Communication on 10 December 2024 from our Past President to the European Parliament, who had invited 8 speakers from organisations taking part in the dialogue on Article 17 of the TFEU. Once again, it is regrettable that only 2 organisations were philosophical and non-denominational and that, on the other hand, 6 represented religious groups of all kinds.

AEPL's contribution, presented by Claude WACHTELAER, can be read below or viewed at streaming.

Ladies and gentlemen, allow me first of all to express my thanks to the Vice-President for her invitation, which gives us the opportunity to take part in this seminar.

Having spent my entire professional career in the field of education, I have on many occasions seen the importance of contact between young people and their elders.

I know that talking about the past often arouses great interest when children or teenagers meet people who have had interesting and sometimes dramatic experiences.

We therefore approve the principle of this initiative and support the general idea.

Nevertheless, we feel it is necessary to express a few caveats about its implementation and the objectives it is intended to serve.

If we want to learn from the past to avoid future mistakes, we need to take a few precautions.

The illusion of "it was better before sometimes leads people to refer to a mythical past. The present is criticised without always having reliable information about the past with which it is compared. We think that the information we rely on is correct, but we don't try to check whether what we believe is true. It would therefore be desirable for intergenerational dialogue to serve as a means of reading the past as objectively as possible.

Learning from the past is often linked to tradition, roots and identity. These are all things that bind us together, but sometimes blind us. The human race developed from communities that gradually grew larger. In a way, this evolutionary characteristic was and still is necessary for our survival, because it creates a solidarity that is specific to the group. But this group cohesion can blind us. This phenomenon tends to grow stronger as the great religious traditions and secular ideologies weaken and are often replaced by smaller, more radical groups. The values and identities of one group then clash with those of another, creating conflict. With Amin Maalouf, let us always remember that our identities can become deadly.

In Europe, a growing number of citizens seem to be seeking solace in their country's glorious past or in their traditional beliefs and ways of life. This is a reaction to the threats - real or imagined - posed by developments such as immigration and the secularisation of society. We need to be aware of the error of a populist re-reading of political or cultural history. We do not deny the reality of the challenges posed by some of these developments, but the answer does not lie in a retreat into timid identities. If there is a danger, we must avert it by promoting a cross-disciplinary dialogue between different traditions in order to build consensus. Intergenerational dialogue should serve this purpose.

In a period of rapid change and growing uncertainty, we are seeing the emergence of sometimes contradictory behaviours that give rise to fears of a widening generation gap. Some researchers have even gone so far as to talk of a generation clash. Putting young and old in dialogue could therefore, paradoxically, freeze these categories and reinforce stereotypes. At what age are we old, until what age are we teenagers? We talk about youthism, we criticise the old who cling to their professional or social positions. We could instead consider a more flexible approach that does not lock people into boxes and that takes greater account of individual skills. For example, is it reasonable to extend the length of schooling for young people but not make it easier for people in their fifties to return to education? This could pave the way for a post-generational society in which young and old would not be facing each other, but side by side.

The tradition to which we refer at AEPL has its own characteristics. Firstly, the conviction that our identities, however important, must take second place to our common humanity. The second is the method we use, free examination. As defined by Maxime GLANSDORFF, professor at the University of Brussels, "It is concerned with the methodical renewal of ideas and repugnant to their compulsory preservation". So we need to subject every important issue to a critical and lucid assessment that takes into account the lessons of the past as well as what the future expects of us.

These are the foundations on which we intend to build our contribution to this initiative, with the firm determination to make it emancipating and progressive. We cannot face the future - however uncertain it may be - looking only in the rear-view mirror.

Claude Wachtelear, Past President