The death of long-time conservative scholar Samuel Huntington has kicked off a lively discussion in various quarters on his legacy, his ideas, and his enduring argument - made much more popular after 9/11 - that the fundamental source of conflict in global politics will not be ideological or even economic, but rather cultural. Later on we of course had his anti-immigration writings which I prefer to ignore. However, I thought that Francis Fukuyama's respectful piece was rather thought provoking in terms of viewing Huntington's ideas in light of what has occurred in Russia over the past number of years. Culturally, the disputes with the Georgians, Ukrainians, and Baltics aren't very convincing of the clash of civilizations, but on the other hand, Huntington's warnings that a rush to adopt liberal political and economic models could result in illiberal authoritarianism - a bullseye for Russia.While I fully appreciate the power and durability of culture, and the way that modern liberal democracy was rooted in Christian cultural values, it has always seemed to me that culture was more useful in explaining the provenance than the durability of democracy as a political system. Sam, in my view, underrated the universalism of the appeal of living in modern, free societies with accountable governments. His argument rests heavily on the view that modernization and Westernization are two completely separate processes, something which I rather doubt. The gloomy picture he paints of a world riven by cultural conflict is one favored by the Islamists and Russian nationalists, but is less helpful in explaining contemporary China or India, or indeed in explaining the motives of people in the Muslim world or Russia who are not Islamists or nationalists. Nation-states and not civilizations remain the primary actors in world politics, and they are motivated by a host of interests and incentives that often override inherited cultural predispositions.
Be that as it may, Sam's arguments were always made with great force, erudition, and persuasiveness. Even if one disagreed with him, it was impossible to not take his arguments with the greatest seriousness. They provided vocabulary and structure to all subsequent discussions of the topic, whether latter was American politics, defense policy, democratic transition, or American identity. In addition to his written work, he was a great teacher, and produced an entire generation of students who have reshaped virtually all of the sub-fields of political science. From his earliest writings to his last works, he has drawn vociferous critics, but that is the mark of a scholar who has important and fundamental things to say.
James, I think that Samuel Huntington's vision was that with the break down of the Cold War super-powers which held tribalism and terroism in check and what we see now is what we get.
To those liberals that hope for the demise of the US I'd be very careful what I wished for. There is no other Good Cop country of any military or economic standing that can defeat the ugly forces that are now unleashed upon the west. Trust me, Obama isn't getting that.
It's not that the USSR didn't need to perish, it's the pathetic replacement of it by a anti-democratic and predatory Russia.
Probably the most currently-Russia-relevant argument from Clash, was that Western pretensions to universalism and consequent intrusion into the Orthodox (and Islamic and Sinic) zones will stir up tensions, be unwelcome and will not lead to any good results. Is the failure to mention this a slip or intentional?
Huntington's ambiguous but well accepted theory could be defined at the best as an attractive fascion in political discourse but not as a sound analysis of the nature of civlization.
In response to the theory of “clash of civilizations” which produced a lot of controversies in political, historical, philosophical and sociological debates, have appeared some other approaches which insist on Intercivilizational relations or dialogue between civilizations. These approaches tend to offer a peaceful and conciliatory solution for the conflicting aspects of the relations between different civilizations. But, it seems that the theory of the clash of civilizations and the other opposing approaches fail to make an objective and comprehensive analysis of the nature and functions of civilization.
In order to make such an analysis, one should in the first place give a precise definition of the term “civilization”. For this, I would prefer to define the terms “civilization” and “culture” in comparison. If one studies carefully the terms civilization and culture, one will find a subtle distinction between these two terms sometimes used interchangeably. Civilization and culture have their proper significances with regard to their respective elements. SO, I think that civilization could be essentially defined as a materially realized form of life comprehending all intellectual and material aspects of human life within a certain period of time and in a coherent social organization, whereas culture concerns only the intellectual aspects of human life.
So, the most essential characteristic that distinguishes civilization from culture is its quality as “organization”. In fact, civilization is an objective phenomenon because it represents a “social organization”. When a civilization loses its characteristic as social organization, it disappears and continues its life merely in the form of a culture which may contribute to the formation of another civilization. So, every civilization based on its own cultural elements may comprehend many other cultural elements remained from the civilizations existed in the past. If we accept that the actual western civilization - the one that dominates - provides a mode of social organization accepted by all nations with a wide range of cultural diversity , we can say that presently there exists only one form of real civilization throughout the world and the other ones belong to the history . But, some of the last civilizations might represent a kind of culture. Most admittedly, cultural plurality and multilayered belonging to different cultures within a unique civilization is conceivable.