ESSAY

Title: Critical review of the thesis of Clash of

Civilization theory

:
:
: 2014308014
:
: 2014 10 24

Introduction
The main provisions of the theory "Clash of Civilizations" were presented by the
American scientist from Harvard University Samuel Huntington in his article The Clash of
Civilizations? published in the summer of 1993 in American magazine Foreign Affairs.
Abstracts of Samuel Huntington, heralding humanity "clash of civilizations", immediately
became the subject of heated debate. In fact, Clash of Civilizations? were an respond to
published couple years before Fukayama's theory of The End of History. Although both of
theories are essentially futurological, Huntington debates with Fukayama about triumph of
European civilization and western values (democracy and capitalism).
The main theses of the theory of the "Clash of Civilizations" can be summarized as
follows. Huntington argues that membership of a particular civilization is the most important
level of self-identification of human-beings and the differences among civilizations are not only
real, but also fundamental; civilizations different from each other in historical past, culture,
customs, and most importantly, religious affiliation; future civilizational and/or religious
affiliation will play a key role in international relationships. According to the theory, in the new
post-Cold War era the main sources of conflict and strife will not be differences in neither
ideologies nor political views but be the differences in religion and culture. In the future, the
most violent conflicts will occur along the boundaries separating civilization from each other.
While nation-states and in the future will remain the most important actors in international
relations, conflict, the bulk will occur between states, nations and societies representing
different civilizations, religions. In short, the boundary separating different civilizations will
simultaneously borders of conflict and confrontation. Moreover, the main axis of international
politics will be the relationship between the West and the "other". In the words of Samuel
Huntington, " The Velvet Curtain of culture has replaced the Iron Curtain of ideology as the
most significant dividing line in Europe". In the medium-term, the main struggle to start up
between the West and the countries belonging to the "Islamic" or "Confucian" civilizations. But
much more likely to encounter the "West" with "Islamic" civilization.

Critical review of the thesis of Clash of Civilization theory

The book Clash of Civilization is one of the most famous futuristic theories today. A lot of
ideas described in book are true but I will try to argue with some points, which seems not
relevant for modern reality.

As can be seen from the above, Huntington's theory is based on the presumption of a
conflict between different civilizations, i.e. "starting point" theory of the "clash of civilizations"
is the threat of imminent civilizational/religious conflict of global proportions hanging over
mankind. According to the view of Samuel Huntington, civilization, differing from each other
along confessional lines, by their nature, are antagonistic to each other. Huntington is
extremely concerned about the fact that Western civilization was left without its ideological
enemy in the Eastern bloc (headed by USSR), in the future, supposedly it will decline and
collapse. Therefore, the purpose of Samuel Huntington was to find a new image of the "enemy"
(imaginary or real) for Western civilization, which would cast a new "challenge" to the West.
According to Huntington, the existence of "a certain enemy" is indispensable for the
consolidation "effeminate and passive" Western society. He just stressed out this point in his
another book Who are we? where is clearly seen thesis of the "black-and-white world,"
divided into "us and them." He writes in this book that if there no certain "enemy", the unity of
the society may come to the end. The author advises Americans to "control the Hispanic" in the
country and the fight against "Islamic fundamentalism" outside the country, so as not to lose
the unity and national identity.
Huntington worldview, which to some extent resembles the world ideologists of the
"colonialism" of the 19th century, by its very nature "totalitarian" because it does not accept the
pluralism. Huntington sees multiculturalism as a danger to the United States and the West.
Sometimes the theory is based on wrong assumptions. For example, in his book
Huntington often appeals to USSR and Yugoslavia case. By Huntington, these countries were
collapsed cause of they were based on artificial ideology but not cultural and civilization
values. Actually the main reason of USSR collapsing was economical insolvency but not cultural
disagreements. After USSR collapsing Russia doesnt became mono-civilization country. The
Russian Federation today is place where people from at least three big civilizations lives
together. In case of Yugoslavia we can find some civilization cause of collapse but only in terms
when leaders of each regions were willing to have their own authority and covered it with
religious background. We can clearly see the Western countries support Islamic Kosovo
because it was economically profitable for them. So Huntingtons thesis civilizations supports
itself had failure in this case.
In Huntington's theory is clearly seen underestimation of the cultural and social unity
of mankind, and neglecting of the centuries-old process of the peaceful coexistence of different
civilizations, whereas during wars between different civilizations lasted for relatively short
periods of time. One of the major achievements of contemporary culture is the recognition that

in the course of history, there was a constant interchange, mutual enrichment between
different civilizations and cultures. Especially since none of the great civilizations that
Huntington mentioned in his theory, could not develop in isolation from the others. In our era of
globalization we cannot deny that between different civilizations and cultures existed and
continues to exist a certain interchange and interpenetration. Represent civilization as a
"monolithic", "isolated" from each other conglomerates is not correct. No one civilization
cannot be called "pure" in the sense of power and enrichment of it only from their sources. Put
differently, in the "Clash of Civilizations" theory overlooked the possibility of different
civilizations that are in contact, a positive influence on each other, mutually enriched,
sometimes revived under the influence of another civilization, which so many examples in
history. For example, the underlying modern Western civilization Renaissance, would hardly
have arisen in the absence of contacts with the Islamic civilization. In other words, the result of
contact of different civilizations is, first of all, mutual enrichment, and not conflict.
To refute the theory of the "Clash of Civilizations" is necessary to show the real causes
of conflict. Firstly, this theory is not true treats the main factors of international politics. As a
rule, the interests of individual states or political blocs uniting a diverse group of states define
international politics. The dominant factor in international politics is interests of a particular
state (or block), but not belonging to any denomination or civilization. Sure, religious and
ethnic factors play a role in international politics, but as soon they have a negative impact on
the national interests of the state, they pushed into background (for example, cooperation
orthodox Saudi Arabia and "messianic United States," or cooperation in the 1980s Arab Syria
with Shiite and Persian-speaking Iran against Arab Iraq). In short, national interests do not
often coincide with religious and ethnic interests. Throughout history, the majority of armed
conflicts and wars took place between the representatives of the same civilization, not of
different civilizations, such as dynastic and colonial wars of the European powers, the first and
second world wars, which are considered to be the most protracted and bloody wars ever
occurred in the history of mankind.
Currently, most of the conflicts between different faiths, ethnic groups is primarily
due to the competition for the possession and control of "strategic resources" (hydrocarbons,
water, arable land, minerals, precious wood, spawning fish, etc.). In other words, the real cause
of the confrontation of different religions for the most part is not religious differences, but
quite "mundane reasons". But after its inception, various kinds of conflicts and confrontations
often camouflaged under religious slogans. Therefore, there is a real danger of
misinterpretation of the causes of conflict in the light of religious differences. This only

complicates recognition real causes and factors entailing conflicts between different
communities and states that ultimately complicate the resolution of these conflicts. Also, the
"Clash of Civilizations" theory camouflages and doesnt let us see the real problems of mankind,
among which we can mention the problem of sustainable development, the eradication of
poverty and various forms of social inequality, demographic, and environmental problems.
One of the major shortcomings of the "Clash of Civilizations" theory is that it does not
even noticeable skilled collective, formal stereotypes about non-Western civilizations,
especially on Islamic. Huntington's thesis have drawn criticism, including in the West, due to
the fact that in his projections Islamic civilization considered superficially, within categories
inherent "of oriental" world view, which does not give an objective evaluation of the teachings
of Islam and the Islamic world. Huntington claims Islam and Islamic civilization of
totalitarianism, and sees a global threat in the face of Islam. One of the mistakes Huntington is
exaggerating the impact of marginal radical forces. Some new case studies gave a convincing
respond to Huntington claiming about the dangers of "the entire free world" emanating from
the Islamic world, which allegedly "ontologically", i.e. existentially not acceptable nor human
rights nor a free society, no democracy. As a result of these studies has been empirically proven
that the Western and Muslim societies share common political values, except attitude towards
homosexuals1. In short, values such as the protection of human rights and freedoms, the rule of
law, democracy, as Huntington presented values of the modern West, are universal, and they
are not alien to other civilizations, therefore, the main points of the "Clash of Civilizations"
theory does not appear appropriate. Certain Western "standards" are not always accepted in
the East, is not due to their exclusion, but due the fact that the East has a rich and distinctive
spiritual culture not inferior to the west.

Summary
Basically there is nothing new in Clash of Civilization theory. In his book Huntington
accepts that civilizations were always exists same, as conflicts between civilizations were a
permanent part of world history. Christian Holly Wars against Muslims, European Expansion to
America, West-East wars in Asia. This theory could be presented in any era of mankind history

Norris, P., and Ronald F. Inglehart. 2008. "Inter-parliamentary Union -- The true clash of civilizations."
InComparative politics 07/08 / edited by Se, Christian. Dubuque, IA: McGraw-Hill Contemporary
Learning Series.

between big wars. The fact that civilizations are real doesnt mean they will be clash to each
other in future. Its natural to countries with same cultural, religious and historical background
to support each other but cultural background nowadays cannot be the main determining
factor in international relationships. Our modern history gave us many examples to
understand that seeing civilization differences as only cause for future wars is pretty much
simplification.
Huntington became the mouthpiece of certain circles, driven by the so-called "binary
logic", those who represent the world of "black and white", divided into "us, friends and
enemies", and those who want to find a new way of enemy to the West after the collapse of the
Eastern Bloc.
But world is tired of the warrior, hostility, artificial walls erected between the "friend or
foe" who accompanied humanity to the end of the 20th century, and that affected the beginning of
the 21st century. As never before, humanity needs peace. Between people, in spite of the religious
and ethnic differences, there is much in common, humanity should be able to find the path of unity in
doing good and be able to accept everyone as what he/she is - to be able to see with scattered unity
and diversity.