The Validity of Samuel P. Huntington’s Thesis in “The Clash of Civilizations”

In fact, while the distinctive ideologies and religious groups still exist, the clear boundaries of different civilizations characterized by Huntington have blurred. When this dichotomy to recognize the world as direct confrontations between ideology and culture groups becomes no longer valid, the theory of the inevitability of the clash of civilization, thus, are now flawed, because it is realistically unreasonable, ethically wrong, conceptually biased and historically inaccurate. These problems regarding the clash of civilizations embody a misleading western supremacy shown in Bush’s speech as well as the war on terror on a larger

The contemporary world of Islam faces an uphill battle defending itself from modern day misconceptions and the forced involvement with geopolitics. Islam struggles with the western world’s perception of the religion and cultural understanding. Modern day Muslims will have to overcome insurmountable hurdles in an attempt to rebuild the diversity and complexity within the Islam faith. Islam is in a constant battle with Western Civilization and its forced power and ideology on the Middle East. The current religious struggle between the Middle East and the West derives from thousands of years of bloodshed and conflict between the worlds three major religions; Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Blood that was shed during a period of holy wars and the ever expanding ruling powers such as Greece and Rome. The candle of hatred burns in modern times with the presences of radical extremist groups like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda that continue to ignite hatred towards the West by manipulating the Qur’an and preaching concepts that conflict with the laws of Islam.

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

More so than that, Huntington was writing during a time when the United States was the world’s only military superpower which lead to the idea that America should take the lead in establishing the “new world order”, one which would be dominated by the United States and their allies. Because of this, American diplomats and officials were faced with regional, religious and ethnic conflicts that, as Huntington argues, could not be easily solved. During this time the United States were making major decisions about the layout and status of the new world order. It becomes clear that Huntington would believe future conflicts would arise from cultural differences due to previous cultural clashes and that the most powerful country in the world, the United States, was also unable to create solutions for conflicts fueled by cultural differences.

Huntington that hypothesised a new post-Cold War world order. Prior to the end of the Cold War, societies were divided by ideological differences such as the struggle between democracy and communism. Huntington’s primary thesis argues, “The most important distinctions among peoples are [no longer] ideological, political or economic. They are cultural.” Huntington makes a very persuasive argument as to how new patterns of conflict will occur along the boundaries of different cultures and patterns of cohesion will be found within the cultural boundaries. The book goes into extensive detail of how world systems between civilizations, which he divides by culture into 7 main global civilizations, are impacted on an international relations scale by this changing nature of conflict. He focuses a great deal on the West’s ability to maintain military superiority through the nonproliferation of emerging powers. In particular relation to 9/11 he focuses on the emerging influence of Islamic culture (which he classifies as it’s own civilization) being quintessential in the emerging new global conflict arisen out of hundreds of years of conflict, military and cultural, between Western civilization and Islamic civilization. The clear limitation of this work is that it is based on his own perception of history and is purely a hypothesis, however it clearly has a great degree of validity to it as we have already seen through the last decade in the rise of terrorism as the new global conflict. This book will assist my essay writing particularly in analysing how 9/11 marked the beginning of a new era of global conflict between powers larger than nation states alone, and thus how this has created increasingly complex paradigms of unprecedented effects on international

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

He frames the sketch of this imagined community of ‘civilization’ through Orientalism concept, where the superior ‘civilized world’ is being threatened by ‘enemies’. As he puts it, this ‘Civilization’ will be defended by ‘We’ who are waging a war to save it. Therefore, the two actors are the traditional components of ‘us’ and ‘them’, as can be deduced from the following statements by him:

Huntington’s essay on the Clash of Civilizations is persuasive in historical anecdotes and real world current events. Most of Huntington’s essay need not say anything more then what is already repeated on major media outlets around the world. The essay states what has long been opposed by the far left; namely, that people choose to interact, trade and form alliances with “like peoples”. It then, shouldn’t come as a surprise that the author needs to say little in order to sway an audience to his hypothesis by simply relating real world events such as rising nationalism in Russia2, Greece3 and France. One only has to look at the Anglo sphere of alliances in areas of conflict in the Middle East to find that Huntington’s persuasive argument is a narrative of real world events4. Non-Western nations that hope to transition into modern nations form alliances with Western nations but such alliances only serve to further destroy the credibility of the elites within those non-western countries. The elites are viewed simply as “puppets” of foreign interest. The rise of extremist organizations such as Hezbollah5 that have successfully achieved legitimacy through the democratic process of their respective nation states further proves that the will of the people in non-western

In 1996, Samuel P. Huntington published the book “The Clash of Civilizations and Remaking of World Order” where he suggested that the divisions in civilization will be a source of conflict after the Cold War (Huntington, 1996). This was contrary to public view as Americans were feeling optimistic and many believed the international sources of conflict with the U.S were minimal given Cold War victory. Popular sentiments during this Post-Cold War area are highlighted by the works of public intellectual Francis Fukuyama. Francis Fukuyama wrote a famous essay piece that he then developed into a book called “The End of History” where he suggested that Western liberalism had succeeded in international relations (Fukuyama, 1992). This was of course contrary to Samuel Huntington’s view. Huntington argued that civilizations were divided as Western, Islamic, Hindu, Chinese, Latin American, Japanese, and Slavic-Orthodox and this number of civilizations will produce cultural blocks due to their differences in values (Huntington, 1996). He stated that the Islamic civilization was one of the most concern for being amongst the most contrasting with the Western civilization. This argument has been proven due to the most recent terrorist attacks committed by Muslims in westernized countries. However, his book fails to analyze or address the divide that exist within the Islamic civilization. He fails to analyze the issues within

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

The end of the Cold War was not just a politically significant event but also an important intellectual milestone, where academics, researchers and intellectuals examined the consequences that its end would concur. Fukuyama’s The End of History and Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations are two of such explorations but contrast each other significantly. Fukuyama predicts a future of peace, or minimal conflict, amidst the spread of Western liberal democracy, a system of government he believes has been actualized as perfect in Hegel’s realm of consciousness whereas Huntington argues that conflict will stem from civilizational differences, owing to the rise in civilization-consciousness. I will start my essay by briefly summarizing the main arguments of each article, after which I will attempt to critique each one before drawing comparisons between the two.

Samuel Huntington, the author of the clash of the civilisations believes that the World will eventually divide in accordance with cultural lines, and not political lines. According to Huntington, “the thriving East Asian and Muslim societies will soon challenge Western dominance, and the United States being the World leader will need to reevaluate its policies on foreign invention and domestic immigration to remain a major player.” During the Cold War, the world was divided into the First, Second and Third Worlds. Huntington views these ties as insignificant now and states that the remaking of the World order will be based upon cultural similarity. The different thriving civilisations according to him today are the Western civilisation comprising of North America and Western Europe, the Muslim civilisation, the Orthodox Civilisation led by Russia, the Chinese civilisation, the Hindu civilisation, the Japanese civilisation, the Latin American civilisation and the African civilisation. Huntington’s proposition of the division of the World according to cultural lines has been backed by the use of various examples by him; examples of events that have taken place in the past.

While the traditional threat of inter-state wars have not occurred in Southeast Asia since post cold war era, it has been replaced with numerous conflicts in the region, a trend somewhat consistent with Huntington’s view. Huntington argued that the ideological conflict of the Cold War would be replaced by ‘‘ethnic conflict’’ along historical cleavage lines––a ‘‘clash of civilizations.’’5 Economic development and the spread of democracy may have render war obsolete or at least less common but empirical evidence has shown the rise of ethnic violence, territorial disputes and security concerns such as proliferation of weapon of mass destruction outside of Southeast Asia.