At a recent round table conference that took place at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies in one of the United State ’s most prestigious universities, noted for bringing forth some of the world’s most learned and respected names, a stimulating discussion took place concerning the so-called clash of civilizations. There were ten of us attending the meeting, and we were divided into two factions; those supporting the proposition that a clash of civilizations is an inexorable fact, as supported by the now-famous assumption put forth by Mr. Samuel Huntington, and those who opposed this view. The latter formed a minority of only two persons, one of which was myself. The general trend of the discussion seemed to be turning in favor of the former group with its insistence on the existence of this conflict, until one of the opposition put forth the following question: “ Japan was in a state of undeniable conflict with the free world until August, 1945. However, since then and up to the present moment, there has been no struggle or ‘clash of civilizations’ between Japan and the West, only a vigorous economic, industrial, commercial and scientific competition played out according to the rules of the game as laid down by the free world. Is this not enough to prove two undeniable facts?” I then proceeded to elucidate:

If indeed a clash of civilizations had existed between Japan and the free world, the complete and impressive transformation that took place in that country in such a relatively short period of time could never have occurred.

The salient point in this argument relates to the fact that when Japan was an autocracy, it was in constant conflict with the democratic world. This conflict ceased to exist once Japan itself became a democracy, and was replaced instead by competition played out according to the rules of the game as practiced by the free world.

My friend and I - the minority camp - ended our argument by stating that, “It is not civilizations that clash, but rather autocracies and democracies that come into conflict.” The Second World War was a war between autocratic and democratic factions, as was the Cold War. This bears no relation to a clash of civilizations: no such thing exists.

I recall that during this meeting, I spoke of another issue related to the main theme of our discussion; namely, the sheer panic that arises in the hearts and minds of many members of the Arab communities concerning the possibility of losing their cultural identity. I would again cite the example of Japan , from which we could learn that such fear has its roots not in a threat emanating from the outside world, but rather from the own internal world of these fearful die-hards. Quite frankly, the Arab mind needs to undertake an honest process of self-examination and an unbiased contemplation of the following facts:

Our cultural specificities include both positive and negative aspects. Our cultural specificities are not static but dynamic; the cultural specificities of the Egyptian people in the year 2000 differ in many respects (but not all) from those of the year 1900, which were again different from those that had distinguished the Egyptians of the year 1800; which themselves had also changed considerably since the year 1700. Accordingly, the widespread use of the term “our fixed traits” is unscientific, imprecise, and largely a figment of the imagination and of wishful thinking.

Cultural specificities cannot be erased through widespread dealings with others, as amply proved by the Japanese. I would venture to say that the cultural specificities of isolationists and those who shut themselves off from the outside world are more likely to diminish, lacking as they do the stimulation and regeneration resulting from contact with others.

When the Arab mind begins to contemplate the issue of widespread dealings with the other (in particular, joining the march of human progress together with the rest of the civilized world), it raises the now-familiar cry of, “Our cultural specificities are in danger!” It fails to take into account the difference between integration with the outside world by playing the game according to the rules set by the advanced world, and between a total assimilation that erases identity and cultural specificity. Playing the new global game in accordance with its rules (as prescribed by Western democracy) means that one participates in the game and abides by these rules without losing one’s identity or specificities. I would liken this to the way Brazilians play football: they do indeed follow the rules of the game, but in their own, very distinctive way, and in a manner that is theirs alone! Again, the Japanese provide the best example of the validity of this argument.

Sheer ignorance and unjustified conceit have led most Arabs to believe in the possibility of creating their own game played according to new rules that differ from those developed by the democratic world. It is the same ignorance that leads some to believe that abiding by the global rules of the game constitutes humiliation or defeat; a sick reasoning spewed forth by so-called “thinkers” who are more akin to the poets of the pre-Islamic era where resonant words and grandiose phrases were much admired and indeed constituted the only achievement of this age. Once more, the Japanese did not bother themselves with attempting to change the rules of the game, but channeled their efforts into achieving progress, development and distinction within the rules of the game prescribed by the victors at whose hands they had suffered defeat in the summer of 1945.