Navigation
:: Analysis ::
Dialogue of civilizations: scientifically-educational dimension
‹‹ Back
By Shahrai Sergey Mihaylovich
The world, as global as it is, has faced global criseses, as far as the consequences and accidents are concerned. It is enough to recollect the avalanches of world terrorism, evolving as fast as forest fire, in reply to violent democracy export or a row of criseses of the world share market, the last of which has put on a recession nearly all world economy.
Under such conditions natural reaction of the national states to globalisation and its threats becomes regionalism and localisation.
This thesis is illustrated well by a recently published article on the Forum site «Dialogue of civilizations» by the British journalist, the former editor-in-chief of The Observer, Mr. Johnnattan Fenby, in which he ascertains that words of the European leaders about necessity of a joint overcoming the crisis become similar to ritual spells, because countries of Europe intend to get out of the global crises one by one.
Unlike Europe, Russia’s and China’s attitude to the crisis situations including those of the present global perturbations, is much more optimistical and, I even would say, pragmatic. The history of our countries over and over again shows that crisis situations in our cultural traditions play a role of a fresh wind, a cleaning rain, mobilising the best forces of the state and society and as a result – open new possibilities for development.
It is not without reason that in the Chinese language the very word "crisis" is described by two hieroglyphs:
• «way» that means "danger", "fear";
• and – «tsi» that is deciphered as "possibility".
As a matter of fact, in modern conditions crisis becomes an incentive to revision and specification of the purposes and strategy of development of each state and the world community as a whole. The answer to last question is possible only within the framework of dialogue of civilizations.
In fact, events of recent times have sharply raised the question about necessity to sort out those things which seemed obvious earlier. What is "progress"? What is "development"? Whether really "progress" and "development" in their European understanding are values, equally important for all cultures and civilizations?
How the national states are supposed to act, so that, after reaching their own interests, they provide harmonious development and coexistence of all cultures of the world?
It is obvious that each culture, each civilization has own, special idea about «the desirable future». And it is obvious, as well, that in the conditions of objective limitation of resources on a global scale there is a competition of these ideas. The world of a desirable future, as it is seen, for example by a European Christian, may differ from a picture with which representatives of other cultural traditions, other religions will agree.
That is why a question arises: whether it is possible to find a consensus at all on the basic lines of the future world set-up? And what is the basis, making the search for such consensus possible?
In any case, it is obvious, that today the score of the USA and Europe gradually diminishes in the international competition on a theme Whose future will be the best? The ideas, offered by the western civilization about progress, about the purposes and development problems, and also about ways to measure and estimate success of advancement of the countries on the way to a bright future, demands a serious audit.
Personally, I am firmly convinced that rapprochement of ideas of various cultures, both about the long-term future, and about the nearest configuration of the post-crisis world, is probably possible only on the basis of the Rational, that is on the basis of development of science, education and, accordingly, scientifically-educational dialogue of civilizations.
My confidence, that science and education development will allow to create effective mechanisms for «future managements » both at national and global level, is not so much tribute to traditions of the European critical philosophy, bat rather a consequence of modern physical and mathematical ideas about laws of development of societies as open systems. After all, unlike a word, term or concept, it is absolutely not important, what sign – Greek, Arabian, Chinese – is attributed to a figure. The “one” or a set of those “ones” remain such in any description.
I think, in this audience it is not necessary to explain that any society, even the one called "closed", is, from the point of view of physics, an open system, where processes develop in a non-linear way and are sated by branching points, bifurcations. In crisis situations, in critical points there appear some versions of the further course of events. As the scientists say, the system has a possibility of a casual "choice", and it means that uncertainty concerning the future sharply increases.
As it is an issue of a social system, it follows from this that a choice in a situation of uncertainty is made by concrete people or groups of people. This is the way the mechanism of influence of an individual on a history course is carried out.
And I am firmly convinced, that it is the quality of people, level of their knowledge, education, that finally determines the quality of the decisions, as well, as the choice to be made. Whether the states, cultures, civilizations will move along the path of harmonious development or they will get into a situation when the decisions favorable on a short time interval, will prove to be a trap because those decisions, in the long-term period, will lead to losses and defeat.
For this reason I have selected an angle for my report, connected with science and education. As this theme is inexhaustible, I would like to dwell only on two questions.
The first one is an issue of a choice of strategy of development in the context of transition to a knowledge society.
The second one concerns the role of contacts in science and education sphere in dialogue of Russia and China.
More often the problem of a choice of strategy of development is discussed with reference to the developing countries facing the challenges of the postindustrial world. But I would like to make it sure at once that when we name Russia, China, India or Brazil "developing countries", it does not mean that they rank lower, than so-called developed countries. On the contrary, "developing" means having prospects, "dynamical", "not at a stop". After all the most unsuccessful choice for culture and people is self-assurance in the greatness. If someone believes that he had achieved zenith of fame and there is nobody to compete with – this is the beginning of the end. We will recollect destiny of ancient Rome and destiny of those peoples whom civilized Romans considered as barbarians. After all in many respects just because Romans thought their superiority was guaranteed, that the Roman civilization reached development tops, they have lost in a historical perspective.
The similar situation has developed today in the world.
Throughout years the USA and Europe have dictated to the world the purpose and value of development. As achievement of high level of social and economic development is an attractive purpose for all countries, the psychology race after the leader has strongly seized the states on a global scale. But the present crisis has forced to stop and think: whether really to strive into the postindustrial world of the western sample is the unique choice? All the more: as any strategy constructed on ideology of a “Catching up Development”, may allow to reduce the distance, but not to overcome it.
Expansion of economy of knowledge has considerably reduced requirements of the national economy of developed countries for real elements of manufacture, especially in raw materials, and thus has cardinally changed the relation of an individual to inhabitancy, having made possible steady ecological equilibrium. As a result the West has received a potential possibility to lower intensity of economic interaction with other countries and nations.
Transformation of scientific knowledge into a direct industrial resource has caused strengthening of dependence of the developing states, requiring new technologies, on postindustrial ones, where the technologies are concentrated, and has simultaneously generated new models of reproduction when maximisation of consumption of the information and knowledge began to accelerate processes of strengthening and development of a postindustrial society. Actually, today there is a non-equivalent and unfair exchange between postindustrial and developing countries: new technologies are being exchanged against either non-reproducible resources, or the goods created by work of thousands of people. The postindustrial world, delivering technologies and knowledge-consuming products, does not reduce quantity of the resources remaining at its disposal. It is the exchange of products of work for products of creativity, the industrial rewards for knowledge, that, finally, determines the split of the modern world which distinctly emerged on the brink of millenia.
Additional problems are created by the issue of equivalence of the exchange. In the same way, as once missionaries and conquistadors received from "natives" in exchange for beads and mirrors gold, spices and even territories, today also arises an issue of real quality and advantage of the knowledge exported by the postindustrial countries.
The Western world quite often offers developing countries not only the useful technologies capable really to facilitate life of people (for example to solve essential problems, such as lack of pure water, energy, food, medicines and so forth), but also fashionable, but useless (from the utilitarian point of view) intellectual products. It resembles a situation in the modern fashion industry where the bulk of profit to the companies selling «dream of a beautiful life» is brought not by VIP-clients and stars of show business who use expensive goods almost free of charge, but mass consumers with an average and low income level.
A vivid example of increased intellectual products sales to developing countries useless from the utilitarian point of view, is, for instance, market expansion of ring-tones (musical rings for mobile phones). By various estimations, world sales of that gadget make annually on the average about 3-5 billion US dollars, while the price for this "product" fluctuates approximately from 0,99 dollars to 2,50 US dollars. In the report published by Juniper Research company, it is predicted that by 2012 the income of the mobile musical industry will come up to about 17,5 billion US dollars, with China and Far East being the biggest markets for mobile musical services. The next five years their share will be of 43 % of world sales of musical content.
But is the situation really so pessimistic, that a postindustrial society due to its internal features, can not be either “caught up” or "constructed", and the rest of nations, wishing to enter the doors leading into a society of knowledge, will just fail to pass through the threshold?
On the one hand, it is obvious, that the mobilisation methods tested in Russia time and again proved inefficient for a jerk into the marvellous new world as such approaches suppose extensive consumption of human resources whereas the economy based on knowledge requires development of freedom and maintenance of a guaranteed level of rights and material prosperity as a prerequisite for evolving creative potential of each individual. On the other hand, the thesis that a modern postindustrial society, possessing properties of steady self-development, can arise only in a natural, evolutionary way, is correct only if that "naturalness" is understood as absence of shocks and revolutions. If it means absence of purposeful participation of the state in working out and realisation of strategy of social and economic development, it is absolutely incorrect.
In contemporary conditions the national state is ought to take active and effective part in creation of conditions for economy and society, to enable them to carry out transition to a new stage of development.
But it should be acknowledged that the economy based on knowledge, as well as a knowledge society, is not simply a next stage of an industrial epoch where well-being is still determined by production, and non-material actives only raise competitiveness. It is a qualitatively new condition of society and economy which arise, if such analogy is in place, as a result of stage transition.
Stage transition is a concept of thermodynamics which describes spasmodic transition of substance from one thermodynamic phase into another one at change of external conditions. For open systems, and, as I already said, the society belongs to such ones, spontaneous transition to a new, ordered condition is possible only within an intensive exchange with environment and achievement of some critical condition. Thus the new condition exists only at preservation of an unceasing stream of energy/substance into the system.
(Source: Int\'l Conference on the "Dialogue of Civilizations and a Harmonious World")
Dialogue of Civilizations and Requirements of a Just World Order
By Dr. Hans Köchler
Upon the end of the Cold War, when a hegemonial, unipolar world order began to unfold, it was no coincidence that the notion of “clash of civilizations” suddenly became the basic paradigm for the interpretation of global power relations and, subsequently, for the legitimization (or justification) of neo-imperial policies. In a unipolar environment, enemy stereotypes such as those triggered by the clash of civilizations doctrine are an indispensable ideological tool to bolster the respective hegemon’s claim to power (which is virtually directed at the entire world).
A just world order, however, requires a balance of power, which can best be achieved in a multipolar framework (and for which the multilateral mechanisms, including those of collective security, of the United Nations Organization, were originally created). One of the basic principles on which a just and harmonious world order is to be based, is the notion of “dialogue of civilizations.” An international system that is stable and ensures peaceful development of all the members of the international community, and not just the privileged few, must be founded on the norms of sovereign equality and mutual respect. This makes it imperative that no country impose its own civilization upon the others, a policy that – through all of history, until the most recent project of a unilateral “New World Order” – has been proven to increase tensions and even provoke armed confrontations.
Unlike in a hegemonial (unipolar) constellation – where the dominant power claims civilizational supremacy and aims to indoctrinate the rest of the world about democracy, human rights, good governance, the rule of law, etc. –, a multipolar balance of power, in order to be stable, requires harmonious relations that are characterized by mutual respect, peaceful interaction, coordination and integration of policies among equal partners. Since, in such a constellation, no party will try to subjugate the others or to interfere into their sovereign domain, whether in the political, economic, social or cultural field, harmony among nations will not lead to uniformity.
Dialogue among civilizations and cultures is one of the basic elements, or preconditions, of harmony – at the domestic as well as the transnational (or global) level; it promotes unity in diversity and directly contributes to durable peace among nations. As pro-active approach, dialogue goes one step further than mere (static) co-existence between different cultural communities and states; it involves co-operation and mutual engagement. This kind of positive interaction between cultures and civilizations allows each civilization to develop and prosper according to its own parameters, while benefiting from the others’ experience. Such an orientation will eventually ensure the humane dimension of globalization, providing fair and balanced opportunities for all states and peoples in the development of their potential and in the use of the world’s resources, in the material as well as the spiritual sense.
The maintenance of peace and the promotion of human rights, two of the fundamental purposes of the United Nations, require harmonious relations between states that cannot be achieved with a unilateral approach or with traditional power politics since they negate the sovereign equality of nations. A just world order, indeed a harmonious world, can only be built on dialogue, which incorporates the very essence of the principle of mutuality.
(Source: Int\'l Conference on the "Dialogue of Civilizations and a Harmonious World")
‹‹ Back
