Culture, Diversity, and Mobility: an un-learning approach
From ChangingRoomWiki
Alessio Surian, University of Padova, Italy, (alessio.surian AT unipd.it)
You can read/download this article in PDF format
Beyond abyssal thinking
Experience of cultural diversity as well as information diversity are becoming as critical to our long term survival as biodiversity (Van Dikk, 1992; Maalouf, 2009). What opportunities are offered today in a plural Europe at the cultural level to challenge and to facilitate the development of intercultural sensitivity and competences?
The recent efforts by the Council of Europe and the European Commission to produce reference documents concerning intercultural dialogue leave an after taste of a fortress Europe that seems unable to go beyond self-fulfilling prophecies. The core concern seems to be to state European fundamental values, an exercise that echoes the definition given by De Sousa Santos of modern Western thinking as abyssal thinking, an us-them way of thinking which sociologists as Amin, De Sousa Santos, and Quijano trace back to the radical exclusion model implemented through the colonies and still influencing Western thinking.
End of the seventies-early eighties studies such as “Orientalism”, by Edward Said and “Imagined Communities” by Benedict Anderson indicated as “the invention of tradition” (the title of a seminal book by Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger) the typical modernist approach to identity based on the creation of a new community based on the belief of belonging to a remote and forgotten one. The nationalist view analyses the nation-state on the basis of its own nationalist assumptions. This essentialist perspective is challenged by cosmopolitan views that try to understand interdependence at the global level as well as the way in which such links across social and economical groups have an impact onto the single nation-state. According to (Appiah, 2006]), “There are two strands that intertwine in the notion of cosmopolitanism. One is the idea that we have obligations to others, obligations that stretch beyond those to whom we are related by the ties of kith and kind, or even the more formal ties of a shared citizenship. The other is that we take seriously the value not just of human life but of particular human lives, which means taking an interest in the practices and beliefs that lend them significance. People are different, the cosmopolitan knows, and there is much to learn from our differences… There is a sense in which cosmopolitanism is the name not of the solution but of the challenge”. Thus cosmopolitanism is about coexistence: conversation in its older meaning: association, living together; and in its modern meaning, as sharing among people from different ways of life (Appiah, 2006).
From a cultural perspective the substantialist patriotism is challenged on the basis of the key distinction between closed views of the Other on the one hand and open views on the other hand as outlined by Milton Rokeach (1960). Phobic dread of the Other is the recurring characteristic of closed views. Legitimate disagreement and criticism, as well as appreciation and respect, are aspects of open views. The latter implies not to over-generalise and the ability to change view of both oneself and others by taking into account new evidence. This is a core attitude in relation to positive conflict transformation and the promotion of community cohesion according to Galtung (2002)’s nonviolent approach which includes action to change attitudes and assumptions; action to reduce violence; and action to transform conflict. Therefore a key component to facilitate community cohesion is intercultural sensitivity. In this field some twenty different assessment instruments are available today (Earley and Ang, 2003). They indicate the growing relevance of intercultural competences and of the ability to unlearn cognitive patterns in communities that are increasingly characterized by multiculturalism and exclusion.
In the words of Edmund O'Sullivan "we are in need of a resistance education that moves in the direction of cultural criticism". Such attitude takes into account evidence that the power of organisations and social groups depends on their positioning in relation to the sources of knowledge and on their capacity to understand and process such knowledge, but also that there is no single, privileged source of science or information: knowledge is also flow (Castells 1994) and learning in partnership can be a good example of co-adaptation: it contributes both to access and to modify the flow of knowledge.
Thus un-learning is at the basis of transformative learning: the way we learn to think for ourselves “rather than act upon the assimilated beliefs, values, feelings and judgments of others. An epistemology of evidential rationality involves reasoning—advancing and assessing reasons for making a judgment. Central to this process is critical reflection on assumptions and critical-dialectical discourse (Mezirow 1991, 1997).
Beyond the Universalism-Relativism dichotomy
The universalism and the relativism options have dominated the debate on the social implications of cultural diversity. As Bruner (2008, 40) highlights “a psychology that excludes the individual’s embeddedness in culture is bound to be shallow, if not absurd, just as absurd as an anthropologist ignoring universals of ‘‘human nature’’ just because she’s in Bali”. Geertz (2000) has argued that often within this debate relativism has been depicted in extreme terms in order to legitimate the universalist view that all are equal but some are more equal than others (therefore qualifying himself as an anti anti-relativist). Today the core constructivist and relativist ideas defining groups and traditions as referring to independent norms and values systems are at the basis of the pluralist discourse. While universalism is most closely associated with the idea of unity and relativism with the idea of diversity, the pluralist perspective is exploring a concept linked to co-adaptation, namely interactive diversity. It is from the interaction among individuals and groups that systems of values and norms develop. Pluralism affirms the right of the individual to the greatest possible basic freedom as well as the responsibility to tackle social injustice in order to benefit the poor.
Within this perspective Beck (1998) argues in favour of promoting intercultural dialogue from the standpoint of contextual universalism. While he describes universal universalism and universal contextualism as “totalitarian” approaches, he defends contextual universalism as a possibility to promote intercultural dialogue and social responsibility. A way forward in exploring the necessary human co-adaptation? Perhaps it is encouraging to see how scholars from different fields such as biology and architecture are sharing their respective knowledge to learn from the building abilities of sub-Saharan termites, Macrotermes michaelseni (Turner 2000). The mounds architectures of macrotermitine termites are highly variable in structure and include elaborated ramifying network of tunnels as ventilation system for the nest and even open chimneys or vent holes. Millions of individuals work together to build a structure many times larger than themselves apparently following a "collective plan". Engineers and entomologists from Loughborough University in Cambridge, England and from the State University of New York have teamed up to study the building techniques of the termite. “The next generation of skyscrapers could be inspired by creatures that live in the dirt and enlist a fungus to help chew their food” recite on-line headlines.
Beyond the easy irony, such an example highlights how human creativity is often linked to active listening / watching and the ability to adapt a solution to a different context. A solution provided by animals and plants reminds us the ultimate lesson of scholars such as Gregory Bateson in exploring the ecology of mind: as human beings we start to perceive the patterns that connect when we are able to recognise that when we are able to bring together two or more information sources they provide information of a sort different from what was in either source separately. By concentrating on our human conflicts we sometimes loose sight of the anthropocentric nature and limits of our thinking while we have at hand an enormous potential for learning co-operative attitudes from the wider nature. Nature as well as arts and their combination might offer crucial metaphors for conversation and co-adaptation once we have learned that the understanding about being different does is not mechanically developed by coming into contact with another “culture” nor prejudices are necessary challenged by a contact across cultures that lacks transformative learning intentionality. Once we realise that travel in itself doe not bring about change we have more, not less options to work in artistic and cultural ways towards intercultural conversation and positive views about our societies' pluralism: it is in the cultural arena that we can find key opportunities for viewing things from different perspectives.
Note:
The second part of this text is based upon “Social Inclusion and Intercultural Dialogue”, paper presented at the request of the Council of Europe' 2nd Intercultural Forum on Core Values for Intercultural Dialogue: Towards a Europe of all Citizens (November 2004)
References
Appiah, Kwame Anthony, Cosmopolitanism. Ethics in a World of Strangers, W.W. Norton & Company, 2006 Bateson, Gregory, Towards an ecology of mind,
Beck U., “The Reinvention of politics: rethinking modernity in the global social order”, Polity Press, Cambridge, 1997
Beck U., “Wie ist interkulturelle Kritik möglich?“ in Beck U., „Was ist Globalisierung? Irrtümer der Globalismus-Antworten auf Globalisierung“, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M., 1998
Bruner, Jerome, Culture and Mind: their Fruitful Incommensurability, Ethos, Bruner special issue, 2008 Castells M., "Flows, Networks, identities" in Castells M, Flecha R., Freire P., Giroux H.A., Macedo D., Willis P. McLaren P., "Nuevas perspectivas criticas en educación", Ediciones Paidos Iberica, 1994
De Sousa Santos, Boaventura, Beyond Abyssal Thinking. From Global Lines to Ecology of Knowledges, in Review, XXX, 1, 45-89, 2007 Earley P.C., Ang S., “Cultural Intelligence. Individual Interactions Across Cultures”, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, 2000
Galtung J., “rethinking Conflict: the Cultural Approach”, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 2002 Geertz C., “Available Light. Anthropological Reflections on Philosophical Topics”, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 2000
Maalouf, Amin, Le dereglement du monde, 2009
Marten G.G., "Human Ecology. Basic concepts for sustainable development", Earthscan, London, 2001
Mezirow, Jack, "Transformative Dimensions Of Adult Learning", San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1991.
Mezirow, Jack, "Transformative Learning: Theory to Practice." In "Transformative Learning In Action: Insights From Practice. New Directions For Adult And Continuing Education", NO. 74, edited by P.
Cranton, pp. 5-12. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Summer 1997 O'Sullivan E., "Transformative Learning. Educational Vision for the 21st Century", Zed Books, London, 1999
Rokeach M., “The Open and Closed Mind”, 1960
Turner J. S., “The Extended Organism. The Physiology of Animal-Built Structures”. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2000
UNESCO, “Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity”, Cultural Diversity Series No.1, UNESCO, Paris, 2002
Van Dijk, T. A., “Discourse and the Denial of Racism” in Discourse and Society, 1992
