In the global arena, Huntington is correct in stating that often global conflicts are categorized as “the west versus the rest.” The United States as a superpower has inserted its hand in conflicts large and small all over the world. For Huntington this is an example of a civilization conflict. Yet, I would disagree with Huntington when he develops this categorization to include all future conflicts and declares, “the clash of civilizations will dominate global politics.” It appears to me that Huntington does not distinguish between a civilization and a religious identity. His argument that a civilization is a cultural entity that shares a cultural identity in very broad terms – Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American and possibly African civilization – does not take into account that people of the same “civilization” do not necessarily share the same religion. He frames his arguments to show that the Arab world will fight the West due to differences in ideologies often advanced through native religions but does not take into account that within the Arab or West civilizations there are often different religions that clash with each other. For instance, if we use Iraq as an example, we can easily identify that the US involvement in Iraq, when combined with England and Spain among others, could be seen as “the West vs. Arabs.” But just as large of a problem is the violent struggle for power between Shiite and Sunni in Iraq. Although they are both classified within the same civilization, they do not share the same history or religion. In other words, Huntington disregards religious differences within a civilization. His argument is more based on the grounds that different views put forth by religious ideologies will clash.
On a similar vein, he portrays “African civilization” just as broadly. Here too we can see bloody struggles between peoples of the same civilization. If we take Rwanda for instance, it is a case of “ethnic cleansing” that did not occur between peoples of different civilizations. He therefore does not draw a distinction between civilizations and religious denominations. It is almost assumed that people of the same civilization will believe in the same religion or that all branches of one religion will agree or that their cultural outlooks will match. Although he does conclude by stating that he is not arguing that groups within a civilization will not have inner-conflicts, I believe he undermines the vast religious, cultural, historical and political differences of separate groups under each broadly classified civilization.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Clash of Civilizations = A Modern Communist Manifesto
First, let me say that I thought your comment was quite interesting, as I too was initially a bit dismissive of Huntington’s “The West v. The Rest” argument (mostly because of the same Shia v. Sunni stumbling block). Having just now finished the Communist Manifesto reading, however, I am much more receptive to his idea. Let me explain:
Starting on page 356 I did an experiment and replaced Marx’ word “bourgeoisie” with Huntington’s word “The West,” and Marx’ word “proletariat” with Huntington’s word “The Rest.” Some amazing parallels developed that I decided to share:
First, the major point you bring up in your post is the (very accurate) fact that all major civilizations can be further stratified into various religious blocks. But one of Marx’ major points is that the “proletariat go through various stages of development.” Agitation against the oppressor begins with the individual worker, enlarges to encompass an entire factory and then, finally, the “numerous local struggles” are “centralized.” In Huntington’s terms, the equivalent being individual factions within states, then entire states or religious groups, then entire civilizations eventually join together to oppose the oppressive West. Even if we assume that religious/national groups are still the defining factors of political life, it seems that history is tending in the general direction of a cultural consciousness beyond both religion and state (think Orthodox civilizations, Hindu civilization etc). In other words, at the rate we are going, if we are not in a world defined by civilizations today, we probably will be tomorrow.
Second, on page 358, Marx makes the controversial argument that “the bourgeoisie itself furnishes the proletariat with weapons for fighting the bourgeoisie.” I was particularly struck by this line, seeing that politicos, scholars and reports never tire of noting the fact that during the Cold War (and beyond) we supplied the enemies of our enemies (“The Rest”) with munitions and technologies that are now being used against us. The classical example of this blowback is, of course, our arming of the mujahideen (now Taliban) during the Carter and Reagan administrations.
Thirdly, I thought it was interesting that Marx and Huntington make essentially the same policy prescription for the bourgeoisie and for the West. Marx argues that the bourgeoisie will try to overcome the revolutionary impulses at first by establishing a new sort of “union of the bourgeoisie.” Huntington almost echoes Marx by arguing that the West needs to “promote greater unity within its own civilization.” When that fails, Marx says the West will try to conquer “new markets.” In a similar vein, Huntington says the West must develop its “military power” to protect its interests abroad.
Now, I do understand that the Communist Revolution did not succeed as Marx had intended. Thus, to argue that our entire world structure is destined to collapse because the situation in Marx’s time is being somewhat replicated today would be a bit of a stretch. However, Marx’ words did ultimately have a ring of truth, so it might be better to play it safe this time and give Huntington’s West v. The Rest some serious consideration.
Post a Comment