Review: Knowledge, Ideology, and Civilization: An Attempt at Understanding History (Arabic Edition), by Ali Jarbawi

Abstract

Human history has witnessed an endless succession of civilizations, which has prompted researchers to probe the depths of these civilizations to determine the factors of their birth, primacy, and decline. Ibn Khaldun, Malik Bin-Nabi, Arnold J. Toynbee, Oswald Spengler, and Paul Kennedy have all presented their notions in this field. Ali Jarbawi’s Knowledge, Ideology, and Civilization: An Attempt at Understanding History also explores this topic.Shakib Arslan’s Why Muslims Lagged Behind and Others Progressed (1965), one of the most famous titles of the last century, also discusses this subject area. Jarbawi follows his example as he searches for the reasons behind Arab regression, poor performance, and a failure to keep up with leading civilizations.These questions do not overwhelm the writer with nostalgia, but rather motivate him to raise a fundamental question, one which his entire book revolves around: “What are the factors that lead to the rise and demise of civilizations?” He delves into the study of human history and various civilizations, comparing them in order to illustrate the reasons behind their supremacy, trying to clarify why Arab/Islamic civilization has failed to regain its strength and influence.The book is divided into five chapters, an introduction and a conclusion. In the first chapter, the author begins by deconstructing history, rejecting the idea of Eurocentrism that Western writers and intellectuals have adopted, so omitting the true starting points of history, claiming Western precedence. In the second chapter, the author dwells on the passing of history and its progression. The third chapter discusses the nature of civilization; while the fourth chapter discusses the concept of centralized civilizations, distinguishing them from global civilizations. The fifth and final chapter sets out the author’s theoretical model for understanding the course of human history in order to explore the future struggle for dominance of one civilization.The main theme of the book negates the idea of Western civilization’s centrality. There is no doubt that Western civilization is historically the strongest, as its contribution to the field of knowledge is far greater than its predecessors, but this does not qualify its preeminence. This review discusses the seven main points upon which the book’s theory is based, perhaps answering the questions: “Why did we regress?” “What possibilities are there for Arab civilization to be revived again?”Jarbawi stresses that Western civilization was not the first of all civilizations. Philosophy, science, and thought did not begin with Thales, as Bertrand Russell claims in his History of Western Philosophy (1945, 20). Jarbawi also rejects the idea that Francis Fukuyama proposed in his The End of History and the Last Man (1992), which is based on his essay “The End of History” (1989), claiming its end with the collapse of Soviet Union and the victory of liberalism. Jarbawi also rejects the claims that Samuel Huntington raises in his “The Clash of Civilizations (Huntington 1993, 1996).Embodying the foregoing, the author argues that:There is no disagreement, then, with Westerners who claim that the west is superior at present […] but the dispute with them is the transformation of the relative into an absolute, by suspending time […] so that it becomes the beginning of what they consider the real accumulation of scientific knowledge, which led to the only modernity […] through history. (186)Jarbawi’s thesis perceives history as moving in a straight line, albeit similar to the modernist school, yet divergent from it. Marx, Hegel, and other modernists saw the course of history as a progressive line. They also believed in the end of history. Hegel believed it ended with the spirit achieving its goals of freedom, while Marx believed it to be synonymous with achieving communism. Jarbawi refutes the idea of the end of civilizations:It is true that the West is now more advanced and modern than others, and bears the banner of modernity in this era, but it is not at all true that this matter has become final, definitive, and foregone. (186)The course of history continues with the emergence of new civilizations in which knowledge is further accumulated, and in which a more appealing and universal ideology emerges; a never-ending continuum.Intellectuals have been endlessly intrigued by the cycle of civilizations, and their views have varied for multiple reasons. Jarbawi details his reasons in relation to the following intellectuals: Ibn Khaldun refers to “Asabiyya”; Spengler refers to “The Soul”; while Toynbee considers “The Creative Response” as a motivator/catalyst; and Carroll Quigley refers to the “Means of Expansion” (169).In the eyes of Jarbawi, civilization develops through three stages: preparation, spread, and cross-fertilization. These stages cannot reach an apex unless accompanied by the decisive and motivational factor, which is ideology, because it represents an element of strength, attraction, and effectiveness at each of those stages. As the ideological factor weakens, the civilization suffers a setback and decline (170).Based on the foregoing, Jarbawi classifies civilizations into centralized and global. The essential difference between them is that the centralized civilizations lacked a global ideology, thus did not expand beyond their borders, and did not strive to integrate other cultures, so were fixed in their place, while global civilizations were different (190–91). Based on this classification, he considered the Sumerian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Egyptian, Indian, and Chinese civilizations as centralized.Jarbawi also differentiates between culture and civilization, as the later cannot arise from one culture alone. Therefore, he shares Koenigler’s opinion that “Civilization can only derive from the contact of at least two cultures. No matter how high a culture is, or elevated, it cannot produce a civilization on its own” (Koenigler, cited in Jarbawi, 172).Jarbawi presents his vision of human history based on the central foundations of the modernist school. The first point is being, self-centrality, freedom, and rationality. The second point is that it is based on a belief in major theories that can provide explanations transcending time and space. The metaphysics of the self or the philosophy of consciousness was advanced by Descartes who saw that self-awareness is formed by what goes on in the mind of man himself. Kant followed suit, believing in the ability of man to create himself in isolation from the world (Lormand 1998, 583). However, even though Jarbawi agrees with them in principle, he disagrees with them in relation to the historical narrative, since both Descartes and Kant associated history’s starting point with the Age of Enlightenment, while he associated it with the first interaction of man with the environment.Throughout human history, man has dealt with two types of relationship: the first is with the environment; the second is with his own species. These relations were steered by man’s interest in preserving himself, and this prompted him to either cooperate or compete with others (63).Jarbawi does not neglect the side-effects and consequences of man exerting his control over the environment, sharing the criticism of the modernist project, which led to dual control over other beings and nature (Al-Sheikh and Al-Tairi 1996, 15). This intersects with the ideas of postmodern intellectuals who criticized modernity, noting that it led to woes and wars instead of liberation. In this context, Jarbawi states that “the competition over the lead and control, the attempt to monopolize it […], led to unfairness, and the phenomena of excessive exploitation of its resources began to follow” (357).Jarbawi frees the concept of modernity from being linked to the West. In his denial of the concept of Western civilization’s centrality, he calls for the transformation of modernity from:An absolute concept to a relative concept. At any given point in time, there is what is considered modern. […] By linking it to the time factor, modernity becomes a neutral phenomenon, mainly related to manifestations resulting from the greatest possession of material knowledge leading to the maximum ability of controlling the environment. And whoever possesses this knowledge and effectively uses it is considered the most modern at that point in time. (188)In his book, Jarbawi attempts to provide a general framework suitable for interpreting the course of human history through a civilized perspective. This attempt is closer to modernist thought, as postmodernism rejects unification and totalitarianism in favor of emphasizing differences and pluralism (Best and Kellner 1997, 255).The writer builds his theoretical model on an inductive approach to understanding the course of human history, basing it on the following assumptions. First, understanding the course of human history takes place through a perspective of successive civilizations, because it is the most appropriate approach to understanding it. The rise and fall of civilizations take several centuries, as they are the most comprehensive when it comes to accommodating material and ideological cognitive changes.Second, the interconnection between knowledge, ideology, and civilization demonstrates that:this triad of factors […] always interacting constantly, constitutes the changing and transforming historical context of human life. […] Without this connection, the context is lost, and the sequence is broken, which opens up the possibility to amputate history and to announce its hasty end. (269)Third, knowledge is cumulative. A civilization cannot reach the top unless it digests knowledge from previous civilizations and then contributes to it. This necessitates that each new civilization becomes more secular, becoming less dependent on superstitions and more dependent on rationality, yet it will still be lacking in a comparison with the next leading civilization.Fourth, in any period there is no possibility for a clash of civilizations. There is only one leading civilization, and the others; they are either isolated, or self-involved, or competitive. Perhaps competition could lead to the demise of a leading civilization, and a new one takes its place. This is in contrast to the Age of Antiquity in which centralized civilizations existed at the same time, because the characteristics of such civilizations were such that they did not expand their culture outside their borders. From this standpoint, Jarbawi rejects Huntington’s idea of a clash of civilizations.Fifth, previous leading civilizations cannot be revived based on previous unchanging knowledge and ideology, as they have been surpassed by later leading civilizations. In this case, revival should be based on different foundations, by embracing a new ideology, and building on the accumulated knowledge of the leading civilization at the present time. Likewise, civilizations are not resurrected in their initial place of birth. The Arab-Islamic civilization, for example, “moved from the Arabian Peninsula to the Levant, then Iraq, then Egypt, then Andalusia, ending with the Ottoman empire” (274).Sixth, narcissism and schizophrenia are traits that plague leading civilizations. Leading civilizations at their peak are afflicted by narcissism. They assume that they are the last civilization, and that knowledge, thought, and ideology have reached their peak. When such civilizations collapse, they enter a reverse reaction, and may suffer schizophrenia, no longer able to admit their decline, nor the existence of another prominent civilization, so turning inwards on themselves.Seventh, globalization is a phenomenon that accompanies every leading civilization, as it strives to globalize its culture. Based on this, the claim that globalization is the product of modern times, and that it is the equivalent of Western civilization, is not precise. Globalization, according to Jarbawi, results from “killing distance and living in […] a world without distance” (281). This does not negate the difference in scope and intensity between modern globalization and others, as Western civilization has absorbed its predecessors.The book gives its own answer in relation to the central idea it proposes of whether it is possible for Arab and Islamic civilization to rise again. Chapter 5 outlines strategies of civilized confrontation between the leading civilization and others. To illustrate the idea, it asserts that a leading civilization:is of global composition that brings out creative formulas and expressions arising from the process of interaction and fusion of multiple cultures with each other. This process results mainly from the effort of a human group stimulated by energy emanating from an ideology with a global vision and goals, pushing that particular group towards expansion and spread far beyond its borders. (270)As for possible responsive strategies, the writer restricts them to three. First, there is a negative trend, which is what remains of a culture after the collapse of their civilization, especially after being on top for a very long time. Their reaction is defensive. They do not recognize their decline, nor the new leading civilization. They pursue an introverted policy in favor of nostalgia and a defensive enclosed strategy. Such was the case with the Arab and Islamic civilization. Jarbawi stresses that wishful thinking does not build a civilization, nor does it restore past glories. There must be an elite striving to go forward, with accumulated knowledge, a motivating ideology, and a firm yet soft power. Unfortunately, our Arab homeland is lacking in such factors.We are living in a state of modernization, not modernity. Modernity means possessing the physical cognitive power that qualifies us to exert control, and the soft power to present a model that reflects values and global ideas that appeal to other cultures, motivating them to follow the new growing civilization. Jarbawi portrays the Arab nation as being “outside history” (358), living on the margins, and having no significant influence on events, believing in a return to former times, and upholding the idea that Western civilization is hostile. The Arab world is living in a state of schizophrenia, consuming Western physical products, while all the while refusing the ideology it promotes.The second strategy is based on participation, disentangled from nostalgia and reminiscences about past glories, believing that participation is a tool for renewing their culture and civilization, trying to absorb the material and intellectual changes and developments that have taken place, and engaging with them through effective contribution, exerting the utmost energy and all capabilities. Japan is an example of this approach, accepting Western ideology and adopting new value systems in order to revive its culture and its role in the new world.The third and final strategy is competition, wherein there is a will to outpace the current leading civilization and take its place. Jarbawi sets several basic requirements for such culture. It must be:self-confident, believing in its capabilities, self-reliant, and be able to exert the necessary efforts to transform itself into an essential culture […] creating for itself an ideology with a vision and global goals and a positive ethical value system […] and, moreover, for its knowledge to surpass what the pioneering civilization possesses. (292)This strategy was adopted by China in its policy in dealing with the leading Western civilization of our day.Questioning the collapse of Western civilization is intertwined with the United States’ concession of hegemony over the unipolar system. Polarity has initiated a major debate among researchers, and the collapse of the current leading civilization is even more complex, ambiguous, and controversial. Jarbawi confirms this for several reasons.First, the process of a civilization’s collapse takes a long time, almost equal to the stages of its ascendency and can even take decades. Although some observe a decline in Western civilization, and that its last stronghold will be the United States, one should not underestimate America’s ability to renew itself, and doubt that the concepts of Western civilization, such as freedom and democracy, are still glamorous and attractive to other cultures, thus prolonging its lifespan.Second, Chinese civilization is the one expected to replace Western civilization, but it still needs a long time to rise to primacy. Although China possesses the material components from a military and economic point of view, this is not sufficient for the establishment of a leading civilization, and there must be a stimulating and appealing ideology with a global orientation. China has a long historic civilization, especially in our era where civilizations tend towards soft power, unlike the previous eras that were dependent on hard power. This requires the merger and fusion of other cultures. For China to reach the top of the international system is much easier and faster than becoming a leading civilization.For Jarbawi, the decline of Western civilization has begun, and Chinese civilization is qualified to replace it; this may take a century. This depends on how the United States responds to Chinese challenges, and the Chinese elite’s ability to create an ideology that is on a par with world class standards.Jarbawi concludes his book with a systematic prognosis of the required behavior of Arab and Islamic civilization. The Arab nation has to come out of its shell, to deal with the leading civilization, not out of submission or subordination, but on the basis that Western civilization is the product of all previous civilizations, including their own. The Arabs must renew their civilization by absorbing the strengths of the prevailing civilization, and work to build a motivating ideology and material strength if they want to be a leading civilization in the future.Jarbawi’s approach was systematic and coherent in formulating and sequencing his ideas, supporting his arguments by using the inductive method. He excelled in his polemic skills in debating Western intellectuals. This book is a rich source of information, presenting the history of civilizations and intellectual debates on this subject. It can be credited with readdressing the future and role of the Arabs in the midst of epistemological, ideological, and civilizational changes, and an Arab clash with Western civilization.The book’s style is easy and unassuming, although it is not easy to dive into without prior theoretical knowledge of this subject, especially as it takes us on a journey through human history, from its dawning to the present day, and deals with the ideas and theories raised by intellectuals from the Islamic school, the European Renaissance, and contemporary intellectuals and theorists. The book is distinguished by its use of a large number of intellectual, theoretical, and historical references.One of the shortcomings that the book may be accused of is the omission of one of the most important Arab intellectuals, Malik Bin-Nabi, who is considered one of the thinkers of the twentieth century who paid particular attention to the topic of civilizations, especially as he shared Jarbawi’s concerns as to why Islamic culture declined, a topic he focused upon in his works and writings. However, the writer excelled in the use of comparative perspectives, moving away from nostalgia in his treatment of the issue of Arab and Islamic regression.In this book, Jarbawi indirectly confirms the importance of constructivist theory, which is based on abstract elements, such as ideas, identities, aspirations, and hopes, and considers it the decisive factor in the transformation of a centralized culture or civilization to a global one. He stresses the role of soft power, not only in the struggles of the international system, but also in rising to the ranks of a leading civilization.What distinguishes this book is the rejection of Western centralism, refuting the theses of Western superiority and narcissism, and dismantling the link between two concepts considered inherent in Western civilization: globalization and modernity. This is essential as it contributes to exposing the ethnocentrism of these theses. His methodological idea is that Western civilization has reached supremacy today largely because of previous civilizations, including Arab-Islamic civilization.The book states that there are enough arguments that support China as the next candidate to take the place of Western civilization, which is nearing its end, especially since there is no Western heir. Although the book considers that Western civilization has reached its final chapter, the writer does not argue about whether that collapse is imminent. Rather, the author remains cautious in asserting the inevitability of China’s rise as a leading civilization, wondering whether it will succeed, because there is the possibility that it might fail, which ultimately depends on ideological aspects, and how Western civilization responds to Chinese challenges.The absence of democracy in the Chinese political system and the centralization of the Chinese Communist Party hinder the spread of Chinese culture across the world. Not to mention how concepts of Western civilization such as democracy and freedom are appealing. Here the author was somewhat reductive in his treatment of this subject, despite its importance.In conclusion, the theoretical model presented by the author is a serious and methodologically coherent attempt to understand history, and to link knowledge and ideology. It opens the way for more discussion and dialogue, and for it to be developed by other researchers in their study of civilizations.