Philosophical Text Joseph Prabhu's "The

¶ … Philosophical Text Joseph Prabhu's "The Clash or Dialogue of Civilizations": An Evaluation In his article, "The Clash or Dialogue of Civilizations," author Joseph Prabhu suggests that conversations about diversity need to move from "intranational dialogues to international dialogues" to achieve world peace (15). The author supports and develops his thesis by discussing the contradictory nature of the two trends that encapsulate today's international politics -- globalization and nationalism. Because these trends are contradictory, Prabhu implies that they are not working to create a world based on peace.

Furthermore, he uses the events of September 11, 2001 to make this point even clearer, by suggesting it as both a "Clash of Civilizations" and an attack based on political and economic issues. Because of its dual characterization, Prabhu suggests that "dialogue between religions" and cultures is a tactic much more superior to war to resolve the international issues of the world (14).

Finally, Prabu uses the example of the United States to support his thesis by stating that the United States has been able to use the grantee of rights to establish a common ground that opens dialogue among cultures. When writing this topic, the author most likely considered an audience that was interested in and somewhat knowledgeable about International Relations. He speaks in a style that is, while intelligent, not necessarily formal, and he uses simple language and summaries of main ideas.

This suggests that he is speaking to both those who are aware of the theories and paradigms associated with international relations, peace, and conflict studies. The author's purpose for his audience is to convince them that dialogue is a far more superior method than war in achieving peace in the international world. Although his article is certainly opinionated and argumentative, his argument is not overstated harsh. Instead, he makes a subtle argument, calling upon the reader's common sense to supplement Prabu's argument.

Thus, it is clear that the author is speaking to an audience that is not hardened in its opinion on the topic, or at least open minded enough to intelligently debate different ideas. The academic community fits this description almost perfectly. Certainly, the audience did an excellent job of communicating his purpose to his audience. This is true for three primary reasons. First, the author's clarity of speech and ideas allows even the student or professor with limited knowledge on the topic to understand and form an opinion about it.

Second, the author uses familiar and adequate arguments to support his thesis. Third and finally, the author appeals to reason and logic to make an argument that does not require stretches of the imagination or advanced knowledge of theory. In the first point, the author's style is clear, concise, friendly, and reasoned. He presents himself as a professional with an understanding of the topic, but also as a teacher who wishes to impart his knowledge to others.

An examination of his definitions is sufficient to understand the simplicity with which he writes. For instance, he describes globalization as "a set of processes that bring about a palpable sense of worldwide interconnectedness" (Prabu 14). This definition allows readers of all levels to understand the concept of globalization. Others who have a more advanced understanding of this topic may argue that this definition is too simple, but here it shows an advanced understanding of his audience and a desire to make his argument without the frustration of complexities.

In addition, Prabu continues by using simple language to identify what he sees as a problem in international relations -- the conflicting nature of globalization and nationalism -- as well as his argument for change. In addition to clear language, the author uses familiar and adequate arguments to support his thesis. Instead of supporting his thesis with arguments with international relations theories and political science jargon, he uses familiar arguments that readers of many backgrounds will be able to understand.

He sites well-known public figures such as Ghandi, and grants generous quotes to Hanks Kung, explaining a concept that even first grade students understand -- talking instead of fighting. Finally, Prabu uses the United States as a canvas to suggest that the model he presents.