Alimentación equilibrada en la adolescencia

The globalization process presupposes a plurality of domains, each with a dis- tinct identity. These have been separately constructed and have been internally structured by processes of signification that are predominantly embedded in lan- guage. In this situation, how can we produce valid and reliable intercultural knowledge? Is intercultural communication possible? What is a viable method for contemporary African philosophy in a context marked by the high degree of global interactions today? We will present intercultural hermeneutics as dis- cussed by van Binsbergen and the Indian-born and leading intercultural philoso- pher in Germany, Ram Adhar Mall.

Mall sees the possibility of an intercultural hermeneutics as a solution to the theoretical problems raised by globalization. Let us summarize the main points of his hermeneutics and see how we can situate them in the context of a philosophy of globalization, in a bid to explore the possibility of approaching the problem of intercultural communication. Like Oruka and most African/Africanist philoso- phers, Mall subscribes to the apparently self-evident conception of humanity as being subdivided into distinct cultures. He asserts that because these cultures ex- ist side by side, intercultural understanding and interpenetration has to be achieved. He argues that intercultural hermeneutics stresses not only the some-

8

See, for example, the contemporary anthropological discourse on African ethnicity in authors such as Barth (1969); Amselle & M’bokolo (1985); Fardon (1987); and Amselle (1990).

times problematic parallel coexistence of cultures, but also the significant contri- butions they may yet make to one another.9 For Mall, the existence of many cul- tures is not a threat but a precondition for interculturality. In other words, the ex- istence of distinct, bounded cultures is required before we can speak of interac- tions between these cultures; and such interactions are essentially non- problematic, because ‘cultures can be explained to one another’ (Mall 1995: 99).

Mall rejects the idea of one universal world philosophy and also insists on the need for any comparative philosophy to be impartial. He argues that in post- modern hermeneutics, no tradition, place, or language should be privileged, as that could trigger the dangers of absolutization. His conception of intercultural philosophy is one that is ‘placelessly localizing’ and ‘localizingly placeless’ (ibid. 78). He proposes the theory of an open hermeneutics where one tolerantly acknowledges that the Other differs from that which one considers one’s own.

Mall’s position presupposes a plurality of different domains and raises the problematic of how intercultural knowledge can be produced in encounters be- tween these domains. For van Binsbergen, the ‘placelessly localizing’ character of intercultural philosophy posited by Mall tends to conceal the fact that localiza- tion undeniably takes place in this hermeneutic process (van Binsbergen 2003: 386-387). Localization does not necessarily take the form of any geographical domain the size of a language region or a nation-state; the philosophical inter- preter, with the use of specialist philosophical language, explicitly constructs this kind of localization.

Such intercultural hermeneutics will certainly be language-based. Our study of intercultural hermeneutics therefore urges us to re-visit the use of language and its implications. The language of the interpreter normally produces a universalist impression on the persons whose expressions are being interpreted. In fact, it takes the place of a touchstone that is situated at an unattainably higher and more valid level than that on which the matter is situated that it seeks to comprehend: the cultural Other and his/her manifestations. Moreover, language also has a ma- jor shortcoming in that it gives the philosopher a privileged position with regard to intercultural hermeneutics and communication. A large part of human mani- festations is not framed and can hardly be expressed in language. Even though language has a clear structuring potential, it does not finally and completely es- tablish the cultural domain, nor the entire limits of human cognition.

Hence, in the case of Oruka’s search for and expression of sagacity, these should not be limited to language, given our context of contemporary globaliza- tion. Intercultural philosophy, from a wisdom perspective, should allow us to

151 celebrate the human body as a transcultural common given, rather than relying heavily on explicit articulation of language as Oruka does. It should be an en- counter. We can also depend on other forms such as bodily contacts, songs, dances, rituals, and rhythms, and on the forms of epistemological modesty such as silence, love, empathy, and introspection (van Binsbergen 2008). Intercultural philosophical hermeneutics will be more effective in our search for wisdom in a globalizing society through contacts in pop culture, on sports fields, on the Inter- net, during vacations, on the streets, in the pubs, in urban neighbourhoods, over the counters of formal bureaucratic institutions, in doctor’s surgeries, and even in bed. When people come together, we see a genuine fusion of publicly construct- ed identities on a world scale, which is the real hallmark of contemporary global- ization. Hence, wisdom in this context will not be in the essentialist sense of in- comparably wise and eternal truths, or in the sense of an appeal to particularist, local authority figures - who may be effective and have valid knowledge in their local domain but have no authority in other cultures, cultures which have their own ancestors and do not accept the authority of foreign ones. Rather, traditional wisdom in the context of a multifarious wisdom revival today need not be cul- ture-specific, but it should be capable of generating valid knowledge across cul- tural boundaries. It challenges us to be aware of diversity, incompatibility, con- flict, and the need to mediate these from those structures that do not constitute political power and scientific knowledge (Mudimbe 1988: xi). This explains why from an intercultural perspective, wisdom is characterized as a vital instrument to solve practical problems. In this connection, the American philosopher John Dewey (1859-1952) conceives of thinking not as a search for ‘truth’ but rather as activity aimed at solving individual and social problems. Whereas empiricism and rationalism separate thinking and doing, Dewey holds that reflective thought is always involved in transforming a practical situation. Philosophy should not escape by searching for fixed, universal, and immutable truth. Rather, it should be a problem-solving, pragmatic exercise.

In addition, such intercultural hermeneutics will not be one of cultural bounda- ries and distinctness but of fusion and exchanges such as we experience in con- temporary globalization. As we have argued in this work, cultures no longer exist as distinct, bounded entities. Rather, what exist are numerous cultural orienta- tions in which people interact and intersect. Hence, we can assert that the herme- neutical dimension in African and intercultural philosophy will add something new (methodologically and intellectually) into the African context. Yet, we can- not limit such a hermeneutic to difference, because cultural diversity is performa- tive (Ceton 2005) and because in many respects people the world over share in a worldwide society, producing more and more similar environments and similar experiences at many different places. An example is watching the same film or

wearing similar jeans in five different continents, due to the increasing globaliza- tion of production, distribution, and formal organizations such as the state, edu- cation, health services, media, and multinational companies (van Binsbergen 2003). An intercultural hermeneutic, not exclusively language-based, has become indispensable, as it will help us in self-questioning in order to attain wisdom that will enable us to better our human condition. It should be grounded on human life and existence. In this context, we can achieve self-understanding to the ex- tent that the self relates to itself as it relates to the Other. Our lived experiences can lead us to understand ourselves as we relate with others (Dilthey 1989; Heidegger 1996).

Oruka is correct when he links culture and philosophy. Where I disagree with him is where he limits his vision of sagacity and culture to the North Atlantic paradigm and does not explicitly elaborate from his African base. He encloses African sagacity, following the North Atlantic paradigm. Moreover, the North Atlantic paradigm is being challenged today with the possibilities of other tradi- tions of wisdom. In this age, a complementary vision of sagacity will enrich the way we perceive and collectively solve our individual and collective problems. It can open up a space of existential and political possibilities. Our new conception of sagacity can be one that is dynamic, with a productive power that undermines the idea of reality as a fixed, unyielding network of authoritative patterns of in- terpretation.

The rise of more dynamic and optional approaches