Theme

Working paper for the discussion on education

Education was one of the three themes for the Forum 2000 conference in the year 2000. We were looking at education as an important part of the great cultural, social and political changes in the world globalisation process. World integration processes which rely solely on mechanisms for the economic, technological and legal interconnection of individual parts of the world may - if they are not simultaneously accompanied by changes in knowledge, skills, value systems and attitudes - give rise to crises or bitter conflicts between individual regions of the world. Education is an important instrument which could contribute to preventing such crises and conflicts. The present formal education systems have, however, been built on axioms which correspond to societies other than those in which we now live and will continue to live. In European countries, this means, e.g., the role which schools had under the nation- state, while in other societies there may be different circumstances in relatively closed communities and states. The basic form of the current education systems in the western world is undoubtedly a consequence of the formation of the nation- state and primary and secondary education were a crucial force behind the creation of national identity in Europe. Certain disciplines played a similar role, e.g., history, geography, literature, etc. The issue of universities and traditions which emerged in the 19th century and earlier is different. At the same time, the last fifty years have been one of the most glorious epochs in the history of this institution. There is, however, the question of the need to transform universities, inter alia in consequence of globalisation processes. The diffusion of the western university model to different parts of the world has run into numerous problems. Despite the urgency of these issues, education matters have to a large extent been neglected in discussions on globalisation. The Prague conference wished to go some way towards filling this gap and above all to structure the theme in its entirety and pose relevant questions. Education cannot avoid the processes of globalisation. It is part of them, if not indeed one of the factors in them. The main aims of presentations and discussions on this area at the conference in the year 2000 therefore were:

• clarifying and identifying the positive and negative impacts of globalisation on the contents, forms and structures of education and education systems - in short, what globalisation has brought and the dangers it carries with it;
• what consequences of globalisation should be deduced in the education policies of developed countries, third-world countries and post-communist countries;
• how education can contribute to the essential humanisation of the globalisation process.

On the threshold of the 21st century, education itself, whether in the context of the globalisation process or independent of it, is undergoing important changes - perhaps even some kind of mutation. It is confronting a number of key challenges to which it has been trying to respond for the last ten or twenty years, which it will have to resolve in the future, and which Forum 2000 also looked at. This involved, e.g.:

• the imperative and concept of life-long learning, which has become a principle for the development of all levels of the education system;
• the reform of education from the point of view of adapting it to the needs of the information society;
• the consequences and potential of new information and communications technologies for education;
• the inevitable expansion of education systems (especially at their higher levels) and meeting equal opportunity requirements for social groups with little involvement to date, such that one of the probable and negative consequences of globalisation can be confronted, i.e., the separation of “globally communicating elites” from closed local social groups receiving practically none of the benefits of globalisation processes;
• linking up training for practical communication skills between different business, technical and legal cultures with the ability to tolerate those differences and prepare people’s thinking and behaviour for life in multinational communities.

The best-known and most tangible aspects of the globalisation process are of course economic ones. However, the consequences for the cultural and spiritual spheres are no less important, and were also covered at Forum 2000. It was therefore important that the discussion on education looked at these areas and consequences as a priority.

Jiří Musil
Ladislav Čerych

Cultural Identities and Art in the Process of World Integration

During previous centuries, culture and the Arts were the engines that connected nations and territories. Whereas an "ordinary" human beings didn't travel a great deal, those who created art used to wander from one country to another - invited by sovereigns and patrons or of their own volition. In ancient times, most of them were the orators whose multiform activity in the language media would most probably apply to what we call an "intellectual" nowadays. From the very peak of the Middle Ages until now there have been wanderers, mostly musicians and artists, whose fields of activity were comprehensible to all because their activity didn't depend on language. On the contrary, those who worked within the sphere connected with language felt, from the time that people began to write in their native languages, threatened by a tendency to supra-nationalism and globalization: to become international meant to surrender the original media creation to translation. The 20th Century brought a new problem for the Arts which had been unknown before: mass media, and especially the electronic media, have spread the culture of consumerism, which is already "globalized" as such. Traditional and real Arts must resist this onslaught of consumerism.

The Forum 2000, in the year 2000, devoted one of its days to the complex question of Culture and the Arts in the globalized world. The Committee invited for discussion not only Art theorists, but also active artists because they live in daily connection and controversy with the "national" and "international", or "sovereign" and "universally comprehensive" in their activities. During the day devoted to Culture, some basic questions were posed concerning the relationship between the Arts and globalization, in both directions:

1. What do the Arts signify for globalization - is it still a vehicle, or rather one of the means of resistance; and, in what sense?
2. What does globalization mean for the Arts - is it its chance, challenge or threat; and, in what sense?

We did not want to force certain replies upon the participants of the discussions. But we offered them, for inspiration, some other fragmentary questions, as follows:

What role could some national cultures play in a globalized world - especially those parts which are dependent on language (literature and, to a certain extent, theatre)?

How do artists from different nations feel the pressure of an international culture and to what extent are they integrated with the American culture?

How do situations of national cultures which are explicitly minority nations - the European nations under the range of 50 Million, and the African nations - differ from the situation of those whose language culture had once been world wide and is no longer (i.e., Italian, German and French)?

Is the situation of artistic disciplines that are not connected with language - mostly music - really easier?

Will the Arts continue to be an interest for only a minority of people; meanwhile, most of the population is thrown back into the consumption of media kitsch?

What do artists really think of the misalliance of their colleagues, those who gravitate toward the world of mass media and popular music (such as the phenomenon of "The 3 Tenors")?

Shall, can, and may the Arts of the 21st Century play a role of national, political or some other kind of enlightenment (ergo, the Feminist culture); or, shall, can, and may it relinquish the link with society in the name of so-called "Pure Art".

Martin Putna

Religion in the Process of Globalization

Globalization is a social-cultural revolution, which concerns religion in many respects:

Individual religious systems are becoming closely connected; religions are compelled to enter a mutual confrontation; and, a varied scale of possible mutual relations is beginning: from dramatic conflicts, through dialogues, to consolidation.

Members of different religions, who are living in a multi-religious society, must deeply reflect and defend their own beliefs - or they must isolate themselves from their surroundings - by rejecting and demonizing their surroundings.

The social roles of religions are changing: religions are becoming important holders and defenders of individual social, and cultural, group identity. Militant and fundamental movements might prevail; religions might become instruments of political, nationalistic and social interests; or, they might build bridges of reconciliation and understanding across the frontiers of nations, countries, and cultural spheres.

Contacts between religions could lead to a weakening of traditional religious institutions and to the rise of new religious movements, sometimes inspired by, up to now remote, religious cultures.

Thinkers, drawing from individual religious traditions, may contribute to discussions about common values which would serve as a basis for building the rules of mutual relations inside the "Global Village"; for example, international laws or conventions concerning research ethics, ecological measures or armament control.

Some religious streams are refusing not only the theory, but the concept of globalization itself as an ideological instrument of Western cultural-political imperialism. We were trying to clear up how the particular religions had been looking at the process of globalization and what do they understand from this term. Does "Globalization" really stand for just another name of the process of modernization, which has been spreading out from the West to the rest of the world and which is particularly characterized by occurrences, such as capitalism, the nation- state, scientific rationalism, technologies, etc... Is it the so-called "American way of life" or perhaps "McDonaldization" of the world? Maybe the primary cause is not the spreading of one historically existing civilization, but a nascency of a new civilization with its own social structure. It may seem that this new civilization would like to relate to the other existing particular cultures, including their religious aspects. Is it the matter of homogenization? Or, we could speak about the context transformation in which the particular cultures exist without necessarily losing their specific nature? Maybe both exist in parallel. Are the religions closely tied with particular cultures, or do they represent something universal and eternal? (There has been a very interesting evolution in Catholicism, which belonged to the first of the global institutions and has a great deal of experience with incorporating its values into different cultures. Nowadays, some theologians, in connection with inter-religious dialogue, speak about a path from "Catholicism to Catholicity", about religion as a symbol and an instrument of the human unity.) Some paradoxes of globalization:

Globalization is a universalization (of western culture) and its particularization at the same time. (Robertson: Particularism is becoming universalized, and universalism is becoming particularized). Does the reality itself mean a chance or a threat with respect to a universal claim traditionally raised by European Christianity?

Connected societies use secular terms with secular rules; hardly any particular religious traditions could admit or grant transcendental attributes to actual secular societies. But society itself became the highest value, demanding maximum loyalty, and is the context of every meaningful social existence: Is it a "Substantial religion", a society being idealized or globalization by itself? There are some sects and cults which have appeared here, after the cessation of the "individualism" cult and the "society" cult. After all this we can expect some cult of "globality". Could this be a challenge for traditional religion?

Global Order, influenced by Western religions, is secular. International law is not religiously anchored; therefore, political and economic transactions have a secular character, and there is no single religious tradition to make provision for this. But, because the Global Order is an institutional standard, one could search for its "Ultimate foundation". What can theologians and gurus respond to this? It is important to recall the ethic-religious source and context of today's secularized traditions (Bockenferde: Democracy is standing on values that it never created by itself) or is it necessary to search for a new "Universal ethos" by means of an inter-religious dialogue (Kung)?

Globalization produces plurality, but plurality evokes the desire for coherence. A "universal order" is very diverse - it urges unity. Religious attempts to create a "common order" seem to be condemned to failure if they are not imposed by force. Is it feasible to look for some shared elements in diverse traditions? Is there a possibility to combine global tolerance and critical exchange, and active participation in particular communities with a sense for belonging to a larger unity?

These, and some other questions, were discussed in the three phases and three panel discussions:

I. Does this era pose some new tasks and appeals to religion? The discussions of sociologists of religions and theologians, who deal with the inter-religious dialogue, concerning the transformation of the forms and the social role of religions in the process of globalization.

• Is the post-modern society post-secular?
• Is the social role of religion changing today? If some social -role aspects of religion are disappearing, will some new ones originate?
• Are religions changing because of mutual contact, and how do they respond, one to the other?

II. Responsibility of religion for the Human world? Discussion by representatives of religions concerning the challenges, chances and obstacles which the process of globalization symbolizes for its religious traditions.

Shall religion attempt to change this world exclusively through an effort to change people's thinking and their souls, or should it also concern social, economic and political structures and conditions?

III. Spiritual and ethical basis of global civilization. Discussions by spiritual leaders concerning the possibilities of what the single religious traditions can contribute to the rising global civilization.

• Does the already rising global civilization have certain specific or shared (not yet reflected) moral and spiritual values and characters?
• Does there already exist a real need and possibility to create a new spiritual and ethical basis of the new civilization? Does something like this develop spontaneously, or is it necessary to care for it?
• What does the World expect from the religious leaders? What do the religious traditions expect from each other? Is it possible to say that in contrast to the great variety within the field of science, there are analogies and consensus in the field of ethics and spiritual practice? How is it possible to transmit some spiritual heritage of the past?

Tomáš Halík