Don't Let Them Come Between Us
One man’s clash of civilization is the excuse for another man’s alliance of civilizations. Thus, this weekend, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan addressed the second meeting of the ‘High Level Group for the Alliance of Civilizations’. He referenced the recent cartoon controversy claiming that it was “an expression of a much deeper and longer-standing crisis, which is precisely the one that the Alliance was intended to address. At the heart of this crisis is a trend toward extremism in many societies.”
The group, initiated in 2005, is intended to “respond to the need for a committed effort by the international community -- both at the institutional and civil society levels -- to bridge divides and overcome prejudice, misconceptions, misperceptions, and polarization which potentially threaten world peace.” This initiative, and others like it, are supposed to counter the clash of civilizations thesis, to encourage ‘dialogue’ between different ‘civilizations’.
But the dialogue model simply reverses the clash. It assumes monolithic civilizations which can in some way be represented by a few leaders (in the case of the clash, by warring leaders, in the case of the dialogue, by the enlightened members of the High Level Group). It presumes that there are already existing divisions which are destabilizing, even if it believes that they can be resolved without recourse to war. Finally both approaches claim conflict is always irrational, driven by mysterious forces of culture and identity or in Annan’s speech by ‘a trend toward extremism.’
The idea of innate differences between people is pernicious, serving only further to entrench fear and distrust. We should reject the idea that most people cannot be trusted to relate directly to each other, needing the mediation of self-proclaimed protectors or interlocutors. These leaders paint entire civilizations as inherently divided only to conceal their own lack of political imagination, and their own inability to come up with ideas that might transcend arbitrary differences.
The group, initiated in 2005, is intended to “respond to the need for a committed effort by the international community -- both at the institutional and civil society levels -- to bridge divides and overcome prejudice, misconceptions, misperceptions, and polarization which potentially threaten world peace.” This initiative, and others like it, are supposed to counter the clash of civilizations thesis, to encourage ‘dialogue’ between different ‘civilizations’.
But the dialogue model simply reverses the clash. It assumes monolithic civilizations which can in some way be represented by a few leaders (in the case of the clash, by warring leaders, in the case of the dialogue, by the enlightened members of the High Level Group). It presumes that there are already existing divisions which are destabilizing, even if it believes that they can be resolved without recourse to war. Finally both approaches claim conflict is always irrational, driven by mysterious forces of culture and identity or in Annan’s speech by ‘a trend toward extremism.’
The idea of innate differences between people is pernicious, serving only further to entrench fear and distrust. We should reject the idea that most people cannot be trusted to relate directly to each other, needing the mediation of self-proclaimed protectors or interlocutors. These leaders paint entire civilizations as inherently divided only to conceal their own lack of political imagination, and their own inability to come up with ideas that might transcend arbitrary differences.
4 Comments:
And naturally, clumsy Annan plays into the hands of 'extremists' on both sides with his reference to extremism.
"Oh, so now freedom of speech is 'extremist'" the UN-loathing heart of America replies.
"The infidels claim we are extremists to expect any respect for our religion," says the madrassa.
One thing that seems really earnest about your project is an underlying assumption that people are empthatic rather than self-interested agents and that identity is not fixed, either by culture, biology, or economic aims.
Give me a break, editors! This is beyond ridiculous to criticize this, and annoyingly contemptful. Why does a discussion group mean that Annan has succombed to the clash of civilizations thesis? Or that he has said that there are "innate differences" between peoples...? At this point, you seem to be criticising just to criticise, and are projecting a bit too much.
annoyingly contemptuous, that is. a bad editor, I am...
Post a Comment
<< Home