Ποιειν Και Πραττειν - create and do

Introduction by Hatto Fischer

Introduction by Hatto Fischer

Workshop 7 has two focal points: education programmes initiated by the European Union and the need to interact within a field of divergent interests, conflicting strategies, international and local pressures, all in all making the question, education for what, into a key one as to which actions Europe ought to undertake with regards to its cultural diversity. As if a blend of rhetorics and myths, the kind of language adopted by the European Union lends itself easily to the belief of being dynamic, open and above all progressive in the sense of the 'human spirit', which if not assailed by centuries of European quarrels, would follow the vision of a community and embrace an all enhancing European education allowing cultures to come together, in order to create perspectives for the future. The scope of that undertaking is quite enormous. It is not easy to relate 'actions' to education, especially since there is always the danger of having reduced formulas been applied for the sake of administrative convenience. The latter follow in general the points of least resistance, exposing thereby weaknesses rather than the strength of a consensus-seeking policy. After all, education comes the closest to ideologies being adapted as value premises to be shared for the sake of a relegation of power with those who educate and who are being educated towards a Europe of tomorrow.

It is not certain that education systems throughout Europe can really fulfil this demand, namely to translate the 'vision of a common community' into concrete actions within the educational field. Alone the change of the name to 'Union' has something franchising, paternal, heavy and not at all inspiring about it. As Conlin Wagner coined it at the Brugge seminar and used by Alecos Alavanos at the Fifth Seminar as a political metaphor, the 'union' train tends to cut across the land, dividing as much as bringing together regions. 'Union' suggests the conservative, hyper-critical value positions of a kind of system that provides different benefits for property holders (in particular, those of the agricultural sector) when compared to those who are kept in slave-like conditions, that is, afraid to look beyond the borders of the land of their masters (or governments) and within alienating non-rural, non-urban environments.

In other words, is Europe only a unification of governments speaking in the name of their respective people, but really without any substantial interest in people learning to live and to work together, or does the European level mean a substantial correction of interests, when it comes to acting together at an international level? Certainly any answer should consider the many break-throughs Europe has experienced since the Treaty of Rome, but also not overestimate the kind of qualitative changes which have been by now institutionalized and which after Maastricht could be considered as self-understood when it comes to act in the name of Europe.

As far as education is concerned, the answer is not easy. There is as much a myth about education, as there is a plight: the failure to go with the times, to adapt to new needs and to prepare future generations for what is expected of them by the year 2002 and beyond, this becomes evident in how little serious consideration has been given so far to education as a means to bring together the various cultures of Europe. However, since the Treaty of Rome and the beginnings of unification, many programmes have been initiated so as to facilitate a greater exchange between the various member countries, in particular ERASMUS. As expressed by Heinz Wewer from the Hochschule der Kuenste, Berlin, this has been surprisingly most successful, especially in the sense of taking respective universities and art academies out of their cultural isolation. In other words, 'interaction' with other approaches to teaching the piano or styles of architecture have proven to be most fruitful, when exchange became possible. The extent to which such a programme allows for projects from 'below' and brings about a release of energy, that seems to be governed by the European interest in 'synergy', in order to create 'identity'. In other words, the question of European identity can also be translated into what 'energies' are released by European programmes, as much as what they by-pass or stifle right from the beginning, due to the peculiar set-up of Brussels and its type of commissions deployed to administer the various 'action' programmes. Such state of affairs does not mean, however, an admission that the European identity does or does not exist, culturally speaking; the ambivalence in that point is reflected on how educational matters are treated in general by the European Commission and by the respective governments of the member countries. Their so-called coalition of interest is ill-defined, as it is institutionally admitted by the creation of the 'Committee of Regions' and dependent upon dynamic personalities with vision like Delors was as European Commissioner. Hence circumstances describe a diffusion of interest in education, while prime importance is given to that which seems to help along the competitive edge of European countries with the rest of the world, i.e. promotion of technology.

It seems all in all Europe is a mere attempt to bring different cultures together through exchange programmes which facilitate the understanding of differences. This understanding, however, is limited to some key models of exchange, in particular that of the French-German relationship and based in turn on such models as the German DAAD, itself a derivative of that kind of educational policy and 'politics of knowledge' the allied powers pursued with regards to post-war Germany, in particular West Germany, and what kind of linkages were sought between America and Europe. Here, naturally, the role of the universities was of a prime concern.

For this reason, it was important that Prof. Robert Picht, himself knowledgeable of the French-German relationships due to being the director of such an institute, had asked Ms. Gisela Baugratz-Gangl to join the workshop and to give a report of her just completed evaluation of the ERASMUS programme. Unfortunately she was prevented from coming at the last minute, but Prof. Picht distributed her paper so that all participants of this workshop could have a common discussion paper. This by itself is an important step, given the purpose of the Fifth Seminar, namely to propose new cultural action programmes in the respective fields that each workshop was asked to deal with. Methodologically speaking, this meant first having to consider evaluations of ongoing programmes before making new proposals.

That such evaluations are not simply just a matter of taste, nor a mere application of certain values or criterion, can be recognized by looking into the particular evaluation programme of the European Union called ARTICULATE (dealing with the evaluation of the other projects within SMILE and, amongst other things, with the adaptation process of 'learning technologies' in the educational sector). Potentially members of Articulate could have contributed at the Fifth Seminar to an overall theory of evaluation, if time and structure of the seminar would have allowed to do so; several of them were located in workshop 1, including the chair person Dominique Danau, Thanos Contargyris (manager of DIALOGOS) and Jesse Marsh; for workshop 7 on education the project manager of ARTICULATE, Eliot Stern from the Tavistock Institute in London had been invited, but unfortunately work involved with the moving of the institute to another location in London prevented him in the last minute from attending the Fifth Seminar. But it was already foreseeable right at the outset that each workshop would wish to consolidate its own discussion and viewpoints, prior to any attempt at networking with other workshops for the sake of clarification on such matters as general evaluation of European programmes, that nothing was forced from an overall organisational viewpoint in that direction. The practical linkages between the various workshops was left at the disgression of each workshop, allowing them to decide whether they wished to continue working on their own. As it turned out to be, this was especially the case of workshop 7.

In response to the need of evaluating educational programmes of the European Union, Prof. L. Bekemans  from the 'College of Europe' recommended Ms. Reydams-Schils since she had followed closely developments around the new Socrates programme in the making. This programme is right now a subject of negotiation between the European Parliament and the European Commission and highlights the new relationships after Maastricht with regards to the kind of linkages between economy, culture and education as envisioned by the new treaty. The programme is meant to replace the highly successful ERASMUS programme. The workshop was meant to find out primarily as to which of the two programmes the Fifth Seminar ought to favour, especially when it comes to taking much more cultural matters into consideration before deciding which 'action programmes' Europe ought to pursue. That in itself means a shift in paradigm when it comes to evaluating programmes or the kind of 'actions' to be proposed, independent of what is being promoted by the European Union now that the Maastricht Treaty has been ratified, the subsidiarity principle installed, institutionally speaking, and the race started as to what kind of influence can be brought to bear upon the follow-up treaty to be drafted for 1996. By that time, not only Germany, but also France and Spain will have had the presidency of the European Union, and already a regional community like Flanders is anxious as to the outcome (see the speech of van de Brande, given in his absence by Kris Rogiers at the Fifth Seminar during the official reception at the History Museum of Athens University), namely what working core will dominate the European Union in future, linguistically and hence automatically speaking, culturally. This implies the key to cultural understanding is still the language of the various member states and their wish to preserve 'cultural identity' while adapting to the needs of new international exchanges. The pressure of the United States, Japan, the Asian continent along with the new challenges in Eastern Europe all have implications for how the focus within education changes or must be re-emphasized, if certain value premises are not to be forgotten. The most crucial point seems to be that a major mistake of educational systems has been to think of higher qualification as gaining 'more' in knowledge while really neglecting the value issues underlying all applications of knowledge to daily survival.

The present weakness of the education systems is, therefore, to be reflected upon, once such a workshop starts to discuss possibilities of overcoming 'mistakes of the past'. That in itself is already a 'counterpoint' to ideological tendencies seeking salvation in an 'original past' during which time everything seemed resolvable, positive and hence free of the problems to be faced in the present. That nostalgic urge in many European countries has led to the rise of right-wing political parties, itself a reflection of the crisis in education when it comes to ensuring democracy as the rule by knowledge, including that of one's own personal rights and ability to work on solutions rather than being forced to have one immediately. Such is the discrepancy between education as an elongated time structure and the demands for 'here and now' solutions; that tension is the up-keep of the dialogue between culture and civilisation. The two go intrinsically together while the overall survival form of European societies change. Certainly one of the greatest impacts has been the debate about European specialization - i.e. Germany for industrial production, Greece for touristic services - and hence the discrepancies in 'equal opportunities' within Europe affecting educational systems and dispositions towards certain, key qualification strategies. The impact of that debate upon educational programmes has yet to be evaluated, ramifications thereof indicating, however, that the envisioned 'divisions of labour' has not as of yet been materialized. Regional policies have not been co-ordinated tough enough to enforce an overall dependency upon one or two steel producing areas, while others specialize on touristic services. Contrary to the myth of being an advanced country or member state, industrially speaking, as opposed to the poor South such as Portugal, Greece and Southern Italy, there is the curious fact that one can come upon phenomenon such as mechanics in Greece being highly skilled in repairing cars, while in Germany mechanics seem to have lost the touch. The loss of improvisation abilities, a skill demonstrated by many mechanics when former East Germany still existed with all its lack of proper resources and services, can be partly explained by over-specialization in countries like Germany.  A simpler reason for loss of skills (and knowledge) may be due to a too strong interdependence with a consumer-oriented society based on a strategy of a deliberate 'lack of knowledge' and 'ability to do things', so as to create false dependencies and hence a need for really superfluous, equally over-expensive services. The result is that a plumber demands a higher pay than what a school teacher responsible for the future of many children obtains within a normal school system. That is especially the case in Greece, but applies equally to a country like Germany or other Northern European countries where only few in the education system - professors, state teachers - have a secure, high income, for many more work within educational institutions under financial conditions well below the standards of the mechanical oriented labour force. That, by itself, underlines the discrepancies in the European value systems giving very little to education, but a great deal more to expensive, consumptive ends. This destroys not only self-sufficiency (a subject matter for workshop 5 of the Fifth Seminar), but touches upon the core of educational matters: to what extent is any member state prepared to give up certain skills, possibilities of production, while risking in the overall dependencies upon a European wide network of interchange and 'division of labour' to loose autonomous living forms. For instance, the deeper cultural impacts due to a change-over from individual to co-operative farming in a country like Greece, has yet to be understood. While such an observation may not go far enough to give the term 'cultural diversity' a more practical content, in the end, idealistic answers to such world of cynicism in the wake of so many 'losses' are no longer sufficient.

Certainly education as a subject figured already to a great extent in discussions at the Fourth Seminar held in Brugge under the auspices of the College of Europe. The latter has been involved right from the very beginning of the European Community in preparing the civil servants to work for the various commissions. Pascal Vantorre, academic secretary of Prof. Bekemans, was asked to participate to account more about this college. At the same time, she was the main support of Prof. Bekemans when the latter organized the Fourth Seminar. She has not only a keen insight into educational policies at the college, but knows also what it takes to really organize such seminars. Until recently the College maintained a classical approach by emphasizing economics, politics and law as the three main domains. Any student could study for a one-year Masters course within one of the subject matters. However, starting with the new academic year of 1994, more emphasis is placed apparently upon cross-references, hence a fourth subject matter was created. This includes perhaps the Humanities and even special subjects like 'Cultural Studies', altogether responding to the need to include in the Masters programme more value issues and culture oriented studies. As a reflection of change in an otherwise slow to change landscape, a direct reference to what Prof. Robert Picht said already at the Fourth Seminar in Bruge, namely that educational institutes are the last to change, it is all the more crucial to continuing experiencing in this field positive developments. They are indeed very rare. 

When referring above to education programmes initiated by the European Union, a possible misunderstanding could be invoked. A correct formulation would be more in the direction of evaluating such programmes as they assist prevailing education systems in the various member countries. Programmes are meant to bring more into contact with one another the students and staff of the various educational systems. They do not imply a direct change of curriculum in favour of a Europe oriented course of studies. There is also no sign of having a common educational policy, so as to ensure that in each member country a minimum of educational requirements are fulfilled, in order to bring the various parts of Europe closer together. There are many reasons why these programmes have remained at a very modest scale and provided with only modest financial means.

For education is a most sensitive area. No wonder that next to cultural sovereignty claims, it is safeguarded like a sacred cow that no one else may touch. Take the case of Germany, not only does it not have a ministry for education and culture, but a state province ('Land') like Baveria carefully guards its school system when claims are made to unify university entry requirements. The Baverian ministry of education refutes those claims with a claim of its own, namely that standards at Baverian schools are much higher, hence grades obtained at its school are not comparable with the schools of the other 'Laender'. Parents know what this means in practical terms when moving to Baveria and their children having to face all of a sudden a very different standard of education. Behind that claim is, of course, a cultural policy that locks pupils virtually into the regional identity, as does the Greek state by making sure its children will be Greek taught and therefore Greek citizens in the final end. Patriotic citizenship means, however, a special adaptation of 'behaviour' which gives those particular societies their apparently unique stamp or 'identity'. Both teachers at the German School in Athens, Friedrich Spoerl and Irene Vazou, refer to this special condition prevailing in Germany. It makes itself also felt at the German School in Athens. While the former is involved in special educational forms for teaching a foreign language, i.e. comparing the novel to the film made and engaging students in simulating the shooting of that film, so as to come closer to interpretation possibilities of texts in terms of 'images', the latter has been dedicated to bringing German students closer in contact with their Greek surroundings, in particular through developments of a curricula for history which is sensitive to the cultural background of the German school, namely Greece. In both their ways they reflect inter-cultural tension fields made explicit at the German school with its German and Greek section governed and controlled by two different educational authorities, the German and the Greek one. Given the fact that the Fifth Seminar takes place in Athens, Greece and the Sixth one in Munich, Germany, it was appropriate to bring through these two teachers' further going interest in educational matters concerned with both Greece and Germany into the overall scope of these kinds of seminars. Cultural actions, if at all appropriate, need to reflect cultural differences in terms of local conditions.

In what Liana Sakelliou-Schultz said about the need of the state for culture to have an identity, education becomes the practical support system in the respective state of making sure that identity and the cultural image which goes along with it, is maintained over time. In Germany that is heavily underlined by the fact that all teachers and professors of schools or universities are 'civil servants' and hence subject not only to special privileges, but also clearly spelled out obligations. Thus a professor can be ordered by his respective administration to write a report why his institute should be closed; if he does not, he can be challenged in front of the administrative court for disobedience and therefore dismissed or rather sidelined, promoted down. This includes also the freedom of making political statements, for no one belonging to a public body may do so as representative of that body. Given the strict hierarchical order, that has many implications, not only political ones, but finally what kind of knowledge these teachers pass on to their students, namely none that would question the existence of the state and its laws.

Without wishing, however, to go much further into controversial, equally highly sensitive areas, for not only parents are worried about their children, but also state administrators about this 'cultural control' mechanism through education, it needs just to be reminded that education itself is a philosophical approach to both life and to those wishing to learn. Indeed, the learning situation changes immediately when children have to learn by law: they have to go to school at a certain age, in order to be able to read and to write, and they must stay there until a minimum amount of qualification has been attained. Theory and practice begin, however, already to diverge at this question of age and time duration. For not only education systems have been since 1945 in a permanent crisis, but also the safe road to a secure job has been shattered by what is going on 'in the world', that is, the practical field of business and international labour markets can no longer guarantee a job in relation to a recognised qualification. As a matter of fact, one of the deepest disturbing elements is the possibility to make money through other than honest means; it begins with playing lottery and does not end with illusionary stars making millions which the common person can only dream about. Ideologically speaking, all this is about motivation and recognition in society. The cult of stars underlines exactly what societies think it takes to be a 'winner'. As a 'outright' statement it reflects the kind of cultural landscape which has been created since 1945; along with the car, movies and television, computer and media technologies, everything has simply been transformed by the new possibilities of communication and transport, hence the means of interaction. This has thrown the educational system into a sort of confusion, given its questionable efficiency right from the start. In the past many businesses and industry in general questioned the validity of universities in terms of what they educated their students with. Now, the blend between business interests and education is so great, that there is no longer any guarantee of a truly independent pursuit of knowledge for the sake of finding out what kind of mistakes societies are sliddering into. Instead, European societies and their prestigious educational institutes remain silent vis-a-vis social injustices, while elongating illusions of being 'elitist' training centres in attempt to recreate former international interdependencies: a kind of colony ruling in modern clothes, i.e. London School of Economics and students from the Third World, or in Greece, American branches of semi-universities cashing in on needs for higher education, but operating outside any socially adjusted qualification strategies controllable by public consciousness and related to real interest needs. The result of the latter is that 99% of the students end up in the vague categories of business oriented studies.

All of this and much more has led increasingly to a perversion of learning motivations, especially in societies which could not maintain a progressive 'culture of work' linked to the 'culture of enjoyment', even though finally both go together in the kind of work bringing about a high-quality output. The European Union tries to achieve that more or less, fully acknowledging that 'standards of excellence' require motivational structures which are energized by people engaged fully and professionally in their respective fields. That then is the wish that efforts towards European integration have lasting effects for the sake of the European Union. However, that this will not be easy, was already indicated at the Bruge seminar. The change in ideological dispositions at an overall level, given the end of the Cold War and the downfall of former Communistic countries, alters also the ideological usage of education as a tool to influence the 'mentalities' of the various countries, in order to be disposed towards certain goals and values. For this reason it was appropriate that Yannis Baslis joined the group constituted to deal with educational questions, since his philological background (he teaches Ancient Greek at Athens College, a highly prestigious institute whose many graduates have formed the core of the Greek elite) would make it not only possible to reflect possible linkages between Greek and European Studies, but also the translation of pertinent political into really philosophical questions concerned with the education for the future.

More and more other concepts have entered the educational field, such as the 'General Assembly' created for a special cultural exchange between Italian and Greek teachers. This will be explained by Dr. Anastasia A. Ioannides, herself not only involved in administrating this exchange programme in Greece, but also a consultant for teaching institutes of foreign languages in Athens.

New concepts are introduced sometimes with good intentions, but they are only mere plasters for much deeper wounds and insecurities as to the future. The lack of understanding for another culture like that of Greece is one of these problems, as emphasized by Yannis Baslis. In other words, the interests of the Flemish government is not a unique case; there are many others who feel that their culture is not being respected and really endorsed by the European integration process. In terms of education, that brings about a lateral conflict between the wish to keep up with the latest developments in technology and the preservation of a locally rooted identity. On a simple level of generalisation that might hold, not, however, at urban levels experiencing already extreme forms of fragmentation. And there is still another indication of a lack of understanding. The first time the European Union tried to initiate a history book about Europe with respect to democratic members, Greece was excluded in spite of it being the birthplace of democracy, when speaking in terms of Western Civilisation. Such a controversial point has led to wrong assumptions, as much as it highlights the fact, that the European Union is still far away from any possible suggestion for suitable textbooks for primary and secondary education all across Europe. Nevertheless, Dr. Kurt Schelter had said in his written contribution to the Fourth Seminar, that "the Community might consider to support existing initiatives such as the European history book" (Dr. Kurt Schelter, "The Importance of Culture for the European Union" in: Culture: Building Stone for Europe 2002, ed. L. Bekemans, Brussels 1994, p. 210).

Another controversial topic for education is the many unemployed, even though lack of a proper job is but one aspect of it (this involves the difference between education and vocational training). Still, much more telling is the low percentage of people who really find the job they had been trained or educated for and which they enjoy as being compatible with the concept they have of themselves. At the same time, insecurities have thrown wide open the race for the best school, the most suitable qualification paths, etc., in order to solicit the kind of support parents think their children need to have to stand a chance on a highly competitive labour market. One extreme version of that is 'learning' being perverted into 'trained to kill others' reputations, in order to have a chance of getting the job oneself'. That means the promotion of social behaviour has declined at schools, earmarked already by being unable to keep violence, drugs and negative value systems (i.e. counter productive ones to learning itself by emphasizing a fast car, staying late out at night, revolt against parents, etc. rather than studying and developing 'fair attitudes' towards others) under control. They are as a system not even capable anymore to uphold the constitutional right for every child to have equal educational opportunities. Especially this latter point needs being stressed since it seems to have been lost completely in ongoing discussions about education and what can be done to improve the system. Perhaps the most telling thing is that every moral crisis of a state is not only answered by re-organizing the administration and creating new ministries, but by proposing a new reform of the education system. That makes the incompatibility of systems in general more evident. Usually, what is really needed in education has been systematically ignored, may it be the time to spend in school or that which would have a lasting and positive effect upon the actual practice of teaching day in, day out. For schools face pupils and students who have to reflect the anxieties of their societies while growing up themselves with all the problems that this implies. Thus the original question, education for what, has to be placed within the context of education for equal opportunities on the basis of a right for everyone to have not only access to education, but also to the process of learning by which and only then ideas, concepts, values, linkages and other perspectives become visible and audible. Education starts where mere appearances of societies end. Learning itself is already the investment in the future. That has to be seen as a clear starting point, a common reference of perspectives by which various approaches to education within Europe are made compatible. As already stated elsewhere, failure here would mean directly the failure of European integration as a whole.

In the proposal by chair person for this workshop, Prof. Robert Picht, three main strings of thoughts can be found as practical guidelines for structuring the discussion:


Prof. Picht sees a certain cut between what is culture and what is going on in terms of practical programmes within the European Union. This statement has to be understood in terms of his own background being both the director of the 'Deutsch-Franzoesisches Institute' in Ludwigsburg and Professor at the 'College of Europe'. Most important is what he said at the Brugge seminar in his paper with regards to 'disturbed identities', namely that "the mutations and continuities affecting family, education systems reproducing cultural diversity, economic and technological changes making work and life styles uncertain, values and moral authorities, concept of history and meaning of the past etc. brings the education system into a new role." As he states it, "in the fabric of our societies the institutions of formal education play a role which goes far beyond the transmission of knowledge and skills", yet "each European country experiences intensely its own form of educational crisis....(and) far from leading to greater European convergence, (they) are undermining common European structures and traditions."

Thus, there is a need to be aware of deeply rooted national styles emerging out of these systems, when it comes to dealing with political, legal, social and cultural questions. Picht goes on to explain why: "They form a kind of identity, which although generally subconscious, contains fundamental ways of thinking and behaviour and, in consequence, a far reaching programming of individuals and groups."

A new Humanism according to Picht would be the practical task for contemporary education systems with stress on inter-cultural training and the learning of languages as not just surface understanding, but in depth like the "Renaissance handbooks on education from Erasmus to Castiglione".                         

Picht's main concept would be the working of the European education system towards a 'rationality in communication' as based on cultural diversity. This 'rationality' is in need of further understanding, in particular in the context of the Fifth Seminar. There is the post-Enlightenment viewpoint that too much rationality may lead to 'barbarism' (Melitta Gourtsoyanni), especially in the light of 'cultural identities being endangered by forces beyond personal control' (workshop 1), or else the critique by Stefan Nieuwinckel (workshop 2: Regional and Urban Planning) that 'rational organizations cannot cope with chaos and heterogeneity', while people seem to be better able to deal in practice with the 'culture of ambivalence' (Andrι Loeckx) than as reflected in 'theory'. That leads directly back to the main premise of education: the concept of man. This question cannot be understood without stressing the fact, that education implies institutions, the process of institutionalization of learning. Anything outside such institutions of 'learning' is not really recognized as qualification, even though stress is being placed upon 'practice' as opposed to 'theory'. It is a popular dogma not willing to question the basic premise that practice without theory is really impossible. It includes the question, is man rational or not? Aristotle had a concept of man as a 'political animal' in mind. Given the mythical nature of animals in European cultures (see Anne Born in workshop 8), education ties in with organizational logics, strategies of survival, pleasure and work, social relationships and understanding of 'cultural history'. In that sense, the most important impact of the European Union would be the 'systemization of knowledge' of the different education systems in Europe and how altogether 'cultural diversity' can be not only safeguarded, but be the cultural impulse to change education systems accordingly. That means the question of 'theory' of education would be to ensure that every member country teaches sufficient knowledge to its pupils and students about Europe. A practical base of that could be a merging of 'Greek and European Studies' in a field of Humanities, Philosophies, Cultural Studies and 'Intellectual History'. 

The most advanced ideas are usually the least understood. In education overemphasis is given to administrative control, rather than systematic development in the 'growth of knowledge'. It is hoped that what was neglected at the Bruge seminar, namely the epistemological questions (orientation by concepts) and derived from a 'philosophy of knowledge' would be covered more stringently by the Fifth Seminar. This would mean acknowledging that studies ought to be not only one-sided in the direction of the Natural Sciences, but should also include Literature, Social Sciences and Cultural Subjects like Art History, Media and Film, even Poetry. 'Cultural policy' turned upon educational matters is not merely the interest to promote linkages between modern techniques of expression (i.e. multi media) and specific identities secured in the past, but rather how structural funds can be used to promote the true cultural understanding of Europe. This means not to deny the need for exchange studies: the learning process to be encouraged, if Europe rests on the premise of being able to recognise its 'cultural diversity' as an added value, as Prof. Bekemans has argued in his opening speech of the Fifth Seminar. But education goes really beyond everyday hectic life. It is a vision turned into reality when authentic information can be connected with the convictions in both life and the human being.


^ Top

« Workshop 7: Education for Cultural Diversity | Letter of Introduction by Prof. Robert Picht »