Revisiting the Clash of Civilizations

This academic essay was written for a school paper assignment in grad school. 

The world has witnessed significant changes after the end of the Cold War. Since then, world politics and distribution of power have taken new forms and dynamics that continue to evolve to this day. Although states are arguably considered as the major players in world politics, we cannot deny that new actors (e.g. ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Google, etc.) have gradually emerged to take an important role in the world stage. This shifting of power distribution coupled with unexpected and volatile changes is the reality of our contemporary world. Understanding these trends is essential and requires traditional and fresh paradigms to examine and make sense of the world. Of primary interest of these new paradigms was that of Huntington’s clash of civilization. Although his assertion has garnered both support and criticism from other political scholars, his theory has also given us insights to explain the problems of our world.

         Huntington argued that the main source of conflict in this generation stems from cultural division. Most notably, the fundamental major conflict that will dominate global politics will be fought between nations and groups of different civilizations. To quote him, “the fault lines between civilizations will be battle lines of the future”. Looking at the current issues of the world, one can invoke the clash of civilization theory to explain these issues. Of particular interest that scholars construe of the clash of civilization is on the current intergroup conflicts over the world. Huntington’s supporters would argue that these hostilities between groups are rooted in the difference of the eight civilization identity categorizations Huntington made. Accordingly, Huntington’s theory has predicted some of the major political events over the past years. Although Huntington cited some factual points such as the role of economic regionalism and increasing interaction which both intensifies “civilization-consciousness”, it is obvious that these facts are in hindsight and doesn’t tell us much. Evidently, the clash of civilization is utterly flawed and does an average, if not a terrible job, in explaining to us the modern world. Strong shreds of evidence can be argued to counter Huntington’s thesis.

         For one, Huntington’s civilization categorization is vague and distorted. He didn’t provide much historical or scientific evidence to support his divisive categories. His separation of civilization also relied strongly on static borders as seen in his supposed map. Clearly, he failed to account how scattered these civilizations are. His fixedness on civilization is shortsighted on the role of recent concepts like multiculturalism, polyculturalism, transnationalism, colorblindness, and many more that transcend border and categorizations. Second, Huntington’s determinism on the clash of civilization is arguably wrong. The current state of affairs does not reflect this at all because most civilizations are not fighting. If they are fighting, it is due to causes that are entirely unrelated to their civilizational identity. This leads to my third point on the role of economy and ideology in fanning out wars. Huntington downplayed the role of both economy and ideology as potential triggers of war. Again, he is wrong because the current domestic and international wars are largely driven by movements to secure a better economy or liberty or freedom or other ideologies. Lastly, Huntington’s prediction includes the enmity between the West and Islam civilization. In fact, he expounded this by demonizing Islam by associating the religion to violence. Although this narrative is accepted and amplified in most communication channels today, Huntington is gravely mistaken on the root cause of the conflict. He simply argued that this hostile interaction is due to the culture, religion, and ultimately civilizational difference. While this has some truth to it, we cannot ignore that most of the fights involving Muslim fundamentalists nowadays are rooted primarily from political reasons. In other words, the wars against Muslims as we know it now originated from a variety of causes such as tyranny, ineffective leadership, self-determination, lack of democracy, failing economy, and among others that are not necessarily related to the Islam religion. The warfare in the name of religion was a subsequent result that served as justification and morale booster for the fundamentalists.

         In resolving the clash of civilization, Huntington suggested some recommendations. However, his suggestions are purely biased in favor of the West civilization. Most of his suggestions also have little to do with the problems he proposed. This ambiguity and oversimplification have sparked discontentment and criticism from other political scientists. One of the prominent figures who opposed the clash of civilization is Amartya Sen. In his article, he argued that to resolve the clash of civilizations, we need to encourage the plurality of our identities instead of sticking to one divisive and unique powerful categorization. He emphasized that as individuals, we have layers of identities (other than our religion). We should not be caged in a single layer that will reinforce civilization difference. Lastly, the clash of civilization is deeply embedded in our language and narratives. Hence, resolving this pitting of civilizations against each other takes a fundamental transformation on how we communicate about it. Since we have established that this alleged clash of civilization is a superficial label with underlying real causes, it is only logical that we dig down to that level and resolve it from there.

         Classic and new International Relations theories can also offer solutions on how to address the clash of civilizations. For realism, self-interest and survival are the main concern of these civilizations. And since they want to secure their interest, they would crave power. Realists would argue that to solve this clash, no civilization should possess superior power over the others. Balance of power is the key to stabilizing the intent of civilizations to attack other states and claim their power, as supported by Thucydides. Similarly, Morgenthau who emphasized the role of promoting national interest suggested that diplomacy can help pacify civilizations. Diplomacy guides civilizations on how to peacefully negotiate their interest with other states.

         Liberalism, on one hand, would suggest that civilizations should resort to mutually beneficial alternatives. Consistent with the belief on trade and economic interdependence, liberalism would resolve the clash by encouraging the exchange of goods between civilizations. This relationship will shape an interdependent system where civilizations will rely on others. Subsequently, any hostile clash will be avoided since it will disrupt the profitable process. In addition, liberalists believe in the power of democracy in resolving conflicts. They argue that a democratic civilization will not engage in war with a fellow democracy. Mansfield would concur in this assertion that stable democracies are relatively peaceful.

         Lastly, constructivism would likely say that the “clash of civilizations is what we make off it”. We created this idea based on the meaning we assign to it. Hence, to resolve it demands shifting of meaning from a fixed and negative definition to a cooperative and harmonious one. As Wendt contended, interaction is vital in future relationships. In this context, resolving the clash takes effort to provide platforms for interaction. Continuous immersion and interaction among civilizations can help break the solid unique identity barriers and foster respect among these groups.

         Indeed, our kaleidoscopic world is ever-changing. New events require new perspectives sometimes. The clash of civilization gave us just that new paradigm to view the world. In fairness to Huntington, his theory contributed partly to understanding the world, especially group dynamics. Most remarkably, his provocative points started a discourse that further enriched our view of the contemporary world. Political scholars did not just oppose the clash of civilization but some suggested strategies to address this battle between us and them. To end, revisiting clash of civilization is always a worthy effort to evaluate its (ir)relevance to the modern world.

*This essay was submitted as a requirement for POS 190 (International Relations).

*Still on the process of editing to avoid plagiarism. References are listed in the original file.