World Public Forum "Dialogue of Civilizations"

The paper “Education for an intercultural Dialogue” is an elaborated version of a paper by Member of the Board of the International Association for Intercultural Education (IAIE) Erik de Vreede presented at the World Public Forum “Dialogue of Civilizations”, Rhodes, Greece, October 9-13, 2008.

Download the article as MS Word document (96,5 Kb)

Education for an intercultural Dialogue.

Introduction    
The European Union has declared the year 2008 to be the year of intercultural dialogue.
Originally the adjective “intercultural” was more or less reserved for the use, as it were, within a culturally diverse or plural society. Intercultural education, for example, was meant to address societal problems attributed to the presence of groups with another cultural origin. There has been a change of emphasis to an education for dealing with problems in contact with other cultures.

Intercultural dialogue can be taken either as a dialogue within a plural society, or a dialogue between two or more societies with their culture e.g. the member states of the European Union. There is a difference between the two. In the intercultural dialogue within a plural society there usually is a power difference between the societal groups. In the intercultural dialogue between societies or members of different societies, there is in principle no power difference.

The intercultural dialogue –whether it takes place in a society or between members of different societies– is necessary given the present situation in which we witness mistrust, hatred and even conflict and violence within and between countries and/or cultures. These deplorable phenomena find their origin in conflicts of interests in the broadest sense of the word. More often than not real or perceived cultural and/or religious differences between societies are advanced as the real source of the conflicts. This can be observed in as well as between societies.

This paper is composed of the following parts:

• Culture
• Orientations to other cultures
• The nature of dialogue
• Education

Culture
Intercultural contacts are determined by the culture of the participants. Consequently, possible cultural differences play an important role.

Culture is a difficult and complicated phenomenon. There are many definitions and descriptions of culture, some of them very wide and some of them very narrow. Kroeber & Kluckhohn (1952) found more than 160 definitions of culture. Knowing social scientists , there are probably a few more by now.

In 1949 Douglas G. Haring published a challenging article ‘Is “culture” definable?’ His answer was negative. In his view one should not try to define culture, he preferred ‘cultural behaviour’. The term ‘culture’ itself forms the main obstacle to a valid definition. We may arrive at a definition inductively based on observation of the phenomena to be classified. The phenomena to observe are human beings behaving, ‘not an artificial dichotomy of “people and their behavior”. These two never occur separately’ (p. 28).

Cultural behavior [...] is differentiated from other behavior by the fact that its patterns are learned individually from models provided by other persons. Viewed as cultural, interest centers on the pattern and only incidentally on the behaving organism. Viewed as behavior, interest centers on the fact of learning; the latest fad and traditions of hoary antiquity alike confront the human neonate or child as completely new ways of acting or thinking to be incorporated into his individual cultural repertory (p. 29).

To avoid cumbersome language we will use the word “culture” with the understanding that we mean cultural behaviour.

Culture is all human behaviour acquired and modified in a group, allowing its members to communicate with each other and to cope with its present and future problems. It consists of a unique whole of behavioural patterns, based on norms, values and beliefs. This unique whole regulates the behaviour of the members of a society.

Culture is a dynamic phenomenon; as a social construct it is susceptible to change by the members of a society. This change occurs in the acquisition (learning) and modification in the group. Here, one can clearly see the importance of interaction in general and education in particular.

It is important to note that achievements resulting from cultural behaviour are not included in this definition of culture; tangible results of behaviour are not identical to that behaviour, the composition should not be equated with composing and a tasty meal not with cooking.

The core of each culture is the system of norms and values. A system that controls the way in which we deal with that reality; our behaviour. That system itself is invisible. We can only infer its existence from what people say about it and from prolonged observation of their behaviour. This prolonged observation is necessary, because what people in any society will say about their norms and values, will often be different from their actual behaviour.

Norms and Values
Norms and values are often considered as two names for the same phenomenon. They are, indeed, closely related, but different.

A norm is a socially accepted rule or standard. It is an expression of the desirable behaviour.

A value is the measure by which I am willing to conform to the norm. It is an expression of the desired behaviour

...What distinguishes the desirable from the desired is the nature of the norms involved. Norms are the standards for values that exist within a group or category of people. In the case of the desirable the norm is absolute, pertaining to what is ethically right. In the case of the desired, the norm is statistical: it indicates the choices actually made by the majority. The desirable more relates to ideology, the desired to practical matters. (Hofstede, 1991, 9,10)

The norm is that we should all be honest. That would be very desirable indeed. In reality, however, the values of most people condone a white lie. Outright lies, however, are definitely not accepted. Maybe we should think of sets of two norms pertaining to the same behaviour. One is the real expression of the desirable behaviour, the second one establishes as it where the bandwidth of what will be considered acceptable.

A culture’s system of norms and values is a very complex whole. It determines the behaviour of the people in the society. In a society, culture makes the behaviour to a large extent predictable. That makes our surroundings safe. That explains why an influx of foreigners from another culture is often felt to be menacing.

We feel ‘at home’ in our culture and more or less uneasy when we find ourselves in another society with another culture. This causes us to consider our culture perfect, or at least as the best possible one for us. Quite often, the last two words are omitted. That kind of ideas about one’s own culture does not contribute to an appropriate attitude for an intercultural dialogue.

The possibility of success of an intercultural dialogue depends on the way the other cultures are perceived. It is that whole of norms and values of a culture that determines these perceptions.

Orientations to other Cultures
Orientations to other cultures

… form the often unspoken, implicit background of our thinking and acting. They comprise an ontology (how does reality fit together), an epistemology (how can we gain knowledge of it) and ethics (how to distinguish good and bad) (Procee, 1993, 57) [Translation EdV].

Basically, there are three orientations to other cultures:

• Universalism;
• Relativism; and
• pluralism.

These three orientations really are ideal types; they do not exist in a pure form. All cultures are a mix of these three with one or two dominating the other orientation(s).

Universalism
Universalism or absolutism sees the world as a rationally organised whole open to the human intellect. Its central notion is unity. Universalism emphasises absolute unity in one (the own) culture. In its epistemology, theory has to be a direct and exact reflection of reality. Universalism postulates overarching culture-free principles of rationality (Leicester, 1986, 4). Moreover, there is a system of norms and values that should be universally accepted as reasonable. Needless to say this system of norms and values is never belongs to another culture, only one’s own.

Other cultures
Other cultures do not live up to our universal standards and are therefore inferior. Clearly, universalism is rather intolerant. It leads to a deficit approach of all those groups or civilisations that are culturally different. Some advocates of democracy tend to universalism to the extent that they omit the adjective ‘Western’.

Cultural change
For universalists the dynamic nature of culture is a matter of concern. Universalists tend to complain about and challenge the moral degradation of society.

Education
Education is the instrument to pass on the universal norms and values to the next generation. This makes education very important. The content of education, the subjects treated, are part and parcel of the discussions about education. Subject matter that may challenge the norms and values may be banned; e.g. sex education in the United States or promote if it serves norms and values, e.g. teaching creationism as science.

For universalists an intercultural dialogue at best takes the form of a monologue convincing the other party that they should mend their ways.

Universalism is a breeding ground for stereotypes, ethnocentrism, prejudice and even racism.

Universalism may also serve to promote connection, however, in relation to shared values and ideas of equality, for example. In the same way, cross-cultural or universal experience of suffering may be a ground for intercultural dialogue.

Relativism
Moral objections against universalism gave rise to relativism. Here, diversity is the central notion. Reality is not uniform but pluriform.

In cultural relativism the principles of rationality are culture bound (Leicester, 1986). Because culture determines all our acting, thinking and judging, we are more or less ‘prisoner’ of our culture (Tennekes, 1986). Norms and values may be absolute and incontestable, but only in the restricted territory held by the group that holds them. In relativism the emphasis is put on an isolated diversity of mostly unrelated cultures.

Other cultures
A pure relativist denies that we can understand and analyse the content of other cultures in any other way than by means of the concepts employed in those cultures. Unfortunately, he is a not a member of that society with that culture and, consequently, unable to analyse and really understand that culture.
Relativism has one notable quality. The relativist must be prepared to suspend judgement about, and not assume superiority over, another culture. This may be considered a precondition for intercultural dialogue. This is a distinct advantage over the univeralist position, which is closed, judgemental and regards itself as superior. However, the relativist is prevented from exercising any judgement, even about matters where there is clear agreement among all cultures, and where non-judgement amounts to a dereliction of human responsibility.

Cultural change
In principle, cultural change is not a problem.

Education
Education is important to relativists for much the same reasons as it is important to universalists.

All this causes an intercultural dialogue to be a very circumscribed possibility,  based on the claim that the participants will never really understand each other. This radical incommensurability between cultures leaves no space for judgement or action. Furthermore, each culture lays claim to unique standpoint knowledge, capable of trumping any other form of knowledge. These claims are impervious to rational argument or evidence.

Ultimately, relativism can be criticised on nearly the same moral grounds as universalism. They are closed systems of thought. Neither of them can lead us to a fruitful intercultural dialogue.

Pluralism
Procee (1993) developed the idea of pluralism, a viewpoint somewhere between universalism and relativism. In pluralism Procee emphasised interactive diversity. In the pluralist orientation acknowledges the diversity of cultures. But through interaction we can come to an understanding of the other cultures. Contrary to the universalist orientation one’s own culture is just one of many and one’s own is not the only sanctifying one. The pluralist orientation differs from the relativist one in the conviction that through interaction one can come to an understanding of the other culture. Out of this understanding something new may emerge.

Other cultures
Other cultures are regarded as other valid ways in which people communicate with each other and cope with their present and future problems. Interaction allows to understand and appreciate these other cultures.

Cultural change
Culture is a social construct. Consequently change is inevitable and not per se a phenomenon to challenge and combat. Some of the cultural change may be brought about through the interaction with other cultures. An example is the appearance on the Dutch menu of the dish nassi goreng (fried rice). A sizeable group of young Dutchmen fought in the war for independence of Indonesia. There they got to know the Indonesian cuisine, a far more spicy one than the Dutch cuisine. Upon their return in the Netherlands, a growing demand for Indonesian food developed. One of the most popular dishes turned out to be nassi goreng. There is an American cookbook with dishes from around the world citing nassi goreng as a typical Dutch dish! In fact, it is a dish Indonesians prepare for breakfast using yesterdays left-over rice. Here, a rather dubious kind of interaction led to a new development in the Dutch cuisine.

Education
Education is not only important for the transmission of one’s own culture, it also prepares for contact with other cultures. This contact may lead to cultural change, because out of the interaction something new may emerge.

In summary, the pluralist orientation clearly is a pre-condition and a pre-eminent breeding ground for an intercultural dialogue,

Distorted Views on other Cultures
One can find instances of stereotypes, prejudice, ethnocentrism and even racism in nearly all cultures regardless of their orientation to other cultures. These phenomena all amount to distorted views of the other group or culture.

Universalists will look down on other groups or cultures because they do not share their ‘universal’ norms and values. This is the argument with which possible instances of stereotypes and the like are “justified”. In a universalist orientation possible instances of stereotypes may constitute undesirable behaviour, forbidden, as it were, in their universal norms. In the actual or obviously desired behaviour, governed by values. these possible instances may be “justified” with the fact that the other group or culture does not share their universal norms and values.

For relativists stereotypes, prejudice, ethnocentrism and racism may be considered wrong as well. Their problem is that they cannot pass judgement on the other culture because they claim that they are in no position to understand it. The norms of relativists may reject stereotypes, prejudice, ethnocentrism and racism. Possible instances and manifestations of these problems, however, may be explained away with the argument that one does not understand the other culture. Not understanding something may lead to fear. Fear for other people is a breeding ground for nasty stereotypes, prejudice and ethnocentrism.

Stereotypes, prejudice, ethnocentrism and racism are to a certain extent inherent to universalism and relativism. Yet, the prevailing norms might condemn these phenomena. Confronted with such situations, governments are wont to turn to education and launch special educational programs aiming to combat these reprehensible phenomena. Usually, these programs are not as successful as expected. This is understandable; an educational system is deeply steeped in the culture of society; consequently, it will reflect the prevailing orientation to other cultures.

Even in cultures with a prevailing pluralist orientation on other cultures we might find instances of stereotypes, prejudice, ethnocentrism and even racism.

The challenge is to draw on the strengths of universalism and relativism within a strongly pluralist approach, which is capable of operating within a framework of interactive diversity.

The Nature of Dialogue
There are, of course, various ways in which we can interact with other people, be it from our own society or from another one. Here, we will limit ourselves to verbal interactions.

In almost any interaction both parties use arguments and statements in support of an opinion. Arguments are used in two ways:

1. to lend support to an expressed opinion.
2. to invalidate an expressed opinion and/or arguments; usually of the other party in the interaction.

In the following discussion of the various forms of verbal interaction we will also shortly discuss the kind of arguments used in the interaction.

The interactions can be either one-way or two-way. In a one-way interaction there is one party delivering the message, the other party is the receiving one. In two-way interactions the interacting parties are both delivering and receiving messages; ideally taking turns. In reality, there may be more than two parties involved.

Another important distinction can be made on the basis of the purpose of the interaction.

We can distinguish the following kinds of interaction

One-way interaction
Monologue. A one-way interaction in which one party presents one or more ideas to the other party with the purpose that the other party accepts these ideas, or at least has the decency to listen. Teachers, preachers and politicians have a strong tendency to hold monologues, especially when they do not have to convince somebody.
Here, argumentation need not be very strong because the person delivering the monologue is not expecting his audience to oppose him, especially when the position of the person delivering the monologue is such that argumentation is not really necessary. Then the position of the one delivering the monologue is a kind of implicit argument.

Two-way interactions
Verbal lubricant
Most of our verbal interactions serve no other purpose than just being social; they form, as it were, the verbal lubricant of human relations. It usually is a matter of two-way interaction. Examples are: small talk at the barber shop; an exchange of remarks about the bad weather in a shop and so on. Here, the argumentation usually is of the nature “I think ...”, or “I find...”. This kind of arguments is not very strong and usually not inviting response. The difference with the arguments in the monologue is that the position of the interactors is not an implicit argument.

Conversation
Here, more than two may be involved. It usually amounts to an exchange of viewpoints on topics. During conversations the topics may change frequently. Typical examples can be found at receptions or birthday visits. In a conversation, information, ideas or opinions are exchanged with no other purpose than to make them known to the other party. One could regard such conversations as a premium brand of verbal lubricant.

In a conversation, the argumentation is very much alike the arguments used in the verbal lubricant.

Occasionally a conversation may turn into a debate of discussion.

Debate
Here, the participants discuss a matter of dispute with the purpose to establish who is right. The aim of the participants is to win. Some parliamentarians are well versed in the art of debating. Unfortunately, quite often parliamentarian debates are in fact two alternating monologues. In a debate, the interaction is two-way but there is no common aim for the debaters. Each has its own aim: winning the debate or at least not losing it.

Here, we find two kinds of arguments:

• arguments that support the view of the person using it; and
• arguments that are supposed to undermine the opinion and/or arguments of the opponent.

The opponents are using both kinds of arguments. In order not to weaken their position they tend to not to use arguments that they do not consider very strong.

Typical for a debate is that the opponents usually are only interested in possible weak points in their opponent’s arguments. Occasionally, debaters are tempted to use arguments that are more related to the opponent’s person than to the matter of dispute. That does not enhance the quality of the debate.

Sometimes, the position of one of the debaters forms an implicit argument.

Discussion
Here, the aim is not to win, but to ascertain the true nature of the subject of discussion and come to an agreement. People can, for example, discuss the various ways to reduce global warming and hopefully come to an agreement. Or, in an educational setting the participants in a discussion aim to learn something about the subject under discussion.

Here, the arguments used are either directly or indirectly derived from the matter under discussion. Arguments derived directly from the matter under discussion are as it were given in the matter under discussion. The indirectly derived arguments stem from the discussant’s personal views on and/or feelings about the matter under discussion. In the presentation of a subject a teacher might use her/his personal interest in the subject as an argument for the students to engage in the discussion. Here too, the position of one of the discussants may be an implicit argument.

Occasionally, a discussion may deteriorate into a debate. This may happen when indirectly derived arguments start to monopolize the discussion.

Dialogue
The dialogue is a special kind of discussion. Here, the parties are not only interested in the subject under discussion but also —if, indeed, not mainly— in what motivates the other party, what are her/his underlying motives? In trying to ascertain that they arrive at a deeper understanding of the other and at new insights. Characteristic for a dialogue is an open mindedness and a respectful basic attitude in which the other and his/her ideas and motives are either accepted or respectfully discussed.

In the dialogue we will find the same kinds of arguments as in the discussion, but here the arguments are not as much used to convince or to explain something, but much more as occasions to go deeply into the backgrounds of the arguments. Why is this argument used? What does it mean to the person(s) using it? Participants in a dialogue are interested in the arguments for using an argument.

A special form of dialogue is the intercultural dialogue - an open and respectful exchange between individuals, groups and organisations with different cultural backgrounds or world views. Its main aims are:

• to develop a deeper understanding of different perspectives and practices an understanding that is necessary to begin to solve possible disagreements or conflicts with a reasonable chance of success.
• to increase participation (or the freedom to make choices);
• to ensure equality; and
• to enhance creative processes.

• Foster open-mindedness, which enables us to challenge stereotypes, prejudice, ethnocentrism and racism, phenomena that make a real intercultural dialogue practically impossible.
• Foster an critical attitude to one’s own behaviour and the values and norms behind it.
• Foster the pluralist orientation to other cultures.
• Foster knowledge of one’s own culture, resulting in clear and distinct ideas about the prevailing beliefs, norms and values.

The question arises as to how education can realize these aims. The answer is through an education in which interaction and dialogue is part and parcel. Cooperative learning (CL) has these qualities. Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec (1993) defined CL as "the instructional use of small groups so that students work together to maximize their own and each other's learning".

In cooperative learning, students interact in purposely structured heterogeneous groups to support the learning of oneself and others in the same group. This interaction —the essential part of cooperative learning— has to meet five criteria:

• positive interdependence of the students
• individual accountability for progress and results
• face-to-face interaction
• appropriate use of collaborative skills, and
• regular self-assessment of team functioning.

By its very nature, cooperative learning contributes to the above four educational aims of an education for intercultural dialogue.

That can be done with almost any subject matter. It is, of course, possible to regard one’s own culture as subject matter and offer it as such. This, however, is not easy, because there is a great risk that the subject becomes detached from the everyday reality of the learners. That is not the case whenever one or more of the above five criteria are brought up for discussion in an evaluation of the educational process. This is because each formal discussion of one or the other of these criteria is also a discussion of the norms and values pertaining to that criterion.

Cooperative learning is pre-eminently appropriate as education for an intercultural dialogue.

References
Haring, D.G. (1949). Is Culture definable? American Sociological Review, 14, Page 13, 26-32
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind: Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. London: Mcgraw-Hill.
Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Holubec, E. (1993). Circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom. (6th ed.) Edina, MN: Interaction Books.
Kroeber, A.L., & Kluckhohn, C. (1963). Culture :A critical review of concepts and definitions.  New York: Random House. [Originally published in 1952 as Vol XLVII - No 1 of the Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archeology and Ethnology, Harvard University.]
Leicester, M. (1986). Multicultural curriculum or anti racist education: Denying the gulf. Multicultural Teaching to Combat Racism in School and Community, 4(2), 4-7.
Procee, H. (1993). Pluralisme in (re)actie. Comenius, 49, 56-69.
Tennekes, J. (1986). Cultuurrelativisme in een multiculturele samenleving. Wijsgerig Perspectief, 27(4), 129-134.