| Interculturality and dialogue | | Print | |
| | 03.07.2008 | Science - Articles [en] [de] | ||||
|
The idea that a culture is a sort of island primarily related to itself, definable and thus delimitable, is a nineteenth-century construct. One very dramatic consequence of this idea is the process described as keeping a culture pure, which can only be thought out and put into practice by following the path of exclusion and force.
In actual fact, cultures are and have always been constantly engaged in mutual exchange, in an alternating pattern of absorption and delimitation, and cannot adequately be understood as polarities. Language and cultural context People are born into a specific cultural and historical context. They do not acquire language as such, but one (or more) specific languages; and they do not acquire culture to some degree either, but they become a person as they confront their concrete cultural context, which they do not simply take on, but simultaneously also adapt and interpret. The scope they have to do so of course depends on the cultural context, whether it tends more towards individualism or collectivism. Thus, it would objectively be appropriate and helpful not to see people as representatives of cultures, but as subjects set in a cultural context, a cultural tradition; subjects who (as ‘co-constructors of reality’) draw upon or are backed up by a cultural tradition, however you like to describe this relationship. This approach takes the idea seriously that culture is human nature; the idea that there is no such thing as culture per se, but always a plurality of cultures, a plurality within cultures; that cultures are historical features and thus also subject to historical change. This approach helps reduce the development and significance of cultural, ethnical or national stereotypes. Cultural identity At the same time it must be taken into account that – whatever is understood by cultural identity – other factors are also crucial for people’s “cultural” self-image include age, sex, education, social and societal situation and/or position, and that if these factors are not taken into account, it is easy to fall into the trap of culturalism, and the process of understanding is no longer possible. Interculturality can describe the relationship between cultures, the differences meaning that there are opportunities for exchange and communication. Interculturality can mean the differences between individuals which result from their belonging to different cultures. Interculturality can also act to conceal exclusions and power imbalances, and to fix people in cultural stereotypes used to interpret men and women and their behaviour (“typically…”). An intercultural approach can serve various interests and therefore requires a discerning, discriminating perspective, which balances equality and diversity. Dialogue Again and again, people talk about dialogue between cultures or religions, yet cultures (and religions) cannot engage in dialogues – purely because they are not people. Another factor is that there is no such thing as an “Arab” or “Western” culture. Only people can engage in a dialogue. On one hand, dialogue is defined – in contrast with a monologue – as a discussion between two or more people, based on an attempt to come to an understanding. However, it is questionable whether every effort towards understanding should always be described using such an emotional term as “dialogue”. At any rate, the “dialogue of living together” precedes structure and/or organised dialogue. On the other hand, dialogue means an attempt to help “logos”, as meaning, as truth, to win through. This may be the direction the Second Vatican Council is going in, in its Declaration on Religious Freedom, when it encourages people “… thus to assist one another in the quest for truth”. Cultural self-reflection The “cultural self-reflection” suggested by E. Jouhny, in which both the pros and cons of one’s own culture and “cultural identity” would be permitted, could enable people, instead of taking a primarily normative approach (“I must be friendly to foreigners, understand people from other cultures and religions …”) to discover a means of approaching others which recognises their own limits and strengthens their own resources. Consequently, the task of education, caught between interculturality and dialogue, should never lose sight of the significance of personal skills: it should take into account the problematic reality of phobia and euphoria towards the different and the foreign, and should encourage an ability to empathise, which does not mean to sympathise. Culture-sensitive education It would be appropriate to speak of culture-sensitive education as a lifelong task both in and for specific culturally heterogeneous contexts, which does not primarily aim at complete understanding of cultures or people, and thus takes into account Georg Auernheimer’s comment about a false security in understanding. The aim is not to make the foreign and foreigners less foreign, but rather to journey together into this foreignness. Culture-sensitive education supports the ability to question oneself without having to give up one’s self or be made permanently insecure; it encourages the ability to perceive and recognise diversity, and opens up the path to an understanding of culture which extends beyond the categories of “own culture” and “foreign culture”. Differences There are various cultural standards, e.g. in how people deal with other people, or with time. These are generally not conscious, but can be the cause of many misunderstandings. Knowledge of these differences between cultural aspects taken for granted can be helpful for a dialogue, although it is not possible to acquire a comprehensive knowledge which safeguards a person against all misunderstandings, i.e. which guarantees constant "safe" dialogue. Dialogue in culturally heterogeneous contexts requires constant sensitivity for relationships of power and helplessness, for the reality of inclusion and exclusion, for the social constraint of possibly only having the choice between an existence as an outsider or as a parvenu / conformation. Univ.-Prof. Dr. theol. Martin Jäggle Born 9th June 1948, married, three grown-up children, Studied philosophy, physics, mathematics and theology at the universities of Vienna and Innsbruck. R.E (Religious Education) teacher and academy lecturer Since 1st September 2003 professor for religious educational science and catechism at the Catholic-Theological Faculty at the University of Vienna; is currently dean Numerous publications, translations into eight languages. |
||||
| Details: | ||||
|
||||
