World Affairs

Vol. 7, Number 1 (January-March 2003)

Philosophy And The Question Of Cultural Diversity In The New Millennia
Anindita N Balslev

 

The question of cultural diversity is one of the pressing issues of our times. The advancement of technology, as we all know, has helped in an unprecedented manner the curtailment of geographical distances. However, a lot remains before us to accomplish before we can hope to bridge cultural distances in an adequate manner.

During this brief span of time I would like to make a few observations. Our responses to cultural diversity which itself is an umbrella concept, are sometimes seen to be associated with or a reaction to the self-understanding of various religious traditions that prevail in different parts of the globe. Some perceive this diversity essentially as a source of strife and dissension whereas others insist on holding this as a valuable resource for mutual enrichment, and still others even envision the rise of a global community that does not call for mono-culturalism.

While keeping in mind the possibility of an emergence of a multicultural global community in view, let me quickly paint with a broad brush how philosophical attitudes support or thwart the assessment of cultural diversity as a source of empowerment for all concerned in the multiple layers of human transactions. Indeed, there was a time when stories about distant cultures were part of our much-treasured travellers’ tales. It generated no philosophical worry. However, as increasing facilities in communications rendered these to be not so distant any more, many questions arose. Some thought in the face of this diversity that it was natural to cherish a grand vision where all conceivable heterogeneity known in humanity’s past history was to be gradually consummated. Everything would, so to speak, fall into place in that harmonious vision of one world. However, in course of time that ideology was unmasked as a form of cultural imperialism, virtually ensuring the propagation of a dominant paradigm, dominance often associated with the so-called success of a political economy. In the philosophical reflections there was heard the cry for legitimising diversity once more. Drawing insights from anthropological and sociological narratives these theories assumed various forms. Philosophical contours of what is called cultural relativism, both in its moderate and extreme forms, gradually reached not only the new elected centres of cultural studies but went so far as to reach the centres of strategic studies. Some of the scenarios drawn by the concerned thinkers even began to assume the form of prophecies of an eventual clash of civilisations to which J C Kapur was pointing. One such analysis that has recently drawn much attention as well as criticism sounds thus: "The great divisions among human kind and the dominant source of conflict will be cultural". That is what it said. "Nation-states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilisations. The clash of civilisations will dominate global politics. The faultlines between civilisations will be the battlelines of the future."

But must it be so, although it sounds like a prophecy? It is no more than a reading. The question that arises is whether such a reading is at all acceptable. It has been said that wars begin in the minds of men, and it is known that philosophical minds always search for alternatives. This search for a new paradigm on which lies the focus of this discussion is, as I see it, essentially a philosophical search, prompted by the need for a fresh appraisal of the contemporary global scenario which is multicultural in character. The lesson that we have learnt in today’s world, it seems to me, is a complex one which can no longer be expressed in simple elegant extremism of one sort or another. We can for example, no longer hold high a banner glorifying the sense for an abstract or homogenised vision of unity. Nor can we go to the other extreme of highlighting the difference to the extent that it weaves a story of utter incommensurability, which says that no communication is at all possible between the different conceptual worlds.

By now it is clear that no culture lives in pristine isolation. Nor can anyone simply dictate any formula that will magically resolve all the problems.

What we need today is, as I have been insisting for some time, creation of forums for engaging in what I would like to designate as cross-cultural conversations on issues that are of cross-cultural importance. I say that we need this, because it does not seem to me that it is possible for us to conceive of a trans-cultural interpretative strategy for analysing the imminent structures of cultures. What is needed is a multilayered narrative, as it were, in order to confront the subtleties and complexities of the cross-cultural encounter situation. We do not need a series of monologues any more about the ‘otherness’ of other or constructed dialogues where the ‘other’ is not even present and is not even needed. Open conversation alone will eventually enable us to unmask the cultural baggage that interpreters carry while weaving cultural theories and promote the need for deeper philosophical understanding of the relation between knowledge and power. Some scholars are of the opinion that it is not quite feasible to achieve a fusion of horizons in the cross-cultural contexts, where force, power and violence are incessantly creating different sorts of asymmetries. They express that certain social and political conditions are required if we have to engage in a harmonised understanding of cultures. While acknowledging that the desired socio-political conditions are immensely helpful for such an undertaking, my belief is that instead of taking these conditions as prerequisites and waiting for such ideal situations to come about, we, that is those of us from both the hemispheres who are acutely sensing this intellectual vacuum, begin to break the silence and engage in cross-cultural conversations.

As I have said earlier, cultural diversity is an umbrella concept. There is a wide range of issues that needs to be addressed one by one. However, let me observe that one of the crucial issues that deserve attention from all of us is that of religious pluralism. In all major cultural forms, even underlying their secularised version, religion continues to play a decisive role. Today while one speaks of living in a global village, to willfully ignore the question of religious pluralism is not to our advantage. This concern, unless it is addressed in a proper manner, gets camouflaged in political policy-making, in the domain of dissipation of knowledge or in matters of socio-economic considerations. Although there exists this historical, anthropological, and socio-political treatment of the question of the presence of diversity of religions, a deeper, philosophical understanding is generally lacking. It is in this area I believe that the Indian tradition has some significant insight to contribute.

From the Rig Veda to Ramakrishna there has been an unbroken tradition that has vibrated with such messages, as Ekam sath, vipra bahutivadanthi — ‘the real is one, the sages call it by different names’, and jathomath, thathopath — ‘as many views, so many paths’. In the face of religious plurality a fostering of these attitudes can help seek a state of affairs in which harmony can prevail without suppressing variations and deviations. The predominant philosophy that has permeated the Indian cultural thought is advaitic in character. The challenge before us today seems to be how must a multicultural society deal with the question of religious pluralism. Theoretically the tasks that need to be fulfilled is to help ensue a creative discourse which is not just a repetition of stereotypes and cliches that have so far vitiated and jeopardised communication. The practical concern that lies before us is to innovate ways and means so that we may answer the burning question, namely, how diversity in the context of religious pluralism can be brought to fruition for the benefit of all. When we more concretely face the social bearing of the presence of world religions, these seem to me to be fundamentally important sources from which people draw both a sense of ‘self-hood’ as well as a sense of ‘otherness’, a sense of ‘us’ and ‘they’. This sense is so charged that these become powerful determinants of collective behviour. In this way world religions come to play a major role both in the formation and in the continuation of group identities. Consequently, as it is evidenced every day, these not only unite but also divide. It is a mixed blessing. Even Swami Vivekananda, who said that no other force that is at work is more potent to mould the destiny of the human race than the manifestation of which we call religion, was also aware, as he said, ‘nothing makes us so cruel as religion, nothing makes us so tender as religion’.

When one urges for the cultivation of the advaitic attitude the question may arise whether these can really have any genuine bearing on the practical, pragmatic concerns and agonies of our day-to-day collective life. Such sceptics ought to take a look at the amazing figure of Vivekananda tirelessly making an effort to implement what he called ‘practical Vedanta’. His profound understanding of Vedanta is well-reflected in his vision that the highest and the noblest aspect of life in this world should not remain confined within certain privileged groups but must reach out to the masses hitherto neglected, and especially to women, and make them conscious of their own rights in this respect. The Vedantic idea of non-duality was for him not merely a jargon but an inspiration to bring about a social revolution. To this the gross differences and inequalities that existed among the privileged and the depressed classes, and among women, appeared as state of affairs where Vedantic teaching is missing in practice. A society in which Vedanta prevails, creates conditions that are conducive to material and spiritual welfare of all, and this calls for an awakening from which no one is to be deprived on the ground of gender, class, race etcetra. To put it into his words "Vedanta declares that one and the same conscious self is present in all beings".

I think that Vivekananda is a living proof that Vedanta is not just an armchair philosophy but its impact can be felt on everyday sphere of life when put to practice. Today when the women’s movements are struggling to break the silence concerning age-old suppressions and pains, I am really moved as a woman to find that Swamiji, who passed away in 1902, was already urging for a programme for the emancipation of women, declaring that the best thermometer to the progress of a nation is its treatment of its women. The thinking traditions, no matter where they are from, which have such potential strength to persuade us to act differently from what we see happening around us, these are to be treated as our common resource of knowledge. If this learning process is purposely and continuously thwarted by forces that are geared to decide which network of ideas can be allowed to coexist with the present power structures of the political economy, we may regret having remained passive and not tapping the sources that are available to us for our own benefits. In the midst of the present chaotic situation, it is indeed reassuring to listen to the voice of Aurobindo when he says, "whether soon or in the long run, whether brought about by its own growing sentiment of unity, stimulated by common interests and convenience, or by the evolutionary pressure of circumstances, we may take it that an eventual unification or at least some formal organisation of human life on earth is practically inevitable". You will be surprised to read that he goes so far as to say that "this is a psychological force which tends to break beyond the formula of the nation and as far as to replace the religion of a country and even in its more extent form to destroy altogether the national sentiment and to abolish its divisions so as to create a single nation of mankind".

If such a situation ever arrives, we can rightfully claim that we have transcended the existing paradigm which is vitiated by the polarities of the oppressors and the oppressed, the exploiters and the exploited, the winners and the losers, within our national and international contexts.