"Culture and diversity"
Report

Moderator: Prof. Dr. Louis Emmerij, Former President, OECD Development Centre, Paris; Co-Director, UN Intellectual History Project. 
Rapporteur: Acad. Katica Kulavkova
Assistants: Vladimir Martinovski and Irena Percinkova-Patton

Why is the question of cultural diversity so important and "fashionable" today? How is a dialogue between cultures and civilizations possible? What are the conditions for an effective intercultural and an inter-religious dialogue to take place? How does an intercultural dialogue relate to different religious backgrounds? How to create a new spiritual and social climate of tolerance and dialogue? Is the intercultural dialogue region-based or must it be seen as an international and universal objective? How to maintain the cultural diversity in our era of globalization? Why is it and complex to entertain the dialogue? What are the next steps?

These were some of the questions raised by the moderator at the panel discussion "Culture and Diversity", held in the framework of the UNESCO Regional Forum "Dialogue among Civilizations" in Ohrid, on August 29, 2003. The discussion ranged over many aspects of culture and diversity: economic, scientific, religious, educational, philosophic, anthropological, historical, social.

One of the major points in the discussion concerned globalization and its positive and negative effects. It was observed that in today's world the increasing globalization has the paradoxical effects of stimulating diversity. In some instances it has provoked a Renaissance of regional and minority languages and cultures, in others it has motivated strong reactions in the face of the implied world dominance by imposing the cultural personality of ethnic groups and regions. Communications are more open and practically equal for all social communities in the postmodern, post-colonial, post-conflict, post-communist constellations. But, on the other hand, the anxiety vis-à-vis powerful civilizations, cultures and languages is an inevitable dark side of our plural and multi-cultural reality.

The overriding conclusion is the general need to assign a "human face" to globalization in order to encourage and enhance, among others, its beneficial effects on diversity and dialogue among different cultures. Economists have had a tendency to underestimate the cultural dimension of economic development. In general, more emphasis must be placed upon the interdisciplinary aspects of our society today. Thus, one unanimous conclusion of the Panel was a general recognition that not enough attention was given to non-economic aspects, including culture, in world economic and trade relations.

Religion is often considered interchangeable with culture in this context and frequently, inter-cultural differences are perceived as inter-religious ones. At the same time, it is important to stress that differences arise within separate religions as well (fanaticism versus open-mindedness, a conflict between two types of mentality). Extremism, dogmatism and fundamentalism are defined as the archenemies of cultural diversity and democracy. In this regard, inclusiveness is key since the moral fundamentals of the various religions are the same -- global ethics of how humans should behave. Cultural diversity is the opposite of dogmatism. Fanaticism can be held at bay in modern societies by affirming diversity and accommodating inclusiveness.

The emphasis of future projects in promoting cultural, ethnical, religious and linguistic diversity should be on education and information. The dominant concepts of ethnical, social and national interest are institutionalised in different ways. Their effects can mobilize or paralyse the civil potential and provoke different kinds of xenophobia and animosity at different levels: to the Other, to the neighbour, to the different civilizations and cultures.

In order to ensure a better understanding of different cultures it is necessary to change the perspective or transition from a simplistic notion of viewing others to understanding the world as full of different kinds of potential, ready to make our life richer and more complete. A key factor in this respect is education that must alter the attitudes of the young generations. Education is the main instrument in order to create new standards of critical thinking to foster a new spiritual climate of tolerance and mutual respect.

This climate of tolerance and mutual respect can be achieved through, for example, closer examination of educational materials that would promote open-mindedness rather than perpetuating the old discourse of hatred against neighbours, of hierarchy among “big” and “small” cultures, and the discourse of domination, exile, discrimination and oppression. Promoting the culture of democracy means to teach and promote the culture of tolerance towards minorities. Promoting the culture of democracy also means to respect the common interest of every multicultural community. An education of tolerance, dialogue and cultural diversity implies an understanding and tolerance of historical differences, of different points of view of history. By such means we may eventually hope to reach a situation in which people of diverse backgrounds live a rich life together in mutual understanding of their differences.

Obviously, it is easy to talk about dialogue, but difficult to engage in it and implement it in reality. The very start of a dialogue may be difficult in many circumstances. A dialogue is by definition inter-subjective and personalized. Numerous conferences, discussions, workshops have been held worldwide in recent years which had led to a regurgitation of already familiar terms. What is necessary are fresh ideas that will lead to implementing already proposed statements and that give a general direction for future endeavours.

Cultural diversity and real dialogue can exist only among parties that practice mutual respect and recognition. Cultural diversity must be based on the human power of remembering and forgiving, on a subtle and creative memory of the richness of the world, without which there is no art, no culture, no civilisation, no dialogue. The appeal of this Panel, therefore, is not to forget the past but to stand on its shoulders, overcome the negative memories, maintain the cultural diversity, and peer into the future with renewed hope and understanding.

Participants at the Panel discussion:

1. Louis Emmerij 
2. Sergey Kapitza
3. Carolle von Ins
4. Violeta Karaivanova
5. Ivan Kaltchev
6. Sander Gurbuz
7. Stefano Sgobba
8. Behxet Brajshari
9. Tomàs Fèjerdy
10. Vladimir Fedorov
11. Leonid Kishkovsky
12. Theodore E. Mc Carrick 
13. Malgorzata Pawlisz 
14. Kosta Balabanov (prilozen tekst) 
15. Blaze Ristovski (prilozen tekst)
16. Mateja Matevski (prilozen tekst)