The public library is undoubtedly the
cultural institution with which most
representatives of ethnic minorities are
in touch. The libraries have catered for
immigrants and refugees through special
services, and the public libraries
play an important role in the integration
process in the Northern countries as
a whole.
The report Frirum til integration
(2001) substantiates the fact that
the libraries play a very decisive role in
relation to minorities and that their
services encourage the integration process
by strengthening the individual’s
educational and linguistic competencies.
Something to be proud of indeed. If
one compares the achievements of the
public libraries with those of other cultural
institutions, the report Kulturinstitutionernes
bidrag til det kulturelt
mangfoldige Danmark (2001) shows
that the libraries can be seen as innovators,
able to inspire other cultural institutions.
Even so, I would like to pose the question:
Should the libraries function exclusively
as ‘quiet integrators’ – as an
extension of political and social integration
policies of varying governments?
Or should they also act as creative
spaces for diversity and exchange
of culture? This is not just a question
of a non-committal cultural meeting
between different, distinct cultures, as
when the libraries act as hosts for an
ethnic evening with exotic food and
belly-dancing between the book shelves.
This strategy for multiculturalism
very easily comes to represent something
static which is only interested in
underlining differences and creating
barriers. Or, to put it in another way:
While practising respect and tolerance,
we still run the risk of trapping people
in a rigid system of categories – and
being trapped ourselves.We might encounter
here a kind of ‘apartheid of
consciousness’ with the grave risk of
ending up with our backs turned on
each other, each in his/her liberated
isolation. And when multiculturalism
in its more extreme form is used as an
excuse for ‘anything goes’ and nothing
is open for discussion, one might perhaps
be allowed to join the American
political scientist, Benjamin R. Barber,
in describing ‘multiculturalism as
diversity run amok’.
To question multiculturalism as st rategy
does not mean a desire to return to
an Eurocentric enlightenment tradition,
neither does it mean that we ought
to place the national culture in the centre.
We do not need a preoccupation
with ‘the national’ or a celebration of
our own eminent qualities. Cultural
policy must be ahead, not behind, the
development of society in recognition
of the fact that we are part of the global
society. It is therefore a question of
paving the way for a true cosmopolitanism
which allows us not only to view
between integration
and cultural diversity
others as ‘exotic’, but which also encourages
us to examine ourselves – so that
we discover that we ourselves are
‘others’ amongst others.
Other peoples’ art and cultural expression
is a language which we must learn
to decode.We must try to translate, but
at the same time realise that it happens
through dialogue,and that the translation
will never be complete.We must
try to put ourselves in the other person’s
place. Art and culture are important
in bringing this about. A cultural
policy which believes in cultural diversity
is therefore not a question of categorising,
refining and labelling them
and us, but rather the realisation that
we can all of us contribute and all of us
learn in a cultural space which is being
redefined.We must accept the existence
of a new hybridity where nothing is
‘pure’ or ‘true’ any more. The idea of
the cultural meeting in the sense of
well-defined cultures with tradition
and geographic anchorage facing each
other, is outdated. And here I find that
the concept ‘cultural diversity’ better
than multiculturalism reflects these
new hybrid cultures which do not only
cut across boundaries and t raditional
cultures, but which dissolve them into
new forms across genres and cultural
patterns.
How to carry out this strategy in practice?
There is no cut and dried solution,
but it is very important to concentrate
more on choice of materials and a
policy for activities and events so that
fusions in literature,music, the visual
media and not least youth culture b ecome
visible in the lib rary’s mediation
practice.A good example is the Danish
group Outlandish with their multiethnic
hiphop performed by three
young second generation immigrants
originating from Pakistan, Honduras
and Morocco, who after their stay in
the Middle East have developed a new
rap style inspired by American music.
Or the many post-colonial authors
such as for example Rushdie, Kureshi
and Naipaul – or their Nordic counterparts
where new hydbrid identities are
created. As far as the lib rary’s possible
events and activities go, here would be
the chance to present more performers
with an ethnic background who express
themselves in new ways instead of
a more pure ethnic revival based on
tradition and ethnicity.
The real challenge will be to find a balance
which will not allow integration,
social work and enlightenment to
smother the development of cultural
and artistic diversity in the library
space.A diversity-based cultural policy
is to just as g reat a degree a cultural
policy for the ethnic Scandinavians as
for all other ethnic g roups.We are all
part of a new, global society.
Translated by Vibeke Cranfield