Arab Knowledge Report 2009: Towards Productive

Globalisation isdependent oninformation andis not restrictedto one siteConflict continues,over wealth andpower and overinformation,identities, andculturesin its basic elements (‘Azmi Bishara, 2007,in Arabic). The 2005 UNESCO report,dealing with the democratic question inthe Arab countries from this perspective,stresses the importance of continuedefforts to achieve political reform. Thismakes it clear that demand for reform inthe Arab world cannot be avoided. Giventhe many challenges it has to face, it willbe a complex battle.THE KNOWLEDGE SOCIETYAND IDENTITYOn-going global transformations showsynchronicity between the formation ofknowledge societies and the appearanceof globalisation. We cannot separateglobalisation from the informationexplosion and the latter’s economicand knowledge ramifications. Today’sglobalisation mechanisms are governedby network systems and directed by theWorldwide Web, which is overseen fromafar by global financial institutions. Theseinstitutions seek to regulate and adjust theWeb so that its equilibrium is not disturbed,particularly since, in the eyes of the neoliberals,the state has become a hindranceto unfettered market activity (Albert, 1991,in French).Globalisation is dependent oninformation, the foremost actor in ongoingglobal standardisation. The newknowledge-based economy does notoperate in a single place and is notrestricted to one site, and it is thisphenomenon that links globalisation andinformation. However, this linkage, inwhich major forces that own the coffersand symbols of knowledge play the centralrole, places new challenges before societiesBOX 1-6Knowledge in an Age of GlobalisationToday the “power of knowledge” intersects with the “the impactof universal cultural dissemination,” for knowledge, if it is not itselfculture, is most certainly a part or aspect of it. As everyone is aware,for years, “globalisation” and “the effect of globalisation on culturalidentity and cultural personality” and especially on “Arab culture”and its particular characteristics have been on every tongue.There is no doubt that the “universal cultural system” propagatedby globalisation through advanced media tools that place everyoneat the centre of the world is a strong wind knocking at our doors,blowing through the chambers of our houses and of our minds, andawakening our aesthetic and emotional sensitivities. Our authors,scholars, and media have gone to great lengths in describing thephenomenon and monitoring its influence and effects. Naturally,some of us have praised it from a neo-liberal point of view andothers have criticised it from the standpoint of religion, culturaltradition, or nationalism. The rational, realistic view, however,clearly tells us that in the framework of the current age and in thecontext of our political, economic, and cultural circumstances, wemust “live” this reality and be at home in its midst whether welike it or not. However, it is imperative that we assimilate to this“living” critically, with open eyes. The most important thing aboutsuch an assimilation is that we realise that the universal culturalsystem that accompanies globalisation rests on a neo-liberal visionshaped by a host of ethical, social, political, and economic valuesspread by forces of communication and modern information mediaacross borders and through local spaces, reformulating in so doingour cultural existence and special identity. The values of freedom,democracy, multiculturalism, and human rights established by theuniversal cultural system, in which some of us see an overwhelmingdanger to our culture and our distinct identity, represent this dangeronly with regard to one particular understanding of this culturalidentity and one pattern of assimilation of these values. The truthis that contemporary Arab culture is not completely homogeneous,but has numerous cultural systems, including the religio-cultural,the national-cultural, and the liberal-cultural. The first is epitomisedby the “Salafist” view, which emphasises its incompatibilitywith universal cultural values. The other two systems, however,tend towards conditional acceptance of aspects of the universalcultural system. Believers in “cultural Islam,” Muslim and ChristianArab nationalists, and humanist socialists—the largest groups ofsecularists and liberals—willingly accept the basic principles of thisuniversal culture, with occasional reservations. In this regard, thebelief prevails that what all Arab spaces lack is specifically thesevalues that the universal culture claims it alone advocates. The truthis that the main difference between the globalised neo-liberal spaceand the Arab space in all its manifestations centres on questions offreedom and utilitarianism. It is these two principles, which dominatethe philosophy of the universal culture, that generally appear in Arabcontexts in their rough, overzealous (here I mean “extreme”) form.It is possible to reorient these principles, rethinking the meaning offreedom and turning the individualistic overtones of utilitarianisminto a more collectivist; more social connotation of “interest.” Inother words, we could change from “expedient individualism” to“interest-oriented community.” The concept of democracy—oneof the most salient of the values that the universal cultural systemclaims for itself—could also be channelled in such a way as to meana “collective” democracy in keeping with the requirements of Arabsocieties rather than those of the liberal democracy that is suitedto the new capitalism in the American-dominated West. This muchneeded transformation has already attracted a substantial group ofintellectuals in the liberal West itself.Source: Fahmi Jad‘an, 2002, Riyah al-‘Asr, Al-Mu’assasa al-‘Arabiyya lid-Dirasat wal-Nashr, Beirut, pp. 16-18.44 ARAB KNOWLEDGE REPORT 2009