THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS

Samuel P. Huntington

Foreign Affairs. Summer 1993, v72, n3, p22(28)

from the Academic Index (database on UTCAT system)

 

SAMUEL P. HUNTINGTON is the Eaton Professor of the Science of Government and Director of the John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies at Harvard University. This article is the product of the Olin Institute's project on "The Changing Security Environment and American National Interests." 

 

This article can be found online at

http://www.bintjbeil.com/articles/en/d_huntington.html   (footnotes embedded)

and http://www.alamut.com/subj/economics/misc/clash.html   (footnotes at the end)

 

If you prefer embedded footnotes, please take note of the following error in the bintjbeil copy, on page 2:

 

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 [cultural] fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.   [“cultural” was added by me (Greg Kagira-Watson) because of same statement on page 5, which seems to add further definition – based on full meaning of the text.  These two sentences were also truncated into one at the bintjbeil website and are now corrected.  The following words were left out:  "will dominate global politics.  The fault lines between civilizations...."]

Foreign Policy

The contents of Foreign Affairs are copyrighted.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19930601faessay5188/samuel-p-huntington/the-clash-of-civilizations.html

 

===============================================================

 

There is an interesting EXPANDED report on Huntington’s thesis ( via HTML links ) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_of_Civilizations  Here is a section from it:

In the 1993 article, Huntington argued that the primary political actors in the 21st century will be civilizations and that the primary conflicts will be conflict between civilizations rather than between nation states. The article was written in response to the idea by Francis Fukuyama that the world was approaching the end of history in which Western liberal democracy would prove triumphant. In the Foreign Affairs article, Huntington writes:

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.

Huntington later expanded this thesis in his 1996 book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order.

These civilizations are mostly divided along religious lines. The main ones he sees are:

Huntington argues that throughout the post-Cold War era world conflicts have occurred along borders between civilizations with very little fighting within civilizations. Wars such as those following the break up of Yugoslavia, in Chechnya, and between India and Pakistan are all evidence of intercivilizational conflict, according to Huntington. Huntington also cites various conflicts over human rights, weapons proliferation and disarmament, trade conflicts, and other issues as coinciding with the Clash of Civilizations paradigm. He discusses positions taken by various countries in the United Nations in his book as well.

With respect to the Samuel Huntington article, also see: The True Clash of Civilizations, (Foreign Policy March/April 2003), which represents the debate that followed:  http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/cultural/2003/0304clash.htm Authors Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris argue: 

[The article BEGINS:]

    "Samuel Huntington was only half right. The cultural fault line that divides the West and the Muslim world is not about democracy but sex. According to a new survey, Muslims and their Western counterparts want democracy, yet they are worlds apart when it comes to attitudes toward divorce, abortion, gender equality, and gay rights–which may not bode well for democracy’s future in the Middle East."  

[And the article ENDS:]

    "....Women did not attain the right to vote in most historically Protestant societies until about 1920, and in much of Roman Catholic Europe until after World War II. In 1945, only 3 percent of the members of parliaments around the world were women. In 1965, the figure rose to 8 percent, in 1985 to 12 percent, and in 2002 to 15 percent.

    The United States cannot expect to foster democracy in the Muslim world simply by getting countries to adopt the trappings of democratic governance, such as holding elections and having a parliament. Nor is it realistic to expect that nascent democracies in the Middle East will inspire a wave of reforms reminiscent of the velvet revolutions that swept Eastern Europe in the final days of the Cold War. A real commitment to democratic reform will be measured by the willingness to commit the resources necessary to foster human development in the Muslim world. Culture has a lasting impact on how societies evolve. But culture does not have to be destiny."

 

[ At the end of the article a section appears:  "Want to Know More ____________________________________"

Samuel Huntington expanded his controversial 1993 article into a book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (New York: Simon and Schustei 1996). Among the authors who have disputed Huntington’s claim that Islam is incompatible with democratic values are Edward Said, who decries the clash of civilizations thesis as an attempt to revive the “good vs. evil” world dichotomy prevalent during the Cold War (“A Clash of Ignorance,” The Nation, October 22, 2001); John Voll and John Esposito, who argue that “The Muslim heritage... contains concepts that provide a foundation for contemporary Muslims to develop authentically Muslim programs of democracy” (“Islam’s Democratic Essence,” Middle East Quarterly, September 1994); and Ray Takeyh, who recounts the efforts of contemporary Muslim scholars to legitimize democratic concepts through the reinterpretation of Muslim texts and traditions (“Faith-Based Initiatives,” Foreign Policy, November/December 2001).

An overview of the Bush administration’s Middle East Partnership Initiative, including the complete transcript of Secretary of State Cohn Powell’s speech on political and economic reform in the Arab world, can be found on the Web site of the U.S. Department of State. Marina Ottaway, Thomas Carothers, Amy Hawthorne, and Daniel Brumberg offer a stinging critique of those who believe that toppling the Iraqi regime could unleash a democratic tsunami in the Arab world in “Democratic Mirage in the Middle East” (Washington: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2002).

In a poll of nearly 4,000 Arabs, James Zogby found that the issue of “civil and personal rights” earned the overall highest score when people were asked to rank their personal priorities ( What Arabs Think: Values, Beliefs and Concerns, Washington: Zogby International, 2002). A poll available on the Web site of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (“Among Wealthy Nations ... US. Stands Alone in Its Embrace of Religion,” December 19,2002) reveals that Americans’ views on religion and faith are closer to those living in developing nations than in developed countries.

The Web site of the World Values Survey (wvs) provides considerable information on the survey, including background on methodology, key findings, and the text of the questionnaires. The second iteration of the A.T. Kearney/Foreign Policy Magazine Globalization Index (“Globalization’s Last Hurrah?” Foreign Policy, January/February 2002) found a strong correlation between the wvs measure of “subjective well-being” and a society’s level of global integration.

>> For links to relevant Web sites, access to the FP Archive, and a comprehensive index of related Foreign Policy articles, go to www.foreignpolicy.com .

70 Foreign Policy

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.