List Price: $16.00 Our Price: $9.99 You Save: $6.01 (38%)

Product Description

The thesis of this provocative and potentially important book is the increasing threat of violence arising from renewed conflicts between countries and cultures that base their traditions on religious faith and dogma. This argument moves past the notion of ethnicity to examine the growing influence of a handful of major cultures--Western, Eastern Orthodox, Latin American, Islamic, Japanese, Chinese, Hindu, and African--in current struggles across the globe. Samuel P. Huntington, a political scientist at Harvard University and foreign policy aide to President Clinton, argues that policymakers should be mindful of this development when they interfere in other nations' affairs.

Based on the author's seminal article in Foreign Affairs, Samuel P. Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order is a provocative and prescient analysis of the state of world politics after the fall of communism. In this incisive work, the renowned political scientist explains how "civilizations" have replaced nations and ideologies as the driving force in global politics today and offers a brilliant analysis of the current climate and future possibilities of our world's volatile political culture.

Customer Reviews:

• A WASP analysis of the world
  I had very high expectations when I started to read this book. The 9/11 attacks brought this book to the media which was regarded as a visionary explanation of what happened back then.
  Samuel Huntington divides the world in many civilizations, that are in tension among them due to many reasons. I think he should have called them simply "religions" because that is mainly what he uses to identify each of them. Thus, what he calls the "Western Civilization" is the Christian World, the "Sinic Civilization" is primarily Confucian, and we must not forget Islam or Muslim. Under those labels, he does a world segmentation with minor attention to the differences within each civilization. That is too much simplification for me.
  Despite of that, I found his theories very interesting and his model appears to explain many of today's conflicts. It was OK until the final chapter. That's when his quest against multicultural societies begin. He not only thinks that the US should stop its trend towards what he calls a "torn" country due to immigration (which, by the way, is in relative terms lower that the waves observed at the beginning of the 20th century). He also believes that the threat of violence is directly related to the Muslim civilization, making a clearly intolerant statement. My question to Mr. Hungtigton is: what is the role of poverty and neglect in the clash of Civilizations? Is it really all a consequence of religion? Or should I say, are people so desperate that find in religion an escape from their daily struggle, and sometimes, listening to the prophets of terrorism? I'm not blaming anyone for that. I'm saying that at least, he should have spoken about it....more info
• Thought Provoking Work
  Huntington's thesis is that the world is divided into several civilizations (Western, Eastern Orthodox, Sinitic, Islamic, etc.) and conflict is almost inevitable where these civilizations meet (as in the former Yugoslavia, for example). Additionally, each civilization has a core nation that leads the way (in the case of the Islamic world, it is Saudi Arabia).
  
  Although Huntington's work was written before 911, it's main thesis is still valid. What is questionable is Huntington's viewpoint that Americans should be comfortable with losing influence and should operate as simply one of many nations.
  
  Since Huntington (who is obviously a true scholar and a professor at Harvard) was connected to the Clinton Administration, his viewpoints refelect the posture of that administration. America is a different nation now than it was before 911, but we should not fault the author for failing to forsee the surprising change in our thinking as a result of the terrorist attacks.
  
  So, as far as a vision for future policy, this book has its weakenesses. But when it comes to understanding the WHY of conflict between civilizations this book excels. It also moves us away from the paradigm which focuses upon nations; rather, we must learn to think in terms of civilizations. In a sense, 911 has already taken us to this point. Good book for the thoughtful reader....more info
• Sloppy, Oversimplified and Deeply Flawed
  As an Arab-Canadian, I'm pretty much at the forefront of this so-called "clash of civilizations", and the way I see things as it stands, it seems as though there is indeed a 'clash' materializing. However, that is only a superficial gut feeling, the same feeling the respect Dr. Sam Huntington subscribed to when writing this book.
  
  My interest in this issue started when I read John Esposito's book, Political Islam - truly a masterpiece - which picked stripped the religion of Islam bare, down to its origins, and described its evolution over time, spanning the Muhammedian era up till 9/11. He also dedicated chapters to specific issues such as the Jamaat-e-Islami group in Pakistan, the Iranian revolution and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt - all these were discussed in a political and religious context. In the afterword, he mentioned how there is almost no overlap between these movements, that these were truly independent movements spawned by the circumstantial political and socioeconomic currents in the region in question. From there, he concluded that the idea of a 'clash of civilizations' is preposterous. Indeed, it's a figment of Dr. Huntington's imagination.
  
  There are almost 1.5 billion Muslims on this planet. The Islamic world stretches from West Africa all the way down to Southeast Asia. There is absolutely no common political denominator between the Muslims in, say, Morocco and the Muslims in China, because there is a massive cultural cleft within the Islamic world (and even within the Western bloc - something Tom Freidman also missed).
  
  I won't go into the details, refuting every claim this book makes, but my impression of this book is that it's trash. I was even slightly offended by how much generalizing and statistical abuse this Harvard graduate has managed to cram in his book. The very fact that he didn't go through the trouble of trying to analyze the Muslim World in a greater depth left me uneasy going through the last couple of pages of the book.
  
  In the end, this is just racist propaganda by a Xenophobe, not more. It shouldn't deserve that much attention, and indeed should be pulled of the shelves of all libraries for being more of a hate speech inciter than even the holy books!...more info
• A rehash with less pepper
  Francis Yockey's "Imperium," written in 1948, pointed out the fact of Europe's decline long before Huntington did. Yockey himself based some of his insights on Otto Spengler's "The Decline of the West," conceived before but written after the ghastly genocide of WWI. Huntington's book is a pallid, scholarly exercise compared to the bold speculations of these two predecessors. It is important to read Yockey and Spengler to shake up all cliche'd thinking before turning to Huntington. For example, Yockey explains what it means to be a Westerner, a concept which has all but disappeared in the thin watery gruel of European and US multiculturalism. In "The Enemy of Europe" he notes that a true Westerner "is for Charles XII against the Russians, for England against the Indian mutiny, against the Zulus, and against China in the Opium War; for the Teutonic Knights against the Slav at Tannenberg; for Maximilian against Juarez; for the American colonists in the Alamo against Santa Ana; for Napoleon against Russia . . . . In these events, it was left only to chance which of the Western nationalities fought the Barbarian. The victory of any Western nation over an outer military force, whether Chinese, Hindu, Zulu, Islamic was a victory for all Europe and its colonies. Any European who gloats over the defeat of a Western nation brands himself politically and Culturally feeble-minded. For what distinction does the Barbarian make between Western nations? During the Second World War, the Japanese called the Germans 'friendly enemies' and the English 'hostile enemies.'"
  
  The West is declining because it suicidally turned its guns upon itself in two civil wars (WWI,WWII) while simultaneously refusing to turn its guns on those alien cultures who began invading its territory as soon as it lay bleeding and prostrate. It's time for historically informed, strategic re-thinking about how best to defend the West, such as ending immigration from enemy cultures, particularly the primitive, Sharia-dominated Islamic culture. Alien apologists, such as Edward Said, wanted only to prevent this Western re-evaluation and re-birth, until parasitic cultures had thoroughly undermined and destroyed the West. If the West won't stand up for itself as a culture, it will be overwhelmed by cultures which have no similar, self-hating neuroses. ...more info
• A good annalist and a poor futurist.
  The Clash provides a very powerful framework for understanding world events past, current, and future. By dividing the world into civilizations one can observe in an academic way what many ordinary people know so intuitively. That the world's various cultures are in a constant and deadly serious compitition for dominance. This concept is referred to as xenophobia when expressed by lay people and The Clash of Civilizations when articulated by the degreed and tenured. By bringing common wisdom into the austere halls of the learned Huntington has struck a great blow against political correctness and for common sense.
  
  After establishing his framework and providing some good evidence for it Huntington loses his way. As a futurist he baldly asserts many things based on the assumption that history is controlled by trends and not events. He ignores the role of technology (The World Is Flat [Updated and Expanded]: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century), economic power (The Wealth of Nations (Bantam Classics)) , and form of government (The Case For Democracy: The Power Of Freedon to Overcome Tyranny And Terror) in determining the future of the world. By his mechanism alone most of world history is inexplicable. If he had offered his ideas less forcefully and not attempted to use them to forecast the future The Clash would be flawless....more info
• It was an entertaining read, but its not serious reading
  I first discovered Huntington's book roaming around the library of a university several years ago. I didn't get around to read it till' about 2 1/2 years ago. I purchased the book and read it in about a week. When I first read it, I thouht it was a very entertaining book. The whole story that that we may enumerate all the world's societies to 7 groupings, that we may determine their behavior based on 'balance of power' and real polotik presumptions, and the "order" of civilizations in the world today, and perhaps, what it will look like tommorow.
  
  Ontop of these fun topics, the book discussed "fault line conflicts," a very VERY brief discussion of Dr. Huntington's 'knowledge' of Asian, Arab and European history, and policy advice for "western" nations, but predomintly the United States.
  
  I give the book 3 / 5 stars becuase the exposition, at least for me, was very well done. I usually try to extend my readings of non-technical books so I can get more "mileage" out of it, but I was very much hooked to Dr. Huntingon's theory. Unfortunatly, like most Political Science "theories" this one falls short on the fact that, its foudnations are based on informal analysis of specific percieved histories and factors.
  
  When you get rid of the pretty words and sentences, there isn't any sort of logical consistent foundation that is uniquely interpretable for all perspectives in Dr. Huntington's thesis. The ideas sound good, but can their assertions be proved to be correct for all situations? Well no, it can't, namely because part of Huntington's assertion is really that nations both "percieve" international relations in terms of civilizations and their 'core' states and that this taxonomizing of societies serves great utility in analysis.
  
  The later statement is matter of opinion, but the former is certainly one that is not proveable in any conclusive manner. One good example of how Dr. Huntington's beliefs are somewhat flawed is his perception of Eastern Europe, being encompassed in what he dubs "Orthodox Civilization." I am not a student of history, so whether it is percieved in general that this region is a seperate civilization from the Western European societies is not known to me.
  
  However, Dr. Huntington states,
  
  "The logic of civilizations dictates a smiliar outcome concerning the expansion of NATO [refering intially to how prefrence for EU membership is given to nations who are 'traditionally' western in culture]. As the West's security organization NATO is appropiratly open to membership by Western countries which wish to join and which meet basic requirements in terms of militarty competenence [...] NATO expansion limited to countries historicially part of Western Christnedom, however, also guarantees to Russia that it would exclude Serbia, Bulgraia, Romania, Moldova, Belarus, and Ukraine as long as Ukraine remained United" (Huntington, p. 162).
  
  His refrence to Ukraine relates to his division of the border of Western Christnedom down the lines of Ukraine, spliting Romania and Serbia and encompassing very small portions of Bosnia bordering Croatia. Huntington claims that Ukraine could, in theory become Western, but only most likelly if those "western" parts of it were to split from the Orthodox segments.
  
  It escapes me whether or not Huntington allowed for the possibilty of change in society (i.e. Orthodox civilization expanding or shrinking in time), but it seems that this construct is a rather simplistic and ultimitly failed model to explain the behavior of even Western European nations. If we were to look at the world in Huntington goggles, we would conclude that the "Orthodox Civlization" is in the mist of collapse, since many of thes nations (i.e Bulgaria, Ukraine, etc.) are in line, not only for EU admission, but have, or will engage in talks with NATO commanders for membership of the Alliance.
  
  It is not my opinion that "Orthodox" society is in any danger of collapse, but hey what do I know. Yet something more intresting would be to ask why would a civilization ever fight itself. Since the West has fought itself twice in the past (WW1 and WW2) and is currently admist a "Atlantic rift" in the present, I wonder what Dr. Huntington's explantion for these annomolies are?
  
  Of course, we could add that nations behave firstly in the percieved benefts (whatever this phrase means fomrally, if it is even defined fomrally) then in the benefits of their "civilization," yet, it still seems that the crux move in this theory would then be to explain, what level of utility would need to be reached for a nation to then behave as a "civilzation" and not a traditional "nation-state."
  
  In any event, Dr. Huntington's thesis is indeed enjoyable to read, however, I wouldn't take it too seriouslly. Since any fool could see that, just because certain people may behave or calculate their strategy in politics in this civilizational frame, it does not imply by any means that this is the "natural" or "optimal" perspective in the political arena. However, its probably just the case that most of my problems with Huntington's book is more a complaint about the field he serves in rather then his own beliefs (which I consider somewhat ridiclous as a model for behavior in reality). In any event, unless you think quoting Huntington will give you a competetive edge in a debate, this book is definitly more of a "borrow" then a "purchase."
  ...more info
• Shows author's bias and borders on conspiracy theory
  This book is a bad read. Book does show that the author has vast knowledge of world history and geography but at the same time brings out his strong biases towards racial and religious make-up of the world. The book makes some very simplistic judgments about the historical nature of conflicts and adds huge amount of weights towards some abstract "civilizational" construct of human life. Humans are way more complicated and driven a lot by nationalistic and regional concerns than depicted in this book. I found reading this book quite a waste of time....more info
• Interersting book
  This book is interesting. It is perceived as dramatic in its boldness regarding the possible clash of civilizations.
  
  It is highly intuitive to expect that one human group could fight another based on values (culture). Hence, it is not surprising that war and violence may errupt as cultures (values) collide in the modern day accessible world. This, by itself, should not be a highly provoking thought.
  
  This could be clear to any child readig events of world history. Cultures and like-affinity-groups have often clashed to overpower others. Why does it take 200+ pages to understand the lessons of human history - that history repeats itself; that humans don't learn from history; and that religion (or culture or civilization or values) are "dividers" (us versus them)?...more info
• Pure hate... Author wants to blame everything to muslims
  It scares me to find out that educated (so called intellectuals) are writing this type of hate infested books that are aimed at nothing but inflaming more hate and voilence in the world. Author has a stubborn belief that all muslim cultures have speriority complex and they are there to destroy the western influence. He needs to wake up and understand that every culture even western or african or latin is sustaining because there are good things there to fullfill the needs of the people along with bad things that represent historical events/influence, economic or social problems etc. Author completely ignores the fact that one (Malaysia) out of all muslim countries are run by our appointed dictators with the exception of Iran and Syria who are kept in isolation so they have no reason to praise us have any dialog going. I would suggest that the author should cosider psychotherepy and need to start reading outside of his shell....more info
• Here goes the next 50 years
  The author delivers a great future cast rarely found in the historian world. This made the book great. While there is plenty to find out about the past, I always wondered what would the greatest historians of the world think of the future. Due their meticulous attitude few of them venture to speculate on facts that are not checked and double checked. Well, Samuel Huntington, is not that kind of historian. He develops on the future of the two main civilizations and the possible results. While I found him a bit too skeptical on the US future, I admire how well he's documenting his suppositions.
  The most important think I got from the book is the fact that we all belong culturally somewhere and that is not necessarily the place where we were born. The early impressions in life mark us with tremendous prejudices, bound to clash with the world outside.
  While looking for this book, I stumbled on "The World Without US" - a documentary similar in topic. After checking out the trailer at the film website, I got the DVD and it was quite good. It takes the premise of "America Alone" a step farther by asking, what would happen should the US withdraw its military completely from the world? Answering a hypothetical question is hard, for any author and filmmaker, however this movie did provide an answer. Weather you agree with or not I applaud the filmmakers for going on 5 continents in their quest. Check it out also.
  
  
  The World Without US - With Niall Ferguson...more info
• Engrossing analysis of world order
  
  
  This excellent book provides the reader with a view of the world based on civilizations - past, present and future. If you cannot find time to read the entire book, read the last chapter. It describes creditable circumstances under with a third world war could ignite.
  ...more info
• A decent picture of world politics with some flaws
  This book gives a decent picture of the current political situation of the world.
  
  Especially w.r.t 9/11 and the ongoing clash between the west and Islam the books seems like prophecy. The author is also right on the money when he claims and explains the bloody borders of Islam and I wonder why there is any dispute about this. More analysis of how Christianity and Islam spread after conception would have been insightful. Yugoslav wars are analyzed quite well and I would like to find a refutation of this analysis by any of his political/academic rivals.
  
  The author however does not provide an alternative to the western dependence on mid-east oil. Limited interference is fine but how to run the limping US economy?
  
  The author seems to have a subtle sense of western cultural superiority but hides it well behind cultural relativism.
  
  
  The author however laments that the west is losing its edge and that religion is fading away. Towards the end he says that to find truth is part of morality. Does he want people to find the truth but not live by it? He also gloats about the west's rule of law, secularism and individualism, some of which are frowned upon by the religious right. It seems like he is contradicting himself unless he appeals for religiousity purely for uniting the society. He claims that Christianity is one of the defining aspects of the current west while ceding that Sweden/Europe is quite non-religious. Being aware of totalitarianism of Islam he should have been careful while treading this line.
  
  I would like to end the review with a few quotes from the book that are (sometimes painfully) true:
  
  "The underlying problem for the west is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilization whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power."
  
  "In civilizational conflicts, unlike idealogical ones, kin stand by their kin "(Comparing responses of EU governments to US actions against USSR and Muslims)
  
  "Powerful societies are universalistic; weak societies are particularistic."
  
  "In Islam god is Caesar, in China and Japan Caesar is god, in Orthodoxy god is Caesar's junior partner"...more info
• A Classic?
  As a retired agronomist with a strong science background I tend to check out references that are commonly used. This book is very often quoted, not always favorably. If you have recently, like I, become interested in world politics and especially Islam this is definitely one of the texts you should read. From my weak politics and history background I found Dr. Huntington making a lot of interesting observations. I found the book very intriguing and educational. I really enjoyed his take on the Bosnian War....more info
• infuriating generalizations; hurtful truths
  In Huntington's model of international relations, there are several civilizations in the world: the West (Europe, USA),
  Sinic(China, Korea, Sinapore and Taiwan), and Islam. Other civilizations he mentions are Orthodox (Russia, Greece, Serbia, Romania, etc.), Latin America, Japan, Buddhism (mainland Southeast Asia), and Hindu (India). These civilizations relate to each other with varying degrees of hostility or cooperation. That's the thesis; it's pretty simple and really it probably shouldn't be so controversial.
  
  But there are several sources of controversy.
  
  In general, he infuriates liberals because he allows that race and religion are factors in politics, and he is a realist about the nature of politics and the fact of violence.
  
  He believes that the West is declining relative to Islam and Sinic civilizations. He is obviously correct, although it infuriates American patriots and many proud Europeans. The rise of China is creating huge changes in East Asia, as Chinese military and economic power becomes the dominant factor, replacing American power. Managing this transition is one of the great challenges of current US foreign policy. He was among the first to recognize this.
  
  He famously says that Muslim civilization has bloody borders, mentioning conflicts between Muslims and non-Muslims in the Balkans, Nigeria, Sudan, Kashmir, the Caucasus, Israel-Palestine, Lebanon, Chechnya, Xinjiang, the Philippines, and perhaps a few other examples. This infuriates many liberals, including especially liberal Muslims.
  
  However, he evidently believes that these conflicts stem primarily from a demographic youth bulge. He also believes that if there were a clear leader of Islam, as Russia is the clear leader of the Orthodox, that its borders would be far more peaceful. So, contrary to some of his critics, he does not believe that Islam is inherently violent. In fact, he explicity recognizes that Christianity has been as militaristic as Islam has ever been. (So he manages to aggravate many Europeans and Christians as well.)
  
  But for whatever reasons, Islamdom and Christendom are obviously generally in conflict. Huntington was among the first to recognize that this conflict is one of the principal issues of international relations today. The conflict is complex, however, and Huntington's treatment of it here is quite brief and simplistic, and few people interested in it will be satisfied. In particular, his description of the Balkan conflict will upset most people who have not considered a Serbian perspective.
  
  He does not believe the West should try to push its values on the rest of the world, including the concept of human rights. Internationally, he is a multi-culturalist, believing that the West should not bother trying to spread its culture: it just creates unnecessary conflict. Other cultures will not accept Western principles anyway, and they have their own principles which are just as good. This infuriates many liberals.
  
  He seems to think the United Nations is irrelevant, and he portrays the "Davos Culture" of Western-oriented leaders in other cultures as basically irrelevant. You can guess who disagrees.
  
  However, a lot of his critics believe that he thinks the West is better than other civilizations. He certainly believes the West is a unique and valuable civilization, worth preserving. He explicitly argues that multi-culturalism is cultural suicide for the West. He has a self-consciously white American perspective. This also upsets a large number of liberals and most academics.
  
  He believes that Europeans and the US should cooperate more closely, with the US in the lead. But of course many Europeans hate the US and its influence, secretly or openly. So guess who doesn't like this idea?
  
  He believes that the USA could become a divided nation if Hispanic influence continues to grow, and he considers this a bad thing; an implication is that Hispanic immigration and influence should be limited. (I think he might be more explicit about this, as well as his fear of multiculturalism, in his new book, "Who are We?") Again, reactions are predictable.
  
  He also evidently believes the Europeans are right to resist the Muslim immigrants in their nations, and not to allow Turkey to join the EU. Many liberals, especially North Americans, disagree with him.
  
  Another source of controversy is that he considers India a Hindu civilization, although it is surely multi-religious. Islam? Sikhism? Even Buddhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism and Christianity have significant numbers in India. So however India is to be classified, it is evidently a secular country, and that is why Hindu fundamentalism exists.
  
  Every big picture must be very simplified, and this is no exception. However, it is a reasonable big picture. I agree with a lot of this picture: China, the US, the EU, Russia (and the Orthodox world) and the Muslim world are the current principal actors in international relations. India and Latin America are due to emerge as well. Peace and cooperation among them are essential. Huntington dwells on conflict and the capacity for conflict; however, he obviously wants to avoid a violent clash of civilizations. Many of his critics did not read the last chapter, in which this is clear, carefully enough. Also, the West, including the US, must accept a smaller role in the world than we are accustomed to. International organizations such as the UN need to be restructured recognizing current realities (rather than the Cold War)--and that will be a reduction in European influence.
  
  I disagree with him about a lot of things, however: especially his idea of the US' identity, his dislike of multi-culturalism, and that he evidently accepts genocide and torture as relatively normal. There are a number of smaller points as well.
  
  Anyway, whether you agree or disagree with him, if you want to have an educated opinion on international politics, this book is required reading. I am very disappointed that many reviewers essentially write, "Don't read this! It will contaminate your mind with heresy!" Please. Let the ideas compete. These are important ideas. It may be melodramatic, but the future of the world is at stake, right?...more info
• Be careful
  I've noticed that the front of this book has been repackaged with an American flag contrasting with a green Islamic flag. Talk about false advertising. This book is not about the current post sept 11 war on terror. It is a bold thesis about future intercivilizational relations in a post colonial, post-unipolar world order. Basically, Huntington predicts that all of the world civilizations will modernize, and then attempts to determine who will get along with who, and who will not get along with who. Basically China -Islam vs everybody---I think he is way off base in many of his PREDICTIONS. A great book if you are extremely well read. A terrible book if you are not well read, and are trying to get a basic understanding of the world around you. If that is the case, read history, the more ancient the better. The older it gets(excluding religion, the less biased it is. Also, read stuff from the west's intellectual history....more info
• Dated and dull
  I bought this book without checking what year it was written. It's all pre-911 and quite outdated I thought. The book was written before the Japanese economy imploded in the 1990s and when it was thought the Japanese would overcome America.
  
  I did like the perspectives on civilizations and some interesting points are made about China and the "Orthodox culture."
  
  It was also quite a dull read!...more info
• Confirmed predictions
  First published in 1996, this scholarly discussion of future international relations has been a classic from the beginning and will remain so for decades to come. From among the seven most important civilizations the author selected three, which may collide in conflict. Thus, in Moslem eyes Western culture is decadent in various ways and therefore utterly unacceptable. The current resurgence of the Islamic civilization is seen as an evolution no less significant than the Reformation or Marxism, demanding society's complete overhaul, renewal and purification, a movement whose impact on history will grow as the Moslem population will soon represent thirty percent of humanity. At the same time, Islam is seen as the least tolerant of religions, as it promotes peace inside their ranks but hostility toward the infidels outside.
  Similarly, in East Asia, the Confucian civilization adheres to commandments like order, discipline, hard work and abstemiousness, where the individual subordinates to the needs of the community. Alien to them is what they call the West's sanctifying of human rights. Whereas we in the West expect our value system soon to become universal, the Confucian world is convinced that "the Anglo-Saxon module is not working" and that their own standards must of necessity apply to the rest of humanity. Here, again, the impact of such convictions will be immense as the center of gravity of economic power is rapidly shifting from the West to the East.
  Out of such discordance, there arise economic and political contentions and military ones cannot be ruled out. Huntington believes possible conflicts could arise from a contest between Western arrogance, Islamic intolerance and Sinic assertiveness. The spark igniting material strife, however, will most likely be generated by more prosaic crises such as the youth bulge among the unemployed, terrorism, rivalry in the search of resources such as oil, and the pervasiveness of weapons of mass destruction among those who suffer and rebel.
  The main message carried forth from this study is that any military clash in the future will most likely oppose not nations but rather civilizations in what he aptly calls fault-line wars. He points to the danger that such inter-civilizational feuds will be uncompromising and almost impossible to halt.
  Huntington advises the reader that cultural universalism, so engrained in the mind of the West, is ill advised and that especially includes the American tendency to be "a nanny if not even a bully" in other civilizations. We must, he says, renounce universalism of values, and instead accept diversity and seek commonalities.
  Since these thoughts were first published, much has been confirmed. The power shift toward East Asia is rapidly progressing. Fault-line conflicts in Afghanistan, the Middle East, Chechnya and the Balkans have resisted or defied peacemaking efforts. Our promotion of democracy, civil rights, and individualism has been rejected elsewhere in favor of soft authoritarianism. Most importantly, perhaps, is the West's failure to observe the "abstention rule", that is, for one civilization to abstain from invading the lands of another.
  Every prospective world leader should read this book at least once.
  ...more info
• dominated by a military perspective ...
  The analysis, published 1993 by Huntington, has refocused attention after the 9/11 Islamic terrorist attacks - and there seems to be no end: Madrid (3/11/04), bombings in Istanbul (11/20/03) and now in London (7/7/05) or the ritual assassination of Dutch filmmaker and writer Theo van Gogh in Amsterdam (11/2/04). And therefore there is no end of tv-discussions how to react. The foreign policy aide to the US State Department speaks of so-called "fault-line-wars", which exist between the cultures (religions) and will give endlessly smoldering. As examples the hunter Huntington specifies among other things the Gulf War and Afghanistan. The hotspots today are on the fault lines between the religions in Chechnya, the Middle East, Tibet, Sri Lanka, and Bosnia. In Yugoslavia the Serbs where supported by Russian diplomatics while Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran and Libya provided arms to the Bosnians. Yugoslavia is an example of what happens to a country where religious factors become the means for identifying oneself. And it could develope worse: Koran-Sura 9, verse 5: "Fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them. And seize them, beleaguer them and lie in wait for them, in every stratagem [of war]." Islam teaches that Muslims must not befriend Jews and Christians. Surat Al-Maidah 5:51 says, "O ye who believe, take not the Jews or the Christians for your friends and protectors. They are but friends and protectors to each other." In the chapter about how to stop those "break-line-wars" Huntington writes: "The force along cultural break lines may stop for a while completely, but it rarely ends really." "These problems become still more complicated, if the cultures involved do not have a core state." Hierarchy-creditor finishing sentence of this important chapter: "A break line war cooks from down highly, a break line peace seeps from above down". We hope, Huntington will know with security, who at the end is "above". Another unsentimental, very tough-minded Huntington analysis: "The conflict can disappear fast and brutally, as a group extinguishes the other one." The fact that cultural difference could brought to coexistence, into an equilibrium, supported by a progressive deliberated secularization of all denominations (accompanied by a sober transformation of all too denomination-linked educating systems) - such trains of thought we unfortunately miss in this provoking sermon, mainly dominated by a military perspective......more info
• A non-useful oversimplification of international affairs
  This book was written around the close of the Cold War with the apparent goal of answering the question "The end of the Cold War brings to closure the old boundaries and conflicts... what fault lines will replace them?" I have great respect for Huntington as a historian but I found the overall thesis of this book to be quite questionable.
  
  Huntington attempts to divide the world into a set of civilizations and attempts to portray recent situations in countries like the Ukraine, conflict between India and Pakistan as being the new sort of conflict taking the place of Cold War era conflicts. While the specific situations Huntington uses for examples are quite real, I find his overarching theme quite questionable. For every situation in the modern world that can be described in terms of Huntington's model, there seems to be a conflict that cannot be described in terms of this model. Where for example, is the rift between the United States and countries like Japan and Singapore, for example?
  
  For these reasons I do not see how this book provides useful tools for analyzing international conflicts in the post Cold War period. Even recent issues between the United States and Middle Eastern countries, which might seem to be a poster child for Huntington's approach, the intricate details seem to be much more important than any abstraction of a clash of civilizations....more info
• A controversial book
  Do we now have a unified world? No. There are numerous languages, religions, and cultures. And not all of them have the same attitudes towards what some of us in the West see as inevitable and uniform modernization. In addition, demographic changes raise issues such as the potential Islamization of Europe.
  
  Huntington warns us that all this implies that there will be cultural clashes in the future. He says the dangerous ones "are likely to arise from the interaction of Western arrogance, Islamic intolerance, and Sinic assertiveness." This is indeed a controversial statement. After all, such clashes are by no means an obvious necessity. Nor is it at all clear that in the absence of such external issues, Western society would not have very serious internal problems with totalitarianism and wars.
  
  The author notes that Islam has "bloody borders," and he gives five possible reasons for it. First, Islam itself may be inherently aggressive. Second, there may be the historical legacy of the creation of so many borders with non-Muslims. Third, Islam's absolutism may be responsible. Fourth, there is no Islamic "core state." And fifth, it may be simply that there has been a recent demographic explosion in many Muslim societies that has made a large number of unemployed males readily available.
  
  Huntington says that the future dominance of Western civilization is possible but not inevitable. This is also a controversial statement, given that there is great uncertainty both about what Western civilization is and how powerful it really is. And this leads to some (you guessed it, controversial) conclusions! Huntington recommends greater cooperation among Western nations. In addition, he wants to maintain Western technological and military superiority over other civilizations, in particular over Islamic and Sinic countries. And he advises us to avoid interfering in the affairs of other civilizations if at all possible.
  
  It's an interesting book....more info
• A generally even-handed hypothesis for ordering the world
  Samuel P. Huntington is a figure both loved and hated among certain circles of academia, mostly due to his often controversial claims (such as his recent article in Foreign Policy, "The Hispanic Challenge," which takes a theme of the Clash of Civilizations even further).
  
  Huntington makes a fairly convincing case, if somewhat simplistic, for ordering the world according to civilizations in the post-Cold War era. Rather than repeat what other reviewers have said regarding this matter, I have chosen to address two concerns that I have seen regarding this book, each of which are misconceived.
  
  The first concern is that this book somehow justifies American hostility and imposition of democracy in China and Islamic countries, the two challengers perceived by Huntington as perhaps most threatening to global stability. On the contrary, Huntington argues for the recognition that the world is multicultural, and that "Western belief in the universality of Western culture suffers three problems: it is false; it is immoral; and it is dangerous" (Ch. 12). Far from suggest we invade everybody and forcibly impose democratic regimes in places where democracy may not 'stick' due to a lack of Western values, he instead argues for the recognition of a multicultural world. "To preserve Western civilization in the face of declining Western power," he argues it is in the interest of the United States and Europe to: integrate politically, economically, and militarily; encourage "Westernization" of the already Western-leaning Latin American countries; restrain conventional and unconventional military development in China and Islamic countries; and "most important, recognize that Western intervention in the affairs of other civilizations is probably the single most dangerous source of instability and potential global conflict in a multicivilzatonal world" (Ch. 12). Huntington is ultimately arguing for a peaceful world order rather than a West which runs amok, imposing its values on other states.
  
  The second concern I've seen crop up is that Huntington is entirely a moral relativist due to his belief that the world is made up of differing cultures and value systems. He actually argues that culture is relative, while morality is absolute. As an example, he provides the case of Singapore which in the early 1990s tried to identify a common identity among its Chinese, Malay Muslim, and Indian Hindu/Sikh communities. A White Paper was created defining the "Shared Values" of Singaporeans: "Nation before ethnic community and society above self; family as the basic unit of society ; regard and community support for the individual; consensus instead of contention; racial and religious harmony" (Ch. 12). This White Paper, he argues, integrated elements of each member culture, as well as the Western emphasis on individuality (ostensibly in order to discourage nepotism implicit in Confucian values of hierarchy and family). Rather than attempt to establish a Judeo-Christian/Western standard of world values, such as is implicit in the UN Declaration on Human Rights, Huntington believes that common morality between all cultures does exist and must form the foundation of an international order.
  
  I recommend this book to anyone with a desire to understand international conflict, and particularly the role culture may play in it. Do not take all of it at face value, of course; read it with a critical eye and what you derive from it will be manifold more than you would have otherwise. This book deserves to be on any political scientist's bookshelf sheerly due to the influence it has had, regardless of whether you agree with its argument or not. Love him or hate him, when Huntington speaks, the entire world listens....more info
• Clash of Cultures and Politico-Religious Hegemony
  Huntington provoked worldwide outrage by this book, both from conservative westerners who thought he was too "nice" about Muslim extremists, and from non-conservatives who believed him to be arrogant and ethnocentric. My opinion is that both are correct: there is a clash between those using religious identities to promote political agendas, and those attempting to keep religion at the personal level and politics at the macro level of society. This book infuriated many non-readers because of its apparent linking of Islam with political terrorism. Careful readers understood that this was merely reporting of what "experts" said, and not a personal attack by Huntington on faithful adherents to Islam. Below are a few of my favorite quotes:
  --"This awakening is comprehensive--it is not just about individual piety; it is not just intellectual or cultural, nor is it just political. It is all of these, a comprehensive reconstruction of society from top to bottom."
  --One study of militant leaders of Egyptian Islamist groups found they had five major characteristics, which appear to be typical of Islamists in other countries. They were young, overwhelmingly in their twenties and thirties. Eighty percent were university students or university graduates. Over half came from elite colleges or from the intellectually most demanding fields of technical specialization such as medicine or engineering. Over 70 percent were from lower middle-class, "modest, but not poor backgrounds," and were the first generation in their family to get higher education. They spent their childhoods in small towns or rural areas but had become residents of large cities. While students and intellectuals formed the militant cadres and shock troops of Islamist movements, urban middle-class people made up the bulk of the active membership. In some degree these came from what are often termed "traditional" middle class groups: merchants, traders, small business proprietors, bazaaris.
  --Islamist activists "probably include a disproportionately large number of the best-educated and most intelligent young people in their respective populations," including doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists, teachers, civil servants.
  There is a clash today, and Huntington calls it rightly. There is violent conflict between those seeking political power through the power base of religious identities are opposed by those unwilling to give up values and ideals in their secular political system....more info
• Helps you to understand current global affairs
  This book helps you to understand current global affairs. Although one might not agree with some of the author's theories.
  
  Although this book is from the Western perspective, the author does not glorify the western civilization and has shown respect for other civilizations. ...more info
• Poor Research Design
  Samuel Huntington sets out to resolve his original argument that the interaction between differing civilizations is the most important element of global politics to conceptualize and comprehend. A "clash of civilizations" is the "greatest threat to world peace", he contends. Due to the gravity of this hypothesis, Huntington implements his own research structure as a unique research design. The 1996 book "Clash of Civilizations," was Huntington's personal response to his original article, featured in Foreign Affairs written in 1993. Huntington's book supplements his already argued hypothesis regarding the gravity behind a "clash of civilizations.
  
  Huntington didn't design any experiment, random-sampling, or conduct any surveys; rather he searched for resources that would assist in proving his hypothesis. The underlying theme behind a research experiment is discovery of the unknown. Huntington theory surrounding civilizations didn't require statistical evidence, for he was anticipating or estimating what would occur in the future. Predicting future outcomes is indeed one reason to implement a research design strategy, for example: Predicting who will win the 2008 election, clearly Huntington's theory surpasses the conventional narrowed scope. At best, the limitations of proving his theory would only allow an individual to accept the theory and through acceptance possibly alter the course of foreign policy.
  
  The first part of Civilizations sets out to prove that the world is both multi-polar and multicivilizational. In the second chapter, Huntington displays his long list of resources that he will use to further prove his theory. An example of this is on page 41, when he cites seven or eight different definitions of civilization, defined by seven or eight different experts. To prove the world of its multicivilizational tendencies, Huntington explores the idea of social pluralism and cites Deutsch who claims that social pluralism "is the rise and persistence of diverse autonomous groups not based on blood relationship or marriage." Another concept borrowed from Deutsch is individualism, which again helps Huntington fortify his stance.
  
  The second part of Civilizations illustrates the decline of Western Civilization influence while Asian and Islamic civilizations gain more influence. To clearly illustrate an element of declining influence of the West, Huntington furnishes statistical tables from the Statesman's Year Book, which display `aggregate territory estimates'. These tables exemplify the declining amount of land `owned' by the West. An important trait of Huntington's research is that the research has already been done by an external source and wasn't specifically intended to supplement Huntington's hypothesis. These furnished tables are just another example of Huntington's wise use of sources.
  
  The third part of Civilizations wants to reveal to the reader the inability of a societal shift from one civilization to another and that autonomous nations remain loyal to their specified civilization. Huntington resorts to Greece's prime minister to provide teeth to this assumption of loyalty: the "Balkan wars.... have brought to the surface the resonance of Orthodox ties...this is a bond..." This excerpt reveals that through religion, civilizational ties are mended and formed and that this bond presents the inevitable formation of feuding civilizations. That religions have authority over their populace and that many religions exist, is a fact that Huntington cannot resist to use as fuel to further his crusade.
  
  The fourth part of Civilizations seeks to admonish and disprove the generally accepted perception of the West that the world is a `universalized civilization,' for it is this viewpoint that has escalated tensions among both the Asian and Islamic civilizations. Instilling fear into the mind of the reader is one of Huntington most valuable resources and he implements this resource very effectively. On page 188, Huntington provides the chilling words of the Iranian President Rafsanjani: "[we] must fully equip ourselves both in the offensive and defensive use of chemical, bacteriological and radiological," and drive his point home, Huntington cites the Iranian vice president: "Since Israel continues to possess nuclear weapons, we, the Muslims, must cooperate to produce an atom bomb, regardless of U.N. attempts to prevent proliferation." Huntington intends on scaring the reader and his intentions have undoubtedly been realized.
  
  The fifth and final part of Civilizations concludes with a continuation of Huntington's crusade of instilling fear so that we, the reader, understand our duty as Westerner and as Westerner's, we must affirm our own unique type of civilization. It is an "us vs. them" world and the sooner we understand that, the better off we will all be; so believes Huntington. On page 304, Huntington provides the reader with what is wrong with our (Western) civilization and its actors:
  
  An increase of antisocial behavior exists
  The family is decaying
  "Social capital" is declining
  The "work ethic" is declining
  A decrease involvement with intellectual activity is occurring.
  
  Interestingly though, Huntington doesn't use external resources to prove these points and comes across as editorializing and lacks scholarly concurrence and validation.
  
  The problem with the Huntington's premise of: resource-validating research is that Huntington had already made up his mind about the hypothesis long before researching for this argument. A good research design requires that the researcher is truly unbiased and genuinely neutral. This isn't to say that Huntington was wrong or that he is a poor research, rather, Clash of Civilizations does not fall within any convention of research design.
  
  The lack of research design, or neutrality though, does pose a large question of the validity of Huntington's arguments. Huntington's approach is flaw for this reason of non-neutrality. By displaying such a bias, it has become apparent that Huntington has set himself up to be blinded or ignorant of other relevant and important details that may factor in unkindly to his initial theory/assumption/topic to be argued. Intentionally neglecting potentially relevant material is never a wise decision, for it inevitably invited an argument-weakening element to the table.
  ...more info
• Priceless line from this book.
  I'm not going to go in-depth here, as this book already has over 200 reviews. But one thing that really struck a deep chord with me was the line "people create their identity of what they are based on what they are not". Believe me, being Iranian and living in the state of Arizona, I've definitely grasped what I am not (based on a certain demographic's overwhelming presence, and I do not mean that in any disrespectful way but it just made me soul search myself extensively), and thus have had a newfound renaissance of what exactly it is I am! ...more info