Rating: 
Summary: Fairly Good Analysis with a Few Minor Problems
Review: I'm not sure to what extent Samuel P. Huntington actually believes his thesis. Or if he's merely posing a provocative question for students to think about. However, he hypothesizes that future conflicts will not be ideological or economic, but conflicts between nations and groups of different civilizations. A problem with his analysis is that he assumes that civilizations begin and end with clear fault lines, when this is not so. Moreover, as Fouad Ajami points out, Huntington assumes he has found "his civilizations whole and intact, watertight under an eternal sky." In truth, there is no place on the Earth that has not been permeated by Western influence. Joseph Conrad understood this when he wrote "Youth." The young Marlowe knew that even the most remote civilization had been made and remade by the West, and taught new ways. Indeed, Huntington has an unusual idea of what constitutes civilizations. He divides the world into eight major civilizations: Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American, and possibly African. If civilization is defined by common history, language, traditions and religion, then why isn't Latin America part of the West? Latin America like North America was settled by Europeans who brought with them European languages and a European vision of Judeo-Christian religion, law, literature and gender roles (Kirkpatrick et al). Huntington writes off the importance of states in favour of civilizations. From a realist point of view, this is surely ludicrous. The international system is about struggle for survival among states, not civilizations. Furthermore, civilizations do not control states, but rather, states control civilizations. In addition, while Huntington identifies civilizations as more than one nation state, it is important to define terms correctly. Arguably, there are no nation states. It is more a matter of nations within a state. In favour of Huntington's argument, he does astutely point out that there is an increasing movement against Westernization. Specifically, one hears references toward "Asianization" in Japan, "Hinduization" of India, "re-Islamization" of the Middle East and most recent, "Russianization" of the former Soviet Union. But the problem that exists within Huntington's argument is that he underestimates modernity and the power of secularism. Secularism like westernization has been internalized in even the most remote places (Ajami). And the West, is certainly not a unitary or homogenous body with regard to religion and culture. Huntington's essay shifts gears when he starts to criticize the West. He is right in pointing out that the West uses a double standard with regard to allies and enemies. Why did the West fail to protect the Bosnian's against the Serbs? And why did Israel get away with violating UN sanctions? The truth is there is no universal citizen. The norms and laws of the West are not of much relevance to the rest of the world. There certainly is an "us" versus "them" dilemma in world politics. The Security Council does not represent the world, and the IMF and the World Bank reflect the interests of the West, which are not necessarily to help Southern states. Moreover, the US is undoubtedly the economic and political hegemon of the world. When the US collaborates with Britain and France in security issues and collaborates with Germany and Japan in economic issues it certainly looks like a case of Northern hob-nobbing and exclusion. While America is a proponent of nuclear nonproliferation, it can afford to be in this position because it already possesses all the cards. On the other hand, Third World states argue the case for self-defence. In refutation of Huntington, he misreads the Gulf War and attributes it to a sinister Islamic movement. He actually buys the argument put out by Saddam Hussein and his supporters; it is the West against Islam. Of course, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei didn't help when he proclaimed a holy war against the West. But scholars are well aware of Iraq's reasons for invading Kuwait and the reasons for the West' reaction. As Kishore Mahbubani points out, of all the conflicts between Muslims and pro-Western forces, the Muslimes are losing badly, whether they be Azeris, Palestinians, Iraqis, Iranians or Bosniaks. With so much disunity, the Islamic world is not about to coalesce into a single force. Further, the West is not the target of Islamic fundamentalism, but their own governments. Another problem with Huntington's thesis is that while he proposes that civilizations will be a threat in the future, why haven't they been a threat in the past?
Rating: 
Summary: Another Significant Context - A "Must Read"
Review: Huntington's "Clash" provides a significant context in which to review and understand the geopolitical progressions we have been witnessing for a number of years and highlights our need to re-establish a sense of national priorities both, domestically and externally. I found his thinking to be in contrast to our East Coast Elitists, imagining the excoriating he would receive from them, the left, and the extreme right. His brief warnings on the trend to multiculturalism, the popularity of denouncing our European heritage, a growing popular disdain for our Judeo-Christian based foundations,their continuing erosion, and the devastating effects of the same are timely. I recommend boning up on the histories of France, China, the Balkans, India, the Ottoman Empire, and Russia in order to provide a more complete background that will allow readers to appreciate Huntington's premise.
Rating:
Summary: Revelation for our education system for our young!
Review: The maps within themselves tells us much about ourselves and the frail universe that we occupy. Also the maps show us that humanity is not set in concrete. Beyond this,as I read this academic writing, which had much to offer on many levels but what became foremost in my mind was that....our young must be taught bascally "the world's major religions" beginning in junior high school or even introductions much earlier.As the young move into the world, then there is some understanding on how our religion shapes us, knowingly and unknowlingly. Most wars are holy wars, which for some reason are not acknowledged. These usless battles of "to pray or not to pray in public schools or even before football games seems very infantile in the light of such a book. Of course, the debate over evolution in teaching, seems another aspect in the lack of intuitive intelligence in our academic world. These are some thoughts from the trenches of life. Thus, "taking one's brain out and playing it with oneself" can be done if one does not resort to throwing it on a dirty old yellowed newspaper. Sterile white gauze is the only way to go. Good book to tick off fresh ideas for our young to think about.
Rating:
Summary: Useful Framework for Analyzing World Politics and Conflicts!
Review: The author has written a must-read book for understanding and attempting to explain world politics and world conflicts. That many of his predictions have turned out to be false should not distract from his major thesis that future conflicts are based on cultural distinctions between the world's major civilizations, i.e., the WEst, Islamic cultures, Confucian cultures, Orthodox cultures, etc.Huntington is primarily an academic, so we should forgive him for dealing primarily in theories. THe book's usefulness lies not in seeing how often his predictions are true or not, but in using the theories to attempt to expalin or understand a given situation. No one theory or book can explain everything, but HUntington's observations attempt to provide us with some background in which to understand the world. THe book came out a number of years ago and clearly overestimated the Asian economic boom and undestimated the vitality of the current U.S. economy. But his sections on politics i nthe Middle east and Muslim cultures helps to explain the sources of past and future antagonism between the West and Islam. The book is also a real eye-opener in helping the reader understand how the rest of the world views the West. While the author makes clear that the rest of the world wishes to mimic the modernization of the west and its technology, this modernization is not the same thing as WEsternization. THis is the trap most Americans fall into in analyzing the global economy and culture. All in all a fascianting book and a must read for students of international politcs and relations! THe many negative reviews miss the point that a book's utility is not in how often it makes correct predictions, but its utility in framing issues.
Rating:
Summary: A great book (for the most part....)
Review: Generally, I believe that this was the book that most structured the ways in which I think about politics.... and I think it is a must read, which can be evidenced by the fact that the people whom have reviewed it have tended to either love it or slam it.... Hungtinton (who has to be considered among the first rank of US political thinkers) continued in the great tradition of grand political thinkers like Spengler, Toynbee, and Braudel and puts forth a thesis that the world is broken into nine civilizations which will have a tendency to 'clash' along their lines of fissure (i.e. Yugoslavia-- where the 'Islamic' 'Western' and 'Orthodox' civilizations come together.... India/Pakistan where the 'Indic' and 'Islamic', etc.). Largely, this has been true. One doesn't go about setting up theories based on these kinds of evidence, and Huntington doesn't do that. He puts forth reasons. He has a good case for flare ups (using demographic changes-- chapter 5 of this book). Largely, he puts forth a very coherent case.... People slam him for being racist and for being a realist. The racism charge I have no desire to defend. He's of an older generation. His realism, though (i.e. anti-institutionalism) only comes into play for LDCs, etc. because AS A DEVICE TO ANALYZE, AT HIGH STAKES LEVELS, states still are the moving objects when it counts.... This is a definate must read for any student of politics. I'm sorry for belaboring a few points....
Rating:
Summary: A Brilliant New Framework
Review: Huntington draws on the work of the finest anthropologists, including the likes of Spengler, Toynbee, Braudel, Weber, and Quigley, to support and illustrate his masterful analysis. Both these naive assumptions are overcome in favor of a brilliant, balanced, more appropriate framework: that somehow East and West will overcome their significant differences and unite to form one world (governed under Western democratic principles), and that we will remain opposed to Eastern cultures, destined to defeat 'oriental tyranny.' First, Huntington attempts to define what 'culture' is. "Of all the objective elements which distinguish civilizations, however, the most important usually is religion, as the Athenians emphasized." Religion being the differentiating characteristic of a civilization, Huntington then lists the major contemporary civilizations which include the Sinic, Japanese, Hindu, Islamic, and Western. The author refutes the arguement for Western universalism. He points out the phenomenon of cultural indigenization which occurs during or after the process of modernization and generally necessitates the rejection of foreign cultural influences. Huntington further argues for the imminent decline of the West, at least in relation to up and coming powers, in terms of economic influence and military prowess. Islam and China emerge as the principal challengers to Western hegemony; Islam primarily because of demography and militant cultural universalism and China (the Sinic civilization) due to its emerging extreme economic prosperity. The cultures of East and West are certainly not irreconcilable, as Huntington later asserts. Each civilization has (at the very least) basic commonalities with ohers, though there are many scenarios in which serious conflicts (aside from ethnic and isolated fault line skirmishes) might occur. Samuel P. Huntington's analysis is bold and sweeping, if perhaps disappointingly egalitarian and idealistic toward its conclusion. Yet it is stunning, provocative and required reading for those interesting in foreign policy, indeed those fascinated by anthropology as well. As Wang Gungwu has said, "It is not just about the future, but may actually help to shape it."
Rating: 
Summary: Realism, plagued by a need for an enemy, rears its ugly head
Review: Huntington is the last member of an Old Guard of Realist who have to define the world in Us. vs. Them terms. With no more Evil Empire to keep men like him in business, he turns to a new enemy. Realism, as a theory of International Relations, cannot stand up without an enemy. Right now, it's rather difficult to find that enemy. As opposed to assuming that the world may no longer be defined in strictly Realist terms, Huntington invents an enemy. Like a man obsessed with Eugenics and Race Theory, he puts forward a claim that the cultures and traditions of the Orient are bound to be hostile toward us. There is no way that people from the East and West can live peaceably together, we are doomed to violence and struggle; pure nonesense and drivel. Huntington does not ever put forth any evidence to prove this theory. He uses rhetoric and singular anecdotes, failing, among other things, to consider how traditions and civilizations change. 500 years ago, we in the West were pretty barbaric. The Spanish started killing heretics in mass numbers, women were forced into a state of perpetual subservience, we fought over the official religion of the state in wars that led to huge casualities, then found a New World with a population we could wipe out. Any civilized society that encountered us would have surely thought 'these barbarians are hopeless.' This is by no means an attempt to categorize other societies as being where we were five hundred years ago. I'm not calling the Middle East and Asia barbaric, nor am I saying we in the West are perfect, but I am saying that relegating relations between cultures to the status of futility is absurd. Democracy and economic development change societies for the better and reduce conflict between states. States that are democractic don't go to war with each other, it doesn't matter if the two states are both Western, both Eastern, or from different cultural traditions entirely. Complex Interdependence (A theory put forth by Keohane and Nye, who know far more about International Relations today than Professor Huntington) has shown that the world is indeed becoming a smaller place and that as all regions are becoming interconnected with each other through commerce and increased communication, we are going to have to learn to live with one another and understand each other. I sincerely hope that Huntington is alone in his girding for battle, the rest of us should be looking toward greater global interconnectedness, not another Crusade. The title of his book, "The Clash of Civilizations" actually comes from a Bernard Lewis essay. Lewis himself is a narrow minded outsider who claims to understand Islam from a Western point of view. His analysis turns the stomach as well. You know why radicals in the East love Lewis and Huntington? Because as long as these two continue to perpetuate the myth that East and West cannot resolve their differences and that they are eternally doomed to conflict, the right wing radicals abroad can continue to spew their angry rhetoric about the West. Men like Osama bin Laden read this sort of thing and use it to urge their followers on. They can claim that if we in the West really believe this stuff, then it is proof that we are girding ourselves for a battle against Islam, and they in turn, can point the finger at the enemy. Any attempts at reconciliation between the West and the East are hampered by the fact that there are people in our society who listen to these two. The struggle to understand and accept other cultures is a difficult one. It will take time. That however, does not mean we should throw up our hands and claim that tradition and society make the clash between the West and the Orient inevitable. Huntington breaks the world up into neat little societies, completely ignoring the economic interdependence between these 'civilizations.' He ignores the progress that has already been made thanks to the globalization of the world economy and ignores the fact that we have good relations with many non Western states. He ignores the effects of democracy and the development of the economy on International Relations as well. His theory is all about xenophobia, chauvinism, and the need to define and lash out against an easily identifiable enemy. Let us hope that this book is the death throes of the old Realist regime, as opposed to the healthy war cry, Professor Huntington would have it be.
Rating:
Summary: Very goods, but a bit contradictory
Review: Samuel Huntington did an excellent job explaining how many cultures diferent from each other in terms of ethnicity, religion and attitudes toward other cultures. He details this clash for the last 1500 years. He is right that Asia can never be assimilated to Western Culture as they don't want to be. Western Culture and Asian culture are too different to be reconciled. But what is Western Culture? Huntington says that European Countries which are Protestant and/or Catholic are the only Western countries along with Euro-descent countries like Canda, USA, Australia, New Zealand. He says that Orthodox Christian countries are not Western, even if they want to be. Huntington has 3 flaws in this book. He uses the word "civilation" way too many times, that the book has maximum readability. He second flaw was referring to Germany as a Catholic Country. Germany is almost evenly split with Protestants and Catholics, so it is neither a Protestant or Catholic country. His third flaw was a contradictory one. he says that if Latin America converst to Protestantism than they coin join Western Culture. But a majority of Latin Americans are Indians and Mestizos (half Indian, half Spanish), so he contradicts his belief that only Europeans can be Western. I would recommend thsi book, but be prepared for maximum readability.
Rating:
Summary: Feels like reading the Old Testament
Review: A very interesting book that can provide valuable insights on the way of thinking of US policy makers - especially if read along with Zbigniew Brzezinski's The Grand Chessboard. It is quite surprising that the author presents every thought of his as an indisputable axiom - e.g. his declaration that "It is human to hate!" (sic! ) - without ever considering other alternatives or trying to keep a more academic doubtful posture. In that respect, the book is rather shocking but it can be quite entertaining as well, since it feels like reading the Old Testament - a remarkable literate achievement! Therefore, I think it deserves 5 stars.
Rating:
Summary: A Crystal Ball For World Political Geography
Review: It was a pleasure to read this book in the light of current and recent global events. The author's deep insight into the societies and cultures so different than his own is remarkable. Clearly, he has first-hand knowledge of this topic. He has tried very hard to quantify and back up his analysis, a quite welcome for this type of subject area. The attempt was clearly to investigate the interaction and dynamics of various civilizations. It was not about theory of civilizations, definitely not about cultures. Many critics seem to have missed this point. The author also makes some bold statements and does not shy away from reaching some conclusions. Predictably, this gets him into a lot of trouble with some of the readers, and this is the price it seems he is glad to pay. He does not necessarily push a certain scool of thought, and in fact, correctly identifies the natural instinct of scholars to anchor such analysis in the Christian-West-European philosophies. The book places too much emphasis on the religious divides, and how the history and development of religions has positioned various civilizations where they are today. He does not venture beyond religion as the main differentiator and ignores the obvious possibility that religion itself is an effect not necessarily the cause. There is East, where the group is the entity for which all sacrifice is made to maintain, and there is West where individual is the entity for which every sacrifice is made. This basic difference in relative position of an individual with respect to the society he belongs to is what has created and fueled history to most degree. This is the source of all confusion about human values and why all sincere attempts of many well-intentioned Western statesmen to unify our world under one standard of "human rights", mainly the Western version, runs into such difficult oppostion from China to Palestine. The book misses this key point. The most problematic part of the book where the author seems to have taken some leave of the good sense he has shown everywhere else was the section explaining the tie between Islam and terrorism. His attempt to quantify and prove this "relationship" scientifically with numbers was even more apalling. Especially given the fact that the previous century has witnessed massive destruction of human lives in convulsive global wars precipitated by various nations who lead that "Western" club, this distraction about Islamic terrorism was a puzzle to this reader. In so far the author avoids the kind of detailed analysis which is obviously not his strength, the book gives a good account of global cultural and political forces in action and how they are shaping our common political and economic future. It is written well, has a good flow and stays focused on the subject. The analysis is well founded. I recommend highly.
|
