| Username |
Post |
| ashu |
Posted
on 18-Dec-01 01:29 AM
A very intereresting article.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34207-2001Dec12.html
Sam Huntington, by the way, taught our late King Birendra about American democracy.
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
| sally |
Posted
on 18-Dec-01 10:13 AM
Akbar Ahmed, who is quoted briefly in the article, has argued that the upcoming scenario isn't so much a "clash of civilizations" as a clash between people who WANT a clash of civilizations and those who want a dialogue of civilizations.
I rather like that view.
Perhaps this is beside the point, or maybe it's a revealing little tidbit, but on around page 9 or so of Huntington's book, he's got a map of the former "colonized world." He includes Nepal among the colonies. A minor little mistake, but nevertheless, I think it shows his tendency to overgeneralize without bothering about the pesky little details that make up reality.
Also, I can’t think of much evidence for civilizational clash between anything except "Islam" and "The West"--two proseletyzing civilizations with universalist inclinations. He identifies other civilizations, but devotes most space (I’m only partway through the book) to foreseeing a clash between Western and Sinic. Yet it seems to me (off-the-cuff reaction only) that the main clashes between China and the West involve power and sovereignty. A pretty traditional clash, and not particularly a civilizational one.
The other “civilizations” seem tossed into the book mainly to make his argument into an overarching theory. But he only writes, I dunno, maybe five paragraphs on S Asian civilization. He identifies it as a civilization and therefore assumes there’s some kind of “clash” with the West. But S Asian civilization has always been pretty comfortable with multiplicity. It’s hard to see it fostering the kind of internal psychological makeup to fuel a clash on some wide scale. As for Far Eastern/Sinic, the general way of dealing with The Other has been either to adapt to it or just completely shut it out. Seems like nowadays China is doing a bit of both. Any thoughts from GBNC Sinophiles?
Just my initial reactions. Like I said, I haven't really digested the book yet.
|
| nobody |
Posted
on 18-Dec-01 12:07 PM
Sally pointed out "But S Asian civilization has always been pretty comfortable with multiplicity". And I think that is the same for the West too. Western Europe for all purposes embraces the "global culture", while at the same time we can see major cultural differences between neighboring communities, and have protected their unique identity. Will there be a "global culture"? Yes. Will there be a homegeniezation of culture? No. I think the culture will be a two part mix- of local culture and global culture. If we look at it in consumeristic perspective, McDonald's India sells McAlooTiki Burger... On other hand, China vs. the West I think is a battle for the economy (which is kind of in-line with Sally's power and sovereignty)... and "shutting out" it has done effectively.
|
| SIWALIK |
Posted
on 18-Dec-01 12:19 PM
It irked me too when I saw Nepal included as a colony, but I realized it later that Nepal's status during the British Raj was not of a sovereign state, but a "protectorate".
About Fukuyama and Huntington, I am tired of both these thesis that overblow the reality, and generalize beyond what is possible. I could suggest some scholarly articles that slams this "class of civilization" theory, if anyone is interested to read them.
|
| sally |
Posted
on 18-Dec-01 02:43 PM
Nobody wrote,
>Sally pointed out "But S Asian civilization has always been pretty comfortable with multiplicity". And I think that is the same for the West too.
Well, yes. I think it’s different from the S Asian sense, and has different roots. But definitely, the contemporary West is comfortable with at least a surface expression of multiplicity. Like McAlu Tiki Burgers. Anyway, true to its universalistic and proseletyzing inclinations, the West even promotes the virtue of diversity quite zealously! I guess that's one reason why OBL didn't manage to draw the US into making the kind of missteps that could have led to a clash-of-civilizations war with Islam (which was probably his goal).
Siwalik, I hadn't thought about Nepal being a British protectorate in the 19th-early 20th c. Do you know what that really meant? Was it some kind of in-between step between being a colony and being independent, or more like an alliance (albeit a blatantly unequal one)? Was there any difference at the time in terms of status between Nepal and, say, Sikkim, Bhutan, or the Maldives?
|
| nobody |
Posted
on 18-Dec-01 04:22 PM
Diversity certainly has different roots. But in response to Sally's " ...a surface expression of multiplicity", I think it's deeper than that. e.g. body languges conveying different messages as one crosses certain geographical boundaries sometimes within the same city is one such incidence (nod of head meant "yes" on one side of the mountain and "no" on other), language is other. However, it's easier to notice these diversity in S. Asia because you (meaning the West) get exposed to it at an age when you can appreciate the difference. Whereas you're used to the environment you grew up in. I am sure a S. Asian could look at the concept of different churches in the same way as the West looks at the differences in S. Asian religious practices. Same would go for language. Religion/language/body language are, after all, some artifacts of culture. Even within US, I consider one of the most homogeneous countries culturally, you will notice these differences as you go from north to south and east to west.
For me, McAloo Tiki burger is more an example of how MNCs sell their culture by incorporating something local. Not a lot of Big Macs would have sold in India. But McAloo did sell and it did "mcdonaldize" India, to a certain extent. But it also lost some of it's own essense. Who gained/compromised more can be argued. The global culture is driven by these MNCs and they will incorporate something local to enter new market, not because they want to, but because they have to. And in ways, they will sustain some of those aspects of culture.
|
| sally |
Posted
on 18-Dec-01 05:17 PM
Multiplicity in the sense of, for instance, different gestures/languages/artifacts is not really what I mean. That would be equally true in the Muslim world. I'd imagine that Moroccans have different gestures, clothing fashions, etc from Malaysians. Any large geographical region will have lots of different cultural practices.
What I'm referring to is a culture that easily tolerates multiplicity in viewpoints. A kind of comfort with philosophical diversity.
For instance, whereas a Christian would say "thou shalt have no God before [mine]" and a Muslim would say "there is no god but Allah," and both religions (being universalistic and proseletyzing) would be inclined to deal with the competition by eliminating it--teaching, enforcing, or in some way selling to the other culture the "right way" and the "right beliefs"--Hindus seem either to have absorbed or ignored the competition. For instance, people who aren't Hindu aren't condemned as terrible sinners who are doing something that is absolutely, irreconcilably wrong. They just don't count. They're outside the caste system. What would be the point of clashing with them?
That's part of why it's not really possible to compare the differences between Christian churches to the differences between S Asian cultural/religious practices. The dynamic at work is too different. Many Christian really, honestly believe that other Christians are sinners who are not real Christians and are going to hell for all eternity because they do Christianity "wrong." (I think the same thing happens in the Muslim world. OBL would say that a moderate Muslim does Islam "wrong.")
That's very, very different from, say, the way a Bahun would look at a Newari festival. It wouldn't be "wrong;" it would just be "the way Newars do things." Very different approach. One is universalistic, the other is not.
I know I'm simplifying; there are a zillion caveats to all of this. I'm just trying to explain what I mean by multiplicity. Basically, S Asia has (at least historically) had a different cultural mindset, and one that, I think, is less likely to manifest itself through a cultural clash along the lines of Huntington's idea. Which is part of the trouble with Huntington's thesis. Even if the world is increasingly perceiving itself along civilizational lines (which may be true), the likelihood of a clash has so much to do with the way each civilization tends to respond to others ...
Anyway, those are just my half-baked impressions. I could babble on, but it's not really a place for an essay ... gotta go pick up my kid, and then disappear into the kitchen like a good girl ;-)
|
