Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
So in 1996, he published the book titled “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. In his book, Huntington expands on the ideas in his original essay and ntroduces five main conceptual points, which goes on to explain what would become of the world, ever since the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the U. S. S. R. Many scientists and writers believe that the values of the west will become the only remaining ideological way for the nations of the new world (Post- Cold War society). Specifically, Francis Fukuyama who stated “the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government. (The End of History, xx) Huntington argues that while western expansion many increase after the post-cold war, the western dominance in the world and its norm to be superior over others could provoke other civilizations. Causing major civilizations to ask themselves “who are we”, resulting in moral conflicts between countries/cultures based on their traditions of religion. (Huntington, 21) It is in human nature that “People define themselves in terms of ancestry, religion, language, history, values, customs, and institutions.
Only $13.90 / page
They identify with cultural groups: tribes, ethnic groups, religious communities, nations, and at the broadest level, civilizations. (Huntington, 21). Huntington’s argument of cultural boundaries arising from western influence divides the world into nine major civilizations that he believes are the geographical locations where the morals ot ce rtain ideas, values and religion are dominant . The most dominant of the nine is the “West,” which is characterized by the United States, Canada, and the nations of Western Europe.
There are also Sinic (the common culture of China), Japanese, Buddhist, Hindu (identified as the core Indian civilization), Islamic, Orthodox (Russia and other Slavic nations), Latin American (Central and South American), and Africa. (Book Summary of The Clash of Civilizations) Who are all individually different in priorities, traditions, society and all misunderstand each other. With western influence amongst these civilizations an issue, and the large conflict of moral believes between them, it could potentially create hostility between civilizations.
And with China emphasizing its cultural importance through economic successes. “Asian societies are decreasingly responsive to United States demands and interests and [are] increasingly able to resist pressure from the U. S. r other Western countries” (Huntington, 104). So with the advantage of Asian countries to productively modernize and grow economically without adopting western values supports Huntington’s criticism against a somewhat weakening West could ultimately create temptation of an event of hatred against the West.
Mainly since with China being the biggest challenger to the West, Huntington believes that the Islamic civilization could ultimately rise again toa resistance of Western influences. Muslim societies, unlike Asian societies, have mainly based their cultural identity through iews of religion. Huntington argues that the rebirth of Islam “embodies the acceptance of modernity, rejection of Western culture, and the recommitment to Islam as the guide to life in the modern world” (Huntington, 110). What Huntington Got Right People can view Huntington’s ideology of his thesis in many ways, interrupting it any way they want.
But in my opinion in the book Huntington effectively creates the discussion of the post-cold-war world not solely being about societies ideology, ethnicity, politics, and economics to but based on its culture. Allowing the variable of uman nature to effect the actions of the future. Huntington is right to say that there is not going to be a generalizations of the world’s society; secondly to point out the conflict of civilizations amongst themselves; and third, to emphasize the simplicity that human moralities can become secularized. Huntington, xx) Huntington states that the world should not be viewed as having only two sides, or as a set of states, but as a set of seven or eight cultural “civilizations” (all emerging alignments to each other) linked together with either conflict or alliance relations. He makes several important points, that one, modernization does not automatically mean Westernization; two, economic progress conflicts with religion; and lastly that society after the cold war is no longer based on ideology but cultural (Huntington, xx) Huntington believes that the future of Western civilization expanding is probable, but not to be expected.
But this creates conflict to some, given that there are many views of what Western civilization really is and its power. This leads to Huntington recommending better relations between Western nations, and wanting to maintain Western advances (like technology and military) to be superior over other civilizations (especially Islamic and Sinic countries). He warns us to stay timid on the interaction and interference of other civilization (Huntington,xx) The astonishing thing about Huntington’s book and his theory predicted how he could determine the profile backgrounds ot the 9- 1 terrorists and their tollowers.
Being able to describes now East Asian states will neglect the western influence of the US and turn towards Chinese recovery of their three thousand year old traditional control. And lastly redict how Russia, the main state of Orthodox civilization will go back to attempting the establishment of its own traditional control with its allies and surrounding states after battling with the west over superiority. Huntington expresses how the Western Civilization is declining in relation to its economic and demographic influence over the world’s other major civilizations (especially the Sinic and Islamic).
Post -Cold War efforts to create alliances was a successful action where civilization gained alliances amongst themselves temporarily to form and prevent a common enemy, and how United States attempted to preserve those relationships against other American enemies (Islamic fundamentalism). As well as how Western civilization, including the United States need to understand and accept that other civilizations can have independence from a dominant nation. A fascinating point Huntington makes is how American and Western civilization are failing with the containment of other civilizations having nuclear weapons.
Most countries do not even have the intent of necessarily using nuclear weapons, but seek them to provoke and prevent military authority by the United States. Huntington recaps that, during the Cold War, the US insisted it needed nuclear weapons to maintain tactical superiority so the USSR couldn’t. At this point, that the United States had to show its dominance in military power, everyone now believes they need nuclear weapons or nuclear-armed allies to just protect their independence (e. g. , Iran, North Korea).
Huntington says “South Koreans seem a lot less concerned with North Korean nuclear arms than Americans or Japanese are. ” (Huntington, xx) Huntington gives a total different perspective of seeing the world we live in. Huntington’s thesis bypasses the conceptual traditions of realist, and their principles on society, or how liberal principles based their values such on freedom. He shows how human nature can dominate a civilization and cause the natural feeling of superiority resulting in a clash of different cultures. Huntington’s analysis is fascinating and, in my opinion to politically correct.
It paints a good picture of todays society. If anything, todays society seems to be still following in the direction Huntington represented. What Huntington Got Wrong With its wide range of interpretations and it being viewed as perplexed in its rgument, todays society has proven it to be somewhat accurate for the most part. Roughly it basically predicts the last decade of the world history using a Western standpoint. His view on certain topics and the things he wrote about Pakistan and how intensely accurate his prediction where, against western civilization. Huntington,xx) To start with, Huntington gives the impression that if a civilization progresses too fast; it will result in negative outcome to the civilization, ensuing it to fail, and fall back to its norms. (Turkey). Then, he states that people who tend to eclare their dominance against the West, ideologically or culturally, unintentionally will result in negative way shown by the West itself (the former USSR). However, civilizations that decide to be a more reasonable form of being like the West will end up weakening their culture (China).
Lastly, civilizations that would like to live peacefully with others and do not seek the dominance of major cultures (west), resulting it to follow the closest to their traditions. (India). Huntington’s thesis of the emerging world order came Otta bit to simple tor it to be only seven major civilizations. Taking in consideration, that without some basic foundation of society we couldn’t discuss the details of international politics, mainly because it would allow to many possibilities in the equation.
In addition, Huntington never deprived of the possibility of other factors in shaping the society of todays world. What he did say it was “to present a framework, a paradigm, for viewing global politics that will be meaningful to scholars and useful to policymakers. ” (Huntington, xx) Conclusion It’s hard to say, if one could agree or disagree with Huntington’s entire thesis, mainly ecause it depends on where you stand from his perspective, being from a western background, to even a Islamic background.
But nonetheless, we should take inconsideration the recognition of “The Clash of Civilizations” as a foundation of what has or could happen. Importantly, the book deserves a wide readership so society can understand its knowledge and be able to debate on it. It provides a considerate and challenging theory to help explain what happens when human nature affects society and it is no longer based on ideology or economy.