Discussion on the concept of 'Clash of Civilizations'

[Exarch]

Namely Samuel P Huntington's theory that:

people's cultural and religious identities will be the primary source of conflict in the post-Cold War world.

THe different 'civilizations' according to huntington, stress, according to huntington:

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_o...zational_clash

Do you agree or disagree with Huntington's thesis?
why and why not?

Discuss

PS sources will get extra credit

[Eternal]

I agree with the quote, thats how it is and willa lways be, as the same way as civilisations are shaped by they geographical surroundings (Guns,Germs,And steel - Read it if you like this discussion) but I dont fully understand that scetch.

For example, when did Japanese start fighting orthodox civilisations, and isnt orthodox and western the same thing? Or does western mean protestantic?

Im sure it would be moore understandable if you gave it some moore info

Regards ET.

[Exarch]

I agree with the quote, thats how it is and willa lways be, as the same way as civilisations are shaped by they geographical surroundings (Guns,Germs,And steel - Read it if you like this discussion) but I dont fully understand that scetch.

For example, when did Japanese start fighting orthodox civilisations, and isnt orthodox and western the same thing? Or does western mean protestantic?

Im sure it would be moore understandable if you gave it some moore info

Regards ET.

there's the wiki page on it which i think gives great summary and ins8ight to the theory it's in me source

personally, i disagree with significant parts of the 'clash of civilisations ' theory; other areas i might agree but i reckon huntington over simplifies things, specifically east asian cultural and historical relations and that he ignores other environmental factors which affect gov. policy today; here' s the criticism part on wikia:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Criticism
Amartya Sen wrote a book called "Identity and Violence: The illusion of destiny" in critique of Huntington's main concept of an inevitable clash along civilizational lines. In this book he argues that a root cause of violence is when people see each other as having a singular affiliation ie: Hindu or Muslim, as opposed to multiple affiliations: Hindu, woman, housewife, mother, artist, daughter, member of a particular socio-economic class...etc. all of which can be a source of a person's identity.
In his book Terror and Liberalism, Paul Berman proposes another criticism of the civilization clash hypothesis. According to Berman, distinct cultural boundaries do not exist in the present day. He argues there is no "Islamic civilization" nor a "Western civilization", and that the evidence for a civilization clash is not convincing, especially when considering relationships such as that between the United States and Saudi Arabia. In addition, he cites the fact that many Islamic extremists spent a significant amount of time living and/or studying in the western world. According to Berman conflict arises because of philosophical beliefs between groups, regardless of cultural or religious identity.[5]
It has been claimed that values are more easily transmitted and altered than Huntington proposes.[6] Nations such as India, Turkey, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, as well as most Eastern European countries and Latin American countries, have become successful democracies in recent period, and the West itself was rife with despotism and fundamentalism for most of its history.[citation needed] Some also see Huntington's thesis as creating a self-fulfilling prophecy and reasserting differences between civilizations.[6] Edward Said issued a response to Huntington's thesis in his own essay entitled "The Clash of Ignorance."[7] Said argues that Huntington's categorization of the world's fixed "civilizations" omits the dynamic interdependency and interaction of culture. All his ideas are based not on harmony but on the clash or conflict between worlds. The theory that each world is “self-enclosed” is applied to the world map, to the structure of civilizations, to the notion that each race has a special destiny and psychology.[8] According to Said, it is an example of an imagined geography, where the presentation of the world in a certain way legitimates certain politics. Interventionist and aggressive, the concept of civilizational clash is aimed at maintaining a war time status in the minds of the Americans. Thus, it continues to expand the Cold War by other means rather than advancing ideas that might help us understand the current scene or that could reconcile the two cultures.[9]

“As a genuine advocate of the often-elusive dialogue of religions and cultures, Pope John Paul II once observed: “A clash ensues only when Islam or Christianity is misconstrued or manipulated for political or ideological ends.” This insight – most applicable to the current crisis – perfectly mirrors that of Edward Said dispelling the myth of the Clash of Civilizations as a mere clash of ignorance.”

—Hatim Salih[10]

Critics (see Le Monde Diplomatique articles) call The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order the theoretical legitimization of American-led Western aggression against China and the world's Islamic cultures. Nevertheless, this post–Cold War shift in geopolitical organization and structure requires that the West internally strengthen itself culturally, by abandoning the imposition of its ideal of democratic universalism and its incessant military interventionism. Other critics argue that Huntington's taxonomy is simplistic and arbitrary, and does not take account of the internal dynamics and partisan tensions within civilizations. Huntington's influence upon U.S. policy has been likened to that of British historian A.J. Toynbee's controversial religious theories about Asian leaders in the early twentieth century.

Personal Representative of the Secretary-General for the UN Year of Dialogue Among Civilizations, has said:

• History does not kill. Religion does not rape women, the purity of blood does not destroy buildings and institutions do not fail. Only individuals do those things.

Mr. Picco was appointed the Personal Representative to the Secretary-General for the United Nations Year of Dialogue Among Civilizations in 1999 in order to facilitate discussions on diversity, through organizing conferences, seminars and disseminating information and scholarly materials. Having served the United Nations for two decades, Mr. Picco is most recognized for participating in UN efforts to negotiate the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan and in bringing an end to the Iran-Iraq war. He believes that people should take responsibility for who they are, what they do, what they value, and what they believe in.
Huntington's piece in Foreign Affairs created more responses than almost any other essay ever published in that journal.[original research?] The thesis has received much criticism from wildly different paradigms, with implications, methodology, and even the basic concepts being questioned. In his book, Huntington relies mostly on anecdotal evidence. Despite his expectations, more rigorous empirical studies have not shown any particular increase in the frequency of intercivilizational conflicts in the post-Cold War period. [11] In fact, regional war and conflict spiked immediately after the end of Cold War, then it has declined slowly and steadily since then. However, what proportion of existing conflict can be attributed to "intercivilizational conflict" and whether such conflict increase in proportion to the overall conflict would remain to be seen.
Some have argued that his identified civilizations are fractured and show little internal unity.[6] The Muslim world is severely fractured along ethnic lines with Arabs, Persians, Turks, Pakistanis, Kurds, Berbers, Albanians, Bosnians , Africans and Indonesians all having very different world views. Moreover, the criteria of the proposed delineation are not clear. One can argue, for instance, that cultural differences between China and Japan are not more important than between China and Vietnam.[11] However, Vietnam is put together with China under the label of the Sinic civilization while Japan is supposed to form a separate civilization. Whereas, Western civilization includes both Protestant and Catholic branches; and the Germanic (which would include Anglo Saxon) and Romance cultural differences in Western Europe are also disregarded, as well as Anglo Saxon countries (Britain, U.S., Canada, Australia, etc.) and Continental Europe. The distinction between the Western and Orthodox civilizations excludes non-religious factors, such as the post-Communist legacy or the level of economic development. It also ignores differences within Muslim communities.
In the case of Islamic societies, the "clash" may be with notions of "modernity" rather than with other comparable, religiously based societies or groups. Conflict arises between the values of traditional religion and those of consumerism and the entertainment world.[citation needed]

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_o...ions#Criticism

[Sven788]

So the bigger the line how more chance of a conflict?

[Platon]

I have never heard about some orthodox-japanese clash... very strange

[imb39]

I have never heard about some Orthodox-Japanese clash... very strange

If you consider Orthodox to be Russia then there has been a history of Russian/Japanese tension for over a hundred years. Sakhalin Island remains a bone of contention.

Orthodox - which, I suspect includes Russia and its satellite states along with the Balkans.

Overall it seems to model what has happened reasonably accurately and most certainly a likely source of conflict. There again, that's been true for some time. Aside from resources, politics (which culture/religion play a part in) is the biggest trigger for conflict in recent times.

[Captain Blackadder]

It is not a very good theory the countries of the world are too diverse to lump into 6 catagories. If one looks at the previous few wars many of them are between countries that are in the same group Iran-Iraq, Vietnam-Cambodia, Hutu-Tutsi. We do not fight because of our religious and cultural backgrounds but because of political outlooks. In this case it is not a fight between West and Islam but instead a fight between democracy and islamism/Islamofascism.

[Primvs Sextvs Loverlord]

It is not a very good theory the countries of the world are too diverse to lump into 6 catagories. If one looks at the previous few wars many of them are between countries that are in the same group Iran-Iraq, Vietnam-Cambodia, Hutu-Tutsi. We do not fight because of our religious and cultural backgrounds but because of political outlooks.

Agreed. Well put.

In this case it is not a fight between West and Islam but instead a fight between democracy and islamism/Islamofascism.

This is where I don't agree. Indeed, looking at facts, I can only find evidence to suggest otherwise. For example, the United States unilaterally (undemocratic) attacked and invaded Iraq (a fascist, secular nationalist country). The US was helped by Saudi Arabia (a theocracy), opposed by Iran (a theocracy) and was also denied help by Turkey (a secular democracy). During the Iraq war, another conflict broke out in the Middle-East in which Israel (a secular democracy) bombed indiscriminately with cluster bombs Lebanon (a democracy). Staying in the region, Hamas (democratically elected) was isolated economically and politically by the West whereas Egypt (fascist) was granted economic and military packages despite the fact that Hosni Mubarak admitted to have cheated in the previous elections.

[Dr. Croccer]

I disagree, money and power have been the dominant drive of conflict since the Middle Ages, ethnicity and religion are often used as tools to achieve the conflict.

[Farnan]

Samuel Huntington's clash of civilization is utter .

It has been proven wrong empirically, it rests on the basis of culture being immutable, and his grouping of cultures is idiotic. According to him Nepal is a different culture than India.

(I'd provide sources, but they aren't free use)

Captain Blackadder: According to Dr. Huntington, the Clash of Civilizations only applies post Cold War. However, he uses evidence pre-Cold War which contradicts himself, showing how wrong his theory is.

[corpse helvetica]

there are many flaws, just pointing out several:

1. "Civilizations" are not only religion based
2. All this theory bases on Middle East conflict
3. For attacking are there many more motives than "he is from other civ!"
4. H paints civ-s as uncooperative, but even religions aren't "pure" but mixes. Civs are mixes of (former) civs and so on.

Curiously enough , his theory is closest to islamic ( or whatever ) radical "picture". His theory actually justifies suicide bombers ( or other extreme means )and so on because civs cant coexist anyway.

By far the biggest problem is that it supported neocon blackn'white "world" and strenghtened their beliefs.

[Lord Consul]

Samuel Huntington's clash of civilization is utter .
It has been proven wrong empirically, it rests on the basis of culture being immutable, and his grouping of cultures is idiotic. According to him Nepal is a different culture than India.

You'll notice most people in the IR field are not exactly fond of Huntington's thesis. It is utter shite in oh so many levels... ;P

As for the OP:

- As an Asian Studies person, I affirm: To define Japan as a Civilization distinct and somehow "alien" to East Asian culture (that Huntington foolishly defines as Sinic, as if cultures such as the Mongols and the Ruzhen Turks had not had a major impact on the Far East) is utterly wrong. Japan's evolution as a nation is distinctly linked to the virtual vassal status it had in the Sino-centric world of the ancient East.

- To define Latin America as a separate entity in relation to Western civilization is also a glaring mistake. Economic distinctions aside, as French Latin-American studies professor Alan Rouquié said (I'm quoting it from memory): "Huntington ludicrously equates Western civilization with the Anglo-Saxon world. Latin America was an integral part of Latin Europe's history. It was discovered, colonized and ruled by Latin Europe."

- African civilization?!? It takes not courage, but extreme intellectual arrogance and hubris to group countries such as Algeria and Lesotho into a single defining category.

[Farnan]

You'll notice most people in the IR field are not exactly fond of Huntington's thesis. It is utter shite in oh so many levels... ;P

Already noticed this, was going to link them a study that utterly debunks it, but it would cost them $40.00 to read it.

[Treize]

Orthodox-japanise clash makes no sense, just like islam-sinic relations.
For the rest quite accurate

[Farnan]

So you know The Clash of Civilizations is to International Relations as Marxism is to Economics...

Very few experts in the field support it, but has greater support outside the field. And both are equally bunk.

Huntington's (1993a, 1993b, 1996) clash of civilizations thesis suggests that states belonging to different civilizations are more likely to become involved in conflict with one another. To evaluate the empirical accuracy of Huntington's claims, we examined the relationship between civilization membership and interstate war between 1816 and 1992. We find that civilization membership was not significantly associated with the onset of interstate war during the Cold War era (1946–1988), which is consistent with one aspect of Huntington's thesis; however, we also find that for the pre–Cold War period (1816–1945) states of similar civilizations were more likely to fight each other than were those of different civilizations, which contradicts Huntington's thesis. Most importantly, our analysis reveals that during the post–Cold War era (1989–1992), the period in which Huntington contends that the clash of civilizations should be most apparent, civilization membership was not significantly associated with the probability of interstate war. All told, our findings challenge Huntington's claims and seriously undermine the policy recommendations that devolve from his clash of civilizations thesis.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/j...TRY=1&SRETRY=0

An abstract...

Full Disclosure: One of the authors was a proffessor who gave me an A last semester.

[MekongFisher]

Bollock. As historians, we all know that the history proves that to be false.

Who was Muslim Ottoman Empire's greatest ally in height of its power against same European Roman Catholic monarchy? Who did Moorish pirate lords ally to haggle the Spanish and Portugese fleet during 16th and 17th century?

Gross overgeneralization resulting from Huntington's lack of knowledge and nature of himself as a demagogue under disguise of an academic.

I follow strictly Marxist viewpoint on this one. Any religiious, ethnic, or pretty much all other forms of abstract political ideology is a product of the contemporary geopolitical cicumstances that a certain society belongs to. Therefore, the notion of a single civilization unified under a religious or cultural code, as Huntington portrays, is largely, if not exclusively, a temporary entity resulting from the circumstances of the 'lower structure', to use a Marxist term. The entire religious/ethnic/cultural promotion is only a decoration over that circumstances imposed by delusioned demagogues who want to manipulate the bulk of population into their favor. The history proves that 'clashing civilization' notion is false, and contemporary circumstances which Huntington draws his conclusion from can easily be explained through historical understanding as well, not by some rudimentary, poorly-composed, ambiguous hypothesis.

Something that anyone from outside Western Europe and United States can understand to be a complete bollock with most basic knowledge in history and international relationship

[Farnan]

Something that anyone from outside Western Europe and United States can understand to be a complete bollock with most basic knowledge in history and international relationship

What do you mean anyone outside Western Europe and the US? His theory is not regarded highly here except among demogogacic politicians.

[MekongFisher]

What do you mean anyone outside Western Europe and the US? His theory is not regarded highly here except among demogogacic politicians.

I'm not saying that Westerners take this guy seriously. What I am saying is that any self-respecting Korean, Thai, Sudanese, Chilean, etc will be ridiculed at the notion that their countries are grouped in same civilization as China, Burma, Ethiopia, Peru, etc. Basically, what Huntington did is take a big ballpoint pen, stuck it to the world map, and drew the map of "civilizations" by pure geographic features, completely disregarding the radically differing political, cultural, religious, and social tendencies and characteristics that those nations which he put under same category possess. Even for "Western" civilization which he put up as some kind of protagonist, does French and Americans share same political hegemony? I don't think so.

[Dr. Croccer]

So you know The Clash of Civilizations is to International Relations as Marxism is to Economics...

Das Kapital is actually quite accurate on some things. Though that is for another place, another time.

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

Das Kapital is actually quite accurate on some things. Though that is for another place, another time.

Just to follow on from your point, and Farnan's original,

Very few experts in the field support it, but has greater support outside the field. And both are equally bunk.

Economic experts have very recently proven themselves to have about as much knowlegde and understanding of the economy as the average person.

Huntington's thesis makes litte sense, and ignores the malable nature of what a 'civilization' is, back the the BCs one clash was between the Mediterrainian civilisation and the Norther European ones, dispite these two cultures still mantaining diffrences, he lumps them and the American culture into one group.