Samuel
Huntington, the writer of ‘The Clash of Civilizations’ article, imagines a disagreement
between major cultures of the world. He suggests, for the future, a certain
separation between civilizations that cannot be avoided. Through the centuries,
a fault line between civilizations was created by the different views of God
and man, the individual and the group, and so on. This line is also gradually
growing because of the unbearable Western military, economic and cultural
superiority to others. The line will not soon disappear because it is more
fundamental than the separation created by political approaches.
According
to Huntington, civilizations differ from each other by history, language,
culture, tradition and religion. Along with growing interactions between
civilizations, peoples separate from each other in order to intensify their
cultural identity and civilization-consciousness. This intensity also creates
different ‘civilization identities’ for people who carry them. After this,
people will define themselves according to their civilizations instead of
according to their ethnicity or ideology.
Edward
Said strongly objects to the definition of ‘civilization identity’ in the
article. He ignores the accuracy of this term. According to him, it is dynamic
and turbulent rather than stable and completed. It can be observed, for
instance, in the German case after World War II as metamorphosis of Germany’s
identity. If Civilization can change, develop and disappear, as Huntington defines
it, the definition of civilization identity should have also been a living and
changing fact. Otherwise, we can find ourselves in a frozen world of definition
that could not be in a harmony with the real world. Said says if civilizations
are vigorous, then civilization identity should also be so.
Said
also asserts that the fault line which is mentioned in the article does not match
with real world which is full of mixtures of cultures, migrations and crossings
over. The clash of civilizations does not match with the reality because there
are no longer protected/isolated cultures and civilizations in the world and
every civilization is aware of the diversity of cultures. If we look at the
world, we can see no country as well as civilizations free from cultural
variety.
It
is noticeable that Huntington is not clear about his definitions of terms that do
not represent the real situation. I think the most striking point in Said’s
criticism of Huntington’s article is the one about defining civilization identities
as stable and frozen rather than dynamic. On the other hand, Said emphasizes the
difference between Huntington’s perspective and the facts of reality. This is
the weakest point of Huntington’s thesis, according to him. However, the influence of globalization should
be noticed. It assimilates every cultural identity and indigenous value that causes
people to differ from each other. Therefore, cultures and civilizations are
rightfully denying the alien values in order to survive themselves.
Said should have realized the reaction of ‘the
Rest’. Because of Western military, economic and institutional predominance, as
if it is only one destiny for the World in the future, Huntington’s theory
could come to fruition in the other civilizations by increasing violence or
intolerance. Said makes good points;
however his argument is not accurate particularly in his criticism on ‘the
growing fault line’. Respect for cultural and emotional boundaries between
civilizations can provide a broader land for tolerance and can be a guarantee
of the variety. Otherwise, if we are not
aware of the reasons for ‘the Clash of Civilizations’, there will be only a
united civilization over the World based on clash called ‘the Civilization of
Clash’ even if we don’t want that to happen.