The Clash of Civilizations?

southsiderosie

In 1993, in the immediate wake of the Cold War, the political scientist Samuel Huntington published an article in which he famously proclaimed that in the future, global conflict would be driven by cultural differences between "civilizations":

It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future

After his article was published, Huntington was heavily criticized for, among other sins, not taking into account internal national and cultural differences within civilizations, assuming that culture and values do not shift over time, and for trying to provide theoretical cover for neo-con policies. But over time, more have begun to suspect that Huntington was onto something; in 2008, one of his loudest critics from 1993 admitted that he felt Huntington was right.

I don't think that culture is as rigid as Huntington makes it out to be, and "cultural values" are often a Trojan horse for economic and geopolitical interests. But I do think one of Huntington's critics-turned-admirers was right when he wrote that "Huntington had the integrity and the foresight to see the falseness of a borderless world, a world without differences." While I don't think the relevant borders are between "civilizations" I do think that nation-states matter, even if elites in Brussels and Davos would tell us otherwise. Yet the implications of this are dire for Europe's experimentation with mass migration over the last half-century, and raise serious questions about the capacity for international cooperation in order to tackle big global problems such as poverty or the environment.

What do other people think? Was Huntington right? Are cultural differences the underlying cause of political conflict? Or are there more important factors in play?

Victor

southsiderosie wrote: »

Europe's experimentation with mass migration over the last half-century

Aren't you ignoring the previous few hundred / thousand / hundred thousand years?

southsiderosie

Victor wrote: »

Aren't you ignoring the previous few hundred / thousand / hundred thousand years?

No, I am specifically referencing the policies of the post-war era, which encouraged mass migration from neighboring, predominately Muslim countries. If Huntington is right about the incompatibility of Western and Islamic civilization, then Europe has basically invited conflict into its own house (or some might argue, committed cultural suicide).

JustinDee

southsiderosie wrote: »

No, I am specifically referencing the policies of the post-war era, which encouraged mass migration from neighboring, predominately Muslim countries. If Huntington is right about the incompatibility of Western and Islamic civilization, then Europe has basically invited conflict into its own house (or some might argue, committed cultural suicide).

Ok then. Thanks for that. 'They're' dangerous. Its all 'us and them' with no between. None of 'them' can integrate, just infiltrate.
All very familiar territory, I'd say.

For your information, on your doorstep the biggest threat of conflict is a small number of deluded imbeciles ignoring the democratic wish of the people of this island that they allege to be 'fighting for'.
Many of them weren't even born when the Troubles were at their worst.
My neighbours who happen to be muslim are 10,000 times better citizens than any of these brainwashed idiots.

southsiderosie

JustinDee wrote: »

Ok then. Thanks for that. 'They're' dangerous. Its all 'us and them' with no between. None of 'them' can integrate, just infiltrate.
All very familiar territory, I'd say.

For your information, on your doorstep the biggest threat of conflict is a small number of deluded imbeciles ignoring the democratic wish of the people of this island that they allege to be 'fighting for'.
Many of them weren't even born when the Troubles were at their worst.
My neighbours who happen to be muslim are 10,000 times better citizens than any of these brainwashed idiots.

I take it you don't agree with Huntington's analysis (as distinct from my position, as stated in the OP) then.

If a "small number of deluded imbeciles" is the problem in Ireland, do you think that is how terrorism should be looked at in general? Because Al-Qaeda-style terror groups specifically make claims about Islamic vs. Western civilization (which is what Huntington predicted), whereas Irish terrorists make claims about national sovereignty.

As for integration, a 2006 poll noted that Irish Muslims believe they have integrated, but a significant percentage of young people hold more radical political views which are not necessarily consistent with liberal Western democracy. In other European countries, the young second generation is where a lot of the social conflict is rooted, not with the parents. But I guess the question again is, is this about a clash of civilizations, or something else?

JustinDee

southsiderosie wrote: »

If a "small number of deluded imbeciles" is the problem in Ireland, do you think that is how terrorism should be looked at in general? Because Al-Qaeda-style terror groups specifically make claims about Islamic vs. Western civilization (which is what Huntington predicted), whereas Irish terrorists make claims about national sovereignty

Motives are irrelevant.
A sweeping generalisation of an entire demograph is one of the areas where this convenient theory of his fails. I pointed out these self-appointed deludees as an example that it was anything but a clash of civilisations but it was an extremist threat within one set of these perceived boundaries.
Bunkum.

southsiderosie wrote: »

As for integration, a 2006 poll noted that Irish Muslims believe they have integrated, but a significant percentage of young people hold more radical political views which are not necessarily consistent with liberal Western democracy

A poll can be twisted and turned for any desired outcome. I have seen the very same poll used for both sides of an argument.
You can bet your keyster that "a significant percentage" of Irish people held more radical views when they were younger. How radical are they now?
So what though?

southsiderosie wrote: »

In other European countries, the young second generation is where a lot of the social conflict is rooted, not with the parents. But I guess the question again is, is this about a clash of civilizations, or something else?

No, its not about a clash of civilisations at all. Its the difference between fundamentalism and the perception of normality. All quite subjective too. For example, Chechen muslims are fighting for what? Islamic country or just independence from Russia?
The worst integraters, since we're generalising here, that I have ever witnessed are the British and Irish living in non-English speaking countries.

wes

Its an interesting idea, but it doesn't really stand up to much scrutiny. 9/11 for example was carried out by a small group of people. To say they represent a civilization is absurd.

Secondly, take the most recent AQ attack attempt, which was apparently foiled due to intelligence from Saudia Arabia. Which again punched a hole in this whole clash business. Another example is the drone attacks in Pakistan, where the drones are actually launched from Pakistani military bases. So again another hole.

Cannibal Ox

He insists on individuals having singular identities. A muslim is a muslim, a christian is a christian, and that's it and because he argues this way, it allows him to prop up various diametrically opposed civilizations who are inevitably going to clash. Which makes sense within his thesis, but it ignores the problem of individuals having plural or multiple identities, a man is a man, muslim, american, democrat, or a woman is a woman, christian, irish, Fianna Fail'er. You can't reduce individual and individual action to a single cause, particularly if that cause is the 'civilization' the individual is arbitrarily assigned, and nor can you predict an inevitable clash based on that presumption.

(Copy of the critique Amartya Sen makes of Huntington's work in Identity and Violence, a short version of that is here.)

southsiderosie

JustinDee wrote: »

Motives are irrelevant.

If the conversation is around terrorism, then I would say that motives are important.

JustinDee wrote: »

A poll can be twisted and turned for any desired outcome. I have seen the very same poll used for both sides of an argument.
You can bet your keyster that "a significant percentage" of Irish people held more radical views when they were younger. How radical are they now?
So what though?

You can use it for both sides of the debate: the majority feel integrated, but there is a significant minority among the youth that do not. It doesn't tell us that "Muslims" are bad, it tells us that there is a generation gap. And while I think many people held more radical ideas in their youth, I don't think they involved imposing religious rule on the country.

JustinDee wrote: »

No, its not about a clash of civilisations at all. Its the difference between fundamentalism and the perception of normality. All quite subjective too. For example, Chechen muslims are fighting for what? Islamic country or just independence from Russia?

Surely one serves the other. Claims of independence are driven in part by claims that these people are historically, culturally, and religiously different. Which is a classically nationalist argument, even if it is wrapped up in religious fervor. And that's basically my (main) issue with Huntington - he argued for civilizations as an alternative to the sunny "one world" predictions at the end of the Cold War, but the next layer down from that is the state, and below that the nation. And nationalism is the bugbear that everyone in Europe likes to pretend has disappeared. But it hasn't; hence why I think Huntington is wrong to focus on "civilizations", but perhaps was onto something in his focus on culture.

JustinDee wrote: »

The worst integraters, since we're generalising here, that I have ever witnessed are the British and Irish living in non-English speaking countries.

Having lived in Spain, I would agree. The difference, however, is that most of the time Northern Europeans living in Southern Europe are doing so to retire, or as a second home. This doesn't preclude them from criticism for not learning the language, etc, but the perception from a native is that 1) they aren't competing in the labor market and 2) because they are primarily consumers, they are net contributors to the economy. In addition, they generally do not make political demands (other than complaining about inefficiency).

Nodin

Considering the fractured nature of the 'Islamic world', its rather a silly notion. Even the area with most in common - the Arab lands in the middle east - are divided by sectarian and nationalist concerns. When theres a fundamentalist muslim superpower with a few hundred million citizens and nuclear carriers on the sea, we can talk again.

sarkozy

Huntington's thesis is rubbish. Methodologically and actually, especially in an era of globalisation. It's simplistic to say the very least. It ignores how culture, technology, etc. actually diffuse across communities in order to make dubious ideological claims.

Victor

southsiderosie wrote: »

Yet the implications of this are dire for Europe's experimentation with mass migration over the last half-century,

But look at the Americas, Southern Africa, Australia and Central Asia - all have had much more substantial inward migration. Sure, there are struggles to adjust, but people do adjust.

Then again, the greatest migration over the last 50 years has been rural to urban and the consequent implications for quality of life is a major issue.

and raise serious questions about the capacity for international cooperation in order to tackle big global problems such as poverty or the environment.

Surely this is mostly about wealth and power? Developed nations are realising that having both of these isn't a panacea if you don't have things like stability, sustainability or a habitable environment. Many individuals in developing nations may be stuck in trying to obtain physical goods, repeating past mistakes - see the free for all industrialisation in modern China.

What do other people think? Was Huntington right? Are cultural differences the underlying cause of political conflict? Or are there more important factors in play?

He (or your presentation of what he has said) may have been naive, over-simplifying or indeed posing a loaded statement from a singular worldview. Now based on a theory of civilisations, surely a singular worldview is a non-runner?

Someone once asked why Moldova didn't rejoin Romania, after the fall of the USSR. Someone responded that the local politicians realised its better to be the big fish in a small pond than a small fish in a big pond. While the power balance between people, communities, states and "civilisations" may vary over time, I suggest it is impossible for any one of them to control everything.

Indeed, being a World Caesar only means you can go downhill.

Cavehill Red

Of course there's a war between cultures - the culture of the hyperrich, and the culture of the rest of us serfs.

It's nothing new, though.

PanchoVilla

I think the main cause of most political or religious conflict is ego. It really has nothing to do with cultural differences in so far as intolerant people will be intolerant of anything they don't agree with. It's the mentality of superiority that causes conflict.

I think the majority of people are relatively tolerant of cultures different to their own and most usually embrace certain aspects of other cultures. The problem lies with the egotistical minority who believe their way is the only right way, and this works on both sides of a culture clash. There needs to be a middle ground in all cultures if we are to move forward as a single human race.

People of all cultures and creeds need to realize that their way is not the only way and that every person or group is entitled to pursue their own way of life. We may not agree with their way but we must respect their wish to live their lives as they see fit.