> English  > Français   > Español

•  Culture and Civilizations
•  Philosophy and Ethics
•  Natural and Human Sciences
•  Education
•  Communication and Information
•  Culture of Peace

International Conference on
"Dialogue among Civilizations"
Vilnius, Lithuania
23 - 26 April 2001

"Globalization and Cultural Plurality”

Wednesday 25 April 2001, Vilnius University Little Aula Hall

Moderator:   Mr. Steve Austen, (Netherlands)
Panelists:     Ms. Halina Kobeckaite, (Lithuania)
                    Mr. Rein Raud, (Estonia)
Rapporteur: Ms. A.B. Preis, UNESCO Secretariat

Mr Steve Austen, Director of the European Centre for Arts and Science, Holland, acted as the moderator and opened the debate by emphasizing the importance of the audience’s direct participation in order to ensure constructive dialogue throughout. He therefore proposed that the panelists would present key words and concepts, but refrain from long presentations. This proposal was welcomed, and the moderator then gave the floor to Ms Kobeckaite:

Ms Halina Kobeckaite, Ambassador of Lithuania to Turkey and former Director-General of the Ddepartment of Nationalities, Lithuania, said that the topic of dialogue among civilization is far from ‘foreign’ to Lithuanians, previous Lithuanian debates have turned on the capacity of civilizations to dialogue, something which is discernable in their own histories. She also argued for a notion of ‘circles of personal identity’. Ethnic identity is the first stage of the more broader category of cultural identity, which combines well with national identity understood as being based on citizenship.

Mr Rein Raud, Professor of Japanese Studies at the University of Helsinki; Professor of Asian and Cultural studies, Estonian Institute of Humanities; Translator and Essayist, Estonia, said that dialogue was easier to define than civilization; the latter could be defined in the plural (Huntington) or in the singular as civilizational levels or stages. He argued for the notion of culture rather than civilization, since there is no value judgement inherent in the notion of culture. In accordance with James Clifford, Raud proposed that culture means relationships and meanings. Within such a perspective, Lithuanians can participate in local culture, European culture, and global culture, although not without a certain amount of tension.

The moderator subsequently invited the audience to participate in the debate by sharing their views on the constructive nature of a national culture, which is a key issue in newly democratic societies. In the ensuing debate, which focussed mainly on cultural plurality, the following points were made:

• There are new dialogues emerging in Eastern and Central Europe due to globalization. Globalization allows people to chose self-identity,

• There may perhaps be two Lithuanian identities coming up a present; one turns towards Western Europe, the other ‘remains’ locally rooted/oriented. Personal success is an important criteria underlying choices,

• The question of ‘an European’ culture is complex. Is it desirable? The European Union puts new emphasis on European values, but countries like Sweden, for instance, maintain that culture should be a free and independent force,

• During the post-communist period, Eastern and Central European countries have first tried to invent a ‘third way’ which failed, then a West European way which also failed, and now a new regional Eastern and Central European identity is emerging (special networks, publications, etc.),

• Culture should be defined as certain forms of communication in, and between, groups,

• Multiple or multi-layered identities are important; the modernity debate is about plural identities. This should become increasingly acceptable in the search for global communication - unfortunately it does not happen without tensions.

• Identity is a permanent challenge

• Language is a carrier of values; languages do not ‘treat’ problems in the same way.

Emphasizing that the discussion had thus far been very European and that there were no obvious replies to the question of cultural plurality, the moderator invited the participants to direct their attention towards the subject of globalization. He raised the question of how globalization affects civilizational processess, self-identity, and modes of discourse. Can we add an important aspect/dimension to globalization and cultural plurality? The following points were made:

• Global culture is everything that can be measured. Values and other important meanings do not fall within this scope. Globalization is an enemy of cultural diversity (mass productions, the Hollywood gaze, etc.) this equals the lowest common denominator.

• Globalization also has another, more positive, modality which is ‘internationalization’, e.g. translation of literary work into different languages, thus enhancing increased inter-cultural communication this equals the highest common denominator,

• In globalization there is no free competition of ideas, but only between organizations who back them up financially,

• It is crucial that elite cultures be reformed also to include other (local) cultures,

• Europe comprised many different cultures and identities. Can the role of European culture in global culture be defined? Can positive European values be promoted in a global context?

• Identity is constantly changing; could this be true for global culture as well? Can we afford to be more relativistic in our understanding of globalization?,

• Multiple and mobile identities were also present in the past; what is really new? Globalization is a constructed enemy; much about nothing, a self-appointment,

• The real danger of globalization are the faceless bureaucracies, the simultations,

• Globalization is a reality in WTO; countries are fighting to retain their own cultural heritage this equals the defence of cultural values within Free Trade Agreements,

• Globalization allows for an intersection of world civilizations if cultures are brought into contact and communication, but not if it becomes a replacement of local cultural forms.

• Civilizations can now make themselves heard in very effective ways. Globalization opens up opportunities, which were not there before,

• National ideologies have oppressed local identities; globalization represents an escape out of that,

• There is a lot of anxiety and uncertainty in the world. How to replace defense with something more constructive to feed into international organizations?

• The importance of constantly re-inventing the world.

Actions for UNESCO and other International Organisations to consider:

The moderator concluded that there is a certain amount of optimism with regard to the capacity of human beings to orient themselves, find a place, in all the on-going transitions in the world. In future a more pluralist environment will have to be created and a new concept for this is urgently needed. National culture is important; it is being supported in different ways in most countries. However, national culture should include access to international organizations, to the global, etc. This implies a new definition of national cultural policies; a definition which would be based on the second denominator of globalization – the one that allows us to communicate.