In the literature regarding civil society, several prominent threads stand
out. "Orientalism", originally proffered by Edward Said, is a contemporary
idea regarding the mindset of historians, literature, and cultural views of
people outside of the Orient. Samuel Huntington's "clash of civilizations"
is a very recent theory discussing future conflicts. Edward Said followed
up "Orientalism" with an essay on "Culture and Imperialism." We are left
pondering the question of how Said would respond to Huntington's assertions.
Judging by Said's perspective, he would probably grant Huntington that his
theory has some merit and is relatively well thought out. However, there
are several fundamental flaws that Said would find with Huntington's
assertions. "Imperialism," writes Said, "consolidated the mixture of
cultures and identities on a global scale. But its worst and most
paradoxical gift was to allow people to believe that they were only,
mainly, exclusively, white, or Black, or Western, or Oriental." On face,
Said and Huntington would appear to be coming from the same page. However,
Huntington assumes that civilizations have been constant and non-changing
since the beginning and that only now with all other ideological barriers
swept aside will the conflicts emerge between opposing civilizations. Said
continues, "Yet just as human beings make their own history, they also make
their cultures and ethnic identities." Said argues that the current
civilizational state is due to past imperialism, the mixture of cultures
(permanently altering what original purity that may have been observed) and
identities. He also argues that the current state is by no means the final
unchangeable category. This is on a fundamental level different from the
hypothesis of Huntington. This is not to say that Said would believe that
conflict between current civilizations is not possible, merely that it is
not inevitable. Also, Said allows for the possibility of a cultural
evolution, away from the current conflictual relationships towards one of
mutual cooperation. Huntington does not allow for this possibility, as his
theory is based upon conflict.
Said himself is an interesting mix. Like many in the world today, he grew
up as a non-Westerner with a Western education. In Said's own words, "I
have felt that I belonged to both worlds, without being completely of
either one of the other." Huntington's essay does not acknowledge this sort
of situation. This is in no way to disparage Huntington's work, but his
analysis is very simplistic, without fully analyzing the whole issue.
Said's situation is growing in the world, as the United States has emerged
as the last superpower, English has become the language of the world, the
US dollar the world currency. Schools all over the world now teach English
to their students. Clash of civilizations? Hardly so, although it may be
argued that this increases resentment against the Americans. But somehow,
that argument doesn’t seem to lend much credence. People seem not to want
to bring down the tyranny of the United States, rather they want to become
the United States. Militaries are trained in American (or else Soviet)
ways, schools are modeled after Western institutions, and even governments
and economies are increasingly becoming more Western in flavor. Hardly a
clash of civilizations.
In a final analysis, Said would probably point to an Orientalist flair in
Huntington's writing. Not a significant one, but the tinge is there. It is
primarily found in the way that Huntington divides the world. There is much
history in the different groupings that Huntington creates which seem to be
ignored. Essentially, there are many internal differences between states
grouped under some civilizations which would prevent a concerted
anti-Western grouping to form. Western nations grouped together, to be
sure. But that is no reason why non-Western nations would do the same. To
assume so is a Orientalist viewpoint.
In the end, Edward Said would have many objections to the thesis offered
by Samuel Huntington. Huntington's work is an interesting starting point,
but it is not deep enough to really satisfy cultural realities. It is
precisely this problem that prevents us from truly developing a cohesive
cultural theory.