> 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

“Otherness”

Wednesday 25 April 2001, Vilnius University Little Aula Hall

Moderator:  Mr. Arthur Cromwell, (United States of America)
Panelists:    Mr. Cherif Khaznadar, (France)
                   Mr. Mohiaddin S. Mesbahi, (Iran)
                   Mr. Hahmad Jalali, (Iran)
                   Ms Irena Vaisvilaite, (Lithuania)
                   Mr. Ingemar Lindahl, (Sweden)
                   Mr. Uwe Friesel, (Germany)
                   Mr. Zafimahaleo Rasolofrondraosolo, (Madagascar)
Rapporteur: Ms. A.B. Preis, UNESCO Secretariat

Mr. Cherif Khazanadar, Director of the Maison des cultures du Monde, France, argued that every individual has multiple identities and that it is the very consciousness of this multiplicity which allows him/her to understand others. All our efforts must be oriented towards the necessity of this consciousness. We should not forget that racism is born in the belief in one unique identity. Mr. Khazanadar listed different forms of racism (the social, anti-minority, sexual, colonial, ‘nationalism’ or “Nazism”), and proposed that many present-day conflicts are primarily linked to questions of identity.

Referring to the work of the French sociologist George Balandier, Khazanadar argued that the question of identity is presently unfolding itself on a double scene: that of countries who have the initiatives in globalization and those who are being submerged by it. The identity crisis of these two universes leads to a search for cultural roots, cultural relations and cultural values which may contribute to its resolution.

Mr. Khazanadar concluded that when wanting to affirm one’s difference, a difference without which there is no possibility for dialogue and exchange, there is a risk to fall into indifference and globalization to carry out its worst error which is to produce a false dialogue among cultures and civilizations.

Mr. Mohiaddin S. Messbahi, Professor, Department of International Relations, Chair, Asian Studies, Florida International University, USA, informed the audience that he would regard being labeled and stereotyped as a matter linked to security questions. Before embarking upon this task, he emphasized that it is wrong – intellectually and politically – to equalize globalization with Americanization, as it often done, even a this Conference. It is very damaging to the whole project.

Mr. Messbahi went on to say that securization is whenever a group or an individual elevate a political question to the use of force - often politicians, state leaders, etc. All civilizations engage in this to mobilize their own public and to ensure internal security. They engage in the demonization of the other and the illusion is that the process is controllable. It is not. It applies a life of its own as evidence in post Cold War scenarios, in the crisis of the 1980’s or in the very recent political struggles. Labeling is what he would call ‘the national trapping’ – the trapping of the words. It has a dialectical mutual reinforcing mechanism and public labeling has material consequences for one’s own populations.

Mr. Messbahi concluded that we need a new code of international public conduct. This may not be a purely UNESCO matter – although the Organization could work a the societal level in the long-term - but must be handled by the UN system and a the level of political leaders.

Mr. Ahmad Jalali, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to UNESCO, Iran, presented a more theoretical approach in addressing the question of ‘we ‘and ‘the other’. Each individual has a pluralistic set of identities, otherwise dialogue would not be possible. Because each identity is composite, absolute otherness does not exist either. However, we need history to see this. While Iranian and Western culture have been portrayed in this oppositional way, a closer look a the history reveals that in the Middle Ages, philosophers from both civilizations were concerned with the same questions through their Greek and Hellenistic common identities.

In order to overcome the stereotyping of the Other, Mr. Jalali therefore suggested two changes: 1) An attempt to rewrite history as the history of dialogue and not of conflictual encounters, and 2) To use the metaphor of civilization in the sense of an organic, open-ended entity.

Ms Irena Vaisvilaite, Journalist at the Radio Free Europe, Prague; Scholar, University of Vilnius, Lithuania, argued that when we deal with otherness, we most often ‘walk around’ religions. This is surprising, even more so as the greatest Other is God himself and that the philosophical traditions of monotheistic religions posit the ‘guest’ as the ‘stranger’. Religion is relevant in contemporary crisis in the Balkans, Ireland, Sudan, Indonesia, but the contemporary secularized dialogue is not capable of replying to the question of whether these conflicts are religious. The Dialogue among Religions is going on parallel to the Dialogue among Civilizations, but these two never meet at the international level.

Mr. Ingemar Lindahl, Ambassador, Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Professor, Uppsals University, Sweden said that in order for true dialogue to take place, there must be a positive attitude to the other.  He argued that there are collective dialogues, in which different political and social entities participate, and which produce certain results. However, real dialogue can only take place between persons who are products, not representatives of a given civilization. It must be based on a certain amount of self-knowledge. Dialogue requires that one looks into one’s self first. Poetry is a very good avenue for this, because, in poetry, one does not encounter definitional problems, etc.

Mr. Lindahl subsequently proposed that UNESCO, which is already involved in work on Dialogue among Civilizations, could encourage this more genuine dialogue through such examples as the exchange of poems in schools, exhibitions of art work (the aesthetic experience is prior to language) and by emphasizing the importance of cultural transfer stations. Immigrants, writers, sailors etc. can be cultural agents, and UNESCO could reinforce the de-demonization through the revision of school textbooks and through the use of the new technologies to enhance intercultural dialogue.

Mr. Uwe Friesel, Translator, writer, Member of P.E.N. and VS (German Writers’ Union), Germany, presented a series of provocative proposals on the definition of the other, which could be used to pre-shape and influence politics. Among the many examples presented by him were: the other is the individual as opposed to the group; from the point of view of the group the individual is dangerous; religions tend to demonize otherness; political dictatorship tends to define art as a denouncement of the state; sometimes otherness is regarded as something positive, but this does not protect people, etc. (This has to be developed on the basis of Mr. Friesel’s paper).

Mr. Zafimahaleo Rasolofrondraosolo, Sociologist, Madagascar University, Professional Musician, Member of Parliament, Madagascar, opened up his traditional musical instrument from Madagascar and played a beautiful song, which the audience was requested to interpret despite the obvious language barrier. Mr. Zafimakaleo told the audience that in Malagashi philosophy there is the identity of the body, of reason and of the soul. The ‘food’ of the soul is emotion, and the audience has just gone through that experience. He therefore concluded by proposing that UNESCO increases its effort to promote art and artists.

In the ensuring discussion issues linked to the question of securization were taken up again, and the forcefulness of the Huntington argument was analyzed. Attention was drawn to the fact to the Dialogue among Civilizations has ensured that there are now a least two narratives, not only one. It was repeated that globalization is not Americanization, large parts of the American population are worried about globalization as well.

Concrete proposals for UNESCO to consider included:

1. An emphasis of the fundamental importance of alternative broadcasting, with the recommendation that an International Media Conference be held soon to address issues such as the new technologies, the digital divide, distance learning – memory and the transference thereof. There may be a need for an alternative news agency; a third channel to go to for ‘objective’ information. UNESCO may be the most appropriate forum to do this.

2. UNESCO, which is already involved in work on Dialogue among Civilizations, could encourage more genuine dialogue through such actions as the exchange of poems in schools, exhibitions of art work (the aesthetic experience is prior to language) and by emphasizing the importance of cultural transfer stations. Immigrants, writers, sailors etc. can be cultural agents, and UNESCO could reinforce the de-demonization through the revision of school textbooks and through the use of the new technologies to enhance intercultural dialogue.

3. UNESCO should also increase its efforts to promote the art and artists.