As the world currently proceeds to move along this new millennium, the phenomenon of globalization still persists to dominate every aspect of our consciousness.  Whether we speak of it with affection or with derision, globalization is here to stay, continuously transforming the way we live our lives.  Even as we gather here today, the world is virtually shrinking and societies are becoming increasingly interdependent.  Consequently, it is only logical to wonder whether cultural diversity can manage to thrive within such a globalized world.

 Actually, there are two schools of thought which ordain this raging debate about the impact of globalization on cultural diversity.  On the one hand, there is a view which stresses homogenization, characterized by the development of a universal international electronic marketplace and the worldwide prevalence of American or Western pop culture.  This means that globalization will lead to cultural uniformity with a bastardized lowest common denominator.  Such a world would be one that is largely English speaking, linked by common technologies, and dominated by free markets and political democracy.  In a sense, the world will be entirely homogenized under Western liberal values and the traditional vision of society as a "melting pot" within which ethnic and racial differences are subsumed into a cultural whole greater than the sum of its parts.

 On the other hand, there is the alternative view which envisages a world deeply and idiosyncratically rooted in language, culture, history, and religion, which is highly particularistic, and in which the norm is pluralism or multiculturalism.  In common terms, such a view is the "salad bowl" which, many now argue, has prevailed over the "melting pot" because of the resistance to the very concept of cultural and social assimilation.

 Indeed, the tension between cultural diversity and institutional uniformity has become increasingly greater since the onset of globalization.  We continue to ask ourselves:  Are we going to become one whole homogenized globalized world ?  Or should we, in fact, remain to be a diverse multiplicity of self-consciously distinct races, creeds, colors, living uneasily, but successfully, together within a common sustaining democratic political framework ?

 Nevertheless, current realities dictate that high levels of cultural and ideological diversity will persist despite the intense unifying pressures of the global marketplace and the world wide web and the seeming triumph of market economics and the liberal values of political democracy.  We can still expect that most cultures will continue to assert their own identities rather than accept uniformity.  Western discourse and institutions do not seem to be easily exportable and adaptable.  In this day and age of globalization, resistance to uniformity remains as powerful as it is believed to be.

 Ladies and gentlemen, the challenge lies not in how we can find commonalities or how we can establish uniformity.  That would be too easy.  Rather, the challenge lies in how we can promote, support, and sustain cultural awareness and sensitivity such that all of us will be able to function effectively in a world which has some common consumption patterns and united through a common electronic technology, but remains profoundly idiosyncratic and resistant to homogenization.  In other words, the challenge lies in how we can maintain cultural diversity despite globalization.

 If we look back in time, particularly during the Cold War era, we can definitely say that the changes have been truly dramatic.  The Cold War, with all the strategic rivalry and the potential for global annihilation that it entailed, made the focus of individual countries a continued necessity.  Knowing the cultural, political, and economic idiosyncrasies of each and every country was vital.  Understanding the diversity and complexity of the world became highly valued.

 But the end of the Cold War signaled the end of interest in cultural diversity.  Although the world was changing rapidly, we began to look inward with greater intensity and, thus, often lost sight of the transnational issues which were becoming the defining features of a globalized world.  Under a new international order (or disorder), multilateral and transnational questions were coming to the fore, providing an increasingly homogenized, or a much more common, agenda for international relations.

 With the increased interdependence brought about by globalization, societies tend to be more resistant to diversity and to differences.  We tend to be more insistent on our own culture, on our own traditions and standards.  And it is only right that we insist on preserving these traditions.  We are right to say that we must not make ourselves so accommodating of the values of others that we are unable to honor and realize our own.

 However, we also have to realize that diversity is a part of our tradition.  In fact, it is one of the traditions which we have the right to be most proud of -- not just the ability to endure differences, but the ability to make them.  The continual creation of difference, variety, and novelty may be a signature gesture of each of our cultures.  And this is the tradition that we must honor.

 Far from being homogenized, the current globalized world is being filled with differences.  And this is a good thing because, almost always, such differences advance the cause of human dignity.  Diversity embraces those who would otherwise be persecuted for being different.  More significantly, diversity dispenses with marginalization.  No social group or sector needs the liberal generosity of the mainstream to exist.  It is enough merely to stake out a social space and to occupy it.  Clearly, this is beneficial to women and other traditionally marginalized groups.

 We must now be able to steer away from traditional ways and means of dealing with diversity and difference.  As rational human beings capable of critical thinking and cultural awareness and sensitivity, we now know that we have a choice.  Diversity can create the glorious or the monstrous.  It depends on what we do with difference.  It depends on what difference becomes for us.

 For too long in the past, difference has been a path to identity paved with hostility and antagonism.  It has given us a "sharpener" of identity and a recipe for action:  find the odd man or woman, the odd group, the odd nation, the odd culture, and then: mock, repudiate, assault, and, too often, exterminate it or them.  This approach to difference is what probably made the 20th century so violent and so full of conflicts.  Difference was used to sharpen identity through contradistinction.  We are what the other is not.  Worse, our path to definition was found through acts of differentiation, antagonism, and hostility against each other.

 Through this old approach, things looked rather grim.  More differences meant more antagonism.  As the world was being filled with differences, people found themselves surrounded by "otherness" and increasingly called upon to challenge it.  New and emerging identities put other identities in question.  Establishing an identity depended upon the defacement of other identities.  Diversity made people smaller, meaner, more loathing, and more loathsome, generating bigotry and hatemongering.

 But now, we know better.  We know that there is another use for difference.  That we must use difference as a definitional opportunity.  When we come across something that is different, we must ask ourselves:  "What would it be like to be different like that ?"  Our entire cultures must now shift in a transformational direction so that, more and more, we will be able to better respond to differences and experience such differences.  This is a radically new approach to difference because it is an approach which completely shifts the field of assumptions.

 Therefore, our educational systems must also be able to bear the enormous responsibility  of inculcating the analysis and promotion of cross-cultural themes, especially among our children.  Certainly, our ability to produce future generations of mobile and internationally oriented citizens, able to function effectively in other cultures, will be critical.  Without such individuals, we are unlikely to succeed in advancing democratic values in the world, in winning battles in the various transnational and international arenas, or in promoting a more open international trading regime.  In short, our security, our prosperity, and our moral influence in the world will ultimately depend on our success in developing a citizenry which understands why cultural diversity persists in a world of growing interconnectedness.

 This is the challenge which our educational systems must engage in three levels:  the level of culture, the level of language, and the level of ideas.  Perhaps, engaging it at the level of culture will prove most difficult.  This is so because we will always be different from each other.  From our own perspectives, we will always wonder why other people can not be more like us.  And some would say the answer is merely economic self-interest.  But, more often than not, culture is the deciding factor.

 As our globalized world continue to grow smaller and as rapid technological advancements enables us to come in contact with cultures different from our own, it will not be easy for us to learn the particular social practices, or even prejudices, of these other cultures.  Obviously, our educational institutions can not cover all such cultural differences in their curricula.  However, an integral part of educational or learning experience should include a conscious effort to promote an openness to, and acceptance of, cultural differences and the encouragement of an attitude of mind and heart rooted in a willingness to adapt one's own behavior to different societal norms.

 However, since awareness of behavioral idiosyncrasies can ultimately only be facilitated through the establishment of personal relationships, cultural awareness is, perhaps, more important.  And language, or the ability to communicate from one's own culture into another's, is at the heart of such an awareness.  This is not, strictly speaking, a question of translation, but the use of language idiomatically to reach into another individual's way of thought and habits or perception.  To do so is not merely a matter of taking two semesters of Spanish in college, or a two week course in Italian, however useful they may be.  Rather, it requires a disposition and determination on the part of students, young and old, to understand what is going on in the mind of someone racially or culturally different from them.  To achieve cross-cultural sensitivity, one must be willing to learn something of the history, literature, and art of another culture.  Integrating culture and history with language is, therefore, absolutely essential for those who seek to be effective global citizens.  And for this to happen, our educational systems will have to change promptly and substantially.

 Indeed, these institutional and substantive changes present complex challenges to our learning institutions.  What is needed now is a commitment to integrate this rapidly evolving agenda into a new curriculum so that 21st century graduates will be familiar with the range of issues that increasingly preoccupy our leaders.  Curricula must become more relevant to the world in which graduates will have to live and work.  Multi-disciplinary studies should become the norm.  A change of focus will be required as will a new emphasis on language, cultural values, and cross-cultural sensitivity.

 All of this will also require a certain intellectual modesty.  We must bear in mind that in the interaction of peoples, as with individuals, the power of example is far greater than the power of precept.  We will be able to lead only to the extent that we demonstrate an openness to diversity and show a willingness to engage it on its own terms.  Only by doing so will we have a profound and positive impact.  Otherwise, we will face endless frustration and frequent setbacks.  We must accept that homogenization is not ours to promote, but diversity is ours to protect.

 It is only natural for us to be frightened of the world that diversity is constructing for us.  But we should also remember that we do have alternatives.  Diversity will continue to generate more, and more different, species of social life, but this does not mean that commonality can not be fashioned.  This does not mean that such different species can not work out some system of mutual recognition that leaves their differences uncompromised.

 Finally, to my mind, what we really have to be frightened of is our well-practised ability to forget what we know about ourselves.  When we come to terms with one part of culture, we tend to forget such part when we take up another part.  For example, efforts in gender and development and women's rights clashing with religious customs and traditions.  Worst of all, we tend to totally disregard culture as we respond to the tremendous changes and innovations that globalization currently impose on us.  By systematically forgetting or disregarding what we know about the disparate pieces of our societies, we will always fail to come to terms with the revolution that is taking place within them.

 As such, the real danger emerges when we insist on such a partial view, when we selectively forget what we know.  This is so because we will never be fully aware of the new realities of our world.  With or without globalization, cultural diversity will always be upon us.  It will not go away.  It will continue to transform everything about us, and so, we must be able to see it whole.

 Ladies and gentlemen, thank you and good day.