Today, in the course on globalization issues, the topic of dialogue among civilizations happened to come up, and I went ahead and advocated my own position of preserving commonality while seeking difference. There were many issues raised in the discussion. I’ll make a few supplementary remarks here.
I acknowledge that diversity is a reality. But in what sense is it a reality? On the level of ontology, differences are certainly prior to dialogue; the fact of plural coexistence already existed long before plural dialogue got underway. But that is the ontological level—what about the level of knowledge? From the epistemic point of view, those differences may be known to us, but consciousness of one’s own uniqueness comes only after dialogue. Only in dialogue with others, and by comparing oneself with the differences of others, can one’s own distinctiveness truly be consciously recognized. For example, before we encountered white people and black people, there was no such awareness as “we are yellow people”; only when different kinds of people met did their mutual distinctions and differences become established in each side’s understanding. This is even more true of thought and worldview: only through dialogue can one become aware of what is diverse and what is unique. And if the aim of dialogue is “seeking commonality,” then one will very likely immerse oneself in those shared points of “you’re good, I’m good, everyone’s good,” while neglecting and blurring differences. So what I advocate is “seeking difference.” This is first of all at the level of knowledge: one must actively and proactively excavate differences, make differences manifest, and thereby establish one’s own individuality. This is the difference between seeking commonality and seeking difference in the tone and orientation of dialogue.
In addition, I still mentioned “preserving commonality,” and placed “preserving commonality” before “seeking difference.” Contrary to many people, I do not take difference as the status quo to be tolerated and commonality as the goal to be pursued and longed for; I take difference as the goal to be pursued and longed for, and commonality as the pragmatic starting point. I mentioned that only a certain degree of commonality makes dialogue possible. The same is true for each individual: people from childhood always first form a kind of “sense of sympathy,” believing that others are in some degree similar to themselves, believing that when people speak the same language or perform similar behaviors they will have similar feelings. This makes imitation and learning to communicate possible, whereas the awakening of “self-consciousness” has to wait until later—until one’s teens, when the mind gradually matures and one becomes aware of the differences between others and oneself, and only then does the concept of the “self” gradually come into being.
This “sense of commonality” that makes dialogue possible is not something definite and objective, but something subjective, measured from each person’s own perspective. What is called “sympathy” is understanding others as similar to oneself, and it uses one’s own standard. At the outset of dialogue between two sides, there may also emerge some basic consensus that both sides “recognize”; these consensuses deepen the sense of commonality between them. But this sense of commonality merely provides a basis for dialogue, providing a harmonious atmosphere in which dialogue can unfold, rather than a final conclusion. In fact, as discussion of “seeking difference” gradually deepens, both sides may discover that the original surface-level consensus in fact concealed enormous differences beneath it. It is clear, then, that my “preserving commonality” has a purpose similar to the “preserving difference” in the phrase seeking commonality while preserving difference. That is, to take it as the starting condition of dialogue.
From the standpoint of the purpose of dialogue, the ultimate aim of preserving commonality while seeking difference is not sameness, nor is it entirely for the sake of seeking difference; more importantly, it is to establish individuality more effectively. But in terms of practical tendency, the world that “seeking difference” hopes for is a more and more plural world, not a world that is becoming increasingly unified. The so-called “cultivate strengths and avoid weaknesses”: each side brings its own special strengths into full play, and the result will be that mutual differences grow greater and greater. Of course, as differences grow greater, mutual understanding also deepens day by day, and this is not at odds with practical mutual consideration and accommodation. On the basis of increasingly close exchange and understanding, convergence in certain respects will also be a natural tendency. I am not saying that one should adopt a rejecting attitude toward reaching consensus, but convergence is often a natural thing: when a group of people live and communicate together for a long time, they will naturally tend to become similar in many respects, even without any active reflection or interference. However, the establishment and manifestation of individuality require active effort, and for that reason I think “preserving commonality while seeking difference” is more worthy of advocacy.
November 8, 2006
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply