Abstract
In 1993, Harvard professor of Political Science Samuel Huntington published an article in Foreign Affairs. In it, he put forth a highly controversial thesis: that future conflicts would be between civilizations rather than political or ideological lines. This essay examines the validity of his claims and advances a contrary view. It argues that the speculated clashes between civilizations are largely confined to perceptions and that resurfacing cultural identities lack enough conviction of purpose for a distinct clash to occur.
Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations is a remarkable tour de force of inductive analysis based on geopolitical trends and supplemented with a profound understanding of religion’s role in determining human identity. He paints a picture in which modernism, secularization, and free market participation have leveled people across the globe. Yet, the essential religious identity resists all the powerful mechanics of egalitarianism. According to Huntington, What are you?” is the crucial question in the conflict between civilizations, pointing towards something immutable (1993). As an inevitable outcome, therefore, the world is heading for a tremendous clash of civilizations.
Huntington’s thesis is the result of meticulous research and a faultless chain of inductive reasoning. He analyzes discrete points of conflict from a predominantly religious perspective to see how the tectonics of religion can explain troubled areas of the world. With a broad overview of history, Huntington describes the age of kings making way for republics with the French Revolution. The mercantilist European nation-states clashed in the First World War, which heralded a new world order where ideologies such as Communism, fascism, and democracy formed the basis for nation-states.
The elimination of fascism in the Second World War left the world divided along lines between Communism and free-market democracy – this was known as the Cold War era characterized by military build-up and rapid economic growth. However, with final demise of Communism in 1991 came an elimination of ideological make-up that allowed civilization to reorganize along more fundamental lines – those based on religion.
Various conflict points around the world illustrate how religion is beginning to reassert itself over and above all other indoctrinated political ideologies. The spheres of civilization identified include Anglo-Saxon, European, South American, African, Moslem, Hindu, Sinic-Confucian and Slavic-Orthodox. These spheres are not entirely exclusive to each other as there are varying degrees of affinity between them. For instance, North and South America can come together under certain terms while Arabs, Chinese and Westerners tend to be more exclusive to each other and therefore come across as distinct cultures (Ibid).
Apart from the demise of political ideology, Huntington gives six other reasons for the rise of civilizational identity. Firstly, as already stated, it is the most fundamental level of identity. Secondly, in a shrinking world, there is more interaction with different civilizations which helps to intensify consciousness of one’s own. Thirdly, modernization weakens political affiliations to the state. Fourthly, as the West becomes more and more powerful and exclusive, smaller nations react and try to foster local identities such as “Asianization” in Japan or “Hinduization” in India. Fifthly, cultural characteristics are less mutable. Finally, economic regionalism is on the rise which tends to enhance cultural identity.
From the perspective of discrete civilizational blocks, such an analysis is hard to refute. With sweeping generalizations, Huntington is able to impart personal character to the civilizations he talks about. In the arena of conflict, with such well-defined combatants, a game plan that accords with the character traits, weaknesses and strengths of the players will not seem implausible. At one point, Huntington observes that in regards to Islam versus the West, in both camps there is indeed a civilizational clash between them (Ibid). However, these are attitudes and not convictions. They are meant to reinforce a sense of identity but hardly propel one into action. They are expressions of personal angst engendered by cosmopolitan existence; hardly a war cry.
It begs the question of whether such sweeping generalizations of Huntington’s are justified in the first place. When we shift our focus from civilizations to individuals, the picture suddenly loses clarity. The clinching question is this: how willing is the individual to fight on behalf of their civilization? Mobilizing a civilization against another requires a conviction of purpose that matches. When we recall the crusades of the Middle Ages, we have an inkling of what a clash of civilizations means. The Crusaders marched to Jerusalem on foot with a sense of purpose that is almost impossible for modern urbanites troubled with a lack of identity and belonging to imagine. Such conviction does not manifest itself anywhere in today’s free market paradise, neither among individuals nor among nation-states.
The 1990 Gulf War, which Huntington puts forward as substantiating his theory, actually tears it to pieces. Saddam Hussein was merely pulling a publicity stunt when he announced his war against the US-led coalition as a war of Islam against the West. His own Iraq was the most westernized of all Arab nations. Apart from a few terrorists, such a call did not resonate at all with Muslims worldwide and only led to some Muslims seeking vicarious pleasure in opposing and demonizing the United States in private.
Huntington cites the Arab and Muslim nations as withdrawing from the coalition but for what other purpose than to service an orgy of affected indignation among the masses? In short, the response of the Muslim world was confined to sentiment and posturing exactly when they were offered with an opportune occasion for them to express solidarity towards Islam. No inclination towards genuine civilizational conflict was manifested through this event.
In his lengthy essay, Huntington ultimately concedes that internecine strife is a frequent occurrence among Muslims, severely hindering the possibility of forming a civilizational front. He acknowledges that violence occurs not only between Muslims and Orthodox Serbs in the Balkans, but also with Jews in Israel, Hindus in India, Buddhists in Burma and Catholics in the Philippines. However, this summary is not entirely accurate as there are also internal conflicts within Islam that contribute to bloodshed. This does not align with the concept of a civilizational front. Despite making Palestine’s resistance against Israel a prominent argument in his thesis, Huntington fails to mention the ongoing bickering among Palestinians themselves. Recent reports indicate armed clashes between supporters of Hamas and Fatah (Palestinian rivals”, n.d.), highlighting internal fault lines within Islam. If this serves as an example for Islamic unity against the West, then what hope remains?
Is the West gearing up for a civilizational confrontation? US imperialism seems to give this impression, and Huntington concurs (Ibid). However, he is referring to economic” imperialism, which makes a crucial difference. Upon analyzing the roots causes of all the wars fought by the West since World War II, economic motives are found to be at their heart. This is especially true in the case of the two recent Gulf Wars. If America were a mercantilist nation like eighteenth-century European nations, then charges of imperialism would be justified. However, America stands for democracy and the free market; therefore, it defends a world economy rather than just its own interests.Huntington describes institutions such as the World Bank and IMF as imposing Western blueprints on developing countries under guise of aid and finance. Nevertheless, these institutions operate on principles adopted by almost all nation-states: supply and demand economics from Smithsonian economics. While competition has winners and losers, this does not mean that they are in opposing civilizational camps when both parties are playing by established rules.Westerners sometimes militaristically espouse universal principles of democracy and self-determination against other civilizations’ tenets worldwide. However, these same principles have been adopted everywhere with lesser degrees of conviction. Therefore if Western nations sound vociferous on behalf of democracy and free markets against other norms globally that does not equate to civilizational confrontation but rather an act of affirmation.
Once again, the Gulf War highlights the Western attitude towards civilization, as it did in the case of Muslims. The second Gulf War should have united the West against the scourge of Muslim terrorism. However, it has instead resulted in a deeply divided United States and a deeply divided West. The war continues to be fought by America’s impoverished classes and mercenaries, with no clear manifestation of a will to fight for the sake of civilization.
In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Europe was devastated by wars of religion following the Protestant Reformation. The resulting anarchy led to the Enlightenment in the eighteenth century. This movement was characterized by a group of philosophers who rejected religion in favor of a rational paradigm based on Galileo and Newton’s science. However, this thinking also had a religious fervor that ultimately contributed to the anarchy of the French Revolution. Among these philosophers, Voltaire stood out for his insight and outspoken criticism of the Catholic Church. He was imprisoned and exiled multiple times, spending two years in Protestant England where he observed an extraordinary evolution taking place among English society.
Voltaire saw England as a cherished escape route from religious anarchy due to its natural talent for liberty. He noted that An Englishman…may go to heaven his own way” (2004, p. 14). This talent for liberty was exemplified in London’s financial stock exchange – “the Royal Exchange…more venerable than many courts of justice” – where people from all nations and religions transacted together without discrimination (Ibid., p. 18).
Voltaire was prescient in recognizing the Anglo-Saxon talent that has overtaken the world, nullifying all religions in favor of a secular order centered on trade and free markets. Huntington’s description of a re-affirmation of religious identity within the alienating order of secularism may be nothing more than a cowardly relapse into a comfort zone of presumed identity. Only when we abandon secularism completely and foster true religious identity can we speak in terms of civilizational conflict.
Huntington’s bland prescription at the end of his essay is: For the relevant future, there will be no universal civilization, but instead a world of different civilizations, each of which will have to learn to coexist with others” (1993). This reeks of secularist compromise and disqualifies him from speaking in terms of civilizations.
References
Huntington, Samuel P. (1993). The Clash of Civilizations?” Foreign Affairs. Retrieved November 25, 2007 from http://history.club.fatih.edu.tr/103%20Huntington%20Clash%20of%20Civilizations%20full%20text.htm
Palestinian Rivals: Fatah & Hamas” was retrieved from BBC News on November 25, 2007. The website link is http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5016012.stm.
Voltaire (2004) wrote Letters on the English” or “Lettres Philosophiques.” The book was published by Kessinger Publishing in Whitefish, MT.
