• Cross-Cultural Studies
• /
• v.20
• /
• pp.295-321
• /
• 2010

The trend of globalization has sharpened the debate on interculturality, which scholars examine from different and often conflicting points of view ('content' vs. 'practice', 'culture-specific' vs. 'universal', 'communication (meta)theory' vs. 'communication practice', 'individual' vs. 'collective', etc.). Whereas all these approaches are necessary to describe the multiple dimensions of interculturality, their dichotomous nature does not help to account for its internal complexity, which cannot be dissociated from the connections that exist among all these dimensions. The difficulty posed by the essentialist interpretations that tend to result from these dichotomies is compounded by the fact that in postmodern debates priority has been given to approaches that emphasize individual or collective agency over structural constraints which have to do with political economy or with cultural and linguistic codes and traditions. This paper aims mainly at suggesting that the dissolution of the boundaries that exist between these approaches should be pursued in order to get a fuller and richer approach to their common object of study. After discussing, by way of illustration, content-based and practice-based perspectives, we suggest that one way of getting beyond these dichotomies consists in focusing on the 'interactional' dimension of interculturality, which means laying emphasis on intersubjectivity and, particularly, on the individual subjects considered as members of different cultural communities who strive to transcend their sociocultural boundaries in order to reach harmonious interactions in a world in which inequality and the de-territorialization of people and cultures are central features.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.131
• /
• pp.1-32
• /
• 2014

This article aims to articulate, via Dilthey's concept of "understanding", that the three reflective conditions of interculturality are compatible with the three theses of "living-together". The former was proposed by Prof. Joo Kwang Sun and the latter is my assertion. In my point of view, the three theses of "living-together" are firstly 'consciousness of relationship to others', secondly 'reciprocity of relating', and thirdly 'sharing of same representation of mutual relationship'. Considering Dilthey's concept of "understanding", we can confirm that his concept includes firstly 'understanding is only for something constructed by spirit', secondly 'it is relation between expression and something expressed', and thirdly 'it means construction of one whole living-together'. Therefore I think Dilthey's concept of "understanding" could be regarded as a medium concept which enables us to integrate the three reflective conditions of interculturality with the three theses of "living-together". So I try to explain compatibility between the three conditions of interculturality and the theses of "living-together".

• Iberoamérica
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.123-151
• /
• 2020

This paper shows a theoretical-reflective analysis on the importance of vocational training and value education to transition into models that are inclusive in cultural diversity, typical of the globalized and hyperconnected environment of modern societies. Interculturality is contextualized as a key element in linking teaching-learning processes with the uniqueness and problems associated with cultural ethnocentrism and alterity. In this sense, the work is part of a thematic review that contributes to the understanding, inclusion and recognition of cultural, racial and ethnic diversity in the different formal spaces of learning. As summary, value education and transversality are the basis for building educational interculturality in future generations.

• Journal of Public Diplomacy
• /
• v.2 no.2
• /
• pp.26-48
• /
• 2022

This research strives to contribute to the debates around Public Diplomacy by suggesting the potentialities of including into the equation intersectional concepts, so far used mainly in other disciplines. On the one hand, the author introduces a "sense of mission" (WHY), embedded in the so-called "Golden Circle" described by Sinek (2009) and the "Good Country Equation" introduced by Anholt (2020). On the other hand, the relevance of cultural awareness (WHERE) is highlighted, which is supported by intercultural studies theories and non-traditional cultural dimensions present in empirical research. This complementary model of analysis and strategy building could be called the Golden Circle of Public Diplomacy. A possible structure for its conceptualization could be: WHY (purpose), HOW (soft power), WHAT (PD), WHERE (culture), WHO (actors and audience), and WHEN (time).