ABSTRACT
Interculturality value networks indicate (a) we can approach a culture or cultural phenomenon as a networked whole of cultures, (b) we can facilitate intercultural interaction by understanding underlying values of each culture in a situation, and (c) we can reveal new values from intercultural interaction that can reshape interculturality. Such ontological, epistemological, and axiological interculturality allows individuals of each culture to identify their own interculturality and participate in mutual feedback and feedforward relations between the multilayered self and multiple cultural realities. As argued in Chapters 8 and 9, for example, epistemological interculturality can be seen as crucial to revealing values embedded in each culture and identifying emergent values arising from intercultural interaction. This interculturality is yet to be a whole because its dualistic approach tends to conceal ontological assumptions and axiological interaction of values. In intercultural interaction, ontological interculturality articulates the subject-subject relationship and promotes a new form of transcultural and networked individuality in intercultural interaction, whereas axiological interculturality engenders collective and situated moral values that further facilitate transformative participation. However, low individuality of ontological interculturality and high totalism of axiological interculturality may restrict individual participants to verbalising and hypostatising intercultural values, which can be prevented by the constant tensions of value-interaction of epistemological interculturality. This metaphysically interrelated and interconnected interculturality justifies that intercultural education should aim to facilitate intercultural interaction by assuming intercultural value networks and to seek intercultural pedagogies by pursing new individuality. The three metaphysical dimensions of interculturality are meaningful and helpful in addressing metaphysical issues in today’s multicultural education including the absence of the self in self-reflection, the non-subject position of non-Western cultures in intercultural interaction, and the culture-unbound methods and concepts. In the conclusion of this study, in this sense, I will further articulate my intercultural valuism as an alternative pedagogy for intercultural education through its integration into the key concepts of intercultural value networks addressed in Chapter 6.
