Peter Anders has run the Goethe Institute in Beijing since May 2011. He has also headed the German cultural institute in Cameroon, Brazil (Salvador da Bahia) and Bulgaria. Here, he tells Deutsche Welle about the challenges of intercultural dialogue in China.

Deutsche Welle: You have been head of the Goethe Institute in Beijing since May last year. What was especially jarring at the beginning?

Peter Anders: When you arrive in a country that is booming and is such an economic engine, then you sometimes wonder why some things aren't like in Europe. For example, ways of behaving during conversations or decisions which are not always easy to understand.

After a couple of weeks in China, you wrote an article about how you dealt with other patterns of thought. You explained it in philosophical terms. What we depict as “sein” or “being” in Germany does not seem to have an equivalent in China, instead there is the notion of a process.

This has to do with Taoism and a different notion of identity and the individual. In Chinese, this really means the idea of being in flux, in the process of becoming. We can't always understand this because we not only like to name things directly and concisely but also to decide upon them accordingly. We go from one result to the next for instance and are not so good at thinking about other ways or diversions.

Could you give me an example where this was particularly noticeable to you?

Practically all the time. As a westerner you approach a conversation with a particular goal. You say to yourself you want to bring a topic to such a point that you know when, where and how it will unfold. Then you notice that you've ended up somewhere completely different and the clarification of open questions is no longer the point of your conversation which has moved on to other matters. You wonder how to get back to your goal and generally you can't, so you have to have another conversation and all this seems so natural...

The Chinese probably have similar issues with Europeans, especially this year which is that of "Cultural Dialogue between China and Europe." Recently, European cultural institutes - yours included - published a joint bilingual "cultural compass" to provide guidance. I was especially interested in the question: "Are we meaning the same, when we say the same?" For example, regarding the notion of "culture."

Culture in Chinese is much more about processes because the word is made up of two parts - "wén" and "huà" - "culture" and "change." So if you talk about "wénhuà" in Chinese the dynamic process of cultural encounter is already included in the message.

In a European context, the word culture goes back to agriculture. Does that not mean that Europeans are a bit half-hearted and perhaps behind when it comes to cultural thought?

Yes, but there are ministers who first have the agriculture portfolio and then go on to the ministry of culture, which can result in very amusing blossoms. Of course, in China agriculture has always been extremely important and still is...

What do such differences mean for your work promoting intercultural dialogue?

Different meanings and approaches are visible when projects are being created. You're more likely to succeed if you pitch an idea to a partner in such a way that is so appealing he will think it was his original idea. That's better than telling him, as a westerner, how you want something to be done.

For years you have dealt with other cultures as part of your job and you're an expert in cultural dialogue. Have you changed your intercultural strategy since arriving in China?

Yes because you have to negotiate all the obstacles. You fail if you try to steer toward things directly. You could call it patience but I would say that you learn to place more emphasis on the process during the development of projects.

Interview: Aya Bach/act

Editor: Sarah Berning