Nowadays, from a geopolitical point of view, the main question seems to be how to recognize the actual strategic interests of a country when they are the result of the interdependence between states in the current world order. A “glocalist” perspective may suggest that we should not look at countries and states, but at local political realities (such as cities) and super-national cultural identities (such as civilizations).
What complicates the analysis is the fact that both cities and civilizations do not have an absolute definition, since they are both the result of ever-changing networks of people and words, fluttering all around the world and modifying the meanings and the values of human actions. Moreover, local political behaviors clearly contribute to changing civilizations just as each civilization (defined by a coherent worldview of values) influences behaviors in local political realities. As stated by Hans Köchler, “the rapid development of technology, in tandem with the global pursuit of economic interests, has made interaction (encounter) with the ‘other’ a structural fact of society” and “one of the major challenges of our time will be whether civilizations can agree on a set of meta-values on the basis of mutuality” (Köchler 2020: 6-7). In the current global environment, the interaction between different and often incompatible value systems has the potential to create conflict either for ideological reasons or for the use of culture as a tool to legitimize conflicts (where in fact diverging economic interests are the cause). Only the agreement on a set of meta-values can open the field for a new dialogue between civilizations.