Contrasting Paradigms for the Emerging World Order
In "The Clash of Civilizations?" Samuel P. Huntington hypothesizes
that the future conflicts between peoples will be culture based. He
divides the Earth into civilizational chunks that he believes will be
the concerned entities in global interaction. These geographical
regions supposedly contain, however imprecisely, the main cultures that
people will identify themselves with. In his reply to criticisms of
"The Clash of Civilizations?" Huntington admits that states will play a
strong role in international conflict, but he remains convinced that the
main lines of demarkation between conflicting groups will lie along
civilizational boundaries. He also chides his adversaries for their
lack of alternative world views. If Edward Said, the author of
Orientalism and Culture and Imperialism, were to respond to Huntington's
new ideas he would agree to the hypothesis that culture will play an
increasing role in future conflicts but take exception to a few major
points: the precise drawing of the lines of conflict, the extreme
pessimism that Huntington expresses for upcoming conflicts, and his plan
of action for the West's future foreign policies.
Through his writing, Said has implicitly created a somewhat
different view of our global situation. I say "somewhat" because some
aspects of his global-societal definition are very similar to
Huntington's. Said would construct the new world view with the West,
mainly controlled by the United States, competing against all of the
other existing nations and cultures. These other groups would play a
subsidiary role to that of the West, whose influence reaches far beyond
its geographical borders. There might be some higher level of
importance given to religions such as Islam and nations such as China
and Japan because of their current and potential bases of power, but
they still have economic, military, and societal needs to meet before
they rival the West. Said argues that the United States is more
intrusive into other cultures than any other nation. His examples of
the US imperialistic nature include support for various groups in Asia
and Latin America, military offensives in Vietnam and the Middle East,
and levying of sanctions against nations who violate the U.S. version of
justice. So the U.S. is setting the example for the West's general
treatment of the rest of the world, and this approach is one of
superiority. The West sees itself as the altruistic teacher leading
other cultures towards the correct way of thought whether it concerns
political systems, human rights issues, or social and economic
development. Said would say that the peoples being manipulated in this
balance of power are indeed separate from each other, but they exist in
similar situations with respect to the dominating power of the West.
Concerns with the importance of political chaos in areas such as
Eastern Europe, Latin America, and Africa would be met a little more
sceptically by Said. Also, the Confucian-Islamic connection is
naturally a concern in global politics, but Hunting invests this
alliance with a little too much significance. There is a climate of
shifting powers around the world, but it seems that Said's opinion is
that the United States will remain the world's sole superpower and most
important director of foreign affairs for awhile yet. So he would
probably approve, if not too enthusiastically, of the separations that
Huntington has made between many of the civilizations (he would at least
agree that political organizations and culture are inseparable), but
assert that they do not matter nearly as much as the separation between
the West and the rest.
Said does not approach declaring that the West has won its battle
with competing cultures and established an unprecedented world peace.
In fact he holds almost the opposite opinion, but he does not take
nearly as pessimistic a view as Huntington does. He acknowledges that
there are several major problems with speaking of a unified global
civilization. We have not ended violence or come to agree on a similar
worldwide set of ideals. But, there have been some significant
advancements in communications technology which allow for an increase in
awareness between cultures as the world becomes more interconnected.
Certain common goals have been established between nations with
extremely different historical backgrounds. These interactions (e.g.
Japan and the West, China and Islamic nations) provide examples of
common or complementary desires overriding cultural differences.
Huntington seems to believe that when cultures meet, the formation of a
battleground, be it abstract or concrete, is almost inevitable. Arabs
will fight Judeo-Christians who will fight Hindus and so on and so
forth. But Said stresses the examples of conflict inside civilizations
such as the Arab world and cooperation between civilizations such as the
Islamic and Western concerted efforts to subdue the Iraqi bid for
power. Certainly focus on individual needs can lead to conflict with
competitors, but it can also lead to cooperation with allies.
Huntington's talk of clashes between civilizations will probably occur
at least to a limited extent, but the desire of developing nations to
modernize will play a significant role in strengthening the
interdependence of different cultures. The main conflicts will still be
between the West and the remainder of the world, but there is cause for
optimism in the future instead of Huntington's general sense of
impending doom.
Along with this optimism comes Said's ideal vision of the future.
This conflicts greatly with the last section in "The Clash of
Civilizations?" in which an imperialistic strategy is proposed that will
protect and promote Western ideals and interests. Said is a member of
two societies: the West and the Middle East. He feels a certain
loyalty to both and therefore seeks to provide a solution to conflicting
cultures through cultural awareness. We should deal less with
imperialistic endeavors and stress interdependence and cooperation.
With knowledge of other cultures comes respect for their beliefs and
traditions, strengthening relations on both sides. This type of
understanding can go a long way towards creating a friendlier situation
in the global arena and, in turn, will allow the participating cultures
to benefit from the exposure to one another.
Said writings, though critical of the West's unrequested intrusion
into the affairs of others, provide a more optimistic view of the future
cultural interaction than Huntington's do, but both still remain to be
tested. The debate now is which view is more realistic or more likely
to predict the flow of world politics. Some aspects of this new world
order seem to be obvious such as the present and continued domination of
the West, but Huntington reminds us that there are others who could
feasibly rank as superpowers in the not too distant future. Our options
for a new foreign policy depend on reliable models of the future so that
conflict can be avoided and progress made towards a more peaceful global
community.