Dialogue Definition History Intercultural Dialogue Theology Religion Essay

Published Date: 23 Mar 2015

"Like never before, global challenges have local impacts. Local events can have global impacts. This compels us to strengthen cooperation - expand the space for dialogue - and replace barriers of distrust with bridges of understanding." (Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon)

The word dialogue is a combination of the two Greek words: dia, meaning "through," and logos, interpreted as "word or meaning." To engage in dialogue is therefore to engage in making meaning through the spoken/written word.

The societies cultural environment is changing quickly and becoming more and more diversified. Cultural diversity is an essential condition of human society, brought about by cross-border migration, the claim of national and other minorities to a distinct cultural identity, the cultural effects of globalisation, the growing interdependence between all world regions and the advances of information and communication media. More and more individuals are living in a "multicultural" normality and have to manage their own multiple cultural affiliations.

Cultural diversity is also an economic, social and political plus, which needs to be developed and adequately managed. On the other hand, increasing cultural diversity brings about new social and political challenges. Cultural diversity often triggers fear and rejection. Stereotyping, racism, xenophobia, intolerance, discrimination and violence can threaten peace and the very essence of local and national communities.

Dialogue between cultures, the oldest and most fundamental mode of democratic conversation, is an antidote to rejection and violence. Its objective is to enable people to live together peacefully and constructively in a multicultural world and to develop a sense of community and belonging.

2.1.1. Definition

In political parlance, the term "intercultural dialogue" is still only loosely defined. There is no accepted definition for Intercultural Dialogue. The term is an adaptation from other terms, all of which remain current, such as multiculturalism, social cohesion and assimilation.

One of best formulation at the moment is perhaps the terminology used by the Council of Europe in its White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue, which states:

"Intercultural Dialogue is understood as an open and respectful exchange of views between individuals and groups with different ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic backgrounds and heritage […] that leads to a deeper understanding of the other's global perception"

In this definition, "open and respectful" means "based on the equal value of the partners"; "exchange of views" stands for every type of interaction that reveals cultural characteristics; "groups" stands for every type of collective that can act through its representatives (family, community, associations, peoples); "culture" includes everything relating to ways of life, customs, beliefs and other things that have been passed on to us for generations, as well as the various forms of artistic creation; "world perception" stands for values and ways of thinking.

In a general sense, the objective of intercultural dialogue is to learn to live together peacefully and constructively in a multicultural world and to develop a sense of community and belonging. Intercultural dialogue can also be a tool for the prevention and resolution of conflicts by enhancing the respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law. More specifically, the following goals have been outlined by the Council of Europe:

To share visions of the world, perceptions of the world, to understand and learn from those that do not see the world with the same perspective;

To identify similarities and differences between different cultural traditions and perceptions;

To achieve a consensus that disputes should not be resolved by violence;

To help manage cultural diversity in a democratic manner, by making the necessary adjustments to all types of existing social and political arrangements;

To bridge the divide between those who perceive diversity as a threat and those who view it as an enrichment;

To share best practices particularly in the areas of intercultural dialogue, the democratic management of social diversity and the promotion of social cohesion;

To develop jointly new projects, new pratices, new concepts, new filosofies;

Easier than a definition is a description of the conditions, the "enabling factors" that characterize a true, meaningful intercultural dialogue. Based on existing experience, the Council of Europe propose at least six crucial conditions that must be fulfilled from the very outset, or achieved during the process:

Equal dignity of all participants;

Voluntary engagement in dialogue;

A mindset, on all sides, characterised by openness, curiosity and commitment, and the absence of a desire to "win" the dialogue;

A readiness to look at both cultural similarities and differences;

A minimum degree of knowledge about the distinguishing features of one's own and the "other" culture;

The ability to find a common language for understanding and respecting cultural differences.

But It should be remembered which is in the root of the concept of intercultural dialogue, it is based on human dignity, thinking and democracy. It privileges human beings and considers humanity at a central point. It enhances the role of each individual in the structure of the world, despite their differences in, among many things, language, race, color, tribe, religion, and nationality, they enjoy a variety of potential capabilities and talents that complement each other. [1] 

Today's society has a new dynamic in itself. It is characterized by cultural diversity and proximity between cultures. There is no more cultural isolation, every culture is near each other, they interact with each other, they share ideas and thoughts, and is through that, though the contact with the other that the self can describe himself.

The encounter is inevitable, and in every encounter there is communication, expression of the inner world, of the attitude towards the other. And it is not limited to the verbalization, but all the different and unique languagues that people use to contact to each other in every encounter: with the face, the reaction, the gesture, the way we look. Before the first word is said, a inner world is been exteriorised, transmitted to the other. (Banús, Enrique)

The world is much closer right now. Every moment of life, every daily-life situation can be transformed, or not, in intercultural dialogue. In a certain sense, every contact is an intercultural contact - because culture is essentially linked to the human being (Banús, Enrique). Culture is preserved by articule 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [2] , but not only that, it is a natural element of human life: is the way people express themselves, the way they think, they love, they hate - it's in every aspect of the human existence. It's "the «cultural world» of everyone, a «cultural world» made by a very complex - a very rich - mixture of elements, coming from different traditions and from our own way of life, our own biography. The «cultural world» is a very personal one." (Banús, Enrique)

The comunication is a the base of human behaviour, the social space, is the space of communication, the space of normal social life, which is made by the net of messages we are sending and receiving, we are coding and decoding. And because we are carrying our «cultural world» with us, all these messages are cultural messages, and all the dialogues are intercultural dialogues. (Banús, Enrique)

The contact with other human beings is a integral part of the everyday life, and in that contacts, our «cultural world» is meeting other «cultural worlds». And there a fullness of communications is established: greetings, looks, conversations. These contacts are sometimes more cordial, sometimes cool, according to the part of the space everyone shares with this concrete «other». (Banús, Enrique)

"Intercultural dialogue is maybe not only an art, but also a change of paradigm, because it means to overcome the normal procedures, the normal strategies for mental survival in a complex world." (Banús, Enrique)

And, by the necessity of contact, of communication, prejudices and stereotypes are built naturally, by experiencing/confirming «our» - collective - identity in antagonism to «the other». This is a very common procedure to experience collective identity.(Banús, Enrique)

Intercultural dialogue is in this sense a change of paradigm, the recognition that «the other» is not only a threatening antagonist, but a necessary complement; in the dialogue the identity is experienced, precisely in the capacity to establish a dialogue everyone is realising his or her «being himself or herself» - and, of course, he or she is clarifying his or her thoughts when expressing them to «the other»(Banús, Enrique).

All the mentioned tendencies of seeing antagonisms between «identity» and «alterity» are paradoxically reinforced in societies, like nowadays, in which the dominant presence of the state is crumbling away15, with (partially strong) regional/national movements within the states and with a globalisation and interrelation which also diminish the state's power. (Banús, Enrique) Moreover, the societies are also becoming diverse in themselves, in their inner structure:

squares and places are not only «ours», but reflect the world plurality. The local level is approaching the global level. This can create uncertainty, and new forms of collective identity have become popular - so that aforementioned «cultural identity», which seems to forget that «culture» is at first a personal right and a personal quality, and sometimes gives priority to the constituency of the group and not to the personal realisation of a human being. (Banús, Enrique)

Intercultural dialogue seems to suggest that culture is always and every time a positive manifestation of the human spirit. After the 20th century with its Auschwitzs and Gulags a naive exaltation of culture and also of dialogue is no more possible. The culture includes the best and the worst made by the human being - and all that what lies between the best and the worst.(Banús, Enrique)

So, talk about intercultural dialogue include discussing the transmission of the necessary critical sense to avoid cultural relativism and to combine tolerance and intolerance, to reinforce the capacity to overcome distances and build bridges.

History

On the stage of international politics, intercultural dialogue first made appearance in explicit reaction to Huntington's theory, Clash of Civilization. It was by the then President of Iran, Mohammad Khatami, who used the term of "dialogue among civilisations" [3] in a speech to the General Assembly of The United Nations On the 4th November 1998, the General Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution that designated 2001 as the Year of the 'Dialogue among Civilizations'. In the same year, on 11 September, with the attacks to the United States, leaving forgotten the "Year of the Dialogue among Civilizations", on the contrary, it gave more visibility to the future wrote by Huntington, what rest of that year was an atmosphere of fear, mistrust and war.

Several years later, on 2004, a new UN initiative was launched under the title "Alliance of Civilizations", composed of mostly states, and also several international organizations, was established to support an initiative in fostering global cooperation on cross-cultural issues and to promote initiatives aimed at encouraging dialogue and building bridges among societies and communities.

In the meanwhile, the question has become a major focal point for the activities of UNESCO. UNESCO see's the cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue is one of the main pillars of UNESCO's action.

'Safeguarding and promoting cultural heritage as a shared resource for dialogue and sustainable development, fostering creative diversity, countering ignorance and intolerance, strengthening intercultural competences: all play a determinant role for intercultural dialogue. Within this larger framework, which also encompasses interreligious dialogue, special focus is placed to encourage cultural pluralism at the local, regional and national level as well as regional and sub-regional initiatives, highlighting the importance of transfers and exchanges between cultures.' [4] 

And by reaffirming the importance of culture, UNESCO adopted 'The Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity' at the UNESCO General Conference in November 2001(UNESCO, 2002) and reaffirmed more recently by the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (UNESCO, 2005). It views cultural diversity as the common heritage which unites humanity, a source of individual but also collective wealth. It is "as necessary for humankind as biodiversity is for nature", is part of the democratic framework of society, and one of the roots of economic as well as personal development (UNESCO, 2002, Articles 1, 2 & 3). All people have the right to cultural expression in their language of choice, and have the right to access the means of expression and dissemination of their culture (Articles 5 & 6). Importantly, cultural rights are seen as an "ethical imperative" implying "acommitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms, in particular the rights of persons belonging to minorities and those of indigenous peoples" (Article 4).

Cultural exchange is fundamental to the Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity. Produced in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attack on the WorldTrade Centre, the Declaration represents a rejection of ethnic hatred and an affirmation of intercultural dialogue as a guarantee of peace (Matsuura, forward to UNESCO,2002). Moreover, intercultural dialogue is seen as necessary for creativity which, though having its roots in cultural tradition, also "flourishes in contact with other cultures" (Article 7).

The United States has often been characterised as the world's melting pot, but the terms of the debate in Europe are somewhat different. [5] 

Historically, the European experience has been of rich learning culture process in the objective to coexist together, regardless of the political, religious, linguistic and cultural differences. Some of the most aggressive and violent events in the world happened between the countries of the EU, and after the second world war a peacefull coexistence was not just a hope, but a immediate need.

Europe, beside all of their problems, can be caraterized now as a peaceful, economically successful and increasingly politically integrated environment. But the challenge of 'the other' has not gone away however. If anything, with each passing enlargement, with each political crises, with each economic situation, the challenges that face Europe grow.

"Intercultural Dialogue can be seen as one of the ways to promote mutual understanding, to a better living together and a strong active sense of European citizenship and belonging."

By comparison with other international organisations, the European Union has not given broad public attention to intercultural dialogue than until recently, with the exception of Commission President Jacques Delors's initiative 'A Soul for Europe' in 1992 [6] , which believed on the Europe' construction of a something above economics and legal interchanged system, his aim was to build a spiritual and ethical dimension to the EU.

The Council of Europe can be described as a organization that has great influence in the intercultural dialogue, giving it hight political importance. It contributes to the core of the Council of Europe, namely preserving and promoting human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

The First Summit of Heads of State and Government of member states on 1993, which affirmed that cultural diversity characterised Europe's rich heritage and that tolerance was the guarantee of an open society, led to the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities on 1995, the establishment of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance and the launching of the European Youth Campaign against racism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia and intolerance, "All Different - All Equal". [7] 

The Third Summit of the Heads of State and Government on 2005 identified intercultural dialogue as a means of promoting awareness, understanding, reconciliation and tolerance, as well as preventing conflicts and ensuring integration and the cohesion of society.

It was also the Council of Europe on 2008, that put forward "the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue"; whereby religion is considered to constitute one possible difference in identity, alongside "ethnic, cultural, or linguistic backgrounds". [8] Even so, by this definition, intercultural dialogue is vaguely defined as an exchange of views between different individuals or groups at different levels:

"within societies, between the societies of Europe and between Europe and the wider world" (Council of Europe 2008).

On EU dynamic, one important document that relates to the importance of the intercultural dialogue is the White Paper [9] . His objective is to formulate a coherent and long-term policy for the promotion of intercultural dialogue within Europe and between Europe and its neighbouring regions, the Council of Europe is preparing a "White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue". [10] 

"White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue", emphatically argues, in the name of the governments of the 47 member states of the Council of Europe, that the common future of EU depends on the ability to safeguard and develop human rights, as enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, democracy and the rule of law and to promote mutual understanding. It reasons that the intercultural approach offers a forward-looking model for managing cultural diversity. It proposes a conception based on individual human dignity, embracing their common humanity and common destiny. It affirms that if there is a European identity to be realised, it will be based on shared fundamental values, respect for common heritage and cultural diversity as well as respect for the equal dignity of every individual. [11] 

The White Paper is addressed to policy makers and practitioners at national, regional and local levels, to whom it will provide guidelines and analytical and methodological tools for the promotion of intercultural dialogue.

The White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue of the Council of Europe will formulate the political orientations of the Organisation in this area. It will also serve as a reference document for action at national, regional and local levels.

The White Paper will evaluate the results of recent activities of the Council of Europe, of examples of good practice and recent scientific studies on intercultural dialogue, and will formulate the conclusions to be drawn for their implementation.

The White Paper will formulate a long-term vision of what is to be expected from a policy promoting intercultural dialogue within European societies, across national borders and between Europe and neighbouring regions.

The White Paper will suggest policies and initiatives that the various stakeholders may consider implementing in different contexts, in order to support intercultural dialogue and to maximize its benefits.

The White Paper will identify, more specifically, how the Council of Europe - through model actions and follow-up programmes - can help create better conditions for the promotion of intercultural dialogue, how it can support dialogue and how it can pursue its policy of dialogue with neighbouring regions.

The White Paper will provide standards and tools, in particular examples of good practice.

The discussion on Intercultural dialogue in Europe reached its apex with the instauration of the 'European Year of Intercultural Dialogue' in 2008, by the european parliament and of the council. [12] 

This Year aimed to promote Intercultural Dialogue and raise general awareness on the importance of developing an 'active European citizenship'. The key messages were targeted at young people but also the disadvantaged. Civil Society was in general encouraged to mobilise and get involved. Each country had a national coordinating body, and the civil society sector was coordinated through the Rainbow Platform [13] - now the Platform for Intercultural Europe. The budget for the year was 10 million, which focused on 7 flagship projects, the co-financing of a number of national projects, an information and awareness raising campaign and finally evaluation.

The EU has drawn on the experience of other international organisations when it set up to the declaration of the European 'Year of Intercultural Dialogue' in 2006. the main emphasis of the EU's approach to the 'Year of Intercultural Dialogue' focused on questions of social cohesion and the emergence of a common identity inside the European polity.

Unlike the approach of the UN, questions of violent conflict and possible clashes of collective identity did not figure at all in the Commission's proposal, it can be seen by the lack of discussion in areas such as conflict, peace or war.

Its very first sentence states instead, in almost tautological manner, that "intercultural dialogue is intimately linked to the fundamental ambition underlying the construction of Europe, namely to bring together the peoples of Europe".(Bokern et all)

In the further text, explicit reference is made to the Strategy of Lisbon, intending to make the EU the most competitive economic space in the world, but no mention is made at all of possible lines of conflict. This focus does not correspond to the original initiative for the 'Year of Intercultural Dialogue': as it was drawn from the Commission's first conference under the title "Peace, Security and Stability: Intercultural Dialogue" in March 2002, at the invitation of the then President Romano Prodi, interreligious dialogue and peacebuilding were a principal point of concern.

The concept of intercultural dialogue underlying the 'Year of Intercultural Dialogue' is not clear. It main focus was upon education - arts and heritage-, youth, culture and sports. Further emphasis was placed on building citizenship as one major purpose of the 'Year of Intercultural Dialogue'; religion was only mentioned at the sidelines.

It is no coincidence, then, that the seven flagship projects of the 'Year of Intercultural Dialogue' were mainly situated in the artistic sector, putting much emphasis on multilingualism, youth and urban culture. Some of the subsidised groups were already beneficiaries of the previous "European Year of Equal Opportunities for All" in 2007.

It is clear to conclude that the EU's 'Year of Intercultural Dialogue' had a very different approach from the other international organizations or European politics regarding intercultural dialogue.

intercultural dialogue approaches

"The starting assumption is that intercultural dialogue, to be fruitful, must be developed from a basic code of values, that aside from being universal in character and therefore possible to share, must also be a trans-cultural facilitator." (Mascia, Marco p.448)

There is still relatively little information on mechanisms for implementing dialogue as well as on ways how to ensure effective policies in this field. But it is possible to reduce the possibilities to two approaches, the short-term and the long-term approach, realizing that dialogue is the end but also the means to achive these goals.

Inside of the European Union Year of Intercultural dialogue, different areas were worked on. Such projects, have short period of time, but were made to have impact in a long term range. These projects were: Intercultural dialogue through musical and cultural education [14] , Capacity building for initiatives supporting intercultural dialogue [15] and National action plans for intercultural dialogue [16] .

But in this secssion, will be discussed the approaches to mediation, gender, ICT and religion and their conection to intercultural dialogue.

Itl will be shown their importance, influence and challenges that it represents inside a intercultural dialogue perception. And maybe it will present new perspectives in dealing with each other.

Intercultural Mediation

As social or cultural tensions are incresed by the international problems, such as minorities or imigration, the public perception on intercultural mediation has grow. It doesen't matter the field, it can be seen nowadays being applied to informal and formal education, in social work, in international affairs or in the research field. And as response to this, training programmes, special networks and university studies were installed, frequently following the theories of known specialists such as John Paul Lederach on 1995 [17] or Johan Galtung, on 2000 [18] (Fischer and Wiesand). Galtung, on his "conflict theory", points to conflict "both as Destroyer or Creator, as potentially dangerous… because of violence and as a golden opportunity to create something new".

Generally speaking, ICM or Intercultural mediation is being considered or installed, whenever relationships between groups and individuals with different cultural backgrounds have been cut, are misbalanced or become tense or hostile, which, in its turn, strongly affects the basic life of specific groups in the population or threatens security. In that case, mediators can facilitate non-violent and culture sensitive resolution practices (Fischer and Wiesand). Designed mainly to address the needs of individuals or smaller groups or to de-escalate business conflicts, the following definition of Intercultural Mediation of Bernd Mueller-Jaquier shows a strong affinity to some approaches towards intercultural dialogue:

"Intercultural mediation is a special, usually voluntary, discussion and consensual decision-making process in which one or more impartial persons - the mediator(s) - assist people, organizations, and communities in conflict to work toward a variety of goals. Parties in the mediation process are encouraged to:

improve communication processes, understanding culture specific interaction rules, values, conflict resolution strategies and symbols;

improve relationships and empathy;

use mediation rules to minimize, avoid or enhance involvement in the legal/judicial system;

work toward mutual understanding to resolve a problem or dispute in order to finally

reach their own decisions, resolve underlying conflicts, and prevent problems from recurring."

(Bernd Mueller-Jaquier ,2002) [19] 

Until recently, however, most of Intercultural mediation activities took place in world regions outside of the EU territory that suffered from wars and violent conflicts. On Europe, intergovernmental organisations and European member states assumed an important responsibility by providing help and assistance in fostering conflict transformation by peaceful means, be it as part of their foreign policies or of their development cooperation activities - e.g. in South Africa, Rwanda, Palestine, Sri Lanka, South East Europe. In addition to a provision of personal mediation services, training programmes to teach Intercultural mediation techniques to future mediators on the ground have been installed with the help of experienced mediators. (Fischer and Wiesand)

A great exemple of the role of intercultural mediation is in the case of Yugoslav wars, from 1991 to 2001, which can be considered as one of the deepest political and humanitarian crises Europe has experienced during the last 60 years, but also because of unresolved frictions between traditional minorities and majorities in that multi-ethnic region, attention for realistic methods of conflict resolution has been particularly high in the region. As pointed out by specialists Sanjin Dragojević and Milena Dragićević Šešić in their publication about "Intercultural Mediation", they afirm it was a basic element of many activities in that region, since also the new states knew more or less segregated societies, which hindered a fruitful development.

"The absence of a process of dialogue and communication between ethnic groups of this country could be seen as a fundamental social obstacle, as well as, an obstacle for overall development. A lot of time has passed since the war ended, yet it can be asserted that the problem is not only lacking resolution but has also gained in importance and strength. This is why UNESCO began an intercultural education project with the aim of connecting, informing, and stimulating the youngest generation of local cultural activists across Bosnia and Herzegovina. The aim being that they would become the creators of cultural mediation projects in their surroundings, surpassing the borders of ethnic communities and national countries. Thus, the regional component seemed like a relevant framework for both reflection and potential implementation of basic efforts and projects in this area." (Milena Dragićević Šešić and Sanjin Dragojević)

Mediation efforts took place on different levels and at different stages prior, during and after the conflicts [20] - the latter partly in the form of "separation mediation", similar to techniques applied in individual cases of divorce. This included diplomatic efforts between state officials and government representatives leading e.g. to the Dayton Treaty that put an end to the war in BiH and Croatia in 1995, but also assistance to the development of new administrative and constitutional provisions for the resolution of hostilities between ethnic Albanians and the majority population in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Fischer and Wiesand).

But this kind of process raises doubt as how to make those agreements to move foroword. To tha objective, the new states had to re-define values, rules, symbols and a common heritage, work out functioning structures and mechanisms in all sectors of society, and try to secure basic rights to all citizens regardless of their ethnical background. However, crucial for a success of such strategies is also a population that regains trust in a common future and works together in a climate of mutual tolerance and better understanding. Dialogue and interaction is a first step to break down barriers and to re-open minds. (Fischer and Wiesand)

Since wounds are still open and traumas virulent, mediation efforts involving non-governmental initiatives at civil society level - or a multitrack combination that include public authorities at different levels - are an important strategic and pragmatic element, in this context.(Fischer and Wiesand) To that effect, different programmes and initiatives were launched, often with the help of Western European partners.

In Europe, can be seen today, in nearly all countries, a relative important immigration flow that have to be acknowledged and dealt with. In this context, intercultural mediation techniques can be seen as a promising way of coping with unintended side effects of societies in cultural transition.

ICM can contribute to paving the way for individuals or groups - organised interest groups, ethnic or religious communities, members of political bodies - with different cultural backgrounds to enter into dialogue, if they accept conciliation and compromise and show a willingness to take each other's justified concerns and deep needs into account.

To enter the 'way' of ICM, Fischer and Wiesand present a setting to consider that can range from individuals and groups that:

a) live in a situation of more or less violent conflict;

b) feel disturbed or threatened by people from "other" groups;

experience a dissent in view of a common goal;

lack necessary means / conditions in order to find a satisfactory solutions for a problem; or;

e) are not prepared to get in touch with each other, despite a concrete need to do so.

As long as different communities or individuals have no matters of common concern, they often seem to be less inclined to care about the "others" or to take them into account. Things change when interaction is unavoidable, e.g. when they share a common space or aim at obtaining the same good/s. Indeed, multicultural societies bear manifold potentials for conflict. As well, tensions and conflicts are often found in schools or at sports events. In cases like that, legal frameworks or police measures set up in order to guarantee the peaceful functioning of a society may not always function and, even more important, are not overcoming deeper-rooted barriers and stereotypes, at a later stage. Especially in situations where social change is under way and/or the tensions are interpersonal, but beyond the point where formal punishment needs to be executed, mediation mechanisms may come into play. Such post-conflict mediation is perceived as "intercultural" as soon as "cultural" aspects or "visible" differences play a significant role, e.g. if there is no common mother tongue. (Fischer and Wiesand )

Low-scale conflicts in local contexts speak for non-formal solutions that can avoid legal prosecution (Fischer and Wiesand ). For example, mediation is increasingly used for solving intercultural confrontations and incidents in schools - often even with the participation of co-students acting as mediators - at work places, in neighbourhood conflicts or for a settlement of problems in bicultural partnerships / families.

If it comes to criminal acts, restorative justice, or more precisely Victim-Offender Mediation can be a means to find - in the course of a mediated dialogue process - solutions through agreement which ideally lead to an acknowledgement of the fault, a better understanding and a commitment for change.

Intercultural mediation can also become an important instrument able to contribute effectively to the inclusion of immigrant communities (Fischer and Wiesand). In line with an institutional framework for social pluralism and the anchoring of a firm basis for equal rights and non-discrimination, ICM can ease mutual understanding and tolerance, when it is offered as a prevention of conflict instead of serving as an ambulance (Fischer and Wiesand). This type of mediation, particularly as concerns relations between public institutions and immigrants, still needs further research, together with a development of effective methods and a trans-national exchange of successful practices. With Alexander Bischoff (University of Basle/Switzerland) one could, however, distinguish between practices serving:

an adaptation or assimilation of immigrants mainly via one-directional information, which might be seen "almost as a defence against pluralism and as a form of self-protection" of public institutions; or

genuine integration and empowerment strategies, where "intercultural mediation offers clients real options. The narrower the power gap between institution and client, the more likely the institution is to introduce conflict mediation, cultural mediation and interpreters, and to aim to 'empower' the immigrant." [21] 

An interesting and promising approach into this latter direction is taken by Portugal, which tries to turn its experience as a former colonial power into a special "expertise" for the dialogue with or between different cultures. [22] 

These and similar examples demonstrate that professional ICM activities could be considered as an important element in bridge-building efforts, which form part of a general strategy towards Intercultural Dialogue.

New medias and Intercultural Dialogue

The modern times bring new problems and new opportunities, the recognition of diversity among cultures, as an integral part of their identity and the very element that promotes intercultural communication and cooperation, is on of them.

The globalization processes, marked especially by the market expansion, new and more dynamic ways of mobility of people and goods, as well as Information and Communication Technology - ICT - innovations, introduced new possibilities for the inclusion of individuals, institutions, communities and regions in intercultural and international communication. The new possibilities opened up by ICT - global connectivity and the rise of networks - challenge the traditional ways of understanding culture extending it to digital culture as well. Digital culture is a new complex notion: digital trends are increasingly interloping with the world of culture and arts, involving different aspects of convergence of cultures, media and information technologies, and influencing new forms of communication and dialogue [23] .

Different existing definitions of the term intercultural dialogue indicate the complexity of this concept. Experts contributing to Unesco's World Report on Cultural Diversity [24] interpret this term as 'recognition, celebration and acceptance of differences of opinion, viewpoints and values within each individual culture but also between different cultures lie at the heart of cultural diversity. Hence the importance of intercultural dialogue, which seeks to approach these multiple viewpoints , understand them and learn from them.'

In the White paper on Intercultural Dialogue of the Council of Europe (CoE, 2008: 17) 'intercultural dialogue is understood as a process that comprises an open and respectful exchange of views between individuals and groups with different ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic backgrounds and heritage, on the basis of mutual understanding and respect. ... Intercultural dialogue contributes to political, social, cultural and economic integration and the cohesion of culturally diverse societies. ... It aims to develop a deeper understanding of diverse world views and practices, to increase co-operation and participation (or the freedom to make choices), to allow personal growth and transformation, and to promote tolerance and respect for the other.'

The first definition puts emphasis on values, the second one on tradition, both of which form basic elements of intercultural dialogue. Today such densely interconnected society, marked by globalisation processes and widely available communication systems such as the Internet, have created situations where space and time have been compressed, where so many sources of information and services have become instantly available, on the 'here' and on the 'now'. People can get in contact not only with people in their immediate communities, but throughout the globe. They are becoming more aware of existing differences, thus putting into focus questions of pluralism and tolerance as a shared concern on an international level. [25] 

Intercultural dialogue happens in a 'shared space' - physical, situational and/or communicational. There is a need for spaces that people could expose themselves to new understanding about 'us' and 'others', and also a need of opportunities to engage in dialogue.

Cultural activities can play a key role in transforming a territory into a shared public space. The media, and new media in particular, play a major role in the development of the population's vision of the world. The way different cultural backgrounds may be presented and explained in the media environment greatly influences individual representations, thus either confirming or deconstructing stereotypes.

This represents an opportunity to Cultural and heritage sectors should make use of digital culture, presenting them to engage in dialogue. Is an oportunity to present multiple views of cultural phenomena they are reating/preserving/researching/communicating and to engage people in participatory dialogue and make sure that various views are represented to create a balanced perspective. It presents oportunity to allow users in virtual cultural projects, thus enabling democratic participation of citizens in the building of virtual/digital culture.

Today, the main focus of Internet users is on the communication and participation possibilities that the Internet creates. Web 2.0 [26] or participatory Internet forms a prominent part of Internet-based communication. Content created by users and the communicational potential of the Internet open possibilities for intercultural communication and active participation of citizens, but it also changes the role of cultural institutions, which are no longer in a position of exclusive control over their virtual resources.

Today the virtual sphere also reflects the cultural development tendencies of different communities/societies, as it is a place/space in which we can foster projects that promote cultural democracy, diversity and intercultural communication. But it is evident that the development in this direction requires the support of cultural policies and that digital culture strategies are an important element that promotes the development in this direction.

The digital culture offers a new perspective of cultural development and it impact on how much the interdependence of cultural diversity, intercultural communication and digital culture contributes to the new concepts of progressive cultural policies and strategies.

To foster cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue UNESCO has launched awide range of projects in the new millennium, many centered on developing countries, but not exclusively. Many of these employ audio-visual media, usually in conjunction with digital technology for editing, database storage, promotion, dissemination and access over the Internet.

On of those is the "ICTs for Intercultural Dialogue. Developing communication capacities of indigenous peoples (ICT4ID)", this UNESCO project has the objective of preserving indigenous peoples' cultural resources by fostering access to ICT, thus contributing to narrowing the digital divide [27] .

Involving ten indigenous communities - the Naga and the Mentowai in the Asia Pacific region, the Pygmies and the Himbas in Africa and the Quechua, Aymara, Kikanantay, Rapa Nui and Mapuche in Latin America - the project aims at fostering the use of ICTs to contribute to revitalizing their identity and at recovering their cultural self worth and dignity.

The project is aimed at enabling the management of indigenous cultural resources and the training of stakeholders' to acquire greater mastery of ICTs, opening up new opportunities for traditional and innovative income generating activities, according to UNESCO project managers Rosa Maria Gonzalez, Frédéric Vacheron and Montserrat Martell.

The main goals of the project are to provide training on the use of ICTs for local cultural expression - be it through audiovisual and/or computer-based content - and to encourage the production of indigenous cultural contents for the media. It also aims at providing international exposure to locally produced contents.

It is estimated that indigenous peoples number some 350 million individuals - 4% of humanity -representing over 5,000 languages and cultures in more than 70 countries on every continent. Many live on the fringes of society, in isolated rural communities and marginalized urban settings without access to ICT often lacking the necessary communication capacities to revitalize their cultural resources as a factor of intercultural dialogue.

Within the framework of the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, the safeguarding of indigenous cultures, their access to the means of expression and dissemination and the fostering of media pluralism have become an absolute imperative in the context of globalization, making it necessary for human diversity to take its place at the heart of cultural and communication policies for development.

Intereligious Dialogue

"There will be no peace among the nations without peace among the religions. There will be no peace among the religions without dialogue among the religions.'

(Dr Hans Küng, 31 March 2005, at the opening of an exhibit on the world's religions at Santa Clara University)

The words of Dr Hans Küng accurately capture the importance and the exectaly mindset required for understand Interreligious Dialogue: an attitude that is willing to step away from the comfort and safety of what is familiar into an un-explored world of possibility for the sake of peace. Engaging in IRD - intereligious dialogue - demands the overcome of people's own fears and prejudices risk notwithstanding, and step out into the world, both to discover and be discovered, to listen and be listened.

Religion has played a significant role in the history of humankind with slanted interpretations of religious scripture and history many times being partial and subjective. This has often led to hostility and extremism, some of which continue to affect society even today. [28] 

History and the benefit of hindsight continue to serve as a source of learning, understanding previous mistakes and preventing new ones from occurring. Being awere that historic events and the fact that they carry with them a lot of baggage that has the capacity to create cleavages that limit the potential that lies in collaboration between and among varied religious communities. But at the same time, history also presents many positive examples of peaceful dialogue that can serve as reference points of inspiration.

The experiences of people from different religious communities living next door to each other and yet far away from each other's worlds are not uncommon in the integrated communities of modern societies. Challenges arising from the presence of diversity continue to affect the lives of believers and practitioners of different faiths and their well-being in society.

Neverless, everyday encounters across faith-divides are valuable but not equivalent to the practice of IRD, as it is used for peace and peace-making. When employed as a tool or strategic practice, IRD refers to facilitated discussions on specific topics held between members of different faith communities, with an expressed objective or objectives.

Where individual religious beliefs fail to provide a diverse religious education for the issues relevant for integration and peaceful coexistence, IRD has the potential to and must embrace the responsibility to fill this gap, It can be used to explore possibilities of conflict transformation and peace building within the contexts of their work.

All over Europe issues related to identity are hotly debated, and often religion is at the centre of discussions. Europe and Europeans are also constantly interacting with the rest of the world, experiencing the joys and the challenges of communicating across cultural and religious divides. [29] 

Sometimes religion is seen as an obstacle to peaceful coexistence and social cohesion. Some of the most pressing challenges nowadays - climate change, poverty, migration, marginalisation of women, discrimination and terrorism - can only be solved by the union of resources across traditional dividing lines.

Europe permeates with diferent religions. Christianity, Islam and Judaism are part of European history. Today other great religious traditions have also found a place in the continent. In every town or village in Europe there is at least one house of worship: a Church, a Mosque or a Synagogue. To ensure a prosperous and harmonious future for Europe, the IRD has as objective to make possible people of different faiths to live peacefully together.

Interreligious dialogue emphasises both in similarities and in differences. Interreligious dialogue acknowledge that human beings of all faiths share certain experiences, needs and longings. And also acknowledge that people are different from each other in many respects and will remain different. Religious traditions have formed different social rules and models which sometimes contradict each other. One aim of interreligious dialogue is to reduce false perceptions of difference and culture gaps. [30] 

Interreligious dialogue can promote respect for human rights. Interreligious dialogue should respect the shared values found within all great religious traditions and embodied within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Commitment to human rights does not preclude a variety of world views or ethical systems and interpretations. [31] 

The invitation to the dialogue is open. The more people differ, the more dialogue is needed. The share of values and ideas is not a precondition. Only clear breaches of respect for the most fundamental values, such as the right to life and the rule of law, should exclude people from being invited into dialogue. While the invitation is open, everyone must abide by the agreed rules of a particular dialoguing situation. Women and young people have important perspectives and contributions to offer and should have distinct voices in interreligious dialogue. [32] 

Interreligious dialogue is a mode of relating to other faiths and has a transforming potential. Interreligious dialogue is a particular way of interacting with others through which all who are involved can be transformed. Dialogue on issues of faith and identity is not negotiations, because agreement isn't seeked, it is not debates, the objective is not to win over the other, and it is more than a discussion in which people contribute not only rational arguments but personal and emotive stories and experiences and thus engage existentially with each other. [33] 

Interreligious dialogue affirms the integrity of religious beliefs. Though dialogue people come closer to each other without necessarily becoming more similar. All who engage in interreligious dialogue do so with full integrity in their own religious tradition and without compromise to what they hold dear. Interreligious dialogue do not aim at creating a new or shared religion. [34] 

Interreligious dialogue can addresses asymmetric power relationships with honesty. The power relationship between different religious groups is sometimes asymmetric. This can be caused by for example poverty/wealth, language, gender or numbers -minority/majority. Interreligious dialogue must not be used to obscure this. In dialogue the facts and experiences of asymmetric power should be addressed, and mechanisms should be found to give voice to those who struggle to be heard. [35] 

Interreligious dialogue can furthers stakeholdership and participation in society. Interreligious dialogue can address a wide spectrum of issues. It is important to explore shared values and address common concerns, but one should not shy away from addressing issues on which there are disagreement, uncertainty or even fear of the other. Some current trends, such as rapid development of new technology in biology, medicine and communication and changing understandings of family are closely linked to questions of values and identities. Religions do not agree on the responses to these questions, but should discuss these matters with openness and courage. Dialogue is not a means to a predefined end, but it is intrinsic to genuine dialogue that it furthers mutual understanding, respect for differences, and the participation and stakeholdership of all in society and thus strengthens social cohesion.

Interreligious dialogue leads to common action. A full understanding of interreligious dialogue includes common action - diapraxis. The dignity of human life, to which all religions are committed, is challenged for example through poverty, violence, abuse of women and children, discrimination of migrants and dramatic changes in the natural environment. Different religions can address these issues together, although our ethics may draw on different resources. Interreligious dialogue should aim at mustering the resources of varying religious traditions to take up the challenges which Europe faces today. Through common action is possible to learn to understand better each other, and the world around. [36] 

Structures for interreligious cooperation are assets in times of crisis. Repeatedly religion plays a role in situations of conflict. Established and trustful structures for interreligious dialogue are a tremendous strength when relationships between communities deteriorate. With IRD religious leaders can address dangerous and violent perversions of religion within their own communities [37] .

Open and trustful interreligious dialogue is furthered by a secure knowledge of one's own religious tradition as well as that of others. This knowledge should be taught in a spirit of peace and respect for the different traditions. This is no more an impediment to dialogue and the full participation in society than the explicit or implicit truth claims of secular ideologies. Dialogue between religions, cultures and social groups is often dialogue across opposing truth claims and world views [38] .

Religion has a natural place also in the public sphere. Religion continues to have an important role to play in the public life of a Europe with many religions. This applies to minorities and majorities alike. The public display of religious symbols or celebration of religious festivals should neither be seen as offensive to other religions nor as a threat to social cohesion. Religious minorities in Europe generally do not feel offended by for example public Christmas or Easter celebrations in countries where this is a tradition as long as their own freedom of religion is respected [39] .

Religious leaders, religious people and the authorities share responsibility for interreligious dialogue. Interreligious dialogue is important for peaceful and prosperous comunities.

Gender and Intercultural Dialogue

Although there are numerous associations, educational institutions and community organisations that provide training in, and resources for intercultural dialogue, intereligous dialogue, cross-cultural co-operation and community-based mediation, there is an indisputable gender imbalance in favour of men according to the concil of europe document "The role of women and men in intercultural and interreligious dialogue for the prevention of conflict, for peace building and for democratisation."

It shows clearly that women intend to contribute more effectively to intercultural dialogue through networking, peace building, research and facilitation or by putting forward new ideas concerning intercultural cohesion and a just society. Their efforts have been noticed and reported and are gaining ground in many ways, although they are not appropriately acknowledged.

Nowadays, it is possible to see some mechanisms for interreligious and intercultural dialogue, but it is difficult to find many where the role of women is specifically identified.

The process of building bridges between local communities in the midst of strife is often primarily in the hands of women. They have different motivations: a shared concern to protect family and neighbourhood, or a fear that fathers, brothers and sons will be recruited into the army to fight in doubtful military escapades, and so on. What they have in common is the desire to soften the impact of conflict and preferably to put an end to fighting. The problem arises when these hopes and this experience gradually migrate up the social and political hierarchy. Typically, once the process reaches the level of formal peace negotiations, the holders of power have taken over, and they are usually men. [40] 

By the document of Council of Europe, there is clearly a perception among those involved in the various situations and projects in this area that the 'soft' community-based activities are predominantly the domain of women, while the 'hard' activities of policy development, project management, community leadership and community political representation are predominantly male prerogatives. This is easily reflected in the media, where not only are women's issues relegated to their own special programmes and pages, but the interpretation and communication of events is guided by the perceptions of the holders of social and political power. [41] On exemple of this process is when news relate to mass-rape victims of numerous recent conflicts, thy are only momentary news items, while the manoeuvrings of military and political leaders and their followers attract much more continuous attention - reports of the incidents of rape are heard not in their own right but as just one aspect of the manoeuvrings of the leaders [42] .

The document shows two other dimensions which complicate discussion and warn against oversimplification of the issues. In many parts of Europe, women have in the last generation or so gained increasing access to traditionally male professions and fields of endeavour. This is something to be welcomed and should be taken further, simply on the basis of the principles of equity of opportunity for all. But, on the other hand, the feminisation of a profession often leads to a relative depreciation of salary levels in that profession, and the women that move into positions of institutional power, is normal to seen that they often adopt the attributes commonly associated with men in power.

Interreligious and intercultural dialogue has become 'politically correct' at national and international levels, as has the empowerment of women. But it seems clear that, more often than not, governments respond only in symbolic and token ways to the expectations of these agendas. Women's committees are appointed and intercommunal dialogue forums are set up with the obligatory quota of women. Often one is tempted to see such initiatives as moves to marginalise the proposed activities and constituencies.

Nevertheless the lack of recognition for women's role. Women and men are nowadays involved in interreligious and inter-cultural dialogue in different capacities and scope of actions, locally and internationally. There are two underlying