Many have argued that in the contest among civilizational narratives unfolding in the first quarter of the 21st century, Samuel Huntington's thesis of the "clash of civilizations" proved "fitter" than Francis Fukuyama's "end of history" claim.

The cutting edge of Huntington's argument lay in the assertion that following the Soviet Union's collapse in 1991, the conflicts of the future would be generated, for the most part, not by ideological, economic, or geopolitical contradictions of interest, but by civilizational differences. The very fact that Huntington used the word "civilization" in the plural is significant. It challenges the Western tendency to treat "civilization" as singular and synonymous with the West.

Huntington's idea can be traced to the Calvinist influence in the American project, dating back to the Puritan 17th century, which promulgated the thesis of "election based upon double predestination". Its modern secular iteration is the myth of "American exceptionalism".

To illustrate the Western inability to come to terms with the civilizational "other", I recall an old Zoroastrian creation story from the Bundahišn. This ancient Iranian religion is dualistic, since, unlike many other religious traditions, it postulates two uncreated metaphysical principles: the Good One — Ahura Mazda — or God, and the Evil One — Angra Mainyu or the Devil. There is an intriguing asymmetry between these two powers. Ahura Mazda is eternally aware of the existence of Angra Mainyu. However, Angra Mainyu only becomes aware of anything beyond himself upon the creation of the world.

When Ahura Mazda creates the world, Angra Mainyu encounters something other than himself for the first time. His response is destruction: he seeks to eliminate this "other" and the world it represents.

This story has a profound ethical lesson: Evil is characterized by an inability to accept the existence of anything different from itself, thus equating the very fact of difference with inevitable conflict.

This analogy partly explains why being seen as "Number 1" matters so much to some nations. But their "Number 1" status seems to exclude the existence of "Number 2" or "Number 3". In a race, the fastest runner finishes first, a slower runner ends up second, someone still slower finishes third, and so on. All runners share the quality of "speed" and the difference is only one of degree. This is precisely what can get overlooked when international relations are viewed primarily in terms of mutually exclusive binary oppositions.

Some are convinced that their political, economic and social arrangements are not just the best but the only viable options, dismissing alternatives. This reminds one of an old joke: "What is the definition of a Puritan? Someone who cannot stand the thought of someone, somewhere, having fun. "A modern version of the joke would be: "What is the definition of a certain type of Western public figure? Someone who cannot stand the thought of someone, somewhere, having an alternative."

But, alternatives do exist. Writing from Qufu, Shandong province, the birthplace of Confucius, I reflected on his teachings at this year's Nishan Forum on World Civilizations. What might Confucius have said about the implications of civilizational differences? Do they inevitably mean conflict, as Huntington would have us believe? Difference is a necessary, though not sufficient, condition for conflict; Confucius, however, believed that it is also a precondition for harmony. His concept from the Analects — of "being harmonious but not uniform" — suggests that harmony can emerge from the coexistence of different entities, resolving tensions without erasing their fundamental differences.

A beautiful melody must consist of different notes. Their collapse into a single note would destroy the very beauty that harmony engenders. Similarly, different civilizations could make the planet harmonious by remaining different.

Is this an unrealistic ideal? Perhaps. Conflict, as noted above, requires difference. However, the existence of differences should not by itself cause conflict. Some politicians love to shout: "Choose a side!" The choice before us is whether to use our civilizational differences to build harmony or to abuse them as excuses for conflict.

The author is a Sinologist, chair scholar at the Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

If you have a specific expertise, or would like to share your thought about our stories, then send us your writings at opinion@chinadaily.com.cn, and comment@chinadaily.com.cn.