Islam, Dialogue and Civil Society
Tradition, Modernity and Development
Thinking about the meaning of the above three concepts and discerning the relationship among them is one of the most pressing preoccupations of thinkers in our age, especially in non-Western countries. A superficial glance at the above terms may lead us to conclude prematurely that modernity is a Western phenomenon, built through the dismantling and breaking of tradition.
Then there is development, viewed as the upshot of modernity, which has
become a paramount strategic goal of those outside the stem sphere of
thought and values. From such assumptions we can reach the simplistic
conclusion that to reach development, it is necessary to embark on
modernization, and modernization can only come about through dismantling
tradition.
But these arbitrary assumptions can only satisfy the feebleminded or
those who feel no responsibility for human destiny. The problem is much
too complex to be solved with simplistic solutions. Tradition cannot be
transformed through mere prescriptions, nor does modernization come
about easily, for, until people themselves change, no fateful
transformation will happen in their lives, and the transformation of
people is a highly complex affair for which individuals often lack the
tools.
Terms such as tradition, modernization, and development are replete
with ambiguity, and thus far there is no consensus on how to define
them. Indeed, consensus may never emerge. In order to minimize
misunderstanding, all those engaged in this debate must specify clearly
what they mean by these terms before they leap to offer their theories
and prescriptions.
What do I understand modernization and tradition to mean?
When we talk about modernity, we are certainly talking about innovative
and evolving phenomena and institutions. But are all new phenomena
modern? Or does modernity mark a specific era in history? Human society,
even its most primitive kinds in antiquity, has always been in flux.
The essential difference between the Old World and the modern era is not in the static nature of the old versus the dynamism of the modern, but in the slow pace of change in the Old World and the breathtaking pace of change in modernity.
Putting the intricate debate about the relationship between civilization
and culture aside for the moment, it is fair to assume that each culture
is attuned and adapted to a specific civilization. Modern civilization
came about through the dismantling of the previous civilization and
through overturning the culture corresponding to the old civilization.
Then modern civilization ushered in a culture to fit and meet its
demands.
Tradition, by definition, deals with the past, but we cannot think of
all old things as denoting tradition. We talk about divine traditions or
natural traditions, which are considered constant and immutable by their
proponents.
The laws governing existence are divine or natural traditions. It is possible that humans commit errors in the discovery of these laws, and later come to recognize their errors, but what changes here is the understanding of the laws, not the laws themselves. We may accept the principle of change and instability in the essence of the world, just as Sadral Mote'allehin among the great Muslim philosophers-believes in 'dynamic essences', or just as Marxists see the world as being propelled by internal contradictions, and thus immersed in a constant state of transformation. Thus, the principle of change is permanent for everything.
In my view, tradition is a human affair pertaining to the mental and
emotional predispositions of a people; in other words, tradition
comprises the habituated thoughts, beliefs, and deeds of a people, that
have been institutionalized in society on the basis of past practices.
In this definition, tradition is similar to culture, and in many
instances tradition is itself a symbol of culture, but we cannot think
of all culture as being traditional. Tradition is the existing culture
in a society that has once possessed a compatible civilization. But now,
even though the old civilization has withered, aspects of the
corresponding culture have remained deeply entrenched. By civilization I
do not refer only to advanced and complex civilizations, but to a
specific way of life broadly defined. Thus hunter-gatherers, too, had a
civilization; indeed, for as long as human society has existed, there
has been civilization.
The existence of a past culture in the present while the base
civilization has withered is possible because culture has roots in the
depths of human beings and may be more long lasting than the underlying
civilization. Many cultural legacies may outlast civilizations by
centuries.- In other words, tradition is the reflection of past culture
in today's life if the civilization has changed.
When. a new civilization is created and the culture appropriate for it
is entrenched, people who still carry around vestiges of the previous
culture experience a contradiction when encountering a new civilization.
On the one hand, the realities of life are affected by modern
civilization, but much that contradicts modern civilization is still in
place, too. People and nations like us are deeply affected by this
contradiction. Most of the cultural uncertainties in our society, which
has vast differences with the West, are attributable to this
contradiction, which until solved at the root, will continue to spawn
crisis.
Western society's embracing modern civilization came about through
breaking with tradition. The beginning of modern civilization should be
seen as the point when the thoughts and values of the Catholic Church
and the social and economic traditions of feudalism were questioned and
then rejected. The victor in this challenge was modern civilization and
the leaders of this value system. The fundamentals of this system were
exported to America from Europe and from these two places to distant
comers of the world and became dominant, even affecting life in our
country.
At the same time, our past culture continues to live within us; this
culture has serious differences and disagreements with Western culture.
In other words, our tradition is more suitable for another civilization.
That civilization no longer exists and the present civilization's border
has expanded and affected us fundamentally.
As we all know, this civilization established itself by dismantling the
civilization of the Middle Ages in the West. But we had a different
civilization from the West in the Middle Ages. Thus, even though modern
civilization was at odds with the Western civilization of the Middle
Ages, does this mean that the same schism exists between modernity and
our previous civilization? This may have something to do with the
difference between Islamic and Christian civilizations and cultures.
The most important similarity of our thought today to what was dominant
in the West in the Middle Ages is the central place accorded to God in
the lives of humans. By contrast, in modern civilization secular humans
are viewed as being the center. Even the chief architects of modern
thinking-such as Descartes who emerged at the dawn of the modern era-who
have defended God and the supernatural in principle, have a markedly
different view than Christians and Muslims of the Middle Ages. The
centrality of the role of humans constitutes the chief difference among
them.
Of course, there has always been divine, mystical, and religious
thinking in the West. But there is no doubt that as God and religion
were central to the Middle Ages, nature and humans are central to the
modern world. In the Middle Ages, otherworldly issues carried more
weight and prestige, and here Muslims and Christians were similar. But
in today's world, focus on the afterlife has been replaced by secular
concerns.
In the modern world, even though the boundless optimism of
eighteenth-century Westerners has faded, science and its offspring
technology are still the most important factors guiding human life.
People-at least in social spheres-do not see any reason to rely on
anything other than empirical science and human perceptions.
In the past, the view of humans from the perspectives of being and science was different from today's. The value of knowledge was not measured by its utility in the practical affairs of this world, but by the nobility and exalted place of its subject matter. Thus, inquiry into metaphysics, and especially theology, were viewed as being the most important branches of knowledge.
In social life, it was claimed that religious law, or the apparent
meaning discerned from religious texts, should rule supreme. Besides
divine 'revelation', humanity did not need another source for knowledge
and practice. It is worth mentioning that in the Muslim world,
philosophy under the influence of Aristotelian and neo-Platonic
views-which was essentially different from modern philosophy and
rationality-was faced with statutory and canonical views of religion
among the rulers and the population, and the effect of Sufism among much
of the elite and some parts of society, and thus remained isolated and
confined to the sidelines.
The beginning of the modern age can be seen as a time when the main
measure of the significance of knowledge and science became their
practical utility in this world, whereas before then, the dominant
thinking had rested on the folly of the physical world. And even though
Muslims of that time were ahead of their Christian contemporaries in
recognizing the validity-and indeed the significance-of the natural and
physical world, in both civilizations, focusing on the natural world was
viewed as being a largely futile occupation.
The crux of my argument is that today's civilization dominates us
non-Westerners as well, and that this civilization requires a culture
that is attuned to it. Yet portions of our culture remain attuned to a
bygone civilization. Modern civilization was built through the
dismantling of the previous civilization and the accompanying culture.
Thus we must concede that the incompatibility of modern civilization
with our tradition-bound civilization is one of the most important
causes of the crisis in our society. What is to be done? Should we
insist on remaining immersed in our tradition, or should we melt fully
into Western civilization? Or is there another way of removing this
contradiction, or at least taming and channeling it such that it does
not lead to our destruction and the unraveling of our social fabric and
historical identity?
Many traditionalists continue to defend their heritage against
modernity, often thinking of this heritage as being divine, assuming
that they can bring order to their lives by shutting the doors to
Western values and civilization, and by relying on tradition.
But this ill-fated rigidity has not achieved their aims, a fact evident
in Western civilization's success in exporting much of its values to
unprepared tradition-bound societies that have lacked the capability to
understand the West. Thus, traditionalists have been left with no choice
but to retreat progressively, without providing society with the tools
to appraise Western civilization properly.
Then there are those who believe that this crisis can be solved by a
complete and uncritical adopting of modern values. Modernity, to them,
counts as the highest achievement of humankind to date, as they
prescribe that all obstacles for its embrace be removed, tradition being
viewed as the biggest obstacle in the process of modernization.
They advise that we prepare the way for the new civilization by stepping
on our past heritage. But sadly, many who have been entranced by the
admittedly awesome accomplishments of the West, those who have
represented the essence of what became known in our society as
intellectualism, have not only not solved the problem, but made it
worse.
First, the shallowness of their view, the debate being merely glossed
over, has postponed the emergence of a real debate about the
relationship between modernity and tradition. Second, dispensing with
deeply rooted traditions, they have proved incapable of achieving
anything of significance.
They have never found a place in the hearts of a people who have become habituated to tradition; they have not spoken a language comprehensible to the people, and thus have died in isolation, their words never gaining common currency. Or even worse, in order to survive they wrapped themselves around autocratic rulers, often becoming the tools of Western colonialism in their own countries.
In real life, neither religious decrees and mere wishful thinking can
prevent the advance of Western culture, nor can memoranda and doctrines
uproot tradition. Human life is always changing, sometimes unconsciously
and uncontrollably. The important thing is to see through which
perspective we can maintain an instrumental presence in the process of
change, so that instead of being at their mercy, we can confront
circumstances with awareness and intelligence.
Alongside these two imagined solutions, there are reform-minded
thinkers, in the developing world. While there is hope that this
movement may be more successful, thus far it, too, has been beleaguered
by the crisis that we face. This is because reformists rest on two
fundamentals: one, a return to the self and reviving our
historical-cultural identity, and two, a positive encounter with the
achievements of human civilization, while being aware of the hegemonic
and colonial legacy of the West.
Not only is there no unity of vision about the 'self' that they want to
return to, but also they cannot agree on precisely those aspects of the
West that we must absorb and internalize. Thus reformists must be viewed
as keen and aware pioneers who have tried to confront their society's
woes courageously to rid it of degrading conditions.
Our past has been eventful, but our future remains uncertain. We are
adrift in a world dominated by Western culture, politics, economics, and
military might, and confront the idea of development which is a tested
form of progress in the West. We must decide once and for all where we
stand in relation to the West and how Western values are related to
development, so that we can attain development without losing our
national identity or becoming dissolved in the West.
Development, like many other contemporary concepts, has its roots in
the West. Here is how I define it: to establish widespread welfare on
the basis of the values and criteria of Western civilization. Do we not
divide the world into the two camps of 'developed'-meaning built on
Western values-and 'undeveloped'? Do we not think of those countries as
'developing' that are trying to modernize their way of life by emulating
the West? It is here that the relationship between tradition and
modernity comes into focus.
Development is a Western concept, based on Western civilization.
Without knowing it we cannot know development, let alone make decisions
about it or reject it. So, I believe that debating about development is
premature before focusing on its underpinnings.
There are those who claim that nations are doomed to remain backward,
even to perish, unless they meet all of development's demands.
Modernization, they say, is necessary to achieve development.
The above judgment is true if we see the West as the ultimate human
civilization that is impossible to supersede in the future, but there
are those who see the West as the latest but not the ultimate human
civilization, which like all other human artifacts, is tentative and
susceptible to decay.
Of course, this does not mean denying development or surrendering to the
views of regressive traditionalists; it means rejecting the
prescriptions of those who prescribe complete and rapid Westernization.
While the prescriptions of thinkers usually differ from those of the
power elite, development will be achieved more fully if policy making is
attuned, to the prescriptions of rational thought, not itself a
constraint on thinking.
Our role as thinkers is to realize that even if development means
repeating the Western experience, we still have to fathom its basic
tenets and their implications. This represents the most important
calling for real intellectualism and thinking. The truth of the matter
is that without rationality, real development will be impossible to
attain.
First, development is not a mechanical process that can be achieved in
the absence of rational human beings. And second, a society that is
devoid of rational thinking will lose its balance as soon as it
encounters problems, and it is amply clear that human difficulties
cannot be solved through reliance on force, strict laws, and the decrees
of politicians, even though difficulties might be submerged by these
means for a while. The sad experience of the 'Westoxicated' and the
tradition-bound is before us, and we must learn from their mistakes so
we do not repeat them.
Modern civilization is the important reality of our age and has brought
many monumental benefits to humanity. But its faults are many as well,
and these faults are not limited to Westerners' political and economic
atrocities outside their geographic borders. The West faces serious
internal crises in its economy, society, and in its thinking. For those
of us living outside the West, if we do not feel overwhelmed and taken
in by the West, we will at least be better judges of the disasters
brought about by Western colonialism for non-Westerners.
Western civilization is a human construct, and thus tentative and prone
to decay, unless someone claims unrealistically that with the dawn of
modern civilization, the fountain of human curiosity and creativity has
dried up. Civilization is an answer to the curiosity of humans who never
stop questioning their world.
The ever-changing needs of humans compel them to fulfill these needs,
and civilization is the answer to the questions one faces. Of course,
there are important questions and needs history that spur the emergence
of civilizations, and these questions are themselves affected by the
time and place in which they arise. That is why civilizations change and
there is no such thing as an ultimate and eternal civilization. For as
long as there are humans, so will be their curiosity and needs. With
each question that is answered and each need that is fulfilled, humans
are confronted with new questions and needs.
Each civilization remains standing until it can harness its inner power
to offer answers to human questions and to fulfill human needs, but
civilization, similar to all secular things, is limited. When it
depletes its natural strength and cannot find answers to new questions,
slowly the exuberance of followers of this civilization will vanish, and
that is how civilizations decay and perish.
Western civilization has encountered great crises, and by relying on
its natural strengths, it has been able to pass through them, beginning
in the nineteenth century and culminating in the two world wars of the
twentieth century. But the liberal and capitalist West managed to
confront and outlive its socialist opponent through adjusting its
institutions.
Precipitated by its own internal weaknesses, socialism's demise dazzled
the world. It is nonetheless clear that the West is faced with other
deep crises, crises that have arisen out of questioning the core values
of the West, evident in a decrease in confidence in its capabilities and
permanence. These questions are now more pressing and pertinent than
ever. Thus, objections to the moral and philosophical bases of the West
are more common today.
It is true that the inability of the culture of the Middle Ages to
offer answers to human curiosity and needs, and resorting to physical
and psychological force to suppress those questions and needs, led to an
intellectual and social explosion which caused the rule of the Church
and feudal overlords to crumble. But it would be naive to think of these
conscious questions and needs as the sole cause of the emergence of
modern civilization. These questions and needs emerged amid motivations,
which were outside the realm of logic and rationality.
First, the harsh restrictions imposed by the Church and feudalism were
instrumental in bringing about a reaction in the opposite direction. The
Church had given its practices a sacred facade such that its excesses
led Westerners not only to overturn the extant social order, but to
doubt the whole validity of religion and spirituality.
At the same time, hedonism and greed played a great role in the birth
and rise of modern civilization, which has trampled on higher truths and
spirituality.
Was the role of the bourgeoisie any less significant to the development
of modernity than that of the intellectual founders of the movement?
What drove the bourgeois class was certainly not a restless search for
truth and justice, and the rescue of these two ends from the excesses of
the Church and feudalism, but the will to acquire wealth.
Liberty, brotherhood, and egalitarianism were the key promises of the
French revolution, but these promises were themselves tools in the hands
of the new bourgeois class as it competed with the aristocracy for
power, driven by the boundless ambition that characterized the new-rich.
It is even possible to claim that the scientists and intellectuals of
modernity were actually providing rational and intellectual
justification for the wants and ambitions of the new class.
As we praise the many achievements of Western civilization such as
modern science, technology, freedom of thought, and democracy, we cannot
overlook the colonialism, the use of deadly force against
non-Westerners, the plunder of other peoples' material and cultural
riches, polluting the earth's environment, perpetuating half-truths and
lies, and the opportunism that also characterize the West.
Thus we cannot surrender to all that is Western. At the same time we
cannot deal with tradition superficially; tradition is the essence of
the socio-historical achievements of a people, especially important to
us since we have had a rich culture and history. As Aristotle says in
his Politics, habit and tradition play an important role in keeping a
good society together.
Breaking with tradition means destroying the cultural and historical
heritage of a people, but if a people are to evolve, they must
understand their past to see where they are in their process of
historical evolution. Thus, dismantling aspects of tradition must be
based on indigenous models, not imported and artificial.
Indeed, delving deeply into their tradition awakened Westerners at the
dawn of modernity. Thinkers revisited the artistic tradition of the
Greeks and the social traditions of Rome. Religious believers returned
to what they considered to be the most authentic aspects of
Christianity, and hence the Reformation. These returns to tradition and
reappraisals ushered in the new epoch:
In such a world, the bourgeoisie, aided by secular thinkers, achieved
victory on the basis of the new thinking which rested on a return to
previous ways of rational thinking. Thus, even in the itself a
constraint on thinking. Thus, even in the effort to dismantle tradition,
there is no escaping tradition.
We who have the will to evolve, and who want to take the reins of
destiny into our hands to be able to transform it, must ensure that our
seeking of Western models of development does not lead to destroying our
heritage. We can only critique tradition if we have a firm sense of our
own identity; a tradition less people are invariably devoid of serious
thought. Weak-willed and brittle, they are at the mercy of events.
This aside, there is the practical problem that tradition is too deeply
rooted in human life to be dismantled by the mere decree of politicians
or prescriptions of intellectuals. Even worse, forcing this process may
actually exacerbate problems and rob society of identity. But this is
not the same as surrendering to tradition unconditionally.
Tradition, much like civilization, is a human construct and susceptible
to change. The continuous transformation of traditions at varying speeds
all through history is ultimate proof that further change is inevitable.
The important issue is to what extent the process of change is initiated
consciously with maximum participation of the people themselves, instead
of being handed down from above or being forced upon people by
circumstance.
Traditions are bound to evolve. The question remains whether or not
people should ever be forced to maintain traditions in spite of needs,
desires, and requirements of the human way of life.
Tradition is dependent on the understanding and intuition of people,
who are they prone to change. This change does not negate the existence
of all absolutes, but merely necessitates the recognition that our
interpretations of the absolute change over time. Has human
understanding of the divine been constant over history?
The important point is that as interpretations get entrenched, as they
sink into the historical memory of a people and a society, turning away
from them becomes difficult, and this difficulty is exacerbated when
traditions adopt the veneer of sanctity such that any criticism or
objection directed at these habits and interpretations is viewed as
sacrilege. Combating sacrilege is a divine duty, making this problem
more acute in religious societies.
It is certain that our thinking and lifestyles need transformation.
Much of the time, tradition is the greatest obstacle to development,
unless we actively participate in transforming and reconstructing it.
Our society needs to evolve and transform itself, but we must know that
development in its Western sense is merely one form of transformation,
not the only form. Development in the West is the upshot of reliance on
tradition and deep historical understanding which paved the way for a
new understanding of humans and being among Westerners.
Westerners have been through a long and difficult process. Only after
passing through many vicissitudes have they achieved rational wisdom and
will. The search for truth, as well as competition, vindictiveness, and
ambition have all combined to make modernity and development appear.
We live in a time when the inner weaknesses of the West are becoming
evident not only to those outside the West, but to Westerners
themselves, who now doubt their noble manifest destiny. Awareness of
this issue compels us to refrain from buying fully into Western notions
of development. At the same time, we cannot view tradition as being
immutable and divine either.
Therefore, we face two human challenges, one deeply rooted in our
society, the other imported and in some instances dominant over us,
namely modern civilization. The important thing is to not defy either of
these, as some have done.
To understand today, we must know the demands of tomorrow, and to
properly understand the future, we have no choice but to acquaint
ourselves with our history. Tomorrow is a time when humanity transcends
today's civilization, and those who get there sooner will be those who
are familiar with the past and focus on the future, not the rigidly
tradition-bound, nor the superficially-modern who understand only the
facade of today's civilization.
Why not focus on the coming civilization, and adjust all
transformations to fit that ideal. Such an ambitious plan requires that
we critique both modernity and tradition.
Of course, entering the future does not imply dismantling today. Only
those who reach a level of growth, awareness and courage to be able to
incorporate all the achievements of human kind can be build a new epoch
and become masters of tomorrow.
We are by no means doomed to dissolve into modern civilization, but we
cannot ignore its many great scientific, social, and political
achievements. Can we not transcend the present day to establish a new
relationship to existence and achieve a new vision, and in its shadow
become the source of a new civilization, which, while resting on our
historical identity, and benefiting from the accomplishments of modern
civilization, could inaugurate a new chapter in human life?
This is especially promising for us Iranians and Muslims who have a record of creating civilizations that have played a central role in human history. Can we not be the originator of civilization again? Of course this does not mean that we should return to the past to stay there-which would be regressive-but that we must find a secure launching ground to move beyond the present and toward a future that is dependent on our present and our past.