۞ ۞ 1۞ ۞
۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞
۞ ۞ 2۞ ۞
۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞
۞ ۞ 3۞ ۞
۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞
۞ ۞ 4۞ ۞
۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞
ideologies, philosophies, and ethics. It is on this abstract side that Huntington focused
to define “civilization”. As he aptly put it: “civilization” is a cultural entity”
(
Huntington, 1993). By this, Huntington means that:
Till now, Huntington concentrates on “cultural entity” as the unit or trend that
differentiates, from the local level to the continental one, between diverse cultural and
geographical frames. “It sounds, then, that Huntington does not make any clear
distinction between the concept ‘culture’ and the concept ‘civilization’, and he often
use them as synonymous. Therefore he is against the German intellectual and
philosophical tradition, which heavily separates between both concepts. Broadly
speaking,
On the light of this quotation, Two standards are to be taken into account in
Huntington’s definition of civilization: First, common objective element like language,
history, religion, customs, institutions .Second, subjective self-identification, which is
that sense of belonging by which people define their identities with varying degrees as
Roman, a Catholic, a Christian, an Arab, a Muslim, a European, a Westerner…In other
words, “the civilization to which he belongs is the broadest level of identification with
which he identifies”(Huntington,1993).
۞ ۞ 5۞ ۞
۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞
a-Civilization distinctiveness
According to Huntington’s hypothesis, differences among civilizations are basic. They
are one of the fundamental reasons that separate between civilizations and generate the
most prolonged conflicts. In this respect, Huntington states:
“Differences among civilization are not only real, they are basic;
civilizations are differentiated form each other by history, language,
culture, tradition and, most important religion.” (1993)
History, language, culture, tradition, and religion are among those basic objective
elements, which shape people’s identities and conceptions. They are basic because
they are rooted in themselves giving them a sense of what they are, and defining their
way of action, reaction, and interaction. Religion, for instance is one of the major and
most causes leading the groups of people from distinct civilizational backgrounds to
conflict with each other. This fact finds a supporting argument in the Noble Koran
showing up the Jews and Christians’ insistence to make Muslims leave their religion
and convert into theirs. The Almighty Allah says warning his messenger, Muhammad
(PBUH):
۞ ۞ 6۞ ۞
۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞
The idea is that people, in the name of their faith, culture, and other civlizational
identifiers, tend, peacefully or aggressively, to globalize their own civilizational
model. Therefore,
Culture is thus what we die for, and it is the major factor that intensifies people’s
consciousness and brings about the most prolonged conflicts.
۞ ۞ 7۞ ۞
۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞
The civilizational and religious belonging is rather filling that gap paving the way for
“the revival of religion” and “the unsecularization of the world” we live in.
d- Demographic disequilibrium
Huntington believes that the civilizational conflict in its aggressive and intense form
will be a result of the demographic vitality in the south, namely that of the Islamic
world. In contrast, the demographic growth of the west is in decrease. This
demographic gap is seen to be one of the basic sources of rivals in the world. Really all
these rivals are not done by the Muslims who may turn into targeted victims, as the
Jews were before; it remains difficult to not believe that there is something in the
Islamic world, which causes this violence; and this thing is the enormous demographic
growth of the Islamic peoples in the recent years. The population growth has witnessed
an attractive increase especially in Balkan, North Africa, and the middle Asia
(Huntington, 1996).
۞ ۞ 8۞ ۞
۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞
“In the former Soviet Union, communists can become democrats, the
rich can become poor, but Russians cannot become Estonians and
Azeris cannot become Americans. In class and ideological conflicts,
the key question was “which side are you on?” and people could and
did choose sides and change sides.” (1993)
In case the conflict is in between civilizations, However, the question is “what are
you” That is a given that cannot be changed. In this vein, Huntington gives one plainer
example arguing that,
“A person can be half-French and half-Arab and simultaneously even
a citizen of two countries. It is more difficult to be half-Catholic and
half-Muslim.” (1993)
Cultural differences are therefore hard to compromise, and no identity determiners are
more powerful and prolonged than cultures, religions, and civilizations.
۞ ۞ 9۞ ۞
۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞
Thus, the clash of civilizations, Huntington argues, occurs at the fault distinctive lines
between different economic, political and religious regional entities. These conflicts
are often aggressive, and they take place at both micro and macro level.
۞ ۞ 10۞ ۞
۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞
In the speech he delivered in the 18th General IPRA Conference Challenges for peace
in the 21st century, Tampere, Finland, 2002, the professor Mahdi Emandjara shed light
on the question of the international dialogue and its implications. Dialogue, which is
۞ ۞ 11۞ ۞
۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞
“the capacity to listen to the other” (Elmandjara, 2002) has always been one of the
major concerns of Elmandjara. In this chapter, the light will be focused on his
perspective about the requirements of “the true dialogue” as well as its reality and
future prospects.
Dialogue is, thus, a vehicle for the maintenance of peace and tolerance. It is further a
basic ingredient for peace and survival because it is an essential condition for the
preservation of diversity. In contrast, “The absence of communication and cultural
tolerance is what threatens peace in the next coming years” (Elmandjara, 2007). For
Elmandjara, dialogue, and not clash of civilizations, is “an ideal without which we can
not ensure the conditions for a viable survival” (2001, p.51).
b- Cultural humility
The other condition on which Elmandjara put stress on is cultural humility. It is one of
the basic requirements of cultural communication. As he broadly suggested it:
On the light of this citation, dialogue is synonymous with peace. It is the password to
get into the world of mutual understanding. Yet when one part claims to be superior to
۞ ۞ 12۞ ۞
۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞
the other exerting his cultural arrogance over him, then no peaceful dialogue would
take place. Dialogue, if it is to give its fruits, should prevail on an equally common
ground. The later, which is the international scene in this case, must welcome all the
participants no matter what their civilizational roots are. Wars have recently begun to
reflect a sort of cultural arrogance, and, therefore, we should insist on the
establishment of cultural humility. The rejection of any civilizational superiority,
Elmandjara assures, is the right key for peaceful co-existence (1996, p.97).
c- Freedom
According to Elmandjara, “freedom is the basic data which a living organism uses to
defend itself” (2001, p.18). Freedom as a concept must get rid of any conceptual
sophism which tends to keep it as an ink in the papers or in the programmes of
governments and parties. Freedom rather exists in mind. “It is lived as a personal and
collective initiative within a free atmosphere either in houses, universities, or other
elbows where people meet” (Elmandjara, 2001, p.17).
d- Dignity
The establishment of dialogue among nations also necessitates the sense of dignity.
The later is tightly connected to the previous element, which is freedom. As for
Elmandjara, dignity exists when people are given the right to practise their freedom,
express their views and also live within just and respectful conditions. When these
conditions are absent, humanity is exposed to a serious ethical crisis. As Elmandjara
aptly put it:
“We are living a real ethical crisis, which magnifies the bad effects of
all kinds of humiliation, and it is the result of poverty, illiteracy,
disease, the absence of fully social justice, and the deviation of
human rights”(2005, p.10)
Dignity, therefore, is a human component and a preliminary condition for dialogue and
cultural communication. Thus, the “war on values” in terms of cultural assimilation,
deprivation and violation of human rights constitutes what Elmandjara describes as
most dangerous because it involves a war against the values system and properties.
e- Preservation of diversity
۞ ۞ 13۞ ۞
۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞
f-3 Freedom
۞ ۞ 14۞ ۞
۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞
“The most tangible dialogue going on in the world today is the one
among the « haves » between themselves bilaterally and regionally. As
a consequence, the feeble tradition and practice of the universal
dialogue which evolved very slowly within the praxis of the United
Nations is shriveling” (2001, p. 41)
This quotation shows us how the scope of dialogue is limited to one part over the
other. Hence communication lacks one of the basic requirements in whatever dialogue:
participation or involvement. Elmandjara continues saying:
۞ ۞ 15۞ ۞
۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞
“We find an even more marked pattern of unbalanced and non-
universal decision making at the economic and financial level. An
ensemble made up of the World Bank, the International Monitory Fund
and the “G8” (the eight most industrial countries) monopolizes the
major part of the assessments, the pronouncements and the
international actions in these key areas while 80% of mankind watches
passively on the sidelines” (2001, p. 41)
All of this leaves very little room for a serious dialogue between the “haves” and the
“have-nots”.
These features surely reveal that the economic injustice in terms of disparities of
proportions contribute, in a way or another, to the absence of dialogue and cultural
communication among nations of different economic powers. The promises of
globalization have gone with the wind, and the gap between the poor and the rich is
getting more and wider.
۞ ۞ 16۞ ۞
۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞
“The serve changes in power relations witnessed during the last decade
have emaciated this basic of the institution, its aura and its
potentialities. We can either recognize this unfortunate development,
draw the conclusions it calls for and think about remedies, or we can
either go on closing our eyes and<waiting wishfully for a wind of
change and reform.” (2001, p.46)
As long as the present huge unbalance of power, resulting from the new unipolarity
persists, the UN system, with the exception of a small number of specialized
agencies and programs, can not be expected to serve as a reliable and credible
framework for a “dialogue of civilizations” nor as an efficient instrument for the
maintenance and the building of peace.
۞ ۞ 17۞ ۞
۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞
۞ ۞ 18۞ ۞
۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞
While Huntington put emphasis on clash and founded its theoretical ground,
Elmandjara, though he agrees with the reality and nature of the clash paradigm,
provided a preventive approach to the international relations, laying down the
basic ground for the establishment of a civilizational dialogue. This chapter,
therefore, comes to further highlight the major shortcomings and key conditions
for the sustenance of dialogue among cultures and civilizations of different
peoples and nations.
a- Pure will
The will which bring about actions and motivates a nation to take an initiative
toward a civilizational goal is the cornerstone to maintain understanding. Having borne
in mind that dialogue among nations should be directed toward a humanistic goal that
is co-existence and not further suppression or denial, all humanistic and peace activists
must believe in the ability of Man to manage conflict and bring about peace. In other
words, all of us must get rid of the assumption that considers conflict a historical fact
and the secret behind survival. In fact, such a pessimistic hypothesis does nothing but
brings death and found the theoretical basis of conflict. During the cold war, the motto
which was raised is the Roman slogan “si vis pacem para bellum” (In English “if you
want peace, prepare for war”). Yet, as peace became a basic necessity, that motto
should be altered to become: “si vis pacem, para pacem” (In English: “If you want
peace, prepare for peace”).
Even the secret behind the creation of Man with social, cultural, national, tribal,
and sexual distinctions is directed toward a humanistic goal. Allah the Almighty says:
۞ ۞ 19۞ ۞
۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞
“O people, we created you from the same male and female, and
rendered you distinct people and tribes, that you may recognize one
another. The best among you in the sight of God is the most righteous.
God is Omniscient, Cognizant” (The Noble Qur’an, Surat 49. Al-
Hujurat/ Part 26, p.676)
This verse simply reveals that cultural differences in terms of social diversity and
sexual distinctions have no priority over connaisance. Goodness is the only standard of
betterness, and the equal dialogue is the universal human right which all humans have
the right to practice and enjoy. As the Prophet of Allah, peace be upon him, said:
“O Mankind, your Lord is one and your father is one. You all descend
from Adam, and Adam was created from earth. He is most honoured
among you in the sight of God who is most upright. No Arab is
superior than non-Arab, no coloured person to a white person to a
coloured except by taqwas” (Reported by Ahmed and Al-tirmidh)
This Hadith in turn emphasises human equality and reveals that colour is no longer a
standard of preference among nations. Thart is, ‘Whiteness’ and ‘Blackness’,
‘Civilization’ and ‘Primitiveness’ all are a part of those colonial racist ages which
witnessed the might of the night over the light of the right”.
However, co-existence for which all humanistic labours should be devoted still
calls for an honest will. Edward said noted that:
To coexist and understand one another, nations in terms of people and individuals need
to accept each other showing their purest willingness to co-exist. In brief, the gate of
dialogue should be kept open as there is a will.
b- Common references
Concepts, that are those ideological vehicles by which the American pole
imposes its ‘civilizational model’ over the world, are the very mechanisms that may
activate conflicts among cultures. It is then necessary to know that dialogue in its
international level requires a highly universal frame of concepts which all cultural
components agreed upon. The need of a common reference among nations has reached
۞ ۞ 20۞ ۞
۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞
its highest peak as the geographical borders begin to completely vanish due to a series
of telecommunicational evolutions that turned the world into a very small village. The
UN charter is apparently an embodiment of such a dialogue; but, Mahdi argues, “The
serve changes in power relations witnessed during the last decade have emaciated this
basic role of institution, its aura and its potentialities.” (2000).
As far as concepts are concerned, a kind of world Dictionary is needed to be the
guide to whom everyone from whatever culture can refer to. In this respect, such a
common repertoire calls for a universal language which can, at least, help nations
achieve mutual understanding. The later, which all humanists long for, may find its
way to existence if, for instance, translators and linguists from every region and branch
try their best to promote translation studies. The later may become bridges through
which to switch from a language/or culture to another without deforming the meaning
conveyed or bringing about misunderstanding.
The American colonial discourse, or even the post-colonial one, is all loaded
with concepts like “ democracy”, “ modernity”, “ freedom”, “ peace”, “co-existence”,
“globalization”, “culture”, “civilization”, “enlightenment” and so forth. This awful
turmoil of concepts is, however, of nonsense as there is no international consensus on
them. The worst of all is that there is a recognizable tendency to Americanize most of
human universal values that every society considers as ideals. This tendency must be
restrained since those values are not unique to a particular region, race or nation.
Instead of going frequently through such a process, all of us, as humanists, must put
stress on the universality of those concepts/values. As Mohamed Saadi aptly put it:
“There is a set of basic human values that are common among all
cultural and religious spaces in the world, and we must invest them and
focus on them to establish the unity of humanity and the unity of
‘human essence’” (2006)
c- International democracy
The international labours to achieve peace among nations in fight have ended
into failure due to the dominance of a voice, which is the American decision, over the
other international voices. This injustice in power relations reelects the absence of
۞ ۞ 21۞ ۞
۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞
democracy in its international scale. One will not fail to recognize such a kind of
dictatorship even in discourse. In his reaction to the events of September 11 th, 2001,
the present American president George w. bush stated:
« Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: either you are with
us or you are with the terrorists». (2001)
This short statement is enough to come up with the arrogant ethnocentrism which
stamps the American political foreign policy and narrow the horizons of the
international dialogue.
Culture of ‘the white Man’ still controls the modern American politicians and
drives them, consciously or unconsciously, to look down the outsiders or rather ‘the
foreign devil’. The aspects of such an ethnocentric perspective are embodied in terms
of ‘naming/calling/labeling’ and ‘mapping’. The American DST listing names of
people and parties as terrorists or anti-Americans, its foreign political applications
categorizing countries or nations under terms like ‘the Great Middle East’, ‘ the axis
of the East’ and so on, all these features and nicknames are, ideologically speaking, a
part of what Edward Said calls ‘ imperial perspectives’ ;That is,
Such imperial perspectives that distinguish« the sole superpower in the world»
would hinder any freely dialogue among nations and probably drive the international
relations into a series of bloody battles. So in order that civilizational dialogue finds its
gate to existstence, democracy in terms of justice, equality, responsibility, and freedom
of expression must take place on the international scene.
۞ ۞ 22۞ ۞
۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞
comfort is to be felt while they are given the right to express their beliefs and
spirituality within a free and respectful atmosphere.
۞ ۞ 23۞ ۞
۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞
۞ ۞ 24۞ ۞
۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞
simply because they lack universality, and they are driven by personal, regional, or
national interests. Yet religion in its absolute truth aims at reforming Man’s total affairs
making up a humanistic Doctrine which justly serves, in any space and time, the
interests of all nations without exception.
In regard to the previous considerations, “Islamic education”, which the Prophet
Muhammad (PBUH) adopted and adapted his companions to it, constitutes an ideal
example. The question of peace, which is the prevailing issue in foreign affairs today,
has its roots in the Islamic belief. The Prophet (PBUH), for instance, says:
“None of you truly believes until he loves for his brother what he loves
for himself” (Narrated by Albukhari & Muslim)
This Hadith (saying), regardless of its shortness, highlights one of the basic conditions
of a true belief: love. A belief founded on mutual love and brotherhood would protect
the national and international relationship from decay and replace hate with love and
selfishness with cooperation and self-negation. But how love can be maintained? This
question, again, has an answer in the Prophet’s saying:
“Would you like to guide you to something which if you did you would
love each other? Spread out peace among you” (Narrated by Muslim)
The pair (love; peace) can be universalised and, then, pave the way to the maintenance
of a peaceful and durable Dialogue among Nations only if “religious education” is
given back its noble standing. This goes without question.
۞ ۞ 25۞ ۞
۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞
– There will be no universal peace among religions unless there is
dialogue among religions.” (H.Kung, 1991)
This triad puts stress on religious dialogue. Such emphasis, however, needs more and
more explanation: the word “religion” here is to a far extent synonymous with
“ethics”, and the later in turn, implies those human values, which constitute the very
part of human nature.
Throughout my personally suggested x-model, I tried to highlight three
fundamental attributes without which dialogue, national or international becomes a
mirage. The model in question is summed up as follow:
Honesty Love
Humility Toleranc
f.1- Honesty
As stated before, “truth is what we look for”. It is that ethic of honesty, which
makes our relationships clear and perpetual. Thus, truth, and not interest, should
operate as the common driver and director of the relationships amidst nations.
The first real action to realise a real reconciliation among everybody is to seek
for truth. In contrast, lying and hypocrisy, which dominate the world politics
today, constitute a danger, not only for the future of the international relations,
but also for the future of humanity itself. In brief, seeking for truth and honesty
may push us believe in the diversity of perspectives, the complexity of the
world, and in the importance of the renewing our visions to invent a rich and
effective dialogue between cultures and peoples all together.
f.2-Humility
Humanity, which is “the quality of being humble”(Oxford, 2003), is one
of those fundamental conditions of dialogue among nations. Yet when one
۞ ۞ 26۞ ۞
۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞
Humility, thus, calls for the promotion of “ear culture” instead of “power” on
which some of them insist to use as the only language of understanding and
solving problems. Such evil inclination and the will-to-power contradict with
the belief-in dialogue principle. Nonetheless,
“Believing in dialogue paves the way for vivacious hope: the hope to
live in a world permeated by the rein of economic indices and
destructive weapons” (Med Khatami, 2000)
f.3- Love:
It is that innocent emotion, which inspires peoples and nations to
communicate without wires or even without having a common cultural
background. Love is what makes us weep and sympathise with anyone
suffering in whatever part of the world. It is the paradigm of peace and safety
among all nations without exception.
“From an ethical perspective, the paradigm of dialogue among
civilizations requires that we abandon the will-to-power and instead
pursue compassion, understanding, and love. The ultimate goal of
dialogue is not dialogue in and of itself, but attaining empathy and
compassion” (Med Khatami, 2000)
۞ ۞ 27۞ ۞
۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞
f.4- Tolerance:
If people tolerated each other, peace would surely prevail. It would even
reinforce love and create a vast area of dialogue and mutual understanding. But
if everybody went astray bearing in heart a blind hate to revenge against the
other for buried mythical, cultural, or historical circumstances, then nobody
would enjoy the happiness of life. It is crucial here to bring back that moment
when the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) conquered his homeland, Mecca, after
being driven away with his companions from it. At that moment, the Prophet
was extremely powerful; his army esteemed about ten thousands soldier armed
with faith and God’s word. He was then able to sentence his enemies to death
and destroy them one by one; but, he did not. He rather ordered his soldiers to
surround them with mercy and not to cause terror against someone by anyway.
“Go! You are free” the prophet ordered his enemies, the unbelievers of Quraish.
It is at this point that human feeling intersect paving the way for an
honest, humble, and lovely interaction among peoples and nations together.
This intersection is what my personally suggested x-model sought to symbolise.
So let us hope with Muhammad Khatami, who called for dialogue among
civilizations suggesting:
“Let us hope that enmity and oppression should end, and that the
clamour of love for truth, justice and human dignity should
prevail.
Let us hope that all human beings should sing with Hafiz Shiraz,
this divinely inspired spirit, that: No ineffable clamour
reverberates in the grand heavenly done more sweetly than the
sound of love” (2000)
۞ ۞ 28۞ ۞
۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞
۞ ۞ 29۞ ۞
۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞
- Elmandjara, Mahdi. “Dialogue, not Clash of Civilizations”, the 18th general IPRA
Conference challenges for peace in the 21st century, Tampere, Finland,
2000.
- Elmandjara, Mahdi. Intifadat fi Zaman A-Thuluqratia, Alboukili for edition and
districution, Alqonitra, 2001.
- Elmandjara, Mahdi. The Dialogue of Communication, CHIRAA series, Issue N°1,
1996.
- Elmandjara, Mahdi. The First Civilizational War, the Arab Cultural Centre, the 8th
Ed., 2005.
- Elmandjara, Mahdi. The Value of Values, Ennajah Aljadida, Casablanca, the 2nd Ed.,
2007.
- Huntington, Samuel. “The Cash of Civilizations”, foreign affairs, 1993.
- Huntington, Samuel. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order,
Simon and Schuster, 1996.
- Khatami, Mohamed. “Empathy and Compassion”, 5 September, the U.N.-sponsored
conference of Dialogue among Civilizations in New York, 2000.
- Kung, Hans. Projet d’éthique planaire, la paix mondiale par la paix entre les
religions, seuil, Paris, 1991.
- Moaniss, Hussein. Civilization: a Study in the Origins and Factors of its Foundation
and Development, the World of Knowledge magazine, Issue N°237, 1998.
- Saadi, Mohamed. About Dialogue among Civilizations: selected interviews and
articles of Samuel Huntington, Afrique Orient, 2006.
- Said, Edward. “Preface to Orientalism”, Ahram, 7-13 August, issue N° 650, 2003.
- Said, Edward. “Culture & Imperialism”, the Nation, 24 -30 July Issue No. 648, 2003.
- The Noble Koran.
۞ ۞ 30۞ ۞