Global Dialogical History and the Challenge of Neo-Eurocentrism

Abstract

In the last few years the idea of the “dialogue of civilizations” has begun to permeate into the study of non-Eurocentric global history. Its prime rationale is to challenge two interrelated approaches—Samuel Huntington’s idea of the “clash of civilizations” and Eurocentric world history. Let me discuss each in turn. Huntington, of course, characterized intercivilizational relations as inherently conflictual, on the basis that civilizations are self-contained entities that have their own unique cultures that are, in turn, incommensurable with those of other civilizations.4 This culminates in his view that the meeting point between civilizations can be likened to tectonic platelike fault lines, which abrade to produce or generate violent and bloody conflict. It is helpful here to differentiate two forms of civilizational analyses—substantialist and processual/relational. A substantialist approach is essentialist, wherein civilizations are thought to display essential characteristics that are largely static or unchanging. By contrast, a relational approach conceives of civilizations as sets of social practices such that their boundaries are written or drawn and redrawn over time through intercivilizational interactions.5 However, while Huntington might balk at being placed in the substantialist category, since he does, in fact, argue that civilizations change over time,6 nevertheless the logic of his position remains otherwise, given that the traditional and primordial cultural/religious values that he focuses upon are by definition unchanging.