In this issue we have taken up the first theme, by publishing large extracts from the texts of Jiang Yi-hua, Professor of Contemporary Chinese history at Fudan University and He Huai-hong, Professor at the Institute for Arts, Beijing. There will be a follow up of these thoughts in the next issue. These texts have been translated from Chinese by Yu Shuo, who is in charge of translations from and to Chinese for the Platform and who is also the Alliance group leader for China. She is assisted by Sabine Jourdain.

(...) I sincerely believe in the benevolence and honesty of the Platform’s authors, in their selfless ardour and in their unbounded enthusiasm.

Personally I agree with the preliminary idea of the Platform -- "if our societies continue to function and develop the way they are today, for yet a long period of time, humanity will end up destroying itself" -- even though I would prefer saying "humanity might end up destroying itself." I get the feeling that "we will have to really change our ways of life and thinking". I also admit that each one has his/her share of responsibility but feels helpless.

The Platform calls for a responsible and united world and for an outcome of a consensus on fundamental points such as, the study of problems and principles of action, priorities and strategies. However, the Platform underlines that priorities are differentiated according to countries and continents, and these differences do not prevent us from having common points of view on fundamental notions.

I would like to find out on what common ground and views can we have a consensus? On what kind of shared opinions? Will the consensus be on the diagnosis of the problem or on the values? Is the consensus global or partial? Is it on strategies or methods of action? Is it on higher goals or on basic ones?

We are all human beings living on the same planet and it is obvious that we must look for a consensus, a symbiosis. But in my opinion, instead of looking for this convergence at higher levels, we must begin with the elementary; instead of seeking it at the level of values, we must arrive at a consensus through common levels of action and fundamental norms. I would be in favour of exploring a world ethics based on universalism as advocated by religious and moral philosophers. These philosophers wish to establish moral principles which can be understood everywhere and by everybody thanks to criticism, dialogues and debates. They do not, however, underestimate the time taken for such a process. (...)

I would also like to point out the contradiction that exists between the three consistent objectives and the means to achieve them, as indicated by the Platform. The Platform hopes to arrive at a higher level of moral justice, to achieve dignity and satisfy human needs; it aims at eliminating poverty and helping people achieve a level of adequate comfort. In order to do this, we cannot not develop economy.

Similarly, the attack is aimed at two of the most solid pillars, namely science and market economy, which in fact help raise the level of material life and attain economic development. A valid argument to refute market economy and science, possibly stems from an attitude that considers spiritual life superior to material life, the inner world being superior to the outer world. (...)

If it really turns out as the Platform had made it out to be -- that market economy and science "become tools of inequality that cater only to the affluent -- then the question is how to transform them as tools made to serve an egalitarian society? It is a real problem that needs to be looked into. That is why we must establish a new point of view on equality which does not concentrate solely on material life. We must also work out a new dignity and an established point of view which will no longer be measured by the possession of material wealth. We must ensure that material life does not hold centre stage. Of course we need a minimal level of material comfort to which everyone can have access, according to his/her social status. We must admit though, that ever since the modern era, industrial development has improved the situation; the threat to survival is somewhat eliminated; natural calamities such as famine are rare, deaths in large numbers are no longer due to lack of material resources but due to wars and social upheavals and their consequences. As compared to ancient times, spiritual and moral levels attained by contemporaries is far from being equal to their material standard of life.

This perhaps is the problem that demands first priority. I would say that the lifeline for human beings and for the planet is to change the concept of values, and not consider desire and material standard of life as the ultimate goal. Values will depend on the qualities of the person, on the diversity of the ways of being; they will not be linked to the quantity of possessions. Otherwise there is a risk of dying of wealth and not of poverty, being suffocated by want of equality and not by inequality.

Return to Top

(...) The foundation that supports the main argument of the Platform is the negative judgement of modernity.

(...) The Platform fully acknowledges that it is "modernity invented in the West" that propagated itself in the entire world and that "modernity has brought about major imbalances". Yet, reality shows that in spite of misery and unending wars that accompany the process of modernisation, the development of modernity has provided human beings a unique space in history. "Modernity" here is in fact what we commonly term as "modernisation".

(...) While commenting on the historical role of modernity, it seems that the Platform is deviating from the axis of time and space. In my opinion, in order to eliminate these major imbalances at the root level, one cannot but reinforce modernity. Indeed, we cannot refute modernity because of the lack of existing models other than the Western one, and even less by projecting the imperfection and immaturity of modernisation. One must, unshakeably, highlight modernisation; developing a civilized modernity should be the general direction adopted by everyone for the next century.

(...) Reality proves that to arrive at an ideal of human development, a long and winding process is needed. While solving human problems, apart from the required efforts, science and technology and industrial revolution constitute an indispensable dynamics. In order to achieve this aim that is ideal development of humanity, one cannot despise technological revolution but on the contrary try to incorporate it and consider it as a partner.

While making a moral criticism of the other pillar of modernity, namely, the freedom of exchange (free exchange), the Platform denies commercial liberalism and market economy. (...) A particularly relevant question would be: in a primary (traditional) economic framework, before being replaced by a market economy, was the ethics (of that time) really beautiful, good, and ideal?(...) The Platform criticizes the market economy of reducing the value of life and objects to a monetary value. I do not know if the Platform realizes that before our era, even human beings were sold following the example of land or animals.

Strictly speaking, the Platform in fact expresses an attitude of an "all-embracing moral" which does not recognize the differences in ethics between market economy and traditional economy. It wishes to objectively evaluate the importance of both the ethics respectively, following the achievement of human personality, human nature and human rights.

In a market economy - contrary to traditional economy - importance is attached to individual interests and equal rights so that a hierarchy of moral standards is not instituted among people. (...) It is an enormous leap in terms of moral standards for human beings. Market economy has also allowed the disintegration of the totalitarian system of an administrative authority based on the moral of hierarchy. The collapse of moral traditions is necessary and does not warrant any regrets.

As for the modern aspect of the individual in a society of market economy and the traditional character of the individual in a traditional economy, the ethnologist from Taiwan, Yang Guo-shu had conducted a survey in this area. (...) Traditional aspects of an individual can be characterized by the following five points: respect for authority and respect for ancestors, ability to accept one’s status, confinement to fatalism fused with superstitions and the declared superiority of man over woman. The modern aspects are characterized by five points as well: spirit of equality and open-mindedness, notion of independence and resourcefulness, optimistic and enterprising character, respect for feelings and equality of both the sexes. Conducted towards the end of the eighties, this survey establishes the differences in the state of peoples’ minds, in an environment of traditional economy and in an environment of market economy respectively. In relation to tradition, we notice a collapse of rites and slackness of morals in contemporary society. However, if one recognizes that the development of ethics is characterized by its epoch, then we can easily understand that modernity has developed according to the process of establishing a new ethics, according to a process which allows us to break open the shackles of archaic conventions so that humanity, human dignity and human rights are liberated.

(...) In short we can assert that the 21st century should be a century of efficiency and maximum gains. While technical and industrial revolution conform to this sought after efficiency, the development of market economy is linked to profit. Without these elements it will be impossible to eliminate poverty, famine and illiteracy.

The 21st century should be the century of co-ordination. Never before have material and cultural production been so related. Only interdependant links can be weaved which is proved by the ever increasing number of regional and multilateral agreements. The Platform is presenting excellent ideas on co-ordination. There are regional and global priorities, and diversities must be taken into account and coordinated. This is an original perspective. On the contrary, the idea of a government that will be set up from eight regions seems utopic to me. The 21st century should be a century of global development.

Global development stands for lessening the gap between developed and developing countries, and between man and nature. It also means that all the age old civilizations will revive outbursts of creative force and leave way for a surge of tremendous energies. The advantages acquired by each civilization will succeed in creating a common heritage. (...)

Return to Top