Mutual Learning as an Agenda for Social
Development
by Tu Weiming
2000 (rating #)
Review and Commentary (# of posts)
PDF
COMMENT ON IT!
As we are confronted with
a new world order, the exclusive dichotomy of capitalism and socialism
imposed by the Cold War super powers is woefully inadequate for
understanding the rich texture of the emerging global community. Intent on
offering an alternative global paradigm, Francis Fukuyama and Samuel
Huntington proffer two facile generalizations: “the end of history” and “the
clash of civilizations.” The two positions are seemingly contradictory
diagnostic readings of the human condition: an optimistic assertion that
fundamental ideological divides no longer exist and a cautionary note that
cultural, especially religious, differences are the major sources of
international conflict.
It seems evident that the
liberal democratic countries (Western Europe and North America), fueled by
the market economy, have now set the stage for a radically new global
transformation. It also seems plausible that challenges from the Confucian
and the Islamic cultural zones, for example may impede this process. Yet,
should we take for granted the trajectory of Western culture’s inevitable
impact as a sort of historical inevitability? Both positions are predicated
on the assumption that the current working dichotomy is still “the West and
the rest.” Is this conceptual framework adequate for enhancing social
development as an international joint venture?
If social development is
seen as an aspiration to and a promise for human flourishing, we need to
address the fundamental ethical and spiritual issues confronting the global
community. The old triumphant or confrontational Western mindset is
counterproductive. The United States in particular, can take the lead in
transforming itself from primarily a teaching civilization (especially in
reference to East Asia since Second World War II) into a learning culture by
considering some critical questions:
-
Which way is more
congenial to social integration, viewing ourselves as isolated individuals
or as centers of interpersonal relationships?
-
Even if we use
quantifiable material conditions to define and measure our well-being, can
we afford to cut ourselves off from the spiritual moorings of our
cultures?
-
If success is solely
measured as wealth and power to the exclusion of other commodities, such
as social capital, moral influence and exemplary teaching, how can we
transmit cherished values to the next generation?
-
How can we expect others
to respect our way of life, if we disregard what they themselves regard as
meaningful and worthwhile?
-
Can our society prosper
without inculcating a basic sense of duty and responsibility in addition
to rights-consciousness?
-
Can we afford to focus
our attention on the rule of law without emphasizing civility and trust in
ordinary daily social intercourse?
-
Can liberty as an
intrinsic value generate a humane society without distributive justice?
-
Can instrumental
rationality alone right inequality without sympathy and compassion?
-
Should our culturally
pluralistic world deliberately cultivate shared values as a common ground
for organic social solidarity?
-
As we become more keenly
aware of our earth’s vulnerability and the depletion of natural resources,
what steps must we take to preserve her?
Such questions suggest a
much needed communal critical self-consciousness among the reflective minds
of the world which indicates that we may be witnessing the very beginning of
global history rather than the end of history. And, as we approach 2001, the
United Nations-designated year of Dialogue Among Civilizations, this new
beginning must take the desire for mutual reference as its point of
departure Our awareness of the danger of civilizational conflicts rooted in
ethnicity, gender, language, land, class, age, and religion, makes the
necessity of dialogue particularly compelling. If we envision development in
social as well as economic terms, we recognize that globalization is not
homogenization. Rather, it both intensifies and undermines various forms of
localization. We should accept a plurality of models of sustainable
development and emphasize the ethical and spiritual dimensions of human
flourishing as integral parts of our development strategy.
A perception of
development shaped by modernization as a unilinear progression and defined
exclusively by quantifiable material gains is too simplistic to reflect the
complexity and diversity of human flourishing. Surely, eradicating absolute
poverty is one of the highest priorities of any global approach to social
development, but even here, the enabling factors are political, social,
cultural and legal as well as economic. This requires a more sophisticated
vision of how different spheres of interests are interconnected nationally,
regionally and globally.
Just as no local
interests, no matter how compelling, should override national interests,
regional and global interests must not be subsumed under national interests.
Even if we assume that the United States alone can exert hegemonic influence
in the global community, the really enduring American strength lies in “soft
power” (moral persuasion) as well as military might. Social capital, the
cultivation of cultural competence and the enhancement of spiritual values,
is as important as economic capital, the cultivation of technical competence
and the enhancement of material conditions.
The politics of domination
is being replaced by the politics of communication, networking, negotiation,
interaction, interfacing, and collaboration. The strong 1960’s belief that
“modernization would wipe out cultural, institutional, structural and mental
differences and, if unimpeded, would lead to a uniform modern world” is no
longer tenable. Since globalization engenders localization and
indigenization as well as homogenization, cultural, institutional,
structural and cognitive differences actually shape the contours of the
modernizing processes. In consequence, traditions are constituent parts of
modernity and modernization can assume different cultural, institutional,
structural and mental forms. The thesis of convergence, meaning that the
rest of the world will inevitably converge with the modern West has been
modified.
In the eighties, the
thesis of reverse convergence was strongly implied, if not clearly
articulated, by new modernization theorists as the result of East Asian
economic dynamism. The ideas of “Asian values,” “network capitalism,” and
“the Asia-Pacific century” were advocated as an alternative to modern
Westernism. However, the observation that the engine of development had
shifted from the Atlantic to the Pacific was premature. The 1997 Asian
financial crisis forced a new interpretation. Authoritarianism and crony
capitalism were identified as the cultural, institutional, structural and
mental causes: Asian financial institutions had suffered from lack of
transparency, public accountability and fair competitiveness. As the
economies of the Asia-Pacific region begin to recover, East Asia will likely
reemerge as the single most important reference and perhaps as a
counterpoint for Western Europe and North America again.
If, instead of reverse
convergence, “multiple modernities” had been presented as an explanatory
model, the implications of East Asian modernity would have been
far-reaching. East Asia has been deeply influenced by Western Europe and
North America and its accelerating modernity is mainly the result of the
Western impact. Yet, the shape of life of East Asian peoples is
significantly different from that of Westerners The possibility of being
modern without being Western suggests that, under the influence of East Asia
as well as West Europe and North America, Southeast Asian societies, notably
Malaysia and Indonesia, may become modern without necessarily being
European, American or East Asian. By implication, Latin American, South
Asian and African forms of modernity are, in principle, realizable.
Is the vision of multiple
modernities merely wishful thinking or practicable guide for social
development? The Copenhagen Social Summit was committed to support full
employment, promote social integration, achieve gender equality and equity,
and attain universal and equitable access to education and primary care. If
these are realizable aspirations for the global community, rather than
privileges and entitlements of the First World, every country is, in both
theory and practice, capable of human flourishing according to its own
specific conditions. The mobilization of indigenous cultural recourses for
capacity building is a precondition for such an endeavor.
East Asia is a case in
point. Can East Asian political and cultural leaders be inspired by the
Confucian spirit of self-cultivation, family cohesiveness, social
solidarity, benevolent governance, and universal peace to practice
responsibility in their domestic affairs? This question concerns us all. As
Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, and Vietnamese emigrate to other parts of the
world, can they share their rich cultural heritage? This question is
important not only for East Asia, but for the United States, Canada,
Australia, and the European Union.
The commitment to
“accelerate the development of Africa and the least developed countries” is
predicated on a holistic vision of human flourishing and a realistic model
of interdependency. If we consider ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and
religious diversity as a global asset, Africa should not be characterized by
the HIV epidemic, poverty, unemployment and social disintegration alone. It
should also be recognized as a rich reservoir for human spirituality and the
wisdom of elders. The African Renaissance, symbolized by the geological and
biological diversity of the tiny area around Capetown (said to be comparable
in richness to the vast area of Canada) ought to be a source of inspiration
for a changed mindset that addresses social development as a global joint
venture.
The development of Africa
is important for us because, without a holistic sense of human flourishing,
we cannot properly anchor our sense of security, let alone well-being in the
global community as a whole. The acknowledgment that there is a
“multiplicity of modern societies around the globe” and that it is arrogant
to proclaim our own cultural supremacy is a significant step toward mutual
referencing among societies. We cannot help African societies to accelerate
their development if we prematurely conclude that they have nothing to teach
us. Indeed, the celebration of cultural diversity (without falling into the
trap of pernicious relativism) is profoundly meaningful for global
stewardship.
As the rise of Confucian
East Asia suggests, traditions are present as active agents in modernity; in
fact, the modernizing process has assumed a variety of cultural forms.
Modernization originating in Western Europe has powerfully transformed the
world in one dominant direction. In its inception, however, it was already a
mixture of conflictual and even contradictory trajectories. Even if we
overcome the conceptual difficulty of generalizing European cases as
paradigmatic manifestations of modernity, we must sill treat North American
modernity as a separate case. The story of modernization as a master
narrative contains several versions of globally significant local knowledge.
Now that East Asia’s local knowledge is added to the story, it seems
reasonable to anticipate an increasing number of normal or even exemplary
modernity from other parts of the world. Fruitful comparisons across
geographic, linguistic, ethnic, cultural, and religious boundaries will
enrich our understanding of social development as a holistic program for
human flourishing.
The common practice of
“learning from the West,” deemed absolutely necessary for survival by East
Asian intellectuals and political leaders, will certainly continue but the
need to broaden the horizons of reference cultures is obvious. As “mutual
referencing” progresses, East Asia can benefit from civilizational dialogues
with Latin America, South Asia, the Islamic world, and Africa. I have been
advocating in Beijing and throughout Cultural China that it is in China’s
best interest to take India seriously as a reference society. This will
significantly broaden China’s symbolic resources in understanding her own
indigenous traditions, such as Mahayana Buddhism and religious Daoism and
help her better appreciate the modern relevance of religion. If China can
recognize Tibet as an enduring spiritual tradition and a venerable cultural
heritage, not only will her international reputation significantly improve
but also her domestic ability to promote social integration.
In the United States and,
by implication, the modern West, the need to transform America’s arrogance
as a teaching civilization into the humility of a learning culture is
predicated on a global vision of social development. We should accept the
dictum that the more powerful, wealthy and influential nations are, the more
obligated they are to enlarge the well-being of the global community. Strong
and rich nations, as beneficiaries of the international system, are
obligated to see to it that the least developed countries benefit from their
international policies. The isolationist mentality that advocates national
interests as an ultimate justification for global action is, in the long
run, detrimental to domestic social solidarity. The protectionist approach
is self-defeating because it eventually undermines the very system that has
generated and sustained its prosperity.
East Asian intellectuals
have been devoted students of Western learning. In Japan, European (Dutch,
British, French, and German) and American tutelage has played an important
role in her modernization. Japan’s ability to learn from the West without
abandoning her indigenous resources for national and cultural identity
helped Japan to become one of the most developed countries in the world. The
West, on the other hand, has not felt compelled to learn from the rest of
the global community. This asymmetrical situation is particularly pronounced
in United States’ relationships with East Asian, particularly the
Sino-American, relationship. How can the United States maintain her strength
as an international leader unless her cultural elite is educated to be
well-informed global citizens?
The time is long over due
for American educators and politicians to rekindle a cosmopolitan spirit.
The United States’ assumption of the role of a tutor for democracy, market
economy, civil society, and human rights in East Asia since World War II has
been instrumental in developing an international vision. Although an
implicit hegemonic mentality in this vision was unhealthy, it had the
potential of evolving into true internationalism. However, as the
anti-Communist ideology fades and East and assumes a greater role in global
business and politics, a more wholesome American presence in East Asia is
partnership. Implicit in partnership are recognition, understanding and
appreciation. Although the obligation to address this asymmetry is mutual,
the United States, as the stronger and wealthier partner has greater
resources to improve the situation effectively and equitably.
America’s current
isolationist and protectionist mentality, a reflection of the politics of
domination, cannot be transformed by top-down political will. Change can
only occur through mass mobilization of social forces, including
non-governmental organizations. Public intellectuals in government, media,
business, the professions, labor, religion, and advocacy movements (for
example, environmental protection, gender equality, racial harmony, or human
rights) as well as the academic community should take responsibility for
facilitating a new agenda to discuss the American vision of and contribution
to the global community. Given America’s habits of the heart in general and
her highly fragmented political culture in particular, the prospects for
increasing American internationalism, in the short run, are not particularly
encouraging.
“At the Copenhagen Social
Summit in 1995, heads of State or Government from 117 countries pledged to
implement 10 commitments to alleviate poverty, promote employment and ensure
social integration.” This obviously newsworthy item received scant attention
and was substantially overwhelmed by trivia from Los Angeles during the O.
J. Simpson murder trial even in some of the nation’s leading international
journals. This fact alone clearly cautions against any naive optimism.
Nevertheless, pragmatic idealism and a cosmopolitan spirit are also defining
characteristics of the American mind. American officials as well as scholars
and experts have been at the forefront in “ensuring that structural
adjustment programs include social development and increasing resources
allocated to social development.” The possibility of an authentic American
internationalism is still there.
The emergence of a new
communal critical self-consciousness among public intellectuals will better
facilitate American participation in “strengthening cooperation for social
development through the UN” and help her realize her potential for inspiring
leadership on the global scene. In the eyes of East Asian intellectuals, the
strength of the United States as a model of modernity lies in her vibrant
market economy, functioning democratic polity, dynamic civil society, and
culture of freedom. The Enlightenment values, such as liberty, rights
consciousness, due process of law, and dignity of the individual, are
evident in American economy, polity, society, and culture. Yet,
unfortunately, American life is also plagued by inequality, litigiousness,
conflict, and violence. The American people could benefit from a spirit of
distributive justice in economy, an ethic of responsibility in politics, a
sense of trust in society, and, above all, a culture of peace.
Among the developed
countries, the United States is noted for her openness to change,
willingness to experiment and flexibility. Her somewhat liberal immigration
policies, admittedly often dictated by economic need and political
expediency, are a clear indication of her evolution into a microcosmic
“united nations.” Multiculturalism and ethnic diversity are integral parts
of the American way of life. The best of America is seen in her spirit of
tolerance, co-existence, dialogical interaction, and mutual learning across
race, gender, age, class, and religion. If the American mindset evolves to
encompass responsibility, civility and compassion as well as freedom and
rights and take a global perspective in defining her national interests, the
United States can significantly enhance the UN agenda for social
development.
Commentary
COMMENT ON IT!
