Consciousness, Literature and the Arts
Archive
Volume 2 Number 1, April 2001
_______________________________________________________________
Thought-Frame Enhancement for the Age of Digitized Globalization
by
Abstract
The Digitized Globalization, or the combined forces of the globalizing
market and the digital revolution, requires a totally new approach to education.
Whether we want or not, we are going to be thrown into a “rat race” by the
built-in forces of market and computer. These forces consist of competition and
efficiency, as well as inundation of information and incessant alteration in the
method of doing things. Also, they induce changes in all aspects of human life
much too fast, and produce instabilities in socioeconomic activities,
uncertainties in future prospects and anxieties over income and employment, as
well as helpless feelings about the way things turn out. Not only the computer
industry but also all other industries intensify their “cut-throat”
competition for survival. All the costs incurred in this process are going to be
borne by anything easily obtainable or surmountable and any humans lacking
strong voice or power. As a result, all people in the world are going to suffer
from the chaos created by an increasing disparity in income and wealth, while
the global environment is deteriorating ever faster. Under the circumstances,
individuals everywhere are chasing after their short-term wants, without much
hope for their long-term future nor much leeway for their long-term needs. Their
“floating” way of life must be tied to a solid anchor before drifting toward
ruin. For this purpose, education has an essential role to cultivate in
individuals an integrated long-term outlook to see through the superficial way
of life driven by market and digitization. To be sure, chasing after material
satisfaction by means of accelerated convenience and competition will lead us
nowhere but to a schizophrenic desert or dehumanization. Education in our age of
Digitized Globalization must concentrate on the expansion of individual and
collective thought frames, encouraging long-term future perspectives for
socioeconomic activities. Thus, it must guide individuals and the general public
to strive for the continuity and enhancement of their human capacity, cultural
identities, community life and compassionate human relations, discouraging their
fragmented and transient ways of life.
Introduction
In
the midst of market-driven globalization led by multinational and global
corporations, our computer age requires a totally new approach to education. The
computer age gives a hope for an escalated convenience and even cajoles us into
hoping for an enormous expansion of human leeway in the future world, despite
the dead-serious constraint of the natural environment and the accompanying
resources. Our human reality, naturally, is far more complicated than the
statistical world that permits an extrapolated prediction. In the long run,
things do not simply add up or multiply. Instead, the
introduction of a highly convenient but short-term, efficiency-oriented
electronic device may reshuffle our accustomed lifestyles, value systems, human
development, employment practices, human relations and social order almost
entirely. Especially, as the short-term forces of a competitive market has
ushered in the global computer age, we will inevitably face a compounding
predicament of increasing instability, uncertainty and insecurity in our
livelihood.
Put differently, we are going
to face drastic changes in all aspects of our lives to compound instability in
socioeconomic activities, uncertainty in future prospects, and insecurity of
income and employment, as well as a feeling of helplessness about the way things
turn out. Whether we want or not, we are going to be thrown into a “rat
race” by the built-in force of the market-driven and market-driving
digitization. This short-term force of accelerating changes, together with the
market-driven and giant-firm favoring globalization, may impose on our daily
lives a “cut-throat” competition, “inhuman” efficiency, inundation of
the hopelessly jumbled good-and-bad information, an endless “rat-race” of
the network-related crimes versus the anti-crime measures, and constant changes
in the ways and means of doing things. It may also impose on us and on our
posterity incessant and exorbitant costs of adjustments in terms of time,
emotion, efforts, income and materials. Furthermore, it may impose on our future
generations the increasing cost arising from an accelerated deterioration of
natural and cultural environments. Perhaps, we will soon be compelled by the
combined force of globalization and digitization just to float in the uncharted
sea of instability, pushed around incessantly by wayward waves and blown toward
unknown destinations by capricious winds.
In order to win or survive at
least under the circumstances, both hardware and software producers in the
computer industry are intensifying their “cut-throat” competition in the
world market. Along with this, all the other industries in both the advanced and
the developing nations are ever more compelled to adapt themselves to or catch
up with, the progress of computer hardware and software in the unprecedented,
muddled, ruthless win-or-lose competition within their border-blurred
industries. All the costs incurred in this merciless, reckless and endless
process of competition are naturally borne by anything easily obtainable or
surmountable and any humans lacking strong voice and power. Thus, this “rat
race” of blind-folded competition, because of its strong allure of
accelerating convenience and compounding pecuniary rewards for winners,
inevitably exploits an increasing majority of workers worldwide and tramples on
the long-accumulated cultures of respective societies (the “Cultures” [Hiwaki,
1999]). No doubt, it also damages the broadly-defined global environment that
includes, among others, the natural, cultural, humanitarian and peaceful
environments (the “Environment” [Hiwaki, 2000]).
Under the circumstances,
almost all individuals, firms and societies everywhere can only chase after
their immediate short-term utility, efficiency and benefits, without much hope
and leeway for their long-term needs and effects. These just “floating”
individuals, firms and societies, before drifting toward ruin, must be tied to a
solid anchor of the Wholesome Society [Hiwaki, 1998]. For
this purpose, I believe, far-sighted education has an essential role to
cultivate in individuals an integrated long-term outlook to see through the
superficial way of life that is driven by the Digitized Globalization, namely,
the combined forces of the globalizing market (the Market) and the revolution in
the ways and means of communication (the Digital Revolution). To be sure,
chasing only after short-term satisfaction by means of digitized device of
convenience and of accelerated competition for efficiency will lead us nowhere
but to a schizophrenic desert or dehumanization in both the real and the
“virtual” worlds. Thus, education in our computer age must concentrate on
the enhancement of individual and collective thought frames to encourage
long-term “future” perspectives and counter-balance the short-term and
inhuman forces of the computer age. In other words, education must guide
individuals and the general public to strive for the viability and enhancement
of their respective capacities, for recapturing individual and collective
socio-cultural identities, for cultivating more compassionate personal relations
and, at the same time, for fighting courageously against their fragmented,
transient, “floating” ways of life compelled by the Digitized Globalization.
Globalization
and Current Predicament
To
be rather realistic about human inclination, a “globalizing” tendency of
trade seems to be a built-in phenomenon in the growth of human population,
needs, greed, curiosity and capability. This process of “globalization” in
early days was encouraged by the rise of cities and markets in various parts of
the world, together with the gradual improvement of production methods, the
monetization of precious metals and the discovery and expansion of trade routes.
The process was pushed further in Europe by the rapid introduction of gold and
silver into the monetary stocks through the adventure and conquest of the
American continents by the Portuguese and the Spanish. This, in a sense, ushered
in the age of Mercantilism and of the rulers’ fever for stocks of gold and
silver. Money, as it became a final object of life, gradually detached itself
from the real and tangible means of life to form its own realm and led the
socioeconomic activities much more unstable over time.
Soon, bonds and stocks, as
they became independent of the real production and even detached from gold and
silver, started to proliferate themselves to have their ever expanding,
self-sustaining markets. Now, bankers started to jump on the bandwagon and pump
out credits to allow for raging speculations in such markets. With the advent of
the Industrial Revolution, markets for goods and services, together with the
financial markets, began to expand rapidly aided by the modern trade theories
that based themselves on self-interest (classical human nature), invisible hand
(market fundamentalism) and laissez faire (free competition). Such rapid
expansion of real and nominal markets escalated the favoritism toward the rich
and the strong among individuals, firms and nations. This process of widening
economic disparities lent hands to the colonialism and the imperialistic
struggles for superiority, to shake up the livelihood of almost all peoples in
the world. Besides, self-sustaining and self-proliferating activities of stock
markets incited the instability of economic life in major countries.
The “free-world” of post
World War II saw a rapid reconstruction and an increasing prosperity through the
free-trade regime consisting of the IMF, the World Bank and the GATT under the
strong leadership of the United States. At the same time, national governments
acquired much greater resources under the auspices of the Keynesian monetary and
fiscal policies for the alleged purpose of securing the stable growth of their
respective national economies. The growing trade among the “free-world”
economies, coupled with the expansion of governmental resources, accelerated the
economic disparities among individuals, firms and nations. The economic
successes of West Germany and Japan, on the one hand, and the U.S. involvement
in the Vietnam War, on the other, substantially eroded the absolute and relative
economic leeway of the United States, and she started imposing more crudely her
self-righteous will and choices upon the “free-world” community.
Consequently, she
unilaterally renounced her responsibility to the stable currency arrangement of
the “free world”, maintaining for herself the advantageous position of
key-currency supplier. She also undermined the principles and spirits of the
GATT, by imposing on her trade partners “voluntary” export restraints under
the threat of unilateral sanctions. Furthermore, she demanded an
“international macroeconomic cooperation” for upward readjustment
particularly of the Japanese Yen and the German Mark relative to the value of
the U.S. Dollar, and even required her major trade partners to defend the Dollar
value. Thereafter, it became customary for Japan (a giant income-saver) to
maintain a broad interest margin to encourage smooth flow of funds into the
United States (a prodigal spender) for stabilizing the dollar exchange rate,
supplementing her finances and invigorating her money market.
This “macroeconomic
cooperation” was kept on, while the United States was pursuing a drastic
capital liberalization that was apparently aimed at her financiers’
money-market domination in the world. Through the multilateral negotiations of
the GATT Uruguay Round, the United States was demanding her trade partners to
accept the U.S. terms of liberalization in agricultural products and in
services, as well as of rigid regulation in the use of intellectual properties.
Especially after the fall of the Soviet Union, the U.S. unilateralism began to
gain force in the absence of rivaling ideological foe, and to impose everybody
the market-oriented “global standards” of uniformity in commercial,
financial, informational, political and moral spheres, without self-examination
of her unique characteristics even among the advanced industrial nations. Put
differently, the current “globalization” reinforced by the digital
revolution has been a symbolic expression of the prevailing American ideology
that equates individual freedom to market fundamentalism and to democracy. This
short-term-oriented, pervasive force of uniformity has been devastating local
communities, nation states, the Cultures and the Environment and, at the same
time, accelerating uneven intra-national and inter-national distributions of
income and wealth.
The pervasive short-term
orientation threw fuel on the fire of market fundamentalism that coexisted with
the demand for “level-ground” competition across the world, favoring the
large and established firms, and excusing an escalated domination of local and
world markets by multinational and global corporations. Such formidable forces
of short-term “present” orientation are now shaking up all the accustomed
ways in human relations, employment practices, socioeconomic ethics, educational
perspectives, social and economic policies, and so on. The law of the jungle has
been further reinforced by the money-market liberalization and the Digitized
Globalization, to further compound instability, uncertainty and insecurity in
human livelihood, inhibiting long-term plans and expectations of almost all
individuals, firms and governments. In a sense, the market-driven and
market-driving digitization has been giving the last finish to the dehumanized
ways and means of winning one’s daily bread.
Necessary
Emphases on Culture and Environment
Our
choice under the circumstances is extremely limited: We cannot stop nor reverse
the on-going process of the Digitized Globalization. What we can do, perhaps, is
to strengthen the counter-balancing power in ourselves. Such potential power may
exist in the long-term aspects of human beings, human societies and human
environment. One outstanding characteristic of mankind is quite a long life
span, which now ranges 70-to-80 years in many advanced societies. Highly
spiritual humans with such a long life span naturally demand the satisfaction of
both short-term and long-term needs, not only of material needs but also of
spiritual, intellectual and aesthetic urges. Taking more seriously our long life
and long-term needs, we must now start re-balancing our own socioeconomic
activities. Thus, it is important for us to shift the weight from the prevailing
dominant short-term wants toward a more appropriate balance between short-term
and long-term needs, readjusting our socioeconomic activities accordingly. It is
equally important to stabilize the foundation of our livelihood and strengthen
the coherence in our ways and means of doing things, in order to pursue better
lifestyles, more compassionate personal relations and greater individual
achievements. For our long-term endeavors may come to nothing in case of
frequent changes in our ways and means, not to mention the collapse of our
socioeconomic and ecological foundations.
In a broad and long-term
sense, each surviving society seems to have evolved to arrange a reasonable
balance between short-term and long-term needs of its own people on the basis of
their long-accumulated wisdom and convention that imply its own culture. Without
such a balance, we may lose our optimism and enthusiasm to live, strive and
dream for our long-term future. The Culture and the Environment, which symbolize
the closely related societal and global common goods and which together provide
reasonably “solid” grounds for a stable and reliable livelihood, are now
facing devastation by the short-term, present-oriented Digitized Globalization,
which represents an intensified market fundamentalism for competition and
efficiency. Only by empowering the much-neglected long-term forces of the
Culture and the Environment, can we counter-balance such a formidable force of
dehumanization.
Perhaps it is necessary to
clarify at this juncture our differentiation of Culture from Market for better
illumination of our argument. We assume that the Culture calls for a long-term,
cooperative, society-specific and stock-oriented ethos and the Market for a
short-term, competitive, all-standardizing and flow-oriented ethos [Hiwaki,
1999]. Also, Culture tends to deepen and enrich itself over time, while the
Market tends to expand and strengthen itself. In other words, Culture tends to
accumulate itself over time and solidify the society-specific bases of human
life, and the Market tends to spread out with short-term motivation and to
standardize all human lifestyles. Indeed, the Market takes for granted the
existing Cultures and bases its own growth and viability on the diversity and
potential development of the Cultures that interact mutually with the
Environment.
Thus, it is now particularly
important for us to empower the long-term forces of Culture and the Environment,
in view of the Digitized Globalization having reinforced our short-term
orientation to the critical level. In order to strengthen the counter-balancing
forces of Culture and the Environment in our days, we must commit ourselves to
cultivate and enhance our individual and collective thought frames, particularly
in industrially advanced societies. Continuous enhancement of our thought frames
can, no doubt, elongate the Market time frame. For the Market reflects nothing
but our individual and collective time frames in economic activities. Thus, we
can tame and “culture” the Market
by our individual and collective endeavors. In other words, the Market that
represents our dominant short-term needs and behaviors is amenable to our
individual and collective thought frames that correspond the Culture.
Education
for Thought-Frame Enhancement
We
now place the process of thought-frame enhancement in a theoretical perspective.
Our framework assumes that a long-term approach is indispensable to the current
and future needs of the global community. Accordingly, this framework
purposefully includes a “linkage” variable or a society’s long-term
time-preference rate (Trend Preference Rate), to accommodate a long-term
interaction among historical, cultural, environmental, political, economic,
psychological, institutional and technological phenomena, to mention major ones.
Once this is understood, we now assume that a long-term force arising from such
overall interactions changes the Trend Preference Rate to reveal the society’s
open-ended will and choices about the future.
We also assume that such
general will and interest have precedence over less general ones that pertain
only to an economic tendency. The economic will and interest are summarily
represented by the Trend Interest Rate or the average long-term real interest
rate. This indicates our assumption of a particular lead-lag interaction between
the Trend Preference Rate and the Trend Interest Rate. The lead-lag assumption
reflects our conjecture that a social environment conducive to development must
precede economic risk-taking. In the following summary expressions, the
left-hand term represents our Basic Ratio (T/r), which also indicate the value aspect
of a society:
(1)
T/r = A/V
(2)
T/r = 1 - (B/V).
In Equation (1), Variable A
on the right hand summarily represents both the long-term aggregate consumption
(C) and the long-term aggregate labor income (W), while Variable V indicates the
long-term aggregate value-added. Variable B in Equation (2) summarily represent
all the long-term aggregate saving (S), the long-term aggregate investment (I)
and the long-term aggregate capital income (R). These long-term macroeconomic
variables differ significantly in their implications from the short-term
Keynesian variables [Hiwaki, 1998a]. We now
demonstrate the mutual and synergistic interaction between the value aspect
on the left hand and the real aspect
on the right hand in Equation (2) to show a “virtuous” circle.
A decline in T (enhancement of the society-general orientation to the future)
provides a downward pressure to r
(enhancement of the economy-specific orientation to the future). It also
influences B (saving, investment and
capital income, all together) to increase. This, in turn, increases the stock of
physical and human capital over time. Such capital accumulation lowers
r, enhancing the economic
future orientation. The growing B also expand V
(value-added), which, in turn, feeds back to B to lower r over time.
Now, the expanding V
also lowers T to enhance the society-general orientation to the future, leading
to a new circle.
The above synergistic
interaction indicates the close relationship between the value aspect and the
real aspect. This allows us to assume that the value aspect alone can reasonably
represent the process of a balanced socioeconomic development. Indeed, we can
derive the Optimal Development Path from the secular and continuous decline of
the Basic Ratio (T/r) based on the lead-lag assumption
[Hiwaki, 1996b & 1998b]. Also, we can derive
the process of individual and collective thought-frame enhancement from the
Optimal Development Path, by relating the secular and continuous decline of the
Trend Preference Rate (T) to the elongation of socio-psychological future time,
on the one hand, and relating the secular and continuous decline of the Trend
Interest Rate (r) to the increasing human-capital formation, on the other [Hiwaki,
1996a].
As shown in Fig. 1, the
horizontal axis (Ft) represents people’s conscious horizon of
socio-psychological “future” time and the vertical axis (Ih) their
investment in human capital broadly-defined [Hiwaki,
1998a]. The origin of the diagram (O) implies an extreme situation or total
absence of the future orientation and of the human-capital formation. The upward
sloping curve (Curve H), therefore, indicates the process of synergistic
interactions between the people’s increasing human-capital formation and their
growing “future” orientation, and also represents the process of individual
and collective thought-frame enhancement.
Fig.
1: Thought-Frame Enhancement
Human
Development and General Value Enhancement
The
above diagram of thought-frame enhancement is now placed in a broader
perspective as shown in the first quadrant of Fig. 2 [Hiwaki,
1998b]. The upper and the lower vertical axes in this diagram, respectively,
shows different levels of human-capital formation (Ih) and the corresponding
investment in soft-and-hard socioeconomic infrastructure (Is). These
policy-related axes also indicate individual and collective endeavors for
improvement of both individual and societal capabilities, which are consciously
and coherently designed to support each other. The horizontal axes on the right
and left hands, respectively, indicate the people’s conscious horizon of
socio-psychological “future” time (Ft) and their biologically expected life
span (Lt). The right-hand axis may imply a variety of planning ranges for
individuals and the general public, and the left-hand axis a variety of
individual and collective endeavors for promotion of safe, healthy, active,
comfortable and worthwhile lives, as well as for enhancement of a human
environment.
All these axes together
constitute our integrated framework
for a balanced socioeconomic development. In addition, these axes, respectively,
represent important individual and societal achievements pertinent to
human-capacity enrichment (Ih), socio-cultural enrichment (Is), future-time
enrichment (Ft) and life-&-health enrichment (Lt). Viewed in this manner,
intrinsic and general human enrichment require constant and coherent improvement
in all Ih, Is, Ft and Lt. Each “intra-quadrant” interaction is now indicated
by Curve H (thought-frame enhancement) for the Ft-Ih interaction, Curve X
(human-value enhancement) for the Ih-Lt interaction, Curve Y (lifestyle
enhancement) for the Lt-Is interaction, and Curve Z (common-goal enhancement)
for the Is-Ft interaction. All the four “enhancement” processes interact
with one another continuously to constitute the normative process of
“inter-quadrant” interactions. This normative process is now called the
“general value enhancement” which depicts an ever-expanding rectangular
plane linking the four “enhancement” processes. Also, the general value
enhancement indicates the qualitative
improvement in the process of a balanced socioeconomic development.
Fig. 2:
Process of Inter-Quadrant Interactions
From a policy perspective,
the thought-frame enhancement can be stimulated by means of long-term,
future-oriented investment in human capacity. All forms of education, inclusive
of home, school, community and “virtual” varieties, may represent the most
important means of such investment, whenever they positively stimulate
individuals and the general public for a greater awareness of human historical
and evolutionary processes; better insights into past, present and future; more
appropriate and continuous endeavors for cumulative and synergistic effects;
more enlightened, holistic and long-term perspectives; a stronger orientation to
the long-term future; more compassionate human relations; a more serious concern
about the intrinsic human needs; and greater appreciation of the Cultures and
the Environment, to stress major lines of education for spiritual, intellectual,
aesthetic and moral development. Such human-capital formation through individual
and collective endeavors amplifies its effectiveness when accompanied by the
supportive soft-and-hard investment in a socioeconomic infrastructure conducive
to qualitative improvement in the opportunity and facility for learning,
thinking and creative activities; a dynamic long-term “future” orientation
in institutions and organizations; and public recognition and encouragement of
continuing education for life-long career development. In such a supportive
investment, it is most important, perhaps, to promote continuous
“open-minded” interactions of local, ethnic, national, and global cultures
for their healthy development, as well as to improve natural, social, living and
occupational environments.
Concluding
Remarks
In
the words of Dr. Federico Mayor, the previous Director-General of UNESCO,
“Globalization carries with it a danger of uniformity and increases the
temptation to turn inward and take refuge in all kinds of convictions --
religious, ideological, cultural, or nationalistic [Mayor,
1997]. Under the ever-intensifying process of the Digitized Globalization, the
most important educational endeavors, in my view, must have a purpose and
direction in the enhancement of individual and collective thought frames. Such
endeavors for a balanced human development can discourage the inward-turning
temptation and lead to enhancement of both the Cultures and the Environment, or
to an enrichment of solid, reliable and lasting foundations for our spiritual
and material needs. Such educational endeavors can also counter-balance the
danger of uniformity and the ever-growing short-term “present” orientation
of individuals and the general public in the overall social, political and
economic activities.
The growing force of present
and short-term orientation, which is an incarnation of the Market, may
eventually diminish and exhaust the Market itself, by devastating both Culture
and the Environment. We, however, can enrich the Culture and the Environment, as
well as the Market, by enhancing our thought frames both individually and
collectively. By our mind-set educational endeavors to enhance our thought
frames, I believe, we will be able to “culture”
the market to serve our long-term needs, albeit partially, and even manage it to
serve the Cultures and the Environment to some extent. Such endeavors for the
thought-frame enhancement can trigger off a “virtuous” circle of the general
value enhancement for a balanced socioeconomic development.
Put differently, a
“virtuous” circle can start by stepping up educational efforts appropriate
for the enhancement of individual thought-frames that strengthen our long-term
“future” orientation to up-grade our common goals, lifestyles, human values,
thought frames, and so goes on. In the meantime, we will be able to retrieve, at
least partially, our cultural heritage at local, ethnic, national and regional
levels for their gradual reproduction and development. Also, we will be able to
move on enriching all the Cultures and empowering inter-cultural communication,
as well as enhancing the Environment. Therefore, the enhancement of individual
thought frames constitutes an essential role of education particularly in our
market-driven computer age to secure individual health, integrity and
identities, and also nurture a broad and long-term mental outlook among
individuals and societies. Such
educational endeavors, I believe, will not only develop creativity for positive
and constructive contribution to humanity, but also lead the present and future
generations to a better lifestyle and a more solid, healthy, active, secure and
worthy life.
Acknowledgment
This
article is an extension and refinement of my report, “An Essential Role of
Education for Our Market-Driven Computer Age”, which was delivered at the
Workshop “Developing Creativity and Large Mental Outlook in the Computer
Age” (organized and chaired by Prof. Vladimir Fomichov, Lomonosov Moscow State
University) for ISSEI 2000: the Seventh Conference of the International Society
for the Study of European Ideas, held in Bergen, Norway, August 14-18, 2000.
Hiwaki,
K. (1996a); People’s Own Invisible Hands for Sustainable Socioeconomic
Development, The Study of International Relations, Tokyo International
University, Vol. 9 (pp.1-18)
Hiwaki,
K. (1996b); Human Development and Sustainable Development - Consequences of the
Japanese General Education, in George E. Lasker (Edited), Advances in Education
-Volume II, IIAS (pp.10-16)
Hiwaki,
K. (1998a); Sustainable Development: Framework for a General Theory, Human
Systems Management, Vol. 17 (pp.267-279)
Hiwaki,
K. (1998b); Culture of Peace, Sustainable Development and Society of Longevity, in George E. Lasker & Vladimir Lomeiko (Edited), Strategies for Peace, IIAS (pp.62-66)
Hiwaki,
K. (1999); Culture of Peace and Long-term Theory of Employment, in George E.
Lasker & Vladimir Lomeiko (Edited) Culture of Peace: Survival Strategy and
Action Program for the Third Millennium, IIAS (pp.143-148)
Hiwaki,
K. (2000); A Long-term Approach to International Trade for Sustainable
Development, paper presented for Symposium on Sustainable Development of the
Global Community, 12th International Conference On Systems Research, Informatics
and Cybernetics, July 31-August 5, 2000, Baden-Baden, Germany.
Mayor,
F. (1997); The Human Right to Peace: Declaration by the Director-General of
UNESCO, in George E. Lasker and Vladimir Lomeiko (Edited), A Design for Peace,
IIAS (pp.1-6).
