Your Location: Dialogue Among Civilizations / 2000 / Sep. 5, 2000

    The General Assembly of the United Nations has only recently endorsed the proposal of the Islamic Republic of Iran for dialogue among civilizations and cultures.  Nevertheless, this proposal is attracting, day after day, increased support from numerous academic institutions and political organizations.  In order to comprehend the grounds for this encouraging reception, it is imperative to take into account the prevailing situation in our world today, and to ponder the reasons for widespread discontentment with it.  It is, of course, only natural for justice-seeking and altruistic human beings to feel discontented with the status quo.  The Millennium Summit at the United Nations provides the international community with a unique and unprecedented opportunity to discuss political aspects of the calamities that afflict humanity in our day and age.  Today, in this esteemed gathering, allow me instead to begin with certain historical, theoretical and, for the most part, non-political grounds for the call to a dialogue among civilizations.

    One of the reasons that I can only briefly touch upon today is the exceptional geographical location of Iran: a situation connecting various cultural and civilizational domains of Asia to Europe.  This remarkable situation has placed Iran en route of political hurricanes as well as that of pleasant breezes of cultural exchange and also venues for international trade.

    One of the unintended, if only natural, consequences of this strategic geographical location has led to the fostering of a certain cultural sense which forms a primary attribute of the Persian soul in the course of its  historical evolution.  Should we try to view this primary attribute from the vantage point of social psychology, and then attempt to scrutinize the constituent elements of Persian or Iranian spirit, we would recognize a remarkable and exceptional capacity that we could refer to as its "capacity to integrate."  This "capacity to integrate" involves reflective contemplation of the methods and achievements of various cultures and civilizations in order to augment and enrich one's cultural repertoire. The spiritual wisdom of Sohrevardi, which elegantly synthesizes and integrates Ancient Persian wisdom, Greek rationalism with Islamic intuitive knowledge, presents us with a brilliantly exceptional example of Persian "capacity to integrate."

    We should also note that Persian thought and culture owes an immense debt to Islam as one of its primary springs of efflorescence. Islam embodies a universal wisdom. Each and every human individual living in each and every corner of time and place is potentially included in the purview of Islam. The Islamic emphasis on essential human equality, and its disdain for such elements as birth and blood, had conquered the hearts of those yearning for justice and freedom.  The prominent position accorded to rational thought in Islam, and the rejection of an allegedly strict separation between human thought and divine revelation also helped Islam to overcome dualism in both latent and manifest forms.

    Islamic civilization is indeed one of only a few world civilizations that have become consolidated and have taken shape around a sacred text - in this case the Noble Qoran.  The essential unity of the Islamic civilization stems from the unique call that reached all Islamic peoples and nations.  Its plurality derives from the diversity of responses evoked after Islam reached various nations.  Herein lies the crux of diversity and plurality we observe in achievements of the Islamic civilization: a single message interpreted and understood in a variety of ways.

    What we ought to consider in earnest today is the emergence of a World Culture.  World Culture cannot and ought not overlook characteristics and requirements of native local cultures with the aim of imposing itself upon them.

    Cultures and civilizations that have naturally evolved among various nations in the course of history are constituted from elements that have gradually adapted to collective souls and to historical and traditional characteristics. As such, these elements cohere with each other and consolidate within an appropriate network of relationships. In spite of all constitutive plurality and diversity, a unique form can be abstracted.

    On the other hand, World Culture presumes exchange emanating from cultural agents belonging to disparate geographical locations. Compared to local and national cultures, World Culture is a selective culture deliberately formed and abstracted from a natural set. This culture is therefore intrinsically non-uniform and non-monolithic both in form and in content. It also lacks any primary or essential elements and as such there can exist no cross-composition between primary and secondary elements.
We can only hope to find a way out of this anarchy and chaos in civilizational form, through engaging all concerned parties in a dialogue where they can exchange knowledge, experience and understanding in diverse areas of culture and civilization. Today, it is impossible to bar ideas from free traveling between cultures and civilizations in disparate parts of the world. However, in the absence of dialogue among thinkers, scholars, intellectuals and artists from various cultures and civilizations, the danger of cultural homelessness would seem imminent. Such a state of cultural homelessness, would deprive people of solace whether in their own culture or in the open horizon of World Culture.
 Examination of social and political aspects of the past century has fortunately gone beyond mere critique of political activities of super-powers in the world.  Regarding social theories and political ideologies as mere "narratives" has helped to tone down the excessively flamboyant claims of some twentieth century political philosophies and social theories.  It is now aptly agreed that the exclusive claim of such ideologies to being "scientific" and "True" has indeed been arbitrary.

    The notion of dialogue among civilizations undoubtedly rears numerous theoretical questions.  Especially, when we attempt to redress this proposal in an academic context for philosophical, anthropological, sociological and linguistic analysis, problems become more acute. I do not mean to belittle such intellectual and academic undertakings. I would rather want to stress that in formulating this proposal, the Islamic Republic of Iran attempted to present an alternative paradigm for international relations. This should become more clear when we take comparative notice of prevailing paradigms of international relations.  It is incumbent upon us to radically examine and deconstruct the prevalent paradigm and to expound the grounds for replacing it with a new one.

    In order to call governments and peoples of the world to follow the new paradigm of dialogue among cultures and civilizations, we ought to learn from the world's past experience, especially from the tremendous human catastrophes that took place in the twentieth century.  We ought to critically examine the prevalent paradigm in international relations based on the discourse of power, and the glorification of might.

    From an ethical perspective, the paradigm of dialogue among civilizations requires that we give up the will-to-power and instead appeal to will-to-empathy and compassion.  Without the will-to-empathy, compassion and understanding there would be no hope for the prevalence of order in our world. We ought to gallantly combat this dearth of compassion and empathy in our world. The ultimate goal of dialogue among civilizations is not dialogue in and of itself, but attaining empathy and compassion.

Esteemed participants,

    There are two ways to realize dialogue among civilizations:

    1. The interaction and interpenetration of actual instances of cultures and civilizations with each other, resulting from a variety of factors, presents one mode in which this dialogue takes place.  This mode of interaction is of course involuntary and optional and occurs in an unpremeditated fashion, and is driven primarily by vagaries of social events, geographical situation and historical contingency.

    2. Alternatively, dialogue among civilizations could also mean a deliberate dialogue among representative members of various civilizations, such as scholars, artists and thinkers from disparate civilizational domains. In this latter sense, dialogue entails a deliberate act based upon premeditated indulgence, and does not rise and fall at the mercy of historical and geographical contingency.

    Even though human beings inevitably inhabit a certain historical horizon, we could still aim at "meta-historical" discourse.  Indeed, meta-historical discussion of such eternal human questions as the ultimate meaning of life and death, or goodness ad evil ought to substantiate and enlighten any dialogue in political and social issues.
Without a discussion of fundamentals, and by simply confining attention to superficial issues, dialogue would not get us far from where we currently stand. When superficial issues masquerade as "real," "urgent" and "essential," and where no agreement, or at least mutual understanding, obtains among parties to dialogue concerning what is truly fundamental, in all likelihood misunderstanding and confusion would proliferate instead of empathy and compassion.

    Traveling of ideas and cultural interaction and interpenetration recurs in human history as naturally and persistently as the emigration of birds in nature. Even the inauspicious and abhorrent waging of wars has sometimes led to the enrichment and strengthening of the cultures and civilizations involved. For instance, as a consequence of war, "Great Books" of various civilizations, such as primary philosophical, literary and sacred books have become available to other civilizations.

    Translation and interpretation of texts and symbols has always proved as one of the prime venues for dialogue among civilizations and cultures. Today also, scholars, artists and all concerned should embark on a methodical re-reading and a deeply reflective re-interpretation of "Great Books" of various cultures and civilizations of our world.

    Translation does not necessarily mean translating from a certain source language into another target language with a different vocabulary and linguistic structure. There are times when a text needs to be translated within the same source language. This happens when the original language has undergone radical semantic change over time. Even more difficult and exacting is when the language under translation sounds the same as the one we use, whereas the world or universe of discourse to which that language belongs has changed.  Sacred and spiritual language is essentially and structurally different from the language rooted in utterly terrestrial and temporal needs of the times in which heaven and earth are split asunder.  It is difficult to make a transition from one to the other.  One of the most arduous passages in the road of dialogue among cultures rises when a party to the dialogue attempts to communicate with another by employing a basically secularist language in an essentially sacred and spiritual discourse.  By secularism I mean the general rejection of any intuitive spiritual experience and any belief in the unseen.  Such a dialogue would not, of necessity, turn out to be absurd.  The true essence of humanity is more inclusive than language, and this more encompassing nature of existential essence of humanity makes it meaningful to hope for fruitful dialogue.

    It now appears that the Cartesian-Faustian narrative of Western civilization should give way and begin to listen to other narratives proposed by other human cultures. Today, the unstoppable destruction of nature stemming from the ill-founded preconceptions of recent centuries threatens human livelihood. Should there be no other philosophical, social, political and human grounds necessitating dialogue but this pitiable relationship between humans and nature, then all selflessly peace-seeking intellectuals should endeavor to promote dialogue as urgently as they could.

    One goal of dialogue among cultures and civilizations is to recognize and to understand not only cultures and civilizations of others, but those of "one's own." We could know ourselves by taking a step away from ourselves and embarking on a journey away from self and homeland and eventually attaining a more profound appreciation of our true identity.  It is only through immersion into another existential dimension that we could attain mediated and acquired knowledge of ourselves in addition to the immediate and direct knowledge of ourselves that we commonly possess.  Through seeing others we attain a hitherto impossible knowledge of ourselves.

Esteemed Participants,

    Dialogue among cultures and civilizations, rests upon rational and ethically normative commitment of parties to the dialogue.  In order to exchange understanding instead of proliferating misunderstanding we need special moral and ethical training as well as a special rational and logical methodology.  Dialogue is a bi-lateral or even multi-lateral process in which the end result is not manifest from the beginning.  We ought to prepare ourselves for surprising outcomes as every dialogue provides grounds for human creativity to flourish.
 

Mr. Chairman,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

    In dialogue among cultures and civilizations, great artists should undoubtedly get due recognition together with philosophers, scholars and theologians.  For artists do not glance at the sea, mountain and the forest as mere mines and sources of energy, oil and fuel.  For the artist, the sea embodies the waving music of a heavenly dance; the mountain is not just a mass of dirt and boulder; and the forest not merely as inanimate timber to cut and use.  By excluding the artist's "innocent" understanding from the political and social realm, human beings fall down to the ranks of the tool-making working animal.  Such a being would surely look with disdain at the possibility of dialogue, and any empathy or compassion that may result from it.  A world so thoroughly controlled by political, military and economic conditions inevitably begets the ultimate devastation of the environment, and the eradication of all spiritual, artistic and intuitive havens.  This would result in a dreary world in which the human "soul" can find no solace and no refuge.  The inevitable fate of such a world is nothing but nihilism.  Rational thinking of the philosopher, the learned language of the scholar, and the earnest efforts of the social engineer cannot suffice to remedy this nihilism. We need the magical touch and spell of the enchanted artist and the inspired poet to rescue life, at least part of it, from the iron clasp of death and to make possible the continuation of life.

    Poets and artists engage in dialogue within and through the sacred language of spirit.  This language has remained safe from poisonous winds of time, and in the very cold and merciless season of faithlessness it still brings us good news of original human ideals.  It still calls people to persist on the path of hope and faith.

    As some thinkers have emphasized, the present situation of man in nature is indeed a tragic one. The sense of solitude and monologue and the anxiety rooted within it embody this tragic world. Our call to dialogue is aimed at soothing this sense of tragedy. We do not, of course, wish to trivialize deep-rooted and genuine human pains, nor to propose a superficial panacea for profound human questions concerning the meaning of life and death. However, in the course of dialogue the way in which various cultures and civilizations embrace and encounter grounds for tragedy should beneficially be discussed.

    In addition to poetic and artistic experience, mysticism also provides us with a graceful, profound and universal language for dialogue.  Mystical experience, constituted of the revelation and countenance of the sacred in the heart and soul of the mystic, opens new existential pathways onto the human spirit.  A study of mystical achievements of various nations reveals to us the deepest layers of their "life experience" in the most universal sense.  The unified mystical meaning and content across cultures and the linguistic parallelism among mystics, despite vast cultural, historical and geographical distances, is indeed perplexing.  Promoting a dialogue in this arena of culture in disparate societies should comprise one of the bedrocks of understanding between cultures and civilizations.

    The proposal for a dialogue among civilizations builds upon the study of cultural geography of various fields of civilization. Yet the unique and irreplaceable role of governments should never be overlooked in this process.

    In the absence of governmental commitment to their affirmative vote to the resolution on dialogue among civilizations, we cannot maintain high hopes for the political consequences of this proposal.  Member states of the United Nations should endeavor to remove barriers from the way of dialogue among cultures and civilizations, and should abide by the basic precondition of dialogue.  This fundamental principle rejects any imposition, and builds upon the premise that all parties to dialogue stand on essentially equal footing.

    The symbolic representation of Themis - goddess of divine Law and Justice - has already gained virtually global acceptance, as its statue appears on judiciary courts of many nations.  It is now time to ask Themis to remove her blindfold.  Let us ask her to set aside the lofty scale that currently weighs political and economic might as the sole measure.  Instead, she should call all parties to an open discussion in various domains of thought, culture and civilization.  She ought to look observantly at the evidence with open eyes, and by freeing herself from any prior obligations, she should finally charge citizens of the world with the task of making political, economic and cultural decisions.

    At the very same time that political organizations and academic institutions consider and discuss various aspects of the proposal for dialogue among civilization, the dialogue continues to take place day after day as a matter of fact. In the domains of economics, politics and culture, problems and issues rarely remain local and indigenous. We all deeply engage in making use of each other's social, cultural and spiritual findings. The penetration of eastern religions into the West, repercussions of Western political, cultural and economic developments in the East, and most significantly the expansion of global electronic communication have all rendered dialogue among civilization a reality close to home. Gradually, these developments should penetrate deeper layers of our lives. As elements of World Culture seep through - and these should of course be deliberately screened - common underground water tables would form connecting disparate cultural and geographical regions. The science of "semiotics" provides us with tools to excavate common underground links and thereby approach the "common language" that we need for any dialogue.

    We should listen in earnest to what other cultures offer, lest by relying on profound human experiences we can seek new ways for human life.

    Dialogue is not easy.  Even more difficult is to prepare and open up vistas upon one's inner existence to others.  Believing in dialogue paves the way for vivacious hope: the hope to live in a world permeated by virtue, humility and love, and not merely by the rein of economic indices and destructive weapons. Should the spirit of dialogue prevail, humanity, culture and civilization should prevail. We should all have faith in this triumph, and we should all hope that all citizens of the world would be prepared to listen to the divine call: "So Announce the Good News To My Servants - Those who listen to the Word, And follow The best (meaning) in it."  (Holy Qoran, 39: parts of 17,18).

    Let us hope that enmity and oppression should end, and that the clamor of love for truth, justice and human dignity should prevail. Let us hope that all human beings should sing along with Hafez of Shiraz, this divinely inspired spirit, that: "No ineffable clamor reverberates in the grand heavenly dome more sweetly than the sound of love."