One world is possible
The quest for a global culture is at the core of the quest for enlightenment and tolerance, writes Hazem Kandil*, in tribute to Edward Said
Immanuel Kant once wrote "We do not live in an enlightened age ... but we do live in the Age of Enlightenment." Edward Said was an intellectual who understood quite well the role he had to play, or rather the burden he chose to carry. He played his part in the Age of Enlightenment. Now that he's gone, it is up to us as disciples of the enlightened and humanistic ideas propagated by Said to carry them forward; to continue the relentless quest for an overarching "global culture" that would one day unite humanity under the banners of freedom and equality, without alienating any of the world's rich and diversified "subcultures". It falls to us -- bearers of Edward Said's moral legacy -- to continue the construction of the "universal community" he had once envisioned, but died short of realising.
Unfortunately, the noble quest for a global culture had been stalled once too many times. National boundaries, economic classifications, ideological differences, and cultural divisions were among the most problematic impediments. Today, despite the irreversible thrust of globalisation, and the promise of unity inherent in its very mechanisms, a new hurdle has overshadowed the aforementioned challenges; that is the Huntingtonian postulation concerning the "Clash of Civilisations", and specifically, the one between the West and the uneasy aggregation he chose to call Islamic civilisation.
Evidently a clash exists. But the question is, why does it exist? Who are the true antagonists and beneficiaries? In my view, the clash is not between two distinct civilisations, but rather two rivaling "belief systems" within those civilisations. It is a clash between radical Islamism in the East and what we could roughly term neo-conservatism in the West. Ironically, the similarities between the two are quite remarkable. For one, the advocates of each system believe they own the one absolute and indisputable truth concerning the "correct" way of life: a radical version of Islam, on the one hand, and a distorted understanding of liberal democracy on the other. Second, each faction believes it has been assigned some "moral duty" -- by God, human conscience, or whatever -- to impose this absolute truth on all others; or in other words force its values and standards on the rest of the world. They genuinely believe that in doing so they are actually elevating humanity, and making the world a better place. Accordingly, they both legitimise the use of force -- whether by terrorists attacks, or military operations -- in that "honorable" pursuit.
It seems that the global reconciliation envisaged by Edward Said is currently being undermined by the possibilities of a cataclysmic "Second Cold War" -- one that promises much more suffering and devastation than the first. Is there a way out? How can we, Said's disciples, take a stand against the demagogues who are manipulating the values they claim to represent?
I believe it is time for us to step in and deconstruct the illusionary barriers that separate humanity. We must understand the challenge of our age: an age where globalisation has abruptly and simultaneously opened up the peoples of the East and the West to each other's cultures without prior warning -- an age far beyond Said's "Orientalism". It is only through a serious push of intellectual labour, underpinned by the concept of universalism, that we could succeed in mending the chasm between man's technological advancement and philosophical development, or more accurately underdevelopment. We must understand that the quest for a global culture is mutually exclusive with current attempts to impose one particular culture on all others. Such a quest must begin by a process of extracting and abstracting the basic tenets of man's rational and spiritual development; the very fruits of human reasoning and intellect. The values of freedom, democracy, social justice, and the respect for basic human rights are not a product of any particular civilisation, but rather the outcome of centuries of civility and accumulative progress. What is really at stake here is not the origins of these principles -- human reasoning or divine revelation -- it is rather their implementation.
We must embrace the non-fundamentalist factions within each civilisation, namely, the Islamic reformers and the Western liberals. Those who know that the truth they perceive is only relative, and that their only moral obligation is to communicate their thoughts, their own personal version of what constitutes a worthy life, exclusively through a two-way dialogue. I am referring here to those who do not seek to preach or lecture, those who prefer being scholars and thinkers rather than terrorists and soldiers, and those who understand that sharing their findings with the "Other" would most certainly contribute to the overall balance of human intellectualism.
If we wish to see the humane aspirations of people like Edward Said materialise, if we might one day witness the birth of a "universal community" out of the present illusions of power and hegemony, then we should stall no longer. We should not linger at a time when reconciliation is overdue. We must carry on the vocation of ending this "Clash of Belief Systems" before it casts the world into chaos. The salvation of mankind rests upon the hope that one day people might succeed in liberating themselves from the bonds of "cultural chauvinism". I am afraid that if we do not rise up to this formidable task, if we do not let it transpire through our work and writings, then Edward Said's visions will be buried, and along with them his primary legacy.
* The writer is an Egyptian diplomat and a researcher attached to The American University in Cairo. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of either institution.
Al-Ahram Weekly Online : 27 November - 3 December 2003 (Issue No. 666)
Located at: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/666/op8.htm