文化的全球化是一个颇有争议的命题与论断，究竟是否存在文化的全球化，怎样界定和理解文化的全球化，文化的全球化对现实的国际关系产生着哪些影响，如何应对文化全球化，本文拟对上述问题作初步探讨。

一、文化全球化的概念辨析
1文化全球化是一个符合逻辑的命题

　　不言而喻，文化的全球化是从全球化派生而来的。在全球化的众多理解与界定中，有两点特别突出，其一强调全球化的超国家性和整体性，把全球化视为当代人类社会生活跨越国家和地区界限，在全球范围内展现的全方位的沟通、联系、相互影响的客观进程与趋势。显而易见，这是一种最高层次的抽象，它舍去了对全球化的经济、政治、文化、问题、地域、制度、意识形态等等视角的特殊限定。

　　其二，在不同程度上隐含着对人类社会生活趋同化的认同。比如谈到全球化，总会自觉不自觉地承认经济一体化，而一体化当然是一个认同共性的概念。上述两点，既能够成为赞同文化全球化的理由，又可以成为反对文化全球化的依据。赞同者认为全球化是全方位的，因此，必然包含着文化的全球化。如果只承认经济全球化而排斥文化全球化，那么就违背了基本逻辑，因为经济、政治、文化是相伴而生的。反对者则认为：“‘文化’这一概念本身就是建立在人与人之间不同的前提之上的。为此，‘文化全球化’从任何意义上说，都根本不能成立”（《新世纪中国文化前景五人谈》光明日报1999年12月30日）。其实，何止是中国学者中有人持这种见解，凡持文化相对论或片面强调文化多元主义的人都难以认同文化的全球化。这里的关键在于，文化全球化的反对者把文化全球化完全等同于文化的同质化，而文化的同质化则有悖于文化的基本内涵。在骨子里，这些人所认同的全球化仅仅是经济的全球化，至多在有限的意义上承认政治的全球化。

　　我们认为，如同经济的全球化是一个不争事实一样，政治与文化的全球化也是一个毋庸置疑的客观现象。根据马克思主义的基本观点，经济是基础，政治与文化则是上层建筑。经济基础的变化，或早或迟，必然要导致政治与文化上层建筑的相应调整与变革（对这一观点的认同，早已超出社会制度和意识形态的界限，许多西方学者和政治家也时常运用该观点认识、分析社会问题）。今天，既然人们开始目睹经济全球化的历史进程，并普遍感受到其震撼力，那么，怎么可能无视已经产生和即将产生的政治与文化全球化的冲击波呢？只要不限定于文化只能是异质文化，只要不简单而绝对地把文化的全球化仅仅理解为同质化，只要不夹杂意识形态的恐惧和政治的忧虑，从理论本质和逻辑的规定性上讲，有经济的全球化，势必有相应的文化的全球化。换言之，文化的全球化这一理论命题与论断是完全成立的。

虽然文化的全球化在逻辑上足以立论，但作为一个分析性概性念还需要层次化，否则难以解释现实。不仅如此。今天学术界关于文化全球化的争议在很大程度上也与该概念的粗糙化有关。下面，我们就尝试从三个层面来界定文化的全球化。

2.文化的全球化意味着文化的同质化

　　毋庸讳言，文化全球化的内涵是文化的同质化或趋同化。众所周知，文化有广义与狭义之分，由于文化的全球化是对应于经济、政治的全球化而言的，所以，它只能是狭义的，主要指价值、观念、精神、伦理的全球化。这涉及到文化研究的一个基本前提，即是否承认人类文化的共性。坚持文化异质论和个性论的人当然不承认人类文化的共性，文化全球化的反对者大都属于此列。诚然，文化的异质性和多样性是活生生的现实，几千个民族和近两百个国家的存在就是明证，但这并不等于文化就只能是植根于不同社群，尤其是植根于不同民族和国家的异质文化。从更宏观的历史时段和文明类型来看，是存在人类共同文化的。

　　人类文化的同质性指涉两个方面。首先，文化的主体是人类整体。也就是说，当人们习惯于把文化的主体定位于社群、民族、国家时，他们所看到的只能是异彩缤纷的多元文化、异质文化。但是，如果人们改变一下这种思维定式，尝试着把人类作为一个整体来审视文化现象，自然就难以否认文化的共同性。比如当代人类面临的生态、环境、资源、人口、毒品、艾滋病等等日益严峻的全球性问题，其载体并不是一个个孤立的国家，而是整个人类，解决这些问题，靠各国孤军作战根本无济于事，它关系到人类共同利益，从而要求整体的认同与行动。于是，全球意识、全球观念应运而生，这种新观念和新意识无疑体现出文化的同质性。同样道理，人与自然关系的紧张，把人作为一个整体凸显出来，所以生态文化才得以登上历史舞台，成为当代人类的又一文化共识。由此可见，文化主体的转换在很大程度上决定着文化的性质。换言之，有什么样的文化主体就有什么样的文化内容、文化形式、文化覆盖面。迄今为止的人类历史，主要记载的是各国、各民族、各个社群在不同的地域、空间繁衍生存的历史。虽然随着人类文明的进步，独自、封闭生存的状态逐渐被打破，各族、各国之间的交往日益增多，但人类整体性意识十分淡漠，这在客观上决定了人们对文化的理解与认同主要局限于民族文化、国家文化，简言之是文化的异质性认同。今天，由于全球化的推动和全球问题的凸显，人类整体性以前所未有的鲜明性和尖锐性昭然于世。这意味着，文化主体已拉开了划时代转换序幕，即开始迈出超越国家、民族主体，走向人类主体的第一步。

　　其次，文化的内容及其认同表现出一致性。文化主体的转换固然对文化同质性的确认有极其重要的意义，但这种转换仍然离不开文化的内容。只有在出现共同文化内容并对这一内容产生共识时，文化主体的转换才可能变为现实。也就是说，一致的文化内容及其认同对于文化同质性有更根本的意义。因为，一旦出现同样的文化内容，并且不同的文化主体均予以认可、接纳，那么，即便新的、更高层次的文化主体尚未产生，不同文化主体也会在某些领域、问题、现象上达成共识，表现出一定程度的文化趋同，而这种共识文化、趋同文化恰恰是文化的全球化。诸如全球意识、全球伦理、网络文化、生态文化、可持续发展观、消费文化、大众文化、现代化理念等等都是现实存在着的文化观念。这些观念或者植根于全球化、网络化浪潮，或者产生于全球问题的客观推动，或者本身就是现代化进程中的产物。总之，这些问题、现象是全球性的，引起各民族、国家的关注与共鸣，从而表现出文化的同质性。这里应当注意，文化的同质化本身也是一个历史的范畴与过程，其合理性是有条件的。全球意识、可持续发展观、网络文化与生态文化，这些代表着人类文化的未来。现代化理念曾经是而且至今也是绝大多数国家与民族追求的理念，但今天正在受到批判性审视。至于消费文化虽有其合理性一面，并且是文化全球化的显著内容和标志之一，但其负面影响已是不争的事实，且越来越令人忧虑。

3.文化的全球化意味着文化的殖民化

　　文化的全球化不仅表现为文化的同质化，而且表现为文化的殖民化。相对而言，前者的表现是隐性的、非强制的，后者的表现则是显性的、强制的。文化的殖民化主要是指某些西方发达国家，凭借在当代国际社会中的经济、政治主导地位，自觉或不自觉地强行推销自己的文化制品和价值观念，以便在文化和思想上影响、同化他国的文化现象。由于推行文化殖民主义的国家大都是原殖民体系中的宗主国，而被动接受强势文化的国家往往是原来的殖民地和半殖民地国家（即当代的广大发展中国家），所以就在形式上有着殖民之嫌。这种概括虽然不够准确，但就殖民主义具有强国主宰弱国，并试图将弱国融入强国实现大一统而言，文化殖民主义的称谓还是贴切的。也正是在这个意义上，文化殖民主义又往往被等同于文化帝国主义。即便是汤林森，在他特别强调语决定概念的特定意涵，并从四种角度和语境剖析文化帝国主义时，也明确指出，文化帝国主义的一个特定指涉就在于：“当它是殖民态度与行为过程的一种延续类型，或当它是全球资本主义之内，现在仍在持续运转的经济关系之体系所造成的种种作为与后果”。

　　显而易见，文化的殖民化过程也就是文化的全球化过程，只是这种文化全球化以强势文化压制、排斥、甚至最终吞蚀弱势文化为特征。强势 文化之所以能推行殖民，是挟经济、政治之雄风。而推行文化殖民的目的，无非是两个，一个是获取既得利益，即国家现实经济、政治、文化利益；另一个则是确立价值、伦理、观念的文化主导权，以便按自己的意愿和生活准则塑造世界。文化殖民意义上的文化全球化是文化主体间极不平等的文化交往，是国际旧秩序的表现之一。因此，这种文化全球化是必须予以反对的。

4.文化的全球化意味着文化的高度互动化、相关化

　　文化全球化的另一层涵义是不同文化在全球范围的展现、碰撞。它的基点既不是自然进行的同质化，也不是强制推行的殖民化，而是强调文化表现领域的全球性，不同文化碰撞的全球性。用罗兰·罗伯森的话讲就是，当代文化的生成、发展与演变是在“全球场”中进行的。不同社群、民族、国家的文化再也不是封闭的，它们在全球场中展现。而相应的，社群主义、民族主义和国家主义的观念则发生对话甚至冲突。不同文化的这种全球性互动和高度相关，是新科技革命的产物，也是信息、网络时代的基本特征，显然，这是史无前例的。

　　如果说文化全球化的前两层涵义都标示着文化的同一性（不管是自然的还是强制的），那么文化的全球性互动与相关则要求我们关注不同文化在全球场中的相互影响。这种影响也可能导致同一，即本民族的文化为他民族所认同、接纳，但更多的是相互区别着的文化的自我张扬与认同，换言之，这种影响的目的是追求文化的独特性。在这里，文化的全球化是指“对特殊的东西、对表面上越来越精致的认同展示方式的寻求具有全球普遍性” 。同时也是指，当代对独特性的关注，“很大程度上建立在全球范围内传播的思想之上”

由此可见，文化的全球化是一种兼具同质化和异质化的过程与现象，而同质 化又区分为自然发生的同质化和自觉推动的同质化。在审视和探究文化全球化对当代国际关系影响时，我们务必注意上述区别。

文化全球化对国际关系的影响

　　根据对文化全球化的上述理解与界定，我们分别考察它们对当代国际关系的影响

1文化的同质化有助于国际关系的缓和与改善，并为处理日益复杂的国际关系提供着新的理念与准则。

　　文化的同质化是对社会现象及其意义的普遍认同，它涉及经济、政治、文化各领域。这种认同导致新的规范、价值、观念的产生及其作用，从而对现实生活产生影响。那么，从国际关系的角度来看，文化同质化过程中被当代人类所逐渐认同的主要规范、价值、观念有哪些？并且又是如何影响国际关系的变化与发展呢？

　　首先要指出的是人类共同利益观与全球意识的确立。很长时期以来，人们是在相互隔绝的地理环境中，以氏族、部落、民族、国家的群体形式生活。自1492年地理大发现以来，虽然科学技术的发展和资本主义新生产方式的扩张，把人类引向一个更广阔的天地，但伴随近代工业化、现代化进程的无疑是民族国家本位观念的牢固确立。这一观念的核心在于人们对国家利益及其权威的认同、归依，尤其在对外关系方面，国家利益的追求与捍卫更是毋庸置疑的铁律，至于人类共同利益和整体要求，则或者根本未曾考虑，或者明确的予以排斥。这样，国家间的关系就只能是冲突与对抗。

　　二战以后，特别是20世纪70年代以来，世界的相互依存在经济、政治、文化、社会诸领域都明显加强。这种相互依存一方面表现为利益的共存共享，另一方面则表现为问题的相伴相生。面对高度相关，互为渗透的经济、政治、文化，面对日益严峻的全球性问题的挑战，人们不得不接受这样一个事实：地球是一个整体，人类是一个整体。生活于民族国家之中的人们在追求和实现国家利益的同时，必须学会从人类整体角度审视生存与发展问题，追求和捍卫人类的共同利益。从一定意义上讲，今天人类的整体要求和利益已有了更重要的地位，它们不仅关系人类整体的生存，而且制约着国家利益的实现。正是这种新的观念与意识，规范和指导着20世纪末的国际关系。1972年人类第一次环境会议的召开，90年代围绕环境与发展、人权、人口与发展、妇女、粮食、社会发展、信息社会与发展、全球变暖、禁毒、反恐怖主义等等全球性问题，展开了一系列国际对话、磋商与外交活动。这些国际会议、活动及其产生的相应文献、规章，都贯穿并体现了对人类共同利益的关注，大大张扬了不同于国家本位的全球意识。

　　其次是共处、对话、合作理念的确立。由于传统的国际关系在内容上被限定于国家利益的较量，突出军事与政治安全，因此，其主导性倾向是冲突、对抗，从而导致国际社会的动荡。尤其是意识形态和社会制度相悖的国家，互相视对方为死敌，以消灭对手，建立一统社会为目标。

　　随着冷战的终结和相互依存的加深，世界各国都更为深切地感受到一种人类文明进程的大趋势，这就是由于利益和问题的高度相关性，对抗、冲突已成为实现和平与发展的大忌。既便从国家利益的获取来讲，简单的对抗也是下策。换言之，对抗性政治思维和战略选择已难以维护国家的正当利益，更成为实现人类共同利益的障碍。无论社会制度、经济水平、意识形态、历史传统有何差异，坚持求同存异，对话合作，这才是理智的选择。显然，从对抗政治转向合作政治，从“零和博 弈”转向“猎鹿博弈”，从惟我独尊、惟我至上转向相互尊重、共处共存 ，这一切为当代国际关系的历史性变迁提供了新的政治理念。虽然这些新理念还有其脆弱性一面，往往受到现实国际关系中冲突、对抗的冲击，但作为一种大势很难阻挡，它必将伴随全球化的深入而发挥更大作用。

　　再次是法理主义与制度主义观念的确立。法理主义主张将国际关系与国际秩序建立在法制基础之上，制度主义则强调国际制度、规则对国际关系的规范与协调作用。它们的共同指向就在于反对国家关系中的霸权，特别是大国霸权，提升国际社会共同体及其所制定的原则、规章、规范的权威，以达至国际关系的有序与协调。这种观念虽可在20世纪初的理想主义流派中找到其渊源，但由于主流国际关系理论——现实主义的影响，特别是长达半世纪的冷战与对峙，所以长时期处于非主流甚至被冷落的境地。今天，由于国际关系大环境的改善，霸权主义已成为众矢之的，民主的呼声更为强烈，所以，国际关系的法制化与制度化就不仅有了客观的需要而且有了现实的可能。此外，全球意识、共处合作理念的张扬，也促使法理主义和制度主义的扩张。于是，在当代国际关系中，我们愈来愈多地感受到国际组织、国际规则的重要。人们评判一种国际行为（无论是国家的还是国际共同体的），愈来愈强调法规和制度的依据，并自觉建构着更 多的组织、法规、机制。

　　2文化的殖民化反映着根深蒂固的霸权主义和西方中心主义，从而毒化国际关系并阻碍新的国际秩序的建立。

　　在国际交往和人类文明进程中，文化的同一性若是自然产生并为各国、各民族自愿认同，那么一般来讲，这种共同文化必定具有历史的合理性，从而有助于社会进步。反之文化的同一性若以某国的主观意志和预谋为基础，凭借强制（军事暴力或经济、政治、文化优势）确立，则必定导致社会关系的紧张与对抗。文化的殖民化就属于后者。

　　文化的殖民化无疑在一个特定意义上延续着历史上的殖民主义。众所周知，历史上的殖民主义是以殖民者的侵略、掠夺、压榨为鲜明特征的。那时，文化殖民并不突出，它依附于政治与经济殖民，所以，很难受到足够的关注，今天情况已大为不同。随着广大殖民地、半殖民地国家陆续成为独立的主权国家，以赤裸裸的军事入侵和政治控制为特征的老殖民主义已送进历史博物馆。但是，西方发达国家（大都为历史上的宗主国）并未放弃按照自己的意愿和价值取向去建构、统摄世界的企图。于是，凭借在当代国际社会中的政治与经济优势，通过市场化和文化的主导、控制与传播，推行文化霸权与文化殖民，就成为一种战略选择。这样一来，历史上的军事、政治、经济的殖民化，就演变为文化的殖民地。从而，在新的历史条件下凸显了发达国家与不发达国家的矛盾与冲突。对此，不少学者都作出了颇有见地的论述。如斯塔夫里亚诺思教授明确指出：当今世界存在着“思想上的帝国主义，或者说思想殖民化”问题；佩查斯教授对文化帝国主义作出如下界定：“西方统治阶级对人民的文化生活的系统的渗透和控制，以达到重塑被压迫人民的价值观、行为方式、社会制度和身份，使他服从帝国主义阶级的利益的目的” 。萨依德教授也通过对“东方主义”的剖析，批判了西方的文化霸权。

　　发达国家与发展中国家间存在的这种文化殖民化，具体表现为发达国家在市场化和文化交流等正当形式的掩护下，大力推销西方的文化制品，宣扬自身信奉的价值观念和生活方式。消费主义、物质主义、享乐主义、个人主义的膨胀，社会公德和义务观念的淡漠，以及西方的人权、民主、自由思想的传播等等，都是当今文化殖民化的必然后果。而这种后果不仅冲击原有的民族文化认同，还可能威胁国家的政治权威和社会稳定，从而理所当然地引起广大发展中国家的抵制与抗争，构成当代国家关系的一个重要领域与内容。

　　反对文化殖民化的斗争首先表现为广大发展中国家捍卫民族文化，反对西方文化渗透的民族运动。这里既有各国政治家对西方发达国家文化霸权的尖锐抨击，也有来自民间的广大民众对西方文化的抵制，还有极端民族主义者和原教旨主义对西方文化的宣战。总之，民族文化的弘扬，民族主义的崛起，东方人权观的传播和伊斯兰原教旨主义的狂热，都是对文化殖民化的反弹。

　　其次，反对文化殖民化的斗争从一开始就未停留于双边关系之内，而成为国际社会的重要议题。从70年代国际交流问题研究委员会的成立并呼吁建立更加公正、有效的世界情报和交流新秩序，到90年代围绕网络化、信息化的对话与斗争以及召开“信息社会与发展”等国际会议，都表明以联合国为代表的国际组织和整个国际社会对文化问题的关切。文化交流的平等，文化模式及价值追求的多元，文化发展的自由选择与非政治化，这就是国际关系领域反对文化霸权与殖民的目标。显然，这个领域的斗争还将长期存在，它在很大程度上影响着当代国际关系的走势与进程。

　　虽然文化的殖民化主要用来指涉发达国家与发展中国家的一种特殊关系，但如果将其绝对化，认为它只适用于这种关系，则未免有些简单、片面。事实上文化的殖民化就其所内含的霸道、霸权、支配、控制等意义而言，同样适用于发达国家之间。众所周知，美国是当今的唯一超级大国，它不仅在军事、经济、政治领域称雄，文化领域也处于主导地位，特别是在多媒体、互网络、卫星电视和影视音像制品方面的优势，导致其咄咄逼人的全球文化渗透和文化市场占领的政策，从而引起其他发达国家的不满与抵制。以加拿大而言，其95%的电影、93%的电视剧、75%的英语电视节目和80%的书刊市场主要为美国文化产品所控制。这理所当然地迫使加拿大政府采取一系列保护本国文化的防范措施，以避免被美国文化吞蚀的危险。同样，法国与美国在文化领域的矛盾也举世皆知。法国知识分子明确提出了抵制“美国文化帝国主义”的口号，认为以好莱坞为代表的美国文化对法国文化造成了极大威胁。由此可见，文化的殖民化对国际关系的影响是广泛而深刻的。

　　3文化的高度相关化和互助化既导致了全球范围内的文化碰撞又展示了多元文化的绚丽多姿，从而增强着当代国际关系的复杂性。

　　在文化的全球化进程中，文化的趋同化与殖民化以不同的方式标志着文化的一体化，从而很容易导致一种误解，既认为文化的全球化只追求、展现同一性，而文化的多元性、民族性将在这一进程中消失，事实绝非如此。当代国际社会的现实恰恰表明，弘扬民族文化的独特性，捍卫文化的多元性，成为与文化的趋同化并存着的另一潮流。冷战后民族主义的崛起，原教旨主义的扩展，生态运动和女权运动的深入，后现代主义对现代主义的批判，从国内到国际的种种社团、社区、地方共同体的生成与发展，都从不同角度与层面反映出人们对独特文化认同的强烈渴望以及捍卫文化特殊性的不懈热情与意志。而这一切，又是在全球化的大背景、大框架中进行的。这似乎有些矛盾，但它却蕴含着社会与人性的真实。

　　当然，不同文化的并存与碰撞并非始自今日，但毋庸置疑的是，只是在20世纪末文化的多样性才展现得如此广泛，不同文化的碰撞才会如此频繁与激烈。不同文化的这种空前相关、互动，势必对国际关系产生难以估量的影响。比如民族主义文化会加剧民族冲突与地区紧张局势，宗教文化特别是伊斯兰原教旨主义为国际关系注入了无法预测的破坏性，生态文化影响下的环境运动和生态纠纷成为国际关系的新热点，本土文化与外来文化（包括移民文化）的矛盾往往导致国家间的对抗，凡此种种，都使得当代国际关系更加复杂，从而要求我们在认识和处理国际事务时更为审慎。

三、应对文化全球化的若干思考

　　如前所述，文化的全球化及其对国际关系的影响是一个客观事实。而对这一事实，当代人类应以理性的态度积极应对，趋利避害，为自身构建更好的发展环境。

　　首先，人们应克服种种意识形态偏见与认识的片面，从理论上弄清全球化的内涵，真正认同文化全球化的客观性。

　　全球化研究与认同中的最大片面性之一就是仅仅承认经济全球化。对此，很多学者进行了批判，表述了不同意见。美国学者罗伯森指出，全球化被不幸地从工商研究角度加以理解，“全球化讨论在公共领域已经形成了我打算称为经济主义的形态” 。而他本人则关注全球化的文化维度。英国学者吉登斯认为，全球化是一个范围广阔的进程，它的内容无论如何也不仅仅是、甚至主要不是关于经济上的相互依赖 。德国学者贝克更是专门关注全球化的政治维度，提出了伴随经济全球化而出现的急迫的重建民主和加强全球政治管理等尖锐问题 。里斯本小组在其提供的《竞争的极限》的报告中同样表示：“全球化涉及的是众多国家与社会之间多种多样的纵向横向联系” 。德国前总理施密特则在论述全球化时开门见山指出：“全球化话题是个实践——政治话题，也是个社会——经济话题，此外，它还是一个思想话题” 。显然，他的意思也是全球化无论其现象还是影响都绝非单一的经济维度。西方学者虽非马克思主义者，但他们的结论却符合经济决定政治与文化的马克思主义基本原理。

　　导致全球化既经济全球化论断的原因恐怕有如下三点。其一 经济全球化不仅在终极意义上是全球化的基础而且是至今为止的现实生活中最为人感 知的现象和事实，鉴于此，人们习惯采取简略方法来概括和理解全球化；其二把全球化视为趋同化、同质化（或至少特别看重这一点）。于是，出于经济发展的需要与压力，能够认同经济全球化，而出于主权的维护和民族文化的弘扬，则排斥政治与文化的全球化；其三用经济全球化来模糊甚至有意掩盖政治控制和文化霸权，以实现按西方的制度、价值、模式、生活方式统一和支配世界的目的。显然，在上述三个原因中，既有认识上的片面，又有政治上的担忧，还有意识形态的作祟。尽管这些原因不能相提并论，但却共同造成了全球化即经济全球化的错误论断，影响了人们对全球化的全面认识，无助于人们积极而有效地应对政治全球化与文化全球化，甚至会在全球化的政治与文化后果面前手足无措。

　　其次，理直气壮地认同并推动文化的趋同化，努力构建有利于世界和平与发展的国际机制。

无论出于政治上的担忧还是文化上的守成，文化的趋同或同质似乎都令人不快并抱有戒心。这种现象虽可理解，但却有悖于理性和科学。文化的历时性与共时性，文化的时代性与民族性、文化的普遍性与特殊性，这些不同的表述都在揭示着文化的双重性，表明文化从来就有同异之分。因此，承认文化的趋同化、同质化乃理所应当，根本用不着扭扭捏捏，不承认甚至批判文化的同一 性倒让人费解、担心。不要忘记我们在人权、民主、市场经济等等问题上的教训，认同人权、民主、市场经济的普遍价值，并未影响我们同时指出人权、民主、市场经济在不同国家、不同历史阶段的特殊性。同理，认同文化的同一 性，当然也不意味着我们放弃文化的差异性。

　　站在历史的高度审视当代人类社会生活，就不难发见，人类正处于从工业文明向新文明转型的历史转折关头，信息化、全球化、可持续发展正在从根基上改变着人类的生产方式、生活方式和思维方式。在这种人类历史上极为罕见的社会大变迁中，新的文化观念、价值追求、思维方式的问世具有历史必然性。因此，今天讲文化的趋 　　同化比历史上任何时期都更有说服力，也更易于为人们所感知。恐怕也正基于此，亨廷顿的文明冲突论遭至了广泛的批评，因为他虽然敏锐地指出了冷战后文明与文化冲突的现实，但却未能看到全球化所导致的不同文化融合的大趋势。

　　新的文明与新的时代要求有新的文化与价值，前文所论及的全球意识、法理主义、机制主义、对话与合作观念等就是其中最为重要的几种。毫无疑问，这些新观念与新价值已对当代国际关系产生了重要而积极的影响。国际对话的日益广泛，国际法与国际规则的完善与约束力的增强，诸多政府和非政府间国际组织的不断问世并积极介入国际事务，国际社会对影响人类生存与发展的全球问题的关注与共识，这一切无不打上新观念、新价值的烙印。就此而言，当代国际关系正逐渐纳入更理性、更制度化的轨道。

　　但是，我们必须看到，新的价值与观念还远为成熟并站稳脚跟，它不仅受到霸权主义的破坏，而且遭至传统思维的抵制。换言之，这些新观念与新价值的认同度还有限，从而无论是新国际机制的形成还是实施都困难重重，反复多变，势必影响国际社会的稳定和国际关系的正常发展。因此，进一步强化对文化全球化中所显现的新价值与新观念的认同，仍然是非常重要的工作。

　　再次，坚决反对文化殖民与文化霸权，提高同文化帝国主义进行斗争的自觉性与有效性。

　　文化的全球化在给国际关系带来正面效应的同时，也增加了西方国家进行文化渗透与控制的可能性。于是，文化帝国主义就成为影响当代国际关系健康发展的一 大障碍，对此，必须有足够的认识与应有的警惕。西方的文化霸权可区分为两种形式，一种是非常自觉的服从国家对外战略和政治目的的文化渗透与扩张，公开标榜西方的价值与生活方式的先进性，并竭尽全力予以传播和推广。这种形式容易为人们所识别，并必然遭至反对与抵制。另一种是非自觉的文化优越感和客观的文化优势的显现。如启蒙思想和现代性理念源于西方，而今天这些文化成果正为进行现代化的广大发展中国家所需要，于是，西方发达国家就会不自觉地要求发展中国家接受这些文化成果。英语在国际交流中的主导地位，发达国家在网络化中的绝对领先地位，则从另一方面推动着西方文化的传播。这后一种形式就是话语的霸权、文化环境与成果的霸权，它具有客观的强制性，从而容易使人就范。

　　显然，无论对于公开的赤裸裸的文化渗透，还是隐含在客观强制性之中的文化影响，都应进行积极的防范与斗争。对于前者要敢于进行面对面的较量，对于后者则需要更理性的思考与更有效的应对，既要在一定限度内承认西方文化优势的合理性，积极吸取其中的精华，又要据理力争，不断创造新的可能与规则，以逐步改变发展中国家的文化劣势。这场建立文化与信息新秩序的斗争，是文化全球化的必然产物，世界各国都应超越各自的束缚与局限，为建立文化与信息新秩序而作出贡献。

　　最后，应以包容的心态和宽容的精神对待异质文化，营造多元文化共处共存的理性、平和的环境。

　　文化的全球化过程就是不同文化碰撞的过程。碰撞可能导致融合，但更多的是矛盾，是自我张扬与保留。从这个意义上讲，文化的异质性和特殊性就是文化的宿命，就如同自然界存在万事万物是其本性一样。真正懂得这一点，就会以广阔的胸怀包容种种不同于本土文化的异质文化，就会宽容地对待异质文化的价值、理念、传统、习俗、生活方式，尊重它们的选择与追求。文化差异导致的文化矛盾甚至文化冲突都难以避免，关键在于平等的对话、沟通、理智地协调，最大限度地防止和减少文化矛盾与冲突的政治化、非理性化。当代国际关系中文化因素之所以格外受到关切，除了文明转型造成的强大冲击外，很大程度上是由于缺乏宽容和理性精神，往往受情绪的左右，从而导致失控并易于被政治利用。因此，正如施密特所说：“在全球化时代，迫切需要树立一种对其他文明和宗教的有关学说持尊重和宽容态度的普遍意愿” 。换言之，面对文化全球化的拓展，呼唤理性与宽容，倡导对话与相互尊重，明确每个国家、民族、每个个人对世界和平与发展的责任与义务，有着十分重要的意义。

Cultural globalization is a highly controversial proposition and theoretical assertion. This article tries to make an initial probe into such issues as whether there exists global culture or not, how to define and understand cultural globalization, what impact will cultural globalization have on international relations and how to cope with cultural globalization.

I. Analysis of Cultural Globalization as a Concept
1. Cultural globalization: A logical proposition

It is self-evident that cultural globalization derives from globalization. In the numerous interpretations and definitions of globalization there are two very conspicuous points. Firstly, it emphasizes the integrity of the whole globe as if it transcends national boundaries. It regards globalization as an objective process and trend of development in contemporary human social activity transcending national and regional boundaries, exhibiting a set of global, all-directional communications and contacts and mutual impact. Evidently, this is an abstraction of the highest order, abandoning all special restrictions of viewpoints or angles, economic, political, regional, institutional, ideological or on special issues.

Secondly, it implies to a varying degree the identification of an identical development trend of human social life. Speaking of globalization for example, we are apt to recognize economic integration consciously or unconsciously, and integration is of course a concept of consensus on generality. These two points can serve both as reasons for endorsing cultural globalization and as grounds to oppose it. The proponents may argue that globalization is omni-directional. Such being the case, it inevitably includes cultural globalization. If we recognize economic globalization to the exclusion of cultural globalization, we shall be going against the basic logic since economy, politics and culture are born in accompaniment with one another. On the other hand, the opponents may object that the concept of “culture” itself is built on the prerequisite of disparities between man and man; hence, cultural globalization is simply out of the question in any sense. (A five-person talk on China’s cultural perspective in the 21st century in Guangming Daily on December 30, 1999)
As a matter of fact, not only some Chinese scholars hold this view, but also all those who hold cultural relativism or who emphasize cultural pluralism one-sidedly find it difficult to endorse cultural globalization. Here the key lies in the fact the opponents of cultural globalization regard cultural globalization as equivalent to the complete identicalness of all cultures, which runs counter to the basic implications of cultures. In their innermost soul, these opponents endorse only economic globalization and at the very most, they may agree to political globalization to a limited extent.

We are of the opinion that just as economic globalization is a fact beyond dispute, political and cultural globalization is an objective phenomenon beyond doubt. According to basic Marxist view, economy exists as the base and politics and culture as the superstructure. The change in economic basis will sooner or later lead to the corresponding readjustment and reform in the political and cultural superstructure. (Recognition of such a viewpoint has long gone beyond the boundaries of social systems and ideologies. Many Western scholars and statesmen often applied it to understand and analyze social problems.) Now that we have begun to witness the historical process of economic globalization and universally feel its strong impact, how can we ignore the current and forthcoming shock waves of political and cultural globalization? From the definition of theoretical essence and logic, economic globalization will inevitably lead to corresponding cultural globalization. Provided that we do not confine ourselves to the understanding that cultures can only be impure and of exotic substances. Provided that we refrain from simple-mindedly and absolutely understand cultural globalization as the essential equalization of all cultures. Provided that we are free from ideological phobia and political worries. In other words, the theoretical proposition and thesis of cultural globalization absolutely hold water.

Although cultural globalization logically stands, yet as an analytic concept, it requires stratification. Otherwise, it can scarcely expound actual realities. Not only that. The controversy on cultural globalization in the academic world today is due, to a large extent, to the roughness of the concept. Here we would like to define cultural globalization at the following three levels:

2. Cultural globalization implies convergence of cultural essence

It goes without saying that cultural globalization implies convergence of cultural essence or cultural convergence. As is known to all, culture has a narrow as well as a broad sense. Since cultural globalization is relative to economic and political globalization, it can only be in a narrow sense. It mainly refers to the globalization of values, concepts, spirit and ethics. This involves a basic prerequisite for cultural studies, i.e., whether to recognize generality of human culture or not. Those who stick to the theory of culture as of different substances or to its individuality of course do not recognize the common features of human culture. Opponents of cultural globalization mostly belong to this category. It is true that cultures of different nature and of diversity are lively realities, as are evidenced by the existence of thousands of ethnic groups and two hundred nations or so in the world today. But this is not equivalent to the only possibility of cultures of different nature being rooted in different social groupings, especially in different ethnic groups and nations. From a more macro point of view in terms of historical periods or civilization categories, human common culture does exist.

The identical essence of human culture involves two aspects: Firstly, mankind constitutes the main body of culture. That is to say, when people are accustomed to position the cultural main body as the social grouping, nation and state, they can only see the colorful, pluralistic culture, or culture of diverse essence. But if one changes such a conventional mode of thinking, and tries to examine cultural phenomena with man as an integrated whole, one will find it difficult to deny the common features of culture. For example, man in the contemporary world is now confronted with daily deteriorating global problems such as the ecological, environmental, resources, population, narcotics and AIDS problems. The vehicle is by no means the isolated countries, but rather the whole of mankind. It is absolutely useless for these countries to fight against such issues on an isolated basis. These issues have a vital bearing on the common interests of man and as such they demand identification and action of man as an integrated whole. Thus global consciousness and global concepts arose as the times called for them. Such new concepts and new consciousness undoubtedly find expression in the common essence of culture. Likewise, the strained relations between man and nature have placed man as an integrated whole in great prominence. That is why ecological culture has mounted the arena of history to become another focus of cultural consensus among man of the day. From this we can see the change of the cultural main body decides to a large extent the nature of culture. In other words, the kind of cultural main body decides the kind of cultural contents, cultural forms and cultural coverage. Human history hitherto mainly records the history of survival and multiplication of the various countries, nations and social groupings in different regions and space. With the advancement of human civilization, the status of self-secluded and closed-up survival will be gradually broken down. The exchanges among nations and ethnic groups will multiply. Nevertheless, man is very indifferent about his being an integrated whole. This objectively decides the confinement of people’s understanding of culture or its identification to national cultures and state culture. In short, it is identification of cultures being of different nature. Today, due to the push of globalization and the conspicuous global issues, the integrity of man demonstrates itself in the world so sharply and distinctively as never before. This means that the cultural main body has drawn up its curtain of prelude to an epoch-making change. That is, it has taken the first stride towards the transcendence of states and nations as the main body, towards mankind as the main body.

Secondly, cultural contents and their identification exhibit their unanimity. The change of the cultural main body is for sure extremely important to the confirmation of cultural essential sameness, yet the change remains attached to the cultural contents. Only when common cultural contents emerge and are given full recognition can the cultural main body be really converted. That is to say, the unanimity and identification of cultural contents are of more fundamental significance than the essential sameness of culture is. It is so said because once the same cultural contents appear and are recognized and accepted by different main bodies of culture, the different main bodies will reach consensus in certain areas, on certain issues or phenomena and exhibit a certain degree of cultural convergence. This will be so even if a new, higher-grade cultural main body is yet to emerge. And such cultural consensus and cultural convergence are precisely cultural globalization. Concepts like global awareness, global ethics, network culture, ecological culture, sustainable development outlook, consumption culture, popular culture and modernization, etc. and etc. are all practically existing cultural concepts. These concepts are rooted in the waves of globalization or network fever, or are borne out of the objective push of global issues, or are themselves the outcome of the modernization process. In a word, these concern global issues and phenomena that arouse worldwide echoes and attention. Hence they exhibit the common essence of cultures. It should be noted here that the essential convergence of culture is in itself a scope and process of history. Its rationality is conditional. Global awareness, sustainable development outlook, network culture and ecological culture are representative of the prospective future of human culture. Modernization was once and still remains an ideal pursued by the overwhelming majority of countries and nations. But the concept is now under critical scrutiny. As for consumptive culture, although it has its rational aspects and it exists as one of the most remarkable contents and hallmarks of cultural globalization, its negative influence stands as a fact beyond dispute and is becoming a cause of ever-greater concern or anxiety.

3. Cultural globalization implies cultural colonization

Cultural globalization manifests itself not only in the convergence of cultural essence, but also in the colonization of cultures. Relatively speaking, the former is hidden and non-compulsory while the latter is exhibitive and compulsory. Cultural colonization is a cultural phenomenon whereby certain Western developed countries, taking advantage of their leading economic and political positions in the contemporary international community, try hard to impose their cultural stuff and values on other countries so as to influence or even to assimilate them culturally and ideologically. As most of those countries imposing cultural colonization on other countries were the suzerain states in the former colonial system and those countries that are being imposed on were more often than not the original colonies and semi-colonies (i.e., the numerous contemporary developing countries), so the cultural imposition smacks of colonization. Although this generalization may not be very accurate, yet the term “cultural colonization ” is quite appropriate as far as the term “colonization” implies a phenomenon of strong countries bullying the weak and trying to merge them up so as to bring about a great conglomerate of nations. It is precisely in this sense that cultural colonization is often identified as cultural imperialism. Even Tomlinsen specially stressed the special implications of the term “cultural imperialism” and analyzed it from four different angles. He explicitly pointed out, cultural imperialism specially refers to an extension of colonial attitudes and behavior process, or refers to the various behaviors and consequence arising from within global capitalism or the still operating system of economic relations.” (1)

It is evident that the process of cultural colonization is also that of cultural globalization except that such cultural globalization features the suppression and expulsion and even the ultimate swallowing up of the weaker cultures by the stronger ones. That the stronger cultures are in a position to push colonization is because they have stronger economic and political impacts. In pushing cultural colonization, they were pursuing after nothing but two goals: one is their vested interests, i.e., their actual economic, political and cultural interests; the other is their cultural predominance in values, ethics and concepts. Both are intended to portray the world as they please and according to their code of life. Cultural globalization in the sense of cultural colonization implies cultural communications on a very unequal basis between the main bodies of culture. It is one of the manifestations of the old international order. It is imperative therefore to fight against such a type of cultural globalization.

4. Cultural globalization implies a high degree of cultural interaction and relativity.

Another implication of cultural globalization is the global exhibition and clash of different cultures. Instead of being a natural process of essential convergence or compulsory colonization, the basic point of such cultural globalization stresses the global scale of cultural performance and the global nature of cultural clashes. In the words of Roland Robertson, the generation, development and evolution of contemporary culture are taking place in the “global sphere.” Cultures of different social groups, nations and countries are no longer closed to each other, but exhibit themselves in the global sphere. Correspondingly, the concepts of social group-ism, nationalism and state-ism converse and even clash with each other. Such global interaction and high degree of relativity among different cultures yield from the new S&T revolution and constitute the basic features of the information and network era. This is obviously unprecedented in history.

If it is said that the previous two implications of cultural globalization signify the sameness of culture (natural or compulsory), then the global interaction and relativity of cultures require us to attend to the interaction among different cultures in the global sphere. . Such an impact may lead to identity, i.e., identification and acceptance of a national culture by other nations. But it is more often the case of self-advertisement and identity of distinctively different cultures. In other words, such impact aims to pursue after cultural uniqueness. Here cultural globalization refers to the global search of ways and means to exhibit unique things and to identify seemingly ever more delicate things.” (2) It also refers to the contemporary concern for uniqueness, which “to a large extent builds on the ideas disseminated globally.” (3)

From this we can see that cultural globalization is a process and phenomenon of both essential integration and essential alienation. Essential integration is divided into natural integration and artificially pushed integration. In examining and probing into the impact of cultural globalization on contemporary international relations, we must pay special attention to the difference mentioned above.

II. Impact of Cultural Globalization on International Relations

According to the interpretations and definitions of cultural globalization as mentioned above, we are going to investigate their impact on contemporary international relations under separate headings:

1. Cultural integration is conducive to easing and improving international relations and will provide new ideas and norms for handling increasingly complicated international relations.

Cultural integration means the universal recognition of social phenomena and their significance. It involves economic, political and cultural spheres. Such recognition will lead to the generation of new codes, values and concepts and their roles, and hence impact on realistic life. But then, from the point of view of international relations, what are the main codes, values and concepts that will be gradually recognized by contemporary mankind in the course of cultural integration? And what impact do they have on the change and development of international relations?

The first and foremost to be noted is the establishment of the outlook of human common interests and global awareness. For a long period of time man had lived in isolated geographical environment in the forms of clans, tribes, ethnic groups and states. With the great geographical discovery in 1492, S&T development and the expansion of the new mode of capitalist production oriented mankind to a broader world. But along with the industrialization and modernization process, there was undoubtedly the solid establishment of the concepts of nations and states. The core of these concepts was the identification and subordination of man to the state interests and authority. Especially in terms of external relations, the pursuance and defense of state interests were all the more the iron law beyond doubt. As to the integrated demand for human common interests, it was either left out of consideration or else ostracized altogether explicitly. Thus international relations could only be plagued with clashes and confrontations.

Since World War II and especially since the 1970s the world has witnessed an obviously greater interdependence in the economic, political, cultural and social spheres. Such interdependence finds expression both in the sharing of interests and in the accompaniment of problems. Confronted with highly related and interpenetrating economies, politics and cultures and ever more challenging global issues, man must accept the reality that the earth is an integrated body, so is man himself. While living in national states striving for state interest, people must learn how to examine their survival and development problems from the angle of man as an integrated whole, and pursue after and defend man’s common interests. In a certain sense, the integrated requirements and interests of mankind have already occupied a more important position. They not only have a bearing on the survival of man as a whole, but also restrain the realization of state interests. It is precisely these new concepts and awareness that are regulating and guiding the international relations towards the end of the 20th century. The year 1972 saw the holding of man’s first environment conference and the 1990s saw the series of international dialogues, consultations and diplomatic activities held on the environment and development, human rights, population and development, on women, food and social development, on information society and development, the global warming, narcotics ban and anti-terrorism, etc. and etc. These international conferences, events and the corresponding documents and regulations generated are all permeated with man’s concern over his common interests, propagating the global awareness as different from state interests.

Secondly it is the establishment of the concepts of coexistence, dialogue and cooperation. As the traditional international relations were confined to the confrontation of state interests in contents, military and political security was given prominence. Hence the leading tendency was one of clashes and confrontations, thus leading to disturbances in the international community. Especially countries with opposing ideological trends and social systems took their opponents as deadly foes, making it their goal to eliminate their adversaries and to set up a uniform society.

With the termination of the cold war and the deepening of interdependence, the world community feels ever more deeply the general trend of human civilization development. This is attributable to the fact that with interests and problems highly related, confrontations and clashes have become a taboo to the realization of peace and development. Even from the point of view of securing state interests, the oversimplified way of adopting confrontations is also the worst of all policies. In other words, opting for a political idea and strategy of confrontation would hardly defend the legitimate state interests and would above all become an obstacle hindering the realization of common interests for mankind. The only wise option is to persist in seeking common grounds and keeping differences, to uphold dialogue and cooperation regardless of any differences in social systems, economic level, ideological trends and historical traditions. Obviously the change from confrontational to cooperative politics, from zero and game theory to deer hunting game theory, from self-indulgence and self-importance to mutual respect and coexistence has provided new political concepts for the historic change in contemporary international relations. For all its weak side and for all the impact it often encounters from clashes and confrontations in actual international relations, these new concepts are bound to play an ever-greater role along with the deepening globalization as an irresistible trend.

Thirdly, it is the establishment of the concepts of law science and institutions. While the former advocates the building of international relations and international order on the basis of the legal system, the latter stressed the role of international institutions and rules in regulation and coordination. They are both directed against hegemony in state-to-state relationship, especially great-power hegemony. They both aim to upgrade the international community and the authority of principles, rules and regulations which the international community has worked out so as to achieve good order and coordination in international relations. The origin of such concepts can be traced back to the idealistic school in the early 20th century. But due to the influence of realism, the main-stream theory of international relationship, especially due to the half-century-old cold war and confrontation, these concepts have been in the non-main stream position or even cold-shouldered for a long period of time. As the macro environment in international relations has improved, hegemony has been under fire and the appeal for democracy has become ever stronger, so it has been not only objectively necessary, but also realistically possible to put international relations onto the track of legalization and institutionalization. Besides the propagation of the concepts of global awareness, coexistence and cooperation also boosts the expansion of the doctrine of law science and institutions. That is why we feel all the more the great importance of international organizations and international regulations. In judging an international behavior (whether by a state or by an international body), people are more and more stressing the grounds of regulations and institutions and are consciously setting up more organizations, regulations and mechanisms.

2. Cultural colonization reflects deep-rooted hegemonism and Western self-centripetalism, thus poisoning international relations and obstructing the establishment of new international order

In the process of international communications and human civilization, if cultural identity is naturally generated and voluntarily identified by all countries and nations, then, generally speaking, the common culture is bound to be of historical rationality. Hence, it will facilitate social advancement. On the contrary if cultural identity is based on the subjective will and premeditation of a certain country, and established through coercive enforcement (through military violence or economic, political and cultural advantages), then it will certainly lead to strain and stress and confrontation in social relationship. Cultural colonization belongs to the latter category.

In a special sense, cultural colonization undoubtedly prolongs the historical colonialism. As is known to all, historical colonialism was clearly marked by colonial aggression, plunder and extortion. In those days cultural colonization was not very conspicuous as it was attached to political and economic colonization. Therefore it scarcely aroused any attention. Things are vastly different today. With the numerous colonies and semi-colonies becoming independent sovereign states one after another, old-type colonialism characterized by naked military invasion and political domination was long sent to the historical museum. Nevertheless, the Western developed countries (mostly the suzerain states of yesterday) have never abandoned their attempt to structure and dominate the world according to their own wishes and value orientation. Hence, it has become a strategic choice for them to push cultural hegemony and cultural colonization by relying on their political and economic advantages in the contemporary international community and through marketing and cultural orientation, control and dissemination. Thus historical military, political and economic colonization has evolved into cultural colonization. Hence, under new historical conditions, there arose conspicuously the contradictions and conflicts between developed and undeveloped countries. In this connection, many scholars have made quite penetrating explanations. For example, Professor Stafriano explicitly pointed out, there exists the problem of “ideological imperialism” or “ideological colonization.” Professor Pechias defined cultural imperialism as “systematic penetration and domination of people’s cultural lives by the by Western ruling class so as to achieve the purpose of reshaping the values, behavior mode, social systems and identity of the oppressed peoples and making them obey the interests of the imperialist class. (4)Professor Scyide also criticism western cultural hegemony by analyzing “Orientalism.”

The cultural colonization between the developed and developing countries manifests itself in the fact that the developed countries vigorously push the sale of Western cultural products and advertise their own values and way of life under the guise of marketing and cultural communications and other legitimate forms of activity. The flaunted expansion of consumerism, materialism, hedonism and egoism and the indifference towards the concepts of social ethics and obligations and the dissemination of western human rights, democracy and liberal ideas are the natural consequences of cultural colonization. These consequences not only dash against the identification of the original national culture, but also probably threaten the country’s political authority and social stability. This of course arouses the boycott and struggle of the numerous developing countries, which constitute one of the important areas and contents in contemporary state-to-state relationship.

The struggle against cultural colonization first of all manifests itself as the national movement of the developing countries to defend national cultures and oppose Western cultural penetration. Within this framework there are sharp criticisms that were made by statesmen in various countries against the cultural hegemony perpetrated by Western developed countries, the boycott of Western culture by the civilian people, and also the war declaration of extreme nationalists and fundamentalists against western culture. In a word, the laudation of national cultures, the emergence of nationalism, the spread of Oriental human rights outlook and the feverish fad of Islamic fundamentalism are all reactions to cultural colonization .

Secondly, from the very beginning the struggle against cultural colonization never remained within the domain of bilateral relationship, but became an important topic on the agenda in the international community. In the 1970s the Committee for the Study of International Communications was set up and an appeal was made to set up a more just and effective world information and exchange new order. In the 1990s dialogue and struggle were carried on in the network and information field, and international conferences were held on information society and development. All these were manifestations of the cultural concerns of international organizations and the whole international community represented by the United Nations. Equality in cultural exchanges, pluralistic cultural modes and values, and free and apolitical cultural development are the goals of anti-cultural hegemony and cultural colonization in international relations. Obviously the struggle in this area will preset for a long period of time to come. It will to a large extent affect the orientation and process of contemporary international relations.

Although cultural colonization mainly refers to a special type of relationship between developed and developing countries, yet it will be oversimplified and one-sided we are to make such a view absolute, thinking this only applies to such relationship. As a matter of fact as far as the implied domineering approach, hegemony, sway and control is concerned, cultural colonization also applies to the relations among developed countries. As is known to all, the United States is the only superpower today. It not only rides roughshod in the military, economic and political areas, but also takes the lead in the cultural field. It enjoys advantages in terms of multimedia, Internet, satellite TV and film show as well as audio-visual products. This has led to its domineering global cultural penetration and cultural market seizure policy, thus arousing the dissatisfaction from and boycott by the other developed countries. Take Canada for instance. US cultural products controlled some 95% of its film market, 93% of its TV show markets, 75% of its English language TV programs and 80% of its book and magazine markets. This of course compelled the Canadian government to take a series of precautionary measures to protect it national culture so as to avoid being swallowed up by US culture. Likewise, the conflicts between the French and the Americans in the cultural area are known to all. French intellectuals explicitly raised the slogan of boycotting “US cultural imperialism, considering American culture represented by Hollywood as a tremendous threat to French culture. From this we can see that the impact of cultural colonization on international relations is extensive and profound.

3. The high relativity and mutual assistance between cultures has led to both global cultural clashes and a colorful variety of pluralistic cultures, thus increasing the complicity of contemporary international relations.

In the process of cultural globalization, cultural convergence and cultural colonization marked the integration of cultures in different ways. This easily led to the misunderstanding that cultural globalization only pursued after and exhibited only cultural identity while pluralistic and national cultures would disappear in this process. Facts proved to the contrary. The actual contemporary international community proved that developing unique national cultures and defending pluralistic cultures has become another trend of development coexisting with cultural convergence. After the cold war there emerged nationalism, the expansion of fundamentalism, the deepening of the ecological and feminist movements, the repudiation of modernism by post-modernism and the generation and development of all kinds of social organizations, communities and local communities at home and abroad. All these reflected people’s strong desire to identify unique cultures and their relentless enthusiasm and will to defend peculiar cultures from different angles and at different levels. All these are taking place in the global context and framework. This might seem somewhat contradictory and yet it implied the reality of society and human nature.

Of course the coexistence and conflicts between cultures did not start from today. But beyond doubt, it was only at the turn of the century at cultural diversity was so widespread and the conflicts between cultures were so frequent and intense. Such unprecedented relativity, interaction between cultures inevitably brought inestimable impact on international relations. Nationalistic cultures would worsen national conflicts and regional tensions. Religious cultures especially Islamic fundamentalism would inject unpredictable damages into international relations. The environmental movements and ecological disputes under the influence of ecological culture have become a new hot topic in the international relations. Contradictions between indigenous and exotic cultures (including migration culture) often lead to state-to-state confrontations. All these have made international relations more complicated and thus require us to be more prudent when studying and handling international affairs.

III. Ideas on How to Cope with Cultural globalization

As previously expounded, cultural globalization and its impact on international relations are an objective fact. In this connection, contemporary mankind should adopt a rational approach to cope with it in a positive manner. Turning it to his advantage and averting possible dangers, man should work to build a better environment for his own development.

1. People should overcome all kinds of ideological biases and one-sided understanding, make clear what globalization implies and really recognize the objectivity of cultural globalization.

In the studies and identification of globalization it is a most one-sided point of view to recognize economic globalization. Many scholars have criticized this trend and expressed different opinions. US scholar Robertson pointed out, globalization was unfortunately understood from the angle of industrial and commercial studies. “Globalization discussions in the public area have shaped what I would call an economist ideology.” (5)
He himself was concerned with the cultural dimension of globalization. British scholar Giddons considered globalization as a very broad process. It contents by no means were just limited to, or even mainly composed of economic interdependence. (6) German scholar Back was more specialized in the political dimension of globalization. He raised such sharp questions as the urgent democracy rebuilding and global political administration along with economic globalization. (7) In its report on The Extremities of Competition, the Lisbon Group also said, “globalization involves a variety of vertical and horizontal ties among many countries and communities.” (8) When expounding globalization, former German Chancellor Schmitt hit the nail on its head when he pointed out, “Globalization is a practical political topic, a social economic topic; it is also an ideological topic.” (9) What he meant to say was obviously that globalization is by no means a single economic dimension only, no matter from the point of view of the phenomena or of the impact it gives. Although Western scholars are no Marxists, their conclusions comply with the basic Marxist principle that economy decides politics and culture.

There are perhaps the following three reasons for the conclusion that globalization means economic globalization:
Firstly, in ultimate sense, economic globalization is not only the basis of globalization, but also the phenomenon and fact most perceived in realistic life so far. Therefore people are accustomed to take a simplified way to generalize and understand globalization. Secondly, globalization is regarded as convergence and identification (or at least stressing this point). Therefore, people are apt to recognize economic globalization out of needs and pressure for economic development. On the other hand, out of consideration for safeguarding sovereignty and for developing national culture, they are apt to exclude political and cultural globalization. Thirdly, some people are trying to use economic globalization as a means to confuse or even deliberately cover up political control and cultural hegemony so as to unify and control the whole world according to Western systems, values, modes and life styles. Obviously among these three reasons as listed above, there is both one-sided understanding and political misgivings and also ideological troubles. Although these reasons cannot be put on the same bar, they have led to the erroneous conclusion that globalization means economic globalization only. This conclusion adversely affects the comprehensive understanding of globalization. It is not conducive to the positive and effective treatment of political and cultural globalization. It may even cause helplessness in front of global politics and culture.

2. People should identify and push cultural convergence in a just and straightforward manner and try their best to create an international mechanism conducive to world peace and development.

No matter out of political worries or out of consideration to keep cultural traditions alive, cultural convergence or cultural identity seems to make people unhappy and keep them on the alert. Though understandable, such a phenomenon runs counter to the rationale and science. Culture implies both historical experience and the common experience of the times. It implies the characteristics of the times and the nation. It has both generalities and particularities. Such different expressions or denotations reveal the duality of culture. They demonstrate that cultures have had both similarities and dissimilarities from the very beginning. Therefore it is a matter of course to recognize the convergence and identity of cultures. It is absolutely unnecessary to shy over the matter. On the contrary it would be incomprehensible or worrisome for us to reject or even repudiate cultural identity. We must not forget thee lessons we have on human rights, democracy and market economy and other issues. Identifying the universal values of human rights, democracy and market economy did not prevent us from stating the particularities of human rights, democracy and market economy in different countries and at different historical stages. Likewise, recognizing cultural identity of course does not imply that we have abandoned cultural disparities.

Examining human social activity at an historical height, we shall easily find that man is at a critical historical juncture of turning from industrial civilization to a new type of civilization. The trend of information, globalization, sustainable development is radically changing man in his production mode, life style and thinking manner. In this major social transformation extremely rare in human history, the emergence of new cultural concepts, the pursuit of new values and new thinking mode are historically inevitable. Therefore, discussing cultural convergence today is more convincing and perceivable than talking about it at any time before. Perhaps this was why Huntington’s theory of civilization conflicts was widely criticized. While he pointed out with great acumen the reality of conflicts of post-war cultural and civilization conflicts, he failed to see the general trend of globalization leading to the merger of various cultures.

New civilization and new era demand new cultures and new values. The global awareness, the doctrine of law science and mechanism, the concepts of dialogue and cooperation, all discussed in the previous part of the article, are the most important ones. Undoubtedly these new concepts and new values have exerted important and positive influence on contemporary international relations. International dialogues are increasingly widespread. International laws and codes are improving and more binding than ever before. Many governmental and non-governmental international organizations are cropping up and actively involved in international affairs. The international community is concerned with and has got consensus on global issues that have a bearing on human survival and development. All these are stamped with new concepts and new values. As far as these are concerned, the contemporary international relations have been drawn onto the track of greater rationality and institutional systems.

Nevertheless, we must not lose sight of the fact that the new values and concepts are by far immature. They have not yet taken a firm foothold. They are not only being undermined by hegemonism, but are also being boycotted by traditional thinking mode. In other words, these new concepts and new values are only identified to a limited extent. So a new international mechanism is still beset with great difficulties, no matter in shaping or in implementation. There are repetitive changes. These will inevitably adversely affect the stability of the international community and the normal development of international relations. Therefore it is still a very important task to win greater recognition of the new values and new concepts as have emerged in cultural globalization.

3. People should firmly oppose cultural colonization and cultural hegemony, and enhance the self-consciousness and effectiveness in combating cultural imperialism.

While bringing positive effects in international relations, cultural globalization has also increased the possibilities of cultural penetration and control by the Western countries. Hence, cultural imperialism will be a major obstacle impeding the healthy development of contemporary international relations. We must be adequately aware of this and maintain due vigilance in this regard. There are two forms of Western cultural hegemony. One form is that some people from the West consciously follow the foreign strategy and political purpose of their countries in pursuing cultural penetration and expansion, openly advertising the advanced nature of Western values and life styles and trying their best to spread and disseminate them. This form is easy to identify and is inevitably opposed and boycotted. The other form is an unconscious sense of cultural superiority and objective cultural advantages. They tend to think that enlightenment ideas and modern concepts originated in the West. These cultural achievements are now needed by the developing countries in their modernization drive. Hence the Western developed countries will unconsciously demand the developing countries accept the cultural achievements. English is the leading language in international communications. Developed countries enjoy an absolutely leading position in networks. These are pushing Western culture dissemination from another angle. The latter form is hegemony in language, hegemony in cultural environment and results. It has an objective compulsory character and people are apt to accept it.

Obviously we should make positive precautions and struggle against both open and naked cultural penetration and cultural influence hidden in objective compulsion. We should dare to make face-to-face confrontation with the former. We should be more rational in our thinking to cope with the latter. We must aptly recognize the rationality of Western cultural advantages and actively absorb their quintessence. We must also argue with reasons and consistently create new possibilities and regulations so as to enable the developing countries to get rid of their cultural disadvantages gradually. The struggle to set up a new cultural and information order is an inevitable outcome of cultural globalization. All countries should transcend their own fetters and limitations and contribute to establishing the new cultural and information order.

4.People should be more tolerant of exotic cultures and build a rational, peaceful environment for the coexistence of pluralistic cultures with a compatible approach.

The process of cultural globalization is that of clashes between different cultures. Clashes may lead to merger, but more often than not, to contradictions. It will be a case of self-expansion or a case of preservation. In this sense, the alienation and particularity of cultures are the fate of cultures, just as the existence of all things in nature is a matter of course. If we have a real understanding of this point, we shall be compatible with alien cultures that are different from indigenous culture and be more tolerant of the values, concepts, traditions, customs and habits and life style inherent in alien cultures. We shall respect their choice and pursuits. Cultural differences may inevitably lead to cultural contradictions and even cultural conflicts. The key is to hold dialogue and communications on an equal basis and make coordination wisely so as to prevent and minimize the possibility of political and irrational development of the cultural contradictions and conflicts. Cultural factors in international relations are of particular concern because apart from the strong impact resulting from civilization transformation, there is a great possibility of getting out of control in one’s sentiments because of lack of compatibility and rationality. This may lead to the loss of control that will be utilized politically. Therefore, just as pointed out by Hulmut Schmitt, the era of globalization needs to urgently set up a universal will to respect and tolerate the theories of other civilizations and religions. (10) In other words, Confronted with the ever widening cultural globalization, it will be most important to call for rationality and tolerance, to initiate dialogue and mutual respect and to ascertain the responsibilities and duties of every country, nation and individual toward world peace and development.