But broadly admire it or not, it appears to be a difficult work to discuss. This is largely because it suffers the double-bind of being misunderstood by people who have not read it. Nine times out of ten when people refer to Huntington they suggest that Huntington thought it inevitable that civilizations would clash or, more absurdly, that he actively urged civilisations to do so. Such people have not properly read what they are trying to talk about.
Insightful commentary on international conflict and the scholarly study thereof. Or laughably poor analysis of matters that deserve to be taken more seriously. In light of recent events, interest in Huntington's thesis has been growing.
Even the NYTimes is using language that is clearly influenced by Huntington's work, though they don't specifically mention it. So let's review the merits such as they are and demerits of this argument. First, we need to review what Huntington actually said. Many of those who cite his work approvingly seem have precious little idea what it says, save that it speculates at length about a coming conflict between Islam and the West.
And, sure, there is some intuitive appeal to such a gross misreading of his work. But I encourage you to read the Foreign Affairs articleor the book that followed, where you'll find some reasonable claims sharing space with concrete predictions about what was then the future—predictions that have proven to be completely wrong.
This shouldn't really surprise us, since the entire argument rests upon a hugely problematic assumption, as I'll discuss below. We're more than 20 years from the end of the Cold War now, and there's still no evidence for the precise claims he made, but it's worth acknowledging from the start that Huntington's argument was always a little more nuanced than it has sometimes been made out to be.
Huntington argued that cultural factors would have a very specific effect—that interstate conflict would be most likely to occur at or near civilizational fault lines.
He did not simply say that identity would matter. He identified several essentially monolithic civilizations, and claimed that conflict would be most likely to occur in the future between governments of states that belonged to different civilizations, particularly those that shared a geographic border.
You'll note that some of these are defined by geography or political-legal boundaries, while others are delineated by religion. Why are some religions civilizations while others are not? Why are some states coterminal with cultural civilizations while others are not?
Why is there doubt about whether Africa has any civilization? Surely there is no racist subtext there! Note also that Huntington was not primarily talking about the possibility of religious or ethno-linguistic cleavages fueling civil wars, nor transnational terrorism. He was mostly interested in explaining interstate conflict, which he clearly said would be more likely to occur between certain types of countries in certain regions of the globe.
He did discuss terrorism, and his claims there have been partially supported see herebut this was secondary to his main argument. And insofar as he had anything to say about terrorism, his argument anticipates more incidents to cross civilizational boundaries than to occur within any given civilization—and he was dead wrong about that see the paper in the previous link.
The big problem I, and others, have with the CoC is that conflict has historically been, and continues to be, more common within the boundaries of what he identifies as civilizations than it has been between states of different civilizations.
Put differently, the key expectation of his argument is completely at odds with the available evidence. It doesn't just oversimplify—I'd argue that all theories, by necessity, do that to some degree—it fails on its own terms.
Conflict, by any measure yet devised by social scientists, is not now, nor has it ever been, more likely to occur along "civilizational fault lines". But there are other parts of Huntington's argument that are pretty reasonable.Huntington, S.
P. (). The Clash of Civilizations?. Foreign Affairs, 72(3), Within a word essay please include. An introduction. Provide a brief summary of Huntington’s thesis. Compare and contrast Huntington’s arguments with one other political scientist and/or academic.
Huntingtons Clash of Civilizations In: Social Issues Submitted By blackberrymandy Words Pages 6 His essay entitled, “The Clash of Civilization” was published in the foreign affairs in The essay is about the civilizational conflict.
Huntington Thesis on Clash of Civilization. Critically analyze and discuss Huntington's thesis on the "Clash of Civilizations." As you follow a transition, you have an excellent idea of the organisms that evolved. You have looked at the major researchers involved in the evolutionary discoveries, the fossils and DNA evidence as well as the mutations that altered the phenotype of the.
This is not an example of the work written by our professional dissertation writers. Samuel P. Huntington is a political scientist who in wrote an article entitled The Clash of Civilizations in which he discussed his thesis about the order of the world after the conclusion of the Cold War.
Samuel P. Huntington's paper "The clash of civilizations" defines the shifting of causes for friction between nations. He describes the changing of the guard, between secular ideological friction, such as democracy versus communism, to cultural and religious reasoning.
Anna Patricia R. David Clash of Civilizations The world was returning to a civilization-dominated world where future conflicts would originate from clashes between ‘civilizations’. The thesis of Huntington outlines a future where the “great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of the conflict will be cultural” (Huntington, ).