Download The Clash of Civilizations

Dialogue of Civilizations:
Myth or Reality
Masoumeh Velayati
[email protected]
Content
•
•
•
•
•
Cold war era and political systems
Post-cold war era perdition
Proponents of clash of civilisations
Opponents of Clash of Civilizations
Some attempts at local, national and
international level for civilizational dialogue
and engagement
• Group discussions
Cold War era and ideological
conflicts between nations
• Cold War era is known for the
ideological conflict between nations
• Two superpowers: the Soviet Union, and
the US
• Divided world between West & East, or
Western & Eastern blocs
– Conflict between Communism, NazismFascism,& liberal democracy
– 1st, 2nd, and 3rd world countries
The collapse of Soviet Union
• 1985: start of economic reforms in the Union, which
required reforms in the political & social structures
of the Union
• 1989 onwards: liberation policies let to the
nationalist movements and ethnic disputes
• 1989: the fall of the Berlin Wall
• 1991: The collapse of Soviet Union & the end of
Cold War era
– 15 post-Soviet independent countries
All these let to predictions by the political
scientists about the nature of the political system
in Post-Cold War era
Fukuyama’s Post-Cold War
prediction (1)
– The end of History? (1989)
– The end of History and the Last Man (1992)
• Western Universalism or liberal hegemony
as the evolutionary process of the history
• Western democracy have overcome all
other ideologies as the final alternative
form of government
• an end to history, but events will carry on
Fukuyama’s prediction (2)
• Supportive cases:
– Democratic peace theory
– Empirical study by Freedom House in 2005
– Centre for systematic peace (global Conflict
trends)
– Human Security Report
• Democracy’s only real competitor is
radical Islamism
Clash of Civilizations & Samuel
Huntington (1)
• Samuel Huntington, 1992, 1993, & 1996
– The Clash of Civilizations?
– The Clash of Civilization and the remaking of World Order
– If not Civilizations, What?
• believed that the idea of the Western victory is
wrong
• Introduced the concept of different civilizations
• Nation states are the most powerful actors in the
world affairs
• Belief in universality of western values & political
systems will provoke other civilizations
Clash of Civilization & Samuel
Huntington (2)
• The age of ideology has ended
• The clash of civilizations will dominate global
politics in post-cold war world
• War between states has moved towards conflict
of different groups of civilizations
• Religious & cultural identities as the
fundamental causes of inter-civilization conflicts
– The break up of Yugoslavia
– War in Chechnya
– India and Pakistan Conflict
Critiques of Fukuyama’s theory
Fukuyama presents “American-Style” of
democracy as the only correct political
systems that all countries must
inevitably follow this particular system:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Developmentalists
Environmentalists
Anarchists
Liberationists
Muslim Fundamentalists
Marxists
And Huntington with his theory of “the clash of
civilizations”
Major civilizations
Cleft States/countries
Countries which contain large population
identifying with separate civilization
• India (between Hindu & Islamic)
• Ukraine (between Eastern Catholic & western
orthodox)
• Some African Countries (between Islamic &
African)
• China (between Cinic, Buddhist, and the West)
• Philippines (between Cinic, Islamic, and the West)
The trend of the global conflicts with affect the
swing of these countries
Threat to the Western Civilization
• Cinic civilization (economical, political, &
cultural treat to the West)
– Islamic civilization as potential ally
• Islamic Civilizations
–
–
–
–
–
bloody borders within & outside its borders
Population growth
Islamic resurgence & fundamentalism
A missionary religion
Cinic civilisation as potential ally in their conflict with west
All of these may lead to the bloody clash
between the West and the Islam in 21st
Century
Critiques of the inevitable clash of
Civilizations
• Amartya Sen: Identity and Violence - the
Illusion of destiny
– The root causes of violence is when people have
a singular identity (Hindu, Muslim)
• Edward Said: The Clash of Ignorance
– The theory is based on clash and conflict, but
not harmony & conciliation
– The categorisation of world’s fixed, enclosed
civilizations removes dynamic interdependency
& interaction of cultures
Critiques of the inevitable clash of
Civilizations
• Paul Berman: Terror and Liberalism
• These days there is no distinct cultural
boundaries
• Conflict happens because of the philosophical
beliefs among different groups regardless of
their cultural and religious identities
Other criticisms
• Civilizations are fractured and lack such a unity
• Non-religious factors such as post-communist
legacy or the development level are not taken
into account
• The presentation of the world in a certain way
legitimises Western &American interventionist
and aggressive actions in other parts of the
world, particularly in Muslim world
• Civilizational achievements are collective heritage
of mankind
• Conflict happens when Christianity and/or Islam
are misinterpreted, misused, or manipulated for
political or economic gains
What is Dialogue?
• Dialogue is a means to reach understanding,
strengthening interaction and engagement
among civilizations, groups, cultures, etc
• It is a collective effort to promote and protect
peace, stability, human rights, & cultural
plurality,
• It is about fostering international co-operation
• Because of the above & many more reasons,
dialogue is needed or necessary due to the
pluralistic nature of human societies
Some attempts for
civilizational dialogues
• UN efforts
– 1995, Year of Tolerance
– 2001, the year of Dialogue Among Civilizations
– Since 2005, United Nations Alliance of Civilisations to
• Combat extremism
• Overcome cultural and social barriers between the Western &
predominately Muslim worlds
• Reduce tensions and polarisation between societies with
different religious and cultural values
• Promote civil societies as to provide grassroots capacity to
change attitudes
• Intercultural programmes and leadership
• The UNAOC-EF Summer School for young people aged 18-35.
Now open for application. Visit
http://www.unaocefsummerschool.org/
Some counter attempts
• Interfaith relations (how to achieve constructive
and practical dialogue, not why dialogue
– conferences, seminars,
– dissemination of information,
– Intercultural, social & educational activities and events
• Interfaith Dialogue
– Theological debates/ Scriptural reasoning, mainly
– To understand each religion’s theological standing, BUT
not to convert
– some of the differences between different religions or
religious-world views are very real, strong, which cannot
be easily glossed or reconciled (Pratt, 2005:226).
Questions
1. What are fundamentals for a good dialogical
interaction between people of different cultures
and/or religions?
2. What are dialogical challenges among interfaith
communities or communities of different cultures?
3. What is your perception about the ‘other’? How
and why the ’otherness’ and diversity can be
perceived as a threat or as an opportunity?
4. What are the problems of co-existence between
nations or societies? How do they manifest
themselves?
References
• Ashari, Halisah. 2013. Dialogue of Civilizations. on Line at:
http://www.parlimen.gov.my/images/webuser/artikel/ro/halisah/Dialogue
%20of%20civilizations%20Halisah%20Ashari.pdf
• Jahanbegloo, Ramin. 2012. Transcending the Clash of Cultures: The
Search for Common Shared Values. In M. Mahdavi and W.A. Knight
(Eds.), Towards the Dignity of Difference? Neither ‘End of History’
nor ‘Clash of Cililization’. Surry: Ashgate.
• Koechler, Hans. 2002. The Dialogue of Civilizations: Philosophical
Basis, Political Dimensions and the Relevance of International
Sporting Events (pages 1- 13). On line at:
http://www.i-p-o.org/koechler_worldcup-lecture.pdf
• Pratt, Douglas. 2005. Conclusion. In D. Pratt (ed.), The Challenge of
Islam: Encounters in Interfaith Dialogue. Hampshire & Burlington:
Ashgate.
• Segesvary, Victor. 2004. Dialogue of Civilisations:: An Introduction to
Civilizational Analysis. The Hague: Mikes International.
What are fundamentals for a good
dialogical interaction between people of
different cultures and/or religions?
1. Identifying common grounds and values between
religions, civilisations, and cultures for constructive
and practical dialogue;
2. Equally identifying and understanding differences
to minimise their impact, not necessarily to
eradicate them;
3. Identify common concerns between people from
different religions and cultures;
4. Differentiate between civilizations and ideologies
5. Accept the legitimacy of the ‘other’ and their
perspectives.
What are dialogical challenges
among interfaith communities or
communities of different cultures?
1. Theological challenges, particularly between
Christians-Muslims interfaith encounters;
2. Historical events and their legacy among the
people of different religions, such as crusade
3. Historical events and their legacy among the
people of different cultures, such as colonialism,
slavery,
4. On-going discriminatory relations
What is your perception about the ‘other’?
How and/or why the ’otherness’ &
diversity can be perceived as a threat or
as an opportunity?
The other can be from ‘within’ or from ‘outside’ of one’s own
community, where the ‘other’ represents a partially different or
totally alien religion or culture. The challenges of both are the
same:
a)dialogical engagement that involves sometimes radically different
perspectives;
b)acceptance or rejection of the legitimacy of the ‘other’;
c)at higher level tolerance/respect or disrespect the ‘other’
in the case of b & c in the positive site, the acceptance or the
respect of the ‘other’ will lead to rethink about our own
worldview. On the negative site, it might lead to narrowness and
assuming our worldview as the best and others as worthless
What are the problems of co-existence
between nations or societies? How do
they manifest themselves?
• Intolerance and disrespect towards the others or
towards diversity
• Hatred towards other religions, cultures, civilizational
symbols
• Not differentiate between culture/civilization and
ideology