Republic of the Philippines

Mindanao State University-Iligan Institute of Technology

The Clash of Civilizations

A Journal Review

Presented to:

Prof. Phyllis Marie Teanco

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Course of History 206: Issues on Contemporary European History

Presented By:

Brecht A. Tampus

Huntington, Samuel. (2011). The Clash of Civilizations. Simon & Schuster.

Mesopotamia, Egypt, the Indus Valley, and China, among the first recorded civilizations of the

Bronze Age, had seen various instances of political, social, and cultural warfare. Many

civilizations were destroyed as a result of warfare between numerous tribes and empires in

ancient and medieval periods. Samuel P. Huntington’s the Clash of Civilizations is a study and

theory concerning the future of conflict in the human race, focusing on how cultural

(civilizational) identities, rather than national identities, are likely to shape the character of

conflict in the 21st century.

Huntington contends in this paper that after the fall of the Berlin Wall, international relations

would no longer be dominated by an ideological confrontation between capitalism and

communist, as they were throughout the Cold War years. State-to-state tensions would not be

dominant in the following conflict pattern. Instead, the world would experience a war of

civilizations between a Western culture and other great civilizations, namely an Islamic

civilization and a Confusion civilization, as Huntington claims. Huntington makes valid

arguments in terms of what should not dominate international relations; however, the argument

that a clash of civilizations based on cultural differences between the West and other civilizations

is a simplistic hypothesis born out of a realist Cold War paradigm is a simplistic hypothesis born

out of a realist Cold War paradigm.

Huntington asserted that, while there are cultural differences between different groups within a

state, and between states within a civilization, common linkages within that civilization

eventually lead to civilizations being radically different from one another. Two villages in Italy,

for example, may be culturally distinct, yet they will still share an overall Italian culture, as

Huntington demonstrates. This Italian culture is distinct from, say, German culture, but they are
both part of a greater European culture that is part of the culture of Western civilization.

Huntington claims that other civilizations, such as Islamic and Confucian civilizations, have no

cultural values in common with Western culture. Huntington says that this creates a split

between the "West and the rest" because Western civilization is mostly built on democratic and

human rights values, but other civilizations are not. As a result, Huntington contends that the

West and other civilizations will eventually collide because they lack a common cultural identity

outside of the human race.

Although Huntington makes a compelling and valid case that culture is a major source of

conflict, his claim that the broader civilization with which one identifies is 'intensely' appears to

be oversimplified, as Huntington's civilization groupings are riven with internal cultural

divisions and conflict. When current disputes among these civilizations are studied, it is clear

that Huntington's claim of civilizational unity is false. Huntington's idea that loyalty to

civilizations causes conflict rather than national or ethnic identities is also faulty. This argument

is dubious, especially in Islamic civilization, where national considerations have trumped all-

encompassing Islamic or pan-Arab views. As a result, Huntington's assumption that one

identifies with himself or herself first and foremost as a member of their Western, Islamic, or

Confusion civilization appears to be invalidated.

According to Huntington, the world's most important wars will occur along the fault lines that

separate one civilization from another. This has prompted some statistical analysis to see if

Huntington's allegation that this case is true. One such study, undertaken by Russet et al. (2000),

found "little evidence that [civilizations] determine the fault lines along which international war

is likely to develop." Furthermore, Errol Henderson (2001) conducted research that found that

while religious differences enhance the likelihood of war, ethnic and linguistic closeness
increases the likelihood of conflict as well. Geographic proximity between states is also a larger

impact than culture, according to this study. These studies are noteworthy because they show that

cultural differences are not the primary cause of conflict. In certain circumstances, it appears that

similarity between different tribes within the same civilization creates a more likely foundation

for conflict. This calls Huntington's claim that conflicts between civilizations will be

concentrated along the cultural fault lines that separate them into doubt. It's also possible to argue

that many of the conflicts Huntington identifies along these fault lines are just more likely to

occur because they're close together.

According to Kunihiko Imai (2006), statistical findings refute one of Huntington's fundamental

theories. The test, however, may not have been adequate for Huntington's theory in the post-Cold

War era because it was based on data from previous military conflicts. As a result, whether or

not conflict occurs along the fault lines of civilizational boundaries does not necessarily refute

Huntington's argument. This, however, weakens the premise that as civilizations become more

rooted in their own traditions, values, and faiths, conflict will arise along the fault lines that

separate civilizations. As a result, cultures may try to strengthen their own distinct identities in

the face of globalization; nevertheless, disputes may not necessarily occur along cultural or

civilizational lines.

Noam Chomsky expressed his own thoughts on Huntington's work. Although his speech cannot

be backed up by official academic references, it can be backed up by a variety of web sources.

Chomsky accuses Huntington of avoiding exposing a reality that consists of a confrontation

between the wealthy and the rest of society. Chomsky feels that this technique would be too

formal for Huntington, so he opts for a clash of civilizations approach. Huntington's decision

aligns with the US's desire to replace the fear of communism with new narratives in order to
pursue policies of increasing interventionism. Finally, he claims that Huntington's theories are

elitist. Chomsky emphasizes the involvement of Western intelligence agencies in assisting

Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups as an argument against the clash of civilizations theory,

among other things.

The book "End of History" by Francis Fukuyama has been used as a counterargument against

Huntington on several occasions. He is regarded as one of Huntington's most serious rivals.

Twenty-five years after the publication of "The Clash of Civilizations?" Fukuyama writes a piece

about Huntington that is kinder and more understanding. Despite this, Fukuyama continues to be

critical of certain conceptions. His main point of contention is the relationship between culture

and religion. Religion is one, but not the most important, aspect of identity for Fukuyama. He

backs up his point with instances from around the world, such as women's movements and the

rebirth of "old-fashioned nationalism" in Japan and Europe. Finally, Fukuyama disagrees with

Huntington on the existence of "Universal Values," which Huntington supports. While not

related, Fukuyama takes a macro view of world history, noticing how the first humans adopted

similar social structures and institutionalized in similar ways. This demonstrates that, regardless

of civilization, "Modernization" has acted as a universal value.

Huntington is accused by Edward W. Said in an article (Said, 2001) for a variety of reasons.

Huntington, according to Said, fails to reflect the world's dynamics and complexity by

attempting to characterize civilizations in a sterile manner. There is little reason to suppose that

civilizational differences have large indirect effects on the risk of war through these variables,

after studying conflict trends in the twentieth century. Errol A Henderson offers another data-

driven critique, claiming that "we find that they (cultural elements) do not appear to play the
function that Huntington expects for them, nor do they support the need for a cultural

containment policy."

An epistemological critical approach is presented by Karim H. Karim and Mahmoud Eid. They

argue that Huntington's concepts are substantially influenced by the Cold War era, which was

dominated by security and characterized by different key actors. In an attempt to reconfigure

what he was used to in the new emergent international order, Huntington replaces the concept of

the state with that of civilization. They also warn that Huntington's views are problematic

because they have the potential to become "self-fulfilling prophecies" in the context of human

history's ongoing warfare. Those who advocate against cooperation may be the ones who make

this self-fulfilling prophecy come true.

Samuel Huntington's thoughts about the clash of civilizations have received a lot of flak. There

are numerous academic and non-academic sources that offer extensive criticism. The primary

objections against Huntington's work are (in random order):

 There aren't any references to things that aren't from the West.

 By adopting an us-them narrative, assumptions, and cultural bias while dictating Western

dominance, the clash has been accused of being orientalist.

 According to data, civilizational war is not on the rise.

 Huntington's beliefs foster racism and policies that encourage war and increasing

interventionism.

 Huntington professes to give a new paradigm, but in reality, he takes a realist approach,

putting power and solid states at the core.

expansion of technological modernization go counter to Huntington's basic beliefs, which

contradict his confidence in universal ideals.

 Huntington's simplistic definitions of complicated phenomena fall short of capturing

reality.

Although I believe Huntington has made some significant insights here, pointing out what he

sees as the various ideological and cultural foundations of the many civilizations, I am not

persuaded that his overall approach gets to the heart of the difficulties that confront the globe

today. Huntington's book sparked a significant backlash, which culminated in a highly

politicized dispute over various aspects of Huntington's argument, as reflected in newspaper

headlines and substantial debate in opinion journals. It's always difficult to write honestly

and analytically about a very politically divided issue, because each side in the debate picks

and chooses whatever specifics to criticize, while everyone ignores the overall picture and

the most pressing issues.

Clash of Civilization? by Noam Chomsky (n.d). https://www.india-

Fukuyama, F. (2018). The American Interest. Retrieved October 25, 2021, from
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/08/27/huntingtons-legacy/

Henderson, E. A. (2001). Clear and Present Strangers: The Clash of Civilizations and
International Conflict. International Studies Quarterly. pp. 317-338.

Imai, K. (2006). Culture, Civilization, or Economy? Test of the Clash of Civilization

Karim, K. H., & Eid, M. (2012). Clash of Ignorance. Global Media Journal -- Canadian
Edition Volume 5, Issue 1, pp. 7-27.

Russett, B. M., Oneal, J. R., & Cox, M. (2000). Clash of Civilizations, or Realism and
Liberalism Déjà Vu? Some Evidence. Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 37, No. 5. pp.
583-608.

Said, E. W. (2001). The Nation. Retrieved October 25, 2021, from

TrystanCJ. (2003). Noam Chomsky on the “Rise of Civilization”. Retrieved October 25, 2021,
from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qT64TNho59I.