Introduction
The primary argument of Huntington in his book is that the predominant source of the clash among the states will be cultural and civilizational and not ideological or economical (Huntington, 1993). He further stated that although the nation-states will be the most prominent actors in the international arena, the conflict will mostly arise among those states that have civilizational differences (Huntington, 1993). He later argued that different civilizations would coexist with each other, and due to their dominant differences, there would be no universal civilization for the relevant future. The following essay, in this regard, critically analyses Huntington’s argument to evaluate its correctness in the contemporary world.
Critical Analysis
The major argument of Huntington in his book “The Clash of Civilizations” is that after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the conflicts between the states will not be on the ideological basis as observed during the Cold War. Instead, they will arise from the tensions between states that have different civilizations, notably Western states, Islamic states, and Confucian states (Michael Kennedy, 2013, pp. 1–8). Many political scholars and analysts have criticized these propositions of the “Clash of Civilizations”. For instance, Russett et al. (2000), after reviewing the militarized disputes of different states from 1952 to 1992, have argued that the realist and liberalist view of interstate relationships provides a more comprehensive explanation of such disputes. More specifically, they stated that the conflict between the West and the rest of Islam was more unlikely than the conflict between the states within a civilization.
Furthermore, they highlighted that interstate conflict between states on civilizational lines has become less common after the Cold War, and this relationship cannot even be completely explained from a realist or liberalist perspective. Thus, civilizations have an important role in defining the international status of the states, but they do not necessarily define the fault lines for the international conflicts and battles among the states.
Similarly, CHIOZZA (2002) used a solution of King & Zeng to investigate the rareness of events in Kosimo data that extends the empirical analysis from both a temporal and substantive perspective. From the analysis, he concluded that the states are less prone to engage in conflicts on civilizational fault lines. Moreover, as he observed, Huntington’s thesis was rejected in the first eight years after the post-Cold War era. Therefore, it becomes evident that border contiguity and regime type can be modified by various civilization factors as they are insufficient to give rise to major conflicts among states based on the difference in civilizational heritage. However, it does not mean that the relations between China, Islamic countries, and the West, which are the fundamental themes in Huntington’s thesis, will entirely be smooth and rosy. However, conflicts can arise between different civilizations and between countries within the same civilization, although cultural differences will not mainly cause them, as Huntington argued.
The Huntington argument can also be criticized on a methodological, epistemological, and ethical basis, as Shahi (2017) noted, considering it to have an inconsistent and monolithic attitude, unrealistic and elitist outlook, and apparent purpose of fueling enemy course. However, as Michael Kennedy (2013) discussed, Huntington has made valid arguments regarding what will not determine the relationships of the states, but he mistakenly considers the civilizational factor to be the most prominent determinant.
Conclusion
As discussed, Huntington’s analysis of the “clash of civilizations” does not provide a more realistic view of the foreign affairs of the different states in this contemporary world. And unlike his main argument, conflicts are more likely to occur between the states within the same civilizations. Moreover, most of the conflicts that he has mentioned will occur not based on civilizational factors but merely based on the fact that they are neighbouring states.
References
CHIOZZA, G. (2002). Is There a Clash of Civilizations? Evidence from Patterns of International Conflict Involvement, 1946-97. Journal of Peace Research, 39(6), 711–734. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343302039006004
Huntington, S. P. (1993). The Clash of Civilizations? Foreign Affairs, 72(3), 22. https://doi.org/10.2307/20045621
Michael Kennedy. (2013). The Clash of Civilizations (Samuel P. Huntington). In Grin.com (pp. 1–8). Munich, GRIN Verlag. https://www.grin.com/document/268261#:~:text=Huntington%20makes%20valid%20arguments%20in,a%20realist%20Cold%20War%20paradigm.
Russett, B. M., Oneal, J. R., & Cox, M. (2000). Clash of Civilizations, or Realism and Liberalism Déjà Vu? Some Evidence. Journal of Peace Research, 37(5), 583–608. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/425280?seq=1
Shahi, D. (2017, April 2). The Clash of Civilizations Thesis: A Critical Appraisal. E-International Relations. https://www.e-ir.info/2017/04/02/the-clash-of-civilizations-thesis-a-critical-appraisal/
Cite This Work
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:
