|
1 The practice
2 Hints for an evaluation
2.1 Strenghts
The organisation's perspective
Being the only organisation in the region the services that "PANGEA" offers have to be appreciated, of course. The organisation is proud of it. But furthermore, the good idea seems to be to connect this low-level service with proceeding steps and activities. The very attractive offer of internet access allows a continuous contact with the youth, which may lead to cooperation with them on a voluntary basis. From the organisations point of view “real intercultural practise” is one of the strongest strengths of "PANGEA". In the region of Linz they claim a unique position in this area. “Nowhere else you can find such a variety of different ethnicities on one place.” It is actually inevitable that people of different origins meet each other within the locations of "PANGEA".
Interculture map perspective
Another good point in the project seems to be the combination of training skills and creating art projects. In many cases art does not need specific capabilities like language and cultural knowledge. It offers the possibility for everyone to create things and to get results in order to strengthen identity and self-confidence. This approach is further supported by the fundamental principle of “empowerment”. Young people are seen as actors, which can influence and define the way and process of their projects. They are creators, targets and motives in one person; not only objects of aid.
Moreover, the projects are not only restricted to the internal sphere of "PANGEA". Most of them, of course due to their medial character, aim to reach the public. This might be a good practise to reduce fear of contact from the youth’s side and to oppose misperception from the majority’s side. Furthermore, it seems like a good way, when migrants and refugees have the chance to fight for acceptance instead of someone else doing it for them. It is authentic, since they know their problems better and so they are involved in a mutual process.
From the author’s point of view the employment of a person with “migration background” - although this term is questionable - is a sign for realising intercultural practise on every level, also inside organisational structures.
The fact that "PANGEA" received a couple of awards for their work during the last years shows to some extent the success of the work:
- Award of the federal state for art within intercultural dialogue 2005 (in cooperation with MEDEA).
- City of Cultures 2005 (in cooperation with the association Afghanmaug).
- Intercultural Award 2005 (from the Austrian Social democrats for the current project Act Against Racism).
- City of Cultures 2004 (award for becoming an association developed from a project).
- Swiss Youth Photo Award 2003 (fourth place for a collection of pictures).
- European Foundation for Photography 2001.
- Integrative Youth Award of the City of Linz 2001.
- City of Cultures 2001.
- “Kolaric lives” – poster competition 2001.
- "My neighbour lives" – photo competition 2001.
- Intercultural Award 2000 (from the Austrian Social democrats).
2.2 Critical Points
In view of the dramatic financial situation, it seems very difficult to critise the project at all. "PANGEA" itself admits that they are not able to achieve more and bigger projects than providing the internet access and the low-level skills training, which is anyways already a very good practise.
Another unsolved problem is the reserved participation of girls in the activities.
Perhaps the practise to rely on one’s own initiative could be criticised, because this might leave several good minded project ideas unused. But this is also a good practise and cannot be changed as long as "PANGEA" follows its principles.
Regarding the intercultural ambition it might be questioned to what extent a real intercultural exchange takes place between the different ethnic groups. But as other examples show, intercultural exchange should not be an obligation following the superficial idea of: “You and you have to talk with each other …” The informal way to meet by chance seems to be much more natural and cannot be criticised. Furthermore, remains the deficit of intercultural exchange between minorities and the majority society. As long as the young people stay inside "PANGEA", they do not have any contact with Austrians. But it might be difficult to organise it in another way. At some points the projects touch others or the public spheres of society.
It could also be argued that the separation itself contributes to improved intercultural practices. Here young migrants and refugees can receive skills, possibilities to communicate through electronic mediums and are supported in finding self-confidence without any pressure from external expectations. So it might be good practise from an intercultural view.
|