The Myth Of The ‘Clash of Civilizations’

January 18, 2012 by Henry Severs in Theory with 7 Comments

Conflict, coexistence and clichés: the myth of the clash of civilizations.

The expression ‘Clash of Civilizations’ often crops up in political, academic, media and bar-stool debates. It did the other evening at my local. Whilst the phrase derives from colonial ‘clash of cultures’ terminology, its contemporary usage is widely understood to have emerged from the title of a 1993 Foreign Affairs paper which presented the thoughts of Samuel P Huntington. In his article, Huntington envisaged that future, post-Cold War conflicts would be fought, not along traditional lines of ideological and/or economic disputes, but would instead be characterised by cultural and religious hostilities. Huntington argued that this new phase of civilisational conflict would be “particularly prevalent between Muslims and non-Muslims“, specifically along the “bloody borders” between Islamic and non-Islamic states. The initial logic appears self-evident enough; seemingly reinforced by modern history, apparently validated by current world conflicts and, arguably, a central premise of contemporary foreign policy and counter-terrorism thinking. Proponents of Huntington’s work hold him up as an almost latter-day soothsayer of world conflict, a political scientist clairvoyant of almost Nostradamian stature. But how accurate is Huntington’s hypothesis? Is it really as patently obvious has his advocates claim? In a devastatingly informed lecture entitled The Myth of The Clash of Civilizations delivered in 1996 at the University of Massachusetts, the late Edward Said concentrated his considerable intellectual attentions on the deconstruction of Huntington’s claims. The critique put forward by Said hits the nail squarely on the head.

Primarily, it is hard to overlook the unreliable sources Huntington utilises which are often based on the secondary and tertiary conjecture and opinion of very selective, politically right-leaning commentators who largely ignore wider anthropological advancements in our understanding of how civilisations actually operate. What’s more, the blinkered, Anglo-centric view his analysis takes is truly striking. As Said phrases it, for Huntington the West is the “locus” around which all other cultures ought to revolve, a framing starkly revealed in his West-vs-Rest strategic prescriptions;

The West must exploit differences and conflicts amongst Confucian and Islamic states to support, in other civilisations, groups sympathetic to Western values and interests, to strengthen international institutions that reflect and legitimate Western interests
Samuel P Huntington

A worryingly imperialist statement in itself, although perhaps more revealing still is the title of Huntington’s paper, for the term ‘The Clash of Civilizations’ is not his own but directly taken for Bernard Lewis’ 1990 Atlantic Monthly article The Roots of Muslim Rage which, in language eerily reminiscent of the most evangelical Bush administration rhetoric, claims all Muslims are infuriated by modernity and Western freedoms! This extremely offensive, stereotypical perspective is mirrored by Huntington’s extraordinarily simplistic tripartite typology of ‘Western’, ‘Confucian’ and ‘Islamic’ civilisations.

So what exactly is, say, the ‘Western culture’ when it’s at home? I’m sure I haven’t a clue! Surely considerable cultural diversity exists in Northern and Southern England alone, not to mention the variety found within those communities, and let alone between Western countries themselves. In much the same vein, are we really to believe that over one billion Muslims spread across the planet are in fact one monolithic, static and homogenous ‘Islamic culture’? Is this not a similar narrative to the one espoused by extremists themselves, and a generalisation of epic proportions? What of the intra-civilisational conflicts which perpetuate within such groupings? For example between South/North Korea, China/Tibet, India/Pakistan, if only to call out the most immediately obvious and skirt over the rife sectarian violence prevalent between Sunni and Shi’ite or Protestant and Catholic divisions (Iraq and Ireland being obvious examples).

What then, of the similarities that are readily identifiable between these purportedly clashing civilisations? What of the most overt connection between us all, that of free-market global capitalism? To my knowledge, Huntington conveniently skips any commentary on global economic collaboration. Indeed this, to my mind, is the crux of the crisis and the underlying question here; whether we, as humankind, wish to highlight our commonalities or differences, whether we want to emphasise conflict or co-operation, whether in the end, as Said asks;

…we want to work for civilizations that are separate, or whether we should be taking the more integrative, but perhaps more difficult path, which is to see them as making one vast whole, whose exact contours are impossible for any person to grasp, but whose certain existence we can intuit and feel and study.
Edward Said

I believe such questions of peaceful coexistence have far more import to real-world scenarios, such as the Israeli/Palestinian or Unionist/Republican conflicts for example, than inflammatory notions of an inevitable war between poorly conceptualised, yet vastly encompassing, antiquated colonial clichés. Huntington believes we are entering an age of cultural conflict, I believe this is a fallacy. Instead I am inclined to agree with Said’s position; that we in fact live in an age of cultural definitions. These can never do justice to the richness and diversity found in the singular world we live, nevertheless this mix should be cherished and nurtured, not stifled or feared.

Share this post

About Henry Severs

Henry holds 1st (Hons) in Criminology & Social Policy from the University of Sheffield, further awarded the Vaughan Bevan Prize by the Faculty of Law. Currently a postgraduate of War Studies at King's College London, reading Terrorism, Security, & Society as a Stapley Trust Scholar. Primary focus includes; domestic counter-terrorism and security policy, geopolitical risk, and cyber-security. He acts as Development Manager for The Risky Shift. Explore his personal portfolio or follow Henry on Twitter.

View all posts by Henry Severs →

MattJanuary 19, 2012 at 12:14 amReply

I don't agree with Huntington, but am curious as to whether you think civilisations have ever been definable. Of course there are variations within a given polity, but does that therefore make it impossible to make any useful generalisations at all?

HenryJanuary 19, 2012 at 11:07 amReply

That's a good question and of course some generalisations can be useful, essential even, when attempting to offer pragmatic solutions or policy prescriptions. Although, when you talk of 'a given polity' (such as a state, municipality, province etc) this is a far more specific grouping than the three world civilsations Huntington claims to identify. I am no historian, however I would say that yes, there probably was a point, pre-modernity, that general characteristics of cultures (often denied around nations) were more easily identifiable. But even then, I'm sure more than three existed! Also, general characteristics do not necessarily equate to differences, and if they do, so what! Is cultural diversity something to fear? Should we seek to promote our disparities or our common ground..

MattJanuary 19, 2012 at 1:52 pmReply

Yep, definitely agree that there are more than three civilisations around, but are you saying that in the modern era, general characteristics can't be identified, or that it's preferable not to? Or both? Acknowledging disparities needn't mean promoting them, surely.

HenryJanuary 19, 2012 at 7:47 pmReply

The article neither comments on whether wider generalities can or cannot ever be made, nor whether post-modern globality makes such characteristics harder to identify or not. This is not an exploration into the methodological utility of typologies. Being drawn into such debates is rather straying from the focus of this article and a somewhat facetious tangent. If you are yet to read Huntington's paper (or watch Said's response) I would suggest doing so, as he is quite clear about his intent – he does not seek to 'acknowledge disparities’, as you say, but absolutely wants to both promote and exploit differences between groups (see the first quote in the article).

MattJanuary 20, 2012 at 12:10 amReply

You're quite right, it has been a long time since I read it, so I went back and read Huntington's article again.

Your first Huntington quote misses the rest of that sentence: "to strengthen international institutions that reflect and legitimate Western interests and values and to promote the involvement of non-Western states in those institutions."

It sounds a bit less imperialist now. As for promoting differences, here's how Huntington concludes: "It will require an effort to identify elements of commonality between Westeern and other civilizations. For the relevant future, there will be no universal civilization, but instead a world of different civilizations, each of which will have to learn to coexist with the others."

He isn't promoting difference, he's pointing out that it is there, that it's important and that we have to figure out how to make that work. In his words: "Hence the West will increasingly have to accommodate these non-Western modern civilizations whose power approaches that of the West but whose values and interests differ significantly from those of the West." That's not a call to empire, it's a stark acknowledgement that the West is not going to be top-dog any more and we're about to enter the transition phase.

I haven't watched Said's speech yet, but I agree Huntington is looking at the world from the perspective of a Westerner, inevitably. But he (Huntington) points out the West's double-standards in a number of respects – notably, the specious claim that the West represents the global community rather than just itself. For an imperialist, he seems more than willing to point out the hypocrisy of his empire.

I can't see where he says Islamic civilisation is homogenous, or where he divides the world in to three civilisations (I saw Russia, Turkey, Latin America and Eastern Europe in there too).

HenryJanuary 20, 2012 at 10:54 amReply

Thank you for highlighting the contradictory nature of the original article, arguably even more so in the expanded book. Huntington's sought objectives are included here: "This is not to advocate the desirability of conflicts", he writes, whilst previously claiming that "The West must exploit differences and conflicts".

Whether you believe Huntington is simply 'pointing out difference' then is a matter of interpretation, despite by his own admission stating the need to actively exploit them. Again, if you believe strengthening international institutions which legitimate Western interests, and promoting involvement by hook or by crook, is not imperialist then this is a question of your own philosophy. To acknowledge the duplicity of the West and note shifting power structures is not an achievement, more a prerequisite for any credible author in the field of IR, his policy prescriptions are focused on how best to revive Western dominance.

It is left largely up to the reader to infer Huntington's final stance and gauge that which has been added as liberal cushioning to soften the Haymakers. The tripartite nature of his theory is inferred from the text which is largely centred on the 'Western, Islamic & Confucian' civilsations, nonetheless you are correct to point out that he does mention 'cleft' 'sub-Saharan' & 'sinic' countries etc. This is a 700 word article. Not a comprehensive counter-thesis to Huntingtons work.

Personally, I find both his diagnosis, prognosis and ideological rationale deeply concerning and very much written from a Western 'pentagon perspective'.

MattJanuary 20, 2012 at 12:01 pmReply

All reasonable points, though this is a case of agree-to-disagree.

I want to apologise if any of my comments have come across as rude. Communication via text is imperfect at the best of times and I hope what I've said was taken in the (positive!) spirit it was intended.

7 Comments

MattJanuary 19, 2012 at 12:14 amReply

I don't agree with Huntington, but am curious as to whether you think civilisations have ever been definable. Of course there are variations within a given polity, but does that therefore make it impossible to make any useful generalisations at all?
HenryJanuary 19, 2012 at 11:07 amReply

That's a good question and of course some generalisations can be useful, essential even, when attempting to offer pragmatic solutions or policy prescriptions. Although, when you talk of 'a given polity' (such as a state, municipality, province etc) this is a far more specific grouping than the three world civilsations Huntington claims to identify. I am no historian, however I would say that yes, there probably was a point, pre-modernity, that general characteristics of cultures (often denied around nations) were more easily identifiable. But even then, I'm sure more than three existed! Also, general characteristics do not necessarily equate to differences, and if they do, so what! Is cultural diversity something to fear? Should we seek to promote our disparities or our common ground..
MattJanuary 19, 2012 at 1:52 pmReply

Yep, definitely agree that there are more than three civilisations around, but are you saying that in the modern era, general characteristics can't be identified, or that it's preferable not to? Or both? Acknowledging disparities needn't mean promoting them, surely.
HenryJanuary 19, 2012 at 7:47 pmReply

The article neither comments on whether wider generalities can or cannot ever be made, nor whether post-modern globality makes such characteristics harder to identify or not. This is not an exploration into the methodological utility of typologies. Being drawn into such debates is rather straying from the focus of this article and a somewhat facetious tangent. If you are yet to read Huntington's paper (or watch Said's response) I would suggest doing so, as he is quite clear about his intent – he does not seek to 'acknowledge disparities’, as you say, but absolutely wants to both promote and exploit differences between groups (see the first quote in the article).
MattJanuary 20, 2012 at 12:10 amReply

You're quite right, it has been a long time since I read it, so I went back and read Huntington's article again.

Your first Huntington quote misses the rest of that sentence: "to strengthen international institutions that reflect and legitimate Western interests and values and to promote the involvement of non-Western states in those institutions."

It sounds a bit less imperialist now. As for promoting differences, here's how Huntington concludes: "It will require an effort to identify elements of commonality between Westeern and other civilizations. For the relevant future, there will be no universal civilization, but instead a world of different civilizations, each of which will have to learn to coexist with the others."

He isn't promoting difference, he's pointing out that it is there, that it's important and that we have to figure out how to make that work. In his words: "Hence the West will increasingly have to accommodate these non-Western modern civilizations whose power approaches that of the West but whose values and interests differ significantly from those of the West." That's not a call to empire, it's a stark acknowledgement that the West is not going to be top-dog any more and we're about to enter the transition phase.

I haven't watched Said's speech yet, but I agree Huntington is looking at the world from the perspective of a Westerner, inevitably. But he (Huntington) points out the West's double-standards in a number of respects – notably, the specious claim that the West represents the global community rather than just itself. For an imperialist, he seems more than willing to point out the hypocrisy of his empire.

I can't see where he says Islamic civilisation is homogenous, or where he divides the world in to three civilisations (I saw Russia, Turkey, Latin America and Eastern Europe in there too).
HenryJanuary 20, 2012 at 10:54 amReply

Thank you for highlighting the contradictory nature of the original article, arguably even more so in the expanded book. Huntington's sought objectives are included here: "This is not to advocate the desirability of conflicts", he writes, whilst previously claiming that "The West must exploit differences and conflicts".

Whether you believe Huntington is simply 'pointing out difference' then is a matter of interpretation, despite by his own admission stating the need to actively exploit them. Again, if you believe strengthening international institutions which legitimate Western interests, and promoting involvement by hook or by crook, is not imperialist then this is a question of your own philosophy. To acknowledge the duplicity of the West and note shifting power structures is not an achievement, more a prerequisite for any credible author in the field of IR, his policy prescriptions are focused on how best to revive Western dominance.

It is left largely up to the reader to infer Huntington's final stance and gauge that which has been added as liberal cushioning to soften the Haymakers. The tripartite nature of his theory is inferred from the text which is largely centred on the 'Western, Islamic & Confucian' civilsations, nonetheless you are correct to point out that he does mention 'cleft' 'sub-Saharan' & 'sinic' countries etc. This is a 700 word article. Not a comprehensive counter-thesis to Huntingtons work.

Personally, I find both his diagnosis, prognosis and ideological rationale deeply concerning and very much written from a Western 'pentagon perspective'.
MattJanuary 20, 2012 at 12:01 pmReply

All reasonable points, though this is a case of agree-to-disagree.

I want to apologise if any of my comments have come across as rude. Communication via text is imperfect at the best of times and I hope what I've said was taken in the (positive!) spirit it was intended.