Samuel Huntington’s book The Clash of Civilizations has evoked a broad range of responses from political commentators both in the United States as well as abroad. Huntington asserts that the fall of Berlin Wall in 1989 had marked a new beginning in the history of international politics. While prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 major ideological, geo-political and economic conflicts were carried out on the European stage, the end of the Cold War has changed the dynamics and motivations of international conflicts. In the prevailing world order, the fight for supremacy in the realms of ideology, material wealth and territorial conquest have become secondary to the assertion of ‘civilizations’. Civilization as a term in historical discourse can be difficult to define, but Huntington narrows down the scope of this term. According to the author, of all the constituent elements that comprise a particular civilization, its identification with religion, ethnicity and culture form the core. A civilization’s affiliation with these elements is more enduring and resistant to change than its propensity for change, say, in the economic and ideological domains. Huntington correctly points out that in the hundred years before the end of Cold War there have been radical transformations from monarchy to communism to democracy, from liberal capitalism to stringent economic protectionism, and vice versa across the globe. Not only have there been numerous instances of such changes but have also oscillated from one extreme to another. Amid all this churning, the only abstract conception with which peoples in different parts of the world could identify with is their ‘civilization’.
The author goes on to identify eight major civilizations in the new world order. These include “Western, Confucian, and Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American and possibly African civilization. The most important conflicts of the future will occur along the cultural fault lines separating these civilizations from one another”. (Huntington, 1997, p.157) The author further adds that while distinct fault lines are evident between every pairing of these civilizations, the friction is no where greater than between the Western and Islamic blocs. For, barring few minor variations, the existing nation-states of Western Europe share many things in common. Similarly, while Confucian and Islamic schools of thought might appear to be discrete at first, they share a common deep rooted tradition. In effect, this segregates the strands of civilizations into two main categories – the West and the Rest. In the context of recent rise in Islamist terrorism, Islam appears to be the chief opponent of Western civilization. This, in sum, is the central thesis of the controversial book by Samuel Huntington.
Huntington’s hypothesis is vulnerable for the fact that he cannot back up his assertions with statistical proof. The idea of a newly emergent era in human history that would be dominated by ‘The Clash of Civilizations’ might be convincing at the level of theory, but since the theory pertains to events in the future, one cannot ascertain its validity at this point in time. Also, social science and other related fields of scholarly inquiry are not conducive to theorizing. This is borne out by the fact that the last great idea in this field of inquiry was Francis Fukuyama’s concept termed the ‘End of History’, which is not proven to be true but can only considered a proposition. Huntington’s thesis too is subject to the same criticism. The other drawback of Huntington’s method of research is that he adopts a top-down approach. For example, instead of working upwards from the pool of empirical evidence, Huntington establishes his thesis at the outset and goes looking for supporting evidence. Sure enough, the author finds enough instances in history that substantiate his claims. But as many instances, if not more, can be presented that contradict his thesis. For example, Huntington stresses the incompatibility of Islamic and Western civilizations by citing several areas of conflict between the two. But he does not mention instances where these two seemingly incompatible entities do successfully cooperate. A classic example is the collaboration between the Saudi Royal family and American political leadership. The elites of Saudi Arabia have strong business ties with American corporations – a relationship that goes back many decades. Even when the perpetrators of the September 11, 2001 attacks were identified to be predominantly of Saudi origin, the political leadership of both nations continued their business as usual. The theory of ‘Clash of Civilizations’ falls flat on its face when one recognizes how reactionary the Saudi regime is. The authoritarian regime in Saudi Arabia is considered the most backward looking within the Islamic world. Yet, the leaders of so-called progressive West continue to maintain strong business and political relations with it. Contradictions such as these significantly weaken Huntington’s theory. Even the Al Qaeda and its leader Osama Bin Laden were in the payrolls of CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) as recently as the 1980s. In fact, a large share of the credit for the successful growth of Al Qaeda is to be attributed to the American government, which nurtured the fledgling terror outfit with funding and supplies of ammunition in order to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. To cite a more recent example, Saddam Hussein was Washington’s blue-eyed boy when it was in confrontation with Iran in the 1980s. How will Huntington explain this friendship between leaders of distinct civilizations? Why was there no clash of civilizations then? As the 1980s turned over to the 90s, and as Saddam Hussein refused to follow orders from Washington (not on grounds of culture and civilization but on grounds of asserting his autonomy in the region) he turns from friend to foe. In short, the top down methodology attempts to ‘find’ what suits its cause, while failing to notice that which contradicts the thesis. This remains the primary drawback in Huntington’s work.
Huntington’s analysis is broad in its sweep, but lacks clarity at places. Edward Said raises some valid points of rebuttal in his polemical essay titled ‘The Clash of Ignorance’. Foremost among Said’s objections is the absence of a concrete definition for terms such as the West, Oriental, Occidental, Islam, etc. While indigenous peoples of different parts of the world developed their own unique customs, traditions, language and schools of religious thought, there is much overlap between different civilizations. In other words, the common humanity between civilizations is a potent unifying force that is not given due recognition by Huntington. Instead, Said accuses Huntington of playing up superficial differences between cultural communities, which do not hold up against rigorous longitudinal studies of cultural interactions. Furthermore, as a result of the long history of trade and exchange of goods between civilizations, aspects of culture and religion have also moved across geo-political entities. A study of demographic composition of many European countries will reveal the presence of communities from every religious and cultural background. In countries such as France and Italy, Muslims comprise a substantial minority, despite being located on the wrong side of the fault line. The same is true, albeit to a lesser extent, in Britain too. Said expresses this fact thus: “Certainly neither Huntington nor Lewis has much time to spare for the internal dynamics and plurality of every civilization, or for the fact that the major contest in most modern cultures concerns the definition or interpretation of each culture, or for the unattractive possibility that a great deal of demagogy and downright ignorance is involved in presuming to speak for a whole religion or civilization.” (Said, 2001)
Said further implies that the proposed paradigm of conflict – termed the Clash of Civilizations – is not all that new. The West versus East battle lines of the past have only been redrawn as West versus Rest in the post Cold War world order. Said’s criticism of Huntington’s thesis also emerges from the latter’s Euro-centric view of human history. Said is right when he points out that the rest of the world is bracketed together into one group in spite of the myriad differences in culture, ethnicity and religious beliefs. Edward Said also scores points for the presentation of his argument – his essay is infused with anecdotal references and common observations without compromising on analytic rigor. To cite an example, Said elucidates the unedifying nature of Huntington’s definition of civilization by narrating a personal incident, which is nevertheless profound in its meaning. When accused by a member of the audience that his views and opinions were ‘Western’ as opposed to what orthodox Islam would allow, Said retorted saying “Why are you wearing a suit and tie?” was the first retort that came to mind. … but I recalled the incident when information on the September 11 terrorists started to come in: how they had mastered all the technical details required to inflict their homicidal evil. Where does one draw the line between “Western” technologies and, as Berlusconi declared, “Islam’s” inability to be a part of “modernity”?” (Said, 2001)
Huntington asserts that of all the fault lines of civilizations across the world, the ones involving Islam are the most vulnerable to escalation of conflict. He points to the millennium long history of bloody conflict between Western and Islamic civilizations as proof of their incompatibility with each other. Beginning with the birth of Islam in seventh century A.D., the following six centuries were marked by constant conflict between the leaders of Islam and Christian Crusaders. From the fourteenth century onwards, Islam’s rose in prominence in the regions surrounding the Middle East. Furthermore, under the rule of the Ottoman Turks, Islam spread into the Balkans, and even set its eyes on Vienna, although the latter objective did not fructify. Even in the more recent centuries of its existence Islamic nations have been involved in bloody conflicts with the West. The scenario decidedly turned worse when the rich oil resources of the Persian Gulf attracted Western business interests toward the conclusion of the Second World War. The relationship between the two sides was uneasy from the beginning:
“Several wars occurred between Arabs and Israel(created by the West). France fought a bloody and ruthless war in Algeria for most of the 1950s; British and French forces invaded Egypt in 1956; American forces returned to Lebanon, attacked Libya, and engaged in various military encounters with Iran; Arab and Islamic terrorists, supported by at least three Middle Eastern governments, employed the weapon of the weak and bombed Western planes and installations and seized Western hostages…In its aftermath NATO planning is increasingly directed to potential threats and instability along its ‘southern tier’.” (Huntington, 1997, p.189)
A brief look at the track record of regions where Islam is the dominant religion reveals that it had been intolerant of other religions perceived to be subversive to its cause. Irrespective of the merit in such a rationale, Huntington is nevertheless accurate in pointing to Islam’s turbulent relations with other religions. Islam is not only a school of religious thought that people exercise in private. In Islamic societies, its influence pervades much deeper into the social and economic fabric, making the modern Western notion of separating ‘state and church’ close to impossible. Even today, Islamic societies follow their own unique banking system – one that is steeped in orthodoxy and tradition. The social organization with its emphasis on patriarch and the relatively subordinate status ordained to women are all antithetical to the more liberal societies. This makes conciliation between Islam and progressive, liberal thought that much more difficult. On a macroscopic scale, these incompatibilities add up to make the existing ‘fault lines’ with other civilizations some of the most volatile. In the last decade itself, one could find plenty of instances where this dynamic of conflict had played out in the interactions with Islam-dominant parts of the world.
Huntington’s thesis, when studied in the backdrop of the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, throws up interesting results. The 2003 invasion of Iraq, which has been a controversial historical event, has even divided the supposedly singular civilization of the West. Soon after the George Bush administration announced its plans to invade Iraq, the erstwhile allies of the United States such as France and Germany expressed displeasure and opposition. Even before American marines set foot in Iraqi soil, the American public expressed its opposition to the war by participating in mass demonstrations. These developments have exposed the flaws in Huntington’s thesis. For example, how could the United States of America, which is an integral part of the Western civilization, find itself alienated from most of its former allies and also from the general public? The protesters identified the common humanity between themselves and the thousands of potential Iraqi victims of the war. Clearly, this demonstrates that the universality in humanity is so much stronger than artificial constructs like West, Islam, the Orient, etc. Writing in the journal Foreign Affairs, James Dobbins makes a salient point:
“The beginning of wisdom is to recognize that the ongoing war in Iraqis not one that the United States can win. As a result of its initial miscalculations, misdirected planning, and inadequate preparation,Washington has lost the Iraqi people’s confidence and consent, and it is unlikely to win them back. Every day that Americans shell Iraqi cities they lose further ground on the central front of Iraqi opinion” (Dobbins, Jan 2005).
The other area of armed conflict in the Middle East region is Palestine, where the United States supported Israeli leadership maintains strict control. In this case, a study of the historical background to the conflict raises questions of Huntington’s thesis. For example,Israelis an artificially constructed nation-state that was conceived in the aftermath of the holocaust. To accommodate the subsequent influx of Jews from across the world, the Israeli leadership (with military and political support from the United States) had forcefully displaced hundreds of thousands of indigenous Palestinians, who are legitimate in claiming Israel as their native land. So, the fault line that appears here is in no small measure induced by the political leadership of Western Civilization. Hence, the source of military conflict in the Middle East is due to the West’s designs of world domination and strategic control of energy resources, rather than due to Islam’s tendency to develop ‘bloody borders’ or due to incompatibility with an alien civilization.
References:
Huntington, Samuel P, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Published by Simon & Schuster, 1997.
Edward Said, The Clash of Ignorance, retrieved from <www.thenation.com/doc/20011022/said> on 12th May, 2009
Dobbins,James,Iraq: Winning the Unwinnable War, Foreign Affairs, January, 2005.