His analysis has also invited the accusation that he is culturally...

His analysis has also invited the accusation that he is culturally, if not racially, prejudiced. His view of history has been attacked as inaccurate. Finally, his policy suggestions have been criticized as against US national interests. My concern is not with the details of Huntington's views or whether he or his critics are in the right about any particular point of issue.

One of the most interesting responses to the idea of a 'clash of civilizations' has been articulated by the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Sayyid Muhammad Khatemi, who in his address to the 53rd General Assembly of the United Nations, 21 September 1998, reiterated his call for a 'dialogue among civilizations' and proposed that the year 2001 be designated as 'the year of dialogue among civilizations'.

Although the expression 'clash of civilizations' and 'dialogue among civilizations' seems naturally enough opposed, so that the suggestion of President Khatemi appears to be a humane alternative to the clash, the ideas are really so different that they belong in different categories. The basic idea of the “clash of civilizations” is an explanation for existing conflicts. It is a piece of political analysis.

The idea of a dialogue among civilizations, on the other hand, is not an analysis at all; rather it is a proposal, in the form of a metaphor, for a way in which we might encounter others. It is as if Machiavelli were answered by Hafiz. One speaks of Realpolitik and the other of love ('ishq). If President Khatemi's proposal is to be any more than a lovely thought, we have to set about trying to understand what is meant by the metaphor.

Cashing Out The Metaphor Civilizations have neither tongues nor ears. They cannot listen and they cannot speak. People speak and listen and engage in conversations; but civilizations are abstract entities posited by historians and political theorists. Therefore, dialogue among civilizations is impossible. Such is the sort of response a very literally minded person might give to the proposal of a dialogue among civilizations. Literally speaking, of course, the literalist is right.

So, if we are to make any sense out of the idea of a dialogue among civilizations we have to find some way to cash out the metaphor. But there are obstacles to dialogue among civilizations beyond the fact that civilizations lack the appropriate body parts, and these must also be considered as we reflect on how to understand the idea of a dialogue among civilizations.