Welcome Speech by the former President of the Islamic Republic of Iran Mohammad Khatami
In the Name of God
Have international discourses gotten closer to an open, pluralistic and communicative model of expression?
An answer to this question could help us in our attempt to explicate the role of the media in
respect of culture, communications, and politics. Therefore, let me begin my speech at this very
point:
1- There is a meaningful link between technological developments in communication, as well as intellectual and lingual developments in our time. The trend of global culture and the
lingual structures at the international level point to the advent of an age known as the age of information, which has involved the formation of “information society” or “community of knowledge”; a kind of “paradigmatic shift” has also occurred in the dominant global discourses. In fact, one can detect a shift in international cultural discourses, which goes hand in hand with the emergence of new technologies of information and communication, and the transformation of media structures, a shift which has been directed from singular, dual and solid intellectual formations toward multiple, pluralistic and flexible intellectual structures. The propensity toward “a discourse of dialogue” which rests largely on the fundamental issue of culture, “departure from the singular and linear models of development” which understood the global progress in terms of a singular intellectual structure, and the tendency to deal with common global problems and general human hopes and fears” are the three salient aspects of the paradigmatic shift in todays society.
2- The cultural shift toward a model of dialogue indicates that the authoritarian political
models have lost their capacity to establish order in international relations. A restructuring of global order must go through a process of dialogue in the real world, and this will not happen unless the world is viewed in terms of its multiple cultural networks. Broadly speaking, dialogue is the art of dealing with differences in the real world, and in the interpretation that has currency in our time, it is the condition of “neighbourhood in a multi-cultural world”. The logic of dialogue is based on understanding between the interlocutors who speak with and listen to each other, and has a meaning beyond the current concepts of communication. Communication, transference and sharing of information and knowledge between different individuals and groups can be achieved with utmost precision and integrity, but dialogue is a flow of meaning among us, between us and inside us. In other words, dialogue is the process of the formation of a new meaning among various social units, which leads to kind of new understanding in the group; in dialogue an innovative, creative and shared concept takes shape, and connects individuals and communities in an effective way. In dialogue, the interlocutors do not try to turn a set of preconceived thoughts and information into common and dominant knowledge. The effort of those involved in dialogue is focused mainly on creation of a new concept in cooperation with each other. In the process of dialogue reaching a common viewpoint is less important than achieving understanding between the two sides. At stake is, therefore, is distancing oneself fromone-sided and speaker-oriented communication, and moving toward interactive and two-sided communication. One-sided communication, which is dominated by power structures and based on stereotyping, ethnocentrism, xenophobia, manipulation of public opinion and propaganda, is fundamentally incompetent in
approaching the logic of dialogue and creating “communicative understanding”.
3- In order to reach “communicative understanding”, we need to add to our “communicative competence” in the world before us. “Communicative competence” does not rely only on
new communication technologies, new media techniques, and not even on the innovation of the language of communication. “Communicative competence” is the cultural ability for communicating with the world around, based on a variety of subjectivities and different objectives. This communicative competence is necessary for, and a result of, the entry of a “new cultural paradigm”, which has pervaded todays world. This paradigm interprets the necessity of dialogue between civilisations and cultures. If the civilisations and cultures do not open the way of dialogue, their clash, and hence tragic human disasters, will become inevitable. Each and every one of those concerned with the present and future of the mankind must take a new step toward dialogue. Surely, the capacity of a given civilisation or culture for dialogue is important, but what is even more important in the media is the
capacity for dialogical understanding and interpretation of civilisational values and
traditions. This can create a new “communicative competence” at individual and social
levels, which will familiarise the world with the ample potentials of dialogue and
connection, rather than leave it stranded in “civilisational and cultural fault-lines”.
4- Whether one likes it or not, the new technologies of information and communication in
todays world have opened the civilisational domains to each other. This openness has in turn led to special requirements not only in cultural and social domains, but also in political and economic horizons. The fast pace of technological progress and the emergence of complicated global processes have created both unprecedented opportunities and new threats at the international level. As the quantitative and qualitative expansion of global communications overcomes the old global barriers the civilisational domains tend to open up themselves to dialogue and communication above and beyond the political domains. Unfortunately, however, threat and violence is still the dominant language in the political sphere. The paradox of the global culture and politics is a grave problem to tackle. Given the new communicational developments one may speak of the advent of a civil society of global proportions, which can add to our “communicative competence” at international, regional and national levels, and reduce the capacity of the autocratic powers in the use of force. The media can play a new and effective part in initiating and expediting this process. Against the background of the global civil society, dialogue between civilisations and cultures on specific and tangible problems that have plagued the world can open a way for solving the culture-politics paradox. It could be considered a strategy for revising the dangerous political discourse which dominates the international relations at the moment.
5- Unfortunately in our world, despite ample scientific and technological capacities, there numerous political and cultural disabilities which adversely affect communication and dialogue. Why is our interconnected and compact world plagued with cultural strangeness
and political misunderstanding more than any time in the past? Why is the image of the
East in the West — and that of the West in the East — distorted? And why do the audiences of the media not hear easily — and see clearly — despite the large numbers of the media and density of information? We have entered an age of increasing compactness of time and space. We are standing at a historical turning point. We must see our world more clearly — and understand it more easily — than in the past. Change in our ways of life, learning, communication, and political, social and economic life is inevitable. We are faced with new capacities as well as new shortcomings. Living in an information and communication society is living in a world with a new geometry of knowledge. Acquiring this knowledge is a prelude to enjoying the capacity for a new communicative competence. Our mediated world is marked by “the salience of the virtual side of reality”, on the one hand, and by “dialogue for turning to objectivity”, on the other. We must not destroy the path of dialogue and communication. The “age of communication” can be the “age of dialogue” provided that the hidden and unexpressed voices of the world find an opportunity to be heard in the civilisational and cultural domains. There are ample grounds in our world for not seeing and not hearing. The use of force, violence and fear of others are among the most important impediments of communication. The loud voice of violence does not let the voice of the “other” be heard and understood. The responsibility of the media is to prepare the ground for the “other” to be heard, seen and understood, and offer a true image of “him/her”. The media can help enhance the civil processes, functions and structures at the international level; they can strengthen the “global civil society” and the “dialogical habitat” which are independent spheres of power. This would mean distancing oneself from the logic of force and nearing oneself to the force of logic; this would mean the beginning of connection with the “other”, entering his/her cultural world, and empowering the audience in dialogue. This would mean creation and enhancement of
“communicative competence”.
6- Attention to the concept of “communicative competence” immediately necessitates attention to “dialogical ethics”. Dialogical ethics is not a negative tolerance, it is a positive acceptance. In the framework of dialogical ethics one should not only tolerate the others, but must also understand and work with them. Despite its deep philosophical roots, dialogical ethics is a part of the modern world and the foundation of a kind of new social order, a new civil concept which justifies dialogue. This civility enables the individuals and societies to hear the voices of the others, and pushes the political culture toward mutual respect, democratic freedoms and encompassing participation. The requirement for this civility is the existence of institutions, media and relations which are oriented toward dialogue. In this civility, the role of the communication media is to open the way for
communication. The orientation of pathic communication in a civil culture is to strengthen the existing channels between the speaker and the listener, reform the social relations and deepen the democratic behaviour.
7- In the first Eurasia media conference, I spoke of the necessity of opening the door for a
new dialogue on media ethics as a global issue. I said that this dialogue must be able to explicate the criteria and norms of humanity in this regard, and to make the world powers to bow to them. Today after five years I wish to emphasise the same point and ask all those involved in the media to think of concrete plans to advance this cause. The essence of my speech was:
“National, regional and global media are run on the basis of a variety of norms and methods, but one cannot turn ethical principles into inaccessible dreams. If the world needs permanent peace and democratic rule, which it does, and if the world is standing at a dangerous crossroads, which it is, therefore, those ethical ideals must be pursued in terms of laws and institutional rules at national and international levels. In todays mediated world responsible media ethics is neither limited to individual journalists, nor to professional ethics. In the same way that democracy and peace are necessary for, and the result of, dialogue between civilisations and cultures, they are the bases for the media ethics. In this context, the “right of communication”, democratic values of the free flow of information, and “the social responsibility of the media” are significant. The global media ethics is closely linked with the sovereignty of freedom and the responsibility of the media.”
I add another conclusion to my speech: establishment of a new media ethics in the framework of laws and institutional rules at national and international levels are necessary for the enhancement of “communicative competence”, which is enabling in terms of hearing a variety of voices and understanding different people of the world. We must try to turn this into a common media problem in the cultural, communicational and political spheres. Eurasia is the nexus between the old and new civilisations of humanity; we must turn it into a turning point in the new age of cultural and political communications. So be it.
An answer to this question could help us in our attempt to explicate the role of the media in
respect of culture, communications, and politics. Therefore, let me begin my speech at this very
point:
lingual structures at the international level point to the advent of an age known as the age of information, which has involved the formation of “information society” or “community of knowledge”; a kind of “paradigmatic shift” has also occurred in the dominant global discourses. In fact, one can detect a shift in international cultural discourses, which goes hand in hand with the emergence of new technologies of information and communication, and the transformation of media structures, a shift which has been directed from singular, dual and solid intellectual formations toward multiple, pluralistic and flexible intellectual structures. The propensity toward “a discourse of dialogue” which rests largely on the fundamental issue of culture, “departure from the singular and linear models of development” which understood the global progress in terms of a singular intellectual structure, and the tendency to deal with common global problems and general human hopes and fears” are the three salient aspects of the paradigmatic shift in todays society.
models have lost their capacity to establish order in international relations. A restructuring of global order must go through a process of dialogue in the real world, and this will not happen unless the world is viewed in terms of its multiple cultural networks. Broadly speaking, dialogue is the art of dealing with differences in the real world, and in the interpretation that has currency in our time, it is the condition of “neighbourhood in a multi-cultural world”. The logic of dialogue is based on understanding between the interlocutors who speak with and listen to each other, and has a meaning beyond the current concepts of communication. Communication, transference and sharing of information and knowledge between different individuals and groups can be achieved with utmost precision and integrity, but dialogue is a flow of meaning among us, between us and inside us. In other words, dialogue is the process of the formation of a new meaning among various social units, which leads to kind of new understanding in the group; in dialogue an innovative, creative and shared concept takes shape, and connects individuals and communities in an effective way. In dialogue, the interlocutors do not try to turn a set of preconceived thoughts and information into common and dominant knowledge. The effort of those involved in dialogue is focused mainly on creation of a new concept in cooperation with each other. In the process of dialogue reaching a common viewpoint is less important than achieving understanding between the two sides. At stake is, therefore, is distancing oneself from
approaching the logic of dialogue and creating “communicative understanding”.
new communication technologies, new media techniques, and not even on the innovation of the language of communication. “Communicative competence” is the cultural ability for communicating with the world around, based on a variety of subjectivities and different objectives. This communicative competence is necessary for, and a result of, the entry of a “new cultural paradigm”, which has pervaded todays world. This paradigm interprets the necessity of dialogue between civilisations and cultures. If the civilisations and cultures do not open the way of dialogue, their clash, and hence tragic human disasters, will become inevitable. Each and every one of those concerned with the present and future of the mankind must take a new step toward dialogue. Surely, the capacity of a given civilisation or culture for dialogue is important, but what is even more important in the media is the
capacity for dialogical understanding and interpretation of civilisational values and
traditions. This can create a new “communicative competence” at individual and social
levels, which will familiarise the world with the ample potentials of dialogue and
connection, rather than leave it stranded in “civilisational and cultural fault-lines”.
todays world have opened the civilisational domains to each other. This openness has in turn led to special requirements not only in cultural and social domains, but also in political and economic horizons. The fast pace of technological progress and the emergence of complicated global processes have created both unprecedented opportunities and new threats at the international level. As the quantitative and qualitative expansion of global communications overcomes the old global barriers the civilisational domains tend to open up themselves to dialogue and communication above and beyond the political domains. Unfortunately, however, threat and violence is still the dominant language in the political sphere. The paradox of the global culture and politics is a grave problem to tackle. Given the new communicational developments one may speak of the advent of a civil society of global proportions, which can add to our “communicative competence” at international, regional and national levels, and reduce the capacity of the autocratic powers in the use of force. The media can play a new and effective part in initiating and expediting this process. Against the background of the global civil society, dialogue between civilisations and cultures on specific and tangible problems that have plagued the world can open a way for solving the culture-politics paradox. It could be considered a strategy for revising the dangerous political discourse which dominates the international relations at the moment.
and political misunderstanding more than any time in the past? Why is the image of the
East in the West — and that of the West in the East — distorted? And why do the audiences of the media not hear easily — and see clearly — despite the large numbers of the media and density of information? We have entered an age of increasing compactness of time and space. We are standing at a historical turning point. We must see our world more clearly — and understand it more easily — than in the past. Change in our ways of life, learning, communication, and political, social and economic life is inevitable. We are faced with new capacities as well as new shortcomings. Living in an information and communication society is living in a world with a new geometry of knowledge. Acquiring this knowledge is a prelude to enjoying the capacity for a new communicative competence. Our mediated world is marked by “the salience of the virtual side of reality”, on the one hand, and by “dialogue for turning to objectivity”, on the other. We must not destroy the path of dialogue and communication. The “age of communication” can be the “age of dialogue” provided that the hidden and unexpressed voices of the world find an opportunity to be heard in the civilisational and cultural domains. There are ample grounds in our world for not seeing and not hearing. The use of force, violence and fear of others are among the most important impediments of communication. The loud voice of violence does not let the voice of the “other” be heard and understood. The responsibility of the media is to prepare the ground for the “other” to be heard, seen and understood, and offer a true image of “him/her”. The media can help enhance the civil processes, functions and structures at the international level; they can strengthen the “global civil society” and the “dialogical habitat” which are independent spheres of power. This would mean distancing oneself from the logic of force and nearing oneself to the force of logic; this would mean the beginning of connection with the “other”, entering his/her cultural world, and empowering the audience in dialogue. This would mean creation and enhancement of
“communicative competence”.
communication. The orientation of pathic communication in a civil culture is to strengthen the existing channels between the speaker and the listener, reform the social relations and deepen the democratic behaviour.
new dialogue on media ethics as a global issue. I said that this dialogue must be able to explicate the criteria and norms of humanity in this regard, and to make the world powers to bow to them. Today after five years I wish to emphasise the same point and ask all those involved in the media to think of concrete plans to advance this cause. The essence of my speech was:
“National, regional and global media are run on the basis of a variety of norms and methods, but one cannot turn ethical principles into inaccessible dreams. If the world needs permanent peace and democratic rule, which it does, and if the world is standing at a dangerous crossroads, which it is, therefore, those ethical ideals must be pursued in terms of laws and institutional rules at national and international levels. In todays mediated world responsible media ethics is neither limited to individual journalists, nor to professional ethics. In the same way that democracy and peace are necessary for, and the result of, dialogue between civilisations and cultures, they are the bases for the media ethics. In this context, the “right of communication”, democratic values of the free flow of information, and “the social responsibility of the media” are significant. The global media ethics is closely linked with the sovereignty of freedom and the responsibility of the media.”
I add another conclusion to my speech: establishment of a new media ethics in the framework of laws and institutional rules at national and international levels are necessary for the enhancement of “communicative competence”, which is enabling in terms of hearing a variety of voices and understanding different people of the world. We must try to turn this into a common media problem in the cultural, communicational and political spheres. Eurasia is the nexus between the old and new civilisations of humanity; we must turn it into a turning point in the new age of cultural and political communications. So be it.
Site developed