The Impact of ‘Globalization’ on Cultural Identities

Globalization. Ethical and Institutional Concerns Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, Acta 7, Vatican City 2001 www.pass.va/content/dam/scienzesociali/pdf/acta7/acta7-morande.pdf THE IMPACT OF ‘GLOBALIZATION’ ON CULTURAL IDENTITIES PEDRO MORANDÉ COURT 1. F OREWORD The purpose of this contribution is to analyze the im pact that the ongoing globalization process has on the cultural identities of peoples. However, to be able to carry out this analysis it is first necessary to locate the process of globalization within the realm of understanding culture, som ething which is usually not done. The com m only used definition of globalization com es from the econom ic realm , from the opening up to free trade and from the growing interdependence of world m arkets at their different levels. To this definition is usually added the political and institutional dim ension, the responsibility of the organism s of the United Nations, m ultilateral pacts, and regional agreem ents. In both dim ensions there exist, certainly, involved cultural aspects: the so-called ‘cultural industry’ and ‘show business’ on the one hand, and cultural institutions protected by law, such as schools, universities and the m edia, on the other. However, with an approach of this type we only touch the surface of the cultural dim ension, since this last cannot be reduced either to the exchange of products or to institutions. Therefore, I would like to analyze at the outset what I understand as culture from the perspective of sociology and how the process of globalization can be defined using this approach. 2. THE CONCEPT OF CULTURE I leave to philosophers the analysis of the ontological dim ension of culture and its relationship with the hum an person as such. I m ake this indis- 190 PEDRO MORANDÉ COURT pensable explanation because I do not ignore the fact that the current Pontiff’s teaching provided beautiful stim uli for reflection when he declared in his speech to UNESCO that culture ‘is a specific way of existing and of m an’s being’; that ‘m an, who in the visible world is the only ontic subject of culture, is also its only object and its end’ and ‘that one cannot think of culture without hum an subjectivity and without hum an causation; that, in the field of culture, m an is always the first fact: m an is the prim ordial and fundam ental fact of culture. And this is m an always in his/her entirety: in the integral whole of his/her spiritual and m aterial subjectivity’ (Speech to UNESCO, 2 June 1980). ‘Globalization’, as such, is not a phenom enon that in an im m ediate or direct way bears upon this sphere of analysis. Rather, it presupposes it, at least in the sense that the hum an person rationally understands that in spite of his or her different ethnic and historical-cultural origins he or she shares that sam e rational condition which m akes him or her aware that he or she is a free subject and also conscious of the causation of his or her acts, som ething which includes, as a consequence, his or her responsibility. Although voices have already been raised which seek to question the unity of the hum an species and also question that all m en, by the fact of being such, m ust be considered as persons, that is to say free fellows and equal in dignity and rights, it is m y view that their argum ents are excessively directed towards the legitim ation of dubious techniques which allow the m anipulation of hum an beings and as a result these voices do not express effective rational argum ents. Sociology, in a m ore m odest perspective, considers the concept of culture as a historical one which was consolidated in Europe during the eighteenth century after a long social genesis and which since then has not only been applied in the European regions but progressively throughout the world. This is not the place to describe the m ost relevant aspects of this socio-genesis. It is enough to point out that it has been, so to speak, an evolutionary gain in term s of the achievem ent of objectivity in observing social phenom ena, with the consequent possibility of com paring different particular traditions and custom s, and this at a tim e when with the m assification of written culture the consideration of social esteem was liberated from a vision derived from the higher levels of a pyram id m ade up of status hierarchization. After the consolidation of bourgeois culture, what was cultivated could be considered in alternative ways and from a perspective different to that of the nobility. But this was only the beginning of a process that was to be enlarged progressively to other spheres. Not only would life and death, catastrophe and illness, be perceived as constituent elem ents of THE IMPACT OF ‘GLOBALIZATION’ ON CULTURAL IDENTITIES 191 hum an contingency: they would begin to be defined with suitable and relevant social approaches. The concept of culture expressed the possibility that social difference could be considered in sym m etrical form and not only with those concepts which, due to the ontological load involved, hierarchize one of the two sides of the differentiated: truth/falsehood, good/evil, beauty/ugliness, civilization/barbarity, nobility/ignobility. If, during the sixteenth century, for exam ple, theologians had to pose the question of whether the recently discovered Aborigines of Am erica were really hum ans at all, thereafter the concept that was em ployed was that of ‘other cultures’, without there being an explicit indication through such an appellation of any form of hierarchy. One was dealing, sim ply, with otherness. Obviously enough, the hierarchization of difference would not disappear com pletely, and this is true of our days as well. But ethnocentrism , racism and other tendencies of this type began to be easily known as particular points of view which did not depend on the objects being observed but on the perspectives of the observers. Following Luhm ann, we can affirm , in consequence, that the concept of culture expressed an observation of the second degree, that is to say, the observation m ade by observers. There do not exist, as such, cultural objects which can be differentiated from others that are not such objects. Not even the difference between natural objects and constructed devices is an exam ple of this because all cultures have given to natural objects varied sym bolic m eanings that can be understood only with reference to their herm eneutic presuppositions. As was to be expressed later in the classic definition by Tylor, practically all objects that have social m eaning belong to culture. It is not, therefore, from the object in itself that we can construct a cultural analysis, but from the way in which that object is observed by observers. What lies behind this observation of the second degree? Fundam entally, two things. Firstly, the self-observation that is structured in the consciousness starting with the differentiation between identity and difference, that is to say, between self-reference and hetero-reference. Secondly, the discovery of the blind point present in every observation produced by the fact that when tracing a difference no observer can be located sim ultaneously on both sides of the differentiated. When discovering the blind point in others, awareness of one’s own blind point can be acquired and hence the need to m ake com parisons between the different points of view, which in turn feed back to the perception of identity and difference. This is the procedure by which different peoples have acquired cultural identity, either in their identity/difference in relation to their im m ediate neighbors or in relation to 192 PEDRO MORANDÉ COURT m ajor regions of the earth: for exam ple, the West/the East, the North/the South, Ibero-Am erica/Anglo-Am erica, Latinity/Germ anity, etc. The sam e approach is usually applied within societies with reference to sex, age, incom e, productivity or any other socially relevant aspect. There are as m any types of cultures as there are points of view from which cultures can be observed and differentiated. If in certain circum stances one prevails over another, this is the result of the social relevance attributed to these differentiations, which can be recom posed and fed back infinitely. Observing this process from the perspective of social evolution, it could be said that without abandoning them totally, approaches linked to the ontic reality of people, such as sex, age, race, and territory, are substituted for contingent and relative criteria for the purpose of observation, such as productivity, efficiency, speed, objectivity, esteem , and subjective preferences. No approach involving differentiation, however, is com pletely abandoned. Not even those that have ontological consequences. They are m erely reinterpreted from points of view involving a higher awareness of contingency and of the relativity of the observation and classification approaches. Sociologists seem to be in broad agreem ent on the use of two m ajor m acro-variables to observe this process: on one hand, the passage from oral cultures to written cultures and then to audiovisual ones; and, on the other, the passage from fam ily-segm ented social organization to status hierarchized social organization, and, finally, to the functional organization of society. Both variables point towards a fact which has often been observed: that societies progressively replace the invariable approaches of a natural character by which to observe them selves with m ore flexible and contingent approaches which refer to their own form s of social organization. Whereas in m ost oral cultures, the m irror by which society observes itself is nature, the cosm os (cosm ologies, cosm ogonies), the introduction of literacy allows the substitution of this hetero-reference by the self-reference of society for seeing itself and its differentiations, that is to say, by culture, in its dynam ic relation of identity and difference. Society, with these new degrees of com plexity, acquires an increase in the num ber of available options for decision-m aking. Through the duplication in the sym bolic sphere of all objects and social relations, culture allows a foreseeing of possible scenarios and the giving of present value to the future. The irruption of audiovisual technology accelerates this sam e process and this m eans that society can be aware of the value/cost of the suitability of its decisions. Cu ltu re is also iden tified with th e h istorical m em ory of societies. H ere em ph asis is placed on th e m ech an ism s of th e socialization of kn owledge THE IMPACT OF ‘GLOBALIZATION’ ON CULTURAL IDENTITIES 193 an d m ean in g th at form th e in tergen eration al n etwork wh ich provides con tin u ity to social life. Su ch a vision cou ld n ot be u n derstood except from th e perspective of th e observation of observers sin ce in th e receptivity of th e poin t of view of tradition by each n ew gen eration wh at h as been th ou gh t an d tran sm itted is con sidered in separable from th e an alysis of th e poin t of view of th ose wh o h ave elaborated an d tran sm itted th em in th is way. Th is allows th e n ew gen eration s to develop a critical approach in relation to preceden ts an d to produ ce in n ovation an d ch an ge in society. H owever, it is n ecessary to overcom e an extrem ely lin eal vision of th is socialization process sin ce on e h as to keep in m in d th at th e presen t in society n owadays, wh ich in th e con text of cu rren t life-expectan cy covers approxim ately five gen eration s, in volves a state of affairs wh ere each on e of th ese gen eration s feeds back its poin ts of view in to th ose perceived by th e oth ers. Th e h istorical m em ory sh ou ld n ot be u n derstood, con sequ en tly, as a sort of file of past even ts th at can be open ed wh en it is n ecessary to rem em ber th in gs, bu t rath er as a h erm en eu tic ability of th e presen t wh ich gu ides th e possibilities of in creasin g th e observation an gles of differen tiation between iden tity an d differen ce. This new form of conceiving culture perm its a leaving behind both of the idea that social consciousness is necessarily false or alienated and of the concom itant idea that sees culture as a reflective superstructure of the m aterial conditions of life. With regard to the first idea, it is evident that every observation, as has already been pointed out, has a blind point, where what cannot be seen cannot be seen. But the capacity to observe observers tracing the differentiations, which allows them to observe, m akes possible the discovery of the latent structures of our own and other people’s observations, so that alienation, far from rem aining a sort of black hole to which every consciousness succum bs, provides an opportunity for feeding back the differentiation which one observes with new differentiations that were not originally perceived. With regard to the second idea, the concept of ‘value-added’ is applied equally to the exchange of m aterial objects and to the exchange of intangible ones, and both of these categories have a cultural dim ension that can be observed. Culture, indeed, corresponds to the duplication of objects as soon as they are observed, but such a duplication reflects nothing m ore than the point of view of the observation and for this reason the ideas of infrastructure and superstructure have been abandoned by sociology. H avin g m ade th ese observation s abou t th e sociological poin t of view an d cu ltu ral an alysis, I wou ld n ow like to con sider th e cu rren t ph en om en on of ‘globalization ’. 194 PEDRO MORANDÉ COURT 3. ‘Globalization’ from the Perspective of Cu ltu re From what has been said above, it can be inferred that in the analysis of the im pact of ‘globalization’ on culture it is very unsatisfactory to understand the phenom enon of globalization as an increase in the exchange flows of international trade, either in the sphere of m erchandise or in the sphere of capital and financial flows. Although it could be understood that in this increm ent of trade there are goods included that in general term s could be considered as being cultural ones, for exam ple books, m usical works, designs of wardrobes and adverstising, we have already pointed out that no object by itself can be considered separately from the culture in which it has been produced. The fact that the access to new technologies takes place in differentiated form in the different regions of the world and that the distance between the included and the excluded has been increased is also no cultural fact in itself. It is possible that the new awareness of the value of inform ation and the increm ent of trade in intangible goods m akes it m ore evident that the capacity to add value appropriately to the goods is the basis of the difference in levels of productivity between countries, between regions of the world, and between branches of production inside a single country. However, there is nothing new in this fact because the beginning of the m odern world, when the interest on capital was seen as legitim ate gain and not as usury, opened the road to a social differentiation rooted in a m onetary econom y with its consequent obligations of efficiency and com petitiveness to attain the m axim ization of the value of goods. Perhaps it could be sustained that this differentiation has reached such m agnitudes that it is by now irreversible, and that for the sam e reason ideologies which proclaim ed that the equality of hum an beings was the purpose of all the efforts of the political com m unity have lost their foundations. But for the reasons enunciated above, the idea of equality is in itself an observation approach which has a blind point, and it cannot escape the paradox that the observer is unable to locate him self or herself on both sides of the differentiated. The question of how equal the equals are is in the consciousness of people every day in the m ost varied environm ents, precisely because they experience that behind equality approaches, society, in fact, traces differentiations. It is necessary to explore the question m ore deeply and to ask whether behind the so-called globalization process there is a new ‘quality’ that deserves to be analyzed or whether we are only face to face with quantitative increm ents of interchanged goods, due especially to the fact that the THE IMPACT OF ‘GLOBALIZATION’ ON CULTURAL IDENTITIES 195 econom ic value of suitable inform ation has becom e m ore evident. To answer this question, which is in itself highly com plex, exceeds m y possibilities and the confines of this paper. There is no other alternative, as a result, than than that of enunciating som e hypotheses in the hope that they will stim ulate a debate that can supplem ent and correct their deficiencies. 3.1 Chan ges in the R elation ship betw een Hu m an Bein gs an d Machin es Differently from other social phenom ena of great range that the world experienced in previous centuries, one of the significant novelties of this present phenom enon is that the political will that drives this process and the ideologies that have been elaborated to advance it were largely preceded by the technological innovations that occurred after the invention of the ‘hom eostatic’ m achine. Such innovations did not only change the scope of the production of technological instrum ents: what is even m ore im portant is that they also changed the procedure itself of gathering inform ation, of analysis, and of decision-m aking. This was truly a silent revolution that sprung from scientific laboratories and was then extended to all the spheres of social life, progressively em bracing all hum an activity. We can state th at tech n ology su ffered a radical tran sform ation wh en th e m ach in e stopped bein g con ceived of as an in stru m en t wh ose en ds were im posed on it extern ally by th e u ser’s will an d becam e a m ach in e, as is th e case today, th at in corporated with in itself th e possibility of defin in g altern ative en ds. Au tom atization h as n ot on ly m ean t th e creation of n ovel in telligen t m ach in es with th e capacity to bu ild or to con trol oth er m ach in es, bu t also m ach in es design ed with th e explicit in ten tion of im itatin g th e fu n ction s of h u m an in telligen ce wh ich h ave h om ogen ized an d stan dardized in a growin g way th e operation al defin ition of wh at is properly a ration al decision , in con texts of variable circu m stan ces an d with differen t levels of available in form ation . I sustain, therefore, the hypothesis that an essential characteristic of social evolution at this stage of hum an history is that m en and m achines are no longer com pletely foreign in relation to one another. Both look for inform ation, they store it, they process it, and they use it according to a rational protocol of decision-m aking. Under typical conditions and in a predeterm ined range of problem s both act in an equivalent way. This new type of interrelation has changed the scope of the hum an phenom enon since com plex alternative scenarios for all kinds of decisions can now be sim ulated in m achines at a speed that hum an beings on their own could never reach. 196 PEDRO MORANDÉ COURT Wh ereas du rin g a large part of th e twen tieth cen tu ry a pron ou n ced ‘u n easin ess in cu ltu re’ was perceived in relation to th e developm en t of tech n ologies th at displaced th e cen tral position of th e h u m an bein g in social life an d th e validity of Protagoras’s assertion th at ‘th e h u m an bein g is th e m easu re of all th in gs’, it h as been th e tech n ological revolu tion itself th at h as on ce again placed h u m an bein gs at th e cen ter, alth ou gh in a way th at was totally u n foreseen by ideologies. Th e re-cen terin g of th e h u m an bein g is n ot n ow proceedin g by virtu e of th e Kan tian ‘legislative will’ with its attem pt to tran scen d th e con tin gen cy of social life th rou gh form al u n iversal prin ciples, bu t becau se of th e social capacity to process con tin gen t an d differen tiated in form ation wh ich is appreciated precisely for its differen ce an d redu n dan cy. In form ation in itself is n ow defin ed as a capacity to con n ect differen ces, an d, for th at reason , is a very cu ltu ral act. 3.2 The Attem pt to Organize Social Life in ‘Real Tim e’ The m ain consequence of the above m entioned technological change is that the ability to organize social life in ‘real tim e’ has been created, although m erely in an approxim ate form since absolute sim ultaneousness constitutes a principle of im possibility. The very term ‘globalization’, in this sense, is not very appropriate since it suggests spatial unification m ore than sim ultaneousness in term s of tim e. Nevertheless, it is in this last dim ension that the novelty introduced by new technologies can be appreciated. Th e ‘u n easin ess’ th at h as produ ced th is tran sform ation h as n ot beeen so m u ch with cu ltu re as with ideological th ou gh t. Th u s th e postm odern ists h ave proclaim ed th e en d of th e ‘m etarécit’ or th e ‘declin e of ideologies’. An d, in a certain sen se, th ey are righ t, alth ou gh th e argu m en ts th ey u se to arrive at th is con clu sion are certain ly debatable, particu larly wh en th ey assim ilate th e in terpretation of th e Ch ristian even t of salvation to an ideology of h istory, to a ‘m etarécit’, wh ich com pletely den atu ralizes its esch atological an d sacram en tal dim en sion . H owever, if we do n ot deal with th is aspect bu t ju st rem ain in th e sph ere of ideological th ou gh t, it seem s righ t to affirm th at th is ideology was bu ilt on th e basis of th e differen tiation between th e past (wh ich in clu ded th e presen t situ ation ) an d a fu tu re wh ich was still to be bu ilt. As stated in th e well-kn own com m en t of Marx to Feu erbach , ‘u p to n ow ph ilosoph ers h ave in terpreted th e world, bu t n ow we h ave to ch an ge it’. Th is distan ce between th e lived past an d th e ‘wan ted’, ‘dream ed of’ or ‘plan n ed’ fu tu re m ade presen t tim e an in sign ifican t m om en t of social tem porality, a m ere form al con n ection . THE IMPACT OF ‘GLOBALIZATION’ ON CULTURAL IDENTITIES 197 Th e approach to ‘real tim e’ allowed by th e n ew in form ation tech n ologies brin gs, on th e con trary, a h igh er con sciou sn ess of presen t tim e as th e m om en t wh en decision s are lin ked an d th e fu tu re is an ticipated. Th e fu tu re stops bein g a m ere con ceptu al represen tation of wh at is con ceivable an d cou ld occu r an d com es to con stitu te th e cu rren t m ean in g of th e coordin ation of decision s. By ideological th ou gh t th is is perceived as th e ‘en d of h istory’. By th e con tin gen t elaboration of in form ation , on th e con trary, it is an opportu n ity to give presen t valu e to th e fu tu re. Th is largely explain s th e progressively greater im portan ce acqu ired by th e m on etary econ om y in relation to th e real econ om y, a developm en t du e precisely to th e fact th at it an ticipates th e fu tu re. It also explain s wh y th e valu e of ‘carpe diem ’ h as been so stron gly asserted in recen t decades. Som e observers h ave in terpreted th is with referen ce to h edon ism an d th e im plicit m aterialism of con su m er society, wh ich eviden tly m akes sen se. Bu t it cou ld also be poin ted ou t th at it is a sym ptom th at presen t tim e n ow h as a n ew social gravitation , its own valu e, th at it does n ot represen t a m ere arrival poin t or a m ere startin g poin t. I h ave th e im pression th at th is im portan t ch an ge h as also been a sou rce of ten sion s for in tergen eration al dialogu e. For th ose wh o were socialized before th ese ch an ges took place, you th still represen ts a fu tu re project, despite th e fact th at th e ju ven ile period h as been exten ded very m u ch , as a con sequ en ce, am on g oth er factors, of th e in crease in life expectan cy. You n g people, on th e oth er h an d, rebel again st th is vision , sin ce, socialized in th is n ew social con text, th ey ju stifiably th in k th at presen t tim e also belon gs to th em an d th ey claim th e n ecessary social space for th eir own decision s an d represen tation s. E ven th e category of ‘you n g people’ in itself is too u n determ in ed becau se th e appraisal of presen t tim e leads to an in creasin g sh orten in g of th e period of age in wh ich sh ared referen ces exist. If Ortega y Gasset still th ou gh t th at th e distan ce between on e gen eration an d an oth er was approxim ately fifteen years, n owadays it seem s th at th is qu an tity of years is excessive. Bou n d u p with th is ph en om en on , on e is also aware of a certain in differen ce am on g you n g people wh en facin g a lon g du ration h istorical m em ory com pared with wh at u su ally h appen ed in th e cu ltu ral tran sm ission of poin ts of view am on g th e elder gen eration s. Particu larly, th e expectation of in tergen eration al en cou n ter h as m oved from th e past to th e presen t tim e, with correspon din g difficu lties th at th is en cou n ter will actu ally h appen . Th e adu lts can n ot take for gran ted th at th ey will en joy th e respect of you n g people becau se of th e sole fact th at th ey are older 198 PEDRO MORANDÉ COURT an d, as su ch , th e h olders of wisdom abou t life.You n g people, on th e oth er h an d, do n ot accept bein g defin ed as in expert becau se of th e sole fact th at th ey are you n g. Th e possibility of organ izin g social life in ‘real tim e’ brin gs abou t, in con sequ en ce, an u n derstan din g of th e in tergen eration al dialogu e m ore as a reality u n derway th an as a lon g du ration process in wh ich each gen eration delivers its relay (testim on y) to th e followin g on e at th e m om en t of its retirem en t from th e social scen e. 3.3 Decision -Makin g, Ethics an d S ocial Govern an ce The sole fact that the phenom enon that caused the novelty of nowadays did not have its origins in the political sphere, the habitual place of understanding the decision-m aking process in relation to the com m on good, represents in itself a huge political challenge. It would be enough to check the reiterated fact that current politicians/policies are forced in m ost cases to legalize the social effects of new facts which are created without any political intention. Political discussion runs the risk of becom ing m ore and m ore a speech of ex post factu m legitim ation, with an evidently decreasing social relevance. Its traditional concern for the education of virtue am ong citizens has had to give way to consequentialist orientations due to the fact of being often surprised and surpassed by events that are difficult to foresee in term s of their significance before they actually happen. It is not the task of this paper to engage in a political analysis of these transform ations but m erely to refer to their cultural significance. In this respect, I would like to m ention first the relative loss of trust and of m oral certainty provided by historical tradition and national culture. These are constantly challenged by the uncertainty of the future and the adm inistration of risk has becom e one of the strategic nerves of social governance. And, although there still exists what could be called ‘a country risk’ or ‘nation risk’, their calculation and adm inistration are judged m ore from the present situation and its variability rather than from historical tradition. ‘Globalization’ has brought with it a growing hom ogenization and standardization of the procedures of decision-m aking in the political, econom ic and scientific sphere or even in daily life, notwithstanding the insuperable discrepancies that could exist between the reasons proposed by people for m aking these decisions. This essentially represents a change in the form of giving legitim acy to the decisions that affect people and society in general. Sociologists have called this ‘legitim ation throu gh procedu re’, applying this concept at the outset to the im personal and bureaucratic organization THE IMPACT OF ‘GLOBALIZATION’ ON CULTURAL IDENTITIES 199 of the state and of large associations which precisely due to their im personality were able to apply their procedures in a range that transcended boundaries and cultures. But during this second phase that we are living through today, the standardization of procedure is even deeper since it does not only em brace the social institutions of great scope, but also, as has already been stated, the new intelligent m achines with their interactive ability between them selves and hum an beings. Th is n ew form by wh ich to bestow legitim acy on decision s h as n ot been relegated to topics lin ked with th e practical an d m aterial aspects of h u m an existen ce, bu t h as even been exten ded to som e topics of th e m etaph ysical tradition , su ch as th e dign ity of th e h u m an person . Th is was sh own proph etically, in a certain sen se, by th e approval of th e Un iversal Declaration on H u m an Righ ts by th e UN in 1948, a con sen t th at was ach ieved on th e con dition th at th e liberty of people an d states to adh ere to th e tru th con tain ed in its ju ridical disposition s was gu aran teed even th ou gh th ere was n o explicit fou n dation . H owever, it is th e lack of a fou n dation in itself th at h in ders h avin g an objective fram ework by wh ich to u n derstan d th e n ew an th ropological ch allen ges in trodu ced by tech n ology: assisted fertilization , h u m an clon in g, experim en tation with em bryos, th e produ ction of tran sgen ic produ cts, etc. Th e typical preoccu pation is wh at, h ow, wh en , an d wh ere, bu t n ot wh y. H ow can we n ot rem em ber Nietzsch e wh o alm ost on e cen tu ry ago defin ed ‘n ih ilism ’ as a way of th in kin g wh ich ‘lacks pu rpose, it lacks the qu estion w hy’? In fact, on e cen tu ry later, th ere are m an y people wh o are tryin g to m odern ize Nietzsch e with th e idea of ‘weak th ou gh t’, th at is, post-m etaph ysical th in kin g wh ich by deliberately givin g u p th e search for a fou n dation presu m es th at it is in a con dition to tolerate an y argu m en t, with ou t exclu sion s of an y type. However, although there are good reasons to define the culture that accom panies the globalization process as nihilistic, we are not in the presence of a phenom enon that can be explained by the diffusion of a philosophy or of a particular ideology, such as juridical positivism , neo-liberalism , econom icism or scientism . No ‘ism ’ is able to m obilize productively and creatively society as a whole, less still on a planetary scale. This is som ething m uch m ore com plex linked with social evolution in itself; with m odels of growth and developm ent; with the form of governance of society. The principle of ‘legitim ation throu gh procedu re’, certainly, does not require m etaphysical foundations, it does not need to criticize or to substitute them : it only standardizes within society an approach of rationality which is valuable for its results. Because the ends of hum an acts are excluded 200 PEDRO MORANDÉ COURT from the procedure in socially relevant decisions, these are transferred to the subjective realm of the private conscience and sought to be understood with concepts like preferences, values, pleasures, wishes, convictions. The search for the legitim acy of hum an acts has been the perennial topic of social and political ethics. The current novelty resides in the form of organization of society, which tries to solve this topic. At the level of the com plexity of prem odern societies it was sufficient to found rational judgm ent in fidelity to the inherited cultural tradition of the ancestors, that is to say, in habits and custom s. The increm ent of com plexity brought about by the m assification of written culture and by the em ergence of em pires on which ‘the sun never sets’, is required to add to custom s the recognition of the m ajesty of written law (the ‘rule of law’) under the principle of jurisdictional sovereignty. However, the increm ent of com plexity in the current globalization process no longer has as its m ain cause the ‘legislative will’ but technological innovation, and, very particularly, com plem entation and m utual potentiation between the hum an being and the intelligent m achine that he or she has created: the m achine of inform ation. The perplexity caused by this new order does not only affect som e particular cultures, prim arily those linked to the Christian tradition which are especially sensitive to the anthropological and ethical dim ensions of hum an coexistence. At a world level we observe the paradox that while, on the one hand, the ‘rule of law’ recognizes m ore com plex and sophisticated rights whose jurisdiction in quite essential aspects has been the subject of an attem pt at internationalization, extra-legal behavior has been growing in all environm ents: corruption, the traffic in illicit substances, tax evasion, the suspension of workers’ rights, organized crim e, violence, and war. It is enough to have the inform ation, the organization, and the technological ‘know how’, to do whatever it is possible to engage in, to find an accepted place in society, and finally, to achieve its form of juridical legitim ation. As with ethics and politics, rights and law are also becom ing a legitim ation ex post factu m in m any areas of life. Will cu ltu re be able to h ave en ou gh stren gth to articu late th e ethos of tradition with th ese n ew ch allen ges? It is difficu lt to give a sim ple an swer to th is qu estion . Neverth eless, I wou ld like to poin t ou t th at cu ltu re, m ore th an th e in stitu tion al ju ridical order, is in a better situ ation to m ake a con tribu tion in th is respect. Globalization h as brou gh t with it a relativization of n ation al cu ltu res as su ch , bu t it h as com pen sated th is weaken in g with a m u ltiplication of th e observation poin ts th at are stru ctu red from u n iversal perspectives. Th e tradition of h igh religion s h as fou n d THE IMPACT OF ‘GLOBALIZATION’ ON CULTURAL IDENTITIES 201 great rein forcem en t at th e presen t, th wartin g th e proph ecy of th e ‘death of God’. It is su fficien t to refer h ere to th e recen t Ju bilee of th e year 2000 with its im pressive direct an d in direct im pact on th e en tire world. Som eth in g sim ilar of a differen t degree can be affirm ed of th e oth er h igh religion s. To th is sh ou ld be added th e im portan t cu ltu ral in itiatives of civil society wh ich h ave also ach ieved a world articu lation . I am th in kin g of th e in itiatives of pro-life m ovem en ts, ecological m ovem en ts, th e in itiatives for th e defen ce of ch ildren an d th e elderly or of th e h an dicapped. I do n ot ign ore th at n ext to th ese in itiatives th ere h ave also been articu lated oth ers in th e con trary direction , su ch as Satan ism , for exam ple. Bu t th e relative weigh t of som e or oth ers is n ot determ in ed beforeh an d by econ om ic or political factors. Th eir vitality depen ds on th e dyn am ism with wh ich th eir approach es of iden tity an d differen ce are proposed as a defin ition of th eir observation poin t an d on th e way in wh ich th ey are perceived as bein g reason able by th e popu lation th at observes. If at a certain historical tim e culture was appropriate to the legitim ation of a peculiar form of national State, the process now underway has liberated it very substantially of that load. As John Paul II em phasized at the UN Assem bly of 1995, culture is a realm for the exercise of hum an sovereignty, especially in its interrelation with those other subjects with whom the hum an being is objectively linked. Nobody can expropriate this space of sovereignty, as is dem onstrated by peoples who despite being subjected to the invasion of foreign powers were able to survive precisely because of their culture. The depth of the cultural bond depends above all on the interpretive wealth of the observation point it offers, and the globalization process has helped to liberate it of the institutional contexts characteristic of States. The re-evaluation of present tim e as a place that anticipates decisions about the future increases the strength of culture as the reference and articulation point of m ost fundam ental ethical topics. 3.4 Edu cation in the New Context of Com m u nication Technologies The subject of education m erits a section apart because of its essential link with culture, that is to say, with the transm ission of a point of view for the observation of the world. Those who work in this sphere experience changes daily. As is the case in all the rem aining sectors of social life, the globalization process is lived out in a paradoxical way. On the one hand, education has been pressed m ore than ever before by the accreditation of im m ediate achievem ents linked to the expectation of a productive per- 202 PEDRO MORANDÉ COURT form ance in the labor environm ent. This is sim ple enough to verify in the relative deterioration of classic education and its growing substitution in the preference of the plaintiffs for technical disciplines of high social prestige m otivated by expected profit for the corresponding form ation of hum an capital. But on the other hand the speed of technological obsolescence shows that, in the m edium and long term s, those who have a better basic form ation and a greater capacity to understand the com plexity of social life have greater possibilities of understanding and adapting to social changes. So, paradoxically, the sam e requirem ent of updating and efficiency reserves an outstanding place to those disciplines that have sufficient detachm ent to observe the hum an phenom enon in all its factors. New technologies allow students to adopt a m uch m ore active role in their learning process, both in relation to the search for electronically available inform ation as well as in relation to the possibilities of com m unication with those people who are responsible for the subjects of their interests. This has brought m ore flexibility in the curricula and the consequent possibility of alm ost personalizing their own plan of studies. As in all other m arkets, the supply of, and dem and for, education have been relatively deregulated and everything leads one to think that such deregulation will be further increased. This places young people under the obligation to im prove their capacity to discern from the subjects that are offered, and this is a new stim ulus for the reinforcem ent of culture as a point of com bination of self-references and hetero-references. I fin d th at th e greatest cu ltu ral im pact th at h as taken place in th is realm becau se of th e globalization process is th e redefin ition of th e in tergen eration al dialogu e in th e form already ou tlin ed. Th e tradition al defin ition of sch olarsh ip at all levels as a com m u n ity of teach ers an d pu pils in search of tru e an d u sefu l kn owledge con tin u es to h ave fu ll validity. H owever, wh en learn in g is also goin g to be brou gh t n ear to ‘real tim e’, with its im plicit evalu ation of presen t tim e, th e referen ces to tradition , wh ich are specifically wh at teach ers tran sm it, are n o lon ger in terestin g if th ey are n ot con n ected to an alive an d on goin g experien ce. Kn owin g can n o lon ger be iden tified, th erefore, with th e already kn own . In th is regard, th e en cyclopedia can su bstitu te teach ers to great advan tage sin ce n on e of th em can equ al th e availability of referen ces in an in tercon n ected world. Bu t wh at is irreplaceable is a tran sm ission of th at learn in g experien ce th at really satisfies th e dem an ds for tru th , goodn ess an d beau ty, wh ich con stitu te th e wisdom of each cu ltu re, wh ich , du e to its own n atu re, is person alized in each m em ber of th e com m u n ity of teach ers an d pu pils. THE IMPACT OF ‘GLOBALIZATION’ ON CULTURAL IDENTITIES 203 I th in k th at in th is respect th e en cyclical Fides et R atio h as m ade a won derfu l con tribu tion , with its dou ble exh ortation to pass from kn owledge to wisdom an d from th e ph en om en on to its fou n dation . Th e in creasin g n u m ber of th e available poin ts of view by wh ich to differen tiate reality an d to recom bin e th eir elem en ts from th e perspective of each scien ce or art can lead to fragm en tation , to h yper-specialization , an d to th e loss of a global sen se of reality. To kn ow m ore of less an d less is a ten den cy ch aracteristic of th e com plexity of th e very society th at organ izes kn owledge with con tin gen t approach es an d with m u ltiplex pu rposes. Neverth eless, th is ten den cy fu rth er rein forces th e cou n terten den cy of seekin g observation approach es th at allow th e articu lation an d th e syn th esis of th ese fragm en ts. Th e above-m en tion ed en cyclical iden tifies th e sapien tial tradition precisely as th at capacity for syn th esis capacity becau se in n ot con form in g itself to an arbitrary redu ction of reality an d seekin g th e u ltim ate m ean in g of everyth in g, it reveals th at wh at was differen tiated can on ly be u n derstood from th e differen ce th at in th e begin n in g differen tiated it, an d, th erefore, from th e u n ity of wh at was differen tiated. As has already been explained, the capacity to observe observers, which we term ‘culture’, im plies a capacity for self-observation. The globalization process has allowed us to understand with m uch greater clarity than ever before that a global observation point in which an om niscient observer can locate him self or herself and in front of which all the events of the world can be laid out in their significance cannot exist. As the functioning of Internet shows, the acceptance of this prem ise has been in fact the condition of its capacity to interconnect all the existent com puters in a global net. Som ething sim ilar happens in the sphere of culture. The awareness of selfand hetero-references prevents any observer from wanting to consider his or her culture as the culture of cultures. We only have as a synthesis capacity the elem entary hum an experience of the rational condition that looks for the knowledge of oneself sim ultaneously with the knowledge of the world. This first wisdom , which is not deducible from any other and which Heidegger form ulated accurately in his statem ent to the effect that ‘the ontic condition of Dasein (of the hum an being) is ontological’, is the one that guides knowledge to its end (to its wisdom ), providing abilities for synthesis and recom position by which to unify everything that is broken into fragm ents or differentiated. The recovery of the sapiential tradition that John Paul II proposes allows us to understand once again in hum an history that only by knowing wisdom can we give wisdom to knowledge. I find that this is the core of 204 PEDRO MORANDÉ COURT what nowadays is at stake in the educational process, especially in the intergenerational dialogue between teachers and pupils, which changes progressively its gravity center from what is already known to knowledge itself, to the present tim e of intelligence that inquires into reality in search of its m eaning. From Aristotle onwards we have known that the ‘real tim e’ of hum an intelligence is the act and it is this sense that we understand his statem ent that ‘intelligence in act is, in a certain sense, all things’. The possibilities opened up by globalization in relation to the sim ultaneousness of present tim e provide us with the opportunity to understand and to carry out in our own experience the essential act of intelligence. 4. CONCLUSION I am aware of the incom pleteness of the analysis that has been presented here. In m y defence I could point out that there are not enough em pirical studies to allow us to m ake an evaluation of the global im pact of ‘globalization’ in the sphere of cultural identities. Defensive im ages are usually generalized in relation to the period that finishes without there being an appropriate perception of the new opportunities that are opened up by this process, or on the contrary, apologetic speeches are dissem inated about the future which are lacking in any rational foundation. I have wanted to dem onstrate what, from m y particular observation point, constitutes the essential nucleus of what the globalization process is. It is not that the interdependence between peoples or the m ulticultural character of hum ankind have been recently discovered. The real novelty, from the cultural point of view, is the generalization, by m eans of intelligent m achines, of a standardized protocol for the production of rational decisions rooted in the capacity to com bine self- and hetero-references, to com pare and sim ulate at the present tim e possible scenarios of the value-added and of the adm inistration of a com petitive and reversible tem porality. Such suppositions, when operating in a context of the fragm entation of inform ation, identify the rational decision with that of a player who wants to take advantage of his or her tim e in relation to his or her rivals. This has becom e a generalized discourse which differentiates winners and losers. However, this tendency to fragm entation, as soon as it operates in a cultural context determ ined by the capacity to observe observers, that is to say, of observing those who trace these differences without being able to locate them selves sim ultaneously on both sides of the differentiated, is counter- THE IMPACT OF ‘GLOBALIZATION’ ON CULTURAL IDENTITIES 205 balanced by the opposed tendency which observes the unity of what is being differentiated and which looks in ‘real tim e’ at the wisdom of knowledge. This is the consciousness of a ‘hum an ecology’, to em ploy the happy phrase of John Paul II, which would not be possible except in the evolutionary context in which we are currently living. Th at in th e cu ltu re of th e fu tu re on e or an oth er ten den cy will prevail is, certain ly, an open qu estion , a ch allen ge to h u m an freedom . Wh en th e dim en sion of wisdom becom es h idden , th e in h eren t com petitiven ess in th e u se of in for m a tion in ‘r ea l tim e’ en d s u p in th e cr u d e n eoMalth u sian ism of th e n atu ral selection of th e stron gest or in th e legitim ation of th e ‘tyran n y of th e stron g over th e weak’. Person ally, I do n ot th in k th at it is in evitable th at in th e en d th is poin t of view will prevail as regards th e observation of th e h u m an ph en om en on , alth ou gh a great deal of eviden ce as to its gen eralization an d exten sion do exist. Un derstan din g a cu ltu re’s poin t of view allows u s to discover th at in a com plex society th ere co-exist differen t possibilities of tracin g a differen ce to observe an d th at it is u n avoidable th at an observer th at observes observers becom es aware of th e blin d poin t of th e differen ce with wh ich h e or sh e observes th e observed. Th e possibilities of observin g ‘globalization ’ from th e perspective of an au th en tic ‘h u m an ecology’ fou n ded in th e u n disposable ch aracter of each person an d of h is or h er dign ity is a fu lly valid perspective en tru sted to th e freedom of wh o observes in th is way. H owever, wh at a society th at seeks to live in ‘real tim e’ dem an ds is n ot a n ew ‘h u m an ist ideology’ th at expresses a dream of th e fu tu re bu t rath er a verifiable presen t experien ce wh ich adds valu e to th e qu ality of life of th ose wh o are lin ked to it.