|
The Improbable Yet
Necessary Dialogue
The
missing yet necessary role of intellectuals in ME and World Affairs
This is not simply an essay on
intellectuals, their role and the dialogue that they need to champion, but an attempt by a
young and aspiring ME “intellectual” to present his own personal views and his
own personal critique of the way things are in the world today.
Introduction
Beyond negotiations and dogmatization, there exists today a real need in the ME, with the
diversity of its peoples and cultures, for a deep, realistic and comprehensive dialogue
that can cut across existing stereotypes and illusions, although they may often be
state-sponsored and correspond, in one way or another, to certain old cultural prejudices.
In fact, it is this last remark that makes the proposed dialogue even more vital and
necessary.
For what is the
job of the intellectual if not to bring some much needed objectivity and sobriety to the
analysis of fundamental political, socioeconomic and cultural issues?
Of course, one can
easily bring up here the question of how objective and sober can the intellectuals really
be when they themselves are caught up in the ongoing turmoil in the region, and when they
themselves are often found lacking when it comes down to addressing the all too important
issue of who “we” are and where “we” stand in the world today? Indeed,
if the history of the 20th Century
proves anything it is that ME intellectuals have often been part and parcel of the various
problems and dilemmas faced by its peoples, and as such, they have often contributed to
making things even more complex and confusing rather than clear and manageable.
The inability of
various ME intellectuals to conduct a calm and rational dialogue between themselves on the
basis of mutual respect for each other’s fundamental rights turned them into mere
toys and ideologues in the hands of power-mongering politicians, dynasts, clerics and army
generals. As such, ME intellectuals proved often much more capable of stultifying the
minds of their peoples, and leaders, rather than inspiring them into engagement in
creative thoughts and acts that could perhaps enable that haggard part of the world to
rise up to the level of the challenges it faces.
As such, one might
be easily tempted to dismiss any potential positive role that the intellectuals can
play in the present and future of the ME. This, however, could indeed prove a very serious
mistake with consequences far more harmful than any failure on part of ME intellectuals so
far. For ME intellectuals, despite all their failures and shortcomings, still have a major
role to play in steering their societies and polities into the adoption of lasting and
comprehensive solutions to existing problems, thus ushering in an era of lasting and
durable peace and prosperity.
But, first, ME
intellectuals, to be more specific, the older generations of ME intellectuals, have a long
way to go yet in order to rehabilitate, reinvent and reeducate themselves. They have to review all their
erstwhile suppositions and tenets and indulge in sincere acts of self-criticism, a process
without which no self-renewal is possible. They should be no sacred cows for them in this
process, all ideas and beliefs should once again be laid out on the table for discussion,
and some need to be crushed like the idols they have become.
But more
importantly, the new and slowly-emerging generation of ME intellectuals, has to learn from
the mistakes of the older generations and avoid their pitfalls. The most critical thing is
for the new generations to be able to understand that the role of the intellectual in
contemporary ME societies is to be a dissident in every sense of the word. Toning down
one’s ideas and policing one’s self so as to avoid angering the political or
clerical authorities, and to avoid rousing popular sentiments, is in itself the kind of
concession that cannot be made under any circumstances, and especially, under these
circumstances where the problems of the ME are clearly related to the established
political, religious, economic and socio-cultural institutions.
Making this one
concession, then, is, in effect, synonymous with giving up the entire struggle for the
development and modernization of the ME. Unfortunately,
this is exactly the kind of concession that has, eventually, been made by the older
generations of ME intellectuals, with few exceptions. I say eventually, because, one has
to admit that the intellectuals did put up a fight, and that this concession was often
made under duress. And though it is quite unlikely that the circumstances are going to be
any different for the new generations of intellectuals, the task remains the same, and has
become even more vital as the fate of the entire region, and the world, especially in the
aftermath of September 11, is now, more than ever, subject to a kind of external dabbling
that risks depriving the peoples of the ME, once again, of control over their own lives
for decades, if not centuries, to come.
So what is this major role that ME intellectuals have to play?
What is this dialogue they have to engage in. And how, and this is quite important indeed,
could this dialogue be exported to the other strata in the society without diluting its
main ideas?
The dialogue, one
has to insist, needs to be multilayered, that is, it needs to take place at different
levels, more or less, simultaneously.
It has, first,
to be a dialogue with the Self. No isms should be involved here anymore, we had enough of
them, we should be able to see by now that the isms have always been part of the problem
for us and that they, in their very nature, make the whole idea of dialogue impossible. An
intellectual always needs to review his basic suppositions and his stands and he should
have the courage to accept correction, public or private, and to change his views.
Second, the
dialogue should be socially internal and not only psychologically internal. It should be a
dialogue with the Other in one’s society, aimed not at nullifying the difference, but
at reaching common grounds and a joint understanding on various critical issues despite
the differences that exist. This dialogue is naturally bound to involve a review of
the society’s social and religious traditions, its ancient and modern history, and
various old and new political and economic theories, hence its complicated and
comprehensive nature, and hence the need for patience therein, and for moderating
short-term expectations.
One of the most
important points relating to social dialogue is the need for avoiding past-orientation,
and for focusing on the present and the future. Analyzing history is not synonymous with
idealizing it or getting caught up in it, nor should it lead to that. One of our main
problems in the region has been our inability to make this necessary, though admittedly
difficult, psychological break with the past, be it ancient or recent. No one is
demanding a cultural break here, this is a process that is simply happening on its own.
Understanding this admittedly dangerous fact, dangerous in the sense that it has
caused a sever identity crisis involving hundreds of millions of people, requires a
certain amount of detachment so as to avoid dictating the results of the analysis.
Third, the
Dialogue needs to be conducted with intellectuals from other ME, societies and/or
polities. It has to have a regional element. It has to take the regional friends and foes
into consideration, especially the foe, the enemy. The way the borders are drawn and
resources distributed hereabouts makes it useless to exclude the “regional
other” from the Dialogue. Internal peace, even in a social sense, cannot be achieved
these days, without a regional settlement and a regional peace. Our identities are as much
the product of regional developments as they are the products of internal social
developments.
Fourth, the
Dialogue needs to be conducted with intellectuals from around the world. This has become
even more important in the aftermath of the September 11 Attack. Considering the important
economic, political and technological developments that took place around the world with
the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Empire, particularistic cultural
and national identities became enmeshed more and more in the fabric of international
developments. This fact challenges even the most basic and fundamental pillars of our
self-awareness and our self-knowledge, and, consequently, all our related isms.
There is no more
room, then, for isolationist thoughts and tendencies. A certain unitary reality has
imposed itself upon us. We may not like it. We might choose to challenge certain aspects
of it. But it cannot in itself be denied or rejected. Atavism is the reaction of the
defeated, what is needed is “our” participation in the face of all challenges,
obstacles, opposition and, more importantly, our own sense of apprehension.
The special case of Islamism in the aftermath of September 11
That Islamism has become part of the forces shaping the tumultuous scene in the
contemporary ME is undeniable. That, as such, Islamism will become involved, and in a
direct manner, in any intellectual challenge to the basics of Islamic heritage, is beyond
all doubt. That such involvement will often be rejectionist and atavistic, not to mention,
at occasions, violent, is only natural. But, for ME intellectuals, especially those of
Islamic background, to become too daunted by the awesomeness of the task involved, or by
fear that their contributions in this matter should be used as fodder in someone’s
cannons aimed at the Arab and Muslim world and culture, is a development that can easily
doom the Arab and Muslim peoples to a certain intellectual and spiritual death.
If the vestiges of
Islamic Culture and Civilization have died, after a centuries-long period of agony, this
matter is, in itself, not a sign of anything but of life and history taking their natural
course. Every civilization and every culture are, in the final analysis, perishable, no
matter how sacred they might seem to the minds of their creators and their followers. For
no human institution is immortal. We haven’t yet become gods, and we may never be
destined to become such. Ours, it seems, is a continuous struggle with our own failings.
Those who seek refuge in the sacred, paradoxically enough, are usually the first to forget
the meaning of this simple yet undeniable fact. As such, they are often found wanting when
it comes down to giving practical solutions to the various challenges faced by their
societies and peoples. Which is why they, eventually, seek refuge in violence.
If the Saudi,
Iranian, and Sudanese national experiences, over the last few decades, have taught us
anything is that there is no Islamic answer to modernity, it being an institution that is,
in its nature, not susceptible to religious challenges. The only option modernity leaves
at this stage is participation, a matter that can take place in two ways: willing or
unwilling. Modernity either imposes itself on peoples and societies, consequently
generating a deep sense of alienation vis-à-vis traditional culture and the trappings of
the modern world, or it is freely embraced with all its failings. This is true even in the
case of “developed societies.”
Was modernism
willingly embraced there, or did people simply stumble upon it and were caught up in its
trappings? This is a
legitimate question to pause here. If one should read the biographies and autobiographies
of the various intellectuals, scientists, politicians and artists who were in effect the
creators and architects of modernity, one can easily see that most of them never had an
idea of the sort of impact their contributions will make upon people’s lives. They
were often as surprised as everyone else with the changes their ideas wrought upon the
world, and many of them were often dismayed. This was not what they wanted, they
would say.
The dynamics of
modernity, then, are not controlled even by its creators. Nor will they be controlled by
its “victims.” The best the victims can hope for here is to put an end to their
status as victims and become creators in their own right and take part in that active
process of shaping modernity and not let themselves only be shaped by it.
The fundamentalist
forces sweeping across the world today, be they Islamic, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, cultic
(such as the Asahi Movement, and Aum Shinrikyo), etc. represent a reaction to modernity,
not an answer nor a rival to it. And if fundamentalist forces cannot seriously rival
modernity, what sort of hope does terrorism have in this regard? None, I say. Terrorists
might be able, one day, to simultaneously nuke the White House, the Kremlin, and the
headquarters of the UN, the WTO, the World Bank, the IMF etc, not to mention, downtown New
York, London and Paris, but they will still fail in destroying modernity. Modernity and
its institutions are above all ideas, if not downright ideals, that burn, one way or
another, in the heads and souls of most people on earth, they are not physical structures
that can be simply destroyed.
The only impact
contemporary acts of terror can have upon these ideas/ideals is to make them burn even
brighter. Terrorism, and the turmoil that fundamentalist forces can often bring, might
succeed in isolating a certain part of the world from the rest of the world, but only to
the detriment of that part, as we have seen
in places such as Afghanistan. No viable alternatives to modernity are going to emerge in
these desolate parts. Even, when there is peace, social, military, and political, as is
the case in Saudi Arabia for instance, or as has been the case in Iran for the last decade
or so, fundamentalism and Islamism have failed to provide alternatives. People remain too
caught up in the trappings of modernity, and despite their seemingly rigid political,
economic, and socio-cultural systems, underneath it all, there burns a deep desire for
everything modern.
If there remains
some residual yet strong opposition in some quarters to certain modernist values, such a
women’s rights and freedom of conscience and of expression, this is only a sign of
how deep an inroad modernity has made in these societies. For even in modern western
societies, these issues were some of the last challenges to be confronted. Traditional
societies, especially those in the ME, have long, in fact, become battlefields between
traditional and modern values, the current rise of fundamentalism in these societies can
be traced directly to the failure of the various nationalist movements in bringing about a
suitable end to the conflict, and to the persistence of outside influences and dabbling, a
matter that has long become unavoidable.
For modernity is
the product of a world becoming increasing smaller and continuingly disillusioned.
Fundamentalism and Islamism are, indeed, some of the world’s last isms that will in
due course of time die. In this dying process, the intellectuals’ main task is not
simply to alleviate the spiritual and mental suffering of the people involved, though,
this could indeed be considered as one of their tasks. But, the main task is to explain
the nature and showcase the benefits of modernity, on the one hand, and to take active
part in its making, on the other, through involvement in the ongoing global dialogue on
the future of humanity, and through involvement in various scientific, technological and
intellectual innovations.
Politicians and
other social figures also have their important role to play in this matter. The transition
process into modernity will be tremendously facilitated when the people involved feel that
their respected social, political and intellectual figures are taking an active part in
shaping the “New World Order.” A sense of empowerment is, indeed, vital for
making the transition into modernity possible. As long as this element of empowerment
remains missing, the conflict between traditional and modern values will continue to rage
and to shape the lives of the peoples in the ME and the rest of the world, and so will
fundamentalism with its different aspects and its extreme manifestation that is terrorism.
The role of Globalization
Another major obstacle facing the process of global dialogue is the process of
globalization itself, which often gets confused these days, thanks to the efforts of its
ideologists and apologists, with modernity. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Globalization, to put it bluntly, is colonialism reinvented and reintroduced into the
world, all for the benefit of a tiny minority, which admittedly is not all western, but
whose interest in the humanitarian values it pretends to believe in and to be interested
in disseminating around the world, remains dubious to say the least.
Modernity, on the
other hand, is a set of values that, for all their deficiencies, are indeed open for all
to criticize, analyze, modify and embrace. There is room for dialogue in modernity. No
such “luxury” is conceivable with globalization. Globalization is a process
where a self-selected elite are attempting to impose their will and vision upon the rest
of the world. It is somebody’s pet project, with political, economic and military
implications, including the division of certain countries and redrawing of maps in certain
parts of the world, regardless of the aspirations of its peoples. Modernity, on the other
hand, is a natural outcome of civilizational and cultural development. If anything,
it’s history’s current pet project. There is no manifest destiny involved
here, nor pretense thereof, there is only life that needs to be lived and choices that
need to be made.
Looking at things
from this perspective, even modern western societies can often be judged as
“pre-modern.” That is, they have not sufficiently yet absorbed and assimilated
the values of modernity. Western thinkers, scientists and philosophers, might have been
heavily involved in working out these values over the last few centuries, but, and as we
all should know, producing values and assimilating them are two different things, and
success on the one front does not necessarily entail success on the other.
Western societies
and polities, for instance, have been championing the cause of freedom around the world
for centuries now: freedom and colonialism in the 19th and 20th
centuries and before, freedom and globalization in the 21st Century.
If the main task
of ME intellectuals is to engage in active criticism of their own traditions and isms, we
have to stress that the main task of western intellectuals these days is to expose over
and over and over again, the fraud that is happening whenever modernity and globalization
are said to be one and the same. Otherwise, they are betraying their societies, the values
of modernity itself, and, in the process, the very dialogue they are proposing to their
colleagues around the world.
The impunity of
some of our current masters and world leaders is such that they conspire against
“us,” the peoples of the world, openly these days. Just consider how they
discuss the possible division of Iraq, not to mention the resources of this planet, and
how they threaten to use nuclear force against their foes, simply as deterrence and not in
response to any hypothetical first strike. They do so, because they think they can get
away with it, because we let our guards down and are failing to hold them accountable,
because we have lulled them with our silence into a state where they think they’re so
powerful and we so powerless, so unable to challenge and defeat their schemes.
Well, I beg to differ and dare to oppose.
Conclusion
In a world growing increasingly mad, mainly due to the failure of its peoples, especially
its political and social leaders, and more importantly its intellectuals, to reflect in
their behavior the very principles they pretend to uphold, in a world where the main
superpower is getting increasingly drunk with hubris and too much power, and has usurped
to itself the power of God, and hence inspired others to usurp the powers of Satan, for
one never fails to beckon the other, in a such world, we always find ourselves caught
between the prophets of doom and the preachers of salvation.
Well, I hate both.
I think a “real” intellectual should never be completely sure of either
alternative. The world is indeed open for both possibilities, which is why we need to work
extremely hard to make sure that the possibility to be fulfilled is the one that gives
life a chance to prosper and grow more equitable and fair. The work of the intellectual,
in such times as these at least, is not that of a prophet nor a doomsayer, it is that of a
soberer, which means that sometimes he has to shock, and others he has to soothe. In all
cases, he has to retain his courage and carry his shroud and cross along for the ride.
After all, he will be championing an improbable yet necessary dialogue, a dialogue with
himself, and with his social, regional and global “other.” A dialogue that can
prove fruitful not only through the persuasive powers of its ideas, but also through the
example set by, and the bravery and persistence of the intellectuals involved.
The new generation
of intellectuals in the ME and abroad have quite an adventure ahead of them, then, though
they are unlikely to be considered heroes in their own time. Still, they could very well
be the heroes of the future. And yes, the world still needs heroes. Not saviors, heroes.
The intellectual as a hero, this is not an innovative concept by all means, but one whose
time has come, once again.
A paper delivered
as part of the Dialogue Between Civilizations Conference organized by the University of
Southern Denmark in Odense on Augsut 31 - September 1, 2002
|