International Symposium:
Development for Harmonious Societies in a Pluralistic World
23-24 June 2006
Organized jointly by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) and the Harvard-Yenching Institute, this international symposium was devoted to Seeking Harmonious Society and Multiple Modernities. It was hosted by the Bureau of International Cooperation of CASS and the Institute of Ethnic Literature, also of CASS. Thirty participants, including five members of the Triglav Circle attended this meeting. The symposium had a substantive link with the Copenhagen Seminars for Social Progress conveyed in the aftermath of the United Nations World Summit for Social Development. The CASS had recently translated the book summarizing the findings of these seminars, Building a World Community, Globalization and the Common Good, published by the University of Washington Press. Conducted in Chinese and in English, the debates were organized around four themes: dialogue among civilizations, social justice, a comprehensive approach to sustainable development, and, multiple dimensions of modernity, including economic, social and cultural perspectives. These debates are summarized below under a few headings centered on the notions of harmony and modernity.
The concepts of harmony and harmonious society
Harmony with the self, with others, with nature and with Heaven is a concept and a quest at the heart of the Chinese civilization. In the Confucian perspective, such harmony is the aim of human flourishing. It gives meaning to the cultivation of the self, which, because of the fundamental human interrelatedness, can never be an egotistic exercise, and it gives a direction to politics, which, for Confucius, is in the realm of moral persuasion.
In the Chinese language, “he xie”or harmony, is represented by two characters. The first character combines the ideas of “harvest” and “mouth,” meaning that when there is a good harvest and people are well fed, harmony comes within the household, the society, and the world. The second character stands for “speech” or “music” and “all” or “everyone,” implying that harmony results from everyone speaking or playing in agreement. Harmony therefore requires shared prosperity and unity of purpose. Not unlike a symphony, or a painting, or a beautiful landscape, a harmonious society is made of different parts acting in unison, or placed in a symbiotic relationship.
This point that reaching harmony requires complementary skills and joint efforts is confirmed by the origins of the word in western languages. The Latin harmonia comes from a Greek word meaning “precise arrangement, delicate adjustment, careful putting together of pieces which then appear to “naturally” fit together.” Thus, the creation and maintenance of an harmonious society is equivalent to a work of art demanding education – or what is called “training” — intelligence, imagination, and effort on the part of all its members. Harmony, in a society as in a person, is a process rather than the product of sudden change. There is a continuum in this creative process between private and public action, and between private harmony and societal harmony.
Harmony and shared values
Harmony presupposes diversity. Be it in a society, a family, or an orchestra, harmony is attained through the interplay of diverse actors with complementary roles and positions. Diversity, however, can also be a source of conflicts. An harmonious society demands common values, reciprocal codes and shared “rules of the game.” It demands acceptance of various sets of right relationships, among social classes or social categories, among women and men, among age-groups, among professions and trades, among cities and villages, among regions, and between people and nature.
In a given society, the perception of what is “a right relationship” varies with time. In China, the situation of women, for instance, is very different from what it was at the time of Mencius. An harmonious society is therefore not synonymous with a static society. At the same time, however, predictability is inherent to harmony. There are constant, invariant, so to speak eternal features of human behavior, such as civility, courtesy, respect, which are indispensable to a harmonious society. It follows that harmony is compatible with change and progress, but not change for the sake of it, and not progress conceived as a demiurgic attempt by Man to subjugate Nature and the Heaven. Harmony does not marry well with excesses of any type.
Do the shared values necessary to a harmonious society include religious beliefs? There was little discussion on this point, perhaps in great part because neither Buddhism, Taoism, nor Confucianism separate religion from the art of living. The Heaven of Confucius is more immanent than transcendent. And the Buddhist monks do not aspire to secular power. But, is social harmony in a nation compatible with the practice of different religions, including monotheist religions based on revelation? Are harmony and tolerance friendly notions? One can assume that conditions for such compatibility are that religions remain in the private sphere and that their proponents refrain from proselytism. And, during the discussion on overall harmony in the world it was made abundantly clear that all types of aggressive fundamentalism are not only disharmonious but cacophonic in nature. In an orchestra, no single instrument or musician can pretend to possess and express the whole Truth.
Harmony and universal values
Need these same shared values be indigenous to the society seeking to keep, acquire, or restore its harmony? What about the concept of universal values, cherished by the advocates of a strong United Nations and so often alluded to in the debates of the Triglav Circle? Can a society see itself as harmonious and also be considered as such by an impartial observer even if some or many of its values are at odds with the some commonly accepted universal values? Full answers to such questions would require a great number of clarifications, including on their philosophical presuppositions and also on their political context. For instance, of crucial importance are the methods of work of the forums in which values that are “candidates” for universality are discussed. Yet, the tonality of the debate in Beijing suggests a few signposts.
Whether one attributes this to human nature or to the convergence of the teachings of great philosophies and religions, or to both, there is little doubt that the moral compass of peoples of different traditions and cultures is fundamentally the same. Perceptions of right and wrong, or of the beautiful and the ugly, do not dramatically differ from one continent to another. In that sense the distinction between Asian, or European, or American, or African values, and universal values is artificial. But such syncretism, to be at the same time respectful of freedom and diversity and exempt from moral laxness and relativism, implies a fairly short but rigorous “selection” of what are truly universal values. Difficulties with the notions of shared understanding of the human rights expressed in the Universal Declaration are partly due to a politically motivated interpretation and extension of such rights in the domain of political arrangements which should have no claim to universalism or in-temporality. But then, is this presumably shared core of values a sufficient foundation for the construction of harmonious societies? Perhaps they represent an indispensable base, on which each culture and civilization has and should have the freedom to develop its own “harmonics.
Harmony, equality and justice
Harmony is definitely not uniformity. As already stressed above, it requires differences. And there are not only nuances between these differences, be it in social categories, social classes, social hierarchy, inequalities, or elitism. When everybody, however, accepts his or her position and when nobody abuses one’s power, there can be social harmony. Asian societies are not traditionally egalitarian.
Questions were therefore asked on the relationships between social justice and harmony. Does an emphasis on harmony imply tolerance of inequalities that would be considered unjust in a society privileging social justice? It might be so, was the answer, but justice means first that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights, as proclaimed in Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Justice and equality are, in that sense, constitutive elements of social harmony. Justice as a practice should permeate all institutions, and not only legal institutions. Regarding social justice, conceived narrowly as redistributive justice, its current low visibility in the world is related to the preeminence of the “free market discourse.” And, different societies might have different perceptions of the point at which inequalities become inequities. But it seems clear that the present aggravation of most forms of inequalities, including those in the distribution of income and wealth, is conducive to growing disharmonies on the world scene.
In this connection, it was emphasized that the role of the state and in general of public institutions is crucial. It is not by chance that the concept of an harmonious society has been developed in a culture that puts public service at the top of the social hierarchy. It was also emphasized, however, that a modern harmonious society requires a benevolent state but also an open public space where citizens and organizations of the civil society can voice their views. And those in a position of power have a particular responsibility for the observance, transmission and adaptation of the norms, values and virtues that bring harmony in society.
Modernity and multiple modernities
The concept of modernity and its use in a plural form generated some questions, reservations and explanations. First of all, the usefulness of the concept of modernity is not obvious. What are its advantages compared to notions such as a “pluralistic world,” or a “harmonious world society,” or, more simply “different styles of development” or “styles of progress”? If the purpose of the choice of the concept of “multiple modernities” is to have debates in China, about its society and its future, why not refer directly to issues as they are perceived and discussed, for example “market economy and inequalities,” or “wealth and its use,” or “the rule of law,” or “economic growth and the environment,” or “harmony in the modern Chinese society”? (at the time of the writing of these Notes, October 2006, the Government of China has officially proclaimed “social harmony” as its objective).
If, on the other hand, the context is a reflection on the path that China is taking, or should take in relation with other paths, especially the dominant one which is presently incarnated by the Western world, the danger with “multiple modernities” is to have a debate circumscribed and oriented by the characteristics of a dominant “model.” Words, concepts, desirable and undesirable features of the “other” modernity would have their reference point in this “main” modernity. This would make very improbable a critic or a-fortiori a deconstruction of the very concept of modernity. And it would limit the intellectual and political imagination necessary to the elaboration of a vision of the future of the Chinese society and of the role of China in the world. It might even hamper the capacity to analyze the present situation of China, and certainly the capacity to look in the past for useful lessons in wisdom. It was noted that a primary feature of the Western concept of modernity relies on a linear vision of history.
Such epistemological problems, without disappearing, are lessened if the consideration of the question of “multiple modernities” is placed within an international and global perspective with special reference, in this case, to China. The issues to be debated become, “are there in the world, or could or should there be countries, or regions, or coalitions of countries adopting different strategies, objectives and ways of being in relation to modernity and to the future? and where does China stands in this regard?” Or, more brutally: “Is there room for a plurality of civilizations on the eve of the 21st century and how could they coexist peacefully?” Part of the discussion in Beijing was from this global standpoint.
Modernity as process and as a project
It was argued that debates on multiple modernities would be facilitated by an understanding of “modernity” as both a process and a project, as was said in a previous meeting about globalization. Modernity as a process is a new phase in human history and human consciousness characterized by a progressive liberation of the human mind from various constraints and limitations. It is a long term process, with roots deep in the past – notably the European Renaissance of the XV and XVI centuries – and developments in the future that cannot all be foreseen. Through the use of Reason, it liberates humankind from conceptions of the sacred, of polity, of social and family relationships, and also of science that were brakes to autonomy and creativity. Although it is an historical process of great scope and magnitude, human action can alter and modify it, at least temporarily.
Modernity as a project takes one particular aspect of the modernity process and gives it a normative content, transforming it into an ideology. Comte did this with science, Hegel with the state, Marx with class relations, Hayek with liberal capitalism. In its current form, the dominant modernity project presents certain choices and policies as having a normative content. Then, for example, particular economic structures and choices are presented as expressing the “laws of the market.” Similarly, questionable facets of human behavior, such as greed, are attributed to inherent features of “human nature.” And specific political institutions and arrangements are claimed to represent the essence of democracy.
Modernity as a process has entered China. It ought not to be resisted. But it has to be guided responsibly in order to be a process faithful to the Chinese culture and its emphasis on harmony. It may then become a project expressing an authentic Chinese style of modernity.
Modernity and modernization
In a slightly different vein, it was emphasized that modernization is the participation of a society in the massive expansion of scientific knowledge and the accompanying equally massive technological innovations that were initiated a few centuries ago. Modernization, then, is not necessarily to follow the path of the Western world, as it is widely believed. Rather, it is the adaptation of the institutions of society to this trend of scientific and technological change and progress. Such adaptation requires a transformation of many facets of society and also requires identification of the values that have to be protected and the values that should be abandoned in the process.
For this harmonious blending of permanence and change to occur, an effective and socially conscious leadership is needed, as well as an informed and politically active citizenry. The two institutions having a crucial role in determining success or failure in such endeavor are education and justice. The result, if harmonious, is a mix of the new and the traditional, and such mixes greatly differ, as can readily be seen in observing, for example, Japan and the United States. Part of the problem with the world is that a number of societies – the so-called developing countries – feel compelled to carry out their transformation and create their acceptable “mixes” of the old and the new practices too rapidly and under pressure. They have therefore scant opportunity to find a balance between excessive attachment to tradition and blind embrace of an imported form of modernity. Moreover, as the affluent countries continue and even accelerate their process of modernization, the “developing” world has the sentiment of being caught in an endless attempt to fill an ever-increasing “gap.”
Multiple modernities: reality or aspiration?
Are there multiple types of modernity at present? Or is there a unique paradigm? The opinion that there is a dominant model epitomized by the economically advanced Western world seemed somehow to have been more or less shared by most participants at this meeting. Participants, however, were aware that it is only by identifying modernity with globalization that it can be said that the United States represents today the dominant version of modernity. The official American political culture seems to have shifted “beyond” the concept of modernity. “Globalization,” “global markets,” “global democracy,” “freedom for all,” are frequent expressions of this culture, whereas “modern” appears to be as “passé” as “modern art.”
But, be that as it may, are there significant variations to this dominant global model? Brief and inconclusive remarks were made on Europe, Japan, and India, but neither the European region nor these countries were clearly perceived as offering an alternative to this global model. Together with the United States, they all are active participants in the process of economic and financial globalization. Russia is still considered as “in transition” towards a market economy. As to the countries of the “South”, including those of the continents of Africa and Latin America, their self-perception and image of being “least-developed” or “developing” is proof enough that they are embarked on the long and arduous but familiar and well-tracked journey to development and modernization according to the dominant paradigm.
China, since its economic reform, is actively involved in the world economy through trade, investment, and various joint ventures. The weight of foreign investments in the Chinese economy is very significant. Among the 500 biggest corporations operating in China, two-thirds are supported by varying amounts of foreign capital. China is a member of the World Trade Organization, which is a very important actor and a light house for the world economic sea where global capitalism has free sailing. The central government and the provincial authorities still play a role in the management of the economy but China is no longer a fully planned economy. It has privatized a significant number of its activities and is progressively subjecting state-owned companies to competition and other “rules of the market.”
China is experiencing an extremely rapid rate of economic growth and the engine and composition of this growth are not very different from those of liberal capitalist economies. It is a type of growth generating an increase of inequalities in income and wealth among social groups and among regions, and inflicting heavy tolls on the environment. This big country, with its very large, industrious and resourceful population, coupled with an also large diaspora, is commonly perceived as a major and perhaps tomorrow the major economic and political power in the world. China is also an atomic power and a permanent member of the Security Council of the United Nations. Though its political structures and institutions remain in line with the Communist model, there is nothing in the above characteristics and policies which would seem, on the surface, to qualify this great country as representing a different or “alter” modernity.
Culture: the determinant to a style of modernity?
But perhaps economy and polity, especially when they are analysed with unsophisticated concepts, only reflect the most obvious and superficial aspects of a country. Other criteria would be needed to appreciate the extent to which relations of citizens among themselves and with their political authorities, as well as relations with other countries, with the world and, to keep the Confucian language, with Heaven, differ sufficiently from a sort of world average or from the Western “way” to be worthy of the qualification of “other modernity.” This is about “culture.” Culture is to be understood in many different but complementary ways that, combined, create the soul and the ethos of a nation, or a region, or a continent. It includes family structures and relations, attitudes towards authorities, ways of interiorizing or displaying sorrows and joys, understandings of justice, freedom, responsibility and civic duty, as well as architecture, urban design and the products of all other arts. Culture is a matter of organization of daily life as much as the fruit of the best minds of a community.
Apart from the richness and extraordinarily poetic sort of “concreteness” of its language, China and its peoples appear to possess a unique and vibrant culture. For example, the hospitality and civility displayed towards foreign guests is certainly not in conformity with the dominant style of modernity. Yet, with culture, as with the economy and the political institutions, superficial impressions and judgments can be rather deceptive. Moreover, the Chinese and Asian intellectuals participating in this meeting were discreet and modest when evoking the merits and achievements of their culture. It was said that Chinese intellectuals understand better other cultures than their own, and that they have the capacity to appreciate and assimilate selected aspects of other cultures. Discretion and modesty are again virtues which are not part of the dominant modernity and with fewer of these virtues these intellectuals might have clearly stated their belief that, in spite of some very visible appearances, China has a unique approach to its own modernity.
Two main reasons for seeking different types of modernity
First, is the conviction that a pluralism of cultures and civilizations is better for the world-for its richness and its dynamism. Human beings flourish when their curiosity is stimulated and also when they can deepen and eventually modify their views as they grow in familiarity with other cultures. Uniformity seems to be the enemy of creativity, and also of freedom. Languages have to be preserved and nurtured. Ways of thinking and of being that have enabled communities to survive and sometimes strive for centuries should not be destroyed but allowed to adapt to modern times as they see fit.
A second reason for seeking different approaches to modernity stems from the discontent with the dominant global market model. Mediocre utilitarianism, unrestrained materialism, excessive reliance on competition, predatory attitudes towards nature and the environment, and, perhaps above all, aggressiveness and lack of respect for other cultures, are frequent criticisms of the current global way of being modern. Such criticisms and concerns are particularly audible within the Western world itself, including the United States, and economic and political failings and excesses are attributed to “globalization” rather than “modernity.” But, openly reactionary ideas and movements are on the rise in the West as they are in other parts of the world. Religious fundamentalism, for example, is a comprehensive and aggressive alternative to modernity. For all those who cherish freedom and believe in the perfectibility of human society, it is imperative both to defend modernity and to correct its imperfections.
These two sets of reasons – need for diversity and problems with the dominant model — were addressed by this gathering. The prevailing sense was that the roads to multiple modernities that were suggested, rather than representing a new vision, had the attributes of correctives to the dominant model.
Some elements for different types of modernity
Firstly, a nation, as in the case of China, and perhaps a continent as in the case of for example Africa, needs to be aware of its cultural past and at the same to draw inspiration from universally recognized great thinkers. To a certain extent, in China the reforms launched at the end of the 1980s have been paralleled by a rediscovery of Confucianism. These political and philosophical movements, reformism and Confucianism, are both inspirations and driving forces in China’s search for a specific type of modernity. Confucianism is being “re-appropriated,” “rehabilitated” and “re-thought” in the present “modern” context. At the same time it seems that its appeal crosses again the borders of the Asian world. The latter phenomenon, particularly evident in Europe, is a form of “globalization” that has existed in the past but is greatly facilitated by modern means of communications. Similarly, it was noted that reflection on Chinese modernity is benefiting from familiarity with the heirs of the European Enlightenment, including Derrida and Jurgen Habermas. China is seeking “connecting points” with the West and is anxious to identify the best parts of other discourses.
Secondly, culture, in the sense of ways of thinking and relating to the others and to the world, is an integral part of a specific path to modernity. This point has already been made above, as the related point that, on the road to modernization, some of the values and norms constitutive of this culture have to be kept and nurtured, while others have to be adjusted and still others have simply to be abandoned. More generally, the idea of mobilizing the different intellectual, artistic and spiritual resources that exist throughout the world, an idea often advanced in Triglav meetings, is totally compatible with the search for multiple modernities. It has been argued that this form of universalism is a condition for cultural pluralism.
Thirdly, a related and more general way forward is the acknowledgement of the necessity to respect multiple forms of knowledge in order to comprehend, enjoy and develop the self, the community, nature and the universe. In addition to empiricism, knowledge derived from intuition, imagination and pure reason is eminently valid and crucial to society.. This is a theme that has been very present in the recent work of the Circle. Mention was made of the need for an ethical intelligence. The use of rational reasoning ought to be combined with kindness, courtesy, generosity and hospitality. A “good” culture, favorable to human flourishing, is marked by the serenity and happiness of its people. And the beauty of the world ought to be celebrated. Such celebration is hampered by a focus on the observable and the measurable. The avoidance of “commodity reification” is a condition for creating a different approach to modernity.
Fourth, also related to a larger and more profound perception of the useful and to celebration of life in its richness, is the recognition of the beauty of forms of art that are considered “folkloric” because they are associated with ways of living and cultures that the dominant modernity is pushing aside. The example of the recording of the songs of an itinerant folk singer from inner Mongolia was mentioned. The songs of this elderly man are contained in a few volumes of manuscripts and represent an epic poem of great beauty. Throughout the world, there are such examples of oral literature which are in danger of being lost forever. When the past is treated with love and respect it stays alive in the present and informs our lives. Thus, another form of modernity bears a relationship with history and manifests a different conception of time.
Fifth, again in a related way, the ambition to seek a different path to modernity implies breaking the dominance of a singular economic discourse which is rapidly transforming the world into a market where everything can be traded, measured and priced, and everything can be discarded and replaced. A market economy is in normal times a necessity, whereas a market society is an impoverishment of human relations and human creativity. Economics, which has become an end in itself and which is presently conceived under a type of instrumental rationality privileging aggressive competition and excessive profit, has to be placed into the framework of time honored moral philosophy, as it was for the founders of modern economy including Adam Smith.
Sixth, this dominant economic discourse and model remains, in spite of a recent much improved consciousness of the damages inflicted to the environment, fundamentally predatory towards nature. The fundamental changes in patterns of production and consumption called for by the United Nations at the time of the Rio Summit on Environment and Development have not occurred. The dominant mentality and discourse is still that “development” (meaning economic growth) is the absolute priority and that technologies prompted by necessity and human ingenuity will “fix” environmental problems when they become so acute as to jeopardize the possibilities for growth. This is very short of the harmony with and respect for nature demanded by Confucius and, among others, St Francis of Assisi. In the vast domain of sustainable development, much can be done to invent a form of modernity reconciling human creativity and respect for other living creatures and for the universe.
Seventh, there is the domain of political institutions and arrangements. It was pointed out that to be “modern” does not necessarily imply copying the most well-known political institutions. Regarding the evolution of the Chinese political system, a government structure with six pillars was evoked. These pillars are a neutral civil service, an independent judiciary, an anti-corruption agency, the rule of law, a process of consultation of the people, and the application of the principle of meritocracy. Plutocracy is to be rejected. In this perspective, correcting the gross inequalities that are currently afflicting the Chinese society and treating private wealth as a source of social obligation rather than a mere privilege, are steps towards an harmonious modernity.
Lastly, and this is more about the actors than the roads to another modernity, a number of comments were made on the role of public intellectuals, or global intellectuals, as Mencius said. In inventing and implementing a new path to modernity intellectual and political elites should take the lead and gain the trust and adhesion of the “peoples.” It was pointed out that intellectual forces have, across borders and cultures, two main challenges: (1) to reduce the dominance of the economy over other important institutions that sustain and enrich life and society, and (2) to celebrate life in all its bounty and generosity. Words of caution were also heard. It would be rather absurd to think and act as if societies were infinitely malleable. Even during reforms and revolutions constraints over human intervention in the course of history are enormous. To ignore those constraints is a recipe for catastrophes. Modernization is like a very heavy boat on a sea which is sometimes calm and often agitated. It is possible to steer this boat towards a new direction, but skill and caution are required to maintain this course. And dialogue, with partners, with competitors, and even with adversaries, is imperative. The search for multiple modernities is the antidote and response to the “clash” of civilizations.
Is the world moving towards greater harmony? The meeting was not convened to establish some “harmony index” and see its evolution over time. But there seems to be a shared view that the world was facing imminent global crisis. Dark clouds are piling up on the horizon of humankind. To talk about harmonious travel towards modernity at such a juncture may seem supremely irrelevant. Yet, it is a duty of all public intellectuals and good willed citizens to pursue this discourse and to be relentless advocates for reason, wisdom, and human decency in the affairs of humankind.