Civilisation Dialogue

Since the end of the Cold War, several discourses or ways of interpreting the world have competed for the attention of policy-makers, scholars and the general public:

1. The "End of History/End of Ideology" discourse - here the stress is on the end of ideological conflict in the world resulting from the triumph of the 'Capitalist West', the defeat of 'Communism' and the break-up of the Soviet Union. As a result, the United States is left as the world's only superpower and the market and democracy as the the unchallenged principles for the organisation of human affairs.

2. The "Clash of Civilisations" discourse - the idea was made popular by Samuel Huntington, who emphasised in his book by that title the likely emergence of new conflicts based on culture and religion. This notion has been greatly reinforced by events since September 11, the subsequent 'war on terror' and the invasion of Iraq. In Australia the events associated with the Tampa episode, Bali and anti-terrorism generally suggest a somewhat similar view of the world;

3. The "Dialogue of Civilisations" discourse - though the idea of dialogue is an old one, it has been give renewed meaning and relevance in recent years - of particular importance has been the contribution of inter-faith dialogue to which a great many other religious movements and organisations have contributed both formally and informally.

Three significant voices

Numerous intellectuals and religious and political leaders have made a striking contribution to the theory and practice of dialogue as a constructive approach to religious and cultural differences. Three seem particularly significant.

Vaclav Havel:

A key figure in the underground movement that resisted Soviet control of his country and first president of the Czech Republic following the end of the Cold War
has often used the image of a room or a prison cell to describe the condition of the modern world - coexistence offers the only hope of survival.
In his famous address delivered on 4 July 1994 in Philadelphia, Havel said:

The artificial world order of the past decades has collapsed, and a new more-just order has not yet emerged. The central political task of the final years of this century, then, is the creation of a new model of coexistence among the various cultures, peoples, races, and religious spheres within a single interconnected civilization. This task is all the more urgent because other threat to contemporary humanity brought about by one-dimensional development of civilization are growing more serious all the time.

Tu Weiming:

Mohammed Khatami:

The richness of our civilisational inheritance

It may well be that in this emerging dialogue the dominant western discourse is less potent and less useful than is often assumed. Partly as a consequence of its global economic, political and military dominance the West has come to believe that its its culture is universal and that progress can be measured only in the light of its own achievements.

To draw attention to these shortcomings is not to ignore the very substantial contribution of the western tradition and, but rather to indicate that it does not hold a monopoly on ethical discourse.

The reality is that all human beings have one civilisational inheritance - admittedly one comprised of many cultural and religious strands, making for an extraordinarily rich and diverse inheritance.

The key to dialogue, particularly when set against the backdrop of the contemporary human predicament, is to explore the implications of differences, commonalities and complementarities between these different civilisational strands. The question to be addressed here is: can civilisational differences, commonalities and complementarities contribute to a more just and peaceful world - locally, nationally, regionally and globally?

Any serious analysis of the world's major religious and ethical traditions in Asia, including Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism and Islam, suggest that they share with the Judeo-Christian tradition a deep sense of the dignity of human life, a commitment to human fulfilment, and a concern for standards of 'rightness' in human conduct. Common to all traditions is the notion of humane and legitimate governance, although the criteria used to measure of legitimacy may vary considerably from one tradition to another. There is sufficient common ground between these religious and ethical world-views to make possible an on-going conversation about human ethics in general, and in particular about co-existence and co-operation across the civilisational divide.

Yet, there are also important differences. Each tradition has its own distinctive ethos and symbolism, its own unique gifts to contribute to the dialogue, indeed to a global spirituality. Here, it is worth noting the profound significance attached by the Judaic faith to the human journey and the role of prophecy in pointing the way; the Christian understanding on the redeeming power of forgiveness as the key to reconciliation; the purity of Islam's of God and its uncompromising insistence on Allah's uniqueness and majesty; Buddhism's profound insight into the nature of suffering and the need to let go; the indigenous appreciation of the land and the ability to connect through the dreaming with the deepest roots of our collective existence. To this list could be added the sense of harmony which inspires Confucian thought and practice, and even the deeper spiritual strands that animate secular humanism. Here we have in mind the underlying ethic of liberalism understood not as the crass materialism of free market economics but as human liberation. Similarly, with humanistic socialism and its emphasis on social responsibility for the satisfaction of needs and the fulfilment of human potential.

At this historical moment, the non-Western traditions are especially important because they help us to establish a closer connection between human rights and human needs, between rights and obligations and between the individual and the community (hence the dual emphasis on rights and responsibilities). They open up new possibilities whereby the individual can think and act not as a disaggregated atom but as a member of several overlapping collectivities (hence the emphasis on the rights of peoples - not only the right to self-determination but the right to a healthy environment, the right to food, the right to security, the right to a share of the common heritage of humanity).

If we are to address the immense challenges of the next several decades, we will have to participate in a dialogue of global proportions. We in Australia are particularly well placed to engage in such a dialogue, for in our midst are represented many of the world's religious and cultural traditions. Our history and our geography have endowed this country with a unique opportunity to weave together the wisdom of diverse civilisational strands - evident in Australia's cultural and religious diversity, in the encounter between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australia, and in our proximity to the extraordinarily rich cultural and religious mosaic that is Asia.

The task ahead is to refashion our schools and universities, our media, our religious and political institutions in ways that can assist Australians to grasp these opportunities and make the dialogue of civilisations an integral part of everyday life.

Notes for a lecture on "Civilisation Dialogue"

Delivered at the Islamic Council of Victoria, September 2004

Three significant voices

Vaclav Havel:

Tu Weiming:

Mohammed Khatami:

The richness of our civilisational inheritance