Analysis of ‘The Clash of Civilizations?’ by Samuel P. Huntington

Note: this is the second part of a three-part series on political essays concerning the state of global politics in the post-Cold War era. Read the introduction here.

Huntington's major world civilizations

The late political scientist Samuel P. Huntington wrote in 1993 an essay in which he tries to come to terms with the state of the world after the end of the Cold War. He concludes that in this new age, conflicts will primarily originate not from competing ideologies or countries but from civilizations that encompass many countries and people.

I. The Next Pattern of Conflict

Huntington states his thesis that in this new era of world politics, the “dominating source of conflict will be cultural”—as opposed to an ideological (see the Cold War) or an economic one (see the U.S. vs. the EU). Like Francis Fukuyama in “The End of History,” the author employs language of human social evolution, tracing the development of conflict from those among princes after the Peace of Westphalia; among nations after the French Revolution; among ideologies after World War I; to those among superpowers during the Cold War.

II. The Nature of Civilizations

Instead of grouping countries into First, Second, and Third Worlds, Huntington argues that we should organize them into civilizations. He defines one as the “highest cultural grouping of people and the broadest level of cultural identity people have.” Things like language and religion characterize civilizations but people themselves ultimately decide to which one they belong. The author notes that civilizations can include nations or people of varying numbers.

III. Why Civilizations Will Clash

In this essay Huntington lists eight civilizations, but in his book he includes a ninth, all of which are listed below:

• Western = Catholic and Protestant Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, and the Lesser Antilles
• Slavic-Orthodox = Orthodox Europe, Russia, and Kazakhstan
• Latin America = from Mexico south to Argentina except the Guyanas (divided among African, Hindu, and Western civilizations), and the Greater Antilles except Jamaica
• Islamic = Saharan Africa, Somalia, the central east African coast, the Middle East except Israel, Iran, Central Asia except Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Indian minorities, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Brunei, and Indonesia
• African = non-Islamic/Sub-Saharan Africa
• Hindu = India and Nepal
• Buddhist = Mongolia, Tibet, Bhutan, Burma, Thailand, and Indochina except Vietnam
• Confucian = China, Korea, and Vietnam
• Japanese = Japan
• On p. 48 of his book the author discusses Israel’s status, concluding that it contains most elements of a civilization yet many of its citizens identify with nearby ones

He believes that world conflicts will occur on the “fault lines” between the aforementioned civilizations, for the following reasons:

1. There are fundamental differences among civilizations that in the past have led to violence
2. More people from various civilizations are coming into contact with each other
3. Economic and social development has demoted nationalism in favor of religion as the dominant place of identity
4. Even though the West has never been more powerful in both cultural and economic influence, non-Western civilizations have been promoting indigenization
5. It’s easier to change economic and political differences than it is to change cultural ones
6. Regional trade has increased among similar cultures and floundered among dissimilar ones

The author predicts an increase of an “us vs. them” attitude between ethnically and religiously different people. Finally, he states that micro-conflicts will occur along civilizational borders, while macro-conflicts will happen where power and ideology are in question.

IV. The Fault Lines Between Civilizations

• Western vs. Orthodox = “the eastern boundary of Western Christianity in the year 1500”
• Islamic vs. Western = North Africa, Turkey, conflicts overseas, and immigration
• Islamic vs. African = the Horn of Africa and bisected countries from Nigeria to Sudan
• Islamic vs. Orthodox = the Balkans, the Caucasus, and Central Asia
• Islamic vs. Hindu = the Indian subcontinent
• Confucian vs. Buddhist = Tibet
• Confucian vs. Western = interactions between China and the U.S.
• Japanese vs. Western = interactions between Japan and the U.S.

Huntington tells us that the nature of inter-civilizational conflicts is not always the same. He points out that rivalry between the West and Japan has centered on economics, but friction in Eurasia has resulted in genocide. He sums up Islamic conflict, saying, “Islam has bloody borders.”

V. Civilization Rallying

The author defines his term “kin-country syndrome” as a phenomenon in which states at war with states in other civilizations “rally” other countries within their civilization to their side. He offers three examples:

1. The Gulf War = Saddam Hussein transformed a conflict of his state Iraq versus the West and other Arab states into one of Islam against the West
2. Conflicts in the former Soviet Union = In the early 1990s, Armenia had been fighting Azerbaijan alone until Turkey aided the latter and Russia the former because they belonged to their respective civilizations
3. Bosnian genocide = the West aided/supported Croatia and Slovenia, Russia supported the Serbs, and the Muslim world supported the Bosnians because they all shared civilizations

Huntington notes that, despite tension between Ukraine and Russia, the conflict hasn’t turned violent because both countries belong to the Slavic-Orthodox civilization. He predicts that possible world wars will be inter- rather than intra-civilizational in nature.

VI. The West Versus the Rest

The author notes the global dominance of the West in most areas of competition, specifically its usage of its power and influence to preserve that status. He then infers that future conflicts between the West and, well “the Rest,” will center on either power or cultural differences. Reactions of non-Western countries to this dominance fall into three categories: isolation (e.g., North Korea), joining the West, or modernization (e.g., Japan).

VII. The Torn Countries

Nations are considered “torn” when they have diverse populations or when they can’t decide which civilization they belong to. He lists three:

• Turkey = the West or the Islamic world?
• Mexico = the West or Latin America?
• Russia = the West or the Slavic-Orthodox world?

For a country to leave its present civilization for another, Huntington believes that the country’s elite and its people must be willing to move but also that the new civilization must be accepting of the torn country.

VIII. The Confucian-Islamic Connection

However, rather than trying to join the West, many countries in the Confucian and Islamic civilizations would rather become militarily powerful on their own. These “Weapon States” are thus pitted against the Western ones over the question of nuclear weapons. The author bitingly describes modern arms-control treaties as the West’s attempt “to prevent the development by non-Western societies of military capabilities that could threaten Western interests.” Of course, non-Western countries see no reason why they shouldn’t have nuclear weapons, since the West does already. After mentioning Chinese military development, Huntington makes it clear that the Confucian and Islamic nations have joined together to promote each other’s military capabilities.

IX. Implications for the West

The author offers several applications for Western civilization that include internal unification, inclusion of Latin America and Eastern Europe, friendliness toward Japan and Russia, conflict prevention, slowing Confucian-Islamic military growth, and the inclusion of non-Western nations in institutions that the West supports. Because only Japan has successfully modernized without Westernizing, non-Western civilizations will each have to come to terms with this tension as they develop. Finally, the West will have to understand world civilizations to ultimately find common ground. Huntington concludes with an affirmation that coexistence will be necessary in this new world era.

My conclusion

I think that Huntington’s framework accurately explains the world we live in, having been proved by events like the 9/11 attacks and the growing rivalry between the U.S. and China. In the almost twenty years since the essay’s writing, the world has become much more globalized. Thus, an awareness of non-Western civilizations and the differences (but also the similarities) that exist between the “West and the rest” is a must in these times following the Cold War.

Read the original essay here. Be aware that there are a few copyediting mistakes on this web page that may or may not have been of the original author’s doing.