Rating: 
Summary: Elegantly Simple & Amazingly Descriptive Framework
Review: With the end of the Cold War, some writers wondered if it was "the end of history." However, Samuel P. Huntington postulates we are simply entering a new era of history in which "civilizations" (which are a function of religion, culture and ethnic roots) will be more important than political or economic ideology in determing geopolitics. Huntingon describes eight civilizations that include African, Eastern Orthodox, Hindu, Islamic, Japanese, Latin American, Confucian/Sinic & Western. Rather than the bipolar power structure of the last half of the 20th Century, Huntington's new world order is multipolar and multicivilizational. Within Huntington's book, the West is and will remain the most powerful civilization for some time into the future. Yet it will face increasing rivalry from Islamic societies and the Confucian society led by China. Huntington counsels that, in the future, avoidance of major intercivilizational wars requires core states within each civilization to refrain from intervening in conflicts within other civilizations. This will obviously require a new kind of discipline for leading nations. Huntington's assessment of the militaristic legacy of Islam, the "indigestibility" of Muslims and the "bloody borders" of Islam is thought provoking, enlightening and supported with solid analysis. Huntington also argues the absence of a strong "core state" within the Islamic civilization is "destabilizing." Whereas many books of this genre seem to be long on analysis and short on solutions, Huntington provides both and does so in an elegantly simply framework that is amazingly prescient in predicting how events around the world have developed since the book was published. Many people may choose to differ with Huntington's brilliant, bold, and provocative observations, but his ideas deserve apt and thoughtful consideration from policy makers and interested citizens as they shape their own opinions about current events. A very interesting read!
Rating:
Summary: Provocative. Interesting. True?
Review: Huntington's thesis is that the post-Cold War world is no longer bipolar (Free World vs. Communist World, with the rest (the "Third World") scrambling around in between) but "multipolar" and "multicivilizational". The centers of gravity in this new world order, he argues, are various "civilizations", defined along religious, cultural and linguistic lines: Western Civilization, Latin American, African, Islamic, Sinic (Chinese), Hindu, Orthodox, Buddhist, Japanese. Huntington argues that this map of civilizations will help us to understand current and future conflicts, which increasingly are "fault-line" conflicts in which states or peoples belonging to different civilizations clash. Secondarily, he argues that Western civilization is not universal and is in decline. Islamic Civilization, in the middle of a huge demographic surge, is involved in most of the world's conflicts. Muslims tend to interpret conflicts between other Muslims and Western states as clashes of civilization (the West vs. Islam). These (secondary) points, of course, guaranteed the book a sudden increase in fame after September 11, 2001. By and large this is an informative and interesting book. Huntington's discussion of the "bloody borders" of Islam, for instance, is eye-opening and more than a little disturbing. No doubt he is right that an understanding of civilizational differences will help policy makers to better understand current and future conflicts. But I think he pushes his thesis a bit too hard, with a bit too much cultural determinism. For starters, I think he sells the West short. Western ideals are not held by everyone, it's true, but they are held by more and more people all the time. They aspire to be universal and are compatible with any religion. Civilizations change. They also spread. This is true, for instance, of Islam, an Arabian export which now has a presence pretty much everywhere. It's also true of Western culture, which has gone from tiny Classical Greece throughout the world. A future scenario which Huntington does not envision is the increasing adoption of Western-style liberal government, undermining the faultlines between civilizations. Also, Huntington claims that, increasingly, non-Western countries modernize without Westernizing. In so arguing, he never defines "modernization", but it's clear that he means modernization in a technological sense: better hospitals, bridges and guns. What Huntington ignores is the link between Western culture and technological innovation. Any country which does not adopt such Western norms as individualism, free rational inquiry, the separation of church and state and a dense civil society (i.e., a wide variety of organizations and powers, like religions, guilds, unions, corporations, etc.) can only "modernize" by importing technology. It will therefore always be a step behind countries with Western-style cultures, and the West will continue to be more competitive and therefore very seductive. Why can't Iranians or Iraqis, for instance, have a liberal state? To say they can't and won't and are doomed by Islam to live in repressive states that chomp at the bit and hate the West seems to me a sort of bigotry. Huntington is provocative and should be read. In the end, I think he's way too fatalistic to be right.
Rating: 
Summary: Pure Propaganda
Review: This is a dangerous book especially for those who do'nt know much about Islam, Asia and the Mideast.
The main idea of the book is that " If we don't destroy them, they will destroy us " whch is a justification for the imperialism The U.S government is practicing on the world nowadays.
Simpely thre is no clash of " Civilizations " but a clash of " Fundamentalisms " I reccomend ( The Clash of Fundamentalisms: Crusades, Jihads and Modernity ) by Tariq Ali instead of this ' Pure Propaganda '.
Rating: 
Summary: The most deceptively clear book that I have ever read.
Review: The reason I say the book is "deceptively clear" is that Samuel Huntington is an elegant and articulate writer. However, what is missing is a dangerous lack of clear understanding of local dynamics. To make such broad sweeping statements, one certainly runs the risk of oversimplifying. Samuel P. Huntington does not disappoint in this regard. Huntington argues, actually tries to create, an entirely new framework for lines of demarcation that he calls "Civilizations." Within this post-Cold War framework, Huntington argues, have evolved (in this ever changing milieu) 7 distinctive civilizations that include: Japanese, Buddhist, Orthodox, Hindu, Sinic, Islamic, African, Latin American and Western. The divisions are clear and the divisions well argued. What is really missing is a sense of complexity that is the reality of the nations and states (and even within those states and nations) that have many layers and are complex. Another problem, beyond the oversimplifications, is the framing of the threats against the west coming from Islam and The East. While the former threatening "us" through demographics, the latter is threatening "us" via their reconfiguration of the world economy. Granted that this was written within the time and space of the "Asian Crisis" as opposed to the "Asian Miracle," Huntington should know better. This book runs along the same freeway that broad-sweep books like Francis Fukuyama's "The End of History and the Last Man" (also available on Amazon.com) drives along. It is difficult at best and dangerous at worst to try to crystal ball these things. The likes of Huntington and Fukuyama will not stop trying. Because Huntington is an engaging writer, this book is perhaps the most dangerous of the lot. It is the most malignant because Huntington is not just willfully ignorant to the whole range of social theory that has previously done with such rigor looked at issues of tradition, sociology and history. Such a book, which makes a claim to understand the whole range of diverse cultures and traditions that it explores, the sources of information are almost exclusively western. Huntington is quick to quote such notables as Max Weber, Emile Durkheim, Oswald Spengler, Pitirim Sorokin, Arnold Toynbee, Alfred Weber, A.L. Kroeber, Philip Bagby, Carroll Quigley, Rushton Coulborn, Christopher Dawson, S.N. Eisenstadt, Fernand Braudel, William H. McNeill, Adda Bozeman, Immanuel Wallerstein, and Felipe Fernandez. (Huntington, 1997: 41) Add to this pantheon of notables Edward Said (Huntington, 1997: 33) as well as Francis Fukuyama (Huntington, 1997: 31) [the list does not end there] then you have a veritable who's who of perhaps the most quoted thinkers to make your work complete. How can you question who uses names such as this. This is what makes Huntington dangerous -- the sweeps but seemingly grounded -- at least on paper. Lastly, framing his whole book around the premise of "us" versus "them" he deceptively creates the bifurcation. The threats against the West (or "us") against the forces of Islam and East Asia (or "them") are all over this book. Huntington is guilty of perpetuating a myth of a pan Islam and pan East Asia -- giving rise to the idea that a civilization is capable of some form of will-to-power. Huntington reinforces that sense of a clear and present danger. A professor of comparative culture, looking for a book to use, will find this book a great starter and a wealth of information. Taking this book to class means it should be framed properly. Certainly use this book, but make sure to properly frame it for what it is -- an oversimplification. I will say, and I say this cautiously, that the book borders on jingoism. It is a very apt book to read at a time like this and one that should strike a cord of caution. I strongly suggest that Huntington read his Foucault. Civilizations do not clash, people do. Miguel Llora
Rating:
Summary: Important analysis, questionable conclusions
Review: Samuel Huntington has been called everything from a racist bigot to one of the most brillant minds of the 20th century. Reading the "Clash of Civilizations" prepares one to grapple with the complex and important issues of today. Huntington's thesis is that the world is understand neither from traditional realist principles which centre on the nation-state, or liberal principles which centre on values such as freedom and interdependence. The world is understood through the clash and intermingling of different cultures. Huntington's analysis is interesting and in a lot of cases, bang on. However in some issues, Huntington interprets things too simplistically and without context. He makes rather disturbing comments about the Islamic world that can be interpreted as small-minded. Nonetheless everyone would be wise to read it himself and be the judge.
Rating:
Summary: Pure Propaganda
Review: This is a dangerous book especially for those who do'nt know much about Islam, Asia and the Mideast.
The main idea of the book is that " If we don't destroy them, they will destroy us " whch is a justification for the imperialism The U.S government is practicing on the world nowadays.
Simpely thre is no clash of " Civilizations " but a clash of " Fundamentalisms " I reccomend ( The Clash of Fundamentalisms: Crusades, Jihads and Modernity ) by Tariq Ali instead of this ' Pure Propaganda '.
Rating:
Summary: La inteligencia de la Inteligencia de los E.U.
Review: (There are enough english reviews now one in spanish) Huntington asegura que hay que soñar en inglés para soñar el sueño americano (en su nuevo libro Who Are We, que tampoco te recomiendo). Este es solo un ejemplo más de su ignorancia, paranoia y escritos manipulados que engañan al lector desinformado o de buena fe. Ya hay suficientes críticas en inglés. La civilización humana no puede entenderse sino como una sola, y no como varias que se encuentran y chocan entre sí. Al menos no en un mundo al que se le ha otorgado el mote de "globalizado". Se puede entender un choque de civilizaciones entre dos grupos humanos separados por miles de años y por consecuencia cuyas ideas fundamentales se han alejado una de otra a tal grado que una es incapaz de entender a la otra o en ese entendimiento surgen diferencias irreconciliables. Ese podría ser el caso, por ejemplo, del choque entre españoles del siglo XV y XVI con los nativos del continente americano de aquel momento, separados por la última migración masiva entre los continentes durante la edad de hielo, en el que una civilización se impone a otra y no acaba realmente por integrarse sino por excluirse mutuamente, y en donde una parte queda subordinada y, en ocasiones, eliminada. El caso de Estados Unidos es aún menos complejo, el mundo islámico no está chocando con el occidental, es un país contra un enemigo difuso y contra algunos países que ha seleccionado; no es el occidente, ni es el islamismo, tampoco es una persona o títere solitario conjra el Islam, si no una política consistente mantenida durante las últimas décadas y ejercida por los Estados Unidos. La profundidad de esa intencionalidad estadounidense consistente en ejercer la hegemonía de su poder ha sido repetida en varias ocasiones durante la historia de la humanidad, no sin que haya diferencias sustanciales pero una misma propiedad emergente: una endogamia entre cómo se ven y quieren verse a sí mismos y por lo tanto qué hacen para lograrlo, sin detenerse a entender lo que sucede a su alrededor. Estados Unidos no puede evitar quererse ver como quiere verse: en esa necesidad por verse a sí mismo como héroe al tiempo que justifica sus acciones echando mano de conceptología subjetiva: como verdad y justicia, su verdad y su justicia. Así, por ejemplo, si Estados Unidos invade, aumenta su territorio o se enfrenta a una nación4 pinta a quienes lo logran como héroes valientes pero a sus rivales como desalmados, brutos o ignorantes, aún cuando ellos mismos hayan sido la causa de lo que desea destruir5. Estados Unidos es inevitablemente la fábrica de esos bien conocidos estereotipos de ellos mismos y del resto del mundo provocando irritación en grandes y distintas regiones. Irritación además que llega a niveles de exaltación cuando se humilla sistemáticamente con todo tipo de actitudes, desde políticas internas que afectan a los inmigrantes y turistas que tratan de ingresar a los Estados Unidos por una u otra razón, hasta aquellas que dictan políticas internacionales de largo alcance y que pretenden interferir en los asuntos y vida de otras naciones, ejemplos de esto son la certificación por el combate antidrogas o el embargo impuesto a varios países, su arbitraria catalogación del llamado "eje del mal" y su desprecio por las naciones que considera no gratas. No queda más que suponer que existe una intencionalidad en la forma en la que Estados Unidos actúa y promueve la forma en que es y quiere ser visto por el resto del mundo. Estados Unidos no puede evitar reflejar lo que a sí mismo se reproduce, es la película que Hollywood siempre quiso hacer y que de alguna manera produjo. Es así que la fuente de su riqueza es al mismo tiempo la de su infortunio. Como todo productor es responsable de su película pero también víctima del guión que ha elegido seguir. Lo que le ha sucedido es tan atroz como inevitable a consecuencia de su proceder. El fundamentalismo es recíproco.
Rating:
Summary: Samuel P. Huntington: Author Maligned
Review: I have read the reviews of the book, and the book itself. What I
find amazing is the rise of leftwing intolerance under the guise
of polite sophistry. Compelling arguments against Huntington,
in my view, are only worthy of discard - since they are not compelling when one engages in any analysis of his (Huntington)
work. The reason ? Look at the world around us - radical Islam is all poised to strike at any place and time. As recent as on April 26, 2004 the New York Times carried a frontpage article
describing how some 2nd generation Britons, mostly of Pakistani origin, in the city of Luton, England, have declared to kill Tony Blair and raise the Islamic flag on 10 Downing Street. (For the skeptic I'm referring to the article: MILITANTS IN EUROPE
OPENLY CALL FOR JIHAD AND THE RULE OF ISLAM by Patrick E. Tyler and Don Van Natta,Jr. in NYT). So, how do we reckon with such phenomenon ? The leftists would
open the book of Marx and explain that religion/social structure
etc. are all not the factors in the occurrence of such undesired
phenomena; rather it is the underlying economic depravation and unemployment of the Muslim youth that causes such problems. Well, that is hardly plausible. Why ? Because one can cite the various suicide bombers and Islamic martyrs, strewn all over the Islamic world, all poised to blow the world to smithreens if the world doesn't conform to the dictates of the Quran. Observers would certainly agree that unemployment and economic depravation just add to fuel to the fire. But, the (Islamic) fire was burning in the first place. At this place one would ask: what is this "Islamic fire" ? Well, per Quran Islam means Submission to the Supreme Will (of Allah/God). This will of Allah is as found revealed in the Quran. The whole objective of Islam is to ultimately Islamize the whole world, i.e., bring it under the banner of the Islamic flag - as the young Britons of Pakistani origin wanted to do. Sounds familiar - Osama bin Laden ? The various forms of discontent of local Muslim populations just catalyse the phenomenon, but do not originate it (Islamic fire). The world (secular & democratic) has learnt with much chagrin that such "Islamic fires" are not localized in a particular spot in the world. They can appear anywhere like a frightening incurable epidemic. Indeed the grim (political) reality is that Islamic terrorism (associated with radical Islam) is a faceless/stateles form of terrorism. Huntington's epoch-making book makes you (the totally uninitiated) realize that there is more to Islam than the veils, belly-dancers and the tents in the Arabian peninsula. The credit of the author is that he has explored the depths of Islam only to find the truth: ISLAM HAS BLOODY BORDERS. To do so, he realized from the very start that political theories of John Locke, Hume, Edmund Burke of the Victorian era and beyond, would fail simply because they are based on the a-priori assumption of the existence of a nation-state. Similarly, the theories of Karl Marx & Frederich Engels, Lenin-Stalin and Mao Dze Dong are futile in the pursuit of any explanation of this
ugly political behemoth of radical Islam. A common feature to the theories of British thinkers and their communist/leftist counterparts is that both these theories are secular. That is, in their formulation the separation (or non-existence) of the church and state is presumed. However, Islam being intrinsically theocratic, it is necessary to seek an alternative approach to explain its workings. To do so, Huntington introduced the very concept of distinctness in civilizations, and how such distinct features would cause conflicts. Quite interestingly, Huntington backs up his views by citing historical incidents that would make up his case. In this sense one can argue (?) that Huntington has chosen facts to fit his theories. Such "allegations" are deceptively false. Because I would pose the question: which social scientist hasn't done so - including Karl Marx and his followers upto the butcher of Beijing - Mao Dze Dong and subsequently Pol Pot of Khmer Rouge ? Show me one social scientist who has not embarked upon empiricism and postulated theories. So, why single out Professor Samuel P. Huntington ? Is it because he has shown the clash between secular, democratic and Islamic worlds and an eventuality to occur because at some point one is the anti-thesis of other ? To that end, the criticisms of Huntington are unfair. On one hand, he cannot exhaust Islamic culture/religion/society and discuss western percepts/culture etc., because he has to stay focussed on propounding his theory and hence be selective with choosing facts. On the other hand, social/political science is totally empirical in nature. That is, one cannot have a set of governing equations of social science like Newton's laws, Maxwell's, Schrodinger's equation(s), and derive a conclusion in the strict mathematical terms. The empirical nature of social science has too many variables that vary with geography, culture, economy, population etc. and etc. Thus, a social model in a country A is likely to fail in country B. Lack of any understanding/recognizing this fact would certainly lead to erroneous comments, just as some reviews show. One the whole this is an excellent book and worth keeping a copy in the library. The price is low and the arguments in the book are very thought-provoking. The author has done extensive research and has provided his citations for any independent verifications. You may or may not agree, depending on your political emotions, but simply dismissing Huntington (particularly in recent times) as something pedestrian would just be grossly unfair.
Rating:
Summary: pure xenophobia...
Review: please do not waste your time, almost everything is better than this book
Rating:
Summary: The West IS declining. Deal with it.
Review: Huntington articulates how the economic and demographic decline of Western Civilization relative to several of the world's other major civilizations, especially the Sinic (Chinese) and Islamic, is remaking the so-called world order. Cold War alliances were a passing phenomenon in which inter-civilization alliances temporarily formed to repel a common ideological foe, and U.S. attempts to maintain those alliances against other American foes, e.g., Islamic fundamentalism, are doomed to failure. Western countries, including the U.S., need to accept and deal with the relative independence of formerly subservient nations. The truly amazing thing about Huntington's thesis and examples is that he published it eight years ago, based on data and events through 1995. He almost perfectly profiles (if PC types will forgive me the term) the backgrounds of the 9-11 terrorists and their cohorts. And he describes how East Asian states will turn away from the U.S. and toward China as the Chinese recover their three thousand year old traditional hegemony over the region. He also predicts that Russia, the core state of Orthodox civilization, will, after flirting with Westernization, return to attempting to establish its own traditional hegemony over Orthodox allies and neighboring states. Huntington points out that it was European population explosion, as well as technological superiority, that propelled Western Civilization to colonize other continents (North America and Australia) and dominate virtually all other civilizations. Now the tide has turned as relative population growth drives non-Western immigrants to Europe, North America and Australia. The spread of Western, especially U.S. commercialism, should not be equated, as many American elites naively assume, with acceptance of liberal Western political and social norms. Huntington points out that just the opposite is occurring. As non-Western civilizations prosper from adoption of Western technology they create wealth and independence that allows them to celebrate and assert THEIR traditional values. A particularly interesting point Huntington makes is how U.S. and Western obsession with containing other civilizations' nuclear weapons is failing. Countries seeking such weapons do so not with the intent of necessarily using them on neighbors but having them to prevent military domination by the U.S. Huntington reminds us that during the Cold War the U.S-lead West insisted it needed to maintain tactical nuclear weapons to offset the perceived conventional force superiority of the USSR-lead Warsaw Pact nations. Now that the U.S. has demonstrated dominant conventional military power that nobody else can hope to match, everyone thinks they need nuclear weapons or nuclear-armed allies to protect their independence. Huntington points out that South Koreans seems a lot less concerned with North Korean nuclear arms than Americans or Japanese are. Finally, this book makes one think that the so-called War on Terrorism is somewhat misguided. The tactic is terror but the real conflict is inter-civilizational rivalry. An interesting schematic on page 245 illustrates Huntington predictions of emerging civilizational alignments. For example, the West will align more closely with Latin American and African civilizations and to some extent with the Orthodox (Russia). He postulates that Islam will be in greater conflict with virtually ALL other civilizations with which it has regular contact EXCEPT Sinic (China plus the other East Asian countries excluding Japan). And it's happening. The UN structure created by the U.S. and Western Europe at the end of WWII IS a forum for containing and frustrating U.S. and Western interests. And let's face the truth. A senior Canadian politician's recent characterization of his country's embrace of homosexual marriage and legalization of marijuana as "wellsprings of national pride" provides ample evidence that Western civilization IS in decline. Start studying Mandarin... The book is illustrated with some useful generalized maps and numerous statistical charts to support Huntington's thesis. HIGHLY recommended to anyone trying to figure out what's happening in the world and why "winning the war on terrorism" (whatever that means) will not solve all problems.
|
