Heritage and interculturality in EU science diplomacy

The article examines how colonial heritage challenges European science diplomacy (SD) and argues for a shift from a diffusionist model—where knowledge flows predominantly from the Global North—to an entanglement and dialogical approach informed by interculturality. Contextualizing the rise of SD within EU initiatives (e.g., H2020 clusters) and the explicit entrance of heritage into SD debates, the authors highlight the enduring ties between European colonialism and scientific knowledge production. The purpose is to propose a framework enabling more equitable engagements with colonial legacies and to illustrate its practical implications through three cases: the Tendaguru fossil collection, the Royal Museum for Central Africa (Brussels), and the work of Canadian Indigenous artist Sonny Assu. The study underscores the importance of acknowledging colonial entanglements, opening epistemologically to diverse knowledges, and creating contact zones that include non-state actors and marginalized voices.

The paper surveys the historical and conceptual underpinnings linking science, colonialism, and diplomacy. It foregrounds the concept of “coloniality” as ongoing power relations post-formal decolonization and critiques the persistence of diffusionism in post-WWII institutions (e.g., UNESCO, Needham’s periphery principle). It reviews modernization theory’s imprint on SD and the enduring asymmetries in global knowledge production. In heritage diplomacy, it traces the shift from monumental, universalist preservation campaigns (e.g., Abu Simbel) to broader notions incorporating intangible heritage, rights-based approaches, and “heritage from below,” while critiquing celebratory “shared heritage” narratives that obscure colonial entanglements. The authors differentiate “heritage in diplomacy” and “heritage as diplomacy” and stress the growing role of non-state actors and networks. They introduce interculturality—drawing on intercultural communication and de Sousa Santos’s ecology of knowledges—as a normative, dialogical lens privileging contact zones, translation, and epistemic humility over Eurocentric universalism.

This is a conceptual and analytical paper that proposes an intercultural, decolonial framework for European science diplomacy in relation to colonial heritage. Methodologically, it synthesizes literature from science diplomacy, heritage diplomacy, decolonial theory, critical heritage studies, and intercultural communication to articulate a model centered on contact zones and dialogical knowledge exchange. The framework’s practical implications are illustrated via three qualitative case discussions: (1) the Tendaguru dinosaur fossil collection (Germany–Tanzania), focusing on restitution debates, capacity-building partnerships, and stakeholder inclusion; (2) the Royal Museum for Central Africa (Brussels), analyzing attempts at decolonizing museum practices and persistent epistemic hierarchies; and (3) the work of Indigenous artist Sonny Assu, demonstrating how art-based, non-state interventions function as heritage diplomacy and create intercultural contact zones.

• Diffusionist models in European SD reproduce colonial power asymmetries by positioning the Global South as passive recipients of knowledge; a shift to a dialogical, intercultural approach is necessary.
• Interculturality requires building contact zones and an ecology of knowledges where Western science is one knowledge system among many; translation and hybridity should be core practices.
• Case 1 (Tendaguru fossils): Treating colonial-era scientific collections as neutral scientific assets ignores coloniality and backfires diplomatically. Inclusive stakeholder processes and strong political mandates are vital. Tanzania’s pivot from restitution demands to capacity-building partnerships illustrates alternative, future-oriented collaborations but also highlights risks of institutional arrangements that may freeze deeper debates.
• Case 2 (Royal Museum for Central Africa): Despite efforts to reframe colonial histories and include diaspora voices, the museum’s scientific discourse remains largely delinked from colonial entanglements, maintaining epistemic hierarchies and separating “science” from African knowledge systems. Without genuine dialog and recontextualization, objects become de- and re-contextualized in ways that erase original knowledge and agency.
• Case 3 (Sonny Assu): Artists can act as effective non-state heritage diplomats. Art-based practices open contact zones, mobilize affect, and foreground Indigenous knowledge, offering potent critiques of coloniality and enabling intercultural exchanges beyond institutional constraints.
• Overall: European SD should incorporate non-state actors (artists, citizen groups, diaspora), acknowledge moral responsibilities linked to colonial heritage, consider restitution as mobility within dialog, and design infrastructures that institutionalize listening and co-production with partners outside Europe.

The findings directly address the paper’s core problem: how European SD can more equitably engage with colonial heritage. By demonstrating the inadequacy of diffusionist paradigms across heritage sites, collections, and museum practices, the paper shows that sustainable diplomatic engagement hinges on recognizing colonial entanglements and practicing interculturality. Establishing contact zones—where multiple knowledge systems meet under conditions of translation and mutual recognition—reorients SD from transmission to dialog and co-production. The cases reveal both opportunities and pitfalls: capacity-building without critical reflexivity may entrench hierarchies; museum “decolonization” that leaves scientific epistemologies unexamined sustains hegemony; art-led interventions can model more inclusive, affective, and dialogical practices. For the field, the significance lies in reframing SD infrastructures to include diverse agents, embed reflexivity about European science’s colonial histories, and normalize epistemic plurality in policy and practice.

The paper contributes a decolonial, intercultural model for European science diplomacy in relation to colonial heritage. It argues that SD must move beyond diffusionism to foster contact zones and an ecology of knowledges where Western science is provincialized and translation across epistemologies is prioritized. Three cases (Tendaguru fossils, RMCA Brussels, and Sonny Assu’s work) illustrate how colonial heritage exposes persistent epistemic hierarchies and how inclusive, artist- and community-involved approaches can open more equitable pathways. The authors call for SD infrastructures—museums, research institutions, diplomatic practices—to be reconfigured to listen to and integrate non-European perspectives, consider restitution as part of dialogic mobility, and embed self-critical reflection on science’s colonial entanglements. Future work should operationalize intercultural SD through concrete policies for stakeholder inclusion, knowledge co-production, and evaluation frameworks that value plural epistemologies.