clash or dialogue

۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞

First of all I would like to express may thanks and

indebtedness to my professor Mr. Mouzane Aziz for his

acceptance to the topic of my paper, for his precious

instructions, and for his efforts to correct my paper and

check out even its smallest errors and mistakes.

I also thank my classmate Messaoudi Mohamed for

his help; I was looking hopelessly for one of the basic

references for my paper (this was “The Clash of

Civilizations & the Remaking of World Order” by S.

Huntington), and at the end, he handed it to me to make

a copy with pleasure. Thanks for him again.

Also I am highly indebted to my brothers and sisters

within the English’s Committee for Dialogue and

Communication (E.C.D.C.). Their being beside me has,

directly or indirectly, encouraged me to carry on with

my research.

My special thanks are given to my sister, Monssif

Aziza, a training teacher in CPR, Casablanca. Her

frequent calls and care about my project has motivated

me to continue with much more hope and patience.

Finally I should not forget to pass my thanks and

respect to Manuela Glander, a Christian student from

England. My conversations with her, through “skype”,

۞1۞۞ ۞


have provided me with a great data and experience as

far as the topic of my research paper is concerned.

My interest in global issues, culture, religion, and dialogue has prompted

me to choose such a topic to shed light on the conditions of civilizational

dialogue by highlighting two controversial paradigms about the international

relations: the first one is “the clash paradigm”, and the second one is dialogue as

an alternative to conflict.

The clash paradigm is the claim that the cultural differences among nations

and civilizations will be the source of the most prolonged conflicts among them.

And the dialogue paradigm is, in contrast, the belief in the possibility of bringing

together people of different cultural background, by calling for their common

human values and similarities.

This paper is hereby divided into three parts: the two ones deals with the

clash and dialogue paradigms, and the third one provides the major short comings

and conditions for the international dialogue; the first part deals with

Huntington’s clash paradigm. It seeks to cast light on his concept and the causes

of the clash of civilizations. The second part, however, is meant to approach

Elmandjara’s dialogue paradigm, its prerequisites and reality on the international

scene

I believe that this issue is of grave importance due to the sophisticated

troubles our present world is sinking in. Nations and even individuals are in need

of establishing as many as possible of bridges of dialogue and communication.

Therefore, I hope this humble paper will satisfy the reader’s curiosity to know

about the seriousness of the world we live in as well as the required and

fundamental conditions of dialogue among nations.

۞2۞۞ ۞


۞3۞۞ ۞


The clash of civilizations is a controversial hypothesis that people’s cultural

and religious identity will be the primary source of conflict in the post-Cold war.

This view has been pointed at by many thinkers since nineties, and it was more

popularized by Samuel P. Huntington in his 1996 book, “The Clash of

Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. Huntington argues that the

trends of global conflict after the end of the cold war are increasingly emerging at

the distinctive lines between civilizations. He also argues that the widespread

western belief in the universality of the west’s values and political systems is

naïve and that continued insistence on democratization and such “universal”

norms will only further antagonize other civilizations. He sees that the west is in

a step decline identifying a major shift of economic, military, and political power

from the west to the other civilizations of the world, most significantly to what he

identifies as two “challenger civilizations”, the Sinic and Islam. These two,

Huntington argues, are culturally asserting themselves and their values against

the west. The rise of China and the “the Islamic resurgence”, Huntington

believes, pose one of the most powerful long-term threat to the West.

These assumptions are however based on Huntington’s preconception about

“civilization”, its nature, and the various causes and features that he thinks they

activate the conflicts within and between civilizations.

1-The concept ‘civilization’ in Huntington’s perspective

If we cast an eye over ‘civilization’ in its historical development, we will

undeniably recognize how broad and complex this concept is. It has been interpreted

by many historians and thinkers many years ago, and all perspectives are diverse as the

nature of human history itself. “Civilization, in its general concept, is the fruit of any

effort Man does to improve his material and spiritual conditions” (.Hussein Moaniss,

1998). The nature of civilization is thus similar to that of human being; they both

۞4۞۞ ۞


consist of a physical part and a spiritual one. The physical side of a civilization is

embodied in terms of its agriculture, industry, trade, business, and technology; while

the spiritual side of a civilization is represented by its system of beliefs, values,

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:

“Villages, regions, ethnic groups, nationalities, religious groups, all have distinct cultures at different levels of cultural heterogeneities. The culture of a village in southern Italy, but may be different from that of a village in northern Italy, but both will share in a common Italian culture that distinguishes them from Arab or Chinese commonalities. Arabs, Chinese and westerners, however, are not part of any boarder cultural entity. They constitute civilizations” (1993)

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,

“A civilization is thus the highest cultural grouping of people and the broadest level of cultural identity people have, short of that which distinguishes humans from other species. It is defined both by common objective elements, such as language, history, religion, customs, institutions, and by the subjective self-identification of people” (Huntington,1993)

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۞۞ ۞


2-Clash in Huntington’s perspectiveOn the basis of the previous considerations, Huntington distinguishes between seven

or eight civilizations. “These include western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu,

Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American and possibly African civilization. Along the cultural

faults lines separating these civilizations from one another, the most important

conflicts of the future will occur due to a variety of cultural, civilizational, religious,

economic and political reasons.

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):

“Never will the Jews or the Christians be pleased with you (O Muhammad) till you follow their religion Say: “Verily, the Guidance of Allah (i.e. Islamic monotheism) that is the (only) Guidance. And if you (O Muhammad) were to follow their (Jews and Christians) desires after what you have received of knowledge (i.e. the Koran), then would have against Allah neither any Wali (Protector or

۞6۞۞ ۞


guidance) nor any helper” (The Noble Koran, 120, Surat 2 Al-baqarah / part1, P.34)

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,

“What ultimately counts for people is not political ideology or economic interest. Faith and family, blood and belief, are what people identify with and what they will fight and die for” (1993)

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.

b- The growth of civilization consciousness

Due to the enormous communicational changes humanity knew during the recent

decades of the twentieth century, the globe has become as a small village. The World

Wide Web (w.w.w.) has brought people together, created a world psychological

room, and made no need of travels any more. Being a part of this net, people’s

interactions with each other increase their civilization awareness bringing about

more and more invigorated disagreements and animosities. For instance,

“North of African immigrants to France generate hostility among French men and at the same time increased receptivity to immigration by “good” European Catholic Poles. Americans react for more negatively to Japanese investment than to large investment from Canada and European Countries” (Huntington; 1993)

The question of transnational immigration makes it hard for the immigrants to

integrate in societies within civilizations different from their own. They may face

racism, discrimination, restrictions of their freedom of self-expression, and deprivation

from their basic economic, political, and cultural rights. Muslim women, being

deprived by the French government of putting on their Hijab in schools and other

administrative institutions are a tangible example which manifests a sort of clash with

religious, political and civilizational dimensions. Such confrontations, which often

take the form of contests and demonstrations, “intensify civilization consciousness and

awareness of differences between civilizations and commonalities within civilizations”

(Huntington, 1993).

۞7۞۞ ۞


c- Economic modernization and social change

Since the decline of the Soviet Union in nineteens, the world has gone through a large

sophisticated process of economic modernization and social change. People have been

separated from their local identities, and they are no longer able to escape the crisis of

cultural schizophrenia; westernization as a secular movement has usually contributed

to the emergence of a controversial movement referred to as “fundamentalism”. The

later is no more than a manifestation of people’s identity consciousness and their

rejection of any sort of cultural or civilizational assimilation. Thereby civilizations are

living in a phase where the nation state is no longer enough to satisfy people’s sense of

identity. What makes it serious is that,

“In most countries and most religions the people active in fundamentalist movements are young, college-educated, middle class technicians, professionals and business persons. The“unsecularization of the world”, George Weigel has marked, “is one of the dominant social facts of life in the late twentieth century. “The revival of religion”, “la revanche de Dieu”, as Gilles Kepel labelled it, provides a basis for identity and commitment that transcends national boundaries and unites civilizations.” (Huntington, 1993)

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۞۞ ۞


e- Basic cultural differences

Cultural differences among peoples and nations are likely to be overcome in contrast

to the political and economic ones. In this context, Huntington argues that,

“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.

f- The increase of economic regionalism

On the one hand, Huntington argues that the importance of economic regionalism

is likely to continue, and consequently the civilization consciousness grows up. This

economic movement, which seems to create more integrated economic blocs, is

widespread mainly in North America, Europe, and Asia. On the other hand,

“Economic regionalism may succeed only when it is rooted in a common civilization. The European community rests on the shared foundation of European culture and western Christianity. The success of the North America Free Trade Area depends on the convergence now underway of Mexican, Canadian and American cultures.”(1993)

This also shows us how culture and religion reinforce the successful economic

regionalism. The more nations share in cultural commonalities, the more they have the

chance to form successful regional economic blocs. Thus, culture and religion also

form the basis of the Economic Cooperation Organization, which brings together ten

non-Arab Muslim countries: Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan,

Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Afghanistan.

۞9۞۞ ۞


The increase of such regional economic integrations has resulted in the

emergence of economically, politically, and culturally different competitive powers.

Most important,

“The efforts of the west to promote its values of democracy and liberalism as universal values, to maintain its military predominance and to advance its economic interests engender countering responses from other civilizations.” (Huntington, 1993)

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۞۞ ۞


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۞۞ ۞


“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.

1-Dialogue in Elmandjara’s perspective

a- Cultural communication

As for Elmandjara, communication among cultures is the best way to maintain

understanding and preserve cultural diversity. It is the backbone of dialogue and the

keyword by which to avoid more civlizational wars. As he clearly put it:

“Dialogue necessitates communication especially cultural communication- that is a mutual understanding and respect of the values of the other in addition to a capacity to listen because dialogue is an unending learning process. It is the best prevention against misunderstandings and ‘clash’” (2004)

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:

“‘Since wars have become the expression of cultural arrogance, cultural humility is now the new name of peace’. Cultural humility is important because it enhances the capacity to listen to the other. Our concern today is with dialogue as related to civilization hence to cultural values. They determine the form and the content of that dialogue and condition the search for peace” (2001, p.49-50)

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۞۞ ۞


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۞۞ ۞


Being an expert in prospective studies, Enlmandjara assures that the preservation

of cultural diversity is one of his major concerns. The cultural dominance of the north

over the south creates a huge gap between the two, and herby communication often

turns into a sort of crisis in the identity of the powerless whose financial capacity is not

enough to preserve and promote the prospects of his culture. Having described the

cultural difference between the North and the South, Elmandjara suggests three ways

for the promotion of prospective studies as far as the preservation of cultural diversity

is concerned:

e-1 Democratization of prospective studies

In order to develop and preserve cultural diversity, prospective studies should be

democratised. They should not be limited to the technocrats who don’t consider

the wills and prospects of the citizens (Elmandjara, 1996, p.40). Therefore, the

question of cultural diversity pertains to the democratization of prospective

studies at the national, regional and international level since there is a huge gap

between precedence and participation..

e- 2 Special pedagogic efforts

Also the preservation of cultural diversity requires that more special pedagogic

efforts are made. As Elmandjara aptly put it:

“The emphasis on cultural diversity in prospective studies requires special pedagogic efforts. It needs the adaptation of mind’s structures” (1996, p.41)

By this Elmandjara means that in order to preserve cultural diversity a nation in

terms of its politicians should have a clear vision about how to manage the

diversity of its cultures and avoid the marginalization of one on behalf of another.

This, Elmandjara argues, is of grave importance as far as the development of a

country is concerned.

f-3 Freedom

۞14۞۞ ۞


In addition to the previous conditions, Elmandjara assures that the preservation of

cultural diversity will flourish if there is no freedom, which opens new horizons

for cultural diversity to grow up. As he briefly put it:

“Without freedom there is no diversity” (1996, p.41)

Freedom, therefore, is a “human accumulation” without which diversity would

never exist. It is the key to the proliferation of various rich human perspectives.

2-The present reality of dialogue on the international scene

Many reasons have contributed to the decrease of the values of dialogue on the

international scene today. In his declaration about this issue, Elmandjara noted that

“there is very little universal dialogue presently on the international scene” (2001,

p.41). The main reason behind this has been the western economic, political, cultural,

and technological domination over the third world countries. This, of course, has

several aspects, and it involves a set of arrogant practices that enlarges the gap

between the North and the South, the rich and the poor, the western and the non-

western…

a- Exclusion and marginalization

One of the problems that deter dialogue among the North and South, Elmandjara

argues, is marginalization. A short look at the international scene is enough to come up

with the huge and unbalanced relationship between the industrial and non-industrial

countries. In this vein, Elamndjra says:

“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”.

b- Globalization and social injustice

Elmandjara defines globalization as “simply the Americanization of the globe”*. It is

the manifestation of the American and western domination over the third world

countries. Among the aspects that stamp the reality of dialogue on the international

scene are globalization and the social and economic injustice in the international

relations.

“Twenty percent of the richest people of the world consume 85% of the 48 least developed countries is inferior to the assets of the three richest persons in the world. The total amount required to provide basic education for everyone in the world is 6$ billion dollars- it represents 75% of what the Americans spend on cosmetics and 50% of what Europeans spend on ice cream. It is not appropriate to raise the issue on the insolvency of “the development” ritual and its policies and programs. Disparities of such proportions pave the way for numerous forms of clashes” (2001, p.46)

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.

c-The incredibility of the international system

The United Nations, which is apparently an embodiment of the international dialogue,

begun to loose its credibility among the international society. In this respect,

Elmandjara argues that,

۞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۞۞ ۞


۞18۞۞ ۞


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.

1- A primary recipe for dialogue among civilizations

Taking a step toward an effective international dialogue requires that all participants

share a set of primary conditional commonalities. These preliminaries include having a

pure will, common references, and democracy whose function is to establish justice

and equality among the “Us” and the “others” all together

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:

“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.

۞19۞۞ ۞

۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞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:

“There is after all a profound difference between the will to understand for purposes of co-existence and enlargement of horizons, and the will to dominate for the purposes of control” (2003)

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

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

۞20۞۞ ۞


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

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 11th, 2001,

the present American president George w. bush stated:

۞21۞۞ ۞

۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞« 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,

“ that way of looking at a distant foreign reality by subordinating its history from one’s point of view, seeing its people as subjects whose fate is to be decided not by them but by what distant administrators think is best for them” (2003)

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.

2- Rethinking the role of religion

Throughout the course of human history, religion constitutes a basic component

for all human societies. There were cities without markets, quarters, or shops; but,

there was never a city without a temple. Owing to this, any restriction or persecution

against religious beliefs and practices would be a rock on the way of people whose

comfort is to be felt while they are given the right to express their beliefs and

spirituality within a free and respectful atmosphere.

d- Scientific dogma and the negation of religion

۞22۞۞ ۞


Truth is what we look for. We may differ in the way we think of it, but it is still

that existential concern which will bring us together one day. However what stifles the

project of such a civilizational dialogue and abort any attempt to get near the other and

share concerns with him is that scientific tendency, which often imprisons our mind

and slams the door of knowledge and enlightenment against it. Religious beliefs are

without doubt, the major shapers of our wills and conceptions. Owing to the central

position it holds, religion should be rethought to find out its points of intersection with

the current scientific knowledge. By this, one does not intend to say that the fault is in

religion, but rather in people’s thinking and understanding.

Many atheists, who gossip in the name of science and rational thinking never

stop excluding the unseen off the scientific dispute. The unseen, being the second half

of the whole existence, is always judged by the materialists to be a world of ghosts and

superstitions rather than a world that deserves respect and consideration. One asks: till

when those intellectuals will continue to negate religion as a rational source of

scientific knowledge? Are religion and science contradictory or rather complementary?

Such questions really provokes any believer’s feelings and thought and push him to

argue against such a scientific dogma, which puts science and religion in two opposite

extremes and deceives the weak believers to apply for a science-religion dialogue as if

there is actually a real controversy among them.

“Seeing” does not always “believing”. “Seeing” is “perhaps” and “maybe” and

many other phrases that express the very relativity of human recognition; however,

“believing” is the highest degree at which human recognition changes into faith. By

this one means that it is not reasonable for me to dogmatically deny a truth simply

because my power of recognition is not enough to appreciate it or because the device

used for that recognition does not go with the nature of that truth. The Unseen is

Unknown for the eye, but it may be known by the ear or by any other system of

recognition. Being unseen, the sound waves (S.W.), for example require an auditory

system to be appreciated. Regardless of whether that system is natural or artificial,

each truth or knowledge has its own system of appreciation.

In looking at the forgoing evidences, scientists in terms of physicists and

naturalists have no right to disprove the Unseen because there studies and researches

۞23۞۞ ۞


are concerned with the field of physics rather than that of metaphysics. Hence if the

materialistic tendency in thinking and judging makes one’s point of view superficial

and incapable to recognize the spiritual dimension of knowledge, then what one cannot

prove at once, he should not disprove it at all.

To sum up, science and religion remain two wings of the same bird. Such a

conclusion does not only correct human conception about the world and truth, but it

also bridges the gap between the “I” and “the other” and makes the horizons of

Civilizational Dialogue more and more spacious.

e-Religious education and the pair (love; peace)

It is worldly known that education, religious or secular, has a heavy weight in

formulating our thought and behaviour. Owing to their fateful impact on our thought

and behaviour, our educational programmes should embody, in their form and content,

those humanistic values at which we have pointed previously.

As for the content, which holds much importance for me, “Religious education”

should a hold a top position. One cannot deny that Religion is more powerful than the

influence a positivistic law may exert on people. This fact is due to the fact that

religion defines our conception of things and directs our relationships with others. At

this point, intellectuals (these include theorists, thinkers, instructors, educators…etc)

who speak and write in the name of secularism are meant to change their minds toward

religion getting free from the historical sophism with which the concept ‘religion’ is

loaded.

By religion one means that omniscient and universal view, which provides a just

and comprehensive perspective about Man’s psychological, social, ethical, economic,

and political affairs. Having understood this, Man’s positivistic thought in terms like

“Marxism”, “Capitalism”, “Darwinism”, and many other currents and directions are no

more than limited and exclusive perspectives. These are referred to as ideologies

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.

۞24۞۞ ۞


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.

f- Universal ethics of dialogue: suggested x-model

Ethics are the backbone of civilizational dialogue. Without them, dialogue

becomes synonymous with conflict. As the world is growing more and more diverse,

the calls for a universal law of ethics have begun to proliferate. In his approach to this

issue, the theologian King Hans assumed that such universal ethics necessitate three

basic principles:

“– humanity cannot live and survive without universal ethics. –There will be no universal peace without peace among religions.

– 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

۞25۞۞ ۞


“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:

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

underestimate the other claiming that it is the absolute “good” in which

civilization is centred, and that it is the source from which the light emanates,

the heats of hate break out, and the yearned dialogue goes with the wind.

۞26۞۞ ۞

Love

Toleranc

Honesty

Humility


Therefore, cultural humility, and not ethnocentrism, is quiet necessary. This

finds justification in EL-Mandjara’saying:

“‘Since wars have become the expression of cultural arrogance, cultural humility is now the new name of peace’. Cultural humility is important because it enhances the capacity to listen to the other. Our concern today is with dialogue as related to civilization hence to cultural values. They determine the form and the content of that dialogue and condition the search for peace” (2000)

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)

Love in terms of sympathy and compassion is, thus, a hidden mechanism

motivating people to talk to each other, go beyond differences and keep the

lamp of hope burning..

f.4- Tolerance:

۞27۞۞ ۞


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۞۞ ۞


It is clear by now that the question of clash and dialogue among

civilizations depends more on whether the international society is willing

to bring its member states together or not. Knowing that all human

societies and civilizations share in common human and ethical values is

not enough; there must be a common political will and agreement upon

those values, including the value of dialogue of course, followed by world

campaigns, institutionalization, and work plans to establish and protect

them.

Throughout this paper, I tried, in the two first parts, to uncover the

features that shape Huntington/clash and Elmandjara/dialogue paradigms,

getting near the conceptual and the corner-stones terms and perspectives

of both paradigms. Yet in the third and last part, I did concern myself

more with the dialogue paradigm, which holds much importance for me,

laying out the major comings and key conditions for a dialogue among

civilizations.

The nature of the topic I dealt with requires a rich background about

the international system. I admit that my approach to the issue of

“Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations” is purely cultural, ethical and

humanistic rather than scientific or academic. Consequently, there are

many points which I did not manage to touch. Therefore I premise I will

rethink of this issue again and again, collecting more convincing data so

that I can come up with little more objective views and visions.

۞29۞۞ ۞


- 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۞۞ ۞

clash or dialogue

Documents