ANÁLISIS ESTADISTICO E INTERPRETACIÓN DE LA INFORMACIÓN

The rapid expansion of the communist movement beyond the bou ndaries of the former Soviet Empire , and the desire of the United States to assert its global influence and counter this expansion were, in part, behind the emergence and rise of modernisation theories in the mid-1 940s. Therefore, the d isintegration of the Soviet Union in the late 1 980s has marked an end of an era for some and "The end of History" for others. To Fu kuyama ( 1 992), it was "The end of History"; the Western liberal ways of governance and free markets have prevailed . Therefore, there would be only one universal culture, and that is the Western culture. In contrast, Segesvary (2004) stopped short of announcing the demise of the Western "universalistic modernity" to declare that the world-view wh ich promotes the universality and the supe riority of the Western modernity is dated and facing g radual but unavoidable collapse -a view shared by even the strongest advocates of cu ltural u niversality.

Fukuyama (1 992) assumed that the desire for economic modernisation is a natural aspiration shared by all. Such an assumption seems to be reasonable and fair. However, what is contested is the precondition he attached to modern ity. To achieve modernity, individuals and societies have to e mbrace the Western model as the only model for development, to divorce themselves from their own traditional cultures and to adapt to the Western value system. Fu kuyama believes that cu ltural convergence is a must and the path of convergence is in favour of the Western culture (Fu kuyama, 1 995). The lack of sensitivity of the "cu ltural standardisation" concept to the value systems of other societies did not raise its profile. On the contrary, it added to the controversy surrounding the concept and drew eminent intellectuals to the debate.

Harvard University scholar, Samuel Hu ntington (1 993; 2003), has rejected Fukuyama's ( 1 992) thesis a nd the implicit suggestions of Lerner (1 958) on cu ltural universality. Hu ntington observed that the cultural d ivide between nations is widening. He pinned down the dividing elements causing cu ltura l differences and signalled "ethn icity and relig ion" as the most two influential elements. While the conventional wisdom implies that globalisation with its call for a "borderless" globe works towards cultural un ification, Hu ntington has disputed the suggestion that globalisation will produce a universal

cultu re. I nstead, he argues that globalisation is confirming cultural diversity by bringing cultu ral d ifferences to the surface. Huntington went to the extreme and hypothesised that because of such cultural differences, the clash between cultures is inevitable. He fu rther explained the causes of the world's major conflicts in terms of religious differences and claimed that the clash will be "culturally motivated". Huntington argued that the incompatibility between the Western and the Islamic cultu res is too wide to reconcile and the friction between the two cultures is too sensitive to overcome. Hence , he concluded his work by what came to be known as the "the clash of civilisations" thesis, in which he predicted that the clash between the Western and the Islamic civilisations is a reality.

This rad ical interpretation of the nature of the conflict has prompted a sharp response from Edward Said. In h is response, "the clash of ignorance" as opposed to "the clash of civilisations" , Said (200 1 ) categorically rejected Huntington's thesis: its assumptions, its methodology and, more importantly, its implications. He pointed out that to acknowledge cu ltu ral differences is a step forward that must be mobilised and channelled towards the acceptance and the appreciation of such differences. The portrayal of the Islamic and the Western civilisations as fixed entities that are at odds is a clear d enial and a sign of ignorance about these two great civilisations, commented Said (200 1 ). He further argued that it would be incomprehensible to explain the tension between "The Christian West" and 'The Muslim East" in religious terms, and that is simply d u e to the fact that both religions draw from the same source.

Hunter ( 1 998) has carried out an exploratory analysis of the relationship between Islam and the West and the "likelihood of a civilizational clash" between them. It is interesting to note that Hunter has approached the relations between Islam and the West at a macro level that is, relationships between countries. To her, key factors that govern the relationsh ips between Muslim cou ntries and Western countries are not based on cultural differences. Rather, they are subject to the same combination of variables that underline the nature of relations between any two cou ntries. Just "like other interstate relations", they will have their highs and lows and "will remain a combination of conflict and cooperation" (Hu nter, 1 998 , p. 1 70). Hu nter gave no definite answer to the g rand question of "the future of Islam and the West: clash of civilisations or peacefu l coexistence?" However, in her conclusion, she played down any negative implications due to cultural differences between The West' and 'Islam', and in so doing , she did not lend any support to Huntington's thesis.

Goonatilake (1 992) has emphasised the inevitability of the re-emergence of the world's major civilisations: Muslim, Chinese and Indian. The strong presence of such great civilisations enforces the first part of Huntington's (1 993) thesis of cultural plurality as opposed to the single culture superiority, but Sardar (1 997) argued that such diversity does not necessarily lead to clashes between civilisations. By employing Huntington's own analysis and conclusions Sardar pointed out that it is the West who unjustifiably fears such a clash ; because it is the West who has to compromise its stand regarding the exportation of its value system as the only doctrine for development and progress. The alternative is to "embrace the emergence of true diversity and plurality, not as a loss of the West's own definitional power but as an opportunity for a new kind of recovery and expression of its better self' (Sardar, 1 997, pp. 52-53).

At a recent gathering of 1 ,300 international business and political leaders at the Dead Sea for the World Economic Forum 2005, many sensible voices were raised promoting tolerance and harmony among cultures and calling for an open d ialogue betwee n civilizations. T h e majority o f participants shared the thoughts that civilizations should meet, have an open dialog ue and even forge alliances between one another in order for the human race to live in peace and prosperity. Civilisations build upon the achievements and the experiences of one another, they do not fight but they cooperate. They do not compete, but they complement and when they do compete , they do so for the good of humanity.