An Analysis of Clash of Civilization by Huntington Based on Contemporary Evidences (original) (raw)
Related papers
ABSTRACT This paper explores and presents examples how and why Samuel Huntington’ Clash of Civilization theory’ is weak. Huntington attempts to define the political and cultural realities of the post-Cold War World. He rightfully identified that the World was changing, and that nations were no longer rigidly divided among ideological lines. The new order would be defined by differences among civilizations, particularly the West (North America and Western and Northern Europe, Orthodox Eurasia, the Muslim World and the Sinic civilizations of the Far East. He outlines the differences between the cultures, particularly the liberal and individualistic west, in contrast to the more conservative and collectivist cultures of the Muslim and Sinic world. He hypothesizes that the contrasts between cultures will fuel future conflicts and wars, as opposed to ideologies and resources. However there are many negations to Huntington’s thesis. Many of his constructed civilization blocs are not united, and some of the cultural alliances Huntington has predicted have not come into fruition. Much of the conflicts that have occurred since the 1990s have been fueled by a need to control resources and territory, rather than to assert one set of values over the other. Many nations within Huntington’s constructed cultural blocs are not always in agreement among each other (e.g. China vs. Vietnam in control over the Spratly Islands), which raises doubt of cohesion of the civilization blocs constructed in the thesis. The Muslim world is more of a spectator and a battleground between the West and an evident Sinic-Orthodox (Russian) Alliance. While it is true that the World is no longer divided into rigid ideological lines, it is implausible that the world will be divided into cultural blocs. Keywords: Clash of Civilizations, Muslim World, Sinic Orbit, Orthodox
S. P. Huntington’s Civilizations Twenty-Five Years On
Central European Journal of International and Security Studies, 2020
The study is based on the concept of Huntington's civilizations. They were used as a methodological basis for an analysis of the changes in their geopolitical power between 1995-2020 with the following conclusions: 1) The large population growth of 1995-2020 has been driven primarily by African, Islamic and Hindu civilizations, 2) Economically, the unquestionable superiority of Western civilization has remained, although its share has declined. A large economic growth has been mainly seen in the Confucian and Hindu civilizations, 3) Of the core countries, the USA, Russia, and China match the status of superpowers, while for India it seems to be only a matter of time, 4) Most of the civilizations are economically highly compact and their compactness has increased over the last 25 years (except of African civilization) and 5) The Western, Hindu and Latin-American civilizations are politically highly compact. Conversely, the African, Islamic, Orthodox and Confucian civilizations show low cohesion. The Muslim civilization is the least compact-politically as well as economically. 6. The superpowers (United States, China, Russia and India) will remain or become the most important players in the multipolar world of the 21 st century. However, it is a question whether the most important issue will be the relations of the Western and non-Western world or the mutual relations among the other three (actual or rising) superpowers.
2018
In an article – and later a book – that have received more attention than perhaps any others in International Relations, Samuel P. Huntington predicted that the ‘West and the rest’ would clash because of differences in religion and civilization as the ‘highest cultural grouping of people and the broadest level of cultural identity people have’ (Huntington 1993, 24). Huntington’s hypothesis was that ‘the fault lines between civilizations’ would replace Cold War ideological boundaries as the ‘flash points for crisis and bloodshed’ (Huntington 1993, 29; Huntington 1996, 125).
THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS; A CRITIQUE
In Huntington's article, which he refined and expanded in his 1996 book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, he argued that " the clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future. In the book, Huntington said that " culture and cultural identities, which at the broadest level are civilization identities, are shaping the patterns of cohesion, disintegration, and conflict in the post-Cold War world. In this Article critically three important issues regarding Huntington's the clash of civilization, have been addressed. These include conceptual weakness of his thesis. Second to critically examine the hypothesis and empirical evidences of his thesis and finally layout the immoral and unethical implications of Huntington's thesis. To conclude Huntington's civilizational identity is an archetype of such ill definition, without providing clear guidelines how to define and find civilization in real life. His hypothesis is not supported by empirical evidences. Culture is not prime source of conflict, scarce resources, economic, military and geographical proximity are also a stronger factor than culture to urges conflicts. Finally clash of civilization is infact an enemy discourse that looks for new enemy Huntington overgeneralizing divide world into a " black and white or good and evil scheme.