Ποιειν Και Πραττειν - create and do

You are here: Home » Europe » European Union » EU Cultural Policy » Civil Society and the three Cultural Platforms » Platform for Intercultural Europe » Meeting of the Platform in Brussels June 8th 2010

Meeting of Platform in Brussels June 8th 2010

Meeting of the Platform on June 8th, 2010 in Brussels

Opening remarks were made by Sabine Frank (General Secretary of the Platform for Intercultural Europe) in reference to the theme of the meeting: "Insights from Practice Exchanges building capacity for intercultural dialogue".

Three thematic perspectives

This was followed by three examples highlighting the illusions of cultural homogeneity in a social world marked by increased migrations of people all in search of a new kind of citizenship. Indeed, care should be taken how migrants are designated for they are afterall the new citizens.

The three thematic perspectives were presented as follows by:

The contributions allowed for some comparison insofar as many saw interesting differences between Malmö, Vienna and Rom. Everyone welcomed this dialogue with the trade union in Rom as a new level of dialogue with an important social partner.

In picking up these differences, the platform attempted to focus primarily on significant structural elements. For instance, Niels Righolt reflected upon his own experiences as museum director when he came to the conclusion that most Danish institutes, including his own had 95% Danish personell even though society was composed of many different ethnic and cultural groups. He formulated the need to increase representation of these diverse groups within cultural institutions like museums.

That was already stated by the report about museums in the UK. Published in 2005 just two weeks after the bomb attack on the Tube and bus, it testified that most of the staff in the museums of the UK were white, male, over 50 years of age and very resilient against any change. More so the museums did not contain in their collections enough artefacts of those multi-ethnic communities to indicate how they contribute to the overall life in society and even if the museums did have some items, they had not on their staff the experts needed to interpret the specific cultural meanings retained by these diverse ethnic communities.

Street vendor in Athens, June 2010

As to the political approach taken in Austria to human rights issues, the platform touched upon the fact that this can be linked to cultural rights of immigrants and migrant workers.

Chris Torch

As the discussion with the trade union in Rom revealed, the influx of many migrants means as well a shift in the base of the trade unions. The trade union has no future, so Chris Torch, if they do not align themselves with the immigrants. Most of them form the basic work force e.g. on construction sites. They are needed if new movements for workers' rights are to be mobilised. Moreover Chris Torch expressed hope that the migrants with their different perception of things due to quite another cultural background and socialization will free Italians from a particular mind-set which the media in Italy has driven them into.

Paper by Francois Matarasso

Francois Matarasso gave a paper designed to guide future discussions and to facilitate the setting of priorities despite there existing a variety of definitions of intercultural dialogue.

A possible comment to such a thesis would be a reference to the philosopher Adorno who argued in 'Negative Dialectic' that concepts like culture can only be defined as in need of being constantly redefined as new experiences are made. If that is the case then terms like culture and intercultural dialogue require that everyone is engaged in an open ended learning process. Needed for such a constant redefining process is memory work and comparison with the past as recommended by Alison Crabb from the European Commission.

To follow changes in the meaning of such terms like culture and intercultural dialogue consistency over time has to be maintained. Only then terms in use can take on cultural value and have a meaning for those engaged in intercultural dialogue. As consistency over time is a cultural value, it implies as well continuity of identity is never self-understood. Instead it requires a working out of contradictions and through conflicts between different viewpoints.

Unfortunately in cultures like the one in Greece, there prevails a 'continuity of discontinuity'. It means a fake 'continuity of identity' is asserted while ontological terms derived loosely from the Ancient Past are imposed upon the present. This is done to deny the need to come to terms with ongoing changes. Instead tradition is used, as explained by Paul Tillich, to distort the perception of the present and thus despite of the claim that the ancient culture is still a living one today, there is merely a continuity in ignoring the cultural fact that different meanings have manifested themselves in the meantime from the past. To date there is no museum for the contemporary arts functioning fully in Athens while the illusion of 'now as then' is being propagated. It leaves the societal process short of any substantial agreement about its political future.

Due to these ongoing changes in the meaning of such concepts as culture, there is required a reflective epistemology and sound empirical research. In order to make policy recommendations such a methodology is needed that lived through experiences ('le vecu' by Jean Paul Sartre) can be articulated and therefore allow for the much needed validation process. Only then reason can be given why specific policy recommendations are made. Here the Platform could potentially take up such a task but before it can evaluate which policies work really in practice, the current  top-down approach must be substantiated by a bottom-up activation of the members in order to ensure participation of civil society.

In other words, prior to making policy recommendations, the Platform must ensure that theoretical insights can be 'emancipated' from the narratives of these practical experiences and be articulated as validated ideas for further going practices.

However, the Platform for Intercultural Europe did not deal during the meeting with matters of methodology nor developed a theoretical framework as would be required if an exchange of practical expriences would go hand in hand with ongoing research. Also projects in which intercultural dialogue has been practiced in the past were not identified. Thus no practical sense of the criterion of 'intercultural dialogue' to be used for purpose of funding future projects could be communicated to the European Commission. A lot more needs to be done and beyond the usual lobby practice, if the Platform is to facilitate the formulation of effective policy measures to further intercultural dialogue in Europe.

One possible explanation for such a short-coming may be that the Platform has not acknowledged until now that intercultural dialogue is what people of Europe do every day. They have learned to discuss and to come to terms with different cultural truths. Thus it might be helpful to complement the paper by Francois Matarassa with a position paper by the philosopher Bart Verschaffel about 'public spaces and public truths'. For it deals with what he considers to be the crucial prerequisites in need to be fulfilled if cultural development is to take place. He thinks that it is already a huge cultural development if values are not merely set but can be discussed, and more so in public and if needed be changed. Until now, it was maintained among others by Cornelius Castoriadis that values cannot be discussed for they are set and if someone tries to change them, then it would lead to conflicts and therefore even to war.

If that could be taken into consideration by the Platform, a lot could be gained. It would then mean no matter whether or not culture can be defined, much more crucial would be to see how culture works. Intercultural dialogue would then be perceived and understood as an integral part of how a culture valorizes itself. It does so by being able to make itself understood to others and thereby expresses itself through something which enables people who share these cultural values with others while all along they can communicate with the world.

Accordingly such insights into a comprehensive communication process as facilitated by culture and intercultural dialogue could further European integration. This would need to be translated into such policy recommendations which ensure that culture works.

An attempt to give an outline of 'culture at work' had been made by the ECCM Symposium called appropriately 'productivity of culture' held in Athens Oct. 2007. To this can be added with regards to EU external relations the 'productivity of diplomacy'. Culture at work means to further the ability to reach out to people and to bring about mutual understanding which is the aim of intercultural dialogie. Peace talks fail as in the Middle East when this work of culture is no longer supported by the people themselves but withdraw instead their empathy and therefore no longer engage in their imagination in a fruitful and constructive dialogue with the other(s).

 

A possible explanation of this failure with the term 'intercultural dialogue' in the Middle East was given already in a letter written by Frederique Chabaud, coordinator of EFAH, in 2002. She was critical of the term as it amounts to a mere operation with half-truth. She considered furthermore it to be false to assume that with such a concept it was possible to subsume all different dialogues. Moreover, there is always at risk that people withdraw their empathy and then no dialogue is possible.

To this can be added still a further position, namely that the necessity for dialogue especially between Europe and the Arab countries has never been fulfilled. (see session 'dialogue between cultures' at the ECCM Symposium www.productivityofculture.org)

Of crucial importance is how this overall communication process is sustained. It depends on how culture is understood by people mainly through dialogue. The latter depends to a large degree on their abilities to question different cultural truths thereby to participate in and to contribute to cultural development. If this can be facilitated through intercultural dialogue even in an institutionalized form, then it would constitute common sense. At the same time, it could make European values more precise and productive. But for that to happen, intercultural dialogue must go further according to Bart Verschaffel. For he puts prime importance on the relationship between public space and public truth. As a matter of fact, it is in public spaces that opinions are expressed and which can become cultural truths provided they can be questioned by others.

Here a huge distinction between culture and religion prevails but which the Platform, so it appears, has yet to acknowledge. Religion does not allow the questioning of its fundamental beliefs but prefers much more to set rules and in accordance with them to stipulate if not immediate punishment in case of being broken, then at least to name the negative consequences, the least of which would be a guilty conscience.

It was indeed a key insight into this difference between culture and religion which prompted the European Convention not to include religion when it set out to draft the EU Constitutional Treaty. Religion was considered not to be a force of integration but a factor of division and conflict.

Religion plays as well a role in misconceptions being proposed on how to deal best with the state deficits of EU member states like Greece. For instance, chancellor Merkel of Germany reveals constantly her religious background insofar as she tends to advocate such strict rules that she stipulates simultaneously a wish for harsh punishments of those who would break them. By contrast an approach based on intercultural dialogue would propose quite different rules and possible responses or consequences. For example, if rules are broken, then it would be understood as a challenge to re-examine the common understanding on the basis of which these rules were proposed and while working out solutions, efforts would be undertake to re-integrate the one(s) who fell out. Such collective efforts would motivate each member differently to heed the next time the agreements made while every member could show more understanding for cultural differences when it comes to interpreting these rules.

Right now no common understanding of financial accountability prevails within Europe. This is because the need for cultural adaptation of these accounting rules has not been taken into consideration. Here intercultural dialogue could play a vital role in reaching agreement in how to resolve the paradox between financial transactions taking place across cultural borders while sovereignty claims by EU member states such as the UK are made solely out of cultural reasons i.e. the wish to preserve the British way of life or Britishness in general. As this touches upon accountability, the EU needs to overcome cultural relativism i.e. local, regional or national carriers of a cultural set of values claiming no outsider can judge what is good in terms of these values. If not resolved in could end up in the paradox of an Australian court hearing arguments by the indigenous people that the judge cannot judge whether it is a case of a rape of a minor girl since he does not understand their customs and culture. Something similar is argued by those who want to protect hedge fonds operating out of the City of London. National and international laws are hardly two sides of the same coin. Right now the situation exists to much liberties are granted to certain kinds of pecularities. There is a need to examine the difference between cultural uniqueness and frivolous freedoms being claimed by masking themselves as cultural indifferences towards others.

Interestingly enough the European Commission is beginning to speak in the wake of a crisis being provoked by rating agencies in response to growing state deficits of the need for 'risk cultures' . That notion can only be understood if differences in cultures when it comes to risk-taking are recognized. It is linked to specific activities but also to quite another appraisal as to what constitutes a risk and still another matter if identified as a need to take that risk in order to go on. Cultures tend to challenge themselves at different times to sustain the very miuch needed spirit of self-confidence. It is a constant weighing of options between living on the basis of already made experiences and the need to make new experiences to enrich life. Risk taking is as much about knowing that the time has come to reformulate questions about further developments as it is practically entailed when a couple conceives a child. Not everyone or society is ready all the time to take this next step.

Alone such differences would make it mandatory to examine the binding logic behind the European project. Terms like costs, profits, deficits etc. should not be defined solely as exclusive economic ones. They have to be understand in their respective cultural contexts. A solution must be found since national accounting is no longer sufficient, in order to gauge the true European dimension of costs and benefits. This has to include as well the cultural impacts of this common project. There is a limit as to the transplantation of ideas. A free market may work in the UK, but certainly it does not function in the same way in Greece, Italy, Spain or Poirtugal. Thus it has to be realized within the Council of Financial Ministers as well as at the European Central Bank that it is no longer possible to administer the common EURO without such cultural considerations.

Indeed, future integration has to be based on what facilitates the bringing together of culture and economy. Right now the so-called market truths exclude cultural differences. Instead they prevent people from questioning these financial facts proclaimed as if truths. They are not! All calculations are based on probability assumptions in order to predict merely eventualities. This does not take into account what else can be done to alter the equation of costs, benefits and extra assets needed to facilitate the transaction of money into work and ongoing activities e.g. the operation of an international airport. Right now the monetary and fiscal orientation looks merely at consumer behavior as dependent upon life incomes and not in what would constitute cultural investments e.g. the education of a child. European society has to learn by means of the intercultural dialogue how to valorize these cultural investments and bring to bear them upon the creation of the European extra value. A lot more depends upon people upholding European institutions and the EU project than what is generally assumed.

If people have no chance to question these financial truths even though they have to pay for these state budgets accummulated over time, then there is also no possibility to articulate policy options in a meaningful way. After all everything depends upon what resources are available. The problem is that these financial facts are not truths, but tend to take on the quality of a reality which can be imposed upon people. But this is only possible by leaving aside culture and the articulation of opinions by people.

Interestingly enough till now everyone assumed the economy was the unifying force while culture was left to the member states so that they could safeguard their identities. But in 2010 this is no longer the case. A reversal of the importance of culture and economy has taken place while old assumptions are being thrown out the window.

Europe needs an integration based on social and economic cohesion, but this can happen only from within and not from without as those assume who rely on old political tricks e.g. unifying a country through war as did Bismarck in the case of Germany. That is best expressed by the EU member states agreeing on a common foreign policy spokes person but not on a common cultural policy which can include the economy.

The importance of the economy being included in culture has yet to be understood by the European Council and the European Commission. Only both together can form a viable Eiurope.

Unfortunately decision makers at EU policy level continue their deliberations as if the reality lived and experienced by the people of Europe can be ignored. Appalling in this respect is the EU strategy paper for 2020. It does not acknowledge the importance of culture while it seeks to grant ownership of European institutes only to the elite while leaving the citizens outside.

Bart Verschaffel shows that the ability to question cultural truths is not at all self-understood and only a certain cultural development over time has brought about this ability. For the Platform for Intercultural Europe, it would mean looking into various means by which civil society can create these public spaces as prerequisites for intercultural dialogues to substantiate democratic practices based on the ability to agree to disagree.

Moreover, as it touches upon the very core of political deliberation processes about policy options before choosing one of them, the weighing of options must include cultural impact assessments. All policy recommendations should go hand in hand with 'cultural impact assessments' as they allow a measure to judge whether or not people can sustain this process. This would include impact assessments of policies upon the capacity of the different cultures in Europe to uphold 'intercultural dialogue'.

As demanded by the European Commission, the Platform needs to become a sound basis for the articulation of policy recommendations. This must be done in the knowledge as to what is deemed to be effective if enacted upon. This understanding of 'praxis' constitutes cultural truths in Europe. They are more so if supported by not only the people in Europe, but as well by all leading actors, lobbyists in Brussels included.

Since some policy choices may turn out not to be the best ones in the long run, memory work needs to uphold a critical tension to other options. In order to ensure this memory work, something else needs to be understood as to how culture works. In philosophy, this is called 'practical wisdom'. It is best expressed by the ability to give good advice. The latter depends on the capacity to anticipate consequences if this policy option is adopted and not another one.

Cultural reflections can very quickly point out why certain policies do not work or prove not to be as effective as hoped for. Such variantions in policy failures need above all one thing: early recognition. However, in the so-called success orientated culture this is not possible. There are set into motion too many efforts to make failures look like success stories. There are far too many spin-doctors at work. Indeed corruption of the mind implies the theory-practice relationship is distorted and driven by means of permanent rationalization (the suppression of simple truths) to the point of non-recognition as to what constitutes a failure.

Articulation becomes nearly impossible if advisorary bodies no longer secure independent knowledge to identify a policy mistake. At all times, culture needs to uphold practical wisdom in order to be able to draw political consequences in time, that is before it is too late.

In this sense, intercultural dialogue would allow all participants not to be fixed to a certain praxis nor to a certain ideology in need of being proven as being right even though it does not work in practice. Former Communist regimes practiced this to the point of failing as states by sacrificing constantly reality for the sake of upholding some seeming concept. The EU is in danger of adopting very much a similar practice called since 911 not propaganda, but 'public diplomacy' and which is still a love of the lie rather than an endorsement of public truths. Rather intercultural dialogue becomes and remains convincing on its own if it manages to free the imagination and thereby furthers the empathy people can have for others.

Too many meetings in Brussels do not come really to life. It has to do with the way the discussion is structured. Fruitful and interesting discussions are only possible if there is given space and time to the much needed validation process and therefore to a critical questioning of cultural truths.

Rather than experiencing a real policy discussion, debates are replaced by dogmatic assertions about the state of affairs. They are meant to justify the practice up to now but not of the policy makers or of the projects, but those wishing to gain in influence and thereby in resources.

The questioning of cultural truths means at all times a lively discourse about the development path taken so far, and if realised that this is not the best one, then to be able to search for another solution. It would mean the ability and freedom to return to the initial position in order to try to go in another direction.

In other words, if in practice the proposed intercultural dialogue does not work, then other approaches should be tried out while the analysis of the failure needs to be deepened. It all depends that none of the participants cling to absolute truths but accept them as cultural truths which can be questioned. Bart Verschaffel implies this to mean something like an open validation process as practiced at university when a certain thesis has been established in accordance with a scientific method which allows the questioning of both evidences and conclusions drawn from them.

A further understanding of intercultural dialogue should be taken into consideration. Dialogue means a way to stay in touch with reality. There is no need to agree or to identify with the position of others, but in order to talk with them their position has to be taken serious. In short to attain intercultural dialogue practices, it must mean to go beyond egocentric perceptions and Euro-centricity. Within Europe that is not at all self-understood since many cling to their nationalist standpoints. Due to the neglect of culture and therefore of cultural integration, recent events linked to the financial crisis have revealed a huge failure within Europe to advance in terms of cultural integration. Alone what the German press expressed about Greece in 2010 underlines the extent to which national stereotypical thinking about other member states can suddenly dominate the discussion and thereby distort completely the perception of others although citizens of another EU member country e.g. all Greeks are corrupt, lazy, etc. As a matter of fact what parts of the German press (and not only the German press, but also others like the 'Economist' engaged in fear mongering as if the Greek crisis could spill over any time into other cities) brought across, that can be deemed as being far worse by comparison with what the Danish cartoons of Mohammed were accused of being, namely an insult to the Muslim world. Precisely here the prerequisite of understanding the principle of the freedom of the press cannot be fulfilled unless one takes into consideration the need to understand the 'conversion logic' at work once prejudices are transformed into such convictions which cannot be questioned any longer.

Thus one policy recommendation linked to intercultural dialogue has to be surely to undo the conversion logic before too late, Europe would be stuck to national labelling. Very often these conversion logics are based on wrong educational systems relying among other things on enemy pictures and therefore on 'learned hatred'. One policy recommendation should be, therefore, to give a mandate to the European Commission to undertake such efforts as to further such a cultural development in Europe that truths about other member states can be questioned in both a critical and creative way. This task should not be delegated alone to EuroStat as statistical references are not the same as to what has to be taken into consideration when referring to the cultural truths of the others.

Definitely intercultural dialogue is needed to continue the demise of stereotypical thinking about the other if fellow member states are to be treated not as enemy but as friends. A deepening of cultural understanding would have to include differentiated approaches and outlooks. There is no way of understanding another culture if the nuances within the respective cultures are not understood.

Above all, it has to be recognized when it comes to policy discussions, that there needs to be observed already a marked difference; while in Germany the discussion is about 'Gesetzgebung' (passing of law) and 'politische Maßnahmen' (political measures), policy in the English sense is much more lucid. The latter allows for the recognition anything proposed by advisors and policy makers to politicians and decision making bodies is at best one of many options and entails a complexity of interwoven factors. At best any policy recommendation is an outline how it might be best to treat the given problem without thereby claiming this to be the only truth. A lot depends on the state of knowledge, resources available and political will behind these measures to make them work.

By the same token, it could be observed that some contributions to the platform undermined often unknowingly the very notion of intercultural dialogue. That is the case when all kinds of representative logics based on personal ownership are evoked. This includes such references as 'my country, my ministry, my culture', even though that can take on quite an exclusive position vis a vis those deemed not to belong to the same culture. There has yet to be realised in such practical discourses at European level that many cultural developments have emancipated themselves already a long time ago from state tutelage and thus to address solely policy matters through the given state - national, regional and local - levels would but reinforce the negative use of culture as claim of ownership. The latter would be based on a sovereignty which no longer holds in reality and therefore evoke disfunctional relationships in terms of cultural integration within Europe.

Another strange demand was articulated by one representative from Bulgaria. She observed that due to the many political changes with governments coming and going, there is never enough continuity in who can be approached with regards to issues faced by the cultural sector. There should be people there "forever", so her demand, to ensure a continuity despite of all the changes. As this touches upon issues of becoming too established and therefore not receptive enough to young and aspiring artists, democracy within the cultural sector is itself a huge challenge and important demand on how structured should be these dialogues between the cultural sector and decision makers within the various political institutions.

Intercultural dialgoue requires extrapolation and imagination in order to be able to understand the other in his or her own terms. Taking into consideration other views is an art which can be called a dialogue in the making. Here it was interesting that Francois Matarasso would speak about two persons referring to something about which they can agree or not but they do so in knowing together what they are talking about. As such it would make intercultural dialogue into a method of clarification about differences in meaning.

In terms of political substance, it would allow knowing within Europe as to what makes finally a difference in outcome, since not all share holders will follow the same cultural truths. However, it must be made clear to the Member States that if only certain components of any policy measure are acted upon and then in such a definite and certain way that differences become insurmountable, that in effect they are working against European integration. Doing something within Europe is only conceivable if things are enacted upon in reference to the others. Hence member states should use this very concept of intercultural dialogue to take into consideration the various impacts of EU policy measures. When undertaking actions, they should stipulate at all times how the cultural truths of the others are being taken into consideration for otherwise there will be no cultural self-understanding of Europe. Without such a cultural self-understanding enlived by intercultural dialogues, it would not be possible to uphold the institutional set-up of Europe or even the Open Method of Co-operation as non-binding deliberation process.

The Platform's Campaign

The Platform wishes to build on the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue 2008. Sabine Frank as General Secretary of the Platform outlined what is to be understood under mobilisation for an EU Council working group on Intercultural Dialogue under the Open Method of Coordination. This is a method by which Member States can consult each other without fear of having to make binding decisions. There is right now no such working group for Intercultural Dialogue.

Alison Crabb: Towards a "structured dialogue" with Civil Society

The European Commission wishes to receive from this and the other two platforms policy recommendations. As stated by Alison Crabb from the European Commission, DG for Education and Culture, desired is a "better articulated policy framework" in anticipation of future developments. In her opinion a critical comparison can be made as to what took place in the past and was done very often not effective enough. The European Commission will continue to address the Member States on the basis of the Agenda for Culture but in order to be able to do this in an effective way, it is desirable to have already a structured dialogue with civil society. This is where the platforms come in and why it is interesting to hear about practical exchanges of experiences. For that to happen

Alison Crabb explained that immediately after the agenda on culture had been approved, member states formed working groups. Their work is now ending and reports thereof should be up on the EU website by the end of June.

Member discussion in small groups


The discussion groups gave the forum participants a chance to express their opinions in a smaller circle of people as to what ought and could shape the next stage of the Platform’s work. The discussion were to focus on the following key questions:

Each group had their respective co-ordinators and rapporteurs:

Francois Matarasso and Isabelle Schwarz chairing their work group

  1. Eli Borchgrevink (Du store verden! / the DSV network) & Niels Righolt (Nordic Forum for Interculture and Danish Centre for Arts and Interculture)
  2. Tarafa Baghajati (European Network Against Racism and Initiative of Austrian Muslims) & Guillermo Ruiz (European Roma Information Office)
  3. Isabelle Schwarz (European Cultural Foundation) & Francois Matarasso
  4. Français Mercedes Esteban Villar (European Foundation Society and Education) & Guido Orlandini (Intercultural Communication and Leadership School)

 

The way the discussions in these groups were structured, meant first of all asking participants if they were in a position to address their own respective governments and in particular Cultural Ministries about intercultural dialogue related issues. Some like a representive from Cyprus said 'yes', while others found mayors more accessible compared to Cultural Ministries at national level. It would be advisable to draw up a typology of different intercultural dialogues in terms of various policy measures and subsequent support given by different institutions. The extent to which NGOs of Civil Society are involved in intercultural dialogues, depends presumably on the existence of civil society and its capacity to bring forth these new kinds of institutional arrangements. For it requires not merely creating public forums and spaces but also bringing into the discussions the diverse groups. In turn, that makes it quite difficult to uphold some kind of unity and coherence in terms of flow of the discussion and outcomes.

There is another point to be made. Since most artists who advance novel ways of intercultural dialogues are very often not organised and prefer to retain informal ways of working together, there needs to be followed up at policy level a methodology by which not only formal processes can be funded, but also how to give recognition to these important and very often substantial informal processes. It may be a matter of how different efforts can be linked better together in future but also it should be maintained that informal learning processes are just as important as formal ones when it comes to be engaged in intercultural dialogues. Practically this involves every citizen in daily traffic and communication.

One further example was given during the group discussion. Reference was made by Hatto Fischer to Dorothea Amrhein who traveled in a former circus waggon into a caravan for three years throughout Germany. She stopped whenever she was called upon by local groups in desperate need of a public forum to talk things out. She would facilitate that through her caravan becoming the 'offene Kiste - open box'. By simply lifting up the one side to create a platform or stage she facilitated the creation of such a public space in which different viewpoints, fears and anger could be expressed vis a vis other groups. Her aim was to motivate all participants to come to some social contract. This binding nature of a contract would allow a reduction of fear an open up a process of understanding and appreciating the others. For instance, old people in a town would fear the Neo-Nazis. They would through public discussion gain another understanding of what the old folks needed and wanted e.g. instead of their cars being damaged to have someone look after them and if needed to even repair them and this for some payment. Consequently such a social contract enables people to establish forms of collaboration and to practice intercultural dialogues based on trust and public openness.

One critical point was stressed in these group discussions, namely the need to take into consideration the changed economic situation. Due to state deficits and the introduction of subsequent austerity measures, the prospects to realise social dialogues have diminished. Instead the likelihood of situations getting out of hand and indeed the prospects of social unrest becoming violent all the more likely than ever before throughout Europe. One needs only to cite what happened in Athens, Greece on the 5th of May 2010 when the three bank employees burned to death after the bank they were working in was attacked by demonstrators. The latter threw molotov cocktails into the building, thereby setting it on fire. What contributed to the death of these three people was no exit doors existed at the back of the building and thus safety measures had been overlooked. Moreover, this occured during a general strike so that those working in the bank were perceived as strike breakers. Since they were also working in bank which belonged to one of the richest man of Greece and already deemed as the future Berlusconi of Greece, it was an easy task by political agitators to reinforce use of enemy pictures about Capitalism and representatives of 'the system'. In other words, intercultural dialogue must become a proven method that is a viable alternative to current ideologies based on hatred and over simplified enemy pictures. Intercultural dialogue is not possible in a polarised situation but a method to alter a clash of ideas into something more constructive and far reaching into the future. For it calls upon the imagination to make out possible ways into the future.

Thus intercultural dialogue has to be developed as an art of talking with others free of any enemy picture. This would involve as much art education, dialogue between different generations (during the platform meeting a distinction was made between different generations and different age groups at the work place but in both cases intercultural dialogue would be needed) and ways of exploring together potential paths into the future by learning through culture to anticipate developments.

When it comes to practices of civil society, there is a need to develop the art of saying 'no' to potentially violent actions. In reference to the treatise developed by Klaus Heinrich, "The difficulty of saying 'no'", there has to be learned the ability to say 'no' to the action but not to the person. Only then can such an intercultural dialogue based on a definite no to violence bring about to a cooperative coalition with the other against the intended negative actions.

Certainly civil society shall be affected adversely by the economic crisis and therefore prospects of being able to contribute to social cohesion may diminish as a result. This is why funding possibilities of such NGOs which further the intercultural dialogue within civil society should be linked foremostly to the creation of public forums which allow the questioning of cultural truths. As mentioned as well, this should be linked to the possibility of creating social contracts as the project 'open box' demonstrates.

Europe can only be linked through intercultural dialogues. They are needed nowadays especially in so-called hot spots of urban societies, that is places which can easily turn into uncontrollable violences. As the economic crisis deepens, the possibility of discontent igniting such social unrest that criticism of unjust systems cannot be translated anymore into constructive solutions but states fail to maintain order means ever harder (and not necessarily wiser) solutions are sought. There are already signs that instead of practicing dialogues a merger of hard and soft power measures are sought. In the end that would mean a police state.

Needless to say without finding ways and means to link necessary measures to cut state deficits with a balanced approach to social justice, societies like Greece may end up very easily in such violent social unrests that this negative outcome shall top all other agendas come autumn 2010.

One further observation has to be made. It is linked to what constitutes the new protest movements especially of the younger generations. They are angered by loss of opportunities and in realising that they are ill prepared by an ineffective education system to deal with their questions of the future, they discard politics and in substance the need for policy making. They see everywhere corruption and abuse of power prevailing. Thus they have no understanding for injustices which they link with abuse of power due to authorities remaining more or less immune within hierarchical structures. It excludes them almost in the same way as they see it the immigrants who are treated by the respective state institutions as non-citizens. Subsequently civil society is in turmoil and no longer the agreement, indeed value premise of non violent actions shared by all.

Since this youth wishes not to deal with power as it implies always a hierarchical structuring of doing things, it means Platforms which fit into that pattern shall not reach this critical youth even if they come up with the best conceivable policy recommendations. The modern youth is not mute, but versatile in its communication with others. As said above, they do seek non hierarchical forms of organisation. They want to combine with a live in dignity - something the White Paper stresses - with a kind of practice which enables them to take care of the environment and to treat other human beings with the greatest possible respect. To fulfil their demand that every human being is to be respected and treated well, they are prepared to go to jails out of solidarity with those who they feel are imprisoned because society has not found a way to question its own criminal record. For the youth that begins already with a criminal education system.

As a direct implication for the cultural platforms designed to further policy recommendations to be made to the Member States through the European Commission, they are truly at risk to be out of touch with a vast majority of today's youth. Something needs to be done to engage the youth in policy discussions. At the same time the redundancy of certain political processes should be recognized. Many political problems beset the member states of the European Union, that is why the questioning through the youth should be perceived as an opportunity to question the entire institutional set-up.

Not only the youth, but people in general feel excluded by this top down decision making process. If they express anything then only fear not to be heard. Their ever stronger disagreements with politics as sanctioned by experts living in their own worlds means that they have no understanding of policy in the making. Even if there is an open call for consultation, only few take advantage of these opportunities. It says something about how processes designed to legitimize the policies which are finally adopted do not function in reality. They prove increasingly so to be unable to understand the direct needs of the people in the streets, in jails, on poverty line etc.

What used to be culture coming in from the margin has now the equivalent of many more people feeling that they lead a life at the fringe of society. They are effectively without a voice. Cynics would imitate Hume who said habits are the sovereign of the people and claim as long as people know they can follow a certain pattern in their lives, then they feel secure. This is not so! Those living at the fringe of society know there are many others wasting ever more resources to uphold an unsustainable system.

The meeting of the platform was closed by Francois Matarasso and Sabine Frank.

It was followed by the Annual General Assembly of Members during which the budget, the new statues and the work plan for the year 2010 was approved.

At the end, it meant also saying good-bye to Marie Telschow who had been for the past two years an assistant to the General Secretary, Sabine Frank. She shall take up studies in Arts and Media with specialization on audience development at the Free University of Berlin this coming September.

Hatto Fischer Athens 12.June 2010

^ Top

« Platform for Intercultural Europe | Framing Conversations: Intercultural Dialogue as a Democratic Process by F. Matarasso »