Samuel P. Huntington’s thesis in “The Clash of Civilizations?” is the world is changing and
future conflicts will be culturally based and “between nations and groups of different civilizations”
(Huntington, p. 22). Huntington
defined a civilization as “the highest cultural grouping of people and the
broadest level of cultural identity people have short of that which
distinguishes humans from other species.
It is defined by common objective elements, such as language, history,
religion, customs, institutions, and by the subjective self-identification of
people” (ibid, p. 24). The size of
a civilization is not important and a civilization may include several states
or overlap other civilizations.
Civilizations also grow, change, evolve, and frequently die out. Huntington postulated that the seven to
eight major civilizations that will dominate future world affairs are: Western,
Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin, and perhaps the
African (ibid, p. 25).
This clash of civilizations will take
place, according to Huntington, due to the different values between civilizations,
increasing interaction between civilizations due to globalization, and the
growing importance of religion compared to a decline in nationalism. Part of the decline of nationalism and
growth of “civilization-consciousness” is due to the Westerners looking back to
their roots in other civilizations (ibid, p. 26). Huntington also argued that cultural differences were harder
to mute than political or economic differences and these differences will be
accentuated as civilizations come into increasing contact. Civilizations will clash at the
micro-level, or along “fault lines” where bordering civilizations interact, or
at the macro-level as civilizations compete for power, wealth, dominance, and
to promote their own values (ibid, p. 29).
Huntington argued that the clash between
civilizations along the fault lines has been evident for centuries. For example, the boundary between
Western Christianity and Orthodox Christianity and Islam has been an area for
conflict since 1500 (ibid, p. 30).
Huntington also cited the Velvet Curtain and Iron Curtain in Europe as
physical dividing lines in Europe that separated civilizations but also argued
that the wars between Christians and Muslims over Europe and North Africa
constituted a fault line. Wars and
conflicts have continued along the boundaries of Islam and Huntington used
examples of the Balkans, Arab slavers in Africa, southern Russia, and between
Muslims and Hindus in India.
Conflict between nations will reach
civilization levels due to “kin-country syndrome” where people in conflict with
others from another civilization will call for aid from those of their own
civilization. Huntington
illustrated this with the example of the 1990 Gulf War where the war began when
a Muslim country (Iraq) invaded another Muslim country (Kuwait) but the
conflict became a war of the “West against Islam” when the US became involved
(ibid, p. 35). Iraq called for
assistance from other Muslim countries, and religious and political leaders
colored the conflict as fighting the West instead of supporting the country
that was invaded. After citing
other examples, Huntington argued that “civilization rallying” has the
potential to spread in the future (ibid, p. 38).
Huntington
also argued that Western civilization is already at conflict with the rest of
the world on a macro-level as it uses the International Monetary Fund (IMF),
United Nations (UN), and other international organizations dominated by the
West to promote its economic interests and to impose Western policies on the
rest of the world. Western values,
according to Huntington and his sources, are in conflict with those of other
major civilizations, forcing other civilizations to react. Since the West is currently the
dominate civilization, other civilizations can choose to withdraw from
international relations, copy the West, or oppose the West in an attempt to
balance the gravity of the Western civilization (ibid, p. 41).
The overlap of civilizations in a
country, which is more obvious in a large country such as Russia, will create
“torn countries,” which Huntington argued, “are candidates for dismemberment”
(ibid, p. 42). Huntington also
cited the examples of Mexico and Turkey, which are members of competing civilizations
but may choose to align themselves as a nation with the most beneficial
civilization.
The
main threat, according to Huntington’s argument, is that other civilizations
will combat the dominance of the Western civilization, and the West will lose
its influence, power, and economic advantage in the world. Diversity and acceptance are also
threats to non-Western civilizations as they dilute the commonality and
uniqueness of a civilization.
In
the Clash of Civilizations, future military conflicts will be different from
those of traditional nation against nation regular warfare. Huntington accepts war and conflict as
part of international relations, but with the Clash, he argues that future
conflict will either be a continuation of conflict along the fault lines
between civilizations or smaller conflicts will expand as nations from the same
civilization gang up on adversaries of a conflicting civilization, as evidenced
by the first Gulf War. The primary
challenge will be to dissuade like-minded nations from piling on as nations try
to pull other nations from the same civilization into the conflict.
Civilization-ism creates increased
opportunities for trade within the civilization, developing bonds of trust that
can be called upon in future conflicts.
However, increased equally beneficial trade between civilizations
lessens differences and can improve relations. Cross-civilization exchanges
will also increase understanding of other civilizations and decrease the threat
of a violent clash. It is a major advantage
for the Western civilization that most foreign leaders are educated in the West
or have exposure to the Western civilization. Civilization or cultural clashes can be avoided with
increased understanding and exposure.
Samuel Huntington has correctly captured
conflict in the past along cultural or civilization lines but failed in his
theory in several points. First, a
religion is not the same as a culture.
Huntington singles out Islam as a civilization but in reality it is a
religion that while observed by many around the world spanning multiple
cultures, has violent divisions within itself. In addition, in the section in Africa, Huntington uses the
terms Arab and Muslim interchangeably while there are huge differences between
an African Muslim and an Arab Muslim (ibid, p. 33). Perhaps Huntington was classifying countries that
incorporate Islamic thought into their laws as Muslim, but in that case he
should have classified Western countries as Christian for the same reason. Conflict between religions is
significant, but in the framework of Huntington’s argument it is incorrect to
classify Islam as a civilization.
Second, people act in accordance with
their self-interest and states act in accordance with the will of their
leaders. Constitutions provide
guidance for some governments but are not always followed. Leaders and those aspiring to power
will manipulate religion, culture, and policies to their own benefit. This is manifest on the ground as some
conflicts that are framed as religious, as in Christians versus Muslims in
Sudan, are actually conflicts over scarce resources (Polgreen, 2007). Fault line conflicts exist because of
competition for resources, prestige, power, or pride but are exacerbated by
leaders who want to push an agenda.
Third, as sovereign nations, states will
act in their own best interest and are not beholden to any higher ideal or
leader. States will act in
conjunction with other like-minded states if it is a benefit to them. In Huntington’s Gulf War example not
all Islamic countries declared war on the West, and those that took sides in
the conflict did so because they derived or hoped to gain some benefit. The leaders that spun the conflict as
the “West against Islam” did so because they benefitted from it (Huntington, p. 35).
Fourth, Huntington argued, “common membership
in a civilization reduces the probability of violence in situations where it
might otherwise occur” (ibid, p. 38), however Iraq invaded Kuwait instead of
negotiating. Hutus attempted to
exterminate Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994, and other intra-civilization conflicts
have taken place and continue to occur.
Fifth, exposure to other civilizations
lessens fear of other civilizations.
As people try to develop the best way of life for themselves they will
adopt aspects of other civilizations.
As the West is not devoid of Muslims, many who have relocated from what
Huntington calls the Islamic civilization have found a compatible way of life
in the West. Many Muslims studied
the West and tried to incorporate aspects of the West in their government,
calling for change to government in the Arab Spring of 2011. Many nations hastened to adapt their
governments to the demands of the people, which included Western ideas such as
democracy, human rights, and other freedoms (Recknagel, 2013).
Sixth, the African civilization will be a major player in international relations due to its resources, land mass, and growing population. Africa is no longer the colonial playground of the West and as it develops is able to take care of its own needs and take a greater leadership role in the world. High-tech manufacturing requires the rare earth minerals found in Africa, and Africa holds a great deal of oil wealth- which is increasing in value as Middle-East stocks decline.
Huntington, Samuel P. 1993. The Clash of
Civilizations? Foreign Affairs (Summer 1993), Vol. 72, No. 3, pp.
22-49.
Polgreen, Lydia. 2007. A Godsend for
Darfur, or a Curse? The New York Times, 22 July 2007. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/weekinreview/22polgreen.html?pagewanted=all
Recknagel, Charles. 2013. What
Happened to the Arab Spring? The Atlantic, 3 Jan 2013. Available: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/01/what-happened-to-the-arab-spring/266778/
