In a lecture I delivered a few weeks ago at Princeton  university, I pointed out that what some call ‘western civilization’ is not purely western but the culmination of a number of civilizations that flourished at different historical moments. Like tributaries feeding a river, these civilizations - Egyptian,  Chinese,  Sumerian,  Phoenecian,  Greek,  Roman and  Arab-   merged together to form the mighty river of human civilization. At the same time, I conceded that the present stretch of the river, in which the civilizing process has attained its highest level ever, owes many of its features to its geographical location, which is the West. Thus it is a product of human endeavour through the ages in some respects while in others it is purely western, although its greatest achievements in the areas of artistic, literary and intellectual creativity owe more to the collective human experience than they do to its purely western dimension.

To study ancient Egyptian civilization in depth, especially the aspect dealing with conscience and ethics (which inspired the famed Egyptologist and orientalist James Henry Breasted to call Egypt the ‘Dawn of Conscience’ not only the cradle of civilization), or the role of  Sumerian civilization in laying down legal and legislative frameworks and developing humankind’s idea of God (first propounded by the Chaldean prophet Abraham), or the aspect of Chinese civilization dealing with values, or the rich contributions made by the philosophers of Ancient Greece and, before them, of Hellenistic Egypt, or the work of Averroes and the early Renaissance philosophers,  is to realize that human civilization is an integral whole, a continuum of human endeavour that has flowed in an unbroken stream through the ages. To my mind, human civilization has more to do with ethics and values than with monuments and scientific achievements, its greatest accomplishments represented not in the awesome scientific and technological advances made in the fields of medicine, space and the information revolution but in the following:

1- Democracy

2- General freedoms

3- Human rights

4- Respect for ‘otherness’

5-The expanding frontiers of communication and linkage between people at all levels through a process that some call globalization which, in its present unbridled form, appears to be driven by purely economic considerations without sufficient regard to the humanitarian dimension. I believe this is bound to change and that globalization with a more human face is not far off.

6- The development of education in line with the requirements of the age so that in many societies it has come to serve wide segments of the population and not only a limited elite.

Which is not to say, however, that these six great achievements of human civilization have come to full fruition or even that they are anywhere near maturity. Unfortunately, they are still only localized  (that is, present in some places and not others), characterized by duality (that is, double standards) or regarded by some as applicable only to them and not to others. This state of affairs reflects a certain uncivilized, not to say barbaric, way of thinking which is based on reasons rooted in history and known to any student of western civilization, particularly one familiar with the effect the Anglo-Saxon (Viking) component has had on its development. The legacy of this component takes its most extreme form in what I call the ‘cowboy culture’, a phenomenon that will be addressed more fully later in this article. But this in and of itself does not explain why the six values have not yet come into their own at the global level. Other factors, some internal, some external, conspired to impede their development during the last hundred years and make them accessible to some and not to others.

The most important external factor was the scourge of Marxism, which originated in the West but spread out to afflict many societies in different parts of the world. Without exception, these found themselves sidelined in the march of human civilization as a result of their failure to promote and develop the six notions. Moreover, the collapse of Marxism shifted the leadership of western civilization away from where a certain balance existed between power and culture (or power and knowledge) to a new focal point where information took precedence over knowledge (the acquisition of information and the acquisition of knowledge being two entirely different things).

For someone who, like myself, followed Marxism literature and experience closely for many years, and has written three critical books on the subject (which were described in a review that appeared recently in a famous American newspaper as a critique of Marxism using Marxist philosophical tools), it is clear that Marxism is a purely European product born in a purely European environment.  European conditions in the nineteenth century are what produced Marxism, and any attempt to depict it as a super-structural theory of history is not only completely off the mark but also in open contradiction with the fundamental Hegelian laws on the basis of which the edifice of Marxism was constructed. This view of Marxism as the product  of a specific time and place is shared by numerous scholars who have proved the existence of an organic link between nineteenth century Europe and Marxist thinking. Given that the soil in which it took root has changed virtually beyond recognition, the demise of Marxism one hundred and seven years after the death of its brilliant founder (Karl Marx died in 1883, Marxism in 1990), should have come as no surprise.  

There is a great deal of evidence establishing the link between conditions in nineteenth century Europe on the one hand and Marxism on the other, but I will cite only one here, namely,  Friedrich Engels’ ground-breaking book, The Conditions of the Working Class in England (1845), arguably the most influential text in the development of Marxist thinking. Not only does this stand as proof positive that the conditions which prevailed in Europe during the nineteenth century are what spawned Marxism, it also helps explain why,  with the disappearance of the specific features which led to its emergence, the scourge of Marxism which had for long afflicted western civilization was bound to disappear too. It must be said, however, that it has disappeared more completely from the countries of Europe than it has from those of the Third World. There are objective reasons for this, reasons that must be understood and respected, if not necessarily condoned.

In short, it can be said that in its search for social justice Marxism rode roughshod over the six values which I consider the greatest achievements of human civilization (in its western moment), rather than, as should have been the case of a theory of social and economic organization designed to further the welfare of people, consecrating and reinforcing those values.

The second serious obstacle standing in the way of the six values is the fact that global leadership today has devolved to the United States of America, which is culturally the weakest link in the western chain. Despite its awesome material power, superior scientific prowess and undeniable accomplishments in the field of communications and information technology, it remains the poorest member of the club of western civilization in terms of culture and knowledge, its elites easily distinguishable from their counterparts in other western societies by the shallowness of their cultural formation, the paucity of their knowledge and a  tendency to confuse information with knowledge. I believe it is this that makes millions of intellectuals in the Third World skeptical of the United States’ calls for democracy and human rights. In addition to the cultural poverty of the American government and people, the United States displays a degree of raw pragmatism that would put Niccolo Machiavelli to shame.

Defined as a doctrine that both truth and conduct are to be judged by practical consequences, pragmatism places interests before moral considerations. America’s pragmatic worldview is the result of the supremacy of might in the absence of culture, in addition to the Viking ingredient in its makeup. Although it attempts to sugarcoat the realities of naked power by invoking moral considerations to explain its actions, its blatant use of double standards disqualifies it from its self-appointed role as the moral policeman of the world.

No one can dispute the importance of democracy, general freedoms, human rights, respect for ‘otherness’, the removal of barriers between nations and societies and education based on promoting initiative and creativity rather than on teaching by rote. Sadly, there is a huge gap between the words of the main proponent of these values and its deeds, which are marked by double standards and determined solely by immediate economic interests, even if the fulfillment of those interests entails trampling the values underfoot. There is a clear absence of a cultural dimension in most of the United States’ orientations and decisions, which display a racism lurking not far beneath its shining surface. Indeed, I believe there is a not inconsiderable theocratic dimension behind the civilized secular façade presented to the world. All of which makes attempts by the United States to market these principles an exceedingly difficult task.

Earlier this year, I spent a month lecturing at some of the most important universities and Middle East research centers in the United States. During my tour, I found an impressive wealth of ‘information’ on the Middle East but, although my lectures were attended by hundreds of university professors and postgraduate students, I did  not come across a single person who could be described as a ‘Renaissance man’ like those who can be found in the universities of Britain, France, Germany and Italy. What I did find, rather, was researchers drowning in a sea of information but lacking a humanistic cultural formation based on a wide-ranging knowledge of the great classics of human creativity.

Not surprisingly, this lack of cultural depth has caused America to commit monumental blunders, as when it threw all its weight behind the theocratic movement in Iran during the ‘sixties in a misguided bid to counterbalance the Marxist Toudeh party. When it realized, too late, that its policy had backfired, it switched gears and adopted the exact opposite policy. So too with Afghanistan, where at one time it  supported  forces that have since brought the country to the brink of ruin. Examples of the US blithely ignoring the moral imperatives that purportedly shape its foreign policy abound, from Zaire in Africa to the banana republics of Latin America  to its backing of medieval regimes in more than one continent (a prime example of the moral ambivalence in which much of the United States’ actions are shrouded is the story of its relationship with Omar Abdel Rahman).

Can anything be done to change this bleak picture? The answer lies in one word: dialogue. We have a responsibility to establish an effective presence in the American arena and to use the tools of the age,  as others do, to make a sustained and cumulative effort (in concert with Europe, which enjoys a balance between power and culture) aimed at saving the train of civilization from being derailed by a reckless driver blinded by his own power and cultural myopia. But whatever reservations one might have about how the United States has comported itself since it became a great power after 1945 and the sole superpower after 1990, that is no reason to deny that the six values it advocates represent the greatest achievements of human civilization. Those who refuse to recognize this can best be described by the Arabic proverb as “using  truth to conceal a dishonest purpose”.

These ‘refuseniks’ can be divided into four groups. One group is made up of diehard members of the various socialist camps. The second is made up of so-called Islamic fundamentalists, who are in reality a medieval political party using religion as an attractive shield behind which to hide their real intent, much as Judaism was used by secular Jews to promote the Zionist project. The third is made up of those whose animosity to western civilization in general and to the United States in particular stems not from a socialist or fundamentalist ideology but from their deep frustration at the failure of both the Arab renaissance movement and the pan-Arab project. The members of this group are firmly convinced that this is a direct result of a western conspiracy against them rather than of any intrinsic weakness in the structure of their own societies. As to the fourth group, it is made up of the proponents of civil society.

The rejection of the six values by the first three groups  attests to a shared fascist dimension which characterizes all those who believe their ideological construct represents a universal truth, a closed system that has attained perfection as opposed to the flawed model of western civilization.  Actually, a perfect model of human civilization has yet to be invented, but at least western civilization admits that it is flawed and has a long way to go before the six values to which it subscribes are fully developed.  The members of the first three groups  reject  the six values on the grounds that they oppose their main exponents (the West in general and the United States in particular). This only confirms their fascist leanings, in that they do not offer a better alternative to these great human accomplishments, make no distinction between the values themselves and their main advocates and, finally, are not nearly as vociferous in their condemnation of negative features in their own societies as they are when it comes to rejecting the United States’ advocacy of  these values on the grounds that its policies are marred by double standards, opportunism and the subjugation of principles to self-interest.

Only the members of the fourth group recognize that these values do in fact represent the highest achievements of human civilization,  but this does not prevent them from seeing that the negative aspects of the West in general and the United States in particular are reflected in the practical application of those values at the human level.  At the same time, however, they see that internal factors in their own societies are also preventing the values from realizing their full potential as a universal frame of reference valid for the whole of humankind. The most important of these internal factors is the absence or very limited presence of general freedoms and democracy, the lack of any meaningful social mobility and the political and financial corruption pervading most Third World societies.

I am all for directing the harshest possible criticism at western civilization, both in its Euro-centrist phase and its current American phase,  in order to show up the absence of a humanistic and rational dimension in the West’s advocacy of the six principles it considers the cornerstone of its own civilization and the greatest achievements of human civilization as a whole.  But I believe the Third World writers and academics who are most sharply critical of western civilization are motivated not by a desire to expand the scope of application of these values to encompass the  whole of humanity but by the determination  to maintain a status quo  that is totally out of synch with modernity, progress, the onward march of civilization and fundamental human aspirations. The systems they are trying to keep in place are not in the least concerned with promoting these six values into rights to be enjoyed by all the members of the human family rather than exclusively by those belonging to western civilization. This is borne out most strongly by the fact that on the one hand they do not call for these values while on the other they turn a blind eye to the countless violations of these principles in their own societies. 

It is thus important to make a distinction between those who are critical of the West in general and the United States in particular for not practicing what they preach and  not extending the application of the noble principles they advocate beyond themselves to encompass the whole of humanity, and those whose criticism is driven by altogether different motives. The latter group is determined to keep conditions as they are in the Third World, that is, totally divorced from the six values that are the proudest achievements of human civilization. Some of the members of this group who are most sharply critical of the model of western civilization put their criticism to work for the account of alternative models that are inimical to progress, science, civilization and humanity. These alternatives have set their societies on a backward course, either to the Middle Ages or to the totalitarianism that destroyed entire generations in many countries, generations that lived and died without benefiting from these principles in any way. Totalitarian systems worked to the advantage of a handful of despotic tyrants and a circle of close associates who ruled in the name of an abstract entity known as “the people”,   an amorphous mass that existed only in the rousing speeches to which such systems are prone, while in reality the people consisted of wretched individuals deprived of the most basic human rights and constantly told how lucky they were to be fed, educated, employed and housed!

If we want to move from generalities to practical mechanisms, we must find an answer to the all-important question of how we can keep our faith in the intrinsic value and majesty of the six principles separate from our view of the West in general, and of the United States in particular,  as false prophets of the principles they claim to uphold. To embrace the principles wholeheartedly while condemning the hypocrisy, double standards and Machiavellian self-interest that marks much of the behaviour of their main exponents is not easy, but the distinction must be made. The answer lies in the promotion and greater empowerment of civil society institutions, not only to guarantee that the  distinction continues to be made but to keep our societies from falling into the hands of forces whose leaders claim to be the representatives of absolute Truth.  Society can only protect itself from the malevolent impact of these forces on the dynamics of public life by working tirelessly to develop the institutions of civil society. For civil society has an undeniable interest in the propagation of these six principles and in protecting society from the forces of darkness, totalitarianism and backwardness. It also has an undeniable interest in preserving the positive aspects of our cultural specificity and identity, a subject we shall discuss more fully in a coming article.>