The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order by Samuel P.

Huntington Review by: Robert Marks Journal of World History, Vol. 11, No. 1 (Spring, 2000), pp. 101-104 Published by: University of Hawai'i Press Stable URL: . Accessed: 08/02/2012 10:03
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact

University of Hawai'i Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of World History.

and bond with other states lizational elements within to Western in Europe up to the civilization (in particular belonging States should borders of the former Soviet Union). and con identity. the United sees as the two major gird itself for conflict with what Huntington to Western civilization?the Chinese (which he labels challengers that "Sinic") and Islamic civilizations. and espe here? Because Huntington cially about historical be made aware of. $26 (cloth). So why isThe Clash of Civilizations being reviewed makes a big claim about history. difference. continuity?a claim that world historians should thesis is that the bipolarity of the Cold War obscured Huntington's a fundamental fact about the world and its history: namely. it assuredly Rather. Huntington. Huntington explicitly hopes his book will provide policymakers (and others?) with a new paradigm to replace of international relations the "realist" school's paradigm 101 . its own borders. that the units of common human action. Further. gussied up with what the author believes to "history tells us" or "throughout references least numerous history. civilizations. largest are drawing which flict have been. and the Remaking ofWorld Order as "his Clash of Civilizations ington^ is not. By Samuel p. New York: Simon & Schuster. either in scope or in method. $14 (paper)." which in the realm of political science book belongs Huntington's specula to be "history"?or at tion. Huntington Cold War politics. has classified Samuel Hunt the Library of Congress Surprisingly. 1996.Book Reviews The Clash of Civilizations and theRemaking of World Order. goes on to make its States: understand for the United foreign policy recommendations civi clear and leading role within Western bolster those civilization. once again the countries and peoples previously divided by together From this premise. tory. and once again are. Pp. 367." to prove his points.

First. Huntington state" (unlike the West. has China). Latin American. But to world history. 42). go "history to the West now through inevitable cycles of rise and fall?challenges a phase of decline that it is entering the Sinic and (chap. emphasizing with the West. mostly through definition. Orthodox Japanese. a thumbnail He then provides sketch (and quite standard) historical to the story of of the relations among civilizations. is a legitimate the one Huntington adopts. in at least five ways. affairs). and How has Huntington its history? Let me Islam's fundamental and continuing conflict resentment identifies Huntington the Sinic (Chinese. Islamic civilizations the rise of east Asia includes Chinese and Japan (which Driving ese civilizations) is rapid economic the rise of Islam is growth. 121). 254-58) civilizations. in particular and the Chinese tells us" that civilizations and also?because Islamic. which has the United States. Hindu. . 47). (pp. beliefs. Using "seven or eight" contemporary civi includes calculations. which boils down "the rise of the West" from 1500 on (pp. 49-50). China. Complicating is the absence in Islamic civilization of a "core believes. This "rise" generated and Vietnam). while from other civilizations. this broad religion (p. or the Sinic. Serbia. Western. thus points to "Islam's bloody ilizations can deal (p. Orthodox. Korea. good book is bad history Huntington's in the the place of their material and approach historians recognize a civilizationist context of other interpretations. Islamic. in particular "values. Hindu. 5). It is impossible "Human history in any other terms" (p. civilizations viewing the nation in giving this picture of the world gone wrong count the ways. by a combination powered . (p. 4) while are on the "rise" (chap. which in terms of primarily and social structures" institutions. the Western-dominated sees all this as "destabilizing Huntington established international order" matters. 45-47). lizations: Taiwan. as revealed (p. to this other way of viewing world history: is oblivious Huntington to think is the history of civilizations. which in "a which has Russia. resulting source of threat to other civilizations" because there is no single power or Sinic civ with which the core states ofWestern. Certainly approach one. it's not the only one. the Orthodox. as the work of world-systems theorists attests. and possibly African Greece).I02 JOURNAL OF WORLD HISTORY. reveals his quoting Huntington . 40). Despite of humanity of the development from Braudel and listing Wallerstein. . (Russia. of religious revival and high birth rates. 177)? Huntington as a particular kind of "fault line" war between borders" (pp. SPRING 2000 (governed by power maximization state as the primary actor in world Huntington begins by defining culture.

use. response" model model that has not been used for well over a decade. Thus Huntington Ladled on top of this curious view is his own outdated civilizations. Asia understanding is poor. and understanding is fair game. is that "civilizations" assumption. Had others into the same undifferentiated and China. pp. lumping the political stew (p. rely on the work of to task for not having used Iwill not take Huntington other historians. and of the debate over the units world history. Huntington impressed by the differences are attributed to the supposed most of which among civilizations. he looked for . And his selection of sources on. of the secondary primary sources. His selection." but in the model about how to apply his own civilizational sources from the section on China he appears to rely on secondary sources for me to tell)? and 1960s (he does not cite enough 1950s particularly Harvard professors who created a "Western impact/Asian between a for understanding Chinese and Japanese history.g. while at other times he as if he had forgotten his initial distinction talks about "East Asia" hence Not Sinic and Japanese civilizations. 140). 93 or 107). McNeill's William in this journal in 1990. in which after twenty-five years." thereby lumping India and Pakistan with China and Japan (e." disreputable histories of Russia. to equate "Asia" with "East Asia. is most Furthermore. the Ottomans. published of "civiliza about the utility of the concept McNeill raised questions are more or less about the idea that civilizations tion. to imagine today a world of discrete is doomed tion. though. (and in Islam. He thus paints with a of analysis used for understanding in Protestant neither and Catholic broad brush. in particular. He even resur rects the thoroughly thesis about "Oriental despotism. At times he seems part of the world I am most familiar with. sources: Since comparative historians Second. and sources." and especially not existing in a broader "ecumenical" world of interac autonomous. only is he confused to "Asia. or nonexistent" contacts between civiliza "fact" of the "intermittent are tions. let alone finer but still important differ Sunni and Shi'ite ences among and between in virtually every part of the world. distinguishing very nor not discussing "the troubles" in Northern the West Ireland). in general and China the of. His fundamental of course.Book Reviews 103 ignorance of the field of world history. Huntington thus appears to have read identifiable historical not his critique of that work but Rise of theWest. civilization is his entities. in the the process of modernization modernization theory. peoples A sole unit of analysis for understanding the world. whereby some people to modernize in forces other civilizations West (although states in other civilizations that what was needed believed mistakenly was Westernization)..

conditions historical (what he calls contemporary fallacy. does acknowledge which Huntington behalf of the Bosnian Muslims. gravitate leading belong?" (p. but he asserts mined by civilizational and Islamic "fault-line" civilizational Orthodox. 96). Fourth. and to which States?" is now the enemy of the United who or what Soviet Union. SPRING 2000 on from recent scholarship it. in understanding the past and the way it is not interested Huntington and international the present. he has a domestic politi shapes is pushing. naturally to the natural civilizational of their interests and actions on clumping stage. morality: and to that extent it is obscene. 62). rather. and probably China anecdotes historical Third. or statements reflected the distribution humans about "the sources of conflict between history" throughout commits the anachronistic 208). just does say that be sure. is simply this: "With the end of the it is the answer. Huntington (p. Huntington might have learned much on other parts of the world too. of course. 281). into close contact and conflict civilizations 11). A little knowl the United ington sees as its primary defender. He ismore from numerous the in social science model than in understanding interested building civilization. To states will remain primary actors the world comes right down to analyzing any are not civilizations. argument: Huntington of "Who am I?" and "Where do I questions asking the existential to others of like cultures. as scholarship. but states. and Japan. The hidden question behind this book. as "a noncivilizational in the otherwise universal pattern of anomaly then spends some time explain kin backing kin" (p. a differences. on States is that the United intervened with this analysis. edge (in Huntington's ROBERT MARKS Whittier College . of history) certainly can be dangerous. And yet when he issue. should be Historians that he cal agenda everywhere use of their discipline in conjuring offended by Huntington's up Chi to "Western civilization" nese and Islamic enemies and the state Hunt States. The problem (chap. (p.io4 JOURNAL OF WORLD HISTORY. leading to grand generalizations history of any particular in the world has of languages like "throughout history the distribution of power in the world" (p. projecting into the past. the primary actors particular as the "realist school" predicts. 288-91). Huntington even in the clash of civilizations states will be deter between that the cleavages His favorite case study is Bosnia. method: Huntington pulls together times and places as evidence for his claims. case. ing fundamental claims that peoples and countries. obscur "the classic [conflicts] of international politics") differences between past and present. this book is politics masquerading Lastly. In this last instance. Huntington ing away this "anomaly" (pp. 21). bringing Western.