UNU Workshop on The Contribution of Science to the Dialogue of Civilizations March 2001 Supported by The Japan Foundation

Transcription

1 United Nations University UNU Workshop on The Contribution of Science to the Dialogue of Civilizations March 2001 Supported by The Japan Foundation OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Promoting Dialogue Among Civilizations Multiple modernities, multiple civilizations One of the greatest challenges for science 1 is to move beyond globalization theory, or clash of civilizations theory, in order to better explain and understand our modern world. This requires a more in depth understanding of the multiple modernities that shape the world and which are comprised of more than simply the oft-quoted distinction between East and West. Multiple paths for dialogue A dialogue is needed to not only bridge the gaps that exist between societies and cultures but also the gaps that exist within them. There are a growing number of divisive tensions that are relevant to a rapidly globalizing world community. These tensions are often independent of the traditional distinctions between religions, cultures, or civilizations. They exist, for example, among different groups within nation states such as between genders and age groups. It is also the case that gaps exist at the trans-national level between groups with different, and often very passionate, viewpoints on specific issues. At both the national and international levels there is also a widening split between the multiple traditions of science and between the 1 The term science is understood here to include the physical and social sciences as well as the disciplines involved in their application within society as, for example, technology and engineering. 1

2 professional and lay communities. Furthermore, the long present divide between the developing and developed worlds only seems to becoming wider. To bridge these gaps requires a concerted effort to open up a multitude of widely inclusionary dialogues and interchanges. Science as an arena for dialogue Science, and the physical sciences in particular, presents many opportunities for generating and sustaining dialogue and exchange. This is partly because there is already a shared body of knowledge within the scientific arena and often a common understanding at the technical level. Throughout history, the scientific community has often been at the centre of dialogue. Part of the reason for this may be the fact that genuine, two-way dialogue often creates new knowledge. In this sense, the desire for scientific discovery can, and has, served as a powerful motivation for promoting and conducting dialogue. The ethical challenge to science An additional challenge for both the social and physical sciences as we enter into the Twenty First Century is to ensure that scientific discoveries are used to the benefit of all humanity and not simply the most powerful or influential. An important role for science in the immediate future is to help reduce global disparities and address shared global problems. For this to occur in a manner that is equitable and respectful of different ethical frameworks and value systems, genuine and inclusive dialogue is crucial. The relationship between science and ethics becomes stronger when science plays a major role in addressing global problems because the use of science in this manner crosses over many cultural, religious and societal boundaries. Appreciating diversity Throughout history the scientific community has often provided a forum for dialogue and the exchange of information based on shared goals and interests. This dialogue has been facilitated greatly by the shared recognition of common core concepts within the physical sciences. It is most likely the case, however, that the sharing of basic concepts does not exist to the same extent within modern science. Modern scientific discoveries and developments are highly complex and what is now considered to be common in one society may still be considered to be alien in another. Vast differences exist in 2

3 terms of attitudes to, and usage of, science in the modern world. Exacerbating the implications of these disparities is the fact that constructive dialogues within modern science are often complicated by differences in belief structures and value systems. A very deliberate effort must be made to ensure that the diversity values and beliefs are not left out of the debates regarding the use of science to address specific global problems. 2. History of Civilizational Dialogue One-directional flows of knowledge While history is replete with examples of dialogue, both deliberate and accidental, much of this has been predominantly one-sided. The exchange of scientific knowledge and discovery has been characterized greatly by power imbalances and the effects of political processes in general. What were largely one-directional exchanges of scientific knowledge and expertise have throughout history occurred within the process of colonization, religious conversion, trade, and military conquest. Spectacular examples of one-directional knowledge flows can be found in the great centers of learning such as, among others, Alexandria, Baghdad, and Toledo that were established by dominant or strong powers, often at their peak. Examples of asymmetrical dialogues may still be found in many forms. Dominant powers still tend to collect knowledge and attract expertise, as exemplified by the ongoing brain drain from East to West and from the developing world to the developed world. Ignorance towards traditional and indigenous knowledge Furthermore, dominant actors continue in their tendency to adopt or destroy indigenous or traditional knowledge without recognizing its value or its contribution to the development of society. This tendency has been brought to the fore of debate recently within continuing discussions in regard to indigenous knowledge and intellectual property rights. Another imbalance that is evident today is the tendency to use the West as the standard for technical knowledge in some fields such as medicine. Doing so represents a failure to recognize the, often substantial, contributions that have been made to various scientific fields throughout history by other cultures and societies. 3

4 The significance of curiosity and the role of the individual An examination of human history, however, also shows us that individuals have a substantial role to play within the process of dialogue and exchange. One of the reasons for this is that it is often individual curiosity that provides the motivation for genuine dialogue. Thus, mutual exchanges of ideas and expertise have often taken place at the grass roots level of society, between the citizenry and among academics, even when such a dialogue has been discouraged or denied at the political or elite level. Apart from the increased impact of individual exchanges, the role of the state in the transfer of knowledge is recently being challenged by the role of transnational companies and trans-regional bodies as well. The long-term perspective Our collective past has shown us that dialogue is an historic process that sometimes only becomes apparent over the long-term. 3. Multicultural Society and Cultural Transformation Better solutions through multiple approaches The present experience of increasingly multicultural settings in the process of knowledge production and with the global movement of information shows that dialogue is an effective way to not only pool knowledge, but combine the best parts of distinctive knowledge bases in order to create new knowledge. It may be the case, in fact, that this process of combining insights from different methodologies and approaches represents the most effective way to identify better solutions to shared global challenges. In this context it is important that diversity be viewed as a positive. The goal of a global dialogue is not to assimilate or reduce differences but, rather, to gain a deeper understanding of and appreciation for diversity. 4

5 Engaging the young Furthermore, it is crucial that the younger generation of scientists and scholars be encouraged to interact with, and engage, counterparts from other cultures and societies. Establishing and promoting links among the younger generation now will help strengthen mutual understanding and deepen the opportunities for dialogue in the future. The challenge of finding a common language In terms of promoting diversity and dialogue, the scientific realm offers a number of opportunities as well as challenges. The opportunities for dialogue are greatly enhanced by the existence of a common language. In the natural, or exact, sciences dialogue is facilitated by the general acceptance of English as the working language. This is not necessarily the case in the social sciences, however, and the lack of a shared understanding in this field can and has represented a challenge for those who wish to promote genuine dialogue. The challenge of bridging the technology gap The opportunities for dialogue have been enhanced by recent developments in information technology that allow multiple dialogues and greater diversity. Yet these opportunities are not evenly enjoyed and the digital divide presents a substantial challenge to the promotion of a truly global dialogue. If the digital divide is not scaled, or at least diminished, soon, then information technology may serve to further separate peoples rather than bring them closer together. 4. Perspectives from Asia There are many examples of academic and intellectual exchange within Asia 2, and between this region and others. These prove the validity of the claim that in the scientific realm, mutual exchange and dialogue is crucial. The exposure to new ideas 2 It is important to note that the Asian region is not homogenous in terms of culture, religion, value structures, or language. The term Asia is used here as a geographical distinction only and is not meant to signal any assumptions regarding the nature of the peoples that inhabit the region. 5

6 and concepts is extremely beneficial to researchers because it forces them to continually question and reassess their own assumptions. It is through this process that new knowledge is created. Understanding one s own cultural background Dialogue also helps people to learn more about themselves. This is particularly relevant within the context of scientific exchange because the role of science in society is shaped greatly by cultural values. These values are, in turn, influenced by religious beliefs and deeply rooted ethical assumptions. A dialogue that initially appears to be relevant only within the context of a scientific interchange, then, may often turn out to have much broader societal and cultural implications. Creating more opportunities for dialogue It is important that the level of meaningful dialogue be encouraged and increased, particularly among the younger generation. Universities in Asia are already playing a significant role in promoting and facilitating dialogue within the region among the academic community and the younger generation of students. In order to strengthen dialogue, however, new institutions are required that would be able to facilitate interaction between a wider range of actors and in relation to a broader range of issues. There is a need to diversify patterns of interaction and dialogue within the region itself and between this region and others. A significant proportion of the recent expansion of dialogue within the region has stemmed from a process of defensive modernization. This process has, primarily, been driven by economic factors. The creation of new institutions may help to expand and deepen dialogue by breaking entrenched patterns of interaction and incorporating more actors. Once these institutions have been created, it is likely that a meaningful dialogue will develop and expand based on its own momentum and at its own pace. 6

7 5. Universality vs. Particularity? Science reflects particularity within universality While science is universal in that it has existed in all cultures throughout history, it is particular in terms of how it has actually been practiced by different societies and communities. Both values and ethics have a tremendous impact on how science is conducted and used within a society. For example, the acceptance and use of scientific discovery will be influenced strongly not only by societal attitudes to risk and uncertainty but also by general attitudes to change. This is even more so the case if this change is dramatic or rapid. Given that scientific advance is now crucial to our collective efforts to resolve global problems, the differences between particular value and ethic structures have become much more relevant. Sharing goals It is important to note that the objective of dialogue is not to eliminate differences, so much as to appreciate and accommodate them. The very process of dialoguing helps to bring any underlying commonalities to the surface while at the same time deepening an understanding of diversity. The process of dialoguing also helps to establish new points of commonality based on a collective commitment to the resolution of common challenges. This is a particularly salient point given that sometimes it is the shared recognition of the need to address a common problem that motivates dialogue and exchange rather than a shared assessment of the nature of the problem itself. Being inclusive If it is understanding and a genuine respect for diverse views that is the goal of dialogue then it is crucial that this interchange be as inclusive as possible. A full understanding and appreciation of diversity cannot be established unless the full range of viewpoints is expressed and explored within an open dialogue process. 7

8 Participants: Arun BALASUBRAMANIAM, National University of Singapore Shona DODDS, United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies, Tokyo Iwao KOBORI, United Nations University, Tokyo Yoichiro MURAKAMI, International Christian University, Tokyo Hideto NAKAJIMA, Tokyo Institute of Technology Hisae NAKANISHI, Nagoya University Christiana N. OMOIFO, University of Benin/Hiroshima University Birgit PONIATOWSKI, United Nations University, Tokyo Akihito SUZUKI, Keio University, Tokyo Togo TSUKAHARA, University of Kobe Bjorn WITTROCK, Swedish Collegium for Advanced Studies of Social Sciences, Uppsala Michio YANO, Kyoto Sangyo University 8