CHAPTER XXIII

 GLOBALIZATION, PHILOSOPHY

AND THE MODEL OF ECUMENISM

WILLIAM SWEET

            It is difficult to read a newspaper or a magazine, or listen to the radio or television, without coming across some mention of the phenomenon of globalization. What is meant by globalization, however, is not always clear; what is clear is that it is something which presents a number of challenges to existing institutions (and to those affected by these institutions), and to which one must respond. In this paper, then, I want briefly to explore what globalization is, to identify what some of these challenges are, and to suggest how philosophical reflection provides some insights and a means by which one might appropriately respond to such challenges.

GLOBALIZATION

            What is globalization? While the term `globalization' is relatively new -- the word `globalize' was coined only in 1944 -- the phenomenon of globalization itself is not. To `globalize' -- meaning "to make global; especially to make worldwide in scope or application"¹ -- entails action and interaction, across borders and across continents, and the spread of cultural, economic, and political ideas (particularly by way of trade, industry, technology, the arts, letters, music and religion) throughout the world. Thus, perhaps the earliest, genuinely worldwide, wave of globalization was not, as some claim, that marked by the series of economic, social, and political changes which followed the Second World War or the recent collapse of the Soviet Union, but that of the empires of western Europe -- Spain, England, France, and Portugal -- in the 16th and 17th centuries and the concurrent missionary activities of Christianity. There have been other waves of globalization since then, such as secularization, which originated in Europe around the time of the French Revolution, and which has had or is having an impact in almost every country on the planet.

            Today, `globalization' is thought of as predominantly economic, i.e., as being principally focused on trade and investment, and, particularly, global competition and deregulation.² Yet, as the preceding definition indicates, this economic trend or process is intermingled with a number of underlying political and cultural conditions and values, and it is primarily because of these conditions and values that globalization has had the effects it has. This interplay of the economic, the political, and the cultural has, of course, always been the case. For example, early waves of globalization, fueled by missionary zeal and supported by the territorial ambitions of European rulers, changed or replaced or built not only political, but religious and economic institutions in lands far distant from their source. Globalization, then, generally produces changes in the economic, the political, the social, and the religious environments -- though not all of these are affected at the same time and to the same degree.

            Today's globalization has elicited a mixed response, but again this is not surprising for this, too, has always been the case with movements that have a globalizing character. Eighteenth century secularism (that, in many respects, continues to be present) brought with it ideas of individual liberty, autonomy, democracy and, later, socialism. In so doing it both challenged existing traditions and changed the ways of understanding one's place in the world. While some welcomed these changes to social, political and religious institutions, and to how individuals understand themselves within these communities, others were left confused, disoriented or feeling marginalized. The response to contemporary globalization has been similarly mixed -- though it is worth noting that this response is not one that is divided just along `east/west' or `north/south' lines, but reflects a division of opinion that exists within many of the nations of the world.

            Perhaps the principal reason why contemporary globalization has given rise to such a divided response is that, as an economic process, it is often identified with international capitalism and, as a political and cultural process, it has generally been associated with interests that have their origins in `the West.' According to many, the underlying rationality of globalization is `instrumental rationality,' its underlying principles are `universal' principles, and the mass culture it is said to bring with it, seems not to respond to, but merely to replace the cultures it encounters. Those who are opposed to globalization hold that, as these interests and principles spread, they marginalize local traditions and practices, and impose not only the answers and values of `others,' but come to dominate even the way in which communities and nations pose questions that relate to their self-understanding. Because globalization is not controlled by any one country or government (and, certainly, not by many of the countries affected by it), critics further insist that it undermines local political institutions and is fundamentally non- or anti-democratic.

            Yet some have insisted that these putatively negative features of globalization are not as extensive and pervasive as has been claimed, and they have argued that there are aspects of globalization that are quite positive. While they may lead to the disruption and the transformation of some values, the vehicles of globalization also bring some positive values and provide means of preserving `local' culture and traditions. For example, consider the existence of the electronic media and, more recently, the Internet which allow members of national and cultural groups new and more effective ways of communicating with one another and of promoting their culture and traditions. These means have not only helped maintain language and culture, but have permitted community, even with those who, through emigration, are in `the diaspora.'³ More importantly, perhaps, globalization has brought about an increased consciousness of principles of justice, equality, and rights (e.g., through human rights declarations, conventions, and education), has encouraged people to demand that these rights be respected, and has even led to the creation of institutions that are broader than the nation state, whereby life, liberty, and security of the person can be defended, and whose authority leaders of nation states cannot simply ignore. It has also brought about the means of effecting reform. More and more, capacities exist that allow people to remove themselves from the arbitrary restrictions of local authorities, to pursue and to exchange knowledge, information, and ideas internationally, and to bring their concerns to the notice of a wider community. Through the communications technology that comes with globalization (and a socially responsible use of this technology), for example, it becomes increasingly easier for a people to express its will. Furthermore, environmental action, and international safety and security (e.g., versus terrorism) are more effectively pursued when individuals and groups can draw on the information technology that globalization depends on and promotes. In bringing together not only a wide range of ideas and practices but of people from radically different backgrounds, globalization has contributed to the creation, in many countries of a much more pluralistic ethos. These positive results, then, are also consequences of globalization, its underlying forces and ideas, and the technologies it has encouraged and employed.

            In any event, however positive or negative its effects, globalization is a fact. There has admittedly been a strong reaction to it. Think, for example, of the work of scholars, such as Saskia Sassen and Mahdi Elmandjra,⁴ who have advanced a sustained theoretical critique of globalization. Think, as well, of the demonstrations in developing countries, such as India, over policy decisions made by the World Bank;⁵ there have been many like responses. Still, given the ever-increasing levels of integration of national economies, the existence and the insertion into daily life of new technologies -- particularly, information technology -- and the opportunities for travel and trade throughout the world, globalization and its accompanying forces and features are not going to disappear. To oppose it unequivocally would be no more successful than the Luddite opposition was to industrialization. There seems to be, then, no question of whether we should reject globalization; it is, rather, whether we can effectively manage or control it.

            Globalization, therefore, presents us with a number of challenges -- and these challenges include: how to react to the ideas and values that seem to be part of globalization; whether one can find a way of directing, transforming or redeeming the process of globalization in order to address such problems as poverty, disease, oppression, and lack of education, that affect people the world over; and whether it is possible to limit the influence of globalization in certain spheres and, thereby, allow for the continuity of local cultures and traditions. Responding to these challenges is not an easy task, since we must also acknowledge that there are positive effects of globalization and, therefore, take account of the concerns of both those favoring and those opposing it.

            Indeed, some might say that the parties and the interests here are so far apart that either there can be no solution, or the solution can only be `political' or a matter of mere expediency and compromise, and not rational or principled. This is, perhaps, one of the greatest challenges occasioned by globalization -- that is, to determine whether we can articulate general, fundamental principles which will enable us to manage or control it.

            In the next few pages, I want to suggest that one can meet the preceding challenges of globalization -- i.e., find ways to `redeem' it, to ensure that it is responsive to basic human needs, and to direct it so that it can address at least some of the concerns of those who find that they have benefitted little from it -- without rejecting it. Specifically, I will argue that philosophical reflection shows that there is, or can be, common ground shared by critics and proponents of globalization alike, and that this can provide a basis for a constructive response to the challenges globalization presents.

IN SEARCH OF A PHILOSOPHY FOR GLOBAL TIMES

            The key to a constructive response to globalization, then, is to find a point from which a broad range of groups and individuals -- including those who, to varying degrees, already have a role in promoting economic, political, and social globalization -- can identify common interests and use them to decide how to direct it. How might philosophy be helpful here?

            Some philosophers, such as John Rawls,⁶ Norman Daniels,⁷ and Kai Nielsen,⁸ have claimed that decision making within a pluralistic ethos requires us to abandon `foundationalist' strategies -- i.e., strategies which restrict reasoned discussion to inference from axiomatic and universal `first principles.' They hold that interlocutors -- individuals and collectivities alike -- can arrive at certain common principles via a kind of wide reflective equilibrium (WRE). Thus, if individuals from different cultures and different perspectives can find some `neutral ground' from which to start discussion, the process of WRE will allow them to come to a consensus about the ideas and values that are appropriate to the discussion and -- in the present case, for example, -- to address such questions as the character and direction of globalization.

            Now, some consider this approach to be just the importation of another `western' `rationalist' perspective into public debate, under the guise of `neutrality.'<sup>9</sup> Consequently (though without making a judgment on the appropriateness of the strategy of WRE), I want to suggest another option -- that we take the example of ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue, and that, through a philosophical analysis of what is involved in this, we see whether we can discern or articulate a way of decision making that would allow ongoing discussion of the relative merits of globalization and of directing (redeeming, if you will) its activities. Such an approach could, I would also suggest, allow a wide range of potential participants to `have a place at the table,' and ensure that the ideologies of a few do not arbitrarily make a rule for all.

THE ECUMENICAL MODEL

            What is "ecumenism"? Webster's Dictionary defines it as a movement "promoting cooperation and better understanding among different religious denominations;" the new Oxford Dictionary states that it is "the doctrine, or quality, of universality (especially of the Christian church)." The etymology of the word is Greek. It is ultimately derived from the word oikos (household), which might thereby suggest something narrow and insular, though its actual root is oikoumene -- "the whole inhabited world." Though there is a tension of `household' and `world' in the etymology of `ecumenism,' this etymology also suggests a kind of unity where, despite the differences among communities, all can live and work together.

            The origins of ecumenism are in the early 20th century within the Christian religious tradition and, as it is generally understood, it aims at Christian unity (though, in fact, it has come to extend beyond that). As a religious movement, ecumenism professes to try `to know, understand, and love others as they wish to be known and understood.'<sup>10</sup> It seeks to avoid confrontation, to `find what is shared,' but also to locate where, exactly, individuals or groups disagree, to find ways of bringing the parties together to live and work in harmony or cooperatively, and perhaps to discern `new' (or previously unrecognized) truths.

            The ideal of ecumenism rests on certain presuppositions about the nature and character of the traditions and perspectives it addresses, though it would take these to be fairly non-controversial. It presupposes, for example, 1) that different religious (and, similarly, non-religious) perspectives or faiths are ultimately committed to the recognition of truth, and of acting on this; 2) that these different perspectives -- and particularly those which have lasted over time -- actually do contain `truth' (either in terms of propositions affirmed or, in a more extended sense, of commitments); 3) that there is, therefore, a truth or set of truths which all do or can come to share, and that therefore all faiths or discourses share in some truth; 4) that no one group has articulated or can articulate all the truth -- that there can be a growth in one's understanding of one's own truth; 5) that these truths are to be found in the values and the facts present in the experience, discourse, and other practices of believers; 6) that one's `local' or `personal' views -- that is, one's religious or other basic commitments -- are inseparable from what one is, and cannot coherently be `hived off' or separated into a private sphere, independent of the public realm; and 7) that it is with these basic commitments that all discussion must begin. Thus, ecumenism would challenge the claims that a `secularist' separation of the public and private is possible, that a separation of private conviction from public discourse is necessary for social harmony, and that a secularist position is neutral -- viewing this instead as another `commitment' to be brought into dialogue.

            Though ecumenism is, admittedly, a `western' institution or practice, as we see in the preceding paragraph, what distinguishes it from a number of other approaches is that it acknowledges the fact and the legitimacy of diversity, and it acknowledges that one need not search for a `neutral' territory, independent of one's basic beliefs and commitments, for discussion with others to begin. It also reminds us that no one has a complete understanding or an exhaustive knowledge of the ideas and values of one's own tradition, and it notes that it is sometimes through contact with others that we may come to be able to arrive at a more complete understanding and articulation of them. As suggested above, ecumenism requires that the participants deal with one another in a spirit of humility.

            But while respecting differences, the aim of ecumenism is not just cooperation, but finding what unites. Moreover (and unlike those who advocate wide reflective equilibrium), it presumes that the participants actually do or can share something fundamental, and it sees its range as `global' -- as `worldwide in scope or application.' It is also neither relativistic nor an approach that is ultimately contractarian or conventional. Further, while it recognizes that there are differences -- legitimate differences -- among traditions, it also holds that this diversity does not extend so far that the different groups, i.e., national, cultural and religious are incommensurable with, or irredeemably separated from, one another. In short, while ecumenism acknowledges the legitimacy and value of difference, it aims at the mutual recognition of unity, but this unity is not identity or uniformity.

            The `participants' in the ecumenical enterprise can and do, then, have radically different religious commitments. Indeed, ecumenism is not just an inter-Christian activity, but inter-religious; one sees Christian-Buddhist, Hindu-Christian, to a lesser degree Muslim-Christian, and even Christian-atheist, e.g., Christian-Marxist exchanges. Yet, it has had at least some measure of success -- and so it is worthwhile for philosophers to ask what it is about ecumenism that has enabled it to have this success without resulting in relativism or subjectivism, or taking one's own or one's neighbor's religious, or non-religious, commitments any less seriously.

ECUMENISM AS OPENNESS

            What underlies the possibility, and the success, of ecumenism? It is not that the participants believe that their respective religious perspectives are somehow `reducible' to one or another or are subsumable under one umbrella-like religious denomination. Undoubtedly, success depends on the respect of others in their "differences," noted above. But more than this is necessary for people of sometimes quite diverse backgrounds and traditions to be able to meet and find common ground on which they can build. A central factor in the success of ecumenical dialogue, I would suggest, is that those involved accept that there are interests, values, and concerns among people of different religious, political, and cultural traditions that all share, and -- on a more theoretical plane -- that these values, interests, and concerns are shared because there is a fundamental non-arbitrary relationship between them and how the world -- reality -- is. Specifically, they are shared because they reflect something basic about what it is to be a human person, e.g., the kind of being -- physical, mental, moral and spiritual -- that humans are, and the kinds of needs such beings have. That these interests and values and so on are shared is, in short, not coincidental.

            What are these basic interests and values?

            At the most elementary level, there is the recognition of the nature and value of life itself. To have human life there must be certain objective and material conditions, e.g., the presence of food, water, related resources, shelter and security, as well as the possibility of satisfying not only fundamental physical, but also intellectual, moral and spiritual needs. At an equally elementary level, for a people or any group of persons to live and thrive, they have to recognize that these interests, needs and goals, are common interests, needs and goals, and have to share or be capable of sharing a discourse and sets of practices with others that enable these interests to be pursued. They must also recognize individually the importance of these needs and, perhaps, interests and goals, and the superiority of some values to others, though they can, at least, begin to disagree about which values are superior to others.

            However, but there is another set of material or quasi-material conditions that must exist, and that is necessary for the immediately preceding elementary conditions to exist. First, there must be a recognition of one another as human beings with whom we can live and act and, second (which is not actually independent of the first), that we do or can share a number of beliefs, attitudes and opinions about how nature works, what basic human needs are, how we might or must satisfy these needs, and so on. We might call these `dominant ideas.'

            It is important to recognize that these `dominant ideas,' or the kinds of beliefs that human persons must share in order to interact with other persons, are not arbitrary or casual. Since many of these ideas are about the nature of reality and, specifically, about human needs and basic desires, they are not things that people can simply choose to have or not have. Indeed, they are also often the kinds of beliefs from which one derives one's sense of self and which determine or allow conscious and purposeful action in the future. The details or specific character of these beliefs can, of course, vary -- they can be ideas reflecting gender, ethnicity, religion, and so on -- and some become more or less dominant, depending on the surrounding circumstances. In broad terms these ideas -- for example, our understanding of `person,' `need,' `life,' and `future,' and, arguably, `like us' and `not like us,' which reflect gender and ethnicity -- are the kinds of ideas that, if we gave them up, we would (as one might in conversation say) no longer be who we were before. These dominant ideas have, in fact, a claim on us and provide a way through which we understand the world around us.

            Finally, the success of ecumenism depends on the shared recognition that our basic interests and values are rooted in, or include, something fundamental that accounts for what we are and what we need, explains the relevance of these values, and so on -- something that is not explained solely by, nor is reducible to, the set of presently existing human individuals. This recognition seems to be essential to those who participate in any ecumenical discussion though there is more to the faith and religious belief of the participants than this.

            Ecumenism recognizes, then, that religious belief is not just about a transcendent reality, but is also about this world. It holds -- as many, if not most, religious believers hold -- that the truths of religion are truths which concern and affect human life and flourishing in concreto. These basic interests and values related to our understanding of ourselves and our world underlie our distinctively religious beliefs as a whole, and it is because these interests and these values are or can come to be seen as also basic to the religious beliefs of others, that discussion and dialogue among those of different religious denominations can begin. Ecumenical dialogue generally does not start off by asking, `What is the divine?'; a more productive starting point may be the question, `What is it to show love to our fellow human beings?'

            The success of ecumenism -- that it is able to go beyond a superficial level of coexistence and cooperation -- requires not only that there must at least be a mutual readiness to `be open' to others, but also a mutual recognition of others as human beings with whom we share, or are capable of sharing, certain dominant ideas -- ideas which reflect or come to reflect a common understanding of what human beings objectively are, and of at least some of the things that are necessary for such beings to live and flourish. This openness and this recognition can, however, take place from within the perspective of one's own religious tradition. Moreover, as noted above, while ecumenism acknowledges that there are basic ideas and values that are objective and authentic, it also allows that these values are i) not always fully articulated, and ii) in some sense incomplete and that they grow and evolve (and must grow and evolve) because the world in which we live is incomplete and grows and evolves. This is consistent with, if not demanded by, the view that if there is a god or absolute principle that is not reducible to the finite, then no one interpretation or set of interpretations of that `being' is sufficient to express it. Thus ecumenism admits that there can be some `truth' in the views of others.¹¹ Thus, there can be inter-creedal or inter-cultural discourse and debate about these ideas and values, without calling into question the objectivity of values; one can come to a deeper and more enriched understanding of one's own values and can acquire a greater knowledge and appreciation of what is of value through this interaction with others.

            Of course, it may well be that, at times, one group will not be able to go far in communicating with another on certain issues because sometimes the circumstances under which the discussants meet have become rather complex, and the interest in discerning or finding what does or can unite must be rekindled. (Here we might think of the difficulties involved in bringing together warring ethnic groups who live in the same country.) But there is no reason to think that such difficulties are insurmountable and such breakdown in communication irremediable.

            In short, then, the project of ecumenism rests on the presupposition that it is possible for individuals from disparate groups to come to recognize together the existence of certain shared interests and dominant ideas. As I have suggested above, there is good evidence to believe that such dominant ideas do exist and are, or can be, shared with others. At the same time, the success of ecumenism reminds us as well that the presence of such ideas is not inconsistent with a diversity in national, cultural, and religious origin.¹²

PHILOSOPHY IN AN ECUMENICAL MODEL

            Now how can this `ecumenical' model help philosophy or philosophers in addressing the challenges of globalization? Can globalization be pursued in a way that respects both basic common values, e.g., about the interests and needs of human beings, and cultural diversity?

            Let us recall certain characteristics of globalization, and what, exactly, these characteristics imply or might entail.

            As noted above, the process of globalization leads to an interdependency among institutions in different countries, and may even lead to the establishment of new social, political and cultural institutions on a world-wide basis. In doing so, many practices and institutions previously existing will inevitably disappear. In general, globalization is a complex process that reflects a number of features, including features which we can describe as `values,' and it both presupposes and tends towards establishing certain values as universal.

            Now, such a move towards interdependency and unity is obviously not based on mere force and obviously not opposed to many of the values people have. Globalization assumes that there are human interests, needs, and wants that are common or general and which already exist, or must come to exist, on a global level. This is plausible, as the example of ecumenism suggests. Indeed, some values involved in globalization are consistent with, or are the same, `local' values. It is, arguably, because of these features that what globalization brings or does has been able so quickly to `take root' in different economic or political environments. Still, this is not to say that all the ideas and values accompanying globalization are ideas and values that should be dominant.

            Moreover, while globalization presupposes that there are values that are or can be global, this does not entail that it is monolithic in character. Because it is not the product of a single, comprehensive set of static cultural and political ideas and values, globalization can take root and develop in a country in a variety of ways. But it is not just because the precise circumstances of its origin vary (e.g., what specific `globalizing' phenomenon is being referred to, and what particular interests and needs give rise to it) that the process of globalization will differ somewhat from one culture to another. It is also because, when it `arrives' in a new environment, it does not enter into a vacuum. Globalization must take account of both the material reality and the dominant ideas in a society; it has to respond to `the environment' into which it enters, and so its effects will inevitably be different. One sees this as well when one considers previous waves of globalization where, based on the specific character of the societies it came into contact with, one later found distinct manifestations or variations of Christianity, e.g., Latin American Christianity, or democracy, e.g., Indian democracy, or economic system, e.g., African socialism.

            Again, it is important to recall that not all of the values that have accompanied globalization are values that are unique to, or inherent in, globalization. Because some may actually be incidental to globalization in general, they can be rejected without thereby rejecting globalization itself. Even where core values of globalization differ from or conflict with local values, in order to succeed, as we have seen, globalization has to be brought into contact with and, to an extent, accommodate itself to the basic values and interests characteristic of the cultures into which it enters. At least some of the values that accompany globalization have to be open to change, for the process of globalization to continue.

            Finally, it is important to recognize that globalization itself does not carry with it a complete set of values and ideas. Because globalization is a process and a product of a range of interests and `forces,' it is to some degree incomplete and possibly (inevitably?) inconsistent with certain needs and basic values. So, it is by no means unreasonable to consider bringing such a process into line with these needs and values.

            The preceding points then further suggest or entail three things. First, they suggest that some -- perhaps many -- of the values that have accompanied globalization are open to modification and change and, therefore, that they can be changed. For example, the way that competition and commerce are engaged in can be consistent with a respect for the well-being of communities. The preceding account also reminds us that globalization is not an impersonal or natural force, but it involves the conscious actions of human agents and, so, can be controlled by them. Finally, these features of globalization suggest that even if there is a tendency towards interdependency, this does not eliminate or preclude all diversity. There is no obvious reason why global economic strategies cannot accommodate national and local `differences;' national cultures and institutions can retain a distinctive character even with the existence of international markets.

            Given these features of globalization, one can say that globalization is (at least in principle, and very likely in fact) consistent with pluralism. Indeed, one might argue that the preceding account of globalization entails that, to be truly global, it must be pluralistic. For, if one holds that no single set of ideas, beliefs, commitments, and practices can exhaust all human possibilities, and if one acknowledges that individuals do live and develop in different geographical, economic, social and political circumstances, it would be inconceivable that, even where there are common features, all would or could end up with a monolithic or static cultural, social, economic or political structure. Further, given the preceding features, globalization need not -- and, in fact, should not -- be anti-democratic and inattentive to local conditions. The existence of the information technology that has accompanied globalization can in principle, as noted at the beginning of this paper, ensure the continued presence and development of local and regional cultures -- though this development may lead at times in unanticipated directions.

            Still, it is clear that globalization also leads to changes in values and in dominant ideas. It challenges established institutions -- but, of course, all that is new and different does so. Nor is challenge to local values and ideas an obviously bad thing, because it is far from clear that local culture is something that ought to be protected from outside influences or ought to be entirely controlled by local authorities.

            These features and consequences of globalization show then that the interdependency or the unity that globalization may bring is consistent with the recognition of basic human needs and values or of the value of cultural diversity. Globalization is not monolithic, and it is not likely to be inflexible and static. Besides, globalization is not a blind force, but the consequence of acts of individual agents, and it is a process that, as we have seen above, can be responsive to other values and interests. If this is correct, then it is possible to consider orienting, or re-orienting, the forces or values accompanying globalization and, arguably, to `redeeming' or reforming the process of globalization itself. Still, the fundamental question is: How is this to be done? This again is where philosophy comes in.

A PHILOSOPHICAL RESPONSE TO GLOBALIZATION

            So what is the role of philosophy in addressing the challenges of globalization? The central claim of this paper is that philosophy can help to discern and, thereby, provide a `discourse' -- modeled after that implicit in ecumenism -- that can serve as a context in which a reasonable response to these challenges can be achieved.

            Specifically it is by identifying and pointing to the basic interests, dominant ideas, and values that we can or do already have in common with others, that philosophy can help to locate shared, though not neutral, ground, and articulate or make clear a space or discourse in which discussion can take place with those of other cultures and, by extension, with those having different stands on globalization. Indeed, for even the most elementary communication with, let alone criticism of, those having other perspectives to be possible, there has to be such a shared discussion. Philosophy also reminds us that, given the `open-endedness' of human life, we will inevitably be `called out' from where we are -- that we have much to learn, that what we have to learn is not simply arbitrary or purely subjective (because it can involve human needs and interests), and that this learning involves entering into relations with those `not like us.' Ecumenical dialogue -- a dialogue which has these features as well -- can, therefore, plausibly be a model for an exchange that can lead not just to consensus, but to the mutual recognition of a course of action as objectively best.

            Philosophical analysis of the phenomenon of globalization itself indicates, furthermore, that the values that one finds in globalization are not, and cannot be, complete and exhaustive and that -- because they need to be consistent with certain basic facts about the world and about the nature of human persons -- an attempt to bring them into coherence with these facts is appropriate. It shows as well that it is possible that one could `redirect' or reform some of the values and trends that have accompanied globalization, specifically those that have come into conflict with other important values and traditions. Given the model of ecumenical dialogue, philosophy can discern or arrive at general fundamental principles to govern discussion between both those who can be described as agents of globalization and those who would oppose them.

            Nevertheless, in showing how one might go about responding to the challenges of globalization, philosophy also reminds us that more is involved here than having globalization conform to an a priori set of universal values, principles or dominant ideas. For example, it indicates that the influences of globalization -- the influence of the knowledge of other cultures, of scientific discovery and of spiritual or religious experience -- may entail that we must enunciate or `invent' new `structures of meaning'¹³ that will allow us better to take account of, and more fully grasp, the changing and evolving environment in which we live. Of course, this is not done in a vacuum; such activity will reflect existing dominant ideas, principles, and values. As the model of ecumenism suggests, no one has a complete or fully articulated set of values and ideas, and the presence of globalization in a society may in fact be an occasion for one's dominant ideas and values to develop or change.

            This last point does not mean that individuals or societies must concede or capitulate to all of the influences of globalization. Still, we have to understand not only the negative but the positive aspects of globalization if we wish to have some control over it. No culture should long refuse to engage these influences -- nor, in fact, can it since the present wave of globalization is so significant that one's views and even commitments may develop without one being aware of it. Consider how the presence of computers affects how many understand or talk about the mind or consciousness. Just as societies have to respond to the material conditions of reality, i.e., the material and quasi-material conditions for life, so, in order to grow and flourish, they have to address the challenges presented by changes in the social, political, religious or economic environment. No society and no individual has any ground for holding that all of what one believes and is committed to is exactly the way it should be and is infallible. And we should note as well that even those who seek to avoid certain aspects of the world around them, e.g., Hutterites and the Amish in North and Central America, still have to take up an explicit attitude towards what is happening in the world. It is in elaborating a model and criteria for discussion, then, that philosophy can help to identify and determine what responses to these changes and challenges are appropriate.

            Of course, the experience of globalization may be unsettling because, as noted above, our present commitments and beliefs cannot remain just as they are. And even though some of the values and ideas of globalization are open to change, it does not follow that we will be able to pick and choose from them as it suits us. And so we might even challenge Mill's justification for pluralism in On Liberty. Since globalization brings with it new values and ideas, we may be forced to ask questions we do not know how exactly to answer and we may be challenged to answer why our old questions are in fact appropriate or useful questions. Indeed, one may find oneself having to express one's thought in a larger `reality,' i.e., a context that includes elements `foreign' to those to which one is accustomed. All the same, one should not take the preceding remarks as implying that one must simply accept the fact that one can be forced to express one's thought in `another reality.'

            This call to invent new structures of meaning, or to recognize that one may have to express one's thought in a `larger reality,' is, however, really nothing more than a demand of the character of conscious life -- which reflects, after all, the influence of the culture, ideas, and material environment around it -- and it is a demand that one cannot escape. Taking globalization seriously and responding to its challenges, are simply features of acknowledging the existence of the ideas and values of others, and of taking other persons seriously. As one comes to put one's thought into coherence with this `larger' experience, one's ideas will inevitably change and develop. But, even if this is unsettling, the preceding analysis assures us that globalization is not something that we must fear.

            If, however, after all of this, one still claims that his or her culture must exclude or reject external or `foreign' influences, and that an `ecumenical model' of discourse -- along with the recognition of shared concepts of life and human flourishing -- must be rejected, it is unclear not only how one can constructively, or even effectively, deal with the phenomenon of globalization, but also how one's own culture and values can develop and flourish, i.e., survive.

CONCLUSION

            Globalization and the ideas, forces and technologies that it brings with it are here to stay. What I have tried to defend in these pages is the claim that there is a positive way in which one can respond to globalization -- one that calls for a `participative construction'¹⁴ and transformation, rather than a mere rejection or fatalistic acceptance, of it.

            Specifically, I have argued that there is no epistemic impediment to globalization, and that the success of ecumenism gives us a reason to believe that those involved in and affected by globalization can enter into fruitful dialogue with one another in order to `orient' the process of globalization so that it is consistent with respect for persons and with a significant measure of individual and cultural diversity. Philosophy, drawing on the model of ecumenical dialogue, can help to define or describe this discourse, by identifying values and dominant ideas which all do or can share, and by ensuring that these values and ideas are coherent with the material and quasi-material conditions for human flourishing. Moreover, using a discourse modeled on ecumenism to engage the challenges of globalization not only would be compatible with, but also would promote cross-cultural community and mutual understanding; it would not entail ignoring diversity or starting from some `neutral' ground where individuals have to abandon their own basic values, dominant ideas and commitments, and it would not produce a bland homogeneity. Thus, the interdependency and unity that globalization brings may be consistent with -- and may even demand -- diversity. But the ecumenical model of discourse, described above, is also one that, though respectful of people's `starting points,' acknowledges that they must -- whether they like it or not -- sometimes reevaluate what their basic beliefs and dominant ideas mean and, when necessary, go beyond them and, thereby, better reflect values and interests which make a genuinely human life possible.¹⁵ We can have confidence, then, that there can be a constructive response to the challenges that globalization presents, and that philosophy has an important role in this.

                                                                              NOTES

            1. Merriam Webster Dictionary.

            2. In this sense, globalization is `a process of increasing economic activity towards the integration of national economics into a single world economy, for example, with increased trading opportunities.'

            3. See Anthony M. Stevens‑Arroyo, "Syncretic sociology: towards a cross‑disciplinary study of religion," Sociology of Religion 59 (1998): 217-20.

            4. Mahdi Elmandjra, Premiere guerre civilisationnelle (Casablanca, Maroc: Toubkal, 1992). For some other recent critical studies, see Saskia Sassen, Globalization and Its Discontents (New York: New Press, 1998), and Eleonore Kofman and Gillian Youngs, Globalization: Theory and Practice (New York: Pinter, 1996).

            5. One evidence of economic globalization is the presence of multinational or transnational corporations and the influence of international economic agreements in countries such as India. A number of nationwide movements have arisen, however, with the aim of opposing this presence. Recently, in 1995, Enron ‑‑ the world's largest natural gas company ‑‑ began work on a $US 2.8 billion, gas‑fired power plant, just south of Bombay. Villagers in the area were concerned that the effluent from the plant would destroy local fisheries and damage some crops, and hundreds of them stormed the construction site, injuring construction workers and some foreign advisers. Again, during the Uruguay Round of talks on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), one of the issues under discussion was a section on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). People in India became concerned that this section, if approved, could affect plant genetic resource conservation and farmers' rights and, during a massive rally at Delhi on March 3, 1993, demonstrators presented a charter of demands, saying that "we should not give up our sovereign right to frame our own system of invention for the development of new varieties of plants. Intellectual property rights should not be made part of GATT negotiation."

            6. See John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1971). The initial articulation of reflective equilibrium is found in his "Outline of a Decision Procedure for Ethics," Philosophical Review 60 (1951): 177-197.

            7. See Norman Daniels, "Wide Reflective Equilibrium and Theory Acceptance in Ethics" in Journal of Philosophy 76 (1979): 256-282; "Reflective Equilibrium and Archimedean Points," Canadian Journal of Philosophy 10 (1980): 83-103; Justice and Justification: Reflective Equilibrium in Theory and Practice (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996). See also J. Raz, "The Claims of Reflective Equilibrium," Inquiry 25 (1982): 307-330.

            8. See "In Defence of Wide Reflective Equilibrium" in Ethics and Justification (ed. Douglas Odegard), (Edmonton, AB: Academic Publishers, 1988), pp. 19-37, and "Relativism and Wide Reflective Equilibrium," Monist 76 (1993): 316-332.

            9. See, for example, Hendrik Hart and Kai Nielsen, Searching for Community in a Withering Tradition: Conversations between a Marxian Atheist and a Calvinian Christian (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1990).

            10. See Decree 12 of the Mission of the Society of Jesus, General Council 34 (1995).

            11. As Aristotle writes, `No one is able to attain the truth adequately, while, on the other hand, no one fails entirely, but every one says something true about the nature of things' (Metaphysics II, 993a27‑993b2).

            12. I have argued elsewhere as well that this is compatible with pluralism. See my "Communities of Values and Ecumenism," in The Future of Value Inquiry, (ed. Matti Häyry and Tuija Takala), Nordic Value Studies, (Amsterdam: Rodopi Publishers, forthcoming 2000). I would, therefore, argue against the claim of Zygmunt Bauman that we are effectively unable to direct events, and that globalization inevitably produces a culturally and economically homogeneous world (See his Globalization: The Human Consequences [New York: Columbia University Press, 1998]). I tend, rather, to favor some aspects of the view of Robert J. Holton (see his Globalization and the Nation‑State [New York: St. Martin's Press, 1998]).

            13. I owe this notion to Professor H. Daniel Dei of the Universidad de Morón, Argentina.

            14. See Vincent Shen, "Construction of Meaningful World in I Ching -- on the Origin of Chinese Philosophizing," in Philosophical Challenges and Opportunities of Globalization (ed. George F. McLean), (Washington, DC: The Council for Research in Values and Philosophy, 1999).

            15. By way of illustration, some societies make efforts to ensure that basic human needs are met, but fail to recognize basic individual human rights; other societies may explicitly recognize human rights, but in a way that is simply formal and not substantive. For human life to flourish, however, it is clear that there must be both the satisfaction of needs and the recognition of rights, and so these societies must move beyond where they are.