There are few political scientists who have had as extraordinary a career as the late
professor Samuel P. Huntington. Professor of Political Science at Harvard
University from 1963-2008, and a lifelong Democrat, Huntington’s crown jewel
was “The Clash of Civilizations & the Remaking of the World Order”, published
in 1996. For many scholars, this treatise remains the most important book on world
affairs published in the past 25 years, and should be read by anyone concerned
with world peace and the future of humanity.
The reason I chose to write on this book is because it seems like a day doesn’t go by that we don’t hear politicians and public officials raising “the clash of civilizations” doctrine whenever marginal and terrorist groups like ISIS destroy a Christian church in the Middle East or sponsor a terrorist attack on European soil. Politicians from both the left and the right resort to this doctrine as a way of explaining events they don’t truly understand. The thesis of this essay is to explain what Professor Huntington meant by “the clash of civilizations” and why the majority of officials and pundits who resort to this doctrine don’t really understood what Huntington was talking about.
Huntington begins with the end of the Cold War in the 1980s, a brief conflict between two superpowers (US & USSR) over which secular ideology (liberal democracy and capitalism versus communism) would prevail. Countries aligned themselves with one of two superpowers, regardless of culture, ethnicity, or religion, except for some “non-aligned” nations found mainly in the developing world. History had become frozen in time. Whether states were Asian, European, and African were irrelevant. Cultural differences were set aside for most of the 20th century, an anomaly in human history. This era ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall in the 1980s and the return of history. The most important distinctions would by then become cultural rather than ideological, political, or economic.
For Huntington, it’s possible that a global civilization may one day emerge, but we’re not there yet. Differences between civilizations vastly outnumber commonalities. The fact they’re eating fast food in Saudi Arabia does not mean the Saudis have become part of western civilization, nor does the adoption of western technology in Iran and China mean these civilizations have become westernized. Having a computer, a western invention, is one thing, possessing the right to use it for sharing your opinions on the internet free of government reprisals, also a western concept, is another matter.
But what is a civilization? It’s something that goes beyond the superficial. In short, civilization involves the values, norms, institutions, and mode of thinking to which successive generations have attached primary importance. A civilization may contain one or many political entities, such as city states (Singapore), empires (British), federations (Russia), confederations, nation states, and multinational states (a future United States of Europe comes to mind). But of all the distinguishing elements, religion remains by far the most important. It serves to distinguish one civilization from another and remains a major source of conflict.
The current conflict in the Muslim World would no doubt be exhibit one. And as events in the former Yugoslavia point out, people with different religions will slaughter one another even if sharing a common ethnicity and language. Thus Roman Catholic Croatians and Orthodox Serbs slaughtered one another before turning their attention to slaughtering Muslim Bosnians, who in turn returned the favour once foreign jihadists arrived.
In Lebanon, Muslims and Christians slaughtered one another over a twenty year period, despite sharing a common language and ethnicity. In Sudan, the conflict between the Muslim north and the Christian south eventually lead to the south seceding from Sudan and forming its own nation, but only after thousands of lives were lost. In Sri Lanka, a bloody civil war between Hindu Tamils and the Buddhist Sinhalese majority ended only once the Sinhalese won a conclusive victory. In Indonesia, Christian East Timor was finally allowed to secede from predominantly Muslim Indonesia only after a long civil war ended. Meanwhile, a civil war continues to range in Ukraine between the western part of the country and the eastern part, which remains predominantly Russian speaking and adherent to the Russian Orthodox Church.
Huntington counts no fewer than 8 major civilizations, all of which deserve our respect. These civilizations are grouped as follows: Chinese, Japanese, Hindu (India), Islamic, Christian Orthodox (led by Russia), Western (led by the US), Latin America, and African. Huntington’s thesis is simple: Avoidance of a global war of civilization depends on world leaders accepting and cooperating to maintain the multi-civilizational character of global politics. It also means accepting the notion that the rest of the world doesn’t necessarily want to adopt the West’s liberal democratic values, including its progressive stance on social issues.
But most importantly, the West must understand that for many in the rest of the world, “modernization” isn’t equated with “westernization” and that to believe otherwise is to be culturally arrogant and disrespectful of other civilizations. “Modernization”, as Huntington correctly points out, is producing neither a universal civilization nor the westernization of non-western societies. Samuel Huntington is thus showing himself to be the ultimate anti-imperialist, believing as he does that all civilizations are equal. And this equality of civilizations extends to our own, here in the West, from where I write free from any reprisals for writing these words.
Samuel Huntington’s views are interesting for what he’s not suggesting. He does not for example call for a clash of civilizations, nor does he necessarily equate this conflict as involving violence. In fact he even suggests that conflict can be avoided if there is mutual respect. Unfortunately, as Huntington points out, much of the rest of the world sees the West as arrogant and hypocritical. It is arrogant in its belief that it has developed the supreme culture that all other civilizations should seek to emulate and hypocritical in criticizing human rights violations only when it serves its needs.
Different civilizations with different agendas will go about doing their business in a way which we in the West are uncomfortable with. Legal systems for example will vary differently from one civilization to another. Not every corner of the globe will adopt either Common Law or Civil Law, both of which have as their source states and cultures (England in the case of Common Law and Classical Rome in the case of Civil Law) based in the West. Are we in the West willing to accept differences? George W Bush’s invasion of Iraq, a region that is part of a civilization most Americans don’t understand or care to understand, would suggest otherwise.
Huntington spends a considerable amount of time writing about the clash of civilizations between the West and non-Muslim societies. In short, this book isn’t obsessed with any conflict that may exist between the West and Islam. I say this because the clash of civilizations doctrine is only raised with regard to Islamic extremism whenever a terrorist group like ISIS commits one of its barbaric acts. His concern with China and Russia’s future relations with the West are clear examples. In the case of China we see a proud civilization that goes back thousands of years and that lead the world in commerce for centuries. China is today the world’s largest country with an economy set to surpass that of the United States. It is currently flexing its naval muscles in the South China Sea, much as the US did in the Caribbean and Latin America (Monroe Doctrine) during much of the 19th century. China and the US will probably never go to war with one another but China will attempt to exert its rightful place on the world stage.
We in the West, as Huntington reminds us, must accept the historical fact that with economic might goes political and military influence, as rich nations build up their armies and navies. The fact that the US and China trade with one another does not mean that China is set to become a liberal democracy any day soon. Culture, as Huntington points out in another one of his treatises, remains important, and China will remain a one party authoritarian state for many years to come. In the end, the clash of civilizations will involve many civilizations attempting to find their rightful place in the 21st century and beyond and must thus not be seen as primarily a conflict between Islam and the West.
The case of Russia is equally interesting. Russia is as usual caught between the West and the East, neither fully European nor Asian. Dostoevsky and Tolstoy had this discussion in the 19th century and it continues till this day. But as Putin shows us, his authoritarianism is a clear rejection of western democratic values. And as a country that sees itself as leader of the Orthodox Christian world, Russia also rejects what it sees as the corrupting influences of western society in the social arena, whether in regard to pluralism, gay rights, or women’s rights. Interestingly, this is something that Russian civilization shares with Muslim and Asian civilizations: a belief that western values and laws on social issues are too extreme and alien to be imported into their respective societies.
India meanwhile also rejects the West’s social value system while attempting to develop its economy. It ranks today as one of the world’s largest economies, and is attempting to develop its democracy within a Hindu dominated framework, as the recent election of the Hindu Nationalist party, the BJP, shows. As Huntington points out, the Muslim world is spreading its influence and civilization through population growth and exportation of immigrants, while Asian societies seek to expand their economies.
Where does this put Latin America and Africa? Huntington points out that at least from a political perspective, these represent the weaker civilizations, as neither is led by a “core” state that is able to provide political and economic leadership, much as the US does for the West, Russia for Orthodox Christianity, and China for the Sinic civilization.
Huntington rightly points out that the West is in decline, both in demographic and economic terms. This also means that the West is declining in political influence. Countries in the developing world may, as a consequence, look to countries from civilizations they’re part of for political and economic inspiration. China will likely be more inspired by Singapore, a country it has so much in common culturally, than it will from either the United States, with its dysfunctional Congress, or from the European Union, which remains divided and unequal in every sense.
But Huntington does not despair for the West, though he remains worried. His main concern is with multi-culturalism in the case of the US, which he sees as diluting the American identity and creating ethnocentrism, and Muslim immigration to Europe, which he believes will lead to social unrest and lack of solidarity. Huntington would likely argue that imposing western values on newcomers, whether in the US or Europe, is as valid as non-western societies imposing local and indigenous (non-western) values on their citizens. As Huntington points out, we in the West need to know who we are and to appreciate western civilization for what it is and what it has given us.
Huntington probably got it wrong on multiculturalism. Diversity may actually be one of America’s strong points as immigrants are among America’s most enterprising entrepreneurs. One has only to think off tech companies in Silicon Valley started by Asian immigrants, to take but one example. Not only do Hispanics and other immigrants provide scientists, cheap labour and budding entrepreneurs, they also provide plenty of children. Thus unlike Europe, South Korea, and Japan, America’s population will continue to rise, adding to its social and economic vitality. America certainly has its weak points, but the best and the brightest across the world still aspire to start a company somewhere in California.
America’s biggest threat is not demographic changes but the growing gap between the wealthy and the shrinking middle class, not to mention the working poor. No great country with a weakened middle class that feels economically and politically marginalized can ever remain leader of a civilization. And as Huntington points out, if America declines, so does Western civilization. Huntington does not deal with this economic inequality and the consequences for America’s ability to lead the West. One who did was writer and commentator Kevin Phillips who wrote a series of books going back to the 1990s that chronicles the decline of America’s middle class. “Boiling Point: Democrats, Republicans, and the Decline of Middle Class Prosperity”, published in 1993, is a must read for anyone interested in understanding the biggest threat to America’s survival as a vibrant and prosperous liberal democracy.
Professor Huntington predicted the collapse of the former Soviet Union decades before it occurred. He no doubt will also be remembered for coining and developing the notion of an impending “clash of civilizations”. But he also should be remembered for his humility. For example, he starts his treatise by outlining the limits to his theory, something which journalists, writers, and academics almost never do. He points out that no paradigm is eternally valid, and that while a civilizational approach is useful for understanding global politics in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, this does not mean that it might be equally helpful in the mid-21st century. He also points out that the West will continue to dominate well into the 21st century. Huntington does not see the West experiencing a cataclysmic collapse so much as a gradual decline in regard to other civilizations. All civilizations, in other words, will eventually have their seat at the table.
SOME CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
Professor Huntington’s book should be read by any pundit, politician, or citizen who feels he or she is qualified to us the term “clash of civilizations”, either to support a theory that he or she likely misunderstands or to criticize the doctrine. Doing otherwise is both intellectually lazy and dangerous. A keen observer of international relations who refrains from using the expression is President Barrack Obama, who, regardless of whether he agrees with Huntington’s views, understands that most people hearing the phrase have likely never read Professor’s Huntington’s book. The theory should, after-all, be used to promote comprehension not ignite conflict and misunderstanding.
In the end, Professor Huntington, an American citizen, was recommending restraint in how countries like the United States exercises foreign policy. The US, he believed, should not rush into every foreign conflict with the idea of imposing western values and solutions. This is something that Barrack Obama clearly understands. Criticized for not intervening more aggressively in Libya and Syria by Hillary Clinton among others, President Obama no doubt understands Huntington’s warning that intervening in other countries’ civil wars can only make matters worse, especially where the cultures in question are totally foreign to the western observer. And as President Obama likely lectured his students while teaching Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago, a country should clean up its own mess before attempting to fix the rest of the world’s problems.
Huntington’s book is about the clash between civilizations. But another clash is also taking place which he fails to talk about in his book, namely, the clash within civilizations. We see it in the Middle East between extreme Muslim groups like ISIS and the majority of Muslim citizens who reject terrorism, fanaticism, and a perverted interpretation of the Koran. Perhaps this clash of civilizations within civilizations will eventually lead to the global civilization that so many are hoping for.
The situation in the rest of the world is also more complicated than Huntington would suggest, as most citizens seek to determine who they are and where their respective countries belong on the world stage. States like Taiwan and South Korea, populated by Asians, started out as dictatorships, moved to soft authoritarianism, and are now liberal democracies with free elections supervised by an independent press. Can it be said that Taiwan is still part of Chinese civilization, or does it straddle two civilizations?
Professor Huntington rightly points out that there is no one global civilization but that one might emerge in the future. He correctly points out that political development is not static. States and civilizations are continuously evolving. They come and go, replaced by other states and civilizations. His recommendation of mutual respect and recognition is a recipe for avoiding global conflict through misunderstanding and rash judgments like choosing to invade other societies.
Avoiding the clash of civilizations will in the end allow societies from different civilizations to cooperate on a range of issues from combatting global warming, to increasing trade, and yes, even promoting democracy and human rights. Promoting human rights requires, however, that we in the West show sensitivity to cultural differences as they currently exist.
In the end, allowing politicians and pundits to misuse the term will only lead to needless and avoidable conflicts. A journalist should consequently always ask any public official using the term whether he or she has ever read the book, and to provide a definition. Of course, this implies that journalists and commentators know where the term comes from in the first place!
