|
|
|
International Journal of Political
Science and Development Vol. 1(2), pp. 42–104,
October, 2013
©2013 Academic Research
Journals
Full
Length Research Paper
A ‘NON WESTERN’ READING OF THE ‘CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS’ THEORY:
Through the Eyes of ‘The Rest’
Memoona Sajjad
Department of Political
Science, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan.
E-mail:
meem.seen@gmail.com
Accepted 25 September, 2013
The Clash of
Civilizations theory is thoroughly rooted in its context, which
makes it a post Cold War paradigm vindicating post Cold War American
foreign policy. Huntington’s thought falls exactly in line with the
repertoire of Orientalist discourse in the West. His assumptions are
drawn from secondary sources, are reductionist and simplistic. The
real agenda underlying the thesis presented by Huntington is
perpetuating Western dominance and hegemony on the globe through the
creation of a new enemy and the generation of fear and hatred
against it in the public mind. The ‘Clash’ theory fits well with the
growing needs of America’s powerful and expansive
military-industrial complex defined by its Capitalist ideology. The
rhetoric of the Clash of Civilizations works well to disguise the
geopolitical and strategic interests of the West in the Muslim
world. ‘The West and the Rest’ is an artificial construct based on
historical fallacies and sharpening cleavages in order to maintain a
‘wartime status’ in the Western mind. Western policy and rhetoric
after September 11 seems to have officially adopted the Clash of
Civilizations theory. Islamophobia in the West has gone mainstream
and has generated an understandably militant response from the
Muslim world. This creates a vicious cycle of hostility breeding
conflict. If the trend continues, the Clash of Civilizations might
become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Both the Orient and the West need
to actively pursue ways to prevent such a disastrous eventuality.
Key words: Clash of Civilizations, Orientalism, Alliance of
Civilizations, Dialogue between Islam and the West
INTRODUCTION
The Cold War that had overshadowed the world scene for over half a
century faded away, political scientists, theorists and writers
began to surmise, speculate and conjecture about the course future
conflict would take. The two political discourses which were perhaps
the most intriguing and significant for the attention they received
and the debate they stirred were Francis Fukuyama’s “The End of
History”, followed soon after by Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of
Civilizations” thesis. The former, striking as it was for its
newness, was rather short-lived, as its claim of mankind having
reached the end of its history with the triumph and universalization
of Western democracy fizzled out almost as soon as a new wave of
ethno-religious unrest gripped the Balkans in the 1990s. The
lukewarm response of the West over relentless genocide of a minority
in its midst raised many questions about the ‘Western values’
Fukuyama had celebrated the triumph of. The humungous tragedy of
Bosnia that unfolded in the heart of Europe was enough to end the
facile optimism of Fukuyama and his ilk.
Huntington rose to refute the neo-liberal optimists whose simplistic
euphoria was all too soon. Conflict was not anywhere near the ‘énd
of its history’, but was taking on a new shape_ and, as Huntington
warned, it was an altogether virulent, irredeemable, monstrous
nature of conflict that drew upon irreconcilable distinctions of
culture and civilization that would hulk on the horizons of
mankind’s future.
Huntington’s contention brought diverse reaction and response_ it
was shocking, appalling, bleak, pessimistic, ultraconservatist; it
was dissected, analyzed, criticized, accepted, rejected, attacked,
derided. It stirred up controversy perhaps more than any other
political proposition. Regardless of the merits and demerits of the
theory, since then the thesis has gone mainstream, owing in large
part to the tremendous attention the 1993 ‘Foreign Affairs’ article
by Huntington has since then received.
To many, 9/11 seemed to verify and prove true what critics had found
highly debateable and contentious in Huntington. The theory seemed
to have been exonerated, established as fact. On the other hand,
however, the wave of criticism intensified as hard critics were
outraged over the supposed ‘vindication’ of the theory after 9/11.
If civilizations were meant to clash, 9/11 was but inevitable; the
subsequent polarization of the world was only natural and
predictable; the rhetoric of Terrorists from another culture
attacking a ‘Way of Life’ was, then, an accurate explanation of what
was happening out there.
What is interesting and important to note, however, is the fact that
both theories offering paradigms to understand and define the world
order after the Cold War emerged in the West: while the former was
facile Western triumphalism for what Fukuyama believed was the
universalization of Western values of secular-liberal democracy, the
latter drew a wedge between the ‘Western’ and ‘non Western’
civilizations, showing the Western civilization to be eternally
pitted against an increasingly restive ‘non West’ in a battle over
values, religion, culture and civilization. The West vs. Non-West
schism presented by Huntington was not a new phenomenon considering
the Orientalist discourse embedded in Western thought, but it was,
perhaps, the most virulent and precarious form the traditional
pattern took_ for the influence it wielded over policy-making and
opinion leadership in the West, and the overwhelming attention it
received the world over.
The theory seemed to lend strength to the course U.S foreign policy
chose to take, backed by Europe and the ‘Western’ nations.
Hostilities took cover under the ‘Çlash of civilizations’ theory,
and once again, the bifurcation of ‘ús’ and ‘them’ dominated
thinking of peoples all over the world. Quite tellingly,
Huntington’s ‘question mark’ on the title of his 1993 essay vanished
in the title of his book “The Clash of Civilizations and the
Remaking of World Order” published three years later.
Huntington’s ‘The Rest’ belonging to all but the Western
civilization, are the ‘everybody else’ of a different colour,
religion, culture and civilization who, in Huntingtonian
imagination, pose a threat to all that the West is about. The brunt
of the Clash of Civilizations thesis, however, falls particularly on
the Islamic civilization and the Muslim world, in which Huntington
recognizes the most potent threat to the West’s ascendancy. In
collusion with its kindred Confucian civilization, it stands up to
challenge, defy, reject and resist the West’s cultural sway,
economic prowess and political influence. The widespread
underdevelopment, autocratic governance, socio-economic regression
and despondency in non Western and particularly Muslim societies
create rising levels of frustration that lead to anger and
resentment against the West which is increasingly seen as the
malevolent force out to marginalize and dominate the Muslim world.
This is presented as the explanation for the contemporary wave of
terrorism going global, to combat which the West possesses
well-founded justification through the logic of pre-emptive self-defence.
Knowledge is closely bound to power. The powerful monopolize
intellectual scholarship and place themselves in the role of the
definers. The Clash of Civilizations is an influential discourse
emanating from the West, embedded in Western thought and rooted in
Western perception. It cannot pretend to universalism or even
objectivity. It is important, therefore, to highlight the strain of
Orientalist thought in the theory to be able to understand that the
‘glasses’ through which Huntington views the world belong to a
Western viewpoint and colour the world in distinctly Western
perception.
RATIONALE FOR RESEARCH AND IMPORTANCE OF THE WORK:
It is also important, on the other side, to ‘give a say’ to that
marginalized ‘Other’; to bring out, in response, the ‘counterpoint’
presented by the ‘non West’ on the subject. The need to facilitate a
transitional metamorphosis of the non West from a ‘subject’ to the
‘óbject’ of discourse is the rationale of this research work. The
raison de etre is to lend voice to the non West and present
responses to the Clash of Civilizations theory from non Western
communities in order to lead to a more balanced, judicious and
comprehensive understanding of the ‘clash’_ its nature, credibility
and impact.
Sickened by prophets of doom talking of clashing civilizations and
‘bloody borders’, mankind stands at the crossroads mapping out the
way ahead, seeking a panacea beyond the Clash of Civilizations. To
ensure a better tomorrow that gives peace a chance, the human race
needs to look beyond this, to look for elements of commonality,
identify the sameness of human natures beneath the trappings of skin
and learn to rise above distinctions, towards plurality and
multiculturalism.
The strong need to understand whether there really is bound to be a
clash of civilizations, the need to look for a way beyond a
foredoomed clash and the need to ‘set the record straight’ regarding
the nature and essence of non Western and particularly Muslim
civilizations is the rationale for undertaking this work. Not only
that, it also examines the intellectual underpinnings of the theory
to be able to understand why exactly the thesis was presented, and
at that particular time. The paper attempts to understand and
explore responses to the fundamental questions posed by the ensuing
debate around this much-talked of theory, arising from ‘non Western’
parts of the globe as diverse as Africa, the China, the Middle East,
Central, West, South and South East Asia. The Islamic perspective on
the theory is particularly highlighted as a refutation of
Orientalist discourse embedded in the theory.
Following from the Introduction and Literature review, the third
section puts the theory in the context of history and brings out the
significance of the ‘timing’ of Huntington’s master work vis a vis
the end of the Cold War and the onset of the ‘War Against
Terrorism.’ In the fourth part, Orientalism is highlighted as a
definitive element in the thesis, and the continuity of the
Orientalist strain from the medieval times right up to Huntington is
traced in the light of Edward Said’s monumental work on Orientalism.
The fifth section presents the division between ‘The West’ and ‘the
Rest’ as an artificial construct and examines the motives behind
creating such schisms as well as the impact of creating cleavages
between the Orient and the Occident. The sixth section explores and
exposes underlying agendas that motivate the adoption and
mainstreaming of Huntington’s theory. The seventh section analyzes
the impact of the theory on American foreign policy after 9/11 as
well as the rhetoric adopted by Western leaders in the so-called War
on Terror. In the eighth section the ‘Counter Point’ from the
Oriental world, bringing together responses to the thesis from
Africa, the Middle East and Asia; from Confucian, pagan-animist,
Hindu and Muslim societies. The voice from the Muslim world is
particularly highlighted as Islam and Muslim culture receives
specific and singular attention in a sizeable section of
Huntington’s work. Representative voices from the Muslim world have
been included through interviews of Muslim opinion leaders. Edward
Said as the most prominent critic takes the lead in criticism of the
theory, and hence his work is used as a major point of reference.
The last (ninth) section indicates ways and means to traverse the
gulf created by the theory to be able to move towards greater
intercultural collaboration and understanding by seeking
commonalities and living with differences. The solutions and
recommendations presented by non Western scholars, academicians and
opinion leaders are particularly highlighted.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The paper explores answers to the following fundamental queries:
• In what ways can the ‘Clash of Civilizations’ thesis be
characterized as ‘Western’ in its orientation and content?
• What are the strains of Orientalism embedded in the thesis
presented by Huntington?
• How does the Clash of Civilizations thesis become a vindication
and basis for post-Cold War U.S foreign policy goals and strategies?
• How does Huntington’s association with U.S policy making circles
affect the objectivity and undermine the credibility of his work?
• What are the prime responses to the theory of the Clash of
Civilizations from the non Western world?
• What is the ‘counter point’ to Huntington’s argument presented by
non Western and particularly Muslim societies?
• How do scholars, thinkers, writers and intellectuals in the Muslim
world refute Huntington’s thesis and what alternatives do they
present?
• Is a Clash of Civilizations inevitable?
• How has the acceptance of this thesis influenced policy and
society in the West?
• How can mankind move beyond a clash towards the communion and
alliance of civilizations? Is this viable?
METHODOLOGY AND SOURCES
The research, owing to its fundamental orientation and content,
incorporates the Analytical research method, studying Huntington’s
work to identify Orientalist strains and essentially subjective
observations that undermine its credibility. It also brings into use
the exploratory method, exploring and bringing out non Western
voices refuting the Huntingtonian assertion. The Descriptive
approach is utilized in the discussion of both the salient points of
Huntington’s stance and the key aspects of the large body of
criticism of it emerging from the non Western world.
Verbatim quotations both from published and unpublished sources_
interviews and opinion surveys conducted by the writer are cited
aplenty to lend greater credibility to the research and its
findings.
Both primary and secondary sources have been used to substantiate
the research.
As far as the primary sources are concerned, Huntington’s Foreign
Affairs article and his subsequent book on the Clash of
Civilizations have been exhaustively studied and analyzed. Francis
Fukuyama’s monumental work preceding Huntington has been studied and
referred to as a prime influence. Other than that, Bernard Lewis’s
‘Roots of Muslim Rage’ as well as other work on Islam has been read
and used in this work to highlight Orientalist underpinnings of
Huntington have thought. Edward Said’s ‘Magnum Opus’ on
‘Orientalism’ is cited in the paper as a point of reference to
highlight Orientalist strands of thought in Huntington. Excerpts
from Said’s interviews, lectures and debates have also been
frequently quoted as Said champions and spearhead the substantial
body of criticism against Huntington’s theory.
Texts of speeches by successive presidents of the USA particularly
by George W Bush right after 9/11 have been cited to demonstrate the
impact of Huntington’s ideas on U.S foreign policy. The speech of
president Barack Obama addressed to the Muslim world in which he
rejected the Clash of Civilizations hypothesis has also been quoted
and discussed at length. Former Iranian President Khatami’s ideas on
the Alliance between civilizations, and statements of human rights
groups, United Nations officials, veteran leaders and intellectuals
have also been used as primary sources for the research work.
The writer has also recorded views of contemporary Muslim
intellectuals and thinkers either through direct interviews or
through e-mail in order to present latest emerging trends of thought
regarding this issue. For a better understanding into the subject,
academicians and writers having expertise on the issues at hand were
also interviewed through electronic mail.
The Secondary sources include journals, articles and essays
available on the internet as well as in local libraries. A wide
range of critical reviews of Huntington’s theory are currently
available. Most, if not all of this material_ both from Western and
non Western/Muslim writers_ has been studied in order to provide a
solid backing for formulating opinions. While some of these sources
have actually been quoted, others have been indirectly referred to,
or simply read up for a wider, diversified awareness and
understanding.
As the topic of the research paper refers to a non Western reading
of the theory, most if not all of the sources used belong to non
Western nations and civilizations, with Muslim sources forming a
substantial mass of the resource material incorporated. Western
sources are used at times for comparative analysis, though non
Western and Muslim sources form the greater substance of this work.
LITERATURE REVIEW
There exists a substantive amount of literature on the subject of
the Clash of Civilizations_ books, articles and audio visual
resources originating from both Western and Oriental-Muslim sources.
As this paper offers a primarily ‘non Western’ perspective,
therefore other than the primary sources, critical material on the
topic comes predominantly from ‘non Western’ sources, although
analyses by Western writers have also been used.
As far as the primary sources are concerned, the text most basic to
this paper is Samuel P. Huntington’s “The Clash of Civilizations?,”
Foreign Affairs Journal, Summer 1993. This monumental article put
forward the theory that the nature of conflict would change in the
21st century so that conflicts would take place between the eight
civilizations the world was divided into according to Huntington.
This shape conflict could take would make conflicts more pernicious
and pervasive. The article warned the West of the likely
Islamic-Confucian connection and ended with recommendations for
Western foreign policy to create greater integration within the
Western civilization and its allied civilizations and exploit the
weaknesses on the other side of the conflict. The article presented
a highly contentious and controversial thesis which since then has
been much discussed and debated all over the world.
Perhaps because of the response the article had invited, Huntington
expanded it in the form of a book, The Clash of Civilizations and
the Remaking of World Order, Samuel P. Huntington, New York,
Touchstone, 1996. It expands on the fundamental contentions
presented by Huntington in his 1993 article. The book elaborates on
themes and ideas the article had touched upon_ the concept of
‘civilization’, the concept of a ‘universal civilization’, shifting
balances of power between civilizations, cultural indigenization in
non Western societies, Western universalism and Muslim militancy and
the emerging power of China. It explores in greater detail the
concept of faultlines between civilizations, and, in a marked
contrast to the article, highlights the possibility of finding
common grounds and gives recommendations to prevent an approaching
Clash of Civilizations, implying that such a clash in fact is not
inevitable. However, the primary assumptions of the article remain
intact and are lengthily elaborated upon, with particular focus on
what Huntington had called the ‘bloody borders’ of Islam.
Equally important as a primary source is Samuel P. Huntington’s “The
Age of Muslim Wars”, Newsweek, December 2001 in which Huntington
makes some significant revisions of his earlier thesis_ in that a
Clash is not inevitable, and that political policy more than
cultural difference leads to conflict. To many, this implies
Huntington’s rejection of his own earlier argument and utterly
discredits it. The article deserves to be given as much attention as
the former article on the Clash of Civilizations received when it
was first published in 1993.
Another primary source allied to the above was Francis Fukuyama’s
The End of History and the Last Man, New York, The Free Press, 1992.
The book predates Huntington’s article and is a strong influence on
his work. Like The Clash of civilizations, it gives a paradigm for
the future course of global politics. However, Fukuyama suggests
that following the demise of Communism, Western liberal democracy
had triumphed and was proven to be a universally ascendant system.
Mankind had reached the end of his socio-political evolution and
what remained to be done was to universally apply the triumphant
system of the West. Fukuyama stands for universalizing Western
democracy and gives in his book policy prescriptions to make that
possible, and to ‘export’ liberal democracy to non Western
societies. Fukuyama concludes that conflicts in future will be over
the universalization of Western liberal democracy, and that the West
must resolutely carry out this mission.
Another primary source analyzed in this paper is Bernard Lewis’s
“The Roots of Muslim Rage: Why So Many Muslims Deeply Resent the
West, and Why Their Bitterness Will Not Be Easily Mollified”, The
Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 266, No.3, September 1990. The influential
article explains the reasons for hostility against the U.S and the
West in the Muslim world. The prime reasons, according to Lewis,
other than the violent interpretation of Islamic texts in the
Muslims world, are rage and ire over the secular West’s development
and progress as opposed to the Muslim world that is struggling with
underdevelopment, poverty, illiteracy, autocracy and overpopulation.
Benjamin R. Barber, in Jihad vs. McWorld, London: Corgi, 2003,
understands contemporary politics in the light of power dynamics
between the world’s most powerful opposing structures: the
commercial, consumerist free market economy in the West_ the
interests of which set the direction of Western policies, as opposed
to resistance and militancy from Islamic fundamentalism that uses
violence to challenge and defeat the West’s system, and establish
its brand of Islam globally. The struggle between the two is all
about wresting power and establishing global hegemony. The
fanaticism to universalize values_ whether of the consumerist West
or of fundamentalist Islam is what breeds conflict and, eventually,
clash.
Under the title ‘Anonymous’, Michael Scheuer, in “Imperial Hubris:
Why the West is Losing the War on Terror”, New York: Brassey’s, Inc,
2004, brings into focus the West’s flawed perception of the enemy it
fights_ radical Islam. He maintains that the ‘Clash of
Civilizations’ theory is a distraction which has led the West to
believe that the ongoing conflict with the Muslim world is over
civilizational differences. The fact of the matter which the West
has ignored, is that militant Islam is a reactive sentiment over
Western policies in the Middle East. Scheuer, being a former CIA Al
Qaeda expert, gives an incisive and insightful analysis of the
ideology, goals, structure and operation of Al Qaeda and suggests
understanding the true causes of friction with the Muslim world to
be able to deal with this threat more realistically. In the same
vein, Michael Scheuer also wrote Through Our Enemies’ Eyes: Osama
Bin Laden, Radical Islam, And The Future Of America, Washington, DC:
Brassey’s, 2002, with the purpose to create a clearer understanding
and recognition of the enemy in the Western mind. Scheuer attributes
the failures of the Western powers in the ongoing ‘War on Terror’ to
the West’s inability to understand its enemy without bias, and due
to its ‘imperial hubris’ over the superiority of its civilization.
Jason Burke, in Al-Qaeda: The True Story Of Radical Islam, London:
Penguin, 2004, makes a similar attempt at exploring the genesis and
evolution of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and focuses on the role and
responsibility of the West in creating this new danger. The West
needs to take the responsibility of this and re-evaluate its counter
terrorism policies.
Elizabeth Poole and John E. Richardson, in Muslims and the News
Media, London, I.B Tauris, 2006, take an insightful look at the
image of Islam and the Muslims presented by the Western media,
particularly in the wake of the events of September 11, 2001.
Stereotyping of Muslims, inherent bias in news coverage and
Islamophobic rhetoric has been made a subject of analysis. The role
and responsibility of the media in the mainstreaming of the rhetoric
of the ‘Clash of Civilizations’ in the ongoing ‘War on Terror’ has
been highlighted.
Karen Armstrong’s The Crusades and their Impact on Todays World, New
York, Random House, 2001, is a fresh, unbiased and insightful look
at the history of the Crusades for a Western audience, highlighting
the role of religious fanaticism in generating conflict, and
bringing to the fore the responsibility of the Christian West in the
atrocities of the Crusades. The analysis of the West’s ‘Crusade
complex’ leading to its confrontationist posture vis a vis the
Muslim world is instrumental in developing a comprehensive
understanding of the Clash of Civilizations thesis.
In Jonathan Fox’s The Multiple Impacts of Religion on International
Relations: Perceptions and Reality, London, Routledge, 2006, the
importance of the religious dimension of international affairs is
effectively brought out. The role of religion in both conflict and
conciliation is highlighted through indepth analyses and case
studies, and ways to bring the conciliatory potential of religion
into use for conflict resolution are discussed in detail.
Will Durant’s Our Oriental Heritage, is the first volume of the
encyclopaedic series ‘Story of Civilization’, New York, Simon and
Schuster, 1954. It gives a detailed survey of Oriental
civilizations, religions and cultures which have made lasting
contributions and left permanent imprints on the Western
civilization. In its introduction, the book gives a holistic
definition and understanding of the nature and characteristics of
civilization and concludes with a call to the West of acknowledging
its debt to the Orient for a better understanding of its own ethos.
The book helps bring out the commonalities and interconnectedness of
Oriental and Western civilizations.
Dieter Senghaas, in The Clash Within Civilizations, London,
Routledge, 2002, challenges the notion of the world being divided
into rigid, monolithic civilizations by focussing on the internal
dynamics within civilizations arising out of the compulsions of
modernization and development. Senghaas discusses the concepts of
pluralism, multiculturalism and tolerance, and explores the
possibilities and scope of dialogue and co operation between
civilizations. He points out the necessary conditions for an
effective and fruitful dialogue and profoundly challenges the
fundamental assumptions of both Huntington and Fukuyama.
Under the editorship of Chibueze C. Udeani, Communication Across
Cultures: The Hermeneutics of Cultures and Religions in a Global
Age, Washington, Council for Research in Values and Philosophy,
2008, a number of non Western scholars have worked together to come
up with a comprehensive treatise on intercultural communication_ its
requisites, components and scope. It discusses the roles of culture
and religion in the development of personal and communal identity
and explores prospects for development without extricating
traditional values. It highlights cultural commonalities and makes
them the basis of intercultural communication. The book incisively
examines the ethos of world cultures and civilizations, with a
special focus on Afro-Asian, Chinese and Islamic cultures. The book
also discusses the issues of secularization of societies as well as
the counter currents of desecularization, and the effects of the two
trends on society and politics in the West.
South Asian Responses to the Clash of Civilizations Theory, Salim
Rashid (Ed.), Dhaka, Oxford Publishers, 1997 brings together the
work of prominent writers, intellectuals, academicians and scholars
from South, South East, Central and West Asia as well as Africa on
the Clash of Civilizations theory. It consists of a collection of
eight articles from writers belonging to China, India, Bangladesh,
Iran, Pakistan, Korea and Nigeria, each representing his regional
culture and religion and putting forward indigenous counter
narratives to the West-centric Clash of Civilizations thesis. With a
diverse range of views and sizeable commonalities embedded within,
the book leaves one with a holistic ‘non Western’ view of the Clash
thesis.
Prominent Palestinian scholar Edward Said, in his monumental work
Orientalism, Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd., London, Great Britain,
1978, takes a penetrating look at the phenomenon of Orientalism in
the West. He traces the history and evolution of the phenomenon and
then presents its traits as well as its traces and influences in
contemporary Western thought. Said explores the stereotypes, biases
and inaccuracies in the presentation of Arab-Muslims by the West and
challenges them with irrefutable empirical evidence and keen,
insightful_ at times scathing_ analysis. Orientalism is
indispensable reading for any scholar writing on the East and Islam.
In the same tradition, Maryam Jameelah, in Islam and Orientalism,
Lahore, M. Yusuf Khan and Sons, 1981, traces the history and the
prime assumptions of Western Orientalism and then gives a
substantive, thoroughly researched refutation of the West’s deeply
embedded prejudices about Islam.
Dr. Osman Bakar in Islam and Civilizational Dialogue, Kuala Lumpur,
University of Malaya, 1997, presents the extraordinary potential of
Islam as an arbiter between civilizations given its egalitarian
ethos and its divinely ordained status as a ‘middle nation.’ Dr.
Bakar explores the possibilities of fostering a world civilization
through the universality of Islam and its basic principles of
justice and equality. Dr. Bakar also discusses Confucianism and its
kinship with Islam, as well as the propensity of both Islamic and
Confucian traditions to foster peace. Dr. Bakar discusses the
conditions for a fruitful interfaith and intercultural dialogue
between civilizations and religions and powerfully refutes
Huntington’s warnings of an impending Clash of Civilizations.
Similarly, Iqbal S. Hussain, in Islam and the Clash of
Civilizations, Lahore, Meraj Printers, 2005, presents historical
proof of Islam’s coexistence with other civilizations and attributes
it to the Islamic principles of pluralism and tolerance as well as
the sanctity for human rights. He refutes Huntington by exemplifying
the peacemaking role of Islam and the necessity of Islamic spiritual
and ethical values in order to engender a global culture of
equality, justice and peace.
Edward W. Said’s article “The Clash of Ignorance”, The Nation,
October 22, 2001 attacks Huntington’s thesis for its superficial
presumptions showing a lack of understanding of the non West. The
article also brings out the flaws in Huntington’s justification for
predicting a civilizational clash as well as his inaccurate
categorization of civilizations. Said points out Huntington’s
selective citation from history and his overlooking of instances of
coexistence and conciliation. It brings out the true motives behind
this work with reference to the background and context of the theory
as well as Huntington’s influence in policymaking circles.
Eqbal Ahmed, in “Roots of the Muslim Right”, DAWN Newspaper, March
1999 analyzes fanaticism and militancy in the Muslim world and
attributes it to Western policy in the Middle East as well as narrow
interpretation of religion by Muslims.
Muhammad Asadi’s article, “The Clash of Civilizations Thesis: A
Critique”, www.chowk.com gives a penetrating insight into the real
agendas behind the clash of Civilizations thesis. He focuses on the
compulsions of Capitalism and the growing demands of a powerful
military-industrial complex in the United States which necessitates
expansionism and institutionalizes warfare. Asadi highlights
patterns of exploitation of the resources of the Third World by the
West and mounts a scathing attack on American foreign policy and
Huntington’s flawed world-view.
In Richard Crockatt’s paper, “anti Americanism and the Clash of
Civilizations”, www.kb.osu.edu.pdf, the writer digs into the roots
of anti Americanism in the Muslim world and holds American jingoism,
exclusivism and interventionism responsible for hostility towards
the United States in the world. He critically examines the evolution
and course of American foreign policy and rhetoric and attacks the
Clash of Civilizations thesis for deflecting attention away from the
real factors which lead to the non Western world’s conflict with the
West. Similar to this is Michael Dunn’s ‘The Clash of Civilizations
and the War on Terror’, 49th Parallel, Vol.20 (Winter 2006-2007),
www.49thparallel.bham.edu.uk.pdf . Dunn examines both how the Clash
thesis has led to the polarization of the world into the ‘West and
the Rest’_ a schism on which the ‘War on Terror’ is built, which has
also deeply influenced American foreign policy choices in the wake
of the events of September 11, 2001.
Turkish professor Ahmet Davutoglu’s research titled “The Clash of
Interests: An Explanation of World Disorder”, Journal of Foreign
Affairs, Dec 1997 to Feb 1998, Vol II, no.4 gives a whole new
dimension to the critique against Clash of Civilizations thesis by
focussing on the geopolitical and strategic interests at the heart
of Huntington’s work. Davutoglu discusses the theorizing pattern in
the West that has always justified control of resources of the
‘Heartland’ through colonial conquest of neo-colonialist control.
Davutoglu believes the Clash of Civilizations is the newest in the
line of this pattern to supply a new paradigm after the Cold War for
vindicating the perpetuation of dominance over the Muslim lands.
Turkish academic Engin I. Erdem, in “The Clash of Civilizations
Revisited After September 11”, Alternatives Journal of International
Relations, Vol.1, no.2, Summer 2002, presents a comprehensive
critique of the Clash of Civilizations thesis_ not only its flawed
theoretical basis but also its application and implementation in the
American foreign policy after September 11, 2001. Erdem’s article is
well-referenced with quotations from a variety of Western and non
Western critics of Huntington’s thesis.
Marc Gopin, in his paper titled “Religion and International
Relations at the Crossroads”, International Studies Review, Vol III
issue III, Fall 2001, focuses on the religious dimension of the
conflict between the West and the Muslim world, and how religion is
used to stir up hostility and hatred while the real issues at the
base of conflict are of a political-strategic nature. Gopin
maintains that religion does not have to be conflictual, and that
the peacemaking role of religion must be recognized and put to use
for conflict resolution.
Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris, in their report titled “The True
Clash of Civilizations”, Foreign Policy, March-April 2003, have made
an interesting case to refute the assumption that the fundamental
difference between Western and Muslim societies is over democracy.
Through a series of surveys, the researchers prove that democracy is
the most popular form of rule in Muslim societies, regardless of
whether such societies may actually be living under a democratic
system. The article shows how despite the West’s bid to promote
democracy in the world, it pursues policies that do just the
opposite by supporting pro Western autocrats and dictators in the
Muslim world. Instead, the real ‘clash’ between the West and Islam
is over social values_ precisely, the role of women_ an issue over
which highly conservative views exist in the Muslim world. The West
needs to recognize this ‘true Clash of Civilizations’ and promote
women’s rights and liberation in non Western societies.
Sato Seizaburo is an accomplished Japanese scholar who, in his work
“An Critical Approach Towards Clash of civilizations”, Tokyo
University publishers , "Asia Pacific Review", October 1997, not
only criticizes Huntington’s thesis for its flawed premise of
civilizations as monoliths, but also gives an alternative paradigm
for conflict. He maintains that conflict arises out of the dilemmas
of the modernization process, over economic deprivation and
financial inequities. He redraws the cartography of conflict along
the lines of developed and underdeveloped societies as the basis of
a clash. In this article, Seizaburo deeply studies the nature and
evolution of human civilizations and presents the interconnectedness
and commonalities between them. He particularly highlights the
influence of Oriental civilizations on the West.
Eminent Indian writer Amartya Sen, in “What Clash of
Civilizations?”, Slate Magazine, March 29, 2006, 6:02 a.m
www.slatemagazine.com rejects Huntington’s thesis for its false
assumptions that emphasize the separateness of civilizations. Sen
not only highlights commonalities and prospects for further
exploring common grounds, but also discusses the achievement of a
truly global culture that respects difference and emphasizes the
singular human identity all share. Sen holds the West’s attempts to
divide the world into ‘the West and the Rest’ responsible for rising
hostility to and militancy against the West. She also criticizes
Muslim fanaticism as another divisive attempt that emphasizes
religious identity above all others and ignores the pluralistic
heritage of Islam.
Robert Wright, in his article “Highbrow Tribalism”, Slate Magazine,
Saturday, Nov. 2, 1996, takes aim at Huntington’s thesis as the
outcrop of a prejudiced, tribalist mentality in modern jargon. He
terms Huntington’s arbitrary division of the world into rigid
civilizations as inaccurate and erroneous and brings to the fore the
real agendas of global hegemony and monopolization of resources
which the Clash thesis justifies. Wright terms Huntington’s thesis
arrogant and dangerous. Similar to this is Said Shirazi’s “Your New
Enemies” Dissident Voice, November 3, 2002, www.dissidentvoice.org.
Shirazi scathingly criticizes Huntington’s thesis as being a post
Cold War attempt to present a new enemy to the West and instil fear
and hatred of the enemy figure in the Western mind. Shirazi
discredits Huntington’s thesis as prejudiced and calls for going
beyond a clash towards communication across cultures.
BACKDROP AND CONTEXT OF THE THEORY OF THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS
The dominant paradigm of international politics during the years of
the Cold War was the simplistic bloc-politics formula of a world
divided along the lines of Communist and Capitalist spheres of
influence. With the fall of the Berlin Wall, a whole world order
fell apart, and with that, a whole way of viewing and understanding
the world. There was, subsequently, the search for new paradigms and
hence a new, vital role for thinkers, policy makers and strategists
in laying down the scheme for a new order of things. This
redefinition of world order after the Cold War led to what has been
described as the proliferation of ‘contending images of world
politics.’
The primary ones among these which caught the most attention
internationally were ‘The End of History’ by Francis Fukuyama and
‘The Clash of Civilizations’ by Samuel Huntington. The influence of
the two, particularly the latter on subsequent international affairs
is comparable to the influence of George F. Kennan’s 1947 article in
the Foreign Affairs journal which spearheaded the ‘containment’
policy of the United States vis a vis the Soviet Union, and
dominated world politics for the next half a century. After the Cold
War, as we know, there were numerous attempts to map the future of
world politics. Other than Francis Fukuyama’s ‘End of History’,
there was the Senior Bush administration’s “New World Order” and the
contributions of Paul Kennedy, Robert Kaplan and Benjamin Barber_
all of which deal with the future of conflict.
At the onset of this new phase in world politics, a number of
pressing queries faced analysts and political scientists about the
nature and characteristics of the new global order. The change
necessitated a rethink by U.S foreign policy making circles about
how U.S foreign policy should be re-formulated according to the
changing nature of world politics by the end of the Cold War? How
should the United States re-define its ‘national interests’ and
re-assess its strategic priorities?
Interesting comparisons can be drawn between Fukuyama’s and
Huntington’s contending paradigms which are both strikingly similar
and strikingly dissimilar. For one, both of the theses, although
responses to a changed global scenario, do not really offer a
perspective entirely ‘new.’ They are both, at a deeper look,
status-quo oriented ideological formulations in order to justify the
foreign policy direction the United States should most likely take
in order to maintain its preponderant role in the international
arena.
Fukuyama triumphantly declared the victory of secular-liberal
democracy when he stated, “this may constitute the end of mankind’s
ideological evolution and the final form of human government and as
such continue the end of history.” He derives his idea from the
Hegelian dialectic of the evolution of history. The achievement of
liberal democracy was the ‘synthesis’ effectively putting an end to
man’s eon-old struggle for the perfect system. What remained to be
done was to universalize this system, which too was naturally
predetermined owing to its intrinsic superiority over all other
values and systems. Fukuyama held an unshakable belief in the moral
superiority and ultimately predestined ascendancy of Western values
of liberalism and democracy. He believed that the Western
civilization, owing to its superior values, had in fact triumphed
above other civilizations. Fukuyama's proposition is that liberal
democracy, which first developed in the cradle of Western
civilization, is a universally acceptable concept, and that the
world is now moving decisively towards embracing it. Resistance to
this universal establishment of Western democracy could come from
resistant cultures rejecting values fundamental to democracy. Hence
this had to be effectively countered by sponsoring a universal
democratic crusade in defence of Western values. At the heart of
this high moral rhetoric, however, was the gusto for achieving its
strategic objectives to gain control over resource-rich areas of the
non West and be able to direct and influence policy to safeguard U.S
interests globally.
Fukuyama made some sense amidst the early euphoria of the post
Soviet era. Western institutions had triumphed after all, and the
period of stability before the onset of the Bosnian crisis and the
rise of ethnic conflict globally seemed to augur well. However, the
war in Bosnia with its shocking death toll, the inability of the
international community to stem the bloody tide and the rather
delayed response of Western powers to the crisis raised serious
doubts over whether this really was the ‘end of history’. There were
a number of cracks and loopholes in the system: “The lack of
consensus among European countries over Bosnia became the end of the
premature slogans, as the basic principles of international law had
been defeated in Bosnia by a wanton pragmatism and by the medieval
prejudices of Europe.” Huntington rose to refute the neo-liberal
optimists whose simplistic euphoria was all too soon. Conflict was
not anywhere near the ‘énd of its history’, but was taking on a new
shape_ and, as Huntington warned, it was an altogether virulent,
irredeemable, monstrous nature of conflict that drew upon
irreconcileable distinctions of culture and civilization that would
hulk on the horizons of mankind’s future. The static nature of
Fukuyma’s placid global order was unreal, fantastical. No wonder
Edward Said comments that Fukuyama’s ‘End of History’ was actually
the ‘End of Fukuyama.’
Huntington makes more sense in the post-Bosnia context. He takes a
more realistic stance and perhaps one that fits in more with
post-Cold War U.S foreign policy orientation by identifying
potential areas of conflict along civilizational lines. Despite the
differences in approach, the two theses are logically sequenced and
interlinked. The close kinship between the two apparently disparate
theories has been highlighted insightfully by Professor Ahmet
Duvatoglu:
“These two contradicting approaches related to the role of
civilizations in political affairs_ the one Fukuyama’s, which he is
identifying Western civilization with the fate of the human race or
human history, overemphasizes the role of this civilization. Whereas
Huntington’s, which absolves Western civilization from generating
conflicts and crises_ are actually parts of the same picture.
Huntington completes the picture drawn by Fukuyama by providing the
hegemonic powers with a theoretical justification for the overall
political and military strategies required to control and reshape
the international system: Western values and political structures
have an intrinsic and irresistible universality (Fukuyama), and it
is other civilizations which are responsible for the political
crises and clashes (Huntington). Huntington’s ‘The West versus the
Rest’ polarization is the political reflection of this
picture...Whereas Fukuyama emphasizes the unavoidable and
irresistible universalization of Western values, Huntington attempts
to explain the alternative processes of civilization which mobilize
the masses into political action and confrontation. The ambitious
and idealistic rhetoric of Fukuyama makes way for Huntington’s
realistic and cautious one. The changed rhetoric reflects the
changes which have occurred in the international political arena in
the post Cold War era which have shown that the declaration of the
‘end of history’ was premature.”
In contrast to state-centric realist theory and system-oriented
neo-realist model, Huntington primarily focuses on
cultural-religious-civilizational factors. He calls forth a
paradigmatic shift to understand the post-Cold War global politics.
He talks of a civilizational clash of seismic proportions along the
‘faultines’ of tectonic civilizational blocs the planet is divided
into, as Huntington sees it. The ‘paradigm’ shift, the apocalyptic
vision of entire civilizations on the verge of an enormous clash
became, perhaps, the reason why Huntington’s article "The Clash of
Civilizations?" in the Summer 1993 issue of Foreign Affairs
immediately attracted massive attention and invited passionate
reaction. Edward Said comments,
“Because the article was intended to supply Americans with an
original thesis about "a new phase" in world politics after the end
of the cold war, Huntington's terms of argument seemed compellingly
large, bold, even visionary. He very clearly had his eye on rivals
in the policy-making ranks, theorists such as Francis Fukuyama and
his "end of history" ideas, as well as the legions who had
celebrated the onset of globalism, tribalism and the dissipation of
the state. But they, he allowed, had understood only some aspects of
this new period. He was about to announce the "crucial, indeed a
central, aspect" of what "global politics is likely to be in the
coming years." Unhesitatingly he pressed on.”
Huntington’s search for a new definition of post-Cold War conflict
was actually a search for a ‘successor paradigm’ to the bipolar
ideological conflict of the Cold War. The Cold War theory of an
ideological conflict between Communism and Capitalism that were
inherently irreconcileable was an over-simplification of the actual
dynamics of conflict. Like this simple thesis forwarded by Kennan
that led to the ‘containment policy’, Huntington seeks a simple,
all-encompassing, reductive paradigm in his post Cold War
hypothesis. This paradigm fits very well with the neo Realist school
of thought that dominates U.S foreign policy making machinery.
Importantly, however, Huntington is not merely a neorealist
theorist. He goes beyond to offer “past the neorealist, neoliberal
and the general or common pluralist theories about the international
order to propose a very distinctive, radical theory about
irreducible cultural identities. He asserts that underneath
political, economic and cultural interests lie civilization-based
identities which are significantly more difficult to accommodate to
one another.”
It is a simplified hypothesis easy to sell to American foreign
policy making elite who sought a new paradigm after the Cold War
order collapsed. Edward Said comments that at the core of this
theory is the fact that its true importance derives from its timing.
Huntington’s idea of an unceasing clash ‘slides effortlessly into
the political space vacated by the unremitting War of Ideas in the
Cold War, of which Huntington was a great theorist. Huntington’s
work is addressed to policy makers, and is a recycling of the Cold
War paradigm that conflicts in tomorrow’s world will be
civilizational, not political or economic. One of these
civilizations will be the West_ a locus around which all other
civilizations turn. It is an expansion of the Cold War ‘by other
means.’ It perpetuates a wartime status by talking of conflict
between cultures and offers a prescription for what the West must do
to continue winning’.
In this sense, Huntington’s idea is not really a new proposition,
but in fact an extension of Cold War policy. Said Shirazi comments,
“He offers not a narrative or a specific analysis but a paradigm, a
deliberate over simplification, an effort to find some facts to fit
a pattern rather than finding the patterns in a wider range of
facts. He warns about a conflict with China, for example, which is
hardly a replacement for the Cold War mentality; it is nothing more
than an extension of it. Essentially Huntington has written a
disposable policy book about the coming war with the East, a work of
fortune-telling....”
The timing of Huntington’s thesis is also relevant because with the
end of the Cold War, other parts of the world that had been
marginalized and eclipsed by half a century of bloc politics began
to raise their head and make their presence felt. The independent
and self-sufficient assertion of the Non Aligned Third World
countries radiated a spirit of rejection of Western universalism
which presented a challenge to the West that aspired to establish
its system globally after the Communist hurdle had been done away
with. The Huntingtonian argument allows the United States to ‘extend
the mindset of the Cold War into a different time and before a new
audience.’ Chantal Mouffe reminds us that “not long ago we were
being told to the accompaniment of much fanfare, that liberal
democracy had won and history had ended. However, instead of the
heralded New World Order, the victory of ‘post conventional’
identities, we are witnessing an explosion of particularisms and an
increasing challenge to Western universalism.”
The demise of the Cold War ushered in the rise of ‘Tokyo, Hong Kong,
Seoul, Taipei and Singapore as resurgent powers on the Pacific Rim
as well as the break down of the Cold War master narrative of
bipolar superpowers that once legitimated the American military
presence across the Pacific. It has resulted in an ongoing de-centring
of power beyond the hegemonic control and cartographic sublimations
of the US State Department and US Pacific Command.’
The West confronts nowadays numerous problems of slow economic
growth, stagnating populations, unemployment, huge government
deficits, low savings rates, social degeneration, drugs and crime.
Thus, economic power is shifting to Asia. Asia and Islam have been
the active civilizations of the last quarter century. China is
likely to have the world's largest economy early in the 21st
century. In addition, Asia is expected to have seven of the ten
largest economies by 2020.
In view of this fact which presented a brazen challenge to Western
aspirations to global ascendancy after Communism, there was a
general anxiety and chagrin among Western policy makers. This
prevailing mood in the West is exactly what Huntington reflects in
his thesis: “Huntington’s approach actually reflects a general state
of unease in the West caused by growing economic disparities,
changing economic patterns and the inability to enforce its vision
of a new world order.”
Another insight into the theory_ and an important one_ comes from
the understanding that just like ‘clashing ideologies’ was a mere
smokescreen for deeper political and economic dynamics during the
Cold War, ‘clashing civilizations’ too was a smokescreen to clothe
the real foreign policy objectives of the USA after the Cold War,
which were geared towards the preservation of hegemony and global
dominance. Paul Hammond opines, “Huntington writes of the Cold War
as ideological and seeks in his theory about civilizations a
successor theory or paradigm, at once simple and encompassing, like
the theory that the Cold War was a conflict between Communism and
Capitalism.” The pattern is continuous. The presentation of the
world in a certain way legitimizes certain politics. Interventionist
and aggressive, the concept of civilizational clash is aimed at
maintaining a war time status in the minds of the West.
What must be noticed, for a fuller understanding of Huntington in
context, is the connection Huntington establishes between his
theoretical analysis of civilizational clash and his strategic
recommendations to Western policy makers. What must not be
disregarded are the geopolitical underpinnings of the Clash of
Civilizations theory_ according to Professor Ahmet Davutoglu_ the
‘geopolitical prioritization, the trade war to control international
political economy.’ The Professor gives an alternative analysis of
the political instabilities in the post Cold War era in geopolitical
and geoeconomic terms as outlined in the Mackinderian Heartland
theory. The Muslim world is composed of the most strategic parts of
the Rimland and Heartland Mackinder talked about. This has not only
brought advantages but also risks to the Muslim world.
“This provides the Muslim world with a geographical location which
is very suitable to the development of a continental and maritime
strategy at the same time. The basic weakness of the hegemonic
powers in the previous two centuries was in having only such
geographical capacity as allowed the development of either a
continental or maritime strategy. For example, Britain and the US
applied a basically maritime strategy while Germany and Russia had
to concentrate on a continental strategy based on land power. This
created a geostrategic balance and internal conflict among the
hegemonic powers over the Muslim lands.” Davutoglu points towards
the fact that the collapse of the Soviet system strengthened the
strategic position of the Muslim in the following ways:
• The core and southern part of the Heartland (Central Asia)
consisting of the Muslim majority states became independent;
• The control and influence of the Muslim world over the passes from
the Heartland to the coasts of the Rimland increased, especially
through the Caucasus and Afghanistan;
• The geographical link of the Muslim communities in the Balkans
became a significant regional access for Muslims to reach Europe;
• The geo-economics of the Muslim world was strengthened by the
resources of the new Muslim independent states, especially oil and
natural gas resources in Central Asia.
• An independent Muslim country having nuclear power_ Kazakhstan_
came into being.
These developments in the post Cold War era attracted ‘intra
systemic competition’ over these geopolitically core regions. This
accounts for the unstable international position of the Muslim world
as the victim of strategic competition.
“The bloody borders of Islam are not merely due to historical
hostilities or civilizational clashes; Huntington’s theory...
neglects the intra-systemic conflicts among the hegemonic powers,
which is the most decisive factor in international relations...
The presentation of the Muslim world as a potential enemy...
encourages oppressive political tendencies in the Muslim world as
Western powers which promote democratic values in other parts of the
world, support dictatorial regimes in Muslim countries because
democracy might get radical Islamic groups voted into power. Western
strategic interests in preserving undemocratic political systems
have caused instability and provided hegemonic powers with an
opportunity to manipulate internal conflicts for their own strategic
aims. It also leads to the toleration of oppression of Muslim
minorities as internal affairs of those countries. It has resulted
in the creation of international coalitions against a possible
Islamic threat... Strategic analysts try to prove that the belt of
Muslim countries stretching from Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan and
Pakistan across five former Soviet republics might turn to
fundamentalism. It is interesting that the same Islamic belt was
encouraged by the U.S during the Cold War era as a guarantee for US
strategic interests against the expansion of the USSR.”
It is telling, therefore, that Huntington, having started his
hypothesis with historical analysis and civilizational faultlines,
ends on a note of strategic pragmatism with a set of strategic goals
outlined for Western policy makers. Without mincing words, he
proclaims that the West, in order to maintain its sway, must
manipulate and provoke clashes in order to pursue its strategic
interests. It must ‘exploit differences and conflicts among
Confucian and Islamic states; to support in other civilizations
groups sympathetic to Western values and interests; to strengthen
international institutions that reflect and legitimate Western
interests and values and to promote the involvement of non Western
states in those institutions.’ Other than that, it should work
towards ‘maintaining economic and military power necessary to
protect its interests in relation to these civilizations.’
To fully understand how the Huntingtonian thesis is central to U.S
foreign policy agenda, it is important to understand both the
background and the influences on the writing of the article.
According to Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia, before his monumental
‘Clash of Civilizations’ thesis, Huntington had written about the
dangers of foreign immigration to the U.S and the necessity of U.S
military intervention in the Third World. In an influential 1968
article he advocated the concentration of the rural population of
South Vietnam as a means of isolating the Viet Cong. During 1977 and
1978, in the administration of Jimmy Carter, he was the White House
Coordinator of Security Planning for the National Security Council.
In 1986, after a paper he presented at an international conference,
Huntington was widely accused of misusing mathematics and engaging
in pseudo-science. “It was claimed that Huntington distorted the
historical record and used pseudo-mathematics to make his
conclusions appear convincing.” His influential 1993 article on the
Clash of Civilizations thesis was written in his capacity as a
consultant to the U.S. Department of State. According to independent
analyst James L Secor, “The most important point to consider, that
no one seems to have taken into account, is that Huntingdon wrote
from the American Enterprise Institute, a neo-liberal think tank.
So, there is an underlying bias right from the beginning. I think it
is politically motivated. I think that it comes from The American
Enterprise Institute is perhaps the most important aspect of the
book yet it is the aspect not even considered.”
THE ORIENTALIST LEGACY IN HUNTINGTON
A fundamental question at the heart of intercultural communication
is how strangers who look and behave differently from oneself can be
understood. Why is it that people have preconceived notions about
those different from them_ questions that are not objective but
coloured by subjectivity and often tainted with prejudice and bias?
Each culture defines those outside of it as enemies who threaten it
from without as ‘Others’ to be despised and fought. Although this is
a general human failing, it is most pronounced and obvious in the
case of the perception by the West of what is called the Orient or
the world East of the Occident. Orientalism, then, is the lens
through which the West has viewed the East or the Orient
traditionally and historically, and continues to do so. It is the
West’s framework to understand an unfamiliar people and their
culture, often making them look different and threatening through a
repertoire of Orientalist images and stereotypes.
Edward Said’s Magnum Opus on Orientalism by the same name can
rightfully be called a masterwork in revealing the dimensions and
vicissitudes of Orientalism. In his book, he defines Orientalism as
consisting of “a body of ideas, beliefs, clichés or learning about
the East at large in Western society.” It is in his words
“a way of coming to terms with the Orient that is based on the
Orient’s special place in European or Western experience. The Orient
is not only adjacent to Europe. It is also the place of Europe’s
greatest and richest and oldest colonies, the source of its
civilizations and languages, its cultural contestant, and one of its
deepest and most recurring images of the Other. In addition, the
Orient has helped to define Europe (or the West) as its contrasting
image, idea, personality, experience. Yet none of this Orient is
merely imaginative. The Orient is an integral part of European
material civilization and culture. Orientalism expresses and
represents that part culturally and even ideologically as a mode of
discourse with supporting institutions, vocabulary, scholarship,
imagery, doctrines, even colonial bureaucracies and colonial
styles.”
Orientalism accorded certain fundamental, invariable characteristic
traits to the Orient. Gradually the Orient, in the Western mindset,
began to be identified with these accorded characteristics. The
large body of Orientalist literature that came to the fore in the
nineteenth century with the decadent Ottoman empire battling for
survival against a rapidly mechanizing and voraciously expansionist
Europe identified the prime characteristics of the Orient to be
‘sensuality, despotism, aberrant mentality, inaccuracy,
backwardness’ as well as its ‘separateness, eccentricity, silent
indifference, feminine penetrability, supine malleability;’ This was
considered to be objective, valid and empirically inviolable.
All these traits considered intrinsically ‘Oriental’ make it obvious
that the nature and status of the Oriental world, its values,
culture and people, was little more than that of a passive subject
to be studied, analyzed, perceived and interpreted. Said writes,
“Every writer on the Orient... saw the Orient as a locale requiring
Western attention, reconstruction, even redemption. The Orient
existed as a place isolated from the mainstream of European progress
in the sciences, arts and commerce.”
This Western lens to view the East tainted the Western perception of
the people of the Orient, who were consequently ‘othered’ and
alienated, and perceived as exotic curiosities to be studied by the
superior post-Enlightenment Western mind:
“Alongwith all other peoples variously designated as backward,
degenerate, uncivilized and retarded, the Orientals were viewed...
having in common an identity best described as lamentably alien.
Orientals were rarely seen or looked at; they were seen through,
analyzed not as citizens or even people, but as problems to be
solved or confined or taken over...Since the Oriental was a member
of the subject race, he had to be subjected: it was that simple.”
A repertoire of images of the East as a mysterious place full of
‘marvels and monsters’ abounded in the literature of the nineteenth
century which had little to do with direct, firsthand experience.
Even Orientalist ‘experts’ fell victim to this tendency to present
the Orient as a fantastical curiosity outside of History that was
unvarying and stagnant.
One of the most strikingly invariable features of Orientalism
through the ages is the Orientalist consensus on the predominant
religion of the Orient: Islam. The ‘çonsensus’ is of inferiority,
degeneracy and imposture. It runs as a constant underlying theme
throughout Orientalist tradition with exceptions being few and far
between. The roots of this trend fundamental to Orientalist
scholarship go far back in time to the genesis of Islam itself.
From the very outset, Islam, under the leadership of the Prophet (PBUH)
established a dynamic outreach across communities, religious groups
and cultures. Islam fomented deep connections through interaction
and contact with both Jews and Christians. The Prophet (PBUH)’s
correspondence and interaction with the Roman monarch as well as
profound association and connection with the Abyssinian king Negus
is well documented, as is the religious freedom officially accorded
by him to the Christians of Najran in the outlying regions of the
Arabian peninsula. The first documented response from the Christian
world to the Call of Islam, however, came as early as 50 A.H (672
C.E), from St. John of Damascus who wrote a refutation of Islam in
the Greek language titled ‘Discussion between a Christian and a
Saracen.’ In this St. John maintained that ‘the Ishmaelites had been
led to idolatry by a false prophet taking his ideas from an Aryan
monk.’ Following St. John, numerous other eminent Christian saints
and scholars wrote critiques of Islam which form the core and the
ethos of Orientalism. Among these saints are St. Thomas Aquinas who
wrote the ‘Summary of the Doctrines of the Gentiles’ in which he
attacked Islam and its followers as irrational, false and barbaric.
Both the saints and their classical, foundational texts set the
tenor for the future course of Orientalism. Today the West has an
established ‘canon’ about Islam that has been standardized. This
Orientalist ‘canon’ to interpret Islam has been called the West’s
“Crusade Complex” by Sheikh Ali Tamimi. If one may generalize, there
are, very broadly speaking, six primary fundamental suppositions
about Islam contained in Orientalism. Briefly put, these are:
• Islam as a falsehood and a deliberate perversion of the truth.
• Islam as a religion of violence and the sword spread through
persecution and destruction.
• Islam as self-indulgent, celebrating physical pleasures.
• The Prophet (PBUH) of Islam as unbefitting of spiritual
leadership. A vast amount of literature attacking the person of the
Prophet (PBUH) exists in the West’s Orientalist tradition.
• Islam as inflexible, regressive, monolithic.
• Islam as an expansionist political programme threatening the West.
Until the middle of the nineteenth century, Orientalist scholarship
was grounded in the purely theological basis of Christian dogma.
However, gradually with the rise of materialism following the
Industrial Revolution and the zenith of the West’s temporal power
manifesting itself in the Colonialist mission, Orientalism took on a
more secular colour. Edward Said holds that Orientalism is created
by an historical, institutional context and its present day form is
embedded in the history of imperial conquest. In this sense,
Orientalism becomes a ploy for military and ideological conquest of
the Orient by the Occident. The question that hulks at the heart of
Orientalism is ‘How do we understand the natives we conquer so we
can subdue them easier?’ The process to ‘explain people who are
different’ has gone on for a long time, and Orientalism formalizes
it dangerously in that it represents itself as objective knowledge.
The first modern imperial expedition is important in the evolution
of Orientalism. This was the conquest of Egypt undertaken by
Napoleon Bonaparte in 1798. It is interesting and important to note
that Napoleon took alongwith his soldiers a number of artists,
scientists, researchers, philologists and historians to ‘record’
Egypt in every conceivable way and to produce a ‘scientific survey’
of Egypt to be consumed by a European audience. These scholars
produced volumes of Orientalist work which loudly bespeak the power
and prestige of Europe on the doorstep of modernity, and use
knowledge of the subject to subdue him and let it be known that
‘France can do to the Egyptians what the Egyptians cannot do to
France.’
Following this, there developed a profound relationship between
Orientalism and power politics. The doctrine of Orientalism (‘latent
Orientalism’) lent strength to the Orientalist experience of Western
dominance of Eastern territories (‘manifest Orientalism’).
Orientalists had a special and a very important role to play as
advisors to governments and became ‘special agents of Western power
as it attempted policy vis a vis the Orient.’
Orientalism underwent an important secular transition following the
Second World War. Maryam Jameelah writes, “Prior to the nineteenth
century, the bulk of Western literature attacked Islam. Since the
end of the World War, the Orientalists’ Christian pretence has been
almost entirely discarded in favour of pure, unadulterated
materialism. Islam is no longer condemned because of its rejection
of the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ or the dogma of the Original
Sin.” This inaugurated modern Orientalism. A significant feature of
Orientalism since World War II is the tremendously increased
attention to the Arab-Muslim figure as well as to Islam. This went
on as a steady stream until 9/11, but the spectacular fall of the
Twin Towers made it step down from the domain of the intellectual
elite and enter into public discourse and street talk. It is this
subject today that is the media’s favourite theme.
Despite the evolution Orientalism has undergone, however, the
polemics of Orientalism have varied little: “Books and articles are
regularly published on Islam and the Arabs that represent absolutely
no change over the virulent anti Islamic polemics of the Middle Ages
and the Renaissance.” Malaysian Professor Osman Bakar points out
that the West has perpetuated its misconceptions and myths about
Islam. :
“Ever since they watched it (i.e Islam) appear on the world stage,
Christians never cease to insult and slander it in order to find
justifications for waging war on it. It has been subjected to
grotesque distortions, the traces of which lie still in the European
mind. Even today there are many Westerners for whom Islam can be
reduced to three ideas: fanaticism, fatalism and polygamy.”
The modern transition of Orientalism involved the transference of
the disseminating authority from the former European colonial powers
to the United States. While Britain and France had had direct
experience of the Orient in their colonies, this could not be said
about America. American Orientalism therefore, is based not on
experience but largely on abstraction. It is also heavily
politicized owing to the United States’ deep-seated interests in the
Middle East as well as its massive support and firm alliance with
Israel which serves and safeguards US interests in the region. This
has had profound influences on Orientalism in America. American
Orientalism has assumed a more virulent ‘Us and Them’ character that
views Muslims as Enemies. U.S definitions in the context of the
so-called War on Terror have been standardized as a global paradigm
which consists of the ancient, core stereotypes of Islam prevalent
in Orientalist discourse. This new framework to view the world has
gradually acquired strength so that ‘even the unusual becomes
routinised as new events are forced into existing frames of
reference. Hence Muslims are ‘othered’ in a mediated world where
simplistic notions of good and evil peoples finds currency.’
The impact that this has had on the news media and the
representation of Muslims is immense:
“Islam and the activities of certain Muslims are very newsworthy
subjects. Indeed, very few of the more significant news stories of
the past few years have not included Muslims in some form or the
other while very few of the stories ‘about Muslims’ over this same
period have been about anything other than the War on Terror.’ It is
in its climate of threat, fear and misunderstanding that the
reporting of Islam and the Muslims is currently situated.”
This can particularly be noticed in the coverage and understanding
of the Middle East-Palestine issue which is lamentably lopsided:
“No attention is paid to the fact that the occupation of West Bank
and Gaza has been going on for forty years, and is the longest ever
military occupation in modern history. The public is made to believe
as if the only problem is Hamas terrorism that threatens Israel’s
security. No attention is paid to the hundreds of thousands who
suffer due to military occupation. It is no more possible for an
American to know the truth about the Middle East... A lot else is
going on in the Middle East that is not seen or understood by the
West. The result of the media’s focus on one aspect alone presents
Muslims as only one thing: Terrorists. When we see anyone fitting
that description, we think of fanatics, extremists, fundamentalists
and terrorists. This takes away the humanity and diversity of
millions of human beings who live normal, decent lives.”
Predominant images in the news media regarding Muslims other than
those of terrorism, are, according to Elizabeth Poole, those of
‘illegitimacy, criminality, violence, extremism, fanaticism,
aggression and disloyalty. Religion is often given as an explanatory
factor for behaviour and overall an official hegemonic viewpoint
dominates.’
It is important here to analyze the representation of Islam in
modern Orientalism as ‘Islamic civilization’ happens to be
Huntington’s predominant concern in his milestone ‘The Clash of
Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order.’ Maryam Jameelah sums
up the prime assumptions about Islam that define modern Orientalism.
Orientalists believe about Islam:
“That the Holy Quran is the work of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH),
that the hadith literature is forged; that Islam is a mere poitico-economic
outburst by impoverished Bedouins rather than a religious movement,
that Islam stifled the artistic creativity of the people it
conquered; that Islam is nothing but the current practices of its
present people; that it is superstitious, fatalistic, unscientific,
unmodern and opposed to developed; that it stands in need of the
same reformation Christianity underwent: that the best in Islam is
Sufism with its individualism, anti-Shariah emphasis on the
fallenness of man and his need for a master saviour, and the
repudiation of the warlike and exclusivist Sunnism; and above all,
that Islam stands on an inferior moral with its materialistic
conceptions of paradise and low status of women, that its
prohibition of interest is anti-industrialization, its puritanical
and anti-alcohol ethic is against urbanization and modern
liberalism, its dogmatism is anti progressive, and it drives its
miserable and vanquished people into psychosis by teaching them that
God is on their side and that He is the author of history_ all these
falsehoods are current in practically every Western presentation of
the religion, culture, history and civilization of Islam.”
Modern Orientalism establishes a vital link between Orientalist
discourse and political policy making. Hence the influence of
Orientalism in Western policy-making elite cannot be ignored. The
Clash of Civilizations is a classic example here, because, owing to
Huntington’s influence in the Pentagon, his hypothesis with all its
baggage of Orientalism is fundamental to American foreign policy, as
will become subsequently clear. The onus in Huntington’s work falls
overwhelmingly on Islam. For his viewpoint on Islam, Huntington, in
a classical Orientalist gesture, borrows from Bernard Lewis who
embodies in his work the essence of modern Orientalism. Quoting Said
again,
“the conflict between Islam and the West, gets the lion's share of
Huntington’s attention. In this belligerent kind of thought, he
relies heavily on a 1990 article by the veteran Orientalist Bernard
Lewis, whose ideological colors are manifest in its title, "The
Roots of Muslim Rage." In both articles, the personification of
enormous entities called "the West" and "Islam" is recklessly
affirmed, as if hugely complicated matters like identity and culture
existed in a cartoonlike world where Popeye and Bluto bash each
other mercilessly, with one always more virtuous pugilist getting
the upper hand over his adversary. Certainly neither Huntington nor
Lewis has much time to spare for... the unattractive possibility
that a great deal of demagogy and downright ignorance is involved in
presuming to speak for a whole religion or civilization.”
The very title of Huntington’s book is borrowed from Lewis’s “Roots
of Muslim Rage” in which he tellingly remarked,
“It should by now clear that we are facing a mood and a movement far
transcending the level of issues and policies and the governments
that pursue them. This is no less than a clash of civilizations_ the
perhaps irrational but surely historic reaction of an ancient rival
against our Judeo-Christian heritage, our secular present, and the
worldwide expansion of both. It is crucially important that we on
our side should not be provoked into an equally historic but equally
irrational reaction against that rival.”
Three years after Bernard Lewis’s Atlantic Monthly article, Samuel
P. Huntington came up with a similar argument stating:
“It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this
new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic.
The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of
conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most
powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of
global politics will occur between nations and groups of different
civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global
politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle
lines of the future.”
While writing on the ‘faultlines between civilizations’, Huntington
quotes the preceding extract from Bernard Lewis in order to
substantiate the claim that a clash between Islam and the West is
historical, permanent, irreconcileable and perhaps the greatest
danger facing ‘our’ civilization rooted in ‘Judaeo-Christian
values’.
Bernard Lewis’s perception of Islam through characteristically
Orientalist lenses is self-evident when he writes in his book
marginalizing Muslims into a people who, “when the deeper passions
are stirred, their dignity and courtesy toward others can give way
to an explosive mixture of rage and hatred which impels even the
government…to espouse kidnapping and assassination, and try to find,
in the life of their Prophet, approval and indeed precedent for such
actions”.
Clearly, Huntington picks from Lewis his idea that civilizations are
monolithic and built on the duality of ‘ús and them’. Lewis sees the
clash as the inherent human “way of distinguishing between
themselves and others: insider and outsider, in-group and out-group,
kinsman or neighbor and foreigner.” Lewis embodies in his work the
essential traits of Orientalist tradition. As Huntington’s prime
influence, Lewis’s Orientalism lies at the heart of the ‘Clash of
Civilizations’ rhetoric. Edward Said writes,
“Lewis’s polemic is that of Islam not merely as anti Semitic but
also an irrational herd or mass phenomenon ruling Muslims by
passions, instincts and unreflecting hatreds. The whole point of his
exposition is to frighten his audience and not let them yield an
inch to Islam. Lewis tries to give the impression that Islam never
modernized, nor did the Muslims. According to Lewis, Islam does not
develop, and neither do Muslims; they merely are, and are to be
watched, on account of the pure essence of theirs, which happens to
include a long-standing hatred of Christians and Jews.”
Lewis’s influence cannot be dismissed as insignificant or slight.
Said goes on,
“Lewis is an interesting case to examine further because his
standing in the political world of the Anglo American Middle East
establishment is that of the learned Orientalist, and everything he
writes is steeped in the ‘authority’ of his field. Yet for at least
a decade and a half his work in the main has been aggressively
ideological, despite his various attempts at subtlety and irony. His
work purports to be liberal objective scholarship but is in reality
very close to being propaganda against the subject material. This,
however, should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with the
history of Orientalism; it is only the latest_ and in the West the
most uncriticized_ of the scandals of ‘scholarship.’”
Borrowing heavily from both Lewis and the whole repertoire of
Orientalist literature on Islam, Huntington devotes a whole section
to Islam having ‘bloody borders’ in his book. Through citing facts
and figures of wars both historical and contemporary, he proves
violence to be intrinsic to Islam in order to substantiate his
earlier_ and much criticized_ claim that Islam had ‘bloody borders’:
“The relations between Muslims and peoples of other civilizations
have generally been antagonistic; most of these relations have been
violent at some point in the past, and many have been violent in the
1990s. Wherever one looks along the perimeter of Islam, Muslims have
problems living peaceably with their neighbours. The question
naturally arises as to whether this pattern of late-twentieth
century conflict between Muslim and non Muslim groups is equally
true of relations between groups from other civilizations. In fact,
it is not.
Muslims make up about one-fifth of the world’s population but in the
1990s they have been far more involved in inter-group violence than
the people of any other civilization. The evidence is
overwhelming... In the early 1990s Muslims were engaged in more
inter-group violence than non Muslims, and two-thirds to
three-quarters of intercivilizational wars were between Muslims and
non Muslims. Islam’s borders are bloody, and so are its innards.”
It is also clearly in line with Bernard Lewis that religion is
inherently conflictual and irreconcileable. Huntington emphatically
states this hence: “Millennia of human history have shown that
religion is not a ‘small difference’, but possibly the most profound
difference that can exist between people. The frequency, intensity
and violence of fault line wars are greatly enhanced by beliefs in
different gods.” Huntington also borrows from Lewis and other
Orientalist influences his conviction that Muslim societies are
backward, regressive and underdeveloped due to the fixity and
primitive nature of the religious values of the Muslims. While Lewis
seems to imply that Muslims all over the world are ‘in a rage over
the West’s development’, Huntington believes the Western legacy of
the French Revolution, Renaissance and Enlightenment gives it values
that are in some way superior to peoples living under Ottoman or
Czarist monarchies at that point in time. “The antiquated way of
life of traditional Islamic society is held responsible for the
weakness of the Muslim countries today with their poverty,
ignorance, disease, apathy and backwardness. Therefore, the
Orientalists conclude, the only road to progress is an uncritical
adoption of Western materialism.” This engenders the belief in the
superiority of Western civilization, a belief Huntington strongly
adheres to, as exemplified by Dieter Senghaas:
“Thorough interpretations of civilizations are not given by
Huntington, with one major exception. According to Huntington the
essence of Western civilization is based on Greek rationalism, Roman
law, Catholicism and Protestantism, the variety of European
languages, the division of church and state power, rule of law,
social pluralism, representative public bodies and individualism.
With slight exaggeration he even argues that these characteristics
are Western but not modern in the Western world. The essential
characteristics of the West are much older.”
Bernard Lewis believes that there are inherent qualities of Islam
that cannot be reconciled with the West. Tabitha Basa-Ong has made
an interesting comparison of Lewis and Huntington with Osama bin
Laden, all proponents of a clash between civilizations:
“To Lewis, it is just a clash between these two civilizations and he
supports his argument using history and ideology: from the
beginning, Western cultures separated Church and State, which is an
indispensable, indelible difference between Islam and the West.
However, Huntington recognizes a clash, but complicates it to
clashes between various civilizations, including “Western,
Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin
American, and possibly African” civilizations. I also think that
Huntington’s other strength is that he recognizes the process of
globalization, as the world becomes smaller and different
civilizations increase interaction. Bin Laden was surprisingly
convincing, and I found his strengths to be that he strongly
believed in God and what he thought, that he was incredibly
knowledgeable about the world (even if his opinion was one-sided),
and that he, like Lewis and Huntington, uses history for support as
well, “the people of Islam have been afflicted with oppression,
hostility, and injustice by the Judeo-Christian alliance and its
supporters.” He also brings up situations in Palestine, Somalia,
Iraq, and Afghanistan, when addressing Americans, letting us know
that he is avenging his people. In the end, he makes Muslims the
victim, saying that the West is so bad because we have done so many
things, and that he is only attacking out of defense. From his
rhetoric, he dislikes the West so much because the West has
constantly attacked them in the past. The most obvious weakness in
the “clash” argument is that each of these authors disregards
nuances within a civilization. Not everyone in the Islamic world is
the same, just as not everyone in the West is the same. Lewis and
Huntington cannot assume that every Muslim wants to attack the West
because they are so backward, and the West is so developed. Bin
Laden cannot assume that the “American army is part of the American
people…”
Both Huntington and Lewis, with all their views, were personalities
extremely ‘listened to’ at the Council of Foreign Relations. “Lewis
has been especially sought after in Washington since September 11th.
Karl Rove invited him to speak at the White House. Richard Perle and
Dick Cheney are among his admirers … And his bestselling book ‘What
Went Wrong?,’ about the decline of Muslim civilization, is regarded
in some circles as a kind of handbook in the war against Islamist
terrorism.” In 2004, Time included Lewis in its list of 100 most
influential scientists and thinkers, and Edward Said suggested that,
“What made Lewis’s work so appalling in its effects was the fact
that without any other views to counter his, American
policy-makers...fell for them.” This is what draws the connection
between Orientalist discourse spearheaded by the two writers and U.S
foreign policy. Orientalist think tanks generate opinions and
opinion leaders that are profoundly influential and have a say in
U.S policy-making circles. There exist dozens of periodicals, most
of them financed by state authorities, devoted entirely to the study
of Islam, the Muslims and the Middle East that are essentially
Orientalist in outlook and steer the course of U.S policy. Some of
these are ‘The Muslim World’( Hartford, Connecticut), Middle East
Studies (New York), The Middle East Journal (Washington D.C),
Journal of the Oriental Society (New Haven, Connecticut) and
American Near Eastern Studies (Chicago). The impact of this
politicization and mainstreaming of Orientalism on Western society
has been immense. It has encouraged pre-emptive policies of Western
nations towards Muslim countries, ‘racial profiling, restrictions on
immigration, illegal detention of Muslims without trial, validating
current imperialist adventures of the US-UK and further excluding
and disenfranchising Muslim communities.’
Ironically, however, despite the pervasive and deep influence of
Orientalism in Western policy making and scholarship, the fact
remains that Orientalist perceptions are not backed by any sound,
real evidence and hence do not qualify as authentic scholarship at
all. It is observable to a keen eye that “one of the striking
aspects of the new American attention to the Orient is its regular
avoidance of literature. You can read through reams of expert
writing on the modern Near East and never encounter a single
reference to Literature. What seems to matter far more to the
regional experts are ‘facts’... the net effect of this remarkable
omission in modern American awareness of the Arab or Islamic Orient
is to keep the region and its people conceptually emasculated,
reduced to ‘attitude’, ‘trends’, ‘statistics’: in short,
dehumanized.”
Years later after Nine Eleven intensified the Orientalist sway, Said
wrote:
“The difference between today's pseudoscholarship and expert jargon
about terrorism and the literature about Third World national
liberation guerrillas two decades ago is interesting. Most of the
earlier material was subject to the slower and therefore more
careful procedures of print; to produce a piece of scholarship you
had to go through the motions of exploring history, citing books,
using footnotes--actually attempting to prove a point by developing
an argument. Today's discourse on terrorism is an altogether
streamlined thing. Its scholarship is yesterday's newspaper or
today's CNN bulletin. Its gurus are journalists with obscure, even
ambiguous, backgrounds. Most writing about terrorism is brief,
pithy, totally devoid of the scholarly armature of evidence, proof,
argument. Its paradigm is the television interview, the spot news
announcement, the instant gratification one associates with the
Reagan White House's "reality time," the evening news.”
The single greatest failing of Western scholarship, of which
Huntington is a part, is the legacy of Orientalism central to it.
Orientalism has utterly failed to lend objectivity to research,
which is essential to make any piece of work credible. It is almost
tragic that “the principal dogmas of Orientalism exist in their
purest form today in the studies of the Arabs and Islam, i.e, of the
absolute, systemic difference between the West which is rational,
developed, humane and superior to the Orient which is aberrant,
underdeveloped, inferior. Second, that abstractions about the Orient
are always preferable to direct evidence from Oriental realities.
Third, that the Orient is incapable of defining itself and hence a
highly generalized and systematic vocabulary for describing the
Orient from a Western standpoint is inevitable and even
scientifically ‘objective.’ Fourth, that the Orient is at bottom
something to be feared or controlled by pacification, research and
development or outright occupation, whenever possible.”
Said laments the fact that in the West, Islam is rarely studied,
rarely researched and rarely known, which is painfully obvious in
Huntington’s work whose assertions on Islam being violent,
conflictual and irreconcileable are rejected everywhere by
mainstream Muslim scholars and religious authorities.
The influence of Orientalism in the work of both Lewis and
Huntington takes away objectivity and credibility from their work:
“Like Bernard Lewis, Huntington does not write objective and neutral
prose, but is a polemicist whose rhetoric not only depends on a
prior argument about a war of all against all but in effect
perpetuates it. Far from being an arbiter between civilizations
which Huntington wishes to be, Huntington is a partisan_ an advocate
of one civilization above all others. He defines Islamic
civilization reductively, as if all that matters about it is its
anti Westernism, as if the other Muslims have nothing else to do but
think of the West with hatred; all they think about is how to
destroy the West and bomb it.”
Orientalism in Huntington and elsewhere, keeping in mind its
tremendous repercussions on society and politics, has deeper,
underlying motivations that need to be studied for a fuller picture.
Maryam Jameelah, from a spiritual-philosophical standpoint, explains
that the reason why Islam and Muslims have always been targeted in
Orientalist discourse is because Islam ‘vehemently rejects moral
relativity and staunchly continues to uphold the transcendent ideal.
Contemporary materialism, on the other hand, assumes that moral and
aesthetic values are limited to time, place and circumstance and
continually subject to change in the course of human evolutionary
progress.’
Edward Said, on the other hand, believes that “Orientalism is a
construction fabricated to whip up feelings of hostility and
antipathy against that part of the world that happens to be of
strategic importance due to its oil, its threatening adjacence to
Christianity and history of competition with the West. This is
totally different from what to a Muslim living in its domain, Islam
really is.” A number of other critics and commentators also
subscribe to the same view that Orientalism has helped resurrect age
old stereotypes of Islam for geo-political motives of the West in
the Muslim world. The theory of the Clash of Civilizations has
helped create a foe in the Western mind to replace the Communist
arch-enemy after the Cold War. This is a foe that is rather familiar
and easy to sell to the Western public because of the history of
Orientalist stereotypes of Islam that abound in Western tradition.
The West continues to employ an arsenal of images of ‘masses of
people waving their fists, of utmost evil, frightening people
conspiring to kill Americans’, and Huntington’s influential thesis
officialises it, injects it into political policy. The purpose it
serves is the same as stated by a newscaster commenting on the World
Trade Centre bombings: ‘the threat of Muslims is an ongoing
danger...’ Orientalism and its manifestation in the Clash of
Civilizations theory uses Islam as a ‘convenient foreign demon to
turn attention away from the West’s own iniquities’ and to justify
the foreign policy direction that can best fulfil the national
interests of powerful actors at the helm.
Eqbal Ahmed writes of the “mutilations of Islam by absolutists and
fanatical tyrants who present the religion reduced to a penal code,
stripped of its humanism, aesthetics, intellectual quests, and
spiritual devotion.” And this "entails an absolute assertion of one,
generally de-contextualized, aspect of religion and a total
disregard of another. The phenomenon distorts religion, debases
tradition, and twists the political process wherever it unfolds."
Ahmed proceeds to present the rich, complex, pluralist meaning of
the word jihad and shows that in the word's current confinement to
indiscriminate war against presumed enemies, it is impossible "to
recognize the Islamic--religion, society, culture, history or
politics--as lived and experienced by Muslims through the ages."
This is what the West as a whole and the theory of Huntington in
particular has failed to do.
The West fails to acknowledge the debt it owes to Islam, the
centrality of Islamic values in the heritage of Europe and the
essential commonalities between the two. Said writes, “The West drew
on the humanism, science, philosophy, sociology and historiography
of Islam, which had already interposed itself between Charlemagne's
world and classical antiquity. Islam is inside from the start...” So
are values which the West claims to be uniquely its own, part of
Muslim societies. Quoting from Chandra Muzaffar, “Today, some of the
leading ideas and institutions which have gained currency in the
Muslim world whether in politics or economics are imports from the
West. Similarly, Islam impacted law and architecture, literature and
culture...” It is an established fact that Western Renaissance from
which the West traces its ‘énlightened’ ethos, was brought about in
large part as a result of renewed contact between Islam and the West
after the Crusades. Contact with Islam compelled Europeans to
reconsider their values, ushering in free thinking and ending the
suffocating absolutism of the Church. Values celebrated as ‘Western’
are in fact deeply intertwined into the ethos of human civilization_
a common heritage of mankind.
“That different civilizations are not inherently prone to conflict
is borne out by another salient feature which Huntington fails to
highlight. Civilizations embody many similar values and ideals. At
the philosophical level at least, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism,
Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, Taoism among other world religions share
certain common perspectives on the relationship between the human
being and his environment, the integrity of the community, the
importance of the family, the significance of moral leadership and
indeed the meaning and purpose of life.”
Huntington’s assertion that Islam has ‘bloody borders’ seems to
imply that Islamic civilization is intrinsically and perpetually in
violent conflict with all other civilizations. He expands upon his
contentious statement in his book in the following words:
“The relations between Muslims and peoples of other civilizations_
Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Hindu, Chinese, Buddhist, Jewish_
have been generally antagonistic; in fact, most of these
relationships have been violent in the past as well as in the modern
times. Wherever one looks along the perimeter of Islam, Muslims have
problems living peaceably with their neighbours. The question
naturally arises as to whether this pattern of late twentieth
century conflict between Muslim and non Muslim groups is equally
true of relations between groups from other civilizations. In fact,
it is not. Muslims make up about one-fifths of the world’s
population, but in the 1990s they have been far more involved in
intergroup violence than the people of any other civilization. The
evidence is overwhelming... Islam’s borders are bloody, and so are
its innards.”
This thesis is objectionable on many counts. For one, it is
simplistic and inaccurate, as a type of desperate defence of his
insistence on Islam being ‘bloody.’ It is generalized and suggests
that the reason Muslim societies find themselves in conflicts is not
because of any other factors but that Islam itself is the problem.
Besides, it seems to create an image of a sword-wielding barbaric,
monolithic Muslim civilization bent upon the destruction of all and
sundry, while the West and its allies cower with bated breath. This
is far from reality and needs to be effectively refuted.
As for Islam being intrinsically bloody, it is enlightening to read
what the basic sources and fundamental texts of Islam have to say on
the matter:
In 628 C.E. Prophet Muhammad (SAW) granted a Charter of Privileges
to the monks of St. Catherine Monastery in Mt. Sinai. It consisted
of several clauses covering all aspects of human rights including
such topics as the protection of Christians, freedom of worship and
movement, freedom to appoint their own judges and to own and
maintain their property, exemption from military service, and the
right to protection in war.
An English translation of that document is presented here:
This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those
who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.
Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them,
because
Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against
anything that displeases them.
No compulsion is to be on them.
Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their
monks from their monasteries.
No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to
carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses.
Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and
disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure
charter against all that they hate.
No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight.
The Muslims are to fight for them.
If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take
place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting
her church to pray.
Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented
from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.
No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the
Last Day (end of the world) . (Rendered into English in ‘Muslim
History 570-1950’, Dr. A. Zahur and A.Z Haq.)
In the second Khalifah’s time (Umar R.A), when Christian areas fell
to the Muslims, Umar (R.A) wrote a public declaration:
The Covenant of Omar,
In the Name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate
This is an assurance of peace and protection given by the servant of
Allah Omar, Commander of the Believers to the people of Ilia'
[Jerusalem]. He gave them an assurance of protection for their
lives, property, church and crosses as well as the sick and healthy
and all its religious community.
Their churches shall not be occupied, demolished nor taken away
wholly or in part. None of their crosses nor property shall be
seized. They shall not be coerced in their religion nor shall any of
them be injured. None of the Jews shall reside with them in Ilia'.
The people of Ilia shall pay Jizia tax as inhabitants of cities do.
They shall evict all robbers and thieves.
He whoever gets out shall be guaranteed safety for his life and
property until he reach his safe haven. He whoever stays shall be
also safe, in which case he shall pay as much tax as the people of
Ilia' do. Should any of the people of Ilia wish to move together
with his property along with the Romans and to clear out of their
churches and crosses, they shall be safe for their lives, churches
and crosses, until they have reached their safe haven. He whoever
chooses to stay he may do so and he shall pay as much tax as the
people of Ilia' do. He whoever wishes to move along with the Roman,
may do so, and whoever wishes to return back home to his kinsfolk,
may do so. Nothing shall be taken from them, their crops have been
harvested. To the contents of this convent here are given the
Covenant of Allah, the guarantees of His Messenger, the Caliphs and
the Believers, provided they pay their due Jizia tax.
Witnesses hereto are:
Khalid Ibn al-Waleed Amr Ibn al-Aas Abdul-Rahman Ibn'Auf Mu'awiya
Ibn abi-Sifian Made and executed in the year 15 AH. (Source: Tabri,
‘Tarikh Al umam wal Malouk’ )
A.K Brohi writes,
“As the Muslims fanned out of Arabia into Byzantium, Persia and
India, large numbers of Jews Christians and Zoroastrians, Hindus and
Buddhists came under their dominion. The same recognition granted to
the Jews and Christians by the Prophet (SAW) personally was granted
to every non Muslim religious community on the one condition of
their keeping the peace. The case of Jerusalem was the typos of this
Muslim tolerance and goodwill on the religious level as well as on
the social and cultural” .
Thomas Arnold writes:
“Of any organised attempt to force the acceptance of Islam on the
non Muslim population, or of any systematic persecution intended to
stamp out the Christian religion, we hear nothing. Had the caliphs
chosen to adopt either course of action, they might have swept away
Christianity as easily as Ferdinand and Isabella drove Islam out of
Spain, or Louis XIV made Protestantism penal in France, or the Jews
were kept out of England for 350 years. The Eastern Churches in Asia
were entirely cut off from communion with the rest of Christendom
throughout which no one would have been found to lift a finger on
their behalf, as heretical communions. So that the very survival of
these Churches to the present day is a strong proof of the generally
tolerant attitude of the Muhammadan government towards them”.
Brohi continues:
“Compared with the histories of other religions, the history of
Islam is categorically white as far as toleration of other religions
is concerned. Fortunately, we have on record many witnesses from
those days of Muslim conquest to whom we should be grateful for
clearing this matter once and for all. Michael the Elder, Jacobite
Patriarch of Antioch, wrote in the second half of the twelfth
century: ‘This is why the God of vengeance… beholding the wickedness
of the Romans who, throughout their dominions, cruelly plundered our
churches and our monastries and condemned us without pity_ brought
from the region of the south the sons of Ishmael, to deliver us
through them from the hands of the Romans.’
“Barhebreus is the author of an equally powerful witness in the
favour of Islam. Ricoldus de Mone Crucis, a Dominian monk from
Florence who visited the Muslim East about 1300 AD, gave an equally
eloquent witness of tolerance with the Christians. And yet, if the
Muslims were so tolerant, the Christian persistently asks, why did
their co-religionists flock to Islam by the millions? Of these
co-religionists the Arabs were the smallest minority. The rest were
Hellenes, Persians, Egyptians, Cyrenaicans, Berbers, Cypriots and
Caucasians. Canon Taylor explained it beautifully at a Church
Congress held at Wolverhampton. He said: ‘It is easy to understand
why this reformed Judaism swept so swiftly over Asia and Africa. The
African and Syrian doctors had substituted abstruse metaphysical
dogmas for the religion of Christ: they tried to combat the
licentiousness of the age by setting forth the celestial merit of
celibacy and the angelic excellence of virginity_ seclusion from the
world was the road of holiness, dirt was the characteristic of
monkish sanctity_ the people were practically polytheists,
worshipping a crowd of martyrs, saints and angels; the upper classes
were effeminate and corrupt, the middle classes oppressed by
taxation, the slaves without hope for the present or the future. As
with the besom of God, Islam swept away this mass of corruption and
superstition. It was a revolt against empty theological polemics; it
was a masculine protest against the exaltation of celibacy as a
crown of piety. It brought out the fundamental dogmas of religion_
the unity and greatness of God, that He is merciful and righteous,
that He claims obedience to His will, resignation and faith. It
proclaimed the responsibility of man, a future life, a day of
judgement, and stern retribution to fall upon the wicked; and
enforced the duties of prayer, almsgiving, fasting and benevolence.
It thrust aside the artificial virtues, the religious frauds and
follies, the perverted moral sentiments, and the verbal subtleties
of theological disputants. It replaced monkishness by manliness. It
gave hope to the slave, brotherhood to mankind, and recognition to
the fundamental facts of human nature.’”
‘THE WEST VERSUS THE REST’: CREATING AND PERPETUATING SCHISMS
The preceding section dealt with Huntington’s understanding of non
Western cultures_ particularly Islam_ as based upon Orientalist
scholarship in which non Western cultures and Islam are distinctly
‘the Other’. This ‘Other’ is not just an alien but a threatening foe
and dangerous enemy to the West. Orientalism becomes the basis for
the West-Non West rift Huntington makes much of in his work. It also
fosters and justifies negative images and stereotypes of Islam and
Muslims as ‘violent, terroristic, backward, and immoral’. This too
is one of the ways which make Huntington’s theory typically
‘Western’, and rather steeped in an overweening sense of Western
superiority. This orientation generates negative stereotypes and
takes away objectivity from Huntington’s work which cannot pretend
to have been written in a neutral perspective: “The negative
stereotypes eventually distract the West from the search for
critical understanding and dialogue with Islam/the Muslim World. In
this respect, Huntington’s perspective of Islam is considerably
parallel to Orientalist scholarship’s story of conflict rather than
dialogue or at least peaceful coexist-ence between the two worlds.”
Originating and being immersed in the West, the theory of Classical
Realism lies at the core of the Clash of Civilizations thesis. The
conclusions Huntington leaves the West to accept as policy
guidelines are thoroughly Realist, and, as Engin I. Erdem writing in
the Alternatives Journal asserts, even ‘Machiavellian’ in the sense
that they perpetuate conflict and construct a paradigm of clash and
competing civilizations vying for dominance in the international
arena.
Huntington defines ‘civilization’ as ‘the highest cultural grouping
of people and the broadest level of cultural identity people have,
short of that which distinguishes humans from other species. It is
defined both by common objective elements such as language, history,
religion, customs, institutions and by the subjective
self-identification of people.’ These are immutable identities,
classified by Huntington between ‘seven or eight major
civilizations: Western, Confucian, Japanese, Hindu, Islamic,
Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American and possibly African civilization.’
While Huntington clearly mentions the seven or eight civilizations
of his own construction, he later groups them into a broader
configuration of two opposing civilizations: the West and the Rest.
“With the end of the Cold War, international politics moves out of
its Western phase, and its centrepiece becomes the interaction
between the West and non Western civilizations.”
The reasons for predicting such a clash are many.
• The differences between these civilizations are basic, fundamental
and irreconcileable by their very nature. The people belonging to
these civilizations have ‘different views on the relations between
God and man, the individual and the group, the citizen and the
state, parents and children, husband and wife as well as differing
views of the relative importance of rights and responsibilities,
liberty and authority, equality and hierarchy.’ These differences
have developed over centuries of human history. They have always
been there and generated conflict, but their relevance in today’s
world and in the future, has greatly intensified. Hence a ‘clash of
civilizations.’
• As civilizational interaction increases with better communication,
civilizational consciousness and awareness of differences between
civilizations also increases.
• The process of economic modernization and social change weakens
national identity, and religion moves in to fill up the ‘vacuum’
created by it. The world is gradually being ‘de-secularized’ and
fundamentalist tendencies are developing within practitioners of
almost all religions. This revival of religion ‘transcends
boundaries’ and makes civilizations integrate through the bond of
religion.
• As a reaction to the West’s dominance in the world, non Western
societies wish to disassociate themselves from Western culture and
civilization and ‘return to the roots’ to rediscover and adhere to
their own identity. A ‘de-Westernization and indigenization of
elites’ is occurring in non Western societies.
• Differences in culture and identity by their very nature are
irreconcileable as compared to the more mutable differences in
ideologies or nationality. While the key question in ordinary
conflicts is ‘What side are you on?’ the question in a
civilizational conflict becomes, ‘Who are you?’
• Forces of regionalism weaken national boundaries and make
different regions of the world integrate on the basis of common
culture and common interests.
Due to all these factors the polarization between ‘us and them’ is
increasing in the world. The West’s bid to ‘promote Western values’
through dominance and neo-colonialist tactics in order to advance
its military and economic interests generates the desire to rally
together on the basis of civilizational identity by non Western
peoples. Engin I Erdem elaborates, “Of seven or eight major
civilizations, he claims, Islamic and Western civilizations are
likely to clash because Islam is the only civilization that aspires
universalist values and poses a significant challenge to the West.
On the other hand, Huntington talks about an Islamic-Confucian
connection against the Western civilization. In doing so, he
recommends that the West should limit expansion of Islamic-Confucian
states’ military and economic power and the West should exploit
differences between the two civilizations.
Besides, Huntington is highly concerned with de-Westernization and
indigenization of elites as well as non-Western modernization in
many non-Western countries. The West and the United States
especially, Huntington argues, should be cautious about this
development. In this regard, the West should control immigration and
assimilate immigrants in order to preserve and reify civilizational
homogeneity. As he extensively concerns with the status of Western
power and unity, Huntington also calls for improvement of Western
unity. In this respect, he recommends empowerment of the Atlantic
partnership between the US and Europe. In order to realize
civilizational homogeneity of the West he attributes NATO a
‘civilizational mission.’
While this stands as Huntington’s clearly stated contention in his
landmark work, it is a widely contested claim.
The most vociferous of Huntington’s critics, Edward Said, takes on
Huntington’s strident ‘West-centredness’ and ascribes to it a sort
of intellectual arrogance of an Ideologist for the West:
“The challenge for Western policy-makers, says Huntington, is to
make sure that the West gets stronger and fends off all the others,
Islam in particular. More troubling is Huntington's assumption that
his perspective, which is to survey the entire world from a perch
outside all ordinary attachments and hidden loyalties, is the
correct one, as if everyone else were scurrying around looking for
the answers that he has already found. In fact, Huntington is an
ideologist, someone who wants to make "civilizations" and
"identities" into what they are not: shut-down, sealed-off entities
that have been purged of the myriad currents and countercurrents
that animate human history, and that over centuries have made it
possible for that history not only to contain wars of religion and
imperial conquest but also to be one of exchange,
cross-fertilization and sharing. This far less visible history is
ignored in the rush to highlight the ludicrously compressed and
constricted warfare that "the clash of civilizations" argues is the
reality.”
This strident ‘Westernism’, Said continues, is strewn with
‘vocabulary of gigantism and apocalypse, each use of which is
plainly designed not to edify but to inflame the reader's indignant
passion as a member of the "West," and what we need to do.
Churchillian rhetoric is used inappropriately by self-appointed
combatants in the West's, and especially America's, war against its
haters, despoilers, destroyers.’
Such kind of a disposition carries within it a disregard and a lack
of attention to the complex histories that challenge a
Western-unilateralist understanding of civilizations and human
affairs: “This is the problem with unedifying labels like Islam and
the West: They mislead and confuse the mind, which is trying to make
sense of a disorderly reality that won't be pigeonholed or strapped
down as easily as all that.” What such an overwhelming
‘West-centredness’ serves to do, perhaps, is to ‘make bellicose
statements for the purpose of mobilizing collective passions’ to get
them to rally behind the West’s adventurist, aggressive and
aggrandizing foreign policies and to discourage independent thinking
that could lead to reflection and examination to help one realize
that one is dealing with innumerable inter-connected lives, "ours"
as well as "theirs."
This overweening sense puts the West at the centre of Huntington’s
universe. It gives the West a sort of ‘entrenched position’ of ‘We
are at the centre of the world’, a position that Said describes as
‘monotheistic.’ On the basis of this ‘monotheistic’ position,
Huntington arbitrarily divides the world into ‘seven or eight’
civilizations, not being sure whether Africa qualifies as a
‘civilization’:
“He divides the world into “seven or eight” major civilizations, the
ambiguity being one of the book’s few charming moments until you
learn it’s because he can’t make up his mind whether Africa has any
real civilization of its own or is simply half Islamic and half
post-colonial. The seven others are Western, Latin American,
“Orthodox” (Russian), Islamic, Hindu, “Sinic” (Chinese) and
Japanese. Jewish and Buddhist civilization are considered to be
separate entities but are dismissed because they don’t control large
territories.”
While it certainly is illuminating to understand conflict through
the dynamics of culture, religion and civilizational identity, yet
Huntington moves beyond to lump together diverse human communities
in order to fit them into his rigid categorization of ‘seven or
eight’ civilizations.
What needs to be examined is the fact that while Huntington
arbitrarily divides the world into civilizational ‘tectonic plates’,
he does not justify and validate this arbitrary division by
highlighting the essential traits of these civilizations, with the
exception of the ‘Western civilization.’ There is a noticeable
absence of necessary analysis for making such a categorization in
absolute terms.
“Thorough interpretations of these civilizations are not given by
Huntington, with one major exception... Western individuality. He
argues that these characteristics are Western but not modern in the
Western world. The modern age and modernization (industrialization,
urbanization, literacy, education, prosperity and social mobility as
well as complex and diversified professional structures) are of a
more recent design, the essential characteristics of the West being
much older. Only incidental notes can be found about the Sinic
civilization, especially about the Confucian ethos which is taken
for granted in many Asian societies... Asian people, moreover,
according to Huntington, tend to consider the evolution of their
societies over long periods, over centuries or even millennia. These
attitudes form a contrast to those of the American people: the
primacy given to liberty, equality, democracy and individualism as
well as to their tendency to oppose authority, to strengthen a
system of checks and balances, to declare human rights sacred, and
to concentrate on the maximization of profits in the immediate
present.”
This ignorance of the ‘essence of civilizations’ is particularly
noticeable in the case of the ‘Islamic civilization’, which,
according to Dieter Senghaas, has been ‘left out entirely’.
Huntington, like Bernard Lewis, regards Islam itself to be the
problem, and emphasizes the fact that it is exclusivist and
incapable of peaceful co existence: “Huntington emphasizes that
Muslim societies and states located at the cultural faultlines of
the world have been shown to be excessively violent: he argues that
Muslim war enthusiasm and readiness to use violence cannot now be
denied either by Muslims or non Muslims. An obvious conclusion would
therefore be that Islam per se has a violent character.” The problem
as Huntington identifies it, is with the fact that certain
civilizations_ particularly Islamic_ are inextricably entangled with
religion, and obligate their members to be guided by religious
belief. Religious conviction and zeal makes relations with other
communities conflictual, and this is particularly so with Islam,
which in Huntington’s assertion, has ‘bloody borders’:
“This poses the question whether Muslims have a special problem with
order. At least for many Muslims, the relationship between faith and
government, or the role of the government’s relation to Islam_
mainly whether government should be secular or Muslim_ is unresolved
or in conflict. Such civilizations require governments to enforce
religious practice and do not tolerate non-conformity...” making it
impossible for secular, democratic values to thrive. Hence they are
incompatible with the very basis of Western civilization,
intensifying the prospects for a ‘clash.’ The problem therefore lies
with religion and its pertinence and presence within the
body-politic of civilizations. The West, celebrating secularism, has
traditionally believed this, as Marc Gopin writes, “We in the West
have had a tendency in the modern period to view religion as only
the problem in the human relations of civil society, never part of
solutions.”
Huntington and his Orientalist predecessors have ignored the fact
that it is also religion that ‘leads thousands of people to a
passionate devotion to human rights, social justice, conflict
resolution and deeper forms of reconciliation between enemies.’
Discourses and narratives of reconciliation are not rare in the
doctrine and history of Islam. The neglect and ignorance of the role
of religion is a blind spot in Western International Relations
theory. Western I.R theorists upon whom Huntington draws strongly
have made the classic error of considering modernity to mean the
demise of religion. Ironically, this makes International Relations
the most ‘Western’ of social science disciplines. This is the case
because, in the words of Jonathan Fox,
“The core of Western I.R theory evolved from national security
theories which focussed on... centuries of Western historical
experience relating to material power, rationalist and economic
factors which reinforced that religion was not relevant. As a
result, major I.R theories, ideas and trends include an
anti-religious bias... Yet, just because religion was rarely noticed
does not mean it was not there.” Non Western communities especially
the Muslims who have had a long and deep historical interaction with
the West have a different perception of history:
“For many Muslims, the religious war with the Christian West did not
end in 1683. For Muslims, this year marked the beginning of
centuries of defeat and humiliation at Christian hands. Russia’s
conquest of Muslim Central Asia, European colonialism’s success in
controlling large parts of Muslim South Asia and North Africa, and
the conquering of the Muslim Balkans by Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia
were all seen as part of this religious war. The continuing
influence of Western Christian states in the Muslim world, including
several recent military interventions like those in Iraq and
Somalia, underscore this humiliation of Muslims at Christian hands.
The Christian states viewed all of this as part of power politics...
Western powers projected their secular nationalism on these
conflicts and assumed that any counter attacks were motivated by
nationalism rather than religion. Thus Al Qaeda sees its campaign
against the West as part of a centuries-old confrontation...”
Huntington, interpreted by Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris, states
something to the effect that
‘the Muslim world lacks the core political values that gave birth to
representative democracy in Western civilization: separation of
religious and secular authority, rule of law and social pluralism,
parliamentary institutions of representative government, and
protection of individual rights and civil liberties as the buffer
between citizens and the power of the state. This claim seems all
too plausible given the failure of electoral democracy to take root
throughout the Middle East and North Africa.’
However, the two writers refute this claim on the basis of empirical
evidence gathered through surveys on the popularity of democracy in
Muslim countries:
“Despite Huntington’s claim of a clash of civilizations between the
West and the rest, surveys reveal that, at this point in history,
democracy has an overwhelmingly positive image throughout the world.
In country after country, a clear majority of the population
describes having a democratic political system as either good or
very good. These results represent a dramatic change from the 1930s
and 1940s, when fascist regimes won overwhelming mass approval in
many societies; and for many decades, Communist regimes had
widespread support. But in the last decade, democracy became
virtually the only political model with global appeal, no matter
what the culture. With the exception of Pakistan, most of the Muslim
countries surveyed think highly of democracy: In Albania, Egypt,
Bangladesh, Azerbaijan, Indonesia, Morocco, and Turkey, 92 to 99
percent of the public endorsed democratic institutions_ a higher
proportion than in the United States (89 percent)!”
Ironically, if Huntington’s rigid categorization is applied, Italy
or Germany, living under Fascist and Nazi systems respectively,
would not really be part of the ‘Western civilization’ until after
the Second World War, lacking as they were in democracy. Besides,
the European Union’s incorporation of Orthodox states into the
European Community with singular democratic-liberal values after the
Cold War threatens Huntington’s thesis too by blurring the line
between ‘Orthodox’ and ‘Western’ civilizations. Huntington’s logic
wears thin.
Huntington’s West-centric standpoint is also emphasized by the fact
that he couples together Judaic and Christian civilizations ignoring
their historic differences and inherent conflicts as a single
‘Western’ civilization, in line with Christian Zionism which is a
dominant influence in U.S foreign policy-making. This gives his work
a characteristic ‘religiosity’ for all things Western, and explains
the hostility and unwillingness to understand both the Confucian and
Islamic civilizations that is present in his work. Professor Sid
Ahmed writing in Ahram Weekly, points towards the fact that from his
hostility to both Islam and Confucianism, Huntington gradually
narrows down the focus exclusively to Arabs and Muslims:
“When Huntington came forward with his theory a decade ago, he spoke
of a Chinese- Arab (or Confucian-Islamic) rapprochement against the
West. Now that China has acquired an ever-more important
international stature and is acting more and more as an independent
actor on the global stage, this rapprochement is mentioned less and
less. The downplaying of the Chinese component can also be explained
by the desire to underscore the Islamic dimension of contemporary
Arab civilisation. Describing the Arab Middle East as a Greater
Middle East, is a way to highlight that the region the West has to
confront is not only composed of Arabs, but also of non-Arab
Muslims. The new reading of the theory does not place the Chinese
and the Arabs in the same basket, but Muslims and Arabs in
particular. This is a clear attempt to attribute terrorism to Islam,
not to Arabs alone, and not to blur attributing terrorism to Islam
by relating Arabs to Chinese as the case was in Huntington's
original version of his theory.”
What Huntington does is arbitrarily divide the world on religious
lines in a hardened divisiveness, creating rigid boxes of ‘worlds
within a world.’ Such kind of a categorization overlooks the fact
that as human beings we have commonalities that are above and beyond
civilizational differences. It imposes on us a rigid,
irreconcileable, exclusivist identity that is opposed to everything
and everyone else. When Huntington chooses to incorporate this
overweeningly West-centric approach, he undermines the merit of his
own work: “The weakest part of the Clash of Civilizations theory is
the rigid separation assumed between civilizations despite the
overwhelming evidence that in fact today’s world is a world of
traversing boundaries.”
This is a pattern of political discourse typically present in
foreign policies of Western nations which seem to believe that ‘we
in Europe and the West should maintain our civilization in the West
by holding everybody else hostage and increasing the rifts to
prolong the dominance of the West.’ Thinkers and analysts in the
West work towards this by their lengthy discourses at defining for
us the ‘right kind’ of Islam: “In confronting what is called
"Islamic terrorism" in the muddled vocabulary of contemporary global
politics, the intellectual force of Western policy is aimed quite
substantially at trying to define—or redefine—Islam.” The
definitions of ‘moderate’ ‘liberal’ ‘conservative’ and
‘fundamentalist’ ‘Islams’ are tailor-made in the Orientalist vein in
order to ‘give Islam a totally different interpretation and launch
an organized movement for its reconstruction from within.’
In order to proclaim a civilization to be inherently conflictual,
violent, aggressive and intolerant, one has to undertake a thorough
and deep analysis of its essence or its ‘soul’. Huntington does not
undertake that, ‘thus changing his paradigm at the macro level into
a pipe-dream without foundation.’ Although in his definition of
civilization Huntington characterizes them as variable and evolving,
his presentation of the world cut into hostile civilizational blocs
implies rigid, unadaptive continuity. Anyone vaguely familiar with
the nature of civilizations knows this is not so.
Huntington, in making these arbitrary divisions, performs a sort of
‘intellectual surgery’ that is rooted in Western parochialism. The
reality is that existing ‘antipathies’ (real or imagined) are
neither insurmountable nor ingrained. This conclusion is reached
through the realization that civilizations after all do not operate
as monoliths, and there is not a neat divide between them. In fact,
there exist overlapping interests and areas of mutually beneficial
interaction between civilizations which Huntington has utterly
ignored. Huntington, according to Edward Said, uses both reduction
and exaggeration in coming up with his civilizational construct. He
confines cultures to ‘official representatives’ and ‘self-claimed
mouthpieces’ both in the West and in non Western civilizations. This
‘official culture’ consists of ‘priests, politicians and state
officials’ and is rooted in jingoistic patriotism, loyalty,
belonging and claims to speak for the whole. What is totally and
significantly absent from the Clash of Civilizations theory is a
reference to those ‘unofficial’ elements of culture that exist among
the people, their everyday lives and interactions within and with
other communities. Huntington refuses to accord them a voice as he
makes his rigid categorization. Edward Said writes,
“The challenge for Western policy-makers, says Huntington, is to
make sure that the West gets stronger and fends off all the others,
Islam in particular. More troubling is Huntington's assumption that
his perspective, which is to survey the entire world from a perch
outside all ordinary attachments and hidden loyalties, is the
correct one, as if everyone else were scurrying around looking for
the answers that he has already found. In fact, Huntington is an
ideologist, someone who wants to make "civilizations" and
"identities" into what they are not: shut-down, sealed-off entities
that have been purged of the myriad currents and countercurrents
that animate human history, and that over centuries have made it
possible for that history not only to contain wars of religion and
imperial conquest but also to be one of exchange,
cross-fertilization and sharing. This far less visible history is
ignored in the rush to highlight the ludicrously compressed and
constricted warfare that "the clash of civilizations" argues is the
reality.”
“Huntington’s invocation of cultural differences is as the
definitive feature of conflict, in the words of Dieter Senghaas, a
‘superficial analysis.’ This is because he does not recognize the
importance of socio economic problems at the base of ethno-religious
conflicts: “In most such cases, long-standing and frustrating social
and economic discrimination is involved.” This scenario is typical
of developing societies striving to industrialize and modernize. It
is the marginalization of minorities in modernizing societies that
leads them to counteract for the provision of their socio-economic
demands. Conflicts arising out of such situations are highly
virulent politically and they develop a dynamic of hate as
discrimination grows. Senghaas continues,
“The cultural factors in these conflicts are generally not very
significant at the beginning of the conflict, which is incited by
socio-economic factors. Only as a result of escalation can they
later become independent factors... Religion gains momentum and
becomes a rallying point, a resource in desperation, only when
promising life perspectives do not emerge otherwise. In the latter
case, a distribution conflict becomes a conflict of identity, but in
its very core it remains still a conflict of distribution.”
Western scholars hold an unshakable conviction of their uniqueness
which Senghaas terms ‘profile essentialism’, which is the belief
that ‘the West is assumed to have certain distinctive, inherent or
‘eternal’ features .’ In saying this, Huntington toes the line of
traditional Western scholarship.
“‘Civilization’ is one of those words bequeathed to us by the
Enlightenment, though the idea goes back much further, having roots
in any situation in which one society claimed superiority over
‘savages’ or ‘barbarians’. Huntington’s usage of the word
‘civilization’ means different things in different contexts. While
‘civilization’ is a neutral, scientific term indicating a certain
kind of society or stage of growth which a society has reached; it
is employed in the main by historians and historical sociologists as
a means of categorizing various forms of social organization. At the
other end of the spectrum civilization is a highly politicised or
ideological term conveying a partial and self-interested notion of
what constitutes civilization. As Huntington himself observed,
‘every civilization sees itself as the centre of the world and
writes its history as the central drama of human history.’ To the
extent that the West is dominant in today’s world, there is always
the suspicion among non-Westerners that the West equates
‘civilization’ with ‘western civilization’.”
Huntington asserts that such institutions as democracy, checks and
balances on power, and the rule of law_are all products, as well as
components, of Western civilization. It is true that these were
first articulated in Western Europe, but today many of these values
and institutions have taken root in a number of non-Western regions
of the world, while many countries included in the Western bloc have
not, or not until recently, incorporated these "fruits of Western
civilization" into their societies. These concepts should be seen
rather as the products of modern industrial civilization, not of
Western civilization. It might also be noted here that, if the
birthplace of concepts or ideas is the issue, it should be
remembered that Christianity was not born in the West, nor was
Classical Greek civilization of ‘Western’ origin. If, as Huntington
states, democracy, liberalism and secular pluralism are indeed
‘Western’ values, one fails to explain ‘the extensive history of
wars in Europe, or the colonial and imperial aggression and violence
of Europe in its relation to the rest of the world.’
In his book, Huntington writes of the division of the world along
tribal lines thus: “Civilizations are the ultimate human tribes, and
the clash of civilizations is tribal conflict on a global scale.
Relations between nations from different civilizations will be
almost never close and often hostile--trust and friendship will be
rare. Wars will tend to break out along civilizational "fault lines"
and will tend to expand along the same lines.” Robert Wright terms
this Huntington’s ‘Highbrow Tribalism’: “Huntington carries this
idea to new heights of theoretical elaboration. Surely tribalism has
never sounded so cerebral. But it's one thing to analyze a
phenomenon and another thing to encourage it. Huntington crosses the
line so easily as to make you wonder: How different, really, are the
lowbrow and highbrow expressions of the vogue for tribalism?”
Wright goes on to say that “Huntington claims not to be a cultural
supremacist: He is defending the integrity of all cultures, theirs
and ours. Indeed, he sounds almost like a lefty relativist when he
says we must accept "global multiculturality" and discard the
"linear" view of history, which sees Western values as the
inexorable fate of humankind. But of course, that's just another way
of saying that liberal democracy--a value Huntington surely ranks
above the alternatives morally--may never fit some peoples as
naturally as it fits us. In this light the meaning of his call to
"maintain the multicivilizational character of global politics"
seems clear: separate but equal. You let one alien nation move into
your trade bloc, and pretty soon the whole neighborhood goes
downhill. (And already, Huntington worries, the West is suffering
"decline" and "decay.") The Barbarians, in short, are at the
gate—and conspiring against us. The future, Huntington says, may
boil down to "the West against the rest." Raise the drawbridges!”
Quite simply, Huntington overestimates differences and
underestimates both commonalities and grounds for interaction, as
well as the tremendous power the West continues to exercise on non
Western societies that stir resistance and resentment. Cracks appear
in the theory also because while we see several non Western
communities rapidly progressing and developing stable political
systems, we also see numerous Western nations facing political
crises and challenges to democracy. Some say that the idea of ‘The
West’ has undergone a considerable transformation at the turn of the
21st century, and the actual clash will happen not between the West
and the rest, as Huntington predicted, but it will arise between
pro-Western conservatives and post-Western liberal multiculturalists
in the US-West World.
Huntington is also criticized for methodological flaws, and
overgeneralizations in his thesis. To prove his proposition,
Huntington ‘selects’ from history whatever fits his paradigm. For
example, Robert Marks points that Huntington chiefly uses secondary
sources in his book, and his research on Islam, China and Japan is
rather weak . He proposes that Huntington's speculation is
methodologically flawed because of his frequent overgeneralizations
in the examination of civilizations.
If Huntington’s civilizational paradigm is flawed, how really can
one understand civilizations? Such an understanding is possible only
if the history and evolution of civilizations is thoroughly,
incisively and insightfully understood. The six major civilizations,
as depicted by Huntington, are all classical and associated with a
major world religion. Japanese scholar Sato Seizaburo gives an
insightful overview of the origins and evolution of civilizations.
As he explains it, over the period from roughly the sixth century BC
to the sixth century AD emerged the great religions- in
chronological sequence these were - Hinduism, Confucianism,
Buddhism, Christianity and Islam. Each of these was differentiated
from the tribal religions of the past by a vastly superior appeal
and outreach and each served as a force to integrate various peoples
through common values and social orders. The classic empires arose
when these great religions were harnessed in the service of specific
political authorities of the times. By the same token, it was
through becoming entwined with secular political authority that the
capacity of the great religions to survive was greatly enhanced. The
pre-modern empires which were not closely combined with great
religions collapsed relatively easily, as was the case with the Yuan
dynasty of China, while major religions which lost the protection of
secular authorities also tended to wane, as did Zoroastrianism in
Persia. This is also why Buddhism, which has the longest history
among the great religions and at one time had an established
position in both India and China, lost ground in both countries,
only surviving until today in regions such as Japan, the Indochinese
peninsula, Tibet, Mongolia, Bhutan, Thailand, Myanmar, and Sri
Lanka, all in the peripheries of the Chinese and Indian
civilizations. Neo-Confucianism and Hinduism developed intimate ties
with the ruling authorities in China and India respectively, and in
the central parts of both these civilizational spheres Buddhism lost
the political protection it needed to survive. The exceptions among
the existing six major civilizational groups identified by
Huntington were Japan and Western Europe (after the collapse of the
Holy Roman Empire), for in neither was religion entwined with
political authority in the same way as in other pre-modern
civilizations. Outside the Eurasian continent there have been some
indications of cultural civilizations germinating in Latin America
and sub-Saharan Africa, but these incipient civilizations were too
isolated from the rest of the world to develop a sufficient degree
of universality.
One serious fault of Huntington's analysis is that he ignores the
possibility that while different civilizations that come into
contact may clash with each other, they can also learn from each
other, and may thereby revitalize themselves. Even in the case of
encounters between the classic civilizations of the pre-modern era,
there have been “divergent outcomes and different consequences for
history, depending on the levels of maturity of the cultures in
question as well as the intensity of the encounters.” Generally
speaking, conflicts based on cultural encounters can be grouped into
three categories, as Seizaburo explains:
“The first type of conflict is when an incipient culture comes in
contact with a mature classic civilization: the incipient culture
will either be fully absorbed or be wiped out by the overwhelming
superiority of the mature civilization. In either case, rapid
extinction is the rule. In contrast, the second type of conflict
covers encounters between a mature classic civilization and another
culture which has already reached a considerable level of
development of its own. While the former remain unchanged, the
latter are not infrequently stimulated by the former and launch a
spectacular process of change. Especially when such encounters are
not accompanied by military conquest, so the intensity of the
encounter remains relatively low, it is quite likely to spur the
development of new features in that civilization that are quite
different from what prevailed formerly. The rise of the Japanese
civilization, which is known for its deeply entrenched indigenous
culture, is a typical case in point. As an island nation, divided
from the Eurasian continent by the Japan Sea, Japan was able to
nurture and develop its own unique culture, absorbing elements of
Chinese civilization over an extended period of time. In the case of
China, neither the resurgence of Confucianism as orthodox learning,
nor the literary exaltations of the Tang and Sung cultural
renaissance would have been possible without the external influence
of the mature Indian and Hellenistic civilizations on the younger
Chinese civilization. In the West, the Renaissance, which was the
initial spark for the development of modern Western civilization,
would not have occurred had it not been for the West's contact with
Islamic civilization. The third category covers contact between
mature classic civilizations; ordinarily this has resulted in either
deadly confrontation or mutual repulsion. A typical example of the
former is the encounter between Islamic civilization as represented
by the Ottoman Empire and Western Christian civilization rallying
around Catholicism during the Crusades. Thus, it cannot be said that
encounters between different cultures inevitably result in a head-on
clash.”
In the West, by the end of the seventeenth century an entirely new
political system composed of sovereign states had emerged. As the
people's sense of identity with and loyalty to the sovereign state
increased, these evolved into nation-states. The emergence of
sovereign states and later nation-states prompted the global
expansion of the Western world. This expansion was greatly
stimulated by the Industrial Revolution, markedly extending man's
capacity to systematically control his environment. However,
industrialization also caused gaps in national strength, between
those countries which had succeeded in industrializing and those
others which had not. The gap gradually widened, and this brought in
the dilemmas of modernization which conflict in the modern age is
attributable to.
It is on this basis that Akihiko Tanaka presents a paradigm grouping
the countries of the world into three "spheres,": The first sphere,
or Neo-Medieval Sphere, consists of the countries in which
industrialization has already given rise to affluent societies. The
second sphere, or Modern Sphere, comprises those countries that have
embarked on the road to modernization but which still live in the
world of power politics of the nineteenth century (most of the
developing countries and the countries of the former Soviet sphere
of influence). The third sphere, or Chaotic Sphere, is made up of
all other countries, which have failed to become nation-states and
remain to a greater or lesser degree in a chaotic condition.
Sato Seizaburo believes Huntington’s theory to be based on a
misunderstanding:
“What Huntington calls the "clash of civilizations" is in fact
neither a clash between classic civilizations, nor between classic
civilization and modern civilization. The conflicts that exist have,
rather, arisen as a result of the diffusion worldwide of industrial
civilization. To use the divisions proposed by Akihiko Tanaka, it is
a confrontation between the less developed and the highly developed
for an egalitarian distribution of resources and finances. Such
radicalism often takes the form of religious fundamentalism of one
kind or another, and is therefore liable to be mistaken for
confrontation between classic and modern civilizations.”
Instead, Seizaburo gives a new interpretation to the ‘clash’:
“The most serious type of inter-civilizational clash manifests
itself today in the form of an identity crisis deep inside an
individual's own mind. Huntington claims that over the last century
ordinary people have shifted away from their identification with and
loyalty to the nation-state, first toward various ideologies, and
now toward particular civilizations, but the situation is not as
simple as it appears on the surface. Modern industrial civilization,
which is characterized by anthropocentricism, an overblown
expectation that mankind will apply its rational abilities in
dealing with the world, and a denial of spiritual matters, cannot
give positive meaning to life, nor can it fully quench man's
spiritual thirst.”
As far as this division based on levels of development is concerned,
the ideas of ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ development and its link with
conflict has been exemplified by Dieter Senghaas. Where development
is ‘negative’ in that it creates polarization of privilege, upsets
social balance and leads to unbearable injustice, disputes will
arise, gradually involving cultural sloganeering. Positive
development, in the long term, however, leads to pluralism. This
also intensifies the question of identity, which, in fact, is a
needful development requiring constant self-reflection.
What becomes clear in the process is that Huntington is on the
search to bring forth a paradigm to ‘control people’ by implying
that the reason why the world is going wrong is ethnic-religious
conflict based in cultural differences. Before accepting such a
thesis, important questions need to be asked about why, if the Clash
of Civilizations is a post Cold War phenomenon, huge ethnic
conflicts have continued to plague Africa, never claiming much
attention? The fact is that the factual basis for Huntington’s
theory is indeed very thin. How, for example, can the theory be
defended considering the fact that the West has financed and
supported, and fomented alliances with the worst tyrants in the non
Western world for its own economic interests? How can it be
explained that the West supports Saudi Arabia because of its vast
oil reserves and a dictatorship that ensures that the revenues keep
flowing into Western capitals? However, while presenting the
‘others’ as the ‘bad guys’, Huntington seems to imply that ‘we are
wonderful people’ and that everybody else is out there to destroy
‘us.’
Not surprisingly, Huntington concludes his essay with a survey about
what the West must do to maintain its civilization, be strong and
keep its opponents weak and fragmented. Huntington, therefore,
writes as a ‘crisis manager’ and not as a reconciler between
civilizations. The recommendations Huntington leaves us with are
extremely significant as a guideline for American foreign policy,
and become dangerous in this regard:
“Finally, one of the most interesting and remarkable parts of
Huntington’s clash thesis is his presentation of several policy
recommendations. This advice is primarily related to American
politics and US foreign policy. Of especially critical importance
are the recommendations which are as follow:
For Domestic Politics
• Tightening immigration and assimilating immigrants and minorities
in order to increase the civilizational coherence. Otherwise the US
would be a ‘cleft country’.
• Instead of multiculturalism, pursuing the policy of
Americanization.
For the US Foreign and Security Policy
• Maintaining Western technological and military superiority over
other civilizations.
• Enhancing Western unity by means of pursuing Atlanticist policy.
Hence, the US should empower trans-Atlantic cooperation
• Limiting the expansion of Islamic-Confucian states’ military and
economic power and exploiting differences between these states.
• Avoiding universalist aspiration since the West is unique not
universalist.
• Not to intervene in the affairs of other civilizations.
• In case of a World War III, which civilizational differences are
highly likely to cause, the United States should get Japan, Latin
American states and Russia in her side against potential
Islamic-Confucian cooperation.
These policy recommendations, which are tremendously provocative,
have generated a great amount of attention in both the United
States/West and the rest of the world. Henceforth, it has drawn
several criticisms.”
These policy recommendations arising from the Clash thesis are laden
with Western imperial hubris, and cannot be ignored given
Huntington’s background and role as an advisor to the Pentagon.
“Huntington’s policy recommendations are rooted in the basis of his
interpretation of post-Cold War global politics. Critics question
Huntington’s ‘enemy’ discourse, in which Islamic and Confucian
civilizations are perceived as a threat to the West. They contend
that Huntington looks for new enemies, which replace the adversary
of the Cold War, the Soviet Union. Others argue that Huntington’s
theory is an ideological and strategic theory that aims at
influencing the US foreign and defense policy. In this regard, Hans
Kung pinpoints the fact that Huntington was an advisor to Pentagon
in 1994 while his thesis has become so popular in all over the
world. Kung also suggests that Huntington’s scenario of World War
III that stems from clash of civilizations interestingly fits best
into military and representatives of arms industry.”
John Ikenberry maintains that Huntington’s vision originates from
bloc mentality and his approach is significantly dangerous for the
United States and international peace. He further states says that
Huntington's thesis is a civilizational equivalent of 'security
dilemma', in which misperceptions about the other eventually
increases the tension and then leads to conflict. He also suggests
‘if ideas by prominent thinkers have any impact on the real world'
the clash thesis is potentially dangerous.’
Clearly, Huntington invokes a ‘civilization consciousness’ which, in
the context of American foreign policy, generates what Richard
Crockatt has termed ‘American exceptionalism.’ This is the doctrine
that America is a unique, exclusive civilization in itself endowed
with the right to leadership.
“America is a special kind of nation, granted a special destiny
stemming from its uniquely fortunate situation, with claims to be a
civilization on its own terms, whether or not the word itself is
used. As George W. Bush put it in his 2004 State of the Union
address, ‘America is a nation with a mission, and that mission comes
from our most basic beliefs.’ Civilization-consciousness at one
level is thus America’s peculiar version of nationalism. It
expresses claims both to uniqueness and universalism of values, the
argument that America contains within itself all the world’s
possibilities because it contains elements of all the world’s
populations and because of the nature of its founding revolution
which was at once unique and exemplary. This posture is at once
inclusive and exclusive, outward-looking and deeply chauvinist,
internationalist and nationalist.”
The concept naturally has had profound repercussions on American
foreign policy which reflects American exceptionalism. It asserts
American identity and patriotism in American politics and policy.
Championing the civilized world, America has the right, perhaps to
intervene in other parts of the world in the interests of
civilization. This also explains the ambivalence of American public
opinion on the issue of international intervention, which is
considered as an incursion into sovereignty in other parts of the
world. It was the years after the end of the Cold War, however, that
made the continuity of America’s leadership fraught with the
challenges of a rising non West, complicating the prospects for
America’s global leadership which it had aspired to after defeating
Communism. The Clash of Civilizations theory, presented in 1993, was
well-timed to alert the U.S administration to the dangers of a
hostile, threatening non West which it must deal with in order to
fulfil its post-Cold War bid for global dominance.
Given the Huntingtonian cartography of a world divided into hostile
civilizational blocs, Edward Said leaves us with questions to ponder
over:
“Is it wise to produce a simplified map of the world and then hand
it over to law-makers and generals as a prescription for first
comprehending and then acting? Does this not prolong and deepen the
conflict? Do we want the Clash of Civilizations? Does it not
mobilize nationalist passions and nationalist murderousness? Should
we not ask why must one be doing this sort of thing_ to understand
or to act; to mitigate or to aggravate conflict?”
THE IMPACT OF THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS THEORY ON WESTERN POLICY
AND THE RHETORIC OF THE ‘WAR ON TERROR’
The significance of Huntington’s work is such that it would not be
an overstatement to say that it is absolutely vital to our
understanding of future conflicts and the nature of international
diplomacy. Erroneous or valid, Huntington’s assumptions have had
profound effects on international relations. James Michael Wilson
states,
“It is important to highlight the fundamentally erroneous
assumptions of modern day diplomacy made in his article immortalised
in that issue of the Foreign Affairs journal. Seemingly it is not
possible to fully argue for or against the thesis Huntington set
forth, hence the apparently perpetual debate. The dispute is a
deeply interesting point to discuss, and one feels it important to
stir up the hornets’ nest once again.”
Huntington’s single greatest contribution is perhaps how his work
has stirred up a rich debate and returned the relevance of religion
and culture to the domain of international politics_ a phenomenon
termed the ‘desecularization’ of I.R theory. Jonathan Fox observes
the revived interest in the religious aspects of international
affairs: “It is also becoming clear that it is not possible to
really understand world events without taking religion into account.
Some like Samuel Huntington have tried to explain the growing
evidence that religion remains relevant by arguing that ‘the late
twentieth century has seen a global resurgence of religion.’”
Huntington has, clearly, created a paradigm shift in I.R theory.
This paradigm shift received assertion and vindication_ or so it
seems_ through the events of September 11, 2001. As the Clash of
Civilizations thesis entered the discourse, the Islam-West debate
was widenend and intensified. It received greater attention in the
media, as Engin I Erdem writes, “Not unexpectedly, the Western media
looked at 'Islamic roots' of the terrible attacks. Thereafter,
'Islam', 'Islamism', 'political Islam' and 'Islamic fundamentalism'
became the most frequently used terms in the media.” The Palestine
issue, owing to its centrality to relations between Islam and the
West, attracted renewed interest and attention. Both in the West and
the Muslim world, the Clash of Civilizations theory has not only
been received with interest but also at times enthusiasm as
hostilities and prejudices have re emerged on both sides of the
divide.
When the Twin Towers fell on the morning of September 11 2001, the
much contended ‘Clash of Civilizations’ thesis seemed to have won
instantaneous acceptance. The falling towers seemed to be ‘clashing
civilizations materialized.’ Huntington was considered almost
prescient as his thesis fell right into place, vindicated.
Instantly, the jargon of ‘us and them’, wars between ‘our way of
life and theirs’ went mainstream.
The pervasive influence of the theory and its centrality to White
House discourse becomes evident through the fact that the rhetoric
in the wake of the War on Terror has become almost an ‘officialized’
refrain built on Huntingtonian political discourse. 9/11 was not
only extraordinarily theatrical terrorism but also the onset of an
unconventional ‘war’ against the same, fought with a sense of moral
righteousness and jingoistic fervour. The fatal day marked a
paradigm shift in international politics on the one hand and
domestic policy in the US on the other. Fear and insecurity were on
an all-time high following the attacks and rhetoric built around
Huntington’s prospect of ‘Clashing Civilizations’ fit exactly into
place.
“Since 9/11, political and cultural climate has become increasingly
febrile as governments and their agencies ramp up their rhetoric on
terrorism with devastating social and inter-subjective consequences.
Terrorism hence becomes a strategic device deployed by a range of
actors and entities to manipulate and undermine the ‘Western Way of
Life.’ The rhetoric of terrorism is designed to propagate the
politics of fear and anxiety. Our task is not to be cowed down by
terrorism’s relentless assault on our intellects and sensibilities.
”
Edward Said points out that the true value of the Clash of
Civilizations thesis in post September 11 U.S foreign policy is the
fact that it helps create a “wartime status in the minds of the
West. It argues in favour of the Pentagon officials, defence experts
and owners of the armed industry. Having ‘lost their jobs’ after the
Cold War, they needed something interesting to do.” Muhammad Asadi,
in the same vein, calls the Clash of Civilizations an ‘official
mythology prepping the public for funds and manpower.’ He writes,
“Legitimation is achieved by generating an ‘us versus them’ climate
of fear and paranoia, or by scaring the hell out of the American
people.” The American foreign policy elite_ both the military and
diplomacy_ have been described by C. Wright Mills when he wrote:
“What the main drift of the 20th century revealed is that the
military has become enlarged and decisive to the shape of the entire
economic structure; and moreover the economic and the military have
become structurally and deeply interrelated, as the economy has
become a seemingly permanent war economy.” Considering this role and
might of America’s military-industrial complex, it remains in need
of labels to deflect attention from the real issue of the pursuit of
power and wealth. The prospect of clashing civilizations provides
such a label.
The phenomenon of Terrorism that has assumed predominance in
international relations has largely not been understood, as is
obvious by the fact that no single universally applicable and
acceptable definition for it exists as of yet. Huntington’s thesis,
by presenting Terrorism as a manifestation of an inevitable Clash of
Civilizations, has helped deflect attention from the critically
important factors and causes that lie at its base.
Engin Erdem contends that the world after 9/11 does not validate the
Clash of Civilizations thesis. This is because there exists a broad
consensus across civilizations on the reprehensible nature of
terrorism. This said, it must also be brought out that rising ‘anti
Americanism’ which the U.S feels threatened by is not so much out of
hatred of ‘American values’ as it is due to American policies. Due
to interference and intervention of the U.S in the Middle East owing
to its centrality to American strategic interests, censure of
American policy emanating from the Muslim world is substantive.
Ironically, however, a number of European states, belonging to the
‘Western civilization’ have also strongly and bitterly criticized
American policies vis a vis Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East.
The ‘Clash of Civilizations’, therefore, does not figure here. What
exists, instead, as also pointed out by Shireen T Hunter, is a
‘clash of interests’. Huntington, in many conflicts he mentions in
his book, overlooks the clashing interests involved: “Moreover,
Huntington has a selective perception in choosing cases in order to
enforce his argument. For instance, he probably should know that the
Gulf War is dealt with ‘clash of interests’, yet he exemplifies the
War as a case for ‘clash of civilizations’.” What is seen as
civilizational bloc politics is in fact about national interests and
relative gains pursued by sovereign states trapped in a security
dilemma.
Rising Anti Americanism post 9/11 is not about civilizational values
but primarily about the U.S's Mideast policy. The United States is
criticized especially for its alleged un-balanced, pro-Israeli
policy in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and because of its
cooperation with authoritarian-repressive regimes of the Middle
East. According to Graham Fuller, “Under such conditions, it should
not be surprising that these frustrated populations perceive the
current war against terrorism as functionally a war against Islam.
Muslim countries are the chief target, they contend, Muslims
everywhere are singled out for censure and police attention, and U.S
power works its will across the region with little regard for deeper
Muslim concerns.”
The Palestine issue is a significant test-case of the malevolence of
the belief in inevitably embattled civilizations intertwined with
political policy. Edward Said explains that “the Zionist thinking
pattern is of ‘We are the Chosen Ones’ having the right to the
Promised Land. Everyone else is a second rate citizen. Palestinians
on the other hand understand that they have been asked to pay the
price for what was done to the Jews in Europe, although it was a
Christian-European catastrophe in which Muslims had no part. They
are the victims of victims. But should the Palestinians be thrown
out because the Jews were? Co existence is essential for Jews,
Muslims and Christians to live together in a polity requiring
creativity and invention.”
The hurdle in the way, however, is the notion that ‘somehow we
should protect ourselves against the infiltrations of the Other.
This is the most dangerous idea. Unless we find ways to do this
without shortcuts, there will be violence.’ In order to do this, the
Clash of Civilizations must be trespassed.
At the heart of the ‘Clash’ thesis is the idea that religion is
divisive and conflictual. It is ignored that religion has played an
equally important role in human patterns of reconciliation. Besides,
while there exist religious factors in certain kinds of violence ,
the same is also true of psychological factors, ‘such as deep
injuries of many ethnic groups that get translated into religious
dogma.” At a deeper and more insightful level, the ‘militant rage’
is, ‘in a more generalized sense, about the injustices inherent in a
Western dominated social order.’ The Clash of Civilizations theory
does not take this into account in any significant measure.
Another aspect rather eclipsed by the theory is the importance of
economic factors. Huntington seems to imply that economics have a
nominal role in conflict. On the other hand, a global economic
crisis is more pervasive and real than a clash of civilizations.
Global issues transcend national borders regardless of and without
discrimination of culture, religion or civilization. United Nations
Secretary General Ban Ki Moon said during the G20 meeting in London;
“There is a thin line between failing banks and failing countries.
We cross it at our peril.” The Secretary General goes on to
illuminate, “What began as a financial crisis has become a global
economic crisis. I fear worse to come: a full-blown political crisis
defined by growing social unrest, weakened governments and angry
publics who have lost all faith in their leaders and their own
future.” Again, civilizations do not figure here.
In an interesting parallel, Said Sherazi has compared Huntington’s
thesis to the ‘Bush Doctrine’ that enunciated the idea of
pre-emption as it validates the offensive posture of American
foreign policy, perceiving the United States to be pitted against
hostile and malevolent enemies. This is exactly the same image
conjured up by Huntington’s ‘Clash of Civilizations’ theory.
Interestingly, while former U.S president George W. Bush rejected
Huntington’s ‘Clash of Civilizations’ thesis in his National
Security Strategy of 2002, most of his rhetoric following that only
asserts it. Since September 11 George W. Bush has repeatedly
declared with reference to the ‘War on terror’ that ‘this is the
world’s fight. This is a civilization’s fight.’ ‘The civilized
world,’ he observed in a speech to the Congress on September 20
2001, ‘is rallying to America’s side.’ In his 2002 State of the
Union address he declared that ‘the civilized world faces
unprecedented dangers.’ In his introductory statement to the
National Security Strategy, issued in September 2002, Bush noted
that ‘the allies of terror are the enemies of civilization.’
President Bush stated in his 9/11 speech in Washington that “our way
of life and our very freedom” has come under attack. “Today, our
nation saw evil_ the worst of human nature_ and we responded with
the best of America. We stand together to win the War against
Terrorism. We go forward to defend freedom and all that is good and
just in our world.” On September 20, 2001, the President made
another address: “We have been called to defend freedom. On
September the eleventh, enemies of freedom committed an act of war
against our country… freedom itself was under attack.” He spoke of
the perpetrators as “the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of
the twentieth century” and reiterated that Terrorism was a “threat
to our way of life… we are in a fight for our principles… this is a
fight of all those who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance
and freedom.” When he announced the U.S. air strikes against
Afghanistan, President Bush said, "We're a peaceful nation. This is
the calling of the United States of America, the most free nation in
the world, a nation built on fundamental values, that rejects hate,
rejects violence, rejects murderers, rejects evil. And we will not
tire."
The language employed by the White House emphasized a clash of
States of America, presented as the champion of Western civilization
believing in democracy, freedom and peace seemed to be pitted
against an evil civilization determined to destroy all that. It
presented America’s strategic designs to fight the ‘war on terror’
as a mission embarked upon to save the Western Way of Life. What is
interesting to note is the constant recurrence of the refrain ‘evil’
as opposed to ‘good’ in the rhetoric emanating from the White House.
The media picked up the rhetoric readily. A classic example is
quoted by Arundhati Roy in ‘The Algebra of Infinite Justice,
September 2001, when an American newscaster said, “Good and evil
rarely manifest themselves as clearly as they did (on 9/11). People
who we don’t know massacred people who we do. And they did so with
contemptuous glee.” The Rhetoric of Terrorism institutionalizes the
Clash of Civilizations thesis and keep the public in a constant
state of fear and insecurity: “Any threat to its interests, whether
oil in the Middle East or its geostrategic interests elsewhere is
labelled as ‘terrorism’… terrorism is magnified and blown up to
insensate proportions… this focus obscures the enormous damage done
by the U.S militarily, environmentally, economically on a world
scale which far dwarfs anything terrorism might do.”
Not only that, the unquestioning acceptance, after 9/11, of the
‘Clash of civilizations’ thesis has revived the Crusade mentality of
jingoism and religiosity, prejudice, bias and discrimination on the
basis of civilizational differences. It has led to the stereotyping
of Islam and Muslims all over the globe as Muslims begin to be seen
increasingly as the ‘Other’ and the ‘Enemy.’ The rhetoric of
clashing civilizations has worked hard to deflect sympathy from
victims of the West’s wars since decades. It has divided the world
into Huntington’s ‘The West and the Rest’. Kyle Fedler says, “When
we demonize our enemies we see ourselves as totally righteous and
the abstract enemy as totally evil.”
The impact of Huntington’s thesis has been hard-hitting indeed,
especially on Muslim societies. It has increased polarization and
given justification to the West’s policies towards the Muslim world.
The effect of the theory in the world after 9/11 has been stark, and
has been captured by Said hence:
“The basic paradigm of West versus the rest... has persisted, often
insidiously and implicitly, in discussion since the terrible events
of September 11. The carefully planned and horrendous,
pathologically motivated suicide attack and mass slaughter by a
small group of deranged militants has been turned into proof of
Huntington's thesis. Instead of seeing it for what it is--the
capture of big ideas (I use the word loosely) by a tiny band of
crazed fanatics--international luminaries from former Pakistani
Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto to Italian Prime Minister Silvio
Berlusconi have pontificated about Islam's troubles, and in the
latter's case have used Huntington's ideas to rant on about the
West's superiority, how "we" have Mozart and Michelangelo and they
don't.”
Prejudice and misinformed bigotry against Islam in the West’s
secular polity have reached manic proportions. Fear and hatred of
the Muslim stereotype instilled by the media is palpable in Western
society. Michael Savage, a popular talk-show host in America
remarked on his show: “When I see a woman walking around with a
burqa, I see a Nazi. That’s what I see. How do you like that? A
hateful Nazi who would like to cut your throat and kill your
children. When a woman wears a burqa, she’s doing it to spit in your
face. She’s saying, ‘you white moron, you, I’m gonna kill you if I
can.”
All over Europe and America, Muslim populations face all kinds of
discrimination and even victimization, which has put Muslims
everywhere on the defensive, increasingly insecure in trying to
practise their faith. Western society grows more exclusivist and
supremacist by the day under the battlecry of the ‘Clash of
Civilizations’. Dennis Rahkonen writes in ‘Ugly American needs a
Makeover’, “Our insufferable arrogance and foreign policy excesses
are garnering us record levels of international
opprobrium…Washington tries to thrust its wayward will on
understandably resistant mankind.”
The occurrence of September 11 in the United States heightened what
Huntington calls ‘civilization consciousness’ in America. In the
American context, this means patriotism and pride in ‘American
values’. This reflects in, for example, the intense jingoism of the
‘Patriot Act’ and ambivalence of public opinion in the face of U.S
military interventionism. And it is precisely this which, on the
contrary, generates anti-American sentiment in the world of the
‘Rest’. This is elaborated by Richard Crockatt who wrote,
“The
international conditions of the post-cold war world in general and
the post-September 11 world in particular have inclined many
Americans to accentuate their ‘Americanness’, to enhance and even
exaggerate their sense of the nation as unique and exceptional. The
times have reinforced a reassertion of America’s core values and a
heightened sense of the nation’s distinctive destiny and global
role. The anti-Americanism which we see around the world is in part
a response to this heightened ‘civilization-consciousness’ and the
political and military actions which are prompted by it. Events
have, in short, served to reinforce the argument Huntington put
forward: that cultural conflict is a major and increasing source of
global conflict.”
Hence Huntington’s thesis stands vindicated. According to Graham
Fuller, Terrorism is a reactive phenomenon, and in turn leads to
fear and hostility in Western societies as well as pre-emptive
policies_ all together making a vicious cycle: “A vicious circle
exists: dissatisfaction leads to anti-regime action, which leads to
repression, which in turn leads to terrorism, U.S military
intervention, and finally further dissatisfaction. Samuel
Huntington’s theory of a “clash of civilizations” is seemingly
vindicated before the world’s eyes.”
It is clear therefore that the motivation behind the events of
September 11 was not so much of a ‘civilizational clash’ as it was
reaction to policy_ both in its financial and military
manifestations. America’s global hegemony, its intervention in Iraq,
Afghanistan and elsewhere, as well as the failure to resolve the
ongoing crisis in the Middle East exacerbates this reactive
sentiment. Cultural elements do not figure prominently, yet we find
that American rhetoric is loaded culturally, because the U.S has
chosen to identify the enemy in cultural-religious terms_ hence the
terms ‘Islamist terrorism’, ‘Islamo fascism’ which reek of religious
prejudice.
The use of rhetoric along these lines has helped the
‘ideologization’ of the War on Terror. This has eclipsed the true
ground realities and the actual root causes of the conflict, turning
attention away from them. Particularly regrettable is the inability
to understand terrorism as a desperate reaction by the socially
outcast, economically deprived and politically oppressed. Terrorism,
in fact, is a tactic used by disaffected individuals and
communities, not an ideology. The U.S government, however, has
preferred to use highly charged ideologically loaded rhetoric. The
New York Times reported on July 25, 2005, “The Bush administration
is… pushing the idea that the long-term struggle is as much an
ideological battle as a military mission.”
In his historic speech of 20th September 2001, President Bush
explained why the United States is hated: “They hate our freedoms_
our freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom to vote and
assemble and disagree with each other… the terrorists kill not
merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life… Freedom
and fear are at war. The advance of freedom depends on us.” This
rhetoric of ‘they hate us for our freedom’ became a theme in the
mainstream media. Paul Bremer, while on the Homeland Security Task
Force stated that,
“There’s no point in addressing the so-called root causes of Bin
Laden’s despair with us. We are the root causes of his terrorism. He
doesn’t like America. He doesn’t like our society. He doesn’t like
what we stand for. He doesn’t like our values. And short of the
United States going out of existence, there’s no way to deal with
the root cause of his terrorism,” clearly implying that our
“society”, our “values” and “what we stand for” are the cause of
other’s terrorism.
In fact, the motives are quite the opposite. The U.S is not hated
for what it is, but for what it has done. The smokescreen of
rhetoric, however, keeps a dispassionate analysis of the real
grievances of America’s ‘enemies’ at bay. Roy said in a speech
commending Noam Chomsky:
“If people in the United States want a real answer to the question
of ‘why do they hate us?’(as opposed to the ones in the Idiot's
Guide to Anti-Americanism, that is: "Because they're jealous of us,"
"Because they hate freedom," "Because they're losers," "Because
we're good and they're evil"), I'd say, read Chomsky on U.S.
military interventions in Indochina, Latin America, Iraq, Bosnia,
the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and the Middle East. If ordinary
people in the United States read Chomsky, perhaps their questions
would be framed a little differently. Perhaps it would be: "Why
don't they hate us more than they do?" or "Isn't it surprising that
September 11 didn't happen earlier?"
Michael Scheuer, the former CIA expert on Osama bin Laden calls the
robotic repetition of ‘they hate our freedom’ “errant and
potentially fatal nonsense.” He states: “There is no record of a
Muslim urging to wage jihad to destroy democracy or credit unions,
or universities. What the US does in formulating and implementing
policies affecting the Muslim world is infinitely more
inflammatory.”
There emerges, quite clearly, a close kinship between Western
rhetoric in the ‘War on Terror’ and the rhetoric from the current
crop of leadership of the anti-American front of militant fighters.
Osama bin Laden was asked in an interview with Al Jazeera:
Interviewer: What is your opinion about what is being said
concerning your analogies and the ‘Clash of Civilizations’? Your
constant use and repetition of the word ‘Crusade’ and ‘Crusader’
show that you uphold this saying, the ‘Clash of Civilizations’.
Osama bin Laden: I say there is no doubt about this. This is a very
clear matter...”
Ironically, the ‘Clash of Civilizations’ is a conviction strongly
adhered to both by the leadership in the West as well as Al Qaeda’s
militant leadership. The elites on both sides of the ongoing
conflict use the rhetoric of the Clash of Civilizations. The ‘clash’
talked about arises, therefore, at the macro level through grandiose
proclamations by policy making elites. In this sense, it can be said
that ‘War on Terror’ is more of a conflict between two powerful
elites who claim to represent their respective communities. Michael
Dunn maintains that Huntington’s categorization of civilizations has
influenced and shaped the rhetoric of the War on Terror:
“Huntington’s article is part of the theoretical underpinnings for
U.S policy makers who make distinctions between civilized nations
and rogue states.”
Michael Scheuer says that the Clash of Civilizations is ‘deeply
ingrained in the Western civilization.’ Statements celebrating the
superiority of Western civilization over all others and its
precarious state of vulnerability in the face of ‘threatening
barbarisms’ of the non West are not rare. Shortly after 9/11,
Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi notoriously referred to the
“superiority of our civilization,” over Islam.
This ignores two important points: one, that militancy in the Muslim
world is a reaction to the victimization of Muslims by Western
countries, which the West needs to face squarely: “One could take
issue with Huntington’s argument here – it seems grossly unfair to
suggest that regional conflicts such as those in Bosnia, Palestine
or Kashmir are all the fault of Muslims, where Muslims are sometimes
the minority and often face discrimination.” This makes the West
evade responsibility for its policies and actions vis a vis the
Muslim world. Second, it ignores the fact that militancy in the
Muslim world has clear political/strategic aims which have been put
in black and white by the Al Qaeda leadership_ namely, the
withdrawal of U.S troops from Muslim lands, the liberation of
Palestine and cessation of support for unpopular dictators in Muslim
countries who serve Western interests. The British journalist Jason
Burke adds that, “Bin Laden is an activist with a very clear sense
of what he wants and how he hopes to achieve it … his agenda is
basically a political one, though it is couched, of course, in
religious language and imagery.”
On the other side of the spectrum, the ‘Us vs. Them’ construct and
rhetoric increases cleavages, intensifies hostilities and increases
militant tendencies in the non Western world. Michael Dunn makes an
interesting observation that despite the inherent Orientalist
undertones, Huntington is a well-loved authority in militant
anti-American circles and groups throughout the non Western world.
The Clash of Civilizations has become a convenient discourse on both
sides of the divide as it serves to keep hostilities and hatreds
rife. Huntington’s book is a bestseller in the Middle East, “no
doubt one of the most widely available of the Western works
translated into Arabic.” The al-Qaeda network's militants “adore”
Huntington, “for he brings grist to their mill.” Huntington's work,
in fact, “is the top reference for all Islamist militants, thrilled
by the cultural rift that gives credence to their confrontationist
ideology.” So it is apparent that the rhetoric of a ‘clash of
civilizations’ can be found within the upper echelons of al-Qaeda,
too. It is the elites of the two powerful structures at war_ the
West’s military-industrial complex and Al Qaeda’s militancy_ that
stand to gain by presenting real-world socio-political dynamics as a
simplified clash between opposing cultures. Discussing the al-Qaeda
attack on the US in September 2001, and the US attack on Afghanistan
in October 2001, Noam Chomsky suggested that, “in both cases the
crimes are considered right and just, even noble, within the
doctrinal framework of the perpetrators; and in fact are justified
in almost the same words. It is the general public who are peering
into the abyss of the future, while those at the centre of power
relentlessly pursue their own agendas, understanding that they can
exploit the fears and anguish of the moment. They may even institute
measures that deepen the abyss and may march resolutely toward it,
if that advances the goals of power and privilege.”
It is, in the process, the ordinary non combatant who is victimized
as self-professed representatives and elites on both sides talk the
talk of a ‘Clash of Civilizations’: Benjamin Barber writes:
“Hyperbolic commentators such as Samuel Huntington have described
the current divide in the world as a global clash of civilizations,
and warn of a cultural war between democracy and Islam, perhaps even
between ‘the West and the rest’. But this is to ape the messianic
rhetoric of Osama bin Laden, who has called for precisely such a
war. The difference between bin Laden’s terrorists and the
poverty-stricken third-world constituents he tries to call to arms,
however, is the difference between radical fundamentalists and
ordinary men and women concerned to feed their children and nurture
their religious communities.”
‘NON WESTERN COUNTER POINT: PERSPECTIVES ON THE CLASH OF
CIVILIZATIONS THEORY FROM THE NON WEST’
Huntington’s theory has been heavily debated all over the world, and
a voluminous discourse on the theory exists, both from Western and
non Western sources. Interestingly, there are similar themes in the
criticism emerging both from Western and non Western sources_ an
aspect which in itself stands to refute the rigid, hard
differentiation that the ‘Clash of Civilizations’ wedge
compartmentalizes the planet into. However, owing to the inherent
Orientalism and West-centric strain in Huntington which makes the
Orient a passive subject laid out limply on the study-table, it is
important to assert the vociferous, vital rebuttal that comes from
the Orient. This can help ‘set the record straight’ by overturning
Huntington’s presumptions vis a vis non Western societies and
nations that are based primarily on secondary sources which reek
strongly of manifest Orientalism.
Besides, criticism from Western sources primarily focuses on
neoconservatist agendas to perpetuate hegemony and pursuit of
strategic interests underlying the Clash of Civilizations theory,
and how these justify post-Cold War American policies. It is the
voices emerging from the Orient, on the other hand, that target
Huntington’s inaccurate presumptions about non Western civilizations
with an authenticity possible only for a non Western representation
that is not coloured by the Orientalist world-view.
In this section, perspectives on the Clash of Civilizations theory
are presented from South and South East Asia, Central Asia, Africa,
the Middle East and the Far East. Excerpts from interviews conducted
by the writer with academicians, scholars, writers and opinion
leaders in Pakistan are also included as a primary source for a
comprehensive understanding.
It is, indubitably, Professor Edward Said who takes the lead in
spearheading critique of the Clash of Civilizations thesis from the
non Western world. His Palestinian roots and Western experience
alongwith erudite scholarship gives him a unique insight into the
subject, and an ideal position as an arbiter between cultures.
According to the late professor, Huntington’s theory is misleading
because it depends largely on ‘second and third hand opinions’ and
hence shows no real understanding of how cultures work and how they
can be grasped. His main sources, according to Said, are ‘Journalism
and Demagoguery’, and not serious scholarship, something that lends
to his work a ‘latent bellicosity.’
Said points out Huntington’s flawed understanding of culture.
Huntington and his ilk, according to him, have erred in that they
consider the ‘official’ culture patronised by governments and
represented by ‘priests, politicians and the State’ to be the sole
representatives of culture. This totally eclipses the ‘unofficial’
counter culture. Said states, “What is totally absent from the Clash
of civilizations theory is that in addition to the official culture,
there are dissenting, alternative, unorthodox, heterodox cultural
strands carrying anti authoritarian elements challenging official
culture. This is a counter-culture_ an ensemble of practices
influenced by ‘outsiders’_ the poor, immigrants, workers, rebels. No
culture is complete without this... To assume that there is complete
homogeneity between culture and identity is to miss what is vital
and fertile in culture.”
Based on this distinction between official and unofficial culture,
Said emphasizes the fact that cultures and civilizations are not
monoliths, and to view them as such is dangerous:
“No society or culture is ‘one thing.’ Sizeable minorities within
communities like North Africans in France and South Asians in
Britain dispute the idea that civilizations that prided themselves
in being homogeneous can continue to do so. There are no insulated
cultures and civilizations, and any attempt to portray them as
water-tight compartments alleged by Huntington and his ilk does
damage to their variety, diversity and complexity. The more
insistent we are about the separation of cultures, the more
inaccurate we are about ourselves.”
This is proven by diversity within both the Muslim world and the
West. In American society, for example, ‘slaves, workers, labourers
and poor immigrants play an important but yet unacknowledged role.’
In the Muslim world, ‘like any other world culture, there is an
astounding variety of currents and counter currents.’ In the United
States, the narratives of marginalized groups are ‘silenced by the
discourses from the investment bankers from New York; but the
dissenters have come to interrupt the unruffled serenity of the
official story. They ask questions, interject the experience of the
socially unfortunate, and make the claims of the ‘lesser people’_
Asians, Africans, women and other ethnic minorities.” Huntington, on
the other hand, chooses to talk of the Muslim world ‘as if one
billion people spread all across the world was really one person,
and the world was no more complicated than a simple declarative
phrase of the Clash of Civilizations.’
In his critique on the Clash of Civilizations, Said asserts that in
history, the height of European civilization through intellectual
achievement has always coincided with Europe’s most barbarous
practices. That is to say, Western civilization has never really
stayed the hand of barbaric brute-force, but has only given it a
guise. The age of Colonialism was just that, as European powers
competed for territory in Africa and Asia:
“In the battle for the empty spaces of the so-called dark Continent,
the colonial powers resorted not only to force, but a whole slew of
theories and rhetoric for justifying plunder_ the notion of the
‘civilizing mission’_ the idea that some races and cultures have a
higher aim than others. This gives the more powerful and the more
civilized the right to colonize others not through brute-force or
plunder (both of which are standard components of the exercise), but
in the name of a noble ideal.”
Throughout history, occupying, expansionist powers have always
invented theories to justify such practices. The U.S had the theory
of Manifest Destiny in the 1800s: “Such ‘redeeming ideas’ dignify
the practice of competition and clash whose real purpose is
self-aggrandizement, power and unrestrained self-pride.” In this
sense, therefore, the Clash of Civilizations theory did not really
present an entirely new paradigm. It was a traditional pattern, to
which Huntington supplied a new post-Cold War jargon.
Edward Said takes up the case for Islam and Muslims as being
insufficiently understood and ‘othered.’ He maintains that the
interaction and influence of Islam in the West is deep and
historical, and that Islam in Europe has not been at the fringes,
but at the very heart, central to the European ethos and identity.
Unfortunately, however, this has largely been unacknowledged: “Islam
is no longer on the fringes of the West but at its centre. But what
is so threatening about that presence? What the West left out, alas,
is that the West drew on the humanism, science, philosophy,
sociology and historiography of Islam... Islam is inside from the
start.” Arabs and Muslims_ Said documents_ travelled into the world
and made great discoveries long before the Europeans Marco Polo and
Columbus did. However, he points out, Huntington does not bother
with this fact, which is why his thesis is erroneous as the world
comes together again with the rise of pressing global issues of the
environment, poverty, economic crises, weapons proliferation and
human rights_ issues common to all, overruling civilizational
distinctions:
“But we are all swimming in those waters, Westerners and Muslims and
others alike. And since the waters are part of the ocean of history,
trying to plow or divide them with barriers is futile. These are
tense times, but it is better to think in terms of powerful and
powerless communities, of reason and ignorance, and universal
principles of justice and injustice, than to wander off in search of
vast abstractions that may give momentary satisfaction but little
self-knowledge or informed analysis. The Clash of Civilizations
thesis is a gimmick like ‘The War of the Worlds,’ better for
reinforcing defensive self-pride than for critical understanding of
the bewildering interdependence of our time.”
Ahmet Davutoglo, a professor of International Relations at Istanbul
University in his deeply perceptive paper on ‘The Clash of
Interests’ presents the Clash of Civilizations theory in line with
the Mackinderian theory of the Heartland as well as Nicholas
Spykman’s Rimland theory in order to highlight the geopolitical
interests underlying Western policies towards the Muslim world.
Mackinder’s theory of the control of the Central Asian landmass
(Heartland) and its resources has been a guideline for U.S foreign
policymakers since decades. Spykman’s Rimland theory argued that the
real power lay in the ‘Ínner Marginal Crescent’ of Asia, and guided
the U.S’s policies vis a vis the Soviet Union throughout the Cold
War. It is not coincidental, Davutoglu argues, that ‘a vast
percentage of the military and political crises in the post Cold War
era are in this zone where the passes from the Heartland to the
Rimland (i.e the Balkans, Caucasus and Central Asia) and the choke
points of the coasts of the Rimland (i.e the Persian Gulf and the
Red Sea) meet.’
The clash of interests of a geopolitical nature, Davutoglu believes,
defines conflict in this century:
“The chaotic atmosphere in this region was intensified after the
emergence of geopolitical vacuum following the Cold War. The
purported cultural and civilizational clashes are very minor reasons
for this chaotic atmosphere because this region is an integral part
of the same Islamic civilization, with the exceptions of Georgia and
Armenia... Cultural differences and historical prejudices which were
revived after the collapse of the ideological identities of the Cold
War era, however, are being used to justify this strategic
competition. The Muslim world, which became the intersectional arena
of the two phenomena of civilizational revival and strategic
competition, becomes the focal point in international relations.”
Hence the Clash of Civilizations argument, which vindicates this
renewed interest in and harnessing of defences against the Muslim
world. This is why Huntington, although he starts his article with
civilizational analyses, concludes very differently, with a set of
strategic goals for Western policy makers, and an enticement to
‘manipulate and sometimes provoke these clashes in order to secure
the strategic interests of the Western civilization.’
A Clash of Civilizations, Davutoglu maintains, is not attested by
the pattern of history. Conflict has always arisen over interests,
not civilizational differences, although such rhetoric has often
been used to disguise the real facts:
“The history of civilizations is not composed only of clashes. We
have many examples of dynamic and peaceful co operation and
interaction among civilizations. A pluralistic civilizational co
existence was achieved in Muslim Spain, Eastern Europe and India
under Islam throughout the centuries until Western strategic
interests started to function. A clash is not the only inter
civilizational mode of relationship. A clash starts when this
civilizational difference is utilized for strategic objectives.”
Said Shirazi, an Iranian immigrant settled in New York, is a bitter
critic of Huntington’s theory. In one of his critiques, Shirazi
refutes the theory by pointing out several instances of conflicts
between groups belonging to the same civilization. The Clash theory
fails to explain that. He opines that Huntington uses ‘Clash of
Civilizations’ as his trademark symbol, beneath which there is
ignorance of the intricacies of civilizations and culture. He
displays ignorance of both Islamic and Confucian civilizations:
“Coupled with the designation of various countries as belonging to
different civilizations is a total lack of interest in what
precisely those civilizations are. Sifting through his mountain of
statistics, Huntington shows little evidence of having opened
Confucius or the Koran. He merely repeats the key term
“civilizations” over and over until it empties of all meaning and
you half-expect to see a trademark symbol follow it.”
Shirazi acknowledges the fact that Huntington in his book does
criticize Western attempts to universalize their civilization, as
well as Western amnesia over the fact that the West has committed
organized violence against non Western communities in history.
However, Shirazi dismisses these merely as ‘gratuitious kicks’ at
the West because ‘speaking of the West forgetting facts of its own
history, Huntington seems to temporarily forget the Spanish
Inquisition, the forced conversions of Jews, Aztecs, Mayans,
American Indians and the continuing work of Christian and Mormon
missionaries everywhere, including China. Third, after all that he
audaciously tries to tie up his inanity in a neat bow by attributing
it to another civilization gap between East and West, thus proving
his thesis again in miniature.’
Shirazi, in his incisive analysis, digs out evidence of Huntington’s
enthusiasm for Eugenics rooted in Social Darwinist Racism when he
laments rising populations in non Western communities and among
immigrants in the West as opposed to the European races:
“Much of the book is spent in hand-wringing over reproductive rates
in the Muslim world. The specter of population growth is a
time-honored racist fear, because the concern is not simply that
there will be more people around but rather that the poor and
reckless countries will expand and spill out of control, while the
sexually inhibited and fiscally responsible West dies out.
Huntington panics over the relative growth of poorer
countries...Huntington suffers from an alarmist and cruel tendency
to interpret the improvement of living conditions elsewhere in the
world as a decline of the West, a loss of advantage. He sees reduced
military spending the same way, as part of our decline. Again his
analysis is relative and purely statistical, ignoring the question
of our actual defense needs and the effect of excessive militarism
on our national pursuit of happiness.”
He also points out Huntington’s skewed-up use of facts and
statistics to prove his point, though it leaves the reader only with
vague generalizations.
Shirazi laments what Huntington’s work strikingly makes clear as a
piece of Orientalist literature_ the West’s unwillingness to
acknowledge its debt to Islam, interaction with which helped Europe
emerge out of the Dark Ages. Besides, Huntington like other
Orientalists, believes freedom to be a ‘Western’ value, although,
considering the intricate patterns of interaction and exchange
between civilizations, these vaules are in essence universal, like
peace: ‘freedom is not merely a Western value, it is a universal
good, like peace and general prosperity.’ Owing to the loopholes
indicated, Shirazi vituperatively rejects the thesis:
“Huntington is not a historian or an economist: he traffics in
buzzwords and speaking engagements, the Washington equivalent of a
corporate motivational speaker, a Tony Robbins of political power.
He offers not a narrative or a specific analysis but a paradigm, a
deliberate oversimplification, an effort to find some facts to fit a
pattern rather than finding the patterns in a wider range of facts.
The problem is even with a decent paradigm, you wouldn’t know when
it applies and when it doesn’t. His work’s success is partly owed to
being a book of fancy-talk that has the virtue of telling the
hardheaded what they think they already know; it gains much by not
being read. His secret seems to be that he predicts things that are
already happening: warning about a conflict with China, for example,
which is hardly a replacement for the Cold War mentality; it is
nothing more than an extension of it. Essentially Huntington has
written another perennially disposable policy book about the coming
war with the East, a work of fortune-telling that will seem
prescient at times depending on how things turn out and is
pernicious to the extent that it can blind us or limit our
expectations.”
In Muhammad Asadi’s monumental critique on Huntington, he links the
War on Terror to the Clash of Civilizations theory which fuels the
West’s bid to perpetuate and globalize its hegemony both through
military and economic means. He maintains that the United States’
political-military and economic infrastructure is a war machinery
which needs the rhetoric of conflict and clash, fear and threat to
fuel it and keep it going. This, in fact, has been a traditional
pattern in the U.S since its abandonment of the isolationist policy:
‘The Clash of Civilizations too is a new Cold War re-branded for
maximum impact. It is a contrived clash that the United States has
pursued for several decades.’
War for the United States, Asadi contends, is a lucrative trade:
“When war becomes a rescuer of global capitalism from collapse, an
averter of economic crisis, a distraction from pressing domestic and
international issues, when war related expenses predominate the
national budgets, and military and related industries dominate the
corporate sector, when war becomes an easy escape from
responsibility for the ruling elite and a major stimulus for a
sagging economy, then the foundation is set for it to become
institutionalized in a social structure as the feeder of the status
quo, or in other words as an automatic default position in times of
crisis: peace in these circumstances is dealt a mortal blow. Post
World War 2 this has happened in the US, and the developing world
unfortunately, has been at the receiving end.”
The Clash of Civilizations theory and its accompanying rhetoric is
an attempt to justify the ‘perpetual war’ which is part of the
American political economy.
The ‘Us vs. Them’ rhetoric built around the Clash of Civilizations
reflected in statements like ‘You are with us or with the
terrorists.’ It builds up pressure on the Third World nations which,
serving international goals to fight proxy wars and safeguarding
Western strategic interests, cripple the democratic process at home
with increased predominance of the military. With the simultaneous
rhetoric of the Western mission to promote democracy, the inherent
hypocrisy is exposed. Asadi believes this institutionalized
hypocrisy needs to be rejected and resisted by truly empowering the
public to counterbalance the preponderant power of the powerful
Western military-industrial complex infringing into developing
countries:
“If people reject the definition of reality pushed upon them by the
U.S. elite, their authority will disappear. When their authority
disappears, their ability to conduct warfare, and assign labels that
distort and alter lives of people and nations will end and the
institutional structure of the developing world with an abnormally
developed military institution that interferes with the political,
designed to serve just such a contrived reality, will inevitably
atrophy. Thus, the real war that is to be fought, is between the
people and these elite, it is a war over definitions of reality.”
Engin I. Erdem, a Turkish academic, writes a comprehensive critique
on the Clash of Civilizations in which he brings out evidence of
reductionism in Huntington’s work through over-simplification and
selectivity that is unbefitting of a scholar. As a refutation of his
simplistic analysis, Erdem mentions the ongoing conflict between the
Kurds and the Turks, Iran’s ambivalence in the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict involving Shiite Azerbaijan as examples refuting
Huntington, and which he does not explain.
Erdem further unearths Orientalist strands of thought that alienate
Muslims as the ‘Other’. The implications of the Clash of
Civilizations thesis re-create a sort of ‘iron curtain’ of
misperceptions between Islam and the West which closes the avenue
for constructive dialogue and gives a pessimistic orientation to
International Relations discourse. Erdem brings out the fact that
militancy and terrorism against the West is a reaction to U.S
hegemonic policy and neo colonialism:
“Huntington ignores the role of Western colonialism and hegemony in
Muslim anxiety towards the West. However, as James Scott rightly
suggests that ‘wherever there is domination one also finds
resistance’. US action is very crucial for the future of Islam-the
West relations. As the world’s only superpower, the United States
should be cautious about Muslim concerns in related to both
Palestinian-Israeli conflict and democratization process in the
Middle East. The Muslim peoples have a conviction that the West/U.S
pursues double standards when democracy and human rights deal with
the Muslim World. The U.S should not enforce this belief in the
Muslim World by ignoring people’s democratic demands for the sake of
stability of its “strategic interests’.”
Manochehrr Dorraj brings Huntington under fire by highlighting how
his insistence on Islam being a violent creed and Muslims being
incapable of peaceful coexistence works to dehumanize Muslims and
step up fear of and hatred against Muslims in the West, keeping
Islamophobia at an all-time high. Fouad Ajami opines that while
Huntington’s theory overemphasizes cultural difference, it
underemphasizes and ignores the role and responsibility of U.S
foreign policy in instigating violent resistance and Anti-American
sentiment. Shireen T. Hunter views the Clash of Civilizations theory
as a cover for a Clash of Interests. She argues that problematic
relations between the West and the Muslim World are hardly stemmed
from civilizational differences, but rather from
structural-political and economic inequalities between the
economically privileged and the underprivileged.
Amartya Sen, a prolific Indian writer based in the United States
believes that Huntington errs when he accords an ‘extremist Islamist
identity’ to the Muslim civilization regardless of diversity,
variation and crosscurrents. She explains the rise of militancy in
the Muslim world as a consequence of both ‘Push’ and ‘Pull’ factors_
the ‘push’ of distancing from the West and the ‘pull’ of militant
religious revivalism which is fundamentally reactive. She holds that
extremism_ whether coming from Muslims or from the West_ is
essentially akin. Western parochialism ignores the vibrant history
of Islam and its myriad contributions to the sciences and arts. She
believes that the great Islamic heritage is fundamental to world
civilization and must not be ignored or pigeon-holed:
“the broad identities of Muslim people, linked with their commitment
to science, mathematics, architecture, engineering, culture,
language, and literature, allowed them to play such a leading role
in world civilization over more than a thousand years. That
capacious understanding has, of course, been challenged over the
centuries by those who have advocated undermining all those
achievements through the unique prioritization of a sectarian—and
often belligerent extremist identity. Sometimes the advocates of
narrowness have won for a while, but the broader understanding has
been a living presence in the flourishing of Islamic culture and in
the richness of Muslim contributions to global civilization. If the
broader understanding is under severe challenge today (as it
certainly is), that narrowing is being fed not only by the "pull" of
resurgent religious revivalism but also by the "push" of distancing
coming from the West.”
In fact, the nature of civilizations is such that they overlap,
interact, share, grow and evolve, while Huntington presents them to
be monolithic, fixed and impervious to influences.
Professor Sato Seizaburo of the Tokyo University terms Huntington’s
cartographic division of humanity into rigid civilizational
compartments as simplistic, inaccurate and dangerous:
“Huntington is not only inaccurate or wrong in some of the
historical facts he presents in his analysis, but his thesis has the
potential to be extremely dangerous if taken as a prescription for
making policy. If the leadership of a major power--particularly of
the United States, the only remaining superpower--were to accept
this world-view and systematically adopt and implement policies
based upon it, countries belonging to other civilizational spheres
would be forced to take counter-measures, and this would in turn
cause a series of interactions that would turn Huntington's
propositions into self-fulfilled reality.”
He proceeds to bring forth a brief history of the evolution of
civilization, highlighting not only essential traits but also
commonalities, influences, interaction and intercultural exchange.
Besides, Seizaburo puts forward an alternative paradigm based not on
cultural-religious differences but on levels of development, as
elaborated by Japanese scholar Akihiko Tanaka. He maintains that
socio economic factors and not civilizational difference lies at the
base of conflict.
Ali A. Mazrui, an eminent Nigerian scholar has studied the Clash of
Civilizations theory as a racist treatise that falls in line with
racist paradigms employed by the West with regard to the East,
particularly Africa: “The West has often been inspired by a racial
paradigm. The true picture is that the West has been a cultural
aggressor against other civilizations for hundreds of years. This
has been a norm rather than an exception.” Mazrui then enumerates
instances of the manifestation of this racist paradigm throughout
history: destruction of native American settlers by white settlers,
the trans-Atlantic slave trade involving Black Africans, imperialism
and colonization “forcefully modifying among subject peoples their
perceptions, standards of judgement, springs of motivation, bases of
stratification, modes of communication, their very identities as
well as their means of production and patterns of consumption.”
To refute Huntington, Mazrui shows that the longest and deadliest
wars in history have been not within a single civilization but
between members of different civilizations: “The First World War was
a civil war within the Western civilization, as was the Second World
War. The next intra-civilizational war was the Cold War which was ‘a
conflict between primarily white countries whose populations were
brought up primarily in the Euro-Christian tradition.”
Mazrui contends the claim that Terrorism is the greatest threat to
the Western civilization by explaining the relative nature of the
term which changes according to its context, as one man’s freedom
fighter is another man’s terrorist, depending on which lens one
views it from. Nor is violence the exclusive trademark of non
Western societies. Rather, conventional warfare that the West has
always indulged in, kills many more civilians than does terrorism.
Mazrui refutes the widespread supposition reinforced by Huntington
that Muslims are a threat to law-abiding non Muslims:
“In fact, if the matter is examined globally, for every non Muslim
killed by a Muslim, there may be dozens of Muslims killed by non
Muslims. Intracivilizationally, Muslims kill their own people in
internal conflicts much more than they kill Non Muslims. To keep
things in perspective, let us remember that when the West was
engaged in intra civilizational conflict in the 1930s and 2940s,
millions of Jews were killed... Intra civilizational conflicts in
the Muslim world pale by comparison.”
Abul Kalam is a professor of International Relations at the Dhaka
University, Bangladesh. He writes that “Behind the apparent concern
for world order and stability, Huntington actually conceives an
hegemonic system in which power, race and culture are destined to
play the major role. Such a systemic projection has been proven
faulty in the past and his current paradigm is not relevant to the
real world and may be equally damaging, as he has a misperceived
notion of the enemy, prescribes short-sighted and negative
approaches to confront it, and his analysis defies intellectual
vision and scientific reasoning.”
Huntington, considering his background and the prescriptions for
foreign policy he gives, encourages militarism in the West and
promotes the ‘Judaic-Christian crusade against what he perceives the
Islamic-Confucian connection against his projected Western
hegemony.’ To do so, he overstates and exaggerates differences to
suit his paradigm, ignoring the positive aspects of culture that
unify. He depicts the ‘distinctive quality of American culture in
its extraordinary emphasis placed upon information and the spread of
knowledge, exposure and publicity, cosmopolitanism and the power of
absorption or adaptation_ elements that make contemporary culture
different from any other culture.’
On the other hand, he perceives a sort of international conspiracy
against the West by the Islamic and Confucian states who are out to
‘acquire nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them.’ Yet he
shows a complete lack of appreciation of the eastern cultures he
feels the West is threatened by: “In the garb of paradigm-building,
he seeks to project Islam as a new global threat and places himself
in the category of those searching for ‘Muslim monsters.’ This could
influence the Western public mind and filter deep into policy
making, embroiling Washington into a New Cold War.” This fear of
Islam he generates overlooks the simple rule of thumb that ‘when
people are threatened as in dark times with political or even
physical extinction, being human souls, they cannot but be forced to
take position and commit to the defence of the helpless, to do
everything within your power to protect and fight against enemies.’
Huntington, Abul Kalam highlights, is self-contradictory when, on
the one hand he claims that he does not wish to advocate the
desirability of conflicts between civilizations but merely to
project what the future will be like , “but, one may ask, why does
he require the West to maintain the economic and military power
necessary to project its interests in relation to the non Western
civilizations? ”
Amit Gupta questions Huntington’s presentation of Islamic
civilization as monolithic by highlighting how Huntington ‘ignores
the important South Asian Indo Islamic subdivision that aggregates
nearly 300 million Muslims.’ His thesis is also refuted by the deep
alliances of co operation fomented between Arab-Muslim countries and
the United States. Gupta points out Huntington’s inaccuracy when he
calls India home to the ‘Hindu civilization’:
“Huntington makes the mistake of mixing religious bigotry with ideas
of nationhood and civilization. India does not have a Hindu
civilization but one created by Hindu, Muslim and British
influences. India is also home to a 100 million Muslims(sic) and to
consider such a group an insignificant minority and therefore not a
force in shaping the social and cultural fabric of India is
ridiculous... There can be no doubt that Indian culture, language
and social norms are heavily influenced by Islam.”
Huntington is also extremely inaccurate in his definition and
categorization of civilizations because he does not deal with the
fact that ‘civilizational affinity neither automatically excludes
minority groups nor does it automatically include one’s
co-religionists. In the predominantly Arab and Muslim Middle East,
Jews and Arabs were able to live together peacefully for centuries.
On the other hand, it was in Christian Europe that the Holocaust was
carried out.’
Gupta gives a new dimension to the Clash theory by adding that the
conflict is between heavily militarized nations:
“In the context of military build-ups leading to civilizational
clashes, it is necessary to also discuss the potential nuclear
threat posed by other civilizations to the West. Huntington argues
that even while the U.S and other former Soviet states are going
through a deep reduction in the nuclear arsenals other civilizations
are building up their nuclear capabilities. Despite such reductions,
however, the West’s nuclear capability continues to surpass the rest
of the world.”
He goes on to show that it is not Confucian China but actually the
Unites States that is the biggest weapons supplier to the entire
Arab world and Israel. The ulterior motive in creating fear of
violent non Wests threatening ‘our’ civilization becomes clear: “The
real threat is that the West will no longer be able to easily
intervene in regional conflicts in the Third World since the costs
of such an intervention would be raised by nuclear proliferation...
obviously, this is unacceptable to Western security planners. After
all, it is difficult to tell a nation ‘do not build nuclear weapons
because it makes it difficult to invade you.’”
Gupta accuses Huntington of disguised Racism underlying his thesis,
as the idea of ‘Us vs. Them’ is based on the idea of being ‘White
and Christian.’ Civilization-consciousness invoked by Huntington is
a ‘thinly veiled cover for racial bigotry.’ This racial
exclusiveness makes the achievement of an international society
nebulous.
Chandra Muzaffar, also from India, assents adding another dimension
to expose the superficiality of the Clash of Civilizations thesis.
He maintains that the underlying causes of conflict are unjust power
structures and Western hegemonic designs: “It is the United States
and Western dominance of the planet, and not a Clash of
Civilizations which is the root cause of global conflict.” By
talking of clashing civilizations, Huntington tries not only to
divert attention from the real issues, but also to “preserve,
protect and perpetuate Western dominance. By invoking the fear of a
Confucian-Islamic connection, he hopes to persuade the Western
public, buffeted by unemployment and recession, to acquiesce with
huge military budgets in the post Cold War era.” Huntington eclipses
the fact that the Muslim world’s rising militancy is not about a
Clash of Civilizations but resistance to Western domination and
control; that Islamic movements do not ‘hate the west for its
values’ but are opposed to “the annexation and occupation of their
lands, the usurpation of their rights over their own natural
resources by the powerful force of Western imperialism abetted by
local elites... Muslim resistance is portrayed as an ‘Islamic
threat.’ The violence that those who resist are sometimes forced to
resort to in order to protect their integrity is equated with the
violence of the aggressor who annexes land and massacres people. The
victim is put on the same plane as the victimizer... The implication
is that in all these instances it is Islam and the Muslims who are
responsible for the spilling of blood. And yet anyone who has even
elementary knowledge of the various conflict Huntington mentions
will readily admit that more often than not it is the Muslims who
have been bullied, bludgeoned and butchered.”
Huntington’s thesis ignores the creative and constructive
interaction and engagement between civilizations, which is a pattern
of history: “Nearly every civilization which Huntington mentions in
his analysis has engaged, most of the time, in peaceful intercourse_
rather than violent confrontation_ with other civilizations. Islam,
for instance, through centuries of exchange with the West, laid the
foundations for the growth of mathematics, science, medicine,
agriculture, industry, architecture in medieval Europe.” Besides,
even when differences exist, commonality of interests_ which is
growing with rapid globalization and emergence of common global
issues_ is quite capable of forging deeper ties and co operative
connections.
Chaibong Hahm from the Seoul University has given the ‘Confucian
Perspective’ on the Clash of Civilizations thesis. He opines that
Racism in the West is very much ‘alive and kicking’, and ‘culture’
as Huntington uses the term, is a modern-day reincarnation of race.
Although the term culture in itself is neutral, its usage in
Huntingtonian context is tainted with racism. He resents the
invocation to Confucianism in East Asia as an ethnocentric battlecry
and believes that such ‘politics of culture’ are in tune with
Huntington’s theory and must be rejected. However, he believes, an
insightful understanding of the essence of Confucian philosophy
which Huntington has not bothered with, helps communities searching
for identity replace ‘politics of culture’ with ‘politics of
practice’_ ‘meaning a politics in which one is judged based on what
one does rather than on what one is.’ This is because, as Hahm
interprets Confucius, “for Confucius, culture is not some vague
trait such as temperament or character of a people.” Instead,
culture is “the concrete set of institutions and practices of the
past which... is based upon tangible, empirical knowledge of a
society in which the ideal human institutions and practices are
actualized.”
As opposed to Huntington, Confucianism, like Islam, believes that
the only distinction between people is nobility of action_ which is
what makes one ‘cultured’ in Confucian terms, and ‘righteous’ in
Islamic lexicon. Hence assimilation into such a ‘culture’ of
personal morality, according to both Confucianism and Islam, is ‘a
matter of practice, not of racial character.’ According to Hahm,
this essence of Confucianism which it shares with Islam is the way
out of the cultural stereotyping and divisive ‘politics of identity’
of Huntington and the dissection of human society on cultural lines:
“The only way to overcome identity politics is by understanding that
people should not be judged on what they are, but on what they do.
Confucianism which distinguishes human beings only in terms of their
actual practices, morality as manifested through concrete forms of
behaviour or ‘propriety’ is one way in which one can avoid the
pitfalls of identity politics and avert the Clash of Civilizations.”
Dr. Mehdi Hassan, an erudite Pakistani scholar, prolific writer and
journalist presently the Dean of Media and Communications Studies at
a local university, in his interview with this writer, opined that
the phrase ‘Clash of Civilizations’ is used to convey different
meanings depending on who uses it, and in what context. While
rejecting the presence of a pervasive clash between civilizations on
a global scale, he stated that the ongoing ‘clash’ is between two
powerful, fanatical groups convinced of the correctness of their
ideologies and claiming to represent the ‘civilizations’ they belong
to_ precisely, the Taliban and the political-military leadership in
the West. Both of these opposing groups have an imperialistic
approach and overweening ambitions for global dominance. Religion,
although prominent in the rhetoric, is not the issue at all. It is
merely exploited. He drew attention to the roots of the current
conflict between Muslims and Western nations, that the United States
itself promoted Jihad in Afghanistan using religious slogans when
Soviet troops had occupied Afghanistan. After the Cold War ended,
American policy changed, but the emboldened mujahideen, having
defeated one superpower, wanted to fulfil the mission and establish
the Islamic Emirate. This emerged as the new threat and the USA
modified its policy to deal with the new enemy, using vindicating
theories like the Clash of Civilizations.
Dr. Razi Abidi, former Professor of English Literature and a
prominent academician in Lahore believes that ‘Clash of
Civilizations’ is a euphemism for a real clash of interests
motivated by economic advantages and political gains. It is little
more than a buzzword for the media to create intense fear of Islam
and Muslims in the West. Geopolitical and geoeconomic factors have
always impelled and defined the West’s foreign policy manoeuvres
throughout history, but the guise of religion is used. He believes
that Huntington’s theory is not affirmed by history, and is built on
an erroneous confusion between culture and religion. He
distinguishes cultural and religious identity and maintains that it
is always the cultural identity that supercedes the religious
identity. The easier association and commonalities between Hindu
Indians and Muslim Pakistanis than between Arab and Pakistani
Muslims proves this point. This also falsifies the notion Huntington
has about civilizations being monolithic units. Dr. Abidi believes
that Huntington’s theory has not really ‘influenced’ politics as it
is a continuity of the West’s hegemonic and racist policies that go
far back in time. The West has always raised the cry to ‘civilize
the savages’ either through colonialism or neo-colonialism or
globalization. This is a theme running throughout Western
literature, a particular example being of black Othello brutalizing
his white wife in Shakespeare’s famous tragedy. He resents the fact
that non Western communities have failed to effectively and
resoundingly put forth a counter narrative to encounter this
intellectual affront by the West. What we fail to realize when we
lend credence to the Clash of Civilizations theory is that human
differences need not lead inevitably to clash and conflict, and that
life is beautiful through human diversity. A clash can be prevented
through increased interaction and interdependence between
civilizations through co operation in areas like the environment,
human rights, trade etc. Dr. Abidi linked the Clash of Civilizations
theory to the West’s predominant Capitalist ideology, which cannot
survive but through imperialism as extra production for profit
maximization leads to the search for bigger markets. Theories like
Huntington’s are engineered in order to justify this inherent
expansionism and imperialism of the Capitalistic ideology. Lastly,
Dr. Abidi warned of the fact that the Clash of Civilizations could
become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Although it is fundamentally
flawed, believing in it and focussing on it can create such a
nightmarish clash in real. Therefore, the theory should be dismissed
as utterly false and ludicrous.
A Senior Research Scholar at the Punjab University, Lahore,
requesting anonymity explained that the ‘bloody borders’ ascribed to
Islam by Huntington was a sweeping statement showing ignorance of
the facts. The reason why Muslim nations have histories of violence
is not due to the nature of Islam or Muslims, but due to Western
policies in the Muslim world which have always victimized Muslims
calling it ‘collateral damage’ while relentlessly pursuing their
interests_ Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine are clear examples in
this regard. On the other hand, we find that Islam’s interaction
with the West has not only been generally peaceful but has also
enriched, diversified and developed Western civilization. The
history of Muslim Spain where multireligious communities lived in
peace and harmony under Muslim rule and which became a centre for
intellectual enlightenment the world over is a radiant example. The
West, therefore, is indebted to Islam, but ‘bites the hand that fed
it’ by seeking to weaken and divide the Muslim world.
The interviewee said that civilizations do not clash when they meet
and interact with each other. Instead, they evolve and develop
through influences from other civilizations. Each civilization has
its own ‘ethos’ but Huntington shows no understanding of that.
Commenting on the rising militancy in the Muslim world, the
interviewee questioned the right of Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership
to represent and speak for Islam, saying that their authority stems
from no credible source. The Muslim community must flush out such
elements and engage in self-criticism and self development in the
light of the pristine ideals of Islam. Muslims need to look beyond
‘State sponsored Islams’ and strive to bring about the true rule of
Islam to Muslim lands.
According to Dr. Javed Iqbal , “‘Clash of Civilizations’ is a big
distraction which is likely to consume Muslim energies in giving
explanation for something which has no bearing on reality. ‘Culture’
and ‘civilization’ are two different terms and have distinct
meanings in different contexts and ideological frames of reference.
Generally the meanings we accord to these terms come from Western
Secular-Materialist post-Enlightenment thought. Civilization
comprises of: i) Specific elements which are developed and based
upon a specific viewpoint in life. ii) General elements which are
dissociated from any particular ideology.
Islam expects Muslims to distinguish between the two elements and
draw from other civilizations only elements belonging to the second
category.”
“It is important to know that there have never been clashes between
civilizations in history in the sense that Huntington means it.
Clashes and conflicts have always occurred over material aspects,
and may or may not involve cultural and religious loyalties.”
“Islam is an Ideology and not a civilization. The Islamic ideology
creates a whole Way of Life encompassing all aspects of human nature
and life. It is fundamentally opposed to Secular Materialism and its
accompanying ideologies of Capitalism and Communism. In the years of
the Cold War, Communism and Capitalism were engaged in a clash but
Islam remained dormant, recovering from the throes of colonialism
and battling the vicious cycles of oppression and occupation. After
the collapse of Communism Islam remained the only vital opposing
ideology which could pose a serious threat to the secular West. One
of the objectives of American foreign policy today is to stop the
re-emergence of Islam as a political reality. Secular Materialism
and Islam are diametrically opposed to each other, and both aim to
expand their influence globally. Capitalism has become dominant
globally and Muslims all over the world are rediscovering their
Muslim identity. A clash may come about in the coming years.
Oppression in Muslim lands by the West only speeds up the process.”
Mr. Muhammad Rasheed Arshad lectures in Islamic Studies at the
Institute of Leadership and Management, Lahore, and is associated
with a vibrant, popular non violent movement for the re
establishment of Islam in Muslim society. In response to queries
regarding the Clash of Civilizations by the writer, he wrote that
“the Clash of Civilizations is inevitable at this point in time
because the ideological foundations of world civilizations have been
powerfully challenged. The seeds of such a clash lie in the
conflicting worldviews in different civilizations. The Muslim
ideology is based on the belief in the Hereafter which defines its
worldview. On the other hand non Muslim civilizations are singly
focussed on and concerned with the temporal and are strongly
self-assured in this orientation.”
“The advent of Islam created the ideological formulations for a new
civilization which are now assuming a tangible reality. The aim of
Islam at the very outset was to separate Truth from Falsehood in
order to navigate the direction for the process of the establishment
of the Truth. Huntington’s thesis has had overwhelming impact on
international politics and is assuming reality on a global scale. It
has also sharpened cleavages within Muslim societies between
Westernized elites and the masses for whom religion figures
prominently in life. Huntington’s thesis is a theorization of
Western agendas and is a commissioned work of immense significance.
In its post-Enlightenment bid to globalize Capitalism, Islam and
Socialism are the only two hurdles for the West.”
“In my opinion it is not realistic to evade and ‘prevent’ a Clash of
Civilizations, but to prepare for it through the establishment of
Islam in Muslim societies. Until we achieve that, we cannot claim to
represent any civilization at all. The need of the hour is to create
a new social order in which our civilizational ideals can have a
living presence, even if not fulfilled to perfection. Divided among
statist structures, we cannot confront the Western assault. The
Islamic ideology for us has become reduced to mere sentimental
rhetoric without strategy and productivity. However, the presence of
such sentiment keeps the civilization surviving. When the sense of
civilizational identity is exterminated, the civilization ceases to
exist altogether. A Clash of Civilizations is inevitable and visions
for a world beyond it are unnatural and unrealistic.”
Another respondent requesting anonymity_ a writer and scholar
interested in Islamic History and Politics opines, “Islamic
Civilization is directly opposed to Non Islamic Civilization,
because Islam elevates and centralizes the concept of ‘ibadah’
(submission and obedience to the Creator) as the essence of
civilization. ‘Ibadah’ has been defined as the very purpose of human
existence by Islam. Ethics, society and politics are all built
around this central idea. It is the values, ideals and principles
enunciated in the Quran and exemplified in the life of the Prophet (PBUH)
that form the civilization of Islam in both its personal and
communal aspects. The rise of Islam based on the fundamental
doctrine of ‘tauhid’(Unity of the Creator) drew a permanent wedge
between Islamic and all other civilizations which are based on
temporal considerations. In this sense, the world is divided into
two civilizations: The Islamic Civilization based on Revealed Law
and Non Islamic Civilization based on Secular / temporal man-made
Law. A clash between these is inevitable and has been a pattern of
history when prophetic missions clashed with civilizations that were
rooted in disbelief. While Islamic civilization is based on the
concept of ‘ibadah’, all other civilizations are based on
nationalism and secular materialism with attractive slogans of
individual liberty and human rights. Hence the clash.”
The views documented here provide a broad spectrum of understanding
the Clash of Civilizations. They emerge from diverse backgrounds and
contexts and present both common and at times conflicting
perceptions on the subject. The conclusions emerging from the debate
running through the quoted perspectives have both commonalities and
contradictions and hence present a broad-based discussion bristling
with diversity. These will be mutually reconciled and dealt with in
greater detail in the forthcoming sections.
THE FRATERNITY OF CIVILIZATIONS: PROSPECTS FOR DIALOGUE AND THE
SEARCH FOR THE ‘COMMON THREAD’
For a fuller and fairer understanding of Huntington, it must not be
ignored that after the intense criticism coming from both Western
and non Western analysts on his theory, his later work showed
important revisions he had made of his earlier contention.
Huntington eventually arrived at the conclusion that civilizational
conflict is possible but not inevitable_ clearly a departure from
his earlier contention of its inevitability. Importantly, he accepts
in his later work that the causes of militancy in the Muslim world
are other than the inherent nature of Islamic doctrine or beliefs:
“The clash of contemporary Muslim wars lies in politics not
religious doctrines”. Huntington goes on to actually recommend that
hostility towards the West could be reduced by changes in US policy
with regard to Israel. Moreover, he also eventually talked about the
probability of a world without a ‘clash of civilizations’. Clearly,
there is an implicit contradiction in this, of Huntington’s own
earlier thesis. Engin Erdem says that Huntington’s Newsweek article,
‘The Age of Muslim Wars’, deserves great attention as a
reconsideration of his own thesis after September 11. This revision
of the primary assumptions of the Clash thesis by Huntington himself
makes it amply clear that the Clash of Civilizations is an obsolete
paradigm that needs to be transcended. The influence it wields over
international affairs and policy making in the West, therefore,
needs to be curbed through listening to counter narratives and
implementing alternative paradigms. The thesis may stand refuted as
it very well is, but “refuting the Clash of Civilizations thesis
will not stop the Clash of Civilizations concepts being applied to
the War on Terror. The issue therefore is not how one can refute it,
but how one can challenge its application in the world today.”
In order to rise above and move beyond the Clash of Civilizations,
some fundamental questions need to be asked: “How does one coexist
with people whose race, religion and skin colour is different, but
who are part of the same species? How do we accept difference
without violence and hostility? How do we respect and understand
other civilizations without coercion?” The Clash of Civilizations
theory, as has been made clear by the preceding discussion, is built
on a myth of rigid civilizational blocs incapable of coexistence. On
the contrary, however, as Said Shirazi says,
“The idea that most conflicts are between different civilizations is
absurd and precisely the opposite of the truth; in fact, it is often
easy for people of different cultures to get along if they learn to
suspend their standards of judgment. It is only too easy to blow
holes in Huntington’s theory with endless examples.”
Secondly, the Clash of Civilizations obliterates the fact of a
‘great, silent dialogue between them. What culture today has not had
long, extraordinary, rich interaction with other cultures?’
To begin a discussion on realizing a true civilization that
transcends cleavages and schisms, one must first redefine the
concept of civilization_ that it has nothing to do with a particular
culture or race, but is about wholesome, collective,
intergenerational education of a community through universal values
that lie embedded in its historical-cultural-religious narratives.
It is not inherent in a culture that may be ‘superior’ to others,
but is acquired through self-education both at the personal and
communal level:
“Civilization is social order promoting cultural creation. Four
elements constitute it: economic provision, political organization,
moral traditions, and the pursuit of knowledge and the arts. It
begins where chaos and insecurity end. For when fear is overcome,
curiosity and constructiveness are free, and man passes by natural
impulse towards the understanding and embellishment of life...
Civilization is not something inborn or imperishable; it must be
acquired anew by every generation, and any serious interruption in
its financing or its transmission may bring it to an end. Man
differs from beast only by education, which may be defined as the
technique of transmitting civilization...”
The fallacies at the heart of the Clash of Civilizations thesis need
to be brought out, refuted and transcended, and possibilities of
seeking common grounds explored. Edward Said warns, “Unless we
emphasize and maximize the spirit of humanistic exchange, profound
existential commitment and labour on behalf of the ‘Other’, we are
going to end up superficially and stridently banging the drum for
the superiority of ‘our’ culture in opposition to all others.”
It is the notion of the superiority of the narratives of history and
culture that lead to conflict between communities. We forget,
however, that ‘our’ history and ‘our’ culture can also be
abstractions that can be created, distorted and manipulated. The
task of the interpretation of tradition and history, therefore,
becomes extremely important. Edward Said points out that the
simplistic yet dangerous notion of ‘my history is better than yours’
that is embedded in every tradition should be extricated from the
discourse: “The task is to understand one’s history in terms of
other people’s histories; to move beyond from a unitary identity to
an inclusive one without suppressing one’s own identity in the
process. One needs to understand oneself in relation to others”, and
to traverse the great distances which hulk between the Self and the
Other. `
With all the talk of the Clash of Civilizations, the need for an
alternative paradigm which does not use a fallacious abstraction as
a justification to extend power and influence is underscored. With
the current state of things as they stand, we may be moving towards
the clash that Huntington predicted, but the understanding that such
a clash is not inevitable, and that it does not have to be so, is
extremely important. Such a clash, if approaching, can and must be
prevented. There is need for understanding, co operation and
dialogue on both sides. Unity and tolerance for each other, respect
for cultures or religions that may be different is required.
Intellectuals, writers, scholars, academics, the media and political
leadership have a very important duty to highlight the grounds for
co operation between cultures and civilizations. Only with such an
approach can the self-fulfilling prophecy of Huntington’s Clash of
Civilizations be stopped from happening. In this regard, the effort
undertaken by the United Nations and modern world leaders for a
prospective ‘Alliance Between Civilizations’ needs to be
highlighted.
The Alliance of Civilizations initiative was proposed at the 59th
General Assembly of the United Nations in 2005. Initiated by the
President of the Spanish Republic, it was co-sponsored by the
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. The aim of the
initiative was to produce actionable, time-bound recommendations by
the end of 2006 for UN member states to adopt. To fulfil the
objective of the initiative, the then UN Secretary-General Kofi
Annan assembled a High-level Group consisting of 20 eminent persons
drawn from policy making, academia, civil society, religious
leadership, and the media. A full range of religions and
civilizations were represented. Among the members were former
Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, who proposed the Dialogue Among
Civilizations initiative, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, South African
Nobel laureate, Prof. Pan Guang, and Arthur Schneier. The HLG met 5
times between November 2005 and November 2006, and produced a report
prioritising relations between the Western and Muslim societies. The
report outlined recommendations and practical solutions on how the
Western and Islamic societies can solve misconceptions and
misunderstandings between them. According to the report, "politics,
not religion, is at the heart of growing Muslim-Western divide",
although a large emphasis is maintained on religion.
The final 2006 report of the High Level Group presented an analysis
of the global context and of the state of relations between Muslim
and Western societies. It concluded with a set of general policy
recommendations, indicating the HLG's belief that certain political
steps are pre-requisites to any substantial and lasting improvement
in relations between Muslim and Western societies. The report
reflected the HLG's view that tensions across cultures have spread
beyond the political level into the hearts and minds of populations.
To counter this trend, the Group presented recommendations in each
of four thematic areas: Education, Youth, Migration, and Media. The
Report concluded with outlined suggestions for the implementation of
its recommendations. A key issue regarded by the Alliance of
Civilizations is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the resolution of
which is considered paramount. The report also recommends combating
"exclusivism" and extremism. It defines exclusivism as, “those who
feed on exclusion and claim sole ownership of the truth". Thus,
religious groups who assert one specific truth to the exclusion of
other religious doctrines are considered undesirable by the Alliance
of Civilizations.
The United Nations’ former Secretary General Kofi Annan’s address to
the High Level Group in 2006 set the tenor and direction for
fomenting a dialogue between civilizations. In his speech the
Secretary General asserted that extremists both in the Muslim world
and the West should not be allowed to speak for the religions they
belong to. Hostile perceptions must be overcome to create better
understanding. Annan refuted Huntington’s thesis of civilizations
being monolithic, pointing out that they often overlap and have
several commonalities. For better communication and rapproachment
between civilizations, dialogue is necessary, but such a dialogue
must be broad-based: “Misperception feeds extremism, and extremism
appears to validate misperception. That is the vicious circle we
have to break. That, as I see it, is the purpose of the Alliance.We
have to ask ourselves an uncomfortable question: how effective are
our voices of moderation and reconciliation, when it comes to
countering the narratives of hatred and mistrust.”
As listed by the official website of the United Nations, the goals
of the Dialogue Between Civilizations Initiative are as follow:
• Open the door to a major process of reconciliation in one or more
parts of the world.
• Conceive diversity as a step towards peace where dialogue is a
means to move forward.
• Strengthen friendly relations among nations and remove threats to
peace.
• Foster international cooperation in resolving international issues
of an economic, social, cultural and humanitarian character and
promote universal respect for human rights and fundamental freedom
for all.
• Actively promote a culture of peace – respect for one another –
regardless of belief, culture, language, and not fearing or
repressing differences within or between societies but cherishing
them as a precious asset of humanity.
• Encourage openness to the positive side of globalization, which
brings together greater interrelatedness among people and increased
interaction among all cultures. Globalization is not only an
economic, financial and technological process; it constitutes a
human challenge that invites us to embrace the interdependence of
humankind and its rich cultural diversity.
• Further respect for the richness of all civilizations. Encourage
the seeking of common ground to address threats to global peace and
common challenges to human values and achievements.
• Transform theory into practice.
“Dialogue knows no geographic, cultural or social boundaries. Even
where conflict has created seemingly insurmountable walls between
people, the spirit and vision of human beings has in many instances
kept alive the flame of dialogue. Keeping that flame burning is one
of the goals of the United Nations Year of Dialogue.”
The role of the former Iranian President Khatami has been
instrumental in pioneering and helping materialize the dialogue
between civilizations. Khatami warns that the absence of dialogue is
dangerous and that an alternative paradigm to the Clash of
Civilizations must be presented. Such a dialogue must involve the
cross migration of ideas between Western and non Western cultures
for which it is very important that the West must lend a serious ear
to counter narratives from other cultures. This, according to
Khatami, is what can lead one to the attainment of a ‘world
culture’: “In order for the world culture to assume a unified
identity, in form and substance, and avoid the chaos caused by
various cultural discords, it must engage all the concerned parties
in dialogues aimed at exchanging knowledge, experience and raising
understanding in diverse areas of culture and civilization.”
For this purpose, one needs to understand not just other but also
one’s own culture for a well-rounded identity that is free of
insecurities and inferiorites that lead to fear, hatred, hostility
and overweening superiority: “One goal of dialogue among cultures
and civilizations is to recognize and to understand not only
cultures and civilizations of others, but those of one's own. We
could know ourselves by embarking on a journey for a more profound
appreciation of our true identity.” The creation of world culture
also involves a new understanding of history as the reservoir of
human experience full of lessons to learn from. History must be
rescued from bias and prejudice that generates narratives of
superiority and inferiority, creating ‘selves’ and ‘others.’
Paradigms for a world order ought not to be built on perpetuation of
power but on justice, human rights and egalitarianism:
“In order to call governments and peoples of the world to follow the
new paradigm of dialogue among cultures and civilizations, we ought
to learn from the world's past experience, especially from the
tremendous human catastrophes that took place in the 20th century.
We ought to critically examine the prevalent, and the glorification
of might. From an ethical perspective, the paradigm of dialogue
among civilizations requires that we abandon the will-to-power and
instead pursue compassion, understanding, and love. The ultimate
goal of dialogue among civilizations is not dialogue in and of
itself, but attaining empathy and compassion.”
According to Kaveh Afrasiabi, Khatami’s vision of a Dialogue between
Civilizations is an antidote to the Clash of Civilizations theory
and a counter-thesis which must be earnestly pursued as an
emancipatory project. At the heart of this ‘emancipatory project’,
Afraisbi continues, are the ethics of a global community through
interfaith dialogue.
This said, however, the imperatives of a successful and effective
framework for dialogue between civilizations must first be
established, otherwise all attempts to create an alliance between
civilizations through dialogue will be in vain and will be little
more than chasing an illusory ideal. Dieter Senghaas points out the
flawed strategy in contemporary attempts at bringing civilizational
representatives to the talking table. He contends that participants
in the dialogues sponsored by the West (as in fact all dialogues
have been, so far) are not true representatives of the sides to the
conflict. Particularly, Muslim representatives in the Dialogue are
almost invariably those of the West’s choosing_ believers in a
‘moderated’ Islam which does not enjoy any sizeable following in the
Muslim world: “On the whole, the Muslim participants are not
hard-boiled representatives of Orthodox Islam, be it the
traditionalist, Islamist, integrationalist or fundamentalist sense.
Believers or non believers, they are all the representatives of a
‘modern’ Islam (whatever that means).” On the other hand, Senghaas
notes, Western participants are rather naive and unaware of the
Muslim standpoint, with little to offer. Such a dialogue, as
Senghaas terms it, is ‘intellectually exhausted’, leading to a dead
end.
Another danger the West needs to guard against for a genuine
dialogue between civilizations is what Senghaas terms ‘profile
essentialism’, which is a belief in one’s own culture to be
essentially unique and exclusive. The West must pull itself out of
the Cold War mentality of creating and bloating up enemy images in
order to direct an ambitious foreign policy at an adversary_ real or
imagined. The West should reject attempts at demonization of the
enemy through a greater sense of responsibility, and recognize that
“Contrary to common assumptions, there is at present no potentially
highly explosive line of conflict between the Islamic world and the
West_ neither the beginnings of one, nor a developing one, nor even
a phalanx-like confrontation... what exist, in fact, are
modernization conflicts between the haves and the have nots, similar
to what took place within Europe from the sixteenth to the twentieth
centuries, albeit under different circumstances and with a different
cultural profile.”
The West needs to understand that its version of modernity cannot be
imposed on the Muslim world, and that just as it took thousands of
years for the West to evolve, it must allow other communities to
develop according to their own orientation and essential values.
Besides, the West must engage with authentic, popular
representatives of the Muslim world: “An intellectual debate should
rather be dealing intensively with the concepts of the democratic
representatives of the Islamic world... How do writers, scientists,
politicians, the representatives of social and especially religious
groups envisage a desirable political constitution for their
increasingly complex societies?”
On both sides of the current divide, voices of conciliation,
tolerance and peacemaking need to be empowered over and above the
call to isolate and avenge. President Obama said while addressing
the Muslim world: “So long as our relationship is defined by our
differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace,
and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help
all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of
suspicion and discord must end.”
Religion has a very significant role in the process of
reconciliation. A number of religious personalities, scholars,
organisations and institutions are engaged in the task of
reconciliation, peacemaking and rapproachment through religion.
However, their contribution and potential has largely been
unacknowledged and unrecognized: “We do not know most of these
people, nor do we understand their impact, because we in the West
have had a tendency in the modern period to view religion as only
the problem in the human relations of civil society, never part of
solutions.” However, it is also true on the other hand that religion
is also misused for generating violence, hatred and conflict.
Religion, therefore, has the potential both for peacemaking and
conflict resolution as well as violence and conflict. It is the
peacemaking and conciliatory role of religion that ought to be
highlighted and emphatically asserted, through interpretation of the
sources of religion:
“At the end of the day, it will come down to interpretation,
selection and the hermeneutic direction of religious communities.
That, in turn, is deeply tied up with questions of the economic and
psychological health of their members, the wounds of history, and
the decisions of key leaders to direct their communities’ deepest
beliefs, practices and doctrines towards healing and reconciliation
or towards hatred and violence.”
It is religion that can help create a global civil society based on
the sanctity of human rights and the necessity of conflict
resolution. However, to truly accord that position and role to
religion, it must be learnt that “Religion does not kill. Religion
does not rape women, destroy buildings and institutions. Only
individuals do those things.” This is particularly true for the West
to understand in its perception of Islam which has, unfortunately,
plummeted sharply after September 11, 2001, bringing the prospects
for a clash closer. Instead of viewing violence as an intrinsically
‘Muslim’ phenomenon, the West needs to take responsibility for ill
advised policy victimizing Muslims that has raised apprehension and
mistrust in the Muslim world. It needs to understand the victim’s
experience and world view. It is heartening to note that this theme
figured prominently in President Obama’s speech to the Muslim world
in June 2009. The President remarked:
“We meet at a time of tension between the United States and Muslims
around the world - tension rooted in historical forces that go
beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and
the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but
also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been
fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many
Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too
often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations.
Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization
led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of
Islam.
Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but
potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11th, 2001 and
the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence
against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as
inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but
also to human rights. This has bred more fear and mistrust.”
It is also significant that the U.S President referred consistently
to the Muslim religion in his speech, both to soothe aggravated
sentiment in the Muslim world and reassure that America was not at
war with Islam, and also to make his Western audience realize that
Islam and Muslims have to be understood better and dissociated from
violence and terrorism in the Western perception. However, this
effort and understanding needs to filter through into American
policy, and President Obama is well placed to initiate a change.
In his speech at the ‘Dialogue Between Civilizations’, President
Khatami spoke of Islam’s role in peacemaking and arbitrating between
civilizations:
“I should also highlight one of the most important sources that
enriched Iranian thought and culture, namely Islam. Islamic
spirituality is a global one. Islam has, all through the history,
extended a global invitation to all the humanity. The Islamic
emphasis on humane quality, and its disdain for such elements as
birth and blood, had conquered the hearts of those yearning for
justice and freedom...”
Several writers and intellectuals throughout history have recognized
the extraordinary potential of Islam as an arbiter between
civilizations through its emphasis on equality, justice and
brotherhood that goes beyond all distinctions of nationalism, race
or creed. According to H.A. R Gibb:
• "But Islam has a still further service to render to the cause of
humanity. It stands after all nearer to the real East than Europe
does, and it possesses a magnificent tradition of inter-racial
understanding and cooperation. No other society has such a record of
success uniting in an equality of status, of opportunity, and of
endeavours so many and so various races of mankind . . . Islam has
still the power to reconcile apparently irreconcilable elements of
race and tradition. If ever the opposition of the great societies of
East and West is to be replaced by cooperation, the mediation of
Islam is an indispensable condition. In its hands lies very largely
the solution of the problem with which Europe is faced in its
relation with East. If they unite, the hope of a peaceful issue is
immeasurably enhanced.”
• "The extinction of race consciousness as between Muslims is one of
the outstanding achievements
of Islam and in the contemporary world there is, as it happens, a
crying need for the propagation of this Islamic virtue..."
• "The universal brotherhood of Islam, regardless of race, politics,
colour or country, has been brought home to me most keenly many
times in my life -- and this is another feature which drew me
towards the Faith.”
Ample evidence for the aforesaid is present in the sources of Islam.
According to Islamic tradition, the Prophet (PBUH), in his Last
Sermon made to the entirety of his living followers at that point in
time said:
" O people! Verily, Allah says, ‘O mankind! We have indeed created
you from a single male and a female, and then We made you into
nations and tribes so that you may recognize (or identify) each
other. Indeed, the most honoured among you in the Sight of Allah is
the one who is the most righteous.’(In the light of this verse), no
Arab has a superiority over a non Arab, nor does a non Arab have any
superiority over an Arab; and a black does not have any superiority
over a white, nor is a white superior to a black, except by one
thing: righteousness. Remember, all human beings are the sons and
daughters of Adam (A.S), and Adam (A.S) was made from dust. Be
warned! All (false) claims of blood and of wealth are under my
feet.”
The huge stumbling block towards an understanding of Islam as an
egalitarian, emancipatory, humanistic tradition in the West is, as
mentioned earlier, the Orientalist lens with which the West has
always viewed Islam. Due to a very flippant, superficial
understanding of it, violence in the Muslim world is seen as
intrinsic to Islam and Muslim society, while the role and
responsibility of the West in provoking militancy through its
policies is overlooked. This mindset becomes obvious in the
Palestine-Israel conflict, a weeping sore in the modern world which
embodies in itself all the prejudice, misunderstanding, hate,
mistrust with which human beings have viewed others on the basis of
difference in religion or race or country. Karen Armstrong states,
“It is not sufficient for us in the West to support or condemn
parties to the conflict. We are also involved and must make our own
attitudes our prime responsibility...
Crusading is not a lost medieval tradition: it has survived in
different forms in both Europe and the United States and we must
accept that our own views are blinkered and prejudiced. The prophets
of Israel_ the parents of all three faiths, proclaimed the necessity
of creating a new heart and a new soul, which was far more important
than external conformity. So too today. External political solutions
are not enough. All three of the participants in the struggle must
create a different attitude, a new heart and spirit. In the
Christian West we must try to make the painful migration from our
old aggressions and embark on the long journey towards a new
understanding and a new self.”
In the conclusion to his great book ‘Orientalism’, Edward Said
states that the single greatest failure of Western thinking is its
Orientalist frame of thought, and that it must be surpassed. If this
is done, the realization of the vision for a global human community
would become possible:
“Without the ‘Orient’ there would be scholars, critics,
intellectuals, human beings for whom the racial, ethnic and national
distinctions were less important than the common enterprise of
promoting human community... I consider Orientalism’s failure to
have been a human as much as an intellectual one; for in having to
take up a position of irreducible opposition to a region of the
world it considered alien to its own, Orientalism failed to identify
with human experience, failed also to see it as human experience.
The worldwide hegemony of Orientalism and all that it stands for can
now be challenged, if we can benefit properly from the general
twentieth century rise to political and historical awareness of so
many of the earth’s peoples... This work is a warning that systems
of thought like Orientalism, discourses of power, ideological
fictions_ mind-forged manacles_ are all too easily made, applied and
guarded.”
Overcoming this stumbling block requires acknowledgement of the
West’s debt to the Orient and to Islam, and reaching the realization
that Islam in fact is central and not extrinsic to Western
civilization. In his speech to the Muslim world, U.S President
Barack Obama mentioned Europe and America's debt to Islam:
“As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam.
It was Islam -- at places like Al-Azhar University -- that carried
the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for
Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim
communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic
compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing;
our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed.
And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and
deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.
I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America’s story.
The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the
Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote,
"The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the
laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." And since our founding,
American Muslims have enriched the United States.”
The West needs to reinterpret history and do away with the narrow,
parochial understanding of an exclusively ‘Western’ individualism
that its history celebrates. It needs to acknowledge the debt, for
only through that will mankind be able to seek the common thread
buried beneath the morass of clash and conflict. Will Durant writes,
“Europe and America are the spoiled child and grandchild of the
Orient, and have never quite realized the wealth of their
inheritance. But if, now, we sum up those arts and ways which the
West has derived from the East, or which, to our current and limited
knowledge, appear first in the Orient, we shall find ourselves
drawing up unconsciously an outline of civilization...”
Effort needs to be made to create the realization in the Western
mind, of the historically attested fact that “The Western heritage
is not simply Judaeo-Christian, but rather Judaeo-Christian-Islamic.
Islam belongs to the same Abrahamic family of religions as Judaism
and Christianity, and modern Western civilization has inherited a
large part of Islamic intellectual and scientific culture.”
According to Amartya Sen, “Instead of celebrating the fact that
ideas on mathematics, science, literature, architecture, or
tolerance have repeatedly crossed the boundaries of distinct
"civilizations," the claim is made that Western science is
quintessentially "Western" and that "a sense of individualism and a
tradition of individual rights and liberties" rampant in the West
well before modernity is "unique among civilized societies." That
parochial Western perspective has such following today that
counterexamples are treated as "merely anecdotal," combined with a
determined unwillingness to take any serious note of the plentiful
examples of tolerance or of science and mathematics that can be
found in the history of Arab people. This disposes, of course, of
Arabic math and science, including, just to give one example,
algorithmic reasoning, derived from the name of the 9th-century Arab
mathematician Al-Khwarizmi. But this intellectual surgery is rounded
up with the dismissal of the history of tolerance in the Muslim
world, which is linked closely to Muslim intellectualism, not to
mention its practical political impact on a Saladin.”
Sen goes on to hold Western parochialism responsible for the rise of
narrow militant extremism in the Muslim world. On the other hand,
the Orient must also understand that the response to Orientalism is
not ‘Occidentalism’, because both are exclusivist, supercilious,
divisive and false as they cut up humanity into ‘Orientals’ and
‘Occidentals’, according rigid, unvarying traits viewed from a
tainted lens. The exercise of viewing human beings as ‘Others’ due
to difference in skin, blood, geography or culture is, as Said
termed it, ‘a degradation of knowledge.’
The task ahead is to overcome the stumbling blocs in order to
acquire a balanced world view, through which to strive to reach a
middle ground on the basis of a system of sharing, exchange and
intercultural communication between civilizations on an egalitarian
basis. At the heart of the process is the understanding that we may
be different, but we also share our humanity, and must make the most
of this shared, indissoluble bond:
“The different civilizations in the world are not inherently prone
to conflict… Civilizations embody many similar values and ideals. At
the philosophical level at least, world religions share certain
common perspectives on the relationship between the human being and
the environment, the integrity of the community, the importance of
the family, the significance of morality and indeed the meaning and
purpose of life.”
This does not mean, however, that personal identities ought to be
diluted, distinctions erased, barriers eliminated. That is neither
practical nor advisable. What is needed is a delicate balance
between civilizational (inclusive of religion, culture and all other
identities short of singular humanness) and human identity. Quoting
Amartya Sen again, “While the demands of a global identity cannot
submerge all the other identities we have—national, religious,
political, social, or linguistic—those broader demands are not
dismissable, either. Indeed, in a world of real human beings, not
miniaturized by singular loyalty to one unique identity, there is
room for—and need for—both.” Edward Said reiterated the same concept
when asked what commonalities can unite the human race:
“There are already commonalities that need to be recognized. (To
promote this), education must be de-nationalized and history taught
as both the exchange as well as the conflict between civilizations.
That is the first step. Inhuman practices like apartheid and ethnic
cleansing should be vehemently rejected as wasteful, hopeless
schemes to isolate and antagonize… I do not, however, suggest that
differences should be eliminated. Things cannot be flattened out and
homogenized. However, the other extreme is that everything is
clashing. I think that is a prescription for war, and Huntington
says that. The other alternative is coexistence with the
preservation of difference. We have to respect and live with our
differences. I do not suggest a unified, simplified, reduced
culture, but the preservation of differences while learning to
coexist in peace.”
This too is the vision of Islam, which has largely gone unrecognized
both in the Western world as well as among Muslim communities. The
potential and promise of Islam in fostering the ‘fraternity’ or the
‘alliance’ between civilizations is immense, as in fact, Islam has
achieved this tremendous undertaking at several high points in its
history. Spain under Muslims is an ideal worth emulating. Malaysian
Professor Osman Bakar states, “Was not the civilization built in
Spain by Muslims, Jews and Christians under the banner of Islam a
universal civilization? A number of Jewish and Christian thinkers
think so. Max Dimont makes the remarkable claim that the Jewish
Golden Age in the medieval period coincided with the Golden Age of
Islam, thus implying that what Muslims, Jews and Christians had
built together within the Islamic civilization was truly universal
in nature. There exists among some European scholars nostalgia for
the Andalusian culture and civilization. They wish to return to the
universality of Andalusia because post modern Western civilization
has become particularistic and exclusionary.”
President Khatami in his speech on the Dialogue between
Civilizations referred to this insight Islam provides into forging a
‘fraternity of civilizations’:
“Dialogue is not easy. But believing in dialogue paves the way for
vivacious hope: the hope to live in a world permeated by virtue,
humility and love, and not merely by the rein of economic indices
and destructive weapons. Should the spirit of dialogue prevail,
humanity, culture and civilization should prevail. We should all
have faith in this triumph, and we should all hope that all citizens
of the world would be prepared to listen to the divine call: “So
Announce the Good News To My Servants -- Those who listen to the
Word, And follow The best (meaning) in it.” (The Holy Quran). Let us
hope that enmity and oppression should end, and that the clamor of
love for truth, justice and human dignity should prevail. No
ineffable clamor reverberates in the grand heavenly dome more
sweetly than the sound of love.”
It is here that a reconciliation between the two apparently
contradictory discourses over the Clash of Civilizations existing in
the Muslim world needs to be attempted. The conclusion emerging from
Muslim viewpoints quoted in the preceding section of this paper was
that there are two distinct and rather discordant opinions over the
Clash thesis among Muslims. The first is a rejection of the Clash
thesis as a fabricated myth for perpetuating Western dominance and
justifying its aggrandizing policies. The other opinion is of a
Clash being inevitable due to the essentially and radically
different ethos of Islam which makes it impossible to be reconciled
with the West. With this realization, the Muslims need to prepare
for the approaching Clash. The second view is understandable as a
natural response to the West’s confrontationist posture vis a vis
the Muslim world throughout most of history. It is also true in its
recognition of the fundamental differences between Islam and the
West.
This said, however, it must also be added that despite the essential
differences between Islamic and Non Islamic tradition, historically
Islam has never had ‘adjustment problems’ or difficulties in
creating pluralistic societies where peoples of diverse religious
traditions have lived together and prospered. In fact, as mentioned
earlier, Islam has a rich pluralistic tradition unsurpassed by any
other civilization. It has a vast experience of interaction and
alliance with non Muslim communities. Instances of conflict between
Muslims and Non Muslims have never been, it must be observed, over
‘civilizational differences’, but for the exigencies of security and
self-defence. The idea, therefore, that Islam’s differences in
worldview with non Islamic civilizations makes a clash inevitable is
falsified by the history of Islam itself. Rather, the history of
Islam presents a veritable model of a ‘world civilization’, as
stated by Professor Bakar:
“Huntington’s view that the idea of the possibility of a universal
civilization is exclusively Western conception is not supported by
history. It is a historical fact that Islam built the first
comprehensive universal civilization in history even if we go by all
the modern criteria of universality. Islam was the first
civilization to have geographical and cultural borders with all the
major contemporary civilizations of the world, and it was Islam that
had the most extensive encounter with other civilizations.”
Where, then, does a Clash emerge? It emerges as a corollary to
interventionist, adventurist, exploitative policies vis a vis the
Muslim world by the ascendant West steeped in the compulsions of its
espoused Materialism and Capitalism. The Clash is not inevitable,
but it can become possible if such policies are mindlessly and
relentlessly pursued by the West and if the Muslim world does not
engage in self criticism and undertake a rediscovery of the pristine
message of Islam. As long as the West keeps pursuing its ill advised
course, insecurity and militant responses will proliferate among the
Muslims. In such a case, Muslim opinion leaders will be compelled to
rally together their people for strengthening, fortifying and
gearing up for the West’s assault on what is most precious to them.
Given the insensitivity and superficial grasp of the West over the
prevalent mood in the Muslim world, the vicious cycle of hostility
will go on. This is exactly the self-destructive path towards the
Clash of Civilizations which in the long run will be in the interest
of none. The way out, however, is given by the Islamic doctrine
itself. It gives a prescription for the reconciliation between these
two apparently contradictory views.
Islam recognizes the importance of the maintenance of distinctions,
but it also teaches tolerance for and a sacred inviolability of
natural and cultural differences, while rejecting any discrimination
on the basis of such differences. Islam, while asserting its
universal human ethos and appeal, does not warrant alienating or
‘othering’ communities. Rather, it instills in its followers
tolerance and respect for different communities with an
understanding that diversity in human communities is a Sign of God.
It does not harmonize or impose, as is asserted by historical
precedent, but integrates and includes through the creation of a
participatory culture based on Justice and Equality for all who
share in a single humanity.
Professor Osman Bakar believes that the Quranic title of Muslims as
a ‘middle nation’ suggests the potential of Islam to act as the
arbiter between civilizations through its universal essence:
“In Islam, civilization-consciousness is deeply rooted in such
Quranic ideas as a common human ancestry, a common humanity, the
universal goodness of man, the universality of divine favours to the
human race, ethnic and cultural pluralism, intercultural pluralism
and cooperation in the pursuit for the common good of all mankind,
global social justice, a common responsibility for the protection of
our planet earth, and all this is rooted in the idea of ‘middleness.’”
This holistic concept of the ‘middleness’ of Islam as an arbiter
between civilizations and an antidote to an inevitable Clash of
Civilizations is elaborated upon by the professor hence:
“We may illustrate the idea of middleness as applied to human
culture and civilization with the following examples: In politics,
Islam strikes a middle position between the kind of theocracy hated
and feared in the West and secular modern democracy founded on
Western individualism. Islam’s ‘democracy’ harmonizes the rights of
God with the rights and duties of man. In economics, Islam strikes a
balance between secular capitalism of the ‘free West’ and the
atheistic socialism of the Communist bloc. In theology, Islam seeks
to synthesize the idea of a transcendent God and that of an immanent
God. In philosophy Islam has struck a balance between extreme forms
of rationalism and empiricism… we can go on enumerating these
‘middle positions’ of Islam in many other areas of human life and
thought.”
Elsewhere, this writer has stated:
“However, despite the loyalty to one’s own that Islam demands, it
keeps a perfect balance of fidelity to what belongs to you and
tolerance and respect for what belongs to another. Therefore,
nowhere does Islamic culture reek of or border on fanatical
patriotism and narrow nationalism that breeds arrogance, prejudice
and intolerance of the other. This is the character of the ‘Middle
Nation’, the ‘ummatun wusata’, firmly poised in its cultural values
of moderation. In Islam, it is not nationalism, territory or racial
roots that are important or create identity_ it is Idea (the central
belief in One God and complete submission to Him) and the Way of
Life that springs from it that stands taller. This Idea and its
accompanying Way of Life is about human values, and is ethically
all-inclusive. Therefore, believer in it rise above the trappings of
skin, caste and nationality that subsume true human identity. The
idea of Hijrah (migration undertaken by the Prophet PBUH and his
followers) too was new to the Arabs. It was inconceivable to be
leaving home, family, tribe and kin for an Ideal. But that was just
the Islamic Revolution: living for an Ideal. Culture becomes
oppressive and imbalanced when power-dynamics enter the scene and
begin to dictate the norms. Islam replaces the power-dynamic with
its powerful moral imperative of Justice, giving culture a whole new
orientation. The Justice and morality of this Ideal Culture is the
antidote to contemporary paradigms of clashing civilizations. It is
in reverting to this culture of justice and human values that the
solution lies. This is the panacea for our world.”
CONCLUSION
In the light of the research conducted by this writer, the following
can be listed as the observations and findings:
To begin with, the Clash of Civilizations theory is thoroughly
rooted in its context, which makes it a post Cold War paradigm
giving a theoretical vindication to the course of Western policy
after the Cold War. The fact that Huntington was a deeply
influential personage in the highest policymaking echelons in the
United States both lends importance to his thesis as an instrument
of American foreign policy as well as removes the credibility
required for genuine scholarship from his work.
Huntington’s thought falls exactly in line with the repertoire of
Orientalist discourse in the West. Huntington shares Orientalism’s
fundamental perceptions of what it characterizes as the ‘Other’, who
traditionally happens to be the Arab-Muslim subject of analysis.
Huntington draws heavily on the hardcore Orientalism of Bernard
Lewis who is a demonstrably significant influence on his work.
Huntington’s presumptions about non Western civilizations in large
part do not bother with reliance on empirical evidence.
The real agenda underlying the thesis presented by Huntington is
perpetuating Western dominance and hegemony on the globe after the
Communist enemy had been vanquished, through the creation of a new
enemy and the generation of fear and hatred against it in the public
mind. Broadening contemporary conflict into a civilizational clash
magnifies it, garners public support, intensifies security
compulsions and eclipses the real agendas of national interest and
monopolization of resources. The ‘Clash’ theory fits well with the
growing needs of America’s powerful and expansive
military-industrial complex defined by its Capitalist ideology.
The conflict with the Muslim world is about geopolitical interests
of the West. The rhetoric of the Clash of Civilizations works well
to disguise these and divert criticism of Western policy.
‘The West and the Rest’ is an artificial construct based on
historical fallacies and sharpening cleavages in order to maintain a
‘wartime status’ in the Western mind, perceiving the Western
civilization to be embattled in eternal combat with a hostile,
threatening non West.
September 11 apparently vindicated Huntington’s thesis. Western
policy and rhetoric after September 11 seems to have officially
adopted the Clash of Civilizations theory. Despite refutations of
it, policy and rhetoric from the White House has only served to lend
credence to it. Islamophobia in the West has gone mainstream and has
generated an understandably militant response from the Muslim world.
This creates a vicious cycle of hostility breeding conflict. If the
trend continues, the Clash of Civilizations might become a
self-fulfilling prophecy.
The voluminous criticism of Huntington’s theory of the Clash of
Civilizations from analysts in the nonWestern world establishes its
flawed basis on the following counts:
First, Huntington’s thesis is both simplistic and reductionist. It
ignores the complex dynamics of conflict and neatly reduces them to
his formula of cultural-civilizational clash. The fact of the matter
is that conflicts take place more out of economic and
socio-political injustice, deprivation, disempowerment, geopolitics
etc, gradually stirring up and involving ethno-religious sentiment,
and, at a later stage, what Huntington calls ‘civilization
consciousness.’
Second, Huntington has been heavily criticized for being selective
in his approach towards history. He conveniently overlooks instances
which indicate trends of co operation, plurality and co existence
among civilizations_ a pattern that is clearly distinguishable
perhaps since times immemorial.
Third, Huntington views civilizations as monolithic, overlooking
intra-civilizational diversity and even conflict. Huntington simply
refrains from discussing cases of conflict within civilizations
because they hurt his thesis.
Fourth, the Clash of Civilizations thesis is a classic example of ‘othering’:
polarizing the parties involved into ‘us and them’. This is clear
when he chooses to divide civilizations into two hostile,
adversarial camps_ “The West and the Rest.
Fifth, Huntington’s position as advisor to the Pentagon leaves his
work with little credibility and authentic scholarship.
Sixth, it has been pointed out that Huntington has utterly failed to
highlight the numerous commonalities and essential similarities
between civilizations. He refuses to see the interacting,
overlapping, mingling and merging of cultures and the evolution of
civilizations through the debt they owe to each other. This is
particularly so for his superficial analysis of the relationship
between Islam and the West. Naturally, therefore, his analysis
presents a hostile, horrifying picture of clashing civilizations.
As far as criticism from the Muslim world is concerned, there are
two contrasting views: The first is a rejection of the Clash thesis
as a fabricated myth for perpetuating Western dominance and
justifying its aggrandizing policies. The other opinion is of a
Clash being inevitable due to the essentially and radically
different ethos of Islam which makes it impossible to reconcile with
the West. With this realization, the Muslims need to prepare for the
approaching Clash. On a deeper study, however, these apparently
conflicting viewpoints can be reconciled. While Islam is a distinct
ideology fundamentally different from other cultures, particularly
Western Secular-Materialism, coexistence and pluralism are a
hallmark asserted by its history. Although the ‘Clash’ thesis is not
inevitable, not working to throw it overboard can bring it closer.
Such a Clash of Civilizations must actively be prevented through the
following measures:
History and culture must be reinterpreted in an inclusive,
integrative way and the pattern of sharing, interaction and
intercultural communication must be brought out. Education must be
‘denationalized’ and cleansed of embedded prejudice and bias.
The West needs to realize its responsibility in eliminating the root
causes of militancy in the Muslim world. The Middle East conflict
must be seriously addressed and resolved according to the
aspirations of the Palestinian people. Confidence building through
conflict resolution and cessation/reversal of interventionist policy
needs to be undertaken.
The role of religion as a means for peacemaking and reconciliation
must be acknowledged and religion be allowed to begin a ‘healing
process’. Interpretation of religious texts by credible authorities
to emphasize on peace and tolerance must be disseminated and
strongly encouraged .
The West must stop viewing the non West from the Orientalist lens
and acknowledge its ‘debt to the Orient and to Islam’ to overcome
its self-absorbed profile-essentialism.
A process of dialogue between civilizations must be seriously
undertaken on a global scale, with representatives from all
communities and civilizations having a say to represent their points
of view and develop understanding of each other. The United Nations’
initiative in this regard sponsored by the Turkish premier should be
supported and expanded. Former Iranian president Khatami’s
brainchild of interfaith and intercommunal dialogue must be
developed and actively pursued.
For such a dialogue to be successful, it must involve credible,
popular and genuine representatives from all civilizations. A
dialogue must be carried out on the basis of absolute parity of all
parties. The Western participants must realize that imposition of
their version of modernity or choosing ‘moderate’ representatives
from the Muslim world who are merely on the fringes of mainstream
Muslim society will not work.
The Muslim world must seriously undertake a tremendous,
multi-pronged effort to inform the Western mind about quintessential
Islam and its contemporary interpretation. Muslims, both at the
individual, communal and state level, should give intellectual,
moral and material support to all those who are engaged in such an
effort. Muslims must devise strategies and channelize resources to
establish links with and gain access into the academia, the mass
media and policy makers in the West. Muslim minorities in the West
have a huge responsibility for the establishment of cultural bridges
and the promotion of the Muslim image in the West.
Lastly, the extraordinary potential of Islam as an arbiter between
civilizations owing to its universalism and egalitarianism which is
also attested by its history must be recognized and put to use both
by the Muslim world (in order to reject exclusivist interpretation)
and the West (to be able to initiate genuinely constructive,
conciliatory engagement with the Muslim world).
REFERENCES
Anonymous (2004). “Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War
on Terror”, New York: Brassey’s, Inc, 2004.
Armstrong K (2001). The Crusades and their Impact on Todays World,
New York, Random House, Inc, 2001
Bakar O (1997). Islam and Civilizational Dialogue, Kuala Lumpur,
University of Malaya, 1997.
Barber BR (2003). Jihad vs. McWorld, London: Corgi, 2003.
Burke JA (2004). The True Story Of Radical Islam, London: Penguin,
2004.
Chomsky N (2004). Hegemony Or Survival: American’s Quest For Global
Dominance London: Penguin, 2004.
Durant W (1954). Our Oriental Heritage, Story of Civilization, Part
1, New York, Simon and Schuster, 1954.
Fox, Jonathan, The Multiple Impacts of Religion on International
Relations: Perceptions and Reality, London, Routledge, 2006.
Fry G, O’Hagan J (2001). Contending Images of World Politics, New
York, St.Martin’s Press, 2001.
Fukuyama F (1992). The End of History and the Last Man, New York,
The Free Press,
1992.
Gauhar A (1978). The Challenge of Islam, London, Islamic Council of
Europe, 1978.
Gibb HAR (1932). Whither Islam, London, 1932.
Gupta A (1997). “Are We Really Seeing the Clash of Civilizations?”,
Asian Responses to the Clash of Civilizations, Salim Rashid (Ed.),
Dhaka, Oxford University Press, 1997.
Hahm C (1997). “The Clash of Civilizations Revisited: A Confucian
Perspective”, The Clash of Civilizations: Asian Responses (Ed.)
Salim Rashid, Dhaka: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Hammond PY (1997). “Culture Versus Civilization”, Asian Responses to
the Clash of Civilizations, Salim Rashid (Ed.), Dhaka, Oxford
University Press, 1997.
Huntington SP (1996). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of
World Order, New York, Touchstone, 1996.
Hussain IS (2005). Islam and the Clash of Civilizations, Lahore,
Meraj Printers, 2005.
Ikenberry JG (1999). “Just Like the Rest”, New York, 1999.
Jameelah M (1981). Islam and Orientalism, Lahore, M. Yusuf Khan and
Sons, 1981.
Kalam A (1997). “Huntington and the World Order: Systemic Concern or
Hegemonic Vision?”, The Clash of Civilizations: Asian Responses
(Ed.) Salim Rashid, Dhaka: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Mazrui AA (1956). “Racial Conflict or Clash of Civilizations?” The
Clash of Civilizations: Asian Responses (Ed.) Salim Rashid D (1956).
Oxford University Press, 1997.Mills, C. Wright, The Power Elite, New
York, 1956.
Mouffe C (1993). The Return of the Political, London, 1993.
Muzaffar C (1997). “The Clash of Civilizations or Camouflaging
Dominance?” South Asian Responses to the Clash of Civilizations
Theory, Salim Rashid (Ed.), Dhaka, Oxford Publishers, 1997.
Poole E, Richardson JE (2006). Muslims and the News Media, London,
I.B Tauris, 2006.
Said E (1978). Orientalism, Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd., London,
Great Britain, 1978.
Said EW (2004). From Oslo To Iraq And The Roadmap, London:
Bloomsbury, 2004.
Sajjad M (2008). (Ed.), Setting the Record Straight: A Rejoinder,
Lahore, EPIC Publications, Lahore, 2008.
Scheuer M (2004). (‘Anonymous’), Through Our Enemies’ Eyes: Osama
Bin Laden, New York, 2004.
Schwartz B (1985). The World of Thought in Ancient China,
Massachusetts: Harvard Publications, 1985.
Seizaburo S (2001). An Critical Approach Towards Clash of
civilizations, Tokyo, Tokyo University Publishers, 2001.
Senghaas D (2001). The Clash Within Civilizations, London, Routledge,
2002
Tanaka A (1996). Atarashii Chusei [New Middle Ages], Tokyo, Nihon
Keizai Shimbunsha, 1996.
Toynbee AJ (1957). Civilization on Trial, New York, 1957.
Udeani CC (2008). (Ed.), Communication Across Cultures: The
Hermeneutics of Cultures and Religions in a Global Age, Washington,
Council for Research in Values and Philosophy, 2008.
Williams R (1976). Keywords, London, Fontana, 1976.
OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS, REPORTS AND SPEECH TRANSCRIPTS
1. ABS-CBN News, Text of Obama's speech to Muslim world,
www.abs-cbn.com, June 4, 2009, 8:21 PM. (Accessed July 18, 2009).
2. Al-Jazeera interview with Osama bin Laden, October 2001. Cited in
Bruce Lawrence, (ed.), Messages To The World: The Statements Of
Osama Bin Laden, London: Verso, 2005, p.124.
3. Alliance of Civilizations High level Group press release,
www.un.org (accessed May 9, 2009).
4. BBC News, “EU Deplores ‘Dangerous’ Islam Jibe,” September 27,
2001: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1565664.stm
(Accessed May 9, 2009).
5. “Clash of Civilizations or Clash of Perceptions?” The Center for
Dialogues: Islamic World - U.S. - The West, Official Annual Report,
2006.
6. Khatami, Muhammad, “Empathy and Compassion”, Speech at the
Dialogue of Civilizations forum, The Iranian, September 8, 2000.
7. Speech by President Bush at the Oval Office, Washington D.C on
the evening of September 11, 2001. www.americanrhetoric.com
(Accessed January 3, 2009).
8. Speech by President Bush in the Joint Session of the Congress on
September 20, 2001. www.americanrhetoric.com (Accessed January 3,
2009).
9. Speech by President Bush in the Joint Session of the Congress on
September 20, 2001. www.americanrhetoric.com (Accessed January 3,
2009).
10. Staff Report, “UN Chief Urges Efforts to Counter Extreme Views”,
Gulf Times, Monday February 27, 2006.
11. State of the Union Address, January 20, 2004, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/
(accessed 22/1/2004).
12. State of the Union Address, January 29, 2002, National Security
Strategy of the United States. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/
13. United Nations Year of Dialogue Between Civilizations 2001,
Introduction, www.un.org/dialogue (accessed May 9, 2009)
14.
ARTICLES:
1. Ahmed, Eqbal, “Roots of the Muslim Right”, DAWN Newspaper, March
1999.
2. Afrasiabi, Kaveh, L., “Khatami and the Emancipatory Project of
Dialogue between Civilizations”, Studies in Islam and the Middle
East, www.majallah.org.
3. Ajami, Fouad and Ahrari, M.E, “The Clash of Civilizations: An Old
Story or New Truth?”, Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs,
Vol. 5, No. 2, (June-August 2000)
Asadi, Muhammad, “The Clash of Civilizations Thesis: A Critique”,
www.chowk.com. (Accessed May 2, 2009.)
4. Basa-Ong, Tabitha, “What Clash of Civilizations?”, New York
University, September 29, 2008, www.nyu.blogs.com (Accessed May 2,
2009).
5. Buruma, Ian, “Lost In Translation,” The New Yorker, June 7, 2004:
http://www.newyorker.com/printables/critics/040614crbo_books
(accessed 27/9/2006).
6. Crockatt, Richard, “anti Americanism and the Clash of
Civilizations”, www.kb.osu.edu.pdf (Accessed May 2, 2009).
7. Davutoglu, Ahmet, “The Clash of Interests: An Explanation of
World Disorder”, Journal of Foreign Affairs, Dec 1997 to Feb 1998,
Vol II, no.4.
8. Dorraj, Manochehr, “In The Throes of Civilizational Conflict”,
Peace Review, Vol. 10, No. 4, (December 1998), pp. 633-637
9. Dunn, Michael, ‘The Clash of Civilizations and the War on
Terror’, 49th Parallel, Vol.20 (Winter 2006-2007),
www.49thparallel.bham.edu.uk.pdf (accessed May 2, 2009).
10. Elliott, “Bernard Lewis: Seeking The Roots Of Muslim Rage” ,
Time 163, no. 17 April 26, 2004.
11. Erdem, Engin I., “The Clash of Civilizations Revisited After
September 11”, Alternatives Journal of International Relations,
Vol.1, no.2, Summer 2002.
12. Fedler, Kyle,“On the Rhetoric of a War on Terror”, September
2001. www.dissidentvoice.com, Accessed January 2, 2009.
13. Fuller, Graham E., “The Future of Political Islam”, Foreign
Affairs, March/April 2002, p.54
14. Gopin, Marc, “Religion and International Relations at the
Crossroads”, International Studies Review, Vol III issue
III, Fall 2001.
15. Herzfeld, Michael, “Anthropology and the politics of
significance,” Social Analysis, 1997, 4(3).
16. Hunter, Shireen T., “The Future of Islam and the West: Clash of
Civilizations or Peaceful Coexistence?”, Perceptions: Journal of
International Affairs, Vol. 5, No. 2, (June-August 2000).
17. Huntington, Samuel P., “A Clash of Civilizations?” Foreign
Affairs, Vol. 72, No. 3, (Summer 1993).
18. Huntington, Samuel P., “The Age of Muslim Wars”, Newsweek,
December 2001.
19. Inglehart, Ronald and Norris, Pippa, “The True Clash of
Civilizations”, Foreign Policy, March-April 2003.
20. Ki-Moon, Ban, “I fear a looming catastrophe” The Guardian. 2nd
April 2009.
21. Lewis, Bernard, “The Roots of Muslim Rage: Why So Many Muslims
Deeply Resent the West, and Why Their
22. Bitterness Will Not Be Easily Mollified”, The Atlantic Monthly,
Vol. 266, No.3, September 1990.
23. Marks, Robert, "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of
World Order" (Book Review).
23. Miles, J., “Religion and American Foreign Policy”, Survival,
volume 46, issue 1, 2004.
24. Roy, Arundhati, “The Algebra of Infinite Justice,” The Guardian,
September 29, 2001.
25. Said, Edward W., “The Clash of Ignorance”, The Nation, October
22, 2001.
26. Said, Edward, ‘The Essential Terrorist’, The Nation, 1986.
27. Said, Edward, ‘They Call All Resistance Terrorism,’
International Socialist Review, September 2001
28. Sajjad, Memoona, “Ideal Culture”, Muslim Writers Alliance,
http://www.oneummah.net/content/view/65/1/, 13 September 2007.
(accessed March 17, 2009).
29. Seizaburo, Sato, An Critical Approach Towards Clash of
civilizations, Tokyo University publishers , "Asia Pacific Review",
October 1997.
30. Sen, Amartya, “What Clash of Civilizations?”, Slate Magazine,
March 29, 2006, 6:02 a.m www.slatemagazine.com (Accessed May 2,
2009).
31. 21. Sen, Amartya, letter to Robert Kagan, “Is there a Clash of
Civilizations?” Slate Magazine, Posted Friday, May 5, 2006, at 11:52
PM
32. Shirazi, Said, “Your New Enemies” Dissident Voice, November 3,
2002, www.dissidentvoice.org (Accessed May 9, 2009).
33. Sid-Ahmed, Mohammed, “The Clash of Civilizations Revisited”, Al
Ahram Weekly, 15 - 21 April 2004 Issue No. 686
34. Walker, Kim,, “The Rhetoric of Terrorism and Life After 9/11.”
www.thirdworldtraveler.com (Accessed January 3, 2009).
35. Wilson, Rob and Dirlik, Arif, “Introduction: Asia-Pacific as a
Space of Cultural Production”, Boundary, vol.21, no.1, Spring 1994.
36. Wilson, James Michael, “How the West and the Rest and
Permanently Intertwined”, www.e-ir.info, May 25, 2009 – 10:06 am
37. Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia, “Alliance of Civilizations”,
www.wikipedia.com, (accessed May 9, 2009).
38. Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia, “Samuel P Huntington.”
www.wikipedia.com (Accessed May 9, 2009).
25. Wright, Robert, “Highbrow Tribalism”, Slate Magazine, Saturday,
Nov. 2, 1996, at 3:30 AM
AUDIO-VISUAL RESOURCES
1. Said, Edward W., The Myth of the Clash of Civilizations, lecture
at University of Massachusetts, Amherst, United States of America,
1998. www.youtube.com
2. Said, Edward W., Orientalism, interview series,1998.
www.youtube.com
3. Tamimi, Sheikh Ali, Crusade Complex, lecture delivered in USA,
1997, www.aswatalislam.com.
4. Chomsky, Noam, The Clash of Civilizations, video recording, 1998,
www.youtube.com.
INTERVIEWS
1. Secor, Dr. James L. E-mail response to query on the importance of
the Clash of Civilizations theory, received by this writer on May 9,
2009.. Dr. Secor is a China-based American scholar, writer and
professor of English Literature and Oriental Studies. (SEE Appendix
B)
2. Hasan, Dr. Mehdi, interviewed on July 13, 2009 at the School of
Media Studies, Beaconhouse National University, Lahore. Dr. Hasan is
an eminent Pakistani intellectual, writer and journalist. He is the
Dean of the School of Media and Communication Studies at Beaconhouse
national University.
3. Abidi, Dr. Razi,, interviewed on July 12, 2009 at the Punjab
University New Campus. Dr. Abidi is the former Head of the
Department of English Language and Literature at Punjab University,
Lahore.
4. Anonymous, Research Scholar, Punjab University, interviewed by
this writer on July 14, 2009 at the university campus.
5. Iqbal, Dr. Javed, written repose to queries on the subject
received by the writer on May 21, 2009 (see appendix A). Dr. Iqbal
is a Faculty Member at the Department of Pharmacology, Allama Iqbal
Medical College, Lahore, with a deep interest in Sociology and
Political Science and the Islamic perspective on both_ and a
prolific writer on Current Affairs.
6. Arshad, Muhammad Rasheed, written response to queries regarding
the subject received by the writer on May 30, 2009 (see appendix A).
Mr. Arshad teaches Islamic Studies at the Institute of Leadership
and Management, Lahore, and is a prolific writer and Islamic
activist.
7. Anonymous, written response on the theory of
104 Inter. J. Polit. Sci. Develop.
8. the Clash of Civilizations received by the writer on July 12,
2009 (see appendix A). The anonymous interviewee is a freelance
writer with a profound interest in Islamic history and politics.
APPENDIX A
The text of written interview questions set by the writer for
respondents asked for views on the Clash of Civilizations theory is
produced below:
1. Is a Clash of Civilizations imminent?
2. What do you think are the roots of a civilizational clash?
3. Is this theory attested by history?
4. How has Huntington’s theory influenced world politics?
5. How do you see the impact of this theory on non Western
societies?
6. How would you evaluate Huntington’s thesis?
7. How would you explain the West’s confrontationist posture vis a
vis the non Western, particularly Muslim world?
8. How can a Clash of Civilizations be prevented?
9. What is your vision for a world beyond clashing civilizations?
APPENDIX B
The following is the e-mail response to the writer’s query about the
credibility of the Clash of Civilizations theory, written by
independent American scholar and literary critic Dr. James L. Secor,
as received by this writer on May 9, 2009.:
The most important point to consider, that no one seems to have
taken into account, is that Huntingdon wrote from the American
Enterprise Institute, a neo-liberal think tank. So, there is an
underlying bias right from the beginning. A further basic assumption
of his is that war is inevitable and seems to be a never-ending
activity. There have always been clashes of civilizations, therefore
there always will be classes of civilizations. One of the forenotes
of neo-liberalism is war and eternal conflict. I think one might
call this intellectually wanting-- Hungtingdon's terminology and
assumption that this is all brought on by the expansion of
democratic principles (gosh. . .doesn't that sound familiar?).
But there's a further problem: this lies in his interpretation of
Muslim civilizations: The Middle East and the Southern Pacific
Islands. End of subject. Yes, there is a considerable amount of
internal conflict but...he completely leaves out the Muslims of
China, including the Uygurs. Also a problematic assumption
underlying this assessment of Muslim states is that Christianity
shows no such internal strife. My comment: oh, really?
The work is decidedly US-centric. There are no conflicts internally
in the US?
He arbitrarily divides the world into nation-states that are
interested in taking over other nation-states, a kind of hold-over
from the Cold War; for Russian style communism believes in taking
over the whole world because it is right and everyone else is wrong,
inferior, stupid not to see the light of communism.
Well...nation-states have been around a very long time, historically
speaking. This dividing the world up for political and military
purposes completely discounts people; people are not taken into
account at all. Thus, the only thing important is government,
politics. People are not important. Leaving people out of the
equation is rather interesting and limiting and dredges up the
question of if there are no people, what is a government
governing--and, indeed, is it a government?
I think it's rot. I think it is politically motivated. I think that
it comes from The American Enterprise Institute is perhaps the most
important aspect of the book yet it is the aspect not even
considered.
Apparently, this theory was put forth in response to Francis
Fukuyama's thesis. I find Fukuyama to be just as full of shit and,
indeed, his thesis has been shot down.
Huntingdon's argument founded with the argument of an innate
Italianness is almost laughable. Where does Italianness arise? Where
and when, historically? The Etruscans were not Italian and their
effect upon Italianness was not wiped out. The French, via the
Normans, ruled much of Italy for a very long time. How about the
Visigoths and Goths and Huns? The Visigoths in particular had an
amazing influence on European civilization. And then...the Celtic
settlement of, really, the entire globe, north of the equator.
And...isn't the cradle of civilization Middle East? And everyone
came from Middle Eastern civilization spreading everywhere?
And...Christianity is a Middle Eastern religion, an import to the
"west."
Deconstruction and Karl Popper-style thinking blow holes in this
thesis. Note that the subtitle of the book is "remaking world
order."
Hmmm….
|
|