value represents for their lives. In particular, they must be helped to understand that the current wellbeing and peace experienced in Europe should not be taken for granted. On the contrary, they are the outcomes of a construction that can survive and develop just as long as every new generation takes on responsibility to make that value live, and to learn to translate it into everyday practices of dialogue and cooperation.

The text of Decision 1983/2006/EC precisely defines the objectives related to the designation of 2008 as European Year of Intercultural Dialogue. These objectives are summarised in a Press Release of the European Commission:

- raising awareness of the importance of dialogue in Europe;

- promoting common values and the idea of mutual respect;

- encouraging debate and the exchange of ideas.

Dialogue between religions will be a particular focus.

Finally, the central role given to the school is another important aspect of the text of the Decision, which stresses the need to:

-foster the role of education as an important medium for teaching about diversity, increase the understanding of other cultures and developing skills and best social practices.

Before focusing on the implications of the definitions and objectives indicated by the Decision, in particular on the way school can concretely contribute to achieving intercultural dialogue, it is necessary to mention a problem, which is well known by those involved in this field, mainly educators. Practicing the act of dialogue, learning to understand the Other, developing motivations and skills aimed at the exercise of active citizenship, etc.: all these objectives are as simple to declare (and to share) as they are difficult to translate into an effective everyday practice.

What justifies this discord between the “formulation of objectives” and their “feasibility”?

We shall try to understand this by examining what contextual conditions make the praxis of dialogue possible.

2. An “Inclusive” Politico-institutional “Framework” as a Pre-requisite of the Intercultural Dialogue

2.1 “Including” Does Not Mean Loosing Our Own Identity

We will start with the arguably obvious assumptionthat, in order to be able to dialogue, we need to be willing to include the Other’s perspective into our own. Dialogue cannot exist between different subjects when each of them is convinced in their own way to be the heir of a superior tradition: of a culture that needs to be protected against all dangers of contamination, of a We defined as opposed to what, being Other, represents a threat. This assumption, while concerning the way individuals live their relationship within their own sphere of belonging, draws its raison d’être from the nature of the criteria of the distinction between Us and Them (for a more recent analysis, see: Cella, 2006) prevailing in our current context. In other words, regardless of the individuals’ goodwill, in a politico-institutional framework based on exclusivity, dialogue with those who are different is by definition precluded, or strongly hindered.

We should immediately stress, in order to avoid any misunderstanding, that inclusiveness does not entail renouncing one’s cultural characteristics. Rather it means internalising these characteristics, being more aware than those who shield themselves with the principle of exclusion in order to avoid a deep reflection on the borders and limits of their identity.

The constructive confrontation with the Other, on the one hand, inspires our understanding in

what we are missing of the Other which is necessary for our own completeness (Melucci, 1999, p. 134).

With this expression, Melucci specifies the meaning of a new form of social solidarity “by difference” which, in an ever increasing global interdependency, should be asserted in lieu of the traditional principle of solidarity “by resemblance”. An incontrovertible resemblance, a We founded on the idea, more or less forced, of cultural homogeneity, which draws strength from the opposition to, and the exclusion of, what appears as eccentric compared to our own universe.

On the other hand, constructive confrontation fosters the appreciation not only of others’ characteristics, but also and foremost of our own. The confrontation, which entails a narrative of ourselves, fosters a process of self-awareness. This process enables us to understand what “we are missing of the Other”, as well as what “the Other is missing of Us”.

2.2. Social Solidarity “by Difference”: There is No Dialogue without Respect and Reciprocity

The main axis of inclusiveness is respect. What do we mean by respect? This term is actually more and more employed, but rarely clearly defined. The most complete analysis of this term probably comes from Sennett (2004), who, analysing the way respect takes shape within interpersonal relations, claims that it consists of taking the needs – and the views - of others seriously, from an angle of reciprocity.

Those needs mentioned by Sennett are not of a purely material nature. They are also and specifically identitarian and cultural. First of all the need of appearing in the eyes of the others as distinctivein virtue of our own difference (individualisation) and, at the same time, the need to feel part of a common context where individual identities can collaborate and contribute to the creation of common projects (identification).

Reciprocity is an essential condition for respect. It can develop only from within a normative and cultural framework, which establishes clear limits to our claim for acting according to our own point of view. Such a claim must end insofar as it becomes damaging for others’ freedom.

Respect does not live in a completely permissive or anarchic context, where we can do whatever we think is best for us. It needs an institutional framework, establishing some universally valid rules for the game, which are accepted and practiced by everybody. It also needs an agreement between all actors involved in the relationship, in order to define a minimum basis of meanings, a shared “language” which allow communication.

As far as the dialogue between subjects with different points of view – therefore, also different cultures – requires respect and reciprocity, the two pre-conditions of respect become two pre-conditions for the feasibility of the intercultural dialogue.

Before analysing the issue of a minimum basis of shared meanings, we will describe the “framework” offered today by the EU, in particular its dialectic inclusion/exclusion regarding the criteria that determine European citizenship.

3. The European “Framework”: Opportunities and Contradictions

3.1 European Inclusiveness and Exclusiveness of the Modern National Citizenship

We mentioned that the price of inclusiveness is, if necessary, to relinquish placing of the defence of our uniqueness before the common objective of creating a wider framework of life and relationships.

In the last fifty years, the process of European integration has created the pre-conditions for delivering such a framework, above all within the everyday life of Europeans. This transformation has been accompanied, albeit imperfectly (in particular because of the lack of a European Constitutional Charter making the “safeguard of unity in diversity” binding), by important judicial-institutional innovations supporting the so-called “communautarian method”. This method is based on dialogue, co-decision and respect for diversity, through the awareness of an inseparable common destiny already binding peoples and states.

Nevertheless, as was initially explained, the feasibility of intercultural dialogue requires the assertion of unity in diversity and this is not an obvious objective: it needs to be reaffirmed and consolidated, day after day, through many challenges.

Thesechallenges come from the fact that such a principle embodies the exact oppositeofthat which is at the foundation of democratic nation-states in a modern era and, in many ways, it still affects our contemporary political culture. The recent success of some political movements inspired by micro-nationalism, intolerance, and racism in many European countries shows that it is still difficult to “uncouple” from the collective and individual consciousness, the traditional idea along which democratic cohabitation is possible only within the framework of solidarity “by resemblance”, established almost “naturally”, between people sharing “blood, language, and common roots”.

Furthermore, this idea still appears understandably attractive, in particular when we recall that modern democracy was able to develop thanks to a type of rational and emotional obligation for every citizen to be loyal towards some cultural roots. Roots felt as exclusive and sacrosanct. This idea implied that citizens became less and less aware that the modern idea of the nation was a consequence of the effort of harmonization during the XVIII and XIX centuries. Many historical differenceswere in fact characterising the different territories enclosed within the borders of the emerging democratic states – as shown in contemporary historiography (from “classic” researches published by Anderson, 1991 and Hobsbawn, 1983, 1991, to the more recent one by Geary, 2002).

The supremacy of the binomial exclusivity/contraposition in the culture we have inherited requires that citizenship rights and duties are not conceived as a framework for one’s dignity as such. Rather they are a “privilege and responsibility” only for those belonging to a specific national community (Rampazi, 2007)

Compared to the “classic” scheme, the very concept of intercultural dialogue is potentially “revolutionary”, more still if it becomes the main axis of the emerging European citizenship.

3.1 Human Dignity and European Citizenship

As we have mentioned, dialogue becomes possible only when people recognise the equal dignity ofall cultures, and any individual bearing it, and receive an equivalent recognition in return. It is impossible to recognise the equal dignity of those who are different, seeking a common basis for consent and planning together and, at the same time, to refuse them the same rights of freedom, democracy, social justice, that we enjoy because of their diversity. In the same way and in turn, we cannot accept to be discriminated against for the same reasons.

Therefore, the meaningful creation of intercultural dialogue in consolidated practices of everyday life needs a framework where citizenship is redefined on new basis that have never been experienced in the history of Western democracies. Europe is painfully moving along this path, as we have already mentioned. Nevertheless, this path is bristling with difficulties, and the outcomes are uncertain.

However, this challenge is crucial and unavoidable. Human rights, the guarantee of a peaceful cohabitation, the very future of democracy, are threatened insofar as the world becomes increasingly interdependent, characterised by a growing mobility of individuals and groups and by flows of activities and communications which daily cross stateborders.

European citizenship and its future perspectives have been, and are still being, extensively debated; in particular, given the discussion surrounding the Constitutional Treaty and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (which would become binding for all Member States if the Constitutional Treaty comes in to force). In this regard, we are reminded that, from an institutional perspective, European citizenship is a strange hybrid.

On the one hand, it re-asserts the principle of nationality as basis for European rights and duties, that means that European citizens are such “only as” citizens of a EU Member State.

On the other hand, European citizenship does not substitute our national citizenship, instead it is considered an addition to it; in this way, it contradicts the cultural and institutional exclusivity at the basis of national citizenship. Under the current definition of European citizenship (established in Maastricht in 1991), such exclusivity is denied by the very idea of the potential existence of a second (supra-national) level, where:

a)citizens’ rights are exercised and

b)people feel a sense of belong to a community of destiny, united in diversity.

The eccentricity of such a situation, compared to “classical” principles of citizenship, is further enhanced by the wide variety of the transformations – often unnoticed by most – making the Europeans’ everyday practices increasingly interdependent, as already mentioned. On the one hand, this interdependence is a consequence of the very process of European integration. On the other hand, however, it belongs to a world panorama – and reflects its characteristics, even with different timings and modalities -, ruled by the effects of globalisation, which is transforming the Planet into a big “Global Village”. In this way, the models of cohabitation experienced in Europe, in particular the attempts concerning the creation of a supra-national type of citizenship and democratic praxis and the dialogue between cultures, potentially have a value that goes beyond Europe’s borders . At the same time, what happens in the rest of the world affects the shape, the timing and the feasibility of those experiments, as shown by the growing tension, spreading in Europe after September 11th and the war in Iraq, between some sectors of the Islamic culture and the supporters of the Western culture.

Within this complex politico/socio/institutional framework that is sometimes contradictory and is still “under construction”, can school play a role? If so, what?

4. Second Pre-requisite: A minimum Common Language and the Role of the School

4.1 Knowledge before Recognition

We said that, in order to be able to have dialogue, we must first recognise equal dignity to our interlocutor, and receive a similar recognition in return.

We also said that, in relation to dialogue between cultures, the emerging framework in Europe seems to be able to overcome the main limitposed to the mutual recognition of dignity, which is the principle of exclusivity, a founding principle of citizenship of modern nation states.

Nevertheless, the emerging supra-national framework - which by definition is culturally diverse and, as a consequence, intrinsically inclusive - represents a necessarycondition, though insufficient on its own.

We have already mentioned that the dialogue with the Other cannot be based on some mere declaration of “reasons”, but instead requiresan understanding of the context where those reasons have emerged. Similarly, only when we profoundly “understand” our own reasons, can we face a constructive confrontation and, therefore, distinguish between real diversities characterising different cultural universes and mere alternatives of a same common question.