Table Of ContentNumanities - Arts and Humanities in Progress 9
Alin Olteanu
Multiculturalism
as Multimodal
Communication
A Semiotic Perspective
Numanities - Arts and Humanities in Progress
Volume 9
Series Editor
Dario Martinelli, Faculty of Creative Industries, Vilnius Gediminas Technical
University, Vilnius, Lithuania
Theseriesoriginatesfromtheneedtocreateamoreproactiveplatformintheform
of monographs and edited volumes in thematic collections, to discuss the current
crisis of the humanities and its possible solutions, in a spirit that should be both
critical and self-critical.
“Numanities” (New Humanities) aim to unify the various approaches and
potentials of the humanities in the context, dynamics and problems of current
societies, and in the attempt to overcome the crisis.
Theseries isintended totargetanacademicaudienceinterestedinthefollowing
areas:
– Traditional fields of humanities whose research paths are focused on issues of
current concern;
– New fields of humanities emerged to meet the demands of societal changes;
– Multi/Inter/Cross/Transdisciplinary dialogues between humanities and social
and/or natural sciences;
– Humanities “in disguise”, that is, those fields (currently belonging to other
spheres), that remain rooted in a humanistic vision of the world;
– Forms of investigations and reflections, in which the humanities monitor and
critically assess their scientific status and social condition;
– Forms of research animated by creative and innovative humanities-based
approaches;
– Applied humanities.
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/14105
Alin Olteanu
Multiculturalism
as Multimodal
Communication
A Semiotic Perspective
123
Alin Olteanu
International Semiotics Institute
Kaunas University of Technology
Kaunas,Lithuania
ISSN 2510-442X ISSN 2510-4438 (electronic)
Numanities - Arts andHumanities in Progress
ISBN978-3-030-17882-6 ISBN978-3-030-17883-3 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17883-3
©SpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG2019
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpart
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
orinformationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilar
methodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfrom
therelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
hereinorforanyerrorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade.Thepublisherremainsneutralwithregard
tojurisdictionalclaimsinpublishedmapsandinstitutionalaffiliations.
ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbytheregisteredcompanySpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG
Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:Gewerbestrasse11,6330Cham,Switzerland
To all refugees.
Preface
This monograph was written during a two-year postdoctoral research period at
Kaunas University of Technology, from 2016 to 2018. This was possible, first of
all, because of the International Semiotics Institute, hosted at this university at the
time.Ishallallowmyselfareformulationofthiscontextthatconveystothereadera
personal perspective. This monograph on multiculturalism was written in Eastern
Europe, more specifically, in former Soviet-occupied territory. The project started
intheyearoftheBrexitreferendumintheUK,oftheelectionofDonaldTrumpas
the President of theUSA,andthe general rising ofantidemocratic populism inthe
European Union and, in general, around the world. During the writing of this
monograph, some developing members of the European Union, such as Poland,
Hungary and Romania, seem to have lost their national justice institutions to oli-
garchic political regimes. Italy arrived at yet another political crisis, seemingly
solved through the coalition of the two openly racist political parties, as together
leading in vote numbers. Particularly, this rise of antidemocratic tendencies is
connectedwiththeglobalrefugeeandhumanitariancrisis,which,inafalserhetoric
of populist politicians, is deemed as the cause for the social problems of the
Western, developed world.
As democracy is in global decline and nationalist and, implicitly, isolationist
discourses are fueling hatred toward one’s neighbors, some fortunate (underpaid
and overworked) academics still have a safe space, with a desk and a library, to
write and speak their minds honestly. This monograph points fingers at these
academics and timidly cries out, irresponsible hypocrites! Its main purpose is that
of criticizing the mainstream academic theories of multiculturalism, as particularly
relevanttodemocracy,globalization,digitalizationandinterculturalcommunication
that, as seen on the territory, failed to deliver a program for democracy and con-
viviality. The reason identified for this failure is not so much the failure to
implementresearchintoactualpolicy,asoftendiscussed,but,mostly,theacademic
argumentation itself. More precisely, this reason is the comfortable and slothful
lingeringinacademicdiscourseofanideologicaltheoryofculture,firstsignaledby
Eriksen and Stjernfelt (2010, 2012). Yet another, connected reason, is the sloth-
fulnessofhumanitiesresearchingeneral,theverycrisisofthehumanities,andthe
vii
viii Preface
reluctance of this academic area to keep up the pace with, first of all, social and
natural sciences, and, also, with the digitalization of human societies. This second
reason constitutes the red thread of the book series to which this volume belongs
(see Martinelli 2016). In this second regard particularly, the author is obliged to
pointhisaccusingfingersathimselfandathisbook,aswell.Thereismuchworkto
be done toward the reformation of the humanities as appropriate for these revolu-
tionary times.
Bothontheacademicandonthepoliticalscenes,thesituationissimultaneously
desperate and opportune, as Dario Martinelli considers as well that the impasse
of the humanities is a very valuable opportunity (2016).
In an interview in 2012, Umberto Eco stated:
TheuniversityexchangeprogrammeErasmusisbarelymentionedinthebusinesssections
ofnewspapers,yetErasmushascreatedthefirstgenerationofyoungEuropeans.Icallita
sexualrevolution:ayoungCatalanmanmeetsaFlemishgirl—theyfall inlove,theyget
married and they become European, as do their children. The Erasmus idea should be
compulsory—notjustforstudents,butalsofortaxidrivers,plumbersandotherworkers.By
this,I meanthey need to spend time in other countries within theEuropean Union; they
shouldintegrate.(EcoinRiotta2012a,b)
I agree with Umberto Eco’s argument. Eco argued for the seemingly trivial,
hippie idea of “making love not war” through an anecdote. He explained how a
Catalan and a Flemish exchange student fall in love and establish a family, thus
leaving behind ideologies of separatism in favor of a non-ideological ethnic and
culturalidentityblindness.ThisledEcotocallEuropeanstudyexchangeprograms
a“sexualrevolution.”Eco’sexamplecontainsthreeelements:sex,learning,andthe
refutationofviolence.Eco’sanecdoteexcellentlysumsupthepresentmonograph’s
argument.
This monograph was written in times of war and merciless atrocities that the
author, like many academics located in (what are called) developed countries, has
never seen directly. The academic crisis of the humanities is simultaneous with a
humanitarian and refugee crisis. This crisis is easily described in numbers.
According to the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) (2018), in this
momentintime,thereare65.6millionforciblydisplacedpeople,outofwhich22.5
million arerefugees.Only 189,300ofthemhavebeenresettled.Out ofthese,only
17% are in Europe. The fact that 10 million people are stateless should urge us to
fundamentally change our concepts of state and citizenship. I consider that the
humanitarian crisis isrelatedtothecrisis ofthehumanities: Itisnotuncommonto
assume a connection between the diminished liberal curriculum and the decline of
democracy. As such, I salute Paul Cobley’s (in Bankov and Cobley 2017: 4–5)
criticismofNussbaum’s(2010)defenseofthehumanities:Whilethehumanitiesdo
not produce immediate profit, such as engineering or management does, they are
not entirely without profit. Humanities research should well seek to improve the
quality of humans living in the here and now.
In a local concern, while theRepublic of Lithuaniahas room to host academics
toresearchmulticulturalism—nosmallthing—ithardlyhasanyroomforrefugees,
despite what policy research suggests. According to Aleknevičienė (2013),
Preface ix
individuals who have been granted asylum in Lithuania feel as though they are
inferior, useless and unwanted outsiders (their human rights are limited, being
imprisoned,thatis,beingboundpsychologicallyandgeographically).TheUNHCR
data points out to Lithuania’s strategy of unlawfully detaining and imprisoning
asylumseekers,includingunaccompaniedminors.Arguably,Lithuanianauthorities
usethisstrategytokeeprefugeesawayfromLithuaniansocietyasmuchaspossible
untilwhen,eventually,theyareexpelled.Accordingtothenonprofitresearchcenter
the Global Detention Project (GDP) (2018), in 2014 alone, 1930 persons who
sought asylum in Lithuania were expelled. Given this hostile attitude toward asy-
lumseekers,itisimpossibleforthisvulnerablecommunitytodevelopsocialcapital
or to integrate and discover their place within Lithuanian society. Lithuanian
authorities achieved their purpose of spreading the rumor among refugees that
Lithuania is hostile toward them. As a result, refugees are avoiding Lithuania.
Unfortunately,whilethecaseofLithuaniaisparticularlyalarming,itisnottheonly
such situation.
The theoretical arguments that this monograph builds up revolve around con-
ceptualizations of culture. In short, starting with the beginning of the twentieth
century, and particularly after the Second World War, culture has been used as a
justification for separatism and even violence. This is where the mentioned ideo-
logical bias in cultural theories becomes visible. While I agree with Eco’s
above-mentioned “sexual revolution,” with all due respect to this most impressive
philosopher and semiotician of the twentieth century, I do not agree with him
anymore “that it is culture, not war, that cements our [European] identity” (Eco in
Riotta 2012a,b). In my opinion, war is most effective for cementing identity, be it
European or otherwise. Populist politicians are aware of this fact and use it per-
suasively.Actually,populistrhetoricoftenstartsfromtheotherend:Itemphasizesa
supposed importance of identity, cultural or otherwise, for the purpose of gener-
atingconflictandseparatism.Tohaveanidentitymeanstobedifferentfromothers.
To have a cultural identitymeans tobe the same as some, by opposition to others.
To Eco’s claim I answer that, for a peaceful and democratic European Union (or
any other political formation), we need to stop caring about cultural identity.
Cultural identity is by no means a prerequisite for enforcing human and citizen
rights. Neither is it necessary for communication and collaboration. I have all the
right reasons, even for the sake of nothing else but my own prosperity, to collab-
oratepeacefully.Peacefulcollaboration,developmentandscientificresearchcanbe
the outcomes of pragmatic (philosophical) reasoning, independent of cultural
identity.
Thepresentmonographargues,particularlyinviewofcertainsemiotictheories,
but not only, that culture does not play the central role that, in general, the
humanities have attributed to it, in identity formation and, more importantly, in
human organization and behavior. Umberto Eco’s claim about culture and identity
supposes (1) that a political formation (the EU) is only justified and functional on
the ground of an existing, corresponding cultural identity, (2) that culture cannot
havewar,orviolence,asacharacteristicandimplicitly(3)thatmonoculturalismis
less conflictual than multiculturalism. This view on culture is an ideological
x Preface
remnant of (early) twentieth century refutations of racism. It was used as an
argument to achieve the invaluable goal of refuting racism, but, nevertheless, it
justified isolationism on account of supposed cultural identity and values.
The advocated semiotic theory of multiculturalism is developed in six chapters.
The first chapter offers an overview of mainstream multiculturalism theories and
their development in view of an ideological concept of culture that implies the
possibilityofmonoculturalandmonolingualcommunities,arigidnotionofcultural
identity and the resulting theory of politics of recognition.
Thesecondchapterdiscussestherolethatsemiotictheoriesbasedonnotionsof
oppositionanddifferencehaveinforculturaltheoryandfortheconceptofcultural
identity. The theoretical inconsistencies of cultural relativism and its dangerous
implications for policy and politics are discussed.
In the third chapter, an argument in favor of mereological semiotics, compre-
hensive of the crucial roles of iconicity but also of indexicality, is elaborated.
Particularly, this chapter advocates for the necessity of biocentrism, achieved in
biosemiotics, of any cultural theory.
The fourth chapter consists in a discussion on versions of pragmatism and their
consequences for multiculturalism. Pluralism has been a debated topic in early
pragmatism. Some of the pragmatic accounts of pluralism result in arguments in
favor of isolationism as a means to preserve diversity. Biosemiotics inherited
Charles Peirce’s version of semiotic pragmatism, inclusive of his specific concept
ofcontinuityanditsimplicationsfortheconstrualofdiversityandpluralismthatdo
not endorse isolationism.
The fifth chapter develops a biosemiotic approach to multiculturalism, as an
alternative to existing anthropocentric and language-centered cultural relativist
theories.ThetheoryisfoundedonCobley’s(2016)biosemioticapproachtoculture.
Thesixthchapterjoinstogethertheelaboratedargumentswithsemiotictheories
of multimodal communication with the purpose of setting the ground for a new
theory of intercultural communication. The emerging theory is deemed aware of
embodiment phenomenology and its consequences for knowledge and communi-
cation, particularly as expressed in biosemiotics.
Kaunas, Lithuania Alin Olteanu
References
Aleknevičienė, Jolanta. 2013. (Iš)gyvenimas Lietuvoje: prieglobsčio ieškančiu ir prieglobsti
gavusiu užsieniečiu patirtis[Life(orsurvival)inLithuania:experiencesofforeignersseeking
asylum and those that have been granted asylum]. Etniškumo Studijos [Ethnicity Studies] 1:
86–106.
Bankov, Kristian, and Paul Cobley (eds.). 2017. Semiotics and its masters. Berlin: de Gruyter
Mouton.
Cobley,Paul.2016.Culturalimplicationsofbiosemiotics.Dordrecht:Springer.
