Hybrid Cultures and the Hermetically Sealed Cultures - Essay Example

An Analysis of the Samuel Huntington's and Benjamin Barber's Theories of Hybrid and Hermetically Sealed Cultures in the Arab/ Western Conflicts of the latter 20th and 21st Centuries The main focus of this paper is to analyze the primary differences between hybrid cultures and the hermetically sealed cultures in the latter 20th and 21st centuries. Huntington's theory about the nature of hermetically sealed cultures lacks credibility in that he does not take in to account the dualism of western hybrid culture in terms of integrating with other cultures in the world. Barber's theories, on the other hand, highlight the current imperialistic nature of western culture against Arab cultures. Dubai as an international junction for hybrid culture in the Arab world aptly demonstrates the strict dualism when defining the hybrid and hermetically sealed cultures in the current conflict zones of the world. Huntington views the Arab world as being primarily 'sealed' because it avoids the advances and the cultural hybrid elements of democratic countries. According to his view, there is a certain core collective of nations who try to derive their power by opposing western influences and define their own place in an increasingly diverse world. Based on this premise, Huntington does not find a collective of nations or a global world, but a world that will not and cannot tolerate peaceful coexistence. Barber's more capitalistic interpretation understanding of global imperialism is in direct contrast to Huntington's view. He believes America is a hybrid country that is "democratic", even though it is aggressive toward countries that exercise their own sovereignty as 'sealed' cultures. The primary foundation for Huntington's argument on the "clash of civilizations" after the Cold War is that there is not a single country to which American allied nations could rally against in a bi-polar construct. Huntington's perspective is based on American bias on the danger that Communism posed through the Soviet Union as an example of the new Arab threat: During the Cold War global politics became bipolar and the world divided into three parts. A group of mostly wealthy and democratic societies, led by the United States, was engaged in a pervasive ideological, political, economic, and, at times, military competition (Huntington, ,p.21). The criterion for this belief is based on the American view that the conflict with the Soviet automatically created a situation in which they became the two dominant forces and the rest of the countries allied themselves on either side based on whether they followed a capitalist or communist ideology. However, America's identity as a democratic society with immense wealth that had to subdue poorer communist societies is often generalized through Huntington's "triumphalist" view of American domination. In fact, the harshly undemocratic nature of American hegemony in Latin America and other nation states presents a stark contrast to the idealized discourse of freedom and liberty that Huntington defines in the conflict between American and the Soviet Union. This fact is over-generalized in Huntington's view and supports a deliberately biased superiority of western civilization over the rest of the world before 1991. The first basis of Huntington's theory on Muslim culture as to the historicity of violence that was founded in its early beginnings does not hold ground considering that Judaism and Christianity also propounded the use of "the sword" to fight with one another and also against other religions. Surely, the comment made by George Bush about a "Crusade" against Muslim terrorism reveals the age-old Christian tradition of using military force in the name of Christ (Ford para.2). Although Huntington likes to compare Christ's seeming passivity to his enemies in the Christian faith, the United States (as a Christian nation) has certainly gone against the dictates of Christ's message by attacking Iraq without any evidence of WMDS. Similarly, the hollowness of the hybrid foundation for western cultures like America is demonstrated in the way they imposed their will on other nations in the War in Iraq. Another problem with Huntington's theory is that it does not function very well within the context of the Arabic cultures that have been affected by the imperialistic policy in the War in Iraq. The new government of Iraq, since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003, was developed through American intervention. The tyrannical rule or dictatorship of the Saddam Hussein regime offers a stark contrast to the representative government the United States is helping to build in this underdeveloped country. The democracy being imposed on the Iraqi government is based on the proponents of the Bush Administration that views Iraq as a country of warlords, minority rule (the Sunni rule in Hussein), and other facets of a past dictatorship that are now gone after the invasion (Friedman 130-131). Certainly, this counter argument reflects the general consensus that Iraq is not able to build its own form of government after the long tradition of dictatorial government that preceded 2003. This policy initiative, much like Huntington's, is brought forth in Bush's theory on the imposition of Democratic principles in the new Iraqi government: Helping construct a stable democracy after decades of dictatorship is a massive undertaking. Yet we have a great advantage. Whenever people are given a choice in the matter, they prefer lives of freedom to lives of fear (Bush para 7). This argument validates America's decision to impose a democratic government for the "interim", which can handle the slow changes toward a democratically run government. In other words, it creates a "republic" that mimics the American government's application of democratic principles. The Republic of Iraq, the new designation for this country, pushes for a more democratized government and reveals the representative format of the many governorates that preside in what is now called the Interim Council, designated by U.S. intervention in the region. The hypothesis of Iraq as a lesser developed country is based on the fact that militaristic issues have prevented the country from attaining the massive power that the United States wields after being a democracy for over two hundred years. In regards to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, America has become a power that has not been seen on the Earth, with an international economic system that empowers a massive military presence around the world (Jarecki 46). The United States military presence is a major cornerstone of hegemony that is now being imposed throughout the world (Dobbins 135). This in a way nullifies America's claim of upholding democracy. By forcing its will on Iraq, it is showcasing its military might rather than any democratic values. Instead of hybrid culturization, what America is actually encouraging is a cultural divide in other countries by forcing its own policies on sovereign Arabic states. Certainly, the imposing 'democratic' values of the United States were not evident when it sought to place trade embargoes on countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. This is a case point in the way western cultures try to limit hybrid cultures from growing in Arabic countries through global imperialism. These arguments present some difficulties in the absolutist dualism that Huntington implies. Barber's hybrid Arabic world is not entirely hermetic in its cultural policy or way of life. In the case of Afghanistan, the Taliban was often accused of being hermetic in its posture against imperialistic and capitalistic western countries (Barber para.4), yet this can also be attributed to the western aggression by the Soviet Union and other countries, much like the United States action against Iraq. Even Canada now blames Afghanistan for cultural hermeticism, but the reality is that Afghanistan is being divided and occupied by the very country claiming to promote cultural diversity: But instead of liberating women and girls, our troops are killing their fathers and brothers. And these "bad guys," as General Rick Hillier calls them, can shoot back. Every time Stephen Harper puts on his metaphorical cowboy hat to talk tough, voters are reminded that this is a bloody war of occupation ("Imperial Agendas: The New Canadian Militarism" 7). This implies that 'hermetic' stand of the Arab countries is actually a defense mechanism against foreign aggressors. Though Huntington does not provide much evidence that substantiates the west as being the aggressors against lesser nations, but he is often alarmist about the power of these lesser countries to defy the massive military, financial and military might of the United States. The evidence is clearly defined in the domination of Israel (through American military funding) over Muslim nations and how the United States continues to control and destroy the infrastructure of Iraq, and more acutely so, of Afghanistan simply because it is being seen as a so-called hermetically sealed nation refusing to accept western cultural values. The current cultural explosion in Dubai is another example that highlights Huntington's proposal about Arab cultures not only being closed to diversity but also narrow and subjective. With Dubai being a central junction for business in the united Emirates, the primary openness to global business dealings and cultural exchanges has become more paramount in recent years. The idea that Dubai is like New York has often been mentioned in the media and the west prominently exemplifies the country as becoming 'hybrid' at a global scale: Dubai's diversity rivals the zenith of New York's immigration boom. At my hotel, women in Abayah's, the traditional head to toe black dress, sit poolside next to bikini clad Europeans. What Dubai has achieved is a peaceful and universal melting pot of the world- a land where hundreds of dialects are unified by the international languages of business, hospitality and entertainment (Fenton para.6). This certainly does not sound like the Arabic world that Huntington proposes in his evaluation of a culture that defies western cultural hybrid values. The primary openness of Dubai supports Arabic cultures that wish to bring more awareness to their own culture- a culture which is not closed to foreigners. However, Dubai is heavily controlled by western banking institutions and other powerful western alliances, which bring the issue of Barber's (1992) "McWorld" as the objective economic reasons why it is so much like New York as a hybrid culture: Marxist and Leninist theories of imperialism assumed that the quest for ever-expanding markets would in time compel nation-based capitalist economies to push against national boundaries in search of an international economic imperium. Whatever else has happened to the scientistic predictions of Marxism, in this domain they have proved farsighted. All national economies are now vulnerable to the inroads of larger, transnational markets within which trade is free, currencies are convertible, access to banking is open, and contracts are enforceable under law (para.5). These factors find little mention in Huntington's far more politically and culturally generated arguments about Arab culture. Dubai's hybrid culture is more a result of the pressure of the global "supermarkets" of the United States and other imperial countries. Of course, it is culturally open through its practice of religious tolerance and language policy, but Barber makes a crucial point that the blurred lines between a truly hybrid culture and hermetically sealed culture are less absolute and agitating than Huntington's. Huntington's theory of an Arabic hermetic culture has loopholes as it does not take into account the fact that America's propaganda of a hybrid culture is often underscored by its desire to dominate the global trade markets through its financial, militaristic and imperialistic influence. Barber's insights reveal the lack of absolutism that arises between these two seemingly differing cultures. In conclusion, the primary arguments of Samuel Huntington and Benjamin Barber open new channels of thoughts about the hybrid cultures of the west and the seemingly different hermetically sealed cultures of the Arab world. The refusal of countries like Afghanistan to interact with the United States at the global level is not based on cultural isolations; they simply refuse to become yet another market for western capitalism. Barber's definition of this problem goes against Huntington's more reactionary religious views about Islam making a claim that they are enemies of so-called hybrid cultures like the United States. Often, Huntington relies on religious values based on his own biased cultural criterion. Barber, on the other hand, thoroughly evaluates and defines why global imperial capitalism is now part of Dubai, and also why it is being touted as an example of the blurred lines that exist between hybrid and hermetic ideals existing between western and Arabic cultures. These are the factors that define Barber's McWorld and Huntington's reactionary cultural bias that arise from the imperialistic agenda of the United States to dominate the world. Work Cited: Barber, Benjamin. "Jihad and McWorld." 1992. Theatlantic.com. November 30, 2008. Bush, President George W. "Speech: President Outlines Steps to Help Iraq Achieve Democracy and Freedom." 2004. The White House. November 30, 2008. Dobbins, James. America's Role in Nation Building: From Germany to Iraq. New York: RAND Corporation, 2003. Fenton, Bruce. "Dubai: The Biggest Story in the World." 2007. Fentonreport.com. November 30, 2008. Ford, P. (2001). "Europe cringes at Bush 'Crusade' against terrorism." Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved November 30, 2008 from http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html Friedman, George. America's Secret War: Inside the Hidden Worldwide Struggle Between the United States. New York: Broadway, 2005. Huntington, S. (1998). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon & Schuster. "Imperial Agendas: The New Canadian Militarism." Canadian Dimension, Nov/Dec2006, Vol. 40 Issue 6, p7. Jarecki, Eugene. The American Way of War: Guided Missiles, Misguided Men, and a Republic in Peril. New York: Free Press, 2008. Read More