从“一带一路”到全球治理：哲学社会科学的桥梁作用

阿尔布劳【英国】

英国社会学学会 荣誉副会长/英国社会科学院 院士 /荣休教授

不论哪位学者，在受邀来到中国、并针对“一带一路”这一主题发表讲话时，内心都是充满敬畏之情的。因为“一带一路倡议”的发起者——当代的中国，是迄今为止世界上最具实力的、为人类集体而代言的机构，与中国的呼声相比，我个人的见解委实微不足道。

有人曾做过这样的争论——究竟该把中国称作一个国家，还是一种文明？在我看来，中国既是一个国家，一种文明，也是一个整体，这种将中国、中国人民仅仅凝聚在一起的力量，是西方世界闻所未闻的。中国实现目标的能力早已得到证实，在世界的其他地区，能够拥有这种能力的，除军事力量之外，便只有企业的力量，但这两者能够利用的人力资源仅仅是中国的一小部分。

正是因为拥有这种能力，中国的领导层才能够以“一带一路”倡议对西方的全球化做出回应，中国才能够采取另外一种方式影响全球事务，才能够与其他国家一道，构建一个更加美好的世界。由于“一带一路”倡议的核心在于国家之间的互联互通，因而共同的文化基础是十分必要的。很显然，哲学社会科学需要尽早地的参与进来，才能更好地探讨如何构建这种基础。

中国对自身国力充满信心的同时，也邀请国外学者一道，为创建一个更好的世界而共同努力。习近平主席在今年5月17日哲学社会科学工作座谈会上讲道：“要向外看、积极探索关系人类前途命运的重大问题”。

1.“一带一路”是迄今为止最具雄心壮志的一项工程，它把中国的和平发展与整个世界的繁荣与幸福联结在一起

2013年10月3日，习近平在印度尼西亚首次提出共同建设21世纪海上丝绸之路的建议，并指出中国与东盟国家之间的互动交流为“……相互学习、相互借鉴……提供了重要的文化基础”

然而在西方，为国家间的和平互动构建基础的问题，常被纳入全球治理的范畴。如果从最广义的视角出发，可以这样来看待全球治理：所谓的全球治理是指，为应对国际挑战、为保持全球社会秩序而形成的过程或机制。从狭义角度来看，国际货币基金组织、世界银行、世贸组织等国际经济组织，往往被视作全球治理机制的核心。但是西方认为正是这些经济组织促成并推进着全球化向前发展。许多人，包括我自己在内，都对这种观点持批判态度。因为这种观点将全球化的理念十分不必要地限制在了经济过程上，将全球治理局限于经济组织上。

至少应在联合国各个机构内，在维和问题、卫生问题、移民问题、气候变化问题的干预上，对这种观点进行平衡和抵消。新的可持续发展目标就是要超越经济的藩篱来审视问题。

2.“一带一路”面临的风险在于，它容易被人误解为中国版的“美式全球化”

在孕育成全球化问题的解决方案之前，“一带一路”面临着被误解的风险，容易被误解为一种经济战略，更糟的是，容易被世界其他国家视作是国家霸权主义的延伸，认为“一带一路”只不过打着为各国带来利益的幌子而已。这些国家会用看待美国的角度来解读中国。

“一带一路”若想取得长期的成就，则有必要强调其非经济层面的特征，从而将“一带一路”与全球化区别开来。由于“一带一路”倡议具有深厚的文化内涵，因此中国的文化实力、对哲学社会科学重要性的认识等，都能促成对全球治理的整体的认识，而这种认识恰恰是当今世界所需要的。

***

首先，我要探讨全球化和“一带一路”的区别。总体而言，这样的对比太过宽泛，因此这里只能勾勒出一个大体框架，以示两者间的区别。

在过去三十年中，全球化在西方话语中占据支配地位，但在它的内涵中，似乎很少包括国际交流、全球市场、共同命运的意识、国家主权的丧失以及国家间愈发强烈的相互依赖等主题。

3.西方全球化作为一种话语，融合了“故事”、战略以及意识形态

当然，所有这些问题都有待进行实证研究，而相关的研究正不断取得更大的成果。尽管如此，全球化一直都是一种话语，涉及政治内容、演讲、评论以及辩论。由于“一带一路”正处于愿景形成和政策形成的初期阶段，因此在这两个方面，可以与全球化进行比较。

在这里，我要对全球化的三种话语进行区分：故事、战略、意识形态。这三种形式经历了连续的发展阶段，但每种形式都在同化前一种形式的同时，避免了对前一种形式的替代。

首先，全球化是一种“故事”。这一点至少可以追溯到20世纪70年代，最明显地体现在乔治·莫德尔斯基关于世界政治的教科书中的一章中。在这部作品中，莫德尔斯基提倡一种“跨国视角”，将全球化看作“将世界融为一体”的历史过程中的高潮阶段。在这个版本中，全球化的根源已经消失在时间中，当下则被视作历史过程的高潮阶段，这个过程可以追溯到历史的开始。

在社会学领域，罗兰德·罗伯特森的早期作品阐释了世界是如何随着区域性的多元化而变为统一事件的这个“故事”。1990年，国际社会学协会在马德里举办世界社会学大会，会上对这一观点给予了公开认可，并将会议主题确定为：“统一与多元：适合整个世界的社会学”，在会议文集中，一信息被传播开来，并传达给来自世界各个地区的4000多名与会代表。

其次，全球化是一种战略。这种观点曾在20世纪80年代初步引起了学术界的热议，随后这一理念被纳入到商业领域。跨国公司发现这个理念能很好地融入其背景叙事，有助于跨国公司在全球范围内的扩展。

有关这一理念的参照性文本出现在《哈佛商业评论》上，作者为西奥多·列维特，文章题目为《市场的全球化》（1983）。在文章中，他认为全球化意味着消费者选择的同质化，这为企业制定全球战略提供了基础。“全球战略”已经成为企业计划的标准特征。

第三，全球化是一种意识形态。在西方民主体制中，凡是企图赢得多数选民支持的话语，其中总能找到资本利益的政治表达。自苏联解体后，在新自由主义必胜信念的激励下，20世纪90年代出现了一系列的说法——这些说法预言民族国家最终将灭亡，民族文化最终将变得同质化。

4.西方全球化话语：故事—文明的进步；战略—走向全球；意识形态—自由主义民主

对于许多美国人而言，这种新的全球化明显符合其国家利益。最流行的一种观点体现在托马斯·弗里德曼的畅销作品《雷克萨斯与橄榄树》（1999）中。作者将全球化看作一种体制，而美国则是这一体制中“唯一且占据支配地位的超级大国”，从“文化角度来看，全球化在很大程度上（并非完全）都可以看作是美国化的一种扩张”。此时，故事、战略、意识形态已经融为一体。克林顿总统将全球化定义为一种不可逆转的历史趋势，美国政坛的领导层开始积极地制定一套激进的、社会民主主义政策，这些政策被称作“第三种道路”。

当美国总统克林顿及副总统艾尔·戈尔在将民主党派的选举方案中，朝着更加开放的市场、改革公共服务的方向进行重新定位时，全球化成为了选举方案中的关键词。英国的新工党追随了美国的新民主党的步伐，20世纪90年代的一段时期内，欧洲的左翼政治领导人也曾掀起过一场较为松散的运动，在认同“第三种道路”理念的西方国家中，这种运动的规模更加广泛。

然而人们对于全球化的信心因为两个事件而发生动摇。第一个事件是反全球化运动在国际范围内的迅速蔓延。1999年12月，世贸组织在西雅图的会议不得不因为抗议活动而取消。抵抗全球化运动、反全球化运动，以及随后的另类全球化运动成为当时全球意识形态冲突的象征性标志。

导致对全球化信心减弱的另外一个事件是2001年9月11日，世贸中心双塔的倒塌。对于中国以及其他国家而言，全球化至今仍然是美国推行的一项策略，人国际金融机构则为这项策略的执行奠定了基础，为推行新自由主义经济政策提供便利。尽管美国对这一意识形态已经失去信心，但它的全球影响力仍然在持续。

5.“一带一路”要求中国学习西方对待全球化的态度——积极鼓励思想界的参与。

那么，对于全球化给思想界造成的混乱，我们是否应该选择忘记？这种做法显然是错误的。在全球化进程中，思想界曾爆发过激烈的理论辩论，这种辩论既涉及国内公共政策，也涉及国际公共政策。一些最著名的西方学者，如乌尔里希·贝克、阿米塔伊·埃茨奥尼、安东尼·吉登斯、罗伯特·帕特南等人，均对“改造政府、社会资本、民间社会”等理念的提出做出过重要贡献，而这些变化正是通过全球化来推动的。

我这里想要强调的是，中国需要学习西方对待全球化的态度，积极鼓励思想界的参与，但这一次是为“一带一路”构建更为饱满的理论框架，指出“一带一路”对于全球社会秩序的潜在贡献、对全球治理的潜在贡献。因而要在西方对全球化失去信心时，填补“一带一路”的理论空白。但这一次，应该把文化问题，而不是经济问题放在理论的中心位置。

***

为了更好地区别“一带一路”与西方经济全球之间的区别，我依次从历史、战略、意识形态等几个角度进行了分析。很明显，“一带一路”将在“历史”上留下浓墨重彩的一笔。2013年9月7日，习近平主席首次提出“丝绸之路经济带”的倡议。在2014年6月15日，第六届中阿合作论坛上，习近平主席在文明交流史的语境中提到了郑和下西洋。

西方的全球化叙事采用了世界—历史模式，而“一带一路”倡议的叙事则以发展国家间、文化间、文明间的交流为主，并不是描述“西方现代性、先进性”的“故事”。

从战略方面讲，“一带一路”与中国的两个百年目标——2021年全面建成小康社会、2049年，建成富强、民主、文明、和谐的社会主义现代化国家——是相契合的。通过“一带一路倡议”习近平主席将两个百年目标与每个中国人的“民族复兴”梦紧密联系在一起。

当然，这两个百年目标在所有目标、计划、日程中处于首位，在西方观察者的眼里，这两个目标不仅极具雄心壮志，而且十分具体、非常全面，通过标语、街道标牌以及媒体的宣传，具有极强的可见度以及对公众的震撼力。

因此，“一带一路”作为国家战略的延伸，能够号召并凝聚国家、企业的资源以及人民的能量。然而西方人对于国家实力和企业实力的看法并不一致，对西方而言，全球化的方向作为一种战略，主要依靠的是全球企业的商业计划，把国际金融组织当作一种支持者，而不是目标的制定者。因此，政府时常在商业需求和选民的需求之间左右为难，对于社会民主主义而言，这更是一个难以逾越的困境。

在意识形态方面，“一带一路”的理念基础十分明显——中国特色的社会主义，因此与西方全球化的理念有着根本的差别。不论是新自由主义，还是社会民主对经济原则的修正，西方理论往往会中和文化差异，鼓吹文化的普遍性。

6.中国的“一带一路”话语：故事，2000年的文化碰触；中国梦；意识形态：中国特色的社会主义

中国的“一带一路倡议”不仅能够调动市场来支持社会主义建设，而且能够在中国文明的文化基础上建设社会主义，这有助于“一带一路”的参与国保持各自的文化和经验。中国并非借此推广社会主义。

中国不仅需求沿线（64个）国家的理解和合作，同时还确保这些伙伴国在参与“一带一路”建设的过程中，能够保证各自的文化主权。这里我要提出的问题是：西方全球化未能创造出一个令各国相互尊重、平等分享利益的世界，那么中国的一带一路是否能够完成西方的未竟之业？

***

2014年4月，习近平在布鲁日的欧洲学院发表讲话，从他轻松幽默的言辞中，我们看到了他对未来工作的形象表达。在提到自己喜欢中国茶但也喜欢欧洲啤酒时，习近平主席将中国“和而不同”的信仰与欧盟“统一而多元”的理念进行了对比。

他指出，两种信仰分别代表着两种伟大的文明，两者对于“共同的文化繁荣”都是十分必要的。随后习近平主席呼吁：“让我们同心协力，让人类文明的花朵共同开放。”这番言辞正是全球治理的优雅表达，它指出了实现文化间相互理解的一个重要前提——那就是通过合作来实现共同目标。

从这个角度来看，在过去二十年中，西方对于文化的展望，与中国务实的文化实践的确发生了交汇。不论是千年发展目标还是可持续发展目标，都为中国的五年计划、更为国际合作打下了基础。

对于全球化的影响，历来存在两种不同的说法：一种说法看到了全球化、全球化时代给世界带来的同质化影响，另一种说法看到了各国通过采取不同的措施来应对共同的全球挑战，看到了共同的全球时代。正如乌尔里希·贝克在《风险社会》（1986）以及我本人在《全球时代》（1996）中强调的一样，对共同威胁的意识是我们这个时代无处不在的特征，也正是因为这个特征，我们这个时代的现代性才能与传统的现代性区别开来。

7.每个国家都从自身的文化出发，应对全球时代特有的统统挑战

在分享这种共同挑战的意识的同时，我们也要认识到中国和西方在于全球治理方法上的差异。西方全球化和欧盟都具有这样几个同样的特点：建立体制框架，将各国变为大的整体的组成部分，这种做法会带来摩擦，忽视文化差异带来的风险。最近英国通过全民公决离开欧盟的事件便是对这种风险的最好的阐释。

当然，中国的方法也具有一定的危险性，这一点，王义桅教授在解读“一带一路倡议”的文章中已经做出了十分清晰的描述。王教授列举了“一带一路”在政治、安全、经济、法律以及道德层面所面临的一系列风险。共同体的构建是用来控制这些风险的一种战略，欧洲经济共同体的成立便是很好第一个例子。对于英国观察者而言，这点与英国脱欧的语境极为契合，因为英国脱欧的一个主要的理由便是——欧盟已经偏离了共同体的最初精神。

中国认识到了共同体这一理念所蕴含的力量，因此在18大上提出了“命运共同体”的概念，以此作为实现全球一体化的方案。这一概念唤起了共同体特有的共同理解，以及命运一词中所隐含的方向感和目标感。想要找到一种能够引起所有文化共鸣的有效方案，最大的挑战在于不同语言之间的互译，不过在这一点上，我们取得了进步，至少在英语语言上取得了进步。

8.命运共同体必须成为一个跨文化概念，其含义是：并非一方独有，而是多方共享

不论是东方模式还是西方模式，中国和欧洲在全球治理上采取的措施必须相互交流和借鉴，寻求共同语言的重要性并不亚于共同承担任务。“命运共同体”这一概念必将成为人类文化遗产中一个十分关键的概念。我们有必要注意这一概念是如何形成的——它是在与东盟国家、非洲国家、拉丁美洲国家、加勒比国家的对话这个语境中脱颖而出，而不是在欧洲经验的框架下形成。

因而，它是一个跨文化概念，并不独属于某个特定的民族文化，而属于多个文化。跨文化主义这一理念来自古巴社会科学家、人类学家费南多·沃提兹——他在探索一种全新的、独特的、从本土中脱颖而出的音乐文化时提出了这一概念。

马克思主义从最初发展至今，特别是在中国的发展，一直都是一个巨大的跨文化资源。在当今时代，可持续性已经变成最成功的一个跨文化概念，这一概念源自于不同文化之间的对话，与我们的共同命运息息相关。

跨文化再生性指代的是一个过程，需要我们开展实证研究、社会科学研究和历史研究。从中国社会学家余硕的文章中，我们可以读到他对于十七、十八世纪中欧文化触碰的解读，作者本人也在文中表示，希望中国梦能够成为世界各国共生的梦想。

9.哲学社会科学与实证社会研究必须携手并力，为提高“新全球治理”的普适性和务实性做出贡献

针对全球文互动的实证研究和哲学分析正是“一带一路”这一影响力深远的工程所带来的丰硕成果。推动全球治理所需要的语言，不再适用于以国家间竞争为主的历史时期。对于我们的新时代而言，理念的发展是必要的，从社会科学专业的角度来看，更是必要的，所有这些理念的发展都会对我们所谓的哲学社会科学的发展做出贡献。

中国具有的独特优势能够为“新全球治理”提供源源不断的理念。我曾在中国的《国际交流》刊物上发表过一篇文章，其中列举了中国文化遗产的8项属性，这8项属性对于领导我们这个日渐破碎的世界极为适用。而在全球治理方面，中国文化贡献最大的几个属性为：尊重、敬畏、互惠。

遗产是一方面，抓住时代的机遇又是另外一方面。中国具有强大的领导力，对于理论的理解和阐述都具有十分广泛的吸引力，这无异于一笔丰富的遗产。我之前曾提到过，《习近平谈治国理政》中收录了些习主席的讲话，这些讲话都有着明确原则作基础，并且对这些原则进行了详尽地阐述。

10.从《习近平谈治国理政》一书中，我们能够发现一个应用理论的模式，而这个模式恰好为阐释全球治理树立了榜样

这些原则都是关于公共政策的一些看法，这些看法统一而连贯，面向广大群众。近年来，西方领导人中很少有哪位能够对这些原则做出明确阐释。目前，中国社会科学家也应像习主席一样，为全球治理寻求具有同样意义的原则。中国与他国的对话过程，正是验证这些原则的绝好机会。

不论是在过去还是在将来，各国都会捍卫本国的文化自主权，没有什么能够限制他们推广自身理念的权利、限制他们将这些理念强加给全人类的权利。然而在命运共同体当中，各国都能找到一种安全感，能够做到相互尊重，能够找到成功合作的共同基础。命运共同体的务实性和普适性，决定了它必然排斥独断性，因而能够通过经验和论辩不断地进行修正和改进。

Philosophical Social Science as a Bridge from “Belt and Road”to Global Governance

Martin Albrow /United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Honorary Vice-President of the British Sociological Association /Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences/Emeritus Professor

It is only with awe that any individual scholar can respond to an invitation to speak on the theme of‘Belt and Road' in the country of its origin.For what is one voice compared with the initiative launched by the most powerful collective human agency our world has ever seen,namely contemporary China？

Some have debated whether to call China a nation state or a civilization.I would say it is both,and additionally also a corporate entity.The bonds that hold it and its people together are more intimate than any known to Western states.Its proven capacity to deliver its goals is matched elsewhere in the world only by corporations or military forces and they can draw on a mere fraction of the population that China possesses.

It is this capacity that enables the Chinese leadership to advance the‘Belt and Road' initiative as a response to Western globalization,as an alternative way of extendingits national influence in world affairs,but also of joining with other countries to build a better world.Since interaction with other countries is at the core of the initiative,philosophical social science clearly needs to be involved at the earliest stage to enquire how that necessary common cultural foundation can be built.

Confident in its power,China invites foreign scholars to contribute to the collective efforts to create a better world.President Xi Jinping said in his speech to the Symposium of Philosophical Social Sciences this year on May 17th,‘We should look to foreign countries and explore those key issues that are related to human prospects and destiny.’

1.‘Belt and Road' is the most ambitious project yet to link the peaceful development of China with the prosperity and well-being of the world as a whole.

Announcing the Maritime Silk Road in Indonesia on October 3rd,2013 President Xi spoke of the way the ASEAN countries and China had interacted and built a‘cultural foundation … to gain from each other's experience'.[1]

Very frequently in the West the question of the foundations for peaceful interaction between nations is viewed as the problem of global governance.In its broadest sense this may be seen as all those processes and institutions that respond to challenges that extend beyond national boundaries and maintain social order on a global scale.

In a narrower sense economic institutions like the IMF,World Bank and WTO have at times been regarded as the institutional core of global governance.But in the West they have also been seen as enabling and carrying globalization forward.Many,including myself,have criticised this outlook as an unnecessary limitation of the idea of globalization to economic processes and a fatal restriction of global governance to economic institutions.

At the very least it is necessary to counterbalance this view with the huge variety of United Nations agencies and interventions in peacekeeping,health,migration and climate change.The new Sustainable Development Goals for instance go far beyond economic considerations.

2.‘Belt and Road' runs the risk of being regarded as the Chinese equivalent to American globalization

Conceived as an answer to globalization therefore‘Belt and Road' runs the risk of being regarded as an economic strategy only,and,still worse,being regarded by the rest of the world as so much of it has viewed globalization,namely as an extension of national hegemony under the pretence of benefiting all nations.For the United States they will read China.

For the long-term success of‘Belt and Road' it is therefore necessary to emphasize those non-economic features that make it different from globalization.It is also a project with profound cultural implications where the cultural strengths of China and its awareness of the role of philosophical social science can lead to the holistic view of global governance that the world requires today.

***

My argument will build in the first place on a comparison between globalization and‘Belt and Road'.Vast though that task could be in principle,I will seek to reduce it to broad outlines that highlight the differences.

Globalization has been such a dominant component of Western political discourse for the last thirty years that its scope seems to exclude very little – world-wide communication,a global market,consciousness of a common fate,loss of national sovereignty,growing interdependence and so on.

3.Western globalization as discourse combines story,strategy and ideology

All of these are of course open to empirical research and the findings continue to mount.But paralleling all these developments globalization has been discourse,the stuff of policies,speeches,commentaries,and debate.Since‘Belt and Road' is at that early stage of vision and policy formulation it is in this respect we can compare it with globalization.

I want to distinguish three versions of the discourse of globalization:as story,as strategy and as ideology.They happen to have developed as successive phases,each assimilating the previous one,without replacing it.

First,globalization as story.We can trace this back at least to the 1970s,most notably marked by a chapter in George Modelski's textbook on world politics that advocated a transnational view and saw globalization as the culmination of a historicprocess that had brought the world to be one place.[2]The roots of globalization in this version are lost in time and the present is seen as the culmination of a process that stretches back to the beginning of history

In sociology Roland Robertson's early work represented this story of the world becoming singular even as localities became ever more diverse.[3]In 1990 the Madrid World Congress of the International Sociological Association gave this view a public endorsement with its chosen conference theme: “Sociology for One World：Unity and Diversity.”In its Congress volume it disseminated the message to 4000 delegates from that single,diverse world.[4]

Second,globalization as strategy.Following hot on the heels of the early academic discussion in the 1980s the idea was leveraged into the business world,multinational corporations finding it well adapted to be the background narrative for their ambition to extend their reach worldwide.

The bench mark text appropriately was published in the Harvard Business Review by Theodore Levitt“The Globalization of Markets”（1983）where he argued that globalization meant the homogenization of consumer choice providing the basis for firms to develop global strategies.‘Going global' became a standard feature of the corporate plan.

Third,globalization as ideology.In the Western democracies the interests of capital will always find political expression in a discourse aimed to win the support of the majority of the electorate.Prompted by the neo-liberal triumphalism that followed on from the collapse of the Soviet Union a series of accounts appeared in the 1990s that predicted the end of the nation-state and the homogenization of national cultures.

4.Western globalization discourse: story,the advance of civilization;strategy,going global; ideology,liberal democracy

For many Americans this new globalization was clearly in their own national interest.The prevailing view was that of Thomas Friedman whose bestseller The Lexus and the Olive Tree（1999）saw globalization as a system with the United States as‘the sole and dominant superpower',where‘culturally speaking,globalization is largely,though not entirely,the spread of Americanization'.[5]

The story,the strategy,the ideology merged.President Clinton spoke of globalization as the direction of history that could not be turned back and American political leadership set about energetically to forge a progressive,social democratic set of policies,generally known as the Third Way.

Clinton and his Vice-President Al Gore adopted globalization as the keyword in a re-orientation of the Democratic Party's electoral programme towards more open markets and reform of public services.The New Democrats in the United States were followed by New Labour in the United Kingdom and for a period in the 1990s there was a loose movement of leftist political leaders in Europe and more widely in the West signed up to the social democratic ideas of the Third Way.[6]

Two events shook that confidence in the benefits of globalization.The first was the rapid international growth of the anti-globalization movement,signalled by its protests leading to the cancellation of the World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle in December 1999.At that point the opposition of globalization and anti-globalization,later alter-globalization,became the symbolic marker of the ideological conflict of the global age.

The second event undermining confidence in globalization was the destruction of the twin towers of the World Trade Center on the 11thSeptember,2001.However,for the rest of the world,China included,globalization to this day remains an American project,underpinned by the international financial institutions,promoting neo-liberal economic policies.Its global power and influence persists even as the United States itself has lost faith in the ideology.

5.‘Belt and Road' will require the equivalent intellectual creativity to that which built the response to globalization in the West

Should we then also forget the intellectual ferment of the Third Way years as a matter of mere historical interest? That I think would be a mistake.This was a period of intense theoretical debate that informed both domestic and international public policies.Some of the most prominent Western academics,including Ulrich Beck,Amitai Etzioni,Anthony Giddens,and Robert Putnam contributed to a ferment of ideas about reinventing government,social capital,and civil society,with globalization as the underlying driver of change.

What I suggest here is that China needs too to aim for the same kind of intellectual engagement that the West devoted to globalization,but this time to develop a fuller theoretical account of‘Belt and Road' for its potential contribution to the world's social order,or,as it is best conceived,to global governance.Indeed I hold it would be of immense value to the world if you seek to fill the theoretical vacuum in the West arising from the loss of faith in globalization.But this time cultural issues,rather than economic ones,should be the centre of attention.

***

To highlight the differences between‘Belt and Road' and Western economic globalization I take history,strategy and ideology in turn.Plainly‘Belt and Road' also has a profound anchorage in history,specifically in China's explorations and exchanges with the world beyond the Middle Kingdom.President Xi Jinpingon September 7th2013 began his very first speech proposing the Silk Road Economic Belt by recalling two missions more than 2100 years ago made by an envoy of the Han dynasty to Central Asia.When speaking at the 6thChina-Arab States cooperation forum on June 15th,2014 he referenced the voyages of Zheng He in the context of the history of exchanges between the two civilizations.

Compared then with the Western world-historical narrative of globalization,the Chinese‘Belt and Road' initiative depends on a narrative of developing exchanges between countries,cultures and civilizations,not on a story of advancing Western modernity.

In respect of strategy Belt and Road fits within the Two Centenary Goals of 2021 when the full Xiaokang,moderately well off society,will have been achieved and 2049 by which point China will have become a‘strong,democratic,civilized,harmonious and modern socialist society'.Xi links those goals repeatedly to the Chinese Dream of national rejuvenation,a dream for the country and also for‘every ordinary Chinese'（Realize Youthful Dreams,4thMay 2013）.

These goals are of course only the apex of an architecture of goals,targets,plans and timetables,that for Western observers are not only extraordinary in their ambition,detail and comprehensiveness,but also in their visibility and public penetration through banners,street signs and the media.Even more impressive is their record of demonstrated success over nearly 40 years of the great opening-up policy.

‘Belt and Road' therefore is the extension of a national strategy that can call on the combined resources and energies of the state,businesses and people.For the West,however,always conflicted over the respective powers of the state and business,the direction of globalization as a strategy depended on the business plans of the global corporations,with the international financial institutions serving as enablers rather than goal setters.Governments then are torn between the demands of business and those of their electorates.This is the intractable dilemma of social democracy.

In respect of ideology Belt and Road is founded clearly on socialism with Chinese characteristics and therein lies a fundamental difference from Western ideas of globalization.Whether as neo-liberalism or in the social democratic corrections to those economic doctrines,Western theories neutralised cultural difference and promoted them as universally applicable.

6.China's‘Belt and Road' discourse: story,2000 years of cultural encounters; strategy,the Chinese dream; ideology,socialism with Chinese characteristics

The Chinese Belt and Road initiative not only calls on markets to help socialism,but it explicitly builds socialism on the cultural traditions of Chinese civilization and therefore directly allows for other countries to join the Belt and Road initiative from their own cultural experience.Chinese socialism is not for export.

Even as China seeks greater understanding and co-operation with the 64 other partner countries,it is inviting them to join on the basis of their cultural autonomy.The question I ask here is: Can this succeed where Western globalization has largely failed in creating a world where countries can enjoy equal respect and a rightful share in its benefits？

***

The task ahead has a vivid expression in a profound yet apparently light hearted passage in the speech President Xi made to the College of Europe in Bruges in April 2014.In referring to his equal enjoyment of Chinese tea and European beer he contrasted China's belief in “harmony without uniformity”with the EU's stress on being “united in diversity”.

He pointed to each as representative of two great civilizations and both as being necessary for a “common cultural prosperity”.He then appealed: “Let us work together allowing for all flowers of human civilization to blossom together”.[7]That is a more eloquent way of speaking of global governance and points directly to a basis as vital as understanding between cultures,namely co-operation for common goals.

In this respect there has been in the last twenty years a definite convergence between the Western outlook and Chinese cultural practices in goal setting and pragmatic programmes.The Millennium Development Goals and now the Sustainable Development Goals provide the same basis for co-operation internationally as the five year plans do in China.

These are markers for our time that highlight the difference between an account that sees the world homogenized by globalization,the age of globalization,and one that sees countries responding variously to common global challenges,the global age.As Ulrich Beck recognised in his Risk Society（1986）and I emphasized in my book The Global Age（1996）the sense of common threat is the pervasive feature of our time that marks it off from an old modernity.

7.Every country responds from its own culture to the common challenges that mark out the Global Age

While sharing this sense of common challenges we also need to face up to the differences that exist within both the Western and Chinese approaches when it comes to global governance.Building institutional frameworks for large entities where countries are the constituent parts that characterises both Western globalization and the EU,brings with it the risk of overriding and neglecting cultural difference.I need only mention the recent British vote to leave the European Union to illustrate the dangers of ignoring this.

The Chinese approach however also brings its own risks,very clearly outlined in the recent account of the‘Belt and Road' initiative by Professor Wang Yiwei.[8]He lists a series of risks,political,security,economic,legal and moral.The construction of community is one strategy for containing them that he highlights and he cites the establishment of the European Economic Community in 1965 as an example at the regional level.For the British observer that is an exceptionally relevant point in the context of the British exit from the European Union,because a main complaint has been that the Union has departed from the original spirit of a community.

Recognizing the power of the idea of community the 18thCPC National Congress advanced the concept of a “community of common destiny”as a formula for global integration.This certainly evokes both the common understanding that characterises community and the sense of purpose and direction conveyed by the idea of destiny.Finding a formula that resonates effectively across all cultures is of course the translation challenge that exceeds all translation challenges,but this does takes us forward,at least in the English language.

8.A community of common destiny must become a transcultural concept,belonging to none,shared by all

Eastern and Western,Chinese and European approaches to global governance have to engage with each other.Finding a common language is as important as sharing a common task.‘Community of common destiny' may well succeed in becoming a key concept in a cultural heritage that belongs to all humankind.But let us note how it arises.It does so in the context of dialogues with ASEAN,Africa,Latin America and Caribbean countries,as well as out of the experience of Europe.

It is then a transcultural concept,belonging to no national culture in particular，but crossing many.It was probably a Cuban social scientist,the anthropologist Fernando Ortiz who first employed the idea of transculturalism when exploring the emergence of a new and distinctive musical culture arising out of native,African and Spanish roots in Cuba.[9]

Marxism from its beginning and in its development to this day,in particular in China,has been a huge transcultural resource.In my own time sustainability has become one of the most successful transcultural concepts,arising out of dialogue between cultures,linked so closely to our common destiny.

Transcultural generativity as a process is also much in need of empirical,social scientific and historical research.For a recent example we can read the account of European and Chinese seventeenth and eighteenth century encounters by the Chinese sociologist Yu Shou who also looks forward to a transition from the China dream to a world symbiotic dream.[10]

9.Philosophical social science and empirical social research must join together in contributing to the pragmatic universalism of the new global governance

Empirical research and philosophical analysis of global interactions between cultures are essential accompaniments of a programme as far reaching as‘Belt and Road'.The language which is necessary to promote global governance has to develop beyond that which was the medium for understanding in an older modern period of competition between nation states.The development of concepts for our new age is a necessary professional concern for social scientists and they can all contribute to what we may properly call philosophical social science.

China has particular strengths that make it an ideal source for contributions to the new globalfield of concepts.In a paper in your new journal International Communication I highlighted 8 qualities in China's cultural heritage that represent a uniquely appropriate set for a leadership role in our fragmenting world.[11]Of these I would single out respect,reverence and reciprocity as obvious contributions to a recasting of global governance.

Heritage is one thing,capturing the moment of our time is another,and here you have the huge asset of a leadership that both understands and speaks theory in a way that has a popular appeal.As I have pointed out elsewhere,President Xi's speeches collected in his The Governance of China are grounded in and elaborate a set of explicit principles.

10.In President Xi's The Governance of China we find a model of applied theory that can serve as an example of what is needed for an account of global governance

They offer the kind of coherent view of public policy for a general public that Western leaders have been unable to articulate in recent years.Now is the moment for Chinese social scientists to seek principles of equivalent value for the governance of the globe.These you will test in dialogue with other nations.

The cultural autonomy of nations will be as jealously guarded in the future as it has been in the past,and there can be no restriction on their right to profess values for themselves and to commend them to all human beings.Yet in a community of common destiny they will only find security for themselves and respect from others when they find a common basis for working together successfully,in a pragmatic universalism that denies dogmatism and is open to correction through experience and debate.