Peaceful coexistence through dialogue and education
by
TON NOTTEN*


A few months ago I was bit surprised to be asked to become a member of the editorial board and thus to share in the preparation of the Gülen conference and chair one of the panel sessions, on “Anatolian Muslim-ness in Practice,” subtitled “Gülen’s Initiatives for Dialogue and Education.”

Of course, I tried to figure out what the backgrounds might be of the organizers, Leeds Metropolitan University and the Dialoog Academie in Rotterdam, and what might be the allegedly inspiring ideas of Mr. Fethullah Gülen -- in order to get cleared up what could be the reasons for inviting me. And of course there was a second question: What might be our affinities, and what could I contribute!?
1. The first is kinship. I already knew Leeds University; I was once there. It is a huge university of applied learning and practice and innovative research which may be a bigger version of its Rotterdam look-alike, one of the two universities where I have professorship.

Since 2002, my field of teaching and research at Rotterdam has been “Growing Up in the City,” a nice interdisciplinary theme which has to do with parental education support, youth policy, community-school arrangements, vocational education, recreational facilities, housing and urban regeneration, multicultural issues and so on -- and all these from the perspective of Rotterdam. Rotterdam is the second-largest city in the Netherlands and also the poorest one, with a low-educated population. Above all, since the mid-1970s Rotterdam has hosted the most diverse and multicultural composition of the country’s population.

In between my Rotterdam habitat and Leeds I met Professor Simon Robinson, who is a very nice and above all eloquent colleague.

2. Moreover, the Rotterdam Dialoog Academie -- an organization promoting inter-faith dialogue -- seems a very sympathetic initiative which was previously unknown to me. I’m devoted to its ideas, as I will now clarify.

I earned my Ph.D. 20 years ago with a thesis on the applicability of Jürgen Habermas’s theory of “communicative action” (1981, his bipartite book, at 1,200 pages, was referred to as the “blue monster”) in the field of adult education and its scientific support. This German philosopher and social scientist is really one of the grandsons of the Enlightenment.

For me, his idea of dialoguing refers to one of the ambitions of the Gülen conference as well. More than 40 years ago I studied theology, its Roman Catholic version in particular. In one of the first lessons I heard was about the death of God, which was a bit disappointing for me. In the mid-1960s the idea of “peaceful coexistence” became a somewhat secularized and a bit holistic version of the former “isolated” religious world visions and at the same time an ecumenical rapprochement was started (not with all three Abrahamic religions, however).

My step-over from religious studies to the social sciences was an attractive and nearly self-evident one at that time. Its scientific label was “andragology,” or adult education science -- which is to this day for me both a fascinating and a hazardous science. It is about researching and supporting adult-learning practices and/or improving the conditions of adolescent and adult lives; about arranging learning environments and educational facilities, offering social support, community development, developing human resources, social work and so on.

These have been my core subjects of interest at Vrije Universiteit Brussel since 1998 -- and before that from 1974 until 1994 at the University of Amsterdam: description, analysis and innovation in particular. And teaching students about it; half of them were so-called “mid-career-students” of over 30 years. These kinds of theories and practices can be recognized by their huge ambitions and hence they are susceptible to ambiguity and skepticism.

I like all three: ambition, ambiguity and skepticism. I always supported the idea of skepticism in theory and optimism in action -- as Max Horkheimer, Albert Schweitzer and Noam Chomsky wrote in their time.

3. So far my associations with Leeds and the Dialoog Academie. Now the third one, which is a bit more difficult. Until a few months ago, I had never heard about Mr. Gülen and his ideas about “peaceful coexistence.” Although -- or probably just because -- the need for peaceful coexistence among people of various cultures and religions has long been recognized verbally, his name and fame are connected during this conference with those of Socrates, Daoism, Sufism, Rumi, Immanuel Kant, Spinoza, Tariq Ramadan, the followers of Don Bosco and even the present pope and so many (many) others. In the conference handouts I read the following sentences by conference chair Dr. İhsan Yılmaz:

“Fethullah Gülen is an Islamic scholar and peace activist whose ideas have inspired many people to undertake charitable works, especially in education and dialogue. By focusing on Gülen’s ideas and practice, this conference aims to explore the appeal and impact of the Gülen movement’s worldwide initiatives to help people respond creatively to the profound social changes that are taking root everywhere.”

Another author had written, “Gülen’s conviction is that humanity ultimately will be led to peace and unity by recognizing and accepting social, cultural and religious diversity, an exchange of mutual values and union in collaboration.”

Of course, I don’t know Mr. Gülen fully through these three quotes, but he seems to me a charming and tenacious inspiration, if not “the gentle voice of rationality,” as Sigmund Freud once wrote. Mostly, I’m interested in concrete contributions to solving urban youth, integration problems and the like. Andragogical ones in particular, of course.

This threefold issue -- Leeds, the Dialoog Academie and Fethullah Gülen -- shows more connections to my personal and scientific interests than I had at first assumed. I am interested in education and adult education in particular; I like the dialogical perspective, both as a practice and as a way of researching, and I’m interested in ideas and in support systems which can be helpful for people to develop themselves.

Dialogue and education were some of the central issues of this conference and also of the ones that will follow in the future as well. Probably even education to dialogical competence. Let me give you my threefold thought on this subject.

1. Dialogue refers to participation, and both of them need education in the broadest sense of the word -- as might be presented as a triangle of learning. Following the philosophy from Immanuel Kant (Truth, Good and Beautiful) to Habermas, we can distinguish between three types of learning and their related ways of participation and social integration: functional learning, social or moral learning and expressive learning.

These types deserve continuous logical and critical clarification and strengthening. The first is related to the core aspects of societal integration: school education, housing and work. The second refers to political participation (elections, e.g.) and juridical rights (to apply to court, to defend your civil rights) and the third one has to do with the rights to express one’s religious and cultural feelings and convictions.

Every aspect of integration and participation (functional, moral and expressive) asks for different and interrelated ways of clarification and strengthening, being the ambitions of both philosophical and social scientific criticism. Once in the 1970s, for instance, the multicultural integration debate in the Netherlands was focused on the third aspect, the cultural one, exclusively -- which proved to be, two decades later, an example of neglecting newcomers in their rights and obligations for functional integration. Instead of challenging them to integrate fully in our society (functionally, socially and expressively) -- nowadays we see the necessity of supporting newcomers in their functional integration at first.

2. The present debate in the Netherlands over 30 years of integration policies and practices can be labeled as inappropriate and even a bit lazy. In my country, at the start of the millennium, there was a growing unrest, if not aggressiveness, stirred up by right-wing politicians and intellectuals, some newspapers and television networks, against the more or less liberal look at those urban issues like poverty and unemployment, social exclusion, the lack of “social competence” and other ethnically related issues like early school dropout, discrimination and mistrust and the more or less self-acquired resentment under vulnerable youngsters, the so-called “at-risk youth.”

This unrest has some real and even horrible background, like Sept. 11 (2001) and the murders of Pim Fortuyn (2002) and Theo Van Gogh (2004). I’m not sure, however, about the aims of these critics. Their unrest wants to mobilize the public. The public debate sounds very loud and it lacks nearly all elements related to openness, patience and inquisitiveness -- and even the aspiration to persuade the discussion partners. The debate about national identity, for instance, is inspired by a negative attitude against Europe, even more by attempts to feed the distrust against religious and ethnic minorities in the country. A new kind of nationalism is in advance. The so-called ideal speech situation, which we know from the work of Habermas and his followers, is fully absent. That’s why I fear that the theatrical debates of this moment lack any intention to contribute to solving the really existing urban problems. Some hype-debaters are idly standing by and they are not interested in any participation or solidarity. And, finally, migrant risk youngsters, their parents and the related social professionals are not at all involved in these debates. They are nearly non-participants, outsiders, as well.

3. As a conclusion: Dialogue and participation are not exclusively verbal or mental or moral issues. They are materialistic as well. One cannot communicate or participate in an ideal speech situation (Habermas) without a job, without appropriate housing and when one is undereducated -- as there are comparable risks when human rights are neglected or even oppressed -- and finally, people need freedom of religion and conviction. Dialogue and participation need necessary facilities, or support systems. And public debates about these issues require things other than organizing moral panics -- they need contributions to practical and political solutions, they need social commitment.

My conclusion: There is no reason left for me to be surprised that I was asked to become a member of the editorial board of this conference, to share in its preparation and chair one of the panel sessions. I see that some core issues of the conference have been mine for two or even four decades.


todayszaman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Professor Ton Notten is an instructur at Vrije Universiteit Brussel and Rotterdam University

Good article,thank you for sharing
Peaceful coexistence can always be possible if people´s attitudes change.The great example of it is Italian Priest¨Aldo Danieli
Treviso, 9 Nov. (AKI) - A priest in Paderno di Ponzano near Treviso in the northern Italian region of Veneto, Aldo Danieli, has decided to allow Muslims to meet and pray in church premises in his parish on Fridays to foster better integration of immigrants in the local community, La Repubblica newspaper's website reports.

Volunteers at the church of Santa Maria Assunta have said that their meetings with Muslims from the immigrant community enable them to "experience different cultures and break down barriers caused by misunderstanding and intolerance," La Repubblica said, quoting Italian charity Auser.

The meetings between volunteers from Danieli's parish and local Muslims - many of whom are women - have been organised through Treviso's Islamic Centre.

Some 650 immigrants, many of whom are from North Africa, live in Paderno di Ponzano , a small town of 9,800 people.

We have a great programme on UK TV called "Secret Millionaire". Each week a different millionaire goes "undercover" to a poor or disadvantaged area (or back to their roots) and works among the people for a week before deciding who to give money to and assist.

This week the man was a very successful leisure industry boss. He was a Pakistani who had moved to the UK aged 8, speaking no English. He had been married to an English woman for 20 years and remained a muslim. He had learned the language and built up his business from scratch.

He went back to the area of Leeds where many of his Asian countrymen live. He spent time with them and after a few days was horrified to discover that there was NOBODY he wanted to help! The muslim community did NOT want to integrate with the English in any way and had not adapted to living in another country. In a radio interview, he had callers saying he had betrayed his faith by marrying an English woman, and that he could not be considered a proper muslim because any woman from the West was immoral. They taunted him for his "Englishness" and kept asking "did you sleep with her before marriage".

He was left sad and bewildered at how fundementalist immigrants had become in the UK. He eventually found three people he could help (2 of which were not from his own background).

Integration and tolerance WORKS BOTH WAYS!

I think the article kafesteki kus posted about churches in Italy allowing muslims to pray there, although there's no mention of Italian mosques allowing christians in is a great example of exactly the same issue. Muslims making demands and offering NOTHING in return!

You may be correct, but in that case this is NOT about DIALOGUE (more like appeasement)!

I don't believe there will EVER be peaceful coexistance between people of different religions, for one simple reason.

While its easy for people to say "we all have one God", most deity religions follow one prophet (Jesus, Mohammad ...and as we have been talking about Mormon's lately, Joseph, a boy from the USA!!!). Each prophet claims that HE received his message from God and that HIS teachings are only way God wants us to worship him.

This means only ONE can be right and all the others are following a false prophet who had a few hallucinations and was deluded into thinking he was "chosen"

Religious people will always argue about their faith (which in itself makes a mockery of faith)!! Even if the whole world were one religion, they would still argue about the different sub-sections of that religion.

What a wonderful, peaceful world those false prophets gave us!!! (I am not mocking any religion here - but whatever your religion, you have to agree that the other's are "false prophets"

I don't completely agree with you Aenigma, it is possible for people to have their own faith and at the same time have the kind of attitude in which they would see other people as human beings. Religion is a subject to wide interpretation, so if they interpret their faith in a tolerant way, they will become more tolerant, if they don't, they will keep acting like predators towards each other.

Actually, I don't think that it's dialogue that's going to guarantee a peaceful coexistence, but a couple of bright people who will redefine their faith on a mass scale... and will lead to a movement of brainwashing people to be more tolerant. It's impossible to have a "dialogue" with an average Mary that has had years of pumping information into her had by the whole gang.

Qdemir,

Did you ever ask Prof Notten of yours whether or not Catholic Pope recognises Islam as a divine religion and Muhammad as a prophet of the same god who also sent Jesus on an earlier mission?

I am afraid Pope will reply negative to both questions.

What then is this crap about the so called dialog?

Tell us what your real purpose is !

i think a real peace or tolerance only possible by pass to universalism from to localness.And seems this wonderfull globe needs more common universal values and stronger international organizations for set a lasting peace,and i think thats road pass on a common international education,more communication and less prejudices.beside them things start the best schools (families) of world,for that reason goverments have to work harder to creat more happy and more educated families.İ believe that things would be easier and better if we can teach to young generations real value of universalism by don't deny goodness of local values..its always better to watch a plain from a high hill,if we trust our eyes or our owns more then enough i think we would miss so planty goodness which we never aware of em