Asia no place for clash of civilizations

By Willem Wanrooy

LANCASTER, California, U.S.A. (JP): "The fault lines between the Western and Confucian-Islamic civilizations will be the battle lines of the future", scholar Samuel Huntington said.

I apologize for bringing this up again.

Enough has been written about his thesis -- pro and con -- and I have no need to contribute to it any further.

His point only serves as an antithesis to mine, which is, "The fault lines -- or better yet -- the polarities, that exist today in such extreme fashion in American politics and society in general, will be the American domestic battle lines of the future."

Social duality and symbolic antithesis appear with suggestive stubbornness in American politics and religion. These ragged threads of the essential American soul go back to the beginning, to the violent undercurrent of its history.

U.S. history overflows with examples of people constantly taking sides, and their propensity to inflate sound ideas on either side, resulting in heightened extremism in an atmosphere of cynical and contemptuous regard for each other's point of view.

These disagreements without solution, agreed upon by both sides, can only lead to more polarization. And subsequently to more fanaticism and dilemmas.

Heedless accusations, gross distortions, baseless insinuations, and the attitudes of no consultation, little discussion, and no tolerance and compromise increase as polarization between the two sides grows in intensity.

These cultural facets of American life have become much more pronounced since the Oklahoma City bombing. They illustrate the classical American concept, where individuals and groups on opposing sides treat each other as antagonistic elements, of which one has to be "eliminated" in order for the other to survive.

Roger Conner of the Alliance for Rights and Responsibilities said, "A process dominated by extremes is a process that produces anger and withdrawal" (Newsweek, May 8, 1995).

At a press conference in Washington on May 16, 1995, Labor Secretary Robert B. Reich stated that "the impact of polarizing issues, fanned by politicians, is `the one question mark' hanging over 1996 (the elections)... I worry about that".

And he may as well should.

What is really at play here is the insidious American habit of creating and maintaining confrontational standoffs in many important social and political issues, and a dogmatic standpoint on absolute, individual rights (without any willingness to compromise).

"In the absolute language of rights, our (American) obsession with rights makes it nearly impossible to pursue a democratic politics of accommodation and compromise", Prof. Jack Rakove of Stanford University said.

Jill Smolowe said in Time, May 8, 1995, "The right to bear arms seems to be the only altar where moderates and zealots can worship comfortably side by side".

How ironic: the gun, a unit intended for destruction, to be the synthesis between two antitheses.

And this from James Walsh (Time, June 14, 1993): "American- style individualism has reached the point of exalting lifestyle as a primary concept: Self-reliance turned into self-indulgence and even self-destructive behavior, as evidenced by political inertia, hedonism, litigation and crime".

Can we thus deduce from these statements that when the individual activist takes precedence over the silent masses, it's time to question whether the U.S. has correctly interpreted its brand of democracy?

What has to happen then in America in order to change the toxic speeches of all those who proclaim, "The right to..." into reasoned discourses, is a willingness to bend, to compromise, to bridge partisan and ideological gaps.

It is important for Americans to learn the process of serious discussion, the extent to which both sides get information in all kinds of voices and learn to listen to all of them.

However, these skills come with difficulty to Americans: they aren't taught to children -- children do not learn dispute resolution through peaceful means of discussion.

In these contexts, Westerners in general, and Americans in particular, may find "barbarians inside the gates", who will create the battle lines of the future inside these gates, and not far away in Asia. These barbarians may bring about a relative decline of their societies.

Is this inevitable?

Perhaps so, because the inevitability of 'demise' is solely based on the evolutionary logic of history: the rise and fall of empires is a live phenomenon. Dynasties rise, have their day in the sun and then decline.

If keywords keep appearing in the American media, one can only see a decline in U.S. society: "Don't expect leniency;" "War of accusations;" "A tough list of demands;" "Climate of violence and confrontation;" "Speaking out with increasing boldness;" "The religious right could virtually dictate;" "The resurgence of America's incendiary paranoid style;" "Vehement opposition;" "Clinton calls for the purge of dark forces;" "Demagogues could be a problem;" "The allure of malignant ideas."

"Reflexive extremism rooted in the American national character," Prof. David M. Kennedy of Stanford University said.

How does Asia compares to what is happening in America?

Are there any pitfalls Asian societies should be aware of in reference to, "How much and what do we 'import' from America?"

First of all, the challenges for Asia are to make sure that clan values, respect for elders and dependence on the family structure are not getting lost in its ascendance to modernization and economic prosperity. But even more so that Asia does not seek to approach the human mind by imposing total authority, but rather by appealing to the tradition of community rights and standards, civic responsibilities rather than civil rights, the right to live in an environment of social and political order.

Asians have to keep on emphasizing:

* We are Asian states and nations. We have our own mentality, traditions and religions.

* We are used to living in a totally different society (than the West).

* Asian democracy is not transplanted values evolved from the European historical experience, suited to Euro-American notions of the ideal society. Europe and America, with their twin cultural roots in the Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian philosophical traditions, have not been able to come up with a universal definition of democracy.

* Asian democracy is not defined by a head count of politicians and those who support them (self-interest groups).

* Harmony and fairness in non-parliamentary Asian countries are preserved by legal, social and cultural checks and balances.

* Asian democracy protects the welfare of the individual by enhancing the collective good. If the two should be in conflict, the collective good prevails.

The ultimate challenge for Asia is that it has to continue, and even increase, the spirit of resolving internal conflicts and crisis among nations through the traditional village community values of consultation, discussion and consensus, self-restraint and compromise, and above all, the spirit of goodwill and good neighborliness.

It is truly so that people in Asia, and particularly those in Malaysian, Indonesian and Singaporean Confucian-Islamic societies, have, throughout history, always shown the ability to accommodate, and tolerate conflicting norms and ideas, an unusual capacity for tolerance, and the capacity to entertain, in coexistence, ideas and values that are "incompatible with political/cultural norms in Western societies".

In an 'opinion article' in the Los Angeles Times May 21, 1995, political analyst John P. Sears elaborated somewhat on the American tradition of "total freedom for the individual as long as no one else is hurt by it". He stated that "each individual should decide on the basis of his own reasons and experience how to derive happiness from his life, and that even the matter of what is right and wrong, should be an individual decision".

"Foreigners tend to think we are crazy", he said, "But it isn't crazy when one reflects on the American experience!"

That is in my opinion precisely on the point: It is an American experience created in the context of a young American history of people conquering and peopling a continent, and deciding to go at it alone in a land they knew nothing about.

It is an American experience that is, in my point of view and that of most Asians, incompatible with the Asian history of social and cultural attitudes, gleaned from the experience of thousands of years of living by past generations, are indeed the most helpful guide to current generations with regards to how happiness can be obtained from life.

In the practical realms of life, it will be difficult for Asia to put up barricades to keep part of the American experience out.

However, the region needs to guard against a decline in the values that have been the pillars of its societies. The tenacity of its values has been formed over a long period in history and is less likely to erode than that of a younger and more fragile American society.

As long as the acculturation process is in the fields of science, education and economics, Asian nations can become like Japan: modern and advanced without surrendering their heritage or social harmony.

There is no need for Asia to "clash with other civilizations".

Shootings, bombings and taking up arms against the government is an American tradition. I wish it were not so.

Core values, that strengthen communities and impart harmony, order and courtesy are Asian traditions. I hope they keep it that away.

The writer is an author based in California, United States.