Clash of Civilizations

The Clash of Civilizations is the thesis that says that people’s cultural and religious identities will be the primary source of conflict in the post–Cold War era. The American political scientist Samuel P. Huntington argued that future wars would be fought not between the countries, but between cultures. The theory of the clash of civilization was proposed at the American Enterprise Institute in a 1992 lecture, which was then developed in a 1993 Foreign Affairs article titled “The Clash of Civilizations?”.

Huntington began his thinking by surveying the diverse theories related to the nature of global politics in the post–Cold War period. Some theorists argued that human rights, liberal democracy, and the capitalist free market economy had been the only remaining ideological alternative for the nations in the post–Cold War world. Specifically, Francis Fukuyama argued that world had reached the ‘end of the history’ in a Hegelian sense.

Huntington believed that while the age of the ideology had ended, the world had only reverted to a normal state of the affairs which is characterized by cultural conflict. In his thesis, he argued that primary axis of conflict in future will be along the cultural lines. As an extension, he tells that the concept of different civilizations, as highest category of the cultural identity, will become increasingly useful for analyzing the potential of conflict. According to the theory Huntington says that, “This is not to advocate the desirability of conflicts between civilizations. It is to set forth to descriptive hypothesis as to what the future may be like.”

In addition, the clash of civilizations, represents a development of history. In the past, world history was mainly about struggles between the monarchs, nations and ideologies, such as that was seen within the Western Civilization. However, after the end of Cold War, world politics moved into the new phase, in which the non-Western civilizations are no longer exploited recipients of the Western civilization but have become additional important actors in joining the West to shape and move world history.

Why the civilizations will clash?

Huntington offers six explanations regarding the civilizations clash:

• Differences among the civilizations are soo basic in that civilizations are differentiated from each other by the history, language, culture, tradition, and, most importantly, through religion. These fundamental differences are product of centuries and foundations of the different civilizations, meaning they will not be gone soon.
• The world is getting smaller. As a result, interactions across the world and nations are increasing, which intensify the “civilization consciousness” and awareness of differences between the civilizations and the commonalities within civilizations.
• Due to economic modernization and the social change, people are separated from the longstanding local identities. Instead, the religion has replaced this gap, which provides a basis for the identity and the commitment that transcends national boundaries and unites civilizations.
• The growth of civilization-consciousness is enhanced by dual role of the West. On one hand, the West is at a peak of power. At the same time, the return-to-the-roots phenomenon is occurring among the non-Western civilizations. A West at peak of its power confronts the non-Western countries that increasingly have desire, the will and the resources to shape the world in the non-Western ways.
• The Cultural characteristics and differences are less mutable and less easily compromised and resolved than the political and economic ones.
• The Economic regionalism is increasing and the successful economic regionalism will reinforce the civilization-consciousness. Economic regionalism may succeed, when it is rooted in the common civilization.

Criticism of the theory

The clash of civilization has been criticized by various academicians, who have empirically, historically, logically, or ideologically challenged the claims. The Political scientist Paul Musgrave writes that the Clash of Civilization “enjoys the great cachet among the sort of the policymaker who enjoys the name-dropping Sun Tzu, but few specialists in the international relations rely on it or even cite it approvingly. Bluntly, the Clash has not proven to be the useful or accurate guide for understanding the world.”

Amartya Sen (1999) argues that, the diversity is a feature of the most cultures in the world. Western civilization is the no exception. The practice of democracy which has won out in the modern West is largely due to the result of a consensus that has emerged due to the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution, and particularly in the last century.

Paul Berman in his 2003 book Terror and Liberalism, argues that distinct cultural boundaries do not exist in present day. He argues that there is no “Islamic civilization” nor a “Western civilization”, and that evidence for a civilization clash is not convincing, especially when the considering relationships such as that between the United States and Saudi Arabia. In addition, he cites that the fact is this that many Islamic extremists spent a significant amount of time living or studying in the Western world. According to Paul Berman, conflict arises because of the philosophical beliefs various groups share, regardless of the cultural or religious identity.

Edward Said argued through a response to Huntington’s thesis in his 2001 article, “The Clash of Ignorance”. Said argues that the Huntington’s categorization of world’s fixed “civilizations” omits the dynamic interdependency and the interaction of culture. A longtime critic of Huntingtonian paradigm, and an outspoken proponent of the Arab issues, Said argued that clash of civilizations thesis is an example of the “purest invidious racism, a sort of parody of Hitlerian science that is directed today against Arabs and Muslims”.

Noam Chomsky has criticized the concept of clash of civilizations as just being a new justification for the United States “for any atrocities that it wanted to carry out”, which was required after Cold War was over as Russia was no longer a viable threat.