Search results
Contemporary civilisational analysis has emerged in the post-Cold War period as a forming but already controversial field of scholarship. This book focuses on the scholarship produced in this field since the 1970s. It begins with anthropological axioms posited by Ibn Khaldun, Simon Bolivar and George Pachymeres. Three conceptual images of civilisations are prominent in the field. First, civilisations are conceived as socio-cultural units, entities or blocs in an 'integrationist' image. They emerge out of long-term uneven historical processes. Finally, in a 'relational' image civilisations are believed to gain definition and institute developmental patterns through inter-societal and inter-cultural encounters. The book traces the history of semantic developments of the notions of 'civilisation' and 'civilisations' coextensive with the expansion of Europe's empires and consubstantial with colonialism. Early modernities are more important in the long formation of capitalism. Outlining the conceptual framework of inter-civilisational engagement, the book analytically plots the ties instituted by human imaginaries across four dimensions of inter-civilisational engagement. It also interrogates the relationship between oceans, seas and civilisations. Oceanian civilisation exhibits patterns of deep engagement and connection. Though damaged, Pacific cultures have invoked their own counter-imaginary in closer proximity to past islander experiences. Collective memory provides resources for coping with critical issues. The book also explores Latin American and Japanese experiences that shed light on the engagement of civilisations, applying the model of inter-civilisational engagement to modern perspectives in culture and the arts, politics, theology and political economy.
. Just think of George Washington (1732–1799), who led the US war of independence, Simón Bolívar (1783–1830), who spearheaded Latin American countries’ break-away from Spain, and Vietnamese leader H ồ Chí Minh (1890–1969), who became the figurehead of Vietnam’s independence movement – and a bit of an icon for many in the West, at least in the late 1960s. But these are the ones
unequal global development? Venezuelan foreign policy is currently guided by the latest national plan, the Simón Bolívar Project – the First Socialist Plan. 18 Building on the previous 2001–2007 plan, 19 the foreign policy section in the present plan has three key objectives, 20 as follows: 1 Strengthen national sovereignty by accelerating the conformation of a regional geopolitical bloc and a multipolar world; 2 Diversify political, economic and cultural relations according to the
). Frankel was remembering Humboldt’s style of collaborative enquiry during famous expeditions to the crater of Vesuvius in the autumn of 1805 accompanied by his friends and colleagues, the chemist Joseph Louis Gay-Lussac, the geologist Christian Leopold von Buch, and the Latin American politician Simón Bolívar, who was encouraged by Humboldt to win independence from the repressive Spanish Empire – the namesake for the current Bolívar revolution in Latin America. They were looking at the live eruptions of Vesuvius but the conversation, undoubtedly, covered the geological
revolutionary projects on the continent, including Simón Bolivár’s, Manuelita Saenz’s and Che Guevara’s. It is Che Guevara’s revolutionary dream that transcends geographical and historical limitations to connect with earlier revolutionary moments in the continent. As Marcos wrote: thirty years ago, el Che dreamed and dreamed again of a transformed new, better reality: the dream of rebellion. That dream crossed the time and the mountains of the Mexican Southeast. The dream that summons us together today is one of rupture and continuity with Che Guevara’s dreams, just as his
agenda in civilisational analysis that will operate more closely at the intersection of past and present. Intersections of past and present Debating Civilisations began with anthropological axioms posited by Ibn Khaldun, Simon Bolivar and George Pachymeres. Each axiom alludes to perceptions of deep connectivity that pre-date processes of modern globalisation. The three extracts in another way are anecdotes of inter-civilisational engagement pre- dating the global age, which is one of the problems I pose and unpack in the book. The argument I have supported, that
means of limiting the power of the state. In contrast, Latin American presidentialism developed a few decades later as a means of asserting state authority. Madisonian presidentialism (after James Madison, 1751–1836) was not and is not the same thing as Bolivarian presidentialism (after Simon Bolivar, ‘the Liberator’). One might roughly identify the first with checks and balances and the second with a leadership principle that is its antithesis. As a result, the formal institutional system of checksand-balances does not really describe how Latin American
movement, and perhaps you too were the one who secured international recognition. Well, congratulations, in that case. You have done well. But remember, it was Madison, Jefferson, and Hamilton who drafted the American constitution – not George Washington (who won the war) or Benjamin Franklin (who won recognition). Both Garibaldi and Simón Bolívar were wise enough to retire before they got their hands
stewardship of Simón Bolívar, replacing the Viceroyalty of New Granada with the territories what we know today as Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador and Panama.82 The return of the Cadiz Constitution between 1820 and 1823 brought back popular sovereignty and representation. And while most of the American possessions succeeded in gaining independence, much of southern Peru and present-day Bolivia remained staunchly loyalist. During the triennium, a group of experienced royalist officers kept control of the south central Andes and reintroduced the Cadiz Constitution.83 The liberal
lacking in intelligence and that gives expression to a spirit which, without a doubt, hovered over many expeditionary environments. On 18 September 1821, Simón Bolívar ordered the publication of this letter in Maracaibo’s El Correo Nacional, because he considered it ‘el acta primera de la independencia de América’[the first statement of America’s independence]. But Aguirre was much more contradictory