Chinese philosopher mulls over the road to future
- By Wu Jin
0 Comment(s)
Print
E-mail China.org.cn, November 12, 2012
Seventeen years after the publication of Bill Gate's inspiring "The Road Ahead", Chinese philosopher Zhao Tingyang sketched out his vision of the world's future, in political, cultural and humanitarian perspectives.
Arguing euphemistically against Samuel Huntington's "The Clash of Civilizations" in which religious and cultural differences inevitably spark conflict, Zhao believes that idealistic equilibrium and harmony can be approached as long as a unified global system is established in a bid to guarantee the integrity of human nature.
"[Germany philosopher] Immanuel Kant once proposed a theory of cosmopolitanism to unifying institutions, including those of the political and cultural, among different countries [in order to reach the similar goal]", Zhao said last week at a symposium held by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
"The European Union was fundamentally based on such a theory."
"But the theory has its limitation today as globalization has become an irreversible process that involves different regions, such as Arabic countries in the Middle East, which hold different values from the [Western world's universalism]."
Presenting himself as a gentle adversary to universalism, Zhao gave high praise to the wave of humanitarian liberation, in which freedom is regarded as a sacred right.
"But the virtues of the human world should also include justice, fairness, compassion and a sense of responsibility and harmony," Zhao said. However, he continued by saying that these ideas can rarely be fulfilled by democracy alone, but composes another important part of universalism.
In Zhao's interview with the United Nations University last year, he pointed out that democracy, which is allegedly defined as "equality for all and privileges for none," is actually not without its shortcomings.
The public is easily manipulated in strategic elections, he said, and used the following example to support his claim.
When there are two proposals, one is to benefit the overall public and each person should receive "N" from the plan, while the other is to increase the gains of 51 percent of people from "N" to "N+1" and decrease the interests of those 49 percent from "N" to "N-1". Therefore proposal B instead of A is very likely to pass.
But methodologically, according to Zhao, there remains a solution to give people the right to support or veto a proposal. The majority side with the most votes will always win.
In his mind, winning the hearts and minds of the public (the so-called 'Minxin' (民心) in Chinese) is more important than a democratic process, which reflects the rules (or 'Dao' according to Taoism) of the world.
"The real ‘Minxin' is a common concept that results from rational analysis and is beneficial to the universal interests of all human beings," he wrote in his recent philosophical publication titled "The Tianxia System—An Introduction to the Philosophy of World Institutions." And for many ancient Chinese philosophers, despite its technological limitations, the phrase "Tianxia" refers to the world that is shared by all people, not just one race or ethnicity.
Zhao's hypothesis of "Tianxia" has made a big splash in philosophical fields. British magazine The Economist commented on his theory last year by saying, "Mr Zhao, a courteous, gentle and rather otherworldly scholar, is no tub-thumping Chinese nationalist…He is not advocating a world order led by China, but a system of equality. Nor is there to be compulsion."
But suspicions also cloud some Western scholars' appreciation of Zhao. William A. Callahan, Professor of International Politics and China Studies at the University of Manchester, questioned Zhao's criticism on Western universalism spreading at the cost of diversified values and concepts from other regions and cultures. He also called into question Zhao's neutrality, and believes him to be attempting to universalize China's values.
Yet a number of philosophers assure the academic world that such criticisms hold no value. Sundeep Waslekar, an Indian expert on conflict resolution and future state-to-state relations, and president of Strategic Foresight Group, disapproves of some scholars' criticisms on Zhao's theory. Waslekar said that accusations were rather unfair because they assume that Zhao's work is influenced by the Chinese government.
Waslekar argued that Zhao is only trying to shift loyalties from a national level to a humanity level.
"Since antiquity, diligence, wisdom, bravery, magnanimity and the courage to fight for justice have always be regarded as the noblest of human merits," Zhao wrote in his book "Tianxia".
"The real elite are defined by these merits, rather than by social status, position and wealth," he said.
Born in Guangdong Province, the cradle of China's economy, Zhao said he chose to study philosophy because of the enormous joy that he experiences when embracing the great minds and spirits of the past.
Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)