What do we mean when we talk about “Intercultural dialogue as an emerging issue on policy and political agendas? Who should stay behind promoting the intercultural dialogue as a policy framework and in the artistic practices?
The ambitious aim to understand how national governments across Europe actually address Intercultural dialogue and to map the ID national approaches, policies or strategies, was set up by a core ERICarts team in January 2007. With the help of a research network of correspondents in 34 countries and two special advisors, it took over a year of hard work and deep research to finalise the study “Sharing Diversity: National Approaches to Intercultural Dialogue in Europe”. An impressive 154 pages collective research result!
One of the outcomes of the study is that intercultural dialogue can work in practice only in an environment where there is a guarantee for the personal safety, dignity, equality of opportunity and participation, freedom of speech, and shared spaces for exchange between different cultures. It is clear that the pre-condition is to have a legal framework outlining basic human, civic, economic and social rights. Improving the way how refugees, migrants and social fringe groups live is also a basic priority, before the need to culturally and artistically integrate.
The institutions on national level, involved with intercultural dialogue framework are various: sector specific ministries, foreign affairs ministries, those responsible for traditional minorities and new migrants groups, semi-public bodies such as advisory councils for national minorities, human rights committees, etc. The study shows few strategic efforts to facilitate or coordinate the efforts of these various institutions on national level (Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Poland are some of the many encouraging examples). Regional and local authorities seems to play more and more important role in implementing ID on a local and city level – the City of Vienna, the City of Salzburg, City of Turin, and the globally famous Agenda 21 for Culture initiative are among the good practices mentioned.
There are several examples in the study of countries where a cultural policy strategy to foster intercultural dialogue was implemented (e.g. in 1999 a new cultural policy in the Netherlands was adopted, aiming at opening up cultural institutions to minorities). So, how could we learn what is the practical result of this policy and how could we evaluate the real impact?
No doubt that the so called “civil society sector” is also actively engaged in promoting ID on local and trans-national level - the Civil Society Platform for ID, created in partnership between the European Cultural Foundation and EFAH, is highlighted in the study. Don’t we need to research and map in the future more examples of similar partnership, especially on the level of cities and regions (as long as such cases exist)? Isn’t “civil society” a concept which is still very vague and packed with beautiful terms, but not much understood by artists, managers and curators?
Understanding and learning more about various artistic projects and practices within the diaspora communities in various countries and regions of Europe would also be a step further. How the members of these communities express their cultural rights, who and how facilitate their artistic creation? Are there ways by which diaspora communities in one city, one country (and between the countries) communicate and share their cultural experiences? What do we do for the new immigrants to culturally integrate them to their new homeland?
The study acknowledges that there are practical barriers to promoting transnational cooperation and dialogue. Among them are the social security and taxation issues related to mobility, increasing visa costs and difficulties in obtaining work permits. Those of us who travel often, and beyond EU borders, those of us who seek jobs outside of our own countries, know how difficult and how important this is. Shall we get any better in one, or five, or ten years from now?
The study highlights the need for “shared spaces” – both institutional and non-institutional (neighbourhoods, city streets, train stations, public parks, marketplaces, etc.). As the research goes beyond culture and covers also areas such as: education, youth and sport, how could we find out more shared spaces in our cities? How about involving also other sectors such as health care, environment, technological development? And I am sure that each one of us could contribute for creation of such “shared spaces” – for example by organising social events, private parties and concerts where we invite our friends from various cultures to meet and talk.
As of the limited parameters of the study, two fields were only selected and examined: museums and performing arts. It is obvious that we need to expand this further, in other artistic disciplines, also in areas where young people mostly engage, learn and entertain (including various forms of digital culture and internet use). Because, as emphasised in the study, “the new communication technologies are also employed to create new cross-border spaces for dialogue”. We still know very little about “sharing diversity online”.
And not suprising, but worrying: private sector companies (music industry, book publishing, film production) are rarely involved on the strategic and conceptual level for promoting intercultural dialogue. Don't they have a very high potential? And how to engage them?
And yes, THE ARTISTS are the most important facilitators of intercultural dialogue! How much do we know (or we don’t?) about artists’ individual perception, understanding and motivation, related to this topic? When applying for grants, do artists include the buzzwords “intercultural dialogue” and “cultural diversity” to please the funders, or they have an intrinsic need to create by engaging diverse audiences or to express diversity on other ways?
Do we agree with one of the 12 recommendations highlighted at the end of the study that “there is need to establish a clear concept/definition on intercultural dialogue so that we avoid potential misinterpretation”? Maybe setting up one definition wouldn’t help, as Europe and we all are anyway so diverse, aren’t we?
LabforCulture è un'iniziativa di partnership della Fondazione Culturale Europea. LabforCulture desidera ringraziare i propri finanziatori per il loro supporto.
The ICD Academy for Cultural Diplomacy (2nd – 6th February, 2009)
Europe Meets Latin America: A Forum for Young Leaders (9th – 13th February, 2009)
Cultural Diplomacy in Europe: A Forum for Young Leaders (16th – 20th February, 2009)
Cultural Diplomacy in Africa: A Forum for Young Leaders (23rd – 27th February, 2009)
The ICD is an international, not-for-profit, non-governmental organization focused on the theoretical and practical promotion of cultural exchange as a tool for improving relations in all areas. To learn more about our activity, please visit http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org.
The ICD programs bring together Young Leaders from across the world for an analysis of cultural diplomacy, an exploration of the relationship between their cultures, and to create a sustainable network between likeminded individuals. Participants are encouraged to use the networks they develop to organize their own leadership initiatives in the future.
Anonymous User | 13 gen 2009