“An intercultural initial formation in Europe”

Incontro degli ispettori di Europa, Pisana, 28-30 novembre 2014

Ivo Coelho, SDB

General Councillor for Formation

The topic assigned to me is the interculturality of initial formation in Europe. When I began preparing my intervention, I made a list of many practical points that I had been thinking of sharing with you. But, as someone has said, there is nothing so practical as a good theory. So let me begin by putting down some of thoughts that have been running through my head in these days. The first inspiration is from a doctoral thesis I have been reading on Lonergan’s empirical notion of culture,¹ while the second comes from the recently concluded International Historical Congress in celebration of the Bicentenary.

To be educated is to have at least a certain knowledge of another culture

In The Crisis of Western Education, Christopher Dawson says:

Until a man acquires some knowledge of another culture, he cannot be said to be educated, since his whole outlook is so conditioned by his own social environment that he does not realize its limitations.²

What kind of implications does this statement have for salesian formation, especially in those places where it tends to be monocultural? The term interculturality has found a home in our Salesian documents; but what do we mean by it? What is it that makes a formation house intercultural? What makes a formation process intercultural? Is it enough that there be students from different nations and cultures? Is it enough to have a multicultural formation team?

Inculturation demands that we speak of cultures rather than of Culture

Dawson is one of the fundamental influences on the thought of the philosopher, theologian and economist Bernard Lonergan: thanks to Dawson, Lonergan began making a shift from the classicist to the empirical notion of culture. The classicist notion of culture is a normative and universal conception of culture. It maintains that one and only culture is valid for all time. It is concerned with what ought to be. It is culture with a capital “C.” It is a matter of good taste, high learning, refined character, knowledge of Latin and Greek, etc. The empirical notion of culture, instead, recognizes that each people, each nation, each group has its own culture, with its own share of light and darkness.

The classicist notion of culture held sway in church circles until quite recently. One implication of such a notion is that all other peoples and cultures, if they do not match up to this culture, tend to be considered ‘uncivilized,’ savages, etc. Did such a notion hold sway also in Salesian circles? Probably. Someone growing up in India tends to take for granted the fact of a plurality of cultures. Our Salesian documents, instead, tend to speak in terms of education and culture, mostly equating the two. On the other hand, there is also the important letter of Fr Chavez on inculturation of the Salesian charism (AGC 411, 2011), and we have now begun to speak explicitly not just of international and multicultural communities but also of interculturality.

The Salesian congregation is inevitably involved in issues of inculturation

During the Historical Congress, the issue of nationalism came up several times and in several different papers. It was refreshing to see speaker after speaker dealing with this thorny topic with great simplicity and frankness. I am quite conscious of the fact that all those who spoke of this topic happened to be Italian, whereas I am not. But still, the issue is too interesting and too important not to be mentioned in this meeting, given especially the topic of interculturality. The question is the familiar one: how Italian should one be in order to be Salesian? Here are just two samples of what emerged at the Congress:

Prof. Belardinelli touched upon the difficult topic of Salesians and their attitude towards Italian Fascism. He noted that the supposed ‘moderation’ of Fascism in contrast to the exaggerated place given to the state in Communism and Nazism allowed some scholars to regard it as an ‘imperfect totalitarianism’. This made it possible and easy for many Salesians to reconcile and sometimes accomodate themselves to the regime in the name of 'educating good citizens.' One fallout was the strengthening of authoritarianism in formation, and the tendency to spread Italian culture as the 'beacon of civilization' in the missions.³

Prof. Giorgio Rossi, SDB, summed up his paper on the cultural policies of the Salesians in the Middle East in this way: Salesians were also involved, along with others, in the phenomenon of nationalism, not merely as instruments but also as actors, sometimes consciously and sometimes not. They defended themselves both from the accusation that they were not Italian enough, and from the accusation of being agents of their motherland.⁴

It is not my intention here to find fault with our predecessors. Much less am I advocating the jettisoning of all that is Italian in the name of universality and interculturality. I am merely making the trite observation that an international congregation and a universal church cannot avoid having to face squarely issues such as the inculturation of the faith, the inculturation of a charism, or, in the present context, the interculturality of formation processes.

Interculturality and formation

First of all, it is important to note that we are agreed on the objective of inculturation and interculturality. The congregation has owned this objective. It sees these as values to be cultivated. It is increasingly realizing that they are an essential part of being Christian. It finds very pertinent Pope Francis’ remarks to the European Parliament about Europe as a family of peoples, where unity does not mean uniformity, but rather a celebration of differences:

The motto of the European Union is United in Diversity.  Unity, however, does not mean uniformity of political, economic and cultural life, or ways of thinking.  Indeed, all authentic unity draws from the rich diversities which make it up: in this sense it is like a family, which is all the more united when each of its members is free to be fully himself or herself.  I consider Europe as a family of peoples who will sense the closeness of the institutions of the Union when these latter are able wisely to combine the desired ideal of unity with the diversity proper to each people, cherishing particular traditions, acknowledging its past history and its roots, liberated from so many manipulations and phobias.  Affirming the centrality of the human person means, above all, allowing all to express freely their individuality and their creativity, both as individuals and as peoples.

Next, we must admit that interculturality is a topic that needs to be deepened. Let me offer here a few pointers by way of a start.

1. It is important for formators to truly being educated in Dawson’s sense, which means finding some way to acquire knowledge of another culture, either by sustained exposure and reflection, or by study. We can recall once again the words of Dawson: “Until a man acquires some knowledge of another culture, he cannot be said to be educated, since his whole outlook is so conditioned by his own social environment that he does not realize its limitations.” We could think here of the difference between a formator who is educated in this sense, and one who is not.

2. It is important as a congregation, as a continent, as regions, to reflect on the issue of incluturation and interculturality and on the practical implications for processes of formation.

3. It is important also that formators be able to constantly look at themselves rather than solely and exclusively on the formees. “How can a man take care of the household of God if he cannot take care of your own household?” (1 Tim 3:5)

Formation of formators, formation of the heart

Allow me to expand the third point a bit.

The ideal Salesian formator is one who is able to truly listen: not only to words, but also to feelings; not only to what is being said, but also to what is not being said. A formator who take the trouble to understand before judging; and to judge when he has to with compassion.

Such a formator cannot therefore be emotionally illiterate. He will be familiar with the dynamics of feelings, and not because he has studied the relevant psychological theories, but because he is familiar with his own feelings, perhaps through having made use of the technologies that are today available.

Such a formator will also be able to involve the formees in the process of formation. He will resist the temptation to impose lines of action, seeking to make these emerge from the formee himself. He will be someone who believes in the method of participation, and so will be a man of dialogue, as our Constitutions require.

All this is profoundly rooted in our own system of education. At the conclusion of the Historical Congress, prof. Giorgio Chiosso wonderfully highlighted the fact that the Preventive System is “a pedagogy of personal freedom, one that relies on the force of interpersonal relationships, and that gives due value to the affective component”. This kind of system, he went on to say, is far superior to a pedagogy of authority that presupposes a distance between masters and pupils, and that relies more on impersonal rules than on living relationships.⁵ Perhaps this is not all that new; but what struck me very much was the comment that followed, where the professor drew a contrast between the gifted educator and a run-of-the-mill one: where the former is able to translate the great principles of the system in creative ways into everyday life, the latter is constantly tempted to hide his own insecurity by means of a recourse to rules, norms, and behaviour that is more or less standard. All this makes me think that ‘dialogue’ is a good way of translating the great trinomial reason, religion, loving kindness, or perhaps at least the first and third of these terms.

At this point someone will be tempted to say: why all this talk about formation of formators? Haven’t we always managed somehow? Our way is to find some good confreres and put them to the job. And I would say: yes, you are right. There are always those who are born formators. But not all. And even the born formators, I would venture, eventually feel the need for help, for what is today called supervision, for someone with whom they can confront themselves and their experience of the formative process. Besides, our own documents and the documents of the church require that formators be formed not only to teach but also to form, and not only theoretically but also practically.⁶ According to me, it is time as a congregation to establish policies on this point, policies and traditions and good offerings in a diversity of languages regarding the preparation and formation of formators. The Formation Department has been, since 2011, been engaged in preparing a document entitled Criteria and Norms for Salesian Personal Accompaniment. But beyond the document there remains the work of identifying processes and places where Salesian formators can be formed, where they will receive a formation not only of the mind but also of the heart, and of convincing provincials to prepare formators and not only teachers.

But what has all this to do with the topic of interculturality in formation? I would say: it is not the whole solution, but it is certainly one of the indispensable components. If a formator has done his own work of self-appropriation; if he has come to an adequate self-knowledge and self-acceptance; if he has the capacity to listen to someone else because he has spent time listening to himself; if he has the capacity to dialogue; if he believes in empowering and participation rather than imposing and giving guidelines and rules; if, in other words, he is truly an educator after the heart of Don Bosco, if he practises the preventive system, he will be well equipped to confront the issue of interculturality on a daily basis and in praxis.

Intercultural formation processes have to be constructed. They will probably emerge in the process of dialogical and participatory methods of formation. They will surely require also good doses of study and the confrontation that comes with study. But they will, I think, certainly be helped by any work that the formator does on himself.

To conclude: I am proposing that inculturation and interculturality demand of us:

• A shift from a classical to an empirical notion of culture

• An effort of education and formation towards interculturality, through an encounter with at least one other culture

• An effort to deepen the meaning of interculturality

• A formation of formators, a formation of the heart, a formation to dialogue, mutual respect, and reciprocity.

Thank you.