reading Samuel P. Huntington's famous article, "The Clash of Civilizations" has given much food for thought.
his main claim: that future geopolitics will be based on the fragments and misunderstandings between cultures, not ideologies nor economies. a clash of cultures which are based on similar histories, language, religion, experiences, social organisations etc. these discrepencies in culture will therefore bring about an inevitable confrontation between any two or more civilizations which have different degrees of importance regarding issues such as human rights, gender equality, homosexual rights etc. he also cites the power of the nation state. pretty much the stuff we hear in the news.
so the main civilizations are that of the West, the Chinese, the Arab, the African, the Slavic and the South American. Huntington cites a "if you can't beat them, join them" attitude towards the "west and the rest". bandwagoning is favoured as a preferred mode of bilateral political engagement, to imitate their more advanced, western counterparts.
he has even "predicted" the rise of China (but who hasn't, really?) and the Chinese civilization, and the clash between the West and the Arab culture - he wrote this in 1993 in response to Francis Fukuyama's "The End of History".
my problem with this hypothesis (perhaps, even theory at this point in time) is the assumption that cultures are immutable and static. how much western culture has become a part of mine and each and every singaporean's life is a tiny example of how cultures, ie civilizations' and their values, have overlapped. the rise of the nation state, arisen from the Industrial Revolution, the French Revolution and the rise of civic consciousness during the Enlightenment has honed a concept of a "nation", a "citizen". thus, to reduce geopolitics and political engagement down to race and civilization seems rather backward - yet a paradoxical reality in today's contemporary immigrant-phobic world. (check out the rise of conservatism in Europe and the French elections this sunday)
however, i do agree with his point regarding identity. the clash of civilizations will only occur if people choose their ethnic/racial identity over their social/political/economic affiliations. perhaps this debate has been exhausted in this time and age. there is no manual for each individual on how to choose. we have to give credit to a constructivist point of view on identity.
to focus the contemporary "problem" between the west and the middle east on a clash of culture is one side of the story. western secularism has come a long way - therefore developing critique on the lack of separation between the 'mosque' and state. ah.
the other side of the story should be, in mine and many other's opinions, the lack of hindsight of the west to keep criticising Islam as a religion. Islam as a (political) ideology is what needs to be resolved. it is afterall, man that is changeable and the text, constant.
therefore, a clash of civilizations or a mere misunderstanding?
my 2 cents worth.
ps: Huntington's article has left out the potential (and current truth) of the power of transnational organisations, but perhaps it's because it was written in '93.
finally, a good cultural/theoretical read at uni.
his main claim: that future geopolitics will be based on the fragments and misunderstandings between cultures, not ideologies nor economies. a clash of cultures which are based on similar histories, language, religion, experiences, social organisations etc. these discrepencies in culture will therefore bring about an inevitable confrontation between any two or more civilizations which have different degrees of importance regarding issues such as human rights, gender equality, homosexual rights etc. he also cites the power of the nation state. pretty much the stuff we hear in the news.
so the main civilizations are that of the West, the Chinese, the Arab, the African, the Slavic and the South American. Huntington cites a "if you can't beat them, join them" attitude towards the "west and the rest". bandwagoning is favoured as a preferred mode of bilateral political engagement, to imitate their more advanced, western counterparts.
he has even "predicted" the rise of China (but who hasn't, really?) and the Chinese civilization, and the clash between the West and the Arab culture - he wrote this in 1993 in response to Francis Fukuyama's "The End of History".
my problem with this hypothesis (perhaps, even theory at this point in time) is the assumption that cultures are immutable and static. how much western culture has become a part of mine and each and every singaporean's life is a tiny example of how cultures, ie civilizations' and their values, have overlapped. the rise of the nation state, arisen from the Industrial Revolution, the French Revolution and the rise of civic consciousness during the Enlightenment has honed a concept of a "nation", a "citizen". thus, to reduce geopolitics and political engagement down to race and civilization seems rather backward - yet a paradoxical reality in today's contemporary immigrant-phobic world. (check out the rise of conservatism in Europe and the French elections this sunday)
however, i do agree with his point regarding identity. the clash of civilizations will only occur if people choose their ethnic/racial identity over their social/political/economic affiliations. perhaps this debate has been exhausted in this time and age. there is no manual for each individual on how to choose. we have to give credit to a constructivist point of view on identity.
to focus the contemporary "problem" between the west and the middle east on a clash of culture is one side of the story. western secularism has come a long way - therefore developing critique on the lack of separation between the 'mosque' and state. ah.
the other side of the story should be, in mine and many other's opinions, the lack of hindsight of the west to keep criticising Islam as a religion. Islam as a (political) ideology is what needs to be resolved. it is afterall, man that is changeable and the text, constant.
therefore, a clash of civilizations or a mere misunderstanding?
my 2 cents worth.
ps: Huntington's article has left out the potential (and current truth) of the power of transnational organisations, but perhaps it's because it was written in '93.
finally, a good cultural/theoretical read at uni.
Labels: reflection
Post a Comment