Interculturality, Multiculturality Worldwide

conlocuirii, ca o prelungire, în variantă superioară, a acesteia. Se încearcă astfel o redefinire a cuvântului toleranţă, purtător al unor conotaţii peiorative, până în prezent cu sensul de: suportat, acceptat în mod concesiv, cu statut de inferioritate, supus unei inevitabile precarităţi etc. În altă concepţie, toleranţă înseamnă: reciprocitate bine definită prin înţelegere şi, în situaţii speciale, solidaritate umană dincolo de identitatea etnică. În acelaşi timp, convieţuirea, pe lângă vieţuirea împreună, presupune interculturalitatea, aşa cum, conlocuirea, pe lângă sensul de locuire împreună, presupune multiculturalitatea. Deja s-a vorbit despre profundele deosebiri dintre cultura rromani, de origine asiatică, aproape primitivă, nescrisă, incompatibilă din multe puncte de vedere cu cea europeană, evoluată şi rafinată. Firesc este să fie pusă întrebarea în ce măsură există, totuşi, similitudini şi compatibilităţi între cele două forme de cultură. Discutarea semnificaţiei exacte a acestor termeni este imperios necesară. Din nefericire, în modul în care a fost până în prezent abordată, tema a fost şi compromisă rapid prin subiectivitate şi necunoaştere. Ceea ce a fost tratat până în prezent este doar vârful aisbergului.

Bibliografie Cherata, Lucian, Ţiganii. Istoric, specific, integrare socială, Craiova, Editura Sibila, 1999 Cherata, Lucian, Integrarea europeană şi problema rromilor, Craiova, Editura Arves, 2005 Uniunea Europeană (Proiect finanţat prin PHARE), Ghid de practici pozitive pentru educaţia copiilor rromi (2004), Romani Criss

Prof. Dr. Grecu Elena-Alina, Secondary School Nr. 1 Costeşti, Argeș

Today we live in an era of economic and cultural globalization. People from different countries and cultures communicate frequently on various occasions. Mutual knowledge is not reduced to the knowledge of the language in which the other communicates, but also to the knowledge of the culture and traditions in which it was formed. Although it is an objective fact, the natural difference between those who belong to different cultures and who are, more and more often, in the position of learning together, can lead to a whole series of difficulties that, ignored in the educational process, can turn into prejudices and roots of possible conflicts. Intercultural education is necessary since kindergarten, because the cultural matrix influences from early childhood personal behavior, relationships, values and attitudes, leaving deep marks on the personality of the individual. Multiculturalism brings many positive elements, but, at the same time, it involves certain difficulties. Children need to understand that those around them

are different, but at the same time they are like him. If this is understood from childhood, then certain problems related to coexistence and interaction with different people, problems that may arise later, can be prevented. The problems on the subject of multiculturalism are linked first of all to the deep discrepancy that is found between the ethnocultural reality of the world, on the one hand, and its arrangement from the ethnopolitical point of view, on the other hand. In the one hundred and ninety-six states currently recognized by the international community, about six hundred languages are spoken and between four thousand and six thousand ethnic groups or ethnocultural groups live. Ethnic plurality is the result of immigration of individuals who come from disadvantaged or underdeveloped areas of the world and who belong to specific ethnocultural communities. Communities, which have been incorporated into new state frameworks, usually form parallel societies, more or less segregated within political nations, which seek to acquire various forms of autonomy or self-government, considering that only in this way can they ensure the preservation of culture, of the language and forms of community existence characterized by specific traditions (communities also known as national minorities). If we refer to the cultural part of the gypsy world and the influences it had in amplifying or favoring the racist phenomenon, we can say that the gypsies were and are the only large minority, of another race, on the European continent. From a cultural point of view, they are the heirs of a small, totally non-European heritage, without affinities with the cultural specificity of this space. For the gypsies, the language was constantly a bastion of resistance to the danger of assimilation by other populations, always sedentary and with a written culture with a long tradition. If they did not have this argument of resistance, the gypsy would have been assimilated a long time ago. It is known that, in the contact of two cultures, the superior culture always wins, imposing its structures and value system. The gypsy resisted, paradoxically, as bearers of an oral culture, not evolved in the traditional sense, compared to the cultures of the populations they came in contact with. This seems to contradict the principle of confronting cultures, which says that in such contacts, the more evolved culture prevails. Apparently, the issue is valid, but, more closely, this confrontation has two specific aspects: not always the contact of the gypsy with other populations can be called a cultural confrontation. Most of the time, it was about exchanges of superficial information, relations with a unilateral pejorative load, persecutions, contempt, etc. True confrontation with the majority population is found only in the hearty, fiddler and rudari gypsies. It has already been seen that these three branches of the gypsies ended up losing their cultural identity, preserving their anthropological one. Not coincidentally, these populations are the only sedentary branches of the gypsies, so populations forced by their status to accept confrontation with other cohabiting populations. Another aspect, which made the gypsy language resists through the other gypsy branches and represent an argument for the resistance of this ethnic group, is the quality and specificity of this language. As existing studies already show, the gypsy came from India and inherited a language, a variant of the Sanskrit language. The only thing not studied enough is that of the consistency of the gypsy language relationship with the mother tongue - Sanskrit. Following some

comparisons, made between the two languages, it was concluded that their relationship is extremely close, both at the lexical level and at the level of grammatical structures. It is this essential kinship of the gypsy language with the Sanskrit language, in which a great written culture has been created, can explain the exceptional resistance of this language to other languages and cultures. The unanimously accepted standard for a primitive language, in which no written culture has been created, is a lexicon of two to three thousand precarious words and grammatical structures. The gypsy language has, however, in the usual language, eight - nine thousand words and grammatical structures identical to the Sanskrit ones. Here is another serious argument about the consistency and noble origin of the gypsy language. It can be said, at the same time, that this language, although not manifested through a written culture, presents exceptional openings to such a thing and it would not be a wonder if in the future the gypsy language would become a bridge of European languages with such the so-called Indo-European linguistic background. If a cultural assimilation of the gypsy ethnicity is not desirable, being an undemocratic process, the question arises whether interculturalism would not be a solution worthy of encouragement. Interculturality is the desirable option for coexisting populations, just as multiculturalism means a solution in case of coexistence of some populations. In fact, both variants of culture correspond to stages of integration of the gypsy population in the life of the majority population. Thus, multiculturalism corresponds to coexistence, in the sense of living together, ie the development of life in the same place, without assuming for this only a mutual tolerance within well-established rules and, necessarily, respected by all those involved in the context. Coexistence instead involves living together, according to the same rules, together, the attitude of tolerance being in this case meaningless. In the case of this approach, coexistence appears as a consequence of cohabitation, as an extension, in a superior variant, of it. An attempt is thus made to redefine the word tolerance, which has pejorative connotations, so far with the meaning of: supported, accepted concessively, with inferior status, subject to an inevitable precariousness, etc. In another conception, tolerance means: well-defined reciprocity through understanding and, in special situations, human solidarity beyond ethnic identity. At the same time, coexistence, in addition to living together, presupposes interculturality, just as coexistence, in addition to the meaning of living together, presupposes multiculturalism. There has already been talk of profound differences between gypsy culture, of Asian origin, almost primitive, unwritten, incompatible in many ways with the European one, evolved and refined. It is natural to ask to what extent, however, there are similarities and compatibilities between the two forms of culture. Discussing the exact meaning of these terms is imperative. Unfortunately, in the way it has been approached so far, the topic has also been quickly compromised by subjectivity and ignorance. What has been treated so far is just the tip of the iceberg.

Bibliography Cherata, Lucian, The Gypsies. Historical, specific, social integration, Craiova, Sibila Publishing House, 1999