Revisiting the "Clash of Civilizations"
This week, big minds are mourning the passing of the great Harvard historian Samuel Huntington, who died December 27 at the age of 81. Among the terms he added to the lexicon, academic and otherwise is "clash of civilizations."
This thesis has resonated deeply, if unconsciously, into the American psyche. In the summer of 1993, four months after the first attack on the World Trade Center, Huntington published a paper in Foreign Affairs called, "The Clash of Civilizations?" The question mark was key, and did not carry over to the book that was released five years later in 1998, this time one month before Osama Bin Laden's second fatwa against the west and Israel. Huntington theorized that, with the end of the Cold War and the removal of ideology as a source of conflict, it would be cultural and religious differences that would now propel history. So it was not the end of history after all, as Francis Fukuyama suggested, but rather the next stage in the evolution of global conflict.
Of the eight dominant civilizations that would challenge the West, it would be a collision with Islam's tectonic plate that Huntington predicted would be the premier challenge in the new world order. Whether he has turned out to be prophetic, correct, simplistic or wrong remains to this day the subject of vigorous debate. Surely after 9/11, the concept of a 'clash of civilizations' was the only way to explain what was so horrifically, irrationally unexplainable
And so his death has caused us to revisit this theory. It is seven years later, the eve of the Obama presidency, which will work to redress eight years of Anti-Americanism based largely upon two wars in Islamic lands. At this moment, relations between India and Pakistan are at fever pitch following the attacks in Mumbai by Islamic extremists. Last month, hundreds more died in Christian/Moslem clashes in Nigeria. And then there's Gaza. These conflicts makes one wonder, in light of Huntington, if these local hotspots are symptoms of a wide civilizational clash with Islam, or isolated regional conflicts full-stop, disengaged from the wider ongoing global dynamic.
Islam's "bloody borders" that Huntington famously pointed out -- referring not only to countries like Iran and Iraq fighting each other, but to intra-state conflict such as the one in Sudan, was based on the number of clashes involving Muslims over a broad geographical range. The Islamic world, like the Christian world, lacks one core state -- it flows from Bosnia to Bali, Khartoum to Marrakesh. And within it we have many allies and friends, among them Jordan, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia, and we depend on all of them -- for trade, counterterrorism, and oil. There may be what Huntington called a "youth bulge" in many Islamic countries, leading to rejection of core Western values, and formation of groups that self-define in opposition to them. But it is hard to conclude that this signifies a unified bloc, however much these groups may be ramping up their cultural identities. Cultural differences alone preclude such a generalization. Democratic forces struggle away in Iran and Afghanistan.
But the fringe can dictate more than they deserve. Terrorism has no mitigating factors. When a group unites and radicalizes, and seeks to counter western influence through violence, the headlines they garner only reinforce the fear that the differences are irreconcilable and that our civilizations are actually incompatible. In addition, carrying on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have, in a sense, made Huntington's thesis self-fulfilling, rendering it and its author both visionary. After all, 9/11 took place before the Afghan or Iraq wars, and much is learned every day about how the conflicts have bred more terrorism.
The concept of a new world order might actually mean disorder, chaos and unpredictability on a global scale. But doomed forevermore to clash? Let's hope not. The prospect is exhausting and hopeless. It does leave room for leadership and diplomacy. But the theory is as controversial, relevant and provocative as is was 16 years ago. Nevertheless, it almost makes you nostalgic for socialist ideology and a few nuclear warheads pointed our way. It was all so much simpler.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
A 9th "civilization" has begun to emerge since Huntington's 1993 article. More correctly, a new civilizing force has begun to emerge that spans across all civilizations, undermining and transforming them all, including the West. This 9th civilization is global and anti-nationalist and through trade, travel, and communication constitutes a brick-n-mortar world wide web of interests, values, emerging power. Yet, it lacks, almost entirely, an identity, ideology, or social fabric to categorize.
This 9th civilization is the emerging global "middle class". What I mean by "middle class" is simply those who have achieved enough personal security through their efforts to defend it, and enough to seek more. This includes millions of Chinese who have worked 3 years in a Shanghai or Shenzhen factory, saved most of their income, and then returned home with a grubstake to open her own dress shop or bakery. This scenario has happened to tens of millions in China, Brazil, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, indeed, most countries. And for each one of these, there are more who stayed at the factories and demanded, and got, slowly improving conditions. This is the emerging global "middle class".
In time this global "middle class" will revolutionize the entire world.
Most of the intellectuals who write seriously about a clash of civilzations are very invested in its coming about. They are either chicken hawks or far right-wing ideologues who want American military supremecy and hegemony in all the world's regions. They firmly believe in American exceptionalism and that most cultures want to adopt American culture and our ideas of democracy and free markets. These right-leaning thinkers also believe that free elections are the defining characteristic of democracy and not institution building within the country. They also ignore the internal power structures of the countries where regime change is desired. I think most of these assumptions are wrong.
In assessing the potential for a serious challenge to American hegeoomy, it's really important to think clearly.
The first step is an analysis of those "civilizations" with the potential to become serious military or economic world powers who could challenge us.
Let's see Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, China, India, Russia.
Well, of course, it's obvious. It's them pesky Arabs.
A second and key question is to ask if foreign relations is always a zero sum game. That of course would require some real mental power and effort. So let's be realistic about the skills of those we're asking to perform the task and move on.
The third and even more difficult task is to sit back and ask if perhaps other civilizations react to things that are done to them. That of course might ask us to challenge the fundamental tenet of our national "religion" that God has chosen us to do his work on this planet and that therefore we are on the side of right. and those who oppose us are really stupid or the spawn of Satan. A view strangely similar that the "wise men" in the Kremlin had that "History" had chosen them to do its work on this planet and that they were on the side of truth justice etc.
OK. since maturity is apparently not an option, let's concentrate on the first point then.
"foreign relations is always a zero sum game"
Good question. Nothing else in this world works that way, why should a clash of civilizations. "Foreign relations" is a good example of the principle that you can not create change without being changed by the effort.
Huntington's essay caused quite the stir when it came out. It was a time during which we were all looking forward to the expected "peace dividend" at the close of the cold war. The Bushites and neocons became intoxicated by it's simplistic view of antagonistic civilizations in nature emnity. But our vision, at the time, of conflict resolution and the peace dividend is clearly the more sustaining and intelligent approach. Here is an essay that expresses the non-conflicting worldview and the roots of Huntington's conflictive vision:
http://hum
It's good to remember that our own extremists-the neocons-are guilty of instigating and aggravating the mess we're in.
It's relevant and provocative, but only because there are extremists within these various groups that wish to fight. The theory requires that they exist and have significant power to move entire peoples. We see that with terrists and we saw that with neocons. But these folks can cease to exist, too, if enough ppl on all sides say "enough."
This means that SIgmund Freud's view that what fosters cultural understanding and mutual respect acts against war. He wrote the letter to Einstein in 1932. It remains relevant, too.
The clash is asymmetrical.
According to Gallup "the majority of Americans (66%) admit to having at least some prejudice against Muslims; one in five say they have "a great deal" of prejudice. Almost half do not believe American Muslims are "loyal" to this country, and one in four do not want a Muslim as a neighbor." Contrast this with "Moreover, it's politics, not piety, that drives the small minority -- just 7% -- of Muslims to anti-Americanism at the level of condoning the attacks of 9/11."
Source:
http://www
Take a look at MSM, pop culture, movies and you will find the source of the clash, mainly based on ignorance. Given the media, was it visionary to pontificate about the utterly predictable. No location will be deemed too remote and no event will be ignored as too isolated to manufacture a clash. Exhausting prospect indeed.
http://www
"Clash of Civilizations" was just a warmed-over version of 19th century racist imperial ideology which divided the world into clashing races, except that the word "Race" was replaced by a euphemism of "Civilizations". There is no such thing as the "Islamic civilization" any more than there is a "Christian civilization" or even a "Western civilization". In fact, the "Western values" that you speak of are hardly limited to the West. After all, the whole concept of Good versus Evil, Heaven and Hell, etc came from....dr
Good pt. Edward Said would like it very much.
Excellent observations.
Yes, much of the creation myths in the Christian bible were taken originally from the Iranians, such as, I believe, the Garden of Eden and Noah's flood.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
