Rating: 
Summary: A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
Review: It was to my dismay and excitement that I read my course syllabus and saw that this text was part of the required reading for my graduate level political science class. It was with mixed feelings that I read this concisely written text. The Clash of Civilizations is a succinctly written and thought provoking book that is successful in its utilitarian role of raising questions and awareness among scholars and political scientists. Questions such as the implication of a multi-civilizational globe on the probability of conflict; the possible dilution of Western civilization by the growing power and unrest in other civilizations, namely Islam and Sinic civilizations; and finally the question of identity and the role it plays on the international stage in creating violence between states are all important to answer in order to understand the dynamics of global alliances and foreign policy decisions of individual states. Huntington?s book should not, however, be accepted as a scientifically accurate depiction of what drives conflicts in the present global community and what will continue to drive conflicts in the future. His central theme is that ?culture and cultural identities, which at the broadest level are civilizational identities, are shaping patterns of cohesion, disintegration, and conflict in the post-Cold War world? (p.20). Huntington presents his thesis in a framework that encourages the reader to see these patterns as a threat to Western civilization. His frame is built by not giving alternative explanations to the issues he raises. The correct method of presenting a persuasive argument begins with the thesis and support of that thesis with data and explanations, then to present possible counter-arguments to the data and finally to disprove those counter arguments. Huntington does not present alternative explanations, in fact he explicitly avoids them. Instead, he presents his argument in a manner more akin to a sermon. This framework is not conducive to quelling global conflict. It is simply a reflection of Huntington?s own paranoid perspective on world politics. Huntington maintains that, ?we know who we are only when we know who we are not and often only when we know whom we are against.? (p.21) This sets the stage for the frame of fear and unrest he builds throughout the rest of his book. An example of Huntington?s flawed methodology is the omission of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Why does Huntington not include a Jewish civilization in his model? Why does he not mention the largest, most bloody and lengthy war in the Middle East whose subsequent political, social and economic effects are still reverberating through the Middle East? The foreign relations of the Middle East (Islamic civilization) cannot begin to be understood without addressing the effects of this colossal conflict. Huntington may argue that he is not speaking specifically about the Middle East because there are Muslims throughout the world and the Islamic civilization lacks a core state. In addition, he may argue that Jews assimilate to any civilizatin they reside in; therefore, they do not have a unique civilization. Another way of interpreting this would be to say that since Jews are not in conflict with the West, then they don?t constitute a separate civlization. I would argue that since the majority of Muslims do reside in the Middle East and Far East, the major thrust of opposition to the West would have to come from these regions. If anything, the nation of Israel should not be included in the Islamic civilization as Huntington has done in his maps, rather it should be included as part of the Western civilization. If this were the case, then the Arab-Israeli conflict could be regarded as one between the West and the Arabs. This detail is conspicuously missing from Huntington?s model because to bring it to light would weaken his argument that civilizational alliances predict future conflicts. The British mandate which allowed Jews to immigrate to Palestine was not agreed upon based on a common Judeo-Christian civilization, rather it was a purely political decision to gain the support of Jews during WWI. examples from Balfour declaration ? if he had considered these points then it would have undermined his argument ? state of the union address The Arab-Israeli conflict is not one between Jews and Muslims as it should be if we subscribe to Huntington?s theme. It is a complex situation involving Americans, Israelis, Arab Orthodox Christians, and Arab Muslims. There are as many religious affiliations as there are civilizations involved in this clash. The lack of support given to the Palestinian Arabs by the rest of the Arab community also speaks volumes about the diminished role of civilizational alliances in supporting and causing clashes. The Arab countries, if anything, are fearful of the alliance of Israelis with Americans and the disjointed and unallied nature of the Middle Eastern states only further removes alliances and support which is not conducive to Islamic Revival. Huntington has written a very concise book, however his precision is his greatest flaw. Just because his argument is logical does not mean that it is correct. In his attempt to create his maps and paradigms to provide predictions of what the future may hold in terms of global conflicts, Huntington leaves out important historical data, such as the deployment of the Sykes-Picco agreement after WWI and the sanctions that have been used to manipulate the "Islamic civilization", that would assist in the understanding of why history has unfolded in this manner since the break up of the Soviet Union. Analyzing his statistics has shown that there is no support for his thesis in fact it is more likely that states of the same civilization will more likely engage in war than states of different civilizations. Since his statistics are a corner-stone of his argument, once negated, all that the reader is left with are his conjectures. As previously mentioned, these conjectures follow a flawed methodology. Therefore, The Clash of Civilizations is an inaccurate and flawed work of literature that is capable of creating a great deal of problems more so than providing solutions or global understanding. It should be no surprise that when scholars with a particular axe to grind, such as Professor Huntington, are advising the government administration, that these clashes will come to pass.
Rating:
Summary: Out of Date
Review: The above book, although it has some insights, lacks one major thing: a reality check.
All of his information dates from before the Asian collapse and the events of 9-11. He seems to write off the west as being weak and getting weaker and that the Other civilizations are working toward eliminating the West. While some of their cultural characteristics are hostile to core Western values, they are by no means a match. If you want a better assessment, try Victor Davis Hanson.
Rating: 
Summary: A Learning Experience
Review: This book is a global version of Joel Garreau's Nine Nations of North America. Anyone who listens to the news will be enlightened by this book. If you don't understand diverse Islamic opinions of Americans or reasons for the Soviet breakup, this is your book. What the book lacks in overall organization, is made up in isolated jewels of concise and thoughtful explanations of the many cultures of the world.
Rating: 
Summary: Comment on the thesis of ¿The Clash of Civilizations"
Review: This is the worst book in political theory that I have ever read (and I have read a lot). Here you can find 10 reasons why. Read it and you will save a lot of time struggling with a 368-page book that is both badly written and fundamentally misguided. Besides, it will give you 10 arguments last you through any discussion on the topic.
1) The thesis espoused in this book (as well as in Huntington's 1992 Foreign Affairs article "The Clash of Civilizations?" that still has a question mark to it) is a very narrow, one-dimensional view of conflict in the contemporary world. In effect, it attempts to relate conflicts straight and simply to cultural differences between peoples. It then relates peoples to predominant cultures and groups all cultures into 8 major civilizations (Western, Islamic, Sinic, Japanese, Orthodox, Hindu, Latin American and African). It disregards or downplays all other evidence to the contrary (regarding culture, conflict and anything else that might contradict the simple paradigm of "The Clash")
Rating:
Summary: Huntington's view on English
Review: Huntington raises a question regarding an interpretation that spread of English is a serious phenomenon of westernization and shows a number of interesting attitudes about this. Here are some of them. Huntington cites Joshua Fishman to argue that English does not threaten indigenous language, rather it is more likely to be accepted as language of wider communication, because English has not been widely or deeply seen in a single ethnic or ideological context for the past quarter century. Huntington avers that English for intercultural communication helps to maintain and, indeed, reinforces peoples' separate cultural identities since people want to preserve their own culture as much when they use English to communicate with peoples of other culture. Also, Huntington explains that in non-Western societies there appear two opposing trends under way. On the one hand, English is increasingly used at the university level to equip graduates to function effectively in the global competition for capital and customers. On the other hand, societal and political pressures increasingly lead to the more general use of indigenous languages, e.g. Arabic displacing French in North Africa. Even though Huntington's penetrating knowledge about the world problems in terms of international politics, which runs through the whole book, is amazing, and that his attempt for a paradigm shift sounds fresh, my response is rather negative.
Huntington's vision in the last chapter regarding identity of civilization inside and outside the Wests appears paradoxical. Huntington postulates that the United States as a multicultural nation is impossible because non-Western America is not American, while arguing that the world should be pluralistic because it can never be a single empire. This is nonsense. He overemphasizes the meaning of a nation as a united entity. If, by any chance, the world could be unified as an empire by Westerners, would he be arguing that this empire cannot be multicultural because non-Western empire is not of empire? The reality that Huntington should admit is that a large number of different ethnic groups live in the United States either as citizens or residents, and many of minor languages in the world are now being oppressed by English and a few other colonial languages in covert ways. Also, he defends himself by treating possible disagreement with his Eurocentric view as a sort of complex against the Western: "The non-Wests see as Western what the West sees as universal. What Westerners herald as being global integration, such as the proliferation of worldwide media, non-Westerners denounce as nefarious Western imperialism.To the extent that non-Westerners as the world as one, they see it as a threat." Let us note that Fishman (1977: 335), who Huntington cites in favor of his argument, clearly states at the end of his book, "unfortunately, we know far more about how to help the world learn English, than we do about how to help native speakers of English learn about the world." Although true is the acknowledgement of English as one that is most widely learned for whatever reason, as Huntington and Fishman state in common, I think that defining current phenomena of the world as such could be an oppression per se and an excuse to legitimately use English as an international language, which will discourage the movement to preserve each ethnic language and culture.
Rating:
Summary: Amazingly unsophisticated with poor history and analysis
Review: Huntington's Clash is one of those books that will appeal to those with less-than-complete knowledge of history or those cold war types looking for a new boogeyman. The atrocious (and unsettling) lack of knowledge in history is apparent in the reviews: witness for instance how few readers have made the connection to Toynbees "A Study of History" a flawed, but much superior precursor. This is the sort of tome that appeals to the not-quite-grounded in reality Pat Buchanon crowd. The amazing (and dangerous) part is that some feel this validates 9-11. A very illogical, not-well-thought-out and unsophisticated approach. To digress a bit, 9-11 was rather the lashing out of an out-group trying to come to grips with its increasing marginalization as a non-democratic/non-free market society (Middle-East Islamic society that is) and with its poverty than any "Clash" theory coming to fruitation. Yes, there are problems with the Islamic world, but those problems are rooted in the LACK of political and economic reforms. Don't mistake the failure of intelligence agencies in not eliminating or discovering a terrorist plot with a validation of a poorly written book's theory of civilizations. Huntington shows little understanding of the power of globalization in drawing a large part of the world together. Instead he throws in historical examples, many of them completely out of context, to support his thesis, rarely attempting to analyze the alternative (and usually correct) explainations. His historical analogies are often only casually and poorly made. For example when speaking of Pakistan, China and India and their political interrelationships he makes almost no reference to the wars fought between these "civilizations" in just the later part of the twentieth century! An unexcused oversight for someone so many have given four and five stars to in their reviews. And these sorts of incongruities abound in "Clash of Civilizations". Sustained and critical analysis shows how little Huntington's thesis holds up. Most of Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe are tied with the West, both economically and culturally. Countries in the world that have adopted democratic governments have nearly doubled. Even a cursory look shows that his analysis can be made to be somewhat relevant in regards to only one of the civilizations- Islam. (And there any deeper probing into the events of the last two decades reveals little relevance from Huntington.) It seems only rational that if only one of the eight-part foundations of a theory can even begin to be approached as tenable then maybe the theory isn't correct. Yet many seem to be oblivious to this sort of logic. Institutions such as the WTO have linked our financial fortunes with each other. Globalization has located firm's headquarters in New York, engineering in Denver, software development in India and production in Malaysia. The Western concept of human rights and dignity has begun to take hold in many non-western socities. And so on, and so on... Huntington- tragically- seems to believe that democratic ideals are limited to Western societies. It's a narrow and certainly ethnocentric view, deserving perhaps of being held by a 19th century mind, but embarrassing when held by a contemporary Harvard professor. Huntington's analysis is at the level of a fourth year student at a second rank university who's read far too much Spengler and takes Toynbee to a whole different level. This is not an "exploration" but seems an exploitation by someone who should have known better and whose best days are evidently behind him. I strongly encourage and advise anyone to pick up Francis Fukuyama's "The End of History and the Last Man". While not perfect, this intelligent, well written and highly misunderstood work puts it's faith in democracy as the "ideal" for all individuals and societies. In the end it's Fukuyama who is correct in saying that 9-11, for example, is not the portent of a "clash" but a rear-guard action of those who come from nations where the lack of democracy open societies has enslaved them in the only other world view they have. Even if you disagree with Fukuyama, you can't help but notice that his thesis operates on a much higher level than Huntington's simplistic and incorrect approach.
Rating:
Summary: For the time in which we live this is a must read In General
Review: This is a highly informative book, for the most part is very real world circumstance and belief. Much of the book is very fundamental which does in fact relate to what happened to us on 911, conflict of civilizations, even if it were soley Bin Laden the message applies as well. The simplicity of the book which is highly understood and convincing comes mostly from basic facts and comparisons such as the Islamic faith not being congruent to western culture and ideals. Simple other facts as the world has become small bringing all these strange mixes to virtually every civilization in existence. The author gives the impression that the USA is not the place to be molested as much as most of the Eastern civilizations will be, and they will be looking to the USA for solutions even though USA policy will be to continue current intrusive policy. The book in general is a prophecy book at what will happen if we keep molesting each other with our basic beliefs and policies. Then the book becomes detailed to the point if it hadn't been carefully edited, would have been a dreadful boring failure, but surprise, it is not a sleeper. ...
Rating: 
Summary: Given all the focus on Islam in this book...
Review: why did Huntington's only criticism of recent U.S. policy relate to the Balkans? It seems like the specifics of U.S. policy in the post-Cold War Middle East (Iraq, Israel, oil, etc) could provide ample subject matter for analysis based on the rules-of-engagement Huntington applies to the Balkans. His lack of comments regarding specific policies as they apply to the West's relations with the Islamic civilization prevent a 5-star rating.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant and timely but also full of limitations
Review: "The Clash of Civilizations and Remaking of World Order" is Professor Samuel Huntington's seminal study of modern civilization development and the emerging framework of post-Cold-War politics. Huntington argues that the world is no longer defining itself according to forces such as capitalism and imperialism or ideologies such as Democracy and Communism but instead according to the various cultural components that constitute unique civilizations. According to Huntington people are increasingly identifying themselves and their allies by civilization-based traits that include language, religion, and social customs, and as they do so they are coming into conflict with other newly defined civilizations. Huntington divides the world according to unique civilizations that include The West, Sinic, Japanese, Orthodox, Moslem, Buddhist, Hindu, Latin, and African. To his credit, Huntington acknowledges that these groupings are based on broad qualifications, that are highly theoretical and that in some cases simply might be wrong. In fact rather that formulating a grand theory and rigidly defending it, Huntington enjoys exploring the weaknesses of his argument and considering alternative points of view. For example, Huntington concedes that his formulation of African civilization may be incorrect and he admits that civilizations are constantly changing entities depending on cultural developments, external influences, or trans-civilization alliances. Huntington's framework is probably useful for understanding broad regional developments such as the decline of the West and the increasing influences and self-determination of Asian and Moslem civilizations. It is important to consider that these developments occur over a broad period of time that often exceeds our historical memory. For example, Huntington charts the decline of Western power from roughly 1920 until the present according to broad categories such as population and territorial reduction. Thus while the West is arguably the most powerful civilization today, in a broader sense it is also in a state of decline. Perhaps the most problematic part of Huntington's argument is the flimsy distinction he makes among some civilizations. For example, while one can perceive clear differences between Western, Orthodox, Latin, Hindu, and Moslem civilizations, the distinction between Sinic, Buddhist, and Japanese civilizations is not so clear. Sinic civilization, according to Huntington, is Confucian and largely influenced by Chinese culture. Buddhist civilization encompasses people who not only practice Buddhism as a religion but who also accept it as a major part of the state apparatus. While appearing to be part of Sinic civilization, Japan contains its own distinctive civilization because it set the trend for abandoning Asian values in favor of Western ones and then reversed itself. The difference between Buddhist and Sinic civilizations appears to be more political than cultural (and therefore civilization-based). Buddhism is practiced in most of Sinic civilization and Confucianism is a way of life in practically all of the cultures that encompass Buddhist civilization. If Japan is distinctive because of its alternation between Asian and Western values then what about the Philippines, which is largely Catholic and has few ties to Chinese culture? If anything regional cultural differences probably play a more powerful role in Asia than common civilization traits. Vietnam prides itself on centuries of successful resistance to Chinese domination. Korea struggles to show how its culture is distinctive from China and Japan. Confucianism is certainly a powerful cultural force in this region, but it is a transparent one and except perhaps in Korea or Singapore it is hardly an overt ideology. While stronger Moslem nations such as Iran and Turkey increasingly go to the aid of weaker ones such as Bosnia and Chechnya no Confucian nation is likely to go to the aid of another one on religious grounds. Huntington's book is a powerful and very useful one if it is read properly. One should probably read this book in the same way that one might examine the views of Marx and Freud. Huntington provides an important perspective that is correct in many ways and inaccurate in many others as he would probably be the first to admit.
Rating:
Summary: Clash of Civilizations
Review: Although this is a very influential and widely read book I can't help not raising some comments regarding the author's comments on Turkey.
Isn't it an inconsistency that defining Turkey as a torn country between Western civilization and Islamic civilization and then lumping her to Islamic civilization? If Turkey is a torn country how certain could the author be when he lumps Turkey to Islamic civilization in every example? He could have been more careful to classify Turkey as an Islamic country, especially in his odd scenario. In that Huntington has a prophecy that Turkey is being taken over by Islamic fundamentalists. In fact, their vote declined substantially since 1996. Ironically, the so-called fundamentalists openly supported Turkey's application to European Union. All these show that Huntington is not aware how Westernization has penetrated into the minds of majority in Turkey.
I also did not find the claim that Western civilization is in decline convincing. Its territorial dominance declined since 1900's. Huntington shows this as if it is an evidence to the decline. Does this really show a decline? Technologically, militariliy and scientifically Western is more superior to Islam than it was in 1900. The West today has more sophisticated weapons than muslim countries have. Muslim countries were able defeat and end the dominance of West in the 1900's. Today this doesn't look possible. It didn't happen in Iraq in 1991 and Afghanistan in 2001.
But this book is definetely very interesting and must read.
| 
