A Critique of Huntington

As has been mentioned in an earlier blog, Samuel Huntington argues that the major source of conflict in the aftermath of the Cold War will be cultural, fought primarily along the fault lines that separate different “civilizations”. I would argue that this “clash of civilizations” theory is as absurd as it is dangerous. For one, not a single “civilization” is as uniform and rigid as Huntington argues. To simply overlook the inner conflicts and the plurality of the “civilizations” is completely ignorant. One can simply highlight the Sunni/ Shia conflict in Iraq, the Kurdish conflict in Turkey, the recent Georgia/ Russia scuffle, and the on-going clash in Sudan, to see that Huntington’s civilizations are not as monolithic as he argues. Having lived in Bosnia and Herzegovina, I can surely say that the Bosnian Muslims feel closer to and have more in common with their Croatian neighbors than they do with the citizens of Indonesia. Second, Huntington fails to acknowledge the influence of economic interests in today’s political decision making that transcend the lines of his cultural civilizations. For example, the relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia, and the relationship between EU and Serbia go beyond the fault lines of Huntington’s civilizations. Culture certainly plays a part in foreign affairs, but it is certainly not the dominant factor.

The danger present in Huntington’s theory is that it lends itself to oversimplification. The tragic events of the morning of September 11th, 2001, have been used as proof of Huntington’s thesis. Yet, to blame an entire religion and to hail of an impending clash between the West and Islam because of the actions of few derailed militants is plain ludicrous. Huntington’s thesis provides the framework of this blame by obscuring the real power relations between countries and non-state actors by appealing to religious, racial and ethnic conflicts.