At the interface between diversity and common ground many human problems arise. Diversity is the unique variation, while all these singularities share a common environment, an interconnected ground. The concomitant, interrelated existence of the two might be referred to as the mystery of singular uniqueness versus the enigma of all encompassing unity. These timeless concomitant interdependent features of man’s condition in his overall environment is a constant of human history which has never been solved but which has rather given rise to an endless string of relational problems, among which the big international, interracial, interreligious, inter-ideological wars, as well as that of man with the ecological common ground are milestones.
At the interface between diversity and common ground many human problems arise. Diversity is the unique variation, while all these singularities share a common environment, an interconnected ground. The concomitant, interrelated existence of the two might be referred to as the mystery of singular uniqueness versus the enigma of all encompassing unity. These timeless concomitant interdependent features of man’s condition in his overall environment is a constant of human history which has never been solved but which has rather given rise to an endless string of relational problems, among which the big international, interracial, interreligious, inter-ideological wars, as well as that of man with the ecological common ground are milestones.
Milestone is to be taken literally here as these struggles are as continuous as a hitherto endless thread with countless “pearls” of struggles at regular and predictable intervals on it. It has become a timeless constant. Yet, they may at best be called counterfeited pearls, because they are derived from conflict. And man seems to be infatuated with this rather gloomy string of pearls as if it was a real string of authentic pearls which can truly delight man’s heart.
Evidence seems to indicate that he sometimes derives greater satisfaction from that dark string of pearls than from an equally possible string of pearls of endless relational order and a reign of harmony and freedom from diversity-based struggle, in which everybody would have his existential needs covered. Otherwise he would not choose this conduct. But OECD and other IO statistics indicate that even at the threshold of the third millennium man is only partly aware of this state of affairs and not really willing and practically committed to the issue.
In spite of the global hype across media, education and politics he is not yet fully aware of the planetary and cosmic common ground and unwilling to act accordingly even sixty years after the foundations of the United Nations; in spite of horrendous world wars which continue world-wide in the shape of innumerable civil conflicts and, last but not least, in spite of strong scientific evidence of an ecological threat to the world and mankind as a whole. No wonder some social scientists conclude to man’s inability to change in the short and even in the medium term.
I would like to introduce a brief history of the earth entitled “As cores da Terra” or The Colours of the Earth which puts the physical and the ethical aspect of the common ground in perspective. The original is in Brazilian and reflects awareness of and a sense of responsibility for the wider common ground shared by all men, i. e. the creation as a whole:
English Translation from Brazilian Portuguese of “As cores da Terra”
“The colours of the Earth”:
In the beginning, when God created the Earth, it was totally green: Green due to its totally virgin nature, its rich forests, enchanting woods and serene planes; green because of the hope that the Earth would be the home of man beloved by Him.
Later, when man reflected on the Earth, he thought it was the centre of the universe. He thought this was the only way it could be, because after all it was on the Earth that Jesus would live and it was on this Earth where the most perfect creatures lived who were to take care of the planet and continue the magnificent act of creation. At that time, one probably assumed that the Earth was golden.
Much later, when man succeeded in knowing the universe and in conquering space, he finally was able to see the Earth from afar. This moved him so much that he said it was a blue planet: blue due to the the endless seas and the depth of its waters; blue as the peace which united the planet with the grand silence of the infinite and mysterious sky.
Later, when time began to run out of control, it seems that once more the Earth had changed its colour. It turned yellow: yellow from combustion, deforestation, stinking factory smoke, expanding deserts, receding forests that gave way to the void, which was called progress and profit. It turned yellow from fear; the fear of losing its green, its gold and its blue forever.
Man throughout the history of human civilization has invested endless efforts to solve the eternal conflict which is relational in nature. Ethical, religious, judicial, political and philosophical systems, the totality of the human and social sciences deal with this perennial question of the relationship between man and man, man and the collective, man and the totality of his living sphere. The quasi totality of thought, as far as it is not strictly technical and scientific, revolves around relationship which burns down to relational issues between diverse egos; more simply the “I”. And relationships seem to be centered around diverse foci of interest, which need to relate within a common ground. They are concrete relationships between human beings and their physical environment. And these are additionally impacted by diverse conceptualizations of the metaphysical relationship with the transcendental world, which additionally fuels the relational struggles.
When space shrinks, as the world does through overall technological integration, increased need for living space though demographic developments and associated global migration as well as a growing speed-up of communications, relational issues are exacerbated. There is less space for individual retreat into safety zones and a suspension of relating and therefore the relational challenges which are accompanied more often by struggles between the diverse foci of interest irrespective of the common ground they share increase, unless man can bring about a change in his fundamental quality of relating.
One might call all this a trivial commonplace not worth discussing. “You can’t change it anyway. That’s the way we are made”. Spiritualists sometimes argue that it is the struggle between egos. Psychologists may argue in terms of identity struggles, economists may argue in terms of a struggle about material interests, ideologists may argue in terms of different world views. Everybody describes the problem, which they all recognize, plausibly form his perspective. So they all agree, that the problem as such exists and that one has to live with it. Take it or leave it. Either you play the game or you refuse it. Engage in the relational struggle or opt out of society and refuse human relationships, whether it be at the interpersonal, interorganisatinal or international level. But then you might be faced with relating to yourself and the refusal of relationship, which also is a way of relating. It appears as a fundamental constant of life. Therefore we all are facing it one way or the other, more or less, in different forms, shapes and qualities. The complete negation of relationship approaches the end of what may be called life. But even then the common ground will catch up with the denial and impose his relational quality. Seemingly there is no way out of this human condition. In earlier times one could pioneer unknown territory, emigrate to new worlds or withdraw to less densely populated areas to alleviate the relational pressures. With the changes in space and time conditions – reduction of space and speed-up – there is less margin for maneuvering. Changes in the three variables of time, space and the number of players against the backdrop of new survival pressures make the forecast of a culture clash of global magnitude, a cultural earthquake, more likely. Therefore the equation diversity and common ground, which contains hitherto unknown variables, requires a closer scrutiny.
Most people would agree that these two interrelated mysteries, the unique singularity and the unfathomable common ground constitute one of the major riddles of existence. Therefore a lot of thinking has been invested in it across cultures and civilizations across time and space. Necessarily the issue had to surface and to be addressed in the field of intercultural research, because all human beings of the planet have to solve this dilemma and they do it in a culture specific-way. That is what intercultural researchers assume, based on their definition of culture as problem solving and dilemma resolution strategies. Not surprisingly it figures very prominently in all intercultural value systems. Some even argue that all other values can be derived from the values continuum which has been called individualism versus collectivism or individualism versus communitarianism. In either terminology it refers to the interest of the I versus the We. It does not cover the relationship between the I and the wider material and immaterial, physical, psychological and metaphysical environments. The diversity versus common ground continuum, however, would at least cover the following dimension of cultural difference:
Individualism versus collectivism or communitarianism,
the relationship with the physical environment as well as
the relationship with the wider environment;
relationship with oneself,
relationship between man and man,
relationship between man and the physical and the immaterial environment
Those are the major areas covered by the common cultural value systems. And they all could be subsumed by an integrative superordinate category like Diversity versus Common Ground for example. Having identified a common denominator for all common cultural value systems one might approach it in a different way by inquiring into what can be called the enigma of relationship. With this more focused assumption one can start investigating the issue:
Many thinkers have identified the problem but could not formulate comprehensive solutions. First and foremost Marxism seems to have found a very costly solution in historical and human terms, probably because it worked with an incomplete assumption about the individual singularity and the common ground. It disconnected man form the wider metaphysical common ground by focusing on materialism. It misrepresented the overall human condition and could therefore not find the solution conducive to a sustainable dilemma resolution.
Intercultural research in a way lost itself in the diversity of culture, which it attempted to solve. They split the problem in what it assumed were its components but the procedure did not bring about sustainable solutions. From the dilemma theoretical standpoint one can derive the insight that values are holistic continua and that the attempt to realize one attribute like the uniqueness and the singularity of diversity activates the opposite pole and leads to a struggle of values integration. Unless this is successful the intercultural approach does not either provide the desired solution of the dilemma. And this struggle of values integration is what cultural history largely is about.
This also applies to ethical systems and various monistic principles, because values are continua and based on their dialectic nature they bring the opposite value into play which ends in a struggle between the two. Dilemma theory addresses this issue. The question is, however, whether dilemma theory can be generalized, or whether its application is confined to some specific business and technical issues. In order to be universally applicable and in order to provide real sustainable solutions beyond the world of global business it must be able to cover what I have called 360° of an issue and I have therefore designed a 360° Synergy Model to expand the dilemma theoretical approach. I do not think that it is the ultimate solution but it is a somewhat improved approach. After all the application of a theory also depends on the qualities of those who apply it. Now I would like to present this model with its legend here:
[...]
- Arbeit zitieren
- D.E.A./UNIV. PARIS I Gebhard Deissler (Autor:in), 2010, Diversity And Common Ground, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/159895
-
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen. -
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen. -
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen. -
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen. -
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen. -
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen. -
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen.