| The global culture of pluralism |
|
|
Can the university withstand it?Tomas Halik, Prague, Charles University I would like to offer my views on this important question in three short remarks. confess that I am bringing more questions than answers, but we university people know that also such questions may be important. It took several centuries before Christianity assumed a form of a “religion” in the ancient sense and played that political role, in a practical sense, throughout the Middle Ages. In this cultural context the university was born. The medieval university held a responsibility for “health” – the theological faculty looked after a healthy doctrine, the faculty of medicine the health of the body, the faculty of law the healthy relationships in society, the faculty of arts for healthy thinking. On the threshold of the modern age, Christianity – the Christian theology, the intellectual, university-form of religion - began to lose the role of a common language of the society. Theology has gradually become a “dead language”, used, like Latin, only for ceremonial purposes or at congresses of experts. In a certain sense, science became the “religio” of the West. Universities became the temples of science. However, in the course of the 20th Century modern science became so complex that it lost the ability to be the “common language of the Western civilisation” as well. It is my feeling that in post-modern Western society, the social role of religion as religio (the integrative power of society) is most likely played by the mass media. They increasingly influence ways of thinking and behaviour, mediating symbols and creating a network among people; for many they are arbiters of truth: what is real and of importance is what can be seen on the television news. What the majority of people know about politics, sport, religion, culture and science they know through television, radio, press or Internet. The influence of the universities in society depends – whether we like it or not – on the access of universities to the world of the mass media. Do we have any other possibility to initiate and cultivate the public debate, to inspire public opinion? But the problem of relations between university and media is not only technical or political; it is problem of hermeneutics: is it possible to translate the discourse of academic milieu to the style of mass media? The spirit of traditional theology and metaphysics, which dominated the age when the University was born, was really universal – all aspects of knowledge tended to one Centrum. Also the modern Enlightment world view inherited the western universalism; instead of the metaphysical God there was ratio – “our God Logos” (Freud). Nietzsche was, perhaps, the first one who realised that the rationalism of modernity was just “the shadow of a dead God”, a culture which still depended on the “western canon” of values. In the our post-modern age, in our time of global mass media as contemporary religio of the West, there is no sense for uni-versality, but a radical pluralism. How this “sign of the times” could be compatible with the universalism that was the original heritage of the University is important, and a very hard question. In the global multicultural discussion we can hear: What is universalism for the West, is imperialism for the rest. So I ask: Can the university withstand the global culture of pluralism? The second remark I should like to make is on globalisation – the socio-cultural revolution of our time. When we speak about the role of universities in society, we must take into account, that the political context of our activities is no more the nation state, but the global civil society. (But already in the Middle Ages, universities were global players: the crisis of the Charles University of Prague started with the very beginning of nationalism, the decree of Kutna hora in 1409). The task of overcoming provincialism is of special importance for the post-communist countries. I am convinced that it was the globalisation process that swept away communist regimes. Regimes based on a rigid state-planned economy and the censorship of ideas were unable to withstand the onslaught of competition and the free market of goods and ideas. With the fall of the Soviet Empire, the countries of Central and East Europe won back their independence, the “second world” has disappeared. Now the former “First” and “Third” worlds stand before a task to redefine themselves, to find a new common language. Radical Islam tries to offer a common language for the great part of the former third world. What will be the “common language” of the West? What are the foundations of our cultural identity? What holds our society together? I don’t believe in an artificial (invented) language such as Esperanto. But are we able to reinterpret our tradition in a new context and define the basic value of our civilisation? And how are we prepared to communicate with the rest of the world? Who will deal with such of problems, if not the universities? I also see a very important role for universities in the process of European integration. I would prefer the term “Europeanization of the EU” to “enlargement of the EU”; the EU of today represents only a fragment of Europe, we must first overcome in our minds the naïve identification of Europe with its western part. The integration of Europe should be more than the unification of financial markets or connection of economic and political structures. The core of European integration of a European conscience and consciousness, the common space for sharing intellectual and moral values. This is, I know, the root thinking behind Lord Weidenfeld’s vision for the Europaeum, so I am very happy to be making these remarks here today. In my country, the Czech Republic, intellectuals have played a very important role in public life for centuries. Perhaps we can take Jan Hus as an example of one of the first “public intellectuals” in Europe – he became an archetype of the man of conscience. The great political leaders of our nation appeared from the intellectual milieu – Palacky, Masaryk, Havel. The role of intellectuals, academics and artists in dissent against naci-regime and communist totalitarianism is well known We can ask if now - in a democratic society with a parliamentarian system. this public [political} role of intellectuals and universities is over? The answer is yes and no. On the one hand, we should respect the elected politicians and the institutional structures of democratic society. On the other hand the effective functioning of political structures supposes a certain political, cultural and moral climate. Democracy supposes a competent public opinion and public debate. Without this “biosphere” of certain political culture, the political structures are like the organs in the body - but without blood circulation. To help by creating and mutually cultivating “the climate” as a pre-political dimension of the society - is it not one of our responsibilities? |
| Next > |
|---|