The Bottom Line: Spoiler alert: This review ruins the surprise of some major topics and themes in the book (not a spoiler if you were hoping to read something new or profound)
wsmunch's Full Review: Samuel P. Huntington - The Clash of Civilizations ...
After I was done reading The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, I couldn't help but think, "Wow.. this is such a bad perspective yet there are people who will read this and believe every single word of it." When I first received the book, I read through ten pages before realizing that the author was going to take me on some whimsical voyage, "gifting" me with his enlightenment of how the world really operates. So I started the book over again, but this time I armed myself with caution, questions, and critical thinking. The book isn't really that long or hard to read (it could easily have been condensed in half), but it took a bit of time to finish just because I had to pace myself and evaluate everything. In the end, I felt I read a lot of doomsday predictions backed by paper-thin proof with a lack of multi-perspective thinking. I was also annoyed by his consistent relentlessness at trying to convince me that religion is the major defining aspect of modern civilizations and that modern war will happen only between civilizations of different religions.
Huntington's ideas are simplistic. He really caught my attention when he said, "culture and cultural identities, which at the broadest level are civilization identities, are shaping the pattern of cohesion, disintegration, and conflict in the post-Cold War world." I was startled with his proud ease of categorizing nations into one of nine major defining religions. By page 50, Huntington was trying to convince me that political and economic development of civilizations are rooted in their cultures. He continues his explanation by saying, "religion is a central defining characteristic of civilizations." By this time I had a pretty good idea about where the rest of the book was going to go. And sure enough the first half of the book was dedicated towards supporting the idea that modern conflict will strife along the fault lines of civilizations, which are defined by differences in culture, which are primarily defined by religion. Really? I could have sworn that the world is too complex to fit into such a neat little schemata. Didn't we already learn this from all of our history classes?
Huntington contradicts himself a lot. The beginning of the book grows his idea of a religion-based civilization clash, yet in the last chapter he states, "In the emerging world of ethnic conflict and civilizational clash, Western belief in the universality of Western Culture suffers three problems: it is false, it is immoral, and it is dangerous. That it is false has been the central thesis of this book." It's funny how this didn't coincide with what I (and many) felt was the thesis of the book. Within his own civilizational approach, Huntington divides the world as a Western one and a non-Western many, pages after he explains how "Us and Them" theory of civilization is just another limited, bilateral point of view. I guess theories are wrong unless they're his. Further on in the book, Huntington says that, "the sources of conflicts between civilizations are, in large measure, those which have always generated conflict between groups: control of people, territory, wealth, and resources, and relative power." He wrote this 100 pages after proclaiming that "the most pervasive, important, and dangerous conflicts will not be between social classes, rich and poor, or other economically defined groups, but between peoples belonging to different cultural entities." It was the little contradictions and inconsistencies that had me flipping back and forth to make sure I was reading and comprehending what was written. Well I was correct in my understanding. Huntington's words come across as haphazard and almost frantic as he tries to rally my support to his ideas. In the end, I felt that he was all over the map (no pun intended) and questioned his lack of sense.
Huntington casually omits information. Throughout the book he repeatedly brings up how religion is a major defining aspect of civilizations. He insinuates that modern conflict will be defined by one culture's intolerance to the close proximity of another culture. What ever happened to the other points of tension between civilizations? Politics, economics, and history are relatively nonexistent in Huntington's discussions. Huntington manages to source up statistics and figures in order to support his thesis, yet the data is incomplete and doesn't show the potential fluctuations between the years picked. How convenient. He shows the ups and downs of these global percentages, painting a picture of the West as a "civilization in decline, it's share of world political, economic, and military power going down relative to that of other civilizations." While the numbers appear grim at first glance, Huntington fails to suggest how prosperity drives increases in economies, industrial output, politics, and population; he makes no mention on how this positive growth can shift global percentages. Instead, he leads the reader to believe that the Western decline is due to active, aggressive acts. The only way that Western percentages could have stayed the same through years of cumulative growth by impoverished countries was if the West's sustained growth outpaced theirs (ok not the ONLY way, but you know what I mean.. even if we wanted to conquer the world we couldn't afford it). This could only happen in a world where infinite growth/expansion is possible with no diminishing returns, and this doesn't even take into account all allied nations who have prospered and shifted global percentages as well. Sure, I do believe that there are those in the world seeking to diminish Western influence and power. But I disagree with Huntington that it is the sole and primary reason of Western decline. But maybe Huntington wants to support the idea of total Western conquest in order to maintain superiority? I felt I read this idea between the lines in some parts of the book.
Huntington's predictions are limp. He stated that "in the emerging world, the relations between states and groups from different civilizations will not be close and will often be antagonistic." He couldn't be more wrong since the Orthodox states of Greece, Bulgaria, and Romania are active members of both the European Union and NATO, which are predominantly Christian. He predicted that "Turkey's full membership in NATO remains a distant and dubious possibility" due to cultural differences. Turkey's formal negotiation process for full NATO membership started in 2005. His thesis doesn't apply to the military interaction between Russia and Georgia in 2008. His thesis also doesn't explain the war between Iran and Iraq, and he completely glosses over how the Sunni and Shi'i are both part of the Islamic civilization and culture but still at odds with each other. He doesn't mention how the Rwandan genocide was a civil war and not a difference in culture. He skips examples of same-culture conflicts while [mostly] citing only those that involve an Islamic state. He also fails to address why many modern-day alliances are cross-cultural. I've studied enough history and politics to tell that Huntington was sourcing only what would support his side without considering all contradictory facts.
Overall Observations Huntington generalizes views of culture and religion while ignoring the complexities and internal dynamics that make up modern civilizations. Forgotten by Huntington are all other facets that make up civilizations; ones that have at least as much impact as religion and culture together. By the end of the book it is clear that he has some irrational fear of diminished Western power as he suggests that the West should get stronger by "politically, economically, and militarily fortifying the EU and NATO, Westernize Latin America and align it with the West, restrain military development within Islamic and Sinic countries, and maintain Western technological and military superiority." He never once mentions anything relating to understanding, education, or dialogue. He also never brings up historical disagreements within civilizations or any positive examples of historical interdependence between different civilizations. Huntington's ignorance is demonstrated by his attempts to simplify relationships and divide the fluid nature of human interaction with thin veils of uneducated generalization. The world is far too complex and diverse for that. I felt that Huntington truly wanted to educate the reader, but he merely offers a sloppy coat of paint on an old idea instead of some revolutionary thesis of civilizations based on culture.
Huntington demonstrates an ignorant view of Islam. He talks about "bloody borders" with respect to Islam as if ALL followers of Islam condone the use of violence as a means to an end (which they certainly do NOT). I couldn't believe that he seriously wrote something so offensive. And to top it off, he makes a backhand comment/observation that "economic development in Muslim societies, if and as that occurs, could consequently lead to a significant reduction in Muslim violence propensities and hence to a general decline in the frequency and intensity of fault line wars." Once again, he contradicts his thesis of religion defining culture, defining civilizations, and shaping post-Cold War conflicts.
I also feel that Huntington disrespects by speaking for every voice within each religion, culture, and civilization. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order does injustice to cultures and religions by labeling them as discriminative, simple, and combative. While the decline of Western power is a legitimate concern, I disagree that it's for the one-sided reasons Huntington describes. I do feel that the decline of Western power in terms of values, ethics, and education should be a concern for revitalizing a civilization that is inextricably linked with the rest of the world. He never mentions these aspects. Instead, the book is clouded by a narrow view that reinforces violence and visualizes change as a negative threat worthy of belligerence. Huntington does a disservice to history and cultures by insinuating modern civilizations will strive to maintain high and superior status by stepping on the necks of others. Ridiculous.
Based on the author's seminal article in Foreign Affairs, Samuel P. Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order is a provo...More at HotBookSale
This incisive, international bestselling exploration of the conflicts that have erupted since the fall of communism offers a provocative portrait of a...More at Buy.com Marketplaces
Epinions.com periodically updates pricing and product information from third-party sources, so some information may be slightly out-of-date. You should confirm all information before relying on it.
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.