Mutual Learning as an Agenda for Social DevelopmentBy Tu Weiming Citation: "Mutual Learning as an Agenda for Social Development." 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:
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 haa 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.
|