Madame la directifées generale, madame monsieur, les ministers, les presidons, et professeurs
des universities, de l'université de hombre, dear colleagues and friends, don't be worried.
Dear colleagues and friends, dear students, if there are any, and, ladies and gentlemen,
it's for me a great honor and a pleasure to share with you the following reflections
on humanism and lifelong learning, and I would like to extend my warmest thanks to Professor
Carlsen for inviting me to join this lecture. Man is the measure of all things. This sentence
of protagoras, fifth century before Christ, can be considered as one of the earliest expressions
of humanism. The philosophy that places man, please, when I use man, understand that I'm
using a generic term, including women as well. I'm not forgetting women. So the philosophy
that places man, human life, human destiny, at the heart of its concern. As we know, this
movement flowered in Europe at the time of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. It
was characterized by a basic optimism. Faith in man as a rational creature, faith in reason,
faith in science, faith in continuous progress, and a dream of universal peace. The 20th century
has demonstrated beyond doubt that such optimism is no longer relevant to our own times. Poverty,
illiteracy, global warming, violence, genocides, mistrust of science, and a new quest for
spirituality. All those new developments make it necessary for us to rethink, redefine humanism,
taking into account all the dimensions of man in our age of globalization. Obviously, we need
a new vision of man, and then we need to pass from theory to practice, and that's the role of lifelong learning.
And finally, we need UNESCO. These will be the three parts of my presentation.
A new vision of man, to my mind, should revolve around three concepts. Complexity, diversity,
responsibility. In order to take into account the whole of man in his, her complexity, all men
in their diversity, and men in their environment. For complexity, I shall refer to Edgar Morin,
who has analyzed this concept very beautifully in La Complexity, Human. The classical heritage
rested on the conception of man as a rational creature, and on the power of reason, remember
Erasmus, Descartes, Locke, John Locke. But even at the time, however, there were a few voices
raised to question the infallibility of reason. David Hume, Kant, Rousseau pointed out the importance
of sensibility in human behavior. The animal part of man was not to be eclipsed by the rational part.
Indeed, long before that, Taoism had insisted on the balance of opposites in man. The recent
developments in science include contradictions as important elements in the quest for truth.
And of course, Sigmund Freud had added the role of the unconscious in human behavior. So the new
humanism must not limit its appeal to reason, it must take man as a whole. Almost appears, and also
almost demands, if I may use these two Latin expressions, in our complexity. This being admitted,
we must proceed one step further to consider now all men in their diversity. And first of all, in this
diversity, make sure that by man we also mean women. We know that the battle for equity, for the full
recognition of their rights, is far from being won. Besides, classical humanism was basically Eurocentric,
ignoring the age-old cultures and values of other parts of the world. And for that reason, post-colonial
writers like Edouard Said, but he's not the only one, have associated classical humanism with colonialism.
And we all know the famous phrase of Kipling, the white man's burden, by which he meant the burden of
white men to bring Western civilization to colonized people. And by Western civilization, he meant English civilization.
Classical humanism was also an elite movement. It was spreading among the political, social, cultural elites of the time.
The French Revolution, with its ideals of liberty, equality, fraternity, had proclaimed the rights of the underprivileged.
For all these reasons, the new humanism insists on the importance of cultural diversity.
New culture is superior to another one. None has, and I'm quoting Madame Bocova, I'm sorry she's no longer here, to hear herself,
new culture has a universal monopoly. No individual, as a consequence, is to be discriminated against because of its differences.
Cultural diversity was the catchword of the 60s. Now half a century later, it has been realized that excessive culturalism could lead to cultural relativism,
and also could prompt some people to speak of a clash of civilizations by which they meant a clash of cultures, of rival cultures,
a trend obviously as dangerous as cultural uniformity could be. Hence, the new humanism must focus on what all human beings have in common,
the values they all share without ignoring their differences, of course. Among these values, there is respect for the environment.
Edgar Morin, coming back to him, has coined a beautiful concept. He speaks of rilliance, and by rilliance, he means the interconnection of all human beings and the world they live in.
Global warming, deforestation, droughts are responsible for famines, epidemics, and all these enjoy that man should feel responsible for the preservation of our planet and the future, the well-being of future generations.
So a new vision of man must necessarily revolve around these three concepts, complexity, diversity, solidarity.
But it must not remain limited to abstract reflection among philosophers. It must pass from theory to practice, and that is where lifelong learning has a vital role to play.
Humanism is everyday life, and education is the surest way of building it into the minds of children and adults alike.
Lifelong learning is, first of all, a matter of principle. There will be no humanism without asserting that each individual has a right to education.
One of the rights of men has a right to education throughout life, and that is still not the case.
The goal of Dakar, education for all by 2015, will not be reached. We know that millions of children, especially girls, have no access to education.
Millions of adults are still illiterate, and even in industrialized countries. In this field, URL is playing an important role in the fight against illiteracy.
In lifelong learning, informal education must not be forgotten. Millions of individuals have not been to school, or they have left school without qualifications, without certifications.
But they have been formed to what I shall call the school of life, and that must be recognized in their life.
The recognition of experiential learning is gaining ground, and here again, thank you URL for doing excellent work in preparing the guidelines promoting that recognition.
So humanism needs, first of all, a forceful assertion of the right to education throughout life for everyone.
But of course, it's not only a matter of principle, it's also a matter of contents. What can be the humanistic education for the future?
It must be an answer to the three requirements defined in the new vision of man.
It should be an education avoiding specialization. Specialization still is an important asset for scientists.
It makes progress possible in this or that narrow field of knowledge. But it also leads to a fragmentation of knowledge, cutting learners from a consciousness of that extraordinary complexity our century has to cope with.
And for that reason, it becomes a source of alienation. The humanistic education should deprive nobody of that general culture so highly appreciated, by the way, by the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, though at the time it was reserved for the happy few.
Now it should be extended to everybody.
It must be an education giving due importance to the social sciences and the humanities.
We could give here loads of examples. Just a few will serve my purpose.
History teaches the lessons of the past, and an individual must know where he comes from before he decides where he is going to.
Geography is the big book of cultural diversity. The law absolutely necessary in that education for all because it is a foundation of liberty.
Men are social animals, they live in society, and there is no society without rules and laws, without a keen knowledge of their rights, but also of their duties.
Men go back to the state of nature, as defined by Thomas Hobbes.
Science is necessary, if only for sustainable development to preserve Mother Earth.
Ethics, to fight against discrimination, to teach respect for other individuals in their diversity, and the respect for the foreigner.
Here I'll quote Jacques de Rida when he says, opening the laws of hospitality to the foreigner to whom hospitality is due.
I would like to make a special case for languages in that curriculum. A language is a window open unto the world.
This sentence of George Steiner insists on the fact that a language is always the vehicle of a culture.
Cultural diversity is inseparable from linguistic diversity.
Claude Dajège, a famous linguist you all know, insists on the importance of learning several languages, if possible, but especially the language of one's neighbour.
And he developed this point in a very recent book published this year, and called Contre la pense unique, by which he means, Contre une l'en l'unique.
Learning the language of one's neighbour promotes good understanding, exchanges, mutual knowledge, and respect.
And of course, the learning of languages is inseparable from mobility, especially for young people.
Such programmes as Erasmus, Comenius, Erasmus Mundus are highly valuable for this new humanism, and they are to be extended as widely as possible.
Don't let us forget the role of teachers, who among us does not remember the teacher who has shown us the way, and very often decided of our future.
Teachers are the pillars of the whole fabric, and yet there is at the moment a deep crisis in this field.
Lack of teachers, insufficient qualification, lack of confidence between teachers and learners, difficult conditions of life and work.
If lifelong learning is to be the flagship of a new humanism, then it must pay due attention to teachers.
To finish with this second part, I think I would like to go back to a document which has been mentioned already by Madame Bocova, and that is the report of Jacques Delors to UNESCO in 1996.
You remember, Le education un tresor et cachet de dans, learning the treasure within, he defined the four missions of education.
Education must teach learners to be, that is, to become conscious of their complexity, to assume it, and to fulfil all their potentialities.
To teach learners to do, that is, to teach them how to find their place in society, to find a job, because work is inseparable from human dignity.
To teach them to learn third pillar, that is, to develop their critical spirit, their ability to judge by themselves and to refuse all forms of alienation, and to live together to accept and respect others in their diversity to promote a culture of peace.
This expression, to build a culture of peace in the minds of men, you recognise this expression, it is in the document which founded UNESCO.
And this brings me to my last part, the role of UNESCO.
We need UNESCO for three reasons, and it has a role to play for three reasons.
Its legitimacy, its organisation, its normative function.
Its legitimacy first.
UNESCO is the only international organisation whose missions, written in its very name, include education, science, culture and communication.
UNESCO is the only organisation that covers the whole world with its 195 members.
We said at the beginning that one of the limits of the classical heritage was its Eurocentrism.
Quite obviously, UNESCO is fully adapted, on the contrary, to our age of globalisation.
Its structures are meant to reach all parts of our planet.
The headquarters are intimately connected with the several institutes for education that you know, each one with its speciality and all of them complementary.
You won't be surprised if I quote the URL first, because to my mind, lifelong learning is definitely the overarching umbrella that covers all we would like to say and to do in the field of education.
But there is also IB, Centre of Excellence for Curricula, or IIPE, for the training of staff.
I would like to insist on the two networks UNESCO is responsible for, two networks whose efficiency is highly highlighted by all delegations when they come for the General Conference.
I mean the network of UNESCO chairs in the field of higher education and research, and the network of associated schools for primary and secondary education.
Both networks bring together researchers, teachers, students, pupils, institutions to co-operate, to exchange in a well understood solidarity and full respect of one's partners and a full share of common values.
The normative function of UNESCO is not to be underrated.
Of course, most recommendations reached by consensus at UNESCO have no binding power.
But they do exist, and they serve as references to whoever needs them to argue in favour of one or another reform.
It's different for the conventions signed by the member states who then commit themselves to implement them.
Among the major conventions relevant to our field of lifelong learning, let us remember the Convention Against Discrimination in the Field of Education, 1960,
the Convention on the Rights of Children, 1989, and more recently, the Convention on the Protection of Cultural Diversity, 2005.
Many more examples could be given, but I think it's time to conclude because I do not want to tax your patience over much.
My conclusion will be very brief because I leave it to Madame Bocova, as I fully support what she says when she declares,
building the ramparts of human dignity in everyday life is not a utopian quest.
Humanism is a promise we must all keep.
Of course, it will not be easy every day. There will be difficulties, but we all know the proverb,
where there is a will, there is a way.
Thank you.