--For Khourosh
Reading history-- of course-- engages the mind. But, nothing demands us to really think like philosophy. Stuck for so long in Tang and Song dynasty histories, I have not had the chance to read much philosophy lately. However, I just finished a book of essays by a prominent Japanese thinker, Eiji Hattori, which-- while not formal philosophy-- gave me great pleasure in reading-- and in thinking.
With two doctorates (one from Kyoto University and the other from the Sorbonne), Hattori has an impeccable background. And yet, rather then entering academia, he chose instead to join UNESCO at their Paris headquarters, where he served for 21 years as a director of the cultural events section. He is perhaps best known at UNESCO for his work on the "Silk Roads-- Roads of Dialogue" Project (which I believe he started and headed).
Here is yet another case of a contemporary thinker holding up the ancient Silk Road as a symbol for an alternative to what has become the much-talked about: "Globalization as Americanization," of which so many non-Americans (rightly) complain. Yo Yo Ma's Silk Road Project is one example of this. I have been seeing-- not just in scholarship concerning the arts but in other fields as well, this type of dialog concerning the Silk Road and have become interested in learning more about the line of thinking involved in trying to connect what was an ancient trade route to future paradigms of internationalization and cross-cultural dialog.
Why the silk road? I wondered.
In my last post, in fact, I went to great lengths describing the historic Silk Road Battle of Talas. In my mom's words, "there has always been warfare," and that was no different during the 8th-11th century. But then again, Andre Malraux (you gotta love him) once commented that "the 21st century must become the century of global culture." Why? Because the 20th had been one of war. Many philosophers agree that in no time in history has war been as deadly nor practiced on such a wide-scale as this past one. As a possible trend, this is-- for the obvious reasons-- disturbing. A truly global culture would at least (in theory) make war over ideology obsolete since if we truly had a global culture these problems of differing ideology would become far less threatening. That is because when we cease to find other cultural (or socio-economic, or religious) practices threatening to our way of life, there will no longer be a "clash of civilizations." We must also be willing to give up our missionary tendencies as well.
In any case, this is not what intrigued me to buy this book. My personal question was concerned with learning in what way the Silk Road is being viewed as an inspiration for a better kind of global interaction. Because of course, there was war and battles occurring up and down the silk road for its entire history. I couldn't help but wonder whether all these people knew something about the silk road that I didn't!
Susan Whitfield in her Life Along the Silk Road tells us that territory during these times was sought and won, not only through battles, but more often through marriage alliances and trade. As this almost exclusively took place along the Silk Road, in this sense, the road itself served as a conduit for inter-cultural dialog. Indeed, in no time in history has the spread of ideas been so tightly interwoven with the practice and commitment to maintaining international trade. In addition, even during such early times as the 8th century, the towns and cities of the Silk Road were characterized by their stunning cosmopolitanism. For even in the smallest, most isolated towns, we know that dozens of languages could be heard from people of many different races who interacted with each other to a surprising degree considering the early time period. This interaction took various forms, from extensive international trade to international marriage and cultural borrowings.
I myself have spent much of the past 7 years ensconced happily in the Song dynasty. At night, though, it tends to be the Tang dynasty I dream about. When I think about why that is-- perhaps one reason is the phenomenal cosmopolitanism of the Silk Road cities during the Tang that appeals to my sense of adventure and imagination. The exotics listed in Edward Schafer's Peaches of Samarkand and even more his Vermilion Bird have delighted me for years. And, it is true, in the markets of Chang'an, you could hear two dozen languages all being spoken by peoples from such such far-flung lands as Syria, the Levant, the Arabian peninsula, India, Champa and Korea. Many of the languages and many of the countries themselves no longer exist. But, we know these people interacted in a way much different then people of differing countries do today.
In contrast to the modern "melting pot" of pluralistic societies we see today, people during silk road times interacted with each from standpoints of their own unique cultures. Modern-day Penang immediately comes to mind. I really fell in love with Penang, and one of the most striking things to me about the island was the way in which the Chinese, South Indians and Malays-- rather then coming together to form a new melting pot culture-- instead live there amongst each other speaking their native languages, cooking their native foods, wearing their native clothes and living lives pretty much as they would have back in their respective countries. I felt it was a very different model to the pluralistic modern one that we see in Western countries (and of course very different from what we find in ostensibly mono-racial places like Japan or many other parts of Asia).
You could say that there is much less interaction between the various cultures under such a system, but I am not sure that is so. I would really need to live there or in Singapore to give an opinion. It did strike me at the time, however, as being interesting and different from what I was used to, which is really a melting of all cultures into one dominant one-- and sure, the dominant one is influenced by the various minority cultures, but this is too a much lesser degree than we see in Tang dynasty times. It also seemed at the time to be somehow very appealing. Khourosh-- of course-- does not agree and finds that in theory at least, the modern idea of one melting pot where we are "all brothers" to be the more enlightened model. And, he is correct in the sense that Silk Road cosmopolitanism in a great respect could be described as widescale extraterritorialism (as groups of people lived in segreated areas which were governed by the respective laws and customs of their own native countries).
Regarding this "silk road style" multi-culturalism, Hattori's main point is that during silk road times, dialogs between cultures were two way. That is, it was not a one-way road but rather a two way street. He writes:
*Travellers went searching, not selling (their object was precious goods, even ideas)
*They knew sharing not monopoly
*Trade was an international accomplishment achieved by people from many nations; it was not done by one nation alone.
From his vantage point in Paris (not to mention his extensive travel to pretty much every corner of the planet), Hattori perhaps more than most people knows what people are thinking around the world. I too am doing more and more translations by Japanese business executives who are complaining loudly that they wish the Americans would remember that their form of capitalism is but *one way* of doing business. They seem to want to remind us that "American style capitalism" is not the only form of capitalism. And, from the government here as well, we read much about their wish to reject American food practices from hormones in American beef to fast food. The slow food movement is gaining momentum here as well as in Europe.
Along these lines, two weeks ago, Khourosh from Paris remarked that while people in Europe know what we in America are thinking, do we know what the rest of the world is thinking? This is something repeated again and again from Europe to Asia to Africa. My Jordanian friend Ghaleb used to express heart-felt frustration about this wish to be seen/wish to be understood.
Going back to Hattori's ideas, though-- traffic on the Silk Road was two way traffic. This is perhaps his main point (or rather his main lament). No one economic system nor historical perspective reigned supreme above all the rest during the Tang dynasty. And, people interacted with each other from the framework of their own various cultures. This is the famous cosmopolitanism of the Tang. And when you think that what was arguably the greatest of all empires of the time, the Tang actually built mosques and churches in their capital city to welcome the many traders who came from afar-- well, it cannot help but impress. And while it is next to impossible imagining President Bush playing the sitar, in fact, at the court in Chang'an, being proficient at the Kuchean drum became "de rigueur among emperors and noblemen," and of the 30,000 (!) musicians housed within the walls of the imperial palace, a great majority of them were from foreign countries, such as Persia, Kucha and India.
The emperors' advisors of the time were composed of various nationalities as well. And, this great internationalism was as evident in Baghdad as it was at Chang'an.
All along the silk roads, countries, kingdoms and empires sought to build ties with each other through diplomatic missions, gifts and international marriage. When I think about that, I cannot come up with one world leader of a powerful country today with a foreign spouse. In today's world a foreign spouse would most probably be a grave liability. I wonder why that is? Hattori also holds up the caravan-sarai as another example of the Tang period "living together" of different cultures. The lords of all silk road cities erected inns where traders and travelers could stay for up to 3 days free of charge. The passing of the caravan, brought riches and wisdom and was something which most leaders hoped to support.
Hattori again and again brings up colonialism as the opposite of the kind of dialog he idealizes-- for colonialism only brought one-way conversation ("conservation" being of course a euphemism). And this one-way conversation is still wrecking havoc in our post-colonialist world where one still does not see much of a spirit of "learning, giving and sharing" as equal partners in our multi-cultural conversations.
In his extensive travels, he finds over and over again, historical instances of cross-cultural sharing and links between different lands located oftentimes extremely far from one another. Examples abound of from architectural borrowings seen at the Borobudur and Japan to cultural borrowings seen in places as far away from each other as Tana Toraja and Madagascar (his essay on Tana Toraja was my favorite in the entire book, and it is one to which I want to devote an entire post).
Hattori's recent research is turning increasingly to what he calls "the Significance of Islam in the Dialogue among Civilizations: Correcting Distorted Images," as he feels strongly that to neglect the absolutely pivotal role that Islamic civilizations have had on that of the West is what is fostering the current "Clash of Civilizations" (or as he calls it, "The Clash of Ignorance"). This is a theme that is gaining real currency among scholars. In fact, the Muslim body of knowledge during the Middle Ages is something we are hearing more and more about. Toward the end of the book, Hattori urges that "Once Central Asia was the center of history... and by neglecting Central Asia, the European West and the Far East cannot meet each other now as they once did so gloriously in the past."
Finally, in true Japanese logic, Hattori takes his point concerning the symbiotic nature of cultures and civilizations throughout history and infers the same relationship between that of humans and the environment. Therefore the last two essays are devoted to environmental destruction in Africa and in Central Asia. In particular, the environmental disaster of Lake Aral is something I knew nothing about. How can that be? (Another case of disaster in the name of ideology. See, for example: here or the wiki article).
These days, to me at least, it seems as if all roads truly lead to Oxiana. This area between the two great ancient rivers of the Oxus and Jaxartes was for most of its history, incredibly fertile. Although the land itself is arid like most of the rest of Central Asia, the people there developed irrigation extremely early and therefore have practiced successful agriculture for three thousand years-- that is, until the Russians arrived. Embarking on a program to turn the area into the world's largest cotton-producing mono-crop, they basically killed the lake and depleted the soil as well. The articles above explain this.
**
Eiji Hattori's Unesco Speech: Civilations Never Clash--Ignorance Does Clash is here
Comments