what do you say about Civilization in the following sense?

Greetings,

I have come to formulate the problem of Civilization in the context of dialogical dimension (in relation to modern themes and in connection to Muslim Intellectual Tradition) in the follwoing sense. What do you think?

Let’s for the sake of this debate, settle for a ‘pragmatic definition’ of the term in order to be able to pave the way for the introduction of our modern themes in relation to Muslim thinkers in an intercivilizational perspective by assessing how they respectively respond to the uncertain quest of modernity on various accounts.

Before going any further, we need to clarify the use of the term 'pragmatic' in our definition. Broadly speaking, within philosophy and social theory, pragmatism stands for: a) the position that the content of a concept consists only in its practical applicability; b) the philosophical stance that truth consists not in correspondence with the facts but in successful coherence with experience. (Hillary Putnam,1995) However, here, we are not concerned with this philosophical position and its respective stances. On the contrary, by 'pragmatism', we mean a practical approach to the idea of 'civilization' which would render our overall project practically feasible. This practical definition would allow us to bring into a dialogue the position of Muslim Intellectual Tradition with the mainstream social theory based on and through thematic modern issues such as Sacred, Community, Secular, Sacred, Religion and Man. So, when we used the term 'pragmatic' in relation to our project we did not mean the philosophical approach, which embraces the work of C. S. Peirce, William James, John Dewey, or Mead. We mean simply a practical (feasible) approach to the problem of 'civilization' which is in accordance with the needs of our question, i.e. an inter-civilizational dialogue.

Although it is undeniable that civilization and civilizational patterns have been nurtured within the matrix of 'City' (Lewis Mumford,1973), nevertheless it is a mistake to equate one with the other fully and substantially. Because one is the quality of 'Soul' and refinement of human spirit which would not necessarily be confined to the framework of the 'City'. In confining the emergence of 'civility' (in its broadest sense) to the frame of citadel reference, one would run the risk to ignore the rich and depth of 'civility' (as understood by Clive Bell, who understood it as 1. An acquisition of self-consciousness and 2. A habit of reflection [1938. 41] ) which could have be borne outside cities (both historically and contemporary). One example would be sufficient to demonstrate the infeasibility of the essential connection between 'city' and 'the emergence of civility': the rise of 'violence' and the spread of modern city. Let me explain and explicate what I mean by the idea of civilization in dual sense.

The term civilization, has been used by philosophers of history, anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists, literary critics, historians, economists, and archaeologists. Our aim is not to delineate the different stages and shades of meaning in the history of this term, we will simply offer a definition which would enable us to conduct our search along inter-civilizational dialogue.

The idea of civilization was first introduced by the French thinkers in the eighteenth century in order to distinguish between barbarism and a civilized society. (Huntington, 1996. 40) Three main criteria were introduced then to distinguish between a culture (a primitive society) and a civilization (a civilized society); 1. settled vs. nomad, 2. urban vs. rural, 3. literate vs. illiterate. If this is the case, then a civilization cannot be defined conclusively because the French approach seems to concentrate on how to distinguish the civilized from the uncivilized, whereas a culture may be perfectly civilized without being a civilization. Therefore, we need a definition of civilization, which is broader in its scope. If one examines past civilizations one will see that it is externally hard to distinguish them from cultures except that they are much broader and include more than one culture; hence, a civilization is in fact 'a universalized culture.' This means that a civilization is in the true sense a culture, which is no longer limited to its local and national confines. As such it begins to include within its boundaries many sub-cultures, all of which are very much colored by the foundational culture that has become an all-embracing culture, namely a civilization. It is possible to find such a culture in the ultimate analysis of every true civilization. Our definition of a civilization enables us to distinguish the following criteria for civilizations: universality; multi-culturality; having an official language that characterizes its literature, whether scientific or artistic. If a culture does not have these characteristics it cannot be called 'civilization'. It is clear that the most important aspect of a civilization is its universality; and in fact all other aspects can be reduced to this one. (Alparslan Acikgenc, 1998) This definition of 'civilization' would allow us to think beyond the Gibbonistic paradigm of civilizational singularity or Huntingtonian clashism. Our definition of a ci vilization enables us to discern and recognize the possibility of an inter-civilizational dialogue, which would ultimately render the promise of sociology a viable and attainable dream.

Kind Regards