Rating: 
Summary: right on the money
Review: If you read the international News before progressing to the national News then this book is for you. This book is well written and backed up by recent events.
A very timely book. Now that the cold war is over their was/is a feeling in the West that the non-west of the world will, as they modernize become westernized. This author points out the fallacy of this argument. Europe borrowed incessently throughout its history before the industrial revolution and
stayed unique and true to itself.
The Non-Western civilizations are going to import Western technology and some of the ideas, but conform it to their civilization. He proves by citing recent events how the world is actually aligning along civilizational lines. Historically, people felt allegiance to their clan or tribe which later progressed to the feeling of a nation-state. Now the stage is set where the population of the world will align themselves with the major civilzations of this world. There is a scarcity of resources, and the world is a more crowded place the tensions between civilzations will intensify.
This is another eyeopener book, one that will make you view world events in a different light. The author backs up his points with ample recent historical evidence.
An example is the world alignment in the recent Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo conflict. The second and third tier supporters of the combatants all aligned along their historicial civilizational supports. The West mainly back Western Christiandom. The Muslims gained the support of the Islamic countries and Russia supported Serbia, an eastern orthodox country. This book I believe will give one an insight into the future of the worlds conflicts. You will look upon these conflicts in a new light and understanding and differentiate between intra and inter-civilzational conflicts.
Rating: 
Summary: Clash of Values, cultures and interest.
Review: Dividing the world into 7 major civilisations, in this book Huntington argues that in the post cold war era, countries tend to re-evaluate their position in the world in terms of identity. After the cold war, during which the division and conflict was between two ideologies, relations between countries in the post cold war era are increasingly shaped by cultural and civilizational factors, thus most countries tend to identify themselves in terms of civilisations.
The collapse of communism had been seen by many western scholars as an indication and a validation of the superiority of western thoughts. One example of this is Fukuyama who argues in his book The End Of History And The last Man that liberal democracy is the last stage of the evolution of the political and social systems through history. To add to this, due to its unchallenged military and its superiority since the fall of the communism, the west (mainly the US) has been able to defend its interests by defining those interests as the interests of the world community. Due to this the west is trying to impose its double standard rule on other nations using untrue terminology to describe this rule. For example, democracy is promoted but not if it brings Islamic parties to power, non-proliferation is preached for Iran but not for Israel, human rights are an issue with china but not with the US allies, aggression against oil-owning Kuwaitis is massively repulsed but not against non-oil-owning Bosnian. Huntington argues that the west won the world not by the superiority of its values, ideas or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence, and as a reaction to the arrogant western approach the revival of non-western religions is the most powerful manifestation of anti-westernism.A fault line war, war between two countries or groups from different civilisations, is the most dangerous war, as it will evolve to an international conflict involving other countries, each to support its civilizational-kin country. To avoid such clash he stresses the need to alter the Security Council to be a civilizational council, which means that every civilization should be represented by its core state. As well he stresses the need for the west to avoid interfering in such conflicts.
In his study Huntington is predicting two major conflicts with the west (represented by the US) in the twenty first century, the first one is with Islam, the second is the sinic civilisation (represented by China). These conflicts are likely to arise from the interaction of Western arrogance, Islamic intolerance, and Sinic assertiveness. I think it is important to mention that Huntington's shallow interpretation of Islam is based on pre-conceived ideas, which lack the needed depth and objectiveness. Finally, I believe this book is a valuable piece of work for understanding how international affairs are shaped.
Rating: 
Summary: The Clash of Scholars
Review: This book is very thought provoking and the historical trends alone make it worth a look. It reads like "Decline and Fall of the Western Empire." No U.S. citizen could read this book without feeling a little less like part of a "superpower," and maybe that is a good thing. We need to realize that all Western people have something unique here and that it must be nurtured if it is to survive. I also enjoyed the author's criticism of U.S. policies that would tend to "Balkanize" our country into a bunch of squabbling nationalities. I completely agree with his thesis that China is the main player in future world politics. I'm not sure why most of the reviewers are focussing so much on Islamic peoples. Some drawbacks to this book are that once you start thinking about the author's arguments, you can spot quite a few holes, even if you aren't a political scientist. However, that should just stimulate useful debate. I am used to dry academic writing, so that did not bother me either. However, I did get heartily sick of the author's never-ending use of long lists of somewhat redundant words separated by commas where just one word ("term, descriptor, adjective, designation, or concept" ;-) would have sufficed to get the basic point across. It got to be like trying to ignore fellow with a stammer and a bad tick while he is talking to you. Conclusion: flawed and dry, but very thought-provoking and well worth reading.
Rating:
Summary: Good picturization - wrong conclusions
Review: The author is right in noting that civilizational fissures are the true reality of the current world but his conclusion that West and especially the USA should reaffirm their Westernness in order to prepare for the future - in my opinion is wrong. The ignores the power of the media and the internet whereby a different scenario could unfold. The USA and the other immigrant communities like Canada and Australia are today and even in the past have always been powered by the power of the talented immigrant and more than ever these talented immigrants come from Asia these days. Under these circumstances to affirm the Westernness of these countries will turn out to be an impossible proposition. Some of these immigrants will go back to their respective countries of origin and build bridges to the West thereby reducing the opportunity of conflict. Islam is the only culture that does not fit into this pattern because their talented do not form enough numbers or are not influential enough to reproduce a similar scenario currently. The oil wealth that they possess comes in the way of providing intellectual contributions in the West - they feel no compulsion nor do they have the educational infrastucture in the countries of their origin to make a sufficient intellectual impact. But history has, as it did in the case of Communism, proven that it is difficult to sustain a lie too long. Upheavals in Vietnam, Combodia and China have all eventually led to the realization that it pays more to live in harmony with the West than in conflict with it. What I see is the West being defined as multicultural and multitalented and rest of the intellectually gifted world as being more homogenrous and more parochial living together in a dynamic equilibrium and thereby reducing in conflict. The only danger to this scenario can come from the backward Africa and the Islamic countries. But the Asian Islamic countries have the intellectual potential to graduate to a more enlightened phase and it will happen though it may appear bleak at present. Remember civilization eventually reached the Huns, the Visigoths, the Mongols and other Barbarians. Their peeve was only from being left out - but when they are included, they will be amenable to moderation.
Rating:
Summary: As Civilizations Collide
Review: This book seemingly acquired new relevance after 9/11. I think, however, that it is a bit overreaching to equate all Islam and Muslim culture with implacable fanaticism and anti-Western militancy. There is no doubt that some strands are vehemently opposed to Western culture as we know it today. But until the 18th century, Christianity, too, demonstrated from time to time tremendous inflexibility and destructive impulses (The Thirty Years War, for example). Thus, it is a bit misleading to suggest that Islam has "bloody borders," but the West, and every other civilization, does not. For the West has the bloodiest borders that recorded history has ever seen, and some of that blood was spilled in the name of Christianity. Then there were Hitler and Mussolini. Not known for their Christian devotion, they spoke and spewed about saving Western civilization from communism. The book is not very easy to read, because it contains a great deal of factual information that does not naturally tie into the flow of the arguments. But knowledge and erudition are not automatically a proof of an erudite author's favorite thesis. I also found that the argument abou the Islamic-Confusian nexus against the West is a bit strained. The value of this book is that it contains some interesting historical information for the reader to ponder and that it emphasizes the importance of global cultural differences--things that are understudied and, in my opinion, underappreciated by the general reader in the United States. Western civilization is neither universally accepted, nor clearly invincible. One has to recognize these facts. I hope that Western civilization emerges from its latest crisis even stronger than it was before. But one has to be willing to value and protect it, and at least in that, Huntington is absolutley correct.
Rating:
Summary: A New Paradigm for International Relations
Review: This book was based on Huntington's 1994 article, "Clash of Civilizations" in Foreign Affairs. Here he fleshes out his Civilizational Paradigm and revises it in light of criticism from the journal article. What Huntington is proposing is no less than an entirely new way of viewing conflict in the world after the Cold war, challenging the dominant liberal and realist traditions of Int'l relations. The book, obviously, is controversial. But it is the first and most credible attempt to create a new tradition within IR theory since the Cold War. The basic thesis is that conflict will now tend to be the result of cultural differences which find their grandest expression at the "civilizational" level. Huntington then posits a number of corollaries regarding inter- and intra-civilizational behavior. The book is well-written and pretty well documented, but it is highly theoretical. The criticisms of the work are typically that it is not perfectly descriptive nor adequately predictive, but Huntington's intent was not to create a fully fledged model of int'l relations, but to start a conversation that might lead to one. Other traditions in IR have developed over centuries, this one has been struggling for survival since 1994. That it has survived and continues to engender discussion is a good sign of its value. Responding to the other reviewer who felt Huntington ignored human nature, Huntington deals with human nature explicitly and implicitly in the text. His thesis rests, in fact, on his view of human nature as necessitating the preservation of identity. One thing I have noticed about "Clash of Civilizations" is that most people can't seem to finish it or follow some of the details of Huntington's position. I'm not sure I would have, either, except that I use the book frequently and briefed the entire text for use in debate rounds. So, I don't urge purchasing this book unless you are just very hard-core about IR theory and have the time to really focus. Otherwise, you might just read the Foreign Affairs article and some reviews of it. Or, just read the 1st chapter of the book. Huntington lays out everything out right at the start. Although this book has sold well among the general populace, it wasn't designed for it.
Rating:
Summary: A new doctrine for the New World Order?
Review: An interesting and enlightening read that may perhaps come to be a model for international relations in the same way that the concept of a 'Cold War' was adopted for Western-Soviet relations. My countryman from California who rated this with only one star begs again the question that Huntington attempts to answer: will other peoples adopt and internalise Western values? Huntington also never states or implies that conflict between 'civilisations' is inevitable. Rather he argues that we are unlikely to live in one happy family for a long time. Furthermore, this book may provide an doctrine that will prevent these kinds of conflicts. Well written and scientific, I would recommend this book to anyone interested in world affairs.
Rating:
Summary: Back To The Days Of Noah And Babel
Review: Our Future is indeed our Past. Professor Huntington cogently articulates the physical evidence of unseen forces shaping our world since the events of 1989. The only question is whether this insight is in fact prophetic or prescriptive.
Rating:
Summary: A must read for those yearning to know how the world works.
Review: This book really opened my eyes to see that the USA cannot depend on China, Russia, and the Islamic World to cooperate with us like we think they should. You begin to see that their actions are in a way a program of containment against American interests and ideals. I would give this book, along with 'The Prince', to any young student, just as my professor gave me the prodding to read Machiavelli.
Rating:
Summary: Intellectually Provocative and "Politically Incorrect" Book
Review: It has become fashionable, and that too alarmingly in academia, to adopt a 'politically correct' position on controversial and
"sensational" issues. In the post Cold War era, it has become a
ritual (thanks to ACLU and their organizational siblings) to
castigate anyone who would be opposed to Islam. The trait I do
notice is that leftist/liberal intellectuals try to masquerade
howlers as serious academic efforts. An unrelated case would be
the fiasco with Prof. Cornel West (African American) at Harvard.
When Larry Summers (Harvard President) questioned Dr. West of his
academic output over the past 5 (or 10 ?) years, there was a huge
media outcry which ultimately descended to the fact that an "African American" (minority) was harassed. I am no judge of the
real issues involved in West vs. Harvard case, but I do observe
that the media tried to put a "spin" on the issue, to cause the
public opinion move in the "politically correct" direction. The
"no spin zone" action is sadly absent in all but the O'Reilly factor. This attempt by the media to promote politically correct
postures, is in my view a serious (yet unnoticed) violation of the 1st Amendment Rights of any academician. I think Prof. Sam
Huntington, controversial/thought-provoking as he is, has been
sought after by the media, because of his proposed theory. (The
popular weekly NEWSWEEK had published a review of Prof. Huntington's book, prior to 9/11, which appeared very inept and amaeturish, to say the least.) So much for the media popularity! I have read the book, and I have found parts of it controversial
- which does not imply that Prof. Huntington's thesis is incorrect. It implies, that his thesis on West vs. Islam can be
argued with people on both sides. So what ? Is it obligatory for
an author/researcher to derive/develop theories/ideas that would
have a popular mass (juvenile) appeal like Britney Spears ? Most
unfortunately, I did read the negative reviews on Huntington to note that his detractors were probably looking for something "pleasant", as opposed to rigorous academic value, and were too
upset in not finding the "gold" that they were looking for. The
critics (most of them) appear to have made up their mind. This
attitude (of the critics) reflects a sorry state of affairs. If
academicians have to write keeping in mind popular public sentiments, then USA must admit its intellectual degeneration
into a backward country where freedom of thought and expression
are necessarily stifled, such as in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and
Iran or China. Regarding Islam vs. West - a prime issue in Huntington's thesis, in the post 9/11 scenario, I shall leave it upto the readers. However I have found nothing in the book by Huntington that is technically flawed. Yes, Huntington dwells on sensitive issues; but so what ? If one cannot take the author's views for what its worth, then the person (reader) must seek medical help since the book is meant for mature, thoughtful adults.
|
