In Search of the Good Life: A Pedagogy for Troubled Times

8. Canons or Cannons? On Mobilizing Global Democracy

154 8. Canons or Cannons? On Mobilizing Global Democracy “mobilizing democracy” is a stirring catchphrase, and it was a wellchosen theme for the 2005 meeting of one of the largest social science associations in the United States.1 In choosing that theme, the organizers obviously wanted to establish a broad agenda, both nationally and globally. In fact, although couched as an ongoing process, the motto can readily be translated into a directive or even an imperative that postulates “mobilize democracy” or “spread democracy everywhere” or simply “democratize the world.” The directive is stirring and captivating—but also disorienting, given the serious malaise afflicting contemporary democracy both at home and abroad. How can we heed the agenda to mobilize democracy when democracy is under siege nearly everywhere, being held hostage to huge militaryindustrial complexes and almost routinely surrendered to “national security” interests? another troubling or disorienting factor is the basic asymmetry inherent in such general agendas or marching orders; clearly, like every other imperative, the injunction to democratize (or to mobilize democracy) creates a disparity between those issuing the injunction and those subject to it. That is, it establishes an imbalance between those who democratize and those who are being democratized, or between those who command and those who obey. This asymmetry stands in glaring contrast with the democratic ethos, which demands civic equality among all participants. The discrepancy is probably not troubling for national leaders or policy makers; being solely concerned with power and efficiency criteria , their vision typically stops short of ends. for Western leaders in particular, the agenda to democratize the world is only a variation on a series of similar orders issued during modern and late modern times, on mobilizing Global democracy 155 such as directives to “modernize,” “Westernize,” or “develop” the world.2 What is untroubling to policy makers, however, is of necessity disturbing to political theorists or philosophers who remain faithful to their task of reflecting on what we are doing and trying to make sense of what is happening in the world. for reflective people, the contrast between the imposition and the experience of democracy, between unilateral marching orders and shared standards of life, is unacceptable and in need of reconsideration. examining the arsenal of options, reflective people are liable to discover a pathway that steers clear of both unilateralism and mutual isolation (or incommensurability ): the royal path of teaching and learning, of pedagogy and genuine Bildung.3 a clue along the way is provided by the story of the slave boy in Plato’s Meno, which indicates that we can learn only what we (implicitly) already know and that teaching is a kind of (mutual) disclosure. In this chapter, I follow that clue, proceeding in three steps. first, I ask whether it is possible to learn across cultures , or to substitute the canons of learning for the cannons of military conquest. Next, I comment on the meaning of canons of learning and on the quality of teaching as a mode of learning. finally, I draw lessons from these explorations for the enterprise of mobilizing democracy today. Canons or Cannons? The notion of cross-cultural learning got off to a bad start in our time. even before the dawn of the new millennium, the prognosis offered by political experts was grim. In his well-known essay published in 1993 (and subsequently developed into a book), Samuel Huntington painted a somber scenario of global politics in the decades ahead. “The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural,” he proclaimed. Hence, “the clash of civilizations will dominate global politics,” and “the fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.” In his view, the globe was already divided between “the West and the rest,” but the most troubling fault line was the one yawning between the West and Islam (or between “the West and several Islamic-Confucian states”).4 The events of September 11, 2001, only extended that fault line, and the rift was deepened by the ensuing “terror wars.” The shock waves of 156 a Pedagogy for our Troubled Times these events have enticed even learned intellectuals and philosophers to subscribe to the “culture clash” scenario.5 What these intellectuals ignore is that cultures and religions are not monolithic entities endowed with invariant traits. Contrary to the talk about “fault lines” and “civilizational identity,” all cultural and religious traditions are inherently multidimensional, composed of...