The Clash of Civilizations

Huntington’s essay touches on a vast amount of cultural and political background to make what is ultimately a very direct argument. He draws upon his expertise to craft an argument that uses persuasion, historical context, quotes from experts, sociohistorical arguments, and academic citations. The essay also follows a strict structure. In the first part of the essay, he sets the context for the post-Cold War world and describes what a civilization is. He explains his definition using numerous examples of why cultures clash and then makes a case for why the next geopolitical conflict will be between the civilizations of the West and a “Confucian-Islamic” alliance. Finally, Huntington explains what the West should do, both in the short and long term, to navigate a more civilization-conscious world. This structure is uncomplicated in theory, but its implications about both the past and present of a wide variety of nations and cultures are complex.

Part of that complexity stems from the essay’s own ambiguities. For example, the essay’s main focus is The Influence of Civilizational Identity, particularly as it relates to conflict between civilizations, and Huntington points to the world “getting smaller” as one factor that increases the likelihood of civilizations clashing. In the 1990s, increasingly sophisticated electronic communication systems, the rising accessibility of air travel, and the end of Cold War-era boundaries led to the world becoming more interconnected. Huntington contends that as different peoples meet and interact with each other, the differences in their cultures lead to them developing “civilization consciousness”—greater awareness of their own civilization and (as a corollary) greater awareness of the differences of others. He cites examples to back up his claims—e.g., North African immigration to France, which was met with hostility from the French population but also led to increased acceptance of Polish immigrants, who shared France’s broadly Western Christian culture. This depiction of cultural exchange has attracted criticism, as many view globalization broadly and cultural exchange specifically as positive. However, there is some ambiguity as to whether Huntington is merely observing a real-world phenomenon (that cross-cultural interactions often lead to conflict rather than cooperation and sharing) or endorsing the xenophobia that underpins it.

What is less ambiguous is Huntington’s belief that “differences between civilizations are real and important” (Paragraph 62). In other words, Huntington is not simply arguing that many people act as if they belong to entities like “the West” or “the Islamic world” and that this produces conflict; he views these entities as correlating to significant and definable differences in culture. This gives rise to the primary criticism of “The Clash of Civilizations?”: that it oversimplifies people groups and their relationships with others around the world. Indeed, simplification is key to Huntington’s argument, which hinges on a definition of civilizations as cultural entities that encompass one or more nations, localities, and, most influentially, religions. This definition is purposefully broad, as it needs to encompass every nation and culture on Earth. Thus, a civilization can be made up of many nations, like the West, or just one, like Japan. Population can also vary, and he clarifies that civilizations are mutable; they can rise, fall, split, and merge. In this context, some degree of generalization is inevitable.

It is Huntington’s generalizations regarding “Western” and “non-Western” civilizations that have proven most contentious. He essentially argues that as national boundaries are blurred by globalization, people reach for religion as a basis for identity, uniting them with their broader civilization. There is some evidence for this clash between global religions; as the author observes, for example, Saddam Hussein appealed to shared Islamic faith during the Gulf War. Once again, however, Huntington’s point is not merely that civilizational identity can serve as a rallying point but that it corresponds to real, perhaps intractable differences. In this, Huntington arguably slips into essentialism and othering, particularly as it pertains to his depiction of Islam as a Rival to the West. In suggesting that the Islamic worldview differs fundamentally from that of Catholicism, Protestantism, or Judaism—religions that he associates with the West—he overlooks the shared Abrahamic roots of all of these faiths. Moreover, in emphasizing the differences between certain faiths, Huntington oversimplifies the distinctiveness of the many cultures that these religions influence. It is unclear, for example, why he views Catholicism as more culturally similar to evangelical Protestantism than to the various forms of Orthodox Christianity; arguably, all that unites Catholicism to the former rather than the latter is the mere fact that historically Catholic countries happen to belong to the modern-day “West.”

Huntington, however, implies that Catholicism and Protestantism have shaped a distinctly Western ethos that the rest of the world does not share. Indeed, a core part of his argument is that The Dominance of the West—and especially attempts to export Western culture—has sparked a “turning inwards” and “return to roots” throughout the world, and he cites various examples to support his claims. An extreme case can be seen in North Korea, where the leadership has a firmly anti-Western stance and values that align tightly with Korean traditional culture. Though the populace has an active interest in at least some elements of Western culture, trading DVDs and USBs of Western media, Huntington interprets the “return to roots” phenomenon as evidence of basic cultural differences:

Despite the Western efforts to propagate such ideas [of ‘individualism, liberalism, constitutionalism, human rights, equality, liberty, the rule of law, democracy, free markets, the separation of church and state,’ etc.] produce instead a reaction against ‘human rights imperialism’ and a reaffirmation of indigenous values […] Modern democratic government originated in the West. When it has developed in non-Western societies it has usually been the product of Western colonialism or imperialism (Paragraph 49).

Although Huntington here references the relationship between imperialism and “Western values,” he does not interrogate the extent to which that relationship itself may contribute to the suspicion he describes. Moreover, as Huntington acknowledges, the “return to roots” has affected Western countries as well: “[M]ovements that are labeled ‘fundamentalist’ […] are found in Western Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism, as well as in Islam” (Paragraph 14). It is not clear, however, that this drift toward fundamentalism has strengthened “Western values” in Western countries as one would expect if those values were embedded in Western Christianity as Huntington contends.

It is important to note that Huntington does encourage sympathy toward opposing viewpoints, arguing that attempting to understand alternate worldviews is key to defusing the rising tensions that his essay describes. Critics, however, would argue that the essay hinders this kind of understanding by reducing cultures to broad terms and defining the majority of the world as merely “non-Western”—a term that implicitly takes for granted a Western framework and thus arguably sows division rather than opposing it. Ironically, the fact that many of Huntington’s arguments reflect the West’s values and interests, either implicitly or explicitly, can itself be seen as a testament to “civilization’s” embeddedness in the individual psyche.

The essay’s context and intended audience bear significantly on both its content and the techniques that Huntington uses to develop his claims. The essay was published in Foreign Affairs, a leading American magazine published by the Council on Foreign Relations and considered a leading and influential foreign-policy publication. “The Clash of Civilizations?” is thus intended for an educated audience with a particular interest in geopolitics. Though the accessibility of the writing and the widespread circulation of Foreign Affairs meant that the essay also reached a broad lay audience, that audience is presumed to be primarily American. Huntington wrote this essay at a time when the defining tensions of the last four decades had been resolved, and the West—particularly the US—was presiding over a world with no clear rivals. Much policy, including civilian, economic, and military, had previously been determined by the presence of a rival superpower, the Soviet Union. It was a time of speculation and reflection, the ideal time to present an argument like Huntington’s.

Huntington appeals to the rationality of his readers to convince them of the pivot away from traditional “First, Second, and Third World” ideopolitical boundaries (Paragraph 5)—terms that have since been deemed racist and colonialist—and to consider a new state of affairs where civilizations determine the lines of tension. Considering his closing argument, wherein he justifies the West’s protection of its own interests but also encourages sympathy toward non-Western cultures and political systems, he promotes a relatively balanced perspective. Still, in this context, “balanced” pertains to his intended audience and his desired response, not necessarily to the overall validity of his arguments, particularly as they relate to other countries and cultures.