Interculturalism - Rhetoric vs Practice

On January 27, the third session of the Diversity Research Laboratory was held on the topic "Interculturalism: politics, ideology, everyday life."

Director of the Center for Theoretical and Applied Political Science of the RANEPA Vladimir Malakhov spoke about the processes that preceded the criticism of the policy of multiculturalism in Europe. In the post-war period, Europe faced a labor shortage, but attracting immigrants solved the problem. In many countries, the authorities mistakenly viewed the influx of migrants as temporary. They did not pay enough attention to the integration of migrants into society with a long-term perspective, which led to the isolation of migrant communities. Against this background, the Council of Europe, in the 2008 'White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue», changed its rhetoric by introducing the term "interculturalism".'

However, interculturalism should not be viewed as an alternative to multiculturalism. These terms are too general to determine which practices should be abandoned to solve existing problems. Vladimir Malakhov disclosed the vulnerability of these concepts. They assume a simplified view of culture as a closed system and cultural identity, which is determined through the correlation of an individual with a certain group. However, now a person can construct his own identity, and culture is a network of narratives that are in constant interaction with each other.

The second speaker, Artem Sløta, spoke about the autonomous non-profit organization of social and cultural programs and projects 'Children of St. Petersburg.' It helps children of immigrants to overcome access barriers to education and medicine for successful integration into Russian society. One of its work principles is 'breaking the hierarchy, not dressing up in costumes.' Artem explained this by the fact that flirting with folklore instead of active actions often leads to the reproduction of inequality and the suppression of problems.

The topic was developed during workshops in small groups. Participants recognized the need for equal dialogue in the public sphere. We must strive to ensure that it is conducted between individuals, not cultures. The absence of relevant terms, the existence of different optics for the same events and the political context that sets the vertical may become obstacles to its development. The question of what privileges and experience a person should have in order to represent the interests of migrants (and other socially vulnerable groups) also remains open.

 

Author: Ekaterina Matveeva