Management of Cultural Diversity:
A Swiss Reflection on Current Models
Introduction
The 4th meeting of the INCP Working Group on Cultural Diversity
and Globalisation took place in conjunction with the Working Session
on Cultural Diversity Management, May 10 - 12, 2001, in Leysin,
Switzerland. The agenda was jointly organised by Switzerland (for
cultural diversity concepts and management) and Canada (for integration
of cultural diversity, cultural policy national frameworks, creation
of an international instrument on cultural diversity). Also scheduled
in Leysin were a status report on the activities of the INCP Liaison
Bureau and a meeting of the Network's Contact Group Officials.
Working Session on Cultural Diversity Management
Issue:
This working session was based on the presentation "Integration
of Cultural Diversity" given by Mr. Bernard Wicht during the
3rd meeting of the INCP Working Group on Cultural Diversity and
Globalisation, in Paris, December 2000. Mr. Wicht's presentation
listed a number of institutions dealing with cultural diversity,
stating the different meanings and definitions they have chosen
to describe the concept. His work elicited a thinking process on
the issue of cultural diversity management, a concept the Working
Group intends to "study in depth over the coming year"
(see the report of the 3rd meeting), particularly in relation to
the development of the instrument.
Objective:
To record input on the management of cultural diversity by means
of a cultural policy, based on practical experience or the existing
models proposed by stakeholders. As a result, identify expectations
to be considered during the thinking process, which is underway
for the development of the instrument, in order to ensure that this
instrument becomes an efficient tool for the management of cultural
diversity. A summary of the discussions and key issues will be submitted
during the next ministerial conference in Luzern, where the Ministers
will set the necessary guidelines. Depending on results, consider
the creation of a sub-working group on cultural diversity management,
which will report to the Working Group on Cultural Diversity and
Globalisation. To encourage participants to share their ideas, the
Chairman emphasised the informal nature of this meeting gathering
cultural policy experts and insisted on the experimental nature
of the organisation of the seminar (preparing the meeting in Luzern,
2 Working Groups - INCP + European Council, joint Chairmanship Switzerland/Canada).
Back to Top
Program:
Chaired by Mr. Wicht, the discussions spread over 3 half-day sessions
which began by considering the "different concepts of cultural
diversity" and included presentations on the topic of cultural
rights (1.a.) and on the European Council's cultural policy on cultural
diversity (1.b.); the focus then shifted toward the Swiss approach
to managing cultural diversity, i.e. through "intercultural
dialogue and mutual understanding", and 3 speakers were invited
to share their thoughts on the following topics: the use of languages
in the context of cultural diversity, as it is known in Switzerland
(2.a.); the changes required for a society - oriented cultural policy
(as a means of integration and peaceful coexistence) (2.b.); and
the problem of cultural diversity in the urban context, based on
the example of Basel.
Documents:
Mr. Wicht drafted a compendium of "notions related to institutions"
which he presented in Paris and used in his opening remarks to the
working session in Leysin. The summary of 4 out of 5 presentations
were distributed to participants, as well as a series of texts by
Swiss experts under the title "Regards sur la diversité
culturelle" (Views on Cultural Diversity). The latter is a
background paper on the perception of cultural diversity in Switzerland
and does not reflect the opinion of the authorities.
1.a. Cultural rights: submitted by Patrice Meyer-Bisch,
Professor at the Institute of Interdisciplinary Ethics and Human
Rights, University of Fribourg, and UNESCO Chair on Human Rights
and Democracy.
Purpose:
This thematic presentation is meant to give a clear and well-defined
point of view on cultural rights within a broader definition of
the notion of cultural diversity, and to describe the way in which
to design a viable "instrument" to achieve the recognition
of cultural rights.
Cultural rights and cultural diversity: cultural rights, which
are meant to fight poverty, must be understood as individual rights
involving the collective objects which make up cultural diversity;
the culture of a community serves as the social and political link.
How do we achieve the recognition of cultural rights: i.e., how
do we articulate a link between the logic of cultural diversity
and democratic rights? It is necessary to move from a general policy
objective, the endowment of cultural diversity, towards a democratic
structure, by integrating cultural rights to the human rights system
within a broad declaration (see Unesco's 1997 draft Declaration).
If an instrument is to be the means as well as the goal, we must:
- Guarantee individual rights and cultural freedom by relating
cultural rights to human rights, in a formal sense, within the
rationale underlying development and peaceful democratisation.
- Depart from the restrictive logic of cultural exception to embrace
the new economic culture and highlight the cultural dimension
of all assets.
- Several instruments complementing each other could be considered,
for example:
- Macro Approach - a strong and broad declaration on
cultural diversity, however short. The purpose is to define
cultural diversity specifically as an asset giving greater freedom
of choice.
- Micro Approach - a well-defined Convention on the products
of cultural diversity and on rights: a formal declaration in
line with the human rights rationale. Program development.
- Meso Approach - getting down to the details, in the
form of specific strategies involving institutions (who does
what and how?)
- There are 3 objectives, we need 3 texts, with 3 strategies,
and 3 legal forms.
Back to Top
Summary of discussions and comments:
Opinions were divided regarding the need for a new declaration,
the way in which it is to be drafted, the definition of cultural
diversity within a text, and the amount of structure cultural rights
require:
- Do we need texts of a general nature vs. globalisation, totalitarianism
and the fall of the modern state? Or should we deal with specific
things that have been put at stake by globalisation, new technologies
and the commitments made by countries in this regard? Aren't there
enough formal texts or declarations as it is? Is this a risk?
It is necessary to draw the line between them.
- Do we need individual identity democratic rights to complete
minority rights (reach the collective through the individual)?
Or do we need collective rights to ensure the stability of the
State and preserve counter productive minority rights (is it the
common denominator that makes the identity)? When we speak of
individual rights, we must not forget that states (countries)
and communities (i.e. minorities seeking to express themselves
as such) have rights of their own.
- Should the notion of cultural diversity be construed as a way
of coexisting, including all human activities? Or should we bear
in mind the creative dimension and the current objectives (WTO)
to ensure efficiency - when "everything" becomes culture,
culture disappears (in human rights)? Should we be dealing with
specific issues or things that are at stake? Or should we take
a more general approach to cultural diversity, at the risk of
losing the notion of cultural policy at a ministerial level, the
risk of destroying the policy of the arts?
- A document of a general nature does not necessarily address
developing countries, where a national cultural policy of protection
and promotion must be adopted in relation with the economic sector.
The design of an instrument must give some thought to the question
of managing cultural diversity. Before making a general declaration,
we must insist on the need to guarantee strong cultural expression
of different societies and different countries.
- Do we need direct and prescriptive obligations? Or must we limit
negative obligations, in terms of promotion? Which would be the
new obligations for a formal instrument?
1.b. Cultural policy : submitted by Madelena Grossmann,
representative of the Working Group on Cultural Diversity at the
European Council.
Purpose:
Cultural policy and Cultural diversity": presents the European
Council Culture policy on cultural diversity, including results
achieved by the Working Group on Cultural Diversity Management.
The European Council had to change its role when Eastern Europe
opened up to the world in 1989, from advocating democracy to sponsorship;
as a result of the growing poverty and the ensuing ethnic conflicts,
concerns began shifting towards the very principles of cultural
democracy and citizenship, i.e. challenging the ethics of a cultural
policy (rather than the actual rights).
During the Summit in Vienna (1993), the following was proposed:
- Define cultural diversity or the notion of cultural difference.
- Highlight the contradiction between multiculturalism (cultural
diversity) which is growing in Europe and the notion of citizenship
(nationality).
- Focus on the protection of minorities in the European democracy,
identifying the cultural problems (and not political ones), which
affect them in the human rights environment.
- The Working Group based its work on the contradiction between
the need for a new policy because of diversity and the need to
defend cultural interests by means of this policy: it is a question
of supporting a democratic cultural policy for cultural diversity.
The cross-section study on cultural diversity management reveals
that albeit many countries have a different cultural history,
they are now all speaking the same language, i.e. the language
of globalisation. The results of the summary report by Tony Bennett
have enabled to pinpoint the different frameworks in which cultural
diversity problems evolve, and present methodologies based on
the historic integration in each country, since cultural diversity
has a (social, economic, cultural…) history of its own. This
could be the starting point for governments (e.g. defining a terminology),
but also for a thinking process on the political resources available
for the protection of culture in terms of diversity.
Back to Top
Summary of discussions and comments :
Local cross-section studies based on specific public concerns can
be leveraged to make cultural policy proposals that respect democracy.
Intercultural history and the traditional way in which countries
have managed cultural diversity are potential "models"
to be exchanged in an international dialogue, and placed in the
context of the changing environment of multiculturalism. But how
do we go from history to the actual rights (prescriptive, democratic…)
and how do we link them with the existing instruments? How do we
link cultural diversity, rooted as it is in the context and history
of the country with the promotion of a universal notion? For example,
as the use of new technologies is becoming increasingly widespread,
instruments on language policy are not efficient at the international
level. We need good tools to develop an instrument.
Do we need to develop a cultural policy on diversity or a policy
for cultural diversity, which does not have an intrinsic political
dimension? What are the means and the target of cultural policy?
Do we want to tackle specific issues such as supporting the arts
vs. globalisation or must we consider culture in the broader sense
as the coexistence of social and cultural behaviours, which are
different within the same society? Wouldn't culture be ill served
by an excessively broad notion of culture? Multiculturalism is a
political problem but not a question of cultural policy. We can
however not separate social behaviour from cultural behaviour (travel
industry, education, industry…).
We must guarantee that each individual, each culture has the right
to exist at the international level, but imposing cultural diversity
through political rights is tantamount to weakening this right to
exist. How do we guarantee the simple right to exist within their
own territory (the problem of cultural diversity, of poverty…)?
This element has been left aside for the time being. The problem
lies in promoting diversity and developing taste, and we must therefore
co-ordinate cultural and educational action, by mobilising human
resources, who are stakeholders because of their identity and their
strong influence on social behaviour. We must define the common
responsibility we all share, since individual access to the social
realm also involves a responsibility of the individual towards it:
it is a question of reinstating the social actors, and particularly
cultural institutions, in their civil rights. We must see how people
react in other fields, since we must understand the relationship
between social and cultural practices. The problem is one of domestic
communication within governments, since services are not well linked,
including in the economic and cultural fields. We must analyse what
is being done at the economic and political level as well as in
the travel industry (tourism) in order to have a common base with
cultural policy.
We must often identify conflicting interests in order to establish
and manage rights, and we must analyse the changing meaning of the
notion of citizenship; for example, multiethnic states face this
challenge to integrate minorities, which are collectively recognised
at the political level, but not by the society at large, through
the right to self-identification. Managing interests whether individual
or collective, i.e. the fact of belonging to a group, is a difficult
question, since rights that are solely individual can compromise
the very interests of the individuals themselves. How do we deal
with individual interests without undermining common interests?
The cultural notion of citizenship must change in the more fragmented
societies. The discussion has given way to two different yet clear
approaches, and this can be considered as a step forward.
The following presentations gave an idea of the concept of cultural
diversity in Switzerland, as a notion of peace, i.e. of peaceful
coexistence and understanding, shared by different cultural communities
living in the same country; the speakers examined specific aspects
of a Swiss approach to managing cultural diversity as an alternative
to a cultural clash.
Back to Top
2.a. Languages : submitted by Jean-Pierre Gem, Honorary
Professor of the University of Neuchâtel.
Purpose:
How has Switzerland used its experience of national integration
in the language field to deal with the integration of immigrants.
Switzerland evolved as a country through federalism and multiculturalism,
based on the increasing sovereignty of the "cantons" and
the decentralisation of certain authorities. This has enabled the
official recognition of its multilingual nature, in response to
the will of independence and distinction of the regions, thus ensuring
the stability of the Confederation: despite increasing linguistic
interaction, the prevalence of the German language brought about
the need to protect minorities. This asserted the notion of language
barriers, and the only way to understand each other was to divide
the tasks accordingly. Swiss multiculturalism is still relatively
new and it is a matter of concern: is interculturalism, i.e. the
intermingling of different cultures in mutual respect, well understood
in Switzerland?
How does this apply to the context of the integration of foreigners
in light of the 194 nationalities represented in Switzerland? In
Switzerland, language means the assertion of cultural identity and
this is a recognised principle. But there is a task ahead in that
the community must offer a space of cultural expression to each
and every one of them by creating the living social fabric required
to maintain the dialogue of unity in the midst of diversity. Can
the manifold role of language (as a vehicle, understanding the world,
establishing identity) ensure the development of this mutual understanding?
Since the fact of adopting the language spoken in a given place
is a way of surrendering identity, thus becoming an instrument of
power, how can linguistic bilateralism be achieved within integration?
Switzerland has the advantage over countries with a single culture
of having acquired its historical experience through extensive learning
of a second language and through a traditionally broadened cultural
universe. But does this asset suffice to tackle the exclusion phenomena
which have been brought about by the new economy in industrialised
societies (affecting the Swiss and foreigners alike), as a result
of a significant polarisation due to social differences based on
the knowledge of languages?
Language is a barrier which makes it difficult for the different
sides to meet while forcing them to respect each other and their
differences; the notion of culture translates into a dual dialectic,
i.e. the daily experience or ethnological culture vs. the academic
culture which is shared by all, and which should be everyone's aim.
Intercultural dialogue contributes to the development of cultural
progress.
Back to Top
Summary of discussions and comments:
It was clear from the start that we would go beyond the language
issue:
- Managing cultural diversity for the purpose of peace is unavoidably
associated to the increasing immigration phenomenon: an exclusive
policy, beyond the promotion of culture alone, is necessary. Switzerland
has succeeded as far as peaceful coexistence is concerned, but
in terms of integration, it is a step behind: the aim is to enrich
the interaction of cultural diversity, e.g. by working on the
universal power of each language to create a linguistic interaction
on key issues. The question of
- Language and immigrants is further complicated by the conflict
between the new and old linguistic minorities, and their land
claims, but can identity (including linguistic identity) be associated
with a geographic belonging?
- Tolerance towards foreigners is also associated to the economic
situation, a context, which in this sense is favorable and facilitates
pacific coexistence. But how do you peacefully manage cultural
diversity in a society where non-integrated immigrant minorities
control the bulk of the economy? To speak of cultural diversity
is to manage conflicts. Order tends to be maintained by authorities
organizing society without paying attention to expressions of
revolt. Authorities are more inclined to impose peaceful coexistence
than intercultural dialogue. In their efforts to offer equal opportunities
of expression, including to minorities, governments should keep
clear objectives in mind. In the countries, which have been colonized,
language is sometimes an instrument of exclusion since institutions
restrain this right to express culture and identity, whereas it
should be a tool of power. Placing a label on languages erases
their power in most cases; more importantly, who is responsible
for advocating the specificity of the less spoken languages (linguistic
memory) in the transfer of cultural values and knowledge? Cultural
diversity is an issue for the poorer countries, but it is also
an issue for any country (rich or poor) when it is counterproductive.
The respect and recognition of culture identity require a re-distribution
of assets.
- But there are other divisions promoting poverty, such as the
technological gap. Managing a multicultural society is also a
problem of generation and race (lack of access to information
and culture).
- In a multilingual society, what is the true cultural experience?
What is the importance of the link between language and cultural
experience? Let us recall that immigrants tend to adapt to the
language and the customs of the host country. Cultural diversity
has to do with freedom, and it cannot be imposed. We must give
people the right to develop their own freedoms (e.g. the power
of creating a new identity, of choosing the education of the host
country in order to obtain a new citizenship, considering that
language is part of the identity), without trying to organise
everyone's diversity. As for the problem of future immigration:
it is clear that inclusive policies must be implemented, but at
what level? Cultural, multidisciplinary? In this sense, the problem
of language is critical (consensus).
The discussions expressed criteria beyond the purview of the policies
culture departments and ministries tend to adopt (considering
the experimental nature of the working sessions), and can always
be more readily assimilated to a cultural diversity policy than
to a cultural policy for diversity.
Back to Top
2.b. A societal cultural policy: submitted by Ms. Ursula
Rellstab, journalist, promoter at the European and International
level of the program "Culture and Neighbourhoods" (partnership
between European and African cities).
Purpose :
Cultural policy or cultural diversity policies? Interculturalism
as a cross-section subject for a comprehensive analysis of specific
issues (education, social, economic, arts). The policy of arts serving
interculturalism and the role of policy support in the integration
and the management of multiculturalism in artistic communities.
There are 4 forms of interdependent cultures, and each can integrate
interculturalism:
- Institutional: intercultural exchanges can give way to
new impulse and innovation by creating intercultural themes or
through the intermingling of teams.
- Independent: the lack of constraints is favourable to
intercultural work, which allows for dialogue, exchanges, or even
shared creative innovation.
- Amateur: with dedicated support, intercultural artistic
activities in societies where differences are a source of conflict
or poverty, contribute to dialogue, mutual respect, and the promotion
of democratic practices (a choice of common actions).
- Day-to-day: the general social services and practices
characterising interculturalism in multicultural cities and neighbourhoods
are sources of dialogue.
These 4 environments are open and interact among each other; they
are sources of individual and social progress and innovation and
they deserve the support of the administration and policies managing
the increasing multiculturalism of our society. Budgets must be
adapted accordingly, and we must see that cultural managers are
trained to become mentors of the social actors; artistic activities
should be combined with civic activities and play a role as democratic
mediator. We must also encourage interdisciplinary collaboration.
Art must not disappear for the sake of social cultural aspects.
On the contrary, increasing the practice of arts at all levels can
improve our daily life, which is definitely intercultural.
Back to Top
Summary of discussions and comments:
Cities and neighbourhoods are excellent labs to test artistic activity
as an integration factor, which could prove successful at the national
level if it has specific missions. What are the impacts of a cultural
promotion policy at the local level? Artists can help find new visions
to improve life, the arts are free and cannot be subjected to interventionism
in the form of social objectives. There is no lack of examples proving
that artists refuse to be used as instruments, as social obligors
or as financial managers. This is the job of the institutions, and
it is up to them to find the larger budgets needed to support amateur
creation. The aim of a public policy supporting culture is not to
fulfil a social need, or manage institutions as corporations and
regulate creation based on profits, but rather to help non-profitable
creation as a social benefit of expression, even if the inability
to support an art could create tensions.
Is it necessary to support cost-effective artistic forms to avoid
becoming a lesser country, culturally speaking? We must first and
foremost preserve and nurture our cultures, see to the survival
of artists and their communities (especially in countries where
minority languages are spoken). We must encourage mutual exchange,
enhance our heritage and enable artist mobility. But cultural exchange
is faced with the problem of theft: the origin of the cultural must
be recognised and remuneration for production must be ensured. We
must create links between the different ministries and departments
to see to this remuneration, especially in the context of globalisation:
what is the purpose of this remuneration and who will benefit from
it? It is not a question of closing oneself or resorting to protectionism,
but rather to ensure that our culture is getting the visibility
it requires in order to participate in the international dialogue.
In cases where the entire national production is left out of the
profit market, governmental efforts to protect culture must be a
part of cultural rights. But we must be aware of the costs associated
with a quality, profit-generating production, subject to the budgetary
constraints resulting from the emergence of minorities and the diversification
of ethnic groups. In light of the individual right of appreciation
(which culture is the best?), we require a policy to support the
arts efficiently by promoting excellence, "as the only means
of exchange". There is a strong consensus on the need to promote
excellence of local, regional and national creation, in order to
launch an international dialogue in the context of globalisation,
and support it accordingly, no matter the political context: the
first task lies in ensuring that our culture remains dynamic so
that we are able to share our opinions. The notion of intercultural
volunteerism has to be considered: we must develop taste by artistic
education and training, and this requires the means to do so. We
must also adopt a new language presenting cultural diversity as
a means to define the individuals, which are part of the multicultural
makeup (as the trigger for a new way of life, by the assertion of
a plural identity at the local, regional and national levels). In
this sense, the promotion of creativity in a number of sectors,
combined with a commercial and cultural foreign policy can be construed
as an investment in the future. An analysis of the intercultural
reality at the local level, in the context of an inclusive policy,
shows that work must be done in other sectors, which have had to
change and reform their institutions to improve their public services,
find new tools, new ways of creating instruments.
There are expressions of support in favour of using the arts (at
the day-t-day, amateur and institutional levels) as a means of coexistence,
mediation and participation at the urban and neighbourhood levels.
An inclusive policy for the arts requires the promotion of education,
training, mediation, participation and new budgetary allotments.
Can we increase our budgets or must we distribute them differently?
This highly political issue is beyond the purview of the ministries
and departments of culture. We must develop a new language for our
discussions between countries.
Back to Top
2.c. Cultural diversity in the urban context : submitted by Ms.
Rebekka Ehret, ethnologist, course co-ordinator at the University
of Basel, and author of a political integration chart (white book)
for the canton of the City of Basel.
Purpose:
To present cultural diversity management in the urban context,
by following the example of the City of Basel, from the perspective
of a social analysis, i.e. the study of migration, integration policy
and city planning.
Issues such as the manner in which immigrants are perceived by
the general population and social and urban development have placed
the notion of culture in the foreground once again during discussions
on urban renewal in neighbourhoods where the bulk of residents are
foreigners. A first remark in this context would be that integration
opportunities rest less on the particularities of immigrants (which
are perceived as being less than they are in actual fact) than on
the policies on official integration and urban development: Who
produces culture and who is excluded from it? The answers define
the new forms of exclusion to be overcome.
In the context of globalisation, cities have been compelled to
react to the pressure of competition, by developing "revitalisation"
programs. In the political agenda set out for 1997-2001, one of
the 4 priorities of the City of Basel was to make the city attractive
to new "good" taxpayers. Among the solutions proposed,
the city attempted to promote integration, since foreigners were
perceived as a threat to the potential arrival of interesting people;
of course, the official discourse was that they were acting in the
benefit of the 27% non-Swiss residents of the city. (Basil is an
industrial city employing many workers, with immigrants living in
the suburbs, and naturalisation rates are generally low in Switzerland).
Two basically different urban renewal programs were developed,
one of them for the suburbs where immigrants tend to concentrate,
and the other redefining a more attractive image of Basel with the
participation of "normal" citizens, who based their plea
on the argument of immigration. The integration policy affected
the city planning strategies. The rhetorical tone of these "participatory"
programs translated into the discrimination of multiculturalism,
since the cultural reality of the non-Swiss was completely excluded,
just as that of the lower classes of Swiss citizens: hence, the
new economic spin-off exacerbated the polarisation of the new middle
classes and of the new poverty, widening the gap between cultural
differences.
In her white book, Ms. Ehret proposes the following to promote
integration:
- Depart from the Deficiency approach of the 60's and 70's (assimilation
- i.e. regardless of the culture of the other), since we must
study the resources and the possibilities of each and all concerned.
- Embrace the determinism of the cultural Difference of the 80's
and 90's for a sustainable integration policy, ensuring the interaction
of differences in a highly regulated framework, by analysing social
situations and seeking to eliminate structural barriers.
- Tackle the problem of integration by involving society at large,
the Swiss as well as the "others", in order to analyse
the structures promoting social disparities, and fight against
discrimination.
We could in fact promote the idea of cultural diversity and manage
it in a creative sense, perhaps with greater discretion by reducing
the idea of cultural difference, and placing it in a new perspective,
which would take into account the distribution of power and the
priorities of authorities.
Back to Top
Summary of discussions and comments :
After the presentation on the management of cultural diversity
from the language perspective (multilingual), this same issue is
seen under the light of social aspects in an urban context: the
city is the first place where (cultural) diversity is to be found,
but is it a place of integration and social cohesion? If so, the
model can be applied to the national level. But the city is also
a place where interests are represented (with a risk of polarisation).
What is the aim of an integration policy? Is it peaceful coexistence,
the mobilisation of human resources for sustainable development,
the promotion of equality vs. the structures? Is it a question of
integration, recognition, assimilation or appreciation? In developing
and managing an integration policy, who must assume responsibility
for the public representation of communities, in relation with their
diversity? How? When? In terms of political participation, the question
of the distribution of power is important for the notion of cultural
diversity (cultural groupings in countries are a powerful means
to obtain funds). Which social project must address this or that
civic identity? And how do we build civic identity? In Ms. Ehret's
view, the focus must be on structures creating exclusion, as well
as on those disabling this exclusion. There is a need for exchange
between countries, which have already experienced integration problems.
The ongoing "culturalisation" of social problems is dangerous,
and we cannot expect culture to solve all conflicts. We must create
study groups to carefully measure specific aspects. Culture can
for instance be used as a resource for an integration policy in
the urban environment (cultural planning). It is necessary to create
a linkage between policies (integration, urban renewal and culture).
A cultural diversity policy must not convey the idea that cultural
diversity is a policy. A focus on similarities (e.g. races) can
facilitate integration, but erasing or minimising cultural differences
could lead to the loss of the benefits of multiculturalism, which,
on the contrary, deserve to be analysed. What do immigrants contribute
to a community? What is the accrued cultural value of the urban
integration of different populations? How far can we go into the
question of diversity without falling into tribalism? How much diversity
can we accumulate without falling into tribalism? There will be
a clash with the second generation of immigrants. We must differentiate
the political debate on the intermingling of cultures and decentralise
the notion of culture. Wealth is not the ambition of people, it
is what they seek in their lives, but people must also to be seen
as "cultural beings" creating meaning.
Chairman's conclusion:
This experimental Working Session has proven positive and shown
that cultural diversity is polysemous, and that these multiple meanings
are taking it in all directions beyond the realm of cultural policy.
We have to consider the possibility of co-ordinating our work on
cultural diversity management with the Working Group on Cultural
Diversity and Globalisation. Perhaps a sub-working group could be
formed, which might eventually be shared with Switzerland (in absence
of an INCP member country). They would report on their conclusions
during the working group meetings, or presentations proposed by
countries hosting the meeting of the Working Group or by the INCP
chair. These studies have the advantage of presenting a vertical
analysis of the resources needed to ensure the sound management
of cultural diversity, and they could be leveraged to help channel
the development of an instrument. The issue will be considered during
the ministerial meeting. For the meeting in Luzern, Switzerland
will present a short discussion paper (2 to 3 pages) highlighting
the "catalogue" of issues and papers to be submitted to
the Ministers, with the prior approval of the Federal Advisor of
the Helvetic Confederation.
Back to Top
Other documents:
The Chairman, Mr. Wicht, at the request of the Chair of the Working
Group on Cultural Diversity and Globalisation, Mr. Skok, distributed
an additional document summarising aspects which might prove useful
to the working session on cultural diversity management towards
the development of an instrument:
A. Become aware that cultural diversity is a political problem,
which goes beyond cultural policy. We must be aware of the limits
of the instrument and remember that it cannot be perfectly comprehensive.
B. The instrument must focus on specific fields and seek specific
answers to specific problems (culture is not the equivalent of
culture policy). It has to be unavoidably limited: its efficiency
will be achieved by asking specific questions.
C. However, the preamble could highlight the following :
- The complexity of the problem of cultural diversity: It must
consider the global nature of the subject, and highlight the following
set of issues:
- Languages, immigration, urban stakes, etc…
- Individual rights vs. group and community rights?
- The need to go from the macro to the micro level, i.e. to proceed
through gradual steps of intensity, based on 3 statements:
- Cultural diversity belongs to the commons which form the
basis (foundation) on which freedoms should be built and expanded.
- Diversity means interaction for a living society and not
just the right to a cultural difference or relativism (vs.
tribe or ghetto, vs. cultural relativism).
- Diversity means respect of human dignity.
- Make a statement in the sense that in order to be able to participate
in exchanges and interculturalism in a context of globalisation,
we must see to the promotion of culture, artistic expression and
excellence at the local, regional and national level.
- Need and obligation to preserve and assert the liberty of
the states.
Back to Top
Participants:
Chairman of the Working Session:
Mr. Bernard Wicht, Switzerland
Representative of the Swiss INCP Chairmanship:
Mr. David Streiff, Switzerland
Representative of the INCP Liaison Bureau:
Ms. Josée Arbique
Representatives of INCP member countries:
M r. Steven Sack, South Africa
Mr. Ruffus Matibe, South Africa
Mr. Antonio Rudder, Barbados
Mr. Vladimir Skok, Canada
Ms. Christina Green, Canada
Mr. David Atkinson, Canada
Mr. Claude Baillargeon, Canada
Ms. Naima Balic, Croatia
Ms. Sophie Valais, France
Mr. Marios Kostakis, Greece
Mr. Sydney Bartley, Jamaica
Ms. Åse Vollo, Norway
Ms. Silje Thingstad, Norway
Ms. Ineke Bink, Netherlands
Mr. Leonid Makarchenkov, Russia
Mr. Mikhail Schultz, Sweden
Mr. Toni Linder, Switzerland
Mr. Nicolas Mathieu, Switzerland
Ms. Hermia Tyson-Cuffie, Trinidad and Tobago
Representatives of international organizations:
Ms. Katérina Sténou, UNESCO
Representatives invited from the Co E WG
Ms. Andrea Ellmeier, Austria
Ms. France Lebon, Belgium
Mr. Antony Galabov, Bulgaria
Mr. Greg Baeker, Canada
Ms. Madelena Grossmann, General Secretariat
Ms. Ursula Rellstab, Switzerland
Independent experts invited :
Mr. Ivan Bernier, Univ. Laval, Canada
Ms. Rebekka Ehret, Univ. of Basel, Switzerland
Mr. Patrice Meyer Bisch, Univ. of Fribourg, Switzerland
Mr. Jean-Pierre Gern, Univ. of Neuchâtel, Switzerland
Document prepared by Nicolas Mathieu, acting officer, International
Affairs, Federal Bureau of Culture, Switzerland, and approved by
Mr. David Streiff, Director of the Federal Bureau of Culture, Switzerland.
Back to Top
|