Global Agoras for Creating a Knowledge Society : The ?· Global Agoras for Creating a Knowledge Society:…

  • Published on
    01-Sep-2018

  • View
    212

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript

<ul><li><p>Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology</p><p>JAIST Repositoryhttps://dspace.jaist.ac.jp/</p><p>Title</p><p>Global Agoras for Creating a Knowledge Society :</p><p>The Example of the Center of Excellence (COE)</p><p>Boundary-spanning Dialog Approach (BDA) Project</p><p>at International Christian</p><p>Author(s) Paul, Hays; Jacqueline, Wasilewski</p><p>Citation</p><p>Issue Date 2005-11</p><p>Type Conference Paper</p><p>Text version publisher</p><p>URL http://hdl.handle.net/10119/3838</p><p>Rights 2005 JAIST Press</p><p>Description</p><p>The original publication is available at JAIST</p><p>Press http://www.jaist.ac.jp/library/jaist-</p><p>press/index.html, IFSR 2005 : Proceedings of the</p><p>First World Congress of the International</p><p>Federation for Systems Research : The New Roles</p><p>of Systems Sciences For a Knowledge-based Society</p><p>: Nov. 14-17, 2048, Kobe, Japan, Symposium 6,</p><p>Session 2 : Vision of Knowledge Civilization</p><p>Tradition versus Globalization</p></li><li><p>Global Agoras for Creating a Knowledge Society: The Example of the Center of Excellence(COE) Boundary-spanning Dialog Approach (BDA) Project at International Christian</p><p>University (ICU)</p><p>Paul Hays 1, Jacqueline Wasilewski 21 School of Policy Studies, Kwansei Gakuin University, 2-1 Gakuen, Sanda, Hyogo 669-1337 Japan</p><p>paul_hays@kwansei.ac.jp2 International Christian University, 3-10-2 Osawa, Mitaka, 181-0015 Japan</p><p>wasilews@icu.ac.jp</p><p>Abstract</p><p>Any attempt to create a knowledge society must includeglobal agoras . Knowledge only arises from theinteraction of people in a group, culture or society.Knowledge is not in us, but between us. The globalagora [1] is a space where knowledge can be created.The concept derives from the ancient Greek agorawhich was a public space where citizens congregatedand discussed common issues. The agora was afoundational concept for early democracy and thebeginnings of civilization in Europe. Developing globalagoras is a key requirement for a peaceful andprosperous future for the human race. Global agoras arean increasingly applied systems science tool forbalancing the divergent needs and interests betweennations and cultures of various levels of developmentand differing worldviews. Global agoras through theirinclusive approach to dialogue enable us to avoidpotential conflict by using systems science techniques toanalyze the complexity of the issues and to provideunderstanding of the root causes and develop actionplans for the conscious creation of a better future. TheICU-COE North East Asia Boundary-spanningDialogue Approach (BDA) Project [2] is an attempt tocreate an agora for the people of Northeast Asia.</p><p>Systems science tools such as structured dialoguesfacilitate complex conversations between diverseparticipants who may have no mutual socialization. Thestructured dialogue process creates social worlds, orrather creates a common space in which a social worldcan emerge. Conversation creates community and withthe rise of the community, knowledge is created as well.A knowledge civilization arises out of dialogue betweenall. Using the tools of systems science it is possible tobuild a just and peaceful civilization as a future for ourchildren. This was the purpose of the ICU-COEBoundary-spanning Dialogue Approach Project atInternational Christian University this year.</p><p>Keywords: boundary spanning dialogue, consciousevolution, global agora, indigeneity, structured dialogue</p><p>1. The Boundary-spanning DialogueApproach (BDA)</p><p>The ICU-COE Boundary-spanning Dialogue ApproachProject derives its name from the Boundary-spanningDialogue Approach (BDA) to meeting design andmeeting process. This is a structured dialogue approach,one of many being developed by ISSS members.Previously, this approach was referred to as IM, issuesmanagement or interactive management. This particularapproach has been developed through a two decade longcollaboration between Americans for IndianOpportunity (AIO), a national indigenous peoplesadvocacy organization in the USA, and Dr. AlexanderChristakis and his colleagues in ISSS. Out of thecollaboration has emerged a dialogue process especiallyadapted to Native Americans called ILIS (IndigenousLeaders Interactive System), the new concept ofIndigeneity and a new international organization,Advancement of Global Indigeneity (AGI). This ICU-COE BDA Project was an opportunity to introduce theBDA process and the concept of Indigeneity to bothindigenous and non-indigenous people in the NortheastAsian region. By gathering students together in thediscussion and as assistant facilitators and observers, theproject provided an opportunity for future leaders of theregion to experience this process and concept.</p><p>The process is an interesting blend of hard and softapproaches to the system of dialogue. While theparticipants are openly sharing their ideas, the process iscomputer facilitated and mediated. All comments areentered into a computer and the resultant Root CauseMap is generated through a process guided by thecomputer. Without the use of the computer, getting theresults would be very time consuming. One of thesignificant contributions of this system of dialogue isthat it enables the construction of consensus to beefficient.</p></li><li><p>In the soft areas, the interaction is clearly following asystemic approach. There is an ethos of inclusivity thatpervades the process. There is also a respect for thehumanness of all the participants. Beyond a merediscussion, there are ample opportunities for socialinteraction. In fact, the social interaction precedes thediscussion. The social sphere of interaction includes anedible sphere. By eating together, all the participantshave a clear understanding of the humanity of eachother. This translates into greater respect for each otherwhen the discussions begin.</p><p>2. Background of the ICU-COE Project</p><p>Following up on discussions in the Indigenous Wisdomof the People Forum at ISSS 2003 in Heraklion, Crete[3], Dr. Wasilewski of International ChristianUniversity (ICU) used special Center of Excellence(COE) funding from the Japanese Ministry of Educationto begin the ICU-COE Northeast Asia Boundary-spanning Dialogue Approach Project. The projectoriginated through Dr. Wasilewskis long collaborationwith the national US indigenous peoples organization,Americans for Indian Opportunity (AIO) and ISSS andthrough the research of two of her graduate students atICU, Zheng Wei and Elena Kozoulina.</p><p>Mr. Zheng is from Shanghai and is doing his doctoralresearch on the history of Chinese/Japanese humanrelationships with the goal of identifying factors thatcontribute to positive interactions between the people ofthese two societies. This topic grew out of his masterswork on Japanese/Chinese communication in the workplace [4]. Mr. Zheng [5] is also researching contrastingconcepts of harmony in Chinese and Japanese cultures.Chinese-Japanese relationships are often plagued byfalse assumptions of similarity, particularly aroundvalues that stem from Confucian roots.</p><p>Ms. Kozoulina is approaching her doctoral research as alinguist with a mixed heritage that includes Polish-Jewish, Tengu (also known as Evenks), and Ukrainianroots. She also has relatives in the Buryat community.She is exploring the identity maintenance strategies ofthe three communities of people considered by thegovernment of the Russian Federation to be native tothe Buryat Republic: the Russians, the Buryats and theEvenks. Her recent paper [6] focused on identitydiscourse in the Russian and English languages. Whilethere seem to be some similarity in identity terms on thesurface level, in fact, the languages do not overlap. Thevocabulary to describe identity is very different.</p><p>These two areas of research share a common concernfor articulating and elaborating intercultural relationshipdynamics in areas that until now have had little attentionin our studies of intercultural communication and ourideas regarding self and identity. This is complimentedby the long work that AIO has done (and which AGI isbeginning) on explorations of non-Euro-Americancultures and societies.</p><p>The ICU-COE BDA Projects goal is to create aninclusive dialogue space for the various peoples ofNortheast Asia. Unlike other parts of Asia, such asSoutheast Asia (e.g., ASEAN), there are no formal,standing organizations that focus on consistent periodicinteraction, communication and issues management inNortheast Asia. This project is an attempt to bringpeople together, particularly the young people in theregion, from whom the next generation of leadershipwill emerge, with the hope that such an organization ororganizations may eventually grow out of thesedialogues.</p><p>3. The ICU-COE Boundary-spanningDialogue Approach (BDA) Project:</p><p>Dialogue I</p><p>The initial three day meeting at International ChristianUniversity (ICU) in Tokyo, February 4-6, 2005, broughttogether 20 participants (mostly students) and about 30observers (mostly academics). The active participantsfunctioning as stakeholders in the dialogue process werefrom Japan, South Korea, the PRC and Taiwan, Russia,Uzbekistan and Mongolia. The observers were from theabove countries, as well as from the United States,Germany, Belgium, South Africa, Myanmar, Canada,and the Netherlands. The four advisers to the processwere from the United States and Russia, and the threechief facilitators were from the United States and NewZealand. There were 15 graduate and undergraduatestudents from Japan, the U.S., Germany, and thePhilippines who were being trained in the process andwho functioned as assistant facilitators. The participantsincluded indigenous people from the region, Ainu fromJapan and Evenks from the Buryat Republic in theRussian Federation, as well as participants from variousparts of China, including Western China, which has alarge number of minority peoples. Native Americanand Maori members of the indigenous peoplesorganization, Advancement of Global Indigeneity(AGI), facilitated the structured dialog process. Theparticipants discussed the question, What are theobstacles to creating dialogue in Northeast Asia?</p></li><li><p>Interestingly, the dialogue was facilitated by Maori andComanche representatives of AGI (Advancement ofGlobal Indigeneity). The wisdom of indigenous peoplearound the world has enhanced the academic researchthat has lead to modern systems science tools likestructured dialogues.</p><p>During the two days of discussions, 78 obstacles wereidentified that prevent greater dialogue andcommunication among the members of the variouspolitical, cultural and ethnic groups of Northeast Asia.These obstacles were clarified, then a subset of 11 ofthese obstacles were chosen as most important andcompared and contrasted in order to form a Root CauseMap of the obstacles. Based on this map, theparticipants then generated a list of 32 actions whichmight address the obstacles. Then the participantsdivided into five roughly national sub-groups anddeveloped action plans for overcoming these obstaclesand for creating a growing, dynamic agora for futurecommunication in the Northeast Asian region.</p><p>The 78 obstacles were as follows:</p><p>1. Controversy between economic developmentof different countries</p><p>2. There are no public forums that value diversity.3. There is a controversy between land</p><p>distribution between the Evenks and thegovernment.</p><p>4. Lack of information and isolation5. Controversy between the geographical position</p><p>of the Russian Far East and the peoples selfidentification</p><p>6. The nations leaders put the highest priority onnational interest.</p><p>7. The imbalance of economic growth of thecountries of Northeast Asia</p><p>8. Territorial disputes9. Different historical perspectives10. Different social systems11. Because of the lack of national government</p><p>effort in initiatives, lack of private levelexchanges, rumors may create misperceptions.</p><p>12. Conflict over historical issues13. Lack of mutual trust14. Loss of motivation in making dialogue15. Lack of positive self-identification16. Lack of multicultural language17. Unsettled war in the Korean Peninsula18. Prejudice and discrimination based on ethnicity19. Inequity in access to information20. Being unable to have a long term perspective</p><p>because of sticking to past memories21. Difference in religion</p><p>22. Lack of accountability in governments23. Difficulties in preserving the cultural heritage</p><p>of minority populations24. Inability to accept foreign values25. Lack of interest towards neighboring countries26. Too much emphasis in education on self-</p><p>esteem creates a superiority feeling towardsothers</p><p>27. Different level of peoples civility in NortheastAsia</p><p>28. Differences in communication styles29. Fear of knowing another culture30. Too many people put the highest priority on</p><p>individualism31. Possibility of being brain-washed by</p><p>government which may or may not be true andcorrect</p><p>32. Lack of common values33. Occidentalism34. Dilemma of language abilities and differences35. Lack of social and political awareness36. Lack of opportunities for North East Asian</p><p>peoples to meet each other37. Each governments security policies rely too</p><p>much on military power38. Lack of resolution of wartime and colonial</p><p>oppression39. Failure to recognize ones role in relationships</p><p>with others40. Exclusion of either part of a divided nation</p><p>from the regional dialogue41. Suppressed motivation to expose own culture42. Dependency of minority populations on the</p><p>federal government and federal policies43. Poverty of minority populations44. Wrong interpretation of intercultural values45. Reliance on inter-governmental relations rather</p><p>than people to people ties46. Too much emphasis on nationalism rather than</p><p>people-ism47. Different levels of being westernized48. Ideology of pitting people against each other49. The fact that different people have grown up</p><p>with different cultural views and politicalviews</p><p>50. Too much ethnocentrism51. Lack of interdependence52. Egoism53. Failure to show the diversity within a country54. Monocultural viewpoint55. Lack of competing political force against the</p><p>conservative56. Lack of application of international law57. Overbearing US influence in the region</p></li><li><p>58. Inability to have your own opinion withoutbeing driven by the majority around you</p><p>59. Separatist trends within a country60. Destruction of ecological niche where</p><p>indigenous people live61. Absence of the common enemy62. Lack of understanding and knowledge of ones</p><p>own ethnicity and resulting in an inferiorityfeeling</p><p>63. Difficulty in achieving understanding throughlanguage</p><p>64. Lack of effort to understand people of othercountries</p><p>65. Lack of sense of responsibility66. Double standards67. Confusion with other arguments framework68. Lack of Northeast Asian boom69. Lack of textbooks and fiction in the minority</p><p>languages70. Inability to make mutual concessions71. Too much strict immigration policy, especially</p><p>in Japan72. State supported mainstream culture imposition73. Identity crisis74. Lack of transportation within the region75. No apology76. Busy everyday business prevents thinking</p><p>about international peace77. Inability to question authority78. Lack of exchange of ethnic music of other</p><p>countries</p><p>The 11 follow...</p></li></ul>