Blog

Akbar Ganji Review

Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:32:43 -0600

We were honored to have leading Iranian dissident, Akbar Ganji give the final keynote address Sunday evening. Ganji, an unequivocal supporter of human rights and democracy, was sentenced to six years in prison from 2001 to 2006 in Iran, for his investigative journalism. Ganji’s account of Iran throughout the last thirty years complimented and contextualized the analytical explorations provided by the previous four keynote addresses. Ganji’s analogy revealed both the philosophical and practical obstacles to and possibilities for human rights based on a common humanity and democracy from a Muslim perspective in Iran.

He began his speech by describing Iran’s inhospitable environment for democracy during the Iranian Revolution. According to Ganji, Iran was lacking the key identified preconditions for democracy such as urbanization, literacy, expansion of the middle class, and economic development and social welfare. Iran’s atmosphere could instead be described as ideological, anti-modern, anti-imperialist and very revolutionary. Muslim intellectuals were offering Islamic discourse as an alternative to Marxist discourse and the return to the Islamic self was emphasized. The revolutionary discourse did not allow for reform, and power was perceived as something to be seized and done with as one wishes. Therefore, force was the popular method of choice with which to attempt to challenge the government. This led to a long battle, with religious forces emerging victorious. It was during this time that the conflict between religious adherents and secularists emerged, neither of whom promoted democracy, as it was considered a bourgeoisie value. In 1979 Khomeini emerged as the alternative Islamic force to the previous secular government under the Shah.

The popular image of governments in the Middle East is that they are corrupt, secular and liberal entities created by, and dependent upon the West. Consequently, many people consider the alternative to a secular government dependent upon the West, to be Islamic fundamentalism. However, Ganji revealed that what people in the Middle East consider to be the alternative, Iran has experienced for three decades. Democracy from a Muslim perspective and not Islamic Fundamentalism, Ganji argued, is what Iran needs.

Ganji describes Fundamentalist Islam as having three characteristics: the Quranic text is considered to be the true word of God; Islamic laws are true of all times and contexts; and Sharia law is emphasized and imposed upon society, even if by force. This term, according to Ganji can be applied to a wide range of actors such as the Taliban, Hizbollah, and the Iranian Regime. This type of Islam is also widely publicized in the media while moderate forms are ignored. This is different from Traditional Islam which emphasizes spiritual aspects, promotes Sharia as a path to God, but does not impose it, and is critical of modernity. Followers of Modern Islam alternately seek a balance between Islam, modernity and Human Rights, and believe in religious pluralism. Although Fundamentalism has dominated Iranian life for the last thirty years, according to Ganji, Modern Islam is emerging.

While the preconditions for democracy were not present thirty years ago, social change is a reality in Iran today, thus allowing Modern Islamism to emerge, even if slowly and against many obstacles. The majority of Iranians are literate, urbanization is increasing, the middle class is expanding, and the overwhelmingly young demographic contributes to a shift from predominantly revolutionary discourse to reformist discourse. Despite the efforts of the Iranian government to impose Sharia law, the people are resisting.

Democracy is built from the bottom up, through social change and a plurality of social networks and identities. Modern Islam offers Iranians a culturally relevant and significantly powerful method with which to improve human rights and promote democracy from a Muslim perspective. The approach of the former Bush administration to use bombs to ‘bring democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq” served only to fuel the fire and give more support to the Islamic Fundamentalists. While proclaimed enemies, fundamentalist governments such as the Bush administration, Israel under Ariel Sharon and President Ahmadinejad also serve one another’s interests. In Iran, the interests of the elites are supported and funded by petro dollars, and the ruling class is able to operate independently from the society with no accountability. This Sultanship of the Iranian government necessitates the mobilization of a social resistance based upon popular force. Adherents of all religions must engage in dialogue in order to activate a civil movement strong enough to challenge the Iranian Sultanship Fundamentalist Regime.

Today, former religious supremacy and authority in Iran is being challenged and plural sources of authority are materializing in Iran. Ganji believes that Modern Islam can provide a balance between Islam, modernity and Human Rights. While Ganji portrayed a tumultuous Iranian past consumed by revolutionary ideology since 1979, he fervently argued that a secular democracy is crucial and possible by means of social mobilization and the emergence of plural sources of authority.

Fred Dallmayr Review

Sat, 10 Oct 2009 03:35:37 -0600

Fred Dallmayr passionately addressed the subject of religion as a central issue that can either hinder or assist in the navigation toward the dignity of difference. He examined both the possibilities of and obstacles to religious dialogue and genuinely advocated for interfaith dialogue as a necessary step to dissolving ignorance and reducing conflict. His profound philosophical analysis of religious interaction breathed new life and substance into the simple concept of ´love your God and your neighbor´.

Dallmayr declared that we are facing an ´existential dilemma of provocation´. This dilemma stems from the constructed dichotomy between diversity and religion, or reason and revelation. This tension between assumed absolutes and consequential conflicts, create a need for interfaith dialogue, while concomitantly challenging this potential dialogical resolution with the predicament of how to engage in dialogue without compromising our faith. He exposed the reality of a crucial problem inevitably encountered by citizens of an interconnected world, and embarked upon a philosophical journey into the examination of the obstacles and possibilities of trying to navigate into a ´pluriverse´ while attempting to preserve one´s faith.

Dallmayr revealed that the assumed zero-sum game between religion and diversity can be explained by the disparity that exists between vertical and horizontal systems of behavior. The vertical is the asymmetrical relationship between human and God, while the horizontal represents comparatively symmetrical inter-human relations. While there is a constructed absolute and perceived impermeability between the vertical and horizontal, Dallmayr argued that, not only can the two systems permeate one another, but we must transcend this perceived otherness The conundrum of absolutes can be approached through relative dialogue.

The Clash between the vertical and horizontal are most acute in Islam, because of the status of the Quran, argues Dallmayr. Whereas Christian authority exists within a historical context acquired through human interpretation, the Quran is believed to be the direct word of God. Therefore, the Islamic vertical relationship exists outside of the realm of contingency of historical interpretation. Dallmayr suggested that opening Islam up to the realm of the horizontal could help to ease the tension between the core of faith and the historical, political and social context in which Islam is bound. Through interfaith dialogue, the ignorance of the other can be transformed into a shared understanding, thus bridging the gap between the allegedly unbridgeable. In this regard, as the imminent converses with the transcendental, vertical truth is both known and respected through an appreciation of the emotional relationship between a diversity of perceptions.

While advocating for interfaith dialogue, Dallmayr remained pragmatic and revealed the possibility of a ´New Political Theology´ resulting in amiable exchanges, but at the cost of ´religions becoming items in the supermarket of belief´. Secondly, peaceful coexistence must remain the goal of dialogue; however, there remains the possibility of dialogue becoming the goal of dialogue, which could frustrate or encumber the purpose of engaging in this process. Thirdly, successful interfaith dialogue aims to keep vertical dimensions alive within human dialogue without succumbing to unilateral conversation or domination. However, it is common for discussions to fall into a pattern of dialogue between ‘vocal Christians and silent Muslims’ resulting in the futility of interfaith dialogue. Lastly, absolutes in the form of radical orthodoxy or radical secularism stand as obstacles to dialogue, as adherents of radical orthodoxy believe that there is no single aspect of human learning that can be understood outside of the dimension of religion, and radical secularists inevitably ignore faith practices. We must therefore move away from operating within absolute dichotomies, and move toward dialogue. So how then can we reconcile the common good with diversity?

Dallmayr recommends looking inward into ones faith and using the values taught, to appreciate and accept others. Dialogue should not be approached to simply achieve tolerance or bland coexistence, but we must employ a positive ethos of public engagement and strive to feel a strong sense of interconnection. Mutual recognition does not have to come at the cost of the partition from one´s religion. ´God is the God of humanity, but no single faith can exhaust the scope of variability´, spoke Dallmayr. We should not take off the religious hat while engaging in politics, but rather use the passion and loyalty for one´s religion to accept and appreciate the experiences of others. Moving toward a pluralistic society guided by a deep mutual engagement, generosity and an ethical disposition can mend the rift created by socially constructed dualities, and the vertical and horizontal can in fact supplement and illuminate one another.

Hassan Hanafi Review

Tue, 6 Oct 2009 19:26:22 -0600

“There is beauty in the Dignity of Difference” stated Hassan Hanafi at the beginning of his speech Saturday evening. Hanafi explained that although we live in an era dominated by the illusion that the truth is one, and not many, he passionately declared that it is our human right to differ.
 The very composition of culture, he argues, includes both indigenous and exogenous elements. Cultures are living entities. They are birthed and re-birthed, they are healthy and sick, and they die. They are not objects, but central aspects of the human experience and as such, play a central role in both oppression and liberation. Culture is an expression of a people, their history and opinions. Each defends its own identity and inevitably claims universalistic trends that both diverge and converge with one another. While examples of the divergence of culture are reproduced in the history books and given more attention in the media, one needs only look to architecture, philosophy, and art to see the museum of cultural convergence throughout human history.

Religious groups adhering to Christianity, Judaism, or Islam fight because they each claim authorship to similar texts. Claiming that it represents their views demonstrates not incompatibility, but the arrival of different cultures to similar ideas. In other words, particulars overlap and co-exist as universals. Hanafi argues that the manner in which we choose to engage and interact along these diverging lines of expression can be categorized into two models, each with distinctly disparate approaches and outcomes: A Conflict of Culture and a Dialogue of Culture.

Conflict involves a dichotomization of culture into the culture of the core (Culture), and the culture of the periphery (culture). Inherent to this dichotomization is the assumption of the superiority of the Core Culture and the subsequent subordination of the supposed primitive periphery culture. This duality is enforced and propagated through imposed universalisms of the Core. The hegemony of language filters diverse experiences through a Western lens and the privatization of education leads to a national cultural split between the worldviews of the westernized intellectuals and those who remain trying to preserve their own culture.

A Dialogue of Culture on the other hand, involves the intertwining and interchanging of culture without reference to a particular model or monopoly of truth. That is, this model is motivated by the attitude that truth is perspective and not objective. This model assumes equality between perspectives and utilizes dialogue for mutual enrichment, rather than domination.

Unfortunately, current interactions amongst cultures reflect the former model, whereby vast inequalities exist and are exacerbated between the Core Culture and the periphery. Therefore, as the Core Culture is increasingly privileged over that of the periphery, movements of resistance by the subjugated occur with increasing vigor in the name of identity. This invasion of Core Culture and the ensuing struggle for cultural preservation by the periphery constructs the illusion of an inherent Clash of Civilizations or an inevitable End of History.

Hanafi advocates two solutions to transform our current structure from one that perpetuates the conflict of culture, to one of dialogue. Firstly, we must put an end to the polarization between the Core Culture and periphery culture and approach interaction from a more leveled playing field. Secondly, world history has been documented unevenly in a manner that privileges the Western world over the “other”. If our engagements are preceded by stereotyped images based upon ignorance, it should come as no surprise that interactions are enfolded in conflict. Therefore it is crucial that a new historiography be written to bring justice to dialogue.

The self-appointed role of the Western subject studying the oriental object must be contested. The position of subject and object must be interchangeable among cultures in order to engage in productive dialogue. It is the duty of the culture of the center to engage in dialogue with itself and to open up to interaction with the periphery. Difference should not be perceived to be synonymous with opposition and history cannot be assumed as having an end. Difference should be valued as creative diversity that when engaged with, can lead to the dignity of difference.

Benjamin Barber Review

Sun, 4 Oct 2009 21:41:13 -0600

Benjamin Barber kick started the Dignity of Difference Conference with a comprehensive, engaging and provocative examination and critique of the global transformation from a state-centered world order to one of interdependence. According to Barber, the current global predicaments within which we find ourselves can be attributed to the fact that we are trapped in ideologies cultivated in an old millennium, while trying to deal with issues of vastly divergent origin, character and motivations in a new millennium. Barber asserts that we must move beyond the discourse of the previous century into one that reflects our increasing interdependence and that addresses the accompanying threats that do not respect political borders. He described three major events that have initiated this shift: The End of the Cold War, September 11, and the election of the American President Barak Obama.

The End of the Cold War saw the triumph of capitalism, and/or Americanism. The resulting absence of a sense of threat has been interpreted by some, notably Francis Fukuyma, as “The End of History”. Barber however, rejects this notion and suggests that history is not over, but in fact is witnessing a shift into a new ideological war. The end of the bipolar arms race propagated capitalism, in the form of neo-liberal markets, as synonymous with democracy. Previous notions of liberty intertwined with, attached to and protected in the public space were rejected and we saw the privatization of liberty. Capitalism became institutionalized and newly generated ideological contradictions manifested not through a clash of civilizations, but through a clash between aggressive materialism and counter-capitalism. Barber refers to this clash as Jihad versus Mcworld, and argues that each was created by the other and both are in fact two sides of the same coin. This dichotomization of private versus public as produced by the proliferation of free market capitalism has left democracy missing from both sides, and thus produces not a clash between civilizations, but within.

While the end of the Cold War initiated an ideological transformation, September 11 provided the first radical rupture between perceived security through independence and the reality of an increasingly interdependent world. This event presented the United States with the opportunity to realize that they are not invulnerable and actually a part of a large world. However, it also provided an opportunity for the American sovereigntists to wage a Twentieth Century style war against identified rogue states. The result of using the ‘Go it Alone’ attitude and conventional warfare in an asymmetrical battle left the logic of sovereignty being questioned. Bush’s ‘High Noon- Bring it on’ response was soon rejected by the American people. The election of Barak Obama was, as Barber argues, the result of the American population recognizing itself as living in an interdependent world in which they can work together and survive, or go alone and fail.

Barber then moved to reveal what he refers to as ‘The Four True Scourges of Interdependence’ and succeeded in putting the interdependent nature of our world into immediate perspective. The current transnational, penetrating threats do no respect borders and will have grave and far reaching consequences if we continue to act blindly toward this shift in threats, and do not modify our way of thinking and acting to better address them. Public Health, Climate Change, Financial Crises, and increasing inequalities between the North and South are trans-border issues and require a concerted global effort if we hope to change the gloomy global forecast. He placed great emphasis on the increasing global inequalities, as he realistically outlined the probable course of addressing these issues, whereby ‘some will end up paying the price of all’. Here he was specifically referring to collective action to curb climate change requiring yet again, the poor receiving the short end of the stick. And if the oceans do indeed rise, the rich will fly out, the middle class will take buses and the poor will be left to die. According to Barber, addressing this issue of inequality must take priority when considering the global concerns outlined.

Achieving the dignity of difference is difficult, Barber said. Yet our history reveals many grim outlooks that have been overcome, and thus he remains optimistic. Barber asserts that we must globalize democracy or democratize globalization in order for us to adapt to the transitioning global order and to address the looming issues. This must come from the bottom-up, through citizen engagement, the use of new technologies, social movements, dialogue and the crossing of borders. Ultimately, interdependent problems require interdependent solutions.

Robert Cox Review

Sun, 4 Oct 2009 17:26:45 -0600

Robert Cox delivered an eloquent historical analysis of how our individual and collective thought has been shaped by, and shapes our interactions within and between cultures. He made a convincing argument that ideas are a product of their time. Neither static nor autonomous, and articulated through politicized words and language, ideas reflect our ways of perceiving the world based upon particular experiences and histories.

We are in a process of transformation. Sovereignty, a construction and reality that has dominated global relations for almost four hundred years, is now precluded by a shift in the major political issues of the twenty first century. Speaking through clever analogy, Cox painted a clear picture of the current ‘Self-Organization Process’ in which we find ourselves. Just as the nervous system by-passes blockages through the spontaneous generation of new neurological activity, the blockage of the UN by the Security Council during the Cold War initiated the generation of NATO as an alternative (although usurped as an American project). This metaphor serves to exemplify the current shift in the balance of power and the transformation of current global structures.

Cox then spoke of what he calls the ‘duality of matter and consciousness’, as both external and internal histories and manifestations. He demonstrated how thoughts are shaped and collective identities are formed; and subsequently, how our particular consciousnesses can explain our responses to and acceptance of the collective consciousness of others.

Referring to Shirokogonoff’s term ethnos, Cox explained that different civilizations evolve distinct ways of understanding and relating to that area of the world, thus developing intersubjectivities of each ethnos. Put simply, people develop their own way of seeing the world and it is our challenge, one of great consequence during this period of transformation, that we understand our common link. This common link is the ability of human beings to reproduce thought processes and to understand them as the essence of another. We must not only seek to capture the inner essence of civilizations by looking from within, but we must look introspectively into our own collective consciousness to allow for comparison and contrast, in order to avoid the problem of assuming universality of one’s own worldviews. This profound statement accurately captured the theme of the Conference suggesting a tangible path toward the Dignity of Difference.

His explanation of the Genealogy of the End of History Thesis provided a comprehensible charting of the rupture between humanity and nature. Contrasting the Old Chinese World Order, that recognized natural ebbs and flows as an integral characteristic of economics and government, with the Western approach that asserts intervention in these natural cycles in order to produce continual progress, Cox suggests that we must learn to appreciate the yin and yang approach and use this to check and balance our irregular linear dialectic.

While the Clash of Civilizations thesis purports an impenetrability of civilizations, Cox creatively suggests that our interactions are not clashes between tectonic plates of difference, but processes that require self-reflection and historical perspective.

We are experiencing the repercussions of behaving in a way that assumes infinite growth and disproportionately excessive consumption (both class-based and environmental) are acceptable ways of behaving. The global economic crisis and threat to the biosphere are examples of the consequences of the attempt to control our economic and biological environment. These realities demonstrate that our assumed absolute values are challenged by hard experience.

In conclusion, Cox proposed two potential scenarios. One in which there is a convergence toward one civilization based upon American values. The other is a plural world in which several constellations of world power work out ways of living together.
The current situation of ‘Common Urgency’ necessitates the collective participation of humanity in order to manage human endeavors within the capacity of the biosphere. Global questions have no uniform answers. They involve different people and therefore, different answers. He does not suggest a remaking of the World Order or a creation of new structures, but asserts that a dialogue is necessary in order to enter into forms of other collective consciousnesses which will animate ‘the other’. The Clash of Civilizations is neither inherent nor inevitable if we work through a dialogue and respect the diverse stories and perceptions of the civilizations of the world. We must move toward a world order in which diversity of power is allowed and diversity of opinion is respected. This involves a withdrawal of American hegemony however; and therefore, the question remains: Can Americans accept a post-American world?

ExpressNews , By Ileiren Poon

Sun, 27 Sep 2009 16:42:32 -0600

There are two main theories that guide international dialogue and policy, say Andy Knight and Mojtaba Mahdavi. One theory, the clash of civilizations, involves conflict and animosity, while the thesis that speaks to the end of history involves assimilation and the creation of a homogenous global culture. These two University of Alberta researchers would like to see a third idea as part of those discussions, the dignity of difference.
"We'd like to propose a new way of thinking about this issue, one that's built on individual respect and embracing difference instead of merely tolerating it," said Knight. "In our minds, that's where we'd like to see the discussion going, away from this 'clash of civilizations' business and toward a much more holistic embrace of differences that exist, and a realization that differences are necessary sometimes."
He and Mahdavi are the organizers behind the upcoming conference entitled, "Towards the Dignity of Difference," which will be held on the U of A campus Oct 2-4.
"The very title of this conference may sound too theoretical, but these theses have serious, practical, political implications in global politics and the daily lives of people. From regime-change policy, democracy promotion and the global war on terror, they affect government policy and they affect global relationships," said Mahdavi. "We'd rather see three Ds: diversity, dignity of difference and dialogue."
"Towards the Dignity of Difference" will bring together about 40 distinguished speakers including senior scholars and public figures. Expected keynote speakers are Benjamin Barber, Robert Cox, Fred Dallmayr, Hassan Hanafi and Akbar Ganji. Panels include topics include "The End of the West?" "Iran 2009: Dignity of Revolt," "Israel and Palestine in Context," and "Resistance, Terror, and Religion."
"Difference doesn't have to be a source of conflict," said Mahdavi. "It can be a source of richness and of pride, so we need to appreciate differences. We need to learn from each other. There is no single, universal solution to all the problems of the world, and some societies need to find their own way."
The conference is a first step in the development of a longer-term project aimed at challenging the clash of civilizations and end of history theses. The discussion panels are all free and open to the public, while the keynote addresses will cost $5 for students and $10 for non-students.

http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=10470

World Public Forum "Dialogue of Civilizations"

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 18:34:59 -0600

A major international conference organized by the United Nations University and the University of Alberta titled «Towards 'the Dignity of Difference': Neither 'the Clash of Civilizations' nor 'the End of History'» with keynote address from Benjamin Barber, Robert Cox, Hassan Hanafi, and Fred Dallmayr will take place in Edmonton (Alberta, Canada) on 2–4 October 2009.
All panels are FREE and OPEN to public. To learn more about the conference and to register please visit www.dofdifference.org.
The conference's objective is to examine the impacts and implications of the most recent iteration of the Western-centric discourse represented in Samuel Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations and Francis Fukuyama's The End of History theses. It also tackles the problem of radical extremism and US-led counter-extremist strategies by explaining the need for an alternative approach — a third way — that acknowledges «the dignity of difference» and promotes «dialogue among civilizations». The conference aims to historicize civilizations, radicalism, extremism and terrorism by challenging the mainstream and ethnocentric discourse; it exposes the reductionism associated with many current policy responses to radical extremism through critical examinations of national, regional and global counter-measures to terrorism; and it examines what «the dignity of difference» means in foreign policy terms. Would it mean a radical shift in the West's strategic thinking about its role in the global affairs? Is the American policy of the War on Terror, democracy promotion, and regime change in the Middle East contributing to a self-fulfilling prophecy of «the clash of civilizations»? Can «the dignity of difference» provide us with a practicable counter-theory to both «the clash of civilizations» and «the end of history» theses?
All panels are FREE and OPEN to public. To learn more about the conference and to register please visit www.dofdifference.org.
Join the conference on Facebook. You may also contact Siavash Saffari, Conference Coordinator, at ssaffari@ualberta.ca for more information.

http://www.wpfdc.org/en/news/announcements/214-towards-the-dignity-of-difference