ETHNICITY
AND GLOBALIZATION
Francis
Gikonyo Wokabi and
Stephen Omondi Owino
Department
of Philosophy, Kenyatta University
Ethnic
antagonism and tribalism are evils that have proved to be both disastrous and
endemic in many nations of the world, especially in Africa. Lives have been
lost, properties destroyed and many people displaced and disabled all in the
name of ethnic chauvinism. Ethnicity is contentious in social, political,
religious and even economic discourses. It is a topic that resists to be ignored
in any discussion about cross-cultural interaction. In this paper, we present
two popular approaches to ethnicity namely toleration and celebration and
endeavour to distinguish two opposed meanings of each of these approaches.
The
popular meanings of toleration and celebration are widely advocated by leaders
as a remedy for ethnic chauvinism. Popular toleration involves “putting up
with” ethnic differences. Ethnicity is regarded as a necessary evil. A
defeatist attitude towards ethnic antagonism is therefore condoned. Popular
celebration involves uncritical praise and adoration of one’s ethnic roots and
practices. Those who advocate popular celebration as a remedy for ethnic
antagonism take ethnicity as a fact of life that is above criticism. In
practice. popular celebration may lead to ethnocentricity. The paper shows that
popular toleration and celebration of ethnicity do not offer a viable solution
to ethnic conflicts.
This
paper also attempts to relate three philosophical perspectives namely;
pluralism, monadism, and monism to the debate of cross-cultural interaction in a
globalized context. Pluralism will enlighten the popular toleration of cultures.
Monadism will be used to analyse the popular celebration of cultures. Monism
will be used to discuss pessimistic view of globalization. The position proposed
in this paper contends that critical toleration and celebration of ethnicity is
the reasonable alternative for handling ethnic matters in this era of
globalization. We call this position cultural synergism and suggest some
possible ways of realizing it.
Eriksen
(1993), Flaralambos et al. eds. (2000), and Brown (1997) concur that
ethnicity is understood in contemporary times as a social concept referring to
cultural distinctiveness of a social group. An ethnic group can therefore be
identified using socio— cultural rather than physical-biological
characteristics. These characteristics include: shared beliefs, language,
religion, race, common origin, a common name and an attachment to a common
homeland. These characteristics may occur singly or in combinations. The shared
values may be real or mythical. Material aspects of culture (for instance
crafts, food, dress, and architecture) and non-material aspects of culture (for
instance music, laws, customs and institutions) are used to develop, perpetuate
and preserve the feeling and belief of ethnic belonging. Since ethnicity is
defined in terms of culture, the two concepts are therefore inseparable.
Culture
can be understood as the total way of life of a people. It comprises of ideas,
habits, skills. knowledge that are learned, valued, shared and transmitted from
one generation to the other (Haralambos et al, 2000). “To a large
degree culture determines how members of society think and feel: it directs
their actions and defines their outlook on life. Members of society usually take
their culture for granted.” (Ibid: 3). Culture as the sum—total of human
activity is a central aspect of human existence. Though people rarely reflect on
it, its implications on their interaction and aspirations are enormous.
Ethnicity
has often been associated with inequality and conflict in many parts of the
world for instance Rwanda. Burundi, East Timor, Northern Ireland, Sri-Lanka and
Yugoslavia among others. Social problems like poverty and crime have been blamed
on ethnic minorities. The conflicts may be expressed violently or non-violently.
According to Brown (1997), ethnic conflicts can arise due to the following:
malicious myths and prejudices about other social groups, the inability of
political institutions to protect ethnic minorities (this may be real of merely
perceived), proximity of ethnic groups in relation to one another and
democratization of multi—ethnic societies.
The
focus of this paper has to do with the way people (especially political leaders)
have responded to ethnicity and attendant conflicts in Africa. Without careful
examination of the cultural dimensions of ethnicity and their implications on
social relationships, political and even religious leaders have tended to either
celebrate or tolerate ethnicity in a cheap and uncritical sense. This in the
long run has promoted ethnic suspicions and antagonism.
The
popular sense of toleration of ethnicity regards cultural diversity as a
necessary evil. Ethnic differences are taken for granted as understandable bases
of social indifference. People become resigned to social tensions and
hostilities. The apartheid policy, which was pursued for a long time in South
Africa, could be understood in this light. Different cultural groups were
encouraged to “co-exist in isolation”. This isolationist policy was claimed
to preserve the purity of ethnic groups but it ended up entrenching
discrimination and other social injustices. Popular toleration failed to be a
sustainable approach to inter-ethnic interaction.
Popular
celebration involves uncritical praise and adoration of one’s culture. Each
cultural group regards itself as perfect and complete. As such it stands opposed
to others, which also harbour similar claims. Those who advocate popular
celebration as a remedy for ethnic antagonism take ethnicity as a fact of life
that is above reproach. In practice, popular celebration may lead to
ethnocentricity-whereby ethnic groups become self-centred and exclusive. In some
instances ethnic nationalism has made some groups become bold enough to demand
recognition as independent political entities.
The
popular versions of toleration and celebration of socio-cultural differences run
contrary to the distinctive characteristics of human persons. As rational and
self-conscious beings, human ought to reflect impartially on their condition.
This reflection should penetrate the real and imagined values of every culture.
The critical appraisal should reveal the shortcomings as well as the strengths
of individual cultures. This should further lead to the identification of
cultural universals that can be useful as a basis for cultural dialogue. Through
cultural dialogue, ethnic groups can understand, enrich, respect, and complement
one another. In the contemporary social context characterized by globalization,
it is the opinion of this paper that popular toleration and celebration of
ethnicity is inadequate as an approach for addressing inter-ethnic relations.
Globalization
is quite a controversial concept. In mearly every discipline where it is
employed to analyse or explain current political, social, economic and cultural
trends, the concept attracts varied responses. There are those who regard
globalization as a concept that captures the subtle and varied attempts by the
developed countries to dominate and exploit the economically under-developed
nations. According to Wasike (Getui and Theuri eds.,2002), globalization is a
form of re-colonization of the poor nations of the world by the rich and
militarily superior nations. The process has disastrous implications on the
majority poor peoples and nations. It promotes Euro-American values and
lifestyles and undermines other local cultures in a systematic and uncritical
manner. The integrity and independence of local and national social
organizations tend to be diminished by forces of globalization. Understood in
this light, globalization is an evil that needs to be resisted at all costs.
This can partly account for the numerous anti-globalization demonstrations in
many parts of the world. We regard this as the pessimistic view of
globalization.
Some
writers have portrayed globalization in a more optimistic light. According to
Albrow (1994). globalization is a process that integrates the diversities of
humankind. This process is based on and justified by the social and rational
mature of human constitution. As social and rational beings, humans increasingly
become aware of their interdependence. Globalization is the logical culmination
of this increasing awareness. It involves the deliberate dissolution of
impediments to human interaction and the promotion of opportunities for
cross-cultural dialogue. Such a process is regarded as anticipated by the very
constitution of human beings. It is a means of realizing the vast potential of
human persons. As such globalization is desirable.
We
regard globalization as an inevitable process characterized by intensification
of socio-cultural relations on a worldwide scale. This process is catalysed by
technological, economic and political trends operative in the contemporary
world. Wholesome condemnation of globalization (pessimistic view of
globalization) fails to appreciate the positive possibilities of the process.
Uncritical celebration of globalization (optimistic view of globalization), on
the other hand, fails to come to grips with the limitations and vulnerability
inherent in the human condition. We therefore advocate a position, which we call
cultural synergism that aims at avoiding the pitfalls of the extremes described
above. We attempt to clarify this position by discussing some relevant
philosophical perspectives.
We
now attempt a brief discussion of some philosophical perspectives, which we
consider paradigmatic of the above approaches to ethnicity and globalization.
This
philosophical perspective refers to the abandonment of attempts to reduce all
reality to either one or two ultimate forms of being. Historically, we can
associate it with Empedocles in antiquity when lie suggested that reality is
made up of four ultimate elements namely: fire, water earth and air. Plato too,
was a pluralist when he attempted to reduce all reality to a plurality of
eternal ideas.
In
its broad outline, pluralism emphasizes discreteness, separateness,
independence, and novelty of things. Reality is perceived of as distributive
rather than collective. Going hand in hand with a pluralistic world-view is the
realization that besides the physical and mental things, there is a plurality of
things, for example, socio-cultural phenomena.
A
predominant pluralistic conception of socio-cultural reality in our contemporary
world is postmodernism. Broadly, it emphasizes variations in socio-cultural
world-views thus urging a tolerant and flexible attitude towards cross-cultural
interaction. This toleration commits the postmodernist to prefer microanalysis
of cultures to microanalysis. In other words, it prefers “each form” rather
than “all forms’ of cultures.
Postmodernism
thus embarks on a project of radical and systematic decentring of values and
insists that there is no reason to assume that a certain culture exists, which
is the centre and paragon of values. Consequently, postmodernism upholds a
relativistic world-view, which engenders cultural relativism. According to
Rachels (1995), cultural relativism has the following characteristics:
a)
that different societies have different moral codes;
b)
that there is no objective standard to judge different codes;
c)
that no moral codes has any special status;
d)
that there is no universal truths;
e)
that the moral code of a society determines what is wrong and right in
that society and
f)
that it is arrogant to judge others. Instead we should tolerate.
Postmodernism therefore, over-emphasizes difference,
fragmentation, plurality, and heterogeneity of cultures. This socio-cultural
pluralism coupled with politics of self-determination has negatively reinforced
and heightened ethnic antagonism. Uncritical assertiveness of individual
cultures condoned and justified by postmodern perspectives underlie the popular
toleration of ethnicity discussed earlier in thus paper.
This
is a metaphysical doctrine associated with the philosopher Leibniz. But more
than just being a doctrine of Being and substance, it represents a model of
thinking which underlies another socio-cultural perspective. In brief, monads in
Leibniz’s system were characterized as substances with dynamic force hence
capable of action. Each monad is different and absolutely independent of the
other others. They have no causal relation to each other and are
self-sufficient. This means that they are their own internal source of action.
Above all, the monads are windowless; hence, the rest of the world does not
influence or affect them.
This
view is certainly paradigmatic of ethnic and cultural enthusiasts who perceive
their own ethnic groups and cultures as perfect, complete, and simply the best.
Accordingly, they view other cultures as simply irrelevant and inferior if
anything, to their own. They therefore, emphasize need for being proud,
upholding, and conserving “our culture against foreign influence”.
Monadism,
therefore encourages a view of the society as mere aggregation of different,
independent and complete socio-cultural units. This too, compounded with the
said politics of self-determination tends to encourage conservative
glorification of ethnic groups and cultures, thus obstructing a fertile
cross-cultural interaction. It thereby engenders the popular celebration of
ethnicity and globalization referred to earlier mi this paper.
This
is a philosophical view that sees all reality as ultimately reduce to one single
whole or unity. This may take materialistic or idealistic form for example the
philosophies of Karl Marx and Hegel respectively. With regard to globalization,
it underlies a conception that is abhorrent to many. This is pessimistic
globalization interpreted as neo-imperialism of western capitalism over poor
peoples but only in the guise of benevolent advances in communication
technology.
It
bears the tendencies of domination of the individual, elaboration of
macro—theories, totalising tendencies and centring of values. These tendencies
are at cross roads with the pluralistic and monadistic ideals. It implies,
therefore, that ethnicity and globalization are mutually exclusive concepts and
processes.
However,
we propose that a critical toleration and celebration of ethnicity would result
in what we term cultural synergism. This would create the condition conducive
for the realization of humane globalization -- a perspective that is not
oblivious to both the benefits and burdens of globalization.
In
this paper, we regard cultural synergism as the capacity of cultures to
qualitatively and qualitatively enrich one another by opening up and talking
with one another as opposed to talking to each oilier. Cultural synergism is
based on the assumption that individual cultures, though function in quite
unique aspects, are incomplete and in need of perfection. This perfection,
however, cannot be achieved if they remain isolated and hostile or indifferent
to other cultures. The perfection of a culture calls for interaction with other
cultures. Thus we view individual cultures as generative elements that result in
higher social-cultural synthesis. This is analogical to the timeless
philosophical adage we reconstruct as: “the whole is both better and greater
than the sum of its parts.” It would promote mutual affection and dependence
between cultures. The perspective world resolve the apparent contradiction
between ethnicity and globalization by creating a condition in which
individuals, ethnic groups, show both autonomy and need of completion. The
diversity and differentiations of socio-cultural life should serve for the
realization of a higher and more comprehensive integration of humanity. As Beck
(2002:63) observes it
would imply a living unity of mutual appreciation and completion in the
diversity and variety of ways of life.”
We
now suggest possible ways of promoting cultural synergism at the personal, local
(intra-ethnic), national (inter-ethnic) and international levels.
At
the personal level, cultural synergism can be enhanced by promotion of the habit
of self-examination and making of reflective judgements. This is aptly captured
in the Socratic maxim “know thyself”. Human beings tend to be disposed more
towards looking outward unto others rather than inward. In their outward look,
they easily and selectively notice the frailties of others.
It
is also important to cultivate a sense of individuality rather than
individualism. By individuality we mean a reasonable sense of assertiveness,
autonomy, and resourcefulness whereas individualism means exclusive concern for
oneself even at the expense of legitimate interests of others. Individuality is
desirable and justifiable because of the limitations as well as the
perfectibility of human beings. As the adage goes,
“there is a hot of bad in the best of us and a lot of good in time
worst of us”. It is therefore necessary for individuals to examine themselves
in order for them to recognize the need and means for the cultivation of
individuality.
Cultural
Synergism at the Local (Intra—ethnic) Level
At
the intra-ethnic level, cultural synergism can be prom-noted by encouraging
intra-ethnic dialogue as opposed to intra-ethnic indoctrination. The hatter
refers to the dogmatic transmission of ethnic heritage inclusive of myths and
prejudices. Intra-ethnic dialogue should include the declassification and
interrogation of what we refer to analogically as “ethnic heresies”.
Ethnic
groups should also open up to each other and be ready to learn from one another.
The hitherto windowless monads should sense time necessity and urgency of
creating windows big enough to allow ethnic perspiration that facilitates both
the survival and improvement of the group.
A
common hindrance to intra-ethnic dialogue is what we identify as conventional
hierarchies that may take gender, generational, hereditary or even matrimonial
dimensions. Traditionally. constructive contributions were never believed to be
able to come from certain quarters chief among which were these young women,
lower castes and the un-married persons. Cultural synergism demands the revision
of these conventional hierarchies to enable the members of ethnic groups to
evaluate their condition and contribute towards its amelioration.
Ways
and means of promoting social justice should be explored to ensure air
distribution of the available resources. This can be expedited by the
integration of law and morality. Without morality law runs the risk of becoming
prejudicial to justice. As such it fails to realize its noblest objective and
spirit.
Democracy
as popularly preached has majoritarian overtones. In practice, it tends to
favour major ethnic blocks and oppress and even create new major ethnicities.
This heightens adverse ethnic tensions. We therefore recommend inclusive
democracy that takes into account the interests of minority groups as integral
to the interests of the entire nation at large.
The
advancement and expansion of communication technology has engendered rapid
diffusion of knowledge and information. However, this knowledge is skewed
towards benefiting the originators of the technology. This heaves indigenous
knowledge and expertise marginalized. Cultural synergism contends that
globalization cannot be humane enough if it ignore the positive contrition of
indigenous ethnic knowledge and expertise.
There
should also be a rigorous and sustained search for cultural universals that can
form a basis for cross-cultural dialogue instead of emphasizing cultural
differences.
Cultural Synergism at the International Level
Dichotomies
such as developed/underdeveloped countries, civilized/uncivilized nations, first
world/third world, etc. are commonplace in international social-cultural
discourse. Cultural synergism recommends a critical interrogation of the
assumptions underlying these dichotomies as well as their attendant stereotypes.
One
obvious feature of the contemporary world is the celebrated triumph of
capitalism. The pursuit of profits often accompanied by total disregard of other
spiritual human values characterizes capitalism. Cultural synergism calls for
transformation of our values mi order to prioritise integral human well-being
over mere profiteering.
Perhaps
one of the most devastating criticisms that is often leveled against philosophy
is the contention that it is merely theoretical and devoid of any relevance to
socio-cultural reality. The criticism if pursued further leads to the
condemnation of philosophers as hypocritical, that is, persons who preach water
and take pure wine. Cultural synergism calls for homiest attempts aimed at
bridging the gap between theory and practice. It in-nay also help to bring
philosophical practice from the ivory towers to the local level. The problem-n
of detaching theory from-n practice was clearly perceived by both Plato and Karl
Marx among other thinkers. Plato noted that unless rulers became philosophers or
philosophers became kings, the world would never benefit from the wisdom of
philosophy. Karl Marx also observed that the business of philosophy is not
merely to interpret reality but also, and most importantly, to transform it. As
evident in our recommendations above, essential philosophical elements and
dispositions for instance evaluation, criticism and analysis ought to inform
socio-cultural life right from the personal to the international levels.
Finally,
cultural synergism calls for an interdisciplinary approach to philosophical
inquiry. It is not uncommon to fluid “philosophers of science” who have bare
knowledge of science, “philosophers of religion” devoid of the most basic
theological knowledge etc. This hinders the adequate achievement of the
philosophical objective of attempting to understand reality in its entirety.
Critical
toleration involves empathetic understanding of ethnic orientations leading to
enlightened inter-ethnic respect. Critical celebration involves an impartial
appraisal of our ethnic orientations. We have argued that globalization demands
that we tolerate and celebrate our ethnicity mi a critical way so that the
essential aspects of human identity in ethnicity can be appreciated, preserved,
and perfected. This enlightened approach is inclusive, adaptive and humane. It
integrates the rational, moral, social, and creative resources and dynamics of
mankind. The paper has suggested some ways of enhancing critical toleration and
celebration of ethnicity, which we refer to as cultural synergism.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Albrow,
M. “Globahization” in Outhwaite, W. and Bottomore, T. eds. 1994. The
Blackwell Dictionary of Twentieth-Century Social Thought. Oxford: Bhackwell
Publishers.
Althem,
G. ed. 1981. Learning Across Cultures. Washington, D. C.: National Association
for Foreign Students Affairs.
Baylis,
J. and Smith, S. eds. 1997. The Globahization of World Politics: An Introduction
to lnternational Relations. N.Y.: Oxford University Press.
Beck,
H. “Europe-Africa-Asia, the Creative Proportion Between the World Cultures”
in Presby, G. et al. eds. 2002. Thought and Practice in African
Philosophy. Nairobi: Konrad Adenaeur Foundation.
Best,
S. and Kellner, D. 1991. Post-modern Theory: Critical Interrogations. London:
The Macmillan Press Ltd.
Brown, M. “Causes and Implication of Ethnic Conflict” in Guibernau, M. and Rex, I. eds. 1997. The Ethnic Reader. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Cronin. B. 1999. Foundations of Philosophy: Lonergan’s Cognitional Theory and Epistemology. Nairobi: Consolata Institute of Philosophy.
Eriksen. T. 1993. Ethnicity and Nationalism. London: Pluto Press.
Getui, M. and Theuri, M. eds. 2002. Quests for Abundant Life in Africa. Nairobi: Acton Publishers.
Haralambos, M., Holborn, M. and Heald, R. 2000. Sociology: Themes and Perspectives. 5th edition. London: HarperCollins Publishers Ltd.
Kidd. W. 2002. Culture and Identity. N.Y.: Palgrave.
McLean, G. and Kromkowski, J. eds. 19991. Relations Between Cultures. Washington, D.C.: The Council for Research in Values and Philosophy.
Mojola, A. 2002. “Modernity, Post modernity and the Information Age: Prospects and Challenges for African Theological Education in the 21st Century” in Chemchemi: International Journal of the School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Vol. 2 No. I. Nairobi: Kenyatta University.
Oruka, H. and Masolo, D. eds. 1983. Philosophy and Cultures. Nairobi: Bookwise Ltd.
Owino, 5. 2002. Cross-cultural Communication as a Basis for Reconciling Wittgenstein’s “Tractatus” and the “Philosophical Investigations”. Kenyatta University. Unpublished M.A. Thesis.
Presby. G. et al. eds. 2002. Thought and Practice in African Philosophy. Nairobi: Konrad Adenaeur Foundation.
Rachels. J. 1995. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. N.Y.: McGraw Hill Inc.
Robins, K. “Globalization” in Kuper, A. and Kuper, J. eds. 1996. The Social Science Encyclopedia. 2itd edition. London: Routledge.
The World Bank. 2000. Partnerships for Development. Washington D.C.: The Creative Communications Group.
Wiredu. K. and Gyekye, K. eds. 1992. Person
and Community: Ghanaian Philosophical Studies,1. Washington. D.C. : The Council
for Research in Values and Philosophy.