Dialogue Across Cultures: An Interview with Raginee Poloogadoo

Interview Responses

Raginee Poloogadoo

24 August 2026

Note: These responses present personal reflections and do not represent the official position of any employer, public institution, advisory body, professional association, company or organisation. No confidential mediation or case information is disclosed.

1. A personal and intercultural understanding of peace

Peace may be understood differently depending on a person’s history, culture, migration experience and professional journey. Living and working across different societies can reveal both the universal dimensions of peace and the ways in which culture shapes communication, belonging and conflict.

How have your personal journey and your experiences in Mauritius and Luxembourg shaped your understanding of peace? What does peace mean to you today, both as an individual and as a mediator?

My understanding of peace has been shaped by movement between different societies, cultures and languages. I was born and raised in Mauritius and later moved to Luxembourg in 2012. Both countries are multicultural and multilingual, but they express that diversity in very different ways. My own journey has therefore taught me that coexistence does not automatically create understanding; people can live next to one another while interpreting respect, family, authority, communication or community very differently.

Today, I do not define peace simply as the absence of conflict. Conflict is part of human relationships. For me, peace is the ability to disagree without destroying the relationship or the dignity of the other person. It means having a space where people can speak, be heard and try to understand what lies behind the other's position.

My legal background originally led me towards resolving disputes through rights and legal arguments. Mediation changed that perspective. It showed me that there does not always have to be a winner and a loser. Sometimes the most important outcome is that people regain enough communication, recognition and control to move forward. That idea has remained central throughout my professional journey.

As a mediator, peace therefore means creating the conditions in which people can find their own way out of conflict while preserving dignity, fairness and human relationships wherever possible.

2. Intercultural communication as a foundation for peace

In multilingual and multicultural societies, conflict may arise not only from opposing interests but also from different communication styles, unspoken expectations and interpretations of respect, authority or fairness. At the same time, explaining every disagreement through culture can create stereotypes.

Based on your academic background in multilingual and multicultural communication and your experience in cultural mediation, how can mediators recognise the influence of culture without reducing individuals to cultural labels? What communication abilities are most important for transforming diversity into dialogue rather than division?

My academic work in multilingual and multicultural communication has made me particularly cautious about explaining someone's behaviour simply through their culture. Culture matters, but it is only one dimension of a person.

My research on the neutrality posture of intercultural mediators reinforced this understanding. The study showed that even professional mediators can interpret and practise neutrality differently. Ten intercultural mediators from different geographical backgrounds were interviewed, and the findings demonstrated that neutrality itself is not always understood in one uniform way.

For me, this has an important implication: a mediator should use cultural knowledge as a question, not as an answer. I may recognise that a communication style could have a cultural dimension, but I should never assume that an individual behaves in a certain way because of nationality, religion, ethnicity or language.

This is also consistent with my earlier interest in language, including my work on Hinglish and Mauritian Creole. Language is not merely a tool for transmitting information; it can also carry identity, belonging and social meaning.

The essential abilities are therefore active listening, curiosity, reframing, empathy, linguistic sensitivity and the capacity to check meaning rather than assume it. A mediator also needs self-awareness: we must recognise our own cultural references and biases.

Diversity becomes dialogue when people are given the possibility to explain what something means to them, rather than having someone else define their identity for them.

3. Coexistence and the experience of belonging in Luxembourg

Luxembourg’s diversity is one of its defining characteristics. Nevertheless, living peacefully alongside one another does not necessarily mean that everyone feels heard, recognised or able to participate equally. Genuine coexistence may require trust, representation and meaningful contact between communities.

Speaking only from your personal perspective, where do you believe intercultural coexistence is working well in Luxembourg, and where does it remain fragile or incomplete? What helps a person move from simply living in Luxembourg to genuinely feeling that they belong here?

Luxembourg has achieved something remarkable in bringing together people of many nationalities, languages and cultural backgrounds within a very small territory. Multilingualism is visible in schools, workplaces, municipalities, associations and everyday life.

But coexistence and belonging are not exactly the same thing.

A person may live and work in Luxembourg for many years and still feel that they are standing slightly outside society. In my view, belonging begins when a person no longer feels merely tolerated or administratively included, but feels heard, recognised and able to contribute.

My work has shown me how quickly language barriers, different communication habits or perceptions of institutions can create misunderstandings. In a previous interview on social mediation, I explained that sometimes people come to mediation not because there is already a major conflict, but because they do not know how to communicate something to another person or institution. Cultural or linguistic differences can change how a message is transmitted and received.

This is where I believe Luxembourg still has work to do. Integration cannot be limited to living side by side. We need meaningful opportunities for people to meet, participate, speak and be represented.

Belonging develops through relationships. It can begin with something as simple as being greeted by a neighbour, being able to express yourself in a public service, being invited to participate in a local initiative or feeling that your contribution is valued.

Peaceful coexistence ultimately becomes sustainable when people stop seeing diversity as groups occupying the same territory and start seeing one another as participants in a shared society.

4. Neighbourhood conflicts and peace in everyday life

Disputes between neighbours may appear minor compared with national or international conflicts, yet they directly affect people’s safety, dignity and quality of life. They can also reveal differences concerning privacy, noise, shared space, community rules and ways of communicating dissatisfaction.

What can your experience with neighbourhood and community disputes teach us about peace in everyday life? How can municipalities, local organisations and residents intervene earlier so that small disagreements do not develop into lasting hostility or social division?

Neighbourhood mediation has taught me that peace is often built - or lost - in very ordinary situations.

A disagreement about noise, a hedge, parking, construction, an animal or a shared boundary may appear insignificant from the outside. But when people experience the problem every day, the conflict becomes emotional. The neighbour is still there tomorrow morning, and the day after that. Over time, the original problem may become secondary to resentment, mistrust and the feeling of not being respected.

This was also visible in the research I conducted with the LEADER Éislek partner municipalities. The study identified recurring disputes concerning nuisances, construction, parking, servitudes, plantations, property damage and communication. Among the municipalities without an existing mediation service, ten out of thirteen expressed support for establishing a regional neighbourhood-mediation service.

My practical experience confirms that early intervention is crucial. In my Esch interview, I emphasised first trying respectful dialogue, because sometimes the other neighbour is not even aware of the disturbance. When this is no longer possible, a neutral third party can help restore communication.

Municipalities can contribute by providing accessible mediation services, clear referral procedures and staff trained to recognise escalating conflict. Local associations can create opportunities for residents to meet before problems arise.

We should not underestimate simple social contact. Greeting one another, knowing who lives next door and having opportunities to meet are small forms of conflict prevention.

For me, peacebuilding therefore begins very close to home.

5. Family mediation, vulnerability and the limits of dialogue

Family conflict can involve intense emotions, long histories, unequal power and decisions affecting children or other vulnerable persons. Mediation may help restore communication, but it must not be used where safety, genuine consent or fairness cannot be protected.

From your experience in socio-family and family mediation, what conditions are necessary for dialogue to become constructive rather than harmful? How can mediators protect dignity, safety and the interests of children or vulnerable persons, and where should the limits of mediation be drawn?

Family mediation requires particular care because the conflict often involves much more than the issue that appears on the surface. There may be years of emotional history, dependency, fear, financial inequality and, most importantly, decisions affecting children.

Dialogue can only be constructive when participation is genuinely voluntary and each person is able to express themselves freely. Before mediation, it is therefore important to assess safety, capacity, power imbalances and the expectations of the participants.

Confidentiality and neutrality are important, but they are not sufficient if one participant is frightened of the other or is unable to negotiate freely.

In cases involving children, I believe adults must continually distinguish their conflict as former partners from their continuing responsibilities as parents. The child's interests cannot become another negotiating instrument.

There are also limits to mediation. I do not believe that every conflict should be mediated simply because mediation exists. Where there is serious violence, coercion, intimidation, an immediate safeguarding concern or an imbalance that cannot be managed within the process, other forms of professional or legal intervention may be necessary.

The mediator must therefore be capable not only of opening dialogue but also of recognising when dialogue within mediation would be inappropriate.

Respecting the limits of mediation is, in my view, part of respecting mediation itself.

6. Workplace conflict, diversity and organisational peace

Workplace disagreements may concern hierarchy, communication, recognition, discrimination, workload or different cultural expectations. When employees do not feel heard, unresolved conflict can damage well-being, trust and an organisation’s ability to retain people.

How can organisations identify and address workplace conflict before it becomes a formal complaint or causes employees to leave? What role can mediation, leadership and inclusive organisational policies play in creating workplaces in which differences can be expressed constructively?

Many workplace conflicts do not begin as formal disputes. They begin with small communication failures, perceptions of unfairness, lack of recognition, unclear responsibilities, hierarchical tensions or differences in expectations.

If these issues are repeatedly ignored, the relationship deteriorates. People stop speaking directly to one another, positions become fixed, absenteeism may increase and, eventually, the organisation can lose valuable employees.

My professional work has included conflicts relating to hierarchy, harassment, discrimination, prejudice and other workplace difficulties. I have consistently advocated having a confidential and independent space where people can speak without immediately feeling judged.

Organisations should therefore develop what I would call an early conflict culture rather than waiting for a crisis. Managers should be trained to recognise changes in relationships and communication. Employees should know where they can raise concerns safely. Policies on dignity, inclusion, discrimination and harassment must be clear and credible.

Mediation can play an important role, particularly when the objective is to restore communication or a working relationship. However, mediation should not automatically replace formal investigation when allegations are serious or when an organisation has legal or safeguarding obligations.

Leadership is crucial. Employees observe not only what an organisation says about inclusion but also how leaders react when disagreement occurs.

Organisational peace does not mean a workplace where nobody disagrees. It means a workplace where disagreement can occur without humiliation, exclusion or fear.

7. Choosing the right response to different forms of conflict

Your experience extends across civil, commercial, criminal, family, workplace and community matters. These conflicts differ in their legal context, power relationships and impact on individuals. Mediation can be valuable, but it is not automatically the appropriate response in every situation.

Across these different areas, how should professionals determine whether mediation is suitable and what form it should take? What have these diverse experiences taught you about the common human needs that often exist beneath very different kinds of disputes?

My experience across different areas of mediation has taught me one principle above all: mediation is valuable, but mediation is not the answer to every conflict.

Before beginning, professionals should consider whether participation is voluntary, whether the parties are capable of negotiating freely, whether there are serious safety concerns, whether significant power imbalances can be managed, and whether the dispute requires an authoritative legal or institutional decision instead.

The purpose of mediation is not to prevent someone from exercising their rights.

Where mediation is appropriate, its form should also adapt to the conflict. A commercial dispute may require structured negotiation around interests, risks and future business relationships. A neighbourhood dispute may first require rebuilding basic communication. A family dispute may need particular attention to emotional history and children. Workplace mediation requires awareness of organisational hierarchy and dependency.

Despite these differences, I have repeatedly encountered very similar human needs underneath conflicts: people want dignity, recognition, fairness, security and an opportunity to be heard.

This is perhaps one reason mediation can work across such different fields.

My academic research also taught me to be cautious about assuming that concepts such as neutrality are self-evident. Professional practice requires continuous reflection about our own posture and about what fairness means within a particular process.

The mediator does not own the solution. Our responsibility is to create a fair process in which the parties can better understand their situation and determine what can realistically be done next.

8. From experience to an institutional vision for peace

A possible future independent, non-profit institute in Luxembourg would seek to connect applied research, education, dialogue and mediation, beginning with peace in everyday life and coexistence in a multilingual and multicultural society.

If such an institute were established, what need in Luxembourg should it address first, and what practical initiative would you recommend it begin with? How could it complement the work of existing public institutions, associations and professionals, and what gives you hope that people with different backgrounds can build peace together?

If an independent, non-profit institute for peace and dialogue were created in Luxembourg, I would begin with peace in everyday life.

Peace is often discussed in relation to international conflict, diplomacy or war. These are obviously essential dimensions. But a culture of peace is also created locally - in neighbourhoods, families, schools, associations, workplaces and communities.

My 2021 research in the Éislek region already demonstrated a concrete demand for structures that help municipalities and citizens address everyday conflicts earlier and more professionally. The study ultimately recommended a regional mediation service working in synergy with local partners.

I would therefore propose that the institute's first initiative be an Everyday Peace and Dialogue Lab.

It could bring together applied research, intercultural dialogue, conflict-prevention education and practical mediation. Municipalities could participate in pilot programmes; residents could attend dialogue sessions; professionals and frontline staff could receive communication and conflict-awareness training; and anonymised research could help us better understand where tensions arise and which interventions are effective.

The institute should not duplicate the work of existing mediators, associations, public institutions or professional organisations. Its added value would be to connect them - linking research with practice, local experience with education, and professionals with communities.

I would also want the institute to create a space where young people, researchers, mediators and citizens from different backgrounds can participate in conversations about coexistence rather than only discussing conflict once something has gone wrong.

What gives me hope is what I have observed repeatedly in mediation: behind very strong positions, people often still want surprisingly similar things - to be respected, to be understood and to live with dignity.

We may not always agree. Peace does not require us to agree on everything. It requires us to preserve the possibility of dialogue despite our differences.

That is where peace begins.

Selected public sources consulted

These sources were used to align the interview responses with the established academic and professional record and previously published interviews.

• Academic article - neutrality in intercultural mediation (Érudit): https://www.erudit.org/fr/revues/lex/2023-v28-n5-lex09054/

• Spuerkeess entrepreneur interview - mediation and professional journey: https://www.spuerkeess.lu/en/blog/entrepreneurship/the-indian-look-conflict-settler/

• Study - Gestion des conflits dans les communes partenaires de LEADER Éislek: https://www.psc.lu/data/%C3%89tude%20-%20Gestion%20des%20conflits%20dans%20les%20communes%20partenaires%20de%20LEADER%20%C3%89islek.pdf

• Diekirch municipal publication - social mediation interview: https://diekirch.lu/fileadmin/user_upload/Deiwelselter_Mee_2024_web.pdf

• Esch municipal publication - neighbourhood mediation interview: https://administration.esch.lu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/05/DEN_ESCHER-54.pdf

• Academic portfolio - earlier language and intercultural work: https://uni-lu.academia.edu/AnjRagH

Source questionnaire: “Peace Dialogues in Luxembourg - Interview Questions for Raginee Poloogadoo” (4 pages).