====================================
by Guy Shaked
Keywords: Al-Qaeda, Clash of Civilizations, Huntington, Islam, US, West, Shaked
The theory of clash of civilizations after the end of the binary US Soviet world order does more to confuse the perception of the new world order than to assist in it.
Huntington manipulates the data in order for it to fit his theory rather than vice versa. Three major countries are termed as civilizations: these are India Japan and China thus conflicts these countries might be in over borders territories etc. might be termed clash of civilization by the author yet have nothing to do with civilization (like the Chinese Japanese argument over the Senkaku or Diaoyu islands[1] (some Islands dispute which has to do with history more than with cultural differences between Japan and China). Thus trade conflicts between Japan and the United states are said to be conflict between civilizations (Japan and the west)[2] yet what about trade conflicts between the US and Europe[3] – both from the civilization of the west – those were not meant then to exist according to this theory. The confusion here also arises from the fact that legitimate and normal conflict among allies (Japan and the US) is described as a sort of war or war substitute.
Huntington gives two main examples of why nations from the same civilizations are less likely to engage in mutual destruction (war). The first, from our time is the question that a war between the US and Canada is most unlikely[4] . Yet when claiming that the author ignores other major factors different from civilization which discourage the two nations from engaging in conflict. These are for example the absence of border and territorial disagreements between the two nations, the fact that the US is a major super power (and a nuclear force and it would be suicide for Canada to try to fight it. Finally there is the tendency of Canada not unlike some European nations toward non militarism – i.e. not holding any substantial military one that can attack and effectively defend from a military attack.
The second example[5] is an historical one. The Athenians words that they would not betray the Spartans to the Persians. This at best can be described not as emanating from the same civilization but two forces uniting against a third in tactical alliance. For the Athenians went on to fight during the 5th to the 4th centuries BC with the Spartans where the destruction was great. Their reverence to common religious places of worship resulting in not destroying them can hardly justify pointing to tendency not to fight among nations from the same civilization.
BINARY WORLD
Huntington’s division to several civilizations does much to confuse what should be a binary world order of Modernized societies versus fundamentalist Islam (with a third world countries block as well). The fundamentalist Islam (hence: Islam) fight is against the dominant, i.e. in Arab countries against the regime, attempting to replace it with Islamic rule, and in the Global world against the global rule of the west. There is nothing in the conflict against the west as such only as dominant meaning that if China was to become the major force in the world with Confucianism as the culture Islam would fight against that the same way as it’s fight is against the dominant. The process is exemplified for example in Afghanistan where Islam fought to become the dominant in country level (the Taliban) and then in global level (Al-Qaeda).
Unlike Huntington’s claim the fight of Islam against the west is not a clash of civilizations it’s a religious clash of one side (Islam) with the dominant. This is exemplified in the suicide bombings in Britain where British born, cricket playing,[6] Tea sipping Brits committed acts of terror against their country on religious basis only not on civilization basis (Their civilization being British).
=======================================================================
[1] BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Row over Japan's islands claim, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2624445.stm
[2] Huntington, Samuel P., The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Simon & Schuster, UK, 1997, p. 38
[3] BBC NEWS | Business | Europe delays steel retaliation, news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2137814.stm
[4] Huntington, Clash, p. 34
[5] Huntington, Clash, p. 42
[6] Telegraph | Opinion | If they pass the 'cricket test', how do we ..., www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/.../opinion/2005/ 07/17/do1703.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/07/17/ixopinion.html
====================================
Keywords: Capitalism, China, Huntington, Individualism, Japan, Shaked, West
Among the characteristics of the western civilization, Huntington includes capitalism and individualism. The two I would like to claim are connected, for capitalism encourages individualism.
This seemingly odd sounding truth demands an explanation, and one would be provided. Capitalism encourages consumerism, i.e. the individuals wish for earthly possessions. This is for example encourages via commercials.
This wish makes seemingly the person less individualistic, as everybody becomes in having generally the same things. So it could be said that consumerism encourages un-autonomous thinking.
Yet individualism does not necessarily mean free thinking. It means the individual’s thinking as a single (not necessarily original) unit. This is exactly what consumerism encourages. The consumer goods are for the individual or his immediate familial unit (spouse, children). They are not intended usually for the clan, tribe, city, state or country. Thus consumerism actually works to brake clan & tribal (big families) ties characteristic of traditional societies.
It also puts the individual in the center and not the state or country. Thus is born the phenomena that in capitalistic societies where the individual can make a difference and can affect policy (i.e. democracy) people, thinking on their own good try to avoid wars (so is born pacifistic Japan Europe and the anti Vietnam war movement in the US).
The individual in the center is hence the result of capitalism (and it’s son consumerism) and individualism (perhaps with unoriginality) is born.
The geo-political significance of this for our days besides explaining the Japan Europe pacifism (tendency to avoid armed conflicts) can be seen for example in trying to understand the processes undergoing China.
China’s acceptance of capitalism would lead to individualism and the wish of the individual to be significant in decisions for his personal economy. Hence the pursuit of freedom and democracy.
Dear visitor, please take a short moment to sign my guest book!
----------------------------------------------------------------
© 2004 Emails are
gladly received: shakedtg@hotmail.com
The European (Left) Antisemitism
Jacques Derrida's interpretation of Plato’s Phaedrus (Plato’s Pharmacy)
Descartes' "I think therefore I am"
Other articles by G. Shaked:
ART
BIBLICAL STUDIES
BIOLOGY
CINEMA
LITERATURE
MUSIC
PHILOSOPHY
PHYSICS
(ACOUSTICS)