The CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS AND THE REMAKING OF WORLD ORDER

Rating:
Summary: A Big Picture - The What's, Where's and Why's - A+
Review: ...A window through the complex fog of global politics, conflicts and positioning....If you are reading this, then you surely have an above average interest in political science/foreign policy and would probably enjoy this book.

This book paints a very good picture of the current global structure (copyright 1996) even though it is about 8 years old. If anything, the current global situation seems to be continuing in the direction that Huntington portrays. We trully live in a world of multiple civilizations all holding onto both their historical pasts and embracing the future with new ideas (many Western) and trying to find a balance between modernism (led by the "West" over the past several centuries) and maintaining and promoting their cultural hertiage and identity.

Whether or not Huntington's theory and ideas of conflict being divided along civilizational fronts stays true, or becomes true, this book trully gives the reader (especially the underschooled, but interested political science/foreign policy hobbiest) a foundational reading on the "basics" of civilizations and people groups, and how these groups have arrived to the point and status of existence that they are presently.

What I have learned, I can apply to what I read and witness today and it has helped me understand even more about the intricacies of the changing world and where we might be headed in the 21st century. If Huntington was to write this book now or in another few years, I think he could keep many of his commentaries the same and expound on others using the events that have transpired since 1996.

A very good read, just pace yourself and take it slow, it's packed full of information and analysis. It fills in the holes and even provides some thought provoking "ah-ha's" to many of the things we are witnessing in the world and through the media today.

Rating:
Summary: Important Book, but pre-911
Review: One of the first books to be mentioned after the attacks on September 11 on New York and Washington was Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" because that is what it seemed like. One Civilization (Islam) attacking another (the West). Certainly in the book we can read a lot of precursors to this event and in way predicted it.

Unofortunately the world has changed so much that this book needs an update. The world has changed and the wars talked about in the book (like the Caucasus) still reign. But I do believe reality is not as simple as this is, since people are becoming more aware of the world, definitely in the student population that increasingly travels all over the world to study, getting into contact with new people and new civilizations. The main language there is English and that will remain to be so, even though Huntington tries to make us believe otherwise.

His view on the world in 7 distinct civs is a helpful one. That the major wars will be between civs is probably true, the last few years have shown that much.

Reading this book will definitely give you a much clearer view on how the world is structured but don't forget that the world is now in a new post-9-11 fase. In the end he offers a scenario of a future world war which is just absurd.

Rating:
Summary: A Distinct and Authoritative Classic
Review: There is hardly anything to add to the almost exhaustive list of complements showered on this book from various circles. It projects a very different paradigm for seeing the world we live in. Three major criticisms of the arguments of the book can be made.

Firstly, the author seem to be arguing that if a civilisation adopts a Kamelist approach, ultimately it will result in a backlash from the core of that civilisation, resulting in it returning to its roots (the most detailed example is that of Turkey). He also seems to argue that people who tend to proclaim their superiority to the west- ideologically or culturally, unwittingly resort to following paths shown by the west itself (obvious example is USSR and its ideology), again resulting in a backlash from the elites to return to its roots. However, we can take this further by arguing that civilisations who resort to a more moderate form of copying the west (while maintaining the air of superiority about their indegeneous norms) ultimately end up diluting their culture and ending up identity less. The most striking example is that of Mainland China, where western institutions, values, norms are speedily attaining a level of automatic assumed undisputed superiority, unquestionable and above all indegeneous counterparts. Lastly, countries which aim to co-exist peacefully with others and do not proclaim the superiority of indegeneous cultures end up sticking closest to their roots, at the same time developing economically and socially (India).

Second, I would further like to forward a query regarding the arguments on 'language of wider communication' (LWC) on p. 62. I feel that if English is used as a third language (common as second language to both the involved parties), then theargument about LWC stands. Thus, it is also valid to point out the south Indians using English and not Hindi as their preferred means of communication. However, when an Indian speaks English to a British or an American, then your argument loses ground because rare is the case when the latter speaks Hindi. Thus, aren't people of other civilisations (non-English) losing the integrity of their culture when they are speaking English to an English speaking person? Thus, the case against the argument that English is not becoming a world language stands here.

Third, the author constantly labels India as a 'Hindu' civilisation and mention that there is a distinct 'Islamic' civilisation in India. This is inaccurate given that the civilisation of the sub-continent is generally tremendously heterogenous and can only be termed 'Indian' and not branded according to religion. The Hindus and Muslims in India can be better labelled according to language, caste, class or region, but not religion. Even in Pakistan, which was a nation based on the false notion of Islamic brotherhood, the Punjabis, Sindhis, Afghanis, Pathans, Mohajirs are very much divided on the above categories and not bound together at all by the common religion. The only entity that binds the whole sub-continent is the inherent 'Indianness' of the culture that has developed over 5,000 years and whose primary characteristics is 'unity amidst diversity'. Any religious labelling of this land is bigotry.