The
emergence of a sense of interdependence among regions, nations, societies,
and individuals is undeniable. Whether or not the idea of a "global
village"[1]
is only an imagined possibility or a realizable goal, the globalizing trends
enable the world to become an interconnected community, overcoming vast
distances as it is now and crossing virtually all borders. Yet, humanity
has never been as divided by wealth, power, influence, and accessibility to
economic, social, and cultural goods. Underlying this obvious paradox are
forces so serious and threatening to human survival that we, ordinary
citizens especially future national leaders, must learn to cope
courageously, intelligently, and effectively to, as a joint enterprise,
solve these troubling divisions.
I. The
Human Condition
It
is an unprecedented insight that our species has in recent decades been
acknowledged as an integral part of the evolutionary process. We are more
than simply a product of evolution because we also contribute, unfortunately
often negatively, to what for millions of years has been instrumental in
shaping our form of life. To put it more directly, we have become a factor
in determining the evolution of the natural environment as well as ourselves
as human beings. What we do as human beings has great consequences for
Mother Earth. Indeed, our activities are irreversibly endangering the
natural order.[2] The
Confucian idea that what we do as individuals in the privacy of our homes is
not only significant for us but also relevant to society, the nation, the
world, and the cosmos is not a figment of the imagination but an experienced
reality.[3]
Our
human impact on nature is such that environmental degradation and the
depletion of natural resources directly affect our own existence. It was
only thirty-five years ago, in 1968, when human beings, through the naked
eyes of the astronauts for the first time observed from space the entire
earth and our blue planet. Since then, facilitated by scientific
exploration, our seemingly eternal habitat provided by the bounty of nature
is actually vulnerable in very respect: soil, mineral, oil, water, and air.
Our conference will focus on yellow dust, acid rain, and marine pollution,[4]
but the list can be extended to include loss of forests and soil, global
warming, and the ozone problem. As the noted scholar Ji Xianlin of Peking
University poignantly reminded us, whereas conflicts among nations in the
last century were often occasioned by fights over oil, water may turn out to
be a source of contention in our lifetime.[5]
Equally devastating to the environment are the man-made instruments for
self-annihilation, notably weapons of mass destruction. Although these
devices are the result of ingenious scientific breakthroughs, they pose
grave threats to human survival. We have to come to the recent realization
that no matter how well protected a country is in terms of national defense,
the danger of being attacked is not necessarily reduced. A sense of
insecurity is pervasive even in the wealthiest and militarily most powerful
nation on earth. Human security is a highly desirable aspiration but not
easily achievable, clearly indicating that we are all vulnerable to forces
beyond our control. The case of terrorism is the most obvious. This shared
vulnerability makes international cooperation necessary, which may enhance
the need for collaborative efforts at all levels -- local, national,
regional, and global.
Despite the environmental crisis and the danger of man-made disasters,
however, there is hope and promise for humanity. Surely, our vulnerable
human condition raises frightening questions and causes great anxiety and
insecurity, but it is undeniable that since the Enlightenment of the
seventeenth century, the great Western transformation has engendered a
process of human liberation that has fundamentally redefined who we are and
what we can become. The scientific revolution, which brought about a series
of breathtaking technological inventions, empowered human ingenuity,
creativity, and productivity to such an extent that human beings have
virtually transformed themselves into co-creators of the cosmic process.[6] In
recent decades, the information revolution has changed the way we
communicate, interact, and live with one another. This emerging
network has made the ancient utopian idea, "within the four seas, all human
beings are brothers and sisters,"[7]
a lived experience.
The
exponential growth in international finance, trade, tourism, and immigration
makes the world an increasingly interconnected community. The formation of
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) throughout the world opens up the
possibility that transnational cooperation, more effective than the United
Nations, is emerging. The proposal for global governance is no longer the
dream of a few farsighted statesmen, but also the aspiration of numerous
self-defined citizens of the world. The eradication of abject poverty is
far from being realized, but the potential is there. Although faith in
globalization as an economic solution to inequality has met with a variety
of opposition, the belief is still strong that, through the
wealth-generating market, the rich will become richer and the poor may also
be the beneficiaries of this mechanism.
I am
not suggesting that a brave new world is upon us. Yet, if we examine the
benefits that science and technology have given to empower the human
species, we should be grateful that in many ways we are better off than all
our ancestors. These obvious benefits include food, public health,
Medicare, longevity, housing, transportation, and a host of other social and
cultural goods. Our knowledge about the cosmos (astronomy), subatomic
particles (physics), and the application of the genetic code
(biotechnology), not to mention the subtle forces that keep the universe
together, is unparalleled to any other period of human history. The idea of
progress is irrefutable. Indeed, our data, information, and knowledge about
nature have provided us with a holistic sense of our blue planet that is
intellectually captivating and aesthetically enchanting.
Human beings are far from being omnipresent, omniscient, or omnipotent. Yet
on this earth our presence is everywhere. From the tallest mountain to the
deepest ocean the human eye has observed with wonderment the geodiversity
and biodiversity of our habitat and the human hand has touched virtually all
aspects of the lifeboat that sustains us: soil, minerals, water, air,
plants, birds, and animals. Furthermore the human mind seems to have an
unlimited sensitivity to respond to the cosmos around us; the most distant
star or the tiniest piece of dust arouses our insatiable curiosity to
explore, to understand, and to appreciate. The human capacity has been so
enhanced that if it is put to productive use, the world can be substantially
improved as a hospitable environment for all creatures. The potential for
us to become the custodian of the earth is great. Human flourishing, in the
true sense of the term, lies in our stewardship for, rather than our
domination over, the blue planet.[8] The
resources available to us are rich. The crisis of the viability of the
human species may urge us to seek the best opportunity and, perhaps the
last, to save ourselves and realize our aspiration to be responsible
co-creators of the universe.
II.
Emergence of a Global Community
In
simplistic economic terms, globalization may mean "the removal of barriers
to free trade and the closer integration of national economies."[9]
Globalization so conceived is a positive trend rather than a sinister
force. It has the potential of enriching everyone, including the poor. It
is certainly the belief of the World Economic Forum where CEOs (chief
executive officers) of multinational corporations and political leaders
gather annually at Davos in Switzerland to discuss vital issues of the world
based on the proposition that globalization, like a rising tide of
prosperity, can actually lift all boats, both rich and poor. The Forum
symbolizes a tacit understanding, if not a formal declaration, that market
forces will eventually eradicate poverty and bring about an affluent society
that will benefit all developing countries.[10]
Critics of this optimistic view point out that, although several nations
have been successful in reducing the percentage of those living in poverty,
globalization has had a devastating effect on many developing countries,
especially on the poor within them. Furthermore, the so-called Washington
Consensus policies, defined in terms of liberalization and privatization,
have failed repeatedly to deal effectively with financial crises throughout
the world, notably the Asian financial crisis of 1997. Nevertheless,
despite the grave negative consequences of "market fundamentalism," the
liberalization of financial and capital markets and the privatization of
state enterprises seem unstoppable waves of the future. The increasing
pressures of free trade inevitably are transforming the world into an
interconnected network. A clear indication of this seemingly certain
process is the role of the World Trade Organization (WTO) as the major
arbiter of trade disputes.
Economic globalization is, of course, only part of the story. Obviously,
the jury is still out about its positive or negative impact on the human
community. The euphoria merely two decades ago has now dissipated.
Instead, critics of "market fundamentalism," clearly motivated by a strong
ideological bias, have been vocal in recent years. The brutal force of the
market, more appropriately the imperfect market, has been devastating to
many developing countries and extremely cruel to the tens of millions of
urban and rural poor throughout the world. WTO itself has become the target
of well-organized protests. Its meetings in Seattle and the meetings of the
IMF and World Bank in Washington and Prague were disrupted by a coalition of
movements in the global civil society, ranging from environmental protection
to consumer advocacy. The issue of inequities at international, regional,
national, and local levels, the broken promises of foreign aid and the
hypocrisy of the advanced industrial countries in assuming responsibility
for more sustainable growth loomed large in these protests.
The perfect market, often the
assumptive reason behind free trade ideologies, has never existed in human
history. Adam Smith's argument in his Wealth of Nations (1776) that
markets by them lead to efficiency as if an "invisible hand" is at work has
been significantly modified by contemporary economists. Simply put, if
information is not perfect or markets are not complete "competitive
equilibrium is not efficient."
[11]
[12]
F. von Hayek's faith in the workability of the spontaneous market, while
theoretically persuasive, is not practical in concrete economies.[13]
Milton Friedman's assertion that in the 1980's Hong Kong was a paradigmatic
example of laissez-faire is misleading. The experience of Asia strongly
refutes the claim that government interference is always detrimental to
economic development.
Probably under the influence of Confucian humanism, Mainland China, Japan,
Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, and Singapore, whether socialist or capitalist, all
take it for granted that strong government leadership is necessary and
desirable for the smooth functioning of the market. Anxieties over
bureaucratic inefficiency, public accountability, and lack of transparency
and corruption notwithstanding, a responsible government is essential for
restrain a runaway market. Surely, the role of government differs
dramatically according to specific circumstances--direct involvement (China
and Vietnam), proactive interference (Singapore), indirect engagement (South
Korea), strategic guidance (Japan), passive encouragement (Taiwan), and
active non-interference (Hong Kong), but the government is expected to
assume the main responsibility for market failures.[14]
Understandably, the demands of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for
liberalization and privatization failed to stem the Asian financial crises
and, in several ways, considerably worsened the situation. The economic
disaster of the former Soviet Union can be attributed to the mind-set and
the praxis of market fundamentalists who, without sufficient attention to
the institutional infrastructure, dogmatically advocated a course of action
that substantially marginalized the role of government.
A
merely economic perspective on globalization is inadequate and deceptive.
If globalization symbolizes development, economic growth tells only a
partial and often distorted story about development. The hope for
environmentally sustainable, socially equitable, and politically democratic
development requires sound institutions. The pervasive ethos of public
accountability, transparency and responsibility in highly industrialized
countries helps to "discipline" governments all over the world to abide by
international norms of behavior. Even though the hypocrisy of some of the
most powerful nations in dealing with foreign assistance is blatant,
domestically they do function in a legal framework that is basically honest,
efficient, and just. The spread of democratic ideas and practices from
Europe and America to other cultural zones (for example, Confucian, Hindu,
Buddhist, and Islamic areas) is an observable indicator of political
globalization.
In
the long run, the emergence of civil societies in dictatorial and
authoritarian systems of government may be the most significant sign that
world governance is no longer a figment of the imagination. The situation
in China is a case in point. Since the reform policies of the 1970s,
centralized control has been gradually replaced by a pluralistic mechanism.
Surely the People's Republic of China is far from democratic, but the demand
for active participation in all important sectors to realize the goals of a
level of noticeable prosperity within fifteen years fundamentally eroded the
socialist ethos. As a result, the totalistic government either by design
or, more likely, by default, is willing to share power with several centers
of influence, notably business, the mass media and academia.
On the global
scene, the recent appearance of NGOs in practically all spheres of interest
signals an unprecedented dynamics in international cooperation. The
seemingly wishful thinking about a People's General Assembly indicates an
emerging consensus that the time is ripe for reformulating the UN's rules of
the game by making them more compatible with democratic principles.[15]
Since the Social Summit at Copenhagen, the U.N. itself has fully recognized
the persuasive power of NGOs.[16]
The Secretary-General has taken advantage of this new phenomenon to enhance
the U.N.'s strengths in finance, relief, and peace-keeping efforts. NGOs
not only address vital issues of the world-- the environment, human rights,
religious conflicts, migration, and refugees--, but also have almost
inadvertently created ingenious methods of considering related issues, such
as the movement to ban land mines. The U.N. is particularly suited to
integrating discrete groups into an international organization and
facilitating transnational institution building.
Another noteworthy development is regional integration. The Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) exemplifies regional cooperation at its
best. The ethos underlying ASEAN is respect, negotiation, dialogue,
consensus, harmony, and mutual learning. However, it is a joint venture for
the practical purpose of achieving tangible aims, rather than a forum to
make idealistic declarations. The recent attempt to broaden its presence in
the Asia-Pacific region by exploring the feasibility of an ASEAN Plus Three
(China, Japan, and South Korea) is a farsighted move. Although the regional
integration of East Asia is still at an initial stage, the potential is
there. After all, China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, and Singapore all belong to
the Confucian cultural zone.[17]
Japan may have
been an exception in her cultural identity. Ever since Fukuzawa Yukichi's
concerted effort to "leave Asia" in order to become part of the modern West,
she has been unusually successful even to the point of joining the G7.
Yet, it is inconceivable that, with a view toward the future, Japan can
maintain her posture as if she has really left the Asia-Pacific region.[18]
Thus, the major intellectual challenge for Japan today is to find the proper
way of returning to Asia, without jeopardizing her remarkable achievement in
amalgamating imported foreign ideas and practices with indigenous
traditions. In the future, Japan's relationships with Korea and China, let
alone that with the United States, will be a major factor in East Asian
security, stability and solidarity.
Particularly
relevant to our United Nations University's Global Seminar (Seoul Session)
is the community building in Northeast Asia, involving South Korea, China,
Japan, and Mongolia. The purpose of this initiative is to explore challenges
and opportunities in this part of the Asia-Pacific region. As Professor
Moon Chung of Yosei University, in his lecture on "Globalization,
Regionalism, and Nation-States" notes, globalization can either be
spontaneous or managed. On the spontaneous side, as a result of supply and
demand in the free market, economic interdependence is a recognized fact
among newly industrialized countries (NICs). As artificial national
boundaries are torn down "an organic and functional network of complex
interdependence" has appeared. Managed globalization, on the other hand,
may lead to "defensive mercantilism, hegemonic domination, and offensive
bilateralism." The practice of Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, as an
open system, seems promising as a form of regional integration. Moon's
recommendation for community building in North Asia suggests an open
regionalism compatible with, rather than hostile to, globalization.
Undoubtedly
the most significant case in regional integration is the European Union (EU).
Although it is still unfolding, it is truly remarkable that the dream of a
few farsighted statesmen in World War II is now being realized at the turn
of the century. Since the process under way is fluid and open-ended, it
will take years to know for sure if the EU is durable. Nevertheless, the
signs in recent years are most encouraging. The issuance of the Euro
symbolizes the strong will of the majority of European countries to unite as
one economic system, even as a united polity, with far-reaching cultural
implications. Pending Turkish membership will test the resolve of Europe in
transforming itself into a multicultural civilization with an open-minded
attitude toward its neighbors.
Cultural globalization is more difficult to fathom because it is predicated
on a paradox. On the surface, it is surprising that globalization,
propelled by Westernization and modernization, has been an intensified
process of homogenization. The speed with which it spreads throughout the
world brings about dazzling results. Among them, linguistic and cultural
losses are apparent. The assumption that the English language will
eventually overwhelm the world seems persuasive, especially in the
international business community. While the French elite are deeply
concerned that their language has become obsolete, Italian business urges
the promotion of English in schools as a way of internationalizing its
economy.[19]
In either case, the spread of English in Europe, East Asia, Southeast Asia,
South Asia, Latin America, Russia, and the Islamic world is irrefutable. Of
course, English is only one aspect of Anglo-American culture. Films, music,
TV dramas, and other forms of entertainment, as well as fast-food and life
styles clearly indicate that globalization as Americanism is accelerating in
an unparalleled way.
Obviously globalization is not simply Americanization. It seems also to
erode the authority of the state, including the federal government in
Washington D.C. More importantly, it complicates the meaning of sovereignty
and transfigures the boundaries of nationality. A prevailing anxiety among
eminent politicians is that the power of the multinational corporations,
especially those dealing primarily with capital and financial transfers,
undermines the governance of national and international organizations.[20]
The impact of new enterprises, notably information technology upon society,
is inestimable. Corporate culture may be the single most important
influence on college students, the future leaders of the global community.
Nevertheless, globalization enhances the desire for cultural identity. The
more global our world becomes, the more vital our search for roots. All the
"primordial ties" that define our existence are irreducible aspects of our
lived world. It is not surprising that the importance of ethnicity, race,
gender, sexual orientation, age, land, and faith are much more pronounced
now than at any prior period in history.[21]
The strong claim that modernization will eventually make cultural
differences insignificant is definitely rejected. "Primordial ties" play a
major role in the economy, polity and society in advanced industrial nations
as well as in developing societies. No country can avoid the issue of
cultural identity. It is worth noting that the term "identity" in its
current usage, coined by the psychoanalyst Erik Erikson, first appeared in
the 1960s.[22]
Since then, identity is understood as a personal sense of belonging, the
core values that make a group cohesive, the willingness to establish the
distinctiveness of an individual or community, and the defining
characteristic of an organization, a profession, or an academic discipline.
Then how can we avoid "identity" if it is so broadly conceived?
The dynamic interplay between
internationalization and localization compels us to examine globalization in
a more complex context than either universalism or particularism. The
paradox of internationalization through localization or, in other words,
cultural identity as an irreducible dimension of globalization opens up a
new horiz[23]
[24]
on to
understand the human condition. The awkward term "glocal" captures the
uneasiness of the "either-or" mode of thinking. To change the basic
methodology to comprehend the phenomenon signifies the necessity to
radically restructure this mind-set. In assessing the meaning of cultural
globalization, Peter Berger of Boston University organized a major team to
study this phenomenon from several perspectives. The resultant book amply
recognizes that, culturally speaking, globalization takes on a variety of
forms that must be appreciated in this age of cultural diversity.[25]
III.
Beyond the Enlightenment Mentality: An Asian Perspective
By
far the most influential ideology in modern history is the Enlightenment
project. Both capitalism and socialism are products of this endeavor.
However, what is pertinent here is not the project itself as elaborated on
by philosophers such as Habermas.[26]
Rather, it is the mentality that underlies the mainstream of East Asian
thinking since the late nineteenth century. In recent decades, the end of
the Cold War in particular, there has been a strong claim that a version of
the Enlightenment, namely capitalism, triumphed. There is no longer any
alternative to what the modern West, especially the United States,
exemplifies in terms of the wave of the future. A smoothly functioning
market economy, a fair and efficient democratic polity and a vibrant civil
society are regarded as essential institutional characteristics of human
well-being. More important, perhaps, are the values that sustain these
institutions--liberty, rationality, law, rights, and the dignity of the
individual.
Since I have written on this subject elsewhere,[27]
my comments on the need to go beyond the Enlightenment mentality will be
brief. While the Enlightenment legacy is already a common heritage of the
global community, its intellectual scope should be broadened and its moral
basis deepened so that it can continue to serve as a guiding principle for
human flourishing. A truly ecumenical vision based on the Enlightenment
must be supplemented by three interrelated requirements.
(1) As
a strong reaction against the Christendom of the medieval period, the
Enlightenment thinkers of the seventeenth century were, in general, against
religion. As a result, they initiated a secular movement that overwhelmed
the modern West. Secular humanism can hardly account for the vibrancy of
spirituality in the twenty-first century. More serious is the proud and
arrogant assertion that "man is the measure of all things" and that man
alone is the source of the value and meaning of life. Such a view is not
only incompatible with the revival of historical religions but also
detrimental to the growth of new religions. Actually, the renewed
appreciation of indigenous spiritual traditions, mainly because of the
increasingly acknowledged environmental concerns, is also an implicit
critique of the Enlightenment anthropocentrism. The move toward an
anthropocosmic vision is desirable and inevitable.
(2)
The Enlightenment emphasis on rationality is a major contribution to human
"progress." However, predicated on Francis Bacon's assertion that knowledge
is power, instrumental rationality features prominently in the Enlightenment
mentality. The exclusive emphasis on individual human ingenuity in
exploring, controlling, exploiting, and subduing nature and society reduces
the world around us to objectified and lifeless facts. Environmental
degradation and the disintegration of community are serious negative
consequences of this life-orientation. Rationality, specifically
instrumental rationality, without sympathy and empathy, is hardly sufficient
for human self-reflexivity.
(3)
The values of the modern West, as enumerated above, are universal, or at
least universalizable. Indeed, liberty, rationality, law, rights, and the
dignity of the individual have become defining characteristics of the modern
consciousness. It seems that no persuasive argument can be marshaled to
fight against any of these values being inconsequential for meaningful human
existence. Even if a government that chooses to deny its citizens their
basic freedoms, uses irrational means to control the masses, refuses to be
law-abiding, denies human rights, and ignores the privacy of the individual,
must find its justifications, often fallacious ones, to cover up for its
blatant violation of basic civility in the eyes of the international
community.
The complexity
of the global community demands a much broader scope of the essential values
for human flourishing. It may be misleading to characterize them as "Asian
values," especially when such an idea is politicized to serve an anti-West
rhetoric. Nevertheless, it is vitally important to promote them as
universal, or at least univeralizable, values as well. These include
sympathy, civility, responsibility, and communal solidarity. If we are to
address the urgent concerns of the poor, if we want to make globalization
work for the developing as well as for the developed countries, if we want
to constrain the brute force unleashed by the runaway market economy, then
we must develop institutions inspired by a whole range of values, both
Western and Asian. There is not a sure way to fix the unequal
infrastructure of the world order. Without a holistic vision we cannot even
begin to humanize it.
IV.
Dialogue among Civilizations
Since 2001
when the General Assembly of the United Nations designated the Year of the
Dialogue among Civilizations, a new paradigm of interaction in the
international community has been in the offing. Unfortunately the tragic
events of September 11 may have seriously delayed the full burgeoning of
such a paradigm. Furthermore Washington's decision to follow a unilateral
course of action in dealing with terrorism has further negatively affected
its effectiveness as a new mode of thinking in world politics. In the long
run, however, it seems that dialogue, rather than confrontation, will be the
norm for international communication and negotiation.
As a member of
the "Group of Eminent Persons" appointed by the U.N. Secretary-General to
facilitate the Dialogue among Civilizations, I have taken part in an
international joint effort to conceptualize this idea and, then, to put it
into practice. I have traveled to Dublin, Doha, Beijing, and, more
recently, New Delhi to learn about the feasibility of presenting a
dialogical mode as the enduring pattern of human interaction at individual,
communal, national, regional, and global levels. Again, like in my
suggestion that we move beyond the Enlightenment mentality, I have discussed
this issue elsewhere.[28]
I will confine myself to a brief note here.
Despite the
power of homogenization, it seems irrefutable that cultural diversity,
including linguistic and religious differences, will persist. Although
there are trends toward a mixture of cuisine, music, arts, and entertainment
in general, the different traditions of eating and playing will likely
maintain their distinctive features. Surely traditions are themselves
invented and reinvented, but the dynamics beneath these metamorphoses are
varied and often untranslatable. The case of religion is particularly
noteworthy. It is difficult to imagine that each of the three world
religions--Christianity, Islam and Buddhism would be converted to the others
en masse. This may apply as well to Judaism, Hinduism, Jainism,
Confucianism, Daoism, or Zoroastrianism. Of course, all religions will
undergo a major transformation according to their inner tensions or external
pressures. Although the conversion of individuals or groups occurs all the
time, the likelihood of one entire tradition being absorbed into another is
slim.
The
multiplicity of religious traditions suggests a new situation where no
matter how strong one's faith is, there always are others (otherwise an
amicable neighbor, for example) who may subscribe to a radically different
form of worship. Even though proselytizing by the three world religions is
unavoidable, the importance of peaceful coexistence cannot be exaggerated.
Indeed, mutual respect is necessary to minimize confrontation and conflict.
Without dialogue, well-organized and powerful religions will attempt to
overwhelm the others, thus provoking a strong and violent reaction. On the
other hand, without dialogue, religious fundamentalism may develop into
militant defenses and aggressive exclusivism.
In a deeper
sense, religious pluralism suggests that the time is ripe for us to
reexamine Karl Jaspers' idea of the "Axial Age." According to his
interpretation, for more than two thousand years, the religious landscape
has been shaped by spiritual civilizations that emerged independently in the
first millennium B.C., specifically Hinduism and Buddhism in South Asia,
Confucianism and Daoism in East Asia, and Judaism (later the other Abrahamic
religions--Christianity and Islam) in the Middle East, and Greek
philosophy. In 1948, Jaspers singled out Socrates, Confucius, Buddha, and
Jesus as the four paradigmatic personalities most influential in world
history[29]
(in the contemporary context, we should also add Mohamed). Although each of
these Axial-Age civilizations follows its own dynamics, it is inevitable
that they will redefine themselves in response to the vital issues
confronting the earth and in light of the others. This entirely new
situation inspires the theologian Ewert Cousins to promote the idea of a
Second Axial-Age.[30]
This felicitous observation offers a new perspective on the dialogical mode.
The need for
tolerance is obvious, but tolerance is only the minimum condition for
co-existence. All religions must recognize the existence of the other as a
natural order of things. With recognition, there is an opportunity to
cultivate mutual respect. Respect can serve as a basis for mutual reference
and mutual learning. A Christian can learn from Buddhist meditative
practices and a Buddhist can learn from Christian social services. A Jew
and a Muslim can share a common root in the faith of Abraham. Similarly, a
Confucian can learn from a Hindu in the art of spiritual exercises and a
Hindu can learn from a Confucian in managing the world (statecraft). It is
too idealistic to believe that inter-religious dialogue is possible, let
alone practicable, without the ethos of a culture of peace. Religious
conflict occurs not only between religions but also within a single religion
itself. Often intra-religious struggles are even more vicious and more
devastating. How can we assume that dialogue is a realistic alternative to
confrontation and outright hostility?
A salient
feature of the age of cultural diversity is the consciousness that the other
is not necessarily an aggressor, a threat, an enemy, a challenger, or a
competitor. Potentially, the other can be a friend, a partner, a companion,
a collaborator, or an adviser. The true spirit of dialogue, like in Martin
Buber's seminal work on the "I-Thou" relationship,[31]
is mutual responsiveness. When one enters into a dialogue, the purpose is
not to convert, persuade, influence, or explain. Rather, it is to listen,
to learn, to extend one's intellectual horizons, and to enhance one's
self-reflexivity. Through dialogue, which is actually a common experience in
interpersonal encounters, our self-awareness is heightened and our ability
to understand others is deepened. In the Second Axial Age, the world
becomes exponentially more complex and sophisticated. Paradoxically the
age-long means of acquiring wisdom--the art of listening and face-to-face
communication -- is more appreciated and more valued as a way of life.
Dialogue, far from being an unattainable ideal, is an ordinary practice of
learning to be human.
V. Toward a
Global Ethic
Globalization enhances cultural diversity. Some scholars maintain that
cultural diversity is compatible with and essential to the globalizing
trends. This paradoxical situation strongly suggests that, if there is any
possibility of a new world order, the need for universally applicable values
and norms is imperative. Understandably, philosophers have been exploring
the practicability of a global ethic for decades. It is inconceivable that
a human community can really come into being if there are no standards of
behavior that all community members accept. Although, in practice, such an
assertion is too idealistic in our pluralistic society, the aspiration that
a universally relevant ethic must be found or reformulated is pervasive
among public intellectuals throughout the world. UNESCO, for example,
organized a special group (a five year-long project in the Philosophy
Division) to examine the feasibility of universal ethics. Under the
leadership of Professor Yersu Kim, several international seminars and
conferences were convened to initiate a multidisciplinary inquiry on this
subject.[32]
The
dominant trend in this quest for universal ethics is the minimalist
approach. Acutely aware of the irresolvable conflict between radically
different belief systems, the minimalists strongly urge, in theory and in
practice, the necessity to rise above any particular culture, religion, or
morality so that the lowest common denominator can be established. They
insist that any truly ecumenical discussion must take a transcending view.
The danger of being mired in endless ideological debates is often
unavoidable. After all, a genuine dialogue between two strong dogmatic
positions is nearly impossible. But we should try to suspend our
unrelenting commitment to our own faith in order to search for a more basic
sharable foundation of communication with peoples of other faiths.
Strategically, the “thin” description of what are the essential features of
global ethics is the best and, perhaps, the only way out of the quagmire of
inter-religious dogmatic quarrels.
The
minimalists’ logic of the “thin” approach has generated reasoned books and
monographs. Hans Küng, the Swiss theologian, has been instrumental in
conceptualizing global ethics in an inter-religious context. The
celebration of the centenary of the first Parliament of the World’s
Religions in Chicago in 1993 provided a rare opportunity for religious
leaders to articulate their joint resolution to address the critical need
for a global ethic. Hans Küng’s effort to come up with a draft proposal
acceptable to all spiritual traditions was widely endorsed, signaling a new
chapter in cross-cultural religious collaboration. In a comparative
civilizational perspective, it is worth noting that all major historical
religions recognize the significance of a new human condition: as far as the
earth (our lifeboat) is concerned, despite dogmatic differences, we are all
obligated to establish a sustainable and harmonious relationship with
nature. Environmental awareness is only the most visible manifestation of
this new human condition. Indeed, the well-being of the human village (even
though it is no more than an imagined community) carries so much weight in
religious and theological thinking that seemingly contradictory dogmatic
ideas, such as the Other Shore in Buddhism or the Kingdom of God Yet To
Come, do not at all undermine the shared concern for maintaining the welfare
of our existence in this world here and now. Accordingly many philosophers
and theologians take it for granted that a new humanism, occasioned by
serious and pressing issues in ecology, security, violence, terrorism, and
disease, has become an integral part of religious consciousness. Hans Küng
deliberately defines his quest for a global ethic as humanistic.
Underlying this
humanistic quest for universalism is the classical Kantian contribution
to moral
reasoning. Assuming that all rational beings can apprehend the transparency
of the categorical imperative, either the immortality of the soul or the
existence of God is, theoretically, nonessential to the universality of this
core idea in ethical thinking. On the surface, at least, Apel and Habermas'
effort to establish an impeccable argument for communicative rationality is
still predicated on Kant’s transcendental principle. Surely, in recent
years, Habermas may have departed from his teacher-friend’s strong claim
that the transcendental principle is nonnegotiable, but, even with his
sensitivity to American pragmatism, his insistence on the perennial rules
governing all civilized conversation is never compromised. John Rawls’
definition of justice as fairness is, in a sense, also Kantian. Even
though, perhaps as a response to the critique of multiculturalism, in his
self-constraint in applying the theory of justice only to democratic
liberalism, his interpretive position is un-mistakenly universalistic.
Despite the
challenge of cultural diversity, the universalists never question the appeal
of generalizable principles. Küng’s persistent effort to identify the
Golden Rule in world religions is a case in point. He observes that the
Golden Rule, stated either in the negative or in the positive, can be found
in Confucianism, Judaism, Islam, Jainism, Buddhism, and Hinduism.[33]
He further observes that it is not basic enough to single out truth and
justice as elementary values, as Michael Walzer proposes.[34]
Rather, the “minimum consensus” or the “smallest possible basis for human
living and acting together” must be the idea of humanity itself.[35]
Consequently, Küng identifies two cardinal principles as the basis of global
ethics—“Every human being must be treated humanely!” and “What you wish done
to yourself, do to others.”[36]
It should be
noted that Küng’s Golden Rule of humanity contains a subtle point that
merits serious discussion. Whether the Golden Rule stated in the negative
as in the Confucian and Judaic cases or in the positive as in the Christian
case is consequential, in the sense that the choice has far-reaching
implications. The negative case can be characterized as a principle of
sympathy and compassion. According to this principle, since we cannot know
others to the extent and depth that we ought to know ourselves, what we take
to be absolutely good for ourselves may not be appropriate for others.
Therefore, out of sympathy and compassion, we should refrain from imposing
our views on others. In a strict sense, the negatively stated Golden Rule
is more congenial to peaceful co-existence among religions. Indeed, the
self-imposed restriction on evangelism is more compatible with the spirit of
dialogue among different religious traditions.
On the
surface, this negative principle seems too passive to account for the need
for an actively integrated community. The Golden Rule stated in the positive
is obviously more congenial to the dynamics of organic social solidarity.[37]
Moreover, the recognition of the well-being of the others as charged by the
ideal of “doing unto others” what we wish done to ourselves suggests an
altruism well-suited to communitarian ethics. Avoiding the danger of
conflict resulting from proselytizing is such an urgent matter in our age
that we must first cultivate a sense of considerateness and respect for
radical otherness. If peace between civilizations depends on peace between
religions and peace between religions depends on dialogue between religions,
the Golden Rule stated in the negative should take precedence over the
Golden Rule that enjoins us to share our blessings by imposing on others
what we cherish as particularly meaningful to us. For the sake of
encouraging active participation in community building, we must see to it
that such a rule be supplemented by a positive charge, “As for the good man:
what he wishes to achieve for himself, he helps others to achieve; what he
wishes to obtain himself. he helps others to obtain.”[38]
These two principles—sympathy, compassion, considerateness, and respect on
the one hand and responsibility and duty on the other - are commensurate
with Küng’s Golden Rule of humanity.[39]
The Kantian idea of treating every human being
humanely is a constitutive part of the minimalist approach to the global
ethic. Sissela Bok’s philosophical work on this subject exemplifies the
persuasion of this line of thinking.[40]
In response to Walzer’s challenge, Küng opts for a sophisticated combination
of elementary (thin) and differentiated (thick) morality. The purpose of
his concerted effort to underscore universal ethical principles is to
identify those behavioral norms that are absolutely necessary for the human
community to survive, endure and flourish.
The critics of
minimalism, often mistakenly labeled as deconstructionists or
post-modernists, raise serious questions about the feasibility and
practicability of the global ethic. They normally do not take on the
theoretical basis of the minimalist position. Rather, they consider issues
such as incommensurability and un-translatability across cultural boundaries
as sufficient reason for denying the workability of universally shared
ethics. Some of them embrace relativism as an inevitable and even a
desirable alternative. They definitely prefer a relativist to a dogmatic
ethicist position. In most cases, they do not take relativism as an end in
itself, but rather as an advantageous procedure to expose the
narrow-mindedness of dogmatism.
The
instrumental utility of the relativistic position notwithstanding,
relativism as a mode of thinking is a serious challenge to universalism.
Relativists are suspicious of the generalizability of many universalistic
claims. Indeed, they argue vigorously that the rationality underlying
truths, especially the Truth, is itself problematic in our age of
diversity. If the culture of peace ever has a change to be realized in our
life-world, we must abandon the abortive attempts of abstract universalism.
The idea of reasonableness is more germane to the cultivation of civility
among individuals and groups. They further maintain that the minimalist
position is a form of truism, seemingly self-evident but in practice
irrelevant to genuine dialogue among civilizations. Unless we are motivated
to engage ourselves in practicing ethics, all idealistic assertions are no
more than empty talk. Even within the same cultural, linguistic, or
religious community, there is no way to steer clear of intra-group
conflict. The quest for truthfulness is wrong-headed. We should instead
focus our attention on the issue of meaning.[41]
In a
rudimentary sense, the difference between truth and meaning lies in our
experience. Where truth is aimed at disinterested objective standards,
meaning is inexorably intertwined with personal knowledge. Authenticity,
sincerity, and reality are pertinent to the subject of meaning. The quest
for meaning involves a personal embodiment of what we experience as worth
attaining. In aesthetics as well as ethics, attainment connotes an
achievement, especially in understanding and appreciation. Taking the case
of the body, it has to be comprehended experientially. The attempt to make
it an object of investigation inevitably fails. Actually, we do not own our
bodies. Rather, as a subject which can never be completely objectified, we
learn to become what it has attained.[42]
Meaning, likewise, entails self-knowledge and self-reflexivity. There is
often a bodily sensation if we find something particularly meaningful. It
is difficult to imagine that meaning is not historically, culturally, and
linguistically situated. Meaning is always embedded in the presence of a
living encounter.
Meaning is
inseparable from conventional wisdom; the judgment of what is meaningful is
often intermixed with a deep-rooted sense of the good, beautiful, and true.
Abstract universalism is not a requirement for meaning. It may even delude
the rich texture in which meaning is ingrained. A salient feature of
meaning is its "lived concreteness." A fully embodied meaning cannot be
reduced to a few propositions, no matter how sophisticatedly they are
formulated. There is always an extralinguistic referent in the
meaning-construction. Language can never thoroughly capture the meaning
intended by the speaker-writer. Meaning can be understood and appreciated
as an inner experience, even if it can never be sufficiently explained to an
outsider. The concreteness with which meaning is articulated makes it
unavoidably particularistic. However, it is mistaken to assume that
meaning, as a form of local knowledge, can never attain universal
significance. Paradoxically, nothing prevents a "thick description"[43]
of meaning in a specific enough context to have universal appeal.
Although
meaning is interwoven with a personal sense of sincerity, authenticity, and
reality, it is never confined to the subjective domain. Meaning-creation
necessarily involves the other. Under no circumstances a single individual
can generate meaningfulness alone, as if it were a private matter. Emmanuel
Lévinas' insistence that the other is a defining characteristic of selfhood
addresses this issue in a dramatic way. He argues passionately that only
living for the other makes our own existence sincere, authentic, and real.[44]
This inclusive
sense of selfhood is open and dynamic. By incorporating otherness into the
self, the relationship between subject and object or between inner and
outer, assumes a new significance. Despite tension and conflict,
complementarities and symbioses characterize the fruitful interaction
between the self and the other. In Crossing the Divide, the report by
the Group of Eminent Persons presented to the General Assembly of the United
Nations in November 2001, a new paradigm of human interaction is proposed:
the other need not be regarded as an enemy, a threat, a challenge, or a
competitor; in most cases, the other is a friend, colleague, partner,
companion, a fellow citizen, a member of a profession, a comrade in a social
movement, or a participant in a celebratory event.
This
perception of the other is eminently applicable to inter-religious
dialogue. The assumption that a religion is organically self-contained,
that its boundaries are solid, and that it clearly separates us (the
believers) from them (the nonbelievers) is naive at best. All historical
religions and Axial-Age civilizations, like mighty rivers, allow and attract
numerous streams to enter into its major flow. Surely, each one of them has
distinctive core values that define its identity, but it is the adaptability
and fluidity of these values that enable a historical religion or an
Axial-Age civilization to persist for centuries. Virtually all enduring
spiritual traditions have the same quality. Self-enclosed fundamentalism
may preserve its inner strength for decades, but as soon as its charismatic
leader fades away, it can rarely escape the fate of disintegration.
The
maximalists assert that a thin description of one's humanity may be
strategically efficacious in singling out the minimum conditions for
survival, security, and stability. Indisputably, a Hindu, Confucian, Daoist,
Buddhist, Jew, Christian, or Muslim is above all a human being. We must
first establish the elementary values of being human. Only then can we
elaborate on the differentiated values in each of the great traditions.
This may turn out to be wishful thinking. A more realistic approach is to
take the thick description of each tradition as a point of departure. This
painfully difficult procedure of animating the universal through the lived
concreteness of the particular may be the only way out of the dilemma of
abstract universalism vs. exclusive particularism.
There are
hopeful signs that, through dialogue, this concrete-universal course of
action may be workable. Actually, in recent decades, inter-religious
communication has been greatly facilitated by a joint resolve to regard the
faith of other people as intimately connected with one's own. It may be too
idealistic to consider encountering radical otherness as a liberating
experience, but the celebration of difference is no longer novel in
interfaith dialogue. Especially noteworthy is the long-term interchange
between John Cobb (Christian) and Abe Masao (Buddhist). The mode of
questioning itself, in "Can a Christian be a Buddhist or Can a Buddhist be a
Christian?" is profoundly significant. A Christian can learn from a
Buddhist (or a Buddhist from a Christian) in order to become a better
Christian (or Buddhist).[45]
Dual membership, even multiple memberships, in religious practices is
increasingly accepted as normal.[46]
A religious ecumenism is in the offing.
Nevertheless,
it is undeniable that, in our age of cultural diversity, we are witnessing
with alarm and anxiety the emergence of degrees of ethnocentrism, militant
nationalism, cultural chauvinism, and religious fundamentalism unprecedented
in human history. How can we avoid a "clash of civilizations"[47]
and imagine there is peaceful coexistence among religions?
Hope lies in
the heightened awareness of religionists to redefine their faith in light of
the new human condition. There is convergence among religions in responding
to the crises of the Second Axial-Age: the depletion of natural resources,
environmental degradation, annihilation by weapons of mass destruction,
insecurity, crime, drugs, and disease, just to mention a few. Farsighted
philosophers and theologians have been reexamining some of the most
cherished dogmas to find ways to confront these new challenges that have
never been encountered since the advent of our species. We are urgently in
need of a new cosmology and a new way of life to ensure the integrity of the
self, the integration of the community, and the sustainability of nature.
Ultimately, we must also transcend Enlightenment anthropocentrism and
secularity so that we can fully realize that there is purpose in life and
that, as co-creators of our universe, we are obligated to acknowledge that
our responsibility extends beyond family, community, nation, region, and the
world. We are indebted to geodiversity and biodiversity for our existence.
Our own cultural diversity empowers us to be the stewards of nature.
The ethics
vitally important for our age has to be future-oriented without losing
sight of the historical legacy and the imperatives of the present.[48]
An African proverb instructs us: the earth is not only a gift that our
ancestors bequeathed to us but also a treasure that is entrusted to us by
numerous future generations.[49]
Equally important, the new ethic must be holistic and universal. The
universality so conceived is not abstracted from historical religions.
Rather, it is the result of fully embodied spiritual traditions (including
a variety of indigenous ways of life) encountering the uniqueness of the
contemporary human condition. This may be the place to note the
incredible circumstances of the African continent. The current situation
gives the impression that the poverty, unemployment, corruption, famine,
disease, and social disintegration portray a hopeless scenario.[50]
Nevertheless, with a view toward the future, we should also note that
Africa is rich in natural sources and geodiversity.[51]
Its linguistic and cultural diversity, not to mention the traditional
wisdom of the elders in healing, human interaction, social solidarity, and
spiritual exercises, is truly extraordinary. The African developmental
potential, both in natural and non-natural terms, is so great that it may
eventually rise as a shining example of human flourishing.
Human beings
have never been so threatened by our own destructive power. Our viability
as a species is no longer take for granted. We are also blessed with great
potential for adaptation, revival, creativity, and imagination. Our own
well-being as well as the sustainable and renewable vitality of the earth
depends on our actions. One of the most depressing scenarios concerning our
survivability is: as we become increasingly clear of what we ought to do to
turn the tide of irreversible self-annihilation, the infrastructure and the
mind-set constrain us from making any effort to do the right thing. We are
victims of our own ignorance and arrogance. The availability of information
and knowledge does not automatically make us wise.
According to
the principle of fairness, those (individuals, societies, nations, and
regions) who are wealthy, powerful, influential, and informed must be
obligated to assume leadership and responsibility to promote the goodness of
the global community. In reality, however, the developed countries exhibit
habits of the heart that are unconscionably self-centered, self-interested,
and self-indulgent. The ethos of market fundamentalism is detrimental to
the cultivation of justice, sympathy, civility, duty, and communality as
shared values. Since the 1991 Gulf War, the political elite in the United
States, has been intoxicated by its omnipresence and omnipotence. Wealth and
power dominate the world order as conceived by it the only remaining
superpower and hegemonic control underlies its modus operandi.
Since
September 11, 2001, America's perception of herself and the world has
undergone a major transformation. The tragic event could have provided a
rare opportunity for deep self-reflection and for dialogue with other
civilizations, especially the Islamic world. Unfortunately, preoccupied
with homeland security, the American administration opted for unilateral
action, bypassing international organizations (not only the UN and NATO) and
alienating France and Germany, two of its staunchest allies. The road ahead
is painfully difficult and the effort to rebuild the United States as a
moral leader of the global community will take years.
Whether or not
the superpower transcends national interests as the sole guidance for its
foreign policies, the pluralist world with at least three centers of
influence--North America, the European Union, and East Asia -- will endure.
It seems obvious that globalization fundamentally invalidates the claim that
modernization is a linear progression, a rupture from tradition, and a
process of homogenization. Instead, traditions continue to be present in
modernity; modernization takes many forms, and, as a dynamic transformation,
it diversifies as well as it unifies.[52]
It is in this sense that multiple-modernities is an appropriate description
of the current situation.[53]
This new vision makes a single player on the global scene, no matter how
strong, a dialoguer, a negotiator, a mediator, a communicator, and a
conversation partner, rather than a dictator.
Globalization
may lead to oppressive hegemony, yet through dialogue, it may also bring
about a peaceful and prosperous community; cultural diversity may cause
aggressive exclusivism, yet through dialogue, it may generate a sense of
security and stability. The challenge ahead is to form a global ethic
rooted in pluralism and open to all human beings. In order to put our own
house in order, we must develop an anthropocosmic vision. Unless we are
situated in our own home, we will never feel safe; unless we are connected
with the cosmic order, we will never fulfill our role as co-creators of our
universe.
Commentary
COMMENT ON IT!
I am indebted to Ms. Nancy Hearst and Dr.
Ronald Suleski, both of the John King Fairbank Center for East Asian
Research at Harvard University, for meticulous and thoughtful editorial
comments on an early version of this article.
[1]
The idea was first formulated by McLuhan of the University of Toronto,
see Marshall McLuhan and Bruce R. Powers, The Global Village:
Transformation in World Life and Media in the 21st Century (New
York, N.Y., 1989).
[2]
For an inspiring account of the earth from an "anthhropocosmic"
perspective, see Brian Swimme and Thomas Berry, The Universe Story.
It is "a celebration of the unfolding of the cosmos--from the primordial
flaring forth to the ecozoic era." Also, see Berry's The Dream of the
Earth and The Great Work.
[3]
For the ecological implications of Confucian humanism, see Tu Weiming,
"The Ecological Turn in New Confucian Humanism: Implications for China
and the World," 130 (4) (fall 2001), 243-264.
[4]
Kwak II Chyun, "Environmental Cooperation in Northeast Asia: yellow Dust,
Acid Rain, Marine Pollution," in Community Building in Northeast Asia,
Programme, session III: lecture 5, 46-48
[5]
Professor Ji Xianlin's remark was made in his keynote speech at the
International Symposium on the Dialogue among Civilizations, organized
by the People's Consultative Conference of the People's Republic of
China, Beijing, September 11-12, 2001.
[6]
For a discussion of the idea of human beings as co-creators, see Tu
Wei-ming, Centrality and Commonality: An Essay on Confucian
Religiousness (Albany, N.Y.: State University Press, 1989, pp.
67-91.
[7]
The Analects, 12.5 reads: "Sima Niu was grieving: 'All men have
brothers; I alone have none." Zixia said: "I have heard this: life and
death are decreed by fate, riches and honors are allotted by Heaven.
Since a gentleman behaves with reverence and diligence, treating people
with deference and courtesy, all within the Four Seas are his brothers.
How could a gentleman ever complain that he has no brothers?" For this
translation, see The Analects of Confucius, translation and notes
by Simon Leys (New York, Norton, 1997), p. 56.
8 The Biblical reference to in Genesis,
chapter 1 and verse 28, may give the impression that the humans are
empowered by God to "replenish the earth, and subdue it" and to
"have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the
air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." I have
emphasized the words "subdue" and "dominion" to indicate that for
decades, this passage has been cited as evidence that the Christian
tradition, in terms of its deep theological assumption, is detrimental
to human-earth relationship. See the prophetic article by Lynn White,
Jr., "The Historical Roots of our Ecologic Crisis," Science 155
(10 March 1967). For recent attempts to give a significantly different
interpretation, see Sallie McFague, "New House Rules: Christianity,
Economics, and Planetary Living," Daedalus 130 (4) (fall 2001),
125-140.
[9]
Joseph E. Stiglitz, Globalization and its Discontents (New York:
W. W. Norton, 2002), preface, ix.
10 The Devos consensus, unlike the
Washington consensus, is less ideologically motivated. It seems clear
that the Forum is open enough to set a new agenda for exploring vital
issues of the twenty-first century. In recent years, the forum has
significantly broadened its spheres of interest to discuss topics
significant for understanding the present state of the human condition.
For example, in its annual meeting in January, 2000, topics such as
"Family: the heart of civilization," "The power of imagination: unusual
means, surpassing results," "Is globalization for everybody?" "The
Future of religion: beyond beliefs?" and "Visions for the future" were
discussed.
[11]
For an excellent exposition of this thesis, see Jérôme Bindé, "Toward an
Ethic of the Future," in Globalization, edited by Arjnun
Appadurail (Durham: Duke University Press, 2003), pp. 90-113.
[12]
B. Greenwald and J. E. Stiglitz, "Externalities in Economies with
Imperfect Information and Incomplete Markets," Quarterly Journal of
Economics 101 (2) (May 1986), pp. 229-64.
[13]
For his philosophically sophisticated presentation of the
self-regulating market, see Friedrich A. von Hayek, The Constitution
of Liberty (Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1960).
[14]
See Tu Weiming, "Cultural Implications of the Rise of 'Confucian' East
Asia," Daedalus 129 (1), 195-218.
[15]
This idea has been advocated by the noted legal scholar Richard Falk of
Princeton and University of California at Santa Barbara, see his
Reforming the International: Law, Culture, Politics, edited by
Richard Falk, Lester Edwwin J Ruiz, and R.B. J. Walker (New York:
Routledge, 2002).
[16]
Hilary Clinton, the head of the American delegation, made explicit that
international organizations for their own good must heed the voice and
advice of the NGOs in her speech to the planetary session of the
conference.
[17]
Whether or not Japan is included in the Confucian cultural zone is
controversial. Samuel Huntington, apparently for ideological reasons,
refuses to define Japan as Confucian. See his Clash of Civilizations
and the Remaking of World Order (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996).
Ronald Ingleheart, on the other hand, takes it for granted that Japan
is part the Confucian world. See his "Culture and Democracy," in
Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress, edited by Lawrence
E. Harrison and Samuel P. Huntington (New York: Basic Books, 2000), p.
85.
[18]
In my view, by far the most succinct statement that Japan is part of the
Sinic world in value-orientation is made by the eminent scholar of East
Asia, Edwin Reschauer, in his article "The Sinic World in Perspective,"
Foreign Affairs (1974), 341-348.
[19]
This concern was repeatedly articulated by leading Italian business
executives at a seminar on "Leadership and Corporate Responsibility"
organized Aspen Italia at Villa D'Easte, May 2003.
19 The World Summit for Social
Development (Copenhagen, 1995) addressed issues of poverty,
unemployment , and social disintegration. The subsequent Copenhagen
Seminar for Social Progress, "conceived in the context framework of the
follow-up to the Social Summit," discussed such topics as "A World
Economy for the Benefit of All," (1996), "Humane Markets for Humane
Societies" (1997), and "Political Culture and Institutions for a World
Community" (1998), "Defining, Measuring, and Monitoring Social Progress
and Social Regress." This point was made most forcefully by the former
Preme Minister of Canada, Pierre Elliot Trudeau. However, his remarks
in 1996 were not identified but only considered as the general input in
the final report. See Building a World Community: Globalization and
the Common Good, edited by Jacque Baudot (Royal Danish Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, June 2000).
[21]
I have made several references to the issue of "primordial ties." For
example, see Chapter II, "The Context of Dialogue: Globalization and
Diversity," in Crossing the Divide, edited by Gianni Picco (New
York: St. John's University, 2001), pp. 51-59.
[22]
The issue of identity, more precisely "identity crisis" was formulated
by Erik Erikson in his seminal work on Martin Luther. See his Young
Man Luther: A Study in Psychoanalysis and History (New York: Norton,
1993).
[23]
For an excellent exposition of this thesis, see Jérôme Bindé, "Toward an
Ethic of the Future," in Globalization, edited by Arjnun
Appadurail (Durham: Duke University Press, 2003), pp. 90-113.
[24]
For an excellent exposition of this thesis, see Jérôme Bindé, "Toward an
Ethic of the Future," in Globalization, edited by Arjnun
Appadurail (Durham: Duke University Press, 2003), pp. 90-113.
[25]
Many Globalizations: Cultural Diversity in
the Contemporary World, edited by Peter L.
Berger and Samuel P. Huntington (Oxford; New York: Oxford University
Press, 2002).
[26]
For a succinct exploration of Habermas' project, see Habermas and
Modernity, edited by Richard J. Bernstein (Cambridge MA: M IT
Press, 1985).
[27]
Tu Weiming, "Beyond the Enlightenment Mentality," in Confucianism and
Ecology, edited by Mary Evelyn Tucker and John Berthrong (Cambridge
MA: Harvard University Center for the Study of Religions, 1998), pp.
3-21.
[28]
For a more comprehensive treatment, see Crossing the Divide,
edited by G. Picco. Chapter II on "Globalization and Cultural Diversity"
is most relevant to our discussion here.
[29]
Karl Jaspers, The Great Philosophers (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World
[1962-c1995), in 4 vloumes. The first volume discusses "the foundations
The paradigmatic individuals: Socrates, Buddha, Confucius, Jesus. The
seminal flunders of philosophical thought: Plato, Augustine, Kant."
[30]
See Tu Weiming, "Crisis and Creativity: A Confucian Response to the
Second Axial Age," in Doors of Understanding: Conversations in Global
Spirituality in Honor of Ewert Cousins, edited by Steven Chase
(Quincy, IL: Franciscan Press, 1997), pp.401-417.
[31]
Martin Buber, I and Thou, trans. Ronald G. Smith (New York,
Scribner, 2000).
27 For a summary of the findings,
see Yersu Kim, Common Framework for the Global Ethics of the 21th
Century (UNESCO, 1999). See also The United Nations and the
World's Religious: Prospects for a Global Ethic, edited by Nancy
Hodes and Michael Hays (Cambridge, MA:
Bos
[33]
Hans Küng, A Global Ethic for Global Politics and Economics (New
York: Oxfor
