The issue of civilisations first became prominent in 1990, following the fall of the Soviet Union and the communist bloc and the collapse of the bipolar world order. At that time, a new form of ideological conflict appeared as old models of international relations, politics, economics and society no longer applied.

Two prominent views have emerged concerning the issue of civilisations: first, that the clash of civilisations has replaced the clash of ideologies; and second, that dialogue among civilisations will occur as a product of globalisation.

The second of these views gained ground after President Mohammad Khatemi of Iran proposed to the UN an initiative to boost dialogue among civilisations. As a result, the UN General Assembly took the unanimous decision in 1998 to make 2001 the UN year of dialogue among civilisations. Numerous conferences and seminars have been held on this subject under the auspices of the UN and Unesco. One of the most prominent of these was a conference organised by Unesco in Lithuania in April 2000, in which I presented a paper discussing the concepts of civilisation in the 21st century. Iran, for its part, took the initiative to organise dialogues between certain older civilisations: Persian, Greek, Roman and Egyptian.

However, a close look at the discourse over dialogue among civilisations reveals that, thus far, this dialogue lacks a clear vision and agenda. I therefore propose that this dialogue should be guided by a focus on epistemological issues on one hand, and empirical problems on the other.

The epistemic issues were defined in the “Dialogues of the 21st Century” conference held by Unesco several years ago, while the empirical problems were defined in the “Status of the Future” report published in 1999 as part of the millennium project undertaken by the UN University in Tokyo.

1- Globalisation and dialogue among civilisations

When I received an invitation from Unesco to participate in an international conference on dialogue among civilisations, to be held in Vilnius, Lithuania, on 23-26 April 2001, I did not hesitate to accept. I prepared a paper on the concepts of civilisation in the 21st century. The reason for my eagerness to attend and participate in this conference was that I had been concerned with this issue for a decade, following my attendance of an international conference in Lisbon in September 1990 that discussed Europe and the world.

On my return from the conference, I published a paper titled “Dialogue Among Civilisations in a Changing World,” in which I said that after the amazing events that had taken place since 1989 – the turning point of the 20th century – the nature of dialogue among civilisations would change as a result of the new postmodernist way of thinking, the deepening of globalisation and the spread of multilateral international relations, mostly in the form of regional blocs.

I think this early prediction – albeit limited – of the most important economic, political and cultural factors of the international arena in the 21st century was proved right during the 1990s.

I also differentiated between two stages of dialogue among civilisations. The first is the dialogue of the bipolar world system, characterised by ideological conflict between capitalism and communism. The second is dialogue in the postmodernist world, or rather the world of globalisation.

In the Lisbon conference of 1990, Ronald Dryer presented a paper on dialogue among civilisations in the period 1949-89. He concluded with several questions concerning the conditions and implementation of dialogue. Since we are still in the stage of asking fundamental questions over dialogue among civilisations rather than providing answers, I will refer to the conditions and implementation of dialogue as did Dryer. My aim here is to compare the questions raised in Lisbon with those of the Vilnius conference in 2001. The Lisbon conference was held when globalisation as a phenomenon was still in its early stages, while the Vilnius conference occurred after globalisation had become a firm fixture of the international arena. The question then is whether globalisation, in its current form, affected the nature of questions concerning dialogue among civilisations?

Dryer first presented the conditions for dialogue among civilisations in a series of questions, as follows:

- Do the great political changes in eastern Europe support civilisation-related dialogue between Europe and the rest of the world (and the realisation of democratic liberties in Africa, Asia and Latin America)?

- Is compatible and reciprocal dialogue between the scientifically and technologically advanced European civilisation and the traditional civilisations of the third world possible?

- Do scientific and technological values express a global civilisation or do they emphasise the achievements of only one civilisation?

- To what extent do the values included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights represent part of a global civilisation?

On the implementation of dialogue among civilisations, Dryer raised the following questions:

- Do we need an internationally agreed definition of civilisation to implement dialogue among civilisations?

- How can we reconcile between the existence of geographically large bodies of civilisation and other, subsidiary regions of civilisation without resorting to the traditional and controversial form of division by “national culture”?

- Is communication between civilisations desired, and what are its limits?

- What realistic and tangible steps should we take to ensure the most comprehensive integration of values from other civilisations?

The Vilnius conference of 2001 raised a number of questions not heard in 1990. The significance of the march of globalisation was clearly manifested in the six workshops of the conference: exchangeable knowledge and interaction; globalisation and cultural variation; multiple identities and shared values; trade, science and cultural exchanges; the other; and concepts of civilisation in the 21st century.

2- Conditions for dialogue among civilisations

If globalisation – with all its political, economical and cultural aspects – is going to influence the form, content and tendencies of dialogue between civilisations then we need to discuss the conditions for this dialogue, which Dryer presented in a series of questions at the Lisbon conference:

The first question: Do the great political changes in eastern Europe support civilisation-related dialogue between Europe and the rest of the world (and the realisation of democratic liberties in Africa, Asia and Latin America)?

The events of the last decade prove the researcher was right to present the question in this form. Without a doubt, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dismantling of the communist bloc, followed by deep changes in the political systems and economic structures of its former members, opened the way for great democratic transformations in Europe and across the world.

These events began towards the end of the 20th century – a time in which totalitarian regimes dominated through organised political oppression and the effective elimination of civil society. There is no doubt that the changes that took place in the Soviet Union and the communist bloc signalled the end for their totalitarian regimes. The popular struggle against authoritarian regimes that continues in Asia, Africa and Latin America also began at this time.

Surely, democracy, multiparty politics and respect of human rights have become the most prominent aspects of globalisation rhetoric, regardless of the problems surrounding each of these concepts. Is there a single model for democracy reflected in the West? Are there calls for drafting other models of democracy that bear the characteristics of cultural specificity, such as the Islamic shura (consultation) council? Will the recognition of cultural multiplicity threaten regional integration by encouraging calls for autonomy? How can we solve the contradiction in human rights that arises as a result of differences between universal norms and cultural specificities?

Regardless of these problems, democracy, as a theory and a practice, has become one of the most important topics for dialogue between civilisations. This is demonstrated by the growth in intellectual efforts around the globe to implant the theory of democracy, analyse its problems and work on removing obstacles to its development. The sheer volume of books and magazines printed on the issue of democracy in the last decade is surely a sign of the importance of the subject for countless researchers and analysts. If we consider also the practical efforts in many societies to revive civil society – as many voluntary associations have been established that are concerned with democracy and support of the values of human rights – we will realise that we are in the peak of the third wave of democracy as described by US political thinker Samuel Huntington.

The great transformations that took place in Europe following the fall of the communist bloc thus provided the impetus for the spread of the third wave of democracy.

Problems of international civilisation

Multiple cultural indicators show that we are about to form a global civilisation. There is no doubt that the increase in the pace of globalisation brought about by the communication revolution has contributed to the formation of many of the characteristics of the budding global civilisation, which has its roots in the scientific and technological revolution that started decades ago in advanced industrial countries and which is slowly forming a knowledge-based society.

This global civilisation raises many problems. Perhaps the first question to be asked concerning the conditions for the dialogue between civilisations should be: Is it possible for there to be a compatible and reciprocal dialogue between the scientifically and technologically advanced European civilisation and the traditional civilisations of the third world?

Our answer to this question would be that dialogue is not only possible, but necessary. It has in fact been happening for many decades, because politicians and thinkers representing traditional civilisations realised a long time ago that they could not exit their cycle of regression and enter the world of human advancement without importing certain of the values, institutions and accomplishments of European scientific and technological civilisation.

This has not stopped the arguments between the conservatives and reformists in traditional civilisations. The conservatives argue that importing European tools of development will eradicate their cultural specificity. These arguments have been made in the Arab and Islamic world in the name of Arab and Islamic cultural relativity. The arguments have also been heard in Asia – including in Japan, where progressive thinkers were able to advance their country scientifically and technologically so that it became one of the most advanced industrial and technological countries in the world. This means that the conservative wing has historically been defeated. However, we in the Arab world are still wasting our time with these arguments because we cannot – for various political and cultural reasons – make the transition to advancement.

If dialogue between the advanced and traditional civilisations has been going on for some time, the next question should be: Is this dialogue reciprocal? The answer is no, because the scientific and technological civilisation is in the position of power, and is continuing to rise. This has been the case since the Industrial Revolution took place in Europe, creating industrial societies and influencing the values and tendencies of people and their social behaviour. This advancement is based on European modernist values represented in rationality, individualism, and dependence on science and technology. However, traditional civilisations are still influenced by unscientific ways of thinking and mostly governed by totalitarian and authoritarian regimes that stifle freedom of thinking and expression. Even the small number of such countries that have been successful in entering the fields of modern science and technology have not been able to achieve comprehensive human development as a result of their involvement in wars with their neighbours or domestic civil unrest.

This brings us to the next question: Do scientific and technological values express a global civilisation or do they emphasise the achievements of only one civilisation?

I believe that scientific and technological values have become a reality that reflects a global civilisation, even if they originated in western civilisation. We should not forget that this civilisation is a human civilisation that has previously been influenced by other civilisations, most importantly the ancient Egyptian civilisation and the Islamic civilisation in its golden years.

The final question is: To what extent do the values included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights represent part of a global civilisation? The answer is that in the early 21st century the values of human rights have effectively become an expression of the global civilisation, regardless of the arguments made between cultural relativity and the universality of human rights. There is a majority agreement on the values mentioned in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the conventions and covenants that followed which reflect the dominant international conscience. What remains is a small group of values that are being discussed because they are mainly European values, even though there are claims that they are universal.

3- Epistemological and empirical problems

Having asked a series of interrelated questions concerning the conditions for dialogue among civilisations in light of the march of globalisation, it is important to discuss how we are going to implement this dialogue.

Probably the first question we should ask is: Do we need an internationally agreed definition of civilisation to implement dialogue among civilisations? The answer is yes. If we are concerned with the most important of the epistemic problems of dialogue among civilisations, which are defining civilisation and distinguishing between civilisation and culture, another question is raised: Do intellectuals represent the dialogue among civilisations and to what extent should popular culture be part of this dialogue?

This is an important question, as intellectuals usually concern themselves with what is known as the culture of the knowledgeable while to a large extent ignoring popular culture. Studies in modern cultural analysis, however, prove the importance of popular culture and its strong influence in forming social awareness and public opinion. Accordingly, dialogue among civilisations should not be limited to intellectuals. Representatives of popular culture should also be included as many contemporary societies have a cultural schism, which means a knowledge and thinking gap between the elite and the general public, in addition to vast differences in taste.

Next we should ask: Is communication between civilisations desired, and what are its limits? The answer, without a doubt – when we take into consideration the fierce conflict between the international community and individual countries, ethnic groups and minorities – is that dialogue among civilisations is necessary to introduce all civilisations to others through a studied process of eliminating entrenched stereotypical conceptions of the self and the other.

There is no limit to dialogue among civilisations as the aim is to reach an agreement over the drafting of a group of compatible international values that take into consideration human differences and at the same time concentrate on the common denominators between the civilisations of the world.

Undoubtedly, the communications revolution, which has been gaining in strength for several decades, has largely removed the boundaries of human communication. In this way it will help create a global civilisation by reducing distances between people and deepening human interaction.

If we want to summarise the current international stance towards the issue of civilisations, we could say that we are on the verge of a new theory: the coexistence of cultures on the basis that we all live within one civilisation.

Go to topAAAAAAAAAA