|
Dialogue
of Civilizations: Three Western Visions
Of
People or of Civilizations?
The
event of September 11, 2001 led to the existence of two new opposite
tendencies in relation to the cross-civilizational/cross-cultural
relations on the one side, and religion on the other. On the one
hand, we find an active movement bringing all peoples from around
the world together to a dialogue between civilizations. On the other
hand, we find the war machine at its best—basically the American
one—rallying behind an ideological cover-up pointing toward the
“clash” between civilizations. The paradox is that both of these
movements originated in the West, which fact shows the extent of
this paradoxical make-up permitting the coexistence of the two
extremes within one Western context—that of “dialogue” and
another of a “clash.” Non-Westerners may find it difficult to
comprehend all that; how could the two opposites meet? Is the
relation between the East and the West clash-based or
civilization-based? Is the “clash” between just the
“religions” or “civilizations” in essence, or does it
involve their adherents, too?
Realistically
speaking, “civilizations” don’t carry out dialogues or
conflicts. It is the adherents who struggle for dialogue
over issues pertaining in the first degree to interests. |
|
Realistically
speaking, “civilizations” don’t carry out dialogues or
conflicts. It is the adherents who struggle for dialogue over issues
pertaining in the first degree to interests. People’s stands are
not strictly the product of their civilizations and cultures; their
stands are the product of social and national make-up, or even the
cross-continental reality under globalization, per se.
We
believe that civilizations are not by nature fixed mechanisms or
blocs, but they contain diversity and opposition. This concept has
permitted the existence of a variety of visions explaining the
relationship between civilizations. What we are trying to avoid is
the perspective that sees the world as a one-dimensional interplay,
either that of a pure “dialogue” or a pure “clash” for the
sake of a particular interest or a reading of the world within a
specific historical context. In other words, what allowed for the
diversity of perspectives in the West, in regard to the relation
between the East and the West, is the “interest factor” and the
position of the existing social structure. This allows some groups
to work for their interests or according to their social agenda and
propagate for either the clash or the dialogue.
In
a particular historical moment, maybe one vision will overshadow the
other. In this case, one should investigate the “balance of
power” to get the right answers. And consequently, the
relationship between civilizations—whether conflict or
dialogue—is not a premeditated decision, but rather the direct
product of “historical event.” The balance of power from the
16th century onward favored the West (known as Western
centralization), thus permitting the West to either impose a vision
of conflict or a dialogue, on the one hand, or to pursue both at the
same time, on the other. That balance of power within the West
favors the proponent of conflict more then the advocate of dialogue.
Three
Western Visions
Before
introducing the cotemporary Western visions in relation to the
question of the dialogue of civilizations, let’s make sure to
highlight the way the West sees itself in relation to the Other: The
West assumes that it has succeeded both materialistically and
spiritually; its civilization should be the model to follow. This
success has given it the right to define the nature of its
relationship with the Other solely for the sake of its own interest.
The self-serving argument
here is that material progress does not occur without spiritual
mobilization and ethical revival, an attitude which brings about a
new attitude toward work, progress, rights and duties, and ethics.
Ethics,
whether behavioral or religious, are part of the movement of
society; they are as changeable as the society itself. Slavery, for
example, which was once acceptable, is no longer so. On the other
hand, democracy, absolute right to private ownership, election,
human rights, residency are all concepts fundamental to the Western
civilizations, which spread to Europe and then to America. The
progress in the West is not just an addition to materialist success
based on a set of fixed ethics: On the contrary, it was the result
of a material and spiritual renaissance. Perhaps expansionism had a
hand in that and so did the acquisition of wealth. Still, religious
reforms also took place, starting in Western Europe then America.
Scientific development, principles of democracy, and the birth of
the modern-day citizen and many other values and ideas were
introduced, contributing to the state of the Western world.
A
single Western reality did not prevent the creation of
different visions of how to see the Other from expressing
themselves from within. |
|
Although
this understanding of the Western worldview encompasses an amount of
self-awareness of itself in relation to the Other, this awareness
has led to more than one vision on how to deal with the Other, over
a long period of time. A single Western reality did not prevent the
creation of different visions of how to see the Other from
expressing themselves from within. It is true that the political
interest has favored to a great extent the predominance of one
vision over the others, a vision with an expansionist inclination
that shaped the Western politics for over two centuries.
In
an attempt to understand the subject matter, we can categorize three
Western visions regarding relationship between civilizations, in
particular its political dimension:
-
The
classical Orientalist vision (both old and contemporary)
-
The
neo-classical Orientalist vision
-
The
civic populist grass-roots vision
Before
going into the three visions, it is important to clarify that the
events of 9/11 and their aftermath took place under the label “the
West and Islam.” That was the public discourse, at times, or the
insinuation of the American administration, and maybe Europe, in
relation to placing the events in their “proper” context. We do
not intend to reduce the matter to just a relationship with a
religious or cultural nature, either a
“clash” or
“dialogue,” but to understand the real reasons behind it and
beyond it, and the reasons behind the persistence in explaining the
relation between cultural, civilizational entities just on religious
grounds.
The
Classical Orientalist Vision
It
is safe to say that this vision is based on the concept of an
unfolding historical struggle between the Western world and the
world of Islam. According to Fred Hallyday, the famous international
relations and Middle East specialist, it is a deep-rooted struggle
for over a thousand years, starting with the conquest of Spain in
the 7th century, passing by the Crusades, the Ottoman-European
conflict, and racial and ethnic conflicts during the cold war era in
the European continent. Furthermore, Edward Said, the eminent
scholar, added that the term Islam, as it is, is used today
in the West as if it describes one simple sealed thing. This is an
illusion, an ideological generalization. It is confining and
limiting. His
thesis is that any direct reduction of Islam—with all its
inhabitants, vast expanses, and the tens of its societies,
countries, history, geography, and the many different cultures it
covers—into such reductionist sealed assertions falls short in
understanding reality.
This
reductionism that is brilliantly identified by Edward Said is the
essence of the classical Orientalist vision. Although it disappeared
for some time, it re-appeared during the high-time of Western
economic expansion. According to Anwar Abdel Malik, the well-known
Arab intellectual, the birth of classical-style Orientalism
coincided with the beginning of Western conquests. In relation to
political dimension or “study areas,” the Orientalist approach
is based on two elements:
-
The
“absolute distinction” between East and West
-
The
intrinsic nature of the clash between East and West
The
first rule is best expressed in the poetry of Rudyard Kipling “The
Ballad of the East and the West”:
“Oh,
East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.”
It
is a prospect that is unattainable by other nations and
cultures—as all nations and cultures are without a future
unless they forsake their identity and yield to total
Westernization. |
|
In
relation to the first principle, that of absolute distinction, the
advocates of classical-style Orientalism propose the West as a unit
with fixed properties and assured the prospect of its advancement.
It is a prospect that is unattainable by other nations and
cultures—as all nations and cultures are without a future unless
they forsake their identity and yield to total Westernization.
Classical Orientalists also claim that the superiority of the west
is implicit from the beginning, which makes their ideology and
agenda a racist character.
The
second rule, the intrinsic nature of the clash between the East and
West, is based on an epistemological frame giving the West the role
of researcher and the East the subject of the latter’s research.
The result of this “research” is to register and record the
reasons for the intrinsic clash in the Other, the East. This record,
according to Azziz Al-`Azmah, does not revolve around finding middle
ground; it is an absolutist and negativist account on the
differences and deficiencies of the Other.
These
two rules are heading toward the universal categorization and human
grouping, as the par excellence classical Orientalist Bernard Lewis
has clearly explained in Cultures in Conflict,
in addition to
Huntington’s infamous study of the clash of civilizations, on
which the West has based its idea of the Other: “The West and the
Rest.”
The
role played by Huntington and a selection of American scholars is to
revive the classical Orientalist school by using the vocabulary that
suits American interests, especially in the post–cold war world.
This style of thinking was reflected in an important symposium Culture
Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress, which was later
co-edited by Huntington and published in 2000 by the Center for Area
Studies in Harvard. The basic thesis is that the cultural element
alone is responsible for the economic and political development.
Also, the cultural make-up is the crucial factor in (re-)affirming
the distinction between “us” and “them.” Again, only in a
“politically correct” manner, the backwardness of the Other was
seen as irrecoverable and the Other was doomed to this fate by
geographical and climatic factors. It is sheer borrowing from old
concepts and giving them new shape and function. In the volume
published on that symposium, written by Lawrence E. Harrison and
Samuel Huntington, there is no visible difference between the old
hypothesis and what this vision has proposed.
The
coalition between the American right wing and the religious right
after 9/11 and the American president’s portrayal of the war
against terror as a “war of civilizations” is a case in point.
The
Neo-Orientalist Vision
This
vision sees that a “culture” is a tool to express
conflict, not a motive for one. |
|
The
neo-Orientalist vision calls for a dialogue between the cultures,
civilizations, and religions, stating that the civilization struggle
is not a conflict around Jesus, Confucius, or Muhammad, per se, as
much as it is a struggle stemming from the “unjust distribution”
of power, wealth,
influence, and the contempt toward the underdeveloped by the
developed that has lasted throughout history. This vision sees
that a
“culture” is a tool to express conflict, not a motive for one.
Despite the effort of this vision to differentiate itself from the
Orientalist, old and contemporary alike, the obsession with the
existence of an enemy and the importance to define its identity
(especially vis-à-vis the Other) remain common factors between this
vision and its classical counterpart. The positive element in this
vision is the difference we notice when comparing it to the
classical vision. It does not name “in advance” its enemies, but
sets principles and measuring standards, and anyone who acts against
these principles will be definitely considered as an enemy. These
principles are
-
Capitalism
and the free market
-
Human
rights and the secular liberal democracy
-
Nation-state
as a frame to international relation
-
This
vision sees
that a “culture”
is a tool to express conflict, not a motive for one.
The
advocates of this vision do not hesitate to criticize the Western
system and accept the criticism of the Others, from the Third and
Eastern Worlds, which has created a space for dialogue between the
West and the rest. They also do not object to borrowing some of the
vocabulary and concepts from the school of “neo-dependence,” or
some of the terminology coined by the (principally Western)
international community, pertaining to socio-economic circumstances
such as North-South, East-West, First and Third Worlds. This
movement is also interested in the works of international
organizations working in the fields of development, women,
environment, poverty-eradication, and the like.
The
advocates of the neo-Orientalist vision have devoted a considerable
amount of time trying to understand the social reality of the Third
World, particularly the Muslim countries, inquiring about the
reasons that led to the instability in some of these countries and
the effect of that on the world order. The neo-Orientalist vision
accepts the fact that the Muslim world lives with sanctions imposed
on it by the West in many crucial areas, such as political,
military, cultural, social, and economic realms. This understanding
extends to re-reading the history of the origin of the clash between
the East and the West, in addition to re-reading the question of the
validity of modernization, along with its social and economic
dimensions
The
proponents of the neo-Orientalists vision believe, still, in the
difference of the Other from the West and the Western model; even if
it needs some changes and revisiting, it is still the successful
model to be followed. This vision has required the West to shoulder
the following tasks:
-
To
revise the Western ethics and concepts in order to keep track
with the changing reality of the world
-
To
leave the Third World pursue its way toward modernization,
choosing the process that suits it best, and to react favorably
toward those who achieve economic progress through applying the
Western model
-
To
extend help to those who cannot apply the Western pattern alone
in order to avoid a clash between the East and the West.
The
Civil Popular Grass-Root Vision
Within
the Western system we find those who have rejected the colonial
heritage and who have overcome the idea of dividing the world
among civilizations or blocs; that is, by rising above the common
dominator(s) that bring together one civilization or bloc against
the others. We find that the people who fought most strenuously
against modernization were people from the Western labor unions,
environmentalists, and activists in the Western civil society,
those who are trying to establish an independent stand from that
of the Western government, especially that of the United States of
America.
It
is a well known fact that the American administration runs the
country’s foreign policy on behalf of the American people. This
absolutist system has increased with the election of a hard-line
rightist president, George W. Bush, and, naturally, this
government has become even more rigid after 9/11. The advocates of
the popular grass-root vision try to rebel against the visions and
the politics that lead to the “clash” between civilizations in
regard to Western dominance, and have fought internally against
oppressive social and economic policies within the framework of
the Western system. They have expressed their solidarity with the
world’s poorer people regardless of their affiliation. They have
insisted on the importance of tolerating diversity as one of the
major elements bringing humanity together, in contrast to a
discriminatory, triumphalist vision that causes a real threat to
pluralism—that
which makes one ethnic group different than another ethnic group,
or one ideology different than another, or one religion different
than another religion. The advocates of this vision were able
through modern communication systems to mobilize allies around the
globe in order to face the governing extremist vision that
subscribes to the “clash” between civilizations.
We
can say that this vision opposes all the previous ones in its
intellectual content, on one hand, and in its activist dimension,
on the other. It is a popular movement that refuses the idea of
the hegemony of the West and refuses the struggle of civilizations
based on West versus East, or the West versus Islam. According to
this theory, the struggle should be against globalization,
regardless whether it originated in the West. It is imperative to
mobilize the disadvantaged peoples, whether from the West or the
East, the rich North or the poor South, within the Western
civilization or the Islamic one.
This
movement could be seen as a “bottom-up
globalization,”… aiming at exposing and fighting the
negative effects of the economic dimension of globalization. |
|
This
movement could be seen as a “bottom-up globalization,” if one
may say so, aiming at exposing and fighting the negative effects
of the economic dimension of globalization. The movement focuses
on the eradication of poverty, marginalization, pollution,
violation of human rights—due to the policies of international
financial institutions, whether from the North or the South.
Calling for the establishment of an alternative world economic
system based on justice, not on the free market and grim
capitalism.
Under
these principles, many actors and non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) were formed representing all trends, schools of thoughts,
and interests. These NGOs vary between the charitable, religious,
progressive, radical, youth, women, labor and agricultural unions,
and social groups. All the above organizations are trying to
establish a developmental track substituting that of Western-style
modernization. Instead, these NGOs and actors are struggling for
the founding of economic, social, and political structures based
on cooperation, democracy, political participation, social
justice, cultural diversification, and protection of the
environment.
The
civil popular grass-root movement has greatly benefited from the
Internet in fast communication, exchange of information,
corroboration, and mobilization. It has made use of the
non-centralized democratic mechanisms (as it has broken the sense
of centrality and superiority of Western civilization), which suit
the diverse preferences and interests of its adherents. This has
allowed a great deal of independence for the members of this
movement, giving them more space to make use of their individual
experience, knowledge and social in trying to achieve the ultimate
goals of this vision.
Thus,
this vision has far surpassed the previous two visions, and what
happened in Seattle and Durbin. The “What
We’re Fighting For”
declaration, signed by 60 liberal intellectuals and progressives
thinkers, and the many other open letters and declarations of 9/11
are but manifestations and expressions of this vision. In regard
to that, an iconic Arab intellectual, sees such an action as a
clear expression of alternative visions other than the Orientalist
and neo-Orientalist schools. This vision encourages the alliance
between similar interest groups from different civilizations, and
this applies to the current dialogue between civil societies
coming from different cultures—what we can call the dialogue
between civilizations. The first two movements, the classical
Orientalist and neo-Orientalist, were the expression of interest
of the people in power, unlike the last, the grass-roots vision,
which is a civil, popular, and fundamental vision focusing on
justice.
Toward
a Civilizational Dialogue Between the Civil Forces
We
have tried to analyze the three main Western visions regarding the
dialogue between civilizations and to refute the “clash or
dialogue” dichotomy.
The
true dialogue is the one that links peoples with common
interests, and disproves the idea of civilizational blocs
with unique and common cultural elements. |
|
The
call for dialogue between civilizations under a “clashing”
reality has become quite marginalized. The true dialogue is the
one that links peoples with common interests, and disproves the
idea of civilizational blocs with unique and common cultural
elements. The main goal for the advocates of dialogue (against the
call for clash) is to break down the absolutist ideologies on
cross-civilizational grounds. Civilizations are not mere absolute
cultural blocs. Democracy and human rights in the West were the
result of long struggles, and the people paid their price dearly,
in wars and suffering; therefore, democracy can never be imposed
and passed on to others from above mechanically, with through
“transplantation”; nor through a dialogue that subsists a will
to dominate, rather than as a tool of free cultural interaction,
as it should be.
Democracy
and human rights cannot be imposed using the classical Orientalist
discourse whether old or new, modified or otherwise. Historically,
the European expansion since the 16th century has proven the
failure and the existence of a grave dark side to such visions, as
seen by thinkers like Imanuel Wallerstein many and others. The
success of the Western model in the American experience of the
cold war reinforced the idea of “ forcefully or otherwise, we
would not the Other apply our model?” Even worse, the American
administration has perpetuated a new motto in dealing with the
Other: “The world is either with us or against us”—a
paradox between an “imposed democracy” and the still-believed
application of human rights and the rights of the individual as a
product of human historical experience.
In
this context, the civil popular grass-root vision comes to the
forefront, where each political experience should be lived to its
fullest in the light of its own reality. Also, we can see that
this vision allows space for other centralities other than the
Western one. It is our duty in this historical milestone—especially
under the American hegemonic foreign policy and its dominant
attitude toward the rest of the world—to extend the bridges of
dialogue between all the civil, popular, and grass-root forces in
the West that adopt a vision that corresponds with our true
pluralist interests. The proper vision to see the cross-civilizational
reality is based on seeing how to bring the different peoples
together and create a better world that serves them all equally,
not a mere distortion and re-arrangement of the reality to fit an
ideological agenda by imposing certain ideas, altering reality
through magnifying certain judgments and marginalizing others. We
should not fall for the over-simplistic jargon of “clash of
civilizations” or “crusades” and the like; instead, we
should feel the pulse of the immediate needs of the peoples around
the world. The struggle or the dialogue should be about the
people, their issues, and their interests.
Sameer
Morcos is an Egyptian researcher, thinker, and a member of
the advisory committee of the “ Program on the Dialogue Between
Civilizations” in the School of Economics and Political Science,
Cairo University.
|
