contents


CULTURAL HERITAGE AND THE PROBLEM OF

IDENTITY IN THE WORLD ON GLOBALIZATION

PROCESS

Hyondok Choe

Institute of Missiology Missio, Aachen, Germany

Abstract

This paper will discuss the tensions between cultural heritage

and globalization. It will examine the various responses to the

challenges of globalization. And it will promote an idea of an

‘intercultural philosophy’ as a response to the present challenges.

The Process of Globalization

Globalization is certainly one of the central terms describing the

present situation of the world. Most of the people would agree with the

fact that there is an ongoing, worldwide process of ‘globalization’. But,

regarding the analysis of its reasons, the estimation of its consequences

and perspectives of judging its results, there are vastly different

perspectives. Even though the ‘globalization’ itself is not the theme of this

paper, I will explain some aspects in relation to our theme.

The manifestations of ‘Globalization’ became very familiar even in

our everyday life. You can enjoy the new trends of cultures (music, movies,

fashion, etc.) everywhere in the world where you have the internet access.

The announcement of the flight schedule after 6:00 p.m. in the airport in

Berlin is broadcast from California. (in Germany, overtime is expensive).

In the dead body of the penguins discovered in the South Pole entails

poisonous heavy metal, even though there are no factories in that area. In

the department stores all over the world you can find the same brands

(Gucci, Christian Dior, Panasonic, Siemens, etc.).

Prajñâ Vihâra, Volume 6, Number 2, July-Decmber 2005, 61-72 61
© 2000 by Assumption University Press



However, ‘Globalization’ in our time does not only refer to the

globally spreading culture and commodities or the amazing development

of information, communication and transport technology. These are rather

the surface manifestations of a process which is much more complex and

touching upon every aspect (economic, social, political and cultural) of

human life.

Originally it is based on the internalization process driven by the

innate dynamics of the capitalistic economic system. The basic mechanism

can be summarized as follows: The ultimate goal of the capitalistic economy

lies in the maximization of the profit which produces an intensive

competition. It stimulates the technical and technological development in

order to reduce the production costs. The enhancement of the productivity

results in the continuous increase of the products and the capitalists notice

very soon the narrowness of the domestic market. It is very rational for

them to seek for other markets in the world. The internalization of the

capital is not restricted in the expansion of the market for the surplus

products (export). It includes also the direct investment, international division

of labor for producing products (for example: row material from Indonesia,

fabrication in Thailand, package in South Korea, etc.) and internalization

of financial capital (bank, stock market, etc.).

The enhancement of the productivity is not necessarily

accompanied by the improvement of the material living standards of the

common people in the similar proportion. On the contrary it is normally

the case that it produces the increasing disparity between the rich and the

poor. It is a problem of the relation of the political power how to distribute

the produced wealth. Social democratic governments in Western Europe

have tried to reduce the disparity through their social democratic policies

of redistribution including policies (regarding tax, activities of trade union,

social welfare, etc.) - state intervention in the economic process which

look unfavorable for the capitalists.

But, in the present stage of internalization of the economy, the

capitalists have possibilities to overcome the state boundaries, it means to

escape from the “unfavorable” policies of a national government (for

example: moving the production site to other countries where they pay

much less taxes and wages). Moreover they have even possibilities to put

the national government under the decisive pressure. The “Exit option” of

62  Prajñâ Vihâra



the financial investors (the possibility to withdraw all the money from the

finance market of a country) could mean a bankruptcy of the national

economy of that country. It was evidently proven during the Asian financial

crisis in the second half of the 1990’s.

The total amount of wealth on the global level is still growing, but

the income of the state is reducing. It influences directly the budget reduction

of the social welfare system. The disparity of the rich and poor is increasing

immensely. The possibility of a “20:80” society, where just 20% of the

population could have a life appropriate for human dignity, is not

exaggerated.

The word “globalization” suggests a harmonic global world. There

has been also intensive propaganda that the globalization would bring out

a wonderful world. But, Globalization is not harmless, because it is in

essence combined with the increasing inequality and the marginalization of

the weak people. It subjects everything under the principle of the market,

even the culture. The asymmetry of the power in the economic and political

field makes influence on the constellation of the cultural power.

I am not defining culture on the basis of national boundary. (and I

am not suggesting American culture will destroy the cultures of the other

countries.) Even in the West, the tendency of the reduction of the culture

(the “civilization” of the Market and the culture of consumption1) is

observed. Only a culture which is subsumed under the principle of the

market could survive. We can buy Dimsam and Sushi in the supermarket

in Europe. But, I do not think that it signifies the equal treatment of the

western and eastern cultures. It means that Dimsam and Sushi succeeded

in adjusting themselves under the principles of the market. In this sense I

am suggesting that the globalization brings out the uniformity of the culture.

It is very natural that one extreme calls to the other.  In this context

we can understand the rise of the fundamentalism and the increasing

conflicts between the groups with different cultural background. It is a

protest against the compelled ‘uniformity’, which is lacking in ‘equality’.

In the area of culture we are confronted with a totalitarian ideology robbing

a people of the right to create their own culture in an autonomous way.  In

this sense the globalization does not encourage the development of the

dialogue between cultures; it produces rather the conflict of  cultures.

Hyondok Choe  63



“War against Terror” as an extreme manifestation of an essential

problem of the current globalization process – Either “we” or

“others (=enemy)”

The series of occurrences in the world since September 11, 2001,

including the war in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as threat of war in other

regions, is a serious challenge also for philosophy. In accordance with the

process of the neo-liberalistic globalization accompanied by the expansion

of the single super culture there is a clear tendency in this present world:

The world is rules by policies lacking in the concept of “the other” as an

equal partner. The friend-enemy-dichotomy is prevailing, where waging

war is justified by way of removing “the enemy” – even though they are

just a “potential” enemy. For theologians it is an urgent task to develop

and spread a philosophy of an intercultural and mutual encounter, a theology

of living together.

In this context I remember a comment of an American newscaster

several days after Sept. 11: “Good and evil rarely manifest themselves as

clearly as they did last Tuesday. People who we don’t know massacred

people who we do. And they did so with contemptuous glee.” Then he

broke down and wept.2

Allegedly there are two antagonistic groups of people, even though

all of them are living in the same “global village”: people whom the US-

Americans know and people whom they don’t. This dichotomy of “we”

and “the others” is related to the dichotomy of “good and evil”. And the

problem is that the USA have been at war against “the others”, “the evil”,

whom they do not know.

The dichotomy of < either “we” or “the others (= enemy)” > entails

a very dangerous potential. First of all, it can function as an epistemic

basis for justifying violence against “the others” as well as for desensitizing

people in terms of the violation of the human rights of “the others”. People

tend to think that it is enough to take care of “us”. “The others” or the

“enemy” must be defeated.  This kind of mentality is opposite to the basic

premise of the concept of “human rights” which have to be acknowledged

for all human beings, just because they are human beings without any

condition.

64  Prajñâ Vihâra



Secondly, the perspective of this dichotomy oppresses any criticism

against its own society. In the constellation of < either “we” or “the others

(= enemy)” >, to whom do the critics belong?  It can happen easily that

the critics are regarded as “the others”. As a result, they have no place in

“our” society. It is justified to deprive them of their human rights and to

tyrannize them.  The society develops in the anti-democratic direction.

The tendency to regard the anti-globalization activists as equivalent to the

terrorists3 is an example of this development.

Thirdly, the dichotomizing mentality creates social atmosphere

favorable for militarism. In fear of losing “our” own security it becomes

even acceptable to make a war against “the others”. The climate of war is

used as an excuse to curtail civil liberties, deny free speech, lay off workers,

harass ethnic and religious minorities, cut back on public spending and

divert huge amounts of money to the defense industry.4  I remember well

the strong civil movement in the 80’s in Germany for the protection of data

privacy from the state control. At present, however, the German Ministry

of Interior dares to introduce the regulation requiring finger prints on identity

cards. Democracy takes a step backwards.

Everyone wishes to eliminate terrorism. However, it is absurd to

believe that one can stamp out terrorism with more violence and oppression,

since terrorism is only a symptom, not the disease.5 There is a reason and

circumstances in which terrorism is nourished. Isn’t it natural for the people,

who have been defined as “the others”, to resist? In the course of proceeding

globalization they have been becoming more and more marginalized. The

foundation of their existence has been more and more threatened.

Globalization and growing fundamentalism are two sides of the same coin.6

The basic problem is the mode of relations. Only the Recognition

of “the other” as an equal subject, and the development a relationship of

mutual enrichment, could be the solution.7 To react through warfare only

worsens the original problem – this ranges from ‘ignoring’ to a total

‘elimination’ of “the other”. ‘Arundhati Roy suggests, “the first step is for

America to at least acknowledge that it shares the planet with other nations,

with other human beings who, even if they are not on TV, have loves and

griefs and stories and songs and sorrows and, for heaven’s sake, rights.”8

But the today’s world ‘Superpower’ does not yet recognize the

‘equality’ of cultures. The notion of the “Axis of the Evil” and the

Hyondok Choe 65



manipulation of the public opinions to justify the war against “the evil”

show it clearly. The goal of the US policy is not to “live together” but to

eliminate “the other”, so that only “we” can live. Culturally interpreted, it

has the implication of the ‘intolerance of the differences’ forcing ‘uniformity

of the culture’. The political and social consequences of this mentality

have affected the everyday life of the majority of people in the whole

world in a disastrous way.

Response to a Process Threatening One’s Own Identity

For the most of Asian countries, which were subjected to colonial

rule, the globalization process is a second blow, because they are still

struggling with the task of de-colonialization and recovery of their oppressed

or lost identities. Moreover, the innovation of their societies with the values

of (self-defined) modernity and the formation of a new identity is also on

program. (I’d like to avoid using the term “modernization”, because it is

usually understood as ‘westernization’.)  The ‘Identity’ is not a fixed entity,

but always in process.

There are various types of reaction:

a) A modernist reaction involves the effort to break with tradition

and to radically adopt the so called “modern” values.

b) Efforts to synthesize the modern and the traditional is the

second type of the reaction. This often involves modernizing science and

technology while preserving traditional culture.

c) Traditionalists idealize the past and appeal for a return to

tradition. They regard “the Western” influence as a danger, destroying the

ideal and supposed identity of their society.

d) Fundamentalists go even further and try to “protect” their own

identity through aggressive attitudes and actions. In extreme cases they

use violence and terror as an instrument.

Even though each type of these reactions differs from each other, they are

more or less under the common paradigm according to which:

66  Prajñâ Vihâra



a) the traditional culture (A) and “Western” influence (B) are

antagonistic figures being understood as dichotomous contradiction;

b) the efforts to innovate or modernize the values and systems of

the existing society are often regarded as identical with adoption of the

Western values (B);

c) the traditional culture (A) as well as the “Western” influence

(B) are conceived as closed entities (essentialistic conception).

This essentialistic paradigm has the following decisive

shortcomings to understand the present situation and develop an alternative:

a) Culture is not an abstract entity in itself; it is rather a horizon of

human history on which every concrete human being understands and

interprets the reality as well as carries out actions in it. Neither do human

beings understand and interpret reality homogeneously, nor do they act in

a unified way.9 Culture is rather a place where different interests, views

and actions of different individuals or groups are competing, struggling or

living together. Power struggles and the changing constellation of power

belong of course to a culture. We can remember how feminist movement

changed the cultures of their societies. Culture is never a closed entity, but

rather an epistemic unit which entails in reality great internal dynamics and

diversities. The essentialistic paradigm does not help us understand the

internal dynamics of a culture.

b) According to the essentialistic paradigm, it is difficult to explain

change within a culture. Culture is created by living human beings, and to

live means to be in continuous change.  So culture too is an identity which

is continuously in process. Resisting change in a culture results in the

mummification of the past, and canceling the dynamic of present life.10 We

need to appreciate a more dynamic concept of culture and identity.

c) The antagonistic couple of the concepts is rather <tradition

vs. innovation>, rather than <one’s own tradition vs. influence from others>.

Even in one’s own tradition the dynamics of tradition and innovation is in

process. Also for “Western” culture it is the same. There is no

undifferentiated tradition in itself. If there is a tradition of the past dominating

system, there is also a revolutionary tradition. The undifferentiated

“tradition” designating a culture of those who have power was often misused

Hyondok Choe 67



by dictators for ideological manipulation of the mass. South-Koreans can

remember the propaganda of the “National Identity” or “Democracy in

Korean Way” under the military dictatorship in the 1970’s. The Asianism

of Lee Kwan Yew is another example.11 The relationship of tradition and

“Western” influence regarded as contradictory by the essentialistic paradigm

is not really contradictory.

d) According to the essentialistic paradigm, the essential

difference between Asian and European value systems lies in the question,

whether a community or an individual, duties or rights stands at the center

of human life and all sorts of social system and culture. Various values

were established as a result of an emancipation movement or revolution

against feudal ruling system – the concept of human dignity, human rights,

individual person as an autonomous subject, equality of all human beings,

freedom of religion, freedom of thought, idea of democracy, tolerance,

feminism etc. – are often regarded as “Western” per se.  Asians fighting

for democracy or human rights, or especially Asian women fighting for

gender equality, have been often blamed by the traditionalists for

propagating Western values and betray their own country and its tradition.

Dieter Senghaas, a well known German sociologist and expert in

development discourses, indicates that these values are never European

per se. He asks us to recall European history. Even until the middle of 18th

century, the idea of equality, human dignity and human rights were rejected

as strange and absurd. The few thinkers who promoted these ideas were

persecuted and their books were prohibited. The theocracy and intolerance

which existed  at the time of the Christian reformation reminds us of the

attitudes of the Taliban. Yet less than  200 years later in Northern and

Western Europe, people achieved these rights and established them through

various democratic systems. Southern European countries achieved these

ideals in the 20th century.12 The success in establishing these values is not

‘European’ per se, but the result of the hard struggles of the people for

their emancipation.

‘Intercultural Philosophy’ as a Response

68  Prajñâ Vihâra



What would be an appropriate way to respond to the challenge

of globalization? Is there no alternative to its main tendency of expanding

the Super Culture while it subdues and marginalizes other smaller cultures?

Wouldn’t it be conceivable to innovate the cultural heritage of Asia so that

it can initiate a cultural change in the process of globalization for pluralization

of human cultures in the world? In order to do it, we need not only a

competent strategy of adoption (Rezeption) but also we should be able to

offer a content which can be universalized. At the same time we have to

claim the right to offer it. I think that the “Intercultural Philosophy” is a

viable response.

Since the end of the 80’s there have been philosophers making

efforts to establish a new form of philosophy called “intercultural

philosophy”.13 Beyond the horizon of the comparative philosophy the new

one has to realize the transformation of philosophy as requested by the

‘dialogue of the cultures’.

Now I will introduce some concepts of intercultural philosophy

which can hint its essential characters.14

1. Contextuality

Philosophy is always done within a culture. It implies that there is

a material context of human thinking and the interdependence between

the culture and philosophical paradigms. This awareness stimulated

philosophers to be conscious of their own context and avoid absolutizing

or universalizing one’s own paradigm. This awareness contributed, on the

one hand, to the critical evaluation of the universality claims of the European

or occidental philosophy – “euro-centrism” - leading to the discovery of

the regional contextuality of European philosophy. On the other hand, a

fundament was prepared to reexamine and revaluate the philosophical

traditions of other cultural areas which have been called “cosmovision”,

“wisdom of life”, “religious consciousness”, “mysticism”, and other ways

of thought not traditionally accepted as philosophy by European

philosophers.15

2. Plurality

Hyondok Choe 69



There are diversity of contexts which bring about a diversity of

the form and content of philosophy. The plurality of the cultural practices

of philosophy is the source of the differences in its  concrete forms, in

which the human being is doing philosophy. Therefore it is necessary to

regionalize (to be aware of the regional character of) the forms of practice

and expression of philosophy (seminar, lecture, academic articles,

conversation, etc.).

3. Reference to Praxis

Philosophy should be contextualized in the sense of being aware

of its humus from which it has been growing. The world, within which

human beings practice philosophy, influences not only what is thought but

also how it is thought. At the same time these activities (practice of

philosophy) are a part of the events happening in the world and influence

the reality.  It implies that philosophy not only knows and explains the

world but also forms the reality.

4. Universality

The proposal of intercultural philosophy to regionalize philosophy

does not assume cultural relativism, nor is it postmodern. The necessity of

the universality is not abandoned. It is not the same universality which the

mono-cultural European philosophy has claimed. The intercultural

philosophy substitutes the tension between the universal and the particular

with the dialogue between the contextual worlds. The universality is

produced during the communication praxis, reciprocal translation and

mediation of own world of experiences and references.

5. Diverse Types of Rationality

The intercultural philosophy has distrusted the concept of ‘reason’

of  traditional European philosophy (cf.: postmodernism). But it does not

mean the absolute rejection of  ‘reason’ itself but the rejection of its

background of mono-cultural formation combined with exclusive claim of

validity. The proposal of intercultural philosophy is to examine historically

the process of the formation of the valid forms of rationality using an

intercultural, open dialogue free from prejudice. The dialogue will uncover

the mono-cultural structure of the conceptualizing process and suggest a

70  Prajñâ Vihâra



correction. The diverse ways of practicing philosophy from various cultures

of our multicultural world will participate in this process through translation.

Furthermore, the intercultural philosophy proposes to redefine the

status of  ‘reason’ by an intercultural and historical reconstruction of its

conceptualization process. Here it is necessary to explain the understanding

of culture presupposed in this notion. Culture is not an abstract, isolated

entity, but forms itself through the continuous process of interactions

between the internal and the external, etc. crossing various sorts of

boundaries. Every culture knows also the differentiation process as a reflex

of internal conflicts – intracultural struggles among various groups based

on different constellation of power or different interests (gender, class,

ethnic groups,etc.). They are fighting for cultural hegemony in order to

establish tradition (including value system) in their cultural world, an

authoritative reference point for the order of their world. It means each

culture also entails a history of possibilities which were suppressed and

cannot be realized. A historical reconstruction of a tradition may discover

these oppressed subcultures, reawakening them, and leading to a new

integration.

Redefining the status of ‘reason’ from an historical to an intercultural

perspective may allow a transformation of ‘reason’ – a possible liberation

of the historical figure of  ‘reason’ that was limited by its context within

western capitalistic modernity.

ENDNOTES

1 Theoreticians of cultural globalization criticizes this thesis of ‘uniformity’.

According to Roland Robertson the globalization accompanies always localization.

The goods, which can acquire popularity in the world market, are based on the local

culture. Not only McDonald, but also Dimsam is sold all over the world. However, in

terms of the dominance of principles of the Market, the thesis of ‘uniformity’ has still its

validity.
2 It was quoted by Arundhati Roy in her article “The algebra of infinite

justice” published in: The Guardian, Sept. 29, 2001. The statement of the U.S. President

Hyondok Choe 71



Bush, “Either you are with us, or you are against us,” expresses the same sort of

mentality.
3 For example: Council of the European Union, Working Party on Terrorism:

Presentation of a Presidency initiative for the introduction of a standard form for

exchanging information on terrorist incidents, Brüssels, January 29, 2002(05.02).
4 Arundhati Roy, a.a.O.
5 Ibid.
6 Josef Estermann, 2001, Religion und Gewalt – Dialektik von Globalisierung

und Fundamentalisierung, Manuscript of lecture at Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische

Hochschule (Aachen, Germany) in Oct. 2001.
7 Cf. Vincent Shen, 2002, From Politics of Recognition to a Politics of Mutual

Enrichment, in: Taipei Ricci Institute Data Base, http://www.richbase.com (downloaded

on Aug. 10, 2002).
8 Arundhati Roy, a.a.O.
9 Raúl Fornet-Betancourt, 2001, Einführung, in: Raúl Fornet-Betancourt (Hg.),

Kulturen zwischen Tradition und Innovation. Stehen wir am Ende der traditionalen

Kulturen? Dokumentation des III. Internationalen Kongresses für Interkulturelle

Philosophie, Frankfurt am Main:Iko-Verlag, p. 22.
10 Ibid., p. 23.
11 Choe, Hyondok, 1999, Towards a New Life in Asia: Modernity in Asian

Context, in: CTC Bulletin, Vol. 16, No. 1, ed. By Christian Conference of Asia, p. 93.
12 Dieter Senghaas, 2004, Zum irdischen Frieden, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 283-

290.
13 The following publications can be regarded as a milestone to signify the

beginning of the explicit constitution of an intercultural philosophy: R.A. Mall / H.

Hülsmann, 1989, Die drei Geburtsorte der Philosophie: China, Indien, Europa, Bonn;

R.A. Mall, 1992, Philosophie im Vergleich der Kulturen. Eine Einführung in die

interkulturelle Philosophie, Bremen; F. Wimmer, 1990, Interkulturelle Philosophie.

Geschichte und Theorie, Wien; H. Kimmerle, 1991, Philosophie in Afrika. Annäherungen

an einen interkulturellen Philosophiebegriff, Frankfurt am Main.
14 Raúl Fornet-Betancourt, 2002, Zur interkulturellen Transformation der

Philosophie in Lateinamerika, pp. 13-17.
15 Josef Estermann, 1997, Interkulturelle Philosophie und Mission. Wege

zwischen Fundamentalismus und Globalisierung, in: Neue Zeitschrift für

Missionswissenschaft 53-1997/4, p. 288.

72  Prajñâ Vihâra