Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations & Remaking of the World Order

 

I.              Context in Which Book Written: Major Academic (and policy-maker) debate about shape of World Order after know confines of cold war bipolarity ended.  Would the world be more pacific? More bellicose? Who would the dominant actors be?  What would be the basis of conflict and cooperation?  Response to Realists (Kissinger, Mearsheimer) & esp. Liberals (Fukuyama) & characterizations of world after collapse of Soviet Union.

 

II.        Summary of Huntington's Basic Thesis:

  1. Clash of Civilizations = New Underlying Dynamic of World Politics.  "It is my thesis that 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 important 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,"

  2. Shift unit of analysis from nation-states (realists); UN, WTO, & Human Rights Organizations (neo-Liberals); to civilizations that encompass a variety of nation-states. 

  3. Civilizations = Broad Cultural Identities Determined in large part by religion (or religious heritage). We have multiple collective identities and defined by in-group/out-group differences but the fundamental identity at the global level = civilization (1) Western: Catholic/Protestant Western Europe (US, Canada, Western/Central Europe up to Ukraine, excluding Greece, Bulgaria) (2) Orthodox = Russia, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia, Belarus; (3) Latin American; (4) Sinic (Chinese); (5) Japanese (Shinto)? (6) Islamic (7) Hindu (India/Sri Lanka) (8) possibly African.

 III.       Similarities/Differences from Realists, Liberals, Post-Modernists:

A. Critiques of Realists: Culture matters in fact it is cause of conflict.

B. Agrees with Realists: that power matters (as means to protect your civilization) so need to be concerned with economic assets (oil) + military assets.  Agree with a particular type of realist theory (Machiavellian Realists) that wants to be careful of spreading yourself too thin Paul Kennedy called "Imperial Overstretch."  Choose your places of intervention only when necessary for vital power resources.

Critique of Liberals: Avoid Universalism & Multi-culturalism

Agrees with Liberals (and Post-Modernists): that must focus on things like culture.  Agrees that cultural affinity produces peace.

Basic Parts of Book:

I.          For the first time in history, global politics is both multi-polar and multicultural.   Modernization is distinct from Westernization.   States (Japan & China) can modernize w/o adopting Western culture.  Notion of globalization of culture is wrong.  Notion of English as universal language exaggerated in importance.  English & diplomatic cosmopolitan culture limited to elites - does not explain dynamics of culture.

II.                 The balance of power of civilization is shifting from Western to Asian.  Asian civilizations are expanding their economic, military, and political strength.  Islam is exploding demographically with destabilizing consequences for their countries and neighbors.  This younger generation is rejecting the more secular values of their parents becoming radical Islamic.

III.               A civilization-based world order is emerging; societies sharing cultural affinities will cooperate with each other; efforts to shift societies from one civilization to another are unsuccessful.

IV.              The West's universalist pretensions increasingly bring it into conflict with other civilizations; most seriously Islam and China; at the local level fault line wars largely between Muslims and non-Muslims generate the threat of broader escalation, and hence efforts by core states to halt these wars.  Communal conflict of fault- line wars tends to be very bloody because it involves conflict across civilization which touch on issues of identity. Metaphor of "violence" at tectonic fault lines.  Religion = defining characteristics of civilizations hence fault line wars are sub-set of communal wars around religious (as opposed to ethnic, ideological, or economic) differences.

V.                 The survival of the West depends on Americans reaffirming their Western identity and Westerners accepting their civilization as unique but not universal and uniting to renew and preserve it against non-Western societies.  Avoidance of global war depends on world leaders accepting and cooperating to maintain the multi-civilization character of global politics.  

 

Huntington's Analysis of Islam & Islamic World:

�        Bloody Islam: The overwhelming majority of fault line conflict (i.e. inter-civilization conflicts along geographic fault line between civilizations) have taken place on the boundary looping across Eurasia and Africa that separates Muslims from Non-Muslims. "Islam has bloody border"  Cites quantitative evidence to back it up.  Six reasons why this is case:

  1. Religion of the sword that glorifies military virtues. Mohamed himself is remembered as military commander not Jesus or Buddha (however Moses/Joshua).  (Also, what about Christian crusaders?????)

  2. Many people of different civilizations near esp. Jews in Palestine and Hindus in India and now American forces in Islamic Countries.

  3. Indigestible does not merge with other cultures. 

  4. Islam more than Christianity =  absolutist faith (Dar al-Islam v. Dar al-harb)

  5. Absence of any core state to defend Islamic interests

  6. Demographic shift favors aggression with young, educated youth -  high expectations � less prospect � blame it on West. 

�        Attraction to Islam: Anomie in face of modernization the thesis that support for Islam is found most in educated, modernized youth who seek identity & existential meaning as more important than economic development not just in rural poor.  In other words, modernization & move to cities with demographic changes undermines old sense of identity in villages & produces anomie.  produces social change & destabilize the old order.   Movement to cities encouraged this.  Had high expectations for advancement in face of poor economic prospects  therefore blame on West.

�        Islamic culture is inhospitable to liberal, democracy

�        Sources of Pride:

  1.     Oil Boom of 1970s produced heightened sense of pride vs. West.   Oil Wealth demonstrates the superiority of Islam (in same sense as Dutch Calvinists and Modern Christians in West believe that economic power of US demonstrates the superiority of Christianity and God's Blessing

  2. Defeat of Soviet Union in Afghanistan gave pride to mujahedeen � civilization war because Muslims everywhere allied to fight it.

  3. 9/11 and Twin Towers? Though Huntington's book written before 2001.

�        Return to Brutality of Crusades; Because fault line wars are identity wars tendency for moderation/compromise is blurred.  Faithful v. Heretics = bloody conflicts (like Crusades) no need to observe "Just War" restrictions on attacking civilians (or harsh interrogations) because all the heretics are culpable. Psychologically religion provides the most reassuring and supportive justification for struggle against godless forces which are seen as threatening.�

 

V.                 Prescriptions for US Foreign & Domestic Policy:

�        Civilization Isolationism w/ spheres of influence  As much as possible abstain from conflicts in other civilizations = first requirement of peace in a multi-cultural, multi-polar world.

�        Nevertheless, Worry about relative military and economic power of Islamic Civilization and Asian World

�        Realist conclusions: Unless an action is necessary for power considerations avoid actions (military bases abroad) that would foment trouble.  Therefore, no-fly zones to protect Kurds or Shiites a loosing proposition.  Intervention in Kosovo to protect Albanian Moslems also a loosing proposition.  First Gulf war necessary. 

�        Avoid universalist prescriptions that seek to create liberal democracy in Islamic World or perhaps even Asian World. Doesn't say it but should discourage Christian missionaries  proselytizing in Islamic World

�        Basis of stability = not nation-state homogeneity but civilization homogeneity fight multi-culturalism at home. Western values "love them or leave them"

�        Seek closer alliances with Europe & EU  keep NATO and expand it to include all who are part of Western Civilization.  Seek to get closer ties with similar cultures Latin American and Orthodox but recognize limits of this assimilation. Respect views/accord dignity to Core States representing another similar civilization � Orthodox Russia

�        Seek modus Vivendi with Islamic & Asian Worlds (can ignore African and Latin American and maybe Orthodox Worlds for now) Permanent membership UN Security Council should be reformed to include at least representative from all Civilizations Islamic, Hindu, African, Latin. Currently, heavily weighted to Western + Orthodox.

�        Avoid chimera of multi-civilization states (e.g. Bosnia) allow inevitable ethnic cleansing and civilization groups to concentrate in areas. 

 

 

Home Front:

�        Multiculturalism = (e.g. teaching Islam and non-Western cultures) undermines integrity of our system.   (Return to Democratic Distemper thesis).   The futures of the United States and the West depend on reaffirming our commitment to Western Civilization.  Domestically, this means resisting the siren calls of multiculturalism.  Internationally it means rejecting the elusive and illusionary calls to identify the US w/ Asia. Focus on multiculturalism = schizophrenic torn countries. lack any cultural/civilization core. Affirmative action (rights of groups over rights of individuals) undermines our cultural fabric.

�        Limit Immigrant Policy: "English Only" Assimilate. One problem = immigrants from other civilizations who do not assimilate the values of Western Civilization�.Muslims in Europe are serious problem. It is also manifest to a lesser degree among Hispanics in the US. Really dubious - patriotism among Hispanics who have immigrated is very high.

 

VI.              Critique:

�        Strengths:

I.  Accurately points out role of culture & collective identity in global affairs. These are not just sociological abstractions but pivotal to understanding the dynamics of conflict.

II. Cultural affinity does matter basis for alliances.

III. Points out problems that fundamentalist Islam poses for Liberal Democracy (may be problems for fundamentalism in other religions  including Christianity).

IV. Points out that certain variants of Islam (not necessarily orthodoxy) constitute serious threat.

�        Logical Inconsistencies & Empirical Fallacies:

1.      Equating Jim Jones with Billy Graham:  Exaggerates Islam & lumps all Muslims together. Why Iranian youth moving in opposite direction?  Why Turkey's religious party moderate their views? Bosnian Muslims were highly secular (as he admits) until attacked and ostracized by Serbs.  Point = religious identity was the default choice not the preferred choice for Bosnian Muslims . Preferred identity was Europeans in favor of liberal democracy.  Also, in Serbian-Croatian conflict was not the religious differences that mattered or justified atrocities but the remembrance of historical atrocities e.g. Croatian affiliation with Nazi Utaschi that justified genocide.

2.      Clash of the Huntington's Third Wave v. Clash of Civilizations.  Earlier work seemed to emphasize the universal appeal of Democracy.

3.      Definition of central concept = civilizations very slippery.  Seems to base it on religion when it suits him esp. Islam, Hindu, Western, Orthodox, Sinic, but shifts to other criteria (e.g. corporatist, authoritarian structure in Latin America or ethnic blending despite fact that he disavowed political/economic differences or ethnic differences as the primary basis for differentiating civilizations.

4.      Intra-Civilization Conflicts Also High  e.g. Iraq and Iran.

5.      Inconsistent Treatment of relationship between religion and civilization = why no mention of Judaism and Israel as separate culture? .Why Buddhism incorporated into China without changing China?  Where do Korea or Vietnam with significant Christian populations fit?

6.      Very little discussion of debate over Israel-Palestine IF religion the key issue dividing civilizations then we have returned to the days of the Crusades with the fight over control of the Holy Land only this time with the complicating factor of a third Religion Judaism.  The fault line = Palestine/Israel. Would have expected more discussion of this topic.

7.      Civilization Isolationism skips over key problem: Does not discuss one serious problem concentration of oil in Islamic world.

8.      If ignore human rights (ethnic cleansing and genocide) we negate our basic Western Beliefs.

9.      Problems with multi-culturalism at home =  anti-democratic/anti-liberal.  Indeed, if the separation of church & state that Huntington favors is a product of heterogeneity of religions which leads to freedom of religions � why not Islam in US?  Is Islam unique?  Points out similarities between John Calvin�s Geneva & Ayatollah Khomeni�s Iran. 

10.  Global multi-culturalism is ok but not at home but doesn't focus on one's culture alone at home plant the idea that this culture is superior to others & hence under-cut the prospects for global multi-cultural commonalities?  Italian President Silvio Berlusconi's comment about superiority of Western Civilization "we have Mozart - who do they have?".�Moreover, Civilizations based on religion tend to be more absolutist in nature mean a return to the religious wars that the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 sought to end.

11.  Ending of Book like Bad Hollywood Ending to a Black Avant Garde Film Logic of analysis and tone is very pessimistic re: prospects for cooperation e.g. between Western World and militaristic Islam or growing economic clout of Sinc civilization in China  - nevertheless. Conclusion we must all hang together or hand separately not supported by argument.  leads more to apocalyptic view.

 

�        Part Truth/Partly Mistaken leads to self-fulfilling prophecy that does not create inter-cultural tension (tension between Fundamentalist Islam and Liberal Democracy is real) but seriously exacerbates it because it undercuts Liberal Islam (e.g. in Turkey) + and legitimizes more radical groups on both sides.  Osma Bin Laden might have written this book -.the only difference being the superiority of Islam over Crusader culture of the West.

 

 

Marxist Theory

Schedule

Subjective-Cultural