Be the first to like this
In the aftermath of the Cold War, at the beginning of the 1990s, American political scientist, Samuel Huntington, published the paper ‘The Clash of Civilizations?’ He predicted that the world would no longer be ideologically divided between liberal democracy and communism, but between incompatible cultural blocks, which he called civilizations. In particular, Huntington saw the Islamic civilization as utterly irreconcilable with ‘Western liberal values’ such as pluralism, individualism and democracy. The idea that value systems are not universal but culturally dictated has become the cornerstone of the new world order, particularly in the aftermath of 9/11. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the more recent NATO bombing of Libya were sold to western populations as struggles for the democratization of regions which posed a threat to the security and freedom of western nations. While the wars and occupations were portrayed as liberatory, domestic policy in post-immigration countries, such as Australia, was reoriented around a less ‘tolerant’ attitude to religious and ethnic minorities, Muslims in particular who were seen as posing a threat within. Against this ideological division of the world into ‘liberal and ‘illiberal’ camps, several theorists have been questioning the supremacy of the idea of secularism, pointing how, far from being open, liberal and tolerant, the rejection of ‘fundamentalism’ is in itself a form of extremism which seeks to impose one vision of the world – the western – upon the majority of the world. The notion that there is a fundamental clash of civilizations is at the heart of many political decisions around war, peace, security, but also education, gender rights, and immigration.