Dialogue between cultures
-Jochen Hippler, Germany
Relations between western countries and
the Islamic world have become more difficult since the terrorist attacks of September 11.
The destruction of the World Trade Center and the military response of the United States
have created reservations, mistrust, and even mutual fear. While many people in Europe and
North America now greet everything Islamic-or even "Islam" per se-with new
concern, many Muslims accuse the West of striving for supremacy and applying double
standards.
Clash or dialogue? : In the last decade, the debate on relations between
Western and Islamic societies has unfolded under two opposite headings: while some spoke
of a "clash of civilizations", and primarily meant a fundamental conflict
between the West and Islam, others appealed for a "dialogue of cultures". What
was interesting here was the fact that this difference did not exist between the West and
the Muslim world, but that each position was to be found within both. There were hefty
arguments on both sides about whether the cultures are divided by fundamental differences
or united by the opportunity and need for dialogue. Yet this dispute is not taking place
between Muslims and "Westerners", between the religious and the secular, between
Europe and the Middle East, between Islam and Christianity, but within all these groups.
The dialogue of cultures also proved
difficult because it first had to be conducted within people's own societies, where it met
with sometimes hesitant, sometimes hefty opposition. People in both cultures presume that
this kind of dialogue is likely to threaten their particular identity, and on both sides
people hope to learn from one another. Intercultural understanding is a difficult task,
especially as it is detrimentally affected by different powers relationships prevailing on
each side. Since the early 19 th century, Muslims have frequently experienced the West not
as an equal partner, but as a dominant force. Military, economic, technological and
political inferiority has influenced the relationship of Middle Eastern countries with the
West since colonial times. Imbalances also exist when it comes to economic power and the
state of technology. This is of great significance: dialogue between economically strong
and economically weaker partners is far more difficult than between equals.
Superiority tempts one side to consider
itself not only stronger, but also better, and morally superior. It does not then treat
its dialogue partner as equal, but preaches, always knows better. The genuine inferiority
of the other side can easily make it shrink from dialogue, because it either seeks escape
in an inflexible and hostile stance or uncritically accepts the positions of the superior
side without further reflection. Real and open interchange is then not only made
difficult, it is often made impossible. Thus, any one who wishes to engage in serious
intercultural dialogue should not closes his or her eyes to power imbalances, but has to
creatively seek new ways of conducting interchange on equal terms. Some attempts at
dialogue suffer as a result of unclear or misleading ideas of who one really is and who
one is actually talking to. "The West" is not culturally homogeneous entity, but
a continuum of attitudes, values, and partners of behaviors that can only be understood as
an entirety when viewed with a very high level of abstraction. The West encompasses
religion and atheism, secularism and denominationalism, the philosophers of enlightenment,
the Inquisition, human rights, fascism and democracy. It also includes rural communities
with close family ties and low mobility as well as highly adaptable experts in information
technology and telecommunications. There are significant regional and national
differences, different languages and dialects, patriarchal mentalities alongside feminism,
progressive alongside reactionaries, bigotry alongside tolerance. The West is full of
differences and contradictions. It is in transition, in a permanent process of
development, with shifting imbalances and counterbalances. We all too easily overlook this
diversity, this amalgam of values, because they are far too close and we take them so much
for granted that we can't see them as anything unusual. And we frequently overlook the
fact that the situation is exactly the same in Muslim societies:; here, too, you can find
understanding alongside fanaticism, openness alongside misogyny, narrow-mindedness
alongside enlightenment. Muslim societies are not only Islamic, just as the West is not
only "Western", they are composed of a combination of contradictions and
conflicts in mush the same way as Western societies are.
This gives rise to two problems:
First, both sides tend to perceive and define the other primarily through their
differences and unpleasant aspects. Many people in Europe mainly see the unfamiliar sides
of Muslim societies-and thus only one part of reality. And just as Germany is not
primarily and exclusively skinheads, xenophobic attacks, and the country of holocaust,
Islamic societies are not only characterized by religious intolerance. And yet phenomena
of this kind rapidly attract all attention. Dialogue is then replaced by reciprocal
criticism of the other's dark sides. Real dialogue should not disregard this destructive
element, but must recognize and characterize it within a wider context.
Second the contradictory nature of Western
and Muslim societies make dialogue more difficult because there are not only two sides,
but an almost infinite number of players on each side. Dialogue can't take place between
these heterogeneous systems in their entirety, but only between individuals and groups.
For both sides there is only apparently one dialogue partner, in reality either the
crystallization of a culture of pluralistic debate, which also learns to accept the
diversity of the other side-or no intercultural dialogue. Any attempt to find
authoritative debating partners representing the "West" or "Islam"'
restricts interchange to certain ideologically conspicuous groups and excludes the vast
majority of both societies.
Initiatives from society:
Meanwhile, however, there has been a great deal and very encouraging experience at the
most diverse levels-even if intercultural dialogue is no easy undertaking. Federal
President Johannes Rau has repeatedly spoken out clearly in favor of dialogue with Muslim
societies, as did his predecessor, Roman Herzog. He has acted as the patron of a series of
national and international dialogues.
Since 1997, the Press and Information
Office of the Federal Government has been organizing German -Arab Media dialogue
alternatively in Germany and in an Arab country. So far these conferences have been held
in Heidelberg, 1997, Amman, 1998, Rabat, 1999, and Hamburg, 2000. This program has created
a forum for an open and free exchange of views between representatives of the Arab and the
German media. In the joint resolution agreed in Rabat in 1999, journalists from German
speaking countries and the Arab world made a commitment to the maintenance of the freedom
of the press and freedom of expression, to democratic participation in society, and to
reciprocal support in the preservation and use of these freedoms. As a consequence of the
terrorist attacks, in December 2001, the Federal Foreign Office decided to intensify the
activities aimed at intercultural dialogue in conjunction with the intermediary
institutions engaged in foreign cultural relations. Initiatives for dialogues constantly
arise within society itself; the corresponding events of the Institute for Foreign
Cultural Relations, ifa, or the Foundation for Development and Peace, SEF, are important
examples from Germany.
Less visible, but just as important are the
countless efforts that aim to improve relations with the Muslims living in Germany: mosque
open days, joint demonstrations against xenophobia, public debates, teaching-training
seminars, and teaching units at schools aim to inform and break down prejudices about
Muslims, the reality of their everyday lives, and their religion. However, further efforts
will be required before the dialogue of cultures is transformed from a frequently lauded
need to a reality.
The author is a political
scientist and a writer. Text courtesy: Deutschland E4 No 1/2002 February/March, Embassy of
Germany in Nepal.
France at war against AIDS
-Florence Raynal, French Journalist
Although in France the introduction of
triple therapies has led to a clear advance in patient care, the epidemic has not yet
stabilized, and there is even a tendency for vigilance to relax. In an attempt to remedy
this situation, the government is relying on prevention, the foundation, together with
access to screening and the support of sufferers, of the national policy to fight Aids. In
international terms, France is one of the countries most involved in the fight against the
pandemic, in the face of which it advocates a global approach.
More than 36 million people in the world
today are living with the Aids virus; almost 22 million have died of it; 13 million
children have lost their mothers because of HIV…The litany of figures compiled by
UNAIDS, the United Nations Agency responsible for the fight against the endemic, sends
shivers up your spine. For the last twenty years, when this viral disease which invades
and destroys the immune system was first described, the epidemic has ravaged every
continent. However, sub-Saharan Africa is by far the area most affected since, with more
than 25 million sufferers, it has 70% of those infected worldwide…in an area with
barely more than 10% of the world population.
In France, while the figures are less
alarming, the Ministry of Health nonetheless estimates that there are 120,000 persons
currently known to be infected; and that there have been 36,000 deaths since the start of
the pandemic. Nevertheless, in France there are five times fewer people dying from Aids
than in 1996, thanks to the appearance of new treatments: triple therapies. Even so, the
epidemic situation has not stabilized:; between 4 and 6,000 people are said to become
infected each year and, since 1997, heterosexual transmission has predominated. Indeed,
the proportion of people infected after homosexual sexual contact has reduced, as has that
of injecting drug users. However, the number of women affected has rocketed-in ten years,
one woman for every seven men has risen to one for every three.
Prevention: a priority: With
the spread of the epidemic, a policy to fight Aids centered on prevention, access to
screening and support of sufferers, has developed gradually, bringing together the
government, research, professionals and community networks. In the area of prevention of
HIV, the State budget totaled 44.24 million euros in 2000, which in particular has made it
possible to finance various campaigns orchestrated by the French Health Education
Committee, CFES, campaigns that are all the more necessary because we are seeing a
relaxation of vigilance.
Indeed, the CEFS considers that: "The
hope aroused by advances in treatment and perception of an epidemic under control seems to
be leading to a fall in vigilance which may have consequences on prevention behavior, with
the risk being perceived as lesser."'
Yet while the length and quality of life of
sufferers has greatly improved and multiple therapies rapidly reduce viral particles in
the blood to an undetectable level and partly restore the immune system at every stage of
the illness, this should not obscure the fact that these treatments are highly toxic, have
major side effects and are difficult to manage from day to day. Moreover, 6% of patients
do not respond to treatment.
To remind people of the permanence of
infection and the gravity of the disease and to encourage the adoption of risk avoidance
behavior for oneself and others, such as wearing a condom, especially in cases where there
are several partners, still more as concerns polygamists, the CEFS has set up a three year
program combining campaigns directed at the general public and actions targeted at
priority groups, with the support of special interest media, local groups and
intermediaries from communities.
Women at greater risk: Thus
in March 2001, a campaign directed at women was launched. Its purpose was to inform women
of their biological vulnerability-from man to woman, the risk of transmitting the virus is
from three to eight times higher-and to help them insist that partner whose HIV status is
unknown use a condom.
The physiological factors are added cultural
and social factors that contribute to contamination (9 inequality between men and women,
the latter are still all too often expected to take responsibility for pre-pregnancy,
violence, financial insecurity and social exclusion). Amongst other social groups targeted
are practicing homosexual men, injecting drug users, migrants, people with little access
to information and the young.
To permit diagnosis and care of people before
the symptoms of the disease appear is one of the priorities of the Ministry of Health. One
person in two discovers they are HIV positive either when Aids is diagnosed or when they
consult doctor about an opportunistic illness.
Yet it is now possible to establish a
biological diagnosis of infection within two weeks after a risk has been taken
(unprotected sexual intercourse, a split condom, injury from a blood-soiled object,
sharing syringes when injecting), which permits early care. Preventive treatment, one
month's multiple anti-retroviral treatment, can also be offered within forty-eight hours
following exposure to the risk, in an attempt to prevent contamination.
Since 1988, to make access to screening
easier, the government has set up in each French Department, anonymous and free screening
centers staffed by multi-disciplinary teams (doctors, nurses, psychologists, social
workers) where information and advice is also given.
Progress in the fight against the disease,
both in terms of the health, psychological and social care of sufferers and their families
and friends, and of research, could however, never have been achieved without the extreme
mobilization of civil society and the tenacity of organizations such as Act-Up, Aides,
Arcat-Sida, Ensemble contre le sida, all against Aids run by the sufferers themselves, and
Medicines du monde. These organizations have also the changed the way victims of HIV are
perceived, especially by fighting the discrimination to which they were subject as well as
actively involving them in the patient-carer relationship. |
