Towards a Multi-Cultural Modernity
REGGEN International Seminar Paper
Towards a Multi-Cultural Modernity:
Beyond Neo-Liberal/Neo-Conservative Global Hegemony
Director, Centre for Asia Pacific Partnership
Osaka University of Economics and Law
(This is a draft paper presented at the REGGEN 2005 International Seminar on
'Alternatives to Globalization: The Emerging Nations and the New Paths to Modernity'
8-13 October 2005, Rio de Janeiro)
Towards a Multi-Cultural Modernity
-Beyond Neo-Liberal/Neo-Conservative Global Hegemony-
1.The Neo-liberal Capitalism and the Neo-Conservative War:
We live in a time when humankind faces a major crisis, the crisis of Western modernity. It is a global crisis in the sense that it engulfs the globe, also in that it covers all aspects of human life and of human civilization, political, military, economic, financial, cultural, and social. It is a global crisis in that it is a crisis of globalization, of the globalization of Western modernity. We will attempt in this paper an identification of the major characteristics of this crisis, in an historical context, which enables us to choose our paths in this global crisis, full of danger, yet full of opportunities.
The contemporary global crisis cannot be grasped unless the true nature of 'global finance' and 'global hegemony' are understood. First 'global finance'. The contemporary neo-liberal version of capitalism subordinates production to financial speculation of a global free market, and turns the States into 'welcome States' loosing interest in the 'welfare State' model(ⅰ). Second, 'global hegemony'. The United States has built its neo-conservative hegemony, by using its absolute military-economic supremacy to unite the States into a global coalition to protect the security of the capital and of the global financial casino economy(ⅱ).
The above considerations on 'global finance' and 'global hegemony' do not automatically lead us into a discussion of 'modernity' and multi-culturalism. The speculative nature of the global finance can be dealt with by a neo-liberal economic analysis
As performed by the IMF. The War on Terror initiated under 'global hegemony' can be analysed from the point of view of national or international security. We have to raise the ideological and civilizational questions of the present globalization, under the guidance of neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism, because the two ideological positions are systematically opposed to the fundamental values underlying the basic assumption of this paper, which is that we have to look for an alternative modernity, beyond the present civilizational project of globalization, as the end phase of modernity, because of the fact that modernity at this phase cannot conceal the contradictions between the universalistic values it proclaims with the human types at the base of its national economy and its State order, i.e. homo economicus and homo politicus(ⅲ).
Our guiding principle, in this paper will be a deliberate choice to look at the world, not from the point of view of the market and the State, but rather from the vantage point of the peoples, whose rights, security and development are put at risk by the actions, institutions and structures of the present global neo-liberal/neo-conservative order. Human rights, human security, and human development, applied to the most vulnerable individuals, will provide us with a way to look at the global realities, different from the conventional views based on the States as unit of analysis, and the universal values defined by Western civilization as the basis of our evaluation of a world order based on the two ideal types of human persons already mentioned(ⅳ).
The choice to look at global realities from this point of view is not based on any moralistic principles. It is based on a belief that our efforts to build a new global civilization will have to meet the Ghandian principle of 'antiodia'. That is that unless the welbeing of the smallest is not taken into consideration the whole society will not survive. In the present situation when the global civilization faces a major crisis because of the fat that it is unable to take care of the rights, security, and development of the most vulnerable peoples, we must attempt our critical analysis of the present globalization from this vantage point.
2.Global Colonialism and the Permanent Counter-Revolution:
Let us, therefore, look at the present state of the globalization, not from the point of view of global finance or national security, but from the point of view of the human security, i.e. the freedom from fear and want, of peoples in most insecure situation. As we have seen, this situation can be defined in terms of two of the major causes of their fear, i.e. the neo-conservative War on/of Terror, and the reason of their want, the global neo-liberal economy.
Superficially, it seems that these two causes of their insecurity are unrelated, one military-political and the other economic. We must put the War on Terror and the global neo-liberal economy in a deeper historical context, from where they both emerge, in order to find that they are closely interlinked. This historical context is nothing but 'colonialism'.
The history of colonization of the non-Western world by the Western Powers, (and by Japan which was an exceptional case of a non-Western colonial Power), is characterized by an economic exploitation of the colonized societies by the colonial Powers' rule backed by their military supremacy. This geo-historical age of colonial rule ended in the 1950-60, and the post-colonial age, which followed was characterized by a new structure of exploitation, where the exploiters were the industrialized countries of the North, and the exploited were the developing countries of the South. This neo-colonialism was also combining an economic exploitation with a political/military subjugation. The combination of a global neo-liberal structure of exploitation with the military/political hegemony can be interpreted within the historical trajectory of colonialism, which we propose to call 'global colonialism'(ⅴ) .
Seen as a single phenomenon with two sides, an economic aspect characterized by neo-liberalism, and a military/political side characterized by the War on Terror, the present process of globalization can be seen as a final phase of the colonialism which began in the 16th century. Traditional colonialism and neo-colonialism exploited and extracted surplus from the colonies and from the developing countries. Now that there is no more frontier left to colonize, global colonialism extracts surplus from the 'multitudes', the peoples unprotected by the States like the citizens.
The clear divide between the South (provider of primary products) and the North (specialized in value-added industrial production), which existed during the neo-colonial period does not exist any more in the age of global colonialism. There is now an outpost of the North in the South, where the cheap labour of the South is exploited by the North in its industrial production, including information technology(IT) and Bio-technology. 'Ciderabad' in India is a typical example of this emerging North in the South. This outpost creates a new middle class, and a small ultra-rich minority, while leaving in abject poverty and insecurity, the rural communities and the urban informal sectors, in this 'deep South' where the large majority of the people lives. In many urban centers of the North, there are expanding informal sectors where the diaspora communities live in a chronic state of insecurity, as a result of the massive exploitative migration from the South, often undocumented and 'illegal' (ⅵ).
This situation where a great number of people live unprotected by the States and over-exploited by the transnational corporate agents, both in the South and in the North, is a typical manifestation of global colonialism. The traditional colonialism, has been a system where States and civil societies had established a contractual relationship, with the former monopolizing all means of violence in exchange with their commitment to protect the security and welfare of the latter. This contract between the States and the civil societies, did not cover the multitude living in the colonies. The peoples living in the deep south and in the informal diaspora communities in the North are in the same insecure situation of exploitation as the colonial multitude, in terms of the lack of State protection of their security and welfare. Global colonialism is nothing but this new form of exploitation of the global South by the global North.
3.The War on/of Terror and the Military/Police Security system:
The 9-11 incident has become a pretext for George W. Bush to legitimize his neo-conservative hegemonic agenda. The neo-liberal global economy is promoting the worldwide application of free market economy, attributing a minimal role to governments. This minimal role, however, concerns the security of the society especially of the market. The role of the State in traditional liberalism has often been characterised by the consept of the 'night watchman' State. The agenda of the Bush administration, as expressed in the Report on 'The National Security Strategy of the United States of America' limits the role of the American State to this security function. The United States promises to play the role of an invincible night watchman, with a world-wide deployment backed by weapons of mass destruction, for the global market, promoting free market principle, as well as freedom and democracy, against possible attacks from the 'terrorists' and the 'rogue States'.
This 'War on Terror' has transformed the Westphalian World Order, which has chatacterized Western modernity. This world order was based on the 'balance of power' between sovereign States, which were recognized an absolute right to guarantee the security of their citizens, domestically through their police force, and internationally through their military. The principle of non-interference into the domestic affairs of other States was combined with the primciple of clear separation between the domestic security controlled by the police, and the international security maintained by the military, both under civilian control was supposed to provide the institutional conditions indispensable for domestic and international democracy.
Now, the afore-mentioned Report by the government of the United States, officially declares the non-compliance to these principles by the United States, engaged in the War on Terror. The right of this global hegemon to wage preemptive attacks on the rogue States, and the policy to merge military and police activities indicate the hegemonic decision to ignore the above basic rules of the game adopted by all the law-abiding members of the Westphalian inter-State order.
The new military strategy of the War on Terror has put an end to the modern separation between the military and the police, an arrangement which so far had helped avert a threat to democracy, a likely scenario when the military is permitted to intervene in civilian affairs. The military/police security is based on a systematic anti-human-rights surveillance, control and punishment system where 'uncivilized' others, such as the prisoners in Guantanamo, are treated as object of fear rather than of humane compassion and are treated as evil people who do not deserve any elementary sense of justice.
The War on Terror is, in a sense, on the antipode of a state where human security prevails. The United Nations Human Security Commission Report points out this fact by criticizing it in the following way:
'What is now being described as the 'war on terrorism' dominates national and international security debates. In addition to military actions, it has increased attention to other tools to fight terrorism, such as tracking (and blocking) flows of funds, information and people. It has given rise to new areas of international cooperation, such as sharing intelligence. Yet these actions focus on coercive, short-term strategies aimed at stopping attack by cutting off financial, political or military support and apprehending possible perpetrators. Equally, state-sponsored terrorism is not being addressed, while legitimate groups are being labeled as terrorist organizations to quash opposition to suthoritarian government policies. And fighting terrorism is taking precedence over protecting human rights and promoting the rule of law and democratic governance..,,, (T)he 'war on terrorism' has stalled that progress (i.e.multilateral strategies that focus on the shared responsibility to protect people: insert mine) by focusing on short-term coercive responses rather than also addressing the underlying causes related to inequality, exclusion and marginalizatio, and oppression by states aswell as people.'
The War on Terror is, as the Report 'Human Security Now' denounces, not only refusing to address the root causes of the insecurity it is supposed to face, but is becoming in itself a major source of human insecurity. This is not because of any miss-calculation by the hegemon. It is necessary to realize that it is because of the very historical nature of this 'War'. As the afore-mentioned Report on the national security strategy of the hegemon, so clearly states, the War on Terror is providing the ground of a special reading of history particular to the neo-conservative hegemon. The present situation opened by the War on Terror is defined as an unprecedented age of peace among nations, which have renounced to wage wars for the first time in history. The War on Terror creates a situation where no more wars can be envisaged by any States of the world, which all joined in with the hegemon in combating terrorism.
The War on Terror is, in this sense, a Trotskyite revolution in reverse, a permanent counter-revolution uniting the States, the transnational corporations and the technocratic elites in their common fear of the multitudes. The War is not supposed to end in a victory, but rather to continue indefinitely, justifying the monopole of economic and military power by the global hegemon.
4.Global Fascism calling for a New Contract of Citizens & Multitudes:
We have seen already that the present combination of two sources of human insecurity, neo-liberal global economy and neo-conservative War on Terror, is a new form of colonialism. We will also argue that it is a global form of Fascism, and that it should be combated by a new anti-Fascist common front.
Just as traditional fascism of the 1920s and 1930a had established itself using the fear of a proletarian revolution and of Zionist hegemony among the middle classes, the new fascism exploits the fear of the multitude and Islamophobia propagated by the global media. We must eliminate the fear and the sense of insecurity of the citizens vis-a-vis the multitudes.
It is sad to realize that the two Fascisms are closely linked by the conflict between Israel and Palestine. The fear to be criticized of anti-semitism is forcing an important sector of the world public opinion to accept Islamophobia. The recollection of the Hollocaust by the Fascist States does not permit the public opinion to criticise state terrorism, as so well pointed out in the Report 'Human Security Now'.
The fear of a proletarian revolution has disappeared in most parts of the world, with the exception of the Philippines with its NPA, and Nepal with its militant Maoist movement. There is, however, a new target for the fear of the middle class in both the North and the South. It is the 'multitude', identified by Negri and Heart to be an emerging sector of the Empire, which can play a key role in destabilizing its global rule(ⅶ) .
The multitude is represented by the terrorists, thanks to their indiscriminate violence, that is manipulated by the War on Terror coalition of States and media. More generally, the 'illegal' migrant workers, and the transnational criminal organizations, which exploit them, are also sources of public fear. They bring into the global North, different sources of human insecurity. They bring in drugs, trafficked sex-workers supposed to bring in HIV-AIDS, and disturb the public order by their crimes.
Seen as a human security problem, the insecurity of the middle classes is just a mirror image of the insecurity of the multitude, all the peoples, in North and South, unprotected by the States engaged in the War on Terror. To overcome the mutual insecurity, and the 'security dilemma' which causes a vicious circle between the mutual threat perception of the civil societies and the multitudes, it is indispensable to build a 'common security' between both groups.
Global fascism not only denies the rights and security of the multitude, but also the rights and security of the citizens, and the multilateral system guaranteeing the rights and security of the States. A new contract must be signed between the multitude and the citizens, and should be extended to the States who do not want to stay mere 'welcome States' in the global colonial scene.
As proposed by Antonio Gramsci in the era of national fascism, we must develop an anti-fascist common front suited to the conditions of global fascism, as the Porto Alegre World Social Forum proclaiming that another world is possible, in opposition to the hegemonic alliance represented by the Davos World Economic Forum.
5. United Front of Civilizations in Search of another Multicultural World:
The anti-Fascist common front must combat the prevalent hegemony by forming a new historic bloc, with a clear civilizational project. The project must formulate an alternative civilization, based on a reflexive critique of Western modernity. It must identify the constructive trends towards transformation generated as a consequence of the Western historical process of human liberation originating in the Enlightenment. This includes universalistic demands for equality, in terms of gender, class, and cultural identity. The NGOs involved in the United Nations process from the 1992 Rio Summit to the 2001 World Conference on Racism could provide an initial group which can expand to include the large community of peoples and multitude without access to the United Nation process.
The anti-colonial common front has to base itself on mobilizing the voice of the voiceless peoples and multitudes, who have been marginalized and 'occulted' by the Western modernity, especially its terminal form of the global age. Colonialism has been a safety valve absorbing the basic contradictions existing between the universalistic values of the Enlightenment and the two ideal types of the homo economicus and homo politicus, which provided the grounds for the modern political-economic ethical base of the world order, or the lack thereof.
Homo economicus commodifies everything and everybody, and homo politicus legitimizes might as a guardian of rights. Progress was thus made possible by the legitimization of greed and thirst for power, which have been proclaimed as un-ethical by the axial religions. Secularism was a process, which enabled the States to become the regulatory agencies taming these un-ethical virtues under the universal rule of human rights.
This combination of the two secular human types with the secular ethics based on individual dignity has permitted the modern world system to develop a material civilization without comparison in the traditional world empires. This prosperity was, nevertheless, based on a colonialist exploitation of the multitude, i.e. the discriminated peoples unprotected by the States, in terms of gender, class and cultural identity(ⅷ) . This colonial situation, however, was believed to be only a transitory stage in a process of liberation, which was assumed to lead to an egalitarian world, at the end of 'progress'='development'='modernization'.
Now that the casino global economy combined with the War on Terror military hegemony come to negate such expectation, it is essential to develop a global process of dialogue, involving the transformative political economic movements representing the Western modern civil societies, in their search for equality in terms of gender, class and cultural identity, and the cultural-civilizational movements of the colonized non-Western societies.
Through this process of multi-ideological and multi-cultural dialogue, we must oppose, on one hand, the global 'rogue' hegemon attempts to nullify the achievements of the modern civilization made so elaborately during the past centuries, and on the other hand, develop a multi-cultural process where the negative aspects of the Western modern civilization, e.g. its xenophobic colonialism, excluding and exploiting the multitudes, are overcome by the contribution of the non-Western civilizations, through a global dialogue between the citizens and multitudes of different religions and cultural traditions. This dialogue should provide an occasion for the different civilizations to exchange their values and principles, and initiate a civilizational process which open a new era, the age of a new multi-cultural modernity.
6.A Few Examples of Values and Principles to be Exchanged
Dialogues of civilizations can simply aim at contributing to the mutual understanding among them. We are, however, more interested in a dialogue which purpose is to develop a common front against the global hegemony(ⅸ) . As we have seen above, the present global crisis is a consequence of the fact that the modernity which ha originated in the West during the long 16th century has reached a stage of decay when the best universal values it created are contradicted by the global hegemony, which bases itself, formally, on these Enlightenment values, but give to them a exclugionary interpretation which meets the hegemonic neo-liberal and neo-conservative disciplinary context within which they are contextualized.
We must take into account, at the present phase of neo-liberal and neo-conservative globalization the recent 'backlash' of aniti-modern tendencies originating in the United States, but tending nowadays to cover the whole world. This 'backlash' is supported by a large sector of the traditional middle class which has seen eroding the 'good old' values of patriarchal family, authoritarian communalism, and State-centered individualism denied legitimacy by the universal values of human rights, gender equality, and ecological ethics.
The social forces, which gave to George W. Bush a second term, shares a common anti-modernist 'fundamentalism'治治with those of the revivalist social forces in Islam, called in the West 'fundmentalists'. In order to promote its global fundamentalist civilizational project, the United States has chosen to use the United Nations only to the extent it meets its neo-conservative purposes, and subjugate the multilateral institutions so elaborately developed after the end of the Second World War. Under these conditions, we must build an anti-hegemonic front in view of protecting and promoting the universal values infringed by this global 'backlash'.
This 'backlash', however, cannot be combated only by reasserting the legitimacy of the universal values of the Western modern Enlightenment. This is not possible, simply because the same values are proclaimed by the neo-conservative hegemon himself, who declares that his 'War on Terrorism' is fought to establish freedom and democracy, all around the world, denying the legitimacy of the non-western civilizations, with so many of their values, already occluded and occulted by the development of a Euro-centric modernity covering now the whole world as a consequence of globalization.
This process of occultation, has been legitimized in the name of modernization. However, this modernization has been conducted by the general legitimization of commodifiction and colonialism, as we have seen before. To overcome these two basic orientations of the present neo-liberal economy and no-conservative politics, it is indispensable to reactivate and re-legitimize the many occulted values of the non-West, reinterpreting them, when their traditional contents do not fit our purpose to promote the universal values, which face the danger of being occulted in their turn by the present hegemonic backlash (ⅹ).
We attempt here a brief 'tour d'horizon' to indicate a few examples of how some specific non-Western thoughts治爾ideals and principles, can be introduced in a civilizational dialogue by the social forces engaged in a process of counter-hegemonic common front building. The selection of the examples is quite arbitrary, and are mentioned only because the author of these lines had found them useful in his dialogues with researchers and practitioners who share with him a common interest in identifying Western and non-Western concepts which can help a critical assessment of the now predominant global discourse. The concepts are proposed as an object of a critical dialogue and need to be reassessed and cleansed from the various negative implications they have received during their use in the different patriarchal, feudalistic, or colonial contexts.
The proposed process of civilizational dialogue is an indispensable prerequisit of a cross-civilizational aniti-hegemonic common front building. This front is not a simple utopia, since it is already represented in an embryonic form in the World Social Forum, where many problems of the neoliberal and neoconservative global hegemony are critically assessed by a multi-civilizational intellectual community which could express themselves in a more creative manner if they could agree to listen to each-other's civilization specific discourses.
Let us begin by a reference to Bandung, as an example of a non-Western reference was used in a World Social Forum diaplogue. The Afro-Asian Solidarity Conference of fifty years ago, was a civilizational event where the emerging non-Western nations affirmed, for the first time in the history of human kind, their common decision to bring about a new modernity beyond its Euro-centric expression, represented by the United nations(ⅹⅰ) . U-Thant reaffirmed the necessity to enrich this multilateral institution by the input from the different non-Western civilizations, when he proposed the creation of the United Nations University in 1969, immediately after the 1968 worldwide student protest movement, which he interpreted to be a generational critique of the West-dominated civilizational project of modernity(ⅹⅱ) .
Bandung, we must recall, adopted ten principles, which were based on the Panchashila (five principles of Peaceful Coexistence) adopted by Chos En-Lai and Nehru, representing China and India, two of the major non-Western civilizations of Asia. We wish to mention two of these principles, which are especially meaningful in contradicting and de-legitimizing the present global rule of neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism. These are the principles of 'equal-mutual benefit' and 'peaceful coexistence'. The former is diametrically opposed to the generalization of market competition of neo-liberalism, stressing the survival of the fittest rather than mutual benefit, in a neo-colonial situation of inequality, which ignores 'mutuality' and 'equal mutual benefit'. The latter, proposes the coexistence of different cultures and civilizations in opposition to the neo-conservative division of the world into civilized and terrorist nations.
The agreements reached between China and Undia is of key interest from an historical point of view, since it is a common agreement reached between two ancient civilizations t renounce to their traditional self-centered hierarchical civilizations China agreed to renounce t its Central Kingdom tributary state order, where barbar states were admitted to receive the protection of the Emperor, composing around Him a concentric hierarchy. India renounced to its 'Mandala' order where the Emperor was the central figure surrounded by the big and small kings, as described by Kautilia. Equal economic benefit and cultural coexistence were adopted by them and by the Bandung emerging nations, which included the ancient empires of Egypt and Ethiopia.
The world has evolved during the fifty years following the Bandung Conference. The international admission of the enlightenment values of human rights and of equal participation of the peoples I the decision of their lives, in terms of gender, ethnic origin and class and cast belonging, requires that the principles of equal mutual benefit and peaceful coexistence be applied not just among States, but between the different communities composing th world system. 'Equal mutual benefit' can, nowadays, be reinterpreted to support solidary economies. 'Peaceful coexistence' must cover the relationship between industrial centres and rural peripheries, as well as citizens and 'illegal' migrants. An expanded interpretation of Bandung qualified by the Western values of gender equality and the respect of minority rights can become a key pillar of a civilizational commonfront against the neo-liberala dn neo conservative global hegemony. This can be a major contribution of the Chinese and Indian civilization in this joint process in search of a multi-cultural modernity.
Now, let is turn to other examples of possible contribution by the different non-western civilizations, which can join in with self critical trends developed in the West, including Latin America, which constitutes a major source of counter hegemonic thoughts within the Western tradition of Enlightenment. We will follow the categorization of the different aspects of the present global crisis, global colonialism, global militarization, and global fascism, and mention some examples of possible contributions by the Islamic, Indian Chinese and Animist civilization complimenting self-critical currents in the West itself. As discussed already by Gramsci, we must build a counter-hegemonic historical bloc, which strength will come from the combination of different civilizational streams of counter-hegemonic thought. The new myth of a multi-civilizational 'Prince' has to be multi-facetted. We will only propose a few possible facets which could be brought into a process of civilizational diaplogue by the counter-hegemonic common front I its search for an alternative modernity, replacing the present Euro-centric, or rather the North-Americano-centricglobal modernity.
Let us first consider the possible combination of Western critical, and non-Western trends in combating global colonialism. On the side of the self critical West, we must associate the different emerging currents of the critical social sciences. Their reflexive critique of the contemporary global Euro-centric trends are well suited in engaging into a mutually beneficial process of reflexive dialogue about modernity, as a capitalist process of universal commodification and a globl hegemonic process of western domination. This intellectual process needs a myth which mobilizes the critical anti-colonial West, and this is where the Theology of Liberation developed in Latin America, the periphery of the West, first colonized nd hence the first anti-colonial part of theWest can serve the role of a new myth. In the dialogue with the West, we find the best interlocutor on the side of the non-West to be the critique of 'orientalism' developed in the Islamic world by Anouar Abdel-Malek and Edward Sayid(ⅹⅲ) .
This critique of Euro-centric social science cn be complemented by the development of a non-Western social thought following the path of the 'Dong Hak' or Eastern Thoght movement which promoted gender equality and the respect of minority rights in the 19 century Korea(ⅹⅳ) . An important complement to the theology of liberation can be found in the Guandhian philosophy of 'swadesh' and 'satiagraha', as a counter colonial ethical position combining an endogenous praxis of production with an anti-colonial epistemology in search of truth through liberation, not only of the colonized but of the colonizers.
The animist civilization, frequently ignored by the colonizers and forgotten by the anti-colonialist forces must be recognized their constructive message. For many indigenous peoples, both concepts of the 'State' and of 'private propperty', two components of both the positive values of enlightenment and of its negative colonial manifestations, are negated by their concept of 'mother earth' which rejects both the 'territoriality' of the States and the 'private ownership' of land.
As to militarization, we must first point out the rich critical tradition of militarism which has been developed in the West itself. Pacifism has been gradually accepted as a minority position in spite of its fundamental contradiction with the Western logic of the security State, and conscientious objection is nowadays accepted as an individual position which right to refuse participation in military violence has to be recognized.
The concept of 'people's security' developed in the 1980 in Latin America, in stressing the need of the people to defend its security against the military dictatorships, is a powerful logic opposing the principles of the 'security State' and of 'state security' which constitute the base of the Westphalian State system.
On the non-Western side, the concept of the 'right to live in peace' has been complemented by 'human security' broadening 'people's security'. Although it is impossible to enterinto a detailed explanation of this pair of concept, we can find in the Confucian concepts of Zong and He ('wa' in Japanese), an epistemological and ethical base, where the universal principle of human rights to peace through acceptance of common norms are complemented by situation-specific search for elimination of oppositions accepting differences(ⅹⅴ) .
A search for a solution to militarized conflicts not through State agreements, as forseen in this system, but by the 'metanoia' of the conflicting parties has ben initiated in SouthAfrica and then applied in Central America and elsewhere is the institution of 'truth and reconciliation'. This search for a non-violent solution accepting the recognition of refusal to compromise has an ethical and theological counterpart in the Islamic theology which stresses the complementarty of the attributes of God, who is both an almighty enforcer of justice and an absolute protector all merciful and compassionate. This dual aspect of God is ignored by the Western image of an Islam, which wants to conquer the world through military might.
Militaryzation controlling and exploiting both the human societies and the natural environment surrounding them is fundamentally negated by the indigenous values of symbiosis, finding in all aspects of human and natural realities the presence of forces caring for each other and composinga symbiotic universe.
In face of global fascism, we can best learn from Gramsci how best to fight against this enemy of humankind. It is, however, important to identify the historical carriers of the anti-fascist fight. The analysis of the process of dynastic change in the Islamic world by Ibn-Khaldun can provide a useful hint to identify such agents as holders of ''asabyia', a strong sense of identity and dedication to the security of one's own community which characterizes the dwellers of the desert in their deprivation of wealth and sophisticated stratification, which gives them a power which cannot be opposed by the city dwellers in their comfort and divisions(ⅹⅵ) . These characteristics of the Bedouin peoples are not find any comparable agents in the global society of today. We may, nevertheless, try to develop an understanding of how the 'multitude' can become the key agents in an anti-fascist common front, learniong from the analysis of Ibn-Khaldun.
Such emphasis on the role of the 'multitude' can find an ethical legitimization through the Ghandian concept of 'antiodaya', the rise of the most discriminated. According to this concept originating in the Jain tradition, what is good for the weakest child walking on the earth is good for humankind. To give in this way priority to the most vulnerable, is an ethical principle diametrically opposed to the fascist belief in the priority of the strong heroes and successful actors in life(ⅹⅶ) .
The anti-fascist fight must not only identify its key agents but also develop a strategic perspective identifying the dynamic relationships between friends and enemies. This is where the Maoist theory of contradictions distinguishing major and minor contradictions can be introduced to enrich the Gramscian analysis of hegemony and countr-hegemony. The Maoist theory is but an adaptation of the Yin-Yang epistemology of the traditional Chinese philosophy, which should be taken into consideration as a whole, and not only in its Maoist version (ⅹⅷ).
The historical bloc formation, however, cannot be grasped only through an abstract yin-yang analysis. The rich mythical discourse of animist cosmogony may best be adapted to the contemporary crisis in terms of determining the new discourse required in proposing a new anti-colonial and anti-Fascist myth shared by the civilizational common front against global fascism(ⅹⅸ) . Such myth could borrow from the wisdom of the indigenous peoples a trans-cognitive 'spiritual' logic which embodies the totality of human experiences in the eco-cultural universe, summarizing them through a spiritual discourse , which does not distinguish corporality from the spiritual, encompassing the subjective aspects (cognitive and affective), and the objective reality (physical and ecological) of the world peoples live in. The contemporary rule of power, greed and 'commodification', as well as the human insecurities it generates can be overcome only through the introduction of an alternative discourse, which has been shared by different indigenous animist civilizations.
The above examples are not at all representative, and have been selected, more or less, arbitrarily by the author of this paper. They are meant only to give some hints as to the possibilities hidden in a civilizational dialogue, in face of the present global crisis, and in preparation of a new multi-cultural modernity.
(ⅰ).Cf. Kinhide Mushakoji, Ningen-Anzennhoshou-Ron Josetsu:
Global Faschism ni Koushite (Introdustion to Human Security: In Face of Global Fascism)
Tokyo, 2004, pp. 23-25.
(ⅲ).Ibid. pp. 213-220.
(ⅳ).On 'human sefcurity', cf. Commission on Human Security, Human Security Now, United Nations, New York, 2003.
(ⅴ).Kinhide Mushakoji,(2204) op. cit., pp. 216-227.
(ⅵ).Kinhide Mushakoji,(2004) op. cit., pp 146-157.
(ⅶ).On 'multituse' cf. Paolo Virno, Grammaire de la multitude pour une analyse des formesde vie contemporaine. Paris, 2002.
(ⅷ).Kinhide Mushakoji, Global Issues and Interparadigmatic Dialogue: Essays on Multipolar Politics, Torino, 1988, pp.65-83.
(ⅸ).About the epistemological structure of dialogue among cultures and paradigms, cf.Kinhide Mushakoji, Global Issues and Interparadigmatic Dialogue: Essays on Multipolar Politics, Albert Meyer, Torino, 1988.
(ⅹ).On 'occultation' or 'occlusion', cf: Kinhide Mushakoji, 'Multilateralism in a Multi-Cultural World: Notes for a Theory of Occultation' Robert Cox ed., The New Realism: Perspectives on Multilateralism and World Order, MacMillan, 1996
(ⅹⅰ).On Bandung and its contemporary significance, cf. Kinhide Mushakoji, ''Bandung Plusse 50: appel a un dialogue tricontinental face a l'hegemonie mondiale', Alternatives Sud, vol. VIII (2001) 2, pp.141-156
(ⅹⅱ).Kinhide Mushakoji (1988), Chapter 7, pp. 147-177.
(ⅹⅲ).The critique of 'orientalism' has been first developed by Anouar Abdel-Malek.Cf. Anouar Abdel-Malek, La dialectique sociale, Edition du Seuil, 1972. pp. 79-113.
(ⅹⅳ).Oh Byung-Sun, 'Cultural Values and Human Rights: the Korean Perspective', Jefferson R. Plantilia, Sebasti L. Raj, SJ. Eds, Human Rights in Asian Cultures: Continuity and Change, Hurights Osaka, 1997, pp. 230-231.
(ⅹⅴ).On the application of the concept 'wa' in Japan, its distortion caused by the need to build a strongly unified nation in opposing western colonial pressures, and its original content of multi-culturalism, cf.Kinhide Mushakoji (2004) op cit. pp.245-257, and Kinhide Mushakoji ed., Nihon no Katachi (The Shape of Japan), Fujiwara Shoten, 2002.,
(ⅹⅵ).On ''asabyia' cf. Ibn Khaldun, the Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History (Translated from the Arabic by Franz Rosenthal, ed. & abridged by N.J. Dawood) Princeton, 1970. pp. 123-142. See also a study on the contemporary meaning of this concept, cf. Robert W. Cox with Timothy J. Sinclair, Approached to World Order, Cambridge, 1996. pp.144-173.
(ⅹⅶ).On a broader understanding of the vision of Gandhi, it is useful to consult Rajni Kpthari.
Cf. Rajni Kothari, Transformation and Survival: In search of humane World Order, Ajnata Publication, 1988. pp.56-58.
(ⅹⅷ).IT is useful to go back to the sources of the Chinese notion of Yin and Yang, which is the 'Book of Change' Cf. Cary F. Baynes, Translator, The I Ching: or Book of Changes, (The Richard Wilhelm translation from Chinese into German) Princeton,1977.
(ⅹⅸ).The animistic cosmogonies are narratives which put in amythical=historical contexts without detaching the individuals from the world, visible and invisible. The individual partakes in the flux of life of a multi-actors' world where the self identiofies himself or herself with all of them in a process. This enables the projection in the future of a 'utopia' shared by different identity communities, in a quite different way to the Western modern individualistic cognitive universe based on the opposition between the 'self' and the 'pthers'. Cf. Kinhide Mushakoji (1988) op cit. Chapter 6 'The Role of the Individual in Cosmologies* Equality and Zsolidarity.' pp. 89-95.