Tasan Lecture #2: The Confucian Perception of Religious Pluralism: Globalization and Diversity

By Tu Weiming

Citation: The Tasan Lectures, Korea, November 2001.

As we move beyond the dichotomies of globalization and localization, developed and developing, capitalism and socialism, we become an increasingly interconnected global village. By transcending the assumed dichotomies of tradition and modernity, East and West, and us and them, we can tap the rich and varied spiritual resources of our global community as we strive to understand the dilemmas of the human condition. At a minimum, we realize that the great religious traditions that had significantly contributed to the “Age of Reason”—the Enlightenment of the modern West—contain profound meaning for shaping the lives of people throughout the world. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Greek philosophy are and will remain major fonts of wisdom for centuries to come, but non-Western ways of life, notably Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Daoism are equally vibrant in the contemporary world and will most likely to continue to flourish in the future. Scholars as well as practitioners have recognized that indigenous forms of spirituality—such as African, Shinto, Maori, Polynesian, Native American, Inuit, and Hawaiian—are also sources of inspiration for the global village.

Western, non-Western, and indigenous traditions are all immensely complex, each rich in fruitful ambiguity. Actually, the so-called Western religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) all originated from the East and symbolize an age-long process of substantial transformations. Similarly, the Hindu, Buddhist, Confucian, and Daoist ways of life are each the unfolding of a spectacular spiritual vision involving fundamental insights, elaborate rituals, social institutions, and daily practice. Our awareness of the richness and variety of the human community’s spiritual resources available to the global community enables us to rise above our hegemonic and exclusive arrogance and seek the advice, guidance and wisdom of other traditions. Furthermore, we also fully acknowledge the danger of inter- and intra-religious conflicts which seriously threaten the stability of local, national, and regional communities, creating major challenges to cultivating a worldwide culture of peace. The need for a dialogue among civilizations is obvious.

A. Globalization and the Human Condition

Accompanying the rapid globalization of the last decade was an increasingly heated debate over its merits and demerits. Globalization has produced new bodies of knowledge, falsified “self-evident” conventional truths, and created myths and misperceptions of its own. Forces of globalization include the explosion in information and communications technologies, rapid expansion of the market economy, dramatic demographic change, relentless urbanization throughout the world, and the trend toward more open societies. In the economic sphere, private capital in direct investments and portfolio funds has grown rapidly, the reduction of tariff barriers has become a pervasive worldwide phenomenon, the demand for transparency of financial institutions is increasing, and concerns about corruption are spreading.

These byproducts of economic globalization have exerted great pressure on governments to become more publicly accountable, thus creating new possibilities for democratization. As a result, civil societies, symbolized by the formation of trans-national non-governmental organizations, have emerged as important actors in national, regional, and international politics. Surely, the idea that “the rising tide carries all boats” seems to be working. While the rich are getting richer, the poor are not necessarily becoming poorer. The countries which have opened their economies, reduced tariff barriers and encouraged two-way foreign trade seem to have benefited from the new global situation. The dream of eradicating abject poverty throughout the world also seems realizable in the coming five decades. Already, in the last thirty years, twenty industrialized states and more than a dozen developing countries have actually eliminated poverty. It seems that we are moving from an old world of division and walls to a brave new world of connections and webs.

Yet, with 20% of the world’s population earning 75% of the income and 25% with less than 2%, 31% illiterate, 80% living in substandard housing, more than a billion people living on less than a dollar a day and nearly a billion and half people without access to clean water, the state of the world is far from encouraging. Furthermore, the widening gap between the haves and have-nots and the rampant commercialization and commodification of social life, including the life of family, school and religious institution undermine the civic solidarity of developing countries and threaten the moral fabric of societies in developed countries. Anxiety over the loss of cultural identity and the weakening of communal ties is widespread. Can globalization lead us to a more promising land or will it generate more conflicts and contradictions in our already tension-ridden world?

1. From Westernization and Modernization to Globalization

Amartha Sen said that globalization is “an intensification of the process of human interaction involving travel, trade, migration, and dissemination of knowledge that have shaped the progress of the world over millennia.” The spread of Buddhism from Banares, Christianity from Jerusalem, and Islam from Mecca are historic cases in point. Globalization was also seen in commercial, diplomatic and military empire-building. Indeed, the inter-civilizational communication among missionaries, merchants, soldiers, and diplomats in pre-modern times was instrumental in fostering proto-globalization long before the advent of the industrial and information revolutions. The 15th century maritime exploration significantly contributed to bringing the world together into a single “system.” In hindsight, the phenomenon scholars later described as Westernization was mainly characterized by colonialism and imperialism. Western Europe has substantially reshaped human geography and left an indelible imprint on the global community.

Modernization theory, formulated in the 1950s in the United States, asserts that the “modernizing” process that began in the modern West was actually “global” in its transformative potential. The shift from the spatial idea of Westernization to the temporal concept of modernization is significant, suggesting that developments that first occurred in Western Europe, such as industrialization, should not be conceived simply as “Western” because they were on their way to becoming Japanese, Russian, Chinese, Turkish, Indian, and Iranian as well. This was precisely why the non-geographic idea of temporal modernization seemed to better capture the salient features of Westernization as a process of global transformation.

However, implicit in modernization theory was the assumption that development inevitably moves in the same direction as progress and, in the long run, the world will converge into one single civilization. Since the developed countries, notably the United States, were leading the way, modernization was seen as essentially Westernization and particularly Americanization. This narrative is, on the surface, very persuasive because the characteristics of modernity and the achievements of modernization, as defined by the theorists, are not merely Western or American inventions. The rest of the world also regards them as ideals. Market economy, democratic polity, civil society, and individualism are arguably universal aspirations.

Events in recent decades clearly show that the competitive market has been a major engine for economic growth. They also show that democratization is widespread, that a vibrant civil society encourages active participation in the political process and that respect for the dignity of the individual is a necessary condition for social solidarity. These developments may have prompted several scholars to argue that there is no longer any major ideological divide in the world: Capitalism has triumphed, market economy and democratic polity are the waves of the future, and “history” as we know it has ended.

Nevertheless, the euphoric expectation that the modernizing experience of one civilization would become the model for the rest of the world was short-lived. Samuel Huntington’s warning of the coming clash of civilizations was perhaps intended to show that, as long as conflicting world views and value systems exist, no nation, no matter how powerful and wealthy, can impose her particular way upon others. In the 21st century, the most serious threats to international security will not be economic or political but cultural. At first blush, the “clash of civilizations” theory seems more persuasive than the “end of history” advocated by Francis Fukuyama, because it acknowledges that culture is important and that religious difference must be properly managed. Unfortunately, its underlying thesis is still “the West and the rest,” and recommends a course of action that presumes the West will eventually prevail over its adversaries.

Warnings about imminent civilizational conflict make a dialogue among civilizations not merely desirable, but necessary. Even the most positive definition of modernization—market economy, democratic polity, civil society, and individualism—allows room for debate and discussion about its feasibility. Free market evokes questions of governance; democracy can assume different practical forms; the styles of civil society vary from culture to culture; and whether dignity must be predicated on the doctrine of individualism has no easy answer. Modernization is neither Westernization nor Americanization. The fallacy of “ the West and the rest,” like that of “us and them,” is its inability and unwillingness to transcend the “either-or” mentality. Globalization compels us to think otherwise.

Westernization and modernization are clearly antecedents of globalization, but between them is a quantum leap in terms of the rate of change and the depth of conceptual transformation. Information technology, the prime mover of economic development, has had far reaching political, social and cultural implications. Although the promise that the “knowledge economy” can help poor countries leapfrog over seemingly intractable stages of development has yet to become a reality, information exchange at all levels has substantially increased throughout the world. Similarly, although geography still matters greatly in economic interchange and income distribution, new information and communications technologies have the potential to significantly change international income inequalities. An axiom of our age is that the lines of wealth, power and influence can be redrawn on the world map in such a way that the rules of the game themselves must be constantly revised. Especially noteworthy is the great emancipatory and destructive potential of emergent globalizing technologies. Robotic machines and computers can sequence the human genome, design drugs, manufacture new materials, alter genetic structures of animals and plants, and even clone humans, thus empowering small groups of individuals to make profound positive and negative impacts on the larger society.

Conceptually, globalization is not a process of homogenization. For now, at least, the idea of convergence—meaning that the rest of the world will eventually follow a single model of development—is too simplistic to account for the complexity of globalizing trends. Surely, environmental degradation, disease, drug abuse, and crime are as thoroughly internationalized as science, technology, trade, finance, tourism, and migration. The world has never been so interconnected and interdependent. Yet, the emerging global village, far from being integrated, let alone formed according to a monolithic pattern, is characterized by diversity.

2. Local Awareness, Primordial Ties, and Identity

One important reason for this diversity is that globalization accentuates local awareness, consciousness, sensitivity, sentiment, and passion. The resurfacing of strong attachments to “primordial ties” may not have been caused by globalizing trends, but it is likely to be one of their unintended consequences. We cannot afford to ignore race, gender, language, land, class, age, and faith in describing the current human condition. Racial discrimination threatens the solidarity of all multiethnic societies. If it is not properly handled, even powerful nations can become disunited. Gender equality has universal appeal. No society is immune to powerful women’s movements for fairness between the sexes. Linguistic conflicts have ripped apart otherwise stable communities in developed as well as in developing countries. The struggle for sovereignty is a pervasive phenomenon throughout the world. The membership of the United Nations would be expanded several times if all aspiring sovereign states could be admitted. The so-called North-South problem exists at all levels—international, regional, national, and local. The disparity between urban and rural is widening in developing countries; urban poverty presents a major challenge to all developed countries. Generation gaps have become more frequent—the conventional way of defining a generation in terms of a thirty-year period is no longer adequate—and the struggle between generations more intense. Fissures among siblings are often caused by life styles influenced by different “generations” of music, movies, games, and computers. Religious conflicts occur not only between two different faiths but also between divergent traditions of the same faith. Not infrequently, intra-religious disputes are more violent than inter-religious ones.

In short, the seemingly intractable conditions, the “primordial ties,” that make us concrete living human beings, far from being eroded by globalization, have become particularly pronounced in recent decades.

Globalization may erode the authority of the state, and alter the meaning of sovereignty and nationality, but it increases the importance of identity. The more global our world becomes, the more vital the search for identification.

Indeed, it is impractical to assume that we must abandon our primordial ties in order to become global citizens. Further, it is ill advised to consider them necessarily detrimental to the cosmopolitan spirit. We know that our strong feelings, lofty aspirations and recurring dreams are often attached to a particular group, expressed through a mother tongue, associated with a specific place, and targeted to people of the same age and faith. We also notice that gender and class feature prominently in our self-definition. We are deeply rooted in our primordial ties, and they give meaning to our daily existence. They cannot be arbitrarily wished away more than one could consciously choose to be a totally different person.

Since the fear that globalization as a hegemonic power will destroy the soul of an individual, group, or nation is deeply experienced and vividly demonstrated by an increasing number of people (for example, riots in Seattle against the World Trade Organization in December 1999 and protests in Davos against the World Economic Forum in January 2000), we need to take seriously the presence of primordial ties in the globalizing process. Only by working with them, not merely as passive constraints but also as empowering resources, will we benefit from a fruitful interaction between active participation in global trends that are firmly anchored in local connectedness.

Realistically, primordial ties are neither frozen entities nor static structures. Surely, we are born with racial and gender characteristics, and we cannot choose our age cohort, place of birth, first language, country’s stage of economic development, or faith community. Ethnicity and gender roles, however, are acquired through learning. Moreover, our awareness and consciousness of ethnic pride and the need for gender equality is the result of education. Our sensitivity, sentiment and the passion aroused by racial discrimination and gender inequality, no matter how strong and natural to us personally, are the results of socialization and require deliberate cultivation. This is also true with age, land, language, class, and faith. They are all, under different circumstances and to varying degrees, culturally constructed social realities. In this sense, each primordial tie symbolizes a fluid and dynamic process. Like a flowing stream, it can be channeled to different directions.

While primordial ties give vibrant colors and a rich texture to the emerging global community, they also present serious challenges to the fragile world order and to human security. The United Nations, which arose from the cosmopolitan spirit of internationalism, must deal with issues of identity charged with explosive communal feelings. The pervasiveness of racial prejudice, gender bias, age discrimination, religious intolerance, cultural exclusivity, xenophobia, hate crimes, and violence throughout the world makes it imperative that we understand in depth how globalization can enhance the feeling of personal identity without losing the sense of integrally belonging to the human family.

Globalization has brought countries and civilizations increasingly closer to one another. More similarities and a host of fundamental common values are discovered in the course of convergence of civilizations…. The development of globalization will create broader space for the development of civilizations, each with its own unique characteristics. (Song Jian)

Economic globalization is often measured by aggregate growth, productivity rates, and returns on capital investment. Other indicators such as eradication of poverty, employment, health, life expectancy, education, social security, human rights, and access to information and communication are essential to improve the quality of life. The idea of the stakeholder, rather than shareholder, can enable an ever-expanding network of people to participate in this potentially all-inclusive process. We may not be the beneficiaries of market economy, but we all have a stake in maintaining the quality of life of this earth.

Undeniably, global economic institutions can enhance the quality of life. For example, a government with strong preference for social equity may try to join the WTO to increase its agricultural and industrial productivity or to use World Bank loans to alleviate poverty. Obviously, there are winners and losers in a competitive market and the pervasiveness of the cultural and linguistic influence of a particular region in a given moment may be unavoidable. But, if globalization is perceived as the rise of hegemonic domination, either by design or by default, it will not be conducive to international stability. Since globalization is not homogenization, imagined or real hegemonism is detrimental to the cultivation of a culture of world peace. The dialogue among civilizations is intended to reverse this unintended negative consequence of globalization.

3. Dialogue as Mutual Learning

Ordinary human experience tells us that genuine dialogue is an art that requires careful nurturing. Unless we are intellectually, psychologically, mentally, and spiritually well prepared, we are not in a position to engage ourselves fully in a dialogue. Actually, we can relish the joy of real communication only with true friends and like-minded souls.

How is it possible for strangers to leap across the civilizational divide to take part in genuine dialogue, especially if the “partner” is perceived as the radical other, the advisory, the enemy? It seems simple-minded to believe that it is not only possible, but realizable. Surely, it could take years or generations to completely realize the benefits of dialogical relationships at the personal, local, national, and inter-civilizational levels. At this time, we propose only minimum conditions as a turning point on the global scene.

Our urgency is dictated by our concerns for and anxieties about the sustainability of the environment and the life prospects of future generations. We strongly believe in the need for a new guardianship with a global common interest. We hope that, through dialogue among civilizations, we can encourage the positive forces of globalization that enhance material, moral, aesthetic, and spiritual well-being, and take special care of those underprivileged, disadvantaged, marginalized, and silenced by current trends of economic development. We also hope that, through dialogue among civilizations, we can foster the wholesome quests for personal knowledge, group solidarity, self-understanding, and individual and communal identities.

We have learned from a variety of inter-religious dialogues that tolerating difference is a prerequisite for any meaningful communication. Yet, merely being tolerant is too passive to transcend the narrow vision of the “frog in the well.” We need to be acutely aware of the presence of the other before we can actually begin communicating. Awareness of the presence of the other as a potential conversation partner compels us to accept our co-existence as an undeniable fact. This leads to the recognition that the other’s role (belief, attitude and behavior) is relevant and significant to us. In other words, there is an intersection where the two of us are likely to meet to resolve divisive tension or to explore a joint venture. As the two sides have built enough trust to see each other face-to-face with reciprocal respect, the meeting becomes possible. Only then can a productive dialogue begin. Through dialogue, we can appreciate the value of learning from the other in the spirit of mutual reference. We may even celebrate the difference between us as the reason for expanding both of our horizons.

Dialogue, so conceived, is a tactic of neither persuasion nor conversion. It is to develop mutual understanding through sharing values and creating a new meaning of life together. As we approach civilizational dialogues, we need to suspend our desires to sell our ideas, to persuade others to accept our beliefs, to seek their approval of our opinions, to evaluate our course of action in order to gain agreement on what we cherish as true, and to justify our deeply held convictions. Instead, our purpose is to learn what we do not know, to listen to different voices, to open ourselves up to multiple perspectives, to reflect on our own assumptions, to share insights, to discover areas of tacit agreement, and to explore best practices for human flourishing.

B. Diversity and Community

We need to remind ourselves, time and again, that neither the historical contingencies and the changing circumstances, nor the differences in color, ethnicity, language, educational background, cultural heritage, and religious affiliation among us mitigate against our common humanity. Our genetic codes clearly indicate that, by and large, we are made of the same stuff. The idea that we humans form one body not only with our fellow human beings, but also with other animals, plants, trees, and stones—“Heaven and earth and the myriad things”—expresses a cosmic vision as well a poetic sense of inter-connectedness. We may even be able to trace all our ancestries to one source, if not to the African mother as proposed by some scholars. The African proverb that the earth is not only bequeathed to us by our ancestors but also entrusted to us by generations to come elegantly illustrates the undeniable fact that we have lived and will continue to live on this planet together. While we affirm our common humanity, we are wary of faceless or abstract universalism.

While we affirm our common humanity, we are wary of faceless or abstract universalism. We are acutely aware that diversity is necessary for human flourishing. Just as biodiversity is essential for the survival of our planet, cultural and linguistic diversity is a defining characteristic of the human community as we know it. However, socially derived and culturally constructed perceptions of differences are used for setting individual against individual, group against group, and majorities against minorities. The resultant discrimination yields to strife, violence, and systematic violation of basic rights. While we celebrate diversity, we condemn ethnocentric and other exclusivist forms of chauvinism.

The space between faceless universalism and ethnocentric chauvinism is wide and open. This is the arena in which inter-civilizational dialogues can take place. Great ethical and religious traditions have shaped the spiritual landscape of our world for millennia. Communication across ethnic, linguistic, religious, and cultural divides has been a salient feature of human history. Despite tension and conflict between and among the divides, the general trend toward more contact and interaction across these divides has never diminished. Historically, each great ethical and religious tradition has encountered different belief systems and faith communities. Indeed, their vitality has often resulted from these encounters. By learning from others, the horizon of a given tradition became significantly broadened. For example, Christian theology benefited from Greek philosophy, Islamic thought was inspired by Persian literature, and Chinese intellectual history was enriched by Indian ideas with the arrival of Buddhism in the first century.

Nevertheless, the fear of the other has also led to strife and prolonged struggle. Inter-religious wars are common throughout history. The peaceful interaction of two major civilizations, such as the Indian transformation of the Sinic cultural universe and the introduction, assimilation and incorporation of Mahayana Buddhist schools into the Chinese spiritual landscape, is rare. Since harmony among religions is essential for cultivating a culture of peace for the human family, inter-religious dialogues are an integral part of the dialogue among civilizations. Globalization in recent decades has substantially increased the density of inter-religious communication. The opportunity for all religions, including emerging ones, to affirm unity of purpose for the promotion of the common public good is unprecedented in human history.

The idea of the “common public good” is predicated on the advent of a global community. A global village, as an imagined virtual reality, is not a community. The term “community” ideally implies that people live together, share an ethos and a practicable civic ethic and are unified in their commitment to the common good. Such a unity of purpose, however, allows for diversity in lifestyles and differences in belief, so long as the diversity and differences do not infringe upon the fundamental freedoms and rights of others. Although we are far from realizing a true sense of community in the global village, we hope that global and local trends congenial to this development continue to accelerate, and that traditional and modern practices appropriate to it continue to spread.

As we reflect upon the past and meditate on the future we would want for our children, the question that looms large in our minds is: How can we embrace diversity by living responsibly—respectful of others’ traditions and yet faithful to our own—in the emerging global community? Real acceptance of diversity compels us to move beyond genuine tolerance to mutual respect and, eventually, to celebratory affirmation of one another. Ignorance and arrogance are the major roots of stereotyping, prejudice, hatred, and violence in religious, cultural, racial, and ethnic contexts. While physical security, economic sustenance, and political stability provide the context for social integration, real community life emerges only if we us are willing to walk across the divides and act responsibly and respectfully towards one another. Through dialogue, we learn to appreciate others in their full distinctiveness and to understand that diversity, as a marvelous mixture of peoples and cultures, can enrich our self-knowledge. Dialogue enhances our effort to work toward an authentic community for all.

The dialogue among civilizations presupposes the plurality of human civilizations. It recognizes equality and distinction. Without equality, there would be no common ground for communicating; without distinction, there would be no need to communicate. While equality establishes the basis for inter-civilizational dialogues, distinction makes such joint ventures desirable, necessary, worthwhile, and meaningful. As bridge-builders committed to dialogue, we recognize that there are common values in our diverse traditions that bind us together as women, men and children of the human family. Our collaborative effort to explore the interconnectedness of these values enables us to see that diversity empowers the formation of an open and vibrant community. Our own experience in multicultural encounters, our shared resolve to break down divisive boundaries, and our commitment to address perennial social concerns have helped us to identify the values critical to the promulgation of responsible community.

C. Common Values

As never before in history, the emerging world community beckons us to seek a new understanding of the global situation. In the midst of a magnificent diversity of cultures, we are one human family with a common destiny. As our world becomes increasingly interdependent, we must identify ourselves with the whole global community as well as our local communities. We are both stakeholders of our own respective countries and of one world in which the local, national, regional, and global are intricately linked. A shared vision of common values can provide and sustain an ethical foundation for a dialogue among civilizations. We recognize that the complexity of contemporary life may generate tensions between important values. The task of harmonizing diversity with unity is daunting; the conflict between private interests and the public good may seem unresolvable; and the choice between short-term gains and long-term benefits is often difficult. Yet, we believe that a new sense of global interdependence is essential for our ongoing collaborative effort to foster a worldwide culture of peace.

From the Ten Commandments to Buddhist, Jain, Confucian, Hindu, and many other texts, violence and deceit are most consistently rejected, as are the kinds of harm they make possible, such as torture and theft. Together these injunctions, against violence, deceit, and betrayal, are familiar in every society and every legal system. They have been voiced bn works as different as the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Icelandic Edda, and the Bhagavad-Gita. (Sissela Bok, Common Values 1995)

We affirm, from the outset, that individual freedoms must be protected, that fundamental rights must be guaranteed, and that the equal worth of every human being must be recognized and respected by all. These are the Enlightenment values of the modern West that underlie a market economy, the democratic polity, and civil society. While none of them are fully realized in any given society, they are universal aspirations. Indeed, liberty, rights and personal dignity have universal appeal.

However, the values upon which the viability of community depends, along with individual freedoms, fundamental rights, and the equal worth of every human being, provide us with a fuller agenda to begin our reflection. The cultivation of a sense of duty and the protection of individual freedoms can work together to allow the human spirit to soar without the danger of social disintegration. The encouragement of human responsibility and the guarantee of fundamental rights can complement each other to give people a secured space for thought and action without threatening the fabric of social cohesiveness. The requirement that each act responsibly to one another and the recognition of and respect for the equal worth of every human being offer a balanced approach to the relationship between self and society. As William James notes,

Without the individual impulse, community stagnates; without the sympathy of the community, individual impulse fades away.

The mutually beneficial interplay between self and society assumes a new shade of meaning in our time. We need to examine it in personal, local, national, regional, and global contexts. We also recognize that, to transcend the divisiveness of self-interest, equires moving beyond national and regional as well as personal and local concerns. At this critical moment in history, global forces beyond our comprehension easily overwhelm us and ethnic and religious conflicts beyond our control easily immobilize us, as if we cannot escape the predicament of the two extreme forms of destruction—domination and disintegration. Nevertheless, we hope that, with the advent of a dialogical global community, we can, for the first time, talk about the human family in the realistic sense of communication and interconnection. We want to stress that globalization has frightening aspects. It may bring about hegemonism and monopolism for example, but this is not inevitable. Similarly, despite bigotry and exclusivism in identity politics, the quest for identity is a noble calling and an educational experience for our children and us.

We choose to reject faceless universalism, hegemonic control, and monopolistic behavior on the one hand and ethnocentric bigotry, religious exclusivism, and cultural chauvinism on the other. We believe that positive forces in globalization and authentic quests for identity can create a virtuous circle uplifting the human spirit in the coming decades. Wholesome globalization, which celebrates diversity and enhances community, is a matter of confluence, of mutual learning and recognition of the rich and varied human heritage. This allows for lateral and reciprocal relationships among civilizations and makes genuine dialogue possible. In such a dialogical mode, the echoes of each civilization awaken, encourage, and inspire the others. The resultant sympathetic resonance is a truly cosmopolitan harmony, cross-cultural and trans-temporal. To this end, we propose the following common values. These common values, if fully recognized, can help to facilitate dialogue among civilizations; such dialogue can significantly enhance the possibility of realizing a global ethic.

1. Humanity. The Golden Rule, whether stated in the positive (“do unto others what you would want the others do unto you”) or the negative (“do not do unto others what you would not want others to do unto you”), is shared by virtually all the great ethical and religious traditions. It was identified by the Parliament of World Religions in 1993 as the basic principle in the emerging global ethic. We believe that the awareness, recognition, acceptance, and celebration of the other in our own self-understanding, implicit in the Golden Rule, helps us to learn to be humane.

Learning to be humane (or straightforwardly “human”) is a defining characteristic of all classical education, East or West. It is a profoundly meaningful challenge in the contemporary world as we move beyond perhaps the most brutish century in human history. The idea of humanity, perceived inclusively and holistically, is applicable to every person under all circumstances. While we must transcend race, language, gender, land, class, age, and faith in asserting our conviction that the dignity of the human person is inviolable, we need to learn to treat each individual person humanely; whether a poor old White man, a Chinese merchant, a Jewish rabbi, a Muslim mullah, a criminal, or a rich young Black woman. This requires an ability to see difference not as a threat but as an opportunity to broaden humanity. Our learned capacity to reject stereotyping, prejudice, hatred, and violence in religious, cultural, racial, and ethnic contexts is predicated on the value of reciprocity. Reciprocity is an integral component of the Golden Rule, a value included in all our spiritual traditions. We should emphasize its importance.

Human beings have often been defined as rational animals. The ability to know our self-interest, to maximize our profit in a free market, or to calculate our comparative advantages indicates that we are capable of instrumental rationality. Rationality, or more appropriately reasonableness, is also essential for interpersonal relationships, acquisition of knowledge, political participation, and social engagement. Humaneness, however, involves sympathy, empathy, and compassion as well. Humanity as a value cannot be realized through rationality alone. The ability to treat a concrete person humanely is not the result of rational choice but of sensitivity, conviction, commitment, and feeling.

Attachment to and intimacy with those who are close to us is one of the most natural and common human experiences. We cannot bear the suffering of those we love. This sense of commiseration is often confined to children, spouse, parents, immediate kin, and close friends. If we can extend this personal feeling to commiserate with those we like, we care for, we barely know, and even with strangers and beyond, our sense of interconnectedness will be greatly enhanced. We may never truly experience the lofty ideal of forming one body with humanity, but if we aspire to the moral dictum that we should treat all human beings as brothers and sisters, we will try to establish harmonious relationships with an ever-extending network of meaningful relationships. The need for dialogue among civilizations is based on this rudimentary feeling for the other.

2. Justice. If humanity helps us to relate meaningfully with our fellow human beings, justice is the practical method of putting this value into concrete action. A humane world is necessarily just. Gender inequality and racial discrimination are unjust. So are major discrepancies in income, wealth, privilege, and accessibility to goods, information, or education. Since the widening of the gap between the haves and have-nots is an unintended negative consequence of globalization, we are particularly concerned about the marginalized, disadvantaged, and silenced individuals and groups in the human family. They deserve our focused attention and our persistent support. We believe that the more influential and powerful an individual, a group, a nation, or a region is, the more obligated he or she is to improve the well-being of the human community. It is not practicable or even just to impose an arbitrary principle of egalitarianism on individuals and groups, but it seems only right to ask that the beneficiaries of globalization share their resources more equitably with the world. Justice means that public policies should tend toward benefiting the weaker. It is humane and just to figure out ways of empowering the marginalized, underprivileged, disadvantaged, and silenced.

Justice as fairness is a call to higher standards of behavior. The eradication of poverty is a prominent just cause in the emerging global community. How can we help to build capacities to enable the poor to rise out of their poverty? How can we educate women and girls so that they can break away from the vicious cycles of population pressure and economic underdevelopment? How can we encourage the leadership of the North and successful economies elsewhere to regard aids to poverty-stricken areas as integral to their national interests? How can we appeal to the conscience of people worldwide to see that poverty anywhere is a global concern? Such questions need to be addressed at local, national, regional, and global levels.

The 1995 Social Summit in Copenhagen’s commitment to “accelerate the development of Africa and the least developed countries” is predicated on a realistic model of interdependence. If we consider ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and religious diversity as a global asset, Africa should not be solely characterized as the continent of the HIV epidemic, poverty, underemployment and social disintegration alone. It should also be recognized as a rich reservoir for human spirituality and the accumulated wisdom of the elders. The African spirit, symbolized by the geological and biological diversity of the tiny area around Cape Town, South Africa (said to be comparable in richness to the vast area of Canada) ought to be a source of inspiration for a changed mindset that addresses social development as a global joint venture. The fate of Africa is important for non-Africans as well because, without a holistic sense of human flourishing, we cannot properly anchor our security, let alone well-being, in the global community as a whole.

It is neither romanticism nor sentimentalism that compels us to focus our attention on Africa. While sympathy, empathy and compassion propel us to form solidarity with our brothers and sisters in agony, justice impels us to recognize that our well-being is at stake if even a corner of the world, let alone a continent, is in grave peril. A limited short-term rational calculation may fail to show any tangible linkage between Africa’s problems and the self-interests of other regions, but common sense tells us that, since interdependence has become a fact of life in the global community, ignorance and neglect of a substantial part of the world is detrimental to human security in the long run. Indeed, the abusive treatment of any one of us diminishes the sacredness of humanity as a whole.

Dialogue among civilizations is inclusive. It is an open invitation to all members of the global community. Justice, founded on impartiality, assures us that all willing participants should be allowed in the dialogue without discrimination. Justice, based on fairness, further encourages wider participation by actively involving those on the periphery. Those who perceive dialogue as an exercise in futility or merely a dispensable luxury, because the burning issues of basic survival overwhelm them, could particularly benefit from positive engagement in an on-going dialogue. In fact, their presence in a fair-minded interchange (sharing stories for example) can help to improve the behavior, attitudes and beliefs of those immune to the plight of the marginalized. At the same time, the causes of and solutions to urgent problems can be put in a new light. Often, injustice (the lack of transparency, public accountability and fair play) on the part of political leadership is the main reason for economic and social crises. The issues can be more clearly identified and more effectively managed from a comparative cultural perspective.

3. Civility. The rule of law is essential for the maintenance of order. The demand for transparency in the market economy, for public accountability in a democratic polity and for due process in civil society, strongly indicates that, without the rule of law, it is difficult to assure security, good governance, and the protection of rights. Yet, law, as the minimum condition for orderliness, cannot in itself generate public-spiritedness or a sense of responsibility. The cultivation of a civic ethic is necessary for people who seek the fullness of life in communal harmony. Since a multiplicity of traditions guides the thoughts and actions of the world’s peoples, legality without civility cannot inspire public-spiritedness. A legal system devoid of civic ethic can easily degenerate into excessive litigiousness.

Civility complements the rule of law and provides legality with a moral base. It is the proper way to deal with fellow citizens. If positive global trends—those that enhance communication and interconnection without increasing hegemonism—help to bring about an ever-expanding connected community, civility is the key to sustaining such a process. Without civility, genuine dialogue is impossible. Civility is indispensable in intercultural communication. Our willingness to suspend judgment, to critically examine our own assumptions, to appreciate what has been said without drawing up premature conclusions, to inquire further into the relevant points, and to reflect on the meaning of the interchange is congenial to the cultivation of a civic ethic.

Humanity enables us to establish a reciprocal relationship with the other, justice helps us to put our humane feelings for the other into action, and civility provides the proper form of inter-personal communication. Without civility, competition becomes a brutal task of domination and tension in an adversarial system quickly degenerates into a hostile struggle for power. Laws in themselves do not motivate compliance; they can serve as a deterrent against violence out of fear for punishment. Instead, the cultivation of civility is essential for the smooth functioning of a harmonious society. As we envision a global civil society in which the lateral relationships of all cultures, including newly emerging ones facilitate mutual learning, the culture of peace is being fostered.

4. Wisdom. Wisdom connotes holistic understanding, profound self-knowledge, a long-term perspective, practical sense, and good judgment. A spark of inspiration may elucidate an aspect of the world’s situation, but a comprehensive grasp of the human condition requires continuous education. A fragmented approach to learning is inadequate. Personal knowledge, the kind of experiential self-awareness that is both communal and critical, can only be cultivated through persistent effort motivated by humility. If we go after short-run gains at the expense of long-term benefits, we may be smart, but never wise. Although thinking in a long-term perspective is wise, wisdom, far from being speculative thought, always brings about concrete results. The ability to take a variety of factors into account in making judgments is a sign of wisdom. While healthy dialogue requires suspension of preconceived opinions, the non-judgmental attitude does not mean the absence of good judgment. The judgment of the wise is measured and balanced; it is the middle path transcending opinionated extremes.

Advances in science and technology have so significantly broadened our horizons and deepened our awareness of the world around us that many feel that the wisdom of the great religions and philosophical traditions is irrelevant to our education. Surely, globalization has greatly expanded the data, information, and knowledge available for our use and consumption, but it has also substantially undermined the time-honored ways of learning, especially the traditional means of acquiring wisdom. We should not confuse data with information, information with knowledge, and knowledge with wisdom; we need to learn how to become wise, not merely informed and knowledgeable. There are three things in particular that virtual reality will not be able to teach us. One is the art of listening. Listening requires more patience and receptivity than seeing. Without patience, we may listen but fail to grasp the message, let alone the subtle meaning therein; without receptivity, even if we manage to capture what is said, the message will not register in the inner recesses of our hearts and minds. Through deep listening, we genuinely encounter others. Indigenous peoples can teach us how to listen not only to one another but also to the voice of nature. Only through deep listening will we truly comprehend what is communicated through the ear.

 The second is face-to-face communication. This is the commonest and simplest way of talking, but it is also the most challenging and rewarding. Conversation over the telephone, or through even more sophisticated electronic devices, is no substitute for a face-to-face talk. A partner is required for this kind of communication. Face-to-face communication is the most enduring method of human interaction and, in the last analysis, the most authentic way of transmitting values. If it is relegated to the background, there is little chance that we can become wise. The art of listening and face-to-face communication are the indispensable ways to access the third thing that virtual reality cannot teach: the cumulative wisdom of the elders. Precisely because we are exposed to so much data, information and knowledge in the modern world, our need to acquire wisdom is more urgent than ever. The wisdom of the great religious and philosophical traditions teaches us how to be fully human. The cumulative wisdom of the elders refers to the art of living embodied in the thoughts and actions of a given society’s exemplars. Only through exemplary teaching, teaching by example rather than by words, can we learn to be fully human. We cannot afford to cut ourselves off from the spiritual resources that make our life worth living. We emulate those who exemplify the most inspiring ways of being fully human in our society, not only with our brain, but with our heart and mind, indeed our entire body. This form of embodied learning cannot be done by simulation alone. Understandably, language, history, literature, classics, philosophy, religion, and cultural anthropology—subjects in the liberal arts education—help us to acquire wisdom and are never outdated.

Learning to be fully human involves character building rather than the acquisition of knowledge or the internalization of skills. Cultural as well as technical competence is required to function well in the contemporary world. Ethical as well as cognitive intelligence is essential for personal growth; without the former, the moral fabric of society will be undermined. Spiritual ideas and exercises as well as adequate material conditions are crucial for the well being of the human community. Cultural competence is also highly desirable. Without literacy, a sense of history, a taste for literature, or a rudimentary knowledge of the classics, we can still live up to the basic expectations of citizenship, but our participation in our nation’s civic life will be impoverished. Ethical intelligence is necessary for social solidarity. Spiritual ideas and exercises are not dispensable luxuries for the leisure class; they are an integral part of the life of the mind that gives a culture a particular character and a distinct ethos.

5. Trust. While wisdom can deepen the content of the dialogue among civilizations, the value that allows the dialogue to continue is trust. It is the backbone of true communication. Without trust, we can do little to facilitate any meaningful communication. Trust is not blind. It is a rational choice to enter into communication with the other. It is the minimum condition for transcending the psychology of fear. Unless we can move out of our self-imposed cocoons and face up to the challenges of the unknown, we will never be able to rise above our egoism, nepotism, parochialism, and ethnocentrism. Mistrust inhibits any cross-cultural collaborative effort and stunts the growth a culture of peace. Trust is a commitment to the possibility of an ever-enlarging community. It is the source of mutual respect and understanding. Trust enables us to accept the other as an end rather than a means to an end.

Trust is not opposed to a healthy dose of skepticism or the critical spirit, but it is never hostile to the other or cynical about the actual state of affairs. Despite tensions and conflicts in the world, trust involves a willingness to explore commonality and sharability with those who are stereotyped as radical others. It is the courage to enter into a joint venture with a stranger who is conventionally labeled as the enemy. Through trust, we respect the integrity of the other as a matter of principle and also as a point of departure. A trusting person may be disappointed and deceived sometimes, but the damaging experience does not deflect him or her from the commitment to continuous communication within and beyond family, society and nation. Trust involves keeping promises and seeing one’s action through, but it is dictated by a higher principle of rightness. If promise-keeping will be harmful to the overall well-being of a person, for example lending money to a drug abuser, it is right to break the promise; if an initiated action is likely to lead to unanticipated harm, for example, the development of an environmentally unsound power plant, discontinuing the action is right.

As rightness is closely linked to justice, so is trust. To have trust in the integrity of the other is to be fair and respectful. The need for trust in any business transaction or contractual agreement is obvious, but trust in interpersonal and cross-cultural communication is even more important. While legal actions can be taken to remedy commercial misconduct or a breach of contract, the loss is total when the possibility of communication simply evaporates between persons and cultures when trust is absent. A sense of fairness can generate a spirit of trust; with trust, it is easy to put justice into practice. Similarly, a humane person is trusting and trustworthy. Motivated by sympathy and compassion, a humane person establishes an ever-expanding network of interpersonal and cross-cultural relationships. Trust is implicit in these relationships. With trust, legal constraints are simply preventive measures. When interchange among peoples and cultures is conducted in good faith, civility pervades the process and mutual learning ensures. If we have faith in the dialogue among civilizations, we can learn not merely from the wisdom of our own tradition but from the cumulative wisdom of the entire human community.

The five values specified above—humanity, justice, civility, wisdom, and trust—are selective rather than comprehensive. Acting in accordance with these values is necessary for an effective and enriching dialogue among civilizations; these values can also be cultivated through the actual process of the dialogue. They are common values that have been articulated by all spiritual traditions in different contexts and historical situations. These values can be taught through example, story sharing, religious preaching, ethical instruction, and, most of all, through dialogue.

The ideas in this discussion can be shown in a simple diagram with two propositions: (1) Globalization may lead to faceless universalism that is ignorant about differences and arrogant about hegemonic power; it may also lead to a genuine sense of global community. (2) The quest for identity may lead to pernicious divisiveness, with ethnocentric bigotry and exclusivist violence; it may also lead to an authentic way of global communication and a real respect for diversity. The dialogue among civilizations is our best hope to develop a culture of peace. It is desirable because it can help prevent the rise of faceless universalism and pernicious divisiveness. It is necessary because it provides a way to address our fears and concerns and to enrich the quality of life for all of us sharing this planet.