Defense of ‘Soft’ Universalism or ‘Clash of Civilizations’
Mark Tiedemann
{"title":"Defense of ‘Soft’ Universalism or ‘Clash of Civilizations’","authors":"Mark Tiedemann","doi":"10.1515/9783110492415-007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Even the politically more tolerant parts of the world are in no way immune to cultural and national delimitation. The world seems to identify with Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations. International organizations like the United Nations try to push back. One attempt is the UNESCO program ‘Philosophy, a School of Freedom’, the declared aim of which is to provide a prophylaxis against radicalization and dogmatism. This article points out three specific accomplishments of philosophical education and their significance for the impending ‘clash of civilizations’: (i) philosophical education as differentiation and critique; (ii) philosophical education as a defense for universalism; and (iii) philosophical education as transcendental tolerance education. The Struggle of Cultures and the role played by philosophical education Both the awareness and the configuration of the political international situation have undergone a dramatic paradigm shift. As to how greatly the asserted or actual ‘struggle of the cultures’ dominates minds in general and politics in particular can be shown by citing an optimistic ‘spirit of the times’ of a previous era. 26 years ago, Fukuyama’s assertion of the ‘End of History’ elicited enthusiastic acknowledgement from broad circles of people: scientists, the public at large and politicians (Fukuyama 1992). There were, after all, sufficient grounds for optimism: the ‘bloodless’ revolution of 1989 led to the fall of the Berlin Wall and put an end to the division of the European continent. The so-called ‘Cold War’ was at an end and the successor nation states of the U.S.S.R. were aspiring to democracy. Parliamentarianism in the countries of the newly founded Commonwealth of Independent States proved to be sufficiently resistant. Long despaired-of disarmament agreements were ratified. The Republic of South Africa overcame ‘Apartheid’ and the world celebrated presidents such as Nelson Mandela or Vaclav Havel. The conflict in Northern Ireland was pacified and Israelis and Palestinians extended each other the hand. Markus Tiedemann, Technische Universität Dresden (TUD) OpenAccess. © 2018 Markus Tiedemann, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110492415-007 However, this stage was concluded by September 11 2001, at the latest. This was the greatest symbolic scenario of an open attack on Western life and culture, and demanded new explanation and categorization. A suitable exponent was already available: Huntington’s lecture, article, paper and book, all linked by titles containing Clash of Civilizations. A paradigm shift was again introduced. The ‘Struggle of the Cultures’ became the predominant interpretative sample for national and international conflicts. Dramatic, politically adverse decisions and wars against international law became an expression of as well as a catalyst for such developments. The United Nations, which has become an organization of coagulated ideas of global international understanding, has very little to offer as counteraction to such disturbing developments. One initiative is the UNESCO program ‘Philosophy, a School of Freedom’. Philosophical education, the declared aim of the global project, is to act as a prophylaxis against any form of radicalization and dogmatism. The idea is to promote a ‘world citizen’ of majority age, who does not perceive plurality as a threat, but proceeds to participate in collective opinion-forming by means of critical judgment. Federico Mayor Zaragoza couched this idea in the following terms: Philosophy and Democracy urge each of us to exercise our capacity for judgement, to choose for ourselves the best form of political and social organisation, to find our own values, in short, to become fully what each of us is, a free being. Among so many dangers, we have no other hope. (Mayor 1995, p. 12) But what can philosophical education achieve amidst the increasing ‘clash of civilizations’? I will highlight in this article three specific accomplishments of philosophical education and their significance for the impending ‘clash of civilizations’: (i) philosophical education as differentiation and critique; (ii) philosophical education as a defense for universalism; and (iii) philosophical education as transcendental tolerance education. A differentiated image of the ‘clash of civilizations’ When Samuel P. Huntington published his article “The Clash of Civilizations?” in 1993 in the journal Foreign Affairs, the publishers claimed that he triggered more debates in the first three years thereafter than any other contribution published since the 1940s (cf. Huntington 1996, p. 11). Huntington’s principal claim maintains that coherence, disintegration and conflict in a world after the end of the 80 Markus Tiedemann","PeriodicalId":126664,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Globalization","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy of Globalization","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110492415-007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Even the politically more tolerant parts of the world are in no way immune to cultural and national delimitation. The world seems to identify with Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations. International organizations like the United Nations try to push back. One attempt is the UNESCO program ‘Philosophy, a School of Freedom’, the declared aim of which is to provide a prophylaxis against radicalization and dogmatism. This article points out three specific accomplishments of philosophical education and their significance for the impending ‘clash of civilizations’: (i) philosophical education as differentiation and critique; (ii) philosophical education as a defense for universalism; and (iii) philosophical education as transcendental tolerance education. The Struggle of Cultures and the role played by philosophical education Both the awareness and the configuration of the political international situation have undergone a dramatic paradigm shift. As to how greatly the asserted or actual ‘struggle of the cultures’ dominates minds in general and politics in particular can be shown by citing an optimistic ‘spirit of the times’ of a previous era. 26 years ago, Fukuyama’s assertion of the ‘End of History’ elicited enthusiastic acknowledgement from broad circles of people: scientists, the public at large and politicians (Fukuyama 1992). There were, after all, sufficient grounds for optimism: the ‘bloodless’ revolution of 1989 led to the fall of the Berlin Wall and put an end to the division of the European continent. The so-called ‘Cold War’ was at an end and the successor nation states of the U.S.S.R. were aspiring to democracy. Parliamentarianism in the countries of the newly founded Commonwealth of Independent States proved to be sufficiently resistant. Long despaired-of disarmament agreements were ratified. The Republic of South Africa overcame ‘Apartheid’ and the world celebrated presidents such as Nelson Mandela or Vaclav Havel. The conflict in Northern Ireland was pacified and Israelis and Palestinians extended each other the hand. Markus Tiedemann, Technische Universität Dresden (TUD) OpenAccess. © 2018 Markus Tiedemann, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110492415-007 However, this stage was concluded by September 11 2001, at the latest. This was the greatest symbolic scenario of an open attack on Western life and culture, and demanded new explanation and categorization. A suitable exponent was already available: Huntington’s lecture, article, paper and book, all linked by titles containing Clash of Civilizations. A paradigm shift was again introduced. The ‘Struggle of the Cultures’ became the predominant interpretative sample for national and international conflicts. Dramatic, politically adverse decisions and wars against international law became an expression of as well as a catalyst for such developments. The United Nations, which has become an organization of coagulated ideas of global international understanding, has very little to offer as counteraction to such disturbing developments. One initiative is the UNESCO program ‘Philosophy, a School of Freedom’. Philosophical education, the declared aim of the global project, is to act as a prophylaxis against any form of radicalization and dogmatism. The idea is to promote a ‘world citizen’ of majority age, who does not perceive plurality as a threat, but proceeds to participate in collective opinion-forming by means of critical judgment. Federico Mayor Zaragoza couched this idea in the following terms: Philosophy and Democracy urge each of us to exercise our capacity for judgement, to choose for ourselves the best form of political and social organisation, to find our own values, in short, to become fully what each of us is, a free being. Among so many dangers, we have no other hope. (Mayor 1995, p. 12) But what can philosophical education achieve amidst the increasing ‘clash of civilizations’? I will highlight in this article three specific accomplishments of philosophical education and their significance for the impending ‘clash of civilizations’: (i) philosophical education as differentiation and critique; (ii) philosophical education as a defense for universalism; and (iii) philosophical education as transcendental tolerance education. A differentiated image of the ‘clash of civilizations’ When Samuel P. Huntington published his article “The Clash of Civilizations?” in 1993 in the journal Foreign Affairs, the publishers claimed that he triggered more debates in the first three years thereafter than any other contribution published since the 1940s (cf. Huntington 1996, p. 11). Huntington’s principal claim maintains that coherence, disintegration and conflict in a world after the end of the 80 Markus Tiedemann
为“软”普遍主义或“文明冲突”辩护
即使是世界上政治上比较宽容的地区也无法不受文化和民族界限的影响。世界似乎认同亨廷顿的《文明的冲突》。联合国等国际组织试图予以反击。一个尝试是联合国教科文组织的“哲学,一所自由学校”计划,其宣称的目标是提供对激进化和教条主义的预防。本文指出了哲学教育的三个具体成就及其对即将到来的“文明冲突”的意义:(1)哲学教育的分化与批判;(二)哲学教育为普遍主义辩护;(三)哲学教育作为先验宽容教育。文化的斗争与哲学教育的作用无论是对政治国际形势的认识还是格局都发生了巨大的范式转变。至于所谓的或实际的“文化斗争”对一般思想,特别是政治的支配程度有多大,可以通过引用前一个时代乐观的“时代精神”来证明。26年前,福山关于“历史终结”的论断得到了广泛人群的热烈认可:科学家、公众和政治家(Fukuyama 1992)。毕竟,我们有充分的理由保持乐观:1989年的“不流血”革命导致了柏林墙的倒塌,结束了欧洲大陆的分裂。所谓的“冷战”结束了,苏联的继承国开始追求民主。新成立的独立国家联合体国家的议会制被证明具有足够的抵抗力。长期绝望的裁军协议被批准。南非共和国克服了“种族隔离”,纳尔逊·曼德拉(Nelson Mandela)和瓦茨拉夫·哈维尔(Vaclav Havel)等总统获得了全世界的赞誉。北爱尔兰的冲突得到了平息,以色列人和巴勒斯坦人相互伸出了手。Markus Tiedemann, Technische Universität德累斯顿(TUD) OpenAccess。©2018 Markus Tiedemann, De Gruyter出版。本作品采用知识共享署名-非商业-非衍生品4.0许可协议。https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110492415-007然而,这一阶段最迟在2001年9月11日结束。这是对西方生活和文化的公开攻击的最具象征意义的场景,需要新的解释和分类。一个合适的例证已经出现了:亨廷顿的演讲、文章、论文和书籍,所有的标题都包含《文明的冲突》。范式转变再次被引入。“文化的斗争”成为解释国家和国际冲突的主要样本。戏剧性的、政治上不利的决定和违反国际法的战争成为这种事态发展的表现和催化剂。联合国已成为一个汇集了全球国际理解的各种思想的组织,它对这种令人不安的事态发展几乎无能为力。其中一项倡议是联合国教科文组织的“哲学,自由的学校”项目。哲学教育,这一全球计划所宣称的目标,是预防任何形式的激进化和教条主义。这个想法是为了培养一个成年的“世界公民”,他们不认为多元化是一种威胁,而是通过批判性判断来参与集体意见形成。费代里科·萨拉戈萨市长用以下词句表达了这一观点:哲学和民主敦促我们每个人行使我们的判断能力,为自己选择最好的政治和社会组织形式,找到我们自己的价值观,简而言之,充分成为我们每个人,一个自由的人。在如此多的危险中,我们没有其他希望。(Mayor, 1995,第12页)但是,在日益加剧的“文明冲突”中,哲学教育能达到什么目的呢?在本文中,我将强调哲学教育的三个具体成就及其对即将到来的“文明冲突”的意义:(1)作为分化和批判的哲学教育;(二)哲学教育为普遍主义辩护;(三)哲学教育作为先验宽容教育。当塞缪尔·亨廷顿发表他的文章《文明的冲突?在1993年的《外交事务》杂志上,出版商声称他在此后的头三年引发的争论比自20世纪40年代以来发表的任何其他贡献都要多(参见亨廷顿1996年,第11页)。亨廷顿的主要观点认为,80年代末的马库斯·蒂德曼(Markus Tiedemann)之后的世界存在连贯性、解体和冲突
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。