CC BY
16
Vladislav Lektorski,
D. Sc. (Phil.) (the Institute of Philosophy of RAS) WHAT IS THE WAY TO ARRANGE THE DIALOGUE OF CIVILIZATIONS?
There is the virtue and the indication, which are the must for discussion of the dialogue of civilizations. It is tolerance or endurance (in Russian translation), which comes forward as an initial condition of any fruitful dialogue.
It is possible to regard dialogue as a means of tolerance (I used to write about it in this way). However, it is better to make the difference between tolerance and dialogue: the dialogue supposes tolerance, and the later may not be accompanied by dialogue. I will try to show, why it is needed and is important and what practical sense consists in it. It should be stressed that there exists the certain vagueness in perception of the role of the dialogue of civilizations in the contemporary world.
For instance, there is a widely shared meaning that just such dialogue is a universal way of solving the complicated problems, which engender the contemporary social development, in particular the globalization process. To my mind, actually the things are different.
First, in certain circumstances globalization is not in need of such dialogue. The present type of globalization does not suppose any dialogue among civilizations. All regions of the world are marked by expansion of the market economy system, of contemporary information
technologies and the accompanied mass culture. The actual globalization leads to leveling of civilization differences and to homogenization of the mankind as a whole. In the past, modernization was identified with westernization. One may be tempted to call contemporary globalization to be Americanization of the world. But in this case the inter-civilization dialogue is senseless, since the question is exactly the creation of a unified homogeneous civilization, but not of different civilizations, which may (or may not) participate in the dialogue with each other. Hence, if we speak about a chance and even the need of the dialogue of civilizations, we mean not the present civilization, but a wanted globalization of another type, which does not deny civilization differences and, on the contrary, cultivates them. In other words, the discussion about importance and need of the dialogue of civilizations supposes inter alia a chance to change the direction and characteristic of globalization.
Second, one should not think that even in case of some other, more humane type of globalization, when the dialogue of different civilizations occurs, we will be able to solve all contemporary problems by means of this dialogue. In reality there are no ready solutions of many of them. There are no indications for solving these problems in the heritage of the presently existing various civilizations. The mankind has never confronted them up to present. At present, the humanity confronts a significant challenge, when there emerges the question on the future of man and of the society and culture.
The mentioned problems have arisen as a result of the modern type of development of science and technique, emergence of new information technologies (TV, computers and Internet communication). A high tempo of knowledge renovation, which is characteristic for information society, causes rapid change of social structures and institutions embodying this knowledge, types and means of
communication. Many social processes transform themselves into some ephemeral phenomenon existing for a relatively short time. The integration of the past and of the future in the united chain of events, shaping the biography of individual and being the basis of personality, of "Me", turns out to be a complicated matter in some cases. The complicating in the contemporary globalizing society chain of sociological and technological connections between action and result makes the rational planning of actions complicated not only at the collective but also at the individual level. But the question is not only this aspect of the phenomenon. Any rational action supposes not only the account on probable consequences but also the correlation of the chosen means with the existing in society of norms of behavior, with collective perceptions of the allowed and not allowed, with the perceptions of the acting subject about himself, about his biography, about assumed obligations, about some collective community, i.e. about individual identity. At the same time, the contemporary western world, which enters information society by means of globalization including into it the rest part of the world, goes on through the crisis of individual identification. Some collective identities start to go on through the crisis.
One more contemporary challenge to our perceptions of the man should be mentioned. It concerns the attempts by influence exerted upon the genetic system to change the human structure, to create a more "perfect" man, who is mostly adapted to perform some or other specific functions. The contemporary science seems to open such possibilities. Some enthusiasts propagate new means of experimentation with the human body connected with execution of the most audacious dreams and realization of a new genetic-technological utopia. The related emerging problem is connected not so much with probability or improbability of such experiments (as N. Berdyaev noted, the specifics
of utopia consist not in its non-existence but in its probable existence), as with the interference, which may result in the irreversible consequences similar with the results of influence of the mankind on the nature engendering the contemporary ecological crisis: the human being may cease to be the human being. F. Fukuyama, the known theoretician, writes about our post-human future. Meanwhile, all present existing in the Earth civilizations with their perceptions on moral represent the corporal structure with its chances and limitations, with its distribution of abilities among individuals, which up till present was considered as an inseparable phenomenon of perception of the man.
These (and many other) acute theoretical and practical problems obviously may not be solved only by means of the dialogue of civilizations. In this case the dialogue is needed primarily as a dialogue among experts in various spheres of knowledge, among philosophers and scientists, among experts and laymen. A certain (but hardly deciding) role in this case may be plaid also by the dialogue of civilizations. Thus, the role of the latter in this case will be limited.
Where and in which way the dialogue of civilizations may be helpful for solving the problems confronting today the mankind? Two comments should be made in this connection.
First, certainly, civilizations themselves can not carry on a dialogue. "Dialogue of civilizations" is a metaphor. Only specific representatives of different civilizations may carry on a dialogue. They may be individuals, social groups, communities and governmental structures.
Second, as a rule, the dialogue is carried on not in relation of the civilizations themselves: about their systems of values, world outlooks and religious convictions. The question is that these perceptions constitute the identities of civilizations and form the basis of social
identity of each individual, a member of the given civilization. Therefore, if the civilization is not disintegrated and if it is not subject to the crisis of its own identity (it occurs sometimes today), the kernel of civilization is not discussed. The dialogue is not possible as far as this kernel is concerned. It is quite evident by the example of probable dialogue of different religions, which historically constituted a part of the kernel of specific civilizations at least from time of the emergence of these religions. The representatives of different religions may carry on a dialogue about specific social problems: how these problems may be understood and solved by these religions. But they will not carry on a dialogue about religious dogmas. Each religion proceeds from the absolute and from the incontestable authority of their dogmas. It is possible to discuss their interpretation, which is the sphere of discussion for theologians. But it is impossible to doubt the absolute truth of the dogmas. The religion ceases to exist, if a probability is allowed to express a point of view of the other religion on the dogmas of another religion.
The dialogue among civilizations is possible and may be fruitful to solve specific problems, since it is connected with comprehension of these problems from the position of certain civilization and with the proposed means of solving them. Each civilization determines its own perspective in the approach to contemporary problems. The comparison of these perspectives from the point of view of their fruitfulness is possible and essentially needed. Further it will be described in detail. It is necessary to draw attention to the fact that such dialogue supposes that the kernel itself of various civilizations represented by the individuals involved in discussion is not subject to this dialogue. In other words, the dialogue of this type at the same time supposes the inter-civilization tolerance, i.e. patience and non-interference in the
deep internal sense's foundations of the alien civilization, the cautious attitude to the phenomenon, which is not similar to something familiar.
Thus, what is Tolerance?
The first comprehension of tolerance was also the first one in history. To some extent, it is considered as a classic comprehension and still exists. It is connected with the names of Bail and Lock, with the classic liberal tradition. It seems that to a large extent the problem was characterized by the historic fact that as a philosophic problem it was formulated in connection with the problem of the faith's tolerance and was initially understood as a kind of comprehension of the results of the Thirty Years War, when the adversaries of religious confessions exterminated almost completely each other.
According to this meaning, the truth, the main moral norms and the main rules of behavior in politics may be established unquestionably and convincingly for everybody. It is senseless to speak about tolerance in these matters, since the evidence and the rational justification are convincing for all. However, the people not only share true assertions but also support different meanings. The truth of some meanings may be proved later. However, the truth of some meanings may not ever be decided to be unquestionable. First of all, they are religious views, metaphysical assertions, specific values of various cultures and peculiar ethnic beliefs and convictions. These meanings are accepted by people on the non-rational basis and are connected primarily with the self-identification: cultural, ethnic and individual. The self-identification supposes the existence of personality, i.e. the person, who self-dependently takes decisions and responsibility for hic acts. However, the means of self-identification in many cases are irrational and are connected with the certain accepted tradition, with the
place of birth and living, with the culture of his belonging, with history of his country and with his own biography etc.
As far as cognitive truths are concerned (particularly, the scientific truths), the rationally justified legal and moral norms, it is impossible to tolerate the phenomenon, which contradicts them, and the actions, which violate them. The people, who violate moral and legal norms, should be punished. However, also in this case one should take into account that the truth may not be imposed by force: by physical compulsion or by propaganda impression. The person may come to accept the truthful assertion only self-dependently. Therefore it is necessary to carry on the struggle against the actions violating the rationally fixed norms of daily life and at the same time in some cases to express tolerance to senseless views creating for their carriers the conditions, which further might convince the carriers of these views to agree to the truth, which may be unquestionably considered as a universal truth.
The meanings, if they can not be justified being based on the irrational grounds (religious persuasions, metaphysical assertions, specific values of various cultures, ethnic beliefs etc.), as well as the corresponding practice may be permitted in the cases, when they do not contradict the foundations of the civilized common life. In this case, the meanings of this kind and the corresponding practice come forward as "a special matter" of definite cultural, ethnic and social groups. Tolerance in this case is justified by the fact that the distinctions related to the truth and the main moral, legal and political norms are indifferent to the main values of civilization and do not contradict the normal common life. Various social, cultural and ethnic groups may have their own churches, schools and may cultivate their language and possess their custom. The external interference in these affairs is inadmissible (on the part of the government, if, for instance, it concerns existence of
ethnic minorities on the territory of a big state, or on the part of one state relating to another state). The main condition of normal life in society and of peaceful mutual relations of various societies and cultures is considered as a consent in conception of the main moral norms and of the knowledge (particularly, in science). From the point of view of this interpretation of tolerance, the distinctions in specific civilization values gradually will diminish for the time of development of the mankind, since the consolidation of mutual action of various civilizations and ethnic groups and the need of mutual solving of practical problems will inevitably lead to it. Tolerance in this interpretation comes forward as the nonchalance to existence of various views and practices, since the latter are considered as an insignificant fact facing the main social problems.
The second comprehension of tolerance proceeds from the meaning that it is impossible to accept the pre-condition of the first way of comprehension, namely: there exist the truths of cognition and the norms of social common living, which may be unquestionably and convincingly fixed for all. This comprehension is founded on the results of contemporary cultural-anthropological research, on some results of analysis of history of science, the social study of scientific cognition, on some contemporary conceptions in philosophy of science. According to this comprehension, religious, metaphysic views and specific values of one or other civilization are not minor aspects of human activities and society's development, but they determine the type of these activities and the way of development of one or other civilization. Pluralism of the views, values and ways behavior is un-removable, since it is connected with the human nature and relations of the man with the world. All civilizations (and directions of cognition) are equal and incommensurate at the same time. There is no privileged system of views and values.
The sole exclusion should be made for the idea that all people irrespective of race, sex and nationality have equal right for physical existence and cultural development (violation of these rights should not be tolerated). The various legally equal and respected systems of views (including various civilizations), in point of fact, are unable to arrange mutual action, since they are closed to themselves and are non-measurable with each other. The self-identity of various civilizations, of cultural and social communities is based on the phenomenon that they seem to exist in different worlds. It is possible to change one civilization or one cognition world for another. But it is impossible simultaneously to live in two different worlds. In this case, tolerance comes forward as a respect for another man or civilization, whom and which I can not comprehend and arrange mutual action. However, it is possible to contest this comprehension of tolerance and pluralism. The objections are formulated in the third comprehension.
As far as the third comprehension is concerned, first, it is possible to show that in reality there exists reciprocal action among different systems of values and conception structures. This is the fact of history of culture. As a result of criticism, some values and conception structures disappear leaving the place for others. Their principal incommensurability does not exist. Various systems of values, various traditions compete constantly, and they try to prove their justifiability, the ability with their help and on their foundations to solve different technical, social and intellectual problems, which come into collision with the people. Given the differences of traditions and civilizations, they have to solve a lot of common problems. The competition results in the selection of the norms, the systems of norms and intellectual traditions, which correspond to the demands of the changing situation. One civilization should not impose by force its values on the other civilization, and one person should not impose his views on another
person. In this case tolerance appears as an indulgence to another civilization.
Tolerance is the absolute need to avoid the clash of civilizations described by S. Huntington. At the same time, irrespective of the way to comprehend and to practice tolerance (indifference, respect or indulgence for another person), it is reduced to non-interference in another civilization and excludes mutual action with it. Meanwhile, today the mutual action of civilizations is vitally needed. Certainly, only this mutual action is insufficient for solving all the problems, which confront the mankind. Nevertheless, this mutual action (the dialogue of civilizations) is a vital need.
The dialogue (not only of civilizations but also of cultures, social groups, scientific communities and individuals) is something greater than tolerance. It supposes not only a patient admission of another position, another system of values and directions but also the wish to learn something from the other.
History was marked by the reciprocal exchange of experience on the part of civilizations, when they made attempts to learn the other experience and to extend the horizon of their own experience. This is the unquestionable fact of history of culture. At the same time, the most interesting ideas in history of philosophy and science emerged exactly in time of clashes and mutual criticism of different conception structures and of various intellectual paradigms. The West European civilization appeared from synthesis of two different and seemingly incommensurate civilizations: Judaism-Christianity and Antiquity. Christian Fathers of Church elaborated the system of religious dogmas and carried on a fruitful dialogue with antique philosophy. The contemporary physics, being the product of development of primarily European civilization, accumulates some principal ideas from study of Indian and Chinese mythology: the question is not the synthesis of
mythology and science but the translation to the language of science of some ideas taken from mythology (as mentioned Nobel Prize winner I. Prigozhin, the proposed by him picture of the world was quite near to the images of ancient Chinese mythology).
M. Bakhtin used to stress that the nature of consciousness itself is dialogic. "I" does not resemble monad of Leibnitz, since it is not closed to itself but is open for another person. The attitude to himself as I - an elementary act of self-reflection - is possible only on the basis of the treatment of the other person, of the attitude to himself like to somebody else, i.e. mentally or imaginarily (usually, unknowingly) to share someone's point of view. Each person not only possesses self-identity. He may develop the self-identity and change himself to an essential extent. At present, this problem is very acute. The development of identity is possible only on the basis of permanent communication with other people, of the dialogue with other point of view, of positions and probability to understand the other positions.
At present, the mankind turned out to be in the situation, when the people realize the inadequacy and one-sidedness of the experienced relations of the people with the nature and among themselves, accumulated up to present, and the need of extension of these relations. And this conclusion supposes also the need to take into account the reciprocal relations' experience. Certainly, it does not mean that the alien's experience is used without criticism. The question is something else: the need to see in the other position, in the other system of values, in the other civilization not a phenomenon, which is inimical to my own position, but a phenomenon, which may render me assistance in solving the problems, being both my problems and the problems of other people and other civilizations, of other valuable and intellectual systems. Not only individuals but also civilizations may and must develop in the course of this dialogue.
The reciprocal action with the positions, which differ from my own position, the comparison of my arguments with arguments in favor of another point of view comes forward as a needed condition of development of my own views. The same consideration concerns the reciprocal action of civilizations. In this case, pluralism appears not in the role of something, which hinders existence of the given civilization, as an element alien to it, but as a needed condition of its fruitful development and as a mechanism of development of culture as a whole. It is not a simple pluralism, but a polyphony, as Bakhtin said, i.e. a dialogue and a profound reciprocal action of various positions.
The dialogue in general is a higher form of development of both the individual identity and the identity of some or other civilization. It is something more significant than simple tolerance. And it is a higher rate of respect to something alien than simple tolerance. At present, this dialogue can not affect the profound kernel of civilization (as well as of the remote kernel of individual identity). One may and should practice tolerance in relation to this kernel. The future of the man and of culture is connected exactly with the dialogue, which affects also the kernel of identity. Only this dialogue gives a chance not only to keep but also to change identity to some extent. The contemporary stage of development of the mankind just supposes acceleration of all social processes, including dynamics of both individual and collective identity
(particularly, identity of civilizations).
* * *
What does the inter-civilization dialogue mean under contemporary conditions? The dialogue is a special form of communication. The dialogue means, first, that the interlocutors have different positions on a certain question. Second, it supposes that each interlocutor proceeds from the value of rational discussion, from
existence of arguments in favor of his position and that they will be understood by his interlocutor, that he may and should in this dialogue to advocate his position and at the same time to take into account the other's point of view and that he may and should change his position in certain point, if the other point of view shows some advantage. As a result of the dialogue both interlocutors will come to a certain common position on the discussed issue. In other words, the dialogue is impossible, if the value of rational discussion is not recognized.
Certainly, the rationality is not a specific possession of western civilization. The Indian, Chinese, Arabic and other civilizations made a valuable contribution to development of the western civilization. For instance, the Arabic-Muslim world always appreciated science: algebra, chemistry, medicine and others. But it should be recognized that the contemporary forms of rationality practiced now by science and technique are connected primarily with the western civilization. This is its special input in creation of conditions, which make it possible to carry on the inter-civilization dialogue. We can not help recognizing this historic fact.
Actually, the dialogue of civilizations is possible today not on the civilizations themselves (their nuclear foundations), but concerning some or other specific social problems. The representatives of various civilizations have their own views on these problems taking into account their own systems of values. The exchange of the views, the comparison and rational justification of their advantages may be very fruitful and will lead to the search for common solving the problems, which are common for all. At present, the dialogue of civilizations should be devoted to solving the problems, which determine the future of humanity. Some of them are mentioned below.
First of all, the creation of a new world legal and political order should be stressed. There exists the opinion that the western civilization
has a propensity for democracy (and connected with it values of individual freedom and human rights), while the eastern ("traditional") civilizations to a greater extent appreciate responsibility and liabilities and consequently are inclined to authoritarian rule. If it is so, the dialogue on these values seem to be impossible, since these values are included in the kernel of the corresponding civilization entities and discussion of these values is impossible at this stage of development of the mankind. Actually, up to the recent time the dialogue among civilizations on these problems was impossible. But at present the situation is different in a number of significant relations. The question is the establishment of such relations among the countries representing different civilizations, when they may keep their identity. But just democracy in international relations gives the sole chance of this kind. Thus, at present, the representatives of various civilizations can not help admitting the democratic values at least in this respect. At the same time, one need to admit that it is not completely clear, what are the values of democratic relations among countries (up to present, democracy was considered as a political system in one country). It means that the subject for dialogue and discussion exists. Meanwhile, it is hardly possible to cope with international terrorism without solving such problems. It is possible to suppose that as far as development takes place the convergence of various civilizations will go on. And it means that the problems being subject to simple tolerance by contemporary civilizations will be practiced in the course of the present dialogue more and more. Today, subject to the dialogue of civilizations may and should be the ecological problems relating to all people of the Earth, the problems of reciprocal relations between the world center and the world periphery and a number of other problems.
One of the examples of such dialogue is as follows. In August 2003 the World Philosophic Congress was held in Istanbul. Its main
theme was formulated in the following way: "Humanity in the Face of Global Problems". The problems connected with globalization attracted main attention at the plenary and sectional sittings, and at numerous round tables. Some themes of discussions were as follows: inequality and poverty, war, peace and violence, globalization and cultural identity, the future of democracy and the role of mass media in contemporary culture. For instance, one of these urgent problems of the whole world is subject to discussion at one of the meetings. Three principal speakers take the floor. One of them lives in the USA, another - in India, the third - in South Africa. All three value rational argumentation and possess it, perfectly know contemporary literature on this problem and speak English. But each reporter expresses his own position connected with the values of exactly his civilization. Since these positions are formulated by means of rational argumentation, they may be discussed by all participants. Everyone understands the position of others. He compares his position with other positions and discusses other approaches. Other participants of the congress join the discussion. Certainly, for the time of two hours sitting it is impossible to come to a common decision, but all participants of the discussion and even those, who only attended it, received a new perception on the problem and on probable ways of its solving.
If the dialogue of this kind takes place, globalization will be not be seen as the only probable system of values imposed upon all regions of the Earth, but as a creation of the world, which is united and at the same time is composed from many unique civilizations.
"Chelovek v intellektualnom i dukhovnom prostranstvakh", Moscow, 2010, pp. 20-37.
