In search of our common humanity: reflections from the GTC cultural forum

The organising team of Dr Francis Ayomoh, Ms Aboabea Gertrude Akuffo And Ms Cynthia Kwakyewah (from left to right)

On 17 March 2022, an event entitled ‘GTC World Cultural Forum: Fostering connections between cultures’ was held in college and online and convened by Aboabea Gertrude Akuffo (DPhil Sociology, 2018). The forum was supported by Green Templeton Black Students’ Society and the college itself, and hosted in partnership with AFRISOC. Participants attended from the University of Oxford and other institutions including the University of Santa Barbara, USA, and University of Exeter, UK. The event included presentations on the sub theme ‘Advancing cross cultural dialogue: challenges and prospects’.

Aboabea Gertrude Akuffo reflects on the discussions:

Introduction and wider contexts

Cultures have been the fault line of conflicts since time immemorial. In recent times, the search for a common humanity has become even more imperative for several reasons. First, conversations around the rather problematic history of global ‘expos’ that were partly show-cases of imperialism in the past, continues to be had around binary conceptions without nuance. Second, the significance of territory and the distinction between foreign and domestic, the concept of us versus them, which were blurred due to globalisation and the creation of multi-cultural societies, seem to be re-appearing.

Further, nationalism or nationhood is on the rise and there are several examples of these scenarios such as the UK withdrawing from the European Union. There are also countries which choose war rather than a diplomatic way of settling disputes. Whilst all nations and societies have once claimed cultural superiority to distinguish them from other cultures, the issue of claims to authentic cultures became minimally problematised due to our increasing sameness. Lately however, nationalism, and nationhood are re-emerging, and are deeply embedded in historically formed cultural clusters. Whilst there are positive consequences of this, the effect such as hostile nationalism and the inward take on cultures that are different from ours continue to affect us.

Despite these concerns, there are multitude of threads that connects us under the hood of our daily existence. Are we still a multicultural society because of this connection? Even though what constitutes multicultural society is currently under much debate, we can embrace GTC as a platform for fruitful conversations around issues of cultures because it is a college that host students from about 70 countries and from every continent.

Reflecting on the event

A group of in-person attendees in discussion

The event started with around the room introduction of attendees under the heading ‘Reflecting on the event’. We were privileged to have participants from several backgrounds including political theorist, sociologist, historians, computer scientists, geographers and environmentalists. Indeed, it was refreshing to learn that the celebrated British political theorist Right Honourable Lord Professor Bhikhu Parekh was one of the attendees.

As convenor and fund holder, I shared the motivations behind organising the cross-cultural forum, including the multicultural composition of GTC college. I spoke about the need to expand the negotiation of cultural convergence and difference from the micro-individual levels, where individuals creatively negotiate and navigate different cultures with others, to institutional levels, where institutions provide safeguarding mechanisms in negotiating differently situated cultures.

There is enough rationale for the bifurcation of cultural issues, as both an individual and an institutional issue. This is because the consequences of cultural convergence and differentialism can be solved with institutional safeguards, and the GTC world cultural forum platform is one such institutional platforms. I ended by restating the purpose of the forum to create a platform for students and faculty to increase their awareness of cultural and ethnic diversity and develop respect for diversity.

On increasing awareness of cultural diversity: Thinking back

Different speakers presented on the same theme, ‘Advancing cross-cultural dialogue: prospects and challenges’. GTC Graduate Common Room Committee President Mr Acheampong Atta-Boateng (DPhil Geography and the Environment, 2018) introduced the first speaker Distinguished Professor of Global Studies and Sociology Jan Nedervesen Pieterse.

Professor Pieterse in his presentation argued that ideas about people, nations, cultures, ethnicity had determined whether we build bridges or wars. He explored how DNA and genetic analyses made nonsense of notions of racial or cultural purity. However instead of the knowledge to help us embrace our multicultural character, and help in changing our racial purity views, people engage in conspiracy theories. Developing his message further, he posited that national cultures are clashes of many influences, migrants, and diaspora, all contributing much to what is attributed to nations. Just as national cultures are clashes of many influences, so are we ourselves. We are not just our upfront identity of what is said on the label, we are also subliminal identities.
In exploring perspectives such as cultural convergence, differentialism, and hybridization, he noted that how information is passed in relation to cultural differences and globalization has contributed to many wars.

Do all roads lead to a central civilisation source? Exploring the meaning of cultural convergence and divergence.

Professor Pieterse further explained cultural convergence as the idea that all cultural differences may lead to a central civilisation source of destination. It leads to universalism. For example, from Djibouti to ancient Egypt, to enlightenment, to industrialisation, to modernisation and recently to liberal democracy. The second perspective of differentialism, he noted, has to do with the differences that emerge from fundamental cleavages and divisions. For example, Rudyard Kipling’s idea of East is East, and West is West. Differences are lasting as in the clash of civilisations (Huntington, 1993). The third approach is ongoing mixing or hybridisation. He explained that there are gigantic cocktail mixers and different kinds of blending, geographical, osmosis, South and North America, post-colonial blending and other examples of cultural mixing.

These concepts and many others are rarely interrogated. For example, concepts such as nationalism and globalization. Many countries are not interested in what kinds of nationalism, is it conventional nationalism, cosmopolitan, provincial or irredentism, nationalism, etc? Likewise, what kind of democracy, is it social democracy or liberal democracy? Many of these concepts are used in binary fashion, for example democracy versus authoritarianism.

Our collective histories involve both commonalities of origins and compartmentalisation of identity, of time and national affiliations. Compartmentalisation of our collective lives are of all kinds, from specific space, time considerations and provisional ad hoc arrangements. He related discussions at the forum on intercultural relations as an exercise in collective building and building a nest that belong to specific time space configurations. Space as travel and migrations, transform empires, stretch the contexts in space and time, and our identity become more fluid.

He also answered the question, how do we curb hostile nationalism? For him, there is the need to understand others without recourse to stereotypes. Further, he charged institutions such as colleges, and government agencies to put in place safeguarding measures to curb hostile nationalism.

One of the key highlights of the day were the question-and-answer section after Professor Pieterse’s presentation. Some of the questions and the answers are presented below.

You said something about policy having a place in addressing nationalism and polarization. How will that work if policymakers are already polarized and biased in favour of a particular side?

Professor Pieterse: We need to understand the context of policy to answer this question. External dynamics such as climate conditions, energy problems, inflations, and war, causes polarization to retreat underground, and policymakers are more likely to engage collectively in solving some of these issues. Thus, whether there is polarization or not are time and context sensitive if we take a multi-centered approach to address this question.

Most of the questions then centered the Russia and Ukraine conflict as an example of differentialism and or polarisation.

There is the tendency to organise around differences instead of convergence because we are constantly in search of something to belong to?

Professor Pieterse: Whilst we are organizing towards divergence, we are also mixing. The language to mark divergence requires convergence.
There were differences in opinions as to whether the situation in Russia and Ukraine were exemplars of hybridisation, convergence, or differentialism. Participants reached a consensus that whilst polarization can be pushed to the background in dealing with issues such as threat to human freedom, global warming etc., we should avoid the binary labelling of the situation and apply a multi-layered approach in finding answers to questions of polarisation.

Is what is happening in the world right now re Russia and Ukraine an example of polarization or differentialism?

Professor Pieterse: Both cultural convergence and differentiation are happening at the same time.

Is there an underlining cultural explanation for the Ukraine and Russia conflict?

Professor Pieterse: Relations between Russia and Ukraine are determined by a small elite group. In the ancient times, we call it imperial madness, in medieval times, it is called madness of kings. Polarisation is rather pushed to the background because there is cooperation and a show of global responsibility in trying to resolve that crisis.

Nana Oforiatta Ayim and Jan Nederveen Pieterse joined the forum remotely

Breakout session

Another key highlight of the event was the breakout session. Attendees were divided into two groups, the virtual and in-person groups. The two groups were tasked to answer the question: How do our cultures carve out safe spaces for new arrivals who are not part of mainstream culture?

The two groups reached a strong conclusion that the responsibility lies with both the newcomer and the mainstream person. The mainstream person must be culturally sensitive and receptive to newcomers. The migrant must also cultivate a sense of sensitivity to existing cultures. Further, the groups noted that people should appropriate their own experiences to educate others, that multi-culturalism makes us stronger because without it, people would have an abstract and narrow sense of the world.

Additionally, the groups considered the issue in terms of institutional and national roles. Institutions must play a role in enabling people to accept diversity. Nations could also have a national policy in advancing multiculturalism. Also, people shared their experiences of the seemingly innocent but problematic questions they have been asked which made them felt singled out.

The consensus was that, sometimes people ask questions out of the genuine need to know and curiosity to understand, and not out of malice. We wrapped up the breakout session with the understanding that answering the question of safe spaces is an introspection that needs to be done at the personal, institutional, and national levels.

Reimagining ontologies, archives, and institutional cultures from the pan-African perspective

After the breakout session, Mr. Acheampong Atta-Boateng introduced the second speaker, writer, filmmaker and art historian Ms Nana Oforiatta Ayim. Our second speaker stressed the need to reimagine ontologies. There is convergence of movements and not so much of divergence in indigenous peoples’ ontology. Using her mobile museum project as an exemplar, she emphasized the need to have new paradigms rather than undoing of old ones. This was necessary to problematize universal museums which serve a few people versus ethnographic museums which is aimed at inclusivity. Working with the idea of bringing museum to the community, she co-created museums with communities in kiosks (a kiosk is a wooden structure that communities can identify with in every corner in Ghana), collecting cultural objects that communities were interested in.

She underscored the need to ask questions around how people want to see their arts and culture represented, rather than accepting the dominant idea. For example, what might museums be in our contexts? She further highlighted her exhibitions that has brought the idea of the physical and non-material conception of things to bear as is typical of African cultures. And another exhibition that that brought the contemporary and more traditional ways of knowing together.

In exploring how to make indigenous knowledge accessible, she encouraged the use of technology as a democratizing tool. Inspired by our indigenous knowledge that are scattered throughout the world, she created the encyclopaedia that explore indigenous knowledge systems and how knowledge is passed on, across generations. She encouraged participants to engage in reflexivity instead of engaging in the kind of romanticized nostalgia of saying ‘let’s go back to our roots’ because everything indigenous is good. Instead, we should engage in critical questions such as how is knowledge produced? How do we contribute to knowledge production? And whilst at it we should acknowledge that all forms of knowledge are partial, and contextual because different communities by their nature produce different ways of knowing. She ended by saying and I quote, we can find different ways of creating, and knowing each other’s world and this cross-cultural dialogue platform is one way of diving deeper into our cultures and the multiplicities or pluralities of them.

Another question-and-answer session followed Ms. Nana Oforiatta’s presentation. The key questions included the below:

Can museums become spaces that bridge the cultural gap, where you reach a cultural place and not feel as if the blood of Jesus must cover you in this space?

Nana Oforiatta Ayim: The dichotomy of the Bible as good and the caricature we make of our own culture must be questioned. We must be intentional in undoing that.

How can we begin to speak of cross-cultural dialogue when as Africans we are only too happy to abandon our only identity which is our religion? In our current context, we all imbibe the Christian / Muslim dichotomy as our identity and to suggest that we consider our own original religious identity is considered blasphemous. I think that once we have imbibed religions that are foreign to us, there can be no cross-cultural dialogue because we are on a journey of deracination. We are happy to acquire our identity as others, what do you think?

Nana Oforiatta Ayim: We need to summon the courage to interrogate the subject of religion even though I know religion is an emotive subject. One way to go around it, is stripping the religious connotations and talking about our cultural objects in its own terms and making it palatable for people who might think the subject is too loaded. Also decolonizing is not just about dismantling old practices, it is about initiating new ones.

A key question that sparked conversations was why the speaker, despite coming from the standpoint that there are several ways of knowing and producing knowledge, will still be using the concept or notion of museum in answering essential questions, undeterred by the fact that museum is an output of the hegemonic cultural systems? The speaker acknowledged her own subjectivity and positionality having gone through the western academic and cultural systems in which museums were part of her upbringing and cultural trajectory. She emphasized that even though she considers museums as problematic, she also recognizes their value. Whilst researching the subject, she is using the term museum as a working tool or experimentation tool. She may circumvent it later but right now it is a heuristic term.

You mentioned that museums are dying out on the African continent. How would you encourage people across all generations to appreciate and find that love for our arts, cultures, and museums again?

Nana Oforiatta Ayim: I find that, working with children, engaging teachers to explore what is already in their curriculum such as music and incorporating some of the historical element in their curriculum is a good starting point.

How do we reach people who cannot read with such cross-cultural dialogue?

Nana Oforiatta Ayim: The hierarchy of how knowledge is passed down must be interrogated. There are several ways of educating, e.g., through written works, songs, sign language and through drums.

Looking forward: towards answering questions around multiculturalism, cultural convergence, and differentialism

Focusing on solutions identified by both speakers and participants the following key points emerged: The idea of territorial states suggests differentialism, nevertheless, cultures increasingly become same when they converge. Often, mainstream cultures take over other cultures, or smaller cultures adapt to mainstream cultures. The competing theoretical explanations, empirical and normative positions, explained by the speakers suggested that both cultural convergence and differentialism are features of contemporary global life, and such interactions between the two realities may produce contractions. There are hegemonic cultures, usually mainstream, but there is the simultaneous presence of localizing elements as well.

Relating this to the college, GTC create spaces for such localising elements in the creation of spaces like Black Students’ Society, where transcultural identities come alive in cultural communities. These initiatives help preserve cultural variety and make our multicultural living come alive. Finding a healthy balance between preserving a minority cultural identity whilst fitting into mainstream cultures is a conversation that is worth having in multi-cultural societies. Whilst such a conversation is timely, given recent happenings (realpolitik) in the world, institutional policies can enable people to interact with one another regardless of where they are coming from (cultural differences).

As cultural mixes, what elements are mixing? People engage in both cultural grammar and cultural language (Pieterse, 1996). For example, I Aboabea am a GTC student, I like to keep my hair in a way that is hinged to my roots. My shoes are usually sourced from UK companies. I consume a lot of Asian foods which I learnt to cook in the UK. I take English breakfast sometimes and visit coffee shops occasionally. I’ve tried Sri Lankan foods at the Gloucester Green market. I’ve engaged with cultural language of so many cultures, due to intercultural mixing. Cultural language though considered surface culture, with time, intermingling or mixing can be profound enough to engage cultural grammars or even contextually bound cultures. The process by which cultural language (un)become cultural grammar or the clash of such intercultural relationships should be devoid of conflicts and inward-looking take on other cultures.

The event created an important space for these crucial discussions and the participants who came were happy and engaged speakers on ideas of multicultural relations. We would continue these conversations and reflect the virtues that multicultural societies bring. Whether it is cultural difference, differentialism, or lasting difference, cultural convergence, or growing sameness, and cultural hybridization or ongoing mixing, I end this reflection with Professor Jan Nederveen Pieterse’s statement when he quotes Hamelink (1983), who notes that ‘The richest cultural traditions emerge at the actual meeting points of markedly different cultures…’.

I would like to express my profound gratitude to the distinguished speakers Professor Pieterse and Ms Nana Oforiatta Ayim for the time and resources they expended in putting their presentations together. I am heartily thankful to GTC for the academic grant to organise this event. I appreciate the GTC academic grant committee who reviewed the grant application and took a chance at this. I am also grateful to Professor Bernard Ebbinghaus for his insightful input when the idea was still nascent. On behalf of the team of organizers for the Green Templeton’s Cross-cultural dialogue event, we are deeply thankful to Hayley Pugh, Ruth Loseby, James Williams, Ana Maria Ortiz and Nick Parrott for their support throughout the process. We thank Harriet Quint and the catering team for providing refreshment for the in-person participants.

We appreciate Mr Acheampong Atta-Boateng and Black Students’ Society convenor Ms Josephine Agyeman-Duah (DPhil Women’s and Reproductive Health, 2018) for their support. We thank the participants for attending and actively participating in the discussions. Finally, I thank my colleagues in the team, Dr Francis Ayomoh (DPhil Primary Health Care, 2021) and Ms Cynthia Kwakyewah (DPhil Sociology) for their unwavering support and contributions in organising the event.

I conclude that cultural communities should not be kept separate from one another. Having organised the academic aspect, which created an important space for these crucial discussions to take place, we hope to organize a cultural mixing aspect of the GTC world cultural forum subsequently not geared towards politics of assimilation, rather that of integration without the need to give up identities.

References:

Hamelink, C. (1983). Cultural Autonom in Global Communications, Longman, New York.
Pieterse, J. N. (2004). Globalization and Culture, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, MD.
Pieterse, J. N. (1996). Globalization and Culture: Three Paradigms, Economic and Political Weekly,
(31):1389-1393
Huntington, S. P. (1993). The Clash of Civilizations? Foreign Affairs, 72(3): 22-49, Council on Foreign
Relations.