Clive S. Kessler

Globalization: Another false universalism?

Throughout human history the idea of moral universalism has repeatedly appeared, but always in some less than universalistic, and hence morally compromised, form: in the religious imagination and culture, in the ideologies of liberalism and official socialism and in the liberal theory of the state, and in the informing worldview of the modern human and social sciences, especially anthropology. This discussion raises the question whether, and poses the possibility that, despite all the travails which globalization processes are unleashing worldwide (and perhaps even unknown to, and despite the political preferences of, many of globalizations more ardent champions), the present era of advancing globalization may be ushering in a truly historical moment and change in the history of the human moral imagination. By producing for the first time, no matter how unevenly, a single, interdependent humankind and, in prospect if not yet in actuality, a single worldwide human community, globalization processes may be producing an objective, experiential basis for the emergence of a genuine and uncompromised moral universalism: as a successor to, and to transcend, the sequence of selective intimations and incomplete intuitions of human universality that has hitherto constituted the history of humankinds moral imagination.

Keating's blunder: three lessons

Authors Note: The above title is the English version of the title of the following article written in Bahasa Malaysia in Kuala Lumpur in December 1993 in the days immediately following Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamads announcement of his cabinets decision that his countrys latest dispute with Australia was at an end. This commentary upon the recent disturbance in Australia/Malaysia relations was written for the February/March 1994 issue of the journal Negarawan, published by the Institute for Strategic and International Studies, Kuala Lumpur. The argument offered here follows upon and complements that which was presented in my earlier essay on tensions in Australia/Malaysia relations entitled “Negotiating Cultural Difference: On Seeking, Not Always Successfully, to Share the World with Others –– Or, In Defence of Embassy” (ASAA Asian Studies Review 15, 2 (November 1991), 57–73). In particular, the argument of the final section of that essay, “The Negotiation of Difference: Where to from ...

“Diasporic” Muslims, “Minoritarian” Islam, and Modern Democratic Citizenship: Negotiating Accommodation and Integration

A central challenge to Australian multiculturalism is presented by the failure of many Australian Muslims, individually and within certain social groups and enclaves, to achieve integration within broader Australian society. Yet, understanding this failure and national predicament is not achievable by recourse to what we may call conventional postcolonialist “multicultural theory.” Fathoming this failure and the obstacles to Muslim integration does not require recourse—these days, habitual and often reflexive recourse—to the generalities of contemporary postmodernist orthodoxy, but attention to the historical specificity of Islamic society and sociability. It requires us, no more and no less, to take Islamic history seriously.

Book Reviews : Southeast Asia in the Age of Commerce 1450-1680: Volume 1 — the Lands Below the Winds: Anthony Reid. New Haven & London, Yale University Press, 1988. xviii + 266 pp. US

ASSIA complements other indexing and abstracting services and should be an addition to tertiary level collections in the Social Sciences despite the cost. Its ease of use makes it ideal for undergraduates and it should encourage the use of other more complex services. The abstracts provided are concise and informative. Despite the increasing availability of information in CD-ROM and electronic formats this hard copy index and abstracts is welcome and useful.