Toward a Dialogical Civilization

Tu WeimingR

EPRESENTATIVE Director Morita, Director Kawada, and Fellow
Participants, I am honored to have this opportunity to share some of
my thoughts on the new idea of a “dialogical civilization.” In 1995, I
had the pleasure of serving as one of the discussants for a lecture given
by President Ikeda at the East-West Center in Honolulu. That was myfirst encounter with his vision on the dialogue between the East andWest. It was also my first exposure to the idea of the “third civilization,”meaning a civilization that rises above the dichotomy of East and West.
Both of us hope, I am sure, that the “third civilization” is also the civilization that will combine the strengths and resources from both the Eastand West. My first experience in the East-West dialogue was in college
when I was engaged in weekly, if not daily, conversations with graduates from leading American universities, such as Oberlin, Princeton, andYale, who served as instructors of English at my alma mater, Tunghai
University, in Taiwan. By learning to express myself in English fromthem, I was easily drawn into a “conversation” comparing convergenceand divergence of core values between American and Chinese civilizations. I still vaguely remember how I tried to use my extremely limited
English vocabulary to convince my English instructors, who were only
three or four years older than I, why empathy is at least as important as
rationality.
In the 1980s when I assumed the directorship of the Institute of Culture and Communication at the East-West Center for fourteen months, I
initiated a project on the dialogue of civilizations, specifically interchange among world religions. It attracted a number of prominent scholars of religion and leaders of faith communities, such as Ewert Cousins,
Wilfred Cantwell Smith, Huston Smith, H. Nasr, Raimon Panikkar, andBalasubramanian, to Honolulu for illuminating conversations. There
were two dimensions to the project: a horizontal dimension and a vertical dimension. Horizontally, it involved major historical religions. The
underlying question was: how can representatives of these major traditions talk among themselves inter-religiously and inter-culturally as con96

TOWARD A DIALOGICAL CIVILIZATION

97

versational partners in a joint intellectual and spiritual venture. All sevenso-called Axial-Age civilizations, identified by the German philosopher
Karl Jaspers in the 1940s, were included: Hinduism and Buddhism inSouth Asia (India in particular), Confucianism and Daoism in China,
Judaism in the Middle East and, by implication, Christianity and Islam,which historically evolved from forms of spirituality centering aroundthe Hebrew Bible. Actually, as background, we should also include
Greek philosophy as a spiritual tradition.
There is also a vertical dimension which involves all the indigenous
religions, such as the Native American, Hawaiian, Maori, Alaskan,
African, and, of course, Shinto traditions. Let me say a word about
Shintoism as a manifestation of Japanese spirituality. Through my study
and dialogue with eminent Japanese thinkers, notably Okada Takehiko,
the Kyushu Confucian master, the student of Kusumoto, and the inheritor of the Mito tradition traceable to Yamazaki Ansai, Abe Masao, theZen teacher, Nishitani Keiji, the philosopher and a follower of thefounder of the Kyoto School, Nishida Kitaro, and Maruyama Masao, thepublic intellectual, especially in terms of his fruitful idea of basso ostinato (通奏低音), I came to realize a unique feature of Japanese civilization.
Although Japan, strictly speaking, is not an Axial-Age civilization, it
successfully digested two Axial-Age civilizations—Buddhism and Confucianism—prior to the impact of the modern West in the midnineteenth century. This is perhaps the reason why, despite surface uniformity, Japanese culture is rich, varied, and diverse. I take seriously
the interpretation of Shmuel Eisenstadt, the sociologist at Hebrew
University and a leading scholar in comparative civilizational studies. He
claims in his Japanese Civilization, published by University of Chicago
Press, that a salient feature of Japanese spirituality is the “immanentalization” of the transcendent. In other words, Japan’s ability to indigenize all forms of spirituality, such as Buddhist and Confucian spiritualities,
into her own distinctive mode of immanence is truly exceptional froma comparative cultural perspective. However, I am wary about some of
Eisenstadt’s broad generalizations. I do not believe that anyone canbegin to grasp the subtlety and complexity of the Japanese mind without
being seasoned in uniquely Japanese sensibilities and sensitivities—
kabuki, no, sumo, the hot springs of Nikko, the vicinity of Fuji, and the
Sakura season, just to mention a few.
In the last 160 or so years (in Japan, ever since the Meiji Restorationof 1868) because of the impact of the modern West, East Asian countries, Asian countries, indeed all non-Western countries, have changed

98

TOWARD A DIALOGICAL CIVILIZATION

profoundly. When President Ikeda spoke about the East-West dialogue,
what he had in mind was probably broader than the two sides of the
Pacific Ocean. I think that it may not be far-fetched to interpret it as a
dialogue between the West and the rest, including Islam. With a view
toward the future, we must transcend the mentality of the West and therest, indeed any limited and limiting forms of dichotomies or tripartite
modes of thinking, such as the simplistic notion that the world is now
being shaped by three major contenders of wealth and power: North
America, the European Union, and East Asia.
In 1998, when the United Nations designated the year 2001 as theyear of the dialogue among civilizations, Kofi Annan, through his personal representative, Gianni Picco, organized an international group to
facilitate the dialogue. I was privileged to be a member of the so-called“Group of Eminent Persons.” I proposed that there are two basic principles necessary for any meaningful dialogue to take place. The first canbe characterized as the principle of reciprocity or considerateness,
which states, “Do not do to others what you would not want others to do
to you.” The other principle can be referred to as the principle of humanity: “In order to establish myself, I help others to establish themselves;in order to enlarge myself, I help others to enlarge themselves.” This
principle in the Confucian Analects is in perfect accord with Immanuel
Kant’s dictum that we should treat the other as an end in itself rather asa means to an end. Hans Kung, also a member of the group, has been
advocating the same principles in his pioneering efforts to formulate acode of universal ethics. A possible disagreement between us is whether
or not the “golden rule” should be stated in the positive or in the negative. He may find the two compatible, even identical, but I feel that theConfucian (also the Jewish) formulation, unlike the Christian version,“Do unto others what you would like others to do unto you,” is morecongenial to inter-religious dialogue because it is premised on a spirit ofreciprocity, with the critical self-awareness that what is considered byme self-evidently true is not necessarily accepted by my conversation
partner. I should ask for his or her permission first before sharing the“good news.”
Etymologically the Chinese character ren (仁) consists of the radicalren (人) and the symbol for two (二) which indicates that a human beingis always in companionship. Understandably, the Berkeley Sinologist,
Peter Boodberg thoughtfully rendered ren as “co-humanity.” However, it
is intriguing to note that in the newly discovered Guodian material, thecharacter ren is invariably written with the word shen (身 body) on topof the word xin (心 heart-and-mind). This clearly shows that humanity

TOWARD A DIALOGICAL CIVILIZATION

99

signifies not only sociality but also the physical and mental qualities thatmake up a living personality, indeed a unique individuality. Since thematerial is dated to the fourth century B.C. before the time of Mencius,this definition of humanity was probably widely shared by Confucius’
immediate disciples. In the same spirit, the character shu (恕 reciprocity)
consists of ru (如 like) on top of xin (心 heart-and-mind). It seems tosuggest that the ability to understand someone else is in terms of yourown heart-and-mind. This kind of analogical imagination is essential to
the Confucian ethic. I would argue that it is also necessary for any
authentic dialogue.
We are currently in a marvelous period of intercultural communication. The advent of a new Axial Age provides an occasion for fruitfulEast-West dialogues focusing on core values. Nowadays, major Enlightenment values are referred to as universal values, such as liberty (freedom), rationality (for example, thinking reasonably and rationally), due
process of law (legality), rights consciousness (notably human rights),
and the dignity of the individual. Yet, cardinal virtues in the Confucian
tradition, such as humanity, rightness, civility, wisdom, and trust, areoften characterized as Asian values. Actually, these are not only Asianvalues, but universal values rooted in the Asian experience. Take theexample of humanity as sympathy, empathy, and compassion. It canvery well be perceived of as a value complementary to rationality.
Responsibility is, in practice, a necessary condition for rights. Legality
is compatible with civility.
We should be critically aware that sometimes great values, values wecherish, values that we should internalize, are in tension, even in conflict. For example, liberty and equality or efficiency and solidarity
are both highly desirable values, but they cannot be realized simultaneously. If freedom is a high priority in a market economy, the society
can become unequal. If too much emphasis is placed on efficiency,social solidarity cannot be easily maintained. There is tension between
rationality and sympathy, empathy, and compassion. If you prefer acool-minded, calculated rationality, you may not have an empathetic
understanding of the other. If you are overwhelmed by emotional
identification with someone, you may lose the disinterested, impartial,
and objective perspective.
We must also recognize that sometimes there is inevitable tension
between legality and civility. In China, law (often understood as punishment) and ritual are considered in conflict. If you put too much emphasis on legal constraints, you inevitably undermine civility. If you stressthe importance of politeness, considerateness, and harmony of human

100

TOWARD A DIALOGICAL CIVILIZATION

relationships, you may relegate legality to the background. By implication, there is tension between rights, human rights, and responsibility or
obligation. There is also tension between the dignity, independence, andautonomy of the individual and social solidarity or communal integration. However, there is no reason to doubt, as I have already alluded to,that seemingly contradictory values can be combined or, at least, there is
the possibility of a fruitful interaction between them. We may evenattain a higher level of integration if we work toward a dynamic equilibrium. Liberty and justice are both necessary. Arrangements can be madeso as to reduce the tensions, and even to develop a virtuous circle
between them.
Let me use an example in Japanese culture, an example, I am sure,thoroughly familiar to you. I am afraid I have yet to grasp the subtlety
entailed, the so-called giri-ninjyo (righteous principle and human feeling). In Japanese ethics, both righteous principle and human feeling are
essential and it is imperative that we attain a dynamic equilibrium
between them. Without righteous principle, social stability is impossible
and without human feeling, social harmony cannot be sustained.
The conflict of values between East and West, at least the conflictin the interpretation of Eastern and Western values, compels us torecognize the importance of inter-civilizational dialogue. Tolerance is aminimum condition, but it is not enough. We must also recognize theexistence of the other. Without the recognition that the other exists as
an irreducible reality, it is difficult to cultivate an attitude of respect. I
am told that the late French philosopher Derrida, who passed away lastyear, taught a seminar on forgiveness several times toward the end of hislife. I suppose that his commitment to this particular virtue may havebeen rooted in his Jewish heritage. I would like to mention also that
Levinas’ insistence on care for the other as a precondition for authentic
self-identity may also be a reflection of his Jewish experience in thecontemporary world.
With tolerance, recognition, and respect, there is the possibility forthe two dialogical partners to take the other as reference. I understandmyself through you and you understand yourself through me. The otherserves as a mirror for one’s self-knowledge. With such mutual reference,
we will be able to engage ourselves in mutual learning. Only then can
we consider the otherness of our dialogical partner as a celebratory
occasion, indeed a blessing for personal growth. It is in this sense that
dialogue is not an opportunity for conversion. We should refrain fromusing it instrumentally as a chance to impose our will on the other. The
principle of reciprocity demands that what we consider to be beneficial

TOWARD A DIALOGICAL CIVILIZATION101

to ourselves is not necessarily beneficial to the other. We should exercise
utmost self-constraint in converting the other to our belief or faith. This
is not to say that we should not share our cherished ideas and experiences. It is only a warning that in the actual practice of reciprocity weshould try to understand the other empathetically as a precondition for
any true dialogue.
The purpose of dialogue is not to convert, to influence, or to persuade.
It is not to state the correctness of one’s doctrine or to clarify one’s position. Rather, it is to listen, to appreciate, and to learn. It is an opportunity
for extending one’s intellectual horizons and enhancing one’s selfreflexivity. Of course, as two-way traffic, it will also help the other to bea better listener and learner. The principle of humanity—“In order toestablish ourselves, we help others to establish themselves; in order toenlarge themselves, I help others to enlarge themselves”—is relevant
here. Strictly speaking, humanity is not merely a form of altruism. It is,in essence, rooted in the depth of self-knowledge and self-understanding.
At this particular juncture of human history, dialogue as a way of life
is the spirit of the times. The perceived danger of the clash of civilizations makes the dialogue among civilizations even more compelling. A
defining characteristic of the emergence of the Second Axial Age is the
dialogical mode of existence. Economic globalization indicates thatstandardization and homogenization in trade, finance, investment, andbanking are taking place all over the world, giving the impression thatthe world is being compressed into a single market economy. However,paradoxically, cultural diversity is a salient feature of the human community. It is suggestive that Peter Berger and Samuel Huntington, in
their edited study of cultural globalization, entitle their book Many
Globalizations: Cultural Diversity in the Contemporary World. Indeed,
globalization enhances localization. All the primordial ties that define
who we are as concrete living human beings are sites of contention in
the globalizing world. It may not be far-fetched to note that one of themost powerful and explosive forces in the contemporary world is identity politics. Ethnicity, gender, language, age, place, class, and faith canalso assert a shaping influence on the “global village.”
Nevertheless, from an ecological point of view, the globalizing
process enables us to understand that we are all fellow-travelers in thesame lifeboat. We are inevitably intertwined in the same web of life.
What we do in the privacy of our homes may have grave consequences
for society, nation, and the world. We may not share the same fortune,
but we are likely to suffer from the same natural or man-made catastro-

102

TOWARD A DIALOGICAL CIVILIZATION

phes. All members of the human family, from the poorest to the richest,
feel vulnerable. Even the strongest and wealthiest nation, with the mostadvanced national defense and technology, falls short of maintaining ageneral sense of security among its citizens. We wish that we could beinterconnected by the same aspiration for human flourishing, but, in
reality, we are often bound by a common fear of destruction. All the
major religions are confronted by a new reality unprecedented in humanhistory: the viability of the human species.
A distinctive feature of the Second Axial Age is the emergence of anew pattern of interaction among all world religions. It is inconceivable
that, in our spiritual journeys, we will not encounter people who subscribe to different faiths and belong to different religious communities.
Most likely we will also meet people who are secularists at heart and inpractice. A Christian may have a Buddhist as a colleague, a Jew as aneighbor, a Muslim as a friend, and a Hindu as a partner. The convergence of seemingly incompatible spiritual paths and the confluence ofseemingly divergent religious currents make the spiritual and religious
landscape of the modern world rich and complex. It is difficult to imagine that members of a faith community do not have a chance of meetingmembers of other faith communities face-to-face. The former prime
minister of the Netherlands, Ruud Lubbers, once told me that he grew
up in a Catholic community. He could not remember ever meeting anyone who was not Catholic. The shocking experience of meeting a fellow
student who was Protestant occurred only when he was already 17 years
old. Nowadays, the likelihood of a faith community totally sealed offfrom the rest of the world is quite slim. People of different faiths must
learn to live together. Either out of necessity or by default we must try tounderstand religions different from our own. Even for secularist leaders,
it is vitally important to try to learn to be religiously musical. Failure tounderstand religion is a blind spot that conscientious leaders of thetwenty-first century cannot afford to have.
I have already noted that globalization enhances localization in connection with identity politics. Since economic globalization threatens all
primordial ties that are essential for our existence as concrete humanbeings, we respond to it by taking seriously who we are and how weshould live our lives. As a result, for some of us, our sense of race, ethnic background, gender, place of birth, mother tongue, and religious
affiliation has become greatly heightened. In the cultural sphere, theinterplay between globalization and localization is so complex and so
intense that an awkward English adjective “glocal” has been coined tocapture this paradoxical phenomenon.

TOWARD A DIALOGICAL CIVILIZATION

103

This may be the reason that pluralism is readily observable throughout the world. Ecologists have convincingly demonstrated that geodiversity and biodiversity are essential for sustaining the web of life that isprerequisite for human survival. Scholars in the humanities generally
believe that cultural diversity is congenial to human flourishing. Linguists worry that linguistic diversity has been seriously undermined byWesternization, modernization, and globalization. Natural languages arebeing lost at an alarming rate. Several hundred languages disappear on a
yearly basis. Some fear that eventually the human world will becomemonolingual, believing that in the foreseeable future, English will be theEsperanto of the world. Ironically, in America, scholars such as SamuelHuntington worry that English as a national language is being undermined by Spanish in California, Texas, Florida, and New Mexico. Even
if we can imagine that English will triumph as the only international
language in the future, it seems inevitable that English as a language
will diversify. The scholarly journal, World Englishes, published by University of Illinois reminds me of Winston Churchill’s statement that theUnited States and England are forever separated by the same language.
Although American English and British English are not two distinct languages, they are significantly different. Indeed, there are many different
kinds of English. Some of them are even mutually unintelligible.
In a pluralistic world, we should cultivate our cultural competence
and ethical intelligence to tolerate, recognize, and respect difference.
Clifford Geertz’s idea of “radical otherness” is highly suggestive. Surely, it is difficult to imagine that confronting radical otherness isalways a liberating experience, but the willingness to suspend judgment
prematurely is necessary and desirable for learning to listen deeply inorder to expand our sense of what is normal, reasonable, and appropriate.
Habermas’ theory of “communicative rationality” requires a great
deal of practice to make it a method of human interaction and a virtue ofhuman understanding. Globalization in trade, finance, tourism, migration,science, and technology is inevitably homogenizing. Since it also heightens self-consciousness in ethnicity, gender, language, place, class, age,and faith, it simultaneously enhances all primordial ties as sites of contention. The importance of religion and the prevalence of identity politics in the twenty-first century are clear evidence that, unlike the spatialconcept of Westernization or the temporal concept of modernization,
globalization collapses space and time in a sense that is unprecedented
and unpredictable.
Since globalization paradoxically intensifies local awareness, no
project will work if it fails to understand difference as potentially cele-

104

TOWARD A DIALOGICAL CIVILIZATION

bratory. It is natural to fear difference. Often, difference is perceived
as a challenge to the established order. Despite Geertz’s wise counsel,
radical otherness is threatening. Only through dialogue can we graduallytransform the fear of the threatening presence of the other as a dangerous enemy into an upright, caring, and informative friend. The culture ofpeace is diametrically opposed to exclusivism. Any attempt to exclude
those who are perceived to fail to meet the requirements of conformism
is detrimental to the peaceful coexistence of diverse ethnic, linguistic,
religious, and cultural groups. It inevitably leads to tension, conflict,confrontation, and violence. Abstract universalism does not work either.
The strategy of inclusion that intends to incorporate differences into aholistic structure based upon a comprehensive vision of one particularvision, no matter how all-encompassing, is likely to lead to an unintended hegemonic control. Pluralism, rather than abstract universalism orclosed particularism, is most congenial to human flourishing in the New
Axial Age.
While we recognize pluralism, we are committed to the core values ofhumanity as authentic rather than relativistic, values worth pursuing as
idealistic goals but also as practicable ends, for we believe that humanbeings are co-creators of the cosmic process, guardians of the evolutionary process, aesthetic appreciators of nature, and responsible agents ofworld peace. We look forward to the emergence of a dialogical civilization for human survival and flourishing, not merely as interested
observers but also as active participants. As committed religious andspiritual persons, we endeavor to make our own faith communities
healthy and wholesome. At the same time, we are critically aware of ourroles as global citizens. We are concerned about the human condition
not only as Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Sikhs, Jains,
Daoists, Shintos, Maoris, Hopis, or Confucians, but also as evolving
human beings.