PANEL DISCUSSION

Language as a Bridge to Interpersonal as well as Intercultural Understanding, Tolerance, and Peace A discussion of ways that knowledge of language advances or inhibits peace, best practices and examples of language advancing interpersonal, intercultural and global peace.

Zoe Petropoulou, Ph.D. , Associate Professor Languages and Literature, St. John's College of Liberal Arts and Sciences

Languages and Cultures for a Culture of Peace

The International organizations on peace such as UNESCO, Anna Lindh Foundation, the Council of Europe and more recently the Pearl Foundation recognized that a vision for further dialogue and mutual understanding should be based on culture.

Yet the questions to be asked are the following: how does one achieve knowledge of another culture and cross-cultural understanding? How can one initiate a dialogue among cultures? How can we achieve a dialogue of cultures and promote the culture of dialogue? More importantly, how is language learning involved in the knowledge of another culture?

Foreign Language:   Learning for Peace Building

Since the 1970s thanks to the field of Applied Linguistics the learner, and not the text, has become the center of attention. Learning a language does not mean anymore internalizing a closed system of formal rules and structural forms; rather, it means acquiring a mode of communication, a way of expressing, interpreting, and negotiating socially encoded meanings in varied context. It is no longer enough to be able to construct grammatically correct sentences; one must know when to say what to whom, for which purpose, what meaning to convey and which register to use.

Teaching language as a social practice has internationalized the general education in three major ways over the past twenty years with the contributions of several linguists such as: M. A. K. Halliday, Kramsch and McConnell-Ginet, and Savignon. Their main ideas emphasize the following main points:

First, teaching language as social practice means linking linguistic forms and social meanings. The three goals of foreign language education- communicative competence, cultural knowledge, and cognitive growth- are inseparable.   Understanding a foreign language and making oneself understood in that language require more than the acquisition of formal skills; learners must be willing to see the world from another perspective. Using the foreign language to converse with native speakers of that language, students have to assume a different self from the one they present when they speak their native tongue. This way, they become aware of a social identity they have always taken for granted. Through the image they project to speakers of other languages and through those speakers' reactions, students may realize how different their own perspective is. Understanding one's place in the world starts with understanding how one uses language.

Second, teaching language as social practice means explicitly teaching difference and change. The study of a foreign language can open learners' minds not only to national differences but also to differences based on regional identity, age, gender, class, and race. Foreign language learners can be encouraged to study other peoples' attitudes and beliefs in a spirit of ethnographic inquiry and not in a judgmental way.

Such contextualization allows for a revision of one's own position. As American students learn to understand, rather than to judge, other peoples' ways of viewing the world, they can better appreciate their own perspective in its global, historical, and social context and accept that perspective as one among many possible expressions of modern society.

Finally, teaching language as social practice requires distinguishing the voices of society from the particular voice of the individual. Critical pedagogy is important not only to words and sentences but to discourse practices as well. Learning to retrieve information from texts and to reflect critically on the information received or the behavior adopted are steps in language learning as social practice.

All three aspects of language learning as a practice of social meaning, and specifically to understand one's place in the world, to realize that one's perspective of the world is not unique nor dominant but one among others, and finally to acknowledge different ideologies, can make the critical study of foreign language and discourse central to a globally conceived international education where tolerance, understanding and acceptance of others can prevail.

Internationalizing general education is no longer preparing students to think critically in an international setting. The biggest challenge remains on how one prepares students in academia in the 21 st century with a sense of social responsibility for world citizenship. Today, citizenship is both national and international. It requires moral courage and clearly defined values which are lived daily; it requires commitment to an understanding and tolerance of others. Higher education can contribute significantly to promoting world citizenship through the right international curriculum and the facilitation of academic mobility. Within that frame, language learning, as a tool for developing one's sense of self and developing cross-cultural understanding, is essential for fostering a culture of dialogue or a dialogue of cultures.

One successful practice of the right international education could be St. Vincent's international service for world peace and social justice. In the 17 th century he carried his work from France to Ireland, Poland, Lorraine, Baghdad, Madagascar, and even to Northern Africa.   The same way we can carry the work of sustainable development to countries around the world and inspire and transform young peoples' minds. A new society will depend greatly on recognizing different attitudes and developing deeper understanding of differences. This is a special challenge for higher education and one that has the full support of UNESCO.

My final word is a reference to a main thesis that runs across the work of Edward Said, a prominent intellectual and peace activist. He basically argued in most of his work that our perceptions of the "other" reflect insecurities about the "self". Therefore by addressing our images of the other through a language learning process we actually take a first step on the road towards peace with ourselves and the "others".