THE INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE. Metin Becermen, Elif Nuyan МЕЖДУКУЛТУРНИЯТ ДИАЛОГ. Метин Бесермен, Елиф Нойан

Transcription

1 УПРАВЛЕНИЕ И ОБРАЗОВАНИЕ MANAGEMENT AND EDUCATION TOM VII (2) 2011 VOL. VII (2) 2011 THE INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE Metin Becermen, Elif Nuyan МЕЖДУКУЛТУРНИЯТ ДИАЛОГ Метин Бесермен, Елиф Нойан ABSTRACT: In this paper, a ground for a dialogue which will be realized between cultures is tried to be settled taking diversity as the base. In this way, instead of pointing out an idea bound to a conception of culture, a point of view taking the cultures and cultural outputs which exist on human values put forward by different societies is discussed and the difference between them is also examined since explanations for culture do not match with each other, or cannot exceed the limitations of anthropological or linguistic definitions, or stuck onto a meaning of a high-culture. So, the matter of intercultural dialogue is examined in terms of the problem of other. Thus, primarily, a ground on the context of diversity, the other, other is formed, and then, it is tried to point that there is/may be a possibility for the realization of a dialogue between cultures. Key Words: Culture, dialogue, diversity, the other, other. / told him... that imagining him with his philosophically trained mind as an elementary schoolteacher, it was to me as if someone were to use a precision instrument to open crates. Thereupon Ludwig answered with a comparison which silenced me, for he said, "You remind me of someone who is looking through a closed window and cannot explain to himself the strange movements of a passer-by. He doesn't know what kind of storm is raging outside and that this person is perhaps only with great effort keeping himself on his feet." It was then that I understood his state of mind. Hermine Wittgenstein, Edmonds D.-Eidinov J. ( 2002: 187) The purpose of this paper is not to develop an understanding of culture. Existent cultures and cultural structures are taken basis here. These are organizations that depend on each other, on human beings' acts, nature and acts based on their own outputs, coding between themselves and institutional structures. First subject to be discussed within the framework of "dialogues with other cultures", which is the subject of this paper, is "the other" term based on "other" term. So, discussing the issue of other has an essential position in terms of presenting the problem. But the question should be "Who is the other?" rather than "What is the other?". "What kind of differentiation should be done while discussing the issue of the other"? Why is discussing "the other" so important in terms of our research subject? That is important because settling with the problem of "the other" may make us gain a new point of view in terms of both interpersonal and intercultural relationships. That is important because the problem of "other" can be discussed with a different point of view within the context of problem of "the other". This is important because, although it is an ethical problem fundamentally, the problem of the other may provide us a sound basis in political area. Politics can find itself a different direction on a different ground depending on solution of the problem the other. Since this is the subject of another discussion, now, we can return to the problem of the other within the framework of the intercultural dialogue. Before anything else, the other is based on the ground of diversity it contains. The other is different; it is the one that is different. But why is the other different, to tell it in the right way, from whom it differs? This can be answered by stating "the other is the one that is different from I". Thus, the other is not the other from "I" or as the usual way of usage "other of I". What is tried to be expressed by this? Firstly, the other for the human beings seems to be the nature when we discuss the subject of the other in terms of the relation between human and nature. Although human beings are a part of the nature on one part they can present this diversity with the power of using their minds and 118

2 what they could do. However, here, regarding of research subject, I-the other or we-the others relationship which we encounter in interpersonal or intercultural relationships (depending on intercultural relationships) has been focused on instead of the problem of diversity. That is to say, the ones that differ from I/we, the other and/or the others are discussed. So, who is that person that differs from we? The other is not a thing (Gegenstand), not an object (Objekt). 1 It is there but being there brings an ontological discrimination before anything. For this reason it cannot be discussed as a steady thing (Gegenstand), an object (Objekt) 2 We have said "The other is the one that differs from I, not the other of I". To be the other of "I" needs to put "I" in the centre. Being different than me means to exist at the one and same moment and to underline the other as much as it underlines "I". (Actually, it is possible to mention that the other has a priority when compared to "I") Because, firstly, "I" am born into an environment, a world where the others already exist. 3 ) To be the other to "I" is to consider the other as a design of me. However, the other goes beyond this design with its diversity. The other is at a point where the design of me cannot reach; being the other is more than being a design. "The other" also has a point of view against "I" as much as "I" has a point of view against "the other". However, these mutual points of view are the points of view that are formed based on a 1 While presenting the concept of "I", Levinas makes the following statement: I touch a subject; I see the one that is different (Autre). But I am not the other. I am all alone (Levinas 2005: 62). That is also valid for the others. Also the other are alone; and this loneliness makes them gain a point of view regarding their relationship with "I". This means to express that the other has a point of view against I as much as I has a point of view against the other. 2 Derrida considers the meeting moment of I with the other is a moment of "indecisiveness incalculability" (Derrida 2006: 83). At this point, the person meets the other in a vast space, the space of the present. 3 Underlining the importance of "the present", Foucault, wants to tell us that we need to have an experience in a place on the horizon of the other and the present; in other words, we should not be scared of experience the other. According to Foucault, an experience is neither true nor fake; it is an established, designed thing. An experience is a thing which exists not before being established but only after being established, which is not real, but which is "realized" (Foucault 2004: 58). On the other hand, Deleuze states that thinking is not always interpreting but sometimes just experiencing. According to this point of view, experiencing and experiences are things that actually exist, that are born, that are new and in the process of coming into existence. According to him, experiences are not historical but philosophical (Deleuze 2006: 120). struggle of understanding. That is the effort to understand the other; that is the effort to understand the other within its diversity. On the other hand, the place where we meet the other has always been "the present". 4 These meetings may not occur as we expect. Because, the other has a structure which we cannot hold, which runs away from we and which resist to our formation. That is to say, the other can display an attitude that we do not expect at a moment which we do not expect. We should always be ready for these encounters and these attitudes. 5 Our main research subject is the dialogue with the other cultures". Until now this paper evolved within the framework of the problem of I and the other. For this reason, it will be more accurate for this paper to go on through this direction. Now, what should we comprehend from the term "other cultures"? Other cultures refer to a structure that defines as different and processes us with different codes and patterns. These codes and patterns may have a structure that we always object and we never approve. But we should not forget that cultures that are shaped around these codes and patterns 6 have a point of view against us. For this reason we need to understand these other cultures instead of constraining ourselves into a narrow point of view, judging these cultures, looking down on their languages and lifestyles. Understanding a concept means understanding the things that are related to this thing. In addition to that, understanding a culture does not mean to understand all of its coding and patterns as exactly they are. However, it cannot be said that things we say about a culture has been settled on an "accurate" ground before we understand the coding and patterns in these cultures. For this reason, it is necessary to understand the diversity of these cultures well for establishing a ground for an intercultural dialogue. Diversity between the cultures adds a 4 Foucault suggests that the other is the thing that goes out of our control, that we cannot organize in a certain manner and that we cannot tame. It is a new and unexpected thing that shocks us, that surprises us, that astonishes us, that challenges our beliefs and threatens us with transformation" (Falzon1998:89). 5 This model has been used as a correspondence of "pattern" in English which we can consider as a pattern. For further details please refer to Kültür Örüntüleri by Rudt Benedict (Benedict 1998: 7; 10). 6 Here, negative meanings have been attributed to chat and small talk. Otherwise, chat and small talk have an important place within the life and they may not have the meaning attributed to them here. 119

3 great deal of richness to these cultures in case of an intercultural dialogue. Dialogue is only possible between people or in one of places where people exist and culture is one of these places. A person can only experience a monologue by himself. For him to be able to establish a dialogue with himself, he needs to be growing different from himself and establish a relation between himself and this different self. Since this is a subject of a more comprehensive research, here a dialogue that can be established between people and naturally between the cultures is mentioned. Thus, it is possible to say something about the dialogue between different cultures. Firstly, dialogue is derived from the verb "dialegein". That is to say, it has means "to talk", "to discuss". People to talk mutually are needed for a mutual talking to exist. In a dialogue, a subject is "negotiated" and discussed rather than one of the parties' being dominant or make his thoughts accepted. It is seen that the parties present their own thoughts regarding the subject that is discussed, they listen to each other, they try to understand each other and they care about what they say to each other. The parties expect the other one to express it while they expressed themselves and they want the other party to express itself. A dialogue can exist within the framework of an argument and also by suggesting different arguments. If no argument exists, it turns into a conversation, chat or small talk. 7 For this reason, people display a certain attitude according to a manner of thought while they are speaking. Every one of the people who are talking participates in the dialogue recognizing that the person he talks to has a different point of view, different kind of experience and he is different from him. Dialogue may not exist only based on arguments. Because the dialogue itself is an actual experience. This experience will not be possible with arguments but with practices that does not contain arguments. The life itself establishes a ground for that. But it is 7 Within this context, a true dialogue with the other means not only the emergence of different voices but also these voices have true power and they have a real effect on culture. When it is comprehend that way a dialogue is "possibly dangerous", clear and risky thing to do. Dialogue causes for current social order forms and consistency to be questioned to the extent that it has a challenging, destructive and transformative effect on the others, that is to say, new and renewing current lifestyles (Falzon 1998: 98). clear that a dialogue seems possible only with relationship of different people with each other. 8 It is seen that an intercultural dialogue can exist along "the other cultures when we discuss the subject in terms of intercultural relations. Besides, the content of the culture concept presents such a possibility. Because, the culture itself points out a diversity ground. Being aware of this situation, we can establish dialogues with cultures that are different than and our cultures. This awareness means to see that the culture that we establish a relation is formed of different points of view, experiences, codes and patterns. Having a point of view other than that gives us a possibility to establish a different relationship with this person. Otherwise, our eyes, which are used to see the sameness in the others, will keep preventing us from seeing the diversity in these others. It is true that cultures different than ours experience their emotions just like us. However, their way of experiencing these emotions are different than us. The truth is the cultures which are not like ours and which do not live like us also has love, passion, hate, friendship, hostility, respect etc. However their coding regarding love, passion, friendship, hostility, respect etc. and their practices regarding to these coding may be different than us. At this point, what can be the thing that renders our way of hearing superior than theirs? Values or meanings that we attributed to them? But, cultures different than ours can also attribute meanings or values to their own comprehension and way of perception regarding life. We need to settle with this question seriously. Maybe that way we may develop tolerance within our relationships with others and other cultures and we may see that we also have something "that is not right" with ourselves, in our lifestyles. There is no perfect culture as there is not a perfect person. In other words, there is not "superior culture" as there is no "superior people". That is not intended to mean that all cultures and people are equal. On the contrary, it means that all people and cultures - in spite of their difference - are different from each other and they can communicate with each other and live together in spite of or together with all these differences between them. At least there is such possibility; actually, there are societies and countries which have managed to do this. Why should we not adopt a practice that fulfills such a possi- 8 Pure term that is used here points out a political attitude that is established through a duality. We need a political area that will be established /formed on a ground of diversity to overcome the problems caused by this attitude. 120

4 bility, why should we not realize such a practice? If we are talking about "respect for human beings" and "respect for cultures" this should not be remain unfulfilled; conditions should be established to experience this. At this point, it is necessary to shortly discuss the problem of other which covers the problem of "the other" and which prevents it from being seen. Because the problem of other may make us obtain more efficient results according to the problem of the other. "Other" is the person, the culture etc. that is different for us, that we put against us and that we otherized in accordance with our acts and the things that we present based on our own point of view. Other is the other of "I", it is a design of I, it is the thing that "I" express. "Other" rather expresses a pure political 9 attitude. However, the other expresses an ontic and ethical basis before a political one. If this basis is neglected then other will be left at a problematic ground. This ground is the one on which there are problems, where the concept intertwined with each other and where modern thought bushes out on. It is possible to consider the perspective and attitude of Western invaders against native people of America, Africans, Arabs and many other nation and people within this framework. 10 That same point of view seems to have penetrates into our age. Modern perception has always moved on a sameness ground within its general course. It has been tried to be reduced to a level of sameness that it designs the different one. It has had dissatisfaction against all things that are different from it and it has tried to assimilate these or even destruct these at the last point. History of Modern West has been developed on this ground in spite of all the developments. However, that is not an approach unique to modern West. Unfortunately, that point of view which excludes, which stands against, which cannot show tolerance to and which destructs any lifestyle other than itself exists in our age too. That seems to have permeates into souls of people and they cannot get rid of this. For this reason, the problem of other cannot be solved before dealing with this point of view. Things that are stated in terms of "the other" can provide as a basis that we need in terms of overcoming this problem. The problem is whether we need this or not. On the other hand, when we consider the problem of other with the other cultures point of view it is seen that we mostly think of these cultures as the culture which are different from us, which has different coding than us with a negative perspective. We prefer to ignore or destruct these cultures. Even if we do not participate in this destruction personally we may be a mere spectator to or want this destruction (from the heart). Just like when we are a mere spectator to and even want a person who does not think and live like us, who is not like us to be hard done and to be harmed. However, these people and cultures may have the richness of the whole humanity history within themselves. We need to question and change our perception for the world to see that. I think having these needs seems like quite a "humanitarian" thing, a sign of being human or one of these signs. As it is mentioned above, questioning the modern comprehension and understanding manner will present us possibilities for new and different actions. That seems to be the essential and important question here: "Do I/we want to live together with people different than I/we?" Neither living together nor a "true" dialogue between can be mentioned before dealing with this question and the problems resulting from it. Because, living together is only possible at a place where the others can express and realize them while living with us. We can only mention a dialogue at a place where the others also able to speak as much as we do. Based on the above-mentioned question, let us ask another question to ourselves: "Do we need to live by assimilate other or do we need to live by talking to them, opening up to them, using their point of view and having a dialogue with them?" That is to say "Do we want to experience a monologue by assimilate others to ourselves or do we want to recognize the ones different from us and experience a dialogue with them by being aware of all the differences?" The decision belongs to all the people who feel this responsibility; the decision is ours; the decision belongs to all of us; we carry the responsibility of this decision with us. I can say that based on the things that Wittgenstein told to his sister: Open the closed windows and feel the storm! Because it seems difficult to find a solution without feeling the storm, without experiencing it. 9 It is necessary to point out that this perspective -together with the differences it contains - is observed in East. 121

5 References 1. Benedict, Ruth (1998), Kültür Örüntüleri, (Trans.: Mustafa Topal), Ankara: Öteki Press. 2. Deleuze, Gilles (2006) Müzakereler, (Trans.: İnci Uysal), İstanbul: Norgunk Press. 3. Derrida, Jacques (2006), Gün Doğmadan, (Trans.: Kenan Sarıalioğlu), İstanbul: Dharma Press. 4. Edmonds D.-Eidiniw J. (2002), Wittgenstein s Poker, New York: HarperCollins Publishers. 5. Falzon, Cristopher (1998), Foucault and Social Dialogue, London: Routledge. 6. Foucault, Michel (2004), Marx tan Sonra, (Trans.: Gökhan Aksay), İstanbul: Çiviyazıları Press. 7. Levinas, Emmanuel (2005), Zaman ve Başka, (Trans.: Özkan Gözel), İstanbul: Metis Press. Dr. Metin BECERMEN Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Art and Sciences, Uludag University, Bursa/Turkey. Dr. Elif NUYAN Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Art and Sciences, Uludag University, Bursa/Turkey 122