“When Mr Khatami
proposed the idea of the dialogue of civilizations, it was a kind of
reaction to the idea of the clash of civilizations. The clash of
civilizations was first mentioned by Bernard Lewis, a professor at
Princeton University. But he only suggested it as an idea and did
not really flesh it out. Later, Mr Huntington, who is a professor
at Harvard University, pursued it and lent it political and even
military dimensions. He wrote an article on the subject and
expanded on his theory in a book. But the clash of civilizations
attracted a great deal of attention in the US and in many European
countries. Mr Khatami suggested his own theory as a response to and
as a way of countering that theory, and he replaced the clash with
dialogue. The Westerners took the idea of the clash of
civilizations seriously and a number of Foreign Ministries devoted
time to it. I even recall that, several years ago, the German
Foreign Ministry organized a big seminar to discuss the theory which
of course never actually materialized! They wanted to know how
serious the possibility of such a clash was so that they could
reassess their foreign policy on that basis!”
These were a part of
Dr Abdulkarim Soroush’s remarks in an interview with the Dialogue of
Civilizations Service of the Iranian Students News Agency (ISNA).
In the interview, which revolved around the idea of ‘dialogue of
civilizations’, he suggested that a ‘dialogue of cultures’ would be
more practicable and more comprehensive.
West has not taken
the theory of dialogue as seriously as the clash of civilizations
Dr Soroush said: “It
seems that the West has not taken the theory of the dialogue of
civilizations as seriously as the clash of civilizations and the
question of a clash is still more important to them, especially
after the events of 11 September, when the subject became more
serious and attracted more attention. It even found its way into
the minds of the general public in the West. It was as if a clash –
and a bloody clash at that – was bound to occur sooner or later
between civilizations and, especially, between the Islamic
civilization and the West.”
It would be better
to speak of a dialogue of cultures
Dr Soroush said: “I
was wondering to myself why we should speak about a dialogue of
civilizations and not about a dialogue of cultures? The terms
‘civilization’ and ‘culture’ have particular meanings in modern
times. The same people who coined the term ‘civilization’ have also
used the term ‘culture’. Neither of these was invented by our
thinkers and philosophers. In Europe, in particular, historians
coined the terms ‘culture’ and ‘civilization’ to explain a number of
historical developments and phenomena, and they were used
extensively thereafter. We’ve correctly translated the two terms
into their Persian equivalents but we should bear in mind that these
two expressions are not very long-standing for us and in our
tradition. So, we should use them in the same sense as they are
currently being used in their birthplace.”
“The main point I’m
trying to make is that it would have been better and it would be
better to speak of ‘dialogue of cultures’, because civilizations are
basically the static stages of cultures. A culture is called a
culture when it is in progress; it is a culture when it is flowing
like a river and is dynamic and fertile.”
“Spengler, who
discussed the subject of civilizations, firmly underlined this.
Once a culture has been built and is approaching its final stages
and when it becomes static and established, then, it’s called a
civilization. It is part and parcel of the definition of
civilizations that they clash, because civilizations are identities
and, as a matter of course, identities are at odds with each other
and are prone to fighting and clashing. Each one of them wants to
gain the upper hand, whereas cultures are not like this.”
We should speak of
a dialogue of cultures instead of a dialogue of civilizations
Dr Soroush said:
“Civilizations are like kings and, in the words of our great poet
Sa’di, two kings don’t fit in a single land; each one will try to
drive the other out and to take sole charge of everything. Whereas
cultures are like ordinary people and they can be friends and have
dealings with each other. And even if they behave like enemies from
time to time, their enmity is a passing thing. I think that, first
and foremost, it would be best for us to use the term ‘cultures’
instead of ‘civilizations’; then, we could speak about the dialogue
of religions too, because religions are a part of cultures and they
enjoy cultural dynamism. They can constantly change and develop.”
Dialogue of
cultures is always in progress
“The dialogue of
cultures has almost always been in progress and it is also in
progress today. Of course, this dialogue can be made more
unadulterated, friendly and instructive and taken to the point where
cultures can really rush to one another’s assistance and have more
humane dealings with each another, so that they can forge a better
future.”
Most important
thing left for humanity to do is to engage in dialogue
Dr Soroush also said
that the position of cultures in this dialogue was defined by their
poverty or richness: “The richer culture has more to say, but, be
that as it may, cultures can sit down together and engage in
dialogue. And the people who hold this dialogue between cultures
are the people who are involved in culture; people who have a hand
in culture and are its bearers. This can include philosophers,
historians, artists, clerics and so on, and the dialogue between
clerics is effectively a dialogue between religions. I believe that
perhaps the most important thing that’s left for humanity to do is
to engage in dialogue. There can be nothing higher and more
fruitful than this.”
Dr Soroush said that
the assumption behind the idea of the dialogue of cultures was that
cultures, not technology or wealth or military force, have the upper
hand: “Military force exists and there’s no denying it. There are
countries that are stronger than us in terms of material wealth and
there’s no doubting it. But, as it happens, these aren’t
manifestations of cultural or civilizational beauty and they don’t
have the last word. If we speak of the universality of human rights
today, we have to remember that human rights at any rate were not
made by the Bush and Reagan Administrations. Human rights have
been fleshed out by philosophers over several centuries and, today,
they have achieved this universal supremacy, to the point where
they’ve turned into an international language and we all speak to
each other via this language. It is something that all cultures and
civilizations want. The same thing can be said of many other things
and you can see that thought and culture have, in fact, been
determinant on these things.”
We have to fight
wasteful, intemperate, aggressive technology with culture
Dr Soroush added:
“Look, Marx was a philosopher and a sociologist, as were many of his
fellow travellers. You can see how they changed the scene in the
West and created a big rival for capitalism. Of course, internal
faults made it collapse, although the collapse has not been
wholesale and total. What I’m trying to say is that, in fact, it is
cultures that should talk together and engage in dialogue. And it is
in this way that many hidden things will come to the surface;
things that are hidden under technology. A drape of this fabric has
now come into being which is hiding many of the beautiful things and
true riches that lie underneath and is not allowing them to display
themselves. They are the things that need to become visible in
order to prevent the excesses of technology and the like.”
Dr Soroush said that
the hand and the brain that builds and uses technology should be
under the sway of culture, adding: “If you change it and replace it
with something else, you’ll obtain an altogether better result. You
can’t fight technology with technology because it would make
technology grow more corpulent. You have to fight wasteful,
intemperate and aggressive technology with culture so that you can
put technology in its rightful place. This is why I think that now
is the best time for such a thing to start; in fact, it’s a little
late.”
We have to begin
intra-cultural dialogue in the world of Islam
Dr Soroush said:
“In order for the idea of the dialogue of cultures to become
meaningful and to prevent it from becoming a mere slogan we have to
begin intra-cultural dialogue in the world of Islam itself.”
“I’m putting my
finger on the ill and shortcoming that we’re plagued with today.
The world of Islam has different segments; i.e. Iranian Islam,
Turkish Islam, Indonesian Islam, Arab Islam, etc. Unfortunately,
these different segments are quite uninformed about each another.
When I go to Turkey, I see that they know little about developments
in Iran, Islamic Iran’s culture and Iran’s Islam. I come to Iran
and I see that we Iranians don’t know much about developments in
Turkish culture. Likewise with Indonesia, the Arab world, etc.
This inauspicious fact is worth reflecting on. We used to translate
many more books from Arabic into Persian in the past. Now, we have
far fewer such translations! A cultural separation and disjunction
has come about between us and the Arab world, Indonesia, India,
Turkey, etc.”
There must be many
more exchanges of visits between the different parts of Islam
Dr Soroush said: “I
speak about the dialogue of cultures and I consider it very
necessary, but it has to said that, before we begin our dialogue
with, for example, Christianity or the West, we have to introduce it
into our own culture. There must be many more exchanges of visits
between the different parts of Islam. The erudite must be able to
travel freely between these regions. A far greater number of
seminars ought to be held between the different parts of Islam. I
was visiting Morocco. Even when I was speaking to some of the
professors there, I could see that their knowledge of Shi’ism and
Shi’is is very simplistic and crude! It’s surprising, because these
are all parts of the world of Islam. A professor should be much
more sensitive to issues of this kind than an ordinary member of the
public. But linguistic disjunctions and fissures that have
political roots have made us thoroughly uninformed about one
another.”
Unity is a product
of cultural contact and dialogue
Dr Soroush said
that, if unity was to be attained, it would occur through cultural
contact and dialogue: “Politicians should play the most minimal and
faintest role here. The minute the issue is tainted with politics,
a thousand and one ulterior motives enter in and distort and alter
everything.”
Dr Soroush
reiterated that, first, he proposed that we speak of the dialogue of
cultures and, second, that we get the dialogue of cultures going
among us Muslims, and he added: “I’m in favour of dialogue between
us and Christians and, of course, this dialogue has been in
progress. In Iran, too, a number of my friends and I have embarked
on this task. But, on occasion, politics has meddled in, making it
less fruitful, as I suggested earlier. I propose that we should
also have dialogue between Muslims and Jews, because, as it happens,
Judaism has many more affinities with Islam and, as you know, many
Western historians and religious theorists frequently make the point
that Islam was a kind of reform of Judaism. I may not raise this
point as a Muslim, but let’s not forget that, as a matter of fact,
many aspects of Judaism also apply in Islam. Jews have a
jurisprudence-oriented mind, as do Muslims. But Christians don’t
have this mentality. As Muslims and the inhabitants of Islamic
culture, we tremble when we see Christianity’s fate in the secular
world and in secular civilization. We try to make use of
Christianity’s experience - in a positive and negative sense – so
that we don’t re-experience their misfortunes and avoid going down
the same path as they did in their encounter with modern
civilization, and so that we make decisions that are in our
interests and in the interests of our religiosity.”
A dialogue of
civilizations is like a dialogue of armies!
Dr Soroush said:
“If I were to make an analogy, I’d say that speaking about the
dialogue of civilizations is like speaking about the dialogue of
armies! Armies are made to fight each other. We can’t establish a
dialogue between armies, but we can speak of dialogue between
universities. We have to pay attention to the position and location
of the dialogue! I don’t want to quarrel about words but I think
that when we speak about the dialogue of cultures, the meaning is
much clearer, purer and more transparent than if we speak of the
dialogue of civilizations.”
Identities always
hit their heads against each other until one of them breaks
Dr Soroush said:
“Civilizations are hard casings that are drawn over cultures. They
are ready for war and for driving out other civilizations and
gaining the upper hand. This is because civilizations are
identities and identities always hit their heads against each other
until one of the heads eventually breaks and is eliminated. The
Western world and Western civilization has, over the past 150 years,
essentially been the producer of theories of war; from Marx, who
spoke of class war and described it as the engine of history,
onwards to Mr Huntington, today, who speaks of the war of
civilizations. And when the question of nationalities and
nationalism was raised, it was always a question of war.”
We can cultivate
culture by using the dialogue of cultures as our slogan
Dr Soroush said: “It
would be very good for us to step outside the circle of war and not
to appear on the world stage as warriors but as the bearers of
culture and the cultivators of culture. But to do this, we have to
choose a suitable banner and slogan. And the suitable banner is the
dialogue of cultures, not the dialogue of civilizations. We can
thereby cut through to a more correct and clearer route and forge
the future in a more rational way.”
Muslims have had a
great deal to say to the world
Dr Soroush
underlined that Muslims should initiate the dialogue and said: “If
they sit and wait for the time for dialogue to arrive, it may never
arrive and it may grow too late. Muslims have had a great deal to
say to the world. Now, too, if they shake themselves up a bit, they
have a great deal to say and to offer. In fact, the language of
spirituality can become a second language. In the West, we find
that many thinkers are criticizing the preponderance of the language
of rights, although this language has not become wholly universal.
They examine the limitations of the language of rights and believe
that the new culture and civilization, which uses use the language
of rights as its main language, unfortunately has some shortcomings
and that we must find a third category beyond rights and duties
through which we can speak to each other. Debate about virtue and
spirituality and so on has become very current. This debate can also
be used by the world of Islam and Muslims.”
Muslim thinkers
should enter into international dialogue
Dr Soroush said:
“Muslim thinkers should make the best possible use of the resources
that they have in this respect and should enter into international
dialogue. In the present circumstances, if we want to do good
cultural work, we can find a more positive and more auspicious
alternative to rights which also embraces the good aspects of rights
but does not have the same limitations. We have to turn it into a
universal language. We can propose projects of this kind. Of
course, we can step in and initiate the dialogue or organize it
better and open a new way. Let me reiterate in this connection that
we must keep politicians out of this arena otherwise this convoy
will remain lame until Judgement Day.”
Battle of ideas is
the beginning of dialogue
Dr Soroush also
said: “Iran has a great deal to do, too, in the midst of all this.
We mustn’t pursue very extravagant projects. We must organize
dialogue amongst ourselves. Violent methods must be replaced by
dialogue. As Popper said: We humans aren’t animals; animals kill
each other, but we kill each other’s theories. We have to present
our ideas so that they can go into battle and this is the beginning
of dialogue. Then, we can turn to the world of Islam, Christianity
and Judaism.”
|