I won’t directly argue
against Samuel Huntington’s essay, “The Clash of Civilizations?” since I can
see his predictions unfolding post-9/11. I won’t deny his accuracy in his expectation
of what he calls a “new phase” of world politics. Instead of criticizing his
main points, I would rather consider Huntington’s definition of a clash of
civilizations as something new to world politics. In his defense, Huntington
does make a point in saying that this so-called “new phase” of conflict differs
from older and more common issues, such as politics and economics. However, my
specific point—and I was able to touch upon it briefly in class—challenges
Huntington’s diagnosis. Yes, his “clash of civilizations” may not directly link
to politics and economics, and I see him try to separate these issues from
culture throughout the essay. I hope I’m not making a major leap here, but I
believe that the political and economic issues of the past have always stemmed
from what Huntington defines as “civilizations.” Huntington’s definition of
civilizations includes the following:
…history, language, culture,
tradition, and most important, religion. The people of different civilizations have
different views on the relationship between God and man, the individual and the
group, the citizen and the state, parents and children, husband and wife, as well
as differing views on the relative importance of rights and responsibilities,
liberty and authority, equality and hierarchy (Huntington 37)
While this may differ for
some people, I can easily assign each of these issues into two categories:
politics and economics—the two very categories from which Huntington proposes
that world politics is slowly moving away. Most people base their political ideologies
on the following: their views on the relationship between God and man; the
individual and the group; the citizen and the state; parents and children;
husband and wife. Accordingly, most people base their economic ideologies on
the following: rights and responsibilities; liberty and authority; equality and
hierarchy. At risk of sounding too facetious, I think that Huntington states
the obvious in his essay. While I understand that he delves further into his
topic, these first points set the basis for his entire work.
With that being said, think
that Huntington’s concept of the “clash of civilizations” has existed for
centuries, as all political and economic issues stem from the beliefs and
values found in a given civilization. Huntington’s definition of this conflict
as a “new phase” of world politics seems more like a misdiagnosis to me, as
these issues have always existed and will always exist.
Marx agrees with you; I do, too. I think Huntington's suppressed the economic inequities that undergird conflict. That's not to say that culture and religion don't play a role.
ReplyDeleteI also see Huntington’s views already taking place in the world today. The issues of politics, economics and culture seem to blend together into one big issue. In my opinion a civilization is nothing more than a high concentration of people with the same cultural beliefs (this is basically a summary of the definition given in the article). There are many different civilizations in in our world today; however, they are all over the world. Yes, there are places where certain civilizations tend to be more popular but we will still see traces of them throughout the world.
ReplyDeleteI believe what Huntington is trying to depict is our world without these traces of different civilizations all over the world. I picture the world as the lunch room in high school: different cliques in different areas of the cafeteria. No one from one group would dare go sit at another’s table, they would not be accepted. If our world plays out to be this segregated with regards to civilizations, we will have big problems, bigger problems than we can wrap our heads around right now. We live in a world today with clear cultural differences but very few to the extent that Huntington depicts. Luckily (I believe) no one that will be reading this blog will be alive to see the world in this state.
In summary, I agree with the irrelevance of this article. For one, we do already see this happening in our world today but I would say with only about 10 to 15% of the strength that Huntington suggests. And two, when the world is at the peak of this problem, nobody that can understand the issues will be alive then.
I tend to agree with Marx and Engels on many things, but the idea of economic determinism is not one of the things of which we see eye to eye. This is much too simple for today's complex society, in which status is more determinative, in my opinion. What I mean by this is that in today's social structure you don't need to own the means of production in order to be wealthy and have political power. If you have a high social status then the other things follow.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, Back to Huntington. I think that the idea that Huntington is trying to stress is the idea that conflict will no longer be isolated to nation states with defined political and economic structures. In previous global conflict we could always say that the wars were between countries (U.S. vs England) or ideas (Capitalism vs. Communism). Huntington is now saying that these forms will not be as relevant as cultural conflict. Huntington says this because cultural differences when opposing another are irreconcilable. Unlike politics where "communists can become democrats" and economics where "the rich can become poor and the poor rich", "Russians cannot become Estonians." What this means is it is much easier to change which side you are on than what you are. I agree with this idea, and I do think that it is, or rather was a new idea at the time.
Huntington is looking at this issue on an individual basis, not a nation state basis. By saying that conflict will no longer be rooted in interstate conflict he is saying that his ideas don't apply to such conflict. If he were referring to state conflict, Bethany would be correct in the idea that all of these things are interrelated, but as he says in some countries, the wrong answer to the question "What are you?" could get you a bullet in the head. In other words, there can be civilizational conflict within a state based on history, language, culture, tradition, and religion on an individual level.
Although I do find Huntington's argument far too simple for the complexities of global conflict, and in some cases politics and economics could be determined by culture and religion, I think that in this era of globalization, culture and religion represent the irreconcilable differences that we have discovered between civilizations, and will therefore be the things that cause conflict. It's much easier to change your political affiliation than your religion.
I agree with Tim, here. I found Huntington's main point to be more focused on the boundlessness of conflict in this new struggling world. As where in history, wars were based upon national status and conflict between clearly defined countries, now conflict has broken out of those lines and stretched beyond the idea of a national identity. Religions do not belong to specific nations. Due to immigration and general diaspora, a religion can exist over an expanse of the entire world. Conflict today seems to be less about what you can do for your country, and more about what you can do to preserve your culture.
DeleteI agree with your last comment. This notion is hardly a "new phase". History shows that even during 400AD when Islam was founded there still were fights and battles over matters such as religion. In the early Islamic traditions, prophet Muhammed had to fight against Christians, Jews and religions that practiced idolatry. Religion has almost always become basis for econiomic and political stuggles. So stating that only now we are starting to enter a new phase of world politics, a clash between societies that simply have different beliefs and ideologies, is not apporpriate.
ReplyDelete