Clash of Civilizations: What does it mean in our contemporary world?

Everyone has heard about the "Clash of Civilizations” at some point of their life, hopefully. If not, The Clash of Civilizations is a theory, proposed by political scientist Samuel Huntington, that people's cultural and religious identities will be the primary source of conflicts in the post-Cold War world. The theory was originally formulated in 1993 in a Foreign Affairs article titled "The Clash of Civilizations?"

This Samuel Huntington concept has become universal. In the 1950's, the French economist, Alfred Sauvy had a comparable success with the expression "third world."  This "Clash of Civilizations" basically says the West against the rest, which is supposed to describe the world as it is. In reality, the West is vague enough to include a vast array of areas without describing their unifying characteristics.  To be Western or Westernized, above all, is a mindset which does not coincide with any continent or with any specific nation or religion. No map can work when some Asian nations are Western (Japan, Taiwan), when non-Western groups (Muslims in Europe) live in supposedly Western countries, when some Eastern countries are partially Westernized and some Western countries (Russia) are not fully Westernized. Eventually it looks easier to define the mental borders of the West than its territorial borders.  The West is a mindset defined by three fundamental traits that cannot easily be found in the so-called Eastern civilizations: a passion for innovation, a capacity for self-criticism, and gender equality.

The non-Westerner, however, would rather place tradition above innovation. Innovation might be a fundamental value explaining the scientific breakthroughs of the West versus the East. It explains unavoidable conflicts with conservative non-Western societies and it also explains what we should call 'the Westernization of the West.'  The West keeps dismantling its own traditions, including its religions. The economist Joseph Schumpeter defined this process as one of "creative destruction." The term could be applied to all walks of life in the West.  Globalization and adoption of the English language to a global scale seems to be the spread of this Western mindset and if adopted by everybody, can bring this “Clash of Civilizations” to an end.  It might be a good view for some individuals, maybe a bad view in the eyes of traditional cultures. Language barriers can be eliminated and adoption of the West’s culture and rights to all its individuals can break traditions and beliefs to a unilateral belief.

So what extent is it possible to move beyond the “Clash of Civilizations” mindset in our contemporary world?  I believe that we must look at globalization as one possible answer to this question.  The English language becoming a global language is another possible answer to this.  We are gradually becoming a culture with similar beliefs and a common language that seems to calming this “Clash” mindset. The Clash of Civilizations article written by Samuel P. Huntington seems to have a similar way of viewing it in this quote by Samuel commenting on his essay “The Clash of Civilizations” (1993):

 “World politics is entering a new phase, in which the great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of international conflict will be cultural. Civilizations-the highest cultural groupings of people-are differentiated from each other by religion, history, language and tradition. These divisions are deep and increasing in importance. From Yugoslavia to the Middle East to Central Asia, the fault lines of civilizations are the battle lines of the future. In this emerging era of cultural conflict the United States must forge alliances with similar cultures and spread its values wherever possible. With alien civilizations the West must be accommodating if possible, but confrontational if necessary. In the final analysis, however, all civilizations will have to learn to tolerate each other.”

When researching, I found this idea which also seems to support my beliefs above. It is a quote from Benjamin R. Barber essay “Jihad Versus McWorld” (1991) when he talks about this topic:

“I warned that democracy was caught between two clashing movements, each of which - for its own reasons -seem indifferent to freedom 's fate. Two seemingly oppositional sets of forces are in fact trapped in a brutal dialectical interdependence: disintegral tribalism and reactionary fundamentalism (which I call Jihad ) and integrative modernization and aggressive economic and cultural globalization (which I call McWorld ).As we mount a new military offense against Jihad (understood not as Islam but as militant fundamentalism),it is now apparent that democracy rather than terrorism may become the principal victim of the battle.

Only the globalization of civic and democratic institutions can offer a way out of the war between global capitalism and its aggrieved critics, between sterile cultural monism and raging cultural fundamentalism. Only democracy can address the resentment and spiritual unease of those whose cultural diversity and moral beliefs are affronted by McWorld 's trivialization and homogenization of values. Only democracy offers hope to those mired in poverty, tempted in their despair to turn to Jihad. Only global democracy can regulate global markets and a capitalism uprooted from the constraints of the democratic nation state.

Extending the compass of democracy to the global market sector will enable people to take advantage of its economic blessings and enjoy opportunities for accountability, participation, and governance. Democracy, by protecting cultural diversity and religious differences can address the anxieties of those who fear the shallow orthodoxies of secularist materialism.”

So as you can see, there are some good arguments to this topic. They might not be entirely 100% correct and that’s the way it is, but they can offer some ideas to what we might think when striving for possible solutions. I personally agree with the above authors.  Maybe globalization is not such a bad thing afterall?