Philosophy.Com

clash of civilizations

There has been some discussion of the rise of religious conservatism in Australia has a result of the shift to the right in the Australian federal election. The discussions be found at John Quiggin's place, at Chris Shiel's Back Pages at Troppo Armadillo and public opinion that is connected to with the decline of the political centre argument over at Catallaxy.

One aspect of this shift to conservatism that has been overlooked in the current discussion is the conservative construction of the relations between Islam and Christianity: this relationship is seen to be basically adversarial, a long-drawn-out conflict between the two rival civilizations of East and West. Theirs is a story of conflict, instead of one of the mutual cross-fertilization Western and Islamic civilization.

William Dalrymple's review in the New York Review of Books suggests that a key figure in the conservative clash of civilizations thesis is Bernard Lewis. Dalrymple says that underlying the diverse essays in Lewis' latest work, From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East is the assumption that there are two fixed and opposed forces at work in the history of the Mediterranean world. On one hand, Western civilization, which he envisages as a Judeo-Christian block; and on the other hand, quite distinct, an often hostile Islamic world hellbent on the conquest and conversion of the West. Dalrymple quotes Lewis in one essay, "The Roots of Muslim Rage":

"The struggle between these rival systems has now lasted for some fourteen centuries. It began with the advent of Islam, in the seventh century, and has continued virtually to the present day. It has consisted of a long series of attacks and counterattacks, jihads and crusades, conquests and reconquests."

Lewis argues that Islamic hostility to America has less to do with American foreign policy in the Muslim world, notably American support for Israel, than a generalized Islamic "envy" and "rage" directed against its ancient cultural rival. This he claims derives from "a feeling of humiliation—a growing awareness, among the heirs of an old, proud, and long dominant civilization, of having been overtaken, overborne, and overwhelmed by those whom they regarded as their inferiors."

The idea that the Islamic world has been humiliated by a West it once despised and ignored, and that it has never come to terms with this reversal, leads Lewis to the clash of civilizations thesis:

"This is no less than a clash of civilizations—the perhaps irrational but surely historic reaction of an ancient rival against our Judeo-Christian heritage, our secular present, and the worldwide expansion of both."

Lewis argues that for a thousand years Islam was technologically superior to Christendom and dominated its Christian neighbors; but since the failure of the Ottoman siege of Vienna in 1683, the Muslim world has been in retreat. Militarily, economically, and scientifically it was soon eclipsed by its Christian rivals. Failure led first to a profound humiliation, then an aggressive hatred of the West.

This clash of civilizations thesis underpins the neocon's understanding of international relations after 9/11.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at October 20, 2004 03:53 PM | TrackBack