Said’s Response to Huntington’s New World Order
Since the end of the bi-polar world order, there has been a
considerable amount of thought given to how the world will rearrange
itself. Americans are concerned with what role our state will take in
this new scheme of international dealings. This is the position that
Huntington is writing from when he gave us “The Clash of
Civilizations.” He tries to look at the world at large, but writes from
the American perspective. Said’s aim is just the opposite. He looks at
the affects the imperialism has had on the cultures and histories of the
world. He is critiquing the western view of the rest of the world and
trying to move away from that pattern.
Despite these basic differences, there are certain similarities
between these two pieces. Both Huntington and Said focus on culture as
a basic starting place for world organization. They agree that it is
important for each individual to connect himself with a larger picture.
It is from this ground level assumption that both men build their
argument.
Huntington sees the civilizations of the world as the next basis for
world alignment. He argues that the basic cultural similarities
inherent in the different peoples sharing one civilization are less
mutable then any of the other factors that could possibly be
considered. He argues that political, economic, and religious values
are changeable, where as origin is not. This is a valid argument, and
it is not this basic premise that I believe Said would take issue with.
However, as Huntington further expounds on his reasoning, it becomes
apparent that the world as he sees it would be a continuation of the
imperialism mentality that Said is against.
Huntington cites a return to religion as a basic worldwide trend of a
return to fundamental ideas. He shows that young and middle age people
today are becoming more devout to their respective religions as a way to
identify themselves as part of a larger whole. This need for belonging
to a collective group is at the basis of Huntington’s theory that the
world will arrange itself according to civilizations.
Said mentions in his writings this same trend, but he uses it as an
example of how collective identification with an ideal can be used to
manipulate groups of people. He cites the conflicts between the
Christian religion and Islam, the Pope against religious figures outside
of Western acceptance. He uses religion as an example to show how one
common belief can be used to turn one large group of people against
another large group with a different common belief. His religion vs.
religion argument strikes a parallel to Huntington’s conclusion that
there will be more violent and sustained conflict between civilizations
than within them.
Huntington also puts forth the argument that people are beginning to
act more within their own regional boundaries and on a less global
scale. He uses this observed trend to support his idea that people are
becoming more exclusive toward outsiders in their economic as well as
social functions. He sees this as proof that interaction will grow more
within respective civilizations because communication and social
practices are easier to handle than the same actions with individuals
from other backgrounds. This extension of his theory logically leads to
a more sectionalized economic situation around the world. Instead of
shrinking, as communications commercials are so quick to tell us, the
world is actually getting bigger as the distance between different
cultural understanding increases. This means different civilizations
will become more self-dependant and global interaction will decrease.
Said would argue against this assumption. He writes that people are
becoming more interdependent as the world economy becomes as important
an issue as the local economy. Recent developments such as the European
Union’s standard currency agreement show that his view is more
realistic. Granted, the Euro does not cross civilization boundaries,
but it does increase the global cooperation needed to survive the future
economic dealings.
Huntington’s theory cites a need to identify with only the
civilization that an individual belongs to. He recognizes civilization
as the most basic identification that can be made between different
groups of people. Huntington sees culture as a sub-group of a
civilization, while Said does not go any further in his attempt to
identify with like individuals. Huntington’s civilization alignment
promotes a xenophobic mentality. It depends on the assumption that
people will identify with cultures most like their own, i.e. within
their civilization, and will only interact with these people unless
absolutely necessary.
Said exposed and argued against the imperialist mentality of viewing
other cultures through the ideas of another culture. He argues that the
imperialist nations of the West refused to believe in a history and
tradition that did not belong in some way to theirs. Huntington
furthers this practice be lumping people into groups according to their
basic similarities and then surmising that they will be practically
exclusionary toward other cultures. Said’s correlating theory is that
the process should begin with education. Young people should be taught
to identify with their own culture, the traditions and beliefs that make
up that culture. Then they should be given a global perspective, taught
to recognize the similarities between their culture and others. Once
they can recognize the overlapping idea and values, they should then
learn to appreciate the differences. Not to scorn or praise, but to
recognize what they are and how to deal with them. Said believes that
putting things into a global perspective and thus paving the way for
increased interdependence and smoother relations is the way of the
future. He writes that in this way, the imperialist habit of subjecting
other cultures to one’s own judgements can be overcome.
Huntington believes that the disintegration of a global community is
the next order for the world. He allows that nation states will remain,
but that they will cooperate within their respective civilizations. His
version of the future becomes more local with less concern for
connections with other civilization groups. Said argues the exact
opposite. He puts forth the belief that the future is not about
distinction, beyond the basic need to identify; it is about establishing
and recognizing the connections that exist between every group of the
world.