Multiculture and Global Civilisation · 2009. 12. 18. · Chinese and Japanese tropes in Western cultural products (Disney’s Mulan, Kung-fu Panda, etc. spring to mind alongside

Panel Ⅳ: Multi-cultures & Global Civilizations

Multiculture and Global Civilisation Prof. Dr Flemming Christiansen

Director, National Institute of Chinese Studies

Some preliminary observations I shall first at some length examine the historical lineages of Multiculture and Global Civilisation in order to identify some of the problems associated with these notions, and then seek to establish some foundation stones for a research and policy agenda. The observations made here may seem rambling, as they are streams of associations put to paper in haste.

Globalisation

Among the trends in the world, globalisation tends to be seen as a transformer and equaliser, as the very process by which hidebound identities are uprooted and turned into transient belongings and tastes from which people can pick and choose when they, like kids playing with Lego blocks, assemble their selves. It is the process that challenges the nation state and turns nationality from patriotic pride and sentiments into simply a matter of carrying a passport. Citizenship is transformed from a defining status granted by the state into a set of rights enforced and asserted against the state. Globalisation’s corporate players and their subsidiaries, be they local or “glocal,” generate global, cross-cutting brand loyalties and global cultural products, including the core elements of global cultural infrastructure — the news gathering and production of powerful discourses, setting the agendas of moral and political judgements. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the Bretton Woods institutions (World Bank and International Monetary Fund) in association with other international institutions, most prominently but not exclusively the World Trade Organisation, global corporations in financial services, and national governments help coordinate the global economy within the parameters of a liberal economic discourse that, ambiguously, both undermines individual states’ autonomy and relies on the strength of individual states to further the expansion of global corporate players and to tie ever larger markets into the global division of labour.

The liberal economic discourse is closely associated with the post-World War Two two-pronged moral mission to (a) undo the major colonial empires, and (b) institute international regimes to eradicate genocide and war crimes. It further established a complex maze of ideas that closely linked liberal markets with democratic institutions and the need to nurture, by any means (even political and military intervention) internationally oriented middle classes in former colonies and weak states in opposition to the “communist camp” of centrally planned economies, summarised as “totalitarian” states, which were purported to form a military opponent. The notion of “totalitarianism” in the discourse closely linked the Axis countries of World War Two (Germany, Japan and Italy) to the Cold War opponents (typically linking Hitler and Stalin as well as the Holocaust and Soviet purges); the “communist threat” to the “free world” was a moral master narrative that streamlined the ideological association of economic liberalism, democratic institutions, civil society, human rights, internationalism, national self-determination, anti-racism, humanitarian aid and so on into a set of broad international precepts promoted vis-à-vis the communist Other and also setting the parameters institutional convergence in North America, Western Europe and several other parts of the world.

The high tide of globalisation in the 1990s was furthered by the collapse of the Soviet Union, the technological revolution that drew growing numbers of people into global communication and knowledge development beyond the impositions of the nation states, as well as the boom in global mass travel; an ideological cleavage in the global North transformed the


“totalitarian” discourse into one of “clashing civilisations,” arguing Judaeo-Christian-Hellenic roots of the “Enlightenment” ideologies that were conveniently construed to coincide with the anti-totalitarian moral master narrative. This ideological pattern set the relatively new, post-colonial statehoods of the Middle East (largely perceived as “undemocratic”) up as an enemy camp, using Islam as a proxy; secularist governments in the region were defined in contrast to religious fundamentalism, allowing in-roads of political and military intervention, in particular as the “terrorist threat” became a rallying point. The strategic importance of this ideological development of globalisation ideology, of course, was the perceived need to secure supply of oil reserves for the global economy. It is unnecessary here to go into details of specific wars and alliances arising in this scenario; however, very importantly, the construction of China as a “Sinitic” civilisation within this scheme has given a new lease of life to essentially “totalitarian” conceptualisations of China, for example in US, UK and German media coverage and political discussion in the run-up to the Beijing Olympics in 2008, where particular interest groups used the high-profile event to promote their causes. Another ideological development has emerged, in which the global division of labour is promoted and celebrated by reference to the “East Asian miracle,” increasingly allowing entry of new fashions and images into global cultural products and making more diverse voices heard. In terms of news coverage, for example, the major Western media agencies, Reuter, CNN, BBC, AFP and so on have been complemented with for example Al-Jazeera, and China’s increasingly important global satellite channels CCTV 4 (in Chinese) and 9 (in English). The impact of Chinese and Japanese cultural products increases, not only in their direct global/international presence (e.g. Chinese sixth-generation films, modern art, designs, herbal medicine, and feng-shui), but also in the increasing weight and shifting significance of Chinese and Japanese tropes in Western cultural products (Disney’s Mulan, Kung-fu Panda, etc. spring to mind alongside themes in James Bond films), where exoticism and colonialist themes are fading and cultural appreciation is gradually increasing. A similar trend towards global recognition is also afforded Bollywood. Even so, US and European cultural products still tend to depict heroism in orientalist fashion, relegating non-WASPs to secondary or morally ambivalent roles (even if they now tend to go far beyond past racial stereotypes in sympathy and character description) and superimposing middle class Western value judgements on non-Western characters (Kung-fu Panda basically modelled on a small-town American adolescent). The global importance, of course, has attuned the Chinese cultural elites and state functionaries to reinterpret and represent China’s cultural heritage in ways that have global impact; the Beijing Olympics as an event was able to not only impress in scale and magnificence of architecture and choreographed mass displays, but also to deploy tropes, symbols and images totally fresh to the global cultural “grammar.” The omni-presence of well-socialised, helpful and intelligent volunteers of all ages, for example, will be well-nigh impossible to match in the UK Olympics in 2012, although it may well be one point that the UK Olympic Team will try to emulate.

Multiculture

As for multiculturalism, its Enlightenment roots (in Lessing’s Nathan der Weise, in the French and American constitutions and by extension in Communist internationalism) are much simpler than its historical manifestations. Among these, the Russian Revolution created the need to accommodate the ethnically, culturally and linguistically very diverse parts of what had been the Czarist empire in the Soviet Union, creating what amounted to a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural statehood that at least at the declarative level provided these nations equal treatment. Yugoslavia’s Titoist policies were more ambiguous in their effort to achieve ethnic unity, while recognising differences among the nations. China’s policy was to create a level of territorial autonomy to its many nationalities, which were officially recognised in an official scheme. By and large, history, language, culture, and religion played a significant role in the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and China, where ethnic distinctions were


established a immutable essentialist categories with the assertion of positivist scientific classification, enumeration and labelling, and in particular in China a high level of ethno-cultural construction.

In the USA, multiculturalism took root as a way of dealing with the ethnic diversity of the population, and in particular to deal with racial discrimination. As a discourse it has always assumed a quite insignificant role, as social behaviour and official policies alike emphasise assimilation, and “respecting” diversity as hyphenated residual identities like “Irish-American.” By contrast, the UK version of multiculturalism was devised to deal with incoming groups from the colonies who were not native to the British Isles; by, in a benign sense, regarding people of different origins as having different “needs,” policy concentrated on services and provisions from the state, some of which presumed ethnic self-organisation (like running language schools in their native languages and provisions through ethnic associations). Thus, in effect, both including people through citizenship, and distinguishing them as culturally separate, the UK on the one hand perpetuated differences, social exclusion, ethnic stereotyping and petty racism, it also created a vibrant sphere of ethnic self-expression and cultural diversity in a cultural context that has become hostile to public expressions of bigotry and racism, and has enabled many of “ethnic background” access to education and careers.

In many countries across the world, cultural and ethnic exclusion have historically formed an institutional framework for division of labour or labour market fragmentation, allowing certain groups to be “naturally” exploited; this very old phenomenon, was a method of labour management in colonies and in 18th to early 20th century seafaring, and is today seen across the world in informal and ethnic labour markets. These practices are easily masked behind the benign metaphors of multiculturalism.

No matter how one regards it, multiculture as we know it as an existing reality, is not without its problems, because it shapes categories, entitlements and stereotypes, is prone to create social tensions, exclusion, and is often a vector of economic exploitation.

Towards Global Civilisation? The challenge is that the forging of a global civilisation demands a global discourse. Globalisation as a dynamic force is highly partisan, arising from the post-World War Two settlement, and defining itself in a complex of flexible and malleable moral and ideological discourses that have been successful in opening the world market to global corporations, changing large populations into their costumer base. The power, the content, and the nature of globalisation is still dominated by a relatively small part of the world, and it is in one (or even several) of its guises belligerent and repressive. The discourses on the one hand pay homage to strong states and enlist them for their proliferation of liberal market practices (free mobility of capital, raw materials, energy, and commodities, but not labour), while on the other hand judging and censuring them in patterns habitually used as the justification of aggression.

The main question is thus whether existing globalisation processes can be the foundation of a global civilisation, whether so to say, all parts of the world can have a true and equal stake in the dominant discourse. The increasing cultural engagement across the world bodes well, while realities of fragmented labour markets pull in the other direction. The symbolic use of religion in the “clash of civilisations” discourse and the rise of fundamentalism make shared global cultural values and norms difficult to achieve. On the other hand, the economic rise of East Asia and India shifts the global voice away from the current North American/European monopoly. While this may shift the terms of the globalisation process, it may not help the world much closer to a global civilisation. The existing institutions, dynamics and interests of the globalising process, and their projection into the future do not promise such a development.


The achievement of a global civilisation can only be meaningful if its achievements are globally shared, and if there is common ownership and participation; it needs to form a discourse of collaboration and multiculture in the sense that diversity is a contributive asset for joint progress and interaction across division lines.

The legacies of the present may be auspicious, for the unprecedented interconnectedness, the technological access to cultural resources, and the rise of virtual communities allow truly new forms of interaction that go beyond traditional frameworks and power structures and allow people to unfold their creativity in new ways. The rise of open access publishing, open source software, and creative commons allow people to claim back public resources monopolised by global corporations. Technologies to “save the planet,” currently critically exposed to market fluctuations (the price of raw oil) may be viable if governed by other rationalities than corporate balance sheets. Skills can, due to new technologies and the better access to reaching, now be learned more easily in large parts of the world, allowing more people to take proactive care of their own lives and their own interests; the knowledge of foreign languages is increasing, enabling more trans-cultural contacts. The destruction of defining, essentialist identities and the rise of new belongings allows more people freedom and openness, as does the weakening of the nation states; and they may not all fall in the hands of traders enslaving them to become global brand consumers. It may be that the global civilisation arises from the agents of their own fate who are a product of globalisation: People who are seeking meaning and take pleasure in diversity, who work for the common good, and for whom global traders and men of violence and power become increasingly irrelevant.


Westernization and Localization in Culture and Historical Writings﹡ JIN Guangyao

Department of History，Fudan University

Since the Enlightenment, people’s understandings of and writings about history have been branded with modernity. As it was said by Peter Burke, “The most important, or at least the most obvious, characteristic of western historical thoughts lies on its emphasis on development or progress, or, lies on its ‘linear’ concept.” 1 This concept maintained that rationality and mankind would not stop progressing, and that the development of history was to find its universality and regularity. Influenced by the Enlightenment, this concept gradually developed into Eurocentric historical periodization and grand narrative, viewing the histories in the other parts of the world from Eurocentric perspective. According to this kind of historical thoughts, only Europe was qualified with a unique grand History and progressive ideas, which should be the direction for the history of all other non-European regions. Influenced by this thought, therefore, “It looks like that history, in the first place, became the advocator and propagator of modernity, or even Modernism. The past of this modernity or Modernism is generally called Enlightenment project, which celebrates the birth of science, rationality, nations and secular progress during the modernization. In many ways, history itself has become a kind of science and a project of modernists, recording and praising the contributions of progress of the West, which are then be applied on quality of nationality, effectiveness of society, and questioning of critique and justice of history. And meanwhile, partially due to these qualities, history has become the staff of ideology of Enlightenment and progressivism.” 2 However, backward and stagnated nations became nations with no history, they had not only no capability, but also no right to express themselves. Through narratives of a grand History, the West provided an academic and ideological legitimacy for its conquering the world. As a result, its material and spiritual civilization had become the symbol of freedom and progress, making nations in other non-European regions backward and stagnated nations, or “un-principled” and “un-civilized” barbarians. The West Europe (and later US), establishing the cultural hegemony, “claimed themselves the only civilized region” 3, and best qualified to “export civilization” as “the master of mankind”; while other regions were considered to be excluded from history because their histories were unfaithful; and other nations were considered to be nations of lower class with no relevance to Europe and little significance. And finally, history had been built into “A Myth of the White.”

The harsh realities of World War I and II brought popular critique to these cultural concepts and history writings. The critics opposed this Eurocentric “grand narrative”, which was believed to have centralized, idealized and universalized the Western civilization since the Enlightenment by indicating that all regions should share Western standard regardless of their social, cultural and historical differences. It is this concept that reflected the prejudice held by Cultural Imperialism and Euro- and American-centralism in the West. Today, “all those solid things have disappeared”. The raising voices of de-colonization and the third world have changed the research focuses of European and American historical scholars from Euro-American history to African-Asian history. Studying the history from the African and Asian perspectives rather than the European and American perspectives has been promoting people’s interests in the history of non Euro-American civilization. Just as Richard J. Evans ﹡Thank Dr. Zhang Zhongmin, Fudan University, for his help in writing this paper. 1 Peter Burke: Western Historical Thoughts in Global Perspective: Ten Topics, Chinese version in Chen Qi’neng eds: History and Today, Shanghai Sanlian Bookstore and East China Normal University Press, 2005, P5 2 Donald R. Kelley, Faces of History, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1998, p. 274. 3 Victor Kiernan: The Lord of Mankind: European Attitudes to Other Cultures in the Imperial Times, Chinese version in Chen Zhengguo trans., Rye Field Publications, Taipei, 2001, P51.


put it, “Historical scholarship is thus not only more eclectic than ever before, it is also becoming gradually less Eurocentric in its coverage and approach.” 1 The anthropologists even realized that “even in the European history, diversity, instead of uniqueness and unity claimed by historians in the past, does exist.” 2 Anthropology has also provided an alternative mode—testing the applicability of people’s common sense with individual cases and integrating individual or regional experience on the micro-level into macro-history, claimed as “Small is Beautiful”.3 The microscope offered an attractive alternative to the telescope, allowing concrete individual or local experience to re-enter history.

In the practices of historical study, more and more historians no longer take history as a united process or grand narrative that wolfed down a lot of individuals, but as small stories told by the public, while the job of the historians is to find and retell the history in daily life, and “re-create” diversified concepts and voices. As said by Wolf Eric, “We are no longer satisfied with history only about winning heroes, or the oppression of dominant nations. … Therefore, we need to unveil the history of ‘the people without history’, including “primitives”, farmers, labors, immigrants and the invaded minority groups, whose history is full of lives.” 4 The focus of historical study shall “not the plight the victims but the culture, the thought, the lives of people we have previously neglected.” 5 As a result, the research themes of most historians are on the lives and thoughts of “marginal” groups and the common people, most of whom, in the eyes of these historians, as “the people without history”, are the victims gaining no benefits from the development of the world. Therefore it is necessary for historians to discover their history. At the end of the twentieth century, historians are writing about almost every conceivable kind of human activity in the past, as well as about animals, plants, the natural environment. Virtually everything of meaning or importance to contemporary humanity now has a written history, and that means everything of importance to all kinds of people, not just to a small elite of the educated and the powerful. However humble or powerless, however illiterate or uneducated…6

In fact, every region can have its own time concept and ways of historical narrative, and also, not necessary to follow the way of development and historical evolution in the West, can choose its own way of development and way of life. The births of any cultures or civilizations are all the fruits of the hardship and wisdom of human beings in certain historical time and space. They were not born for nothing. If we are not dominated by preconceptions and the consciousness of modernity, we will find that there is incommensurability among cultures or civilizations. No culture or civilization is superior over another. They are of unique values and significance. In cultural communications, the foremost rule to obey is to respect the values and status of the other culture. As Clifford Greetz, a renowned anthropologist, argued that culture is not a right, nor invisible things hidden in the thoughts of human beings, but a context that can be reflected in public practice, ceremony and symbol, and be perceivable and “thick describable”. “The concept of culture is not multiple, nor ambiguous.7 Culture is a net of meanings knitted by human beings. The analysis of culture shall not be an experimental science of exploring laws, but an explanatory science of exploring significance. Therefore, the significance of all culture texts including ceremony, incident, and belief system can be explained with “thick description”. Of course, the objective of explanation is not to answer for the others, but to know how other people answer. One’s preconceptions shall not be imposed on the others while understanding the different culture. Greetz also advocated “looking at a

1 Richard J. Evans, In Defence of History, London: Granta Books, 2000, p. 181. 2 Kirsten Hastrup: History of the Other, Chinese version in Jia Shiheng trans., Rye Field Publications, Taipei, 1998, P14 3 Peter Burke, What Is Cultural History?, Cambridge, U.K. Malden, Mass.: Polity Press, 2004, pp. 43-44. 4 Wolf Eric, Europe and the People without History, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997, p. xvi. 5 Lawrance W. Levine, “Clio, Canons, and Culture,” Journal of American History, Vol. 80, No. 3 (Dec., 1993), p. 864. 6 Richard J. Evans, In Defence of History, p. 165. 7 Clifford Greetz: The Interpretation of Cultures, Chinese version in Naribilige etc. trans., Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 1999, P103


problem in the shoe of the culture holder”; that is, we should not impose our own standards on the others, nor could we take anything for granted. For cultural anthropologists, it is always unavoidable to localize their knowledge when trying to put strange concepts into their structure. This is closely related to understand its mode, method, ideology.1 From Greetz’s explanation, we know that Local Knowledge that is characteristic of regional cultures is formed in certain contexts, and exists and plays its role only in specific time and space. Therefore, what Local Knowledge emphasizes is the method and practice that respect uniqueness, which is different from the modern trend of thought and science that emphasizes rationality and universalization since the Enlightenment. The historical reality in the 20th century has proved that the concepts of rationality and technology first had brought disasters to the mankind, such as the two world wars, the deterioration of natural environment, the energy crisis, and the threat of nuclear weapon, just to mention a few. Under such a situation, the future for the human beings is not always with sunshine. Therefore, it surprises nobody that multiculturalism came into place and is accepted by many people, because it recognizes cultural differences and the equal value of different cultures, and insists an equal political, social and cultural status among all the groups and nations in the world.

It has to be pointed out that as far as the history of modern China as well as that of the non-western world concerned, learning from the West with Japan included and accepting modernity have however become dominant. Its process was far more complicated than we generally have perceived. In fact, modernity, inseparable from Eurocentrism, is everywhere in our daily lives and memories, in our academic branching system, as well as in our academic researches. For the non-western world that has been pursuing “modernization”, the West and modernity might be playing a role, in its reform and ideology, which might not have been realized even by the Non-west or the West. We also need to admit that “many concepts that connect us with Eurocentrism have become the nature of many societies worldwide.” The intellectuals in the third world are already westernized in terms of their ways and resources of thinking. “The European and American traditions are everywhere, from international institution to daily economic activities; from national structure to domestic customs; from developed ideology to consuming culture; from feminism to the integration of races and race groups; … They also exist in the way we look at the world, from theorizations on society to thinking regarding the history.” 2 That is, though “we” consciously have denied or rejected Eurocentrism (or Euro- and US-centrism), stopped using conceptual apparatus originated from Europe or the West, de-centralized the Europe, taken into consideration the Other in the history, or even marginalized the modernity originated from the Europe, our efforts in de-centralizing or marginalizing the Europe are actually influenced by modernity and Eurocentrism, which are still playing a tremendous role. “We” are still using the way of Eurocentrism in constructing the past, and modernity and European experience is still our reference frame, consciously or unconsciously. This has become a common sight of non-western society and intellectuals, which can not be avoided either by the post-modernists or post-colonialists. 3Just Partha Chatterjee said, “We are all in the process of modernization, though with various passions, are not separable.” 4 This is especially the case to Chinese scholars growing up in the context of revolution and modernization. However, among the issues existing in Chinese modern history, some impacts of the West (positive or negative) on

1 Regional Knowledge—Interpretation of Anthropological Papers, translated by Wang Hailong etc., Central Compilation & Translation Press, 2004, P3 2 Arif Dirlik: Globalism, Denial of Post-colonialism of History, Chinese version in Wang Ning etc. trans., The Atmosphere of Post-revolution, China Social Sciences Press, 1999, P162 3 See Arif Dirlik, Vinay Bahl and Peter Gran (eds), History after the Three Worlds: Post-Eurocentric Historiographies, Lanham: Rowman Littlefield Publishers, 2000, pp. 11, 221-239。 4 Partha Chatterjee, The Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories, Princetion, New Jersey: Princetion University Press, 1993, p. 14.


China are exaggerated, or imagined, or even created. Therefore, we need to be very careful and open up our eyes. 1

Meanwhile, we also see that modernity is not only a result of western export and the imbalanced power in the modern times; it is also a common construction of both the West and the Non-west, including both the contribution from Europe and US, and from “the other” beyond Europe and US. Modernity is an outcome of “hybridity.” The reason that modernity is full of vitality is because it embraces the Other. During the acceptance of modernity, the non-westerners were both initiative and selective. Therefore, even “all-westernization”, or distorted interpretation, or copying for copying’s sake occurred, it was often selected and digested after taking domestic situations into consideration, but not absolute passive acceptance. The cultural life of the Non-west, as well as their acceptance or rejection of modernity, on the other hand, influenced the social life in the West, and even the viewpoints of the West toward modernity as well as its way of exporting modernity. 2 Modernity is not all about repression or coerciveness, but also creativity and enlightenment. It can be used to protect Euro-and-US imperialism and also can be used as the weapon by “the other” against centralism and hegemony. As Professor Bin Wang argued, “The construction of modernity is a global project. Though it originated from Europe in terms of time and space, it was not a specific historical and cultural product by Europe. Some characteristics of the modern world also support this historical view.” 3

Generally speaking, modernity is an ever-progressing process. It is a historical result for which the involvement of both parties is needed, without either of which, modernity will lose its historical base and real motivation. It is not difficulty to imagine that if the impact of the West or modernity was cleaned out from the history of the Non-west, the history of modern colonialism, the history of the Non-west, and the history of European and American powers would be difficult to understand and write. As it was said by Dirlik, “How can we write about the world without the tradition and heritage of Eurocentrism? The history, or even the writings of Anti-Eurocentrism, will be difficult to understand without reference to the tradition of Eurocentrism.” 4 Moreover, Eurocentrism itself is a very general description (or a grand narrative). It has hidden various voices of “Europe” and “modernity” inside Europe, covered the fact that the development of “modernity” in different regions, groups and nations within Europe and America was not at the same pace, glossed over the long-existing competition about the understandings of “the other” and the struggles for the final say among different powers, and also reduced different or even conflicting viewpoints toward the East and the Non-Europe within Europe.

In the conclusion, under the inevitable trend of globalization, we will definitely enter a blind alley if we close our door. Therefore we should make a critical analysis of modernity, Eurocentrism and the concept of Enlightenment on the global-level, and properly deal with the identity crisis and cultural conflicts brought by globalization. Meanwhile, we should better understand the strength and weaknesses of local traditions and local knowledge, deal with the hegemonism and new colonialism under the name of globalization and universalization. Moreover, we shall be broad-minded as the sea embraces the rivers, learn from all outstanding cultural achievements, and tolerate and respect differences. We shall promote diversity in cultural practices and understand the past and the present from different perspectives. The

1 Discussion of “Sick man of Asia” can be an example. Refer to Yang Ruisong: Imagine National Disgrace: “Sick man of Asia” in the History of Thoughts and Culture of Modern China, Historical Journal of Political University, edition 23, May 2005, P1-44 2 See Stephen Averill: New Trends on the Historical Study on China and the Non-west, translated by Wu Zhe etec., The New History, volume 11, edition 3, September 2000, P162－163. 3 R. Bin Wong: China in Transform—Limitations of Historical Change and European Experience, Chinese version in Li Bozhong etc.trans., Jiangsu People’s Publishing House, 1998, P264. 4 Arif Dirlik: Globalism, Denial of Post-colonialism of History, Chinese version in Wang Ning etc. trans., The Atmosphere of Post-revolution, China Social Sciences Press, 1999, P162.


same voice is not good for the development and innovation of thoughts, but conflicts and tolerance do. As advocated by Zhuang-zi, a Chinese ancient sage, “Take uneven for even”, which maintains that each keeps his own uniqueness and in his proper place while recognizing diversities and respecting other’s uniqueness and not imposing for the “same”. The theory of Zhuang-zi is not only in line with what Chinese traditional Confucianism advocated “seeking common ground while reserving differences”, but also beneficial for the establishment of harmonious society and global cultural order.


Globalization and Multiculturalism Li Qingben

Director of the institute of World Literature and Culture,

Beijing Language and Cultural University

“Globalization” has been widely discussed and the word has been used with different meanings. It can be seen as a process as well as a fait accompli. From the perspective of a historical process, globalization can be seen as a logical extension of "westernization" and "modernization". Nowadays people are less enthusiastic in their discussion of westernization as they once were; otherwise they risk being accused of cultural imperialism. Besides, people are more and more in tune with the idea that modernization does not equal westernization. However, it cannot be denied that be it modernization or globalization, they all begin with westernization. In world history, western military and technological power has greatly impacted on the rest of the world since the middle of the 19th century, this is an undisputed fact. In that case, what special value does the word globalization hold in our title? In our view, globalization has not simply changed in the use of the word but also marks the transition in our cognitive pattern. It also implies the transition from a singular west-centric way of thinking to a multi-dimensional way of thinking. Therefore the word globalization in our title should include a new multicultural way of thinking in its meaning. In other words, globalization refers to the process of energizing the common core in different cultures and involving it in the construction of human civilization as a whole.

I. What has globalization brought us? Of course, to realize such a process is no simple matter because globalization and multiculturalism are a paradox. From what we could see now, multiculturalism is a still a forward looking vision, still a topic of discussion among intellectuals. But globalization is a fait accompli. Although post-colonial literary theories, including Edward Said’s Orientalism, are criticising Occidentalism and proposing the east-west relationship in the process of globalization; their theoretical terminology, their thinking space and their direction of critique are still firmly set within the discourse of western culture, hence constrained within the western knowledge system. According to Said, Orientalism is a product of Occidentalism, is a projection of westerners’ self observation as well as a reflection of its power. His de-construction and critique of Occidentalism is still western discourse and not “a real discourse about Orientalism”.1 Therefore, we still have a long way to go to achieve real “multiculturalism”, which is determined by the actual extend of globalisation and its direction.

No doubt the impact of globalisation is immense and multi-facet. American scholar J. H. Miller talked about their major impacts in his 1997 Beijing conference paper “Globalisation and its impact on literary studies” as follows. Firstly, as a governing body of political and social organizations since the 18th century, the nation state is gradually losing the completeness and power of its sovereignty. Technological development has globalized trade and commerce, and as a result, the national state is losing its power as a location of traditional economic organization. Secondly, globalization has brought with it many new and constructive social organizations and new bodies with a lot of potential. The third impact is on

1 LIU, Kang, JIN Hengshan, “Post-colonialism criticism: From the west to China”, in Literary Criticism, Issue 1, 1998.


the human race itself. He made reference to the work of W. Benjamin and said, industrialization since the 19th century has brought about new technology, new means of production and consumption; with these new changes came an entirely new sense that is different from the past and a totally new way of living in the whole world. 1 To summarise in our own words, these three impacts correspond to the three layers of politics, economy and culture. Globalization will first of all restrict a nation state’s political power and realize the transition from an “infinite government” to a “finite government". Along with the transition is the power to directly manage the economy which the government has partially alienated and is being taken over by multi-national economic organizations. Evidence includes the role and functions played by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in the last Asian Financial Crisis and the current Global Credit Crunch, which clearly demonstrate our point. The impact of globalization on the human race involves cultures because whatever the culture, its main duty concerns its care of the human race. With the onset of the information age, new communication tools, new ways of entertainment and particularly the internet are changing our life style in an increasingly obviously manner, hence creating a stronger impact on our subjective feelings. To conclude, the consequences of globalization include the fall of a nation state, the new development of telecommunication and trans-space organizations, possible new senses, changes in experiences and feelings as well as a new man that transcends time and space. 2 These are all the consequences of globalization. Will such consequences eventually lead to the loss of traditional culture and prevent the realization of multiculturalism? Closely linked to this issue is the question that in the context of globalization, do people still need identification with their own traditional culture? If so, what are the bases?

To answer such questions, we need to investigate another consequence of globalization on the human being, that is, the identity crisis brought about by globalization. For sure, globalization has not only changed the way we sense and experience the world, it also brought about an identity crisis. Such identity crisis happened in post industrialization in that mass industrial production had changed the human being. However, the information age has brought about a sense of loneliness, which is no less than that in the past. Rather, such a feeling of isolation is getting stronger. Although we could establish more extensive and more direct contacts via telephone, TV and internet, such contacts are not without a sense of fake and deception. What we have gained is a large amount of verbal, visual and linguistic illusions of reality but what we have lost is the real physical experience that integrates sense and reason. A loss is a need. In this situation people will naturally yearn for a pure personal space and search for a comfortable spiritual home. Many modern poets and philosophers had once asked “who are we?” but we are more interested in finding the answer to the question of "who do we belong to?" Therefore globalization has not only brought about the loss of personal space and spiritual home but also created this urgent need for them in the mind of the modern man. As a result, it is only natural that people identify with the traditional culture of their own race and ethnic group. As Huntington remarks in The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, civilization is the biggest “we”, inside which we feel comfortable culturally because it distinguishes us from all the "others" that are outside civilization. 3 I believe the possibility of multiculturalism lies in the spiritual loss brought about by globalization and the consequent need. Multiculturalism is firmly rooted in the soil of globalization.

II. How do we define multiculturalism?

1 J. H. Miller, “Globalisation and its impact on literary studies”, in Contemporary Foreign Literature, Issue 1, 1998. 2 Ibid. 3 S.P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Xinhua Press, 1998, pp26-27.


The meaning of multiculturalism is multi-levelled. It not only refers to the common prosperity of different cultures of different nations in the global context, but also refers to the traditional culture of any national state being tolerant of other cultures and taking in from other cultures what it considers necessary and useful. Most importantly, multiculturalism is a new way of thinking, requiring people to change their traditional one-way mode of thinking to pluralistic way of thinking and to change from absolutism to relativism. It is said there are over 150 definitions of culture so far. No doubt the figure will continue to grow in the future. The reasons we have so many definitions is to do with the multiple meanings of culture as a concept, which is related to the many layers of culture. People tend to define culture at different levels, which is perfectly normal. What we cannot accept are those all-embracing all-inclusive definitions of culture because in our view such a definition of culture is meaningless. In this context, we accept the concept of culture at its entirety. That is to say, culture is an entire structure but there exists the distinction between deep structure and superficial structure. What consist of the cultural core at the deep structure are those essential features that distinguish between different cultures in the whole world. As Ruth Benedict describes it in Patterns of Cultures: culture is a pattern of thinking and behaviour manifested through the activities of a nation. It is a pattern that distinguishes it from other nations. 1 If we are to see the fundamentals of culture from this perspective, some elements like food, fashion and housing cultures will be naturally excluded outside the cultural core. In our view, even if the day came when we all ate the same food, wore the same clothes and lived in the same type of housing, it would still not lead to a mono-culture. As the lyric of a well-known Chinese song says, "though what I wear is western style clothes, my heart is still Chinese”. The cultural core and the deep cultural structure we are talking about here are what lies in the soul of any nation and marks out its national characteristics. It is a pattern of thinking and behaviour but also includes in it national beliefs and values while language, art, religion and philosophy are its major objective carriers.

As part of the deep structure, the core culture differs from the cultural concept that lies in a superstructure above politics and economy. This cultural concept is in essence an ideology that has to be in accordance with the political and economic development of the time, which in turn produces a different cultural manifestation at different historical times, for examples: feudal, capitalist and socialist cultural manifestations. In our view, these cultural manifestations are superficial layers of the cultural structure, behind which lies something much deeper, that is, the cultures of feudal times, capitalist times and socialist times. Individualism many be a capitalist culture but the Human Comedy by Balzac is a cultural manifestation of the capitalist times. For the former, it is inseparable from the political and economic systems; the later has a permanent value, which does not change with the social system. Said believes, culture, first of all, refers to all the conventions, including artistic descriptions, communications and representations, which are independent of the economic, social and political fields. They exist in aesthetic fields. One of the principle aims is the pursuit of pleasure. 2 Independent from the political, social and economic fields, culture, though being influenced by the ideology, its relationship from ideology is not a lineal determinism. Instead, it has features that transcend ideology. A Chinese Marxist could devote all his energy to fight against feudal and capitalist systems, but it does not stop him from identifying with traditional Chinese culture. Meanwhile, identifying with the traditional culture does not suggest his support for the traditional means of production and corresponding social system.

Why are we going round and round on this issue? Anybody familiar with Kant’s philosophy will know his critique of pure reason and the fact that he limits the scope of cognitive reason to give room for empirical reason. His point is to prove that there is a space beyond the reach 1 Benedict, Ruth, Patterns of Culture, Zhejiang People’s Press, 1988, pp45-46. 2 Said, Edward, Culture and Imperialism, A division of Random House Incs. New York, 1993.


of cognitive (instrumental) reason and it belongs to value reason. We are putting culture within the space of value, belief, and patterns of thinking and behaviour. The aim is to provide a sufficient space for politics, economy and the consequent system culture. Within this space, political and economic development and changes can directly impact on the system culture as an ideology, but it cannot easily impact on culture as a value system and its development and changes.

If we see both cultures as something that makes up the cultural totality, we should still see they have different status and roles in the overall cultural structure. The system culture is loosely linked to the ideology as a superficial layer of the cultural structure, but the culture that embodies national characteristics is in the core of the cultural structure (that is in the deep layer). When a society’s political economy changes, initial changes happen at the superficial layer of culture while a protective zone is formed around the cultural core. This protective zone directs all the changes to itself at the superficial layer while making sure the cultural value at the core is not damaged. Only when a nation’s value, belief, thinking and behaviour patterns are fundamentally changing, that is to say, when the core cultural value of a nation is damaged, we can say the cultural tradition of a nation is broken and dead.

It is this stability of culture at the deep level that makes multiculturalism possible in the global context. Of course, at different times, the cultural core and the deep structure of culture may face different challenges and produce very different responses, all of which are based on the establishment of a nation's cultural characteristics. On this basis and on the condition of guaranteeing the extension of a nation’s cultural core, it could take in and absorb elements from other cultures that are beneficial to the overall development of its own cultural entirety. In this case, multiculturalism is achieved for this nation state. Or it could go even further, on the condition that the nation state’s own culture is playing a dominant role; a more tolerant attitude towards other cultures or the core values of other cultures in its own culture is possible, as long as it does not pose any threat to the core value of the host culture. However, to achieve the above requires a pluralistic way of thinking.

III. How should we face globalization? It cannot be denied that since the Opium War of the 1840, China had been forced to embark on the process of westernization. Meanwhile, people with noble aspirations also realized that to be strong and independent, China had no other way but to “learn the expertise of the foreigners in order to overcome the foreigners”. Liang Qichao said in “An overview of the evolution of China in the past 50 years”:

In the past fifty years, Chinese people gradually realized their inadequacies. This realization can be seen as the cause as well as the result of our learning. At the first stage, we became aware of the inadequacies in terms of tools and machinery. During the Opium War, we realized the need to abandon the self and follow the others. … As a result, we built Fujian Academy of Shipbuilding and Shanghai Arsenal. … At the second stage, we became aware of the inadequacies of our institutions… As a result, we rallied under the banner of the 1898 Constitutional Reform and started social movements. ... At the third stage, we became aware of the inadequacies in the fundamentals of culture. The second stage went through a relatively long period of time, from the Sino-Japanese War of the 1894-1895 to 1918 and 1919. … In the over 20 years’ time, there was a strong feeling that our politics and law lagged far behind the foreign countries. We were desperate to import every single one of their organizations and institutions, believing once such were brought in, nothing would be impossible to achieve. It had been almost 10 years since the success of the 1911 Revolution but all our hopes fell through. Gradually we began to reflect and discovered that social culture is a whole system and it is impossible to operate a new system with old mentality. Gradually we realize we need


to awaken whole person. … Therefore, the past two or three years seem to have start a new era.1

In the words of Liang Qichao, China went through three stages in its learning from the west: economic, political and cultural stages, each corresponding to Westernization Movement, the Qing Restoration, Also known as the Constitutional Reform (including the Revolution of the 1911) and the May 4th Movement. This forms a cycle of social development in China since the mid 19th Century. It is worth noting that although the May 4th New Cultural Movement had posed a tremendous impact of traditional Chinese culture, we cannot come to the simple conclusion that the traditional Chinese culture was completely broken during the May 4th Movement. Lin Yusheng gives very valid comments on the didactic relationship between the May 4th Movement and tradition in his article "May 4th Style Anti-tradition Thinking and the Crisis of Chinese Consciousness”. He uses the concepts of thought "content" and thinking “mode" to refer to the two aspects in the May 4th Movement. In his view, May the 4th critiques while following on the traditional culture. That is to say, the May 4th Movement is anti-tradition at the level of thought “content”, but at the level of thinking “mode”, it follows on the Chinese tradition. This following-on is mainly reflected on two points: the "practice reason" in Chinese tradition is being inherited by the representative figures of the May 4th Movement. This "practice reason” is what Lin Yusheng refers to as the organic link between the “transcending reality” and its connotation” 2 In other words, Chinese tradition does not pursuit essential reality that transcends the phenomenon, rather, it seeks essence in the phenomenon and the transcendental meaning within the reality of life. There is little concern for afterlife. This is the deep meaning of the Confucius saying “without knowing the life, how can one know about death”. Secondly, May the 4th Movement entails a worldly sense of duty unique to many Chinese intellectuals. This sense of mission is a direct follow-on of the spirit of “be the first to worry about the world (and the people) and be the last to rejoice” and “to care about matters at home, in the nation and in the world”. This is fundamentally different from the sense of isolation felt by the tsar scholars from the state authority and the ruling system, and the subsequent intellectual progressive spirit. It is also very different from the progressive style of many modern western intellectuals in the context of the church separating from the state. In this perspective, learning from the west does not necessarily cause the break-up of Chinese cultural tradition. This is a basic conclusion we have reached in our observation and study of how Chinese society had gone through the economic, political and cultural cycle of westernization.

Since entering the new era of reform and opening to the outside world, we seem to be repeating this cycle. But the order is different this time round in that the reform of economic system is happening at the same time of accepting western culture, but the reform at the political level still lags behind. What I mean by reform at the political level is not to change the political system; rather, I am referring to the reform of the managerial system. For the majority of Chinese people, what concerns them most is how to escape poverty. Therefore, modernization was, is, and will remain to be the aim of Chinese development for a long time to come. For economic reform to take place smoothly, the reform of the managerial system is a top priority. Correspondingly, ideology with modern characteristics like perception of law, sense of duty as a citizen, property rights and commitment to and professionalism in work all need to be instilled and strengthened. If such concepts are not provided by the traditional culture, then it is necessary to learn from the west. Does this mean we need to give up our traditional culture? No, definitely not. We cannot do so and there is no need for us to give up what we consider as the core value in our traditional culture. This brings us back to the old question, that is, how we should see culture. If we can accept such a definition of culture, which sees culture as a pattern of thinking and behaviour, as a belief and value trend, then we 1 Collected Works of Liang Qichao, Shanghai People’s Press, 1984, pp833-834. 2 Lin, Yusheng, The Creative Transformation of Chinese Tradition, Sanlian Bookshop Press, 1988, p158.


would be more tolerant to the on-going modernization trend. It will also help to reduce the anxiety of our own cultural tradition. Because as what we have mentioned earlier, if what we are taking in and incorporating are elements of the western system culture that are beneficial to the economic development of our country and the improvement of our political system, this would not lead to any change in the core value of our own cultural tradition. Moreover, if handled well, it only strengthens our identification with the core cultural tradition. An obvious fact is that those who try their best to promote Chinese cultural values are usually the same people who have been immersed in western culture. Overseas Chinese people living in western cultural contexts tend to experience this desire for Chinese culture more strongly than those of us living inside China. The reason is very simple; the belief in one’s own culture is often established when contrasted with the cultural “others”. I believe we have reached a consensus of how we could thoroughly enjoy the conveniences of modernization without losing the identification with our own culture.

Therefore, there is no need for us to stop learning advanced western technology and managerial system because of the fear that we might lose the Chinese tradition. Equally there is no need for us to fight against or give up our culture tradition in order to conduct modernization construction. Because at the end of the day, the fundamental question of a cultural system is totally different from the political economic system. The two cannot be viewed in the one-way thinking of one system determines the other. At the moment, we should fully participate in the globalization process. There is no need to worry that this may hinder our identification with the Chinese traditional culture.


On Multiculture and Global Civilization Zsuzsanna Renner

Director General, Museum of Applied Arts

Budapest, Hungary

For me who am neither an expert of globalization nor a sinologist but a historian and indologist, the greatest challenge of globalization at the beginning of the 21st century is the exchange of poles. While globalization of the 19th-20th centuries has been predominantly a Western idea and a process following from the specificities of Western economy, in the past decade we have seen Asian giants, China and India, not only growing up before our eyes and seeking their place in the globalized world but actually drive the global economy. I think an important task of Western SSH research is to understand the driving force behind this tremendous development. Here I think it would be equally important to investigate both cases, China and India, both models which, however different, give rise to similar success stories on the globalized world level. (It is difficult to say countries since these huge territorial clusters comprise in themselves a diversity and a series of regional characteristics that in Europe have normally constituted separate historical states. This is actually one of the challenges posed to both research and EU-China international relations, that is, a heterogeneous, multi-state Europe faced to a uniform Chinese state.)

The most intriguing question seems to me how the cultural traditions of ancient Asian civilizations in China and India have become a major potential, a source of impetus for an unprecedented development, I am tempted to say resurrection, of these civilizations in the postmodern age. For I think, the role of traditions is obvious. But what are the exact constituents of this hidden resource, is it social structure, bureaucratic systems, religion, forms of communication, habits or other forms of traditional gestures or different combinations of these? Is it rather religion in the case of India and Confucian values like obedience to a strong state in the case of China? What is the mechanism of these resources? Do they constitute a sort of know-how that can be analyzed, described, generalized and thereby globalized and put in line with Western mechanisms? Or is it a more secret or intimate sphere of knowledge that will remain hidden behind processes on the surface? Are these mechanisms consciously employed and exploited to gain economic success on a worldwide level or do they belong to the private sphere, the social or family background determining indirectly the mental setup of the players of the public sphere? It would be also interesting to see whether local researchers of social phenomena have already made investigations into these questions; if yes, with what results.

Now, turning to the case of China, while making efforts to understand the driving force behind its success on the world stage, Europe should consider how to deal with traditional Chinese values that might prove to be constituents of its hidden potential if they are basically different from its own ones? Western world view and world order from the Western point of view has been traditionally based on the superiority of Western ideals. How to cope in the globalized world with Chinese ideals and models as against individualism, democratic ideals and human rights that are basic values to Europe?


A further question is what should be our points of reference in the West when we intend to mediate, explain or interpret Chinese history, values, ideas and traditions? Are these historical and social phenomena well defined enough in China so as to serve as starting points for interpretation? How are the major issues of Chinese tradition and Chinese heritage seen in China itself? For example, the questions of Chinese statehood: how do Chinese scholars define the historical and modern Chinese state, how is the present Chinese state related to historical empires in its territory, can we speak of continuity or not, what is the relation of state to the ethnic groups having lived within its territorial framework? What have been the forms of expression of diversity (ethnic, cultural, etc.)? What is considered to be ‘Chinese’, what is the attitude to Han traditions? What is the approach to the different layers and epochs of tradition? How is China related to the outside world in the age of globalization whereas foreigners were regarded traditionally as barbarians? What are the expressions of (a new) Chinese national identity as defined in a globalized context – only to list a few of the possible questions.

In Europe, the interpretation of the vast historical and geographical range of China should be sensitive to its apparent diversity. Instead of emphasizing homogeneity or the continuity of all phenomena, the diversity and variegation of Chinese tradition, if it is revealed to the outside world, would offer a much better opportunity to European cultures (countries) to seek linkages to Chinese tradition and to find common traits with their own traditions. In Europe, therefore, it is important to provide an authentic and complex interpretation of Chinese tradition. Alongside Chinese language promoted by Confucius Institutes, aspects of Chinese culture other than language should also be given due emphasis.

Globalization and multiculturalism are debated issues in Europe as well as in China themselves, so it is by far not well established standpoints that are to be contrasted but issues of debates on both sides which is a challenge. Political considerations might influence the scope of common research projects between EU and China, which is another challenge. A further challenge is language as a major barrier to contacts with China: in spite of access on internet, the lack of foreign language knowledge renders direct contact with individual Chinese experts practically impossible at the moment; further, much of the literature in different fields is in Chinese language which only renders it available for the speakers of Chinese. Still another challenge involved in the relations with China is that instead of person-to-person relationships, communication is centralized and is basically run through the central institutions of the state.

Apart from questions mentioned above, all periods and forms of relationship between China and the outside world can be suggested for research, such as the Chinese vocabulary of Buddhist literature, history of the Great Wall, history of the Silk Road, Chinese maritime trade in Southeast Asia, Jesuits in China, China image in European philosophy writing, modern art in China, etc. In this cultural dialogue and exchange an appropriate role should be given to Chinese intellectuals living outside China.


On Multiculture and Global Civilisation Franciscus Verellen

European Consortium for Asian Field Study

Ecole française d’Extrême-Orient

The following remarks represent the point of view of a European Asian studies specialist, interested in developing cooperation between the European Union and China in research on key aspects of Chinese civilisation in both its historical and comparative dimensions, as well as its extensions into the contemporary world and global culture.

Multiculture is the result of the historical encounter and interaction of different civilisations. In the Asian context, the Chinese influence extends to the whole region that historically adopted the Chinese script – Korea, Japan, Vietnam – as well as the Chinese Diaspora in Southeast Asia and North America. At the same time Southeast Asia was first “hinduised”, with the export of the Hindu religion and the Sanskrit and Pali writing systems, followed by the large-scale “indianisation” of much of Asia, including China, through the spread of Buddhism through Central Asian land routes and Southern maritime communications. Further waves of religious globalisation first brought Islam and Muslim culture; later the Jesuit and other missions introduced Christianity to many parts of Asia, in particular European science and technology to the imperial court and Confucian elite of China.

The principal vehicles for these transfers were international trade and commerce. Geopolitical and missionary motivations also played important roles. Today, the effects of similar trans- and interactions are greatly amplified by the rapidly growing capacities of global information and communication technologies and the evolution of ever more efficient networks. The phenomenon of “multiculture” and the notion of a “global civilisation”, while in some ways joining the world into a closer community, nevertheless remain problematic and fraught with contentions.

As a rule, countries such as China, with rapidly expanding export-oriented economies, have embraced the opportunities that globalisation presents for them. Moreover, international cultural relations, as well as the trade in cultural and intellectual products and services, have acquired strategic importance. In the case of China, the message conveyed on the occasion of the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games is that China wishes to be regarded above all as a great and ancient civilisation with major contributions to world heritage, which is today reclaiming its eminent position on the world stage. It may be expected that the message of the 2010 Shanghai World Expo will reinforce this claim.

The Chinese Language Office HanBan today promotes the teachings of Confucianism as the traditional foundation of a “harmonious” society in China and, through the establishment of Confucius Institutes abroad, as an instrument of external cultural relations. As in Singapore, the form of Confucianism put forward exemplifies the values of education, work, social morality and obedience. Thanks to the primacy accorded to education, in particular, this officially endorsed Confucianism is well adapted to the demands of a modern, knowledge-based economy.


China’s response to cultural globalisation is of considerable interest to Europeans. While China is eager to absorb Western knowledge and know-how and readily accepts the severe challenges of measuring up to international norms in the fields of higher education and research (see Shanghai Jiao Tong University’s “Academic Ranking of World Universities”), China also boasts a long and rich history of education, whose imprint is once again apparent in contemporary Chinese society, and which can be said to be responsible for shaping some of the values and comportments that make China a successful player in the global economy.

Not all European Union countries have been as quick to recognize and embrace international norms of performance in higher education and research, hoping perhaps to stem the decline of national tradition and local identity which they associate with the uniformization imposed by “global civilization”. In reality, however, the most successful models in this field are derived from multicultural prototypes. The deeper challenge for China and for Europe consists in exercising the transformative influence of their respective traditions on established global standards, without uncritically submitting to homogenizing tendencies. In other words, to further multiculture not through protectionism but by seeking global recognition for locally evolved specificities of proven effectiveness.

Against this background, we strongly recommend including the history and civilisation of China and EU-China comparative cultural studies in a joint EU-China programme for research in the humanities in social sciences.

The following areas of common interest have been tentatively identified in consultation between scholars in the European Consortium for Asian Field Study (ECAF) network and colleagues in China:1

1/ Geographical Information Systems in archaeology (e.g., inscriptions on ancient ritual bronzes documenting cult systems of the Warring States and early imperial periods);

2/ New documentary sources on the history of pre-imperial China (silk and bamboo manuscripts discovered in tombs of the Warring States and Han periods, opening new perspectives on the social history, history of institutions, political and juridical thought, philosophy and religion of early China);

3/ Writing systems and early civilisations (renewed interest in China in the languages and scripts of the ancient Egyptian, Sumerian, Greek and Roman civilisations calls for cooperation between Chinese and European specialists on new methods for the study and analysis of early alphabetic and non-alphabetic writing systems);

4/ Chinese archives and the history of modern China (e.g. law and justice as interface between the state and local society in the late imperial and republican periods, legislative procedures and the evolution of traditional civil law in modern China, archival techniques and practices).

1 Survey conducted in 2008 by the Beijing Centre of the Ecole française d’Extrême-Orient in consultation with members of the Institutes of Archaeology of the Academy of Social Sciences and of the University of Shandong; Research Centre on Silk and Bamboo Manuscripts of the University of Wuhan (Hubei); Institute of Ancient History of Northeastern Normal University; Centre for Hellenistic Studies of Beijing University; National Institute of Archival Studies, Beijing Normal University.


Chinese Tradition in Cultural Interaction and Inter-cultural Dialogue Professor Yang Huilin, PhD

School of Humanities, Renmin University of China

No culture or tradition could stay in its original state, especially in a globalized world. It is the same to speak of Chinese tradition. An English speaking theologian, Martin Marty, believes that “Christianity comes to us in many forms and we’d better to talk about multi-Christianity.” It is also true in the case of Chinese tradition. That is why I prefer to gear the topic in a comparative and inter-cultural context, and include some typical samples to show the long existed cultural interaction.

1. Shared Points in Morality and Philosophy: Every Chinese knows Confucius (BC 551-479) and his famous teaching in the Analects: “Do not do to others what you do not want others to do to you.” This Golden Rule is also recorded in the New Testament (Mathew 7:12 and Luke 6:31). The same ethical requirements in Chinese and western civilizations institute this ethos as “global ethic”, in terms of a Catholic theologian Hans Kung.

Soon after the idea of “Global Ethic” or “World Ethic” was born in 1990s, Chinese scholars had been involved in the related argument, dialogue and dissemination in forms of academic conferences and publications. I feel it an honor to say that the 1st international conference on Traditional Chinese Ethics and Global Ethic was co-organized, in 1997, by the Institute for the Study of Christian Culture of my University, together with the Global Ethic Foundation and Prof. Hans Kung himself, with 24 influential Chinese scholars co-signed a positive Summary as our identification to the principles in Declaration of Global Ethic approved at the Parliament of World Religions in 1993. In 2001, the 2nd Conference on Traditional Chinese Ethics and Global Ethic welcomed Prof. Hans Kung participating in discussions with 30 representative scholars from the top universities in the mainland of China, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore. The participants signed another Summary after the Conference. In both of the Summaries, we offered positive responses to the two basic principles: “Every human being should be treated humanly”; and “what you do not wish done to yourself, do not do to others”, and actually, we could find rich similar resources in Chinese classics.

The traditional ethical requirements same with the basic principles:

1. WHAT YOU DO NOT WISH DONE TO YOURSELF, DO NOT DO TO OTHERS. 1) In its negative form:

“Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire”.

“Do not do to others what you do not want others to do to you.”(己所不欲，勿施于人).

2) Although it is argued to be too much pushing one’s own way to others, the positive form of the requirement is found in many classics:

“Do to others what you wish others do to you” (欲人施诸己，亦施于人).

“A benevolent man helps others to take their stand in that he himself wishes to take his stand, and gets others there in that he himself wishes to get there” (己欲立而立人，己欲达而达人).

2. EVERY HUMAN BEING SHOULD BE TREATED HUMANLY.


“To do humanly is to be human” (仁者人也)

“’Benevolence’ means loving your fellow men” (仁者爱人)

Chinese tradition even advocates both the respect for human life and even the respect for all kinds of life, which seems to be very close to the idea of “Green Peace” and ecological criticism. These thoughts do not only seek for human peace but also for the harmony between human and nature and other creatures. And therefore, “the virtue of respecting for life” (生生之德) and “friend others and affiliate with all creatures”(民胞物与) is always taken as the great virtue in Confucian teachings and philosophy.

There are many other traditional Chinese ideas related:

1. In regard with the human relationship, “Harmony in diversity” or “harmony with diversity” (和而不同) is typically emphasized in Confucianism. Compared with “Baha’i”, a new religious community who takes “Unity with diversity” as the main doctrine, the Confucian spirit of the harmonious co-existence of different cultures might be more relevant for the foundation of human existence and development.

2. Confucius believes “honesty-sincerity is the Dao of Heaven” (诚者，天之道也) which is out of the control of human beings, and “to be honest and sincere is the Dao of human beings” which is the only thing we could do (诚之者，人之道也). In this case, a gentleman （君子）should “cultivate himself to be honest and sincere” in accordance with the Dao of Heaven, which is something upper or a more or less religious standard of honesty and sincerity. This might be clearer in the interpretation of Dao. In Chinese, I think either 道 (way) or 德 (virtue) means “to walk your talk” originally, because both走 and 彳 are symbols of walking carefully with small steps. In this case, “way” is formed in the walking and in virtue of moral practice “virtue” appears. Just as David Tracy noticed, the famous saying of Socrates “The unexamined life is not worth living” is in sharp contrast with a saying in a Buddhist scripture, “The un-lived life is not worth examining.”

3. So Dao is not only metaphysical but also physical; “honesty-sincerity” is above us and what we could do is nothing but learning to be honest and sincere; Dao could be justified in faith, as well as in behavior. I am not sure if it is “religion”, but it is of course something like “Acts of Religion” (in terms of Derrida) or “Acts of Faith” (in terms of Rodney Stark). You may know that the sacred “Word” or “Wisdom” in the Gospel of John and other biblical scriptures is translated into “Dao” in this sense.

4. For the same reason, traditional Chinese ethics ask for our “Consideration for others” (恕) and a spirit of tolerance: “great virtues have a huge capacity to contain things” (厚德载物), and “to tolerate is a sign of greatness” (有容乃大).

5. And probably related to the consideration for others, traditional Chinese ethics place a great emphasis on family, viewing family as the foundation of society. Among the “five cardinal relationships” (emperor and his officials, fathers and kids, husbands and their wives, brothers and sisters, and friends), three of them are concerned with family relationship. It is even believed that “The relation between the officials and the emperor may find origin or archetype in the relation between husbands and wives, which even extends to the relation of heaven and the earth.” (君子之道，造端乎夫妇。及其至也，察乎天地).

6. And so, in Chinese traditional philosophy, “humanity is Benevolence” (博爱之谓仁), “filial piety” is the origin of human morality and sentiment (立爱自亲始). And, it is encouraged that “love your family so as to love others and all creatures” (亲亲而仁民，仁


民而爱物), “cultivate moral character, and then you could cultivate your family, administrate the country, and bring peace all over the world” (修身、齐家、治国、平天下). When it is promoted to the realm that “honor the aged of other people as we honor our own, take care of the young of other people as we take care of our own” (老吾老以及人之老，幼吾幼以及人之幼), we may naturally relate the traditional Chinese teachings with the famous prayer by St. Francis in the Medieval Europe: to be understood as to understand, to be loved as to love; it is in giving that we receive, it is in pardoning that we are pardoned, it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.

All above mentioned are in the perfect agreement with the basic spirit of global ethic and western civilization. And besides the similarities in the core ideas of Chinese tradition, such as “harmony with diversity”, “self-cultivation”, “consideration for others” and “taking family and private morality as the foundation of society and justice”, the probable differences or comparable elements between China and the West should not be neglected. So let’s come to the 2nd part.

2. Religious Attitude and China-West Encounter: At the famous Buddhist Shaolin Temple in Henan province, there is a tablet erected in 1209 named “The Tablet of the Unity of Three Religions”, which records the dramatically harmonious relations among Buddhism, Confucianism and Daoism. In the carved painting on the tablet, the faces of Buddha, Confucius and Laotzu are mixed together, and the most important thing they shared is the same big ears, which are blessed in traditional Chinese culture.

The left side and the right side could be recognized more clearly if we cut the portrait into two pieces:


The tablet inscription includes such statements: “Buddhism is centered on the enlightenment of human nature; Daoism focuses on the methods of longevity; Confucianism emphasizes the ethical way of living, and keeping the right order and the basic virtue as the appropriate way.”

From the inscribed description on the tablet we can tell that there seems to be an “inclusive” religious tradition in Chinese history, instead of an “exclusive” one, which is somehow different from the west.

Therefore, when the Nestorians came to Chang’an (now Xi’an) in Tang Dynasty (AD 635), the emperor Li Shimin sent his prime minister to formally welcome the missionaries from the suburb of the city and the emperor even talked with the missionaries personally about religions and related classics. Please refer to the tablet in memory of the start of Christianity in China.


After that, a strange tradition had been gradually formed, that is to get the scholars or monks of Buddhism, Daoism and Confucianism together, in front of the Emperor, competing in the skill of dialectic argument. It is said that their starting point were always different but finally they turned to focus on morality and come to the same conclusion of how to search for virtues or “goodness”. As something recorded in the New Documents of Tang Dynasty (新唐书), that “the three religions looked contradictory and conflicting, but all of them resulted in moral cultivation, which made the Emperor very pleased.”

Consequently, a joke was composed and became popular. It says there is a person who is especially good at the knowledge of Buddhism, Daoism and Confucianism, the three main religions or intellect traditions in China. Someone asked him “who is Buddha?” The answer is: “Buddha is a woman.” Why? Because there is a sentence in Buddhist scriptures that “敷坐而坐”. 敷 (a short while) is with the same pronunciation with “husband”. In this case, if Buddha took his seat only when the husband had already taken a seat, he must be a woman (or his wife) according to the feudal custom in ancient China.

And when he was asked “who is Laotzu”, the answer is still “Laotzu is a woman”. In the writings of Laotzu, it is read “the reason why I have some worries is that I can not escape from my body. Whenever I can escape from my body and live spiritually, I am worried about nothing.” “有身” (can not escape from my body) also means “being pregnant” in Chinese. So if Laotzu could be pregnant, he must be a woman certainly.

Then the question came to Confucius. His famous sayings include “吾待贾者也” (I am waiting for somebody who really appreciate my talent.) Anyway, 贾 can be read as “Jia”, with the similar pronunciation of “get married with a husband”（嫁）. If so, the sentence could


be read as “I am waiting for getting married with my husband” and Confucius himself is of course also a woman.

Of course it is just a joke of “Unity with diversity”. But in the case of later dissemination of Christianity in China, you would be impressed or probably surprised by the Chinese Maria, combining Christian Maria and Jesus with the images of Chinese Empress in Qing dynasty and her son.

Please notice that the color of their gown is yellow, which is a symbol of royalty in the traditional China.


Lucky or not, the seeds of “interpreting Christian ideas with Confucian terms” were planted from its very beginning, so that the later western missionaries knew the significance of having Christianity rooted in the Chinese cultural context, which is understood as “accommodation”, “in-culturation” and “contextualization”. It also comes to some mixture with different religious codes, signs and symbols, especially in the shape of the Cross and lotus, as shown in a tablet in Yuan dynasty.

The “inculturation” was positively responded and supported by the “adaptive” missionary strategy, or a temporary expedient in the face of the powerful Confucian tradition. This is quite typically shown in the theological discussions during the 1920s and the 1930s. For instance, expounding the similarities between Christianity and Chinese culture was a very common theological topic at the time. Chinese traditional culture was generally regarded as “fertile ethical soil” or “good earth” in terms of Pearl S. Buck (1892-1973), and Christianity as “the best seeds of ethics.”1 Hence, in the process of accepting Christianity, the Chinese always tended to make use of their own ethical resources, or whatever, to interpret Christianity,2 and this tendency continued to evolve even in nowadays, providing some theoretical grounds for the self-interpretation of Sino-Christian communities and their religious practice in daily life. Briefly, the “inculturation” tradition in China has been even described as the procedure of explaining Christianity by means of Confucianism, and sometimes Buddhism.

3. Similarities in the Concepts of the Universe: The Greek philosopher Pythagoras (BC 569～? )，is famous for his theory: “The origin of the universe is One. One generates the Two, and Two is the uncertain material subject to the One. One is the cause. All numbers come out of the perfect One and the uncertain Two, and the Number generates the point. The point generates the Line, and the Line generates the Square where Cubage is generated. Cubage generates all visible forms and senses, which generate four elements: water, fire, earth and air. The four elements transform into each other in different ways and thus create the living, spiritual and global world.”

In Chapter 42 of Tao Te Ching (Dao De Jing) by Laotzu (BC 600-470), who lived almost at the same time with Pythagoras, even earlier, there is a similar saying, “DAO generates the One. The One generates the Two. The Two generates the Three. The Three generates all things.” In Yi Jing (The Book of Change) which is believed to be edited in BC1099-1050 and revised by Confucius himself, another similar saying is like the following: “The Change has Tai Chi (the very origin or beginning of all things). Tai Chi generates Two Elements. Two Elements generate Four Phenomena. Four Phenomena generate Eight Diagrams.”

1 Xie Fuya, “The New Christian Trend of Thought and the Basic Thinking of the Chinese Nation”, Ibid., 461. 2 For relevant discussions in my own work, see Yang Huilin, “‘Ethicized’ Chinese-Language Christianity and the Meaning of Christianity,” Contemporary Chinese Thought (New York: M.E.Sharpe), vol. 35, no. 4, Fall 2004.


The above roughly maps the landscape of the productive origin of the universe. The basic logic of 太极 is Both/And but not Either/Or, with the white part and the black part sharing each other, just like the mixed faces of Buddha, Confucius and Laotzu. The two basic elements out of the One are positive and negative, which is similar to the Greek Logos and Sophia. Each of the two elements also contains the positive part and the negative part, and it is the same on the lower levels. Being mixed with the self-nature and opposite-nature, the four phenomena (Square or four directions) and the eight diagrams (Cubage or visible forms of the universe) are generated. On the bottom of the landscape, you may find the four elements described by Pythagoras, water, fire, earth and air. The most interesting thing is the Chinese belief that the air (or heaven) on the left is opposite to the right earth, the lower part of the earth is lake （泽）and the higher part is mountain （山）, and lightning （雷）is accompanied with wind （风）.

In Zhou Dunyi (1017-1073)’s On