“Cultural Identity and Diversity and Scientific Exchange”

“We Europeans must be looked upon as travellers who have all embarked on one and the same vessel.”
Comenius: Praefatio ad Europos

I would like to thank the organisers for having invited me to this conference.
I work as Cultural councillor at the French Embassy in Lithuania, where I am the director of the French Cultural Centre of Vilnius. I have been working in the field of cultural and scientific relations for 21 years now.
For me this is an opportunity to take a retrospective look to better appreciate the scope and sense provided by the distance to my defining move, some 20 years ago, to settle down in South Bohemia for six years. I had the pleasure and the benefit of working at this university and attending in the autumn 1991 its official opening in the company of Mr. Guéguinou, Ambassador of France at that time.
This period was dominated by strong dynamics: projects were in progress, others planned; contacts were made, curricula and exchanges were built... In a way, it was a time of making the most of all the benefits provided by opening borders, by the transition to democracy and by recovered academic freedom – at least as long as we had adequate funding, which obviously was not always easy to mobilise.
Being neither a historian nor an academic, but a civil servant specialised in cultural and scientific exchanges, my contribution today will be essentially a testimony. A testimony hopefully enlightened by my 20 years of experience working in the service of cultural and scientific relations in Europe.
After the Czech Republic I have held various positions of responsibility: in Bulgaria, in Finland, and now in Lithuania. At the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Paris, I also founded and then headed for four years an office specifically responsible for considering and promoting multilingualism in Europe and worldwide. Several trips outside Europe (two years in Damascus and several missions in a dozen African countries) have also invaluably raised my awareness – which happens quite concretely when one leaves one’s geographical and historical context – of the characteristics of Europe, not so much in terms of ways of living but in terms of ways of thinking, cultural and intellectual background, our way to perceive others and the world.
My field experience here in South Bohemia, working for six years to set up a department of Romance languages and a bilingual French and Czech secondary education unit, is very useful for me in that it has often helped me put institutional and theoretical problems in the historical and practical framework that I have gained in this fairly long period. The immersion has been slow and effective because it occurs in the context of my work and of all the intercultural problems it entails, and I therefore believe that it has enhanced my capacity to grasp, to understand and also to model many typical situations that make up the foundation of the kind of cultural diplomacy work that I still carry out as a professional.
In the area of interculturalism, which is central to many concerns and challenges in the world as it is emerging around us, when you get to experience, in one way or another, a situation in which two or more cultures get in touch with each other – whether it entails confrontations, combinations, influences or daily exchanges – I think this is a valuable educational resource.  It seems to me that this experience is inscribed in the very nature of the history and geography of Europe, more than anywhere on the planet. Unfortunately, political history, and the central role it still plays in our understanding of modern and contemporary history of our continent, tends to minimize the essential part, especially in the sphere of cultural and scientific exchanges, of identities as sets comprised of various different identities, and, secondly, of the interpenetration of practices and languages. I shall take this opportunity to make a number of observations which I would like to share with you in connection with the theme of this conference, and particularly with the concept of "border" included in its title.
South Bohemia is a land of contacts between Western Slavic and Germanic cultures. Its social and cultural history bears many traces from this. From very early on, the role of the reform and the unprecedented scale of the counter-reform, political setbacks of one part of Czech society at that time, are important benchmarks that you really notice when you live and work in the country – particularly because they have left a clear fingerprint in the manner in which the Czech contribution to the history of Europe can be spontaneously perceived in a both central and passive scheme that constitutes a filter or an intuitive pattern that is fairly strong . It is not at all surprising, then, to see that South Bohemia has also witnessed the development of critical humanism, tempted by some form of historical scepticism. Thus it seems to me that the notion of borders – and consecutively the absence of borders – can be read in two different ways.
In the sense handed down to us by European political history, the border marks the limits of the nation-state. It is further confirmed in the development of the identity of the nation-state in ways that can have been violent, bellicose and murderous. Amin Maalouf describes perfectly the psychological development of these "murderous identities" that get their inspiration from the definition of the border as a barrier. It was obligatory to couple this random definition of identity with an actual national ideology. Obviously here in South Bohemia this trend was reinforced by the politics of blocks, the division of post-war Europe in two zones of influence; the border between the two ensured continuity, geographic enclosure and a certain form of cultural alienation on both sides of this barrier.
I think it is important today to recall that during this whole period, the countries of Western Europe also lost part of their power and relevance as regards to their own history, culture and identity. That is, they were cut off from an essential form of movement of ideas, and therefore cut off from a part of their substance. Politically, this kind of a definition of the border disappeared in our European territories when the Schengen Convention was signed. Its progressive implementation leads to the establishment of an area of mobility and freedom, which is a gigantic step forward. In this sense, the way in which Europe is construed, with all its political and administrative variables, this unprecedented project of political integration is a tremendous opportunity. It has already produced noticeable results: a historically long period of peace over a large part of its territory, free movement of people and ideas and the charter of fundamental rights – to name just a few.
I believe that the implementation of this unprecedented and exalting political project would not have been possible without the decisive role played, historically, by universities. Scientific communities that share methods and values beyond their geographical boundaries form a crucible which is necessary for maintaining the balance between the specificity of different ways of growing roots in the local cultures and the development of networks capable of dealing with the acuteness of problems that come up worldwide and that rest on increased international cooperation. In my work, I often have the opportunity to meet and have discussions with top scientists who cherish this membership in an international scientific community nourished by numerous methodological similarities, by the necessity of cooperation and by a set of values aspiring to truth and to common ethics.
One French scientist told me recently that he feels he has more common ground with a Chinese, Indian or Mexican colleague than a French artisan. That does not stop him from nurturing, on some other levels, his French identity, even in his scientific work, which has been influenced by the emphasis that the French scientific education puts in mathematics, by the French tendency to establish systematic models or by other instances in professional contexts. This identity does not rebound from, or denounce the sense of belonging to an international scientific community, but joins it and works itself in it. The progress of modern science is therefore enriched by these unions of identity and exchange.
Let me give an example, since we are approaching the Copenhagen summit which will discuss political issues crucial to the future responses that must be made in the face of the problems of climate change. There are today some fifteen different models, or ways to understand the phenomenon of global warming, based on complex physical equations. They all have behind them teams of over 50 researchers who have been working for ten years using recognized measures. Many variations can be seen between the models, but they all agree on certain fundamental issues that can be used as a base for political thinking: the reality of a significant increase of greenhouse gas emissions since the early 1950s, their visible influence on climate change at the turn of the 1980s, and the unprecedented and abrupt changes that have been caused to the climate balance after a period of 10 000 years of stability.
Each model has, however, its own characteristics and limitations, we could say its “identity”, and this own identity helps us figure out and interpret the others. There are also enough similarities and common features in order to build a scientific consensus that can contribute to policy-making – this is something that the press in general does report well enough. Some kind of result or scientific progress can be achieved thanks to specific identities and common values. We can therefore speak of a moment in time when the diverse approaches will help us reach common strong parametres. Scientific consensus is built through diversification, comparison and correction.
I would say that here we can distinguish a second meaning, a positive one, of the concept of the border. It is a dynamic concept of diversity, one that allows exchanges to generate novelty, and not only points out the common features and differences. It is a creative notion based on the concept of challenge, of limits to be reached, of new areas of knowledge to be construed and legitimised. If care is not taken, the acceleration of exchanges may also result in homogenisation and sterile standardisation. This is also intrinsically true of the quality of scientific and cultural exchanges. Since the unprecedented acceleration of these exchanges probably makes the use of a common vehicular language necessary, those who speak it as their mother tongue are given an advantage, easily turning the language into a tool of power or influence; this is why there is also a need for strong policies to support multilingualism and cultural diversity. This is a particularly big responsibility of public authorities.
From this point of view of, Europe has a special role to play. As it is a geographically limited area, home to many cultures and languages having lived side by side for centuries, it must invent a model of its own, the same way it invented “the Europe of universities” already in the Middle Ages. It should be an ecosystem of linguistic and cultural diversity in which all factors of identity and expression could preserve their role and nourish the creative force we need. This pluralist view cannot settle simply for well-meaning historical findings, it must be based on proactive contemporary policies. Teaching foreign languages at university level is to me an issue that is not sufficiently taken into account in European contexts. If all students graduating from the education system should have been able to learn at least two foreign languages, the possibility to go on learning them and to start studying new ones should be more strongly present in universities.
The responsibility of public policy on language teaching is too often put solely on primary and secondary education. I believe that the slow but steady and relentless construction of a department of Romance languages is a content-providing and enriching endeavour that provides more tools for taking full advantage of the opening of borders which is no longer just a dream. This means hard work, dry and obscure the way work always tends to be. Cultivating an active neighbourhood policy, participating in Europe, conducting Euro-Mediterranean dialogue and contributing to major discussions around globalisation are undertakings that do not compete against each other; they are all priorities that must be combined harmoniously and conscientiously in European universities.
From this point of view I believe that the contribution of a language like French, spoken by very diverse groups for quite varied reasons on all five continents, can be a real source not only of diversification but also of creativity and extremely variegated resources. Because of the diversity of its history and its presence in different places, the French language combines multiple identity anchors and a history of movement that is by definition complex. It is also a laboratory for the type of exchanges required by modernity due to strengthening and joining singularities.
Owing to its historical backdrop and its novel and deeply innovative integration policy, Europe must on a global level be able to be at the forefront of this type of thought. It cultivates true diversity and a set of values inherited from its Greco-Roman past that made it the birthplace of the concepts of freedom and certain rights that are the sources of many universal practices today. This vocation to link ideas to universal contexts has for centuries been part and parcel of European thought and culture. Europe is an undeniable depository of this heritage. Fidelity to this tradition of cultural mixing and universalising dynamics is in a key position in safeguarding the future of the scientific creation that is needed because of the accelerating mechanisms of economy and exchange – let us not forget that they could also follow much more pragmatic patterns where the only dominating features would be power and dependence, maybe even submission.
The current state of technology and economy encourages open structures capable of receiving and giving. The influential power of a given community is no more measured by its size but by its degree of openness, its ability to conquer new territories and to formulate new questions. However, these decisive capabilities are increasingly linked to cultural mixing and developing intercultural skills. Frontiers, where they exist, can still block the free movement of goods or people, but not so much the free movement of ideas – even if it may harm their development in many ways.
The essence of the notion of border is indeed more flexible than it seems, since it is the result of two parties making an agreement on what separates them and what distinguishes them. In order to live in harmony with one’s neighbour, one must be able to name the neighbour, to identify and define it. These distinctions also carry a strong symbolic power. But today we are witnessing the development of new types of borders. While the traditional boundaries become geometrically more variable (in Europe thanks to the Schengen agreement), new limitations are being established that are much more selective and very penalising. Generally they hinder the access to the flow of material and intellectual enrichment related to the mastery of new technologies, but also in relation to the degree of international openness. This criterion is more discriminating, based on peer recognition at a local level. In this day and age, a scientific community cannot do without taking into consideration areas that are outside of it but that form an extension of its activities: new modes of recognition and community-building are formed. To regulate this process, new borders are constantly being created and passed.