Theories of intercultural education, Joseba Arregi, Asier Barandiaran, Dmitrii Enygin, Venera Midova [7 ebook reader .TXT] 📗

experience discrimination based on her disability, ethnicity and gender. Our identities are multifaceted and recognising how different aspects of our identities interact has important implications for combating discrimination. A single-ground approach to discrim- ination fails to understand the diversity within a certain cultural group and the complexity of people’s identities.

Discrimination is, most of the time, practised with the support of (or at least with no interference from) the government.

Intercultural learning challenges and rejects discrimination in all its forms and affirms pluralism (ethnic, linguistic, religious, economic, gender, etc.). Moreover, the European Court of Human Rights has recognised that pluralism is built on “the genuine recognition of, and respect for, diversity and the dynamics of cultural traditions, ethnic and cultural identities, religious beliefs, artistic, literary and socio-economic ideas and concepts”, and that “the harmonious interaction of persons and groups with varied identities is essential for achieving social cohesion”.14

The effects of stereotypes, prejudices and discrimination are very powerful. They are identifiable not only at individual level, in specific cases of discrimination towards one person, but also at societal level. People who are stereotyped or discriminated against have limited access to public services, their human rights are not respected and their personal development and opportunities to contribute to the development of society are hindered. As a consequence, they might internalise those stereotypes and develop a lower self-esteem, choose isolation or manifest violent behaviour.

Reporting discrimination is not always easy. While there are certain policies and mechanisms that people can use, the procedures are often laborious. At the same time, people might choose not to report discrimination out of fear of being targeted further. Therefore, many situations of discrimination might go unnoticed. This is even more the case when it comes to prejudiced behaviour. However, there are certain aspects that are clearly visible at societal level that can be seen as “red flags”, signalling that more needs to be done to combat discrimination and develop intercultural societies. The following are some examples.

14. See Gorzelik and Others v. Poland [GC], No. 44158/98, 17 February 2004 (Council of Europe 2008b). Page 24 T-Kit 4 Intercultural learning

f Access to human rights and social rights:

–  Do all people have access to quality services in all areas of life?

–  Are they able to enjoy their rights fully?

–  Can they be active citizens and contribute to the development of society?

f Presence in public spaces. Visibility of people belonging to various minorities means they are not segre- gated or excluded. It shows they are viewed as equal citizens and that their presence and contribution to society is valued. For example, are they present:

– in the news (but not as scapegoats for all the problems of society);
– in the entertainment industry or advertising (but not as alibis for diversity); – in public events;
– in school books;
– in political positions, in the government?

And if they are, is the ratio comparable to their ratio in society?

f Intercultural relations. Are people belonging to various cultural groups, abilities, gender or sexual orientations living together with the majority in intertwined relations or are they living separately, in a segregated way?

Discrimination has its roots in deeply ingrained beliefs that certain cultures are inferior to others, that there is a hierarchy of cultures and that some people deserve to be treated with less respect or to be given fewer opportunities. Acting upon these beliefs creates a snowball effect in which the targeted cultural group is treated worse and worse and the behaviour towards them gets more and more violent.

A very powerful representation of this escalation of bias is illustrated in the “pyramid of hate”. This model shows that practices like stereotyping, making belittling jokes, using non-inclusive language or name-calling – all of which could be considered“minor”– are at the root of discrimination, violence and even genocide. It shows that no bias is minor or harmless and that we all have a responsibility to review our daily behaviours, beliefs and language in order to break the conscious and unconscious perpetuation of social injustice. The idea of the model is not to categorise pain, since this is very subjective and experienced differently by everyone, but to show that our everyday behaviour is subject to bias. Looking at the model, it is easy to understand the importance of acting to eliminate the behaviours at the base of the pyramid, before they become even more harmful. The earlier we act to challenge bias and increase awareness about diversity and human rights, the more allies we will have in constructing an intercultural society in which everyone is able to affirm their identity and to develop positive relations with other members of society.

Figure 3: The pyramid of hate

Genocide

The act or intent to deliberately and systematically annihilate
an entire people

Bias-motivated violence

Individual Murder Rape Assault Threats

Community Arson Terrorism Vandalism Desecration

Source: Anti-Defamation League (2005)

Economic discrimination Employment discrimination Educational discrimination

Political discrimination Housing discrimination Segregation

Bullying Ridicule

Stereotyping Insensitive remarks

Name-calling Social avoidance

Bias

Slurs/epithets De-humanisation

Belittling jokes Non-inclusive language

Discrimination

Individual Acts of Prejudice

Justifying biases by seeking out like-minded people Accepting negative information/screening out positive information

Intercultural learning: theories, contexts, realities

Page 25

How do we break stereotypes?

Stereotypes are easily formed and perpetuated. People learn them from parents, educators, peers, the media, etc. Unfortunately, they are not easy to eliminate from people’s world view, vocabulary or interactions. Conscious effort is necessary, along with a variety of efforts made at both the individual and societal level. Creating spaces for people with various backgrounds to meet and learn about each other, campaigning and activism, ensuring visibility in the media of people belonging to stereotyped groups and presenting stories that challenge the dominant narrative, and taking cases of discrimination to court are all powerful examples of ways that can contribute to reducing or eliminating stereotyping.

The examples presented below describe behaviours that can be encouraged in intercultural learning settings, which can contribute to breaking stereotypes and promoting more inclusive societies.

1. Being mindful of the language we use

The language that we use can create stereotypes and perpetuate them indefinitely in conscious and uncon- scious ways. We can break this cycle if we understand the impact of the words we use. For example, in 2013 Associated Press stopped using the term “illegal immigrant” to describe a person, explaining that illegal should only describe an action, not a person. Moreover, various expressions exist in different languages that denigrate or dehumanise people belonging to certain groups. One might think that such expressions are harmless, but they contribute to the perpetuation of stereotypes and to the perception that those people are inferior in some ways. There are even more subtle ways of using the language to promote stereotypes and division. For example, the “us versus them” distinction in phases such as: our democracy, our jobs, their religion, their culture.

One important question to be raised in intercultural learning is the transformation of language. Language and the use of words change with history. Some words or expressions that used to be common are no longer acceptable, as they directly target certain groups or express some strong prejudice.

2. Engage critically with texts and discourses

It is not always easy to identify stereotypes, especially if we do not pay attention. However, once our critical thinking is activated we can certainly identify them almost anywhere. For example, the media always mention the ethnicity of a person if that person committed a felony, but rarely mentions it when the person has done something positive.

We can avoid falling victim to bias if we read between the lines of a text and ask questions such as: What is the source of this document and what are their intentions? Are statistics being used to manipulate public opinion? Are rhetorical expressions or metaphors used to create more sensationalism and buzz around the subject? Is it possible to read about the same event in other media in order to notice commonalities or differences?

3. Become aware of one’s own stereotypes

One of the aims of intercultural learning is to create a safe space for participants to reflect on personal bias, knowing they will not be judged. Acknowledging that we have stereotypes or that we have committed acts of discrimination does not come easy, but it is an important step in developing the openness and curiosity for intercultural encounters. It is also crucial for changing the narratives and challenging the status quo. Once people become aware of their own stereotypes, they can take steps to break them and to become agents of social change.

4. Focus on similarities, not just differences

When addressing diversity, there is a tendency to focus exclusively on differences. While differences are certainly relevant, so are similarities. They help us get a broader and more nuanced perspective and become more open to a potential connection. Focusing on similarities makes people feel that we see them as individuals and not as cultural stereotypes. This does not mean completely ignoring the differences (which is described as “minimisation” in Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity presented in Table 2), but seeing differences for what they are – something different, which does not have to be immediately valued as good or bad.

5. Encourage self-affirmation

Research shows that people start to believe the stereotypes about themselves and internalise them. This means that not only do they unconsciously act in a way that confirms the stereotypes, but they also do not feel empowered to affirm their self-worth. Policies that support people in affirming their cultural identity in

Page 26 T-Kit 4 Intercultural learning

various settings contribute to diminishing stereotypes and to increasing the self-esteem of people who are stereotyped. Moreover, intercultural learning creates contexts in which people can identify the stereotypes they internalised and that empower them to stand up against injustices and discrimination.

6. Engage in dialogue

Just as there are general characteristics about culture, there are also nuances and variations. We can avoid falling into the trap of automatically presuming that a person coming from a certain country or belonging to a certain culture should behave in a certain way, by being open to dialogue, by actively listening and asking questions instead of letting stereotypes take the place of genuine communication and interaction. This is only possible if we engage more in dialogue and “turn off the autopilot” that sometimes takes over.

Some questions to reflect on

f How are stereotypes perpetuated?

f What can be the effects of stereotypes and prejudices upon our intercultural encounters?

f How can we break stereotypes?

f Which groups of people experience discrimination in your context? Are there any programmes and policies in place to address it?

f Which levels of the pyramid of hate do you think you can specifically address through your work? MODELS AND THEORIES OF INTERCULTURAL LEARNING

Various theoretical models explain the intercultural relations in our societies, define intercultural competence or describe intercultural learning processes. The theoretical models, applied to historical and social realities, help shape frames of reference. They help develop better ways to address these challenges in educational activities. As Bennett (2009) acknowledges, “there is very little intercultural theory that exists for its own sake: that is, theory that does not directly relate to the facilitation of intercultural practice”.

Educators and trainers need to constantly evaluate the relevance and limitations of existing models and invite young people to do so as well, to make sure that those models do not perpetuate a hierarchical understanding of cultures and do not maintain the hegemony of certain groups.

It is equally important to connect theoretical knowledge with social realities of the past and the present, to understand the fundamental principles of the historical process, to realise how and why humanity has arrived at some of the present complex situations at local and global level and to develop positive visions of the future (North-South Centre of the Council of Europe 2008).

We would like to invite readers to take time to go deeper into these models in order to avoid the danger of oversimplifying theories. Complex realities imply that theories also have a certain degree of complexity. By oversimplifying a theory, one runs the risk of oversimplifying or omitting complex issues that are part of reality.

Here are some questions that can help reflect on the relevance of theories or models.

f Is this model really about