Examples Of The Clash Of Civilizations

When the world famous liberal thinker Francis Fukuyama in his masterpiece declared that we were witnessing the end of the history, he was greeting the new political structure and also the new international environment, which is peaceful[1]. However, developments that occurred after the collapse of the Soviet Union showed us that the dissolution of the Soviets was unexpected. The international society was not ready for peace and Fukuyama’s optimistic assumptions were far from becoming real. Moreover, the international society currently started to realise that the tension and the potential of mass destructive war during the Cold War era had provided a

It is evident that two countries were primed for conflict, however, which side ignited the first initial blow, resulting and inflicting the ideology of War”.

Each one of the claims will go onto support the overall issue that culture will cause the clash of civilizations. A great support Huntington uses is that no matter what we think of cultures each one is different in many ways. If its religion, language, or different historical backgrounds these will cause conflict to arise. With each civilization being different it can be hard to get along with other people because of how different their views might be. Another issue that arises is that not all, but many civilizations are influenced by the west. This is where the idea of westernization comes into play. Each community is trying to improve and be bigger and better themselves, they are trying to be better than their neighbors. If one civilization improves the surrounding groups will want to be the same. This means they will compete to be the same or even better than the civilization that already made it. This can lead to conflict and death between civilizations. Another reason is that when conflicts arise between civilizations it is a lot harder to resolve than a political or economical one. Like stated before it is very difficult to change someone’s beliefs, that means there is very little wiggle room for negotiation. The final example that Huntington writes about is that the economic regionalism is increasing. This means that more cultures and civilization are trading between themselves, but

Huntington also does not see westernization as a desirable surge that engulfs world politics. Conflict is very natural and history proves that argument. The author takes away focus from states as a foundation of war in the future and more on conflict between major culture regions. He states that peoples cultural and religious identities will be the primary bases of conflict post cold war. The world is becoming a smaller place with modernization and technology; thus, relations between people of different civilizations deepen consciousness and awareness. Post cold war, the role of the Western society enhances the growth of civilization. Unlike Fukuyamas argument, Huntington states that cultural characteristics and differences are more complex to solve than political and economical

Huntington’s argument is essentially that rather than the conflicts in the new world order being economic or ideological, they will primarily stem from cultural sources and that the next phase in world conflict will be between civilizations rather than within them (22). He began his article by defining the nature of civilizations. In doing so, he defines a civilization as “a cultural entity” and notes that civilizations are “the highest cultural grouping of people and the broadest level of cultural identity people have short of that which distinguishes humans from other species” (22-23). According to Huntington, the number of people within a civilization ranges that they are “dynamic; they rise and fall; they divide and merge” (23).

What makes a civilization? According to Google’s dictionary, civilization means “the stage of human social development and organization that is considered the most advanced,” and “the society, culture, and way of life in a particular area. They have a point, but they forgot one thing. Civilizations both promote unity within their boundaries and interaction with other civilizations. Both are fundamental to their society, or else their civilization would be a dystopian society. The following will answer how and why they do both of those things.

and last section of this paper will be an assessment of all these major conflicts as a

Human history has demonstrated that conflict is inevitable. As long as there are differences of opinion, there is fuel for anything from a brief argument to a war that lasts for years. This truth prevails through ancient history and modern day issues. Over time, conflicts grow, compound, and set the archetypal stages for new issues to be born: conflicts between the rich and poor, the religious and political, the loyalists and rebels, and particularly, the East and West. Since people acknowledged those living in opposite sides of the world, the assumption that they themselves were opposites followed. Often, each thought the other was barbarian, an enemy, and would

As long as different populations have inhabited the Earth there have been continuous struggles for power and the desperate aims to dominate and to be the strongest, the biggest and the most influential. Before the advanced technological development, the authority of a country was determined, to a large extent, by the size of its territory and population. Therefore there was a large interest among the biggest European powers to extend their territories and unify as many ethic groups as possible, to reach population growth. Consequently, it was only a matter of time before one of them would take direct action, and as a result, would cause a conflict.

Cultural differences among humankind have long existed and can be traced down to the early beginnings of human race. Even nowadays conflicts between civilization exist without the necessity of there being confrontation between each other. In “The Clash of Civilizations?”, Samuel P. Huntington hypothesizes that the great differences between humankind will not arise from differences in ideology or economy but from differences between cultures; hence, the battle lines of the future will be those that separate civilizations and no longer first, second or third world countries. Huntington describes a civilization as one that is “the highest cultural grouping of people and the broadest level of cultural identity people have” (Huntington). In his perspective, a civilization goes way beyond an ethnic group, a nationality or a religion; instead, it comprises all of this. Among the eight major civilizations Huntington classifies are: Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American and African.

The start of the great civilization was just there. People had traveled to an island that could be seen from a shore. These people had brought over the idea to run a great civilization from their teaching. The geography was full of man mountains and had a very hot summers, but cold winters. One of the greatest part to this civilization was

Samuel Huntington has made famous his thesis "the clash of civilizations", which was developed in his article in Foreign Affairs in 1993 and in the book that followed, in which the author expanded his thesis and reaffirmed the validity of his theory after the success and controversy that followed the publication of his article. In fact, the “civilizational” approach of conflicts today is now intrinsically linked to a comprehensive theory of international relations, which Samuel Huntington has developed by giving it an important value and a dominant paradigm

So what exactly is the clash of civilizations? This was briefly addressed in Samuel Huntington’s paper “The clash of civilizations?”. In order to explain the term, let’s first look into what civilization is. Person does not simply get to choose the civilization he/she simply belongs to. Communists can become democrats and vice versa, but Russians can never become Americans or Arabs cannot become European. In the conflict between civilizations the question is “What are you?”, it is something given and cannot be changed. Conflicts between countries are inevitable and with the way things work it is just a matter of time, before one country would not be comfortable with what other country is doing. In that case, cultural characteristics and differences are less mutable and hence less easily compromised and resolved than political and economic ones [1]. The clash of civilizations often occurs on two levels. Micro-level is when small

1. International conflict among countries is more likely of what we may think. Today there are many different ongoing conflicts. International conflict is a stage of opposition, disagreement or incompatibility between two or more states (Malek). The term "international conflict" referred to conflicts between different nations and conflicts between people and organizations in different nations (Mr. Turetzky lec 11). It also applies to inter-group conflicts within one country when one group is fighting for independence or increased social, political, or economic power. International conflicts can be divided into two branches: private international conflict and public international conflict. A private international conflict is a disagreement

The notion of civilization within Western ideology focuses on the development and structuring of society, and thereby determines the personal interactions and morals of individuals within a cultural context. Dynamics of society, from the establishment of governments to the social and personal functions of people have been a result of European ideals, considering they were a colonial powerhouse that normalized the concept of civilization, which is revolved around ideological hegemony and forced invasion. Civilization references the advancement of society and its formation, therefore erasing previous forms of existence, thereby debunking indigenous practices. Colonization, whether external or internal is a legacy of genocide, which indoctrinates into consent, in which the fear is transmitted into forced coercion because of the potential anticipation of genocide, so assimilating to comply becomes the immediately-stable option, rather than social unrest. The formation of civil societies is a byproduct of ideological hegemony, in which European intellectualism constructed this binary of political systems that trickled down to determine political representation, participation and political results within a nation. Contributions from Karl Marx and Adam Smith exemplify the formation of society, in which it becomes organized through economic progress because of this notion of modernity that manifested and justified the process of colonialism and expansion.