In Defence of Dialogue of Civilisations: With a Brief Illustration of the Diverging Agreement between Edward Said and Louis Massignon

Abstract

In this article I want to put forward an intellectual defence of the political discourse of dialogue of civilisations by challenging the idea that 'civilisation-based thinking' is necessarily a conflict-generating factor and arguing that, contrary to fashionable assumptions, a civilisational dialogue that wants to contribute to a more peaceful world order requires, in a qualified way, 'stronger' civilisational identities. In particular, I take issue with the academic criticisms to dialogue of civilisations coming from the camp of the critique of the clash of civilisations and well represented by Amartya Sen's explicit and Edward Said's more indirect critiques to 'civilisation-based thinking': by unveiling their implicit endorsement of the Westphalian/secularist presumption, I will show the counter-intuitive political implications of a dialogue among 'strong' civilisational identities and traditions when framed hermeneutically as 'fusion of horizons'. Finally I provide a supplementary brief illustration to my defence of dialogue of civilisations by criticising Said's reading of Louis Massignon -the great 20th century French scholar of Islam -as part of Orientalism and suggesting that 'in diverging agreement' with Said, Massignon's work and life stand as a very concrete proof of the possibility of a 'dialogue of civilisations' that escapes the yoke of the Orientalist accusations.

Asia in International Relations

“…Indeed, I join Fabio Petito (2011) in underscoring the need to acknowledge something like a fundamental ethical-political crisis linked to the present liberal Western civilization and its expansion, and recognize that dialogue of civilizations seems to enshrine the promise of an answer, or rather to start a path toward an answer.…”

Dialogue of Civilizations in a Multipolar World: Toward a Multicivilizational-Multiplex World Order

“…To argue that civilizations have become relevant strategic frames of reference for international politics is to introduce a dimension of political construction which is incompatible with an understanding of civilizations à la Huntington as primarily enclosed, static and monolithic actors with dispositional characteristics (1996); it does not imply, however, that civilizations are imagined communities or invented traditions which need to be understood as boundary-demarcating discursive practices (Jackson 2007). These two diametrically opposed understandings of civilizations in International Relationsdispositional and discursive (Jackson 2010)-paradoxically converge on the assumption that civilization-based thinking is necessarily a conflict-generating factor and therefore equates the question of civilizational politics from the beginning with the inescapable antagonistic logic of the clash (see also Bilgin 2012), an argument which I have tried to challenge elsewhere (Petito 2011).…”

“…3 However, the form of multiculturalism that we need on a global scale should not be based on a postmodern form of subjectivism or a form of radical cultural relativism but needs to be accompanied by a commitment to an active politics of dialogue of civilizations: primarily a dialogue among the great cultural and religious social traditions of the world. More specifically, what is needed is a politics based on a "presumption of worth" and shaped by a Gadamerian dialogical model as fusion of horizons, as has been persuasively argued with the reference to the domestic debate on multiculturalism by Charles Taylor (1994) and Bhikhu Parekh (2000) (see also Dallmayr 2002 andPetito 2011).…”

Civilizational Analysis in International Relations: Mapping the Field and Advancing a “Civilizational Politics” Line of Research

“…For Fabio Petito (), avoiding civilizational clashes cannot be reduced to “theorizing civilizational identities away,” as, for example, intellectuals such as Amartya Sen and Edward Said have attempted to do. Petito finds the opposite to be true.…”

“…Second, in light of globalizing trends, civilizational imaginaries may function as “strategic frames of reference” (Petito ) that give meaning to a complex and multilayered international sphere on whose stage a dizzying array of political actors increasingly perform—whether secular or religious individuals, nonstate organizations and movements, or supranational institutions. Civilizational imaginaries capture the fact that, and help order a world where, international politics is no longer simply about inter‐state relations, but also about relations between and across supra‐state, state, and sub‐state levels.…”