Is the Huntington Thesis of the Clash of Civilizations Inevitable - Research Paper Example

Is the Huntington thesis, the Clash of Civilizations inevitable? Discuss. In a world of ever changing political environment, Huntington puts forth a hypothesis in Foreign Affairs (1993) that is ‘intended to supply Americans with an original thesis about “a new phase” in world politics after the end of the Cold War’, as Said (2001) puts it. Huntington believes and argues the inevitability of clash between civilizations. Visions like end of history, traditional rivalries amongst nations, tribalism and globalism depict partial understanding of ‘emerging reality’ in today’s and future world. This paper analyses Huntington’s thesis ‘Clash of Civilizations’ and the claim of inevitability and finds it to be mistaken. According to Huntington (1993, p.22) hypothesis, in new world (post Cold-War) fundamental source of conflict will not be ideological or economic. In this world dominating source of conflict and divide will be cultural differences. Nation states will dominate world affairs but major conflicts of global politics will take place between states and groups of different civilizations. ‘Clash of Civilizations’ will be the dominating factor in shaping world politics and the ‘fault lines’ will determine the encounter lines of future. His core claim is, in a post-Cold War world, differences based on civilization will become the root of conflict rather than ideology, politics or economics, and this ‘clash of civilization’ is the greatest threat in coming days. Based on the same article, Huntington’s book, The Clash of Civilization and the Remaking of the World Order (1996) proved to be even more influential as Russett, Oneal and Cox (2000, p.584) observe that the response to Huntington’s thesis varies from ‘laudatory to scathing’ which is not as surprising because like Huntington’s other works, it is bold, witty and bring forward a proactive thesis. For the intention behind this thesis, Russett, Oneal and Cox (2000, p.584) further explain is the demand for attention. Huntington suggests thesis as more consequential vision to interpret international developments. Indeed, it is a bold stance and can have great influence on world politics if considered to be true. In both World Wars, multipolar west confronted each other, western state conflict depreciated by bipolar conflict of Cold War. Conflict amongst diverse groups is evident from the popular terms of first, second and third world in addition to North versus South and East versus West. However, these classifications were primarily based on the differences in ideology and economic development. And Huntington suggests another paradigm that emphasizes culture and cultural identities as source of conflict and disintegration after Cold War. Consequently, his argument does not represent distant past but partially relevant to the initial decades of Cold War. Russett, Oneal and Cox (2000, p.584) state: ‘But after the Iranian revolution of 1979, ‘an intercivilizational quasi war between Islam and the West’ opened up...and, in the 1980s, conflicts between civilizations increasingly replaced those between communists and capitalists. In the future, many of the most violent, prolonged international conflicts will be across civilizational cleavage or fault lines (p.253)’. Huntington (1999, p.46) declared, ‘the interplay of power and culture will decisively mould patterns of alliance and antagonism among states in the coming years’. Most of Huntington’s argument is based on a “vague notion” Huntington attribute as “civilization identity” and relation between eight civilizations, particularly the relation between west and Islam that Huntington remained predominantly focused on throughout his narration. The article represents Huntington’s confrontational thought process that is borrowed from 1990 article by Bernard Lewis, whose ideological understanding is manifested in the title, “The Roots of Muslim Rage.”Said sarcastically attribute both of visionaries’ characterization of “the West” and “Islam” as “reckless affirmed” and resembles it to cartoon characters bashing each other (Said, 2001). Edward Said (2001) remarks: ‘Certainly neither Huntington nor Lewis has much time to spare for the internal dynamics and plurality of every civilization, or for the fact that the major contest in most modern cultures concerns the definition or interpretation of each culture, or for the unattractive possibility that great deal of demagogy and downright ignorance is involved in presuming to speak for a whole religion or civilization. No, the West is West and Islam Islam’. Said (2001) explains that Huntington stresses and challenges the policy makers to ensure a strengthening west and fend off others and most importantly Islam. Moreover Said (2001) states: ‘Huntington is an ideologist, someone who wants to make “civilizations” and “identities” into what they are not: shut down, sealed-off entities that have been purged of the myriad currents and counter currents that animate human history, and that over centuries have made it possible for that history not only to contain wars of religion and imperial conquest but also to be one of exchange, cross-fertilization and sharing. This far less visible history is ignored in the rush to highlight the ludicrously compressed and constricted warfare that “the clash of civilizations” argues in the reality...all he did, however, was confused himself and demonstrate what a clumsy writer and inelegant thinker he was’ (Said, 2001). Surprisingly, in very few initial pages, Huntington emphasized thrice that civilization-paradigm is intended to provide policy makers framework and his book is not a social science research (pp.13, 35, 36).Edward Said regarded the transformation of article into book as addition to the worse. It is evident that Huntington’s objective is not to predict and interpret situations through academic analysis but it was political that suggested and directed policy making. As Bonney (2008, p.35) confirms that Huntington’s paradigm was highly influential for US strategic planning due to the role of American public institutions and academics in policy making. ‘Even normally sober British weekly The Economist, in its issue of September 22-28, can’t resist reaching for the vast generalization, praising Huntington extravagantly for his “cruel and sweeping, but nonetheless acute” observations about Islam’(cited in Said,2001).Huntington’s major concern is the civilizational divide between west and other civilizations. As he refers to it ‘West and the rest’ is the idea that can be traced to the ideas of democracy and human rights and their lesser acceptance elsewhere. He is apprehensive about Islamic civilization, in his view fundamental differences between the two cultures as a source of governmental legitimacy are highly insurmountable. However, he suggests if Islamic states become more democratic then the divide between west and Islamic states can become comparatively harmonious. More or less same applies to other confronting civilizations (China and the Sinic) according to Huntington’s crystal ball (Russett, Oneal and Cox 2000, p.586). Russett, Oneal and Cox (2000, p.584-585) argue that if Huntington’s classification of the recent past were accurate, then his perception of the present and prophecy of the future is more likely to gain careful consideration by scholars and policy markers in a similar way. However, after careful empirical analysis they conclude that ‘clash of civilizations’ perspective is not only wrong about the past, it also selectively interprets present events, and does not predict or provide a guide to future conflicts on any sound base. Civilizational differences contribute much lesser to present realist and liberal explanations of violence in confrontations between states. In order to evaluate Huntington’s thesis, it is critical to identify major civilizations and their boundaries. Despite using the terms ‘culture’ and civilization’ interchangeably Huntington stresses the difference. Culture and civilization share similar elements, for instance, language, religion, institutions and history. However, civilization being the highest cultural grouping is of fundamental importance in order to understand interstate conflicts. Despite the fact that civilizations are dynamic and without fixed boundaries, Huntington divides states or group of states into eight major civilizations, i.e. Western, Islamic, Hindu, Sinic, Latin American, Slavic-Orthodox, Buddhist and African(Russett, Oneal and Cox 2000, pp.587-588). ‘Many criticisms can be made of the clash of civilization perspective. Huntington’s list of civilizations is to some degree arbitrary and, to the extent which he acknowledges intracivilizational differences, the image of civilization as a source of international order begins to dissolve. The criteria for assigning states to civilizations are not always clear...Huntington also privileges broad loyalties to civilizations over more specific cultural or ethnic identities, including those that operate at the level of the nation-state .He claims in effect that civilizational identities are typically more decisive than nationalism in accounting for sources of conflict.(This is particularly doubtful in the case of Islamic civilization, where interests tied to particular states have repeatedly triumphed over Islamic or pan-Arab sentiments). His discussion of malleability and change within civilizations along axes of Westernization and modernization...is too simple’ (Russett, Oneal and Cox 2000, p. 588). Huntington simplified and used culture and civilization in a much generalized manner that does not work. In a substantial body of work on the subject of interstate relations is by Henderson (1998), he identifies an unassuming role of cultural differences while explaining conflict. Though, he does not highlight civilization but he made a careful assessment of the role religious, ethnic and linguistic resemblance play in order to reduce the frequency of interstate conflicts during 1950-89.He concludes that similar religion may contribute to peaceful relations and difference in religion may increase the chances of confrontation but contrary to civilizational perspective ethnic and linguistic similarities contribute to the likelihood of wars between such states. Ethnic and linguistic similarities counter balance the peace-promoting effects of common religion and even the conciliatory role of religion remains less powerful than states sharing democratic form of government. He also argues that geographical proximity has much more powerful when it comes to the likelihood of conflict than cultural differences. Study of international relations research proves that states are more likely to confront with their immediate neighbours for various reasons. Therefore, for Huntington’s thesis evaluation, it is crucial to consider proximity. Most of the conflicts he refers to be at the fault lines of civilizations are, in fact, between neighbouring states, that is likely to happen whether cultural and civilizational differences are there or not(cited in Russett, Oneal and Cox 2000, p. 588). In another research Gurr (1994) utilized systematic analysis in order to access Huntington’s idea of violence within states. He identifies that conflict between different civilizations are not common nor they are going to be. Amongst 50 most severe ethno-political confrontations during 1993-4, only 18 meet Huntington’s civilizational classification. For instance, in Middle East, Palestinians in the occupied territories was the only one that involved different civilizations. On the other hand, five conflicts happened in a single civilization, i.e. one each in Turkey, Morocco and Iran and two in Iraq. The ratio of international conflicts that involved groups from different civilizations is nearly indistinguishable before and after the Cold War. Furthermore, the idea that internal conflicts that stirred up by civilizational differences were severe during the Cold War in comparison to those that did not, was not true when it comes to the conflicts that began in 1988 and later (cited in Russett, Oneal and Cox 2000, p. 589). The ratio of international conflicts that involved groups from different civilizations is nearly indistinguishable before and after the Cold War. Furthermore, the idea that internal conflicts that stirred up by civilizational differences were severe during the Cold War in comparison to those that did not, was not true when it comes to the conflicts that began in 1988 and later (Gurr, 1993 cited in Russett, Oneal and Cox 2000, p. 588). The most recent research by Gurr (2000 cited in Russett, Oneal and Cox 2000, p. 589) reveals that contrary to common perception that ethno-national conflicts increased recently, in fact it began in 1960s and dropped in 1990s.Cultural confrontation remained moderate and most were more of fratricidal rather than across civilizations. Interstate national conflicts never became more sever in 1989 to 1996 than before, 17 new conflicts began but considerable point is, 21 ended as well. In most cases ethnic, religious and linguistic variation does not proved to be destabilizing. There are rare chances when potential ethnic conflicts have intensified even in former Soviet Union or Africa. These conflicts are no different than other conflicts that end with negotiated settlements. Consequently, Gurr’s and other analysis raise serious questions about the validity of Huntington’s civilizatinal explanation of conflict within state (Russett, Oneal and Cox 2000, p. 589). According to Russett, Oneal and Cox (2000, p. 589) ‘Clash of civilizations’ is a big hypothesis with enormous implications for policy making. Just like any other big idea, it has potential to influence the world beyond just analytical interpretation of happenings. In case of massive believe in the idea, it can not only shape and direct future events but also can mislead us if characterization is mistaken as Herzog (1999, p.12) states it, ‘Nothing would be more dangerous for the nations of the West and East than to prepare for a supposed confrontation between Christianity and Islam’. ‘It (thesis) seems to make sense of some very important current conflicts, such as those between USA and Iraq. It fits part of the story for the war between Serbia and NATO, though not the significant part that found NATO aligned with Serbia’s Muslim Albanian minority. But even for those conflicts that it seems to fit, there may be better explanations; and being right on occasion does not mean that an argument is correct as a general thesis’ (Russett, Oneal and Cox 2000, p.584). According to Said (2001), there is much closer connection between the confronting civilizations then we believe. More reassuring battle orders according to Huntington supposed confrontation between Islam and West from which official understanding is taken after September 11.There has been considerable decrease in intensity of this discourse but the hypothesis seems stable when it comes to a continuous hate speech and actions in addition to law enforcement actions against Muslims, Arabs and Indians. Another reason for this persistence is Muslim presence all over, no longer on the borders of west but at the centre. But their presence became threatening because the idea of collective culture brings us to the first great Arab-Islamic conquest in seventh century as Belgian historian Henri Pirenne narrates in his book Mohammed and Charlemagne (1939),ruined ancient unity of Mediterranean, destroyed Christian-Roman unity and gave rise to a new civilization(Said,2001). Irrespective of the definition of civilization, if we consider that there are eight civilizations, why they are destined to conflict? Contrary to his own belief that ‘differences do not necessarily mean conflict’ Huntington stresses the class between civilizations due to incompatible moral and political beliefs. For instance, western ideas of democracy and individualism are in opposition to non-western beliefs. Huntington does not propose any option to live and let live. Instead he assumes that civilizations are power coalition always struggle for survival and in moderate conditions influence while in highly favourable conditions dominate others. Behind the thesis, Huntington’s belief of non-western, particularly Islamic civilizations ascendency works because it challenges western hegemony and may reshape the world by non-western value system (Richard & Jarle 1994, 114). ‘The worst outcome would be for ‘clash’ to become a self-fulfilling prophecy, intensifying conflicts or bringing about some that otherwise would not have occurred. In the best case, it could be a self-defeating prophecy, providing early warning to policymakers who could take steps to defuse the danger it anticipates. That is probably what Huntington intended’ (Russett, Oneal and Cox 2000, p. 589). It is a new paradigm or just a modification of the Cold War model rejected by Huntington himself? The points of difference are, primary units of conflicts shifted from states to civilizations, world is multipolar rather than bipolar, major players are judged in terms of cultural similarity rather then ideology or class. The picture is new but mechanism is same, Huntington remained confined to assumptions of political realism and central philosophy of Cold War period. Just like realist, Huntington believes that international politics is the struggle for power and its units work for their interest in an anarchic setting. He may have replaced states with civilization but it remained realist politics of old times (Richard & Jarle 1994, 115).Edward Said (2001) confirms it and states: ‘The basic paradigm of West versus the rest (the cold war opposition reformulated) remained untouched, and this is what has persisted, often insidiously and implicitly, in discussion since the terrible events of September 11.The carefully planned and horrendous, pathologically motivated suicide attack and mass slaughter by a small group of deranged militants ahs been turned into proof of Huntington’s thesis. Instead of seeing it for what it is—the capture of big ideas by a tiny band of crazed fanatics for criminal purposes’. ‘“The Clash of Civilizations” thesis is gimmick like “The War of the Worlds,” better for reinforcing defensive self-pride than for critical understanding of the bewildering interdependence of our time’ (Said, 2001).Tipson agrees and (1997, pp.168-169) states, ‘His (Huntington’s) book conveys a challenge, like he wants us to refute him. Daring us, by scaring us, to doubt him or dispute him which is fine for academia-argument-displaying. As long as someone powerful won’t act on what he’s saying.’ Huntington thesis focuses on conflicting civilizations and recent incidents may vindicate his assumptions. It emerged in post Cold-War era and utilized massively after 9/11 incident. While considering the validity of Huntington’s thesis, it seems that assumed clash of civilization may threaten contemporary democratic systems of west and non-western, particularly Islamic and Sinic civilizations will dominate or shape world according to their values and beliefs. Different studies examined and analysed the thesis, they question and negate the existence of any threat of ‘clash of civilization’ as a major threat to present or future world. Some studies contradict with the very foundations of Huntington’s thesis. Statistics and incidents prove civilizational conflicts to be not more than any other negotiable conflict. After careful analysis, the paper concludes that “clash of civilization” is anything but inevitable. It can be a hypothesis, a source of learning and possibilities for academic purpose, but it does not qualify for becoming a part of the policy and law in order to discriminate or take proactive actions against any civilization. It’s a purposeful thesis and threatening for world peace if applied to policy. The thesis is not inevitable at all, however, it has laid much responsibility and pressure on today’s politicians and policy makers. It is due to the fact that, its continuous use to legitimize political actions may present it as inevitable. Work cited Bonney, R., 2003.False Prophets: The clash of civilizations and the Global war on terror.Oxfordshire: Peter Lang. Huntington, S.P., 1993.The Clash of Civilizations? Foreign Affairs, 72(3), pp.22-49. Huntington, S.P., 1999.The Lonely Super-power: The New Dimension of Power, Foreign Affairs, 78(2), pp.46. Herzog, R., 1999.Preventing the Clash of Civilizations: A Peace Strategy for the Twentieth Century. New York: St Martin’s. Russett, B.M., Oneal, J.R., & Cox, M., 2000.Clash OF Civilization, or Realism and Liberalism Déjà Vu? Some Evidence. Journal of Peace Research, [Online].37(5), Available at: http://jpr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/37/5/583 (Sage Publication) [Accessed 18 May 2010]. Said.E. W., 2001. The Clash of Ignorance. The Nation, [internet] 4 October. Available at: http://www.thenation.com/article/clash-ignorance [Accessed 22 May 2010]. Tipson, F.S., 1997.Culture Clash-ification: A Verse to Huntington’s Curse, Foreign Affairs, 76(2), pp.166-169. Richard, R. E. & Jarle, C., 1994. Challenging Huntington. (Samuel Huntington’s theory of competing civilizations), Foreign Policy, 96, pp.113-128. Read More