Ministers' Dossier

 

 

2008 - European Year of Intercultural Dialogue

The Commission adopted on the 5th of October a proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council to declare 2008 "European Year of Intercultural Dialogue".

With an overall budget of €10 million, the European Year will draw on the wealth and diversity of a series of specific projects to be implemented during 2008 through programmes and other Community actions. Culture, education, youth, sport and citizenship will be the main areas concerned.

Generally speaking, the European Year is expected to:

• promote intercultural dialogue as an instrument to assist European citizens, and all those living in the European Union, in acquiring the knowledge and aptitudes to enable them to deal with a more open and more complex environment;

• raise the awareness of European citizens, and all those living in the European Union, of the importance of developing active European citizenship which is open to the world, respectful of cultural diversity and based on common values.

The European Year of Intercultural Dialogue shall make possible to promote a consistent image of the multiplicity of Community actions contributing to the intercultural dialogue while developing synergies between programmes, particularly those geared towards neighbouring countries and third countries. The Year shall also involve close co-operation between the Member States to concentrate efforts on awareness-raising and communication activities.

The Commission proposes to fund three types of activity, which will constitute the operational objectives:

• an information campaign promoting the objectives of the European Year - to be identified by a logo - which could account for half of the budget;

• grants for actions at Community level, geared towards a limited number of emblematic actions on a Community scale (e.g. major festivals or sporting events) intended to raise awareness, especially among young people, of the objectives of the European Year;

• co-financing of actions at national level with a strong European dimension.

The preparation for the Year will need to be closely co-ordinated with the preparations for and implementation of the "European Year of Equal Opportunities for All" in 2007 in order to maximise synergies and complementarity between these two initiatives.

 

Excerpts
from the propositions to the European Commission on an EU Year of Intercultural Dialogue, prepared by the European Forum for the Arts and Heritage (EFAH)

The term "intercultural dialogue" is used in many different and sometimes confusing ways. This creates a vague area of reflection, often making the development of concrete programmes difficult. For the sake of clarity, we wish to distinguish between three fruitful and parallel areas of endeavour:

1. Inter-continental dialogue as a response to globalisation and the need for serious cultural bridging.
2. Trans-national dialogue as a response to a wider Europe and as an integrated part of a strategy towards neighbouring countries
3. Inter-ethnic dialogue as a response to the increased heterogeneity in all our towns and cities due to migration and mobility.

The three areas are inter-related. The skills necessary to respond to them are similar and transferable. The key to a successful strategy for Intercultural Dialogue is to create synergies between them. The necessary synergies between the three areas above will have to be sought against a background of the following key contemporary developments and/or requirements, on the road from immigration to cultural fusion and multiple identities.

First point:

Millions of people are on the move in today's world, hence migration has become a major cultural and political force. Mobility - and therefore ‘interculturalism' in practice - is constantly increasing.  Mixed couples and their children, second and third generation immigrants with one foot in each culture, are common expressions of mobility in all European societies. This is a phenomenon that enriches. It may well lead to a reduction of the importance of ethnicity, whether by blood or imagination and tradition.

Our world is changing constantly - and we need to exercise our capacity for change. Confrontation and negotiation with other realities is excellent preparation for confronting an unknown future. When the legendary theatre maker Peter Brook put together his first intercultural company years ago, he dreamed of "making culture in the sense that yoghurt is culture". He initiated a transformation, an ongoing fermentation of ideas and perspectives, changing not only the participants (micro-cosmos) but also the context in which they worked (macro-cosmos).

Second point:

We should not focus simply on so-called "immigrant artists" reproducing classic forms of European art. Although it seems to be an organic impulse among some artists to gain acceptance in their new countries by re-inventing the wheel and rejecting their "otherness", artistic assimilation misses the point.

Instead - we need hybrid forms that concretely reflect a culture in the making; a plural society built on exchange and dialogue. This can be called fusional art. It increases the oxygen level in a society.

Third point:

We must be motivated by curiosity, a desire to be surprised. Intercultural dialogue is not about giving jobs and opportunities to "underprivileged groups". It is about creating an entirely new context where we are all transformed in the meeting, leading potentially to a relationship of common engagement and focused citizenship.

Fourth point:

We must never, never forget the audience. They will affect speed and rhythm. The audience could be inspired, cultivated and - above all - listened to. We need to develop allies in the radical transformation of culture that is required as a response to migration and globalization. Not in the form of "the crowds" but rather culture as meeting points for debate and reflection. The Arts can take a central position: citizenship and participation are only stimulated within an inclusive society, created by common values that are being developed, not enforced or taught.

Fifth point:

Another challenge we face in a globalised world is the cultivation of multiple identities. Each of us has an ethnic background but also personal identities as a parent, as a religious believer, as a man or woman. We have professional identities and cultural identities. We have a class identity. We share hobbies and interests in sub-cultural groups.

These different identities are in continuous negotiation and transformation. None of them alone are sufficient to define a person at any given moment. We weave our way through this complicated map and we relate to one another from various positions, none of them fixed.

Sixth point:

Practicing trans-national collaboration is an important exercise in a globalised world. However, the standard import-export of national art products fills a very limited function. Audiences see, consume and applaud. Artists travel, perform and depart. The contact surface takes place only within the theatre, concert hall or museum for a limited time. It borders on exoticism, regardless of the quality or the country of origin. How can we avoid this superficial "internationalism"? By turning superficial contacts into collaborative relationships, working/creating together, discussing our experiences and aspirations at length and learning from each other.

Seventh point:

Intercultural dialogue in daily life is seldom stimulated by massive mainstream events which often unintentionally lead to counter-productive results for the image of the European Union. Any future programme for intercultural dialogue should support an environment in which a diversity of artistic expressions flourish and where discordance is not only tolerated but encouraged.

Eighth point:

Heritage is awareness of the many layers of history and human endeavour that make up a community or a nation. We must always ask ourselves when we consider research and preservation just whose heritage we are talking about? Migration and economic globalisation have opened to a diversity of cultural heritages co-existing in the same geographical space. This requires a conscious and innovative approach to make informed decisions balancing between re-invention, diversity and national traditions.

Summary:

We must cultivate the necessary intercultural competence to negotiate differences inclusively and with parallel strategies, whether on the local/national level or on the trans-national level. At all levels, it is a question of cultural democracy.