This blog is a pedagogical tool for Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Class Islam in Global Affairs [POSC 410], Fall 2007.
Dr. Muqtedar Khan is Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Delaware. He is also the Director of the Islamic Studies Program. He is a Non-resident Fellow at the Brookings Institution. He is the author of American Muslims: Bridging Faith and Freedom (Amana, 2002), Jihad for Jerusalem: Identity and Strategy in International Relations (Praeger, 2004).
11 Comments:
"The Clash of Civilizations" that preoccupies Sam Huntington's theory fails to acknowledge numerous anomalies and holes in its own arguments. The western world that Huntington idealizes as the civilization of choice has had 14 of its countries at least partially controled by Islamic Civilization for periods exceeding one century, according to Bulliet. This seeming overlap is vastly larger than the small "blurred" edges that Huntington claims exists.
The control of Muslim leaders over western lands resulted not in a clash of civilizations but in many cases minor changes in law and in others political uprisings related more to political reasons, in the case of the Gulf War, or ideology, in the case of the Iranian revolution. Huntington argues that ethnic cleansing in Africa and the Balkans is a result of the clash of civilizations between Islam and the West but ignores the greater genocides of Jews in Germany and the Soviet Union because they are not the result of any clash of civilizations but rather a combination of historical mistrust, political intrigue and religious differences well within their respective spheres of civilization.
The argument made by John Voll is that the current conflicts that Huntington associates with civilizations are more accurately described as a clash of different modernities. These modernities are different regional adaptations to modern technology. As different political regions and ideological beliefs crop up around the world, Islamic revival, different applications for technology exist. The most modernized nations seek to limit the modernization of potential competitors while potential competitors seek to modernize themselves in different way to compete on a global scale. The creation of weapon states from those nations seeking to modernize and expand their militaries has resulted in conflicts, concerns and mis-characterizations of those conflicts. Economic competitors as well receive similar treatment, though the ultimate issue is rather historical differences and not Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations."
I think that in “The Clash of Civilizations’” Huntington is trying too hard to create some overarching concept to explain many of the conflicts in world. I find Huntington’s argument to be an over-simplification to the point of inaccuracy in characterizing conflicts as just West vs East. Instead of delving into the reasons for these conflicts Huntington is trying to give them a simple slogan to explain things. I find this similar to statements made after 9/11 when people asked “why do they hate us” and the media gave very simplistic answers, such as “they hate freedom” instead of delving into the issues and finding out their grievances (though it still doesn’t justify what was done). This over simplification of conflicts only serves to cloud the picture of what is happening in places around the world. Bulliet does a good job of disputing Huntington’s oversimplification of issues, pointing out many similarities between our cultures and Voll goes further making the point that the concept of “civilization” is outdated.
The underlying roots of many of the conflicts described by Huntington aren’t conflicts of civilization, they’re conflicts of mashing together groups of people who historically either don’t get along or weren’t part of the same group. These are clashes of politics and not civilizations.
Lorraine’s commentary on the “War of Civilizations”
The following statement in Samuel P. Huntington’s piece, “War of Civilizations” stood out very vividly to me, “Those divisions are no longer relevant. It is far more meaningful now to group countries not in terms of their political or economic systems or in terms of their level of economic development but rather in terms of their culture and civilization.” I think that this claim is partially untrue in that it undermines the power of division according to economic development, disparity and abuse. I think that in this day and age, as people regroup under their respective “civilizational” umbrellas, they have done so primarily because under or in the hegemonic civilization they have in many instances encountered economic disparity, exclusion, or stagnancy. It is from this point that differences in civilizations become more distinct, polarized, opposed, and warring amongst each other. People may have some tendencies to distinguish and discriminate among themselves; but I think that it is only after one is marginalized that one feels the need to redefine and revolt or war against the other.
Another interesting point made in the article is the following, “In the past, the elites of non-Western societies were usually the people who were most involved with the West […] and had absorbed Western attitudes and values […] the populace in non-Western countries often remained deeply imbued with the indigenous culture. Now, however, these relationships are being reversed.” I think this interesting in that it is indeed what seems to be happening in the world today. But, I think that though the balance of power is yet tipped towards Western values and hegemony, in the past it was more so the case. There was slavery, colonialism, and overall oppression in many different ways by Western powers of the “others” in the past. And the position of the “others” upon such a strong force of “subjugation” which was well equipped in many areas was to learn what it was that was that the oppressors knew in order to have it themselves. Some (for some didn’t) of the elites that went through this learning process indeed confused the difference between the acquisition of new ways of doing certain things (modernization) with assimilation and westernization. I think that to those of the “other” civilization, it has taken some time to come to make this distinction. As for the masses it always takes time for things to which they do not have direct access to trickle down to them.
Also, in my opinion the most accurate depiction of world politics today, along civilization lines, was the following, “Muslims contrasted Western actions against Iraq with the West's failure to protect Bosnians against Serbs and to impose sanctions on Israel for violating U.N. resolutions. The West, they allege, was using a double standard. A world of clashing civilizations, however, is inevitably a world of double standards: people apply one standard to their kin-countries and a different standard to others.” For example many a time in politics, many inhabitants of the non-western world delight in their respective leaders standing up for their respective territories or general “plight” – and preserving their collective dignity in the light of oppressive behavior. But, this support for their representative is given sometimes at the cost of excusing the same oppressive behavior of their representatives towards those who are marginalized with the civilization or society. This happens in non-western societies from Africa (both north and sub-Saharan), Latin American states, and to Islamic states and societies as well. I think that a double standard, most definitely and obviously, destroys the credibility of the stand that person, country, society, or civilization makes – for whatever integrity is worth in world politics today.
Finally, I think that they best alternative offered to non-western societies, expressed above as well, that Huntington gave in his article was encompassed in the following words, “The third alternative is to attempt to "balance" the West by developing economic and military power and cooperating with other non-Western societies against the West, while preserving indigenous values and institutions; in short, to modernize but not to Westernize.” I do not necessarily endorse conflict and being “against the West”, but I definitely think that the non-western civilizations should seek to build and nourish themselves in this manner. The idea of a “War of Civilizations” has validity, but I think that the argument and conflicts that exist are much to nuanced and layered to be housed under a term that attributes it all to a clash of cultures.
Samuel Huntington’s thesis “The Clash of Civilizations” attempted to rationalize and understand the brewing conflicts between the Western and Middle Eastern countries. When the article was written, the Cold War had ended not too long before, and Huntington noticed a shift in conflict between Western superpowers regarding their respective ideologies, to a conflict between Western powers and underdeveloped regions, such as the Middle East. Huntington explained this shift by the obvious differences he noticed between the two societies - their languages, their religions, and their customs – basically, their cultures. He thereby concluded that politics was entering a new phase, as conflict was no longer regarding ideology, but regarding cultural identity, or “civilizations”.
This argument would have been more appealing in the past, when perhaps geographically distant societies were truly separate civilizations. Today, however, with rapid changes in technology, communications, and global economics has irreversibly coupled different societies together. This process is undeniably taking place even in countries wary of globalization and “westernization”, and therefore distinct entities such as the civilizations that Huntington is referring to, cannot exist. Similarly, as John Voll argues, distinct units of identities no longer exist in the age of globalization, as many groups and trends have identities that are not bound by any one civilization.
An unfortunate consequence of viewing current conflicts as a “clash of civilizations” is that the theory groups together several different views and ideologies into one entity simply because of a common cultural background. This is an extremely dangerous conclusion for the Western world; if current clashes are seen as strictly due to culture, then doesn’t it pit Muslims from the Arab countries who are sympathetic to Western ideologies (or at the very least, Muslims who do not support actions of extremists) against the West? Assumptions such as these would only further alienate Middle Eastern populations from the West.
Perhaps one of the worst consequences of Huntington’s theory is the lack of hope for change that it implies. Even with the forces of globalization and mass communication, different societies will continue to hold some differences in their cultural identities. If these identities are the cause of conflict, then it is unlikely that conflict will even cease. However, this is not consistent with trends in history. Christian and Jewish communities have historically been at odds, but as Richard Bulliet points out, the term “Judeo-Christian civilization” is now and accepted synonym for “Western civilization”, proving that these two distinct cultures and societies are no longer in conflict. Similarly, Bulliet also points out that Christians once lived the daily lives under Muslim control; according to Huntington’s thesis, this arrangement would not have occurred since the two different cultures would have had negative, if not violent, relationships. As is discussed by both Voll and Bulliet, viewing current conflicts as clashes between distinct civilizations is a dangerous interpretation and must be corrected, as resolutions cannot be successfully made until the reason for the clash is correctly diagnosed.
-Ritika Samant
I believe there is some truth in both Huntington and Voll's arguments. I agree with Huntington that people are much more strongly tied to their culture than their political or economic views. Your culture constitutes who you are, and people will certainly tend to side with people with similar cultures instead of those with similar politics. Also, I agree with Huntington's argument that nations with separate and distinct cultures within their borders are more likely to have problems maintaining a national unity. This does not mean that such nations will be torn apart, but they will face an important choice of which culture to pursue.
However, culture and civilization are not all-powerful defining factors of allegiance. I think the future will be influenced by cultural differences, but I don't think political and economic differences can be completely disregarded. While it is important to acknowledge and plan for cultural differences, thinking of the world in terms of Westerners, Muslims, Hindus, etc. only reinforces separation and makes conflict seem inevitable. As for the idea of distinct civilizations existing today, I believe that even though there are some sections of cultures that overlap, there are still majorities of each culture that identify solely with their own people and not at all with any other.
Samuel P. Huntington's hypothesis is that the fundamental source of conflicts in today's world is primarily cultural. He argues that there's an ongoing 'clash of civilization' between the West and non-Western civilizations that will be the source of major conflicts in the future.
In my opinion, Huntington seems to have a certain phobia of so-called 'non-western civilizations'. According to him, 'the West will need to maintain the economic and military power necessary to pretect its interests in relation to non-Western civilizations'.
I agree with Dr. John O. Voll when he points out that 'civilizations' as defined by Huntington no longer exists because we live in a globalized world where there is no longer clearly distinct units of identity.
In fact, I do not believe that today or tomorrow's major conflicts will necessarily be the result of 'civilization clashes'.
Indeed, there is a lot of violent conflicts within so-called 'civilizations'. Conflicts between the sunnis and the Shias in the Muslim World or the Tutsis and the Hutus in Rwanda are not 'clashes of civilizations'. Those type of conflicts can rather be classified as sectarian or ethnic conflicts.
I agree with Hunnington in "Clash of Civilizations" that the next pattern of conflicts will deal with the divisions between humankind especially in differences between cultures. It is safe to say that these differences will consequently lead to conflits in other relms such as economics and ideology. People are much more inclinded to relate to someone of their own culture then to someone with the same economic beliefs. These similar cultural beliefs will tend to lead to a similar political belief. Something interesting to examine is the statement where Hunnington describes the conflitcs between "Western States" and their "Western Civil Wars" as primarly colonial. He states that "the non-Western civilizatoins will no longer remain the objects of history as targets of Western colonialism but joint the West as movers and shapers of history." Although this is partly true, the "non-Western" civilizations also struggled for regional dominance and colionziation. Along with colionziation of new territories, comes the seperation and creation of different cultures in teh same region. Hunnington's statement about clashes between different cultures(each having their own strong and dissimliar attributes)will create the most unrest in the future civilizations of the world. Previous blogs state that nations in the future will not be torn apart by this seperation of cultures, but will have to choose one united culture. I disagree with this statement because those whom have distinict cultural differences are more than likely not going to change their believes in such a short period of time. It is almost impossible to change cultures,religions, and languages that have been historical. Througout this piece Hunninton creates a clash between East vs West stating. He states that Hindus, Muslims, and Westerns along with others are the future players in this "New Clash of Civilizations." The question one has to ask themselves then is can these "players" forget about historical and cultural differences for the better sake of man kind.
I absolutely agree with professor Voll that it is not a "clash of civilizations", but rather the imperialist discourse and actions that continue to perpetuate the mistrust between east and west. I must generalize for space's sake, but there is no such thing as The American culture, just like there's no such thing as The Egyptian culture. Cultures are fluid and constantly changing. Bulliet expressed this as well by showing all the similarities between the “Eastern” and “Western”cultures. Both the Christian and Muslim worlds had their ups and downs, moments of progress and moments of decline. People like Huntington are about as enlightened about different cultures and values from a non-ethnocentric perspective as the people making our foreign policy. I wouldn’t be surprised if Mr.George up in the white house didn’t just copy and paste most of Huntington’s work for his classic “they hate us for our freedom” speeches. “They”… don’t hate us for our freedom. They hate us because we spend billions of dollars supporting the people that take away theirs (i.e.: Muslim dictators, etc.).
I’ve always been a big proponent of the position that most humans are rational. So lets discuss the other side of the conspiracy theory. If it is a “war against Islam”,… don’t take it personal, it’s a war against anything that might not be advantageous to Western Capitalism(multi-national corps., oil, weapons companies). If you’re looking for a scapegoat, there it is. All this talk of no interest, less materialism, etc. that comes from more religiosity in the Muslim world (or anywhere), puts a big hamper on the consumerism needed for our multinational corporations and banks to thrive off outsourcing and all our other neo-colonialist policies that rape many third world countries. Money talks. We won’t even get started on oil, and having hegemonic control over most of the center of the earth’s land, through local puppets. Whoever thinks that the over 20 Muslim countries in the world make up one homogenous civilization, should check out a Stuart Hall or James Clifford book of some sort. Wake up and smell the globalization. There’s no “fault line” between “us” and “them.”Huntington is wrong, the “fundamental source of conflict” has always been economic.
However, there is a different type of clash. The Muslim world wants to create its own modernity and not have one imposed on it. Some people don’t see any logical contradiction between grabbing a whopper on the way to the mosque. And why should they? “They hate us” because we’re hypocrites. We preach democracy, and tell “them” that they’re not mature enough to handle their own. God forbid they reach a democratic solution that doesn’t match what we already had planned for them. We could cite the Algeria incident like Dr. Voll did, or even the Hamas elections more recently. We still don’t think Egypt can have democracy, because actual practicing Muslims might come into power, but yet we’re not concerned about people being tortured, raped , and oppressed for over 40 years in a “state of emergency” by our funding…like that’s not going to backfire. We’ll just keep giving billions of dollars to their dictator’s army to keep them oppressed for another century. If policy makers are truly worried that Islamists in power won’t be “democratic”, that shouldn’t be a problem, the dictators we’ve held in power certainly haven’t been either. We need to start thinking more in the long run. You will never secularize most Muslim countries, so why not work with the moderate Islamist actors preaching tolerance and human rights? It’s not out of fear of terrorism, it’s because it’s bad for business. Our government doesn’t care if the whole world hates us, as long as the people funding our politicians are happy. As Voll says, it truly is a “clash of modernities”, no one is living in a bubble isolated from modern times. The problem only occurs when we try to define how others should modernize. If we truly believe in democracy and freedom as much as we like to claim, then we should allow other s to have these things according to their own definitions, not ours. We can’t complain about those awful Jihadis trying to impose their values on us, when we’re trying to do the same to others. There’s no such thing as “universal values”, just like there’s no such thing as “universal” culture. Bulliet does a wonderful job in pointing out how we view our culture as the almighty goal on the linear scale to perfection. This is exactly why we don’t ask “what went wrong” to us. Bulliet showed that since we’re financially the most superior country in the world, we assume our way of thinking is the only correct way. The downfall of the Muslim world had nothing to do with Muslim values, but rather those values would have helped the Muslim world adapt to change and not be in the pitiful state that it’s in right now. “Going back to Islam” as we so often hear, is the goal of many Muslims in the world, but they find it a lot easier to throw a piece of fabric on their head, then actually be modest, or letting facial hair grow then having good manners and not being corrupt in their daily business. If Muslims are going to preach going back to Islam, I’m all for it, but they should take it back as a whole. All the prayer in the world isn’t going to help anyone oppressing and cheating people the rest of the day. Islam is a solution for Muslim countries if they accept it wholeheartedly as a lifestyle, and not pick and choose.
I loved Bulliet’s citation of Yusuf Bushtali’s work as well. You can only know your own identity, by also learning about others. The problem is that many simply parroted Western ideologies, instead of looking at the principles behind them and critically analyzing which parts can be customized for benefit. That’s exactly why this attempt isn’t working now. All the computers in the world at your fingertips don’t substitute for quality education, just like GAP pants are not going to strengthen anybody’s economy. Rather Muslims should be looking at the 8 hour hard work day of the West that was worked to produce those pants. For example, in regard to technology, like Bulliet's discussion of the printing press, the Arab world had yet to fully exploit the power of books and publishing for the spread of ideas. Instead we have the “traditionalist” complaining about the horrible Western ideas infiltrating society, but not engaging in any critical refutations, aside from very few exceptions. Go write a book and stand up for what you believe in the intelligent way. Muslims need to be less emotional in the Arab world and learn to critically analyze ideas for themselves so they can create their own identity and not have to complain about the one imposed on them. A wise person once said “It’s not what happened when we became colonized, it’s what we did to become colonizable.”
In conclusion, one of the most important improvements that could be made in the Muslim world is on the divided education system in the Middle East that Bulliet commented on. Countries are going to be divided if they’re continually taught that you’re either going to be an ignorant pious person or an intelligent atheist. If you want to get rid of extremism, get rid of extremes in education. If Muslims truly believe that Islam is a lifestyle, which it is, then there should not be any contradiction between the secular sciences and religion. But of course the wonderful dictators in place will never let this convergence of educational paths happen because it will probably lead to more people realizing how oppressed they are and revolting against the Muslim leaders. Again oppression is a system, not a one person endeavour, and similarly will be freedom, a collective effort. That’s my rant and rave for today.
While I was reading Sam Huntington's theory, it did occur to me that it did sound as if someone does not pay attention to the news, so I would agree with what Professor John Voll has say about this clash.That it is no longer the same clash, but rather what we see is defiance against a globalized reality. I thought that it is important to realize that Professor Voll is correct that you cannot have the same definiton for this understanding, that it does change. It changes because we all are moving towards an identity that is globalized. Huntington stated "In most countries and most religions the people active in fundamentalist movements are young, college-educated, middle-class technicians, professionals and business persons". These are educated pupils that show understanding of there impact on the world economy.
I found this excerpt most insightful.
The "unsecularization of the world," George Weigel has remarked, "is one of the dominant social factors of life in the late twentieth century." The revival of religion, "la revanche de Dieu," as Gilles Kepel labeled it, provides a basis for identity and commitment that transcends national boundaries and unites civilizations.
We already see this revivial in countries that wish to fight to keep there identity against a secular United States.
I categorically disagree with the ridiculously far fetched central thesis presented in Huntington’s clash of civilizations. The idea is intrinsically xenophobic and promotes an illusionary disconnect between “East and West,” while at the same time is devoid of basic moral truths/There are multitudes of difference cultures within Islam, as there are within the Hindu and Christian world. The confluence of diversity in various geographical localities spikes more beneficial change in terms of perspectives and logic. There is not one group and another group vying for world domination as suggested by the Sam Huntington paper. It almost seems comical, something to the effect of the Hobbits vs. the bad guys in Lord of the Rings. A clash of civilizations would entail that both, the Western and Islamic world, are antithetical to each other. Thus, the Western world must drive cars and the Islamic world has “not-cars” if Sam Huntington’s theory is correct. The Islamic world would endorses injustice and the Western World endorses “justice” or vice versa. Clearly Sam Huntington’s rationality was hampered by a myopic understanding of culture, intrinsic more goods and causal relationships.
There is an existence of categorical good, characterized by right action. Thus, to save a baby from a burning building would exhibit the moral truth that saving babies is a good. So, if saving a baby is a positive truth, which necessitates saving infants as a good then not saving babies would entail a conflict. If a civilization is to clash, then it is to “clash” at the level of moral understanding, not political rhetoric. Moreover, the exponential increase in technological advances has negated the previously held notions of various existing civilizations, as technology and business has created an overall central civilization all inclusive of humanity. Thus, the applicability of Huntington’s thesis would be plausible in the case of ET and his “buddies” getting drunk and trying to start a fight with humanity. So in reality, there is no civilization in terms of distinct ethnicities, but more in the existence of humans in the natural landscape.
Samuel P. Huntington's theory The Clash of Civilizations proposes that “primary axis of conflict in the future would be along cultural and religious lines” across the globe. He also proposes that the highest rank of cultural identities are civilizations and that will help analyze future conflicts. He argues that the conflict between the West and the Confucian-Islamic states focus mainly on nuclear, chemical and other types of weapons. John Voll argues that clash may be with modernity and different philosophical beliefs rather than religious or cultural based groups.
I disagree with Huntington’s claim that main source of conflict will be between cultures and religions, rather than states. His labeled civilizations have historically showed little unity. For example, the Islamic world is divided along ethnic lines of Arabs, South Asians, Africans, Kurds, South-east Asians, and Persians. All different ethnicities have played as different actors among the world’s conflicts. Huntington also disregards the cultural differences among the Western civilizations. He ties European nations and Catholics and Protestants together as one. I disagree with his notion that the fundamental source of conflict in the new world will not be “primarily ideological or primarily economic,” when it has been just that. In my opinion, most recent global conflicts have been clash of ideologies but mainly due to groups seeking to expand their economic boundaries. Nations and states use cultural and philosophical differences to cover their greed for economical expansion. This is evident from the continuing conflict between India and Pakistan over the resourceful region of Kashmir.
Post a Comment
<< Home