Eric  Sirakian

            Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” raises interesting and important points, but his hypothesis is based on gross generalizations and unsupported claims. Huntington and other scholars should explore new approaches to effective communication rather than trying to categorize conflicts of the modern world.

            Huntington says, “The broader reaches of human history have been the history of civilizations,” and he is right. The “clash of civilizations” is not a new phenomenon; it has existed for thousands of years. Has history witnessed any other kind of clash? Huntington cites the “ideological” clash of the Cold War, but if a civilization is defined as a cultural group, then surely a civilization can be built upon an ideology.  Perhaps I am confusing the definitions, but the word “culture” encompasses many things.

            If civilizations have existed since the dawn of mankind, then why does Huntington say “civilization identity will be increasingly important in the future”? Doesn’t globalization bring cultures closer together rather than farther apart? We live in a country that is a melting pot of cultures, and most Americans identify with their neighbors regardless of ethnicity or origin. The United States is unique in that way, but human migration has changed the rest of the world as well. People are moving and communicating more quickly. Many people identify with more than one civilization; I know I do.

            The return to the roots phenomenon is an undeniable reaction to globalization.  However, the violence of extremist groups and the words and actions of select leaders in the past sixty years are hardly representative of a general trend; hostility comes from different groups at different times for different reasons.

I also distrust the generalization of “the West vs. the rest.” While many world leaders have made this claim, few, if any, conflicts of the past century have precipitated on the basis of culture alone.

            Edward W. Said’s counter-argument, “the clash of ignorance” succeeds in recognizing Huntington’s generalizations. However, while Said attacks Huntington, Huntington is not the only one to make assumptions about identity and conflict in the modern world. Instead of trying to categorize our conflicts and to declare a general trend, we should instead ask how we see ourselves, and how we can work around our differences in order to avoid future clashes. Both Huntington and Said fail to answer the question “So what?” How can we more effectively communicate? How can we bridge the fault lines that separate our societies? How do use an understanding of the “bewildering interdependence of our time” (Said) to achieve more peaceful relations?