Global Visions: Are We Speaking a Common Language?

Global Visions:Are We Speaking a Common Language?

Background Paperby Surendra Munshi, Fellow, Bertelsmann Stiftungfor Trilogue Salzburg 2008

Trilogue Salzburg 2008 | Page 2

The Bertelsmann Stiftung would like to thank Prof. Dr. Surendra Munshi for writing this back-ground paper and for the comments by Josef Janning, Senior Director.

About the author:

Surendra Munshi, the noted Indian sociologist, was Professor of Sociology at the Indian Instituteof Management, Calcutta (IIMC) until recently. He has researched and taught in India andabroad in the fields of classical sociological theory, sociology of culture, qualitative research,and industrial sociology. Among his other engagements he was the academic leader of an in-ternational project on good governance that was supported by the European Commission inwhich several European institutions of higher education took part. The outcome of this projecthas appeared as a book under the title Good Governance, Democratic Societies and Globaliza-tion. At present, he is a Fellow of Bertelsmann Stiftung. He is frequently invited to lecture atnational and international conferences. He has spoken recently on such varied subjects asmanagement challenges in the present century, cultural policy, intercultural dialogue, human-ism, and values in the era of globalization.

Responsible:

Malte Christopher Boecker, LL.M.Senior ExpertInternational Cultural DialogueBertelsmann StiftungPOB 103D – 33311 GueterslohTel. 0049 5241 [email protected]

Trilogue Salzburg:

Surrounded by the stimulating atmosphere of the Salzburg Festival, the Trilogue Salzburgbrings together renowned representatives from culture, business and politics to engage incrosscutting and future-oriented discourse. Addressing an annually changing topic, the TrilogueSalzburg strives to foster reflection and a lively debate of fundamental cultural issues and val-ues that are of social significance for Europe.


Introduction

Bertelsmann Stiftung has been examining changes and impacts brought about by globalization fora long time now. Based on previous project findings, the Foundation has significantly broadenedits expertise concerning new forms of participation in the globalized world. The Trilogue this yearon "Global Visions: Are We Speaking a Common Language?" is of utmost importance. It aims tostimulate fresh ideas and to create new perspectives for our future work. The Stiftung owes spe-cial thanks to its Indian Fellow Surendra Munshi who promoted the idea of "Global Thinking" and"Global Visions" at the International Cultural Forum New Delhi 2005. He has also written the at-tached background paper that outlines the problematique.

Globalization has brought about a pace of change and a degree of global interdependence thatcall for much more than what past panaceas can offer. What is required is a paradigm shift in theway we look at the world and the way we think and act. In this era of dramatic changes, we arefailing to adjust to our new situation.

The way we currently live does not promote sustainability and peace. Humanity is facing interre-lated challenges to its future that are unprecedented, and it is ill-prepared to meet them. The win-dow of opportunity for managing these challenges is closing rapidly. It is imperative that humanitynow focuses on securing collective survival and providing for dignified living conditions for all.

It is necessary to cooperate globally and to take a long-term perspective. This has not beenachieved yet. International politics still tends to favor unilateral action and to neglect internationalcommitments. In the business world, shareholder orientation does not automatically ensure quali-tative growth. In the cultural domain, identity concerns (religion, language, history) are increas-ingly shaping global conflicts. Linguistic fragmentation notably accounts most clearly for conflicts.

Recent thoughts on global affairs that have attracted much attention, such as "the end of history"or "the clash of civilizations", do not adequately express the complexity of the current situation,nor do they explore the possibilities that it offers for new forms of social integration. "Whereas theplanet is headed towards globalization, our minds and our consciousness are still bogged down inpre-global and pre-historic concepts"—this is what Dr. Karan Singh noted at the International Cul-tural Forum 2005 in New Delhi.


Our failure to meet these challenges adequately has resulted to a large extent from our inability todevelop:

• global visions of an interdependent, peaceful and sustainable future;• a common understanding across all languages of the need for worldwide cooperation;• a language applicable to strategies and relationships that moves from defeating enemies

to winning partners and that looks for long-term stability as against short-term benefits.

A responsible alternative can only emerge through an intercultural collaborative effort. By con-versing with each other in different domains--political, economic and social--we need to find alanguage that envisions a favorable future for all of us. We need new visions for addressing life'schallenges as they unfold under the conditions brought about by globalization--visions that canhelp us find ways to live together in peace and dignity and to manage our global interdependen-cies.

Against this background we need to promote global thinking conceived here as not just talkingabout the whole world but as an inclusive mindset. Moreover, we need to ask ourselves howglobal thinking can be embedded in the collective rules and institutions that govern globalization.

In the political domain global thinking needs to address the issue of creating or strengthening theinstitutions and processes of global governance for managing present complex challenges. Howcan the interests of future generations be provided for, worldwide accountability be increased, andcompetencies at the global level assigned in a way that complies with the idea of subsidiarity?

In the economic domain it is important to ask how we can transform value creation so that it sup-ports the broader goals of sustainability, diversity, and social justice. Policymakers and the busi-ness world have a responsibility to find new forms of qualitative growth.

In the cultural domain it is imperative to draw on all our cultural resources--religious as well assecular, past as well as present--to reclaim our shared human heritage. In order to deal construc-tively with diversity and to overcome all forms of cultural exclusion, representatives of the world'sreligions and civilizations need to explore those aspects in their respective identities that lendthemselves to making room for others.

If we are to walk the talk, we must address a number of pressing questions, including: How canwe assess current levels of global thinking and then globalize wisdom in the political, economic,and social realms? How can we overcome cognitive barriers and build powerful new alliancesacross all sectors of public life? How can we leverage meaningful discourse and interculturallearning as they relate to key global challenges and our common aspirations? And how can wepool the resources and networks of the world's most important global minds and initiatives so thatcollectively they can operate more effectively than they have individually done so far?

The Stiftung trusts that the background paper will stimulate enlightening thought and debate onglobal visions.

Bertelsmann StiftungJuly 2008


Background PaperContents

I. The Challenges of Linguistic Diversity ....................................................................................... 7

II. The Challenges of Our Time ..................................................................................................... 8

III. To Get the Future Right............................................................................................................ 9

IV. The Missing Global Thinking.................................................................................................. 11

V. Our Flawed Responses .......................................................................................................... 13

VI. The Celebration of Diversity................................................................................................... 15

VII. The Need for Enlightening Global Visions ............................................................................ 17

VIII. Exploring Possibilities .......................................................................................................... 18

IX. The Task Ahead..................................................................................................................... 19

X. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 20



I. The Challenges of Linguistic Diversity

Are we speaking a common language? If we consider this question literally, it is obvious that we

are not speaking a common language. We are speaking many languages all over the world with

names ranging from Aari, a language of Ethiopia, to Zypha, a language of Myanmar. Did a situa-

tion ever exist when human beings spoke a common language? Going by the biblical account,

such a situation did exist at one time. While it was God who created every living creature, it was

Adam who gave them their names. Noah, the chosen one, who survived the great flood that God

created carried the language for a new beginning on the earth, but his descendants brought the

wrath of God on themselves. The brief narrative is best presented in the words of the Bible.

And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. And it came to pass, as

they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt

there. And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly.

And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar. And they said, Go to, let us

build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a

name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. And the Lord came

down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the Lord said,

Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do:

and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let

us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one an-

other's speech. So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the

earth: and they left off to build the city. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because

the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord

scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth (Gen. 11.1-9).

How many languages came into existence through this dispersal? It is common to believe that the

number was 70 or so counting the number of Noah's sons and their descendants who are named

in Genesis. Based on the work

done at Ethnologue, a great cata-

logue of living languages that has

been in existence since 1951,1 it

may be noted that, as of the in-

formation that was available in

2005, there are 6912 living lan-

guages in the world. This figure is

to be viewed with the understand-

ing that the number of identified

languages increases with the in-

crease in our knowledge about the

languages of the world. Further,

this figure does not include dia-

lects seen as divergent varieties


of a language that are not distinct enough to be considered as separate languages. The number

of these known dialects is more than 10,000. Even though the data on the actual speakers of

English is often disputed, especially when considering those who speak it as the second lan-

guage, it is clear that English, an international language with the widest dispersion of all the lan-

guages of the world, can claim for itself significantly less speakers then claimed by Mandarin,

perhaps about half the number of more than one billion Mandarin speakers. The linguistic diversity

appears, however, less wide if we also note that 347 (about 5 per cent) of the languages of the

world have at least one million speakers and they account together for 94 per cent of the popula-

tion of the world.

The increase from about 70 languages at the biblical time to about 7000 languages spoken at

present creates its own challenges. Even though, as Amartya Sen has argued,2 it can be mis-

leading to think of identity along a single dimension, the issue of identity is closely related with

language in the present world. Language not only provides identity at the level of major social

groups but also within a social group with respect to different subgroups. Thus, when the

younger generation differentiates itself from the older generation, it often does so, among other

cultural traits, by a 'language' of its own. Language serves in this respect a way by which people

identify with each other and also differentiate themselves from others. What one is and at the

same time is not can provide a useful purpose in giving a sense of personal identity and social

belonging but it can also lead to conflict with those who are seen as different. In a study of cul-

tural conflicts covering the period from 1945 to 2007, commissioned by Bertelsmann Stiftung

and carried out at Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research (HIIK), it is noted that

there is evidence to show that the greatest risk to safety exists in conflicts not between states

but in the existence of unresolved domestic conflicts within states. Not religious but linguistic

fragmentation accounts most clearly for conflicts in a country. The higher the linguistic fragmen-

tation in a country the higher is the probability of conflicts there. 3 Yet another challenge of lin-

guistic diversity is the limitation it imposes on our understanding of each other in a growingly

interdependent world. The issue then becomes not whether we are speaking a common lan-

guage but whether we can speak a common language, an issue to which we shall return in the

course of this paper.

II. The Challenges of Our Time

It is one of the paradoxes of globalization that, while the world is coming closer, particularly in the

areas of technology and economy, there are forces that threaten to take it apart. Numbers have

their own way of telling stories. According to the Fourth Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change (IPCC), human contribution to climate change is clearer now than ever before.

Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the twelve warmest years since 1850,

and global temperature rise over this century is predicted to be higher than in the previous cen-

tury. This has impact on human life everywhere in such varied ways as heat waves, diseases,

floods, hurricanes, and droughts. 4Added to the threat to our environment, we have the dubious

legacy of destruction brought by violence. It has been estimated that between 167 million and 188

million people died due to organized violence during the twentieth century, a period that was also


a period of great material prosperity. There is a continued threat to us by the weapons of mass

destruction which can inflict death and destruction on a large scale. They include now nuclear,

biological, and chemical weapons. While the stockpile of nuclear weapons has increased from a

handful to the tens of thousands, nuclear explosive capabilities have grown from kilotons to mega-

tons.5 Regarding poverty, it is commonly recognized that about one billion people in the world fall

below the poverty line to whom access to adequate nutrition, literacy, and basic sanitation is not

yet available.6 Identity issues are being expressed by violence. This has been most dramatically

expressed by the events of September 11 and the expressions of violence elsewhere.

Technological advances that bring un-

heard of possibilities of communication

lend themselves to abuse that take us

back to the time of tribal wars. The emerg-

ing global village is full of people who are

unable to see beyond their villages. This is

the time when we need to go outside our

tribes and tribal mentalities. It is important

to make efforts, drawn from all our re-

sources, for finding solutions to global

challenges that threaten our planet and our

very existence on it. We need to recognize

that the problems that confront us cannot

be solved unless we come together and address them jointly, nor can they be solved unless we

see their interconnections. Can violence, for instance, be fully taken away from social life so long

as we live with extreme poverty and glaring inequalities of all kinds? It is one of the ironies of our

life that at a time when we need to cooperate and speak a common language we are split by our

different identities and languages.

III. To Get the Future Right

Concerns about our future are though being expressed with a sense of greater urgency now.

Thus, Ronald Wright makes a reasoned plea in his book for getting the future right.7 He notes that

in the course of the twentieth century while the population of the world has increased the economy

has increased beyond comparison. This makes excessive demands on the natural capital of the

whole planet. We are living on this capital of nature, not its interest. And yet we go on as if there is

no reason to worry about the future. He calls it 'the dinosaur factor' characterized by 'hostility to

change from vested interests, and inertia at all social levels'. In this inertia itself, he sees a big

mistake. He writes:

The 10,000-year experiment of the settled life will stand or fall by what we do, and don't

do, now. The reform that is needed is not anti-capitalist, anti-American, or even deep en-

vironmentalist; it is simply the transition from short-term to long-term thinking. From reck-

lessness and excess to moderation and the precautionary principle. The great advan-

tage we have, our best chance of avoiding the fate of past societies, is that we know


about those past societies. We can see how and why they went wrong. Homo sapiens

has the information to know itself for what it is: an Ice Age hunter only half-evolved to-

wards intelligence; clever but seldom wise.8

There have been others who have expressed similar concerns. Thus, Jared M. Diamond has con-

sidered whether our world is moving on a sustainable course. Even though engaged with a pes-

simistic theme, he concludes on an optimistic note. Reflecting on past mistakes makes it possible

for us to learn from them. A critical point in this learning process is the capacity to make coura-

geous decisions about values, for values that served a society well at one time may not do so

under changed circumstances. 9 Martin Rees sees the odds no better than fifty-fifty that the pre-

sent civilization will live till the end of the present century. He sees the greatest danger in our in-

tentional destruction.10 Al Gore has done much to raise our awareness about the climate crisis. As

he said in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, in facing this crisis, we have an opportunity

'to gain the moral authority and vision to vastly increase our capacity to solve other crises that

have been too long ignored'.11

We may now turn to Robert May's Anniversary Address, 'Threats to Tomorrow's World', delivered

at the Royal Society in 2005. 12He sees the world today being, borrowing a phrase, 'the best of

times and the worst of times'. We live in the best of times, he argues, in terms of health, life ex-

pectancy, and other benefits. The opposite is also true. He writes:

But we also live in--or more accurately, on the brink of--the worst of times. The well- in-

tentioned actions that gave us better health, more food, more energy all have unin-

tended adverse consequences, which we are only just beginning fully to appreciate. It

took essentially all of human history to reach the first 1 billion people, around 1830; a

century to double that; 40 years to double again to 4 billion around 1970. Today we are

6.5 billion, headed, barring catastrophe, to around 9 billion by 2050. The total number of

people our planet can sustainably support depends on the assumptions you make. But

given that we currently sequester one quarter to one half of all net terrestrial primary

productivity to our use--a circumstance without precedent by any single species in the

history of life on Earth--we are likely already to be at or beyond Earth’s sustainable carry-

ing capacity. Turning to food, we could not feed today’s population with yesterday’s agri-

culture, and it is doubtful whether we can feed tomorrow’s with today’s agriculture. 13

The problem is that those very inputs that increase food production by way of artificial fertilizers

create problems for our environment and for us. Their full impact is only now being appreciated.

He goes on to discuss the problem of climate change, biological diversity, and infectious diseases.

In planning remedial actions, we are caught up in a dilemma where on the one hand the necessity

to cooperate in our common interest is recognized and yet it is also clear on the other hand that if

all countries do not act in an equitable manner the virtuous will be economically disadvantaged

and all will pay the price of the sinners' action or rather lack of it.

On a smaller scale, the need for thinking clearly and differently for challenging times ahead is

being expressed in different ways. Thus, looking at Salzburg Trilogues of recent years, it becomes


clear that this is a pressing need. Last year when the theme was inter-religious understanding, it

was emphasized that a new beginning had to be made for religious communities to live together

without denying significant differences among them.14 In the discussion on Asia that took place in

2006, the emerging importance of Asia was noted and yet it was emphasized that our present

century might well turn out to be not Asian, nor European, but indeed a global century.15 The dis-

cussion in 2005 had for its theme global responsibility that speaks for itself.16 Earlier, in 2004, the

theme for discussion was tolerance. It is interesting to note how different participants emphasized

the need for 'a truly different vision of the world', the need for a mission statement on how we want

to live together, and the need to create together 'magic moments' and then follow them up with

'die Mühen der Ebene', the hard work of the daily life.17

Even in an area like strategy, the need for a new approach is felt. As Ketan J. Patel argues, we

need to change the language of strategy from defeating enemies to winning cooperation to suit

our changed global situation. We have, he argues, allowed the language of military to overwhelm-

ingly influence our thinking of strategy which emphasizes 'enemies', rivals', 'rivalry', and 'winning'.

We need to develop a new language that will emphasize the expansion of possibilities and the

capacity of developing the potential of different people.18At the organizational level as well, it is

being increasingly felt that global problems need to be addressed globally. Apart from UN organi-

zations and similar multilateral organizations, there are voluntary initiatives which operate globally

with varied areas of concern, such as, for example, Amnesty International, Earth Charter Initiative,

Global Marshall Plan, Sasakawa Peace Foundation, World Future Council, and Worldwatch Insti-

tute. Such initiatives have achieved much. It is useful to see what lessons can be drawn from their

experiences. The voice of global civil society is vital for us today. While their contributions are

significant, it is also true, as has become clear in the course of the project on global visions at

Bertelsmann Stiftung, that there is a need for cooperation between organizations for a broader

view beyond their respective domains. Moreover, we also need to learn from our experience with

Millennium Development Goals so far. The Millennium Development Goals Report 2007 shows

uneven results. While there are signs of gains, there remains much to be done and what is more

significant much more could be achieved if all concerned lived up to their commitments. 19

IV. The Missing Global Thinking

Wright identifies the need to move from short-term to long-term thinking. This is indeed true. It

may be argued that a related need is to move from so to speak parochial thinking to global think-

ing. Pressing though the requirement is to face our challenges at the global level, we generally

lack as yet the consciousness and strategies for living together peacefully under the conditions

that have been brought about by globalization. Our failure to meet these challenges well is related

in a significant manner to our common inability to think globally. What is generally missing is

global thinking which is understood here as not just talking about the whole world but as an inclu-

sive way of thinking that tries to embrace with knowledge and sensitivity the whole of humanity

and the earth on which we live for the common good of all. The standpoint of global thinking which

does not overlook the dignity of difference is not a divided world but a world united in its humanity.20


The poverty of ideas of the present is best illustrated by comparing this ideational poverty in the

midst of unprecedented material growth with what happened in different parts of the world ear-

lier. Sen has drawn attention to the fact that, in the last decade of the millennium in the Muslim

Hijri calendar (in 992 Hijri, corresponding to 1584 CE), Akbar, Emperor of India, went on to pro-

pose a synthetic calendar for the entire country, drawing from different calendars that were in

use at that time. He viewed the millennial occasion as an opportunity for reflection on the chal-

lenges of his time. This stands in contrast to the little critical assessment of the millennium ex-

perience that occurred as the second Gregorian millennium ended. The moment of passage

(December 31, 1999) turned out to be an occasion for fun-filled celebrations all over the world.

For Akbar, it was important to encourage public debates between members of different relig-

ions. He took a stand that no discrimination should take place because of religion. His policy of

religious tolerance was based on the principle of 'absolute peace' that he practised with consis-

tency during the second half of his reign. Indeed, he tried to launch a new religion which he

called 'God’s religion', drawing what he thought were good points from different religions. He

was influenced by the idea of the 'perfect man' of Islamic mysticism, though this did not prevent

him from following the 'path of reason'. He is reported to have said, 'The pursuit of reason and

rejection of traditionalism are so brilliantly patent as to be above the need of argument. If tradi-

tionalism was proper, the prophets would merely have followed their own elders (and not come

with new messages)'. 21

To consider an important period in European history in this context, we can fruitfully look back at

the age of Goethe. It is striking that a number of minds appeared at that time whose emotions

and thoughts accepted no limits other than that of humanity, but who lived their lives in the

Germany of petty principalities and economic backwardness. Goethe himself cautioned his

countrymen against trying to make themselves into a nation. He advised them to make them-

selves free human beings instead. Goethe sees this free human being in relation to humanity.

The words of Faust to Mephistopheles are telling. Faust tells him that he wants to gather in his

heart the weal and the woe of the whole of mankind and thereby extend his own being to its

being. Around the time the first part of Faust was completed, Hegel completed his Phenome-

nology of Mind in which he sees the historical progress of the individual in relation to the histori-

cal progress of mankind, recognizing that it is man who creates himself. This was in 1807.

Kant’s treatise on Perpetual Peace had appeared some years before that in 1795. In this work,

Kant argues in favor of a world federation of free states where war is forbidden by a covenant.

War is against reason, argues Kant, and only an international government can prevent it. We

need to recall the heroic manner in which those great persons went beyond their crippling re-

strictions and expressed the sentiment that Heine characterized later as 'the most splendid and

sacred thing Germany has produced', 'the universal brotherhood of man'.

What is needed at present is to follow the path of reason from the point of view of the entire

humanity and to contribute to global visions.


V. Our Flawed Responses

How have we responded to the challenges of our time? Towards the end of his address, May

notes that for many the response to serious problems ahead has been to escape from complexity

and to embrace 'the darkness of fundamentalist unreason' of the Western or the Eastern variety.

Indeed, uncomfortable with the complexity of diversity, those recent visions of the world that have

attracted much attention have either emphasized 'clash' or even 'war' or denied diversity. We turn

our attention to them now.

In an article that appeared in 1993, Samuel P. Huntington reflected on the new phase of world

politics after the end of the Cold War.22 He considers in this article various visions of what it will be

and finds missing in them a central aspect of the emerging reality. He offers his vision of what it is

likely to be in the near future. His argument has now become famous: 'it is my hypothesis that the

fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily eco-

nomic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cul-

tural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts

of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civili-

zations will be the battle lines of the future'. He pays particular attention to the conflict between

Western and Islamic civilizations. This conflict is unlikely to decline. Actually, this conflict could

become virulent.

Huntington mentions in his article that the conflict between Western and Islamic civilizations has

been going on for 1,300 years. As if to go further back in time, prior to the coming of Islam or for

that matter the founding of Christianity, and to prove that the idea of clash is not dead, Anthony

Pagden has just published his Worlds at War: The 2500-Year Struggle between East and West.23Considering that Paden's East consists of mostly what are at present Islamic societies, his views

apply generally to the societies as far as the East of his construction is concerned. While national

boundaries and sentiments are become less important with more people travelling and becoming

familiar with the ways of others, Pagden argues, some of the divisions of the past persist, espe-

cially the division between the East and the West. The East, as Herodotus saw, was inhabited by

varied peoples who had much to show for themselves but yet who had one thing in common that

differentiated them from the peoples of Europe. They were 'slavish and servile', fully in awe of

their rulers who were seen as gods. The difference between the East and the West was funda-

mentally based on the manner 'the worlds of men and gods were conceived'. Nearer our present

time, different forms of secularization in the West that Christianity was unable to resist have cre-

ated a situation where for more than past three hundred years the nations of the West have car-

ried their civil and political life as if no religion of any kind existed. Thus, when Al-Qaeda, writes

Pagden, swears to continue its 'Holy War', the jihad, until 'the final destruction of the West', it

commits itself to a war against 'Western values' which include 'fundamental secularism'. The story

of the conflict between East and West, of which Al-Qaeda's war is the latest manifestation, goes

back in time, so much that it belongs to the domain of myths.24

Huntington has been criticized for his understanding of the concept of civilizations which has been

found inadequate and misleading. Moreover, he overlooks that no matter how a civilization is de-


fined it cannot be viewed to be monolithic and static, having closed boundaries. The empirical

basis of his thesis has also been questioned. 25The same may be said of Pagden. His East and

West remain vaguely defined and his disarming admission that this distinction is even geographi-

cally 'unstable' does not add to the clarity of the distinction. It has been shown that the book is

flawed by 'inaccuracy, ignorance and conceptual muddle'.26 Moreover, it may be pointed out that

to read Al-Qaeda in Herodotus is not only to take our present to the past but also to commit the

fallacy of what Tolstoy called in War and Peace the law of 'retrospectiveness' which makes all the

past appear as a preparation for events that occur subsequently. There is surely a limit to what

even our great ancestors can carry on their shoulders.

If diversity is disturbing, then there is the option of denying that it exists or is likely to persist. This

is what Francis Fukuyama does in his paper that appeared in The National Interest in 1989.27 This

paper has become famous. It is well known that Fukuyama acclaims in his paper 'the triumph of

the West', 'an unabashed victory of economic and political liberalism'. He argues that the United

States and Japan have been able to create a truly universal consumer culture. Not only have all

possible 'contradictions' in human life been resolved or are capable of being resolved in the con-

text of this way of life but also there is a total exhaustion of any alternative to it. Recently, Thomas

Friedman hit the bestseller list with a book that claims that The World is Flat. 28By the fall of the

Berlin Wall and such technological innovations as the Windows operating system, supply chain-

ing, and so on, he claims that the world has been flattened. All these 'flatteners' started to con-

verge around 2000.

Fukuyama's 'universalization' of the Western idea which he at one place describes as democracy

in the political sphere and an easy access to VCRs and stereos in the economic sphere overlooks

the inner tensions of this idea. Nor does he allow for the possibility of alternatives or substantial

improvements to the idea developing from within or outside the Western world. As far as Fried-

man is concerned, quite apart from other points of criticism that can be brought against his hastily

written book that has not even resolved the issue of what is meant by the flat world in any consis-

tent manner, he seems to overlook the impact of the flat world on those who are on the receiving

end of it. 29

The world of Fukuyama or Friedman--the world after history or the flat world--is characterized by

consumerism. It does not concern them to examine whether this consumerism is good for us, nor

to consider whether the 'inexorable power' gained by material goods and the pursuit of wealth

devoid of any religious or ethical meaning has filled human beings, as Max Weber suggested, with

'purely mundane passions'.30 Friedman is fascinated by the conveyor belts of Wal-Mart, calling

their movements 'the Wal-Mart Symphony', but he does not ask himself as he watches the end-

less movement of boxed products what their consumption is doing to our environment. No thought

is given to considering whether this expanding appetite for more and more consumption is our

collective future and whether that future is desirable or sustainable. Fukuyama has come now to

realize that more than the end of history the prospect facing us is of moving on to a 'posthuman'

stage of history. 31

Is this then the danger of denying the existence of diversity?


VI. The Celebration of Diversity

A positive critique of Fukuyama and Huntington comes from Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi, United

Hebrew Congregation of the British Commonwealth. It is to him that we turn our attention now.32

Responding to their famous visions of the future, he notes that both of them seem to have found

confirmation in the course of time. While Fukuyama envisaged a future where a single culture

would prevail with the spread of capitalism, Huntington saw the outcome of this spread in different

terms. Against Fukuyama's universalism, Huntington predicted a new form of tribalism. Global

economy is indeed creating a universal culture that Benjamin Barber calls 'MacWorld' and at the

same time religious differences are taking us apart. Are these the only scenarios, Sacks asks, that

are possible? It is our responsibility, he argues, 'to envision a different and more gracious future'.

To envision such a future is important, for we live in an interconnected world where we are

brought face to face with diversity. We live in a world without global governance that can contain

conflict, a world where many factors, including technology, make it possible for small groups to

create havoc on a large scale.33

Tribalism goes back to the early history of humanity when being part of a tribe provided to an indi-

vidual not only security but also identity, including religious identity. Tribes were local and so were

tribal gods who watched over the destinies of their tribes. The tribal mentality persisted in the form

of nationalism till recently. The antithesis of tribalism is universalism which in its present form

leads us to think of our global culture as universal. It tribalism can be threatening and lead to

harm, so can universalism. To overlook our uniqueness, the uniqueness of each language, cul-

ture, or community, is to deny us the dignity that our difference bestows upon us. Sacks sees the

beginning of universalism in Western thought in Plato and considers it important to exorcize what

he calls 'Plato's ghost'. The danger of universalism lies in leading us to think of one truth which

holds true for different peoples and different times. A critical question, perhaps the central ques-

tion, of the global age about any order under discussion is whether it makes space for other-

ness.34

Sacks sees a special responsibility

for religious leaders in envisioning a

gracious future. Religious traditions

need to suggest ideas that are equal

to the challenges of our time, for as

he clearly formulates it, 'if religion is

not part of a solution, it will certainly

be part of the problem'. 35Writing as

an orthodox Jew, he tries to suggest

what his faith can contribute towards

making it possible. For this purpose,

he goes to the Bible, especially to its

first eleven chapters. After we hear

of the disobedience of Adam, Cain


being a murderer, Noah living in a world full of violence, we hear of the flood, God's covenant with

Noah, and then in Genesis 11 of the Tower of Babel. Recognizing in the story hubris, Sacks sees

in it with Rabbi Berlin, a commentator from the nineteenth century, the first act of 'totalitarianism'.

Why is it called an act of totalitarianism? The answer that is given is: 'It is the attempt to impose

an artificial unity on divinely created diversity'. 36Or, put differently, as he does in his lecture at

Carnegie Council, 'an attempt to impose a single truth on a plural world'.37 Babel provides a turn-

ing point, for, after the language was confounded and 'the global project' was given up, the narra-

tion moves on from humanity to one family, the family of Abraham, and eventually one people.

God asks them to 'be different'. Why does he ask them to be different? He asks them to be differ-

ent so that humanity is taught to make space for difference. This does not mean that the Abra-

hamic covenant replaces the covenant that God had made with Noah and through him with hu-

manity. It means that Judaism subscribes to 'particularist monotheism', the idea of one God but

not one exclusive path to him. It is important to quote Sacks at length on this point.

The essential message of the Hebrew Bible is that universality--the covenant with Noah--

is only the context and prelude to the irreducible multiplicity of cultures, those systems of

meaning by which human beings have sought to understand their relationship to one

another, the world and the source of being.... Cultures are like languages. The world

they describe is the same but the ways they do so on almost infinitely varied.... Each

language is the product of a specific community and its history, its shared experiences

and sensibilities. There is no universal language.... Within any language we can say

something new. No language is fixed, unalterable, complete. What we cannot do is place

ourselves outside the particularity of language to arrive at a truth, a way of understand-

ing and responding to the world that applies to everyone at all times.... So too is the case

of religion. The radical transcendence of God in the Hebrew Bible means that the Infi-

nite lies beyond our finite understanding. God communicates in human language, but

there are dimensions of the divine that must for ever elude us....God is the God of all

humanity, but between Babel and the end of days no single faith is the faith of all hu-

manity. Such a narrative would lead to us to respect the search for God in people of

other faiths and reconciles the particularity of cultures with the universality of the human

condition.38

Having listened to the sacred text of Judaism, Sacks comes to the conclusion that the God of

Abraham teaches us that we are all human beings as such and at the same time members of a

particular family or community. God is the unifying principle in all diversity. With this understanding

one can be secure in one's faith and not let different faiths of others appear as threats. This is the

understanding that is required for cultivating the art of conversation which needs to be carried out

not in the spirit of refutation but with the mutual desire for letting our worlds enlarge in the pres-

ence of others who think differently.39

Even though critical issues can be raised about some of the formulations of Sacks in the spirit of

taking the conversation forward through a global conversation that he desires, it cannot be denied

that he opens in an exemplary manner the possibility of reading our religious texts for meeting our


present challenges. Here is indeed our hope in a troubled world. Above all, the idea of one God,

different faiths needs to be supported. To bring this support from a different religious background,

it may be pointed out that this idea is central to the understanding of Hinduism.40 As Swami

Vivekananda said at the World's Parliament of Religions, Chicago, 1893, 'unity in variety is the

plan of nature, and the Hindu has recognised it'. He further said:

To the Hindus, then, the whole world of religions is only a travelling, a coming up, of differ-

ent men and women, through various conditions and circumstances, to the same goal.

Every religion is only evolving a God out of the material man, and the same God is the in-

spirer of all of them. Why, then, are there so many contradictions? They are only apparent,

says the Hindu. The contradictions come from the same truth adapting itself to the varying

circumstances of different natures. It is the same light coming through glasses of different

colours. And these little variations are necessary for purposes of adaptation. But in the heart

of everything the same truth reigns. The Lord has declared to the Hindu in his incarnation

as Krishna: 'I am in every religion as the thread to a string of pearls. Wherever thou seest

extraordinary holiness and extraordinary power raising and purifying humanity, know thou

that I am there'.41

VII. The Need for Enlightening Global Visions

Both Huntington and Sacks give us their visions of what the future holds for us. Huntington may

well argue that, if he does not envision a gracious future and if his vision presents division, it is not

because he wants to advocate the clash that he discusses. Not what he desires but what he ob-

serves provides the basis for his vision. He presents his vision in descriptive terms, highlighting

what is plausible. It is easy on this basis to contrast the empirical approach of Huntington with the

religious approach of Sacks, contrasting so to speak a scientific approach with an idealist ap-

proach. The problem with the empirical approach of Huntington or for that matter Pagden is that,

as has been seen earlier, the factual foundations of their visions are not above question. More-

over, it needs to be pointed out that, in speaking the language of clash and war, both of them and

persons like them run the risk of contributing, even against their own wishes, to the turmoil of our

present world. To revive, as Pagden

does, the notion of 'perpetual enmity'

of Herodotus in our present situation

burdened by the language of right-

eous vengeance is to behave in an

irresponsible manner. It ends up

creating a modern myth with terrify-

ing possibilities. Indeed, Huntington

has admitted in his article that he

wrote in response to his critics that

Muslims have seen in his thesis

regarding 'the clash' recognition,


even legitimation, for the distinctness of their own civilization.

We need to have conceptual clarity on the issue of visions. Much confusion persists in scholarly

literature and actual practice because of the ambiguous manner in which the concept is under-

stood and the undifferentiated manner in which it is used. While 'vision' refers to the capacity or

act of seeing, what needs to be understood is that it also refers to the capacity of seeing some-

thing not actually present to the eye. In recent years, vision has acquired a special significance in

management theory and practice. Visionary leaders are persons who look ahead of others and

have the capacity to translate what is yet a dream into reality. From an ordinary capacity of seeing

what we share with each other as human beings, vision may mean an extraordinary capacity of

seeing something that others do not see or do not see yet. Further conceptual distinctions need to

be introduced now. There are three conceptions of vision that need to be differentiated. While

empirical vision refers to what it will be, or more cautiously what it is likely to be, enlightening vi-

sion refers to what it should be. It is a visionary leader who can offer an enlightening vision which

goes beyond the vision of others. Empirical vision and enlightening vision are related. While no

enlightening vision can be effective unless it is based on a clear empirical vision, merely empirical

vision may lead us to the denial of the role of human agency. Both empirical vision and enlighten-

ing vision should be differentiated from utopian vision which may be viewed as a vision of what is

desired or should be desired but which lacks any empirical foundation and may prove to be an

impracticable ideal scheme. Any concern with global visions means concern with what is happen-

ing to our world and the direction in which it is moving globally.

Taking advantage of the distinctions presented above, it is to be further specified that enlightening

global visions are the visions that, based on discerning analyses of reality, show us the trends that

can be utilized to advantage for the benefit of humanity, leading us to what it should be. We need

visions, not an overarching vision with primacy over others, for the course of human history is

unlikely to run according to a fixed script. We need visions in the context of reality as it unfolds

itself which can contribute to our finding ways of living together in peace and dignity in the emerg-

ing world in which our lives are increasing getting interlinked. We cannot afford to be silent specta-

tors. It is becoming imperative that human activity is directed towards securing survival and digni-

fied living for all. Enlightening global visions must comprehend such activity and in turn contribute

to it.

VIII. Exploring Possibilities

How can we promote in different domains global thinking of which that standpoint is not a divided

world but a world united in its humanity without overlooking the dignity of difference? Salzburg

Trilogue provides a suitable platform for exploring possibilities in response to this question. We

need to examine for each of the domains of economy, politics, and culture represented here main

features that promote or hinder the possibility of our living together in peace and dignity in the

emerging world. Such an examination must address the issues of values, institutions, and modes

of sustainable life, taking a long-term perspective. As Sen has argued, we can make the world

move towards peace as much as it has moved towards violence recently.42


Some common concerns may be very briefly expressed in an indicative manner here.

It is important to ask in the economic domain how economic development can be combined with

the broader issue of sustainability, profit with justice. A criticism of globalization that is often

brought against it is that in its present form it is neither sustainable nor equitable. How is this criti-

cism to be met? How is poverty to be eliminated and global partnership for development to be

promoted? As Reinhard Mohn has argued, the critical criterion for judging the correctness of any

system is 'the fairness and humanity of its effects on society'.43 It is this point that often gets lost in

an exclusive concentration on the interests of the shareholders viewed in a short-term perspec-

tive.

As far as the political domain is concerned, a major concern is good governance that needs to be

promoted, nationally and internationally. An area that requires attention is the manner in which

institutions of global governance can be strengthened and wherever necessary created to take

care of complexities in the process of globalization that arise out of greater economic integration.

While we need not concern ourselves with a powerful world government that regulates life in a

centralized manner, the need for systems of governance that can be effective in regulating those

processes which are essential to survival and sustainability is often expressed. An important point

to consider here is the need for greater democratization of global institutions. As Maurice Strong

has recently argued, our propensity for unilateral action has seriously undermined the basis of

international cooperation at a time when the need for such cooperation could not be greater.44

The cultural domain is the contested domain today. We need to draw from all our cultural re-

sources--religious as well as secular, past as well as present--to reclaim our shared human heri-

tage. The critical concern here is to see how religion can become part of a solution, not of the

problem. In the secular sphere, the critical concern is to discover the authentic humanist voice

across diverse cultural traditions and practices. Culture does matter but it is not an immutable

matter. We need to understand that we as human beings create and recreate our cultures. As to

the important issue of ethics, we need to respond ethically to the reality of an increasingly inter-

connected world. We cannot do it well unless there is a global public dialogue at different levels.

An ancient insight may prove useful here.

In Chandogya Upanishad there is a tell-

ing passage: 'if there were no speech,

neither right nor wrong would be known,

neither the true nor the false, neither the

good nor the bad, neither the pleasant

nor the unpleasant. Speech makes us

understand'.45

IX. The Task Ahead

How do we move forward? How can we

enlarge our efforts beyond initiatives such as Trilogue Salzburg? Who are these 'we' under dis-


cussion here? Can much be achieved unless private and public lives of many people are

touched, world views reshaped, and suitable forms of institutions suggested?

It is useful to refer to a question that Abdul Kalam, the then President of India, posed on Yahoo!

Answers about a year ago. He asks: 'What should we do to free our planet from terrorism?'46And he goes on to note that 'when evil minds combine, good minds have to work together and

combat'. In response, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, among others, gave his answer to the question

posed, using an interesting expression. He says that we need to globalize wisdom. 47Indeed,

good minds need to work together globally, learning from each other and globalizing wisdom.

While supply chains of the globalizing world are bringing economies together, we need soul

chains to bind human beings together for the purpose of ensuring that we can leave a world

behind in which our children can live in peace and shared prosperity.

We cannot visualize global thinking in absolute terms. It has to be developed over time through

a mutual learning process. Through this learning process that is seen as cooperative, not com-

bative, we can overcome triumphant universalism and blatant partisanship or relentless relativ-

ism. It will be useful to learn from distinguished global thinkers, just as it will be useful to network

with the most important global initiatives of the world. What are the best ways in which these

resources can be used? What will be the modes of cooperation most suitable for the purpose?

X. Conclusion

Are we speaking a common language? We may now try to go beyond the obvious answer that we

are not speaking a common language that was given at the beginning of this paper. If different

traditions are allowed to be juxtaposed, it may be said that we did speak a common language at

one time and we speak different languages at present that lend themselves to be classified into

different language families. Ethnologue recognizes six major language families of the world which

together account for nearly two-thirds of all languages and five-sixths of the population of the

world. These major language families have a widespread, some more and some less. Thus, for

example, Indo-European languages are spoken in different countries of the world, from Afghani-

stan to Venezuela. We may not be speaking a common language any longer but we often speak

similar languages.

More importantly, if we think of language as a mode of discourse, indicating a way of thought that

includes ideas and attitudes, then we recall we have heard the language of clash or even war. But

recent thoughts pertaining to the world that have attracted much attention, such as the thesis of

the end of history or clash of civilizations, as we have seen, do not adequately express the com-

plexity of our situation, nor do they explore the possibilities that our situation offers for new forms

of social integration. We have then encountered in the course of this paper the argument that

there is no universal language, though it was not denied that different languages may describe the

same reality in different ways. Without entering into a complex discussion on this point, it may be

noted that there is no reason why we cannot try to speak as far as possible a common language.

We are already speaking such a language as far as science and technology are concerned. In

other domains of life, we may bring into play an inclusive way of thinking that embraces not the


darkness of unreason but the light of reason for the common good of all. If humanity is faced with

common problems, then we need to address them in a language that we share with each other.

This does not mean that we overlook the diversity of languages. To overlook this diversity is nei-

ther possible not desirable. Without ignoring their differences, we may still try to find a common

language among all our languages which expresses our common concerns and common destiny.

We need to find together through conversations with each other a language that envisions a gra-

cious future for all of us. Our diversity may indeed make this language richer not poorer.

---


Footnotes

1 Raymond G. Gordon Jr. (ed.), Ethnologue: Languages of the World (Dallas, Tex.: SIL International, 15th ed. 2005).Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com/ (Last Accessed June 2008).2 Amartya Sen, Identity and Violence ( London: Allen Lane, 2006).3 See: Aurel Croissant and Uwe Wagschal, Kulturkonflikte zu Beginn des 21.Jahrhunderts:Wissenschaftliche Studie imAuftrag der Bertelsmann-Stiftung (Heidelberg 2008 ).4 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, Summary for Policy Makers,http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf (Last Accessed June 2008).5 See: Niall Ferguson, 'The Next War of the World', Foreign Affairs, September/October 2006; Paul J. Walker, 'State ofthe World 2005 Global Security Brief #4: Weapons of Mass Destruction and Nonproliferation,http://www.worldwatch.org/node/78 (Last Accessed June 2008)6 WDR 2000/2001: Attacking Poverty,http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPOVERTY/0,,contentMDK:20195989~isCURL:Y~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:336992,00.html( Last Accessed June 2008)7 Ronald Wright, A Short History of Progress (Edinburg: Canongate, 2005).8 Wright, Progress, pp. 131-32.9 Jared Diamond, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed ( New York: Penguin, 2005), p. 547.10 Martin Rees, Our Final Century: Will the Human Race Survive the Twenty-first Century? (London: Heinemann, 2003).11 See: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/gore-lecture_en.html(Last accessed June 2008).12 Robert May, 'Threats to Tomorrow's World', Anniversary Address, Royal Society, 2005http://royalsociety.org/downloaddoc.asp?id=2414 (Last accessed June 2008).13 May, Threats, p.3.14 W. T. Dickens, 'Paths and Pitfalls of Interreligious Understanding', Discussion Paper for the Trilogue Salzburg 2007,Bertelsmann Stiftung.15 Asia's New Powers: Repercussions for Europe, Trilogue Salzburg, 2006. Bertelsmann Stiftung16 Global Responsibility: What's Europe's Message?, Trilogue Salzburg, 2005. Bertelsmann Stiftung.17 A Modern Concept of Tolerance, Trilogue Salzburg, 2006. Bertelsmann Stiftung.18 Ketan J. Patel, The Master Strategist: Power, Purpose and Principle (London: Hutchinson, 2005), pp. 210-11.19 See: http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/mdg2007.pdf(Last accessed June 2008)20 It is recognized though that there are exceptions to the common condition and there exist indeed distinguished globalthinkers all over the world who are concerned individually about the fate of our planet and its inhabitants. There is agrowing awareness that, if we want to survive, we have no option but to think of the earth as a whole taking into consid-eration the diversity.21 Amartya Sen, The Argumentative Indian (London: Penguin, 2005), p.274.22 Samuel P. Huntington, 'The Clash of Civilizations?', Foreign Affairs, Summer 1993.23 Anthony Pagden, Worlds at War: The 2500-Year Struggle between East and West(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).24 Pagden, War, p.xviii.25 See: Croissant and Wagschal, Kulturkonflikte.26 C. J. Tyreman, 'How Wonderful We Are', Times Literary Supplement, May 23, 2008, p.10.27 Francis Fukuyama, 'The End of History?' The National Interest, Summer 1989.28 Thomas Friedman, The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Globalized World in the Twentyfirst Century (London:Farrar Straus & Giroux, 2005)29 For an extended critique of Friedman, see my 'Is the World Flat?, in Antonio Pinto Ribeiro (ed.), The State of theWorld (Manchester: Carcanet, 2006), pp. 188-210.30 Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (London: 2001), pp. 123-24.31 Francis Fukuyama, Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution (New York: Picador,2002).32 Jonathan Sacks, The Dignity of Difference: How to Avoid the Clash of Civilizations (London: Continuum, 2nd ed.2003).33 Jonathan Sacks, 'The Dignity of Difference', 7th Annual Templeton Lecture on Religion and World Affairs, May 21,2002.See: www.chiefrabbi.org/speeches/Templeton%20Lecture%20Fullversion.pdf (Last Accessed June 2008).34 Sacks, Dignity, p.61.35 Sacks, Dignity, p.9.36 Sacks, Dignity, p.52.


37 Jonathan Sacks, 'The Dignity of Difference',Lecture at Carnegie Council, May 1, 2003.See: http://www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/928.html (Last Accessed June 2008)38 Sacks, Dignity, pp. 54-55.39 Sacks, Dignity, p.23.40 For an experiential confirmation of it, see Jean-Pierre Lehmann, 'The Dangers of Monotheisam in the Age of Global-ization', The Globalist, March 30, 2006. http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=5211 (Last Accessed June2008).41 Selections from the Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, (Kolkata: Advaita Ashram, 2006), p.13.42 Sen, Identity and Violence.43 Reinhard Mohn, An Age of New Possibilities: How Humane Values and an Entrepreneurial Spirit Will Lead Us into theFuture (New York: Crown Publishers, 2004), p. 220.44 Maurice Strong, 'Cooperation for Survival' (Beijing: 2008)45 Max Mueller (ed.), The Sacred Books of the East, I (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1988), p.111.46See:http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmghqWzAA6nuur0av9SvFnrsy6IX?qid=20070112135510AAD7SB8 (Last Accessed June 2008).47 See for the expression globalize wisdom: http://www.artofliving.org/SriSri/Biography/tabid/72/Default.aspx (Lastaccessed June 2008).

Date post:	28-Mar-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	independent
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Global Visions: Are We Speaking a Common Language?

Documents