The Clash of Civilizations: A Critique

Essay Paper

The Clash of Civilizations: A Critique

 Rahaf Marzoug      |                      2024/3/15

ABSTRACT

This paper critically analyzes Samuel P. Huntington's influential thesis on "The Clash of Civilizations?" In his work, Huntington argues that conflicts in the post-Cold War era primarily arise from cultural differences and religious identities. The paper delves into Huntington's main arguments, evaluates their validity, and highlights areas of disagreement and critique from other scholars. One key aspect examined is Huntington's "rigid" civilization framework, which overlooks the diversity and fluidity within civilizations. The paper also explores the concept of the "kin-country syndrome," where shared cultural and civilizational ties shape alliances and partnerships. However, it argues that civilizational identities do not automatically lead to political cohesion and may be instrumentalized for narrow nationalist or ideological agendas. Additionally, the paper discusses Edward Said's criticism of Huntington's thesis, emphasizing the inadequacy and misleading nature of labeling civilizations, and advocating for a more nuanced understanding of the globalized world. By examining the limitations of Huntington's perspective, this paper provides insights into the complexities and nuances of cultural, religious, and political affiliations in the modern world.

 Introduction

            In 1993, Samuel P. Huntington, an American political scientist, adviser, and academic, published an article titled "The Clash of Civilizations?" that presented a compelling hypothesis regarding the primary sources of conflicts in the post-Cold War era – people's cultural differences and religious identities. Huntington argued that while nation-states would remain significant actors in global affairs, conflicts would predominantly arise between nations and groups representing different civilizations. According to Huntington, the fault lines between civilizations would shape the battle lines of the future. Huntington's thesis posits that clashes between civilizations are distinct from conflicts based on ideology or economic factors, as cultural differences play a more significant role in shaping global conflicts. He emphasized that civilizations possess deep-rooted cultural identities and belief systems that fundamentally influence their interactions with other civilizations. The clash between civilizations, as defined by Huntington, extends beyond military confrontations and encompasses political, economic, and cultural struggles between civilizations. In this critical analysis, the present paper aims to delve into Huntington's main arguments, assess their validity, highlight points of disagreement, and look into other scholars’ critiques. By examining the limitations of Huntington's perspective, we can gain a deeper understanding of the complexities and nuances overlooked by his thesis.

Deconstructing Huntington's “Rigid” Civilization Framework

            Huntington posits that civilizations are distinct entities characterized by shared language, history, religion, customs, and institutions. He argues that these shared characteristics create a sense of cultural identity and commonality within civilizations. While he acknowledges some internal diversity within civilizations, his emphasis is on the overarching cultural differences between civilizations. By emphasizing the fault lines between civilizational boundaries, Huntington implies that clashes and conflicts primarily stem from these differences. He suggests that the interactions between civilizations are marked by tensions and conflicts arising from these cultural disparities.

            In his second point regarding the factors that could lead to a clash of civilizations, Huntington asserts that increased interactions between people from different civilizations will heighten awareness of both the differences and commonalities within and between civilizations. He suggests that this heightened civilization-consciousness may exacerbate differences and foster hostilities among these civilizations. Thirdly, Huntington argues that the process of economic modernization and social change serves as a catalyst for the reawakening of nation-states as sources of identity, simultaneously leading to the erosion of longstanding local identities. Fourthly, the growth of civilization-consciousness is enhanced by the dual role of the West. Huntington contends that a West at the zenith of its power encounters non-Western societies that possess the desire, will, and resources to reshape the world according to non-Western paradigms. While historically, the elites of non-Western societies were often engaged with the West, receiving education from Western institutions and assimilating Western perspectives, the contemporary landscape has witnessed a phenomenon characterized by both the diffusion of Western habits and values and the de-Westernization and indigenization of non-Western elites. The fifth point raised by Huntington addresses the challenges associated with resolving disputes based on cultural characteristics, which he asserts are inherently more complex than resolving conflicts rooted in politics and economics. In the past, conflicts predominantly revolved around clashes between emperors, kings, and competing ideologies, with a clear delineation of which one side stood on. However, the contemporary landscape has witnessed a transformation of conflicts into cultural blocs, shifting the focus towards clashes over values and prompting the fundamental question: “Who are you? What is your cultural identity?”.

            In his final point regarding the clashes of civilizations, Huntington focuses on the role of trade and investments. He contends that cultural differences pose challenges to establishing strong links between civilizations, and he suggests that the significance of regional economic blocs is expected to grow in the future. According to Huntington, these cultural disparities may hinder the success of trade agreements and investments, ultimately leading to the failure of economic regionalization. Moreover, economic regionalism may succeed only when it’s rooted in a common civilization. Thus, according to Huntington's analysis, the clash of civilizations can manifest at two distinct levels. Firstly, at the micro-level, tensions arise among adjacent groups situated along the fault lines between civilizations. These conflicts often center around issues of control, territorial disputes, and mutual antagonism. On this scale, clashes occur between localized communities with differing cultural and religious backgrounds, exacerbating divisions and animosity. Secondly, at the macro-level, states representing different civilizations engage in competition for relative military and economic power. This competition extends to struggles over the control of international institutions, as well as endeavors to promote their respective political and religious values on a global scale. These broader clashes between civilizations occur at the level of nation-states, where geopolitical rivalries and ideological differences drive conflicts and power dynamics in international relations.

            To my mind, Huntington's essentialist view glosses over the significant diversity that exists within each civilization he identifies. The "Islamic civilization," for example, encompasses a vast range of ethnicities, sects, political systems, and cultural practices - from North Africa to Southeast Asia. Treating this as a singular, cohesive entity obscures the very real tensions and conflicts that have historically divided the Muslim world. By overlooking the socially constructed and contested nature of civilizational identities, Huntington's framework presents an overly rigid and essentialist view that cannot adequately capture the fluidity and dynamism of cultural, religious, and political affiliations in the modern world.

The kin-country syndrome: Civilization rallying or suppressing cultural diversity?

            The "kin-country" syndrome, as described by H.D.S. Greenway, is replacing ideological and balance of power factors as the key driver of international alliances and partnerships. Huntington argues that as the post-Cold War world order evolves, the primary basis for cooperation and coalition-building is shifting from political ideology and traditional balance of power considerations to shared civilization and "kin-country" identity.

            According to Huntington, the Gulf War witnessed the rallying of Islamic fundamentalist movements in support of Saddam Hussain, as opposed to the Western-backed governments of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. This was driven by Saddam Hussein's explicit invocation of an Islamic appeal, framing the conflict as a war between Islam and the West. Prominent Islamic leaders, such as Ayatollah Khamenei in Iran, even called for a "holy war" or "jihad" against the West, portraying the war as a struggle against all Arabs and Muslims, not just Iraq. This mobilization of Arab elites and the public behind Saddam Hussein caused the Arab governments in the anti-Iraq coalition to moderate their actions and statements. Furthermore, Muslims criticize Western actions and describe them as "double standards," where the West applies one standard to its "kin countries" and another to others. He gave an example of the "double standard" application of the West in a comparison between their actions, imposing sanctions on Israel's actions, and reacting to Iraq. However, Huntington sees that in a "world of clashing civilizations," the application of "double standards" is inevitable, as people tend to be more lenient towards countries and groups they identify with. In other words, in the emerging post-Cold War world, shared cultural, religious, and civilizational ties are becoming more important determinants of how states and groups align themselves, compared to the ideological divisions and power politics that characterized the previous era. However, he notes that intra-civilizational[1] conflicts are likely to be less intense and less likely to escalate compared to conflicts between members of different civilizations.

            In my opinion, even when civilizations share common cultural, religious, or historical foundations, this does not automatically lead to political cohesion or alignment of interests between states and groups within that civilization. For instance, the "West" that Huntington identifies as a distinct civilization encompasses the United States, Canada, Western Europe, and other states. Yet these countries have frequently clashed over economic, political, and security issues, despite shared Judeo-Christian cultural roots. These intra-civilizational fault lines have often precipitated violent conflicts, belying Huntington's assumption of inherent kin-country solidarity. Furthermore, sometimes political actors often instrumentalize civilizational identities to advance narrow nationalist or ideological agendas, which leads to suppression of the diversity inside countries, and the exaggeration of perceived differences with other civilizational blocs.

 “The Clash of Ignorance”: Criticism of Edward Said

“Labels like "Islam" and "the West" serve only to confuse us about a disorderly reality.” – E.S

            In 2001, Dr. Edward Said published his article “The Clash of Ignorance” -with a title that parodies Huntington’s- criticizing Huntington’s ideas and interpretations of the clash of civilizations. E.S believes that the great interest that Huntington's research received was due more to the time of its publication than to the importance of its content. As Huntington himself says, there have been several intellectual and political attempts since the end of the Cold War to draw up a plan for the new global situation. This includes Fukuyama's theory of “The End of History”[2].

            Edward Said argues that labels like Islam and the West are inherently inadequate and misleading, which is trying to make sense of a disorderly reality that won’t be pigeonholed or strapped down as easily as all that. Nevertheless, he cautions against attempts to neatly "pigeonhole" or "strap down" the world into rigid dichotomies between "us" and "them," the past and the present. Such binaries inevitably break down upon closer examination, as "primitive passions and sophisticated know-how" often converge in ways that defy these fortified boundaries. E.S is urging a move away from simplistic, unilateral decision-making driven by ideological agendas, and towards a more contextual, reflective approach that grapples with the messy realities of a globalized, interdependent world. The core criticism here, is that political leaders and policymakers often prioritize bold, divisive rhetoric over the harder task of carefully analyzing the situation and pursuing more empathetic, multi-faceted solutions. That’s why E.D sees this as a problematic tendency that obscures more than it illuminates. He acknowledges that there are often "closer ties between apparently warring civilizations than most of us would like to believe." Thinkers like Freud and Nietzsche have shown how the boundaries between cultural/ideological opposites can be more permeable than assumed. However, the author notes that these "fluid ideas, full of ambiguity and skepticism" about rigid binaries are not necessarily "suitable, practical guidelines" for addressing pressing real-world situations and conflicts.

            Finally, Edward Said asserts that we are all "swimming in those waters" - meaning the intertwined historical and cultural currents between the "West" and "Islam" and other civilizations. There is a deep interconnectedness that defies simplistic divisions. Therefore, attempting to "plow or divide" these historical currents with "barriers" is ultimately "futile" - he is suggesting that the idea of a clash of civilizations is an artificial construct.

 Conclusion

            In conclusion, Samuel Huntington's thesis on the clash of civilizations presents what one might call “thought-provoking” perspective on the sources of conflicts in the post-Cold War era. While his emphasis on cultural differences and civilizational boundaries impacting global conflicts offers valuable insights, there are limitations and criticisms to consider. One is the oversimplification of civilizations as rigid and homogeneous entities, overlooking the diversity and internal divisions within each civilization. The multifaceted nature of civilizational identities, as seen in the example of the Islamic civilization, illustrates the complexities and tensions that exist within. By neglecting the socially constructed and contested aspects of civilizational identities, Huntington's framework fails to capture the fluidity and dynamism of the modern world. Another point of contention is Huntington's assertion that shared cultural, religious, and civilizational ties inherently lead to political cohesion and alignment of interests between states and groups. However, intra-civilizational conflicts and divergent interests within supposedly unified civilizations, such as those within the Western civilization, challenge this assumption. Political actors often instrumentalize civilizational identities for their own agendas, leading to the suppression of diversity and the exaggeration of differences between civilizational blocs. Furthermore, Edward Said's critique of Huntington's framework highlights the inadequacy of simplistic categorizations and dichotomies between "us" and "them." The complexity of global realities defies neat classifications, and a more nuanced and contextual approach is necessary for understanding and addressing global challenges. Said emphasizes the need to move away from unilateral decision-making driven by ideological agendas and towards a more reflective and empathetic understanding of the interdependent world.

References

Duerr, G.M.E. (2018) Huntington vs. Mearsheimer vs. Fukuyama: Which Post-Cold War thesis is most accurate?, E-International Relations. Available at: https://www.e-ir.info/2018/04/22/huntington-vs-mearsheimer-vs-fukuyama-which-post-cold-war-thesis-is-most-accurate/ (Accessed: 2024).

Huntington, S.P. (1993) The Clash of Civilizations?, Foreign Affairs. Available at: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/1993-06-01/clash-civilizations (Accessed: April 2024).

Hussien, S.A. (2001) ‘On the end of history and the clash of civilization: A dissenter’s view’, Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 21(1), pp. 29–32. doi:10.1080/13602000120050532.

Said, E.W. (2015) The clash of ignorance, The Nation. Available at: https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/clash-ignorance/ (Accessed: 2024).

[1] Members of the same civilization.

[2] Francis Fukuyama's "end of history" theory argues that with the collapse of communism and the apparent triumph of liberal democracy, humanity has reached the "end point of its ideological evolution." While initially met with enthusiasm, Fukuyama's "end of history" thesis has since faced significant critique, with skeptics arguing that it reflects a Western-centric and overly deterministic view of global politics.