Samuel Huntington, in his influential 1993 article “The Clash of Civilizations?” provides a theoretical framework for post-Cold War conflict. The essay heralds the end of the era of ideological conflict, proposing that future conflict will be the product of cultural rivalry. Huntington’s article identifies seven to eight cultural amalgams, which he labels “civilisations”. These factions, he holds, will vie for dominance of global politics because they differ from each other on conceptions of the fundamental meaning of being human. Huntington’s argument is grounded in realist theories of rivalry between powers under conditions of anarchy, but in his thesis the constituent states of a civilisation are inclined to act collectively in the interest of their own civilisation. Huntington goes on to advocate the promotion of Western cultural values among Non-Western civilisations, elevating it to an imperative of Western governments. Further, he develops a paradigm for the “immediate future” that involves a confrontation between the West, as the incumbent hegemonic civilisation, and a coalition of rival civilisations with a mutual interest in the West’s retreat from its domination of international politics.
Central to Huntington’s argument is his representation of diverse peoples as collectively constituting largely homogenous civilisations. He identifies seven or eight civilisations that he terms the “broadest level of cultural identity people have”.[1] Central and western Europe, North America and Australia are collectively “The West”. In opposition, Huntington arrays Confucian, Islamic, Latin American, Japanese, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox and possibly an African civilisation. Contrary to academic belief in the hybrid, heterogeneous nature of cultures, Huntington paints these amalgams as monolithic competitors for global power. Huntington poses that cultural difference is more intrinsic to human beings than political association. Furthermore he argues that cultural identity is more fundamental to human beings than race and ideology. Therefore conflict is more likely between civilisations than within them.
In essence, Huntington’s prediction of a clash of civilisations is a realism-inspired paradigm where the primary actors are unified blocks of states whose quest for security and dominance is centred on the promotion of their competing cultures. Traditional realist theory posits that individual states promote their own interests without any sense of community. Mutual absolute gains are considered inconsequential under an anarchic international system; economic and military power alone is the guarantor of a state’s (or in Huntington’s adaption, a civilisation’s) survival. In the section of his essay where he advocates cultural promotion by Western governments, Huntington seems to support liberal intervention, but devoid of the ‘responsibility to protect’ motive. Instead, Huntington implicitly assumes that Western culture is superior to its rivals. This theme pervades his article and is employed to define other non-Western civilisations. They are understood simply by how they differ from “The West”.
Huntington’s language is that of a nationalist. He perceives his nation to be the abstract notion of “The West” and assumes its superiority. He goes on to reach the logical conclusion of his nationalist assumptions by advocating Western governments intervene to promote the decline of rival cultural values, where possible. The confrontational stance adopted by Huntington seeks to justify an apparently imperialistic promotion of “Western civilisation”. Referencing threatening adjustments in relative power, Huntington does not advocate the promotion of peaceful and mutual development among all nations. Western governments are encouraged to “exploit differences and conflicts among Confucian and Islamic states; to support in other civilisations groups sympathetic to Western values and interests”.[2] Instead of a new paradigm, Huntington’s thesis perpetuates Cold War-style conflict; his definition of civilisational divisions bears striking resemblance to the first, second and third “worlds” that characterised Cold War understanding.
Huntington’s envisioned clash of civilisations is centred on the belief that the civilisations he identifies are homogenous and that the peoples within a civilisation have little, if any, common culture with the peoples in other civilisations. A specific realism-inspired theory is applied to this condition. States are important actors but are inclined to operate in unison as constituent members of their civilisations. Huntington does not believe conflict will occur as readily and frequently within civilisations as between them. The author perceives his thesis from a partisan viewpoint, defining non-Western civilisations by their difference from and opposition to Western civilisation. Finally, the essay promotes an interest within Western governments to assert, through military and economic means and through international organisations, the primacy of Western cultural values.
End Notes
[1] HUNTINGTON, S. P. 1993. The Clash of Civilizations? Foreign Affairs, 72, 22-49. Page 24.
[2] Ibid. Page 49.
[This review was submitted in April 2010]
