Conflict and Deconstruction: Contemporary Western Academic Discourse

Author: Li Huiguo Huang Chang
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2001-01-01
Features: How to view the cultural critique theories of contemporary Western society? How to understand the recent development of ecological economics theories and methodologies? How to address the controversial "Clash of Civilizations" theory? This book collects recent works by renowned Western scholars, providing a theoretical foundation for comprehensively addressing the aforementioned questions. These writings are not only a compilation of the forefront of contemporary Western academia but also theoretical tools to solve real-world issues in Western society. They explore universal themes, the profound significance of which goes without saying. The well-known academic journal Foreign Social Sciences in China has published numerous articles reviewing Western academic thoughts and schools, which have garnered significant attention and praise from readers. These articles cover a wide range of topics, from the history of Western thought to contemporary cultural critique, from traditional humanities and social sciences to emerging disciplines and theoretical frontiers, from single disciplines to interdisciplinary fields, encompassing almost everything. Over the years, these articles have also developed a certain systematicity. A careful review reveals the intellectual trajectory of Western academic research development. However, since these articles are scattered across various issues, systematic reading is often inconvenient. The Social Sciences Academic Press has selected a representative subset of these articles for this publication, resulting in this book, Conflict and Deconstruction: Contemporary Western Academic Discourse.
Excerpt: From Geopolitics to Human Management: A Necessary Journey / Richard Falk / Translated by Yang Fengzhen
Geopolitical governance forms have emerged rapidly like mushrooms after rain. Although they are still unstable, their outlines are becoming increasingly clear. Many scenarios for geopolitical management have been proposed for the future, yet there is no consensus on whether such management exists or what its characteristics would be at least in the next 25 years. However, in this process, the axis of geopolitics has shifted from concerns about power balance, regional stability, natural defense, regional influence, and alliance formation to concerns about global market competition, capital flows, sources of capital, trade expansion, coordination mechanisms, and labor markets. Human management is a more humane form of geopolitical management—it is both a process and a goal. It emphasizes the rights of all people on Earth. It first considers those who are most vulnerable to harm and abuse, providing them with a safer living environment than under geopolitical governance. It seeks to resolve conflicts and establish order by minimizing reliance on force and gradually eliminating the ideological and material factors of war. Human management also emphasizes environmental quality to ensure the health of people now and in the future. Therefore, it is less a negation of geopolitics and more unrelated to the inherent political order of society. Research on human management is confusing and divided. Traditional thought proposes views contradictory to humanitarianism: emphasizing the anxieties of great powers before the Cold War about security. Meanwhile, prevailing views emphasize the interplay between nations and the global economy, commonly referred to as globalization (globaligation). These perspectives often portray history as a top-down, authoritarian process driven by wealth and power. As Samuel Huntington recently stated, we are in the early stages of conflicts between various cultures, and these relationships may dilute the centralized power views in international relations. Nevertheless, elite power groups still hold a central position. While seriously considering the significance of the state and the role of markets, the author here presents a different stance. The fundamental value standard of this stance is to ensure that all people in the world, regardless of their country, environment, or identity, live well. Its understanding of history is based on the meaning generated by people's struggles, resistance, and participation in social management, grounded in the rediscovery of sustainable cooperative methods across all levels of society, so that science and technology can serve humanity. By describing human dilemmas and aspirations, we will better understand the core of human management.
I. The Field of Challenges
As a transitional period, contemporary society is fraught with contradictions. Therefore, the technological revolution is the driving force behind global integration, while leveraging the development of microelectronics, it has brought unprecedented power decentralization and facilitated the establishment of cooperative and participatory institutions. These institutions, independent of bureaucratic governance, can extend their influence globally. Keeping these mainstream trends in mind will help us grasp the complexity and uniqueness of our time. Even if the Cold War had continued for decades, these trends would have inevitably moved forward, but with its end, these trends have become even more pronounced. This tendency makes the metaphor of the "global village" more meaningful. However, what kind of global village will it be? Who will exercise power through what means? Is democracy the mainstream? What form of democracy is it? Will the United Nations or some other successor organization serve as the primary political actor in the global village for a period, exercising governmental functions? Can governments maintain their central position? Are corporations and financial organizations increasingly managing the global economy? Will transnational democratic forces advocating human rights exert influence and power in the global village? Is war still the core means of maintaining existing positions, or will negotiation and non-violent methods gradually replace war and become a social system? All these questions, or more, stem from one central issue: where are we transitioning?
In general, the complexity of the global economy and the fragility of ecosystems will gradually give rise to geogovernance, but such geogovernance will be highly neutral—it may serve the interests of the powerful as well as the poor as a means of social restructuring. However, envisioning how this will unfold is more difficult. It is likely to be a combination of both approaches (representing both the poor and the wealthy), but their combination will differ significantly in time and space, and opinions on the emerging situation and who will hold the advantage remain divided. However, media coverage has introduced a certain partisan bias, viewing the future through the lens of the powerful, though there are also alternative perspectives. The media must "remain balanced" to withstand criticism. The media itself is a field of political debate, and it is impossible for there to be only one answer everywhere.
II. The Concept of Conflict in Human Management
Although sovereign states play the primary political role on the world stage and in the lives of most people, their power has diminished. Due to a dual historical movement—global integration and fragmentation—their functions and legitimacy have declined. This dual historical movement, the unstoppable forces of globalization and fragmentation, represents divergent developmental trends. Global integration means that global technology, in its use of the global economy, markets, capital efficiency, and capital opportunities, has a comprehensive and shared impact on all humanity. Conversely, regional fragmentation renews inherent political differences, emphasizing individuality, or the diversity of human experience. Clearly, these seemingly opposing trends are actually interacting, and their background is complex, beyond a simple summary. They may suggest the possibility of rediscovering universal characteristics in the affirmation of the individual, or even the possibility that opposing sides are not contradictory.
Typically, Western responses to these two historical challenges are strongly colored by evaluation. They favor global integration and believe that fragmentation will destroy a bright future. Cultural historian David Fromkin, when expressing his views, first considers the role of these two historical trends. He points out, "The global economy and world environment today demand larger, not smaller, units (units); regional and global resolution mechanisms should align with global trade and resource utilization." Fromkin strongly criticizes fragmentation, believing it casts a shadow over the future. He writes, "In the 21st century, the central issue everywhere in the world will be the confrontation between unity and fragmentation, that is, the need to establish a balance between the centripetal forces of modern global economy and the centrifugal forces of regional and global organizations."
III. The Prospects of Geogovernance
This article firmly advocates the importance of human unity while also emphasizing the need to listen to voices from different cultural backgrounds, regardless of their correctness. It is essential to fully recognize the necessity of others' participation in historical movements, to listen to their opinions rather than simply dismiss them. This is particularly important for the West. The emerging information superhighway dominates every aspect of life: from information acquisition and communication methods to popular entertainment, reshaping people's tastes and goals. It disseminates information to all corners of the world but rarely hears people's responses. Terrorism and religious extremism are the main "feedback" that can be heard. For various strong criticisms, media coverage is scarce until southern unrest escalates into violent events, at which point the media considers reporting on people's cries of pain. For example, the unrest of indigenous peoples in southern Mexico became the main news in January 1994, despite the long-standing poverty and dissatisfaction in Mexico and Central America. The impact of global integration and fragmentation on world order over the next decade will determine the direction of research on the future of humanity. The trend of globalization in economic, environmental, and cognitive aspects is so rapid that it is inevitable to give rise to some form of geogovernance. There are indications that geogovernance will be realized through cooperation between major Western countries and some Southeast Asian nations, managed by corporate executives and transnational capital operated by financial institutions. These countries and market forces will then use telecommunications to connect globally for advertising, promotion, and management. Environmental degradation and challenges from both within and outside the country may force geogovernance to impose its influence on various groups and peoples of nations through coercion and intervention. Geogovernance, positioned in this way, will have its achievements evaluated primarily by its leaders, including trade growth and its ability to smoothly implement its strategies globally. It will not be responsible for the lives of the poor or future generations, and territorial rights will become less important. In the heartlands of technological innovation, the poor will thrive. This concept of geogovernance stems from utopian imagination but also represents a true historical inevitability—it may be a seemingly reasonable proposition. The outcome of political struggles will determine the form of geogovernance. It may not be a treaty negotiated by world trade giants in luxurious meeting rooms but rather a conspiracy between representatives of intelligence agencies, discussing in informal settings: corridor talks during G7 summit meetings or annual joint discussions of the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and other global market forums. However, whether its concepts and implementations are accepted by people remains to be seen. Moreover, the realization of all the above depends on how others may promote the occurrence of opposing possibilities.