For the most part, I am in agreement with what Huntington has to say in this piece; he articulated what I was trying to get across in my last blog (I disagreed with Fukuyama and thought that the end of that essay was valid when he talked about ethnic/racial groups colliding). I think Huntington makes numerous valid points.Huntington opens up by simply stating "World politics is entering a new phase..." he then presents his thesis, "Conflict between civilizations will be the latest phase of the evolution of conflict in modern world." Huntington goes on to talk about how the world was divided into First, Second, and Third Worlds during the Cold War but that these divisions are no longer relevant. It is more meaningful to group countries not in terms of their political or economic systems or in terms of economic development but rather in terms of culture and civilization.
So what exactly is civilization? Huntington defines it as a cultural entity. Villages, regions, ethnic groups, nationalities, religious groups, all have distinct cultures at different levels of cultural heterogeneity. The culture of a village in southern Italy may be different from that of a village in northern Italy, but both will share in a common Italian culture that distinguishes them from other villages. A civilization is the highest cultural grouping of people, defined by common objective elements such as language, history, religion, customs, institutions and the subjective self-identification of people.
These divisions are deep and increasing in importance. Differences among civilizations are not only real; they are basic. Civilizations are differentiated from each other by history, language, culture, tradition and, most important, religion. The people of different civilizations have different views on the relationship between God and man, the individual and the group, the citizen and the state, parents and children, husband and wife, as well as differing views of the relative importance of rights and responsibilities, liberty and authority, equality and hierarchy. These differences are the product of centuries. They will not soon disappear. They are far more fundamental than differences among political ideologies and political regimes. Differences do not necessarily mean conflict, and conflict does not necessarily mean violence. Over the centuries, however, differences among civilizations have generated the most prolonged and the most violent conflicts.In conflicts between civilizations, the question is "What are you?" That is a given that cannot be changed (especially when applied to cultural aspects such as religion; it is much more difficult to be half-Catholic and half-Muslim).
Huntington closes by saying, "For the relevant future, there will be no universal civilization, but instead a world of different civilizations, each of which will have to learn to coexist with the others." While reading Fukuyama's piece, "The end of history?" i found myself thinking similar thoughts that Hntington put out there.I think it is a safe assumption that people are and will continue to identify with their culture. Cultural ties are very strong, world-wide. I think that, as history has shown, differences in culture is enough to cause conflict, even war. I thought it was interesting that identifying with a culture was much more defining—it labels you in a different way. I had never thought about how easy it is to switch sides politically and even economically, but it is really hard if not impossible to switch culturally. I agree with Huntington's thesis; we have not reached the end of history. The next hurdle the world will have to clear is a battle between cultures.
No comments:
Post a Comment