Realistic Shortcomings

Realistic Shortcomings of the Clash of Civilizations Theory Jonathan Yoder HIS 342: The Middle East Professor Julie Golding 14 January, 2012

Realistic Shortcomings

Realistic Shortcomings of the Clash of Civilizations Theory

The clash of civilizations, a theory proposed by political scientist and professor of government at Harvard University, Samuel Huntington, propositions that in the years to follow the Cold War, the primary sources of global conflict will be a culturally and religiously based, as opposed to being ideologically or economically founded. The class of civilizations theory provides a working model to predict the potential hypothetical outcomes of the interactions between the great civilizations of the world but fails both to take into account the human condition and allow for outcomes or decisions that originate from an individual or situational position rather than from a cultural basis and to make use of the wide field of currently available empirical data concerning interstate conflict. Although Huntington and his acolytes produce a profound and sweeping argument, the theories and proclamations that they attach to their selfdefined civilizations of the world are reputable only in a grand sense when one takes a macro view of the global society as a whole. These same theories lose much of their validity when the interactions of the nation-states and civilizations of the world are examined on an individual basis and viewed on the micro scale. The class of civilizations theory is successfully workable only when one views the civilizations as being wholly defined by that civilizations key tenets and core beliefs and the global actions and positions of that civilization and its leadership as being wholly guided and directed by the same. This view, however, fails to consider and take into account the effect and influence that the inclusion of individual human characteristics, personalities, instincts, and intentions has on the actions and positions of the various nation-

Realistic Shortcomings

states and societies that make up the world civilizations, as defined by Huntington. The glaring shortcoming of Huntington's theory is his assumption that civilizations are made up of concepts. The constituents of the civilization are neither tenets nor precepts but humans, each one embedded with free will and bound to a civilizational pattern of beliefs or actions only to the extent to which they willfully submit and at any time wholly capable of action in a direction or manner deemed right, necessary, or beneficial by that individual alone. Huntington further errs in basing his theory on the idea that human nature is predictable or that individual adherence to cultural beliefs or the very beliefs and principles of any certain civilizations themselves are static or concrete over the lifespan of that civilization. Huntington's clash of civilizations theory centers itself on the idea that the age of ideological conflict has come to a close and that, in the future, conflict would occur along cultural lines. Huntington believed that individual nation-states would continue to be the dominant forces in the affairs of the world, but that the conflicts and divisions between those nations would occur due to differences in civilizational and cultural beliefs as opposed to either ideological tenets or economic tendencies (Huntington, 2002). Huntington divided the world into several distinct civilizations. They are as follows: Western, which includes North America, Europe, and Australia; Confucian, including both the Sinic nations of China and the Koreas and Buddhist territories in Southeast Asia; Islamic, made up of the Middle East and Northern Africa; Hindu, consisting of India, Bhutan, and Nepal; Slavic-Orthodox, including much of the former Soviet Union and several Eastern European states; Latin American; and sub-Saharan African. Huntington theorized that the clash of civilizations would occur for several key reasons. Primarily, Huntington believed civilizations would clash because the differences among civilizations exist at a base level. They are not mere preferences, but rather the foundation stones

Realistic Shortcomings

upon which the history and identity of a culture is built. Secondly, increased technology and the subsequent globalization of trade has led to an increase in the interactions between the varying civilizations, particularly the Western world. This emergence of a global economy has caused an increased awareness of cultural differences and, in response to the global dominance of the Western world, a return to, and greater identification with, cultural and civilizational identities, often in the form of religious fundamentalism. Finally cultural characteristics are much less changeable than either political or ideological characteristics and because of this, are much more difficultly conceded or settled when they come into conflict with those of another. With this in mind Huntington further proposes that the Islamic civilization in particular as a greater propensity for violence then do the other cultures of the world due to the much greater part that religion, particularly Islamic extremism, plays in the actions of Islamic cultures. Huntington believes that Islamic cultures will inevitably see conflict with their neighboring states, resulting unavoidably in the infamous bloody borders that he ascribes to the nations within the Islamic civilization. Huntington believes that of all the civilizations, the Western and Islamic civilizations are the least compatible and thus the most likely to clash and engage in conflict. Huntington states that the Western and Islamic civilizations have engaged in conflict for over 1300 years, beginning only a few years after the establishment of Islam. Huntington furnishes several reasons for the greater propensity of conflict between the Western, heavily influenced by Christianity, and Islamic civilizations. Primarily, these two religions are both teleological and universal. This not only means that each faith considers its core tenants to exist to provide both the objectives during and ultimate purpose of human life, but that each faith considers itself to be the only true and correct faith. Furthermore, both religions are proselytic, and the hunt for converts often

Realistic Shortcomings

brings them into one another's territory and subsequently into conflict and competition with one another. Another reason for increased discord between the Western and Islamic civilizations, and a key tenet and Huntington's thesis, is the global challenge to modernize without westernizing many of the nation-states within the Islamic civilization have attempted to modernize their cultures and societies without implementing the often accompanying Western moral standards and ideals. The difficulty in attaining in modern society separate from Western ideals has caused a rapid rise of religious fundamentalism in the region. Huntington's Clash of the civilizations thesis either neglects or operates in the face of several universally held ideas. In his theory, Huntington attempts to pigeonhole the various civilizations of the world by limiting their respective cultures to a very narrow definition, failing to account for the rich diversity that can be found within the civilizations of the world, the Islamic and Western civilizations in specific (Gelvin, 2011). Neither Western nor Islamic civilizations possess unilateral religious unity, as the constituents of both civilizations practice and profess their individual faiths in a variety of ways. The United States alone recognizes within its citizens no less than 35 religious affiliations each with a varying number of sub denominations, Protestant Christianity alone possessing nearly 80. The Islamic civilization is no different, with the religion of Islam consisting of five major denominations further divided into over 20 sects. Add to this the fact that within each of these varying affiliations, denominations, or sects, each of the individual practitioners of that religion do so to varying degrees of personal commitment and intensity. On the basis of religion alone, a common definition or consensus as to what defines the values and guidelines of that particular culture cannot possibly be reached. As civilizations evolve over time, so also does their understanding, interpretation, and application of their religious beliefs, making a static or concrete definition of a particular

Realistic Shortcomings

regions religious definition a practical impossibility. In response to Huntington, Amartya Sen points to the fact that "diversity is a feature of most cultures in the world (1999). Sen goes on to highlight the fact that although democracy is considered with then Huntington's thesis to be synonymous with the Western world, democracy in the Western world is a rather recent development, fully achieved only within the last century or so. Sen further points out that to identify with the West a commitment to democracy over the whole of the last millennia would be " a great mistake", due to the obvious fact that for the sweeping majority of its history, the Western civilization has been defined by monarchies (Sen, 1999). The greatest proof of any political or social theory can be found when the predictions of the theory are exhibited throughout the natural world. In the case of the clash of civilizations theory, this proof is not found as the events that have unfolded across the world stage have been largely in contradiction to the theory. A wealth of empirical data can be found in numerous studies conducted in recent years that refute Huntington's claims. Huntington's clash of civilizations theory states that actors in similar civilizations were less likely to fight each other than they were to fight actors in different civilizations, although during the pre-Cold War period, the exact opposite was true, with states of similar civilizations being much more willing to engage in conflict with one another than those states of a differing civilization (Henderson, 2001). Beyond that, according to the Correlates of War Project data, of the interstate wars that occurred from 1816 until 1992, less than 40% are between Islamic and Christian states, and less than 15% were between Islamic and Western states. Further, contrary to Huntington's summation that Islam has bloody borders, Christianity more than Islam, showed a propensity to engage in conflict (Henderson, 2001). Huntington's disciples are quick to point to the terrorist attack of September 11 as proof positive of Huntington's link between Islamic societies and political

Realistic Shortcomings

violence. In 2003, however, Soysa and Nordas found that contrary to Huntington's class of civilizations thesis, countries containing large percentages of Roman Catholics and those ruled by Roman Catholics actually suffered higher levels of political terror compared with the rest of the world, leading them to maintain that the Arab region as opposed to the Islamic religion is the significant variable as far as findings and studies concerned with political violence are concerned (Soysa, 2003). Huntington's theory would lead us to believe the members of differing civilizations are incapable of coexistence due to their varying cultural ideas and beliefs. A staunch counter to this idea can be found displayed in the numerous multi-civilizational empires that have existed throughout the world, in specific the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire not only successfully housed Sunni and Shia Muslims, Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christians, and practitioners of Judaism, but also was able to effectively unite the members of these varying religious groups into a common amalgamated society under the osmalilik ideology of Ottoman nationalism (Gelvin, 2011). The United States itself, although listed and defined only as the West by Huntington, stands as an example of the potential for the successful societal integration and cooperation of the citizens within a multi-civilizational nation. The simple truth is that historically, hundreds if not thousands of instances and situations occur in which participants of two or more differing civilizations were able not only coexist peacefully, but thrive in symbiotic social relationships. The clash of civilizations theory that Samuel Huntington proposed envisions a post-Cold War existence where an ideological and economical conflicts are replaced by skirmishes over cultural and religious battle lines. Although Huntington's theory may help to predict potential global alliance patterns, it does little in the way of explaining political or commercial interactions, nor does it do much to define the actual occurring interstate conflicts in the previous

Realistic Shortcomings

and current era (Russett, 2000). Huntington's theory of civilizations is unbelievably difficult to operationalize, due to the fact that the world civilizations he describes in a single word often times encompass and contain many distinct individual societies built on numerous cultural, ethical, and traditional bases (Fox, 2002). Although Huntington's clash of civilizations theory provides numerous examples and predictions of hypothetical future conflicts and alliances, the theory does little to accurately describe the actual inter-civilizational conflicts and interactions have occurred in the recent era and are occurring in the present day. Furthermore, his oft-quoted belief in the bloody borders of Islam exists as a wholly unsubstantiated idea, when in fact it is Christendom whose borders are historically the most often bloodstained. Huntington's theories are only workable when civilizations are considered on a scholarly and definitive level, and kept devoid of the individual actors, circumstances, global situations, and factors which govern their daily societal actions. Huntington fails to take into account the knowledge that nation states often act independently of, and frequently in contradiction to, the civilization that culturally their citizens are members of. Especially in the Islamic civilization, as evidenced by the Arab Spring movements of late 2010 into the whole of 2011, intra, rather than inter-civilization conflict exists, leading many to theorize that currently Islam has bloody innards rather than bloody borders. The clash of civilizations theory is feasible only in a world where cultural beliefs and tenets are practiced completely and unerringly and where the human condition is not permitted to influence the mindsets or actions of either the citizenry or leadership of the individual nationstates that comprise a civilization. Although Huntington is to be lauded and admired for his efforts, his theory remains unworkable unless confined to academic and intellectual bounds, and not at all within the legitimate workings of the global society. To many this realization is quite a

Realistic Shortcomings

relief, as the future of rampant civilizational conflicts that Huntington paints is bleak indeed. This is best embodied I by a verse by Frederick Tipson: His book conveys a challenge, like he wants us to refute him Daring us, by scaring us, to doubt him or dispute him Which is fine for academic-argument-displaying As long as someone powerful won't act on what he's saying (Tipson, 1997).

Huntington's theory embodies perfectly and rationally the hypothetical state of the world in in terms of civilizational alliances and conflicts. Unfortunately, his failure to include within his rationale the definitional instability and unpredictability of human behavior and opinion renders his theory unworkable as a legitimate blueprint for the future conduct of either civilizations as a whole or individual nation states.

Realistic Shortcomings

10

References Fox, J. (2002). Ethnic Minorities and the Clash of Civilizations: A Quantitative Analysis of Huntington's Thesis. British Journal of Political Science, 33(2), 415-434 . Gelvin, J. L. (2011). The modern Middle East: a history (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Henderson, E. A., & Tucker, R. (2001). Clear and Present Strangers: The Clash of Civilizations and International Conflict. International Studies Quarterly, 45(2), 317-338. Huntington, S. P. (2002). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. New York: The Free Press & Design/Simon & Schuster Inc. Russett, B. M., Oneal, J. R., & Cox, M. (2000). Clash of Civilizations, or Realism and Liberalism Deja Vu? Some Evidence. Journal of Peace Research, 37(5), 583-608. Sen, A. (1999). Democracy as a Universal Value. Journal of Democracy, 10(3), 3-17. Soysa, I. D., & Nordas, R. (2003). Islam's Bloody Innards? Religion and Political Terror, 19802000. International Studies Quarterly, 51(4), 927-943.