In contrast to Huntington’s article, Douglass Ross responded with his article “Despair, Defeatism, and Isolationism in American “Grand Strategy”: The Seductive Convenience of Huntington’s “Civilizational Clash” Thesis”. In his article, Ross disagrees with many of Huntington’s main arguments. In comparison, Ross feels that the future of global conflict does not lie in the hands of the differences between civilizations but in the politics of global sharing and re-distribution. Ross states that “The reality of the 1990s is one of unavoidable interdependence among the peoples of the world; Strategic and economic insecurity flow automatically from this reality.” (Ross, p. 81). In criticism of Huntington, Ross introduced his own argument that “He in no way accepts the futurist scenarios of environmentally concerned analysts who foresee a century dominated by the politics of resource scarcity, famines, global warming, ozone depletion, toxic waste contamination of food and water and unwanted mass migrations.” (Ross, p.71). Basically, Ross felt that components of Huntington’s arguments were incomplete and that future conflicts will in fact be more complex than simply a clashing of cultural characteristics or these evident differences among civilizations. Although Ross’ article concentrates on the criticism and revision of Huntington’s main arguments, both articles essentially boil down to the same point. That the only solution is not to worry about this evident “crash” of civilizations, but to try to keep peace and harmony with other civilizations by working together to attain common goals. Huntington said: “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 wit the others.” (Huntington, p.66). In response, Ross concluded by saying: “A hypothetical and speculative “clash of civilizations” must not dominate our thoughts about international security the next century, but rather a determination to forge ever broader common standards of civilized and responsible behaviour for the troubled decades ahead.” (Ross, p.81). Essentially they are agreeing on the same point, that mutual effort to attain common goals of welfare and security would fundamentally help keep conflict at bay, although conflict is inevitable when there will always be the presence of differences in interests respective to each civilization. History has only proven that it is hard to come to overall mutual agreement when dealing with global politics.
In light of the direction things are going in today’s world, it is safe to say that it appears that Huntington’s hypothesis holds great truth and validity. Many issues in today’s global politics do revolve around the notion of the “West versus the rest”. Huntington captured the essence of the role played by the West in global politics today when he argued “The West is now at an extraordinary peak of power in relation to other civilizations. Its superpower opponent has disappeared from the map. Military conflict among Western states is unthinkable, and Western military power is unrivaled…the West faces no economic challenge.” (Huntington, p.59). So much relies on the actions of the West, as they dominate politics especially in terms of economic and security issues. Any move the West makes essentially affects the rest of the world. All civilizations naturally strive for institutional, military, and economic power, but the domination of the West makes it hard to leave room for any other civilization to have an affect. These differences are an easy source of conflict along with the ever-growing differences in the values, beliefs, and actions of different cultures. Huntington feels that the endeavors of the West to push forth its values of democracy to the rest of the world, to sustain its military dominance above others, and to advance its economic policies, elicit conflicting or counter responses from other civilizations, thus their clashing.
All civilizations, in some way, attempt to promote their values, but none with such force or to such an extent as the Western world. With the uncontrollable spread of globalization, the West is pushing its culture into the rest of the world; this permeation is so clearly present in today’s world as the West presses for the possibility of one universal civilization, a notion that Huntington feels is purely a Western idea. In his article “Huntington’s Clash Revisited”, David Skidmore also addressed this issue: “Although the clash of civilizations will be multifaceted, the most important dividing line will separate Western societies from the other six or seven civilizations identified by Huntington. Western cultural penetration and political domination has prompted resentment and heightened attachment to Non-Western cultures in other parts of the world.” (Skidmore, p.181) In reaction to this domination, it is inevitable for other countries to try to retaliate and still hold some ground in the ever-continuing struggle for power. In order for conflict to be avoided, the West must make room to accommodate the presence of Non-Western civilizations. These civilizations will always strive to keep up and keep their place of importance on the map. “Non-Western civilizations will continue to attempt to acquire the wealth, technology, skills, machines, and weapons that are part of being modern. Their economic and military strength relative to the West will increase.” (Huntington, p.65). Although it would be advisable for the West to demonstrate greater cooperation, it is inevitably the root of many problems when this unity is not promoted, and Western cultural ideals are seen as being the universal good, or ideal universal standard. Skidmore summarized this issue accurately when he said: “The growth of interdependence leads not to convergence but instead to the heightened awareness of differences.”
This leads to a second argument that Huntington raises about how the world, in terms of relations among civilizations, is becoming a smaller place. “The interactions between peoples of different civilizations are increasing; these increasing interactions intensify civilizations consciousness and awareness of differences between civilizations and commonalities within civilizations.” (Huntington, p.49). With the increasing contact among civilizations, it would be in the best interest for all to attempt to cooperate and compromise with each other in order for communication to work efficiently and for all parties to satisfy their wants and needs. These increased interactions increase civilization-consciousness, and often as a result of that, the kin-country syndrome emerges thus enhancing the “us versus them” outlook. When interacting with other civilizations, people tend to familiarize and support their civilization first and foremost and often see others as direct competitors. These differences among civilizations are not easily mutable, as each sees their values and ideals as being fit. Finding compromise within cultural differences is far more difficult than finding compromise in say political differences. People instinctively take sides as soon as disagreement occurs. Skidmore put forth in his article: “Culture, rather than ideology or national identity, will serve as the main litmus test for distinguishing friend from foe” (Skidmore, p.181) and “Interdependence may spark resistance and hatred when it takes the form of cultural penetration of one society by another representing incompatible beliefs and values.” (Skidmore, p.183).
Often when an inequality in the development of two civilizations is present, one will try to influence the other to comply to become more like it. In real life context, the United States is a good example. The US, being dominant in global politics, often tries to exert or impose itself upon other countries in order to get them to comply with their Western ways. In his article “The Clash of Civilizations: A View from Japan.” Seizaburo Sato addresses this issue by saying that this type of conflict “covers encounters between a mature classic civilization and another culture which has already reached a considerable level of development of its own. While the former remain unchanged, the latter are not infrequently stimulated by the former and launch a spectacular process of change.” (Sato, p.6). Sato explains that these clashes occur because of “different social foundations formed by diverse cultural heritages.” (Sato, p.7). These diverse cultural heritages are not easily silenced. What is key to understanding this concept is “The fundamental role of [civilizations] was to maintain and preserve the established ways of life.” (Sato, p.7).
Relatively, one last argument lies in the effects of economic modernization. Although already briefly touched on, this holds great importance in understanding why different civilizations clash with each other. Huntington addressed this issue early on in his article: “The processes of economic modernization and social change throughout the world are separating people from longstanding local identities.” (Huntington, p.49). What he meant by this was similar to how increased interactions caused increased awareness of differences. As economic regionalism is increasing, and the importance of trade among nations intensifies, “economic regionalism will reinforce civilization-consciousness.” (Huntington, p.51). The economic success of a country depends heavily on the success of its interactions with other countries, and the stability of its mutual relations. In order for trade to run smoothly, and for each country to attain what they want, they must agree on certain standards or compromise each others desires.
Culture still plays a large role in these interactions. Huntington introduces a clear example in his article: “Common culture, in contrast, is clearly facilitating the rapid expansion of the economic relations between the People’s Republic of China and Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, and the overseas Chinese communities in other Asian countries.” (Huntington, p. 51). Similarly, one could look at the trade relationship between North America and Western Europe. Similarities in culture facilitate their relationship as they have greater understanding with each other. In contrast one could look at the difficulties that arise between North America and the Middle East. Such huge cultural differences play a large role in the intense conflict between them. Culture, and even more specifically religion, plays a large role in economic cooperation and organization. As Huntington mentioned, people often define their identity in ethnic and religious terms, and this often directly affects the result of interactions between these different civilizations.
In essence, it has been demonstrated both in theory and in real life that these differences between civilizations have been and will probably be the root of intense conflict. As factors such as globalization increase, and interactions increase, cultural differences appear to intensify thus the chances of conflict among civilizations increases along side. The expansion of Western thought and culture puts increased pressure on other civilizations to step up and maintain their standing in global politics. The West must maintain their political and economic power in order to protect its interests, but if peace is to be attained among civilizations then the West will have to develop a better understanding of the values and interests of Non-Western civilizations. As Huntington concluded “It will require an effort to identify elements of commonality between Western and other civilizations.” (Huntington, p. 66). Differences among cultures are not easily resolved, as culture plays an intense role in the identification and functioning of various civilizations. The importance of culture is immense as it helps define and distinguish various civilizations from each other. Although Huntington optimistically stated: “Differences do not necessarily mean conflict, and conflict does not necessarily mean violence.” (Huntington, p.49), differences among civilizations are inevitable.
Bibliography
Huntington, Samuel. “The Clash of Civilizations? The Next Pattern of Conflict” International _ Relations: In the Post-Cold War Era. 2002, pp. 45-66.
Ross, Douglas. “Despair, Defeatism, and Isolationism in American “Grand Strategy”: The Seductive Convenience of Huntington’s “Civilizational Clash” Thesis” International _ Relations: In the Post-Cold War Era. 2002, pp. 67-84..
Seizaburo, Sato. “The Clash of Civilizations: A View from Japan” Asia Pacific Review. October, 1997, pp. 1-15.
Skidmore, David. “Huntington’s Clash Revisited” Journal of World Systems Research. Fall, 1998, pp. 181-188.
