Intercultural dialogue is a very fashionable concept nowadays. Everyone pursues it and, at all costs, tries to prove that not only it is possible, but also necessary, as well as that it can be a vital factor in, for example, European integration. However, the concept of the intercultural dialogue is not as simple and clear as it might seem. In a way, I have come across that problem at two levels: theoretical and practical.

It so happens that I am currently reading Hidden Dimension by Edward T. Hall, which deals with cultural differences. It shows how our behaviour depends on the environment we grow up and live in. And as to the practical level, last month I went on a trip to Western Europe, visiting Germany, Holland, Belgium, France, Spain, Portugal and Italy. On the one hand, those countries constituted a community (no borders, common currency, etc.), but on the other hand, they showed cultural diversity, which was noticeable almost at once, with regard to the use of urban space.

Therefore I approach the topic of intercultural dialogue cautiously, as it is a very complex issue and a likely victim of misconceptions. The most important of them is that such a dialogue is possible without requiring any preparations. The contemporary world provides us with an illusion that, regardless of where we come from, as people, we can communicate without any obstacles. This leads to numerous intercultural conflicts, the best example of which is the American-Islamic antagonism. To a large extent, it results from the total lack of understanding between the two cultures, as well as from a conviction that, in an intercultural dialogue, one of the parties is right.

Nevertheless, intercultural dialogue is possible, but it requires from the parties: firstly – involvement, secondly – wide knowledge, tactfulness and empathy towards otherness. We are being told that, thanks to the latest devices such as the mobile phone or the Internet, this isn’t a problem at all and doesn’t require any special effort. This is an illusion of the contemporary world, where most problems are trivialized, which creates an impression that they can be easily solved. But if we really want to opt for intercultural dialogue, we need to summon up patience and work on it really hard.

Coming back to the book I mentioned earlier, I would like to quote a few statements from it that may be useful for discussing the issue of dialogue between cultures. First of all, we need to realize that an important connection exists between language, thinking and perception. “Language is much more than just a means of expressing thoughts. In fact, it is the main factor that shapes thinking.

Moreover, even our perception of the world around us is - to use a contemporary simile - like a computer, programmed by language we speak. Like a computer, the human mind can register and order reality in accordance with the programme. And because two languages frequently programme the same class of events differently, one cannot reflect upon a conviction or philosophical system as taken away from language. [...] For years it was believed that experience is something that unites all people, and that it is always possible to overlook language and culture and to refer to experience in order to reach an agreement with another individual”. However, it turns out that people from different cultures, using different languages, in a way, stay in diverse sensory realities.
Such differences are clearly visible even in the present Russian-Georgian conflict and the reaction of the European Union. Russia and Europe are worlds apart as regards experience, and the communication between them is extremely difficult. It is a pity that the countries which are totally unfamiliar with Russian mentality do not want to rely, in this context, on the experience of Poland or other Baltic countries.

Let us come back for a moment to the complexity of intercultural dialogue. I would like to give an example from Hall’s book, and then in a few words refer to my travel experience. Hall gives many examples of how the perception is different among people from different cultures. For example, he writes about the differences between the Americans and the Germans as to their perception of what is inside and what is outside. If you’re standing on the threshold and the door is open, you’re outside for an American, but inside for a German. The Americans usually leave doors (e.g. in offices) open, whereas the Germans close them. The Germans perceive space as the extension of the ego [...].

Unlike for the Arabs, the German ego is extremely exposed and a German person is determined to protect his/her privacy at all costs [...]. Systematic and hierarchical character of German culture reveals itself in the way they use space. The Germans like to know where they stand and strongly protest against those who cause commotion, ‘mess up their queues’, or don’t respect the signs like: ‘No Entry’, ‘Authorized Entry Only’, etc. In Germany, even readjusting a chair is considered a violation of good manners.”

The awareness of the differences in the treatment of space stayed with me throughout my trip across Europe. Cities in Germany, Holland, France or Spain are totally different organisms. In my analysis there is no place to elaborate on this, and so I would like to give two examples which show that the possibility of intercultural dialogue exists.

The first one is the building of the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, which seems to me to be an attempt of a dialogue with a different culture. It was designed by an American architect who, nevertheless, tried to take into account the tradition of the place. As a modern creation, and thus not matching historical architecture, it was situated outside of the centre, at the river bank. That way it constitutes a separate whole, not intruding on the urban tissue of Bilbao. Moreover, in a somewhat perverse way, the building and its surroundings evoke associations with traditional Spanish architecture. Its complex structure, and the multi-level square where it is situated, reminds of Spanish cathedrals designed in a similar way.

The second example I would like to give is equally vague and reveals a number of issues related with intercultural dialogue. What I have in mind is Pier Carlo Bontempi’s Place de Toscane which was placed in the newly built city - Val d’Europe. This city is situated close to the EuroDisneyland. And it demonstrates the belief that Disney's language is common language and may become the common platform for communication. The Tuscan Square itself was announced as one of the best projects of recent years as regards borrowing from traditional architecture. Indeed, from the urban and architectural perspective, it is a perfect example. However, a question arose in my mind, what do Tuscan buildings do near Paris? I do not mean that the project was a mistake, but that its ideological foundations were rather feeble. 

With these examples I wanted to point out that both parties (those focusing on modernity and those attached to traditions) cannot claim an exclusive right to the only one and proper interpretation of intercultural dialogue, and that this dialogue needs to be based on mutual respect and good will. I hope that an increasing number of people will approach the issue in this way. Indeed, it is good that the band “Kapela ze Wsi Warszawa” plays its music, but it is even better when the dialogue with our folk culture is taken up by the publishing house “Muzyka Odnaleziona”.