Said Reaction

[Brian Jones <misterpink@mail.utexas.edu>]

Said's Reaction to Huntington
Brian Jones

	Sam Huntington describes his purpose in writing “The Clash of 
Civilizations” as creating a useful tool or paradigm to use in 
discussing what he sees as a newly developing state of world affairs.  
He defends himself against many of his critics by arguing that a 
paradigm need not explain every particular situation; it only needs to 
explain a majority of situations to which it can be applied.  However, 
Edward Said finds fault even with this fundamental purpose.  He argues 
that there are more helpful divisions on which to base discussion rather 
than on “vast abstractions” that do not allow sophisticated analysis of 
a problem.  Said makes this argument in his article “The Clash of 
Ignorance” in which he also argues in a general way against more 
specific points in Huntington’s work.  For Said, Huntington’s essay is 
problematic in its purpose and its implementation.
	For Said, one major problem with Huntington’s work would be his 
tendency to frame every problem in the context of a conflict between a 
modernized and progressive Western civilization and the others.  
Specifically, he focuses primarily on the relationship between the West 
and Islam.  By focusing on this relationship, Huntington makes it clear 
that he believes it is this boundary at which most problems will occur.  
In singling out the West, Huntington displays it as an example for the 
problematic rest; in singling out Islam from the rest, Huntington 
identifies it as the major problem.
	Huntington also pays too little attention to the affects of 
increasing globalization.  Globalization causes cultural and ideological 
boundaries to soften, blur, and disappear.  Huntington focuses primarily 
on the effect that globalization has in imposing unwelcome Western 
influence in non-Western, again specifically Islamic, countries.  
However, non-Western countries do embrace many Western ideas, trends, 
and products.  Huntington uses democracy as a primary example of a 
Western idea, and countries in each of the civilizations he describes 
follow democratic principles to varying degrees.  Huntington also 
ignores the fact that globalization allows for the influence of 
non-Western cultures on the West.  Said makes this point by pointing out 
the large Muslim populations in important Western countries.  
Globalization is not unidirectional.  It blends cultures in many 
different combinations to positive and to negative effect.
	Although Huntington describes the historical growth and decline of 
civilizations, he treats them as being currently static and homogenous.  
This inflexibility is part of his problem in accounting for 
globalization.  It also prevents him from accounting for internal 
conflicts in cultures.  He does mention what he calls “torn countries”, 
but these are only countries that include two or more of the 
civilizations he describes.  There are also internal conflicts in 
countries with only one civilizational identity, and Huntington cannot 
account for these.  For example, within the group of Islamic states, 
there are states that are politically extreme and those that are 
moderate.  There are also groups within each of these states that fall 
at various points on this spectrum.  Specifically with regards to the 
West vs. Islam dichotomy Huntington focuses on, there are those Islamic 
states and groups that try to cooperate and maintain conciliatory 
relations with the United States and those that favor a more hostile 
relationship.  As another example, there is a very broad ideological 
spectrum among Western nations on many issues, particularly economic 
ones.  It is impossible to explain these intra-civilizational conflicts 
as clashes between civilizations and difficult to explain conflicts 
between the same seemingly splintered groups in civilizational terms.
	Huntington tries to explain away all of these weaknesses with 
varying degrees of success using his conception of civilizations.  
Said’s objections to specific points primarily center around 
Huntington’s treatment of Islamic countries, rather than on the degree 
of success with which he applies his theory.  Said is correct to do so 
for it is with the Islamic countries that Huntington is least 
sophisticated and flexible in applying his theory.  He allows for 
countries of other civilizations such as Mexico and Japan to become in 
many ways Western; however, he argues that Islamic culture does not 
allow Islamic countries the same degree of flexibility.  While there 
are  inter-civilizational transactions performed by Western countries, 
even with Islamic partners, that Huntington does not address, he refers 
to transactions between Middle Eastern countries and China in sinister 
terms.  Finally, the majority examples Huntington uses of conflicts 
between the West and other countries involve Islamic countries making 
Islam the perpetual enemy.
	Huntington claims that his theory of civilizations should be used 
as a paradigm that is not necessarily applicable in all cases and that 
does not necessarily define every situation in comprehensive detail.  It 
is useful in this sense.  In fact, Huntington at times puts it to good 
use in this context; however, it also has potential to be used 
irresponsibly.  For most of the civilizations he outlines, Huntington 
uses his theory as a paradigm that can be altered, ignored, and flexed; 
however, he seems to apply it axiomatically to Islamic countries.  It is 
precisely this use that Said fears in his warnings that Huntington’s 
theories do not necessarily lead to “informed analysis.”  In regards to 
Huntington’s treatment of Islam, Said is right to characterize it as 
“demagogy and downright ignorance.”