No way to turn the cultural clock back

Based on what we see happening in and to the world, and despite the positive signs we read into the G20 Summit in Osaka, we can probably say we have reached a new crossroad in history, where the international community faces a set of “to be or not to be” dilemmas, which has far-reaching implications.

The real problems or contradictions of the world are not between civilizations, contrary to what some people claim. Yet we can use a cultural perspective to analyze the challenges facing the world and promote inter-civilization dialogue to guide human progress worldwide.

But being a journalist, I’d prefer to ask, rather than answer, questions:

Question No 1: Should the world thrive as a global village or retreat into islands of isolation?

The question is whether we can undo the inter-dependency built among the economies across the world over the past centuries. At the moment, there are indeed people, albeit a very small number, trying hard to halt the momentum of economic globalization and disrupt the global division of labor. They even go to the extent of advocating the decoupling of the world’s largest economies. Such efforts, no doubt, will prove to be an exercise in futility or, worst, foolishness.

As a result of globalization, most modern products of the world are results of international industrial collaboration. The market plays a decisive role in allocating resources and capital efficiently, making it possible for people worldwide to enjoy quality commodities and services at affordable prices. To say globalization is in line with the interests of all parties is to state the obvious, despite the fact that developed economies, which are perched at the top of the value chain, benefit most from the process.

There are problems that have come along with globalization, the growing wealth gap for one, and it makes sense to improve the global governance system for the process to be more open, inclusive, balanced and equal, so that more people can enjoy the fruits of globalization. But it is ridiculous to give up eating for fear of choking. Trying to dismantle the globalized economic system — to overthrow all economic and trade theories since Adam Smith and David Ricardo — is nothing but a fool’s errand. It is impossible to artificially sever the flows of capital, technologies, commodities and talents, and for the ocean of the world economy to recede into isolated lakes and rivers, to borrow an analogy from President Xi Jinping’s speech at an international economic forum in St. Petersburg, Russia, last month.

Question No 2: Should we embrace a shared future or revert to the law of the jungle?

Back in 1966, in an article titled “Why Is There No International Theory”, British scholar Martin Wight expressed dissatisfaction with short-sighted realism and called for a profound historical vision. In the traditional sense, international politics is a theory of survival, and international relations today are not much different from those of the past. Zero-sum is the name of the game. It’s akin to the notion of “you lose, I win”, or “you die, I live”.

But the world has undergone dramatic changes since Wight’s time and his enquiry. The fundamental difference, as we have discussed above, lies in the ever increasing inter-dependency among the international players and, as a result of that, the emerging de facto community of interests, where selfish interests of countries are interwoven, interrelated and have inter-merged.

It’s true that national interests remain the motivation for actors of international relations, and competition remains much of the norm for world politics, but in a world of growing shared interests, the law of the jungle is losing ground. It ceases to work if one always puts one’s own interests ahead of others, or bases one’s security on the insecurity of others. If you make other people unsafe, you put yourself in danger. The new philosophy of the new era lies in good implementation of the idea of live and let live, or to develop and let others develop.

The way to move further away from the woods of primitive society is to seek common prosperity and common security. Intensifying changes across the world call for concerted efforts from all countries.

The great patriotic pioneer of democratic revolution, Sun Yat-sen, said: “While competition is the principle of other species, human beings consider mutual assistance as their principle. They will prosper if they follow this principle, and perish if they don’t”.

In a sense, China’s proposal to build a community with a shared future for mankind, which draws inspiration from such traditional Chinese values as the “great harmony of the world”, answers Wight’s enquiry. And such a truly international theory serves to address the pressing issues of the contemporary world and follow the trend of history. That is why the proposal put forth by President Xi has been written into several United Nations documents over the past few years. Which bodes well for the future of the world.

Question No 3: Should we build bridges or erect walls?

Early last year, a book published by Harvard University Press, The China Questions – Critical Insights into a Rising Power, drew wide attention in and outside the United States. The book is compiled by the Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies at Harvard University and written by 36 experts on China.

We don’t have to agree with all that’s said about China in the book, but I was impressed by some parts of the Introduction. For instance, the preface starts by saying that, “If you’ve picked up this book, you have probably already accepted the premise that China matters, and therefore understanding China matters”, “China has always mattered and always will”, “but today China matters not only to the Chinese people themselves but also to Americans and to the entire world in some new, unexpected, and interesting ways”. “In a certain obvious sense, understanding China has never been easy”, “just as the United States has a trade deficit with China, it also has an understanding deficit”.

What I’m saying is that we have to agree that there is a worrisome deficit of understanding among countries, and in the case of China and the US, or the West for that matter, misunderstandings, even prejudice abound. The question is not whether there is a lack of understanding; the question is how to get rid of or reduce such misunderstandings.

Except for intentions borne out of ulterior motives, misunderstandings largely arise from differences. People have always had the tendency to misread those who are different from them, owing to a lack of knowledge or confidence. And hence the role of cross-cultural communication and, in the professional field of ours, language as bridges between different societies of the world.

Late British philosopher and historian Isaiah Berlin said that all racial or ethnic conflicts arise from the pursuit of a monistic world. Recent history shows that stressing the superiority of one society, that of culture included, causes tragedies to humankind, the party in question included. How to evaluate the differences between and among civilizations and cultures remains a central theme of human development and progress for the modern world.

To hear the argument today that a country’s rise is dangerous and will pose a threat to some parts of the world because it’s a different civilization is tantamount to experiencing the shock traveling back in time to the dark ages. Such a narrative in the disguise of geopolitics is, to put it simply, unfounded and outdated. It’s something we need to steer clear of with a high level of persistent vigil.

The 21st century is not only multipolar but also multi-conceptual. In a global village where the advancement of transportation and communication has reduced geographical distances, powers continue to interact while civilizations and cultures need to coexist, or live together as parts of a biosystem, to borrow the concept put forth by 19th century German biologist Henrich Anton de Bary.

In fact, mutual learning among civilizations is the very source of human progress. And in a world of unprecedented changes, it’s imperative to reaffirm convergence rather than clashes between civilizations. A renewed intercultural dialogue between the West and the East, China in particular, will only reveal that there are profound elements of convergence between different traditions which, contrary to what the considerations and interpretations of Samuel Huntington suggest, are not destined to clash.

Addressing the opening ceremony of the Shanghai Import Expo last autumn, Christine Lagarde, chief of the International Monetary Fund, referred to the Huangpu River which, as we know, runs across Shanghai, and talked about the Chinese wisdom and craftsmanship of building the best bridges in the world since ancient times. In cultural and philosophical terms, the Chinese spirit of building bridges is best expressed in the notion of harmony of differences.

In a world undergoing drastic changes where people could be jolted from their habitual comfort zones, it’s especially important to have maximum exchanges between and among different groups and communities as a way to guard against the possible resurgence of cultural hostility. The idea is to consolidate the “cultural foundation” of the global community of a shared future. This discourse of ours, I presume, represents a small but meaningful and worthwhile part of the general efforts to build bridges and pull down walls.

And finally, Question No 4: Should the world gallop forward riding on waves of time or turn the clock back?

This is a group of English-speaking scholars, familiar with European culture, and I’m sure we know that though there are different versions of the English legend, the fact remains that despite his courtiers or advisers telling him otherwise, King Canute the Great couldn’t turn the tide. The message is that the law of nature and history is to be observed. Whatever side you take, with whatever effort, history goes forward, in definite defiance of possible occasional countercurrents of history.

This year could prove to be an important turning point in the history of the world, as it could decide whether we go forward or move backward, stick to the right course or go astray, depending on how we handle the emerging challenges, some of which are unprecedented. Political leaders across the globe, especially those of major countries, therefore need to have an acute sense of historical responsibility, for the fate and future of millions are in their hands. As for intellectuals, they should be aware of where the world is headed to from here, and work together to facilitate reason to prevail over anti-reason.

To conclude, as Audrey Azoulay, directorgeneral of UNESCO, said at the Conference on Dialogue of Asian Civilizations earlier this year in Beijing that, in face of the current situation of the world, we need to adopt the correct approach to the issue of civilizations as a way to safeguard world peace.

Which reminds me of what President Xi said in Paris five years ago: He quoted the inscription on the stone wall at the entrance to UNESCO headquarters that reads, since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must be constructed. And referring to the establishment of UNESCO, the president said that people hoped to promote inter-civilization exchanges to dispel estrangement, prejudice and hatred, and spread the seeds of the idea of peace — the aspiration and vision deserve our renewed commitment.

Five years on, we are convinced the spirit of inter-cultural exchanges applies perfectly to the situation we face today. And judging from what’s happening of late, since the Osaka Summit for example, we can be cautiously optimistic for progress rather than regression. The author is the editor-in-chief and publisher of China Daily. This is an excerpt of his keynote speech for the 15th CAFIC Annual with the 11th IAIR Biennial Conference held from July 7 to 10.

MA XUEJING / CHINA DAILY