Print
See related documents
A. Draft
resolution
(open)
B. Draft
recommendation
(open)
3. Facing obstacles
and building intercultural processes and competences
Table 1:
Countries with innovative policies/action plans for cultural diversity
and dialogue
Report | Doc. 13522 | 05 June 2014
Identities and diversity within intercultural societies
Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media
Summary
Individual and collective identities are rapidly evolving in today’s Europe, partly as a result of cross-border migration which has increased ethnic diversity in most countries. As globalisation gathers pace, individuals are also travelling more widely and choosing to live and work abroad, while the Internet is also helping to break down cultural barriers. Growing numbers of individuals, but especially the young, enjoy “composite identities” that are no longer restricted to a “collective identity” related to a particular ethnic or religious group.
However, if not managed positively, cultural differences can lead to radicalisation, paralysing forms of conflict and even violence. The Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media is alarmed by the rise of anti-democratic and xenophobic political parties in Europe and highlights the positive role of different cultures in the building of national identities and of a European identity. These ought to reflect contemporary realities of our increasingly intercultural societies and positively feature diversity, pluralism and respect for human rights and dignity.
Therefore, the committee calls for a radical change in political discourse and action so that new ways can be found to celebrate cultural diversity as a positive factor for innovation and development. States should make this a strategic long-term objective by developing a comprehensive “Intercultural Strategy” which focuses on awareness raising and public engagement, cohesion among stakeholders, countering racism, planning for diversity and building an intercultural economy.
A. Draft
resolution 
(open)1. The Parliamentary Assembly firmly believes that cultural
diversity is an essential condition for human society, brought about
not only by cross-border migration, but also by the cultural effects
of globalisation, supported by a wide use of new technologies and
media that provide people with easy access to information and platforms
for communication.
2. The Assembly notes that relations with people having a different
cultural background have become a common experience for a majority
of people at school, in the workplace, in neighbourhoods and in
a variety of public spaces, particularly in urban areas. A growing
number of individuals, especially young people, have multiple cultural
affiliations to enjoy, but also to manage, on a daily basis. Their
“composite identity” can no longer be restricted to a “collective
identity” related to a particular ethnic or religious group.
3. However, lack of understanding and fear of the “other” hamper
intercultural exchange and interaction. If not managed positively,
cultural differences lead to radicalisation, paralysing forms of
conflict and even violence. The Assembly is alarmed by the rise
of anti-democratic and xenophobic political parties in Europe and
calls for a radical change in political discourse and action: there
is a need to recognise the role of different cultures in the building
of national identities and of a European identity characterised
by diversity, pluralism and respect for human rights and human dignity.
4. The Assembly considers that this deep societal change urgently
requires a rethinking of the processes, mechanisms and relationships
that are needed to counter racism and intolerance and strengthen
pluralism and democracy in European societies. In this respect,
the Assembly acknowledges the very different circumstances in which
national societies emerged and developed in western, eastern, northern
and southern Europe and emphasises that account should be taken
of those historic differences when discussing what cultural diversity means
in different parts of Europe and what implications it entails for
society.
5. The Assembly also underlines the importance of enhanced cultural
and educational policies intended to value, and make use of, the
inherent potential of young generations with composite identities.
This calls for an in-depth review of national policies (not only
restricted to culture, youth and education policies, but taking
a broader approach to cover in particular employment, social cohesion,
housing and security policies), often characterised by a “defensive”
approach, and for the development of innovative tools. These policies
should, on the one hand, go beyond the simple recognition of diversity
and the promotion of tolerance, towards a recognition of the originality
of each identity and the promotion of positive exchanges and interactions;
on the other hand, they should take account of the European and
even global nature of the phenomenon, and thus of the need to work
together as a precondition for achieving effective and sustainable
results.
6. Based also on its past work, related inter
alia to participatory governance, equality of rights,
non-discrimination, cultural rights, education, youth and media,
the Assembly recommends that the parliaments and governments of
the member States of the Council of Europe:
6.1. concerning strategy and policy making:
6.1.1. recognise cultural diversity
as a factor for innovation and development and make it a strategic
long-term objective, taking political leadership and building consensus
among parties to advance the intercultural agenda at national level;
6.1.2. develop a comprehensive “Intercultural Strategy” focusing, inter alia, on awareness raising
and public engagement (campaigns, intercultural ambassadors, etc.),
cohesion among stakeholders (dialogue, cross-fertilisation and collaborative
project development), countering racism (monitoring and deterrence),
planning diversity (housing, urban development) and building an
intercultural economy (diversity as an asset for innovation and
competitiveness);
6.1.3. mainstream the issues of diversity and intercultural dialogue
in all relevant policy areas, and in particular cultural, education,
youth and media policies; and consider innovative ways to integrate
them from the intercultural perspective;
6.2. concerning policy implementation:
6.2.1. observe the equality of rights and in particular harmonise
civil rights laws for all citizens regardless of ethnic background
or cultural origins; guarantee the freedom of any person to determine
his or her cultural affiliations and identity; ensure equal access
to education, culture and cultural expressions;
6.2.2. establish a sustainable climate of dialogue and understanding
through more equal power relations, interactive communication processes
and conditions for empowerment through the development of individual
self-confidence, paired with a sense of collective responsibility;
6.2.3. review the education system to enhance its capacity to
promote understanding of diversity and the development of intercultural
competencies starting from a very early age; in this respect, support
the implementation of the Council of Europe Charter on Education
for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education and the use
of associated tools and manuals, including the results of the “Intercultural
education” project (school curricula, teaching and training resources);
6.2.4. promote multilingualism in formal and non-formal education
and develop policies and programmes encouraging the sharing of international
experiences and mobility for youth and young adults to strengthen
intercultural competence;
6.2.5. promote the role of intercultural mediators and develop
targeted training of civil servants and educators aiming at building
up their intercultural competences;
6.2.6. introduce requirements for publicly financed institutions
to reflect in more concrete terms the diversity in their leadership,
governing boards, staff, users and programming (artists and audience);
develop “intercultural rules” as a principle of good governance
and a criterion for subsidies;
6.2.7. use public spaces (such as museums, libraries and cultural
and arts centres), cultural and other events (such as music and
film festivals and sports events), and virtual platforms to cultivate
interculturality and share a common vision of cohesive and plural
society;
6.3. concerning partnerships and co-operation:
6.3.1. mobilise partnerships with a
large network of organisations, including youth organisations, non-governmental
associations, businesses, trade unions, media, locally elected leaders,
cultural actors, educators and intercultural “innovators”, and make
use of the experience derived from successful pilot initiatives;
6.3.2. encourage public media to contribute to this process by
setting up nationwide media partnerships and programmes for a balanced
diversity of reporting, using stories to portray cultural diversity
as an asset rather than a threat to society;
6.3.3. recognise the increasingly important role played by local
authorities in promoting and implementing intercultural policy and
pilot action, and in this context review the existing mechanisms
(allocation of powers, legal structure, co-financing, etc.) to facilitate
this process;
6.3.4. in co-operation with the Council of Europe and the European
Union, seek partnerships to develop transfrontier co-operation to
tackle regional specificities, develop shared diversity strategies
and pilot projects which stimulate cultural exchange and shape more
composite and nuanced identities, particularly in the areas of central,
eastern and south-east Europe with numerous minorities as well as
cultural and historic interconnections across borders.
B. Draft
recommendation
(open)1. The Parliamentary Assembly, referring to its Resolution
… (2014) on identities and diversity within intercultural societies,
reaffirms the need to preserve democratic stability in Europe by
cultivating open, vibrant, culturally diverse and cohesive societies.
2. In this respect, the Assembly fully supports the Council of
Europe intergovernmental work on developing a “soft power” policy
and information tools to assist member States in shaping new intercultural
processes, mechanisms and relationships that are needed to address
the compelling diversity challenges in Europe and, on a wider scale,
in the neighbouring regions. It particularly values the implementation
of the Council of Europe Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship
and Human Rights (2010), the activities of the Intercultural Cities
Network and the ongoing “Media in Europe for Diversity Inclusiveness”
Programme (Mediane).
3. Accordingly, the Assembly recommends that the Committee of
Ministers:
3.1. encourage integrated
activities between different sectors of the Council of Europe to
develop innovative approaches to diversity management and, in this
framework, hold with different stakeholders in the member States
“thematic” biennial platforms to discuss and advance policy orientations
and exchange best practices; and in support to this process:
3.2.
3.2.1. review existing
Council of Europe action on diversity with a view to engaging in
long-term activities to promote respect for cultural diversity through
development of policy guidance and tools, which address both national
policies and specific urban intercultural strategies;
3.2.2. seek better co-ordination between the existing monitoring
and information data base systems (the Compendium of Cultural Policies
and Trends in Europe, HEREIN and the European Audiovisual Observatory)
with a view to establishing a comprehensive research and monitoring approach;
and use the available tools to develop an “early warning system”
to help avoid culture-related conflicts and to address topical issues;
3.2.3. seek synergy with the European Union to support regional
initiatives promoting the intercultural agenda in northern, western,
eastern and southern Europe, to address regional specificities,
to strengthen transnational co-operation and to help develop tailored
intercultural strategies and pilot projects.
C. Explanatory memorandum, by Mr Costa Neves, rapporteur
(open)1. Origin and objective of the report
1. On 5 October 2012, the Parliamentary Assembly referred
to our committee for report the motion for a resolution (Doc. 13016) which I had presented with 19 other members of the
Assembly on 13 September 2012. The committee appointed me rapporteur
on 18 December 2012.
2. On 12 March 2013 in Paris, the committee held an exchange
of views with Mr Chris Torch, Senior Associate at Intercult in Stockholm,
Ms Anne-Marie Autissier, Institute of European studies at the University
of Paris 8, and Mr Philippe Cantraine, Advisor in charge of education,
youth and sports for the International Organisation of “la Francophonie”
(IOF), Paris. On 26 June 2013 in Strasbourg, the committee held
an exchange of views with Ms Snežana Samardžić-Marković, Director
General, Directorate General of Democracy (DGII) of the Council
of Europe, and Ms Maria Paschou, Chairperson of the Advisory Council
on Youth. Together with the Portuguese Parliament and the Council
of Europe’s European Centre for Global Interdependence and Solidarity
(North-South Centre), the committee organised a hearing on 25 October
2013 in Lisbon, with the participation of Mr Jorge Sampaio, former
President of the Portuguese Republic and former United Nations High
representative for the Alliance of Civilizations, Mr Jorge Barreto
Xavier, Secretary of State for Culture in Portugal, Ms Rosário Farmhouse,
High Commissioner for Immigration and Intercultural Dialogue (ACIDI),
and several other experts.
3. Moreover, I wish to particularly thank Professor Andreas Wiesand,
Executive Director of the European Institute for Comparative Cultural
Research (ERICarts), Germany, and Mr Torch for their precious help
and expertise in the process of drafting this report. I also wish
to thank Ms Samardžić-Marković and her staff who have assisted
me in collecting information about relevant intergovernmental actions
of the Council of Europe (see information document AS/Cult/Inf (2013)
08). I encourage the promotion of these actions in the draft recommendation.
4. In line with the motion, the present report builds upon the
following observations: The tendency to preserve cultural identities
seems to be gaining strength and this has consequences both in terms
of political messages and national policies. However, this tendency
may lead to reinforcing stereotypes and consequently to isolation
or segregation of communities. Our societies are also experiencing
the emergence of plural or “composite” identities, particularly
among the youngest generations. Youth is more easily exposed to
the influences of different cultural matrices, often as a result
of more complex cultural and social references within mixed families
and within schools.
5. My report is intended to discuss this societal change and
the adjustments it requires in the design of cultural policies,
education, youth and social cohesion policies, thus contributing
to fostering Council of Europe action in the field of “living together”.
I wish to underline that my report is not focused on the integration
of migrants or rights of minorities, but instead focuses on each
one of us as “intercultural persons” living in a globalised world,
surrounded by multiple cultural references.
2. Cultural diversity, interaction and identities in Europe
6. Cultivating diversity and identities with multiple
cultural affiliations is an exciting and very challenging task:
it implies considering individual and societal “world perceptions”
that involve concepts, ideas, values, beliefs and emotions which
all together determine the way we approach each other. This process
therefore touches upon many sensitivities in our contemporary societies
and it radically breaks away from the consolidated idea of the nation-State
with common “collective identity” based on one language, one culture
and one history.
7. In the past, European governments and societies have had to
deal with a wide range of issues that were generally grouped under
“minority issues”. In different ways and at different speeds they
had to respond to the needs and demands of their minorities (local
or immigrant, as the case may be) and to negotiate the relation between
majority and minority populations.
8. Today, the concept of cultural diversity is gaining ground
and is strongly associated with the protection of human rights and
cultural rights of ethnic minorities, immigrant communities with
a distinct culture or specific groups in need of protection (religious
groups, etc.). In many countries, this has involved a positive change
of attitude towards the presence and significance of minority and
migrant cultures in Europe and represents a radical shift from assimilation
policies asserting a “homogeneous” culture of the majority.
9. Currently, most local, national and transnational initiatives
have been developed in the spirit of “multiculturalism”, in other
words celebrating ethnic, cultural and religious diversity among
minority communities and providing them with recognition, visibility
and resources. But the division between “us” and “them” persists.
Notwithstanding its value for the recognition of minority rights
and cultures, multiculturalism regrettably could not become a common
social or cultural objective for the greater part of the society.
Instead, multiculturalism has led to further cultural isolation
of minority communities and growing conflict, due to little interaction
and lack of deeper mutual understanding and acceptance between individuals
and/or communities.
10. Table 2 in the Appendix summarises a spectrum of four different
“models” of managing cultural diversity which have been used in
the past and/or are still applied in Europe. The outcomes of these
policies may vary from exclusion, assimilation and segregation to
integration of minority population and are determined by two factors:
whether this minority can keep its culture of origin and whether
it has the capacity to absorb the culture of the majority. I wish
to underline here that although these models describe different
political realities in Europe, they no longer seem to provide an
adequate response to contemporary challenges of “composite” identities
of second or third generations of young people that do not fit into
the predetermined category of a “minority” or a “majority”.
11. Indeed, what may have previously been perceived as simple
realities – the idea of the nation-State with one language, one
culture and one history shared by all citizens – can no longer hold
true today. Cultural diversity is becoming an essential condition
for human society, brought about not only by cross-border migration
and by the claim of national and other minorities to a distinct
cultural identity, but also and more importantly by the cultural
dimension of globalisation, by the growing interdependence between
all regions in the world, supported by a wide use of new technologies
and media that provide us with easy access to information and platforms
for communication. For example, music, arts and cultural events,
as well as diverse culinary experiences, are clearly intercultural
experiences and are increasingly accessible to all. Learning from each
other in such a creative manner makes us change and open up to gradually
evolve into “intercultural persons”.
12. Moreover, relations with people having a different cultural
background have become a common experience for a majority of people,
especially in urban centres, be it at school, in the workplace,
in neighbourhoods, sports clubs, associations, shopping centres,
cafés or nightclubs, museums or libraries. More and more individuals,
particularly among young generations, are living in a “multicultural”
normality and have multiple cultural affiliations to enjoy, but
also to manage, on a daily basis. Some live in mixed families and others
move across countries seeking jobs or seeking different opportunities
in education.
13. The notion of identity cannot therefore be “fixed” and confined
to a “collective identity”, belonging to a distinct ethnic or religious
group. Each of us has a national citizenship and an ethnic and cultural
background – and some may have several in case of mixed families
or complex life trajectories. Additionally, our personal identities
also reflect what we are in terms of gender, position in a family,
professional and social ties, and our political affiliations. These
different aspects of our identities and our social roles are in
a continuous dynamic negotiation and none of them alone is sufficient
to define a person. This complicated matrix of references can indeed
help us to relate positively to one another from various positions,
to overcome prejudice and create connections, and out of such interaction
we can become more “open” to difference, gain better understanding and
appreciation of it, and continuously “grow” and evolve our “identity”.
14. The overall shift from homogeneity to diversity which has
happened over the past decades, has gradually become a new social
norm in most parts of Europe – particularly in urban centres and
among young people. From the political point of view, this process
of individual transformation urgently requires positive recognition
of a new intercultural era and building adequate tools and mechanisms
to help us adapt to a constantly evolving intercultural environment.
It requires “positive action” by the State, active participation
of many actors and fundamental rethinking of the processes, mechanisms
and relationships that are needed to ensure peaceful and democratic
development in our increasingly diverse, rapidly changing and dynamic intercultural
societies.
3. Facing obstacles
and building intercultural processes and competences
3.1. Fear
15. The greatest obstacle to intercultural exchange is
fear. Fear is growing out of populist political campaigns and is
further exacerbated by the deep economic crisis in Europe. Those
who remain fixed and attached to the cultural space of their birth
are instilled with fear of the “Other” who arrives. They fear loss
of identity, they fear for their jobs and their welfare, they fear
that they will not be able to communicate, they fear their space
being invaded. They respond by closing their space, rejecting new
influences and demonising the immigrant.
16. On the other hand, those who migrate are afraid of not fitting
in. They worry that they will not be understood, that they will
be isolated or marginalised, even threatened. They fear that they
will lose their original identities, their history and their rights.
They respond by becoming introverted within their ethnic/cultural group
and remaining segregated in their neighbourhoods. They avoid contact
with their new neighbours. Without effective intercultural policies,
this newly emerging, more diverse society will continue to be perceived as
a threat rather than an opportunity. We resist dialogue, we avoid
communication, we freeze ourselves in the past and we turn away
from a common future.
17. According to a Eurobaormeter survey of discrimination in the
European Union in 2012, discrimination on ethnic grounds
is seen as the most widespread form of discrimination with an average
figure of 56% respondents. The analysis of national results reveals
however large differences: seven out of ten respondents see widespread
discrimination in France (76%), Cyprus and Sweden (both 75%), and
Greece, the Netherlands, Denmark and Hungary (all 70%). At the other
end of the scale, less than a third of citizens living in Lithuania (17%),
Poland and Latvia (both 26%) share this view. The results of the
survey can be in part explained by considerable historic and demographic
differences in Europe and by very different cultural attitudes which
have developed as a result of those differences.
discrimination on ethnic grounds
is seen as the most widespread form of discrimination with an average
figure of 56% respondents. The analysis of national results reveals
however large differences: seven out of ten respondents see widespread
discrimination in France (76%), Cyprus and Sweden (both 75%), and
Greece, the Netherlands, Denmark and Hungary (all 70%). At the other
end of the scale, less than a third of citizens living in Lithuania (17%),
Poland and Latvia (both 26%) share this view. The results of the
survey can be in part explained by considerable historic and demographic
differences in Europe and by very different cultural attitudes which
have developed as a result of those differences.18. The recent vote at the Swiss referendum to set limits on immigration
from the European Union is a telling
example. It reflects the growing concern among the Swiss population
that immigrants are eroding the nation's distinctive Alpine culture
and contributing to rising rents, crowded transport and more crime.
The outcome of the vote obliges the government to turn the “Stop
mass immigration” initiative, led by the right-wing Swiss People's
Party (SVP), into law within three years.
is a telling
example. It reflects the growing concern among the Swiss population
that immigrants are eroding the nation's distinctive Alpine culture
and contributing to rising rents, crowded transport and more crime.
The outcome of the vote obliges the government to turn the “Stop
mass immigration” initiative, led by the right-wing Swiss People's
Party (SVP), into law within three years.19. This example show that the greatest threat to cultural interaction
are indeed policies which are shaped to protect inward isolationism
of regions, cultures and nations. These ideas are spread by populists
who use fear in order to strengthen their position. We must therefore
counter this trend and create an atmosphere free from fear, so that
healthy relations between diverse parts of our community can be
cultivated, and only in this way can we preserve social and political
stability in Europe.
3.2. Identities
20. Each of us is born with specific conditions and capacities.
We have ethnic backgrounds, often mixed. We have physical specificities,
but also limits. These differences are, at the base, our natural
identity traits. They can be “visible and celebrated” or “hidden
and homogenised”.
21. Each of us is born into a context: class, clan and conditions.
These are socially constructed but often hard to overcome, because
of poverty or marginalisation. These imposed identities can restrict
our movement and our capacity to self-realisation. They place people
in a certain class or category, with pre-defined access to information
and education; they keep people locked in unemployment and social
behaviour. The results of the 2013 European Testing Campaign against
racial discrimination conducted in five countries indicate that in 34% of
cases, Roma, Arab or black African people living in Europe have
been discriminated against and, although having equal qualifications,
they are not given the same opportunity in access to housing as
people of ethnic majority.
indicate that in 34% of
cases, Roma, Arab or black African people living in Europe have
been discriminated against and, although having equal qualifications,
they are not given the same opportunity in access to housing as
people of ethnic majority.22. Ethnic minorities, including immigrant populations, are often
victims of imposed identity. The dominant culture seeks to assimilate
the minority, transforming it into a sub-group rather than accepting
its right to self-determination and other forms of cultural rights.
23. Identities are also imposed through imagined or invented narratives.
We interpret and fix people with traits, based on false historical
images, myths and fantasies: associating for example Roma with crime
and Muslim population with terrorism. These imagined identities
often lock minorities and new citizens into profiles that are not
natural or social but simply the construction of image.
24. Demagogy is one of the great dangers here. Populist political
leaders, with the help of the media, use the “Other” to counter
define themselves. The invention of an enemy, someone to fear and
reflect anger towards, is a common political tool which often strikes
cultural and ethnic minorities, as well as those with unconventional
lifestyles or interests (homosexuals, youth sub-cultures, etc.).
25. For this reason, the basic principle that must be applied
is to guarantee the right to self-determination: “I am who I say
I am.” This allows for a greater flexibility in definition, a mobility
between different identities, a continuous shifting and re-invention
of our identity. An “immigrant” who decides to become a “citizen”
of his or her new country is required to adapt, at least to some
extent, to the new situation; but he or she shall have the possibility
of choosing freely the best of the cultural opportunities available,
according to their background and the wealth of new impulses they
meet.
26. The alarming rise of anti-democratic and xenophobic political
parties in European countries which have long histories of tolerance
underlines the need for immediate policy action. In Denmark, Norway,
Austria, Hungary, Finland, Belgium, France, Greece and other States,
citizens are being blinded by hate and seduced to vote for extremist
movements. In parallel, angry responses from marginalised peoples
and communities create disturbing platforms for conflict, frustration
and social strife as we have witnessed in recent years in the neighbourhoods
of Stockholm, Paris, Marseilles, Bradford or London.
3.3. Policy proposals
27. Radical policy reviews, changes and innovation are
needed to guarantee the equality of rights and create an atmosphere
free from fear, so that healthy relations between diverse parts
of society can be cultivated.
28. As a first step, we need to observe the equality of rights
and in particular harmonise civil rights laws for all citizens regardless
of their ethnic background or cultural origins. We also need to
ensure equal access to education, culture and cultural expressions.
In this context, creating conditions for positive and creative interaction
avoiding segregation would be a key measure, in accordance with
the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity
of Cultural Expressions, which guarantees the right for each individual
to “self-determination” as regards his or her affiliation to “culture”.
29. Interculture is mutual transformation. It both allows and
encourages constant change and flexibility. We can become who we
wish, we can leave behind certain traits and take on new ones. We
are in a state of continuous transformation, where nothing is cemented.
We therefore need to create policies that leave a great deal of
freedom for individuals and groups to re-invent themselves, rising
to challenges and eliminating cultural habits that are no longer
useful in a new context and consider new notions of “citizenship”
based on residency, participation and shared values, instead of
ethnic background or language requirements. Moreover, a sustainable
climate of dialogue and understanding will need to be established
through more equal power relations, interactive communication processes
and conditions for empowerment through the development of individual
self-confidence, paired with a sense of collective responsibility.
30. The best place to start this process would be in nurseries
and primary schools, given that young children are extremely curious
and open, free from prejudice and stereotypes. Building on this
“openness”, which is cultivated at a very early age, school curricula,
teaching and training resources should be adapted to build intercultural
competences throughout primary and secondary education, and later
in higher education. The Council of Europe Charter on Education
for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education, and the results of a specific project
on “intercultural education” would provide an excellent support
(manuals and tools) to the member States.
and the results of a specific project
on “intercultural education” would provide an excellent support
(manuals and tools) to the member States.31. Promoting multilingualism in formal and non-formal education
and developing policies and programmes to encourage intercultural
youth activities, mobility and international experiences, would
be another key area to strengthen intercultural competence.
32. We would also need to make a more creative use of public space
(museums, libraries, cultural and art centres, music and film festivals,
sports events, etc.), including virtual platforms, to cultivate
interculturality and share a common vision of cohesive and plural
society. This would imply also breaking barriers between city centres
and immigrant ghettos, helping people to feel confident enough to
come out of the “safe havens” of their community, decentralising
cultural meeting places into the peripheral neighbourhoods, where
cultural diversity is most pronounced and introducing requirements
for publicly financed institutions to reflect the diversity of their
citizens in more concrete ways – through leadership, governing boards,
users and programming (artists and audience). Those institutions
would also need to develop “intercultural rules” as a principle
of good governance and criterion for subsidies.
33. To achieve this transformation of public space and institutions,
we need to promote the role of intercultural mediators, and develop
targeted awareness raising of politicians, civil servants and educators aiming
at building up their intercultural competences, cultural diplomacy
and sensitivity.
34. Given the increasingly important role played by local authorities
in promoting and implementing intercultural policy and pilot action,
particularly in urban areas, the existing mechanisms (allocation
of powers, legal structure, co-financing, etc.) would need to be
reviewed between national, regional and local levels to create synergy
and facilitate this process. The Council of Europe, in co-operation
with the European Commission, has been actively supporting the “Intercultural
Cities” network with an innovative conceptual framework
to assist city mayors in developing comprehensive intercultural
strategies. This process needs to be promoted and further encouraged
at national level, to widen the initiative.
network with an innovative conceptual framework
to assist city mayors in developing comprehensive intercultural
strategies. This process needs to be promoted and further encouraged
at national level, to widen the initiative.35. In more concrete terms, this process involves building codes
and city planning regulations which incorporate the need for special
needs access, attractive public space and intercultural meeting
places; festivals, celebrations and campaigns which make ethnic
and cultural minorities visible, both at mainstream institutions
and in neighbourhood centres; developing local policies to increase
dialogue between community groups, the police, the social services
and schools (preventative action); providing sufficient local transportation
systems to increase mobility between different areas of the city,
de-stigmatising peripheral communities; avoiding segregation in
neighbourhoods and providing incentives for a greater social and
ethnic mix in housing policies, etc.
36. To complement “positive action”, we also need to develop monitoring
and deterrence to secure citizens’ rights that guarantee equal treatment
regardless of language, background or educational level, in the
form of monitoring structures which strengthen the legal capacity
for self-determination. I would also insist on the need to firmly
denounce programmes of political parties which threaten fundamental
democratic principles and ensure: equal access to mass media channels
for quick responses to false statements by populist politicians; regulation
providing serious consequences for “hate speech”; and monitoring
of social media in order to respond quickly to viral attacks based
on false information. Finally, at the European level, we need to
prompt governments which are not providing sufficient protection
for the cultural rights of their citizens to adopt adequate measures
to redress this situation and be firm, when required, in condemning
their lack of commitment.
4. Overview of “intercultural” pilot actions and policies in member States
37. I believe that in order to develop the “intercultural
dimension” in policy making, it is essential that we learn from
each other. This chapter exemplifies “national policies and pilot
actions which favour positive attitudes towards “diversity” and
“intercultural interaction”, particularly in the domains of education,
arts and heritage, employment, youth, social cohesion and media/Internet.
The European Institute for Comparative Cultural Research (ERICarts), which undertook the background research,
drew on the experience of a broad community of experts, permanent
correspondents and partner institutions in over 50 countries as
well as on monitoring exercises and studies, including the Council
of Europe/ERICarts “Compendium of Cultural Policies and Trends in
Europe” (with a special focus on issues
of cultural diversity and dialogue), and “Sharing Diversity”, a comparison of national approaches
to intercultural dialogue in Europe, prepared for the European Commission
as a contribution to the “European Year of Intercultural Dialogue”
2008 (EYID).
exemplifies “national policies and pilot
actions which favour positive attitudes towards “diversity” and
“intercultural interaction”, particularly in the domains of education,
arts and heritage, employment, youth, social cohesion and media/Internet.
The European Institute for Comparative Cultural Research (ERICarts), which undertook the background research,
drew on the experience of a broad community of experts, permanent
correspondents and partner institutions in over 50 countries as
well as on monitoring exercises and studies, including the Council
of Europe/ERICarts “Compendium of Cultural Policies and Trends in
Europe” (with a special focus on issues
of cultural diversity and dialogue), and “Sharing Diversity”, a comparison of national approaches
to intercultural dialogue in Europe, prepared for the European Commission
as a contribution to the “European Year of Intercultural Dialogue”
2008 (EYID). 4.1. Results of the survey
38. The survey identifies a certain number of member
States with innovative policies and/or pilot action, as listed in
Table 1 of the Appendix. More detailed information on individual
policies and activities can be found in a comparative table of the
Compendium system. Additionally, some more concrete
national, regional and local examples are highlighted in Table 3;
they are organised according to the main policy areas and different types
of activity.
Additionally, some more concrete
national, regional and local examples are highlighted in Table 3;
they are organised according to the main policy areas and different types
of activity. 39. The results of the survey show that many countries are still
focused on ethnic multiculturalism, celebrating ethnic differences;
this concerns especially central and eastern European countries,
but also a few countries of western and northern Europe. For example
in Norway, the culture and traditions of the Sàmi community are
seen as “part of the common Norwegian and Nordic culture” and are
included in both the national curriculum and in a special Sàmi curriculum
taught mainly in areas defined as Sàmi districts. In the Republic
of Moldova, Ukrainian is taught in 71 schools, Gagauz in 49 and
Bulgarian in 27, in addition to the many Russian language schools.
However, the country profile of Russia – where “cultural autonomy”
is granted to 827 communities (2010) – gives the impression that
this type of “separatism” may not always be to the benefit of students,
since “schools based on ethnic principles actually lead to isolation
of children and lower training standards”.
40. Some countries have moved on to actively promote better “majority–minority”
relations and mutual understanding. For example, an Action Plan
in Bulgaria is to address intercultural deficiencies reported on
in a national strategy paper, highlighting inter
alia that “the history and culture of minorities are
insufficiently presented” in school curricula. Similarly, the programme
“Cultural Parallels” promotes bilingual children's books in Bulgarian
and minority languages. In Hungary, elected representatives of minorities
in the villages and town governments, and on the national level,
have significant rights and growing resources – often spent on culture. At
the local elections in the autumn of 2010, minority self-governments
were elected in nearly half of the local entities. In Romania, a
draft law proposed by the party of the Hungarian minority calls
for cultural autonomy defined as the right of a national community
to regulate matters related to cultural, linguistic and religious identity.
In Serbia, an MA in “intercultural mediation” was launched in 2002
at the University of Arts in Belgrade. In Greece, the Universities
of Athens, Thessaloniki and the Peloponnese took part in regional
co-operation projects to produce intercultural textbooks and teaching
materials which provide a more pluralistic account of the history
and literature of south-eastern Europe. In Spain, the “Educational
Programme for the Gypsy Community” includes teaching materials on
gypsy culture, training in intercultural mediation with the gypsy community,
and initial or in-service training of teachers.
41. Multilingualism is increasingly seen by many countries as
an important step in building intercultural competence, breaking
down linguistic barriers and cultivating openness, curiosity and
cultural interaction. In Austria, for example, the Action Plan for
schools “Interculturality and Multilingualism – a Chance!” has been implemented
since 2005. In Luxembourg, empirical studies in reading competency
show multilingualism as “cultural capital”. In France, 5 800 “European
and Oriental languages sections” in middle and high schools propose
a strengthened learning programme of a foreign language and culture.
In Switzerland, the Federal Law on the Promotion of Culture (2012)
emphasises the need to foster cultural diversity and exchange between cultural/linguistic
communities in Switzerland and with those abroad. Projects facilitating
access to culture or contributing to cultural/linguistic diversity
are prioritised.
42. A variety of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and civil
society initiatives advocating and implementing intercultural programmes
and exchanges have been on the rise in recent years, influencing
also public policies. Youth activities are of particular interest.
For example, the Swedish National Board for Youth Affairs supports
intercultural exchanges, publishes guidelines and conducts evaluations
of results of its work. In Ukraine, the “Romani Cherkhenj” agency
stages cultural and sports activities for Roma youth in Uzhhorod and
the surrounding region, in connection with larger Roma organisations
in the city. Practical “Guidelines for Intercultural Youth Work”
are developed by the National Youth Council of Ireland with the
goal of influencing national policies.
43. The fight against racism in youth work, schools and sports
is a main focus of many NGOs and initiatives (see, for example,
the “Manifesto” of Austrian children’s and youth organisations against
racism and xenophobia (National Youth Council, 2007)) or campaigns
such as “Respect Please!” in Liechtenstein, conducted in co-operation
with youth workers in local communities. This issue has also been
an important point on the agenda of the International Sport and
Culture Association (ISCA), based in Copenhagen, Denmark. The Cyprus
Pedagogical Institute has been offering a series of teacher training
activities aimed at empowering teachers to combat discrimination;
moreover, student conferences on issues like racism and xenophobia
were also organised in that context.
44. In order to counter prejudice and racism, many countries have
been investing in cultural institutions and cultural spaces (museums,
libraries, arts councils, etc.) with a mission to develop activities
that help individuals to adjust to diversity through building their
cultural sensitivity based on creative and positive interaction
with diverse cultures. Some examples show that cultural activities
in this field nevertheless remain focused on the image of migrants
and their integration, while others use cultural interaction as
a means for mutual transformation, breaking barriers between majority
and minority cultures.
45. In Sweden, the “National Museums of World Culture” agency
runs four museums in Stockholm and Gothenburg aimed at adapting
collections and exhibitions to processes of globalisation and migration.
In Italy, “social theatre” is considered the most interesting and
experimental form on the cultural scene, with well-established companies
such as Teatro dell'Angolo in Turin, Teatro delle Albe in Ravenna
and Teatro di Nascosto in Volterra. In Germany, the “Arbeitskreis
Migration” of the German Museums Association publishes guidelines
focusing on collections, exhibitions, and communication with users.
46. Several countries promote diversity rules in public institutions
and particularly cultural organisations, as a principle of good
governance and a criterion for subsidies. The Government of Norway,
for example, sees museums as “an arena where people can develop
positive attitudes to their own and other cultural roots”. The Ministry
of Culture therefore evaluates public institutions with regard to
their ability to initiate and accomplish measures aimed at cultural
diversity. In Belgium (Flanders), Intercultural Dialogue is more
prominent on political agendas since the 2008 Decrees on the arts,
heritage and cultural participation, and was included as one of
evaluation criteria in the assessment procedures for projects and
structures. Diversity rules (“Code culturele
diversiteit”) of main cultural organisations have recently been
accepted by the Ministry of Culture of the Netherlands as a principle
of good governance and a criterion for subsidies.
Diversity rules (“Code culturele
diversiteit”) of main cultural organisations have recently been
accepted by the Ministry of Culture of the Netherlands as a principle
of good governance and a criterion for subsidies.47. In the United Kingdom, the “National Cultural Diversity Network”
of The Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) has to deliver
support, advice and training through regional Cultural Diversity
Co-ordinators and other initiatives, such as the “Cultural Diversity
Checklist”, a toolkit for a basic audit and a literature review
of evidence of cultural diversity activities in the sector. Similarly,
the “Intercultural Museum Programme” of the Dutch Museums Association
aims to introduce more variety in presentations and organisation.
48. More consideration is also given to social cohesion and equity
in employment, promoting cultural diversity as an asset for a vibrant,
plural and cohesive society. In Portugal, a “National Inclusiveness
Action Plan” and the 2nd “Plan for Immigrant Integration” (managed
by the High Commission for Immigration and Intercultural Dialogue
(ACIDI) target inclusion and migrant integration issues, for example
education, employment, “hospitality”, research and interdepartmental
action. A “Pact for Culture”, initiated by the “Citizens of Culture”
NGO and signed by the Polish Prime Minister in 2011, obliges the
State to ensure equal access to culture, particularly in towns and
villages, to prevent cultural exclusion. In Denmark, the Strategy
“Culture for All” (2010) aims to strengthen culture outside the
Danish capital, with focus on non-users (“ikke-brugere”) and including
migrants (“the new Danes”). The city of Copenhagen took a number
of actions to improve the representation of migrants in the city
administration, including via paid internships specifically targeted
at people with minority backgrounds (for example by requiring skills
in a particular language).
49. Multilingual people with different cultural backgrounds and
sensitivities can indeed show greater resilience, dynamism and innovation
in enterprise and are increasingly seen as an asset for the national economy.
Inspired by a Government bill of 2007 and with the support of the
Ministries in charge of employment and business as well as Danish
cities and regions, the “Entrepreneurship in Denmark” initiative
aims to improve the formation, survival and growth of companies
owned by people of different ethnic origin. A number of large companies
in France, Germany and other countries, most of them globally active,
maintain specific diversity codes of conduct (see, for example,
guidelines of Siemens or Sodexo). In the Netherlands, ATANA promotes and
facilitates ethnic diversity on boards of cultural institutions.
In the United Kingdom, the Cultural Diversity Network tries to “share
good practice around the diversity agenda”; activities include a
“Diversity Pledge” signed by over 300 companies. In Sweden, a “Swedish
Association of Ethnic Entrepreneurs” has been formed as an independent
organisation.
50. Research and empirical monitoring activities are very often
a main driver for new policies and action plans aimed at social
inclusion, cultural diversity and gender equality. Such has been
the case in Ireland, for example, where the National Economic and
Social Forum (NESF), a civil society advisory body of the Prime Minister,
issued a report on cultural inclusion as part of social cohesion
with six key recommendations, including on evaluation, and implementation
mechanisms in Germany (following three reports on “Women in the
Arts and Media Professions”) or in Estonia, where independent research
for the Ministry of Culture proposed action to achieve more inclusive
cultural practices (2012).
51. Moreover, it is important to consider gender equality and
values attached to the position of women in different cultures as
a specific dimension of interculturality. Finnish gender policies
converged into a Nordic version of “State feminism” (legal measures,
official monitoring and positive action, including parity clauses
and quotas in the representation and employment of women). In addition
to a National Action Plan (NAP) for Equality of Women and Men on
the Labour Market (2010), Austria has introduced “gender budgeting”, anchored
in the Austrian Constitution; it was to be implemented in all departments
by 2013 (in the government's arts and cultural promotion reports
already in effect since 2007). In Iceland, a “Women Of Multicultural
Ethnicity Network” (W.O.M.E.N.) aims to unite, to express and address
the interests and issues of women of foreign origin living in Iceland,
running also a “World Food Café”.
52. Media and Internet are seen as key elements for shaping public
opinion and facilitating tolerance, better mutual understanding
and positive cultural interaction. For example, in Russia, the parliament
proposed a State grant system and professional competitions for
media productions with ethnic cultural content and in the languages
of the peoples of Russia. In Croatia, a “Fund for the Promotion
of Pluralism and Diversity of Electronic Media” was established
by the Law on Electronic Media. In Romania, the “Media Institute
for Diversity” fights discrimination and fosters cultural (age,
gender, sexual orientation criteria), intercultural (ethnic and
religious minorities) and transnational mediation (asylum seekers,
refugees, tourists). The “Peace Institute” in Slovenia organises
series of seminars on media themes (for example multicultural societies,
Roma people in the media or media and social minorities).
53. In the Netherlands, “Kosmopolis” – intercultural houses and
virtual platforms – are financed by the cities of Rotterdam, The
Hague and Utrecht, together with the Ministry of Culture and the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Similarly, “FunX”, the municipal public
channel for urban youth with a dual cultural background broadcasts
in four large cities, which contribute 50% of the costs. New intercultural
websites have emerged, for example in Italy (“Patrimonio e Intercultura”
of the Fondazione ISMU) and Latvia (“Arterritory.com” on Baltic,
Scandinavian, and Russian art and culture in Latvian, Russian and
English). Run by two national agencies, the Fund “Images de la diversité”
in France provides complementary aid to films, broadcasting and
multimedia works that contribute to cultural diversity and equal
opportunities, reflecting widespread beliefs that “transatlantic
cultural flows are unbalanced” and “standardisation of mass production
has negative effects on artistic creation and diversity”.
54. Finally, a few countries are envisaging national, regional
and/or local development plans and strategies aimed at building
a culturally diverse and cohesive society, based on individual constructive
engagement, shared citizenship and a sense of belonging. In Georgia,
for example, a “National Vision and Action Plan on Civil Integration
and Tolerance” (2008) addresses specific goals in culture and education,
including support for preserving the cultural identity of minorities.
In Spain, the “Strategic Plan on Citizenship and Integration” (2011-2014)
is addressed to the whole population, recognising equal rights and
duties for everyone and respect for diversity. In 2006, the “Communauté
de travail pour l’intégration des étrangers” (CTIE) in the Swiss
city of Neuchâtel started the programme “Neuchâtel à toi” to promote
better mutual understanding among citizens and foreigners. It involved
a series of canton-wide debates on Neuchâtel identity, theatre performances,
film screenings, gastronomic events, radio and television broadcasts,
etc. (and served as a model in the Intercultural Cities Programme).
The “Intercultural Strategy Plan: A City of Equals” of Galway in
Ireland (2009) focuses, inter alia,
on promotion (campaigns, intercultural ambassadors, etc.), cohesion
(community events, volunteer leadership, etc.); planning diversity
(“plan by design”), rejecting racism (monitoring and
deterrence) and building an intercultural economy (including racism
as a barrier to employment).
rejecting racism (monitoring and
deterrence) and building an intercultural economy (including racism
as a barrier to employment).55. Some countries have created national agencies to facilitate
this process. In Austria, the “National Contact Point for Cultural
Diversity” serves as a basis for information and development activities
(for example reporting on the implementation of the 2005 UNESCO
Diversity Convention). The Bulgarian “National Council for Interethnic
Interaction” develops national policies in consultation with government
agencies and non-governmental bodies. “CREATE”, an Irish national
development agency for collaborative arts in social and community
contexts, undertakes partnerships to further its agenda (arts and
health; cultural diversity; the arts and older people).
4.2. Emerging trends
56. A number of States – among them the Nordic countries
and Portugal – provide interesting models. However, most of the
relevant “policies” and meaningful strategies in this domain are
implemented or further developed at the local level by local authorities,
civil society actors, NGOs, etc. Joint ventures or public–private partnerships,
where different actors co-operate, are additional examples of successful
pilot action.
57. Obviously, diversity policies and “intercultural interaction”
strategies are located in a complex environment that is shaped by
societal as well as very personal or group-related concerns. However,
the main elements to establish a sustainable climate of dialogue
and understanding generally include: recognition of unequal power
relations, interactive communication processes, and conditions fostering
empowerment or the development of individual self-confidence, paired
with a sense of collective responsibility. Together they form the
basis for developing a “cohesive diversity”.
58. According to the ERICarts study “Sharing Diversity”, the concept
of “cohesive diversity” could be defined as “an open and
respectful exchange or interaction between individuals, groups and
organisations with different cultural backgrounds or world views”
whose aims are “to develop a deeper understanding of diverse perspectives
and practices; to increase participation and the freedom or ability
to make choices; to foster equality; and to enhance creative processes
… In this sense, intercultural dialogue processes or encounters are
to go beyond a mere 'tolerance of the other' and can involve creative
abilities that convert challenges and insights into innovation processes
and into new forms of expression. The 'shared space' in which such processes
take place can be located outside of physical spaces, situated in
the media or in a virtual environment”.
could be defined as “an open and
respectful exchange or interaction between individuals, groups and
organisations with different cultural backgrounds or world views”
whose aims are “to develop a deeper understanding of diverse perspectives
and practices; to increase participation and the freedom or ability
to make choices; to foster equality; and to enhance creative processes
… In this sense, intercultural dialogue processes or encounters are
to go beyond a mere 'tolerance of the other' and can involve creative
abilities that convert challenges and insights into innovation processes
and into new forms of expression. The 'shared space' in which such processes
take place can be located outside of physical spaces, situated in
the media or in a virtual environment”.59. However, there are only few examples of official national
policies that seriously try to address such challenges, among them
the National Strategy for the “European Year of Intercultural Dialogue”
of the Portuguese Government (2008): “Embedded in the paradigm of
an equal value of all cultures and cultural miscegenation, moving
thus far beyond multicultural coexistence statements, this intercultural
approach supposes more than simply accepting the 'other', it implies
'hosting' the 'other' within us and accepting being transformed
within that encounter.”
60. As pointed out in Tables 2 and 3 in
the Appendix, the political reality tends to be detached from such insights.
Instead, the political spectrum ranges from “no policy” over to
“assimilation” or “segregation”, and only seldom to truly “intercultural”
policies which concern the population as a whole. Models for managing
cultural diversity as set out in Table 2 reflect current political
realities in the member States, which are based on pre-established
majority–minority relations, and do not take into account the emerging
complexities among second or third generations and among young people
in general, who increasingly cultivate “composite” identities (as a
result of mixed marriages, travel, study or work abroad, or of online
connection to a global, “intercultural normality”) and who therefore
no longer conform to a definition of a “minority” or a “majority”.
in
the Appendix, the political reality tends to be detached from such insights.
Instead, the political spectrum ranges from “no policy” over to
“assimilation” or “segregation”, and only seldom to truly “intercultural”
policies which concern the population as a whole. Models for managing
cultural diversity as set out in Table 2 reflect current political
realities in the member States, which are based on pre-established
majority–minority relations, and do not take into account the emerging
complexities among second or third generations and among young people
in general, who increasingly cultivate “composite” identities (as a
result of mixed marriages, travel, study or work abroad, or of online
connection to a global, “intercultural normality”) and who therefore
no longer conform to a definition of a “minority” or a “majority”.61. While Table 3 approaches main issues from a local point of
view, there are a number of indicators showing that things do not
look much different from a national perspective:
- about 75% of European States are content with only one official language;
- nearly 40% of European States do not recognise minority languages;
- with a few exceptions in Nordic countries or in their main areas of settlement in South-East Europe, languages of migrants or of the Roma are not officially recognised as minority languages;
- as a rule, Ministries of Culture are not the main national authority in charge of “intercultural dialogue”, which seems to be more a matter for the home and security administrations;
- in most countries, cultural policies have only started to take the different cultural background of the large migrant communities into account, some even revived “national canons” instead;
- a 2011 survey of the Council of the European Union’s Expert Group on Accessible Culture and Intercultural Dialogue on policies of equal access and participation and related initiatives or monitoring revealed that, among 12 answers, only Sweden and Ireland could name national cultural institutions with comprehensive diversity policies;
- following a decision of the European Statistical System Committee (ESSC) in 2012, efforts were made towards defining a set of Quality of Life (QoL) indicators for the European Union. However, cultural diversity issues have so far not been included in these – and similar – index systems;
- the concept of an “Inclusive Heritage” as stipulated in the Council of Europe “Faro Convention”
- among all Member States of the Council of Europe, only eight (Albania, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden) have ratified the 1992 Convention on the Participation of Foreigners in Public Life at Local Level (ETS No. 144) (another legal instrument with a “contemporary” approach to diversity policies).
62. There are important differences between intercultural and
diversity-related policies and debates in “western” and “eastern”
European countries. As evidenced in the Council of Europe/ERICarts
“Compendium”, the western European countries address migration issues
prominently (at least since the last decade), while policies in
eastern European countries address mainly the cultures or languages
of “traditional” minorities (whose share in the population is, of
course, much greater due to historical reasons and moving borders).
The question arises whether this apparent East-West divide is also
a result of existing international standard-setting instruments,
including those of the Council of Europe, whose principles come
from a time when the “separate” protection of minorities was the
main issue, leading at best to formal recognition (or promotion)
of difference and to tolerance in the sense of multiculturalism.
63. While politically the concept of multiculturalism is now under
question in the West, where only minimal shares of such traditional
minorities exist and the influx of migrants is the dominant phenomenon,
we must still question whether the new concepts of inter- or trans-culturalism,
cosmopolitanism or the development of “composite” identities can
as such be easily implemented in the East with its differing conditions.
64. Clearly, preference is given nowadays to individual self-determination
as regards affiliation to “culture” in the broader sense. However,
one's right to belong, for example, to particular linguistic or
religious groups (and also the right to change that affiliation,
if so desired) merges the individual and collective aspects of culture-related
human rights. Despite apparent trends towards “individual”
identities with multiple cultural affiliations, “community” affiliations
still exist today, ranging from linguistic groups to contemporary
virtual communities in the media. How they correlate, or not, with
individual rights, including their role in present Council of Europe
conventions, and whether eventual ambiguities or deficits could
lead to reforms in the system of standard-setting instruments, is
worth further serious reflection.
Despite apparent trends towards “individual”
identities with multiple cultural affiliations, “community” affiliations
still exist today, ranging from linguistic groups to contemporary
virtual communities in the media. How they correlate, or not, with
individual rights, including their role in present Council of Europe
conventions, and whether eventual ambiguities or deficits could
lead to reforms in the system of standard-setting instruments, is
worth further serious reflection. 5. Conclusion: negotiating diversity and cultivating the common future
65. Our world is changing constantly and we need to exercise
our capacity for change also by meeting and learning from those
who are different. Empirical studies suggest that many citizens
in Europe keep pace with growing diversity. Cultural preferences
and practices have widened over the last 40 years. Regional strengths are
now as much valued as transnational colours. “Composite identities”
are more common than before, especially among the younger generations.
Intercultural action and education can therefore build on this new openness,
but they need to be “mainstreamed”. The survey in the preceding
chapter has demonstrated that progress can be achieved, particularly
if all relevant public and civil society actors are working together
in an open and democratic system of governance. We need to create
policies that leave a great deal of freedom for individuals and
groups to reinvent themselves, rising to challenges of diversity
and interculturality. But above all, a radical change in ourselves
is needed, beside introducing changes in legislation or in public
measures.
66. In the European context, we need to acknowledge the very different
circumstances in which national societies emerged and developed
in northern, western, eastern and southern Europe. For example,
in contrast to the northern and western part of Europe, which had
relatively homogeneous dominant national cultures over an extended
period of time and was later associated with post-colonial migration,
the east European societies emerged out of the imperial Austro-Hungarian,
Ottoman and Russian legacy and changing borders, characterised by
a rich cultural diversity with numerous ethic and religious minorities.
Southern and Mediterranean parts of Europe had a long history of
cultural interaction and are today faced with important political,
societal and cultural changes coming from the south Mediterranean
shores.
67. I therefore propose to nuance our debate and take account
of those historic differences when discussing what cultural diversity
means in different parts of Europe and what implications for the
society it entails. In such specific contexts, the aim should be
to create a cultural dialogue that can take account of the “differing diversities”
and experiences of diversity across the whole European continent
and to refrain from simple transposition of diversity models.
68. Personally, I feel we need to explore further the notion of
composite identities and to engage in a dialogue with young people
and the Council of Europe youth sector, as well as with other stakeholders.
This interaction would help us listen to their experiences and ideas
so that together we can better identify emerging needs for policy
adjustments. I trust that this process will help us to innovate
and suggest stronger connections between different policy areas
such as culture, education, youth, information and media, employment
and social cohesion, the voluntary sector and cross border and international
co-operation. In this respect, I have proposed in the draft recommendation
to the Committee of Ministers to hold a biennial platform involving different
sectors of the Council of Europe and stakeholders in the member
States to meet at regular intervals to discuss and advance innovative
policy orientations, including the Council of Europe tools and policy guidance,
and to exchange best practices among member States.
69. I also suggest building on experiences of international co-operation
at local level and to consult with the local authorities that take
part in the Intercultural Cities Project of the Council of Europe
and the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities. Transfrontier
co-operation is another interesting way of building cultural diversity
by stimulating cultural exchange and shaping more composite and
nuanced identities, particularly in the geographical areas of central,
eastern and south-east Europe with numerous minorities as well as
cultural and historic interconnections across borders.
70. Finally, I strongly believe in the special role of education
policies and institutions in building intercultural capacities,
from a very early age. Kindergardens, schools and universities are
intercultural spaces – by nature, I would say. There is a need to
consider further how education programmes, education tools and teaching methodologies
can help to strengthen the intercultural dimension of “democratic
citizenship”, and how educational institutions can encourage living
in diversity as an asset and support students so that they can freely
grow up with their own identity, proud of being what they are while
welcoming the others.
71. In this new cultural era, we need to innovate and multiply
the “laboratories for cultural exchange” beyond national borders,
to nurture cultural diversity and, with time, develop a European
cultural space that will encourage creative expression of multiple
cultural affiliations and identities. Let me use as an example in
this context, the committee’s report on the contribution of Islamic
civilisation to European culture, stating: “In a wide variety of fields
– philosophy, science, art, architecture, town planning, medicine,
language, everyday life and, lastly, culture – we cannot explain
the history of Europe without taking into account all that is of
Islamic origin.” Or similarly in the report on the Jewish contribution
to European culture: “History made Jews a European people,
while the religious and cultural phenomenon of Christianity has
brought Europe closer to the Jewish civilization. This aspect must
be stressed because, although Christianity – which impregnated European
life for many centuries – began as an offshoot of Judaism, its origins
and content made it a cultural phenomenon. The Jewish element of
Christianity is thus part of Europe's cultural identity.”
stating: “In a wide variety of fields
– philosophy, science, art, architecture, town planning, medicine,
language, everyday life and, lastly, culture – we cannot explain
the history of Europe without taking into account all that is of
Islamic origin.” Or similarly in the report on the Jewish contribution
to European culture: “History made Jews a European people,
while the religious and cultural phenomenon of Christianity has
brought Europe closer to the Jewish civilization. This aspect must
be stressed because, although Christianity – which impregnated European
life for many centuries – began as an offshoot of Judaism, its origins
and content made it a cultural phenomenon. The Jewish element of
Christianity is thus part of Europe's cultural identity.”72. In conclusion, I wish to underline that this report portrays
a vision for our contemporary societies, and could therefore be
perceived by some as far removed from our political realities. However,
I insist that without this vision and without building a political
consensus around it, nationally and transnationally, we will not
be able to democratically manage the accelerating demographic change
in Europe. We are witnessing the alarming rise of antidemocratic
and xenophobic political parties in Europe, which calls for a radical
change in our political discourse. If we want to cultivate open,
vibrant, culturally diverse and cohesive societies free from violence
and conductive to a more dynamic and innovative economic development,
we need to recognise the positive role that different cultures can
play in shaping our individual and our common European identity.
Appendix – National policies and models for managing cultural diversity
(open)Table 1:
Countries with innovative policies/action plans for cultural diversity
and dialogue
|
Official national actors (government/parliament) |
Regional/local administration |
Society actors (NGOs, businesses…) |
|
|
1.
Education policies |
Austria, Bulgaria, Liechtenstein, Norway, Spain |
Switzerland, Finland, France, Greece, Italy, Republic of Moldova, San Marino |
Bulgaria, Germany, Luxembourg, Serbia, Slovenia, Ukraine |
|
2.
Arts and heritage policies |
Switzerland, Finland, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Sweden |
Belgium-Flanders, Finland, Germany, Italy, Poland, Russian Federation, Spain, United Kingdom |
Czech Republic, Germany, France, Malta, Netherlands, Slovenia, Turkey, United Kingdom |
|
3.
Employment |
Denmark, Netherlands |
Denmark, United Kingdom/Germany |
Germany/France, Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom |
|
4. Youth policies |
Luxembourg, Sweden, Slovenia |
Belgium/Flanders, Liechtenstein, Ukraine |
Austria, Cyprus, Ireland |
|
5. Social cohesion policies |
Armenia, Austria, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Portugal, Spain |
Switzerland, Germany, Croatia, Malta, Serbia, Spain |
Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Iceland, Italy, Poland |
|
6. Media, Internet/social networks |
France, Croatia, Russian Federation |
Netherlands, Serbia, Spain |
Germany, Italy, Latvia, Romania, Slovenia |
|
7. General or interdisciplinary |
Austria, Bulgaria, Georgia, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, Sweden, Slovenia, Slovak Republic, Spain, Ukraine, United Kingdom |
Switzerland, Denmark, Hungary, Ireland, Serbia, Russian Federation, Ukraine |
Germany, Ireland, Romania, Ukraine |
|
8.
Trans-national activities |
Council of Europe, Council of Europe/European Union, European Union, UNESCO, various bodies |
||
Source: ERICarts 2013
Table 2: Models for management of cultural diversity
|
MODELS |
Should immigrants/minorities keep the cultures of their countries of origin? |
||
|
yes |
no |
||
|
Should immigrants/minorities absorb the culture of the (host) majority? |
yes |
INTEGRATION |
ASSIMILATION |
|
no |
SEGREGATION |
EXCLUSION |
|
Source: High Commissioner for Immigration and Intercultural Dialogue (ACIDI), Portugal, 2013
Table 3: Overview of five typologies according to the main policy areas and different types of cultural activity
|
No policy |
Guestworker policy |
Assimilationist policy |
Multicultural Policy |
Intercultural policy |
|
|
Minority group organisations |
State ignores them |
Informal co-operation on limited issues |
State does not recognise them |
State supports them as agents of integration |
State supports them as agents of integration |
|
Labour market |
Ignore. Turn a blind eye to black market activity |
Minimal regulation; limited vocational assistance |
General vocational support – non-ethnic criteria |
Anti-discrimination policy; Affirmative action on training and hiring |
Anti-discrimination policy; intercultural competence and linguistic skills emphasised |
|
Housing |
Ignore migrant housing. React to crisis with temporary shelters |
Short-term housing solutions; minimal regulation of private rental sector |
Equal access to social housing – non-ethnic criteria. Ignore ethnic discrimination in housing market |
Anti-discriminatory lettings policy. Affirmative access to social housing |
Anti-discriminatory lettings policy. Ethnic monitoring. Encouragement for ethnic housing mix |
|
Education |
Ad hoc recognition of migrant children |
Enrol migrant children in schools |
Emphasis on national language, history, culture. State ignores or suppresses supplementary schooling |
Special support for diverse schools. Mother-tongue language support. Religious and cultural education |
National and mother tongue/culture teaching. Intercultural competence for all. Desegregation |
|
Policing |
Migrants as a security problem |
Police as agents of migrant regulation, monitoring, deportation |
High profile policing of migrant areas |
Police as social workers. Proactive anti-racism enforcement |
Police as agents of inter-ethnic conflict management |
|
Public awareness |
Migrants as a potential threat |
Migrants as economically useful but of no political, social or cultural significance |
Campaigns to encourage tolerance of minorities, but intolerance of those not assimilating |
“Celebrate diversity” festivals and city branding campaigns |
Campaigns to emphasise intercultural togetherness |
|
Urban development |
Ignore emergence of ethnic enclaves – disperse if crisis arises |
Ethnic enclaves tolerated but considered temporary |
Ethnic enclaves considered an urban problem. Dispersal policy and gentrification. Oppose symbolic use of space |
Recognise enclaves and ethnic community leadership. Area- based regeneration. Symbolic recognition (e.g. minarets) |
Encouragement of ethnically mixed neighbourhoods and public space. Conflict management as key skill for city officials and NGOs |
|
Governance and citizenship |
No rights or recognition |
No rights or recognition |
Facilitate naturalisation. No ethnic consultative structures |
Community leadership, consultative structures and resource allocation ethnically based |
Encouragement of cross-cultural leadership. Association and consultation. Acknowledgement of hybridity. Emphasis on functional not symbolic use of space |
Source: Phil Wood (ed.): Intercultural Cities, Strasbourg 2009