Huntington's Hunch or the Clash of Civilizations??
New York Times columnist David Brooks calls Samuel Huntington “one of the most eminent political scientists in the world”, and rightly so: Huntington’s seminal work on future sources of human conflict, “The Clash of Civilizations?”, has become an important intellectual lens through which many view our world. Huntington’s fundamental observation is that “[t]he great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural”.
Huntington, a Harvard professor and former coordinator of security planning for the National Security Council, enjoys such widespread acclaim that anyone who hadn’t read “Clash” could be forgiven for believing it had much merit. Critics have charged Huntington’s theory with being overly simplistic and empirically false, but I believe there is an overarching logical fallacy which supersedes these. That is, given that the human quest for power has historically been the most salient factor in causing conflict, it would seem incumbent upon Huntington to provide some mechanism or example to show that culture will replace power as the basis for war. But for all his eloquence on culture clash, he gives this aspect of human nature but short shrift. Huntington at least seems aware of this fundamental contradiction, even mentioning it once. The only problem is that he explicitly contradicts his central thesis to do so:
Differences in power and struggles for military, economic and institutional power are thus one source of conflict between the West and other civilizations. Differences in culture, that is basic values and beliefs, are a second source of conflict.
But what of Huntington’s evidence that the “clash of civilizations will dominate global politics”? He provides six causes for Clash theory: 1) real and basic differences between civilizations, 2) increased intercivilizational interaction invigorating differences and animosities, 3) the rise of religious fundamentalism, 4) the growth of civilization consciousness in response to “Western” dominance, 5) the tenacity of cultural characteristics and differences, and 6) the rise of economic regionalism. Taken on their own merits, these points might be perfectly valid, but do they prove Huntington’s theory?
Huntington himself provides an answer: “A paradigm is disproved only by the creation of an alternative paradigm that accounts for more crucial facts in equally simple or simpler terms”. Let’s look at a recent historical example likely to demonstrate Huntington’s principle and see if Clash theory provides the best account, namely the US occupation of Iraq.
With the US War on Terror as its background, the occupation of Iraq shows several of the characteristics Huntington predicts, e.g. religious fundamentalism and civilization consciousness as a reaction to “the West”. But do these hold up when we look at the mechanisms which directly precipitated the conflict? For example, Saddam: was he motivated more by cultural differences or by a personal desire to maintain his regime? The latter seems more likely.
In the US, on the other hand, it is arguable that civilization consciousness led to the invasion; after all, a majority of the population supported the action at the outset. Polling, however, shows US support for the invasion steadily eroding from its peak in September 2001 until the actual invasion in March 2003. What mechanism would cause one “civilization” to invade another when support for the invasion was declining? The answer is the actions of the political leadership in whom is invested the power to make war. Was their motivation based primarily on civilization identity or the desire for power (or some other factor)? From this perspective, the explanatory power of Clash theory appears minimal.
Therefore, if Clash theory doesn’t explain much, what niche does it fall in? Why is it so famous? Many answers are possible, but I suggest its role in the public discourse is that of propaganda. Huntington evidently didn’t author “Clash” under government auspices, so it can’t be taken as propaganda in the same way we view the “Uncle Sam” posters of WWI. Whenever discord among civilizations is given as a reason for conflict, however, it is perhaps Huntington’s work which most saliently backs the assertion. It provides the intellectual underpinning necessary for educated “Westerners” to understand why their militaries must go abroad, a moral fig leaf to cover the shame of what we might otherwise see as needless war. The theory’s success may be regarded as reflecting the views of and, more importantly, advancing the welfare of power interests. They like the theory, so it gets supported within elite circles.
Despite the criticism, I don’t mean that Huntington’s work is completely without merit. After all, cultural differences can certainly hinder communication and lead to serious misunderstandings. Common wisdom is that future wars will be fought between peoples of different cultures. But this does not mean that cultural differences will cause war. We are quick to characterize conflicts such as Israel-Palestine, the Lebanese Civil War, Indian Muslim vs. Indian Hindu, etc. as religious or cultural in nature; but if we ask the simple question “What part do money and power play in these conflicts?” we are apt to come up with a very different characterization. Therefore, if power theory provides a direct explanation while Clash theory gives at best vague predictions, Occam’s razor dictates that we cut out the extraneous matter.
As it stands, Huntington is a latter day prophet who has given a dispensation of intellectual and moral authority. Sadly all interpretation it is left to society's most deceitful institutions and the ignorant henchmen who succor them.
