Huntington Essay

Matt Altstiel
4/25/05

Reality Behind the Theory: a Critique of Huntington’s Thesis

In his essay, the Clash of Civilizations, Samuel Huntington refutes the ideas of hyperglobalists and argues that instead, that the present day world order is broken up into seven or eight major civilizations that are distinct cultural units and dynamic actors in shaping world events. Huntington denies the ideas of neo-liberalists that the world is assuming a global culture and economic system. In its place, he argues, the world is fragmenting along the borders of distinct civilizations and the differences between the West and "the rest" are becoming increasingly problematic and are provoking more and more violence especially on "the bloody borders or the Islamic Civilization." He adds, “great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural" (Huntington 1993:22). However, Huntington is short sighted in his argument and analysis because his theory does not take into account modern realities such as the power of the nation state, transnational relationships, and the secular nature of most Western Nation states. At the same time, he neglects historical trends that have validity in the present and in the future of world politics and relationships. Moreover, Huntington abandons ealier arguments in support of his thesis for an argument driven by religion as the sole determinant of civilization.

The imposition of the Western concept of the Nation state upon Non-Western societies redefined traditional relationships of power. Western powers carved out nation states without regard to ethnic loyalties, cultural differences and unique regional problems, which have re-emerged in violent interstate conflict. Today's modern nation state is exclusive by nature and seeks to define a common identity which inherently excludes minority groups. Therefore, calling the Non-Western democratic states despotic and prone to misrule is an unfortunately Eurocentric and Orientalist statement. This allows Huntington to conclude non-Western Nations, many of whom feature authoritarian and totalitarian governments, do not have the capability of rule and as such are inherently pre-modern and opposed to Western "universal values". However, the history of the nation state in Europe, where its concrete reality first emerged, is a history of exclusion, of despotism, and radical ideologies that allowed the murder and torture of its citizens.

The so-called bloody border of Islam is a convenient strategy of "Us versus them" as a rallying cry for Westerners to maintain dominance over non-western societies. Huntington asserts that West must, “limit the expansion of the military strength of the Confucian and Islamic states, to exploit the differences and conflicts among these states, and to strengthen international institutions that reflect and legitimate Western interests and values,” (Huntington 1993: 32). However, Columbia Professor Mamdani reveals "in the last one hundred years of warfare and conflict, only five out of the one hundred and seventeen million people killed in armed struggle have died in the Middle East, the hearth of Islamic Civilization. It is no more violent than any other region, in fact, historically less so," (Mamdani, 15 April 2005). Huntington ignores the more likely reality that conflict arises from Western states using their military superiority to maintain global leadership. Furthermore, history tells the reader that people of differing religions have lived in relative harmony until recently with the advent of the Western imposed nation state and uniquely Western forms of governance. Jews, Christians and Muslims have lived in the Holy Land for centuries, and only when Western sponsored intervention occurs, has violence been provoked. Likewise Hindus and Muslims, until recently, lived in relative respect and peace towards each other.

Huntington and his intellectual compatriot Bernard Lewis observe the Muslim as relatively homogenous, and divide followers of Islam into two separate camps, a good Muslim who supports the West and a bad Muslim who does not. However, the vast majority of Muslims, like other religious adherents wish to live in peace, only the extreme fundamentalists wish to injuriously harm someone of another religion. Per Khalidi, "the idea becomes perpetuated that violence therefore is inherently unique to the Islamic civilization. However, the three types of violence: violence between states, intrastate that is between rival factions, and criminal violence; occur and have occurred in every single region of the world,"(Khalidi 15 April, 2005). Huntington's premise of the solidarity of civilization blocs cracks under the weight of regional conflicts, which have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the expansion of power and control, as witnessed by recent American interventions. Therefore, “conflict is driven mainly by geo-political factors rather than cultural differences is an equally if not more persuasive way to view much of history,” (Graham, April 2004).

Huntington defines culture in terms of “language, history, religion, customs, and self-identification,” (Huntington 1993: 22). However, Huntington leaves behind his description of civilization and culture, and replaces it solely with religion as an over-arching concept that unites and divides regions of the world. Modern European and Asian governments with different societies are secular, and as a result, religion plays a much smaller role in the formation of policy and politics than Huntington would like to assume. Economic, not religious considerations are the principal motivating forces for Western interventions in Non-western societies. Western extensions of power such as the IMF and the World Bank have no religious backing and operate on the policies of the neo-liberal capitalist system. An increasingly interconnected world inherently means that the world is not fragmenting into religious civilizations which oppose one another. Certainly, regional economic blocs have increased solidarity, however; the power of transnational corporations has powerfully impacted economic as well cultural behavior in vastly different civilizations. The supposed Japanese civilization does not conflict with the European - North American civilization because of cultural, specifically religious differences, but rather because Japan and the West compete for economic expansion and dominance in the global capitalist market place.

Huntington makes several tragic flaws in his analysis of the modern world system that compromises his theory, the “Clash of Civilizations.” He cannot escape his Eurocentrism and recognize that much of modern conflict has resulted from the imposition of Western values and systems of governance on Non-western societies. Huntington does not his mask his desire for continued western domination of the rest of the world and rewrites modern conflict in terms of the West fending off the “non-western enemy.” Assertions of civilization solidarity do not match the reality of recent inter-regional and regional conflicts. Huntington’s very notion of civilization and culture can be challenged by more accurate and commonsensical descriptions given by contemporary political theorists. He then discards his argument of culture defining civilizations, and instead casts international struggles in terms of religious warfare. Once again, reality disproves Huntington’s theory as increasing evidence shows the importance of economic considerations.