The Problem with the Dialogue of Civilizations

by Sarah Eltantawi

One byproduct of the widespread "clash of civilizations" discourse

overtaking discussion of US-Islamic/Middle Eastern relations is the idea

that world citizens are either positioning themselves in agreement with or

in opposition to the notion of a colossal clash of values between two

distinct peoples. Peoples, here, are defined by religious faith and

predispositions of thought and attitude based on ethnicity and geographical

location. It is on the basis of this essentially binary and simplistic

understanding of identity that the conflict between the "Muslim world" and

the "West" is understood. It is also along these lines that much

well-meaning dialogue is based.

This model of engagement is inherently limited. For western Muslims born

and raised in the United States, for example, harsh binaries of fixed

identities do not resonate. For what is to be made of the American-born

woman of Arab decent? The Anglo-American convert to Islam? The

African-American Muslim? The Pakistani Christian? The agnostic Muslim

living in Baghdad? And so on.

Meta-narratives describing a clash between "the Muslims" and "the West"

have certainly been useful for pundits and politicians wishing, for various

reasons, to frame the very complex state of today's international affairs

in 30-second sound bytes which often replace the West with the word "good"

and the Muslim world with the word "evil." But for those of us living with

increasing discomfort in an increasingly polarized world, it is becoming

ever more imperative that we move beyond these caricatures.First, it's important for dialogue partners to understand the material

basis of this conflict.

Serious observers of the root causes that fuel recruits for Middle

East-based terrorism concur that the political problems are rooted largely

in 1) the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and 2) dictatorships in the Muslim

world, and the support that has been given to them now and in the past by

the United States. To state this another way, if these two problems were

solved, beginning with the first, there would be a measurable reduction in

rancor and violence between the two parties in question. At the same time,

terrorism is a terrifying, immoral methodology whose horrors must also be

fully understood.

Unfortunately, in the United States today, these first two points of

contention continue to be relegated to a "problems that can not be named"

status in public discourse, the open secret fueling much of this

conflict. The unnameable status of these conflicts has perpetuated massive

confusion and misinformation in the United States about the grievances,

concerns and worries of our interlocutors in the Middle East.

Also underlying the problem is a profound misunderstanding between the

so-called Muslim world and the West at the level of culture. Here, there

seems to be two basic problems:

On the "western" side, what is needed is a realization that concepts like

freedom, justice, a decent standard of living, safety for children, and a

good life are not the exclusive domain or desire of the West. For too

long, many in the West have been deluding themselves with absurdist notions

that "Muslims," "Arabs," or those in the "Middle East" are simply not

interested in such lofty concepts or do not have such basic human

needs. This attitude is only possible through dehumanizing the other, a

perennial problem that must be addressed as a prerequisite to conducting

all other work.

Seizing on what they know is this bigoted strain in American culture,

neo-conservative pundits have been making the very argument I just made-

it's racist to assume Arabs don't want to be free -- to justify aggressive

military expeditions in the region. Hence, the sane middle ground must be

understood and supported - Arabs, Muslims, those in the Middle East, like

people around the world, want freedom - but, these same people have their

own histories and, therefore, their own methodologies for attaining

freedom. Arabs and Muslims need neither arrogant dismissal of their

concerns nor aggressive, unpopular military adventures to address them, but

support for indigenous solutions emerging from within their own contexts.

On the "Muslim" or "Middle Eastern" side, instances of freedom in the West,

such as the struggle for women's rights, or the political freedom found

through American democracy, should not be discredited simply because these

advances have either been developed or are most widely practiced in "the

West." For too long, words like "gender equality" or "democracy" have been

blithely dismissed, simply because such concepts have been developed and/or

practiced in the West. This attitude is the medieval equivalent of the

West rejecting algebra because it is "Arab." There are, of course,

historical reasons for such distrust - chief among them the legacy of

colonialism, in which foreign ideas were used to prove the native inferior,

as a cover for violence and economic exploitation. Yet the baby still can

not be thrown out with the bath water when it comes to the principles of

freedom and equality informing the movements themselves.

Dialogue is also only useful when both parties are truly committed to

listening to the problems and grievances of the other. After listening, it

then becomes important to exercise empathy - an emotion that can only be

called upon when there is an assumption of sameness and common humanity

among the parties. We must strive to develop methodologies of engagement

and utilize terms of reference that are non-exclusive. Herein lies the

problem with the dialogue of civilizations alternative: it assumes that we

can speak based on the same relatively crude understandings of identity

outlined by Huntington-strictly along religious or ethnic

lines. Importantly, however, this is not to say that the solution is the

opposite extreme, or exclusivist secularism, in which no religious

perspective is allowed.

A solution is dialogue based first on knowledge of facts of the material

problems of war, occupation, and terrorism that are fueling this

problem. Dialogues that avoid these issues have limited value, as these

material concerns are the basis of the conflict. Recognizing our common

humanity and concomitant basic needs and desires as human beings, we must

work on exercising empathy for the grievances of all sides of the

conflict. This methodology and understanding of people is simultaneously

more pragmatic and simpler than attempting a meta-dialogue between

generalized symbols of religion or culture - called "civilization," in

which people and their needs tend to get lost.

---------------------------------------

Sarah Eltantawi is a co-founder and Communications Director of the

Progressive Muslim Union of North America.

Source: CGNews, December 10, 2004

Visit the CGNews website at: http://www.commongroundnews.org

Distributed by the Common Ground News Service