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

Re: about the icons...

[(Anonymous)]

The drawings were most certainly made to provoke a reaction. The forces against all kinds of diversity in Denmark is quite strong, and I don't believe for a moment that these drawings were published for any other reason than to provoke the islam community (in Denmark). I'm equally certain they wouldn't have been published if they had known what the reaction would come to be.

However, the reaction isn't based on a misunderstanding of the drawings at all. The reaction was just a bit stronger than anticipated. Also, the clash of cultures are of course a relief for both sides. They both longed for it badly, and perhaps it's a good thing it happened over something that hopefully will come to a conclusion. It had to surface eventually anyway. What's not that great is that people actually died in the process, and that it could possibly lead to fortified fundamental stances.

//
http://homepage.mac.com/produkt/

Re: about the icons...

[svenskasfinx.livejournal.com]

Why would one wish to agravate a situation by adding fuel to a fire?

The anticipation of a strong reaction is what we usually do in "art school"... but in real life where we must be "culturaly senstive" it is a case of life or death.

The expereriment of these images WAS to enrage, and the only result to have been reaped from it was violence. Sure it will calm down, because it wasn't started in a day, but it won't calm down for a while.

I think that the way it was intendtionally brought to the surface was nothing to be relieved about, on BOTH sides of the issue, and as always the "populare culture" at the time will always have an upper hand, depending upon the location they are in.

I think this was just to point more fingers to countries which were not supportive of the Irak situation, and this coming to the point of violence was not so surprisingly at the U.S. State of the Union address.... where they want to consider everyone outside of the states who empathise with Islam as "against us" and "jealous of the freedom" they believe they have.

I find the timing of the rage, somewhat delayed and yet "exactly on time" to be held up as examples of what they feel they are fighting against.

Don't you find it all quite odd? I certainly do.. as there are things you just do and do not do, no matter how "innocent to the ways of the world" one is.