Page 53 - Geopolítica del Mundo Actual. Una Visión Multidisciplinar

GEOPOLÍTICA DEL MUNDO ACTUAL. UNA VISIÓN MULTIDISCIPLINAR: Cultura de Paz, Conflflictos, Educación y Derechos Humanos
“mesure”. In other words, it is a demand of balance and equilibrium and a search for recognition and respect. The “Córdoba Paradigm” is, therefore, a permanent engagement in cross-cultural and cross-religious interrogation which can extricate not only the Mediterranean legacy of cultural and political pluralism, but also our global civilization from the straightjacket of fanaticism and monism by centering it on the celebration of diversity and dialogue.
It is common knowledge that Medieval Córdoba was a privileged space of dialogue among thinkers of different Abrahamic faiths. As such, Ibn Rushd and Rabbi Maimonides were not afraid to challenge prevailing opinions and dogmatism within their own religious communities and aspired to build a society that valued religious freedom and open philosophical debate. . Herein lies the importance of the “Córdoba Paradigm” not only as a process of mutual understanding, but mainly as and shared civic forum where different and values could co-exist regardless of their ethnic or religious origins. The flowing moments of artistic and philosophical creations and inter- cultural mutuality, the bonding that developed from a joint, emerging moral quest against the destructive prejudice and fanaticism of the time was helped by the inclusive dynamics promoted by spaces of trust and solidarity.
Let us be frank and honest and let us say that the “Córdoba Paradigm” remains a successful model of associative reconciliation and cross- cultural and inter- philosophical learning in today’s world. What we are witnessing today is the loss of meaning of civilization and the evanescence of what the French polemologist, Gaston Bouthoul, called “a struggle against fear” (une lutte contre la peur). Human civilization has been continually threatened with disintegration because of its inclination to fear and violence. This fear that civilisation has contained until now has been a destroyer of harmony and exchange in human societies. As such, the real battle of civilization has not been between civilizations, but for the survival of civilization itself. This fear is actually a sense of deep disillusionment of humanity stemming both from the collective experience of violence and from a general crisis of thinking. We can say
that to think civilization is to manifest the shades of decivilization. Such a thought of civilization impresses upon us that our present state of decivilization has become the guiding rule of our spiritual and political existence. As a matter of fact, today the degree of civilization in human society can be judged by its decivilizing process.
The decivilizing society- what can this possibly mean? Can it mean that our time is barbaric? Or does it mean that our century is submerged in a new Dark Age? How can this be if we think of ourselves as “civilized beings” and so living in a decivilized seems to us almost inconceivable? However, even if we take for granted that we are living within a global civilization, it does not necessarily mean that we continue to be civilized. Civilization is the very relation of human beings to each other, represented in the idea of humanity. We can understand civilization as a common structure of living together. The reality of multiple civilizations is, therefore, historically shared by the idea of a common humanity. As such, human civilization is the space of intercultural communication. This simply means that the expansion of one culture at the expense of the others destroys the common spiritual atmosphere of human civilization.
Hence, in trying to take into account, the crucial issues of our time in relation with the dynamic of decivilization in the world today, we hope to be in a position to advance a correct diagnosis of where humanity stands at this present historical crossroad but also where it seems to be heading without a clear concept of civilization. It is with this requirement in mind that we should return to the “Paradigm of Córdoba” as a beacon of inspiration and examplarity today. What we can retain of this paradigm at the level of the crises that our common world is facing today is the understanding that a true dialogue among different cultural and religious communities implies a process of internalization of the “other”, that is the mechanism by which we make traits of “otherness” our own. To reformulate the question, we must inquire to what extent, and in which manner, social and political dynamics in today’s world can reconfigure the nature of cultural interchange.
53