Introduction

Current societies are increasingly taking on a multi-ethnic and multi-religious profile, for within them there are groups belonging to different cultural traditions, which are relevant not only because of their consistency, but also because of their social, cultural, economic, and political influence. This is indeed a transformation, a specific consequence of the phenomenon of international migrations [cf. the entry “International Migrations”], which has produced fears and concerns, and has changed the composition and structure of many societies, making many certainties vanish.

The issue of facing cultural diversity – often viewed as the advent of chaos in the present order of things – not only draws the attention of scholars, but also challenges all the believers who, compared to the past especially in European societies, experience firsthand the growing pluralism of human society, posing unprecedented problems and leading them to raise walls, but also to build bridges, while looking for peaceful and satisfactory ways to promote interethnic coexistence.

Multiethnicity, multiculturality and multiculturalism

Before describing what the features of interculturalism are, it is necessary to remind the importance of the concept of “ethnicity”, which, far from losing interest – as someone has too hastily argued – is becoming a relevant dimension of social life, increasingly defined as “multiethnic” to designate the typical configuration of current societies.

And if multiethnicity can be described as a situation of simultaneous presence in a specific physical or relational space of different ethnic groups bringing with them different cultural heritages, it must also be reminded that it necessarily involves multiculturalism because different ethnic groups, present in the same territory, are always bearers of their own specific culture. In several European countries, this multiculturalism has been translated into a political option – the so called “multiculturalism” – indicating a specific way of managing multiethnic coexistence, aimed at the public enhancement of diversities. It is an extremely fluid concept with multiple meanings.

If the term multiethnicity is descriptive, describing an actual condition, it must be also affirmed that multiculturalism is instead prescriptive, outlining a plan that is proposed to be realized. Nevertheless, there is a close link between the two terms, since multiculturalism is one of the main solutions suggested for the governance of a multiethnic society. It is based on the demand for recognition of cultural differences, on the basis of a principle of equal dignity of individual cultural identities, thus stressing the equal value of different cultures. In its radical version, this model reaffirms the recognition of each culture for what it is, denying any selection and evaluation in terms of values.

Limitations of multiculturalism

Some European government leaders – for instance, David Cameron in England and Angela Merkel in Germany – have already pointed out the limitations of multiculturalism, as the defense of cultural differences have eventually produced unacceptable contrasts and the rejection of other people’s rights. In both cases, as Alain Touraine stated, an intransigent communitarianism prevailed opposing any integration. In a multicultural society without intercultural integration, that is, without mutual dialogue and sharing of values, respect for cultural diversity results into antagonism of practices, values and traditions, and the absence of a common ground ends up undermining interethnic coexistence.

Video: “La Haine” (Trailer)

Multiculturalism, in fact, can exist only if social cohesion is strengthened at the same time, based upon shared values that foster belonging to citizenship and collective identity. The idea that different cultural or religious communities can continue to live within the same society while preserving their values and traditions was indeed pursued in England, that back then was thinking of the different communities coming from the British Empire and being therefore unified by the English language. Today, England no longer has the ability for integration that it had in the past, and the same is true for France and even – in part – for the United States. Recognizing the limitations of a multicultural society, however, does not mean giving up respect for other cultures and dialogue, which is always a positive factor. However, this cannot be simply reduced to tolerance, especially because sometimes a feeling of superiority is hidden behind it. Only if the sense of belonging to the collective identity is strengthened, it become possible to recognize and appreciate cultural differences. Considering the negative – or at least unsatisfactory – results of this model adopted in different European societies, it is necessary to suggest new perspectives of coexistence, taking interculturalism into account.

Video: “What will people say?” (Trailer)

What do we mean by interculturalism?

Interculturalism is different from multiculturalism, because its distinctive element is the dialogue between different cultures, with the consequent openness towards them and a particular attention to the dynamism of cultural transformations. While multiculturalism, in its many expressions, emphasizes cultural differences, interculturalism underscores similarities among different cultures and is based on personal, mutual and symmetrical exchange, within the process of acculturation (Cantle, 2012), that is, the process of cultural change determined by on-going and direct contact among people belonging to different traditions. And, again, while the model of society based on multiculturalism has within itself many distinct and separate individual cultures, the model of intercultural society manifests a plurality of contacts, relations and exchanges among individuals belonging to different cultures.

Video: “Fratelli d’Italia” (docu-film profile)

Video: “Bend It Like Beckham” (trailer)

The prerequisite to activate an intercultural project must be the willingness of the participants in that project to provide valid reasons for their requests; these reasons must also be presented in such a way that people of different faiths or cultures can understand them and consider them reasonable. The pivot of this logic consists in recognizing the primacy of the person both over the State and community: it is the subjectivity of the person that becomes the foundation of the intercultural relationship. In this perspective, different cultures are called to share and make their own a core of indispensable values which, as such, apply to all human beings, i.e., human dignity, religious freedom, and respect for life. Therefore, among the different ways of handling multiethnicity, interculturalism is the most appropriate and necessary.

Interculturalism in the Instruction Erga migrantes caritas Christi

The terms “interculturalism” and “intercultural integration” appear very rarely in the Instruction Erga migrantes caritas Christi (2004, EMCC), a key document to discern the necessary attitude to have towards migrants. If, however, these terms are considered very similar to words like “encounter”, “dialogue”, “welcome”, “solidarity”, “community”, “acculturation”, “identity”, then these concepts pervade the entire Instruction and form its supporting structure.

Already in the introduction, the document of the Magisterium describes migration as an opportunity for encounter between individuals and peoples, to foster mutual knowledge, dialogue and communion, as well as integration at different levels (no. 2). However, the phenomenon of migration, which enters Christian communities, in addition to being detected, necessarily requires processes of discernment and education. If it is true – as John Paul II reminded in his Message for the 1996 World Migration Day – that “in the Church no one is a foreigner and the Church is not a stranger to any man or to any place”, it is necessary to promote initiatives fostering ecclesial fraternity to recognize the value of the foreigner. For this reason, the local Churches must feel personally challenged by what is stated in the Instruction: “Migrations offer individual local Churches the opportunity to verify their catholicity, which consists not only in welcoming different ethnic groups, but above all in creating communion with them and among them” (EMCC, 103).

Interculturalism in the Magisterium of John Paul II

In 2005, the 91st World Day of Migrants and Refugees was dedicated to the theme of intercultural integration, just a few months after the pontifical approval of the Instruction Erga migrantes caritas Christi, which the Pope makes extensive references of in his message that, traditionally, every Pontiff presents in preparation for the day [cf. the entry “International Migrations”]. John Paul II begins his message by warning that “the content of this concept [intercultural integration] and its practice are not easily to be defined”, underlying the fact that “integration is not presented as an assimilation, which leads to suppress or forget one’s own cultural identity” and that “contact with the other person leads rather to discovering his ‘secret’, to opening oneself to him in order to accept his valid aspects and thus contribute to a greater knowledge of each one”. The Pope takes up the very words of the Instruction, when he states that integration is “a long-term goal, to be pursued constantly and in the right sense of the word” (EMCC, 42), through “a prolonged process that passes through a practice of mutual respect for persons and acceptance or tolerance of different customs” (EMCC, 2). In fact, if the integration process requires the host society to make an effort to be open to change, it also requires from the migrant an attitude of openness and availability: “the migrant, in this process, is committed to taking the necessary steps for social inclusion, such as learning the national language and adapting to the laws and needs of work, so as to avoid the creation of an exasperated differentiation”. In essence, the proposed model of integration overlaps with the concept of interculturalism, which is actually in line with the solution suggested by the Magisterium for a multiethnic and multicultural society to work.

John Paul II, again in his message, did not underestimate even the delicate problem of finding the right balance between respect for one’s own identity and recognition of that of others. The Pope, in fact, criticizes both the assimilationist models, “which tend to make the different one a copy of themselves”, and the models of marginalization of immigrants.

Intercultural integration and migration

For quite some time now, it has been known that the migration phenomenon is a potentially conflictual and divisive issue, often in a radical way (Zanfrini, 2018). Specifically, immigrants today represent, in Western societies, a group of individuals that are at the same time desired and unwanted. The Eurobarometer, for example, has been reporting for several years this ambivalent attitude of European citizens towards foreign immigrants.

In this context, a model of integration adopting the intercultural perspective is necessary more than ever, a perspective refusing to take into account only the differences separating immigrants from natives, as well as denying the existence of significant differences between them in order to achieve a more or less forced assimilation. Among the principles, that must become the foundation of a policy that wants to defend everyone’s fundamental human rights, and at the same time guarantee a public space in which groups belonging to cultural traditions other than those of the natives can peacefully define the limits within which to maintain them, two of them can be recalled here, in particular: the first one is the neutrality, and not indifference, of the local society towards the cultural traditions of which migrants are bearers. If neutrality means impartiality with which a society must be in touch with various cultures, indifferentism signifies the impossibility of establishing an order between different cultural instances, due to the lack of an objective criterion of choice, opening the way to ethical relativism. The second principle consists in pursuing the objective of integrating minorities within a common national culture, adopting as a prerequisite for integration that the different cultural traditions agree – that is, make their own – on a core of necessary values that, as such, apply to all people, whatever might be their membership to a specific culture.

Values and universal human rights

Values, which different cultures should converge on, are those considered as the foundation of universal human rights and which, even recently, have been recalled and highlighted by the last two Popes, Benedict XVI and Francis. Examples of these values can be equality, tolerance, respect, and sharing. In this perspective, the model of interculturalism has several strengths, as acute scholars, such as Stefano Zamagni (2001), have repeatedly stressed. Firstly, this model clearly highlights that the goal is inclusion, since immigrant groups in the host country are not encouraged to feel like “separate nations” governing themselves. Another is to make clear and manifest to all, natives and immigrants, the rules and criteria on the basis of which the requests made will be taken into account and evaluated, eliminating dangerous spaces of discretion. The path of reasoned and reasonable compromise, suggested by the model of interculturalism, based on dialogue, mutual respect and common values, can therefore be an effective solution to many situations of difficulty and uncertainty, such as those we are witnessing nowadays.

Video: Almanya - My Family Goes to Germany (trailer)

Concluding remarks

In recent decades, globalization has made the phenomenon of human mobility a structural and increasingly important one. In this context, the need for peaceful inter-ethnic coexistence, inspired by common values and mutual respect, is more urgent than ever. The model of interculturalism, as outlined by scholars and suggested in various documents of the Magisterium, seems to be a particularly adequate solution. From a Christian perspective, this model, far from being a concession to relativism, instead exemplifies the search for “common grounds”, which represent a fundamental element in the process of building the very identity of the Catholic Church (Baggio, 2011).