Written contribution / Contribution écrite
by / par

Milad Mikhail HANNA
Professor of structural English. Awarded the UNESCO prize, commander Swedish polar star, member of the Supreme Council of culture, Cairo.

The ideas and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of UNESCO/Les idées et les opinions exprimées dans cet ouvrage sont celles de l'auteur et ne reflètent pas nécessairement les vues de l'UNESCO

FROM THE CONCEPT OF ACCEPTING THE OTHER INTO A UNIVERSAL MOSAIC OF CIVILIZATION

DIVERSITY IS A UNIVERSAL PHENOMENON

Man is born devoid of any choice or free will as to his ;

· Colour; he may be black or white, brown or black, or what we usually term as yellow, or a mixture of these pigmants.
· Gender; male or female.
· Health; he may be healthy or sick, naturally unhealthy or handicapped from birth, congenitally deficient or otherwise.
· Economic or social status; born in a wealthy or powerful family or an indigent one: one with "limited means" or, "hopeless destitute".
· Facial features or peculiarities; he may have beautiful features and hence become the object of tenderness and love, or ugly ones that would affect him adversely, or even positively by spurring him on to beneficial activity as compensation.
· Creed; he may be the offspring of a religious, and perhaps a narrow-minded family, or an atheist family. His religion, if any, could be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist; he could be a devotee of Confucianism or any other creed, through no merit of his own.

In this respect, it is necessary to point out that within one of the same creed several conflicting doctrines occur, themselves being fragmented into sectarian trends. Such is generally the case with all creeds, divinely inspired or otherwise.

Indeed one's own name is not of ones choosing but just a label given at birth. Nature itself has imposed diversity on the animal, vegetable and mineral kingdoms, not only as to form, but also as to substance. That being the case, we can therefore draw the following conclusion:

No person, whose outlook is rigorously scientific and objective can find justification for honestly feeling superior to others, for that would be a negation of the basic elements of a scientific approach

It would be right to reflect upon the underlying causes of human disagreement, other than the natural propensity for looking after oneself.

INHERITED AND ACQUIRED APPURTENANCES

Throughout his brief sojourn on earth, as soon as man becomes conscious of his surroundings, he begins to have a personal outlook to which his community has directly contributed, through his family, education, the media, cultural background, the daily happenings, etc This enables a set of appurtenance to be built up, of which some are inherited and others are acquired.

Amongst inherited appurtenances, are a sense of belonging; in the family, tribe, religion, doctrine or homeland. These are often of a blindly fanatical nature, especially if they are unaccompanied by acquired appurtenances to strike a proper psychological balance. Of the latter we could mention ideological adherence to a political party, attachment to a particular sports club, involvement in benevolent tasks, membership of a professional syndicate or trade union, participation in voluntary activities or local groupings, etc. Modern times abound with such human endeavour at domestic, regional and international levels.

Whenever a persons interests are numerous and varied he is more likely to have a clearer understanding of others. Likewise, if his sense of belonging lies solely in one particular direction, all the more when it is inherited, his thinking process tends to be unilateral and thereby inclined to be fanatical.

The lesson to be learnt is that the culture of peace can only flourish with democracy around, in addition to the values of a civilian pluralistic society that encourages voluntary work and artistic pursuits, such as that undertaken by NGO's.

THE ISSUE OF THE IDENTITY OF PEOPLE AND NATIONS

Just as an individual has appurtenances closest to his heart, peoples, nations and human communities have their own, together with their cultural particularities. The matter deserves some attention at present, in as much as it is closely connected with the issue of peace and a dialogue among civilizations.

For example, in my work published ten years ago I enumerated the collective feelings of appurtenance of which Egypt or the Egyptians entertain and which I termed "The seven pillars of the Egyptian identity".

The Egyptian is the product of time and abode, and through the former the Egyptian - every Egyptian - is affected by the layers of the four civilizations, or pillars, that succeeded each other, i.e. Pharaonic, Greco-Roman, Coptic Christianity and Islamic.

Geographically, Egypt lies at the heart of the Arab world, on the shores of the Mediterranean, but part of Africa and therefore to be found are the three remaining pillars, bringing the total up to seven. In that context, can the elements of the Egyptian identity be perceived in every Egyptian in varying degrees.

Awareness of such a bountiful heritage has led to a cultural atmosphere propitious of the understanding of "others". Politically, Egypt has benefited from such a heritage when she was cased out of the Arab League, in other words when she was forcibly shorn of her Arab appurtenance, following the camp David Agreements of 1979. It was possible for that country to evade isolationism by drawing on her advantageous Mediterranean and African situation. In due course, Egypt was recalled to the Arab league after regaining membership of the (Organization of the Islamic Conference).OIC

Egypt's Islamic appurtenance was thus instrumental in enabling her to reoccupy officially her rightful place among the community of Arab nations.

THE MAKING OF A NATION'S SOUL AND CONCEPTS IS AN INTRICATE MATTER

Among Egyptian traditional lore is an account of God's apportionment of the means of subsistence, "arzaak", among mankind in the full light of day. Each one of us therefore was able to cast a covetous eye on the belongings of his brothers, neighbours, etc, and protest that he should be accorded the same sustenance as the "others".

When, however, God dealt out brains among mankind, he did so at night, so that each of us felt only what was allocated to him personally and concluded that thinking, intelligence and vision are paramount and therefore obedience was due to him. That is how disagreements arise and discord is born. What then are the elements out of which stem individual and collective emotional feelings, beliefs and thinking processes?

Such elements are abundant, some of which are hereditary and are being studied by scientists dealing with genes and involved in genetic engineering. Others spring from society itself, starting with the family and early upbringing, education, onto the media and culture, all of which go a long way towards the option of accepting or rejecting the "other".

In the context of current international criteria, foremost among which is the right of governments and people to reject any foreign interference in their internal affairs, and by the same token to draw up their own policies regarding education, information, freedoms, or lack of, within their boundaries, but in view of the universal political climate now prevailing, a new concept has taken shape, that of the rights of the international community. These could be summed up as follows: the rights to detect the manufacturers. Examples of that sort abound, consequent upon a political decision from a major power, or a military alliance whether holy or unholy, or perhaps even from an organ of the United Nations such as the UN Security Council drawing forth from the provisions of the UN Charter.

Will there come a time when the "international community" is given the right and prerogative of intervening, by means of approved and disciplined mechanisms and after an exhaustive and thorough check, in cases where a government or a group kindle hatred in the hearts of their simple idea develop into a concept adopted by many, the road towards a culture of peace should be clearer and easier.

As soon as we are able to convince human communities all over the world who strive to set up a UN Culture of peace of any negative trends that governments seek to impose on their subjects through education, religion and the media for the purpose of instilling a "culture of hatred"?

I must add that there is no better way of igniting the spark that sets off conflicts and wars.

It is rather odd that certain States find it in their interest to encourage the hatred of the other in order to ensure internal social peace and in doing so lay the blame for their economic and social shortcomings, as well as their interest to encourage the hatred of the "other" in order to ensure internal social peace and by doing so lay the blame for their economic and social shortcomings, as well as their retarded development, on the shoulders of the "other".

Very frequently extremists are encouraged to set off religious conflicts for such purpose, there are many examples of such situations

FROM THE CULTURAL CONCEPT OF "ACCEPTING THE OTHER" TO A "UNIVERSAL MOSAIC OF CULTURE"

The road towards a Culture of peace is long and arduous and this International Forum could well be the first step towards putting into effect that idea. We earnestly need, as peace loving thinkers, to pool our efforts to enable the intellectuals, political leaders and decision makers of this world to grasp the full portent of our message. Action plans originating from all cultures of the world need to be drawn up for that purpose,

As I have pointed out earlier there is no remedy to the ills of our world other than to accept the "other"as he is. The "other" is anyone who is different from me for one reason or another.

We must realise that over ten thousand years the progress of Homo sapiens has been gradual. It is only during our century that progression has become geometrical. The awesome advance of science during the past decade has been such that one would be amply justified in prophesying a democratisation of power. No more strong nations and weak ones. All should be in the near future,.bountifully endowed

Gone are the days of pitting one fanciful argument we must strive to convince human communities that our cause is just, it being understood that every community has its own distinguishing features and particularities born of its history, or language or traditions, etc. By accepting "the other" , dialogue would ensue and hence understand and appreciate his own cultural particularity. There is immense bounty in diversity.

Let us envisage the world as a mosaic whose parts differ in colour, size and shape but are nevertheless harmonious and complete each other, a mosaic that is at peace with the environment. We shall not regret it.

I venture to suggest that what draws people together is far more important than what sets them apart. We must strive to develop a common premise within our national boundaries and thence into all cultural centres of the world in order to have our postulate accepted on a universal level.

Thus, like a snowball rolling down a mountain and gathering volume, speed and momentum at every turn, would a universal cultural movement be created that would establish peace upon earth once and for all.

Is this a futuristic vision too rosy to be credible, Not in the least, for there is simply no other alternative. Consider the evidence. With the dismemberment of the Soviet Union that occurred in 1990, several attempts were made to sort out the future. There was first Fukuyama's theory about the end of history, followed by Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations". Both had a pernicious effect on policy- makers and served the interests of certain powers. The end result was that civil wars and the wars due to foreign aggression broke out in several parts of the world and caused untold suffering.