A Very Controversial Clash

I hadn’t heard good comments about Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations.”All I had heard were uninformed and biased interpretations of his book. Frankly, I imagined him as a crazy Harvard professor that argued Western civilization was superior. “Ese es un imperialista Yankee” (He’s a Yankee imperialist), say many in Latin America. It was hard to put aside these preconceived ideas when reading the article. “Mexico trying to become part of North America?!. That is soooo wrong.” I thought it was outrageous.

His ideas are very controversial and his arguments can easily stir strong feelings. Only a rational analysis of his theory can allow people to fully understand the extent of his arguments, since it is very easy to misinterpret him. He basically argues that conflicts will increasingly become cultural as opposed to ideological. There is enough evidence to support this. However, I believe that, though valid, his ideas are not enough to explain the dynamics of globalization.

One of my strongest objections was that evidence shows that, despite cultural and religious ties, countries belonging to the same civilization fight against each other. Huntington, however, points out that his article does not argue that groups within a civilization will not conflict. He states that “conflicts between groups in different civilizations will be more frequent, more sustained, and more violent than conflicts between groups in the same civilization.” Nevertheless, it is possible that local groups feel more identified by their domestic commonalities than by the broader ones that Huntington points out, which seem vague to me. If this is true, internal strife within civilizations will hinder cohesion. In this scenario of fragmentation, is it possible to use the label “civilization”, which would encompass conflicting groups?

Huntington’s division of the world seems arbitrary. What about Africa?! Moreover, his arguments about torn countries are not convincing. He argues that torn countries can redefine their identities by meeting three requirements. However, this seems to contradict his argument about the strength of cultural ties and how difficult it is to weaken them. In a torn country, none of the ethnic groups would give up their identities to create a new one that unifies the country. He also disregards immigration. Countries such as the United States include individuals from all civilizations. Does this have any impact in the definition of civilization? How can immigration affect the dynamics of civilizations? Huntington’s arguments are valid, though not fully compelling. It is true that the world is witnessing a wave of ethnic conflicts and a struggle of several fundamentalist groups versus the West, but this is not indicative of the accuracy of Huntington’s ideas. One thing is clear: his ideas will never cease to create controversy.