See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/344516348

A Critical Review of "The Clash of Civilizations?" by Samuel Huntington

Preprint · April 2020

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29951.02729

CITATIONS READS

0 12,403

1 author:

Panagiotis Podiotis
University of Chicago
14 PUBLICATIONS 5 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Panagiotis Podiotis on 07 October 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 A Critical Review of “The Clash of Civilizations?” by Samuel Huntington

Panagiotis Podiotis1

University of Macedonia

Department of International and European Studies

Thessaloniki, Greece

25/04/2020

Words: 3526

Introduction
This paper was prepared in the context of the course “Religion and International Politics”. It
serves 3 objectives.

1. To provide a summary of “The Clash of Civilizations?” by Samuel Huntington.

2. To present the critique it received in a concise manner.
3. To house the author’s critical ideas.

It consists of 3 sections, each corresponding to an objective, and references.

Summary of: “The Clash of Civilizations?” by Samuel Huntington

Samuel Huntington’s article “The Clash of Civilizations?” (Huntington, 1993) in Foreign
Affairs consists of nine subchapters. This summary will present his main ideas and points with
respect to the flow of the original work. Each paragraph below corresponds to a respective chapter
of the article.

As many scholars do, Samuel Huntington also foresees a new political world order emerging.
A new reality of increased conflict. Contrary to others, he believes that culture instead of politics or
economics will be central to these conflicts. Collectivities of states, representing different
civilizations will combat one another introducing the era of the “politics of the civilizations”
(Huntington, 1993, p. 23).

For Samuel Huntington, the world and its states should not be viewed through the lens of
politics or economics but rather through the lens of culture and civilization. He thus changes the
dividing lines. He moves on to define culture. He distinguishes culture as a multi-level element. He
provides examples of villages, countries and continents, all constituting cultural groupings at
differing levels. He ultimately defines civilization as: “A civilization is thus the highest cultural
grouping of people and the broadest level of cultural identity people have short of that which
distinguishes humans from other species” (Huntington, 1993, p. 24). Moreover, he attaches dynamic
attributes to civilizations. They can expand, collapse or even transform. On the final lines of his
article’s subchapter, he underlines the fact that civilizations have existed long before nation-states,
having served as primary components of the international system.

1
Undergraduate student, register number:16079.

1
 The future will be characterized by the interactions between seven or eight major
civilizations; “Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American and
possibly African civilization” (Huntington, 1993, p. 25). The above assumption is based upon six
arguments. The first argument lies in the fact that each civilization defines its members’ mindset and
perception of the world. These cultural ideas and influences are way older from any ideology or
political system. Even though cultural disparities do not guarantee war, they have historically led to
some of the most violent conflicts. Secondly, the increase of human interactions (due to
globalization)2 increases the strength of cultural identity in a vis-à-vis context. Entrenchment occurs
and the dark pages of history are brought back to light. Thirdly, Samuel Huntignton supports that
while lower level cultural identities fade away along with the nation-state, religion gains ground.
Religion “provides a basis for identity and commitment that transcends national boundaries and
unites civilizations” (Huntington, 1993, p. 26). The fourth argument introduces the concept of states
in the cultural scene. Nations corresponding to various groups of civilization seem to gradually
increase their resistance to Western ideas. A “return to the roots” (Huntington, 1993, p. 26)
phenomenon is observed in many cases such as Japan and Russia. The fifth argument uses various
examples to claim that while people can and, in some instances, do change their political or
economic identity, they don’t do that for their cultural. Various examples such as Russian
communists turning democrats but Russians not becoming Estonians are provided. Religion and
ethnicity are much stronger identities compared to ideologies or politics. Lastly, the sharp increase
of regional economic development seems to be deeply rooted in common cultures. The economic
success of the European Union draws from the common European identity while other regional
economic blocs seem to rely their future on cultural convergence. Overall, the decline of
ideologically-defined states along with the will of the West to promote its ideals and approaches
bring an “us versus them” feeling to the front. This feeling produces conflict on both national and
social levels.

The end of the Cold War brought the end of ideological divisions in Europe. New division,
cultural in their nature have emerged. Western Christianity collides with Orthodox Christianity and
Islam. Samuel Huntington then moves on to provide the brief historical background of Eastern and
Western Europe. Different influences and experiences which become evident as cultural conflict,
shown in the, then recent, war in Yugoslavia. The expansion of the Ottoman Empire, the retreat of
European colonialism, the Arab-Israeli conflicts, the rise of the gulf monarchies and the US, French
and British operations in the middle east all outline a “centuries-old military interaction between the
West and Islam” (Huntington, 1993, pp. 32-32). Huntington believes that this interaction will keep
unraveling in the future. Relations between Islamic countries and the West will become more
complicated. The increase of migration and as a consequence racism show an aspect of the
forthcoming clash of civilizations. The struggles between Christian, Muslim, Black, Arab people in the
Middle East and Africa underline the faulty lines and warn for the potential of increase in violence. In
the same manner, the conflicts in the Balkans between Serbs-Albanians, Bulgarian-Turkish minority,
Ossetians-Ingush and other all but reinforce the argument of the revival of the strong ethnic and
religious identities as the main element of conflict. The author moves on to provide with a great
plethora of examples all across the globe. Cultural differences can also act as oil to the fire of
economic conflict, as shown by the US-Japan antagonism.

Coalitions do not escape from the pulling forces of culture. Alliances and blocs seem to be
strongly affected by the civilizations of their members. Three major examples are provided. The Gulf
War brought one Arab country against a coalition of both Arab and Western governments. Despite

2
Author’s note.

2
that, the common feeling of a large portion of Muslims aligned with Iraq regardless of their country’s
position. The Pan-Islamic call of Saddam Hussein pierced through national borders and made the
public put pressure on their governments effectively minimizing their participation in the anti-Iraq
bloc. The second example covers the conflicts in the Soviet Union. The conflict between Russia,
Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey faced rapid changes due to the religious factor. Third, the war in
Yugoslavia saw European states and the US support the Catholic Croatia while Russia aligned with
the Orthodox Serbs. At the same time, Muslim countries denounced the West for not protecting
Muslim Bosnians. Huntington closes this chapter by claiming that: “local conflicts most likely to
escalate into major wars will be those, as in Bosnia and the Caucasus, along the fault lines between
civilizations. The next world war, if there is one, will be a war between civilizations” (Huntington,
1993, p. 39).

Samuel Huntington describes the reality of the early 90’s. The Cold War is over and the West
has achieved its peak of power. Moreover, the West is trying to expand its domination over the
world through economic means and International Organizations. The West are pursuing the belief
that their ideas and way of life is fit for everyone. This very idea and effort are sure to bring the West
in conflict against those with differing civilizations.

Having described the current3 situation in the previous chapter, Samuel Huntington tries to
forecast the future. He divides countries into two groups; those which are bound to be
dismembered and the those which are torn. Countries falling within these categories are heavily
influenced by their civilization and will face dilemmas. Russia, Turkey and Mexico are discussed
extensively for being major torn-countries. All three of them enjoy cultural homogeneity but are
divided over which civilization they belong to. After an analysis of the situation of each one of them,
the author provides three requirements for redefining a torn-country’s identity. “First, its political
and economic elite has to be generally supportive of and enthusiastic about this move. Second, its
public has to be willing to acquiesce in the redefinition. Third, the dominant groups in the recipient
civilization have to be willing to embrace the convert” (Huntington, 1993, p. 44).

Samuel Huntington believes that countries which do not join the West are bound to
compete it. Internal strengthening and alliances are some methods which such countries apply. An
indicative example is the “Confucian-Islamic connection” (Huntington, 1993, p. 45) which acts as a
counterweight to Western influence. At the same time, Western and non-Western states follow
opposite trends in regards to armament with the first decreasing their arsenals and the latter
strengthening their armed forces. While the West struggles to promote non-proliferation policies,
the Confucian-Islamic bloc continues to increase its offensive CBRN capabilities through close
cooperation of its members.

The last chapter of the article provides an outline of Samuel Huntington’s main points. States
are not going to cease from existence. The article does not serve to tell us that civilizations will
become “coherent political entities” (Huntington, 1993, p. 48). It merely aims to point out the fact
that civilizations exist and are relevant. Cultural conflict will gradually increase along with pre-
existing conflicts. Non-Western countries will become significant players in the International System
while wars between different civilizations will be longer and more violent. Several countries will face
dilemmas and resistance in trying to integrate their civilization in the West. The West in return will
be called to face an increasing in power Confucian-Islamic bloc. In the closing remarks of the article,
Samuel Huntington provides with his recommendations on how the future Western policy should be

3
Early 90s, the time the article was written.

3
laid out. The West must achieve an equilibrium of decreasing the advance of other civilizations while
increasing its cooperation and understating with them.

Relevant Literature – Critique

The article of Samuel Huntington and his ideas around the clash of civilizations have been
widely criticized. A plethora of academic and non-academic sources offer vast amounts of criticism.
In this section of the review, an indicative glimpse of various critiques will be provided. Below, I will
try to provide as summary of as many as possible with respect to this paper’s length. The main
points of criticism move on three axes: Epistemological, Methodological and Ethical (Shahi, 2017, p.
2).

The world-renowned Noam Chomsky has offered his own opinion on Huntington’s work
during a lecture in 2001. Even though his speech cannot be verified by official academic references,
it can be supported by numerous online sources4 of various types. Chomsky blames Huntington for
avoiding to expose a reality which consist of the conflict between the rich and all others. Chomsky
argues that this approach would be inelegant for Huntington so he chooses the clash of civilizations.
Huntington’s choice coincides with the effort by the US to find new narratives which will replace the
fear of communism in an effort to further pursue policies of increased interventionism. Lastly, he
accuses Huntington’s ideas for being elitist. Chomsky, along other arguments, uses the involvement
of Western intelligence agencies in supporting Islamic fundamentalism terrorist groups as an
argument against the ideas of the clash of civilizations.

Francis Fukuyama’s “End of History” has been used multiple times as counterargument to
Huntington. He is regarded as one of the greatest contenders of Huntington. Twenty-five years after
the publication of “The Clash of Civilizations?” Fukuyama writes an article (Fukuyama, 2018) which
adopts a softer and more understanding approach to Huntington. Despite that, Fukuyama remains
critical of some concepts. His main disagreement concerns the connection between culture and
religion. For Fukuyama religion is one but not the ultimate element of identity. He supports this
argument through the examples of the women’s movements around the world and the return of
“old-fashioned nationalism” (Fukuyama, 2018) in Japan and Europe. Both of the examples illustrate
how non-religious factors as agents of change can be. He then proceeds to explain how major faulty
lines have appeared within the same Huntingtonian civilizations, mostly between Sunni-Shia Islam
and Russia-Ukraine-Georgia. Fukuyama sets the focus on identity rather than culture. For the latter,
it was a lack of respect to identity which led to the attacks of 9/11 and even WWI. Fukuyama
proceeds to provide with many examples supporting the importance and usefulness of identity as a
tool describing realities. Lastly, Fukuyama disagrees with Huntington on “Universal Values” which
Huntington supported do not exist. Fukuyama takes a macroscopic view of world history observing
how the first humans adopted similar social structures and institutionalized in similar manners while
not connected. This proves that “Modernization” has indeed served as a universal value regardless
of civilization.

Edward W. Said in an article (Said, 2001) accuses Huntington for various reasons. For Said,
Huntington fails to capture the dynamics and complexity of the world by trying to define civilizations
in a sterile manner. Moreover, he argues that the ideas of Huntington are supported by the actions
of a small minority “did he canvas 100 Indonesians, 200 Moroccans, 500 Egyptians and fifty
Bosnians? Even if he did, what sort of sample is that?” (Said, 2001). Said then proceeds to provide
examples of interdependence and similarity between civilizations.

4
(TrystanCJ, 2007) and (Evjen-Elias & Schwartz, n.d.)

4
 Bruce M. Russett, John R. Oneal and Michaelene Cox performed a data-centered analysis of
conflict (Russett, Oneal, & Cox, 2000). After analyzing conflict patterns of the 20th century they
concluded that “Consequently, there is little reason to believe that civilizational differences have
important indirect effects on the likelihood of conflict through these variables” (Russett, Oneal, &
Cox, 2000, p. 602). Another data-centered critique is the one of Errol A Henderson which suggests
that: “we conclude that they (cultural factors) do not appear to play the role that Huntington
assumes for them, nor do they suggest the need for a policy of cultural containment” (Henderson,
2001, p. 334).

Karim H. Karim and Mahmoud Eid provide an epistemological critical approach (Karim & Eid,
2012). They support that Huntington’s ideas are heavily influenced by the Cold War environment
which was dominated by security with the states being distinct central actors. Huntington replaces
the idea of the state with this of civilization in an effort to reconfigure what he was used to the new
emerging world order. They also warn that Huntington’s ideas are dangerous because they can serve
as “self-fulfilling prophecies” in the scope of unending violence in human history. This self-fulfilling
prophecy can in turn be those advocating against cooperation.

Summarizing the main points of the critical literature, the main arguments against
Huntington’s work are (random order):

1. Huntington claims to offer a new paradigm but in fact he adopts a realist view and
approach with power and solid states at the epicenter.
2. The clash is accused of being orientalist by adopting an us-them narrative,
generalizations and cultural bias while prescribing Western dominance.
3. Huntington ill-defines complex phenomena in a simple manner failing to capture
reality.
4. Huntington’s ideas provide fertile ground for racism and policies which promote war
and increased interventionism.
5. Data suggests that conflict between civilizations is not increasing.
6. Real world examples like the Arab spring, the women’s rights movements and the
rapid expansion of technological modernization contradict central ideas of
Huntington which contradict the belief of Huntington that there and universal
values.
7. Lack of non-western references.

5
Conclusion – Author’s Opinion
While I was writing this paper, I could not stop thinking Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal’s quote
regarding US involvement in Afghanistan: “We must avoid the trap of winning tactical victories, but
suffering strategic defeats…” (Relations, 2008). Even though this quote was placed in a totally
different context, its main point is valid in the case of Huntington’s “The Clash of Civilizations?”. In
his work, the latter manages to secure certain tactical victories but overall suffers from a strategic
defeat. This paper enjoys the great luxury of time. We are now able to asses Huntington’s ideas
more than two decades after their publication.

At first, the attacks of 9/11 and the subsequent War on Terror seemed to validate the total
of his assumptions but ultimately ended up being challenged by other historic events. The financial
crisis of 2008 not only showed how important and relevant economics are to politics but also
highlighted the degree of interdependence between nations, which Huntington fails to seriously
consider. Non-state actors like the IMF and the EU regulated and coordinated states belonging to
different civilizations. The central and northern Europe managed to effectively support with the help
of the US the culturally different Greece.

At the same time, the eruption of the Arab Spring showed how universal democratic values
are. The Islamic world showed a strong desire for internal change rather than a conflict against the
West. Women’s rights, Democracy, Freedom, Reform and better economic prospects within the
Islamic world were sought after by way more compared to the amount of those supporting the
Islamic State and its anti-West narratives. The Islamic world is still trying to find inside balances
between competing nations, totalitarian regimes and religious strife.

Huntington supported that “If civilization is what counts, however, the likelihood of violence
between Ukrainians and Russians should be low” (Huntington, 1993, p. 38). We, unfortunately, lived
to witness the violent annexation of Crimea by Russia along with the enduring war in the area. Once
again, intra-civilizational conflict stigmatized the new millennia contrary to Huntington’s predictions.

Economic interdependence has become central element in the Belt and Road initiative of
China. The head representative of the Sinic civilization has chosen to pursue its interests by
economic means. The debt diplomacy employed in Africa, the large infrastructure investments in
Europe and the enduring efforts for trade deals with the US show that economic means remain
central in foreign policy. Economic dependence seems to win over conflictual approaches.

The policies adopted by Donald Trump brought to the light faulty lines within the bloc of the
West. The accusations within NATO against the members not devoting the infamous 2%, the desire
of the EU to build its own defense capabilities, the consideration by many of Chancellor Angela
Merkel as the leader of the West and the BREXIT all showed that faulty lines within the West grow
larger.

There are two sides to every story though. Huntington may have failed in regards to the
events described above but succeeded in forecasting the Turkey of the 21st century: “Having rejected
Mecca, and then being rejected by Brussels, where does Turkey look?...Encouraged by the West,
Turkey is making strenuous efforts to carve out this new identity for itself” (Huntington, 1993). The
involvement of Turkey in the Syrian war, the fight against the Kurds and the era of Tayyip Recep
Erdogan have reignited the debate around the Turkish identity. At the same time, increase of
migration towards Europe indeed gave strength to racist voices. Racism in turn gave boost to

6
 Euroscepticism. Huntington was right in forecasting some of these realities but the reader must not
be carried away. These events not only are exceptions to the rule but they also seem to have
different outcomes than those forecasted by Huntington.

27 years and a vast literature after the publication of “The Clash of Civilizations?” the same
questions persist. For me, all answers lie in Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal’s quote provided at the
beginning of this section. Huntington managed to secure few tactical victories. He managed to
foresee the rise of Islamic extremism, racism in Europe and the efforts of few states to better define
their identity. He was also supported by the declaration of the War on Terror and the rise of non-
Western superpowers. Overall, he suffered a strategic defeat. His defeat lies in the fact that faulty
lines grew larger within civilizations. Modernization seems to be embraced by people globally and
opposed by governments. Islamic terrorism was and remains represented by the minority standing
at the edge of history. The West tries to redefine its internal order while nationalism across the EU is
on the rise. Pakistan and India are escalating their Kashmir front, China and Africa are opening a new
era of relations, the “Orthodox brothers” Russia and Ukraine are still exchanging gunfire while the
relations between Saudi Arabia and the West remain strong. Universal values are shaping a world in
which nation-states are standing strong. This is why Huntington enjoyed few tactical victories but
overall a strategic defeat.

References
Ashford, E. (2017, February). cato-unbound. Retrieved April 20, 2020, from https://www.cato-
unbound.org/2017/02/06/emma-ashford/what-we-get-wrong-about-clash-
civilizations#_edn2

Evjen-Elias, I., & Schwartz, E. (n.d.). https://www.india-seminar.com/. Retrieved April 24, 2020, from
https://www.india-seminar.com/2002/509/509%20noam%20chomsky.htm

Fukuyama, F. (2018, August 27). The American Interest. Retrieved April 19, 2020, from
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/08/27/huntingtons-legacy/

Henderson, E. A. (2001, June). Clear and Present Strangers: The Clash of Civilizations and
International Conflict. International Studies Quarterly , pp. 317-338.

Huntington, S. (1993, Summer). The Clash of Civilizations? Foreign Affairs Volume 72 Number 3, pp.
22-49.

Karim, K. H., & Eid, M. (2012). Clash of Ignorance. Global Media Journal -- Canadian Edition Volume
5, Issue 1, pp. 7-27.

Relations, C. o. (2008, August). Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved April 04, 2020, from
https://www.cfr.org/timeline/us-war-afghanistan

Russett, B. M., Oneal, J. R., & Cox, M. (2000, September). Clash of Civilizations, or Realism and
Liberalism Déjà Vu? Some Evidence. Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 37, No. 5., pp. 583-608.

Said, E. W. (2001, October 04). The Nation. Retrieved April 24, 2020, from
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/clash-ignorance/

Shahi, D. (2017, April 02). E-IR. Retrieved April 25, 2020, from https://www.e-
ir.info/2017/04/02/the-clash-of-civilizations-thesis-a-critical-appraisal/

TrystanCJ. (2007). Youtube. Retrieved April 24, 2020, from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qT64TNho59I

View publication stats