The document discusses Samuel Huntington's theory of a "clash of civilizations" between Western and Islamic societies. It provides an overview of Huntington's argument that civilizations will increasingly conflict along cultural and religious lines. However, it also critiques Huntington's thesis as overly simplistic. It argues he fails to recognize complexity within and between civilizations. While differences exist, the document suggests conflict arises more from extremism than civilizations themselves clashing. Overall, the summary critiques Huntington's framework as reductionist while acknowledging religious differences as an international issue.

1. Is the world in the middle of a ‘clash of civilizations’?
As the fantasy of the end of the Soviet empire became reality it left a gaping antithetical hole that
could only be filled by a new adversary. Much like the vacuum of power in Europe that was left
after the end of the Second World War, this consequently being filled by both the US and Soviet
influence, it seems that the old foe of Communist totalitarianism would need to be replaced. The
international stage needs players, and much greater than political difference civilization is the
highest cultural grouping and the most basic of any identity. This fundamental fragmentation of
civilization has further contrastive levels of heterogeneity within it, this both unites and divides us
by means of language, religion, ethnicity, history and traditions. However perhaps the sharpest tool
that divides us is that the subjective decisions of the individual define how they view their own
identity and how they view themselves in context to those across the globe. It is this complexity of
identification that almost organically leads to conflict, thought his does not in turn lead to violence
or ever war. The Cold War ideal of peaceful coexistence seems to be outdated when one applies it to
this conflict of ideas, there was a certain clarity with the Soviet issue as the West could easily
identify its enemy and yet with the question of civilization it appears the differences intrinsically are
too great to easily classify. The core paradox for all of this however is that whilst it may seem that
the world is essentially becoming more divided on basic levels because technologically,
economically and interactively it has become smaller there is a total disconnect. This is best
displayed through the re-Islamization of the Middle East and fundamentalism seen with groups such
as the Taliban in both Pakistan and Afghanistan; this could be viewed as a reactionary ideology
originating from the desire to reject the Western influence over non-Western civilizations. One can
of course argue that this influence is a mere illusion because the emerging pattern is that it is
creating its own antagonists and this is perhaps proleptic to its own demise as the governing world
influence. It is far too reductive to claim the world is divided between 'the West and the Rest' as
there are layers of difference between nations and whilst sects court Western influence as seen in the

2. oil states of Qatar, Dubai and in some aspects Iran they also hold firm to stringent Islamic doctrine
where for example in Iran a woman can hold high positions both politically and in the business
world and yet still are without equality rights. Moreover Japan has successfully reconciled its
entrenched traditional culture with its desire to progress into a more economically and
technologically modern society without relinquishing its identity and becoming Western. When one
looks at this anomaly it seems perhaps the concept of divergent civilizations does not equate
immediately to a clash or inability to console the two but that it is the responsibility of the
civilization to be more open to difference. The issue of religion is very much at the core of this
stifling of acceptance, as dogma becomes increasingly prevalent within how one defines a
civilization. Furthermore the discussion of such a concept has fractured the international discourse
as the idea that civilizations are or will clash comes up against those who believe the idea is a
failure to understand the intricacies of international relationships between differing cultures,
ethnicities, religions and how they develop against a backdrop of globalization, greater economic
uniformity and increasing internal tensions. To continue a further critical debate that has birthed
since Huntington's paper is one put forth by Noam Chomsky who declares that the concept of a war
between civilizations is in actuality a man made construction that disguises increasing interference
by the United States in foreign affairs that could no longer be justified as action against the Soviet
threat. The imperial face of such a global issue has grown to be an idea often used by extremist
organizations to explain many atrocities throughout the world.
Samuel P. Huntington has become synonymous with the idea of clashing civilizations as he
writes in his famous polemic and book, his ideas have not become unanimously accepted though as
his focus upon Islam and the West has come under scrutiny from numerous sources and perhaps
most notably Edward Said in his rebuttal 'The Clash of Ignorance.' Huntington writes how the world
has been engaged in full clash of cultures because of what he deems as a dichotomy between

3. tribalism and globalization causing a vacuum of understanding between ever diverging views. The
idea of a nation state has become a concept that is somewhat antediluvian in an ever unifying world,
the United Nations, the EU and a general pattern of unity that has emerged through globalization
has proved that a greater degree of co-operation and fluidity between states has lead to a certain
degree of peace. Yet one must note that the nation state has not become redundant as Huntington
writes, 'The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.' 1
When one muses
upon such an idea we can only view this clash in allegorical terms as how can man made concepts
such as culture, tradition, language, religion be occupied in a war with ideas that contradict its
central tenets? Much like a war on drugs or dare one suggest a war on terror it seems the focus is on
destroying ideas and yet this is something that cannot be destroyed so what one really means when
they use such terms is a war on the people who disseminate fundamentalism, whether that be in
terms of religion, culture or archaic traditions. Huntington's thesis essentially focuses on the
disagreements between Islamic and Western civilizations providing one of the many criticisms
against his work that being his dogmatic labelling of such civilizations. This dialectic takes the idea
that the 'west' being the social, cultural and to some extent linguistic community is pitted against
non-western nations, these antithetical proponents are to come to ahead as ideas of civility and
democracy begin to repel one another. The iron curtain that divided the world during the Cold War
is now an idea that fails to understand the complexity between differing cultures that cannot be
separated by geographical borders, these different cultures amalgamate because of common
objectives and shared visions for the future. Civilizations are moreover, through the Huntington
thesis, not only defined by cultures, nations, ethnicities ect but can clash through the negation of
one another. For example Huntington's main focus is on the contemporary clash between the West
and Islam, the former being a melting pot of religious and cultural disparities and the later being a
religious consensus that dictates ones cultural and legislative beliefs. One can be from Kenya and
consider themselves part of the Islamic nation, this being of greater importance than being part of
1
Samuel. P Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations?, “Foreign Affairs”, Summer 1993, Global, p. 22.

4. an African or developing community. Huntington appears to be convinced that since religious
difference is the most profound it also leads to the most profound clashes. This can easily be viewed
in context of the recent global War of Terror as Islamists look to attack the peoples of Western
states. The September 11th
2001 attack, the July 7th
bombings in London, the attacks in Madrid and
Mumbai, what is this if not a clash of civilizations? When seen within alongside Huntington's essay
one can easily be lead to agree with his position and yet I fear it to be far too simplistic a view of
international relations or terrorism.
To continue with the central focus of Huntington's piece by looking at what he sees as a clash
between the Western and Islamic worlds perhaps one should look over the decades that have
spawned the ever rampant anti-Islamic sentiment. Islam has become viewed as the enemy to
Western ideals and democratic practice. When one muses over a clashing of civilizations, it is the
present issue that has become increasingly saturated with the hyperbole of an ever growing anti-
Islamic discourse that has birthed the neologism Islamophobia. This concept appeared in the public
conscious before the terror attacks of September 11th
2001, defining such xenophobia as the 'dread
or hatred of Islam and therefore, the fear and dislike of all Muslims'2
This fear of Islam or the
perceived Islamic threat is one that has become further perpetuated by the media since the
September 11th
attacks. The Golf War one could argue acted as a catalyst for the emergence of an
ever organised Islamism, as Suddam Hussein became an icon of Western antagonism being
proactive against the State of Israel seen as the puppet nation of the United States. Yet once more
Islamism must be seen as a minority position and the global face of Islam cannot be one that is
driven by a small sect of peoples. Huntington therefore seems to still be using nineteenth century
conflict ideas to explain certain frictions between civilizations, the historian Hans J. Morgenthau in
his essay, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, writes that 19th
century
conflict developed out of 'either different interpretation of the national principle or the refusal to
2 The Runnymede Trust, 1997.

5. accept it at all.' This however cannot simply be cut and pasted onto Huntington's thesis as it bares
little time for the balance on an inter-civilization level.
Bernard Lewis coined the phrase the 'clash of civilizations' before Huntington and in his work
echoes much of the fear that the West and Islam will have an inevitable conflict, writing, 'the
perhaps irrational, but surely historic receptions, of an ancient rival against our Judeo-Christian
heritage, our secular present, and the world-wide expansion of both, it is crucially important that
we, on our side, should not be provoked into an equally historic, but also equally irrational reaction
against our rival.'3
Edward Said refutes such claims as a mere inability to understand the complexity
of culture and the interaction that cultures have with one another, they are not fixed entities and
evolve as language does, going further he claims Huntington displays 'the purest invidious racism, a
sort of parody of Hitlerian science directed today against Arabs and Muslims'4
This rather industrial
rhetoric against Huntington's ideas does to some extent go to completely denounce all of his ideas
as a continuation of Cold War understanding of post conflict ideas on the identities of civilizations.
As Said has put forth in his lecture on the subject he maintains that Huntington attempts to 'maintain
a war time status' for the United States in order to placate 'Pentagon planners' and defence executors
and policy prescriptions without actually studying history or the cultures he so derides. Said argues
that Huntington has canvassed ideas for his thesis from dubious sources who perpetuate the
scaremongering myth that Islam is the evil that looks to destroy the Western ideals of freedom and
democracy. Journalism and popular demagoguery have replaced the effort to understand the
civilizations that so trouble his future view, it is less an academic article and more a hawkish tabloid
blueprint. Not only do both Huntington and Lewis's arguments go to suggest that Islam is
representative of the entire 'rest' but also fail to see the complexity in what defines the West itself.
Amartya Sen argues that 'diversity is a feature of most cultures in the world. Western civilization is
no exception'5
It is such sweeping characterisations to reduce the West to a monolithic entity that
3 Bernard Lewis, The Roots of Muslim Rage, “The Atlantic Monthly”, September 1990.
4 Edward Said, “From Oslo to Iraq and the Road Map”, 2004, New York Pantheon.
5 Amartya Sen, Democracy as a Universal Value, “Journal of Democracy” Vol. 10, No. 3, July 1999, p.16.

6. goes to untie the arguments of both Lewis and Huntington as it displays a reductive nature of
reasoning. Huntington is a polemicist and not an objective essayist who uses inflammatory prose to
sustain prejudice. Additionally Huntington not only with his use of the word 'clash' suggests that the
primary focus of Islam and all its followers is to rid itself of Western influence and actively pursue
its destruction but by the very connotations of the word one must assume that the destruction is not
one sided but the West must in return seek to destroy Islamic civilization too. This doctrinaire
negates the very principle put forth by Dr Hans Kochler who provides the solution that civilizations
must conform to a symbiotic relationship in order to co-exist and that this can prove to be
successful as inter-civilization confrontation becomes a heated issue there must be a global initiative
to prevent the cyclical propagation of 'enemy stereotypes'6
It is such ideas that ensure the clashing
of civilizations and aggravate those who wish to force conflict to occur by presenting cultures in
such basic terms, Japanese culture, Islamic culture, Western culture and then creating a hierarchy
that suggests one is greater than the other. There is indeed a clash of civilizations occurring through
the cartoon like images that we are forced to see as representing entire cultures and peoples. Much
like the imperial nations looked to justify their colonies though the ideas of cultural destiny and
civilising the uncivilised those who seek to Westernise the world do so with the manifesto that it
will impose great democracy, education and freedom that have become such buzz words for the
missionaries. It would be unfair not to note that there are indeed those factions of extreme Islam
such as the Taliban who look to prevent many rights that should be universal from being enacted,
such as education for females and equality legislation however to tarnish an entire religion or
civilization with the actions of fundamental minorities would be akin to claiming all Southern
Christian's in the United States shared the views of the Klu Klux Klan.
If what Huntington is providing is a recycled version of the cold war thesis, not economic or
social in essence but cultural then it is not only reductive but also divides the world much like
6 Dr Hans Kochler, The “clash of civilizations:” Perception and reality in the context of globalization and power
politics, 2004. p.9.

7. Europe was divided into the Western and Eastern blocs during the Cold War. All of these ideas are
the dregs of the imperial competition of the 19th
and 20th
centuries and once more do not take into
consideration that civilizations, nations, cultures do interact with one another and are not gated
worlds with locked doors. Moreover cultures are often seen only through the official definition,
with the hierarchy of values, religious and political leaders, academic voices and institutions
provide a majority picture that is globally externalised. However within every culture, as Edward
Said discusses, are elements that do not prescribe to this formal agenda and offer the unofficial or
counter-culture providing debate and plurality and speak for the often unrecognised members of
such culture. Huntington does little to recognise this aspect of culture and only seems concerned
with the surface identity of civilizations, not only does this confirm a lack of understanding towards
not only how civilizations related to other civilizations but furthermore how they have to relate to
the dissenting factions within.
To conclude Huntington has put forth an argument that does indeed highlight one acceptable
argument that civilizations or cultures do indeed differ from one another, they also have within them
differing ideas as to what they each represent and the traditions they stand for. Yet the failing of
Huntington to realise that a clash between a minority of extremists does not make a war. Continuing
Huntington also fails to identify the correlation between where the United States declares this clear
and present danger to the Western values of democracy and freedom lie and the strategic,
geographical, economic and material significance that they also hold. Much like Huntington is
reductive it would also be far to reductive for anyone to assert that religious disparity is not an ever
pressing international issue, but one could not refer to this as a clash of civilizations. If Islam is
defined as a civilization they it has conflict rooted deep within it, as Sunni and Shia populations
diverge on the interpretation of scripture. A Muslim from Pakistan and a Muslim from Indonesia
may well share a religion but whether they share a cultural identity is a subject issue. Thus this
would alter Huntington's ethos altogether from a 'clash of cultures' to a more appropriate and

8. accurate phrase a 'clash of definitions.'7
7 Edward Said, The Clash of Ignorance, “The Nation”, October, 22, 2001.

9. Bibliography
S. P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, “Foreign Affairs”
Summer 1993.
Hans Kochler, The “clash of civilizations:” Perception and reality in the context of globalization
and power politics.
Edward Said, The Clash of Ignorance, “The Nation”, October, 22, 2001.
Jack F. Matlock Jr, Can Civilizations Clash? “Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society,”
Vol. 143 No. 3, American Philosophical Society, September 1999, p. 428-439.
Giacomo Chiozza, Is There a Clash of Civilizations? Evidence from Patterns of International
Conflict Involvement, 1946-97, “Journal of Peace Research”, Vol. 39, No. 6, November 2002, p.
711-734.
Errol A. Henderson and Richard Tucker, Clear and Present Strangers: The Clash of Civilizations
and International Conflict, “International Studies Quarterly”, Vol. 45, No. 2, June 2001, p. 317-
338.

10. Bibliography
S. P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, “Foreign Affairs”
Summer 1993.
Hans Kochler, The “clash of civilizations:” Perception and reality in the context of globalization
and power politics.
Edward Said, The Clash of Ignorance, “The Nation”, October, 22, 2001.
Jack F. Matlock Jr, Can Civilizations Clash? “Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society,”
Vol. 143 No. 3, American Philosophical Society, September 1999, p. 428-439.
Giacomo Chiozza, Is There a Clash of Civilizations? Evidence from Patterns of International
Conflict Involvement, 1946-97, “Journal of Peace Research”, Vol. 39, No. 6, November 2002, p.
711-734.
Errol A. Henderson and Richard Tucker, Clear and Present Strangers: The Clash of Civilizations
and International Conflict, “International Studies Quarterly”, Vol. 45, No. 2, June 2001, p. 317-
338.