Dialogue synthesis New Ignorances, new literacies. Learning to live together in a globalizing world
Reference Dialogue: New ignorances, new literacies. Learning to live together in a globalizing world

Globalization has brought with it the appearance of new kinds of ignorance. In the light of this ignorance, which often originates in age-old conflicts, new literacies or ways of educating (rather than training) and of disseminating knowledge must be designed so that coexistence among individuals and groups in a globalized world is governed by respect and understanding.

In the opening sessions of the dialogue, organized by UNESCO from 6 to 8 September 2004, most speakers were already agreeing that in the not too distant future the world will have to solve the challenges that arise from a clash of ignorances. They thought this played a significant role in the origin of conflicts, rather than a clash of civilizations, as suggested by Samuel P. Huntington in his book. UNESCO Director General, Koichiro Matsuura, thus identified four types of ignorance, upon which the dialogue was structured. These were ignoring diversity, ignoring “the other”, ignoring ethics and ignoring the future. Matsuura considered “fighting ignorance” to be essential in order to “eradicate conflicts”. He thus pointed out that these kinds of ignorance encouraged the “appearance of misunderstandings, stereotypes, prejudice and xenophobia”. UNESCO is committed to prompting a new concept of holistic, interdisciplinary education that encourages the teaching of values and champions cultural diversity. According to Matsuura, “this model should not be restricted to reading and writing but should encourage new ways of learning that include the knowledge, values and skills necessary in each person’s life and in the community”.

Ignoring diversity

The dialogue’s first panel, entitled “Our common history: globalization and memory”, dealt with the concept of global history. The speakers agreed there is a dialectic between memory and history. In history, the concentration of specific historical events in determined geographical areas has meant that other places in the world are currently not as geopolitically significant. Emphasis was also placed on a need to see history as a transversal, interrelated process. This perspective means understanding both one’s own and other people’s history in order to be aware of and be able to understand contemporary complexity. The experts therefore considered that knowledge of history should not be limited to academia, but should be part of everyday life. On reference to the connection between globalization and history, the experts considered that the changes brought about by globalization are so fast that they are challenging identities. These, they believe, must be maintained as they are a thread that links the past, the present and the future and are, moreover, the result of the influence that different cultures have on each other and their interaction.

Panel 2 of the block, which dealt with ignoring “the other”, discussed learning how to live together through the arts and languages. The experts acknowledged the existence of a culture accumulated over time, but questioned the way in which it is passed on because, currently, people have changed from a traditional culture to a highly influential visual culture, based on screens of all kinds. Omer Zülf Livaneli, composer, musician, writer, UNESCO Goodwill Ambassador, thus explained "a neologism to mean cultural standardization should be created". The experts also considered the world to be divided and this division to be because there are countries with information and those with no access to it. This situation causes great inequality insofar as illiteracy is concerned. The role of the arts in prompting dynamism in children’s education was therefore highlighted. Another important aspect for the speakers was the preservation of the cultural identity of indigenous peoples, who very often are affected by the internal conflicts of the countries in which they live. To bring an end to this, Ole Henrik Magga from Norway, President of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and Professor of Linguistics at the University of Gouvdageaidnu, believed that "the most basic human rights need to be applied for indigenous peoples”.

Ignoring “the other”

Panels 3 and 4 of the Dialogue, within the block assigned to analysis of ignoring the other were intended to produce debate, first on the relationship between the appearance or reappearance of new kinds of discrimination and education for human rights in the twenty-first century and, second, on the fight against stereotypes. With reference to new kinds of discrimination, the globalization process was thought not only to be failing to encounter solutions to old situations of discrimination, but also to bring new ones. Examples include phenomena associated with discoveries in genetics, mass migratory movements, sexuality, people’s sexual orientation, disability, technologies, with the Internet and with public security have led to the appearance of new kinds of discrimination and resulting breaches of human rights. Despite the appearance of all these kinds of inequality, the three areas in which non-fulfillment of human rights is greatest are economic, social and cultural, and, lastly, civil. Judge Fatoumata Dembele, from Mali, stressed that African women are still the most discriminated against group in all these areas. In reference to advances in genetics, Héctor Gros, former Foreign Minister of Uruguay, considered that a universal declaration on bioethics should be drawn up by the international organizations to prevent, for example, possible manipulations of genetic information for fraudulent ends. Gros nevertheless admitted that "legal regulations do not solve problems”.

Panel 4 dealt with the globalization of the media, which was described as an ambivalent phenomenon because while it encourages exchange and interaction, it also produces simplifications and stereotypes. Panel members considered this dynamic to be of particular concern in television, because, as mentioned by Vice-president of the International Association of Educational and Discovery Television Companies (AITED), José Manuel Pérez Tornero, “the groups with the least resources are those which consume most television”. The experts therefore emphasized how important it is for the media to work in educating new generations, with consideration for the cultural characteristics of the context they are in, through scheduling that shows the similarities and differences among people and disseminates their interdependence. Another communication tool, which can be potentially positive or negative depending upon the use to which they are put, are school textbooks. Traditionally, these have been a media for the appearance and diffusion of stereotypes and prejudices. Currently, however, they can, for example, help to produce the understanding between and reconciliation of societies that have been in conflict. The German Wolfgang Höpken, Director of the Georg Eckert Institute for International Textbook Research, stressed the importance of fighting ignorance that has been institutionalized through textbooks.

Ignoring the future

The speakers on panel 5 discussed sustainable development. One of the main issues that arose was that of responding to the needs of current generations without compromising future generations’ capacity to cover their needs. The solution lies in greater environmental awareness and commitment from governments. The experts also agreed upon a need for a change in consumption models and in priorities when choosing the values of coexistence.

Panel 6 speakers discussed the concept of the global learning village and its implications. For the global village-school to be built, the experts thought that in the twenty-first century is it no longer only necessary to rebuild the world physically, but also culturally. This reconstruction should be carried out with a concurrent holistic and ecological vision, given that current reality is growing fragmentation, particularly in the western world. The speakers agreed that the Internet, in which the culture of innovation will predominate, is a new area for learning that will provide for the appearance of knowledge creation communities. They nevertheless considered technology should be critically reappraised and that people are currently in a period of electronic learning.

Ignoring ethics

The three speakers on panel 7 discussed the relationship between ethics and science. Bearing in mind the quantity and quality of contemporary scientific advances, all the speakers agreed upon a call for in-depth discussion on the production and, particularly, the application of these advances, given the growing loss of public trust in science. According to the experts, scientists and politicians should be responsible for counteracting this mistrust towards science. Furthermore, they considered that the role of science must be strengthened in order to achieve a more equitable, prosperous and sustainable world. This requires long-term the commitment of all those involved (private and public sectors) and includes an increase in investment and thorough analysis of priorities when investing. Likewise, the three speakers also agreed on a need for a revival of ethical education and for people to be aware of ethics and apply them in both their personal and working lives.

The Dialogue’s last panel, the eighth, focused on the resolution of conflicts and reconciliation. With this objective, the speakers had in common their direct or indirect active involvement in the resolution of past or current armed conflicts. Throughout the deliveries mention was thus made of groups such as the committee for reconciliation and disarmament and the peace mediation committees, used in the armed conflict of Sierra Leone; and the truth of collective memory, used in Peru to remember and to reveal what really happened. Moreover, the panel’s experts also stated that in order to promote a culture of peace, people need to learn to live together. This is not so much from a theoretical perspective, but rather from the practical perspective of everyday survival. Likewise, all the speakers agreed that dialogue is the basic tool for achieving reconciliation and peace.