|
What about most of sub-sahara Africa. became moot. Is Latin America, for example, "Wetern". Most of the foreseable conflicts, even those explicitely mentioned by Huntington in his book, are between neighbors in the same civilization (i.e., Japan and China, China and Vietnam and China versus many of its other neighbors such as Indonesia).
The first two world wars, primarily between European countries and Japan and the rest of Asia, were between states within the same civilizations. They were not primarily between states in different civilizations but instead between those in the same (i.e., Western). There are a large number of problems with this hypothesis. The world, according to his world view, is based on five different civilizations, Western, Islamic, Orthodox Christian (i.e., Russian, Rumania, etc)., Confucian and Hindu. The East-West struggle and nearly all the literature and theory associated with it (i.e., game theory, etc).
This weakens the posited framework considerably.An additional problem is that his framework really does not explain tensions between nations or "civilizations". In his framework, these tensions would primarily stem between civilizations or states therein (i.e., inter-civilization conflict). What is worse is that his framework really leaves no way to categorize in many cases. First and foremost is how to define each of the "civilizations". What about even the elites within countries.
in the Islamic world more akin to the Islamic World or the Western. After the Cold War ended the field of International Relations, at least in the U.S., lost the basis of much of its theory and its reason of existence. A history of the last century definitely shows this is not the case. The most serious military struggles have proven to be within the civilizations themselves.
Although there were conflicts between states in different civilizations (i.e., French in Algerai or Vietnam) there can be little argument as to what and where the most devastating conflicts were. This also applies to the "tensions" of the Cold War period. Huntington's framework simply does not explain these tensions.
Huntington, in his "Clash of Civilization", attempts to introduce a new paradigm to the field to replace the castrated one.In his book, in a nutshell, he claims that nations GENERALLY (but not in all cases, an important disclaimer) act in an alliance fashion with their closest "cultural" brethren. A more realistic analytic framework would be realist or balance-of-power based. For example, are the "secular elite" (i.e., academics, intellectuals, etc).
Even Huntington does not attempt to anwer these important questions. In the foreseable future this does not seem very likely to change.
Huntington begins by describing the evolution of conflict. Interesting examples he use are situations in Israel, Turkey, and Bosnia-Herzegovina. This is the crux of his thesis. In "The Clash of Civilizations," Huntington writes, "the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic". 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 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.
He describes micro-level as those civilizations who struggle over territorial control.
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.
He accurately describes differences in religion and claims to territory which fuel this clash of civilizations.
He continues, the "dominating source of conflict will be cultural".
Huntington asserts that his intention is to simply describe what the future may look like.
He uses a very effective analogy of how people from various places around the world might perceive someone from a tribe in Africa.
Huntington looks at the clash of civilizations at two levels: micro-level and macro level.
Additionally, he contributes much of the tension between civilizations to those who have not, and those who have.
The clash of civilization, he writes, is not imminent, but will take much more effort to avoid than any previous historical example of warfare.
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. 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. According to Huntington, "Civilizations" matter because they appeal to basic questions of human identity. 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.
In fact, Huntington's paradigm is so generic that its utility is eroded by its failure to account for numerous inconsistencies. In the end, Huntington's paradigm cannot account for the multicivilizational peacekeeping force that continues to preserve peace in the Balkans. 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. 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 cornerstones of Huntington's argument rest on the supposition that "Civilizations" matter.
Huntington contends that his civilizational paradigm "sets forth a relatively simple but not too simple map" (Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations 300). Huntington's geopolitical arrangement is a multipolar world consisting of Western, Latin American, African, Islamic, Sinic, Hindu, Orthodox, Japanese, and Buddhist civilizations. 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. 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.
Shortly after the fall of Communism, jubilation gave way to doubt and uncertainty. Civilizations, according to Huntington, sum up the essential elements of identity, such as race, religion, language, culture, and history. 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). 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. A foreign policy based on a civilizational will only result in xenophobia and cultural relativism. Huntington describes the post-Cold War world as "multipolar and multicivilizational" (Huntington, The Clash of Civilization 210).
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. 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. Huntington also fails to hypothesize about the possible positive agenda for the US in this new world order. 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).
If you are afraid that you may not be taking paranoia seriously enough, Samuel Huntington's book should be just what you need. 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. 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 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. I am also unconvinced by his idea that multiculturalism is an evil that needs to be driven out of America.
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. Over the years, I have given away copies to my children and my grand children. it is still an excellent read.
|
