The Clash Of Civilizations: And The Remaking Of World Order

Good.

It is over 10 years since I read Samuel Huntington's full length expansion of his classic Foreign Affairs article. This was read during my final year at university, and back then, it was fashionable amongst many to refute, or outrightly mock Professor Huntington's disturbing piece of work. The work was derided amongst my fellow students, it was frequently derieded amongst academia, it is something of a fashion statement to deride Huntington's work. Why?Could it be, perhaps, because of a deep, inbuilt feeling that we just know that he was right?In the 10+ years since I read this monumental study, I have encountered very little in current events to refute his argument. Time has vindicated Huntington, and will continue to vindicate him.Huntington identifies 9 civilizations, Western, Orthodox, Islamic, Latin American, African, Sinic, Hindu, Buddhist and Japanese.The 2 civilizations that Huntington considers to be the most potentially antagonistic toward the West are Islamic and Sinic, however, as this book was completed in 2006, various conflicts had not yet played out between the West and the Orthodox World, and this is deserving of a special place as a potential faultline civilization.Huntington considers the value systems of Sinic and Islamic culture as essentially incompatible with the West, and attempts to assimilate or reconcile Western values with these cultures is ultimately futile. Therefore, Huntington advocates a careful, cautious approach to foreign policy, wherein Western powers should try to mediate civilizational disputes, but not directly involve themselves with them.Why do I think Huntington has been vindicated? The list is not exhaustive.Firstly, attempts through that ill conceived 2003-? War in Iraq to democracize Iraq has proved a colossal failure. The Arab Spring led to an outright dead end for all countries involved except Tunisia, and Turkish membership of the EU remains a pipe dream.However, while Huntington's work was written before the full democratization of South Korea and Taiwan, we have seen little progress in China toward any kind of accountable or open system, and China has recently given Hong Kong a half-baked, managed democracy.If anything, the civilizational faultline that has become more pronounced is the Orthodox World. Russia and US relations are at the worst they have ever been since the end of the Cold War, and the continuing support of Putin's strongman leadership amongst the Russian population shows a general preference in Russia at least for strongman leadership, rather than a more pluralistic approach.The situation in Ukraine is perhaps the Western-Orthodox divide being played out within a single, fragmented state, and is in many ways the result of naive Western attempts to push Western Institutions (NATO and the EU) into the Orthodox World.A further example was the almost universal Western support (exception Spain) for the unilateral independence of Kosovo, and then the complete reverse of this foreign policy toward the Russian unification with Crimea.This is not to distract oneself with current issues. Huntington's original work was written in response to the 1991 Gulf War, and the expanded book was based on events in the 90s, such as the Yugoslav wars, Chechnya, and the very nature of Sino-Western relations.However, very little has transpired to prove Huntington wrong, and few would argue that his main policy proscription, that the West only mediate, not directly involve themselves with disputes involving other civilizations.I think the dust will never settle on the debate over Huntington's thesis, but Huntington has convinced this reader at least.

In this ground-breaking and controversial book, Huntington considers civilisations as being more than just cultures. He emphasises religion as a key player even though the West is rapidly divesting itself of its Judeo-Christian roots. The new world order, following the last world war and the cold war, has been shaped by liberal ideologies and politics, where the secularisation of the West is its dominant instrument. Whereas these liberal peace stances have seemingly reduced tensions and conflict, they are facing two civilisations that challenge the concept that all conflict can be resolved through peaceful means. One is the intolerance of the Islamic world, the other the assertive/aggressive stance of the Chinese as they march towards supplanting the USA as the world’s leading superpower.This book pulls no punches and has been widely condemned amongst left-wing ideologues. Nevertheless, it details a world where democracy is under scrutiny and totalitarianism gets a free pass. In minimising the existential threat to the West of two civilisations that seek to dominate, are Tolerance, Multiculturalism, Equality and concerns about Human Rights, all that the West has to offer in what amounts to a fundamental clash of civilisations? Are we facing the end of democracy as appeasement gains ground?

An excellent and well known academic book. Not an easy read however. Take it in small chunks is my advice.

This is one of those books that everyone who thinks and cares about the future should read. You probably won't agree with everything in it, but Huntington's thesis is powerful and, I fear, has a lot of truth in it. I don't think this means that 'one world' liberals should give up, but it does show that the route to a future peaceful world will be a difficult one. (But what a grand challenge for bright, well-meaning people in the next generation!)To me, the most interesting point is the continuing role of religions in defining supranational boundaries. Rather than getting fanatical at spreading our own faith, or going down the Dawkins route of rubbishing all religion, we need to get used to this basic fact.It's a shame this wasn't on the bookshelves in the White House and Downing Street in 2003.

Reading this book has influenced the way I look at world politics and also my own personal view of `self`. It is perhaps easy to be imbued with the culture of one`s own civilization - I speak as a Westerner - and to regard your world view as irrevocable. `Clash of Civilizations` has modified my world view. I feel I now understand a little more what it may be like to see the world from a Chinese or a Russian perspective.I did not find this a particularly easy read. It is dense and will no doubt populate the book shelves of political academics. It is also a bit dated now - written in 1996 and a lot has happened since then. But it concerns more the mechanisms and machinations of global politics as well as the history of some of the more significant conflicts and so remains relevant.This clash of civilizations might be abstracted into a world of tectonic collision - a morphing map of dominions, dancing a sarabande of evolving allegiances and political manoeuvres to fuse new and ideally mutually beneficial relationships with one another.

This book is nonsense!

Prompt and efficient delivery. The item was exactly as expected.

Faço relações internacionais e sempre quis ler esse livro, pois são recomendados por vários professores. Adorei o livro, detalha bastante sobre as civilizações e do porquê elas agem daquele jeito. O livro é espetacular, super recomendo!!

Der Titel schreckt ab. Vor allem in einem politischen Umfeld, wo wir viel von Diversität und Multi Kulti hören und lesen und dadurch auch beeinflusst werden. Huntington vertritt die These und begründet sie, dass es keine universelle Kultur auf der Welt gibt. Das bedeutet, es bestehen sehr unterschiedliche Weltordnungen und Werteordnungen nebeneinander. Eine universelle Kultur ist zwar denkbar, aber nur dann, wenn es ein universelles "Imperium", eine Art Weltregierung geben würde. In der Realität existieren aber viele Kulturen nebeneinander.Das bedeutet praktisch, dass eine Kritik an den Verhältnissen in einer anderen Kultur wie zum Beispiel China oder auch Russland überheblich ist. Sie entstammt einem westlichen Verständnis, das ganz naiv davon ausgeht, dass alle Welt nach unserem Verständnis glücklich werden sollen und müssen. Im schlimmsten Fall verbunden mit Drohungen und Sanktionen.Was interessiert das praktisch? Eine Analyse für Soziologen und andere, aber politisch praktisch wertlos?Im Gegenteil. Wenn man als ein sehr simples Beispiel die deutsche Politik vertreten durch die Innenministerin bei der Fussball WM in Katar nimmt, dann erkennt man sofort, wie absurd das Verhalten der Ministerin in einem arabischen Land, wo sie Gast war, gewesen ist. Relativ offenherzig - diplomatisch formuliert - und mit einer Armbinde, die die Gastgeber erziehen wollte, ihr Verhältnis zur Homosexualität zu verändern, in aller Öffentlichkeit, das war eine kulturelle Anmassung ohne gleichen und ohne jeden Sinn. Der Westen kann eben nicht davon ausgehen, dass eine islamische Gesellschaft unsere liberalen Vorstellungen übernimmt, er kann noch nicht einmal davon ausgehen, dass diese Gesellschaft das überhaupt toleriert. Wir müssen daher lernen, mit diesen Unterschieden umzugehen. Wir müssen die Welt nicht erziehen. Und wir würden damit auch inzwischen scheitern, da sich die Machtverhältnisse zu Lasten von Europa und den USA deutlich verschieben.

Lo pedí en inglés porque me hacía falta para un trabajo relacionado con el tema. Es fácil de entender, está todo bastante bien explicado. Incluye imágenes y gráficas. La letra es más bien pequeña.

Mi è piaciuto tantissimo, si può considerare pro-America fino ad un certo punto. L'autore era americano chiaro, però le sue idee e le sue opinioni sono espresse in maniera obiettiva ed oggettiva con moltissimi riferimenti a fonti autorevoli ed affidabili quindi non considero questo libro propaganda pro-America ma veramente un capolavoro, un lavoro minuzioso da parte di Huntington nel farci capire le varie connessioni, scontri e alleanza tra le varie civiltà esistenti nel mondo (che lui suddivide in sette).Consiglio la lettura ai più giovani per farsi un'idea chiara di ciò a cui stiamo andando incontro, e non solo, anche a chiunque voglia approfondire la questione europea degli ultimi 20 anni.

El libro es excelente; llegó en perfectas condiciones y mucho antes de lo que se indicaba originalmente. Sin duda, Huntington fue un visionario y se adelantó a muchas cosas que fueron ocurriendo y que confirmaron sus hipótesis. Lo único malo del autor es que me parece demasiado anglosajón en su forma de plantear las cosas, y se nota una cierta actitud racista hacia los latinoamericanos. En fin, con ello confirma que la lucha de civilizaciones es más real de lo que se plantea en el papel. Es un libro obligado para quien quiera ahondar en el mundo de la geopolítica.