Is the Clash of Civilizations Real?View from Kashmir

Is the Clash of Civilizations Real? View from Kashmir

The scholar of scholars and the doyen of doyens, the late Samuel Huntington, asserted that the end of structural bipolarity or the Cold War would give rise to new configurations of power, new fault lines and axes of conflict. The enduring conflict between states would, according to Huntington, give way to conflicts between civilizations. This civilization jostling, roughly speaking, would define the politics of the 21st century. And the west, the dominant civilization, since the past few centuries should be prepared for this. In short, Gibbons would triumph over Thucydides. And the dominant conflict would be between Islam and the West with the Cold war being a mere side show. The September 11 attacks and the attendant invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan lent credence to the Clash of Civilizations thesis. The former validated to the west that the world of Islam was bent on destroying the edifice of western civilization. And the latter suggested that the west, led by its lodestar, the United States, had embarked on a ‘neo imperialistic’ crusade to destroy the world of Islam. The language of crusades was employed and many believed that the confrontation these acts connoted harked backed to the time of the Crusades. Consequently, it was widely believed that the world was divided into clear cut civilizational poles or lines.

The question is whether the eminent Professor’s prognostications and assertions are correct: Is the world really divided into civilizational blocs? And are these blocs defining and asserting themselves in contradistinction to the west? While it would be presumptuous to even suggest that a robust critique of Professor Huntington could even be tried, it however, is important to present a picture of the world as viewed and perceived by someone with vantage points that are premised on admixture of the west and the non west. The following then is an attempt to allay stereotypes and present a portrait of the world from these vantage points.

To start with a cliché, it would be safe to infer that civilizations are not monolithic, self contained entities. They are porous with borrowing and synthesis the norm rather than the exception. Hence, it is rather meaningless to talk of pure civilizations. What may be germane and apposite is that the civilization that can produce a compelling set of ideas and norms may be said to enjoy prominence, precedence and preponderance. Other civilizational entities then naturally bow down –either overtly or subliminally- to the dominant civilizational paradigm.  The world of classical Islam, the Roman Imperium, the Chinese civilizational all have in varying degrees enjoyed this preponderance and pre-eminence. The critical variable is the force and thrust of ideas. Contemporarily, it is the ideas of the west which reign supreme. The rest of the world either reacts or adjusts to this ideational hegemony. (The rhetoric of assertion reflected, for instance, in the Lee Kuan Yewian formulation of ‘Asian values’ is part of this equation).

 

The western ideas that have been the animating impulse of politics, economics and culture and have set benchmarks for these have been ascendant since the past few centuries. This ascendance is owed to the vigor and vitality of these ideas. Individual liberty and freedom, human rights, political pluralism forms the core of these ideas. The rest is commentary. This stuff of modernity has been so compelling and powerful that other nations and peoples frame their aspirations in its idiom. Whether it is self determination, the quest for sovereignty or economic growth, lifestyle aspirations or even dignity, it is all formulated and articulated in western inspired modernity. A little tweaking here and there and adjustments to local conditions does not detract from the fact that these aspirations are inherently western. This testifies to the force and soft power of these ideas of the west. The larger point here is that whether it be reaction or adjustment, mimicry or osmosis, the idiom that in which these are expressed are informed by western ideas. As such, this constitutes a triumph for the west.  The west in contention is not a geographical zone but a set of ideas.  Given that these ideas have left and are leaving an indelible imprimatur on world politics, economics and culture means  that the world is the west or is becoming western. The question of a clash of civilizations then becomes meaningless and in fructuous.

What then accounts for pockets of resistance? This resistance, whether it be in the form of Islamic fundamentalism, the problems engendered by multi culturalism or other movements which challenge the ideational hegemony of the west, is in the nature of a reaction. And this reaction from the longer term view of history is ephemeral. It cannot and will not offer a sustained and compelling assault on the ideational premises of the west. In the grand scheme of things, these may even constitute a prelude to a more cosmopolitan world envisaged by Kant. The area of immediate concern is then not a clash of civilization but the conflict stemming from a jostling of cultures.  Cultures are not static.  There is no such thing as a mono culture. The boundaries of cultures are porous and mingling, borrowing and synthesis defines cultures. The current phase of globalization intensifies cultural contact and conflict may be inevitable. The question is how to manage this conflict.  The beauty of modernity is that while it does not impose a straitjacket. It leaves ample scope for change and mutation. This means that cultures which do not conform exactly to the western ideal can retain some of the salient aspects of their cultures and yet imbibe and absorb the salubrious aspects of western modernity. An important condition for this to be realized is to work towards and maintain a more open world. Globalization accords this opportunity and it then behooves upon powers that be to not to interrupt or interfere with the march of globalization. If the logic of globalization is allowed leeway, the entire world then gradually and inexorably becomes a melting pot at large. This can but be a welcome development.

The world is moving in the direction of a certain plan and design.   This plan, to be sure, is messy and chaotic. September 11, the Iraq war or other forms of reaction are mere teething troubles and messy interludes. And importantly, the direction and trajectory of this historical process is inspired by western ideas and principles. The Clash of Civilizations then does not bear scrutiny. This direction, to repeat, can only be salubrious. It has space and room for the Muslim, the Hindu, Christian, the Jew and the atheist. It is there about time that we read the obvious and hasten the emergence of this new brave world.