OR INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE?

by Felix Marti

Felix Marti is director of the Centre UNESCO de Catalunya in Barcelona.

Harvard University professor Samuel P. Huntington has written that, in the future, the"clash of civilizations" will cause the world's main conflicts (The Clash ofCivilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Samuel P. Huntington. New York: Simon& Schuster, 1996). Huntington defines "civilization" as the broadestgrouping of people beyond the level distinguishing humans from other species. Acivilization is defined by common objective elements -- language, history, religion,customs, institutions -- as well as by people's self-identification. Huntington tells usthat there are currently seven or eight chief civilizations: Western, Confucian, Japanese,Islamic, Hindu, Orthodox Slav, Latin American, and "possibly" African.

Huntington's theory challenges the post-cold war "end of history" scenario ofan international order based on universal acceptance of the capitalist economic model,with no change on the horizon. The importance this North American professor attaches tocultural factors can be considered a highly positive development; until now, inter-staterelations and conflicts have routinely been explained according to economic analysis.Political institutions grow out of economic power structures, and culture iseconomics, in the sense that in the West, the market system establishes the generalframework of values which should in theory be independently generated by culture.

We Europeans like the importance of cultures to be recognized, because Europeanidentities are shaped by our cultural memory and awareness. Yet precisely because of ourcultural experience, we cannot agree with all of Huntington's simplifications. Forexample, reducing the number of cultural areas to eight does not seem serious. The mentionof a "possible" African civilization is laughable. Africa is a rich mosaic ofcultures; so is Europe. And Europe is not the same as North America. What he lumpstogether as "Western civilization" has considerable internal fractures thatcannot be attributed exclusively to migratory factors.

Civilizations are not monolithic blocs. Some, for example the Islamic civilization, aredefined primarily by their religious inspiration; in others, such as the Confucian, therelationship between the religion inspiring them and the political force they exert isless clear. In Western civilization, Catholic or Protestant versions of Christianity formpart of the cultural landscape, though citizens of Western states are deeply divided withregard to religious beliefs. In each of Huntington's civilizations there are trends ofthought that follow confessional lines, and others that follow lay lines -- a subject oflively debate today in countries such as Turkey and Italy.

Besides religion, cultural splits make it difficult to look at civilizations aspolitically compact blocs. Huntington talks of Latin American culture, but ignores, forexample, the division between the Spanish and Indian cultures. There are also considerablesplits between social groups that benefit from the international economic system and thoseit discriminates against. On the African continent, oligarchies share Western values andcultural preferences while other groups make do with socially devalued lifestyles farremoved from modernity. Who represents African civilization -- the English- orFrench-speaking communities, or the masses who speak only local languages and lack accessto Western technologies? A journey to the heart of each civilization will familiarize uswith the prodigious wealth of human diversity, making it impossible to reduce all culturesto a single prototype with seven or eight different models.

The basic problem with Huntington's theory, however, is the conviction that allcultures aspire to imperial power. His own culture is fascinated with power -- Americanculture has spread spectacularly all over the world -- but what if others are not? What ifthey simply aspire to respect and coexistence? Fortunately, Huntington speaks of theimpending end of the Western cultural monopoly. But it is far from clear whether the ideaof ranking cultures according to Western criteria is also at an end. If cultures are seenas "superior" and "inferior," conflictual relations are inevitable. Alarge part of today's intercultural conflicts are a result of cultural humiliation. TheIndians of Chiapas, for example, do not mobilize against the Western culture thatcharacterizes Mexican political thinking, but against a long process of marginalization.Much of what is happening in the Islamic world, simplistically described asfundamentalism, is an assertion of cultural identities that have been treated as inferior.

In any case, Huntington perceives accurately that large cultural units, not states, arebecoming the new actors of international politics. The irrationality of the map of statesis evident at a glance: Andorra and China have the same rights, and neither the Sahariansnor the Kurds exist. The political unit called France was built without regard for hercultural and linguistic communities; Africa is a conglomerate of some fifty states whoseborders shamelessly disregard ethnic groups and traditions. In recent decades, viablepolitical units both larger and smaller than states have emerged. Examples are theEuropean Union on one hand, and the new distribution of power in Spain on the other, whichgrants limited sovereignty to "historical nationalities" and administrativedecentralization to autonomous regions within its national boundaries. Similar situationscan be found on other continents.

If the map of states is outdated, how do we go about finding an alternative? The greatchallenge of the twenty-first century is the democratic organization of cultural andcommunity diversity. Human communities are awakening politically and aspiring to apolitical order founded on the recognition of the rights of all cultures and communities.Why do we still think in terms of seven or eight groups defending partial interests? Itwould be far better to establish the mental framework for a world organization serving theinterests of the human species as a whole. Yet Huntington ignores the possibility ofcreating a global body of this sort by consensus; he thinks we are condemned to suffer theintroverted, selfish nature of our various civilizations.

But what if the old conviction of the inevitable nature of violent conflict could bereplaced with the conviction that wars have no future? If humanity has successfullyoutlawed slavery, once deemed normal and inevitable, why can we not imagine that war willbe ruled out as primitive and excessively costly? Conventional thinking assumes that, asfrequently happens in nature, the strong will oppress the weak, and feelings of compassionor love are not viable. But human beings have the intellectual and vital ability tosubvert the natural order. They can, in freedom, opt for relations that respect the weak.They can renounce the use of force as a priority resource.

Rather than being seen as a cause for conflictual relations, differences betweencultures can be sources of experiences of complementarity. Different culturespossess intellectual, symbolic and existential instruments that provide a specific view ofpersonal, historical and cosmic reality, but it need not be an impermeable view. Ofcourse, mutual enrichment is possible only if the different parties recognize theirlimited nature. Dialogue does not mean betrayal; it means recognizing other points of viewand other experiences in their honesty and coherence. It also implies the integration ofvaluable elements from other traditions, without fear of a loss of identity. In the searchfor a more plausible human future, Westerners can learn from other cultures a feeling forcommunity, which could offset Western individualism, or ecological practices in harmonywith nature, which could offset the Western philosophy of domination.

One guarantee of peace between cultures and civilizations is peace between religions.All the great universal religions call for peace, love, harmony, compassion, justice,mercy, charity, tenderness. Religions must not only teach nonviolence within their owncommunities, but practice a sincere fraternal dialogue with other religions, and defendreligious freedom -- legislation respecting the freedom of conscience of every humanbeing, and allowing the practice of any religion in the historical territory of the otherreligions. And religions should be able to agree on a set of universal ethical criteria toprovide a basis for peace in the world, opening the door to wide-ranging intercultural andpolitical agreements based on nonviolence.

The recognition of cultural pluralism requires the development of an advanceddemocracy. Democracy is not just citizen participation in the administration of rigidstructures; the most interesting kind allows for transformations in these structuresaccording to the aspirations of all groups. Democracy is also a method for dialogue andconsensus between groups with different interests. Although Huntington and other analystsbelieve that differences inevitably lead human communities to violence and war, there areforms of agreement that respect the identity and freedom of all cultural groups. Intheory, the freedom of each group seems no more utopian than the freedom of eachindividual member of a human community if we accept the rules of democracy. There cannotbe advanced democracy without the freedom of all groups.

Cultural pluralism requires new international structures that will allow the entirehuman community to function as a democratic whole, based on a consensus on fundamentalvalues. One reason war can emerge anywhere in the world is that there is no internationalcourt to listen to the demands of the Indian peoples of Latin America, the Chechens, theKurds, the Berbers, the Corsicans, the Basques, the Tamils, the Tibetans or the peoples ofSouthern Sudan. The way of peace calls for the development of international arbitrationbodies through which fairer recommendations and structures can be established. Publicopinion, nongovernmental organizations, and the media can exert powerful pressure for aspirit of tolerance, a culture of consensus and an appreciation of institutions of moralarbitration. If we manage to advance democracy on an international level, thepossibilities for peace will increase.