Critics of Huntington's ideas often extend their criticisms to traditional cultures and internal reformers who wish to modernise without adopting the values and attitudes of Western culture. These critics sometimes claim that to modernise is necessarily to become Westernised to a very large extent.
In reply, those who consider the Clash of Civilisations thesis accurate often point to the example of Japan, claiming that it is not a Western state at its core. They argue that it adopted much Western technology (also inventing technology of its own in recent times), parliamentary democracy, and free enterprise, but has remained culturally very distinct from the West, particularly in its conceptions of society as strictly hierarchical. Contradictory evidence on a more granular scale in turn comes from empirical evidence that greater exposure to factories, schools and urban living is associated with more 'modern' attitudes to rationality, individual choice and responsibility.
China is also cited by some as a rising non-Western economy. Many also point out the East Asian Tigers or neighbouring states as having adapted western economics, while maintaining traditional or authoritarian social government. Perhaps the ultimate example of non-Western modernisation is Russia, the core state of the Orthodox civilisation. The variant of this argument that uses Russia as an example relies on the acceptance of a unique non-Western civilisation headed by an Orthodox state such as Russia or perhaps an Eastern European country. Huntington argues that Russia is primarily a non-Western state although he seems to agree that it shares a considerable amount of cultural ancestry with the modern West. Russia was one of the great powers during World War I. It also happened to be a non-Western power.
 According to Huntington, the West is distinguished from Orthodox Christian countries by the experience of the Renaissance, Reformation, the Enlightenment, overseas colonialism rather than contiguous expansion and colonialism. And a recent re-infusion of Classical culture through Rome rather than through the continuous trajectory of the Byzantine Empire. The differences among the modern Slavic states can still be seen today. This issue is also linked to the "universalising factor" exhibited in some civilisations.
Huntington refers to countries that are seeking to affiliate with another civilisation as "torn countries". Turkey, whose political leadership has systematically tried to Westernise the country since the 1920s, is an example. Turkey's history, culture, and traditions are derived from Islamic civilisation, but Turkey's elite, beginning with Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, who took power as first President of the Republic of Turkey in 1923, imposed Western institutions and dress, embraced the Latin alphabet, joined NATO, and is seeking to join the European Union. Mexico and Russia are also considered to be torn by Huntington. He also gives the example of Australia as a country torn between its Western civilisation heritage and its growing economic engagement with Asia.
According to Huntington, a torn country must meet three requirements to redefine its civilisation identity. First, its political and economic elite must support the move. Second, the public must be willing to accept the redefinition. Third, the elites of the civilisation that the torn country is trying to join must accept the country. The book claims that to date no torn country has successfully redefined its civilisation identity. This is mostly due to the elites of the 'host' civilisation refusing to accept the torn country though if Turkey gained membership of the European Union it has been noted that many of its people would support Westernisation. If this were to happen it would be the first to redefine its civilisation identity.
Huntington has fallen under the stern critique of various academic writers, who have empirically, historically, logically, or ideologically challenged his claims. In an article explicitly referring to Huntington, scholar Amartya Sen (1999) argues that "diversity is a feature of most cultures in the world. Western civilisation is no exception. The practice of democracy that has worn out in the modern West is largely a result of a consensus that has emerged since the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution, and particularly in the last century or so. To read in this a historical commitment of the West - over the millennia - to democracy, and then to contrast it with non-Western traditions (treating each as monolithic) would be a great mistake".   Â
In his 2003 book Terror and Liberalism, Paul Berman argues that distinct cultural boundaries do not exist in the present day. He argues there is neither "Islamic civilisation" nor a "Western civilisation", and that the evidence for a civilisation clash is not convincing, especially when considering relationships such as that between the United States and Saudi Arabia. In addition, he cites the fact that many Islamic extremists spend a significant amount of time living and/or studying in the Western world. According to Berman, conflict arises because of philosophical beliefs various groups share (or do not share), regardless of cultural or religious identity.
Edward Said issued a response to Huntington's thesis in his 2001 article, "The Clash of Ignorance". Said argues that Huntington's categorisation of the world's fixed "civilisations" omits the dynamic interdependency and interaction of culture. A longtime critic of the Huntingtonian paradigm and an outspoken proponent of Arab issues, Edward Said (2004) also argues that the clash of civilisations thesis is an example of "the purest invidious racism, a sort of parody of Hitlerian science directed today against Arabs and Muslims". Here we may cite at least two Al Qur'anic ayahs recognising cultural diversity which read: "If Allah had so willed, He would have made you one community, but (His Plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues" (Al Qur'an, 5:48) and "O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know each other (not that you may despise each other)" (Al Qur'an, 49:13). Noam Chomsky has criticised the concept of the clash of civilisations as just being a new justification for the United States "for any atrocities that they wanted to carry out", which was required after the Cold War as the Soviet Union was no longer a viable threat.
Mohammad Khatami, reformist President of Iran (in office 1997-2005), introduced the theory of Dialogue among Civilisations as a response to Huntington's theory. In recent years, the theory of Dialogue among Civilisations, a response to Huntington's Clash of Civilisations, has become the centre of some international attention. The concept, which was introduced by former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, was the basis for United Nations' resolution to name the year 2001 as the Year of Dialogue among Civilisations.
The Alliance of Civilisations (AOC) initiative was proposed at the 59th General Assembly of the United Nations in 2005 by the President of the Spanish Government, José Luis RodrÃguez Zapatero, and co-sponsored by the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The initiative is intended to galvanise collective action across diverse societies to combat extremism, to overcome cultural and social barriers between mainly the Western and predominantly Muslim worlds, and to reduce the tensions and polarisation between societies which differ in religious and cultural values.
Huntington's geopolitical model, especially the structures for North Africa and Eurasia, is largely derived from the "Intermediate Region" geopolitical model first formulated by Dimitri Kitsikis and published in 1978. The Intermediate Region, which spans the Adriatic Sea and the Indus River, is neither western nor eastern (at least, with respect to the Far East) but is considered distinct.
Concerning this region, Huntington departs from Kitsikis contending that a civilisation fault line exists between the two dominant yet differing religions (Orthodox Christianity and Sunni Islam), hence a dynamic of external conflict. However, Kitsikis establishes an integrated civilisation comprising these two peoples along with those belonging to the less dominant religions of Shiite Islam, Alevism, and Judaism. They have a set of mutual cultural, social, economic and political views and norms which radically differ from those in the West and the Far East.
In the Intermediate Region, therefore, one cannot speak of a civilisation clash or external conflict, but rather an internal conflict, not for cultural domination, but for political succession. This has been successfully demonstrated by documenting the rise of Christianity from the Hellenised Roman Empire, the rise of the Islamic Caliphates from the Christianised Roman Empire and the rise of Ottoman rule from the Islamic Caliphates and the Christianised Roman Empire.
The writer is a retired Professor of Economics, BCS General Education Cadre.
Email: sarwarmdskhaled@gmail.com
Causes of the clash of civilisations and criticism
Sarwar Md Saifullah Khaled | Published: February 14, 2015 00:00:00 | Updated: November 30, 2024 06:01:00
Share if you like