World Public Forum

Published on 11 October 2008

Written by WPF Dialogue of Civilizations

What is Dialogue of Civilizations?
By Fred Dallmayr

University of Notre Dame (USA)

The group organizing this meeting calls itself the “World Public Forum – Dialogue of Civilizations.” What is the meaning of this name or phrase? We understand quite readily the meaning of “World Public Forum.” We understand that it is a forum or meeting place which is concerned with “public” (rather than purely private or personal) matters and operates on a “global” (rather than purely local) level. But what about “Dialogue of Civilizations”? We understand broadly that “World Public Forum” designates the venue or meeting place, and “Dialogue of Civilizations” designates what is supposed to happen in that forum.

But what kind of dialogue is this?? Here is where dispute arises. Most people are comfortable with the notion of a “forum”, even a “world public forum.” But many people balk at, or are troubled by, the notion of a “dialogue of civilizations.” How can civilizations dialogue? – this is what is often asked. Is dialogue not something that happens between two people, or else a small group of people? But civilizations? These seem to be big and complex entities which have evolved in history over a long period of time. Moreover, civilizations are not uniform things, but exhibit many different strands, different cultural, religious, and linguistic strata. How can such entities dialogue? And who can presume or is entitled to speak for them?

These are weighty objections which should not be taken lightly. But let me attempt to delineate a possible meaning of the phrase. First of all, one should note that “dialogue of civilizations” stands as a corrective and antidote to another phrase which has become very popular in recent times: that of the so-called “clash of civilizations.” We have powerful recent examples of such clashes (especially between the Islamic world and the West). But again: civilizations as such do not clash; it is the political and leaders, and sometimes segments of the people, who clash. They may clash for many reasons (political, economic, religious); but one reason is very prominent: ignorance. Someone has described the clash of civilizations as a “clash of ignorance”. Many times, people living in one civilization are totally ignorant about the ideas, beliefs and customs prevailing in other places. And since they are ignorant, they tend to suspect and perhaps even demonize other people, thereby providing a strong motivation for clashes.

As an antidote to corrective clashes, one thing that the “dialogue of civilizations” is trying to do is to combat and overcome ignorance. This is largely an educational effort, an attempt to familiarize people living in one part of the world with customs, living conditions, and real-life problems of people in other parts of the world. In this respect, the World Public Forum works hand in hand – and is meant to work hand in hand – with UNESCO and with other agencies trying to foster the mutual familiarity among people through educational programs, exchanges of scholars and students, and general people-to-people diplomacy. No dialogue of civilizations can possibly succeed or even get off the ground unless efforts are made to cultivate mutual familiarity among people and ultimately a sense of sympathy.

So, dialogue of civilizations means first of all an educational attempt to remove (or at least lower) the barriers separating different civilizations or different ways of life, barriers often responsible for clashes of ignorance. But there is another meaning attached to the phrase. Here we have to focus on “dialogue” as opposed to “monologue” or one-sided propaganda. In recent decades, we have had very bad experiences with (what is called) “unilateralism,” that is, the pursuit of national policies without any attempt at international consultation and cooperation. The result of such unilateralism is usually violence and warfare. Again, it is not the assumption that all people everywhere can participate in a dialogue about policy objectives. However, if it is challenged and persistently criticized in a “world public forum,” unilateralism will increasingly be found to be unacceptable and hence will be less often practiced. A crucial ingredient here is again educational. It is only through the spreading of a worldwide “culture of dialogue” that the prevailing “culture of violence” can be mitigated and perhaps made less attractive or appealing.

There is no need to be na?ve about this prospect. Clearly, the culture of dialogue cannot eliminate all conflicts with a magical van. Many conflicts are fostered by horrible real-life conditions: especially by the glaring asymmetries or inequalities of wealth and military power. Only by tackling these asymmetries can the culture of violence be reduced. Moreover, people as well as individuals have the right of self-defense, that is, the right to resist oppression, exploitation, and victimization. Hence, the people most urgently in need of education, in need of being trained in the culture of dialogue are the powerful rather than the powerless, the victimizers rather than the victims. Given the immense lure of power and wealth, the road to a culture of dialogue is bound to be long and difficult and often punctuated by struggle. However, there is a difference between struggling for power and domination or struggling for the advancement of a culture of dialogue. The “World Public Forum – Dialogue of Civilizations” is basically committed to the latter struggle. To this extent, the Forum aims to bring about a less violent and more peaceful world.