CREATING AN ETHICAL CONTEXT FOR GLOBALIZATION:
THE INTER-RELIGIOUS CHALLENGE
John T. Pawlikowski, OSM, Ph.D.
Professor of Social Ethics Catholic Theological Union Chicago
Presented to the Conference on Ethics & Globalization Rockefeller Chapel
The University of Chicago
Sponsored by the Niagara Foundation, Rockefeller Chapel and the Divinity School of the University of Chicago
May 13, 2005
"Globalization" is certainly a term that generates great passion today
nearly everywhere. Whether people are supportive of or in strong opposition
to the reality of globalization they very often express their viewpoint with
great gusto. I personally tend to believe the process has a considerable number
of positive features, but I also recognize the profound dislocation and misery
it has brought to many. My perspective in part is based on the recognition that
"globalization" in one form or another has in fact been taking place
for most of human history as people have continued to move out of very confined
geographic and cultural settings into ones of increasing diversity. The worlds
of Rome and Greece represented such an early form of globalization in my view.
The missionary activity of Christianity in fact represented another period of
intense globalization with all the ambiguities that are evident in the present
form of globalization. And I could cite many later examples. To the extent that
the globalization process enables us to break down cultural, ethnic and religious
barriers and brings us into increased human understanding and solidarity it
is a good thing. Insofar as it becomes a generator of cultural and economic
hegemony by rich and powerful nations over other peoples it deserves strong
condemnation. As I look at the process of globalization today I think it is
in fact doing both. The challenge before us is how to erase its shadow side.
It is not possible in this presentation to provide a detailed analysis of the
current reality of globalization. So I would like to limit my focus to a consideration
of the potential contribution of religion to the humanizing of the globalizing
process that engulfs us at the present moment. Let me begin with a few words
about the origins of our current form of globalization.
At the 1944 World War II economic conference in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire,
representatives from forty-five nations established the International Monetary
Fund and the World Bank, both based in Washington, DC, which have served as
primary engines of globalization. These new agreements were meant to encourage
extensive free trade when the war had ended n the belief that by breaking down
economic barriers that had in the past alienated peoples and separated nations
from one another future wars could be prevented. Contemporary globalization
is deeply rooted in the structures put into place by the Bretton Woods Conference.
The Bretton Woods form of globalization has generated the largely unfettered
flow of capital across continents and often the dominance of giant transnational
corporations. The late prophetic Archbishop of Recife, Brazil Dom Helder Camara
once addressed this reality in a major speech in Geneva, Switzerland. Asked
to describe the economic and social problems facing his native country, the
Archbishop responded, to the shock of his audience, that the biggest problem
facing Brazil was in fact the Swiss banking system which allows for the outflow
of vital capital resources from his country. A number of Swiss governmental
officials suggested the next day that Dom Helder should be jailed for violating
the Swiss law against criticism of the country by a foreigner! This issue of
capital outflow was also directly addressed by Pope Paul VI in his encyclical
Populorum Progressio, clearly the most radical statement on social responsibility
issued by any pope. For years Catholic neoconservatives attempted to persuade
Pope John II and the Vatican to distance themselves from Paul VI's views on
this question. Fortunately he did not.
For many years globalization's champions, especially in North America and in
Western Europe, were vocal cheerleaders for this cause. They constantly claimed
globalization would achieve worldwide prosperity and create peaceful international
cooperation within the family of nations. "Make money, not war" became
their basic mantra, something we have continued to hear from the political leaders
of the West, as well as in many parts of Asia, for the past several decades.
In most cases, globalization also has resulted in the penetration and expansion
of Western food, films, clothing, music, sports, media and many other forms
of popular culture into all parts of the world. Personal benefits promised by
globalization include a significant rise in the standard of living on a mass
scale and the accumulation of goods combined with rapid transportation and communication.
But clearly something has gone terribly wrong with such optimistic assurances.
Even people directly connected with the globalization process on the economic
level have now spoken to its failures. The 2001 Nobel Prize winner in economics
Joseph Stiglitz in his much discussed volume Globalization and Discontents1
is one who has severely critiqued the Bretton Woods system from within. The
utopian promises proclaimed at the creation of the present global economic system
have not on the whole come to realization. Hence for many throughout the world,
including many deep involved with the religious community, "globalization"
has become an expletive. These critics view globalization as a monster that
devours traditional cultures and religious beliefs, condemning millions of people
on the globe to a permanent prison of economic depression and political anger.
That anger, it is charged with considerable justification, fuels anti-Western
terrorist groups and destablizes fragile regimes. One hears such a critique
in the annual meetings of the World Social Forum.
Today millions of people in the West are bewildered and even stunned by the
strident rejection of globalization and its rich promises of a new world order.
Facing this reality, I would like to reflect on ways in which religious communities
can enter the increasingly strident debate about globalization in a constructive
way.
One starting point might be the recent volume by the award-winning journalist
Ira Rifkin. In his volume Spiritual Perspectives on Globalization: Making Sense
of Economic and Cultural Upheavel,2 Rivkin provides a concise analysis of how
eight major world religions relate to globalization. He does so not merely on
the basis of religious texts but by probing as well the hearts of representatives
of these religious traditions. He vividly tells their gripping stories as they
struggle to remain faithful to their classical spiritualities in the face of
the relentless and powerful forces of contemporary globalization. While some
evangelical Christians regard globalization, according to Rivkin, as nothing
less than a sign of the imminent arrival of the Antichrist, most of the people
interviewed by Rivkin come across as seeking to balance globalization's claims
and real achievements with a sense of justice and respect for cultural traditions
and time-tested religious values.
Rivkin addresses a provocative question to religious communities in the era
of intensifying globalization. Is it possible, he asks, "to blend local
values with globalization?" What particularly unnerves many people when
confronted with globalization is the threat it seems to pose to those values
that have grounded fundamental human meaning in various cultures. I would add
here, in response to Rivkin's question, that in fact religious communities have
a new challenge before them in this regard, for they are almost the only global
organizations that function both at an international and a local level. In my
view religious communities have the potential to become critical bridge-builders
in this period of globalization. They have unique links to all shareholders
in global society.
I would lay a second major responsibility on religious communities. Globalization
forces us to expand our universe of moral obligation. One of the most insightful
comments made about the Christian churches' attitude towards Jews during the
Holocaust is that they became "unfortunate expendables," to use the
term coined by Nora Levin,3 in the churches' struggle for self-preservation
against the demonic forces of Nazism. If religious communities are to face up
to the challenge of globalization they need to expand their "universe of
moral obligation" to include all peoples of the globe. Not to undertake
such an expansion will in fact endanger every religious community. Religions
must now recognize that the survival of all persons is integral to their own
authentic survival. Jews, Poles, the Roma, gays, and the disabled should not
have been viewed as "unfortunate expendables" during the Nazi period-and
there is no place for any similar classification today. Speaking as a Christian,
I would assert that there is no way for the Church, or for any other religious
tradition, to survive meaningfully if it allows the death or suffering of other
people to become a byproduct of its efforts at self-preservation. So the desire
to preserve our own distinctive religious heritages against the ravages of globalization
cannot be pursued within an insular religious framework.
One vital part of this process is the recognition of how religious communities
in the past have often been involved in "dehumanizing" others, including
people in other religious traditions, and even participating in their actual
destruction.4 The era of missionary expansion by Christianity certainly involved
violence against indigenous people even if we view evangelization as an integral
component of Christian self-understanding. Certainly Pope John Paul II recognized
this dark reality and expressed contrition during the moving liturgy of reconciliation
he celebrated on the first Sunday of Lent 2000 as part of Catholicism's millennium
observance. And the same holds true for the long history of Christian antisemitism
for which John Paul II also apologized in that same ceremony and subsequently
during his historic visit to Jerusalem. And we are quite aware of how religion
in many cases sustained the vicious Apartheid system in South Africa and how
the churches' missionary effort, intentionally or not, was instrumental in establishing
a social order in Rwanda, the most Catholic country in Africa, in which the
seeds of eventual genocide were planted. If religious communities fail to cleanse
their language and practice of religious violence toward the other they will
eliminate themselves as effective agents of humanization and solidarity in the
global era. Hans Kung's often quoted dictum that there cannot be peace in the
world without peace among religions remains as true as ever.
Violent religious language can greatly contribute to softening a society for
genocide. Religion remains a powerful force in most present-day societies. If
religious language in a given society continues to demean people who do not
share the dominant faith system and even denies them full rights of citizenship
it certainly opens the door for physical assaults on such groups in times of
social tension. On the contrary, positive religious language about the "religious
other" can serve as a barrier against such assaults. It is especially needed
in the complex national societies that globalization has produced.
Religion also has a role to play in insuring that groups in a society are not
"neutralized" in terms of their fundamental humanity. The Holocaust
scholar Henry Friedlander showed some years ago how the neutral language in
reporting daily death counts in the Nazi extermination camps paralleled the
language used by the United States military in reporting Vietnamese casualties
during the Vietnam War.5 Religion must always fight against such neutralization,
even of an enemy. For if neutralization of particular groups in society is allowed
a foothold, it exposes these groups to the possibility of more violent attacks
which again, in times of social crisis, can turn into genocidal or near-genocidal
actions against them.
For Catholics, the Document on Religious Liberty from Vatican II, inspired by
Pope John XXII, can serve as a foundational resource. For it argued for the
basic divinity of every human person expressed in the freedom of conscience,
even to the point of protecting the right not to believe in human dignity. Human
dignity, not right belief, became the fundamental cornerstone of any just society.
All other identities, though important, became secondary. They may be used as
the basis for a massive assault on human life.
On the Catholic side, but with global impact, Pope John XXIII certainly began
the process of removing violence from the Church's expression. He did this both
by text and gesture. In face of a century of attack against the notion of human
rights and religious freedom within the European Catholic community in particular,
John XXIII asserted human rights and religious freedom as integral to the Catholic
faith perspective in the Charter of Human Rights in his encyclical Pacem in
Terris. In so doing he settled the dispute taking place at the II Vatican Council
regarding the proposed document on religious liberty. Unfortunately the current
Catholic Catechism failed to include this powerful Charter in its text and there
are those within the Catholic leadership today would love to relegate Vatican
II's Document on Religious Liberty to obscurity, something that must be strongly
resisted by the global Catholic community. A religious institution that does
not model the concern for human rights both within its internal operations and
as a fundamental global concern cannot be a legitimate actor in the current
struggle to humanize globalization.
Pope John XXIII also contributed significantly to the eradication of violence
in Christian expression through gesture and language. He greeted those who a
few years before had been labeled as heretics and systematics, as unbelievers,
as Communists, with an outstreched hand. Even if he continued to have disagreements
with them, even profound ones, he never failed to acknowledge their basic humanity.
He demonstrated a keen sensitivity towards the impact of negative language by
the religious community. His approach to the Jews is a prime example. He changed
liturgical language that he regarded as dehumanizing. He initiated a fundamental
change of perspective on Jews and Judaism which his successors have enhanced
both in text and gesture. He thus began one of the most profound turnabouts
in interreligious understanding, one that I am convinced can serve as support
and model for other historically antagonistic interreligious relations.
Following the example of John XXIII an essential challenge for religions in
the face of globalization is to continue to bring to the global community an
example of the centrality of affirmation of the religious and secular "other"
at a time when media, and even an increasing number within the religious communities,
are adopting an attack mentality, an "in your face" approach to national
and religious identity. This affirmation of the "other" must be done
through text, language and gesture.
Let me now turn to what I regard as one of the central challenges to all religious
traditions today. It is ecology. In many ways ecology is the most global issue
of all. No one will survive if we do not attend to it. It knows not nor respects
national borders. The destruction of the rainforests, the depletion of the protective
ozone layer, the rise in ocean levels as a result of global warming which threatens
the very existence of more than forty island countries, the destructive effect
of acid rain are not problems of a single nation. They engulf all of us in their
web. There simply is no way to address the growing reality of ecological destruction
except on a global basis. Religious traditions must respond to this challenge
by developing a spirituality in which ecological preservation is central. In
the Christian community Protestants have tended to be ahead of Catholics in
confronting this issue though there is growing awareness of ecology within Catholicism
of late. But there is also evidence of growing opposition, even ultraconservative
criticism of Pope John Paul II for his relatively modest statements on ecological
responsibility, rooted in a claim that an emphasis on ecology will transform
Christianity into a "naturalist" religion.
There is also the challenge posed for Christians in terms of their biblical
tradition. The historian Lynn White, often regarded as one of founders of the
ecological movement, attacked Genesis as a source of religiously motivated ecological
destruction over the centuries.6 So Jews are also brought into the picture as
well. And for Christians there is need to deal with the Apocalyptic tradition
of the New Testament which some Christians use to view ecological destruction
as central to the coming of the final kingdom. We once had a U.S. Secretary
of the Interior who testified in Congress, arguing from his Christian faith,
that there was no real urgency about protecting forests because their destruction
as part of the endtime was not all that distant. While we may legitimately argue
that eco-proponents such as Lynn White have misread the Genesis text as many
Christians have also misinterpreted the book of Revelation, there is no question
that both have been employed by religious believers in an ecologically irresponsible
way. So one of the first tasks of religions will be to ensure that their biblical
texts support rather than undercut ecological responsibility.
Back in the early seventies two futurists introduced us to a fundamentally new
reality with which religious ethics has yet adequately to grapple, Victor Ferkiss,
a political scientist out of the Catholic tradition, and Hans Jonas, a social
philosopher of Jewish background, served warning that humankind had reached
a new era in its evolutionary journey. Humanity was now standing on a threshold
between utopia and oblivion, as Buckminster Fuller has put it. The human community
now faces a situation whose potential for destruction equals its capacity for
reaching new levels of creativity and human dignity. What path humanity will
follow is a decision that rests with the next several generations. Neither direct
divine intervention nor the arbitrary forces of nature will determine the ultimate
outcome. Given the growing reality of ecological destruction human choice us
now more critical than ever in the past for creational survival. We must stop
the spread of acid rain; we must prevent further deterioration of the protective
ozone layers; we must stop global warming and its influence on the rise of ocean
levels. And the decisions made in the next several decades will have lasting
impact, well beyond the lifespan of those who are destined to make them. These
decisions will in fact determine what forms of life, if is any, will experience
continued viability.
Ferkiss' 1974 volume The Future of Technological Civilization put the contemporary
challenge to humankind in these words: "Man has ... achieved virtually
godlike powers over himself, his society, and his physical environment. As a
result of his scientific and technological achievements, he has the power to
alter or to destroy both the human race and its physical habitat"7
Hans Jonas, in a groundbreaking speech in Los Angeles in 1972 and subsequently
in published writings8 conveyed essentially the same message as Ferkiss. Ours
is the very first generation, Jonas insists, to have to face the question of
basic creational survival. In the past, there was no human destructive behavior
from which nature could not recover through its in-built recuperative powers.
But today we have reached the point through technological development where
this principle no longer holds. Humankind now seems increasingly capable of
actions that inflict terminal damage on the whole of creation and raise serious
questions about the future of humanity itself.
Religions must respond to this ecological challenge by generating a spirituality
of ecological responsibility. They may not fully agree as to directions such
as spirituality should take. The co-creational responsibility now incumbent
upon humanity as laid out in various Catholic documents including Pope John
Paul II's encyclical LABOREM EXERCENS is one possible way to go in my judgment
even though some ethicists such as Stanley Hauerwas are quite critical of it.
Whatever the route taken by the various religions they must make ecological
responsibility an integral part of their religious vision. This would certainly
constitute one of the major contributions they can make to a globalized world.
Another area of concern for religions in our increasingly globalized society
is the realm of economics. Religion cannot provide a blueprint for a just and
humanizing economic system. But it can contribute greatly to the overall framework
of global economics through dialogue with economists and business people. Some
of this is beginning to happen at the annual World Economic Forum where religious
leaders such as Archbishop George Carey and Rabbi David Rosen are working to
establish an in-depth dialogue between religious communities and economic leaders.
As one who participated in the meetings in New York in 2002 and in Davos in
2005, I know how difficult such a goal remains. The final verdict is still out
on this process. But I do know that further progress is being made in the integration
o the religious perspective at all levels of the WEF.
Religions can join leading economists and business leaders such as Paul Krugman
and George Soros in insisting that the forces of the market cannot by themselves
generate a just and humane economic system. In a May 2003 address to the Pontifical
Academy of Sciences Pope John Paul II called for "guidelines that will
place globalization firmly at the service of human development." The Pope
insisted that globalization itself was not the problem. "Rather,"
he said, "difficulties arise from the lack of effective mechanisms for
giving it proper direction. Globalization needs to be inserted into the larger
context of a political and economic program that seeks the authentic progress
of all mankind."9 In my judgment religions, most of which have a transnational
reach, can fill, at least for the interim, the void that exists because of the
lack of truly international structures which parallel state structures. In an
age of globalization national structures, while remaining crucial, cannot handle
many of the major challenges, especially the economic and ecological challenges,
generated by this globalization process.
Another area where religious institutions can play a significant role within
the global economic order is grass roots development. A document prepared by
the World Faith's Development Dialogue based in Birmingham (which works with
the World Bank) for the 2004 World Development Report issued annually by the
bank, a report to which I contributed, makes this point quite well. Let me quote
the relevant section:
The extremely close relationship of faith-based organizations to poor communities
suggests that their role in development should not be overlooked. Faith groups
do not have the ultimate solutions to poverty, but structures of belief, practice
and institutional organization that exist in the name of religion are perhaps
some of the least appreciated variables in the development process.
The report then adds:
As well as giving advice based on their nearness to the lives of the poor, faith-based
organizations can positively influence the substance of development. For instance,
a faith-based approach towards the provision of social services can emphasize
a view of human dignity which points in the direction of policies and practices
that involve compassion, solidarity, participation and self-confidence. For
faith communities development must essentially include the spiritual and social
dimensions of life as well as the material and the economic.10
The point being made is that faith communities often have inroads at the grassroots
level and have acquired a measure of thrust among the people that international
agencies can never duplicate. Hence a partnership between faith communities
and international agencies represents the only effective road to humanized economic
development. A panel of representatives from various aid agencies connected
with the United Nations made this point quite strongly to us during a session
at the 2000 Millennium Peace Conference held at the United Nations. And recently
the Vatican's U.N. Mission has made a strong plea for the inclusion of all relevant
shareholders including the poor, in international discussions on development.
The final issue I would like to raise is the role of religions in international
peacemaking and reconciliation. This area is rapidly becoming a central activity
of religious communities in our day. To repeat a previous point, religious communities
cannot enter the effort at peacemaking and reconciliation successfully and with
integrity unless they first confront the violence they have often promoted in
language and action. But having done this, I believe religious communities can
have a significant impact on peacemaking and reconciliation. For one, they have
the grassroots connections already mentioned. Secondly, many present conflicts
involve conflicting religious beliefs, at least in part. We have seen religiously-based
communities operate with considerable success through such organizations as
the World Conference of Religions for Peace and the San Egidio community. A
number of organizations tied to Asian religions have also made important contributions
in this regard. Caritas International, a Catholic based organization with ties
to the Vatican, has worked extensively on reconciliation. Caritas recently produced
a comprehensive handbook on reconciliation by my colleague at Catholic Theological
Union in Chicago, Professor Robert Schreiter.11
As with ecology, there may be significant differences within religious communities
on the interpretations of peacemaking and reconciliation. Some religious communities
see absolutely no role for the military in this process. Others believe force,
whether by an official army or a revolutionary military, can still constitute
a legitimate response to gross injustice. Nelson Mandela, often honored today
as a champion of peace in post-Apartheid South Africa, endorsed the violent
activities of the African National Congress, which found religious support in
the Kairos Declaration endorsed by many prominent Christian leaders in the country.
And some would argue the perspective of the International Criminal Court that
any authentic reconciliation must include the trial and punishment of those
responsible for gross violations of human rights. In the Christian-Jewish dialogue
I notice a growing disparity of viewpoints on peacemaking and reconciliation,
especially with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the war in Iraq.
Nonetheless, despite the obstacles, I remain convinced religious communities
can make a major contribution on a global level to peacemaking and reconciliation.
In conclusion, I strongly believe that religion today stands at a decisive turning
point in this age of ever increasing globalization. Religious communities can
withdraw into an isolated spirituality which cares little about what goes on
beyond their self-defined borders. They can continue to be, as they have so
often been in the past, sources of social tension rather than forces for social
healing. But if religion follows such a path, it will squander its most precious
gift-the power to transform hatred into love, the power to turn indifference
into concern that is at the heart of the Torah and Talmud, the Christian gospel,
the Quran and the teachings of the other great world religions. What will energize
our enhanced technological capacity in directions that lead to social harmony
rather than oblivion? Religion, I remain convinced, is very central to the answer
to that question. It has the potential to penetrate hardened hearts in ways
that secular ideology and mere technical competence cannot. It can combine commitment
and knowledge in ways that will overpower the forces of exploitation and destruction.
We have seen outstanding examples of that power in the lives of Dr. Martin Luther
King, Pope John XXIII, Nelson Mandela and Elie Wiesel.
But religion will not contribute in its fullness to global society unless it
draws from the depths of its spiritual tradition, a tradition that is continually
re-energized and refined in light of developing human understanding. Engagement
with the world about us cannot become a substitute for a spirituality rooted
in tradition. Rather such engagement must always be the fruit of our spiritual
tradition and, above all, it must be concretely embodied in the people of that
tradition. Tradition does not reside first and foremost in texts and sacred
books, as important as these remain. Rather we are the carriers of our respective
tradition. We learn it in the classroom and in the library. It becomes the very
fibre of our being in prayer and worship. We express it in our active concern
and commitment to human dignity. None of these three elements of authentic religion
can ever be separated from the rest without religion suffering a loss of its
very soul. Become convinced that until the tradition is embodied in you it remains
text rather than a force for human transformation.
Let me close with a question. It is a question raised by a powerful film, partially
based on the Holocaust, that I viewed at the Slovak Pavilion at Expo 2000 in
Hanover, Germany. The film's title asked a question that remains our question
in this challenging time of globalization: QUO VADIS HUMANITY?
NOTES
1Joseph E. Stiglitz, Globalization and its Discontents (New York/London: W.W. Norton, 2002).
2 Ira Rifkin, Spiritual Perspectives on Globalization: Making Sense of Economic and Cultural Upheaval (Woodstock, VT: SkyLight Paths, 2003).
3 Nora Levin, The Holocaust (New York: Schocken Books, 1973).
4 Cf., Oliver McTernan, Violence in God's Name (London: Darton Longman & Todd, 2003).
5 Henry Friedlander, "The Manipulation of Language," in Henry Friedlander and Sybil Milton (eds.), The Holocaust: Ideology, Bureaucracy, and Genocide (Millwood, NY: Kraus International Publications, 1980), 103-113.
6 Lynn White, Jr., "The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis," Science 155 (1967): 1203-07.
7 Victor Ferkiss, The Future of Technological Civilization (New York: George Braziller, 1974), 88.
8 Hans Jonas, The Imperative of Responsibility (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984).
9 Pope John Paul II, "Effective Mechanisms for Giving Globalization Proper Direction," Origins, 33:2 (May 22, 2003), 29.
10 "The Provision of Services for Poor People: A Contribution to WDR 2004, " World Faiths Development Dialogue (Birmingham, UK, 2003).
11 Working for Reconciliation: A Caritas Handbook (Vatican City: Caritas International, 1999).