In the summer of Foreign Affairs published an article entitled "The Clash of Civilizations?" by Samuel Huntington. No article, according to the editors of that. Editorial Reviews. ukraine-europe.info Review. The thesis of this provocative and potentially important Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Use features like bookmarks, eBook features: Highlight, take notes. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order by Samuel P. Huntington - The classic study of post-Cold War international relations, more relevant.
|Language:||English, Spanish, French|
|Genre:||Health & Fitness|
|ePub File Size:||25.86 MB|
|PDF File Size:||8.36 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order by Samuel P. Huntington. Buy Audiobook Download. Aug 27 Buy the Audiobook Download. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order ebook epub/pdf/prc/ mobi/azw3 download for Kindle, Mobile, Tablet, Laptop, e-Reader by Samuel P. 1 Samuel P. Huntington, “The Clash of Civilizations?,” Foreign Affairs. 72, no. 3 ( ). Remaking of the World Order (New York: Simon and Schuster, );.
How to Download Follow Twitter. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order explains how the population explosion in Muslim countries and the economic rise of East Asia are changing global politics. The Muslim population surge has led to many small wars throughout Eurasia, and the rise of China could lead to a global war of civilizations. Huntington offers a strategy for the West to preserve its unique culture and emphasizes the need for people everywhere to learn to coexist in a complex, multipolar, muliticivilizational world. Since its initial publication, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order has become a classic work of international relations and one of the most influential books ever written about foreign affairs.
The War Within. Stephen R. The Gift of a Happy Mother. Rebecca Eanes. Just Let Me Look at You. The Unwanted. Michael Dobbs. Cathy Guisewite. Chelsea Clinton. A Wonderful Stroke of Luck. An Economist Walks into a Brothel. Allison Schrager. The Killer in Me. Olivia Kiernan. Finding My Voice. Valerie Jarrett.
He Said, She Said. Gigi Gorgeous. New to Big. David Kidder and Christina Wallace. Lights All Night Long. Lydia Fitzpatrick. Pajtim Statovci. Stony the Road. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. Kali Fajardo-Anstine. A Sin by Any Other Name. Robert W. The Editor. Steven Rowley.
Related Articles. Avoidance of a global war of civilizations depends on world leaders accepting and cooperating to maintain the multicivilizational character of global politics. During most of human existence, contacts between civilizations were intermittent or nonexistent. Then, with the beginning of the modern era, about A. For over four hundred years, the nation states of the West — Britain, France, Spain, Austria, Prussia, Germany, the United States, and others — constituted a multipolar international system within Western civilization and interacted, competed, and fought wars with each other.
At the same time, Western nations also expanded, conquered, colonized, or decisively influenced every other civilization Map 1. During the Cold War global politics became bipolar and the world was divided into three parts. A group of mostly wealthy and democratic societies, led by the United States, was engaged in a pervasive ideological, political, economic, and, at times, military competition with a group of somewhat poorer communist societies associated with and led by the Soviet Union.
Much of this conflict occurred in the Third World outside these two camps, composed of countries which often were poor, lacked political stability, were recently independent, and claimed to be nonaligned Map 1. In the late s the communist world collapsed, and the Cold War international system became history. In the post-Cold War world, the most important distinctions among peoples are not ideological, political, or economic.
They are cultural. Peoples and nations are attempting to answer the most basic question humans can face: Who are we? And they are answering that question in the traditional way human beings have answered it, by reference to the things that mean most to them.
People define themselves in terms of ancestry, religion, language, history, values, customs, and institutions. They identify with cultural groups: People use politics not just to advance their interests but also to define their identity. We know who we are only when we know who we are not and often only when we know whom we are against.
Nation states remain the principal actors in world affairs. Their behavior is shaped as in the past by the pursuit of power and wealth, but it is also shaped by cultural preferences, commonalities, and differences. Non-Western societies, particularly in East Asia, are developing their economic wealth and creating the basis for enhanced military power and political influence.
In this new world, local politics is the politics of ethnicity; global politics is the politics of civilizations. The rivalry of the superpowers is replaced by the clash of civilizations. About The Author. Photo Credit: Product Details. Raves and Reviews.
Do you agree? Clifford Michaels Interesting point of view. I'd say all the major civilizations inhabiting this Earth continue to promote and protect their interests. Asia, Western …more Interesting point of view. Humanity needs to come to grips with itself and understand that with the weapons currently in play the risk of mass destruction is real. Lists with This Book. Community Reviews. Showing Rating details.
Sort order. Dec 22, Huyen rated it did not like it Shelves: This is a masterpiece of scare mongering, not recommended for the faint of heart. Sage Huntington can make you groan inside: And hapless America will heroica This is a masterpiece of scare mongering, not recommended for the faint of heart. And hapless America will heroically fight that struggle against evil and oppression until the end of time and come out gloriously victorious.
But before that, we need to fight terror, terror, terror and build more aircrafts, missiles, military bases and bomb the shit out of them if necessary. A rather depressing thought. So much for the ranting. Now the serious stuff. Samuel Huntington laid out his analysis of conflicts in the Post Cold War world in his article in It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic.
The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations.
The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The only way the West can survive is to get stronger both militarily and economically and ally with civilizations sympathetic to itself to fight against the rise of Islamic and Confucian countries i. This line of argument has some major flaws. First, it defines civilization as an all-encompassing and monolithic concept and ignores all the interaction and diversity within one culture. How would you define Islamic civilization?
Islam of Saudi Arabia? Similarly for all the rest. But more importantly, often I find this kind of confrontational mind-set rather dangerous. But I never believe in such things, I never believe that people have enough time sitting on their ass and hating another group just because their culture and religion are different. If people fight, that must be for a reason, often one group are conquered or oppressed and resist, otherwise, economic reasons such as land, exploitation or resources.
Invoking jealousy or ethnic hatred to explain conflict is a chauvinistic and foolish way of looking at it. The Vietnamese did not hate the Americans because the Americans drove cars and watched tv while the Vietnamese slogged behind buffalos.
The Afghans hated the Russians not because the Russians rode tanks and had an empire. Aren't these legitimate things to hate? Conflicts are always about the conqueror and the dominated, about power and oppression, never so much about ideology or ethnic hatred. After the end of the Cold War, America came out as the sole superpower.
So people started asking: Why do we need this half a trillion dollar military budget when we have massive social problems at home in this most advanced industrialized country?
So America needed to invent something to replace the Russians to justify all that. So voila, that must be the clash of civilization. America is perpetually at war with other rival civilizations, especially Islam. The paradigm of the West vs. Gone with the Russians, in with the Muslims.
The real civilization clash IS happening. How scary indeed. Huntington even declared: Very representative huh? Because this pre-renaissance backward fanatical people hate progress and are jealous of us living in our first world luxury. This rhetoric has been parroted again and again and again by Emperor Bush and his friends to justify his increasingly militant approach in the ME. The idea of CoC obscures the real grievances and frustration of people in the Middle East at many decades of American dominance in the region.
And many other friends that torture its citizens under US auspices politics jargon: Could anyone still say it has nothing to do with politics at all? Is this honest and balanced historical analysis or is there a hidden agenda behind? No wonder why America loved some dictators and overthrew a couple of trouble makers.
Expert on democracy and civilization indeed. View all 23 comments. Jan 03, William rated it really liked it. Many have taken Huntington to task because he pessimistically forecasted a world of discord following the Cold War.
The headlines of the past decade beg to differ. The border regions between these centers were going to be fraught with friction and co "Clash of Civilizations" is an easy book to misread. The border regions between these centers were going to be fraught with friction and conflict, just as they always have. The bipolar Cold War was the aberration, just as un-natural as a "unipolar" world following the fall of the Soviet Union. Many misread this book as well, skipping all the material just to read what Kennedy forecasted for the world post Where Kennedy got it wrong, Huntington got it right, offering an analysis based on a continuity so simple that it was easy for the sophisticated to overlook.
View 1 comment. Oct 24, Riku Sayuj rated it liked it Shelves: The Preservation of The West or Making America Great Again Huntington polarized his readers, being a book the liberals would rather not believe as it implies religious and cultural differences will continue to divide humanity, and also one that the right would rather ignore, preferring Fukuyama's thesis of Capitalism as the supreme achievement of mankind, over this more accommodating world-view.
Now we are far enough from the end of the Cold War to be able to judge this book more fairly. In the imme The Preservation of The West or Making America Great Again Huntington polarized his readers, being a book the liberals would rather not believe as it implies religious and cultural differences will continue to divide humanity, and also one that the right would rather ignore, preferring Fukuyama's thesis of Capitalism as the supreme achievement of mankind, over this more accommodating world-view.
In the immediate aftermath of the cold war, strategists were looking for a "theory" that will help us understand the world in conceptual terms - the conceptual simplicity of the bipolar cold war world enticed them into believing that a new world order will be formed, which can again be explained under a new framework.
Huntington probably came up with one of the most realistic models - unlike the ideologically divided world before the cold war, the post-Cold War world's inhabitants will increasingly define themselves not on ideological grounds, but on cultural civilizational, even religious lines and hence the new world order will be organized around the same. These two conflicts along with China's sphinx like role will define the future according to Huntington. So far so good. However, as Huntington himself says, the best test of any theory is its predictive capacity.
And that is the first place where this cultural or civilizational model of world order falls short. According to Huntington, intra-civilizational conflicts are to die down fast in the post cold war world as core states of each civilization rallies its allies around its own sphere of influence - this would include China taking up its hegemonic role in Asia, the Koreas uniting, the Middle-East somehow redrawing artificial boundaries and creating a core state that can guide them according to Huntington civilizational stability is not possible with a "core state" rallying the civilization , the South Americas either uniting to form a distinct civilization or just bandwagoning with the west, etc.
But the world we see today shows us that most of the real hot zones are along intra-civilizational fault-lines - along fault-lines that are not defined so much by broad civilizational identities, but rather by narrower ethnic, historical and sometimes quite random identities.
So the civilizational model might still work, but instead of the small set proposed by Huntington, we might need a much larger set of civilizations to be invoked, which would then render the theory pretty useless. The second issue is with the real core message of the book - How to protect the western civilization. Huntington is in truth issuing a clarion call to the whole of western civilization' to band together against this new post cold war world which is not exclusively west-facing anymore.
Huntington faces up boldly against Fukuyama's partisan view that Capitalism is the final stage of history extending Hegel , but falls into the same trap by implying throughout the book that the western culture is the best and is in dire need of preserving, dedicating much of the later part of the work to strategies aimed at this end.
As per this thesis, as the Asian and Islamic civilizations rise into economic prominence, the new world order will also tilt towards them not to mention the additional demographic and immigrational pressures fueling this. The only way to arrest this tilt and to avoid the tragedy of losing all the culture the west has built up and perfected is for the western countries to set aside their differences and band together, especially the United States.
The book is an exhortation to the US of A to skirt any aspirations to being multi-cultural itself and thus diluting the holy western culture , but stay pure and take up the mantle of being the core state for the western civilization and this involves cozying up to Russia too, btw, just fyi and thus make sure that the new multi-cultural world is still as western in culture as possible. View all 11 comments. Dec 30, Mikey B.
This is still a very valid book today. We are back to the basics of culture and religion. Huntington constructs a frightful world; whereas, before, there could be rationality between liberal democracy and the communist block, the room for agreement between absolutist religions in the Islamic and Western Christia This is still a very valid book today.
Huntington constructs a frightful world; whereas, before, there could be rationality between liberal democracy and the communist block, the room for agreement between absolutist religions in the Islamic and Western Christian worlds are fraught with problems.
The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order by Samuel P. Huntington
Russia is back to Orthodoxy and its peripheral borders are dangerous. As Mr. China will become less subservient and the countries bordering it, like Japan, will need to redo their alliances. The author is also adept at changing our perspective.
The U. The West — and the U. There is much danger in this universalistic mentality. The world has now become more complex with several competing powers, instead of two superpowers. With religion back in the equation, this adds an unstable emotional level when a conflict begins, or in most cases, when the conflict reasserts itself after a dormant period.
I take issue with Mr. Huntington on the universality of Human Rights. Many countries today do not adhere to these values, much to the detriment and dignity of their people. As a Chinese dissident said to paraphrase: This is an essential book for understanding the world and makes for illuminating reading.
Many of us thought that with the end of the Cold War the world had become a safer and more humane planet — and we were all off to a better and greater way of living. Huntington suggests the Cold War was just an ideological anomaly; we are back to fundamentals.
The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
A favourite quote about the Soviet-Afghan war: Apr 20, Adrian rated it it was amazing. It is over 10 years since I read Samuel Huntington's full length expansion of his classic Foreign Affairs article. This was read during my final year at university, and back then, it was fashionable amongst many to refute, or outrightly mock Professor Huntington's disturbing piece of work.
The work was derided amongst my fellow students, it was frequently derieded amongst academia, it is something of a fashion statement to deride Huntington's work.
Could it be, perhaps, because of a deep, in It is over 10 years since I read Samuel Huntington's full length expansion of his classic Foreign Affairs article. Could it be, perhaps, because of a deep, inbuilt feeling that we just know that he was right? Time has vindicated Huntington, and will continue to vindicate him. The 2 civilizations that Huntington considers to be the most potentially antagonistic toward the West are Islamic and Sinic, however, as this book was completed in , various conflicts had not yet played out between the West and the Orthodox World, and this is deserving of a special place as a potential faultline civilization.
Huntington considers the value systems of Sinic and Islamic culture as essentially incompatible with the West, and attempts to assimilate or reconcile Western values with these cultures is ultimately futile.
Therefore, Huntington advocates a careful, cautious approach to foreign policy, wherein Western powers should try to mediate civilizational disputes, but not directly involve themselves with them. Why do I think Huntington has been vindicated? The list is not exhaustive.
Firstly, attempts through that ill conceived ? War in Iraq to democracize Iraq has proved a colossal failure. The Arab Spring led to an outright dead end for all countries involved except Tunisia, and Turkish membership of the EU remains a pipe dream.
However, while Huntington's work was written before the full democratization of South Korea and Taiwan, we have seen little progress in China toward any kind of accountable or open system, and China has recently given Hong Kong a half-baked, managed democracy. If anything, the civilizational faultline that has become more pronounced is the Orthodox World. Russia and US relations are at the worst they have ever been since the end of the Cold War, and the continuing support of Putin's strongman leadership amongst the Russian population shows a general preference in Russia at least for strongman leadership, rather than a more pluralistic approach.
A further example was the almost universal Western support exception Spain for the unilateral independence of Kosovo, and then the complete reverse of this foreign policy toward the Russian unification with Crimea. This is not to distract oneself with current issues. Huntington's original work was written in response to the Gulf War, and the expanded book was based on events in the 90s, such as the Yugoslav wars, Chechnya, and the very nature of Sino-Western relations.
However, very little has transpired to prove Huntington wrong, and few would argue that his main policy proscription, that the West only mediate, not directly involve themselves with disputes involving other civilizations. I think the dust will never settle on the debate over Huntington's thesis, but Huntington has convinced this reader at least. Hypothesis It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic.
The fault lines betwee Hypothesis It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. Considered as a possible 8th civilization Lone Countries Ethiopia and Haiti are labeled as "Lone" countries Israel Considered a unique state with its own civilization one similar to West The Caribbean World Former British colonies in the Caribbean, constitutes a distinct entity Cleft Countries Because they contain very large groups of people identifying with separate civilizations.
However, the costs of this action are high and only a few states can pursue it Non-Western countries can make an effort to balance Western power through modernization Cooperation They can develop economic, military power and cooperate with other non-Western countries against the West while still preserving their own values and institutions Fault line conflicts Between adjacent states belonging to different civilizations or within states that are home to populations from different civilizations Core state conflicts Between the major states of different civilizations Modernization vs.
Westernization Japan, China and the East Asian Tigers have modernized in many respects while maintaining traditional or authoritarian societies which distinguish them from the West.
Some of these countries have clashed with the West and some have not The West is distinguished from Orthodox Christian countries by the experience of the Renaissance, Reformation, the Enlightenment, overseas colonialism rather than contiguous expansion and colonialism, and a recent re-infusion of Classical culture through ancient Greece rather than through the continuous trajectory of the Byzantine Empire Torn countries Countries that are seeking to affiliate with another civilization as "torn countries.
Second, the public must be willing to accept the redefinition. Third, the elites of the civilization that the torn country is trying to join must accept the country Anyhow, no torn country has successfully redefined its civilizational identity Contrast Theories 1 The world had reached the 'end of history' in a Hegelian sense Human rights, liberal democracy, and capitalist free market economy had become the only remaining ideological alternative for nations in the post-Cold War world The End of History by Francis Fukuyama 2 Division of "West" and "Islam" is not as per reality Clash of civilizations thesis is an example of "the purest invidious racism, a sort of parody of Hitlerian science directed today against Arabs and Muslims The Clash of Ignorance by Edward Said 3 Diversity is a feature of most cultures in the world.
Western civilization is no exception The practice of democracy that has won out in the modern West is largely a result of a consensus that has emerged since the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution To attribute it to the West and then to contrast it with non-Western traditions would be a great mistake Amartya Sen View all 3 comments.
Sep 15, Jan Hidders rated it liked it. There is no doubt that this is a must-read if you are interested in global politics. That does not mean that I think the book is right.
Quite the contrary, I think the book is dangerously oversimplifying the current situation in world politics and trying to shoe-horn world events into a seductively simple-looking world view that, although advertised as a new paradigm, looks suspiciously like the cold-war paradigm on steroids.
Since the human mind often prefers such simple explanations over more There is no doubt that this is a must-read if you are interested in global politics. Since the human mind often prefers such simple explanations over more complicated ones, and because they also tend to be rather convenient for power-hungry leaders and institutions, these ideas should be very critically examined.
As a whole the book seems well argued and an honest attempt at analysis. I don't think that is a coincidence. So I would advice everybody who plans to pick up this book, to also make sure that you read afterwards some work that critically examines this book.
For an idea of what the critique consists of, you might take a quick look on YouTube for a lecture by the late Edward Said under the title "The Myth of the Clash of Civilizations". View 2 comments. Jun 05, Hans rated it really liked it Shelves: A pretty decent book. I enjoyed it and his thesis was intriguing though a little simplistic and not entirely original. We as westerners sure do have an obsession with breaking everything down into nice little neat packages so they can be better classified and studied.
That is both the strength and weakness of this book. If only cultures and civilizations were so easy to just lump people together under one stereotype wow that would make the world much more predictable than it is. Alas the world i A pretty decent book.
Alas the world is full of cultures, sub-cultures and counter-cultures within each civilization and so it is a little more complex. This also has deep implications when it comes to foreign policy, if you treat every culture as homogeneous I believe you are making a grave mistake, especially if those sub-cultures or counter-cultures could be possible allies or enemies.
There are so many examples of this: Saudi Arabia - Wahhabis vs. House of Saud, both Muslim one ally other enemy. Religious right vs. Moderate to secular Iran, one hates us the other likes western culture. Kurds -like us, Sunnis-mixed between hate and like, Shiite - Mix between like and hate. I give these examples since Huntington's thesis argues that Muslim culture is the most prone to violence and thus the most dangerous.
But the list goes on and on including even the US with the basic division of conservative and liberal which is even blurry at times. I guess I don't like that Huntington is basically creating a similar myopic world view that the US had during the cold war when the world was easily divided into three camps and all the disastrous foreign policy that followed as a result.
The world is not black and white.