Samuel Huntington’s theory of “the clash of civilizations” gained traction after his article in Foreign Affairs in 1993 and subsequent book. He further developed and defended his thesis amidst both success and controversy that followed the publication. Today, the analysis of conflicts from a “civilizational” perspective is inseparably linked to Huntington’s comprehensive international relations theory, which has become widely recognized as a dominant paradigm.
Samuel P. Huntington offered a counter to Fukuyama’s theory with his 1993 introduction of the “Clash of civilizations” concept. In this, he argues that conflicts in the post-Cold War era will primarily stem from cultural and religious identities. Huntington’s analysis centers on the notion of “Civilization” as the paramount form of cultural identity. He anticipates that this clash between civilizations will profoundly shape global politics, leading to conflicts among various civilizations, as exemplified by instances in former Yugoslavia, India, Pakistan, and other regions.
In Western civilization, according to Huntington, the Chinese civilization and Islam are seen as two antagonistic and competing civilizations. He suggests that a collaboration among China, Iran, and Pakistan would benefit China through an Islamic alliance. Huntington predicts that the conflict between the West and Islam will be highly destructive in the 21st century, likening it to a Third World War.
According to Huntington, in order to counter the Islamic junction and ensure support from Japan and Russia, it is necessary to acknowledge that the current unipolar world organization is unsustainable. Huntington argues that the equation between modernization and Westernization is deceptive, as it conceals the evolution of a multipolar and multi civilizational world. The assumption that the emergence of multiple poles is connected to the existence of diverse and heterogeneous civilizations does not have a scientific basis in his article, but is solely reliant on historical theories.
The post-Cold War era has witnessed the rise of different civilizations, where the power dynamics among them have shifted. The influence of the Midwest has diminished while non-Western civilizations have strengthened their cultural identity. Samuel Huntington observes a global order that revolves around “civilizations”. Societies with similar cultural backgrounds form alliances, and attempts to assimilate a society into a different civilization are bound to fail. Instead, nations align themselves with the prominent states within their own civilization.
This description by Huntington discusses the emergence of new international relations structures leading to potential risks of violence and conflict. The Western world’s belief in universal claims is causing clashes with other civilizations, notably Islam and China. Local conflicts, particularly between Muslims and non-Muslims, result in the formation of new alliances and an escalation of violence, prompting dominant states to intervene.
However, Edward Said disputes the notion of a clash of civilizations, asserting that it is a fallacy created to rationalize aggressive sentiments among Americans. He claims that it serves as a justification for American and Western aggression towards China and the Islamic world, as well as their cultures. In addition to the paradigmatic nature of Said’s approach, critics of Samuel Huntington’s thesis also question the significance of his utilization of the concept of civilization.
Edward Said is the main critic of Huntington’s viewpoint, accusing him of wanting to create cultures and identities that are isolated and devoid of the complex currents and contradictions that have shaped human history. Said argues that throughout the centuries, cultures have not only been involved in conflict and conquest, but also in exchanges, collaborations, and mutual influences. However, this less visible aspect of history is overlooked in Huntington’s argument, which emphasizes the limited and constricted nature of warfare in the clash of civilizations. Many critics, including Said, strongly criticize Samuel Huntington for his concept of “civilization identity” and his categorization of seven or eight civilizations. Said has identified numerous inconsistencies and contradictions in Huntington’s explanation of these concepts. Furthermore, Huntington’s notion of a clash of civilizations is partially influenced by Bernard Lewis, whose book “The Roots of Muslim Rage” clearly reflects his ideological stance and serves to justify his thinking.
However, Said argues that both individuals have not taken the time or interest to investigate the diverse dynamics and plurality within various civilizations. They also overlook the fact that in most modern cultures, the primary struggle revolves around defining or interpreting each culture. Additionally, there is the unappealing possibility that presuming to speak on behalf of an entire religion or civilization involves a significant amount of demagogy and ignorance.
Said criticizes Huntington’s classification of the world’s “civilizations”, arguing that it overlooks the continuous interconnection and interaction of different cultures. Instead of emphasizing harmony, Huntington focuses on the clash and conflict between these civilizations. He applies the concept of each civilization being self-contained not only to the world map, but also to the organization of civilizations and the belief that each race has a distinct destiny and psychology. Said asserts that this categorization is a product of an “imagined geography”, where portraying the world in a particular way legitimizes specific political agendas.
The idea of a clash of civilizations is interventionist and assertive, as it seeks to perpetuate a state of war in the minds of Americans. Instead of promoting understanding or bridging cultural gaps, it perpetuates the Cold War through alternative methods. Moreover, categorizing nations into civilizations overlooks the potential for strong political alliances to form across these “civilizations”.
Samuel Huntington’s perspective on international relations is not about encouraging a clash of civilizations, but rather about presenting a fatalistic vision that stems from viewing world history through a civilizational lens. He holds a pessimistic view on the power of the United States and its cautious approach to international relations, which is rooted in the acknowledgement of the irreversible decline of Western universalism. The objective is to prevent the sudden demise of the Western empire by avoiding clashes between different “civilizations” and attempting to freeze international relations in order to halt its decline.
According to Said, the “clash of civilizations” thesis is a mere gimmick, similar to “War of the Worlds,” serving to strengthen a defensive pride rather than promoting a critical comprehension of our increasingly interconnected world. Said’s arguments are robust, and considering the advancement and ongoing progress of human civilization, it is now relatively safe to affirm that the current era is experiencing minimal hostility in terms of wars and conflicts.
