José Ignacio López Soria
generative Day of Reflection "The dialogical intercultural approach"
Antigua Guatemala, 19 to 21 May 2010 Introduction
In the Western world, current thinking on intercultural dialogue and nourish certainly thought that comes from our own tradition philosophy, particularly hermeneutics. But it is the philosophy that today's agenda has been the need to think about intercultural and dialogical, but reality itself. It is therefore present, as we shall see, that brings us together to think about the difference and explore the potential of dialogue for a decent living, enriching and joyful diversity. By lending an attentive ear to this call, philosophy thinks the most deserving to think, because what we think is most deserving of what makes us who we are and allows us to peek at what could and should be.
About Us creature of the Western tradition we know heirs ways of living together and generate conflicts pierced and used to manage the conflict throwing hand, as an appropriate tool, various types of violence: from the epistemic violence, axiological, religious and symbolic violence to linguistic, psychological, territorial and physical.
But the mere fact that we propose, as in this symposium, collectively generate a reflection on living in intercultural and dialogical process also good practice and figure out strategies for implementing it, is itself an example of we do not reconcile with that tradition and that we get in the way of thinking leaving called by the call for a dignified coexistence among diversities.
To feed the debate we will argue here, I will first of all, to put myself in later today to reflect on intercultural dialogue and proposing, finally, some ideas to think rich and happy coexistence of diversities. Situate
now speaking of the present we can not deny that it is the result of a civilizational pattern that comes from ancient and most significant characteristics are well known to us. I will address them briefly here, without pretending to exhaust them or arrange them hierarchically, and knowing that between these features is a list of co-belonging.
start with the most visible: the construction and maintenance of the centrality of Western Europe and its current American expression, control and coordination of the various forms of labor and the appropriation and distribution of its products, the invention and application of racial and ethnic codes as tools to assign identity and classify individuals and peoples, and the overexploitation of nature and its resources.
For our purposes, think of intercultural dialogical perspective, of particular interest to realize that the same civilizational pattern is characterized addition of: a logocentrism that objectifies all other reality making it an object of knowledge or desire, a monologue that results from the excessive importance given to the individual subject, the attribution of universal validity to their own particular values, notions of truth, well and beauty, epistemic, symbolic worlds, beliefs, forms of legitimation of knowledge and power, social subsystems and even their peculiar ways of constructing subjects and identities.
consistent and consistently to articulate these and other elements and make them converge, the Western world prepares speeches or overarching metanarrative: originally mythical, metaphysical and theological later scientific and technical in the era of modernity, and instrumental rationality blatant now globalized. These discourses understand history as a unilinear process, periodized, Eurocentric, all-encompassing and teleological. On the way he was being weakened, if not inoperative, illustrated and potentially emancipatory proposal to build a world in which reason, justice, freedom, equality and fraternity were the best means of agreed management and human relations relationship with nature. The telos or purpose as mentioned civilizational pattern ends up proposing and imposing is that what we now call globalization: a set of processes, production and trade, but also políticos y normativos, además de epistémicos, axiológicos y simbólicos- que nos llevan a todos, primero, a tener el globo como geografía obligada de referencia para ubicar toda acción humana; segundo, a asumir de la cosmovisión occidental el lugar y el papel que ella nos ha asignado e incluso la subjetividad y la identidad que nos ha atribuido; y, finalmente pero no en último lugar, a aceptar como guía del pensamiento y de la acción la racionalidad instrumental de la que la globalización es hechura y portadora. Ya el mero asomo de esta posibilidad llevó, hace años, a los profetas del sistema a anunciar con bombos y platillos el fin de la historia y la aparición definitiva de la última manera of being human.
What this pattern is derived civilizations we know and suffer every day: the creation of suburbs, first through blatant colonization and then through more sophisticated ways of subservience, the disinterest in process work experience the various peoples, the unequal appropriation of the fruits of labor and its attendant exploitation and poverty, the racialization of identities and social relations, the implementation risk of the habitability of the planet, the underestimation of the dimensions do not ration of human possibility , reducing the dialogue to monologue shared condition to impose consensus; the devaluation of the potential of recognition in the construction of subjectivity, the particularization of any value, thought, symbolic expression, belief, lifestyle and identity attribution and non-Western people and the placement of the stories of other peoples within the framework of the so-called universal history, Western history and, consequently, consideration of the moments of the first and early stages of the second, the underestimates of knowledge, rationalities and alternative discourses and various forms of thinking and building Coexistence and relationship with nature and the sacred, the discrediting of different procedures to construct subjectivity and identity, etc.
But now is not exhausted in the twilight of the aspects given above account. Also overlook other signs this complex reality bring hope and heralds of new springs.
In western geography itself, populated by multiple and diverse voices, there are few who demand a responsible approach to nature or to invite an attentive ear to the other as a precondition to wisely manage coexistence. Gender equality, on the other hand, is on the social agenda, culture and politics for several decades. Not lacking, on the other hand, who even invited to learn to see the presence of the sacred in the footsteps of his absence. And it is for the purpose of the conference much more important: much of Western philosophy today is setting its sights on the emptying of the self assigned assumed universality for a particular think that is in dialogue with other worldviews particular source enrichment. None of this can be done without practicing Western thought a search operation and get rid of the violence implicit in their objectification philosophical, theological and scientific. The result of this undoing, that philosophy comes from Nietzsche and the hermeneutic tradition, is the weakening of the basic categories of metaphysics, la teología y la ciencia, y, consiguientemente, una desconfianza generalizada con respecto a los grandes relatos de la salvación, del humanismo y de la historia universal. Me he atrevido a resumir este talante del actual pensamiento occidental en una idea: “todos los hombres estamos igualmente lejos de Dios”, es decir, ningún hombre ni ninguna cultura están autorizados a hablar en nombre de una humanidad.
Final y principalmente, situarse en la actualidad es tomar conciencia de la presencia de otras voces, las voces de aquellos espacios, personas y colectivos sociales y culturales que fueron violentamente subalternizados, pero no silenciados, por los afanes colonizadores de ayer, que desembocan en la globalización enforcement today. Empowered with the processing of its long history of resistance practices, discursive and symbolic to the subalternization, these socio-cultural groups have spoken in their own languages, on one side, put in the local and global public agenda their legitimate demands to respect their territorial possessions, linguistic, axiological, normative, organizational and symbolic. On the other hand, those same voices are carriers of counter-hegemonic discourses, but also epistemic, regulative ideas, symbolic worlds, lifestyles and construction of subjectivity, work experience, relationship with nature and the sacred, ETC. all of which enrich the human heritage, and taken seriously, we are called to us Westerners, to heal the disease of universalism that has afflicted us since ancient times.
Because of all the items you just mentioned, is now made, despite the control exercised by the dominant pattern of power-a complexity that intersect the twilight and auroral signs in areas increasingly multicultural , intercultural and poliaxiológicos, populated by time, space and heterogeneous languages. I have for me that is no longer politically feasible nor ethically acceptable to manage this complexity with the theoretical and practical carriers of violence inherited from the tradition of Western modernity. In search of new horizons, the intercultural principle, which can only be dialogic, is presented as a chance to explore and imagine ways of managing coexistence not only tolerate diversity but to make it a source of enrichment and joy.
intercultural dialogue reflecting on hermeneutics, and intercultural dialogue, I argued in an earlier letter that these concepts and discursive practices were, of old, a family resemblance, and are now called upon to maintain a relation of co- membership to allow each one display its full meaning and point to an open horizon to utopia.
Referring now only to the relationship between intercultural dialogue and add that the fact that between these concepts and their respective horizons of meaning a relationship of co-belonging does not mean, however, that listening attentively to the other, as is dialogue and coexistence worthy of diversity, what we call multiculturalism is confused. Each has its own history, and it is precisely the diversity of histories and backgrounds that enriches the meeting, widening and deepening the horizon of meaning and making of this meeting, I think, one of the most significant historical events and philosophical of our time.
dialogue from the Socratic-Platonic so practiced in modern society, is part of a rhetorical tradition that seeks to rationally convince the other of the validity of the arguments themselves, to reach agreement and build consensus in free contexts violence. Multiculturalism, in turn, is linked to an earnest search history of agreed management processes for their coexistence in multicultural and poliaxiológicos areas, especially those populated by different demands educational, linguistic, legal, political and territorial by social and cultural groups traditionally racialized subalternized.
wondered in what way the family resemblance between dialogue and intercultural today is mutating into co-ownership?, And to what extent the co-ownership is constitutive of our reality, but now refers to a utopian horizon? Originated in environments
crossed violence still philosophical, theological and scientific, intercultural dialogue and initially intended within the scope of consideration of being as stable structure as the foundation of thought, of truth as a representation of universal validity, and of man as individual subjectivity. Therefore, dialogue is initially adhere to the rational argument in communication between subjects, and multiculturalism is considered in the context of tolerance, as a record for managing conflicts among diversities.
These ways of making the experience of intercultural dialogue and correspond to the horizons of their own meaning of that violence in the Western tradition. But intercultural dialogue and to become important tools for the racialized subalternized need to go beyond that tradition. In assigning priority to the language, the dialogue by as multiculturalism, I see the advert for the excess of that tradition and building between dialogue and intercultural co-belonging.
The overrun and the co-belonging are becoming possible as they are becoming aware of the historical character and therefore particular any horizon of enunciation of truths and values, providing meaning and identity construction, dissolving and the rigidities of being in the flexibility of languages. Added to this is that the dialogue was enriching its original condition discursive medium for rational persuasion and consensus building, becoming the talk participants speak and for which we are spoken and composed, ie the identity provided by the practice of recognition. Multiculturalism, for its part, is no longer seen as the current version of modern tolerance for intercultural conflict resolution and begins to be understood as a living language and not only worthy but rewarding and enjoyable for diversity.
The meeting language is thus making intercultural dialogue and co-owned, meaning that it can not be defined as any of these concepts and discursive practices, but by reference to the other. This mutual reference resignifica, enriching their primitive meanings. Today dialogue is carried out fully, ie to the limit their own potential, not in space but intracultural exchanges, it is in this last area where dialogue is open to non-recognition of the other projected the image of what it is but a as an alter ego for which one feels himself spoken. And multiculturalism is unable to carry out decent living, enriching and joyful of diversity but by dialogue, in the sense just to understand, mediation par excellence among diversities.
In reaching its fullness, both dialogue and multiculturalism have to self-surrender to an operation of stripping or weakening of the tough characters that were infected by being born in the area of \u200b\u200bviolence, typical of the Western tradition. And to the extent they lose those characters, not forgetting the history of that loss, the co-ownership is already yours, especially the Western world, the announcement of a release. Established
the intercultural dialogue and co-belonging among, let us pause a moment to think about intercultural dialogue and intercultural dialogue. Top
leguaje recalling that-and I refer here only to the language as spoken-is a set of symbols not only allow us to transmit to another or receive other information, expressions, commands or questions, but a heritage steeped in history, a legacy from our ancestors through which we experience the world and the sacred, we perceive themselves as belonging to a historical-linguistic community, we construct our subjectivity and identity attribute those or those who speak. The languages \u200b\u200bis therefore something that we talk and what they are spoken. Probably the most important language is to build within its own identity by listening carefully to the messages that come from our ancestors and developing communicative actions with our peers. With each other form a community that is essential to establish ourselves in person. Hence the enormous importance of the recognition of significant others, parents initially and then other people, for the full deployment of human possibility.
When we came to the relationship with the other with a monological perspective deprive that other, especially if you belong to a community different from our own history, their own belongings to ascribe an identity by negation of what we are. If we Christians call him gentle, if we consider ourselves "civilized" we call barbarous, if we believe located on the top rung of a story that we have built ourselves we call primitive, if we are invaders and settlers call it indigenous and non-invaded and colonized these terms because we put our status in the eyes of aggressors. We did not, however, difficult to call other slaves, although we take care to be recognized as not as slave masters. If, moreover, deprive the other of their language and their beliefs and forced to take ownership of our own, assuming he or she will end up as their own way of being a person of subordination that we have ascribed through language and practices social.
Very different is the situation when the dialogue which mediates the relationship between people, be they from the same culture or different cultures. We know that intracultural dialogue is easier, especially when it is reduced in the old line of tolerance, a rhetoric for persuasion and consensus building necessary for coexistence. The ease comes from the sharing of horizons of meaning and language codes, axiological, symbolic, etc. The difficulty begins when it is no longer just tolerate difference, especially of opinions, but consider other ways and notions of good life and to live happily with them.
This difficulty is accentuated when intercultural dialogue is, when speakers do not share horizons of meaning and are known risk of being spoken by the other. Is needed in this case, on the one hand, recognizing and valuing the diversity of others and their cultural belongings, which certainly is not little, but he also needs to be willing to be spoken by the other providing an attentive ear to the image of myself and the relationship between the other is formed. I think only then, when they get together and mutual recognition and measurement provision (opening) of speakers to be spoken by the other, intercultural dialogue is truly, and then it renounces all forms of violence, the possibility of appropriation of wealth carried by the other human and unexpected source of joy. In the field of intercultural dialogue that we are interested in more than tolerance, more that building consensus, rather than the arrival at truth or shared notions of good life, because tolerance mutation in recognition and appreciation of others, living together get along with the dissent, the truth is not restricted to matching what is but opens when the various notions of good life is enriched as they become relevant to others, and subjectivity and identity is constructed intersubjectively in language games violence free elective dialogue with their own traditions but are always open to human wealth. Coexistence of diversity
For those not, as would the Peruvian writer José María Arguedas, shackled by selfishness, the coexistence of diversity manifests itself as the utopian horizon of intercultural dialogue. But I understand here is not utopian horizon an imagined end state to which this is submitted, but a way of walking and make the experience of coexistence. That is why I often used the term "now", referring to the "now" as an invitation to see signs auroral now calling for us all to think about living together in intercultural perspective, breaking down the "iron cage" on that hegemonic discourses and practices try to keep locked.
This is particularly important For our Latin America, a geography inhabited by differences which have not only been able to develop survival strategies and resistance to subalternization but also are engaged in processing their own historical experience and take from it the word to shape discourse and practice their ancestral claims to bring its cultural wealth accumulated in the field of intercultural dialogue.
order for intercultural coexistence possible between us is necessary, first, to explore and remove the traces of violence included in our own traditions and cultural property, we need, secondly, a responsible exercise of citizenship leading to the potential end of democracy for the full deployment of human possibility, and requires, finally, that we take seriously the ethnic, linguistic, territorial and cultural that characterizes us, taking it as a source of enrichment and joy.
crudest forms of violence, colonization, extirpation of idolatry, exploitation, peripheralization, racialization and impoverishment of the subalternized-are so clear that it is necessary to explore them. But apart from these forms, there are other more subtle epistemic violence, religious, linguistic, axiological, normative, symbolic and those others related to the construction of subjectivity and identity attribution. More subtle call to the latter because, unlike the first, which is adhering openly to instrumental rationality, the latter is frequently seen as expressions of beliefs carry salvation and rationalities promoting progress and emancipation. In the process of dismantling all these forms of violence play undoubtedly a key role in counter-hegemonic movements subalternized social groups that eat a varied history of resistance to subalternization. But no less important is the construction of spaces for intercultural dialogue because it is in those areas where, on the one hand, we are summoned to uncover our most subtle forms of violence by the interpolation is being spoken by another, and, on the other hand, intercultural dialogue more clearly manifested willingness and understanding among different set of values \u200b\u200bthat each group I can contribute to human inheritance.
The responsible exercise of citizenship in multicultural and intercultural contexts will exploit the full potential of democracy when it does not comply with a policy of recognition of collective rights, in addition to the individual. Founded on principles such as the intersubjective nature of subjectivity, the importance of recognition for the construction of identity, the need of cultural backgrounds for the full deployment of human possibility, the indispensability of one's speech to fully experience the world and truth, the value for one self and capabilities relevant to other cultural expressions of different peoples, the importance of territory for "Encasa 'space and make it a habitable world and not a" world upside down "as the columnist said Huaman Poma, or a" world Broad and Alien ", as noted by the novelist Ciro Alegria, etc., based, again, in these and similar principles, the politics of recognition would to guarantee the fundamental rights to its own language and territory and the right to their own culture in the broadest sense, beliefs and ways of relating with the unexpected, the accumulated wisdom and alternative rationalities, to even recognize as valuable various forms of management of coexistence. This, we know too well, not easy to pose challenges to the traditional approach of organizing and managing the coexistence through nation-states.
Finally, take seriously the diversity that defines us as communities is even more to respect rights and institutionalize ethnic, linguistic, territorial and cultural rights, but this certainly is not little. It is also to care for and cultivate with care the difference because it is assumed as a possibility for mutual enrichment and individual and social revitalization, as fertile ground for the diversification of human inheritance, finally, as a source of joy. But this weight difference should not lead to denying that the coexistence of diversity is always exposed to conflict, so fundamental role of intercultural dialogue is thinking agreed management strategies for the conflict. On the other hand, do not think that care for and cultivate the difference amounts to sanctified. Understand and who, for a thousand reasons, are locked in the dispute and make justification of totalitarianism, relativism and fundamentalism that threaten peaceful coexistence. The difference is made in full when it opens to the living and the living is reduced to the poor condition of univivencia when it disregards the difference.
open to different crops and build coexistence coexistence's caregivers differences, I think, the utopia of our time.
0 comments:
Post a Comment