{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreigscyg4azyj3zbnag7cw6kcnguzapl6m6chdr2jxh44hgbroe2kpa",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:rzxm2r7lop5f2v5ssp345vgu/app.bsky.feed.post/3mkokxh2dn4h2"
  },
  "coverImage": {
    "$type": "blob",
    "ref": {
      "$link": "bafkreiapgaaujy6nlgo5a7ypnogfpemxpj3xyluob4brmipncatjwl2hha"
    },
    "mimeType": "image/jpeg",
    "size": 769469
  },
  "path": "/2026/04/civilizational-states-against-universalism/",
  "publishedAt": "2026-04-29T09:15:00.000Z",
  "site": "https://providencemag.com",
  "tags": [
    "Civilization",
    "The Latest",
    "Treaty of Westphalia",
    "Thirty Years’ War",
    "Zarathustra in the 6th century BC",
    "The Rise of the Civilizational State",
    "Moral Man and Immoral Society",
    "collective egoism",
    "irony of history",
    "Zarathustra and Ali ibn Abi Talib",
    "innocent people were killed by the Iranian state",
    "The Religion of Man"
  ],
  "textContent": "In the realm of international politics, few moments have been as consequential as the Treaty of Westphalia. Signed in 1648 to bring an end to the Thirty Years’ War, the landmark treaty represented the beginning of the international system of nation-states we know and take for granted today. However, while the modern West could not be conceived of without nation-states, the very idea of the nation-state has become a flashpoint with so-called “civilizational states,” including authoritarian examples such as Iran, China to democratic variants like India. In the case of the Islamic Republic, amid the ongoing war in the Middle East, Iran has rhetorically framed its defense against the United States of America and Israel as a form of “civilizational resistance.” This resistance, Iran asserts, is rooted in more than three thousand years of history, dating back to Zoroastrianism, founded by the prophet Zarathustra in the 6th century BC. And yet, on an ideological level, the invocation of “civilizational resistance” by Iran is part of a broader trend in which the other “civilizational states” of the world are challenging the universalism of the established normative frameworks of modernity.\n\nIn his book The Rise of the Civilizational State, Christopher Coker, the late British political scientist at the London School of Economics, defines a civilizational state as a country that traces its identity to a distinct socio-cultural core dating back to time immemorial. In civilizational states, Coker argues, culture becomes the primary anchor of national identity not in a sense of shared citizenship within a common territory or through a constitutionally bound social contract; rather, it lies in the perception of commonalities derived from belonging to a common culture. The votaries of civilizational states consider the idea of a nation-state as a “Western import” that is ill-suited to the collective consciousness of non-Western societies with deep historical roots.\n\nIn this context, countries like Iran, China, Türkiye etc., invoke the “civilizational state” tag to justify their policies in opposition to Western influence around democracy, human rights, and anything else that would cause authoritarians consternation. However, in the world of ideas, concepts like civilization are social constructs with fluid and dynamic dimensions and therefore subject to contestation. In this context, the idea of “civilizational resistance” that Iran and other “civilizational states” are invoking can be perceived as an extension of power politics.\n\nThe very idea of “civilizational statism” is therefore being used to politically mobilize populations in their respective countries to moralize the content of power. It is an attempt at concealing the coercive dimensions of political regimes by legitimizing them through an artificially constructed sense of civilizational continuity.\n\nIn his book Moral Man and Immoral Society, the American theologian and philosopher Reinhold Niebuhr warned humanity against such tendencies through two of his important ideas—collective egoism and the irony of history. Niebuhr pointed out that while humans at the individual level can choose selflessness and altruism instead of self-serving to the detriment of others, at the collective level societies operate on the basis of collective egoism, marked by narcissism, tribalism, and exclusionary tendencies. It is in this context that, when countries invoke the idea of civilization to justify “resistance,” they ultimately undermine their own moral legitimacy. The historical justification of their claims is a façade to mask the exercise of power without accountability, humility and the most important of Niebuhrian social virtues: prudence. In such a context, civilizational states end up indulging in what Niebuhr calls the irony of history, where, in an attempt to project the moral righteousness of their power, they end up contradicting their moralistic claims. Such contradictions not only undermine their moral standing, but also damage their social credibility in the comity of nations.\n\nThis is precisely what is happening in Iran. In an attempt to portray itself as the custodian of the ancient Persian civilization of Zarathustra and Ali ibn Abi Talib, the Islamic Republic legitimizes the use of violence against its own population by muzzling calls for democracy and accountability. The theocratic government of Iran is therefore selectively applying moral standards under the guise of international humanitarian law to conceal its human rights violations against the Iranian people, most notably in the latest protests, where thousands of innocent people were killed by the Iranian state.\n\nIf Niebuhr highlighted the external dimensions of collective egoism, Rabindranath Tagore, the poet-laureate of India, illuminated its inner core. He argued that, in an attempt to project superiority vis-à-vis others, civilizations routinely develop narratives of moral supremacy which cloak their own capacity for injustice. In The Religion of Man, he warned against indulging in competitive jingoism where one civilization is pitted against another. For Tagore, the jingoism that legitimizes civilizational egoism was the biggest roadblock in realizing the shared vision of human dignity. Tagore believed that the exercise of power must be anchored in responsibility, accountability, and humanism.\n\nIn invoking the language of “resistance,” states like the Islamic Republic of Iran do not transcend power politics but simply moralize it under the banner of civilization. Therefore, it functions as an attempt to legitimize nakedly unethical political actions through the grammar of culture and shared meaning. As if foreseeing the rise of civilizational-state rhetoric, Reinhold Niebuhr warned us that the greatest danger to collective life lies not in the absence of morality but in a false moral image that inspires nations to seek after a perverted sense of justice. Both Niebuhr and Rabindranath Tagore believed that, notwithstanding the fallen nature of humanity, there exist redeemable qualities among us, such as the virtues of perseverance, rationality, tolerance, and belief in the possibility mutual coexistence. The challenge, therefore, for civilizations and nation-states, lies in recognizing the limitations of civilizational heritage as justification for the moralization of power and instead choosing to embrace the positive virtues that enable civilizations to persist over millennia.",
  "title": "Civilizational States Against Universalism"
}