Zentrum für interdisziplinäre Forschung

"Culture of debate" (Streitkultur) is itself a much-debated concept, particularly with regard to its global relevance. The workshop "East Asian Cultures of Debate in Context" aims to deepen our understanding of debate and argument in highly literate societies, with a special focus on (Confucian) East Asia in comparison to the West. Is the East Asian society really formed by hierarchical thinking, discouraging open debate and dissent? Is the existence of a 'culture of debate' only a feature of the 'West'? The workshop is convened by Marion Eggert, Chair of Korean Studies, Professor of Philosophy Maria-Sibylla Lotter, and Heiner Roetz, Professor of Chinese History, all at Ruhr University Bochum. Ahead of the workshop, which takes place at ZiF on September 28-29, the conveners offer a brief insight into their project. 

1. What does “culture of debate” (Streitkultur) mean and why is it a much-debated concept?

Ideally, we understand a culture of debate (Streitkultur) as the spread of civil verbal exchange rather than bellicist practices for the free, uninhibited and public expression of dissenting opinions, based on equal participation. All of these factors are important historical points of reference for the later development of a democratic public sphere. However, the normative significance as well as the possibility of such a 'culture' are contested, not least because of its far-reaching political implications.

2. Why do you focus on East Asia?

East Asia is often treated as a test case for the general validity of the 'liberal script' of 'Western modernity'. In particular, Confucianism is regarded as a source of authoritarian notions of state and society that persist even beneath the surface of formally democratic structures, fostering hierarchical thinking and discouraging open debate and dissent. Conversely, the existence of a 'culture of debate' is considered an inherent feature of the 'West', stemming from its unique religious and philosophical foundations. However, contrary to this view, we assume a more complex constellation on both sides. The workshop tests the hypothesis that both Western and East Asian cases deserve a more nuanced approach than is currently in place, and that there are substantial East Asian contributions to a culture of debate that render the fundamental juxtaposition invalid.

3. What is the goal of the workshop?

This workshop brings together scholars from various fields who have studied dissent and debate in different historical, linguistic, and regional contexts. It is expected to facilitate an integration of perspectives that reflects the multifaceted nature of the issue. Adopting a transcultural, trans-epochal and interdisciplinary approach, we aim to gain a better understanding of the interaction between traditions and the more universal characteristics of human communication and argumentation. While we do not want to set our expectations too high, we also envision this type of conference contributing to the development of a global culture of debate that draws on common resources, mutual learning and a shared history of problems, insofar as this can be promoted through academic discourse in the first place.

4. Which role does interdisciplinary cooperation play for this project?

If we want to understand the complex reality of the culture of debate in East Asia — and the same applies to Western and other traditions—, simply referring to contrasting cultural ontologies does not seem helpful. We assume that there is a universal potential for such a culture to emerge, but whether or not it can unfold depends on the specific constellations. These constellations again consist of a fabric of factors whose interplay can best be illuminated through collaboration between relevant disciplines. Thus, from a sociological perspective, questions of social status and forms of a public sphere come into play, among other factors. Politically, there are claims to rule and, as the case may be, relaxation of rules and separation of powers. From a philosophical perspective, different views of language, logic, truth, plurality, authority, tradition and normativity must be considered. Historically, crucial events that may be a particular incentive for debate should be noted, especially crises, as well as other conditions that give rise to conflict and put pressure on the coexistence of individuals and groups. Furthermore, a comparative look into other cultural studies, such as Islamic, Jewish or Buddhist studies, appears to be helpful. Bringing together scholars from these various fields is expected to enable an integration of perspectives that does justice to the multifaceted nature of the problem.