History might have ended for people who consider clash of ideologies as driving force for changes in human history, but for those who consider war as a formative process in history, it is still on-going and even perpetuated. According to Huntington (1993), although the fault lines and therefore the battle lines may have changed after the cold war and arguably triumph of ‘liberal democracy’, history has not ended yet and will not soon. In his hypothesis, Huntington identifies the deep-seated source of future conflicts in cultural fault lines among civilizations. He utilizes six consequential variables in order to essay his claim.

Although some of these variables are suppositions and Huntington fails to demonstrate enough evidence to make a strong connection between them and the possible future conflicts, the argument is well-built. Major flaws of his argument, however, have been exposed by a variety of scholars. Many scholars have tried to refute his hypothesis but quite a few succeeded to deliver a valid counter-hypothesis capable of describing the “future of history”. Throughout the following essay I will try to examine the validity of each variable instead of refuting Huntington’s hypothesis in its entirety –as Esposito (1999) recommends. First, we need to identify and explain the six variables supporting Huntington’s hypothesis and then concisely examine them thereupon after each variable:

1- Differences among civilizations are far more fundamental than those of among political ideologies and political regimes. Differences among civilizations have sprung the most prolonged and the most violent conflicts.

Drawing up the boundaries of a civilization with a discrete line is not an easy enterprise. Secondly, as Senghaas (2002) argues in his book entitled “clash within civilization” if there is going to be a clash it is more probable to occur within a civilization than between different civilizations because all cultures today have undergone more inner conflict and turmoil than ever before in the past.  According to Senghaas the concept of the “clash within Civilization” means that the future pattern of conflict will be drown by cultural fault lines within civilizations caused by process of modernization within societies. The further modernization progresses, the harder it becomes for old and new societal groupings to find common grounds for their identities and interests.  He also holds that difference between the value profile of a highly modernized and less modernized society within one civilization is far greater than between the value profile of societies at the similar stages of development in different civilizations. Esposito, too, demonstrates that even in Islam, which is perceived as having a rather monolithic power of cultural or religious communality, there are, in fact, a lot of incongruities in both grass roots and elite level.

One must concur with Huntington that the differences among civilizations have generated the most prolonged and the most violent conflicts. However, apart from the nature and longevity of these conflicts, the number of such conflicts is too small.

2- The world is getting smaller and interactions among people of different civilizations intensify cultural consciousness and awareness of discrepancies between different civilizations and commonalities within civilization.

It is far more difficult to prove and believe that cultural interplay leads to conflicts than it prevents. The more intensive and frequent cultural interplays are the more likely occurrence of mutual understanding would be. As Esposito rightly put it ‘belief in a monolithic notion of civilization eventually put each of them in opposing sides’.

3- Longstanding local identity of people, and affiliation and allegiance to nation-state as a source of identity are diminishing rapidly. Other identifying elements such as religion are sneaking into this gap often in form of movements that are labeled “fundamentalists”.

Albeit it is true that local identity affiliations are weakening, they are not diminishing in favor of another factor such as religion or culture but they yield for a wider global culture or what I call “Reluctant Civilization”. Additionally fundamentalist movements are accursed and abominated by a large majority of people of the same civilization and are considered aberrations by their fellows.

4-The growth of civilization-consciousness is enhanced by the dual role of the West. The West, being at the climax of its power, is confronting an increasingly inward-looking movement in itself and in other civilizations.

The happening of self-consciousness of various civilizations has been empowered by waves of globalizing forces. These ineluctable forces insist on “global pluralism” that eventually pilots us to a culture of tolerance and reception of the notion of “others”. Moreover, it is always true that until one does not know himself, he cannot get to know others. Therefore, an inward look into one’s own civilization does not necessarily mean rejection of others.  For people like Huntington, harmony and conformity, even under power pressure and hegemony, serve the peace in the world. But ‘negative peace’ or peace of grave yard, is never a true peace.

5- Cultural characteristics and differences are less mutable, and therefore less easily compromised and resolved than political and economic ones.

Difference in cultural characteristics may endure a conflict or make it more severe but can hardly be strong enough to rally support for initiating a war.  Additionally, unlike the prediction of cultural essentialism theories, such as Huntington’s, the global decline of cultural essentialism or creation of “reluctant civilization” is emerging. Unlike Huntington’s view that culture makes the greatest divisions among humankind and is the dominating source of conflict, cultures, as globalization proceeds, will transform and disintegrate and this process is irreversible.

6- Since economic regionalism is more widespreading and is more probable to continue to increase in the future, it may, on the one hand, reinforce the civilizational consciousness, and can be used by regional blocks to make the integration more successful –as it is more likely, on the other.

Economic regionalism is not spreading based on civilizational borders but economic necessities. It is almost impossible to imagine another regional block like EC of 90s which at the time could be classified as an economic entity that was inscribed in a hazy cultural border line. The EU of 2007 by 27 members and soon to become 34  or even more is far away from that possibility.

In conclusion, Huntington’s conception of what constitutes a civilization is hazy. He overlooks the dynamic processes within each so-called civilization, and overestimates the importance of religion in the behavior of non-Western elites, who are often secularized, westernized or rather globalized. Yet he could not clearly define the link between a civilization and the foreign policies of its member states.

Furthermore, as the clash of civilizations is an extreme form of encounter between civilizations, it is natural that the result should be political or military. However, if we suppose that an encounter between civilizations results in some kind of combination of the characteristics of each civilization, a clash of civilizations is but a one-way street of conquest and conquered, victory and annihilation. In this sense, Huntington's theory is philosophically related to historicism and a materialist developmental view of history such as that espoused by Hegel and Marx. However, there are plenty of examples where military victory has not led to cultural conquest. These include the relationship between the Mongols and Persians, as well as the relationship between the European Crusades and the Byzantine Empire. Additionally, while each civilization is unique, it is natural there to be a causal sequence between them. But, Huntington’s theory links all civilizations in history in one sequence.

In short, the alternative to what Huntington portrays is not Clash within Civilization. Nor pompous effacing of the idea of clash helps us to have a peaceful world. Call me a moralist, but I believe dialogue among civilizations and cultures at the moment is the best option to preserve the world from any clash. This is more rationalistic than the realism of Huntington or idealism of his adversaries.

Literature:

1- Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilization? Foreign Affairs (72,3) Summer 1993, 22-49.

2- John Esposito, Islam and the West: A Clash of Civilizations?, in John Esposito, The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality? (3^rd ed.)  NY/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999, 212-248.

3- Dieter Senghaas, The Clash within Civilisations: Coming to Terms with Cultural Conflicts (London: Routledge, 2002) 71-91.