Rainbow Paper

Download the full Rainbow Paper

Participation

Participation meant the possibility of making comments on any particular chapter, or to add recommendations. There was never given any direct feedback or acknowledgement that the contributions were read and discussed.

A fragment of discussion was posted on

http://rainbowplatform.labforculture.org/site/public/paper/paper

Gottfried Wagner, ECF, 2008/04/24 20:48

I am very curious in at least two respects: 1. whether the document will develop, improve (I hope), be used for internal and wider political discussions amongst cultural operators,get the critical mass for real change and advocacy, and 2. whether this form of consultation and debate can become an interesting model for ICT based participation in the sector.

Hatto Fischer, Poiein Kai Prattein, Non Profit Urban Society in Athens, 2008/04/25 12:52

At the recent Public Hearing on Languages in Brussels (April 15th) one question was not posed: how to start or to initiate an intercultural dialogue, if there is no dialogue and instead 'silence' rules? We know from failures of peace negotiations that if there is no mediation people will not be willing to develop empathy by which they can identify with and understand the other side. Also there is a difference when applying the term 'intercultural dialogue' to external or foreign relations i.e. Europe with the rest of the world compared to applying it for internal, EU related matters.

Furthermore it struck me at the Public Hearing that one thing seems to be forgotten but what James Clifford in 'Predicament of Culture' has named as the loss of otherness: if everyone and all agendas become the same, there is no more dialogue with something other than oneself. It becomes then monologue. And the language we speak no longer carries or conveys the human voice. EU internal and external relations are at a cultural low due to a lack of human substance on how we deal with above all human issues. If Mandelson can lower on the agenda governing EU relations with China the Human Rights issue, in order not to offset economic ties, then we have a bias. We then know what everyone is up against when having to prove instead adaptability to the so-called European agenda.

I don't see how the Rainbow Paper can be developed further if the confusion in terms is not cleared up. For instance, the term cultural diversity as well as linguistic diversity is less of a concept as it is a value premise everyone assumes to be positive. If we take it a bit further, then what follows is not dialog but assertion of only one's own culture and language. Here the philosopher Bart Verschaffel would remind that Europe is more of a fiction than reality and therefore we need to talk in terms of how our memories are colored to make plausible such a fiction.

As to the second point Gottfried Wagner addresses, the problem of this kind of consultation is that without feedback and further going efforts to deepen the debate a learning process will not take place in public. Instead the usual political practice (including lobbying at EU level) will supersede the intercultural dialogue and instead of substantiating the European agenda on culture, the EU debate will not reflect upon cultural priorities in need of being perceived and set.

Mariola Rokita-Surówka, Assotiation of the Kolping Family, Sosnowiec, Poland, 2008/05/17 02:16

I am very impressed with the content of the Rainbow Paper II , especially the Policy recomendations. Most of my recomendations in the field of Intercultural Dialog are included in it. I would like only to underline some isseus, crucial from the strategic- PR an lobbying point of view :

I would like to propose to redefine the mission of The Rainbow Platform. For me it is not only ” ..learn and share across wide areas of expertise throught cross sectoral cooperatoion…” but: ” Eguality, social and political inclusion of EU citizens through the intercultural cooperation and intercultural dialog development'
It would be good to underline the main objectives of the Rainbow Paper II in several points eg.:
I. Defining and promoting the terms of “European indentity” including the cotecst of interculturality
II. Building and supportig the respect of for diversity
III. Defining and developing the intercultural competences on the individual, organisational and political level
IV. Supporting the role of culture and arts as an intesectoral tool for better integration and partnership in the EU

The last few years I am working in Poland in the field of European Social Found 9 ESF), and I see the huge possibility to implement the idea of interculturality, intercultural competences and intercultural dialog in the projects finansed by ESF. In could be implemented by including the idea of intercultural dialog into the horizontal goal of “equality of chances” . Now there are only the aspects of gender, minority, disabled people, etc…included If you would like from me some more specific recomendations or proposal in the area of European Social Found ( regarding Intercultural dialog) please gime me the sign

GOOD LUCK !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mariola Rokita-Surówka

Laurence Hopkins, 2008/06/03 17:23

Following a brief read of the paper I have a few questions comments.

Is 'Intercultural Dialogue' a proper noun? If it is difficult to define and does not denote specific actions then can we talk about it with capital letters?

There is little institutional analysis contained within this paper. While CSOs are asked to look at these questions, many of the formal debates and discussions are framed by white institutions that bear little resemblance to the communities that they serve and are funded by. Without real organisational change within public authorities 'Intercultural Dialogue' will continue to be prescribed rather than organic. These are often the institutions that fund CSOs and thus need to be addressed.

There is little discussion about religious difference. Given importance of religion and religious difference in public policy concerns this needs to be addressed explicitly not assumed to sit either within discussions about culture or a distinct subject that sits outside of 'Intercultural Dialogue'. There needs to be an awareness of how religion intersects with culture and an understanding of how these can be conflated.

Finally, the concept of intercultural dialogue is predicated on the idea that there is something inherently different between this and 'dialogue'. Given this assumption, and practical experience, this necessitates the mediation of conflict alongside the navigation of cultural and religious differences. While this is addressed lightly under creative responses, there needs to be an explicit awareness that in some contexts conflict is a given and not something that should be necessarily viewed as a blockage or negative aspect of dialogue. Conflict creates energy which can be channeled in various ways.

In conclusion, I applaud these efforts and the innovative process.

Thanks,

Laurence Hopkins

^ Top

« EU Decision on Intercultural Dialogue (2008) | Intercultural Dialogue by Culture Action Europe (2008) »

Ποιειν Και Πραττειν - create and do

Navigation

Rainbow Paper