Clash of Civilizations by Samuel P. Huntington-A Critique
Abstract
After the fall of the Soviet Union, several scholars attempted to provide a new paradigm for understanding international relations. Francis Fukuyama argued that after the decline of communism, humankind had reached an endpoint in ideological evolution, what he called the End of History. Henceforth, he maintained, the world would be dominated by liberal democracies less inclined to go to war with each other and more interested in cooperation to maintain peace in the world.
However, the above-mentioned End of History thesis was challenged by several intellectuals of the day. One of them was his teacher Mr Samuel P. Huntington who asserted that while the age of ideology had ended, the world had only reverted to a normal state of affairs characterized by the clash of civilizations in which the principal conflicts of global politics will be cultural and “they will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations.”
This article summarises the main ideas expressed by Huntington in its highly provocative article
However, before reading this article, kindly do read my following article about the End of History thesis by Francis Fukuyama as it provides the backdrop to Samuel Huntington’s article you are going to read.
End of History by Francis Fukuyama: A Critique | by Shahid Hussain Raja | Sep 2022 | Medium
Introduction
After the publication of the End of History thesis, there was a great commotion in the intellectual world all over the world. One of the reasons it attracted so much attention was the introduction of Direct Broadcasting Services (DBS) technology making it possible to transmit American and European television channels directly to each home even in the remote corners of the world. Live and lively debates about the views of Fukuyama were the topics of prime-time TV shows and headline news on CNN and other American Channels. Cynics called it the conspiracy of the CIA to disseminate the article which predicted a doomsday scenario for the communist USSR
Consequently, his thesis was challenged by several intellectuals of the day. One of them was his teacher Mr Samuel P. Huntington who delivered a lecture at the American Enterprise Institute in 1992. Contrary to Fukuyama’s image of the post-Cold War world as a place marked by “perpetual peace” among liberal democracies, Huntington anticipated a world characterized by the clash of civilizations in which the principal conflicts of global politics will be cultural and “they will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations.” He asserted that while the age of ideology had ended, the world had only reverted to a normal state of affairs characterized by cultural conflict.
His views were later published in 1993 in an article titled “The Clash of Civilizations?” in one of the most prestigious magazines, Foreign Affairs. In 1996 Huntington expanded this thesis in the book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order.
Main Points
According to Huntington, “the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation-states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.
Based on this he concluded that the Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American, and ‘possibly African cultures would be the potential sources of the “battle lines of the future” at both micro and macro levels. He then offers six explanations for why civilizations will clash:(kindly note these headings are mine, not Huntington’s)
- Cultural Differences Create Conflicts: First, the “real” and “basic” differences among cultures will cause war, because, although “differences do not necessarily mean conflict,” still over the centuries “differences among civilizations have generated the most prolonged and the most violent conflicts.” Differences among civilizations are too basic in that civilizations are differentiated from each other by history, language, culture, tradition, and, most important, religion. These fundamental differences are the product of centuries, so they will not soon disappear.
- Greater Cultural Interaction Creates Tension: Second, “the world is becoming a smaller place,” and as a result, the interactions across the world are increasing. As cultures rub against one another more tightly, the process generates greater tension and intensifies civilization consciousness and awareness of differences between civilizations and commonalities within civilizations.
- Religion as Identity Marker: Third, modernization and social change “are separating people from long-standing social local identities, with the result “that religion has moved in to fill this gap.” providing a basis for identity and commitment that transcends national boundaries and unites civilizations.
- Reaction against Western Cultural Hegemony: Fourth, Huntington contends that an increasingly bitter reaction to western ideas and values will exacerbate civilizational conflicts. The growth of civilization consciousness was enhanced by the dual role of the West. On the one hand, the West is at a peak of power. At the same time, a return-to-the-roots phenomenon is occurring among non-Western civilizations. A West at the peak of its power confronts non-Western countries that increasingly have the desire, the will, and the resources to shape the world in non-Western ways.
- Cultural Cohesiveness: Fifth, “cultural characteristics and differences are less mutable and hence less easily compromised and resolved than political and economic ones.”
- Ascendency of Economic Regionalism: Sixth and finally, “economic regionalism is increasing,” a process that “reinforces civilizational consciousness”. Economic regionalism may succeed only when it is rooted in a common civilization.
Significance of Huntington’s Thesis
Huntington’s thesis reignited the debate about the likely post-Cold War scenarios which started with the publication of the End of History thesis by Francis Fukuyama and soon became a recommended reading for anyone interested in understanding international politics. And it still rightly occupies a prominent place in this genre of discussions because of its in-depth analysis of the complex situation, the kaleidoscopic reach of his conclusions, and the wealth of anecdotal and statistical information provided.
Irrespective of the fact whether one agrees with him in toto or not, one must acknowledge that his thesis not only articulated a theoretical framework for analysing the post-cold war global politics but provided a strong perspective for taking policy actions by some of the leaders in the world. It is unfortunate that for quite a few policymakers it provided a perfect perspective to take action, particularly after the tragedy of September 11, 2001, tragedy which provided practical validation of Huntington’s viewpoint
What are the strengths of this thesis and where does it fail, either at the intellectual level or practical implications, depends upon one’s frame of mind. It is an internally consistent framework of analysis in the sense that if one agrees with the assumptions he has stated or taken for granted, then the logical conclusion follows as smoothly as night follows the day.
Weaknesses of the Thesis
All great ideas, books, and personalities are invariably controversial, which in fact makes them great. Thus, the Clash of Civilisations thesis by Huntington is not without its share of controversy.
1. Not an Original Idea
Huntingdon has become synonymous with the clash of civilizations thesis, he was not the author of the term itself. In fact, this term was earlier used by Basil Mathews in 1926 in his book “Young Islam on Trek: A Study in the Clash of Civilizations” in which he expressed his views about the changing socio-political dynamics of the Middle East. Later, the French writer Albert Camus also used it in 1946. Interestingly, two years before the delivery of Huntington’s lecture, Bernard Lewis had expanded on this idea in an article in the September 1990 issue of The Atlantic Monthly titled “The Roots of Muslim Rage”.
2. Uni-directional March of History
Like Francis Fukuyama, Huntington’s thesis is premised on an implied assumption that the march of history is unidirectional. If we also agree with this assumption of a linear progression of history, then there remains no point to counter it, at least, on the theoretical plane. However, the reality is quite the opposite. History has never progressed in one direction and is affected by so many constants and variables that it is impossible to predict its future course of action with reasonable accuracy.
3. Euro-centric Bias
One of the fiercest objections against both namely Francis Fukuyama and Samuel Huntington is their Euro-centric bias. His premise that this uni-directional movement of history is identifiable with the march of Western civilisation, is questionable. It not only neglects the invaluable contributions made by other civilizations in the past but also ignores the possibility of the formation of a theoretical and practical alternative by these civilizations in the future. In his analysis, the only role of non-Western societies is that of being dependent variables or subjects of the expansion of Western values and institutions.
4. Oversimplification
In his zeal to postulate a grand general theory of post-Cold War international relations, he has tried to oversimplify a complex situation by selective application of facts and figures that he feels substantiate his views. For example, he implies that there exists an all-embracing, powerful Islamic Civilization with a unity of command and a desire to conquer the post-Cold War world. Based on this presumption, he has made a strong case to counter this Islamic Civilisation by pooling the resources of non-Islamic nations.
However, the reality is quite the opposite. There are more than thirty Muslim states, some big, some small, at different levels of modernization. A few of them are at daggers drawn with one another to protect their respective national interests, not able to pose a serious challenge to western civilization. Rather they are slowly and gradually becoming westernized following the predictions of Fukuyama.
5. Theoretical Framework for American Hegemony
Keeping in view his career record as a consultant to the US Department of State known for advocating the concentration of the rural population of South Vietnam via a strategy of carpet-bombing and defoliating the rural lands and jungles of Vietnam, several scholars have criticised him for formulating a theoretical basis of the New World Order which the USA wanted to establish in the post-Cold War era. Because to create a new world order, the old one must have an end. Maybe those who later caused the deaths of millions of people in the Middle East and Afghanistan were trying to make his predictions true!
6. Practical Utility Falsified
While the thesis postulated by Samuel P Huntington got wide publicity and became the bedrock of the strategic culture of many Western countries, it was a total failure in practical terms. After the publication of his thesis, there have been multiple wars in which the Muslim-majority countries have overwhelmingly sided with the West in their wars against the Muslim countries. Similarly, in other wars also, there is no visible pattern of non-Muslim civilizations ganging up against the so-called Islamic Civilization. Ultimately, it is the national interests of the country which dictate its foreign policy options not the ideological leanings of its strategic culture. Moreover, the cases of Kosovo and especially the events on 11 September 2001 in the USA show that nothing has come to an end, instead of this, world history will probably face important transformation processes in the future.
CONCLUSION
By the way, Huntington has been an overrated scholar even though he was an intellectual extremist of the far right. During the 1980s, he became a valued adviser to the South African regime, which used his ideas on political order to craft its “total strategy” to reform apartheid and suppress growing resistance. He assured South Africa’s rulers that increasing the repressive power of the state (which at that time included police violence, detention without trial, and torture) can be necessary to effect reform. The reform process, he told his South African audience, often requires “duplicity, deceit, faulty assumptions and purposeful blindness.” He thus gave his imprimatur to his hosts’ project of “reforming” apartheid rather than eliminating it.
Request
Thank you very much for reading the article
If you liked it, kindly express your appreciation by clicking the clap icon below as many times as you like
Why not share it with your friends on social media? Knowledge is a common heritage of us all
And, kindly, do follow me as well as subscribe to my newsletter
You may like to read also
1. International Relations: Definition, History, & Scope
2. Modern Nation-state: Origins, Features, & Prospects
3. National Interest: Definition, Components, Determination
4. Islamophobia: Genesis, Challenges & Response
5. Globalisation: Challenges & Response
6. Eight Drivers of Globalisation
7. Global Terrorism: Challenges & Response
8. Arab Spring: Causes, Consequences, & Lessons Learnt
9. Why did the USSR enter Afghanistan in 1979?
10. Vietnam War: Causes of American Defeat
11. Afghanistan War: 8 Causes of American Defeat
