You were invited to the Davos Forum from 25 to 29 January 2006 , to speak on the relation between Culture and the Economy. What points did you put forward?
It was most interesting to see such questions posed at Davos, as they underline the fact that culture is inseparable from the Economy and from Politics.
We are becoming more and more conscious that it’s not just an economic crisis we face, but a crisis of the Economy; in other words, a particular way of looking at the world. When we talk of globalisation, most people think of economic globalisation. But in fact, we see in the news every day that we must look at globalisation in conjunction with a great number of other parameters in play in the world today. One of the most important of parameters is that we find ourselves in a world where different cultures coexist, interact with each other and even collide sometimes, and that there are no general rules of managing this coexistence. I also feel that, parallel with economic globalisation, one must also consider political globalisation, the like of which we already see in some international organisations such as the United Nations, for example, or at the major summits such as Kyoto where decisions are made that affect everyone on the planet. One must also mention the increasingly important role played by the policies of international law. There is another level of accomplishment to attain within this political globalisation, it is the success in building up a truly international community founded upon common values and the harmonisation of cultures. Cultures, as we can see daily, emanate from different visions and perceptions of the world, rather like individual members of the same society. We must therefore try to create democratic management strategies that will function on the level of culture, just as they function on the level of the individual, be it national or local. This is something that hasn’t been done yet. But if we don’t succeed in this, it will be extremely difficult to find non-violent ways of resolving conflicts. It is becoming evident that the old means of political and geopolitical analysis based essentially on a world made up of Nation States is now made redundant by events in today’s world.
How do you envisage this new democratic policy?
The recognition of values and symbols today forms part of a realpolitik that is much greater than simply material wealth. Not that this material dimension isn’t important both for society’s peace of mind and the establishment of peace, but human relations cannot be reduced to a purely quantitative dimension. We must also take into account material and non-material wealth. Here I include cultural traditions, values, symbols and spirituality. Every society and indeed every civilisation finds its roots in that part of the iceberg that is submerged – those non-material riches that form the core of the laws and rules of mutual cooperation, of the art of living, of the possibility to know each other through shared values. This submerged part is so important that many people are ready to fight for their very lives to defend, for example, the cultures of which they feel a part, and that form the basis not only of their external identity, but also their soul. This is perhaps one of the discoveries of modern times, that people are ready to give their lives for something, and often for something more than just bread. And things become more and more interesting when one tries to think ahead and discovers that some types of modern poverty are an absolute consequence of a particular economic system based on the values of economic liberalism that says that all that’s necessary is to remove all obstacles to liberty and economic enterprise so that a natural equilibrium will be achieved for people and society. You know, this is one of the basic myths of modern economics and you can easily see that this takes us back to the well-known ‘invisible hand’ of Adam Smith’s economics which propounds that the sum of and competition between personal interests would always end up emerging in the interest of all. But this myth has been supported only at the expense of many societies in the world, a more and more globalised system that results in the enrichment of some people at the same time as the gradual impoverishment of everyone else. It is now established that the disparity in material wealth in terms of real revenue is larger today than it has ever been in the past. Graver still, this enrichment on the one hand and this material dispossession in the other hand are accompanied by cultural dispossession that breaks social connections. It is these very connections that are the resources of mutual cooperation and living together that allow the development of rules of solidarity and mutual help and that inhibit the individual from toppling down from poverty to misery. This misery is also the result of a collision of values; for example when individuals consider that the virtues of altruism, solidarity and sharing are values sufficient to lead a simple and dignified life, then receive, often by satellite, a consumerist image of life that recommends implicitly a permanent battle to satisfy their myriad desires. Those who are possessed by these somewhat mystifying values is at the same time dispossessed of his deepest human and spiritual resources, at the very moment when they could allow him to overcome the difficulties of everyday life and to make sense of his future. Bearing this in mind, we must ask ourselves on what values and spiritualities we wish to base this emerging international community. Clearly this is not a matter of posing an abstract question but of determining the very sense that we wish to give to globalisation today, to define the rules of mutual cooperation and of this ‘art of living together’ that we want to begin and whose setting in place or not has considerable repercussions on the economy.
It’s no longer a question simply of instilling in the world the necessary values of altruism and solidarity along with the more acceptable and more equitable aims in life. It’s now imperative to warn that without these values, our very survival on this earth is put into question and is in danger. The quest for unlimited development – another basic myth of today’s economy – will surely lead to ecological catastrophe. For example, the question of global climate change is no longer a specialised field but is now in the public domain. And in this domain the dangers are even more important because they are irreversible.
Every thinking person will therefore pause to ask himself about those ways of living together that must be created in order to arrest our descent into the inferno.
What solutions would you recommend to slow down or modify the course of this descent?
Instead of confronting and multiplying the tragedies that emanate from a material conflict of interests, the world’s religions and cultures must find a way to work together and contribute to making our world wiser and more viable. Humanity’s spiritual resources must be mobilised towards this goal. Through their profound knowledge, these cultures and spiritualities must work towards communicating and harmonising through concrete action, such as the initiation of diplomacy and intercultural mediation. The Fes Festival is an example of such a project, where the such modalities of living together demonstrate the wealth that the harmonisation of cultures can bring. A Forum based on the theme ‘Giving Soul to Globalisation’ is the perfect place to begin building the conceptual tools of this globalisation. Every true revolution begins in the heart. It’s a matter here of a collective weaving together that can gradually produce new common representations, symbols, ways of exchange and sharing, a common creativity that will allow us adequate economic, political and cultural dimensions. The Fes Forum aims to be one of these spaces for thinking over, a laboratory for experimentation, ideas and projects in order to get the best possible result from globalisation today. No approach will be excluded from the Forum, and we invite people from business, civil society and politicians from anywhere and of any culture. Only by harnessing this diversity can we produce a collective intelligence to illuminate the solutions and the most pertinent way forward. This might sound ambitious but we have no choice; today it’s a question of survival.
