{"title":"在新的世界秩序的尖端?儒德对话与实用主义","authors":"R. Ames","doi":"10.1080/17449626.2021.1942140","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT At the end of 2013, China introduced what it calls the ‘One Belt, One Road Initiative’ (BRI) (yidaiyiluchangyi 一带一路战倡议). From a Chinese perspective, this initiative is nothing less than a strategy to replace the existing world order in all of its parts with a vision of ‘intra-national relations’ that emerges out of traditional Chinese thinking reaching back as early as the Yijing 易经or Book of Changes. The self-conscious rhetoric of BRI is ‘equity’ (gongying 共赢) and ‘diversity’ interpreted through the language of a ‘shared future for the human community’ (renleimingyun gongtongti人类命运共同体). China can be challenged to live up to its own rhetoric. John Dewey makes a helpful distinction between the ‘idea’ and the political ‘forms’ of democracy, where his ‘idea’ of democracy is his own account of equity and shared diversity. Again, there is a direct link between Dewey’s ‘idea’ of democracy and his ‘internationalism.’ Can we use Dewey’s ‘idea’ of democracy to formulate the ‘idea’ of BRI as a Confucian version of ‘internationalism?’","PeriodicalId":35191,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Ethics","volume":"17 1","pages":"11 - 25"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On the cusp of a new world order? a dialogue between Confucianism and Dewey and pragmatism\",\"authors\":\"R. Ames\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17449626.2021.1942140\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT At the end of 2013, China introduced what it calls the ‘One Belt, One Road Initiative’ (BRI) (yidaiyiluchangyi 一带一路战倡议). From a Chinese perspective, this initiative is nothing less than a strategy to replace the existing world order in all of its parts with a vision of ‘intra-national relations’ that emerges out of traditional Chinese thinking reaching back as early as the Yijing 易经or Book of Changes. The self-conscious rhetoric of BRI is ‘equity’ (gongying 共赢) and ‘diversity’ interpreted through the language of a ‘shared future for the human community’ (renleimingyun gongtongti人类命运共同体). China can be challenged to live up to its own rhetoric. John Dewey makes a helpful distinction between the ‘idea’ and the political ‘forms’ of democracy, where his ‘idea’ of democracy is his own account of equity and shared diversity. Again, there is a direct link between Dewey’s ‘idea’ of democracy and his ‘internationalism.’ Can we use Dewey’s ‘idea’ of democracy to formulate the ‘idea’ of BRI as a Confucian version of ‘internationalism?’\",\"PeriodicalId\":35191,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Global Ethics\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"11 - 25\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Global Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2021.1942140\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Global Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2021.1942140","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
On the cusp of a new world order? a dialogue between Confucianism and Dewey and pragmatism
ABSTRACT At the end of 2013, China introduced what it calls the ‘One Belt, One Road Initiative’ (BRI) (yidaiyiluchangyi 一带一路战倡议). From a Chinese perspective, this initiative is nothing less than a strategy to replace the existing world order in all of its parts with a vision of ‘intra-national relations’ that emerges out of traditional Chinese thinking reaching back as early as the Yijing 易经or Book of Changes. The self-conscious rhetoric of BRI is ‘equity’ (gongying 共赢) and ‘diversity’ interpreted through the language of a ‘shared future for the human community’ (renleimingyun gongtongti人类命运共同体). China can be challenged to live up to its own rhetoric. John Dewey makes a helpful distinction between the ‘idea’ and the political ‘forms’ of democracy, where his ‘idea’ of democracy is his own account of equity and shared diversity. Again, there is a direct link between Dewey’s ‘idea’ of democracy and his ‘internationalism.’ Can we use Dewey’s ‘idea’ of democracy to formulate the ‘idea’ of BRI as a Confucian version of ‘internationalism?’