Through the Year of Intercultural Dialogue 2008: A Satiric View on the Role of European Foundations

The opportunities and challenges that culturally diverse societies pose have been the focus of many foundations throughout Europe. They support projects, research and other activities with the intention of promoting a better understanding and appreciation of the benefits of cultural pluralism, or, alternatively, of ameliorating the real or perceived costs of diversity.

In the context of the 2008 Year of Intercultural Dialogue, we started to conduct interviews with a number of foundations which have a particular focus on fostering and promoting active European citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity based on common values. The results of these interviews are intended to inform the ongoing discussions about the Year of Intercultural Dialogue as a platform of coordinated activities of all those that share its goals. Foundations are no doubt a central force and important voice in this Dialogue.

STUDY OBJECTIVES:

• Explore the range of foundations’ policies, approaches and initiatives to promote awareness of cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue in Europe
• Identify projects/activities of an exemplary nature and analyze the key factors that are conducive to ensuring effectiveness and sustainable success (project design, external conditions, stakeholder involvement etc)
• Offer a conceptual framework for best practice to enhance the policy impact of foundation initiatives
• Stimulate discussions between foundations, the cultural sector at large and public actors regarding ways how to improve cross-fertilisation of ideas and activities and to capitalize from synergies

However, before addressing the below listed questions in a comprehensive format (i.e. via a series of in-depth interviews with selected foundations), we wanted to further refine the scope of the study. Thus we had a shot on a fictitious discussion on the themes of culture and integration, conducted by two archetypical antagonists: misanthropic “Mr Hyde”, and “Dr Jekyll”[1] who represents the mainstream voice of the ‘Gutmensch’, somewhat mimicking the line of European foundations as they often present themselves in their published materials. Mr Hyde, on the other hand, is the typical nagger who finds fault in everything and is only seemingly ignorant, yet full of pointed and somewhat grim pessimism about the prospects of integration and a multi-cultural society.

These two characters here engage in a dialogue on five sets of questions which form the framework of the eventual study. The play-acting served as a heuristic tool with the aim of generating more focused hypotheses (see last page) for the future activities of Foundations in their attempt to invoke a transcultural cohabitation in Europe.

The following working definition of ‘intercultural dialogue’ provides a common point of departure:

Intercultural dialogue is a process that comprises an open and respectful exchange of views between individuals and groups with different cultural backgrounds. Among its aims are:

to develop a deeper understanding of different world views and practices;
to increase participation (or the freedom to make choices);
to ensure equality; and
to enhance creative processes.

Measures aiming at "intercultural dialogue" can also be seen as strategic instruments to promote cultural diversity resulting from social interaction which, at the same time, serve the goals of 'social cohesion', on local, regional, national and European levels. (http://www.culturalpolicies.net/web/intercultural-dialogue.php))

1 Experience / Stock-taking

• 1a) Which are the prime areas of foundations’ commitment to the topic of cultural diversity (in its broadest sense)? Themes, issues, questions?

Dr Jekyll: Several far-looking foundations in Europe today clearly identify the challenges ahead which have their origin in the population flows during the early post-colonial period and the beginning of large-scale work migration in the late 50’s and which then acquired a new dimension after the “European 9/11” in 1989 (Fall of the Berlin Wall, © Timothy Garton Ash) and the American 9/11 twelve years later, followed by the attacks in Madrid (11M), London and Istanbul. Politics and media reacted in their own, myoptic way to these events, often exacerbating the rifts between different cultural groups. Hence the main objective of these trend-setter foundations is “to foster dialogue and mutual understanding among different cultures”, intercultural education, and targeted contributions to stimulate broader appreciation for cultural diversity. This is carried out by a wealth of projects and programmes fighting intolerance and strengthening an inclusive civic society and democracy.

Mr Hyde: What foundations (claim to) do may sound noble, but does it actually make much of a difference? Culture and integration policy is first and foremost a domain of local and national governments, and by implication it should not be the task of the EU. As long as there is no consensus among the European governments regarding the multiple cultural identities of their people, foundations act either in a Don Quixote manner, or they simply promote a Shangri-la which serves as a mere substitute, alibi and placebo. I have my spam filter deal with their electronic newsletters.

• 1b) What are the (declared or implicit) policies that are guiding foundations in their efforts to enhance the intercultural capacity of individuals, groups, and societies? Who are the main beneficiaries (civil society organisations, academia/think tanks, cultural actors etc.)?

Dr Jekyll: No, Mr Hyde, your defeatism is just an excuse for your ignorance. Important programmes have been launched and are in operation: on citizenship education, pedagogy of inclusion, on civic identity, intercultural communication and competences, on active participation and the development of critical judgement. Often started by NGOs, they have become a recognised part of mainstream education and culture policy throughout Europe.

Mr Hyde: I can imagine how these programs work: summer camps in the Toscana celebrating diversity or glitzy conferences in fancy hotels conjuring the ‘European soul’. It reminds me of my youth in the Club MED: a multi-cultural land of make-believe for those who can afford it. Pleasant for as long as it lasts, but when you get back home you know instantly that this is where you belong to and where even the tap water tastes better than elsewhere. This is what everyone should do: stay where they come from - except for vacation. That is also what everyone in my pub thinks.

• 1c) Do you see the work foundations in this area as being more proactive/strategic, or more reactive/demand-driven

Dr Jekyll: In Europe, we fortunately don’t believe in the ‘end of history’ and the ‘clash of civilizations’. We recognize that that culture is a multi-facetted affair and that the integration of different cultures into one society always offers more opportunities than threats. With their proactive programme design, foundations are emphasizing these opportunities and are also counterbalancing the reactive impulse of the public authorities which by trying to tighten the security is reducing civil liberties. Citizens don’t accept this black and white scheme any more.

Mr Hyde: Come on, nobody thinks ahead or has an answer. While governments play the three monkeys (no hear, no see, no talk), foundations play the Salvation Army. They distribute lollypops among those who come to us because they think we are living in the land of milk and honey.