With the collapse of the eastern bloc and the end of the Cold War, only one superpower remained on the world stage. It was a development that opened new vistas before capitalist producers, who saw the opportunity to conquer markets previously inaccessible to them. But first, new rules had to be set in place, rules that would reduce protectionism and open the field wide to competition, the mechanisms of which the capitalists producers were better equipped to deal with. It is from this reality that globalization was born. Although essentially an economic phenomenon, globalization could only be envisaged in the context of wider interaction between different cultures, and it is this aspect of globalization, its cultural over-spill, as it were, that many see as a greater threat than its purely economic aspect. Voices came to be raised against the globalization process and the danger it represents for specific cultural identities which, according to the anti-globalization lobby, are at risk of being altogether lost or, at best, greatly diluted, in the context of globalization.

      How true is this in regard to our Egyptian identity? Egyptians are unquestionably Arab – but not in absolute terms. They are also eastern Mediterranean – but again not in absolute terms. And, though part of the Islamic civilization, this is not their unique identity. Then too there are important Ancient Egyptian and Coptic components in their makeup. For example, although there is a great resemblance between Egyptian cultural mores and those of the Arabian Peninsula, they are not identical. The same can be said with regard to Egypt’s Islamic and Mediterranean dimensions. For, despite the importance of the Islamic dimension, it has not turned Egyptians into exact replicas of Indians or Indonesians.

      In other words, the Egyptian identity is a compound one, a multi- layered tapestry woven of a rich diversity of strands that are rooted in history 
and geography. Because the Egyptian identity is not the product of transient factors but has distant roots in the time and space dimensions, its specificity cannot be obliterated by new phenomena that are characteristic of the times.

      To understand the role of history and geography in forming the multi-layered Egyptian identity is to realize the complexity of that identity and the depth of the overlapping layers of which it is constituted. Once this realization sets in, the dire predictions we are now hearing about the adverse impact globalization will have on our cultural specificity, about how the new openness onto the outside world threatens the integrity of the Egyptian identity, will appear to be totally unfounded and illogical.

      It would be wrong to suppose, however, that because an identity is complex it remains static. The main components of identity are history and geography. The first is in perpetual motion, the latter, though apparently motionless, is in a state of suspended animation. The inevitable conclusion to be drawn from this is that the traits of any specific cultural profile are in a state of constant, albeit slow, change, like Time itself, which is a dynamic process in a state of continuous flux. Thus the cultural specifics of an Egyptian living at the dawn of the twenty-first century are different from those displayed by his ancestors at the turn of the nineteenth century, which were in turn different from those displayed by our forefathers at the dawn of the sixteenth century. All of which means that cultural specifics are in a state of suspended animation or apparent immobility at the same time that they are undergoing a process of slow quantitative change that leads cumulatively to a slow qualitative change.

      If it is illogical to claim that our distinctive cultural profile has remained unchanged throughout the ages, it is equally illogical to claim that the traits of which it is composed are all positive. The best proof that negative strands are interwoven with the positive strands making up the tapestry of our cultural identity can be found in our popular sayings, which celebrate the positive and decry the negative traits of the Egyptian character. Those who fear that our cultural specificity will be crushed under the weight of others coming our way from more powerful and advanced parts of the world would do well to study the case of Japan and other east Asian nations. Although these have dealt extensively with western civilization, emulating many of its patterns of 

work and study, their cultural specificity has remained intact. Indeed, some of the more positive cultural patterns they assimilated from western civilization and adapted to suit their own realities, like teamwork, have given them an edge in their dealings with the West. A short train journey from Tokyo to any other town in Japan attests to the undiminished vigour of Japan’s cultural specificity, despite its extensive dealings with and opening onto a world having its own distinct and very different cultural heritage.

      A number of questions need to be put to those who dread the loss of our cultural identity: Is American culture really capable of uprooting our cultural specificity and replacing it with its own? And, if American culture can obliterate the Egyptian identity, why couldn’t British culture (which is deeper and richer than the American) obliterate India’s cultural specificity over four centuries of British occupation? Why does the hamburger and coca-cola culture strike such terror in their hearts? Finally, if it is impossible for America to assimilate us culturally, how can some people believe that Jewish culture can subsume our cultural specificity under its own? Egyptian cultural specificity is the result of a historical and cultural continuum stretching over fifty centuries, while Jewish culture has been exposed to many disruptions through the ages. Moreover, it is extremely limited in scope because of the limited number of Jews in the world. If anything, it is the Jews who should –and probably do- fear that once peace is achieved in the region, their specificity will be exposed to a cultural onslaught from the surrounding cultures, especially that much of their cultural specificity stems from a ghetto mentality. Peace will mean the end of the ghetto and, with it, of fully one half of Jewish cultural specificity.

      The lessons of history prove that societies which opt for opening onto the outside world, which interact with other cultures, help keep their own cultural specificity intact while promoting its development. There is also ample historical evidence that the total or partial isolation which some believe can protect their cultural specificity from erosion is likely to do just the opposite. Throughout the first half of the twentieth century, thousands of Egyptians were open to western life and culture without giving up any of their own cultural specificity. In fact, their interaction with another culture enriched them by adding to their own cultural specificity new elements that boosted its positive attributes and helped correct some of its negative aspects.

Moreover, it is materially impossible for any society today to lock itself into total or even partial isolation. The globalization of science and technology and the information and communication revolution are not only a bar to economic protectionism, but render dreams of isolation both impracticable and unattainable.

      Finally, the axiom that man is afraid of what he does not know is applicable to those who fear that our cultural specificity will disappear if we engage in extensive dealings with the outside world. If these proponents of isolationism had a better understanding of the multifarious strands that have converged to produce our specific cultural identity as well as a wider knowledge of other cultures, they would not have the feeling of inferiority that makes them fear the loss of their identity. Ignorance breeds a sense of inferiority, which in turn leads to a paranoid fear that the other is intent on destroying our identity. There can be no greater feeling of inferiority, compounded by a superficial and simplistic understanding of reality, than that manifested in the fear that exposure to other cultures will lead to the erosion of our own. To believe that our cultural identity will collapse when exposed to other cultures is an insult to our culture and civilization. For the underlying assumption is that our cultural specificity is so weak that it cannot stand up to the challenge of other cultures if we open up onto the outside world, and that it can only survive behind high walls separating our culture from others.