Skip to main content

Notes on Samuel Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations

A general picture of Huntington's argument:
  •  Great division among humankind will be cultural instead of ideological and primarily economic.
  • Non-Western civilizations no longer remain the objects of history as targets of Western colonialism but join the West as movers and shapers of history.
  • Civilization: Highest cultural grouping people, broadest level of cultural identity people that distinguishes humans from other species.
  • Two major variants: European-North American
  • Islam has its three subdivisions: Arab, Turkic and Malay.
  • Civilizations differ from each other by history, language, culture, tradition and religion.
  • Cultural identity turns into civilization consciousness.
  • Why civilizations will crash?

o   Differences among civilizations have generated the most prolonged and the most violent conflicts.
o   Increasing interactions intensify civilization consciousness and awareness of differences between civilizations and commonalities within civilizations.
o   Economic modernization and social change weaken the national state as a source of identity and this provides a basis for broader ‘civilization’ identity.
o   Westernization provides a return to roots of the civilization. It makes people also desire to identify themselves different.
o   Cultural characteristics cannot be converted to another identity and this strengthens the devotion to the belonging civilization. The question was ‘which side are you on?’ but now ‘What are you?’ No half/half persons.
o   Successful economic regionalism will reinforce civilization-consciousness.
  • People define themselves ‘us’ in religious and ethnic  terms while define others as ‘them’
  • The efforts of the West to promote its values of democracy and liberalism as universal values, to maintain military predominance and to advance its economic interests.
  • The clash occurs in two levels: micro-level, macro-level.
  • Fault line between civilizations.
  • In the Arab world, Western democracy strengthens anti-Western political forces.
  • Differences in power and struggles for military, economic and institutional power are one source of conflict between the West and other civilizations.
  • Differences in culture (basic values and beliefs) are second source of conflict.
  • The West induces other peoples to adopt Western ideas concerning democracy and human rights.
  • They have to either isolate themselves from the World or join the West and accept its values or balance it by modernize but no westernize.
  • Torn country: they want to join but they can’t because of historical, cultural and traditional aspects. (Turkey, Mexico, Russia)
  • To redefine their civilization identity torn countries must meet three requirements:

o   The support and enthusiasm of economic and political elite.
o   The public has to accept even if they don’t want.
o   The dominant groups have to be willing to convert
  • Western civilization is both Western and modern. Non-western civilizations have attempted to become modern without becoming Western. (p.49)
  • There will be no universal civilization, but instead a world of different civilizations.
Labels:

Popular posts from this blog

The Civilization of Clash - A Critique

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.
Read more

Camus's Absurd End

"Camus was only 46 when he died in an automobile accident. Ironically, he had once said that he could not imagine a death more meaningless than dying in a car accident." From Understanding Philosophy, Joan A. Price
Read more

Oppression

The worst oppression is that of knowledge. I think, an expert who assumes he has right to direct you is the most cruel oppressor. If one speaks and gives 'advice' without concerning his audience, their needs and capacities, he actually tries to maintain his authority over them. Knowledge, in this sense, becomes a tool in hands of an expert for sucking all the nourishment from non-expert people. Look at those so-called possessors of knowledge. They are as if gods of the society. Any word coming from their mouths gains an authorization quickly. However, their words not always open locked doors, rather sometimes  lock the doors to people in order to keep their privileged position in the society. They consider themselves as ‘gatekeepers’ keeping lay people away from the source of knowledge. They are afraid of that once people get access to the sources, there would be no need for these so-called keepers of knowledge.
Read more