Globalisation: A Threat to Cultural Diversity?

(Extract from a conference by Salvatore Puledda)

.....................................

In some parts of the world, the imposition of this single model has in turn begun to produce reactions that are expressed violently and irrationally. And there is no reason to believe that such outbreaks will diminish; on the contrary, they will only grow in size and frequency as the pressure to conform increases. And they will appear here in the U.S. as well, as the recent disorders in Seattle against the World Trade Organization demonstrate.

The other problem we face is that when cultures are forced to defend themselves, too often they end up defending everything—even their secondary or negative aspects. As a result, a «cultural fundamentalism» forms, in which everything external to a culture is rejected, in which only one’s own way of life and one’s own religion have any place at all.

Here I want to clarify that we do not see this process of globalization as something that is only negative. Indeed, we are grateful that this process has brought us to the point where all countries, all cultures of the world are coming together for the first time. This process has allowed a level of interaction among people that a generation or two ago would not have been thought possible. It has generated greater opportunities for exchanging ideas, beliefs, and cultural models. And it has demonstrated that the differences between people are insignificant when compared to the experiences and aspirations that they all have in common.

I will now try to clarify what this elusive concept of «identity» means. Normally it is believed that a personal or cultural identity relates only to the past, that it is a reflection of the historical accumulation of experiences through which a person or a community of people has lived. It is as if layers of experiences are accumulated and deposited, and that this is what forms identity.

This belief derives from a larger belief in the passivity of the human consciousness, in which the consciousness is conceived as a sort of mirror that simply reflects the world. In reality, things do not work this way. If we examine ourselves, we will see that in the important moments of our lives we make a correspondence, a connection between our past experiences and the idea of our personal project for the future. This image of the future—who we want to be—is always influencing our actions in the present. This image that we form of the future is as important as our past in creating our personal identities. We are not only what we have done or what has been done to us; we are also our future projects, our desires, our aspirations.

The same dynamic holds true for an entire people, and in this case we speak of cultural identity. Cultural identity is not only the accumulation of ideas, customs, languages, and ways of eating and dressing that have come down to us from the previous generations; it is also what a culture chooses to do with these things at a given moment of its history. It is the future project that a culture gives itself.

This is particularly true for older cultures. How, for example, does India, with thousands of years of history, define her culture? What heritage will she draw upon? Will she refer to the Vedas, to the Vedanta, to Buddhism, to Gandhi, or to the atomic bomb? In each moment of its history a culture is obliged to take from its past those memories that are most useful to carry on its project. In short, cultural identity is a project that people create for the future, extracting particular elements from their past. It is not something passive or static like the contents of a bag, but rather something we continuously recreate in facing the challenges that the current moment presents. There are always choices being made. There is always a selection. And there is always liberty.

We also recognize that in the lives of individuals, and countries as well, there are both positive and negative experiences, which form part of their cultural heritage. A person or an entire people can decide upon a project that eliminates or neutralizes the negative experiences, and reinforces the positive ones. Do we Italians, taking my nationality as an example, want to bring forward into the new millennium the tragic experience of the Mafia, or do we instead make a conscious choice to change this negative social behavior? Being able to make this choice allows us to distinguish between a mechanical identity, created by automatically reproducing elements from our culture without thought or reflection, and an intentional identity, formed by choosing those aspects which are deemed to be of the highest value for our future.

This process of globalization is quickly accelerating, and soon we will find ourselves standing side by side, culture to culture, looking ahead for the first time toward a common future. This future does not belong to any one culture, but instead must be a shared project that allows the inclusion of all. At this moment the question will arise: What shall we bring forward with us together into the third millennium? Each culture is called upon to reflect, to make an examination of its past, and to identify which of its qualities, experiences, and traditions are most valuable for itself and for the others on this planet.

Having defined and clarified our position on globalization and cultural identity, I would now like to finish by speaking briefly about the proposals and activities of the Humanist Movement in relation to these themes.

In contrast to the destructive process of globalization that is being led by the banks and multinationals, the Humanist Movement for 30 years has committed itself to working toward the creation of a Universal Human Nation, one in which the differences between cultures are considered something of value and not something to be marginalized or eliminated. The Universal Human Nation will be an expression of the first planetary civilization the human being has seen, and it is something that will arise from within the hearts of humanity, not from its leaders. To this civilization, each culture will bring some of its own experiences, forming part of a larger, inclusive project. I want to stress, however, that we do not aspire to something homogeneous—like McDonalds and yuppies everywhere. The development of a common project does not require that people relinquish the particularities of their cultures. Instead, this common project sees those particularities, that diversity, as strengths and resources to be drawn upon, as a successful project among individuals that incorporates the talents and points of view of all its members.

At the base of the work of every Humanist Center of Cultures is this question: What contribution will each culture bring to the common project of the Universal Human Nation? Will they bring the frustration, the discrimination, the wars and violence that characterize some moments of their past? Or will they look for what we call the humanist moments of their culture, those periods of their history in which the human being was considered the most important value, in which peace and cooperation among diverse groups was considered fundamental, in which violence was rejected as the worst enemy of humanity, in which all religious beliefs, including atheism, were respected, in which science and new ideas were developed so that pain and suffering in the human being might be overcome? All the great cultures of the Earth have passed through humanist moments in their histories, and more than ever they must now appeal to these moments in this special and critical moment of human civilization in which we now find ourselves.

.............................................

1- Write down what elements of your culture contribute the most to a non-violent future and what elements promote violence

2- Discussion about cultural relativity, culture as a past or future concept and the justification of violence on cultural basis.