文明的多样性与现代性的未来
文化多样性对社会发展的价值与意义
文化多样性对社会发展的价值与意义在全球化的时代背景下，文化多样性成为一个备受关注的话题。
文化多样性是指一个社会中存在多种文化、价值观和传统的现象。
正是这些不同的文化元素相互交织，为社会带来了丰富多样的思想、艺术和生活方式，对社会发展具有重要的价值与意义。
首先，文化多样性能够促进创新和思想的交流。
不同文化之间的碰撞和融合，使得各种不同的观念和思考方式得以交流、碰撞，进而产生出创新的思想和理念。
这些创新又能够推动社会的进步与发展。
例如，音乐、电影和文学等艺术形式常常融合了不同文化的元素，创造出令人耳目一新的作品，并且这些作品通常能够被更广泛的群体接受和欣赏。
其次，文化多样性能够促进社会的包容与和谐。
文化多样性使得社会中的不同群体可以保留和传承自己的文化传统，从而减少了文化的冲突和排斥。
当我们能够理解并尊重他人的文化差异时，社会就能够更加和谐地相处。
多元文化的存在还可以促使社会各层面的人们去思考文化认同和共识的问题，进而促进公平和平等的社会制度的建立。
此外，文化多样性对于经济的发展也起到了积极的推动作用。
各个文化的传统和习俗都具有特色与独到之处，这些传统和习俗既是一种独特的资源，也能够为经济带来新的机遇。
例如，世界各地的旅游业都能够吸引大量的游客，因为他们希望了解和体验不同文化的魅力。
文化多样性对于旅游业、文化产业以及其他相关行业的发展提供了丰富的资源和机会。
最后，文化多样性也能够促进个人的成长与发展。
了解和体验不同文化的人们可以通过接触不同的价值观和思考方式来拓宽自己的视野。
这样的交流和体验可以培养人们的跨文化交际能力和创新能力，使个人变得更加开放和包容。
无论是在跨国企业工作，还是在国际交流和合作中，具备跨文化交流能力的人都将具有竞争优势。
因此，文化多样性对社会的发展具有重要的价值与意义。
它能够推动创新和思想的交流，促进社会的包容与和谐，助力经济的繁荣，并促进个人的成长与发展。
我们应当积极倡导和保护文化多样性，创造一个更加多元和繁荣的社会。
人类文明发展的历程与趋势：文化的多元性与一体化
人类文明发展的历程与趋势：文化的多元性与一体化自从人类走出非洲，开始在世界各地繁衍生息，不同的文化就在相互交流、融合、演化中不断发展。
文化的多元性是人类文明发展的一个重要方面，如今，我们不仅可以品尝到不同国家的美食，也能够了解到各个文化之间的差异和共同点。
不同文化的发展往往受到特定条件的制约，例如地理、气候、资源等因素。
在古代，各种文明的发展都呈现出自我封闭、相对孤立的状态，文化之间的接触很少，很少出现融合和交流。
然而，随着时间的推移和技术的进步，这种情况发生了根本性变化。
现在，文化之间的交流更加频繁，互动更加紧密，并且在某种程度上已经成为一个统一的整体。
在这个新的世界秩序中，文化的多元性和一体化正成为两种趋势，并在不断地演变和发展。
在一个全球化的世界中，人们很容易接触不同的文化形式，从而产生了对文化的兴趣，并通过各种途径互相借鉴，从而推动了文化多元化的进程。
在人类文明的发展中，文化的不断进化和融合正是文明进步的关键之一。
一方面，在文化多元化的过程中，不同文化之间的差异得到了更好的充分利用。
人们可以从不同的角度和艺术形式中汲取营养，并进一步扩大自己的认知和体验。
在这个过程中，不同文化之间的交流往往是良性的，创造性的，甚至有时是令人惊喜和令人心灵富足的。
另一方面，文化也在向一个浓缩统一的方向发展。
一些文化已经从自己的国家和地区中演变出来，成为了全世界共享的文化形式。
例如摇滚乐、电影、体育、时装等各种流行文化现在已经成为全球范围内的现象。
人们对这些文化形式的探索和探究也让我们更加认识到了文化形式的共性和普遍性。
当我们探讨文化的多元化和一体化时，我们不能忽略语言这个重要的因素。
语言是快速传播文化的一种方式。
在多元文化的环境中，人们需要共同的语言才能更好地进行交流和理解。
英语已经成为全球语言之一，并逐渐发展出了各个带有区域差异的版本，例如美式英语、英式英语、澳式英语等等。
总的来说，人类文明的发展在不断地促进文化多元化和一体化之间的平衡。
论文化多样性的当代价值
论文化多样性的当代价值
论文化多样性的当代价值是一个备受关注的话题。
本文旨在探
讨当代社会中多样化的文化对社会和个人的价值意义。
首先，文化多样性为社会带来了丰富性和创新性。
不同的文化
背景和价值观念可以促进不同观点的交流和碰撞，激发新的思考和
创意。
这种创造性的碰撞可以推动社会的进步和发展。
其次，文化多样性提供了人们了解和尊重不同文化的机会。
通
过接触不同的文化，人们可以拓宽视野，增加对世界的理解和包容。
尊重和欣赏不同文化的存在可以使人们更加友善和平等地相处，减
少种族和文化冲突。
此外，文化多样性也对个人有着积极的影响。
通过接触不同文化，个人可以提高自身的社交和交际能力。
他们可以学会倾听和理
解他人的观点，培养自己的沟通技巧。
同时，文化多样性也可以促
进个人的自我成长和个人认同的形成。
然而，我们也要认识到文化多样性也存在着一些挑战和问题。
在全球化的背景下，文化冲突和文化冲突的问题也时有发生。
如何平衡不同文化的权益和保护文化多样性的同时，确保社会秩序的稳定，是一个需要深思熟虑的问题。
综上所述，论文化多样性的当代价值在于丰富了社会的创新性和包容性，提供了个人成长和交际能力的机会。
但我们也要认识到文化多样性可能带来的挑战和问题。
只有通过合理的文化交流和平等的尊重，我们才能最大限度地发挥文化多样性的价值。
人类文明发展的历史进程与趋势
人类文明发展的历史进程与趋势众所周知，人类是一种具有极高智慧能力的生物，自从人类诞生以来，始终在追求文明进步和发展，也正因此，不断经历着历史的洗礼和变革。
有人说，人类的历史就是一部文明的历史。
那么，人类文明究竟经历了哪些历程，又将走向怎样的未来呢？一、人类文明的演进历程人类文明的演进历程，可以总结为几个主要阶段：1.原始社会阶段（约公元前500万年——公元前6000年）原始社会阶段是人类文明的初始阶段，也是我们对人类早期历史了解最少的阶段。
但可以确定的是，在经历了漫长的狩猎与采集生活之后，人类开始使用工具，发明语言，并逐渐开始定居。
这个阶段的文化遗产最为明显，如出土的石器、雕像等。
2.农业革命阶段（公元前6000年——公元前4000年左右）农业革命是人类历史上的一大变革，它的目的是为了提高农业的生产力和效率，进而推动人类社会的发展。
从繁殖植物和动物、手工耕作到使用种子、锄头和犁，人类将耕作方式不断地升级。
农业革命为人类提供了丰厚的物质基础，也造就了一系列文明产业，如编织纺织、制陶、制砖等等。
3.文明时期阶段（公元前4000年左右——公元12世纪左右）文明时期阶段，也就是人类文明发展的黄金时代。
众所周知，文明不光是人类智慧的结晶，更是文化的表达和传承。
在这个阶段，人类创造了无数的文化遗产，部分影响依旧在持续延续。
此时候涌现了许多文明诞生，如古埃及文明、古印度文明、中华文化和古希腊文明等。
4.工业革命阶段（18世纪——20世纪末）工业革命是人类史上又一次巨大的变革。
以蒸汽机、纺织机、钢铁产业为代表的工业革命，使得人类生产力大幅提高，工业化和城市化成为人类社会主导趋势，医疗和交通运输等方面都得到极大的提升。
二、人类文明的未来发展趋势人类文明的走向从很多角度都可以看得到。
尽管未来无法准确预测，但有几个趋势可以预判：1.人们生活水平的不断提高随着经济的发展和技术的进步，人们的物质生活标准将会不断提高，诸如食品、住房、交通、娱乐、医疗等方面的服务质量将得到极大的提升，人类整体生活水平也随之蒸蒸日上。
文明的多样性与现代化的未来(英文)
The Diversity of Civilization and the Future of the WorldQian Chengdan, Peking UniversityIn the long history of about 4 million years of human race, the history of civilization contributes only about one thousandth. Emergence of civilization depends on many preliminary conditions, one of which was the growth of interaction among primitive human communities such as tribes, clans and ethnic/family groups. In the course of interaction political institutions were formulated and state as the mature form of which was brought forth when society broke through the shell of kinship. One phenomenon is worth noticing: ancient civilizations all began by water--on the Nile, the Yellow River, the Indus River and in Tigris-Euphrates valley and etc. The explanation for this is that apart from the needs of irrigation and daily-life, water meant convenient interaction with other communities, providing ancient people with transport network through which human activities were quickly communicated, bringing about exchange of goods and technological skills, encouraging military adventure and invasions and implementing cultural permeation in a reciprocal way. Interaction helped people to change when facing outside challenges, and early civilizations were nourished by consistent interaction and self-reformation in the long process of human history. In this sense we say: water produces civilization. Laotse, the ancient Chinese philosopher, praised the importance of water: "water benefits everything it flows past"!The first European civilization was also produced by water, but not a river but the sea. Hellenic civilization was characterized by its autonomously independent polity of poleis--the city-states. Though in other civilized areas of ancient time city-states were also witnessed, for example, in the lower reach of Mesopotamia, it was in ancient Greece that this form of political institution was the most typical, preserved for the longest time and left deepest impacts on history both positive and negative. The Hellenic World never amalgamated into a regional unit, to gain its unification. This helps to explain why the Hellenic World was always in turbulence with endless fighting among city-states---there were hundreds in number. The Hellenic civilization, the earliest European civilization, was thus substantially unique among ancient civilizations because in other areas as in Persia, Egypt, Mesopotamia and even China extensive and centralized states or empires were formulated when regional and area interactions were increased. Consequently the Hellenic civilization, magnificent as it was, vanished in the mist of history just like a shooting-star flying over the dark sky.Modern people tend to say the Hellenic civilization is of universal value, but in fact it was only unique.The Hellenic civilization was unique with another legacy, the democratic politics of city-states--another claim for universal value. I am not discussing whether or not there are really universal values; I only point out the following fact: among the hundreds of Hellenic city-states, the Athenian democracy of Pericles Age was typically unique, because, in the hundreds of years of Athens history this style of politics only existed for about 80 years while in other poleis there were different systems such as that of Sparta. After the Peloponnesian War people attributed Athens’ failure to its democracy, declaring that it was the split of power that brought about its defeat. Thucydides, the Greek historian and Athenian patriot who wrote The History of the Peloponnesian War, analyzed Athens’ defeat in this declaration. Aristotle, the most influential philosopher of ancient Greece, made a negative judgment on city-state democracy and his judgment influenced European political thinking for about two thousand years. Another point to be mentioned is that: the Romans, as avowed successors of Hellenic civilization, steered away from the poleis politics of Greece in the following two fields, (1) Rome began with a city-state of Hellenic style but grew into an extraordinarily extensive empire with centralized power and authority; (2) The Roman state experimented almost all political systems that human society has ever experienced but only not that system called democracy. In this way, by deliberately moving apart from the Hellenic model, the Roman state was more universal than that of Greece.I mention all the above facts only to remind that from the very start of human civilizations diversity prevailed everywhere. Each civilization had its peculiar time and space background. It is widely acknowledged that Mesopotamia was the pioneer of human civilization because the earliest written language, religious belief, social classification, state institutions and others seemed all to be traced to this area. Powerful local states appeared and disappeared one after another, among which Akkad, Babylonia, Assyria and etc. were well known. But neither poleis of the Hellenic style nor extensive empires in the Roman or Persian likes were organized. Ethnic groups came and left, leaving Mesopotamia a battleground with no hope of unification. The Crescent region was fertile, but its politics had no future. It was not until the rise of Islam that the area at last became an economic, political and cultural center of world-wide significance.Egypt had a different story. Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt were unified into a centralized state around 3,000 BC, and then ruled by a sovereign king the Pharaoh.When the Homeric civilization in Europe first came to the Greek peninsular the rule of Pharaoh had lasted for about 2,000 years in Egypt. If we realize that Anno Domini are only about 2,000 years so far (and the United States has a history of about 200 years only), it is easy to understand what a vitality the ancient Egyptian civilization must have. But it was destroyed by the Romans. The reciprocal consequence of the conquest was that Rome itself began its transformation from a republic to an empire. Whether or not the transformation meant a change of the ancient Hellenic/Romanic civilization, it has always puzzled advocators of the Universalist theory of the modern time for, in the logic of Universalism, empire betrayed the principle of republic and pulled history back from a higher level to a lower level.In India we see another picture. Indian civilization was characterized by prolonged political fragmentation twisted with unbelievable social stability. About 3,500 years ago the Aryans entered the Hindu Valley, diminished the indigenous civilizations before them and brought about a new system of social classification called Caste, which, ever since that time, was the feature of Indian civilization. In the long history of India we see numerous local monarchies contesting each other with endless wars and fighting, but under the strict Caste system the social stability was maintained so well that time seemed stopped forever. There emerged several powerful dynasties in Indian history but all existed briefly. Only in the 18th century when the British invaders made use of the split situation of the sub-continent started the process of India unification under the British colonial sovereignty.Persia presented another type of ancient civilization. When describing the characteristics of ancient Persia Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi used to say that the Persians were the first in the world to know how to establish and manage an extensive empire. He was right; they set up models for other empires. But Persia was defeated by Hellenic forces in the Persian Wars. The Hellenic victors contributed their victories to freedom they enjoyed because they saw Persia as a slavery country (for sure they forgot their own system of slave-owning); but in turn, they were defeated by the Macedonians who in their eyes were barbarians and un-free. The most unbelievable fact is that immediately after the Greeks were conquered by the Macedonians they followed Alexander the Great, the Macedonian strong man, in his conquest of the East and established a Hellenistic world in which the Greeks were tyrannical rulers and the conquered were enslaved subjects with no bit of freedom. It was a treacherous history but again betrayed the Universalist theory. Civilizations do not tread upon a common trace fixed by universal values, as strongly indicated by the Universalists.To many people, ancient China is the most difficult to be understood. Archeologicalstudies have indicated that Chinese civilization has more than one origin of the Yellow River Valley. About 5,000 years ago in the extensive area from the Loess Plateau to the coast of the East Chinese Sea there formed many primitive political entities—early chiefdoms or big tribal leagues. About 4,000 years ago Xia Kingdom became a regional state out of these chiefdoms which was the first dynasty in Chinese history according to legend. But written inscriptions of 3,500 years ago proved the undoubted existence of the Shang Empire and a recorded history would never cease again. When early rulers of Zhou Dynasty, which began in the 11th century BC, constituted a fief system to systemize land-holding and social hierarchy Europe was at the door of Homeric Age. A similar system was later forged by the Frankish rulers in about 7th century AD after the dissolution of the west Roman Empire, a system identified by later historians as feudal system. When I give lectures my students would always ask me: “is the fief system of the Zhou the same as the feudal system in Europe?” I would answer: the question should be “is the feudal system in Europe the same as the fief system of the Zhou?” Anyway, Zhou’s system was about 2,000 years earlier than the feudal system in Europe. Zhou’s practice, as it should be, caused political chaos and social disintegration in China for about 500 years, just as the feudal system caused hundreds of years’ social disorder in Europe. This negative experience of ancient time left an unforgettable lesson to Chinese nation. Since then political unification became the most cherished feature of Chinese civilization. If we look at all civilizations which existed in ancient times the Chinese civilization is the only one still existing. The reason for that is: political unification guaranteed its continuance.Confucius’ doctrine was another guarantee for its continuance, which is an ideological guarantee. As a man of the Axial Age he lived at a time when political turmoil and social fragmentation prevailed in China. With an ambition to finish turbulence once for all he worked out an ideological framework which embraced everything in harmony including human and the nature. His theory praises peace, opposes war, heightens up morality and rebukes selfishness. His doctrine is accepted by Chinese nation as fundamental values of Chinese civilization and embedded firmly in the spiritual world of Chinese people.To me there should be two pillars for any of the civilizations to be enduring long: a political pillar state and a spiritual pillar ideology. The Axial Age was great because it generated all main-stream ideologies for almost all main-stream civilizations of the ancient world. Later evolution of human civilization, in my view, was only transition or continuation of the ideological products of the Axial Age. Sages of the Age such as Confucius, Sakyamuni, Aristotle, Judaic prophets and others were great because theylaid the ideological foundation for various civilizations with respective religions or doctrines. But the peculiarity of Chinese civilization lay with the fact that Confucius’ doctrine (the spiritual pillar) was satisfactorily inlaid with the imperial state structure (the political pillar) while the other ancient civilizations lacked the inlay. Throughout Chinese history economic prosperity was closely linked with social stability because whenever there was social stability there was economic prosperity and whenever there was turbulence and turmoil there must be sufferings and disasters for common populace. It is with this socio-economic feature that we understand why Confucianism has been kept core value for Chinese civilization.Compared with the high combination of spiritual ideology and political framework in Chinese civilization, west-European countries were hindered by lack of coordination between the two forces. The Roman Empire was powerful but there was no unified ideology. From the 3rd century BC to the 3rd century AD China’s Han Dynasty and the Roman state were the two superpowers of the world. Both of them, with highly developed economy and delicately organized social networks, demonstrated the highest civilizational achievements up to time. But the 4th century witnessed a turning point because both of them were dragged into chaos by waves of “barbarian” invasions. Yet, in the 7th century, China went up to a new height of civilization of the Tang Dynasty while at about the same time West Europe entered its feudal system which was characterized by separation of spiritual and political powers as indicated in the motto “the God and Caesar have their own works”. Though we know that “the Dark Age” of the medieval times was not so dark because it was always changing and full of vigor, yet, it was still a setback compared with other civilizations of the time. The western civilization since then fell behind while eastern civilizations—for example in India, Arabia, Turkey and Byzantium reached their summits one after another. China was outstanding among them. According to the estimation of the California School China’s GDP was always ranked number one of the world for about 1000 years up to the 18th century. That 1000-year was the era of “advanced East and leg-behinded West”, an era with world strength laid in the East.Why for so long was the West fallen behind? The answer is simple: it was the feudal system that made Europe fragmented and de-centralized, and generated endless chaos. As I mentioned earlier, China was trapped in similar situation during the Zhou Dynasty, the result of which was 500 year’s turbulence from the Spring and Autumn period to the Warring States. Qinshihuang, the first emperor in Chinese history, unified China in the 3rd century BC and from that time on unification became an outstanding feature of Chinese history. Unification ensured long-term stability and prosperity, which in turn enhanced China’s ancient achievements from one peak toanother. Compared with Chinese experiences western countries must get out of medieval fragmentation by coordinating the two pillars together. This time they created a new form of polity, the nation-state, which was different from all conventional state forms in the sense that its political basis was nation and ideological foundation was national identity. Supported by these two pillars western countries began their long processes of rise.One fact is worth noticing: almost all nation-states in Europe started with absolute monarchy which played the roles of locomotive to draw Europe out of medievalism and adhesive to pull the nation together. All western countries experienced absolute monarchy though not all people want to remember it. But absolute monarchy was a universal phenomenon of all countries for it led them to form nation-states. No matter how people think of it, it is there in their history. I mention absolute monarchy in Europe only to remind that civilizations are always diverse; there can be no fixed values to be utilized. Absolute monarchy was the universal value orientation of the time, without which there should have been no rise of the West.Around the year of 1500 world history entered a new age which was marked by the rise of the West. The old pattern of world power structure, an “advanced East” and a “backward West”, was reversed. A new civilization arose in the West with expansion of individualism, promotion of commerce, prosperity of markets and priority of industry. Capitalism grew rapidly and stormed the whole world with its endless appetite for wealth and profits. A new ideology prevailed in the West, of which capital was the core and industry and business were instruments. Worshiping God gave away to worshiping gold while science and technology were useful to make money. The western world became the leading engine of world economy. Euro-centralism and Universalism started with it. The true implication underlining Universalism is to equalize the West with the world, and to universalize western value to human values. In that case diversity of civilization is no longer there. Hegel announced his belief in a universalistic theory of history: he claimed that the Sun of civilization rose in the East and fell in the West, but it was at this juncture that the inner sun of self-consciousness, emitting a higher radiance, made its further ascent!Western powers began their strife for colonies with the start of Grand Navigation. Capitalism, with the help of commerce and industry, swept everywhere and everywhere had no defense. By the end of the 19th century the world had been partitioned by western colonialism and a western hegemony was consolidated. Diversity of civilization, which was an overwhelming phenomenon ever since ancient civilizations came into being, seemed to come to an end. A voice, which sorted “good”from “bad” civilizations, came to the ear to confirm the superiority of the western civilization and denounce all other civilizations as inferior and born to be “bad”. A unilateral theory of civilization was thus formulated which threatened the true existence of human civilization.So far world civilizations had been co-existing and basically equal. There were no higher ranking or lower ranking. But when the world was more and more overwhelmed by western capitalism the western hegemony rose up. Minor civilizations such as in South America and in West Africa were extinguished by colonial expansion and those regions, having nourished the most ancient civilizations as in India, China, West Asia and North Africa, fell under the sway of western hegemony. Balance and equality were smashed. Many civilizations seemed condemned.But it was at this juncture that a turning point came in. Arnold Toynbee, the distinguished British historian, argued for a challenge-response mechanism that determines the life and death of civilizations. I do not intend to discuss about his argument here but the fact is that right at this point where western hegemony reached its peak and many of the rest civilizations were facing their fate a world-wide movement made its start--a movement called modernization that began the revival of civilizations.As a matter of fact modernization started in west Europe; nation-state was the launching stand. According to classical theory of modernization its process covers all aspects of society. Historical events described in textbooks such as Renaissance, Reformation, the Grand Navigation, the Industrial Revolution, science and technology improvements, political transition, social changes and etc. are all aspects of modernization. After hundreds of years transformation all western countries are modernized now but diversity is not ceased. Modernization did not kill diversity of civilization even among western countries but on the contrary we see its continuance:First, there are different approaches. For example, Britain followed an evolutionary way with peaceful solution while France ran through a revolutionist path until violence and blood fed up the nation. Germany, in its neighbours’ eyes, was “eccentric” in pursuing national unification while the United States, former British colonies as it was, had to fight for independence first and then enter its own process of modernization. As to economic developments, Britain worshipped Laissez-faire; France moved a bit from it. Germany was again “eccentric” for its rapid growth under coercive governmental maneuver. The United States, started with Laissez-fairefollowing the British model, set the example of large-scale state interference in the 20th century to modify the free market economy.Second, there are different systems. Take political systems to speak of: Britain is unique with a monarchy, its people’s love for monarch even more unique. France is a republic, compared by the United States with a federal structure. Parliamentary system in UK is obviously different from the presidential system in US while the “first-past-the-post” election in Britain is in sharp contrast with the American “electoral college” votes though both of them leave a hole for deviating from the fundamental principal of democracy with which the minority is required to follow the majority. As to the separation of powers--of executive, legislative and judicial institutions, it is only in the United States’ scheme that the separation ideal is really operated. So, if anyone claims that the US scheme is universally fitting to everywhere it sounds like to claim that the Periclean Athens was a universal fitting to the whole Hellenic World.Social and economic systems are even more distinctive. For example, European countries, especially in North Europe, are fond of social welfare while the United States dismisses the idea as a bed for idleness so when President Obama tried to peddle his Medicare Reform he was repudiated as a “socialist”. As for what a role the government should play in a nation’s economy each country has its own perspective. This helps to explain why Maynard Keynes was a product of welfare-inclined Britain and Milton Friedman was created by the individualistic United States.The last but not the least, there are always changes in western countries’ systems and approaches. Take these for example: Britain from Laissez-faire to welfare-state, France from revolutionary to evolutionary itineraries, US substitution of racial discrimination by racial equality (at least in law), all to display that even in a same country it is normal for one system to be transformed into another and also that civilizations have many faces.If we look at the processes of modernization in non-western areas we see more diversities from country to country. We have Latin-American models, we have East-Asian models, we have Arabian models, we have Iranian model, South African model, Soviet model and of cause Chinese model as well. We know these leaders and these events: Mohandas Gandhi and his Satyagraha, Mustafa Kemal and the Turkish Revolution, Jamal Nasser and the Arabian Socialism, Nelson Mandela and his peaceful antagonism against apartheid…….All the leaders played incomparably important roles in their own countries that made modernization in each countryunique. But each country’s success cannot be copied in other countries because every country is unique in its social and political background. It is not imaginable that Gandhi’s strategy could work in Algeria when French colonialism repressed the country, nor that Mandela’s approach could save Turkey when foreign troops were occupying it. Napoleon Bonaparte could not be produced in American Revolution, just as the Indian Congress Party would not survive in a Egyptian surrounding. The export-orientated and import-substitutionary models carried alternatively by military and civil bureaucracy in Latin-America could not be duplicated in Singapore, so Lee Kuan Yew was sculptured there. When competitive party elections are imposed on African societies where tribal tradition is strong enough confrontation among tribes will never stop. When “Arabian Spring” is turned to “Arabian winter” and bloodshed goes everywhere one cannot but keep these lessons deep in mind so that this sad mistake never be made!In India castes system is inlaid in modern party elections to combine tradition with modernity; in Japan only the Liberal Democratic Party dominates and the political structure is a hereditary one passed from generation to generation. China’s socialist market economy is so unique to make the whole world puzzled about it; on the other hand the market economy in the United States has no replication because it is based on dollar domination over the world. With all these examples we can say that diversity means success. To search for suitable approach in each country’s modernization is no doubt the fundamental characteristic of modern civilizations.But Universalists have other claims. To them unilateralism is the only thing they prepare to accept. Francis Fukuyama proclaims an end of history: to him history has come to the end. But Hegel had made the similar proclamation long before him though they differ from each other in where the end lies. To Hegel Friedrich II’s Prussia was the end but Fukuyama believes that the end lies with the United States. Yet, when the United States itself is still changing forward is it possible to convince people that the end has come with it?One observation is worth exploration. Countries which have achieved greater accomplishments and attracted greater attention in the 20th century’s modernization are those core areas nourished by most ancient civilizations, for example: Egypt, Iran, Turkey, India, Russia, China, Mexico, Brazil and etc. Samuel Huntington noticed the overlap and claimed, instead of the end of history, that clash of civilizations would be feature of the post-Cold War history. Ancient civilizations were regenerating and coming back, which would lead to endless conflicts.But is it inevitable that diversity and regeneration of world civilizations necessarily mean endless confrontation, and confrontation necessarily means life-and-death fighting among them? Is it not possible to follow ancient Chinese wisdom that “from one come two, from two come three and from three come all things”? There are also folk proverbs expressing the same idea, such as “Harmony brings wealth”, “Peace makes treasurer” and so on. We Chinese believe that “sea is big enough to hold all waters running into it”. To apply this proverb to present situation we believe that the world is big enough to allow all civilizations flourishing in it. After more than 100 years’ hard efforts for modernization old-aged civilizations are back to vitality, refreshed with self-confidence and returning to their own. Inequality once caused by western hegemony is now reversed to a new balance. To Huntington it means the clash of civilizations but I would say it is the return of civilizations, return of variety and return to equality. It is also a new model of thinking, to think about the possibility to resolve modern problems with ancient wisdom. New relationship is to be set up when modernity is strengthened by tradition: new relationship between man and nature, morality and profits, individualism and communitarianism, freedom and discipline, and etc.With modernization we have entered a new Axial Age. For years I have kept asking myself a question: whether modernization will end somewhere? The reality of the 21st century has made me realized that modernization, as a period of history, will come to an end and the end comes when diversity of civilization takes over and equality of civilizations prevails again. In the coming new era civilizations will co-exist and the human community will prosper. It is not only a dream but our common commitments---after all, we all live on the same planet and share the same destiny. We wish for life and prosperity. Civilizations are like flowers, when thousands of them blossom the garden is colorful. When all civilizations are equal in the world, the world becomes a common homeland to all peoples.。
文化多样性的发展现状与未来趋势分析
文化多样性的发展现状与未来趋势分析现如今，随着全球化的不断推进，文化多样性成为了一个备受关注的话题。
不同国家、不同地区拥有独特的文化传统和风俗习惯，这种多元性的存在不仅丰富了人类的生活，而且也为社会进步提供了源源不断的动力。
本文将就文化多样性的发展现状和未来趋势进行分析和探讨。
首先，文化多样性的发展现状是繁荣多元的。
无论是在国内还是国际上，我们都能感受到各种文化元素的碰撞和融合。
在国内，不同地区的传统文化和民俗习惯受到重视和保护，各地的特色节庆活动吸引了大量的游客。
例如，云南的泼水节、四川的火把节等都成为了享誉世界的旅游景点。
而在国际上，各国文化的交流与融合也日益深入人心。
例如，日本的动漫和电子游戏受到全球年轻人的喜爱，中餐和中医也在世界范围内流行。
其次，文化多样性的发展未来趋势是互相学习和互动。
随着全球化的深入，不同国家和地区之间的联系将进一步加强，文化互动的机会也将越来越多。
这就要求我们拥抱开放的心态，学习和借鉴他国的优秀文化元素。
例如，中国的文化遗产已经被列入世界文化遗产名录，这为我们传承和弘扬传统文化提供了机遇和挑战。
同时，欧洲各国也因为自身的历史和文化而成为了游客们向往的目的地。
通过互相学习和互动，我们可以更好地发展自己的文化，同时也能够更好地融入世界大家庭。
再次，文化多样性的发展未来趋势是数字化和智能化。
随着科技的不断进步，传统文化和现代技术正在有机结合。
例如，通过虚拟现实技术，游客可以身临其境地参观古代建筑和名胜古迹；在线平台为不同国家的音乐家和艺术家提供了互动交流的机会。
通过数字化和智能化的手段，文化的传播和交流将更加便捷和广泛。
同时，数字化也为文化的保护和传承提供了新的途径和手段。
例如，通过数字档案和文化遗产数据库，我们可以将传统文化元素进行记录和整理，以确保其历久弥新。
最后，文化多样性的发展未来趋势需要重视保护和可持续发展。
在文化的多样性中，我们不仅有机会去学习和借鉴他国的优秀元素，更要珍惜和保护自己的文化传统。
中国文化的多文化性与现代化内涵
中国文化的多文化性与现代化内涵中国是一个拥有悠久历史和文化的国家，其文化内涵丰富多彩，包含着多种不同的文化传统和价值观念。
在传统文化的基础上，中国不断吸收借鉴外来文化，并不断创新和发展自己的文化，形成了独具特色的多元文化体系。
同时，在现代化的推进过程中，中国文化也面临着新的发展与变革。
本文将从多文化性和现代化内涵两个方面探讨中国文化的当代发展。
一、中国文化的多文化性中国文化的多元性体现在传统文化和现代文化两个层面上。
1.传统文化的多元性中国传统文化是中华文明的重要组成部分，其内涵丰富多彩，蕴含着不同的文化传统和价值观念。
例如，孔孟之道代表了儒家文化的主流，注重修身立德、尊重礼制、强调家庭和谐；道家文化强调天人合一、自然观念、无为而治；佛教文化讲究慈悲善良、超越生死等。
此外，中国传统文化还包含着诸如民间文化、宗教信仰、地方文化等多种不同的文化元素。
2.现代文化的多元性随着现代化进程的深入，中国文化不断吸收借鉴外来文化，并不断创新和发展自己的文化，逐渐形成了现代多元文化体系。
其多元性体现在各种文化形式和艺术创作上，如电影、音乐、美术等。
如近年来的中国电影发展迅猛，不仅注重提高制作技术，还借鉴了国外先进的影片制作理念，创造出一批具有中国特色的佳作。
二、中国文化的现代化内涵中国文化的现代化面临着多方面的挑战，要在传承传统文化与接受现代文化之间实现平衡，同时也要适应新时代和新形势下的发展需求和社会问题。
1.文化自信和推广现代化的中国需要具有自己的文化自信，坚持推广中华文化。
在国际舞台上，推广具有中国特色的文化创意，既增强了国际话语权，也为其他国家带来了全新的文化体验。
同时，推动中国文化的国际化，也有助于提高中国文化的软实力和国家的综合实力。
2.文化创意和产业发展近年来，中国文化创意产业发展迅速，对推动文化现代化具有重要意义。
文化创意产业和文化现代化相互促进，推动着中国经济和产业结构转型升级。
不仅如此，文化创意产业也为人民的生活带来了更多的创意产品和文化体验。
人类文明的未来发展趋势的解读
人类文明的未来发展趋势的解读人类文明的历史可以追溯到数万年前的原始社会，经历了农业文明、工业文明和信息化文明等不同阶段。
而在21世纪的今天，人类社会面临许多新的挑战和机遇。
那么，人类文明的未来发展趋势会怎样呢？本文试图从文化、科技、环境等多个角度进行一些初步的探讨。
一、文化领域人类的文化是历史的结晶，也是未来的前进方向。
从古至今，文化的演进一直是不断完善和发展的过程。
在未来的几十年中，文化领域可能会出现以下趋势：1. 多元文化交融随着全球化的深入，各种文化相互交融，多元文化成为未来的趋势。
人们需要更加开放和包容的心态，接受来自不同文化背景的人群。
这种差异性和多样性将推动文化的创新和进步。
2. 文化数字化数字化是当今社会的主流趋势，数字化文化将更好地满足人类对文化的追求和需求，包括个性化阅读、多媒体体验、全球文化交流等方面。
数字化文化的发展将需要更好的技术支持和更稳定的网络基础设施。
3. 文化教育教育是推动文化发展的核心要素。
未来的教育将更加注重人的全面发展，注重个人价值和创造性的激发，涉及多种知识和技能。
这将为人类社会带来更多更好的文化产品和艺术创作。
二、科技领域科技是驱动社会发展的重要力量。
在未来十几年中，科技领域可能会出现以下趋势：1. 人工智能人工智能是当今科技领域最热门的技术，未来的社会将会更广泛地应用人工智能。
例如，智能医疗、智能交通、智能城市等将成为未来的趋势。
2. 5G技术未来的社会将会更加有网络化、数码和智能化的趋势，5G技术将为未来的新型产业发展提供更好的基础设施。
未来的社会将会涌现出更多新的产业，这将有助于推动技术的发展和人类文明的进步。
3. 生物技术未来人类的生命科技将会加强研究和应用。
人类将很快探索更多的治疗疾病的手段，包括用基因编辑技术治疗遗传性疾病、利用人工智能寻找治疗新药等。
未来我们将更加注重生态环境的保护，以人为本和全球协作成为未来发展的基调。
三、环境领域环境是人类生存和发展的基础。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
文明的多样性与现代性的未来钱乘旦文明是怎样发生的？这是一个复杂的问题，不是几句话可以说清楚。
我在这里想说的是：几百万年前人类开始脱离动物界，然而进入文明的时间，只占人类全部历史的千分之一多一点。
文明之所以形成如此晚，是因为它需要诸多条件，其中最重要的条件之一，是原始状态中各种不同的人群（比如部落、血亲集团）之间相互的交流，迫使他们改变原有的生存状态，从而突破血亲的纽带，形成地域性的社会组织，也就是早期国家。
我们都知道，最古老的文明出现在大河流域，比如尼罗河、黄河、底格里斯和幼发拉底河、印度河，等等。
这里除了“水源”这个因素，“交往”的重要性常常被忽视：河流是远古人类最便捷、也是最容易利用的交往通道，住在水边的先民们，最容易与其他人群进行交往，包括物资交换、掠夺、征服与反征服、技术与器具的交流等等，因此也最经常受到改变自己的压力，以应对种种变化。
文明就是在这个过程中产生的——水给人类带来文明，老子说：“上善若水!”住在水边的人最容易产生文明，水把星星点点散布在各处的早期文明幼芽连接在一起，形成了文明成长的中心。
欧洲最早的文明也出现在水边，只不过那片水是海而不是河。
和其他地区的早期文明有一点不同，古希腊文明以“城邦”为最显著特点。
“城邦”这种早期的国家形态，在世界其他地方也曾出现过，比如在两河流域下游。
不过希腊却被城邦制度“固化”了，长期不变化，长期不发展，几百个城邦组成“希腊世界”，相互间有永远打不完的仗。
在世界其他地方，像波斯、埃及、两河流域，乃至中国，最终都向地域国家或“帝国”发展，这是古代世界的共同现象，最终就发展出许多地区性的强大国家。
但古代希腊没有出现这种情况，结果，辉煌无比的古希腊文明在历史的长河中只如同流星般一闪而过，很快就在茫茫的黑暗中湮没了。
古希腊的情况很特别，在古代世界不是普遍现象；可是近代以后却有人把这种独特的现象说成是“普世”的，历史由此被修改了。
古希腊的另一项遗产是城邦民主制，它也被后来的人们重新装饰，并且被说成是“普世”的价值。
我在这里并不想讨论“普世价值”是否存在，我只想指出一些人所共知的事实：在“希腊世界”的数百个城邦中，伯里克利时期的雅典民主是一个特例，在雅典自己的历史上，它也只存在了80年左右；至于在其他希腊城邦，则存在着不同的政治制度，比如在斯巴达。
而且，伯罗奔尼撒战争后，人们普遍认为是雅典的制度造成了雅典的失败，因为城邦的力量被分解了，无法发挥有效的作用。
修昔底德作为雅典的爱国者对此痛心疾首，他的《伯罗奔尼撒战争史》总结了这个教训。
亚里士多德对希腊城邦民主制的负面评价影响了整个欧洲的政治观念，在此后两千年时间里“民主”被视为贬义词。
值得注意的是：古代罗马，作为古希腊文明的直接继承者，在诸多方面都体现古代的希腊传统，但在政治领域却有明显的背离：第一，它是以希腊那样的城邦开始的，后来却发展成帝国，变成一个庞大的权力集中的国家；第二，在罗马国家发展的历史上，出现过迄今为止人类所知道的几乎各种政治制度，却唯独没有“民主制”。
很明显，罗马修正了希腊的实践，它的发展更符合古代世界的共同走向。
我指出这些事实，只是想说明：文明从一开始就是多种多样的，每一种文明都有它特定的时空背景。
历史证明，古代文明充满了多样性。
人们一般说，两河流域是人类最早的文明发源地，文字、宗教、社会分化和国家架构等等都最早发生在这里。
就国家而言，这里曾出现过一批地区性的霸权国家，巴比伦、亚述等都大名鼎鼎。
不过很奇怪，两河流域既没有发展出像希腊那样的城邦世界，也没有组建成像罗马那样的大帝国。
古代两河流域战乱不断，不同的种群进进出出，带来不同的文化。
尽管“肥沃新月区”很早就出现发达的农业，但政治与文化领域始终不能统一；直至伊斯兰教兴起后，它才成为世界性的经济、政治和文化中心。
埃及的情况恰恰相反。
埃及在公元前3000年就完成了上、下尼罗河的统一，法老作为神和太阳的子孙牢牢地控制着国家，实行神权加王权统治。
这样的制度，在“荷马时代”刚降临希腊半岛时，已经在尼罗河流域静静地流淌了两千年。
如果意识到：耶稣纪元迄今为止也只是两千多年(美国建国只有两百多年)，就能明白古代埃及文明有多么强的生命力！但这样一个古老的文明后来却被罗马摧毁了；有趣的是，恺撒征服埃及后，罗马共和国也变成了罗马帝国，这让现代的普世主义者有一点难堪，因为按照普世主义的说法，应该是帝国在前、共和国在后，共和国比帝国要“进步”许多。
印度的情况又和埃及不同。
印度河流域曾经有过远古文明，雅利安人到来后，消灭了原有的古老文明，带来了种姓制。
在印度漫长的历史上，小国林立，王政盛行，小国之间长期攻伐，无休无止地争霸夺权。
可是在种姓制的严格控制下，印度社会却出奇地稳定，时钟在这里几乎停摆。
印度历史上出现过几个强大的王朝，但通常只是过眼烟云。
政治的分裂和社会的超常稳定是古代印度的显著特点，直到18世纪英国人到来，才把整个印度变成它的殖民地。
波斯是又一个古代文明地，20世纪，巴列维国王曾经非常自豪地说：古代伊朗是第一个学会在一片广大地域中建立并管理一个帝国的国家，它的经验为后来的帝国所借鉴；这个说法应该不错。
不过波斯却在希波战争中被打败，希腊人说：这是自由战胜了奴役（希腊人忘记自己实行的奴隶制了）。
可是后来希腊又被马其顿打败了，在希腊人眼里，马其顿却是“不自由”的。
让人难以置信的是：被马其顿打败后，希腊人就跟着亚历山大进行东征，在东至印度边界、西至突尼斯的广阔土地上实行“东方式”的统治，也就是被希腊人嗤之以鼻的“东方专制主义”。
这一段历史十分吊诡，再一次证明了文明的多样性：文明并不像普世主义者认定的那样，由一种固定的价值在指导。
在西方人眼里，最神秘、最难以理解的是古代中国。
中华文明有多重起源，黄河不是唯一的摇篮。
大约在5000多年前，从黄土高原到东海之滨的广阔土地上，已经形成众多的“酋邦”；这些“酋邦”渐渐融合，最终向统一国家方向发展。
4000多年前，“夏”已经是一个庞大的地域性国家；3500年前，商帝国用文字记录了自己的存在。
当欧洲尚处在荷马时代时，周天子已经用分封制规范了土地的分配形式和社会的等级秩序，而类似的制度，要到西罗马帝国崩溃后，才在欧洲的法兰克王国逐步形成。
我向学生讲述西欧的封建制度时，学生们常常问：西周的分封制是不是很像西欧的封建制？我说应该这样问：西欧的封建制是不是很像西周的分封制？终究，西周的分封制比西欧的封建制要早一千多年!西周分封制造成社会的严重解体，持久的动乱延续了数百年——正如同在西罗马解体、封建制形成后，西欧也经历了数百年动乱。
有过这一段经历后，秦始皇在公元前三世纪统一中国，统一从此就成为中华古典文明中最珍贵的遗产，它保证了中华文明的延绵不断，保证了国家的永续长存。
在世界所有文明中，中华文明是唯一自远古至今日未曾中断的一个文明，政治统一是它的保障。
除了政治统一这个因素，还有一种强大的思想黏合剂，那就是孔子的学说。
孔子生于轴心时代，它所生活的中国正处在严重的动荡与分裂中，他希望结束动荡，回归秩序，因而设计了一套关于秩序的学说，将人和自然都置于其中。
这套学说承前启后，成为中华古典文明之集大成；它崇尚和平、反对战争，倡导公德、拒斥私利。
几千年来，它一直是中华文明的精神载体，保证了中华文明的生生不息。
文明需要载体，没有载体，就没有文明。
在我看来，文明须有两个载体，一是政治的载体即国家，二是精神的载体即意识形态。
轴心时代之所以伟大，是它产生了人类多种文明的精神载体，后来各种文明的发展，多少都表现为轴心时代精神产物的继承与变异。
轴心时代的伟大智者们：孔子、释迦牟尼、亚里士多德、犹太教先知，还有其他人，他们的学说或宗教，承载了文明的生存力。
而中华文明的特殊之处，就在于孔子的学说(精神载体)与帝国的结构(政治载体)高度结合，形成了思想与国家的完美对接。
在中国几千年历史上，社会稳定和经济繁荣有直接的联系：凡是社会稳定，经济就繁荣；凡是社会动乱，生灵就涂炭。
孔子学说之所以成为中华古典文明的核心价值体系，有其深刻的社会学根源。
相比之下，西欧的情况不是这样，思想与国家未能理想对接，对后来的发展造成不利影响。
公元前3世纪至公元后3世纪，汉帝国和罗马国家曾分别称雄世界东、西方，它们势均力敌，经济与社会发展水平旗鼓相当，是当时的“超级大国”。
但是从公元4世纪起，东、西两大帝国都陷于混乱，都经受了长时期的“蛮族入侵”。
公元7世纪，唐帝国在东方崛起，把中华文明推进到一个新的高峰；欧洲却进入“封建时代”，这个时代的最大特点是国家政权与意识形态分离，所谓“恺撒与上帝各管一摊”。
尽管我们知道：欧洲中世纪并不“黑暗”，它仍然充满生机，但是与世界其他地区相比它却落伍了。
这以后，东、西方文明拉开距离，“东方”几个文明不断放出异彩，包括印度、阿拉伯、奥斯曼，甚至拜占庭。
中华帝国则一枝独秀，按照美国加州学派的估算，在18世纪之前的一千多年时间里，中国的GDP总量始终位居世界第一；东方“先进”、西方“落后”的态势长期不变。
为什么在这一千多年的时间里，东方始终“先进”、西方一直“落后”？原因其实很简单，那就是西欧的封建制度使社会高度碎片化，缺少凝聚力，处在无穷无尽的动荡中。
前面说过，类似的情况在中国周朝就出现过，结果是春秋战国500年的动乱；秦汉以后，中国改变了这种状况，它的稳定与繁荣就一直保持下来。
因此，西方想要摆脱中世纪的落后，就需要整合社会，重新建立统一的国家；这一次，他们创造出一种新的国家形态，即现代民族国家。
这种国家与世界上曾经出现过的所有其他国家形态都不同，它以民族共同体作为政治支撑点，以民族认同感作为思想支撑点，在这种国家的扶持下，西方开始了它在近代的崛起。
有一个现象特别值得注意，那就是，欧洲早期的民族国家是从专制制度起步的，西方的崛起正是从这里开始。
专制王权把西欧各国从封建分裂状态中拉出来，构造了早期的民族共同体。
这个现象在西欧所有国家中都曾出现过，尽管现在有些人很不愿意提起这段往事，不愿意说：专制统治也曾经在西方“普世”过。
但历史终究是历史，抹杀是不可能的；人类文明从来就有多样性，它是以时空的规定性为转移的。
这样，在1500年前后，人类进入一个新的时代，它以西方的崛起为标志，翻转了东方“先进”、西方“落后”的布局。
一种新的文明在西方兴起，伴随着个性的张扬、商业的兴起、市场的躁动和工业的成长。
资本主义挟带着永无止境的追求欲，在整个世界无限制地扩张。
从那个时候起，西方就成了世界的牵引机，“普世”之说也由此而来。
普世主义的真正含义是将西方等同于世界，由此一来，文明的多样性就不复存在了。
这样一种叙事方法在黑格尔那里就清楚地呈现了，他说：文明的太阳从东方升起，在西方落下，却升华成人类精神的万丈光芒！人类文明自古以来多种并存的局面似乎走到了尽头，一种“文明优越论”悄然而生，它将西方文明视为“先进”，将其他文明都斥为“落后”，并且预言：西方文明将一统地球。