This was one of the most interesting moments of our @DohaDebates on Al Jazeera: why do more and more countries, including the U.S., refer to themselves as civilizations? Many view this as nationalistic or chauvinistic rhetoric, but I made the point that it's close to the opposite, that it's actually the world moving towards a healthier balance. Why? Because, by definition, when you define yourself as a civilization you're implicitly accepting that there are other civilizations too, with their own values and their own ways of seeing the world. As I argued, this marks a turning point after decades of liberal universalism when you never heard the word "civilization" because everything was about "universal values," with the assumption that there was only one legitimate way of seeing the world that everyone was expected - and often pushed - to adopt. Talking of civilizations means it becomes acceptable to say "you are the way you are, I am the way I am, let's coexist," rather than trying to impose your model on everyone else. Which is inherently less conflictual. And, as such, far from being chauvinistic, it's at heart more genuinely respectful of diversity than the liberal hegemony mindset where "diversity" was welcome as long as everyone ended up sharing the same values: ours. My contradictor, Isabel Hilton, countered that liberal ideas have genuine grassroots support in China and are debated there by the Chinese themselves. Which I don't dispute in the slightest: as I replied to her, a country debating its own future internally is the most normal thing in the world. When it starts to become wrong is when outsiders are trying to settle that debate from abroad. As I put it to her, if China tried to spread socialism with Chinese characteristics in Britain, the British would rightly have a problem with it. You can watch the full debate here below 👇 or on YouTube: youtube.com/watch?v=C_GZKMC5…