The end of the end of history

[imomus]

I haven't commented yet on the main news story of last week; the deaths, embassy arson and angry protests sparked by the Danish cartoons. My comment is: Huntington was right.

In the 1990s, after the collapse of communism, right wing philosophers like Francis Fukuyama and Bernard-Henry Lévy started talking about "the end of ideology". The West had won, Western concepts of property, the family, rights and the individual would prevail, there was a "New World Order" in which we would all simply trade happily and globally with each other, sharing an interest in prosperity.

Long before 9/11, in fact back in 1993, Samuel P. Huntington contradicted this "end of history" idea in the Foreign Affairs magazine essay which launched the phrase "the clash of civilizations". Ideology in the form of the struggle between the competing rationalities of communism and capitalism may have ended, he said, but conflict would continue along cultural and religious lines.

Huntington identified the following cultures:



1. The Christian West, centered on Europe and North America but also including Australia and New Zealand.
2. Eastern Europe and Russia (Orthodox, Slavic).
3. Latin America.
4. The Muslim world of the Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia, the northwest of South Asia (Pakistan, Bangladesh, and parts of India), Malaysia, Indonesia.
5. Hindu civilization, located chiefly in India, Nepal, and the Hindu diaspora.
6. The Sinic civilization of China, Korea, Vietnam, Singapore, Taiwan.
7. Africa south of the Sahara desert.
8. The Buddhist areas of Northern India, Nepal, Bhutan, Mongolia, Buryatia, Kalmykia, Siberia, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos and Tibet.
9. Japan, considered an independent civilization.

What I call "pompous universalism" (the tendency of dominant cultures to think of their own ideas as neutral and universal; only other cultures' ideas, apparently, are vested and situated) is covered by Huntington, who says that "the Western belief that the West's values and political systems are universal is naïve and that continued insistence towards democratization and universal norms will only further antagonize other civilizations." This bullheaded "pompous universalism" is exactly why the West is losing in Iraq, and it gives Bin Laden his continued leverage, helping him (and Islamic fundamentalist parties) create power for themselves all over the Islamic world. Applied to "the universal right to freedom of expression", pompous universalism also explains the tragic misunderstandings behind the Danish cartoons affair.

I like Huntington's concern to separate modernization from Westernization (he stresses that Western individualism pre-dates and has different sources from the West's own economic modernization). His speculations are interesting too. According to Wikipedia, "Huntington identifies the Sinic civilization, with its rapid economic growth and distinct cultural values, to be the most powerful long-term threat to the West. He sees Islamic civilization as a potential ally to China, both having more revisionist goals and sharing common conflicts with other civilizations. Huntington also believes that the demographic and economic growth of other civilizations will result in a much more multipolar civilizational system. The demographic decline of the West, combined with its inability to unify and even a decadent society, risked significant dangers.

"Huntington labels the Orthodox, Hindu, and Japanese civilizations as "swing" civilizations, with the potential to move in different directions vis-a-vis the West, perhaps mostly tied to the progress in their relations with the Sinic and Islamic groupings. Huntington argues that an "Islamic-Confucian connection" is emerging in which China will cooperate more closely with Iran, Pakistan, and other states to augment its international position."

I talked with Hisae about this at the weekend as we bathed in the snowy landscape of Kinosaki, on the Sea of Japan. We both agree that Japan warrants being called a separate civilization. Hisae (who's half Korean, by the way) thinks Japan will "swing" with the West, but I'm not so sure; I think the high point of Japanese identification with the West was reached in the 1980s, and that Japanese in the future will be less rather than more Western than they are today. American influence is on the wane, Chinese influence on the rise. I'm not sure how close Japan will want to get to China, though. There seem to be huge culture gaps (as well as historical grievances) stopping that. Then again, Hisae's mother commutes between Seoul, Shanghai and Osaka buying and selling clothes, and in terms of Japan's trading patterns (rather than cultural patterns or diplomatic patterns) that's not so very unusual.

Comments

[rfmcdpei.livejournal.com]

One problem with his theory is that it doesn't allow for intermediate cases, or for changing orientations. Is Argentina Western? What about Ukraine? What about ...

These critiques come from the margins, yes, but interesting things happen there.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

I can't agree about "changing orientations". Huntington talks a lot about these, as represented in this chart (thick lines represent more conflictual relationships):

[imomus.livejournal.com]

This comment by Stanley Kurtz (http://www.parapundit.com/archives/000377.html) on the conflicts (and overlaps) between Fukuyama and Huntington is very interesting:

"The greatest question perhaps may be whether modernization must inevitably cause a culture to place greater emphasis on individualism and individual rights. A popular interpretation of Western history is that industrialization created the conditions that led the rise of individualism. This may be a false reading of history. The concept of individual human rights predates industrialization and modernization in Western Civilization by many centuries. Today while Muslim societies possess far more technology than Americans of two centuries ago those Muslim societies of today place less emphasis on human rights than American culture then."

There's also an interesting point at the end about an internal threat to Western culture from multiculturalists, diversity fans and pluralists who want to detach the West from Eurocentrism. But what is the West if it's just the sum of all the people living (diversely and differently) within it? For instance, if it's as much extended families as nuclear families, and as much intolerance of offence against the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him, even in Denmark) as tolerance of freedom of expression?

A (perhaps) related aside...

[peripherus-max.livejournal.com]

Of course, being the famous atheist that you are, Nick (http://www.atheistalliance.org/aaw/atheistmusicians_ftom.html)... I must ask where atheism lies on the chart above, and relatedly... in your opinion, which nation state would most likely "swing" it's way in times of crisis?

Also, is the scientific method a Western idea?

Also, an interesting speech yesterday in Berlin (plz see my blog)...

Re: A (perhaps) related aside...

[imomus.livejournal.com]

Atheism lies in all the territories demarcated, you can find it just by tacking a post- onto the religious description. I'm a post-Protestant, for instance. I don't believe that my atheism is the same atheism as a post-Hindu would have. Our god-shaped holes would have very different shapes (hers would obviously have to be big enough to fit a whole pantheon, and accommodate lots of missing elephant trunks etc).

The scientific method is not just Western. For instance, left to its own devices the West would still be using the Roman numeral system (I, II, III, IV, oh, forget it!) rather than the Arabic system we have today. However, that doesn't mean that scientific method transcends cultural systems. It just merges several.

[charleshatcher.livejournal.com]

God, I hate religion.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

As opposed to "Buddha, I hate religion", presumably.

[(Anonymous)]

"Applied to 'the universal right to freedom of expression', pompous universalism also explains the tragic misunderstandings behind the Danish cartoons affair."

No, not at all. What does a Danish newspaper have to do with Iran? Nothing. This is more about Islam's own pompous universalism, expecting that everyone else play by their rules. Of course, you'd rather frame it the other way around because for you, what is exotic is correct.

[kementari2.livejournal.com]

I think Anonymous-san might be right in this instance.

[riotdorrrk.livejournal.com]

where do the Buddhist civilizations fit in, in the future? still detached from all worldly procedings?

[nato-dakke.livejournal.com]

It would take some pretty damned big miracles, and a total about face of the currently accelerating trend toward hiding in the military bosom of the US to see Japan turn to it's west (China) in favor of it's american connections. Historical circumstance has swung japan far enough in "our" direction that it's not just a simple matter of the choices of the japanese populace who they wanna make friends with.

seperately, taking capitalism as the new binding force, it seems like even the most entrenched of enemies are slowly creeping toward each other in their fundamental beliefs (china most dramatically). Before long, the broadest remaining chasms will be those of historical circumstance... like the china/japan, islam/christian, basque/spanish gaps.

The sinic region (for example) can never substantial territory by war, unless they carry out a full scale extermination of the former inhabitiants of conquered lands. Left in place, the populations of ideologically conquered countries will, at most, mix some sinic blue in with their purple or brown or orange or whatever. History has been wiping out the smaller hold outs for ages, but as we get down to the last few players, uniformity can't be acheived by conquest... to omou.

[wingedwhale.livejournal.com]

Where would you say pompous universalism fits with ethnocentrism?

Oh, to be white. "We're the white, blank canvas!"

[imomus.livejournal.com]

I think it's ethnocentric to think that your values are better than other people's because they're yours, but even more ethnocentric to think that your values are better than other people's because they're universal.

[queersolitude.livejournal.com]

Here is an interesting post (http://spiritofnow.livejournal.com/93631.html) on the Danish cartoons by spiritofnow.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

People are prepared to be tolerant of everything except other people's intolerance, aren't they? Just as they're into diversity as long as it doesn't produce a really otherly other. I think one thing we're seeing at the moment is the West abandoning its pretence to believe in things like tolerance and diversity, in other words giving up its pompous universalism and becoming situated. This will be good if done with tact, but appallingly bloody if done with violence.

A history of tolerance turns into fundamentalist intolerance...

[svenskasfinx.livejournal.com]

I don't suppose anyone really knows exactly what life was like in the 1400's in Spain when Islam was the ruling religion and people who were not Muslam were NOT forced to believe but rather taxed a little heavier.

There have always been religious encounters, culture clashes but only in these times does life mean so little that people go to the point of wanting to harm others for the sake of such fundamentalist idealologies.. It was historically "Christians" (although not really the "turn-the-other-cheek-type" which started the blood bath which was the Crusades, just not all for the sake of religious freedom but rather domination of "the holy land"..

Why does the western thought of fundamentalist Christianity feel that it is its destiny to confront "those who do not believe the same" with war? Why do you think others being dominated protest so violently? Learn by example- Isreal, for example, forces the issue all the time, and pretty much if they didn't always act in the way they do in the area the are in, there could actually be peace.

Christians in America in particular seem to want to fulfill some "profetic destiny" and they mean to bring it about even if it means they and half the world will die in order to bring it about...I think it was Bush sr. who always quoted this "new world order" This always brought about some kind of religious vibes with it for me.

With Jylens post incident, I just see it as another line drawn in the sand, and how far can they push people or incite people to react, I even suspect OTHER outside interests have been pushing the Islamic Fundamentalists to react as violently as they suddenly have. But when I heard another statement (which was just mentioned on radio news) that to boycott Danish goods was like boycotting the EU, I thought, they really have far done this time... when it comes to boycotts we ALL should have that right, and its not a violent protest, its just stating the unhappiness of the people. If people want to push and take that away from any population, its forcing people to "buy into a system" and then the idea that we actually have a choice will just as well be a scam.

I hope we learn something from this. Perhaps there is always something to see behind the scenes... and that maybe someone is enjoying pushing people alread push too far, to be pushed even farther.

I never felt Globalism had to be confrontational-- being that Jamacia and its miniature global world was full of Asian, East Asian, African and even Anglo culture, religions and so on..idealy this would mean that The Rastifarian Religion will be the one that will take over the world ;) we can only hope!

Re: A history of tolerance turns into fundamentalist intolerance...

[imomus.livejournal.com]

I am seriously thinking of putting the Emperor Haille Selassie on my new record sleeve.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm no fan of Bernard-Henri Lévy, but it's a bit of a stretch to nail him as a "right-wing philosopher". One of his most recent books is a long love letter to Sartre, after all. I'd put him on the post-68 revisionist left.

Hugo

Cynical about the Sinics.

[artysmokes.livejournal.com]

While the current cartoon complex is slightly worrying, I suppose Huntington would recommend that cartoons offending the Chinese would be rather more of a threat to world stability. China is well on its way to becoming a military and economic superpower to rival the US. The future direction of Chinese ideology viz-a-viz it's relation to "The West" is of paramount importance for world peace. Let's face it, the US isn't gonna become more Sinic, so is the "People's Republic" of China gonna become more "civilised"?

[mo-no-chrome.livejournal.com]

Surely, though, the monolithic-ness of Huntington's conception of 'civilisations' is to be deplored, and is as Western as any concept ever was.
Not to mention his more recent extremely bizarre theory that Latin American culture is on its way to taking over the US...

[(Anonymous)]

I find the way you base your discussions of books & papers so often (and so unashamedly) only on reviews and summaries (which can be found online) ... I don't know ... admirable? hilarious? cool? something inbetween.

der.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

My belief is that everything worth its salt aspires towards a pithy summary, just as every culture really wants to be a juicy stereotype.

War! What is it good for? It's good for business!

[class-worrier.livejournal.com]

The 'pompous universalism' model doesn't quite fit when Iraq is used as an example though, as Bush was deposing a secular dictator (which is as much a Western archetype as anything) rather than trying to tamper with an Islamic theocracy (Oh, won't it be fun when it's Irans turn..).
These regimes aren't toppled because they don't share our values. They have to go because they stopped playing the game and that is bad for business.
Dictatorships are the business partners of choice for capitalism.

Also, I can't go along with the idea that the West is the only party guilty of this arrogant way of thinking. Surely Islam has replaced Communism as Pepsi to the Wests Coca Cola? After all, Islam didn't gain that much of the world map through purely peaceful means..*

*And yes, they had a good model to follow in Christianity, before someone decides to accuse me of picking on just one strand of organised religion.

[nomorepolitics.livejournal.com]

I'm not so sure that the Western "pompous universalism" and Islamic ideas about the truth of the Koran and the need to propagate the religion are so entirely different. For that matter, how many cultures are there that don't hold the sense that their own traditions and beliefs are the best. While there is the advantage of being able to see from the other's perspective, there is also a necessary strength in holding to your views when you have the sense that they are best -- though you might be deceived. Definitely, if we could all understand each other better, it would be easier to live together, but offering to decline our own perspective to accommodate fundamentalist or even just any other world views, religious or political, brings the possibility of submissively subduing ourselves to potential oppressors.

I definitely enjoyed reading a lot of today's entries.

[armoredbaby.livejournal.com]

Interesting view to read. Some of the points I have been thinking about lately, as my country's government increasingly worries me. Just general thoughts about where we are as nation, how young we are and in addition to that -- Westernism in general. I love maps too and that one of all the areas of influence was a nice one to inspect.

---

In my click-travels, I found this comment
via this guy (http://www.ijtihad.org/globalog.htm)

you may enjoy this

[maybeimdead.livejournal.com]

http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=14320&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

[w-e-quimby.livejournal.com]

momus i need to stop reading you you're seeping into my in-class western civ essays

[trini-naenae.livejournal.com]

Spot on. Pompous Universalism is really one of the key problems.

These days I won't share my views on politics if I think they have pompous universal views in place. I'm not going to waste my time and energy in an argument that goes nowhere.

I would admit that at times I probably do fail to listen to other people's opinions enough.

[cap-scaleman.livejournal.com]

Once can wonder why Rasmussen actually didn't start talking to the muslim ambassadors who came to talk to him only a few days after the publishing of the cartoons last year. But now the Danes seems to have reconsidered it all after Danish Prime minister have met the group called "Democratic Muslims" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4708312.stm)(That represents 80-85% percent of Denmarks 200 000 muslims).

Civilization?

[(Anonymous)]

Momus, I am kind of surprised to hear you advocating the Huntington side on this issue (part of me imagines that perhaps you are gearing up for the Pangloss role?).
I disagree that the cartoon row has anything to do with a "clash of civilizations" for a number of reasons, the main one being that I don't see what it has to do with civilization (either Western or Islamic) in the first place. This seems to be a (less than straight-forward, I admit) case of press indiscretion which provoked demonstrations, with a large bit of media sensationalism thrown in. Anyway, your post inspired me to do my own (I had been meaning to anyway) commentary on the issue: http://2nd-law.blogspot.com/

There are also of articles on BBC and Reuters that you might want to check out as well, I am including a couple:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4685886.stm
http://www.evworld.com/rssnews.cfm?section=communique&rssid=10945

[(Anonymous)]

Two thoughts: 1) While "freedom of speech" is a principle worth defending, it's arrogant (and annoying) the extent to which people interpret it to mean "I can say anything I want, and no one should be pissed off, because I have the right to say anything I want." Freedom of speech should include understanding that people will react to what you say. If you intentionally provoke someone (which is surely what the right-wing publishers of these cartoons intended), you cannot pretend innocence when they react to your provocation. (That doesn't mean all reactions to provocations are justified, of course!) 2) Anyone who argues that the violent reactions to these images proves that "Islam isn't ready for democracy," and that we in the West are more civilized in our tolerance of free expression, should go to a bar full of liquored-up bikers in middle America, and proceed to burn a U.S. flag. --2fs

"POMPOUS UNIVERSALISM GOT US HERE"

[elperrodepaulov.livejournal.com]

You should be grateful to it (rather than to any other otherness) that you can rant about it in the World Wide Web.

I am on the other side, I like pompous universalism.When I´ve looked at other cultures what I consider most important is the part we all share and not our differences, which I only appreciate at an aestethetic level (very important for a life of joy, but coming afterwards nontheless). I´m all for the differences as long as they don´t tread on the individual´s rights to choose (be it against parent´s choice, against social prejudices, againts the church voice-makers, or in sweet accordance to all those). Don´t you muslimize me (“become a muslim”, you once said –“On fun”), you are the first one that likes the islam only on a very superficial aesthetic level (i.e. robe wearing).

I don´t have a problem with all those “otherness” unless they just wants to become another sameness and they attack the individual freedom in sake of whatever holiness. I´m all ready to accept other people freely choosing to abdicate on their free will to submit to something “bigger than them” (be it islam, the Manifest Destiny or S&M sex)... if they don´t pretend to oblige me or anyone else not going for it. You recently said “people are prepared to be tolerant of everything except other people´s intolerance” and pretended to sound scornful... I don´t get it.

Don´t you “politise” me either, I couldn´t see less politeness in those (muslim) people that have felt so offended as to demonstrate in the streets by the caricatures in a newspaper but not by Osama talking in the name of Allah and consider him the new prophet atop a hill. Politeness can only go so far and is not expected under certain circumstances, after which it just turns to pompous relativism, which says that everyone´s entitled to their own opinion and all opinions are equally respectable (meaning you shouldn´t criticize them). But it´s been said before and I´ll repeat it again, it´s the people that ought to be respected (their physical integrity most of all), not the ideas, specially not proto-fascist ideas, regardless how many people are willing to share them.

*CONTINUES

continuation ("POMPOUS UNIVERSALISM GOT US HERE")

[elperrodepaulov.livejournal.com]

Maybe you crticize only my side, the Enlightened, because you think it´s the winning side (and you confess you see evrything popular as bad). But I´m not so sure about it, and I beleive if it´s winning it´s for its own merits and a lot of people are willing to live by those values all around the world, not because an aggressive campaign on our side. Still when I look at today´s world I see my universlist ideas have only made it so far and I see a powerful comeback on religion or nationalism (another kind of religion) which scares the shit out of me.I see such big countries as Iran or Rusia in hands of people that don´t give a shit on individuals and freedom of expression and I´m scared. A lot of people seem to recall with yearning the good old days when at least there were two systems at war, back in the days of the USSR. How “balance of powers” worked so well (even when the world almost blew it in the Cuba affair) and it kept the USA more tame, the westerners more relativists and capitalism had to bend its knees and constrain itself not to look too bad in comparison. Thus some people seem to appreciate that we´re going in that direction again, but I don´t think they acknowledge that a lot of people in the USSR (and even in USA under McCarthism) were in a living hell and couldn´t complain about it, just as many as there are today in China and Iran. Talk to them about politeness and see what they think. (* After writing this I heard about Danish MP of Somali origins Ayaan Hirsi Ali giving a speech in Berlin recently that suits just fine: http://ayaanhirsiali.web-log.nl/log/4921442 ).

We pompous universalists are very polite, else see how Pinochet or Sadam get all fussy on the legal side of life (please forget Guantanamo for a moment, I´m not speaking for Bush as he´s less of a pompous universalist than a religious fanatic like those he´s fighting) when someone decided (even based on petrol stinking reasons) that they should stop dictating others or bragging about it. By the way, talk about Marxy´s hidden motives agenda... But isn´t that precisely what you post-modern blame on naif universalists, the hideen agenda? The “don´t pay attention to what´s been said but rather to who´s saying it” kind of thing by the so called philosophy of suspicion (Freud, Nietzsche, Foucault).

Don´t get me wrong, I don´t claim you to be a radical pomopous relativist, I doubt there are any. I think you are just having fun (yes, fun) by claiming so in between the art gallery and the tea house, and that you would be as terrified as myself would pompous universalist values finally loose the battle.

Nabokov came to mind

[elperrodepaulov.livejournal.com]

From your post of today: "Layard also talks about the roles played by habituation (we get quickly used to new standards of living, and start to see them as basic)". I remembered a quote of Nabokov´s, which roughly translated from Spanish says this: "They usually ask me whom I like from the compromised or non-compromised writers of our marvellous century. Well, first of all I don´t appreciate the writer that does not see the wonders of this century, the little things, the informality in man´s dress-code, the bathroom, the bathroom that substitutes the filthy toilet. The big things, like the sublime freedom of thinking in our double western world, and the moon. The moon! I remember the chills of pleasure, of envy and anguish I felt when watching at the TV screen the first floating steps of man over the dust of our satellite, and how I despised those that held that it wasn´t worth spending so much money to tread on a dead planet´s dust."