Members with This Book
Most Helpful Reviews
see all reviews
Liked It “I first read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_of_Civilizations, then Huntington's famous original 1993 essay in Foreign Affairs, and it's quite obvious he's got it all right even back then, so the book is just the next level of elaboration. As per Karl Popper's definition of science,...” see full review » see other reviews » |
Didn’t Like It “Samuel P. Huntington's critics often use words to describe him like "xenophobe" and "demagogue." Such words usually amount to slurs and personal attacks, but reading Huntington's work, it's hard to draw any other conclusion. |
Newest Reviews
see all reviews-
“I first read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_of_Civilizations, then Huntington's famous original 1993 essay in Foreign Affairs, and it's quite obvious he's got it all right even back then, so the book is just the next level of elaboration. As per Karl Popper's definition of science, Huntington produced falsifiable hypotheses, which have not been falsified just yet. Had more people been exposed to his ideas in the 1990s, maybe less stupidities would have been committed during that strange decade.”
Guy B wrote this review 11 days ago. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
“o my God ....A book i ever Read ...though some of his predictions didn't come but we have to admit that samual p huntington is a man with wisdom...i love him”
jamil wrote this review Monday, September 28 2009. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
“light reading....a futuristic book which makes an effort to predict future conflicts wherein the author distinguishes that a muslim or a christian of west say Bosnia is quite different from an Indian christian or muslim....implying that there value systems are different. As per the author, the future conflicts could be in the faultline of civilisations ......similar looking people sharing similar culture etc (may be of different religion) find common legacy/cause and conflict could take place with people sharing different value system....
sumeet s wrote this review Monday, September 21 2009. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
”
“An excellent analysis of where the history of the world is now and where it is going in the coming decades. This should be a mandatory read for any college or university level student.”
Jeremy A wrote this review Friday, July 24 2009. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
“In this most important work on contemporary global politics, Huntington has developed a theoretical framework in which a number of religious/cultural “civilisations” have developed towards the end of the 20th century that will continue to polarise and to compete for survival and world dominance in the coming years. These vying “civilisations” consist of groupings of peoples and countries around a single dominant cultural/economic state. The evolving meta-cultures, which include “the West”, Latin America, Africa, Japan, Orthodox (Russia), Islam, Sinic (China), and Hindu, are expected to become more or less conflictual in the years ahead. The greatest potential conflict exists between Islam and most of the others, with perhaps somewhat less conflict with Sinic culture. Whilst the conduct of most states is moderated by their exemplar state, the Islamic group both varies greatly in its ethnic and cultural composition and has lacked the moral or political modelling and moderation of a single leading state since the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century. This work helps the reader to conceptualise and understand the politico/economic struggles of the present era. Subsequent events since its initial publication in 1998 have supported and reinforced Huntington’s thesis. ”
Dr Glenn Lowry wrote this review Friday, July 17 2009. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No“Excellent”
Abid G wrote this review Monday, May 25 2009. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
“While this is an interesting read and perspective, it is not an accurate world-view. If read with such an understanding, then it is a worthwhile and informative read even if it is entirely off base.”
RedBaron007 wrote this review Monday, March 30 2009. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
“ In 1993, an article was printed in Foreign Affairs magazine that would challenge many commonly held notions of what international relations might be like in a post-Soviet Union world and eventually would produce a sea change in American politics so great that it may inform the direction of our country well into the mid 21st century. From the article a book was born and the controversy and popularity concerning Samuel Huntington's model of world affairs and the civilizational conflict he foresaw has only increased ever since. The book has been reportedly passed around many influential circles, both political, economic, and otherwise with significant praise for the prescience of its author. Mr. Huntington passed away in December of 2008 and left in his wake, as any significant historical figure does, ideas that will long outlive him.
Ryan J wrote this review Thursday, March 19 2009. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
The theory of the 'Clash of Civilizations' could be summarized as follows; with recent events, such as the fall of the soviet union and modernization of formerly underdeveloped countries, there has been a shift in global conflict away from ideology and back to the 'old way' ; what Huntington refers to as 'civilizational' conflict. In the grand scheme of history, the age of ideological conflict has been a hiccup in an otherwise steady stream of civilizations comprised of like cultures in conflict with others of different cultures. According to Huntington, the age of ideological conflict has come to a close and now, wars will be predominantly culture based. The rallying of kin states, or nation states of like cultures, will be common, against outside civilizations, or cultures. The map of world conflict will no longer be divided up by communism, democracy, or developed and undeveloped, but according to civilizations, the broadest cultural entity, united by similar religion, history, language, and lifestyle. Modernization is serving as a primary catalyst, creating a vacuum of civilizational self identification and manifesting a new world dynamic that Huntington's model seeks to explain. There has not been a
time before ours where this global conflict would be able to reach this level. For without the rapid developments we have seen in the last few hundred years, there would be no world stage to speak of.
Huntington's notions of civilizational identity are made up of the same basic psychological components that compose mans sense of self. This is what, in social psychology, they refer to as 'Distinctiveness Theory'. A civilization being the broadest cultural identity is not likely to be a factor in the mind of nations with little exposure to one another. Over the last few hundred years, the world has not seen anything close to the interaction between all of the regions of the world as it does now. As the world shrinks, mans self identity expands. Take for instance, a man from Salem, Oregon staying in a hotel in Portland. When he is in Portland, he considers himself as being from Salem. He might be pleased to hear someone mention Salem and strike up a conversation. Now, suppose that man flies to New York the next day and hears someone mention Oregon. Now, this man, still from Salem, considers himself Oregonian. Nothing has changed; just his interaction with a broader element of the world. When he leaves the again for China, he will be an American and if Huntington is correct, he will one day be 'from the West'. For whatever defines the western civilization is what the man is in a world made so small and so connected through rapid modernization. And rapidity is exactly why the conflict comes into play.
Eight years after the original article was published, the notion of clashing civilizations would come back onto the world scene and spread like wildfire through political circles, government officials, and world leaders, with startling consequences. On September eleven, 2001, the terror attacks by Muslim extremists would send the nation reeling and searching for answers. The answer, many were saying, was in Huntington's Civilizational theory. 'Clash of Civilizations?', read the headline of many newspaper articles in the following months. The Bush administration, it was revealed, had held great stock in the theory and much was debated about what this could mean for the direction of the country. In the chaos and confusion in world affairs that followed, it seemed to make the most sense to some.
And what was the impetus of this sudden clash of civilizations? What happened to the Clinton administrations notions of one world coherence and unity under common principles? Huntington's answer to this was that in a rapidly modernizing world, the threat to cultural identity is almost unbearable. A long standing notion that the united states has stood behind is the concept of modernization being synonymous with westernization. This highly ethnocentric idea goes that if we sell them enough pickup trucks and see that there is a McDonalds and Starbucks built on every corner, we will slowly acculturate them and create allies of these countries over time. However, the perception has quite frequently become one of, not shared culture or modernization, but of western cultural imperialism. Huntington believed that between this perceived cultural imperialism and the rapidly accelerating modernization, there was and continues to be an instinctively reflexive pull toward fundamentalism. As the threat toward cultural identity from modernization continues in America and elsewhere, there will be a fast rising tide of fundamentalism. An equal and opposite reaction
According to Huntington, the better part of recent history has been acted out by Western countries as principle actors with the rest of the world as the objects they acted upon. As nations rapidly modernize and the narrow, ethnocentric premise of spreading democracy and creating a 'western world' fails, the inverse reaction of fundamentalism will further destabilize the civilizations, not by locality, but on the new world stage. The technologies of war and communication are rapidly elevating all countries to a common level while furthering the identity crisis and resultant fundamentalism that will be the new source of most global conflict.
Ideology and self-identification by political, social, or economic labels are fluid, or at least can be considered highly malleable, according to his theory. However, culture is much less so. As Huntington puts it; “Russians cannot become Estonians and Azeris cannot become Armenians.” As a civilization is the broadest cultural identity, culture is the least alterable and thus the most cohesive of identities. Religion, in turn is the most divisive of the associations one can make which puts differences into unavoidable conflict, yet holds its adherents closer than any other bond.
As conflict occurs on a global scale, there will be an increased rallying of what Huntington refers to as 'kin states', composed of similar cultures against perceived outside threats. Thus, the hatred amongst middle east nations for the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein was set aside as the occupation of U.S. Forces began and the greater threat of western empiricism took prominence. The world stage is now precisely that and identity amongst and between nations, according to Huntington, is key in understanding and preparing for future global conflict.
As Huntington's theory has gained prominence, amongst government officials, the media, and other intellectual circles, there has been significant criticism of the the basis of his ideas, the bias behind them, and the potential negative impact that they may have on world affairs as they seep further into America's and others' world view and exert their influence on global politics.
One of the softer criticisms leveled at it has to do with the perceived perpetuation of wartime status that some see Huntington's theory as contributing to. Following the sharp decline of the soviet union, a major revision in global economic policy and threat aversion was needed. No longer was it “The west versus communism” that defined the United States' foreign policy and something needed to fill that gap. According to many critics, the Clash of Civilizations theory filled that gap and serves to perpetuate a militant, us versus them mentality. The consequences of this perspective, of course, would be greatly for the worse. Amitai Etzioni shares this view, offering that “A much more valid and healthier approach is to recognize that there are major moderate and fundamentalist camps in all civilizations and that the West should work with moderates everywhere and be on its guard against fundamentalists—everywhere.” (Etzioni)
Another, is the perceived marginalizing of cultures and reduction of large populations to simple categories and terms. Edward W. Said, a very vocal opponent of the Clash of Civilizations theory before his death in 2003, wrote in his article, 'The Clash of Ignorance', that Huntington must not have had “much time to spare for the internal dynamics and plurality of every civilization, or for the fact that the major contest in most modern cultures concerns the definition or interpretation of each culture.” (Said, 22). He precedes this statement by referring to Huntington's notions of 'Civilizational Identities' as a “belligerent kind of thought” which neither accurately accounts for the divisions within a given 'civilization' nor the disagreement as to what defines them. Unfortunately, what Said, and other vocal critics leave out is that Huntington's model of world conflict is precisely that; a model.
”“Interesting read.”
Christopher L wrote this review Monday, March 16 2009. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No“Samuel P. Huntington's critics often use words to describe him like "xenophobe" and "demagogue." Such words usually amount to slurs and personal attacks, but reading Huntington's work, it's hard to draw any other conclusion.
Ligeia by the Rhine wrote this review Sunday, January 11 2009. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
He spends a great deal of time fretting over the high reproductive rates in the Muslim, Latin American and East Asian worlds, probably to scare his readers with the idea that we civilized Western people are (horrors!) doomed to be overthrown by the Muslim, Latin and Chinese hordes. He neglects to mention, however, that high birth rates almost always mean high death rates and that the most populous countries in the world are often neither the wealthiest nor the most powerful. Furthermore, there is no mention of things like the infant mortality rates and life expectancy. It's hard to chalk this up to ignorance, however; Huntington was very well-educated. Perhaps it isn't mentioned because being reminded that about 81.5% of Iraqi infants and 23% of Chinese infants are going to die before their first birthdays might distract Westerners from their task at hand, i.e. keeping them under our thumbs. (For basis of comparison, the infant mortality rate in the US is about 6.3%; the UK's is 4.8%)
It's also hard to shake the feeling that Huntington's understanding of "Eastern" religions is superficial at best. It's as if he read the CliffNotes version of the Koran and the works of Confucius and never bothered to look any deeper. That would be fine if he was some high school kid trying to pass social studies, but it's less acceptable when he's trying to explain how these religions influence their followers to act the way they do. He claims that Islamic culture is responsible for the failure of democracy in the Middle East and fails to tell us why; this is just something that we're supposed to accept. His view that Islamic terrorists are true representatives of their civilization, is true... at least from THEIR point of view. Osama bin Laden and his ilk are less interested in destroying America than they are in eliminating "Western" and "modern" influence in the Middle East. Once the West and modernism are removed, life will be all sunshine and roses, or so they claim. In that way, Osama has one heck of a lot in common with Western terrorist Theodore Kaczynski who dreamed of returning the world to a pre-industrial golden age that probably never existed.
Overall, his theories are too simplistic and try too hard to fit messy reality into neat little boxes of Western, Latin American, “Orthodox” (Russian), Islamic, Hindu, “Sinic” (Chinese) and Japanese. He can't decide whether Africa is uncivilized or part-post colonial and part-Islamic and therefore mostly ignores it. In fact, anything that doesn't fit with Huntington's theories is ignored. In-group fighting either doesn't exist or doesn't matter. Try and run that by the people of Rwanda, North and South Korea or North Ireland. Tell it to the Iraqis and Iranians who fought one of the bloodiest wars in modern history over twenty years ago while the world egged them on or sat on their hands and waited. For that matter, tell it to the Kurds, who got caught in the middle of that war. If anything, the events of the Iran-Iraq War are a huge strike against Huntington and his clash of civilizations theory. Not only was there fierce fighting between members of the same civilization but other civilizations were willing to lend support to whatever side they viewed as the lesser evil. Israel, often viewed as the quintessential enemy of Islamic militants, lent support to theocratic Iran rather than the more secular Iraqi regime. ”
