Abstract
Democratic governance of cultural diversity is one of the more important worries of the majority of European states. A few years ago, this concern existed mainly in central and northern Europe; today, however, it has become a matter of general interest for the whole continent. This is shown through two relevant facts: the European Union declared 2008 as European Year of Intercultural Dialogue and, in a broader context, the Council of Europe published a white paper based on this topic. The aim of this paper is analyse the different approaches to the question of cultural diversity within the Council of Europe, with particular attention to education. Therefore, I have made a historical review of the main documents of this institution – related to this topic – from its foundation to the present day, in order to find the key to the current approach. I have not reviewed such documents from a legal perspective but, rather, made an analysis based on two ideas. Firstly, in view of different ways of managing cultural diversity, I have observed the stance that these texts have maintained in this regard. Secondly, I have tried to investigate the role that education has played in this process.
… since the wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed. UNESCO constitution, London (UNESCO, 1945)
Introduction
Democratic governance of cultural diversity is an important issue for the majority of European states. A few years ago, this concern existed mainly in central and northern Europe; however, today it has become a matter of general interest throughout the continent. The transnational dimension of this issue is shown through two recent facts: the European Union declared 2008 to be European Year of Intercultural Dialogue (European Union, 2006) and, in a broader context, the Council of Europe published a white paper of the same title (Council of Europe, 2008).
There are many studies devoted to analysing how European countries manage cultural diversity. Comparative works between different perspectives or case studies about a determinate state are currently very common. Less often can we find studies about the politics of the European Union relating to this topic; however, it is difficult to find studies focused on a Council of Europe perspective. Moreover, almost every European country belongs to this institution, so an analysis of its politics may give us a wider perspective about the tendencies on our continent about cultural diversity and education.
The aim of this paper is to analyse different approaches to the question of cultural diversity within the Council of Europe, with particular attention to education. Therefore, I have carried out a historical review of the relevant documents of this institution from its foundation to the present day, in order to find the main characteristics of the current approach. I have not reviewed such documents from a legal perspective but I have made an analysis based on two ideas. Firstly, I have observed the stances that these texts have maintained with respect to different ways of managing cultural diversity and, secondly, I have tried to investigate the role that education has played in this process.
Approaches to cultural diversity in Council of Europe documents
Many authors identify three general approaches to cultural diversity that, during the 20th century, have been present in different ways in Western societies. Although an exhaustive analysis of these approaches is not our aim here, it is necessary to briefly outline some of these ideas.
Assimilationism is known as one of the early approaches to plural societies. It is mainly characterised by a relationship of power between cultures that leads to an elimination of the minority culture, which is absorbed by the majority or hegemonic one (Parekh, 2006: 5). Isolation, marginalisation and ghetto are the outcomes for those who persist in keeping their own cultural values.
Dissatisfaction with this approach gave rise to multiculturalism, a form of social organisation that respects –and even overestimates– cultural differences, and asserts that cultures should avoid contact between them in order to keep their wealth and purity. In a radical way, multiculturalism encourages cultural differences because it values cultural elements themselves by the mere fact that they exist independently of other considerations, even reaching cultural relativism.
This kind of relationship between cultural groups led to clashes and conflicts –and frequently to assimilationism processes that contradicted the principles on which multiculturalism lies – through a failure to recognise the importance of different values (Merino, 2009: 72). It was then that ‘intercultural proposals’ began to take shape as the most appropriate response to the question of human diversity. This new approach recognises and respects the value of cultural expressions but understands that its social richness comes from interaction between people.
It is not long before one finds the first reference to cultural diversity in Council of Europe documents. Only a year and half after its founding in 1949, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Council of Europe, 1950) was agreed. In the first version, one can already find references to the question of cultural diversity.
Before starting to analyse the contents of this document it is pertinent to remember that the European Convention is an heir to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations, 1948), which was proclaimed as a result of the urgent need for universal recognition of human dignity, after the heinous crimes committed during the first half of the twentieth century, by those who believed that there was a superior race.
Reviewing its articles we found the freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and the freedom of expression – Articles 9 and 10 – in which are established the right to choose and change thought, conscience and religion, but also the freedom to manifest them in public and in private. With the inclusion of such freedoms in the most significant legal instrument of the Council of Europe, the first steps for the subsequent recognition of the richness of diversity are taken. Also relevant is Article 14, which establishes that ‘The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status’. Nonetheless, these recognitions should be seen together with Article 16, where it is said that ‘Nothing in Articles 10, 11 and 14 shall be regarded as preventing the High Contracting Parties from imposing restrictions on the political activity of aliens’.
The European Convention on Human Rights (1950) is an acknowledgement of rights that are considered to be universal, which is to say that a person has rights by virtue of their existence and the inherent dignity that derives from his/her human condition. It is also an acknowledgement that every human being has the right to make choices. This is a recognition of their condition as being free and, somehow, undetermined, unfinished; of their possibility of being able to decide about how to address their existence, to choose their religion, thoughts, their ideology, etc., and to express them freely in society.
Despite these early moments, which seemed to represent an important step in respecting cultural diversity, the enunciated principles, far from being translated into concreted policies and measures, were relegated to oblivion and greatly ignored in some Council of Europe documents that were to appear later.
The second meaningful reference is the European Cultural Convention (Council of Europe, 1954), which had the purpose of promoting cultural understanding between the states’ parties, and protecting, studying and disseminate their own cultural elements. Such an approach, with clear allusions to cultural interchange, might seem a respectful advance with cultural diversity. However, that cultural exchange was not an open proposal but directed exclusively to the signatory states and, largely, the European states. Article 9.4 shows that, when accepting to invite European states, and not others, to participate in the cultural interchange promoted by this convention: ‘The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe may decide, by a unanimous vote, to invite, upon such terms and conditions as it deems appropriate, any European State which is not a member of the Council to accede to the present Convention’. Hence, it is not an appreciation of the inherent richness of cultural diversity but rather a Euro-nationalist strategy, which only acknowledges European cultures, without reference to the cultural diversity that is present in European societies. This attitude towards cultural diversity exudes a character of assimilation that has much to do with contempt for the foreign and an overestimation of the self.
Moving forward to the 1960s we find the European Social Charter (Council of Europe, 1961), in which it is surprising that there are no important references on this issue. The lack of allusions about cultural issues could justify this. However, this text, which the former president of the European Committee of Social Rights, Jean-Michel Belorgey, has called an extension of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Council of Europe, 1950), and ‘undoubtedly, the international instrument that contains the most complete catalogue of social rights –in a broad sense’ (Belorgey, 2007: 349), poses further questions. Far from discussing the relevance of introducing cultural rights in a charter on social rights, we may go to the revised version to see the assimilationist tone of it (Council of Europe, 1996). Thirty-five years later, social awareness of this issue was higher than that in the sixties but, far from exposing a position more consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights, the Social Charter proposes a series of measures that truly fits with the assimilationist approach. It requires a commitment from the parties to facilitate the learning of the language of the host country by immigrants and their families, and it also requires to promote learning of the mother tongue but with the caveat ‘as far as practicable’. That is, the few references about cultural transmission that can be found in this document, are about that transmission from the majority to the minority group and, in a more flexible way, between generations of the same minority group.
The assimilation approach is even more evident in the European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers (Council of Europe, 1977), where many of the actions proposed were aimed at encouraging newcomers to take up the cultural patterns prevailing in the host state. This was not only motivating a respect for indigenous customs and norms, but most of the measures were directed at educating migrants and their families in the majority culture. When it envisages the possibility of promoting the teaching of the mother tongue, the intention is ‘to facilitate, inter alia, their return to their State of origin’ (Article 15). Even before they left their native countries, this treaty proposed informing immigrants about living conditions and ‘the cultural and religious conditions in the receiving State’ (Article 6.1), ‘to enable him to take a decision in full knowledge of the facts’ (Article 6.2). Although this might be seen as a good strategy for facilitating their subsequent integration, it becomes an element of assimilation by refusing to accept loopholes for the development of the culture of migrants. Moreover, I can argue that this feature of the European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers (Council of Europe, 1977) is in contradiction with the European Cultural Convention (Council of Europe, 1954). This is because the older convention recognised the value of European cultures and promoted measures for an exchange between European states, and the second convention shows a clear disregard for the cultural contributions of neighbouring states.
This shows the more damaging face of assimilationism: in its contempt for the foreign culture it makes an attempt against human dignity. It violates basic human rights when the human being is conceived of as being unable to choose his/her own cultural elements freely. But the lack of respect for human dignity also takes place in another sense, derived from the paradoxical practical consequences resulting from the measures of assimilation. Full integration of migrants into the majority culture is not always achieved, because the label ‘migrant’ or ‘foreign’ persists even after the acquisition of citizenship (Garcia Garrido, 2004). This label implies marginalisation, and interaction is limited to the economic aspect; migrant workers taking the strictest and most simplistic sense of the term ‘foreign labour’. In this way, they are conceived of as a means and not as an end in themselves. Some recent initiatives of European countries, such as the Swiss referendum to ban construction of minarets on mosques (Traynor, 2009), or the increasing requirements of the process of naturalisation with respect to language and other aspects (Laegaard, 2010), seem to come back to the spirit of the European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers.
The assimilation tendency of official documents began to change after this Convention. The first signs of greater openness towards cultural diversity are found in the Convention on the Participation of Foreigners in Public Life at Local Level (Council of Europe, 1992a), in which respect for, and keeping, the cultural identity of foreigners was one of its main objectives. We can see, for example, Article 3b: … the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of their interests. In particular, the right to freedom of association shall imply the right of foreign residents to form local associations of their own for purposes of mutual assistance, maintenance and expression of their cultural identity or defence of their interests in relation to matters falling within the province of the local authority, as well as the right to join any association. (Council of Europe, 1992a)
We should also note that this document has had a very limited acceptance by the member states: just 20% have ratified it, and 27% have signed it.
The same year, the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (Council of Europe, 1992b) recognised the value of the diversity of languages, but exuded a taste of yesteryear by giving states the power to decide which languages deserved protection, not considering a priori the languages of immigrants. On the other hand, although the concept ‘intercultural’ is introduced in this treatise, it is purely anecdotal, because it plays an inconsequential role in the document. It only appears in the Preamble, without any relevant explanation.
The large number of treaties signed about this topic within the Council of Europe in the last years of the twentieth century is evidence of the increasing attention paid to cultural diversity by European societies – although it has not always implied coherent consequences for states’ policy and any practical measures. The approach of its documents changed from a strategy of imposition of the majority culture to a greater recognition of the value of cultural expression. If the convention signed in 1977 was the text most representative of the previous model, the culmination of the new approaches can be found in the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (Council of Europe, 1995). This convention has an important precedent, being promoted by the United Nations three years earlier, with the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities. The United Nations (UN) document is considered to be the seed of the European document, but it is much shorter and without legal validity. We can also remember here the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), which introduced a significant article about people from ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities: ‘In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language’ (Article 27). There is also the Convention against Discrimination in Education (UNESCO, 1960), Article 5.1. c.
Nevertheless, we should regret the lack of references to minorities in some of the key documents of the Council of Europe and the United Nations, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations, 1948), the Statute of the Council of Europe (Council of Europe, 1949), the European Convention on Human Rights (1950), the European Cultural Convention (1954), the European Social Charter (1961) – before its revised version of 1996, Article E – and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965), etc.
For these reasons, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (Council of Europe, 1995) is so important. It was based on a recognition of the failure of social assimilation, accounting for the segregation of, and discrimination against, minority cultures. Consequently, it proclaimed the need for protecting diversity and recognised the social wealth produced by such diversity, even affirming the importance of fostering cultural differences. Accordingly, it said that ‘a pluralist and genuinely democratic society should not only respect the ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious identity of each person belonging to a national minority, but also create appropriate conditions enabling them to express, preserve and develop this identity’. Although an evaluation of the differences in themselves is typical of multiculturalism – as described above – I might not say that this Framework Convention is a radical exponent of this approach because it says nothing about the abolition of the links between different communities. However, the principles that are present regarding the protection and promotion of cultural diversity, and its few references to the need for cultural interaction, make this treaty the closest to such approaches.
It should be pointed out that, unlike other documents, this convention has been ratified by almost every member state (a total of 39). Only Andorra, Monaco, France and Turkey have not yet ratified it. Andorra and Monaco seem to have reasons related to their small size, but the others have arguments related to their concept of national identity. Such massive support is probably due to the nature of the convention, which, as a framework, only gives some guidelines but does not establish concrete measures; so many states could see here an excellent opportunity to support it without significant consequences for their respective countries.
Five years later, the recognition of the value of cultural diversity reached its world culmination with a text drawn up by UNESCO. It is a rather significant unanimous proclamation of the wealth inherent in diversity, when the champions of the theory of the clash of civilizations (Huntington, 1993) found support from the events of 11 September 2001. Three weeks later, in the wake of the infamy, the Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity (UNESCO, 2001) 1 was adopted. Although the title could lead to the conclusion that the defence of the richness inherent in cultural variety would be a sign of a multiculturalist position, this declaration includes several statements that show progress towards cultural interaction. This is so because, although on the one hand it claims that cultural diversity is valuable in itself, on the other hand it says that benefits are derived from interaction.
During the first decade of the new millennium many conferences were held in the Council of Europe, which brought together ministers of immigration, culture and education, and allowed a new model for addressing cultural differences to be shaped. In the Declaration of Helsinki (Council of Europe, 2002), the need for joint social participation between migrants and nationals in order to guarantee social cohesion was proclaimed, and the importance of the contributions – not just economic – that newcomers could make to the host society was highlighted. A year later, one of the first declarations that specifically raised the concept of intercultural dialogue was made in the Polish city of Opatija (Croatian) (Council of Europe, 2003a); it was conceived as a means to foster the cultural participation of all members of society, as well as the prevention and resolution of conflict. Public participation was identified as a key factor in the Athens Declaration (Council of Europe, 2003b) to promote intercultural relations through education. In 2005 the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the European Cultural Convention served to adapt some of their approaches to new social demands, although it explicitly does not yet extend to the recognition of the value of non-specific European cultures. This task was assumed by the Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (Council of Europe, 2005), which that same year established the commitment of the parties ‘to recognise the value of cultural heritage situated on territories under their jurisdiction, regardless of its origin’ (Article 5.f). Likewise, important keys can be found in this document with regard to cultural interaction. It conceives all members of society as active participants in it, providing and acquiring through critical and ethical reflection (Article 7a), within the framework of respect for human rights.
On the other hand, its definition of European cultural heritage is especially relevant, because when we talk about culture and cultural interactions, we often forget the aim of those interactions and confuse the means with the end. At other times, we identify secondary factors, such as folklore or gastronomy, as the principal elements of cultural exchange. This convention does not forget the essential part of the European cultural heritage and it states that ‘the ideals, principles and values, derived from the experience gained through progress and past conflicts, which foster the development of a peaceful and stable society, founded on respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law’ (Article 5b) should be considered. This is because ‘the conservation of cultural heritage and its sustainable use have human development and quality of life as their goal’. Therefore, this document can be considered to be the prelude to the publication of the White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue (Council of Europe, 2008).
The challenge of the democratic approach to diversity that characterises 21st-century European society is the starting point of the White Paper. It conceives of it as a priority of our time, requiring a response beyond previous approaches where differences were treated with contempt in segregation or assimilation models, or even with an excessive esteem – multiculturalism – that put cultural singularity over the human being. The intercultural approach is the alternative that it conceives as being the best approach to treat cultural differences, and presents the dialogue as a necessary tool for this model to be realised.
Perhaps the most genuine note of the concept of intercultural dialogue proposed by the Council of Europe is given in the Preface to the White Paper by the then Secretary General of this organisation, Terry Davis: ‘The main message of the White Paper is that intercultural dialogue is impossible without a clear reference to universal values – democracy, human rights and the rule of law’ (Council of Europe, 2008: 7). There is no doubt from its first lines about the stance maintained by the Council of Europe about cultural relativism. It does not understand dialogue as an exchange of messages in an infinitely open space, but it clearly defines a context marked by values that it conceives as being universal. The willingness to talk should be, by definition, responsive to the different views of speakers, but in which we expect to find something positive for the common interest. Nevertheless, an organisation like the Council of Europe, raised on a proclamation of universal human rights, would fall into deep contradiction if it accepted a dialogical activity without limits.
The White Paper conceives of dialogue as a means of prevention and conflict resolution, and as a tool for social integration and cohesion. However, it does not provide a thorough reflection about the contributions that a dialogical relationship can bring to interculturalism.
The most significant contribution of this document is the five conditions or contextual frameworks where intercultural dialogue should be developed. The first condition is the establishment of democratic governance of cultural diversity, for which the White Paper suggests several recommendations. First, a neutral legal framework should be established, which would have legal and policy strategies aimed at eliminating all kinds of discrimination. Second, it exposes the need to maintain coherent actions to promote intercultural dialogue, recommending the creation of an institution responsible for coordinating such action through national plans. Third, it urges civil society, including minority groups, to participate in this task. Fourth, it asks for the promotion of public debate, respecting cultural diversity. And finally, it is in favour of ‘positive measures’ aimed at ensuring the exercise of the rights of the underprivileged and the prevention of any discrimination ‘by default’.
The second condition refers to the exercise of citizenship and democratic participation. The participation of citizens in public life remains unresolved, possibly due to its complexity, to which the existing theoretical view of cultural diversity has not contributed to its simplification (Cole, 2010: 9). On the one hand, it is well-known that there is a positive influence from promoting the participation of foreigners in their integration into their host society. But on the other hand, it is also said that a newcomer may not have the same ability to make decisions on public matters as those who are permanent residents. This dilemma is present in many of the Council of Europe documents, and especially in the Convention on the Participation of Foreigners in Public Life at Local Level (Council of Europe, 1992a). This text recognised active participation of foreign residents in the local community and public affairs as a key element for improving integration. Nonetheless, although the initial approach seemed to be aimed at granting more rights to immigrants, further development only advocated promoting their participation in a generic way, leaving states with free acceptance of specific measures such as participation in local elections. This, and the tiny support that members of the Council of Europe have given to the treaty, shows the reluctance of states to undertake concrete measures. Nowadays, the massive number of deaths in the Mediterranean of Africans trying to reach Europe, the sad proposals of migrant quotas from some countries (Traynor, 2015), the indiscriminate refusal of applications for asylum, and proposed military measures to stop the barges, seem to leave the issue of participation in civic life insignificant.
Another important aspect is that the issue is unduly focused on elections, which is a profound act of simplification, reducing citizen participation to isolated moments from time to time in which citizens exercise their citizenship by depositing a paper in a ballot box.
We should not forget that the participation of individuals in public affairs goes beyond being a political issue or an integration strategy, but it is in the area of respect for the dignity of the person because, as Millán Puelles notes: History tells us that slaves did not lack the right to pursue his or her own private good. Their rights were clearly-defined, and in an essential way, by the prohibition on intervention in public affairs. Therefore, if the dignity of the human being was not respected, it was not so much because they were mistreated, but because they did not have rights to participate in the common good. These rights were exclusive of the citizen, that was precisely the free man (Millán Puelles, 1976: 132–133)
The third condition alludes to teaching and learning intercultural competences. However, instead of defining such competences the White Paper only gives some suggestions that might help to sketch them, which could include aspects such as: recognition of the equal dignity of all speakers, openness, curiosity, commitment, a lack of desire to win in the dialogue, a positive attitude to finding differences and similarities between people, a minimum level of knowledge about the aspects that distinguish cultures, an ability to find a common language for understanding, and a respect for cultural differences (Council of Europe, 2007: 7), the will and ability to listen to others and exchange ideas, the ability to peacefully resolve conflict, a recognition of the value of the other’s arguments or self-criticism, etc. (Council of Europe, 2008, 21–25).
Moreover, this document suggests some interesting recommendations for intercultural education. Firstly, for the reasons stated in the previous condition, the White Paper indicates the importance of education in civic values. Secondly, it raises the need to promote language learning for both its cultural richness, and for being a communication tool par excellence. And thirdly it bestows particular importance upon the teaching of history, recognising its value for learning its own culture, but also those of others.
In connection with this, it should be noted that various texts from the Council of Europe and other international organisations have highlighted the renewed importance of history in promoting interculturalism. 2 However, I cannot say that this is an innovative idea put forward by the Council of Europe, because many authors have already pointed out the need to rethink the study of the existence of our ancestors where intercultural influences have been suppressed and ignored (Banks, 2006; Gundara, 1998: 99–100).
The fourth condition for intercultural dialogue, according to the White Paper, is the promotion of spaces for communicative intercultural activity. This issue deals with the physical organisation of towns and villages, where meeting places for citizens should be made. However, this building of spaces would not be enough for intercultural dialogue if people are not interested in such an exchange, which again gives education a relevant role. An underground coach, where we share space with people from ten different backgrounds, five days a week, cannot be called a ‘place of dialogue’ just for the mere fact of staying with others for a time.
On the other hand, the White Paper also identified the media and the workplace as spaces for dialogue. The role of the media seems indispensable in this task today (Burbules, 2006; Jover et al., 2015), especially through its capacity for modelling and avoiding cultural stereotypes. Nevertheless, the situation of the labour market, where migrants usually take jobs that nationals do not want, reduces the opportunities to develop intercultural dialogue (Lora-Tamayo, 2010: 8).
The last condition identified in the White Paper is the establishment of intercultural dialogue with citizens, societies and cultures outside the European context. The exclusion of international relations would respond only to arbitrary criteria, because if the starting point for intercultural dialogue is the richness inherent in diversity, we cannot forget any member of the global village, and much less use exclusively a geographical criterion. As Marín Ibáñez says, ‘Europe yes, but not only its twelve countries, but beyond that, open to north and east and in cooperation with all nations of the Earth. We care about the Europeans, but more about the citizen of the world’ (Marín Ibáñez, 1994: 923).
In this dimension of dialogue, without excluding relationships between individuals, a large part of the responsibility lies with the institutions and national and international organisations that are able to establish relations with other states. The context that surrounds the relationship between countries conditions the possibilities of dialogue. On a planet where a small fraction has more economic means than the rest of the world, where millions of people die for the lack of very simple things, is it possible to talk about intercultural dialogue and the richness of diversity without falling into frivolity?
The role of education in the view of cultural diversity in Council of Europe documents
The role of education is present in many Council of Europe documents that have addressed the question of cultural diversity. However, the role of educational actions has changed over time and in different texts.
In the European Convention on Human Rights education was acknowledged as a universal right, without any explicit relationship with cultural diversity. Something that could pass unnoticed becomes meaningful if one compares it with the same right in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. In the UN document, education is defined as a means to promote respect for human rights (Preamble and Article 26), which, as we have seen, are the foundations of respect for diversity. Therefore, I can conclude that education will promote respect for diversity. And more directly, education is conceived of as a tool to guarantee good relations between people of different ethnic or religious backgrounds.
We must regret the absence of significant references to education in such important treaties as the European Cultural Convention or the European Social Charter. Furthermore, the Charter not only avoids introducing a right to education, but it also suggests that the act of education is a mere tool for teaching the majority language to migrant workers, which makes it into a mere instrument of assimilation.
The European Convention on the Status of Migrant Workers includes the right to education for migrant workers -- who have been authorised to work -- and their family members, and refers to various kinds of education. Moreover, similarly to the Charter, this document conceives of education as a means of learning the language of the host country, but also as a tool that allows migrants to learn their mother tongue through state mechanisms (see Article 15).
The arrival of the 1990s would create a new vision of the role of education in European texts; however, it was not yet reflected in the Convention on the Participation of Foreigners in Public Life at Local Level (Council of Europe, 1992a), which avoided including any reference to education. Displaying the objectives of this treaty and its foundation in civic participation as a factor of integration of immigrants, it is clear that there was a missed opportunity to include in the text any educational measure that would promote civic education.
That same year, the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (Council of Europe, 1992b) and, three years later, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (Council of Europe, 1995), identified education as the perfect means for the protection and promotion of languages and cultures. In the Charter, in particular, we should note the privileged place given to education in the ratification of the system itself, where the measures in this area had the highest levels of obligation (Article 12).
The first declarations of the 21st century include no explicit references to education, although their proposals were related to this area. It is lamentable that no references to education are made in the measures proposed in Helsinki for the integration of immigrants, or that the Opatija Declaration omits references to it in its definition of intercultural dialogue. It is no excuse that the ministers who promoted such statements were ministers of immigration and culture, rather it is evidence of an absurd and excessive fragmentation of different areas. The solution is not that the Athens Declaration provided the desired vision of education, because we need a comprehensive response to a complex issue such as interculturalism. This was done partly by the Wroclaw Declaration (Council of Europe, 2004), which broke the trend of the European Cultural Convention – which it was commemorating – and made no reference to education.
Education has a very relevant place in the Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society. It is understood as a means to ‘develop knowledge of cultural heritage as a resource to facilitate peaceful co-existence by promoting trust and mutual understanding with a view to resolution and prevention of conflicts’, and also to ‘encourage reflection on the ethics and methods of presentation of the cultural heritage, as well as respect for diversity of interpretations’ (Article 7).
Finally, the White Paper gives a major role to education in promoting intercultural dialogue. The Consultation Document asserted: ‘Education, in all its forms, arguably plays the most important role of all’ (Council of Europe, 2007: 11). Subsequently, the White Paper made many allusions to education, the third condition of the intercultural dialogue I have talked about above, being the most important.
Conclusions
The traditional theoretical models of response to cultural diversity seem to find their reflection in the main texts of the Council of Europe. Although declarations of rights were a historic moment in the recognition of the dignity of human beings and their freedom to choose and publicly express their culture, the later texts did not respect such an approach, until the new millennium, when we can again find an approach consistent with these principles. It shows a considerable discrepancy with regard to social demands and scientific production in this area.
Although there is agreement on the theoretical principles underlying the most appropriate model for a response to cultural diversity, there is no agreement on the practical measures needed to realise this (Banks, 2009). This is clearly reflected in the White Paper, which can only outline some general ideas about this issue.
The role of education today is presented as being indispensable in this process, but it has not always been the case. In the earliest texts, educational action was incorporated as a training strategy in the majority culture. Subsequently, it was conceived as a tool for training in cultural elements as well as for prevention and resolution of conflicts. But increasingly its essential role in establishing links with the other, as the only valid way to ensure social cohesion, is recognised.
We should continue working to show the essential role that education has in this field, not in an isolated way but as part of a comprehensive proposal. Furthermore, education cannot escape from the urgent task of realising educational activities consistent with the principles of interculturalism, because we run the risk of keeping previous approaches where human rights and the dignity of the person are questioned. Intercultural relations, where each group keeps its own cultural identity open to change, are a key aspect to a respectful multicultural society, as we can see in the Council of Europe documents. Our challenge now is to translate the theoretical discourse to the practical measures developed by state members and the rest of the countries.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.