|
He describes micro-level as those civilizations who struggle over territorial control. In "The Clash of Civilizations," Huntington writes, "the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic". This is the crux of his thesis. The clash of civilization, he writes, is not imminent, but will take much more effort to avoid than any previous historical example of warfare.
Additionally, he contributes much of the tension between civilizations to those who have not, and those who have. For example, those who are capable of exporting technology, that maintain a highly skilled labor force, and carry a vast assortment of lethal weapons may only exacerbate a situation where differences are evident. He accurately describes differences in religion and claims to territory which fuel this clash of civilizations. Huntington asserts that his intention is to simply describe what the future may look like.
First, there were conflicts between princes over territories, then conflicts between nation states, following that were conflicts between ideologies, and now to a time where wars will be between civilizations. Interesting examples he use are situations in Israel, Turkey, and Bosnia-Herzegovina. He continues, the "dominating source of conflict will be cultural". He describes macro-level as states struggling over economic power, control over international institutions, or those who wish to competitively promote a particular political or religious belief.
Huntington looks at the clash of civilizations at two levels: micro-level and macro level. Huntington begins by describing the evolution of conflict. He uses a very effective analogy of how people from various places around the world might perceive someone from a tribe in Africa.
Huntington describes the post-Cold War world as "multipolar and multicivilizational" (Huntington, The Clash of Civilization 210). Nevertheless, his wished-for solution for America's relative decline vis-à-vis the Islamic and Sinic worlds of "adopting an Atlanticist policy of close cooperation with.European partners (Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations 49)" makes the matter worse - within his paradigm. According to Huntington, "Civilizations" matter because they appeal to basic questions of human identity. Civilizations, according to Huntington, sum up the essential elements of identity, such as race, religion, language, culture, and history. Shortly after the fall of Communism, jubilation gave way to doubt and uncertainty.
If used as a framework for foreign policy, this framework will result in the same kinds of racial alignments we have all fought so hard to break down and with the ugly head of genocide lurking just beneath the surface - this framework must be challenged. Ideas are changeable and conflicts between nation-states dissolve through diplomacy or negotiation, and as Edward Said argued Huntington's static "Us" versus "Them" static configuration is recipe for continued conflict. A foreign policy based on a civilizational will only result in xenophobia and cultural relativism. In Huntington's civilizational worldview, borders take a back seat to civilizational conflict, which had previously been subsumed to ideological conflict, which he argues were stuck in the framework of the nation-states.
Even though Huntington's ideas are deep and challenging and they provide different perspective to frame international (or inter-civilizational) proceedings, his disproportionate dependence on sweeping generalizations makes his argument flawed and unsustainable. The long held guiding principle of "containment," had been a mainstay of American foreign policy for nearly fifty years and the Soviet demise stimulated vigorous debate among foreign policy intellectuals vis-à-vis the nature of the "new world order." Was it really "the end of history" as Francis Fukuyama pontificated. In fact, Huntington's paradigm is so generic that its utility is eroded by its failure to account for numerous inconsistencies. In his reappraisal of existing frameworks, Huntington argues that framing the world in terms of "Civilizations", "provide[s] an easily grasped and intelligible framework for understanding the world" (Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations 20). In this book, he fails to notice the powerful technological force that might work to help bridge cultural chasms, and gives in to the notion that we live in a post-ideological era, which is incongruous given that the ideological fault-line issue of the last fifty years -- how to justly allocate income -- is more urgent and demanding today than ever before. The cornerstones of Huntington's argument rest on the supposition that "Civilizations" matter.
Events such as Turkey's failed attempt to enter the European Union and Russia's strong-willed support of their Slavic Serbians the Balkans conflict suggest the workings of a cultural or civilizational approach. Huntington argues that culture is the great dividing wall among peoples but fails to recognize the cultural and historical developments that have brought the world into the few big blocks described in the book.
Moreover, his civilization map fails to explain how several Islamic nations (notably Saudi Arabia and Kuwait) joined in the second war against Sadam Hussein's Iraq.While Huntington's paradigm can provide an alternative perspective through which to analyze historical events, it is too general a outline for actual use in foreign policy deliberation. Huntington argues that, "A dangerous source of a global intercivilizational war is the shifting balance of power among civilizations and their core states" (Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations 48).
In the end, Huntington's paradigm cannot account for the multicivilizational peacekeeping force that continues to preserve peace in the Balkans. In The Clash of Civilizations, Samuel Huntington expand Foreign Affairs article (same title with a "." at the end) that unconditionally argues against the ultimate triumph of liberal democracy.
Huntington contends that his civilizational paradigm "sets forth a relatively simple but not too simple map" (Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations 300). Huntington also fails to hypothesize about the possible positive agenda for the US in this new world order.
Huntington's geopolitical arrangement is a multipolar world consisting of Western, Latin American, African, Islamic, Sinic, Hindu, Orthodox, Japanese, and Buddhist civilizations. Huntington's model assumes "the clash of civilizations", which, if followed to the letter, leaves no room for meaningful engagement and collaboration that rise above linguistic, religious, cultural, and indeed, civilizational differences.
It may be, however, that the spirit of paranoia which pervades this book has informed America's unfortunate response to the 9/11 event.I have to say that I found the book very heavy reading. If you are afraid that you may not be taking paranoia seriously enough, Samuel Huntington's book should be just what you need. I am also unconvinced by his idea that multiculturalism is an evil that needs to be driven out of America. It has taken me months to plough my way through it, and while I now feel more educated about the history of a number of European and Asian military conflicts from the 1980s and 1990s, I am not convinced that the future is as bleak as the author imagines it. Apparently the world is divided irreconcilably into a number of incompatible "civilizations" - the author names Western, Latin American, African, Islamic, Sinic, Hindu, Orthodox, Buddhist and Japanese - and conflicts and power struggles between these are inevitable.The book, which was written in the mid-1990s, has a reputation as a key authority on global politics and power, because it is said to have predicted the 9/11 event. In fact the book talks in depth about a large number of different threats to Western Civilization, and it makes the claim that Muslim nations are especially prone to belligerence, but it is difficult to imagine many scenarios involving attacks on America by non-Westerners that the book could be said not to have predicted.
it is still an excellent read. Over the years, I have given away copies to my children and my grand children. I just bought a new copy of Huntington's Clash of Civilizations only because my original copy became too old and frayed from too many many lendings and readings. Anyone who wants a clear picture of what is going on in the world today needs to read Clash of Civilizations.
A must read in international affairs. Because the multiethnic US cannot longer afford racism, but to show unity must send out a strong message of superior Western culture to its enemies. Dangerously provocative. I finally bought my own copy, and the text is easy to read (warning: commercial writing). Everything else is too mom and apple pie. In world politics and sociology, every time Huntington's name emerges a ripple runs through people. and drop-dead pessimistic. His name subconsciously became associated with Islamic terror, confrontations with Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, China, the moral decline of America, and might even have influenced Obama's presidency, to the point were culturism (the president is American) has replaced racism (he is non-white).
|
