|
The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (平装)
by Samuel P. Huntington
| Category:
Current affairs, Social-economics, Nonfiction |
| Market price: ¥ 178.00
MSL price:
¥ 148.00
[ Shop incentives ]
|
| Stock:
In Stock |
MSL rating:
 Good for Gifts |
| MSL Pointer Review:
A scholarly, rigorously researched masterwork of political science and sociology with incredible insights on global politics. |
| If you want us to help you with the right titles you're looking for, or to make reading recommendations based on your needs, please contact our consultants. |
|
| |
AllReviews |
  1 2 Total 2 pages 16 items |
|
|
Dianne Roberts (MSL quote), USA
<2007-01-10 00:00>
The Clash of Civilizations is a very academic book that intends to put forward a model for explaining world actors and their actions. The central part of this model is that civilizations are the strongest influence on actor (i.e. a state, a non-governmental institution, a terrorist group, etc.) decisions in the realm of foreign policy and their interactions with other states.
Any actor will try to do what it perceives as desirable and technically feasible. It will partner with other actors to combine capabilities which allow them achieve things they couldn't achieve themselves, or to reduce the amount of resources they have to dedicate to the endeavour thus increasing their ROI. Combining with other actors of course is reliant on the fact that the other actors share your view of the desirability of the outcome. There are many levels of desirability of an action where an actor can balance costs/risks vs. benefits. These include such things like security, idealism, economic, and cultural.
What Huntington is arguing in the book is that in the bi-polar world of the cold war security concerns over desirability overrode most of the other concerns and shaped the world along first-world, second-world, and third-world lines. Now that the cold war is over he argues that cultural concerns will become the primary determinant of actor behavior. Civilizations are the highest form of culture, and thus he predicts actors within civilizations working closely with each other, and not closely with those from other civilizations. As such cold war alliances such as between the United States and Saudi Arabia or with Japan are becoming outdated and strained.
Whether or not someone agrees with Huntington's core argument (I personally found it mostly although not entirely convincing) there is a lot of good information in this book. Huntington extremely well describes:
- What the concept of Civilization in the singular is versus what civilizations are
- The civilizational makeup of the world and the state of those civilizations. He does an especially good job of delving into what's going on in the Muslim world regarding population growth and Islamic religious resurgence, and delving into the consequences of very strong Asian economic growth.
- How civilizations are structured, usually with core states and concentric circles of kin states
- How civilizations can change over time
- The dynamics of wars between groups from different civilizations, what he calls fault line wars
- How his model explains the fighting between Russia and it's Muslim neighbors, and the fighting between three civilizations in Bosnia- Herzegovina
There is a LOT of history and fact in this book which can really enrich your knowledge of the world, and do so in a pretty balanced manner.
Huntington finishes his book with a course of action for the west. This is basically to strengthen ties with other western nations, primarily Europe and secondarily Latin America. It is also to abandon trying to push ideas of western "universalism" in foreign affairs with non western nations. It is essentially very non confrontational.
There were a few things I felt detracted from this overall pretty good book.
- It is long, and sometimes dry and boring. Easily 40% of the material in the book is repetition. A good editor could have eliminated this material without any of Huntington's points or useful info and made the book much more easily digested.
- It seems to be consigned to the fact that civilizations really can't get along with each other and paints a pretty gloomy future. I don't think this explains how America and Japan basically get a long quite well despite relatively minor trade disputes (which I think he blows up to be bigger than they are to prove his point.) It also doesn't take into account that civiliza- tions have a lot of latitude within themselves to determine their form. Liberal democracy, fascism, and communism were all ideas that originated in western civilization for example. A liberal democracy western civilization is good. Within the latitudes of other civilizations they can chose to form themselves in ways that can get along well with other civilizations and ways that can't. Personally I think we should accommodate those that put their best face forward (i.e. modern day Japan vs. 1930's Japan), and confront those that chose a threatening form for their civilization (i.e. current Islamo-fascism).
- There's very little discussion of how economics could possibly be a growing concern in a more globalized world, and how this will compete with cultural concerns. He simply states (with admittedly some evidence, but ignoring other evidence however) that it won't matter.
Recommended for people who want a better understanding of the world and foreign policy matters.
|
|
|
Hutchinson (MSL quote), USA
<2007-01-10 00:00>
This has to be one of the most misunderstood books of recent times, mainly because people haven't read it, but they THINK they know what it says. Huntington wrote it after the collapse of the Soviet Union, eight years before 9/11. It's not an "instant book" - the focus is the Big Picture, not a single event, person, or organization. The central practical point of THE CLASH is precisely the opposite of what many people take it to be.
Huntington's analysis is not at all original, what he does is simply to revive and re-popularize the civilizational approach to world history of Toynbee and Spengler. Contrary to the knee-jerk response that this implies the need for war, or that it is ethnocentric, THE CLASH actually cuts strongly against both of those ideas. Europe/The West is but one of several major world civilizations, each with long histories, religions and cultures, and it is arrogant to think that the rest of the world can be remade in our image.
Here's how Huntington summarizes the point of THE CLASH:
"In the emerging world of ethnic conflict and civilizational clash, Western belief in the universality of Western culture suffers three problems: it is false, it is immoral, and it is dangerous (p. 310)." "Western universalism is dangerous to the world because it could lead to a major intercivilizational war between core states and it is dangerous to the West because it could lead to the defeat of the West (p. 311)."
So in other words, the U.S. should AVOID clashes with other civilizations, including Islam and China, precisely the opposite conclusion from the one projected onto Huntington by those who have not actually read the book. Further, Huntington argues against global crusading in general, for democracy, or nation-building, or any other idealist policies premised on remaking the world in the image of the West. However, Huntington is not a unilateralist. He sees the importance and necessity of international institutions, and sees that they can play an increasingly important role in the future as the temporary preponderance of military power inevitably declines.
It's important to add, for those on both the right and the left who persist in misunderstanding Huntington's point, that he OPPOSED the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Like most other informed analysts, Huntington believes that all the negative results were completely predictable. |
|
|
A Romanian reader (MSL quote), Roumania
<2007-01-10 00:00>
First we were told European civilization is a hive breeding racism, intolerance & "hate". Now we are supposed to enlist in ideological war to defend it against Muslims... If the first premise is correct, then why not REJOYCE its destruction on Muslim hands. If that premise is incorrect, then everything we have been inoculated with is shattered to the ground.
The author is incorrect on all sides. First, of course, there is no clash of civilizations. On one side, we have a wreck of totally degenerate, loathful, compromised "Western" Civilization (shamelessly deprived of even its name: European). On the other, we have a civilization complementary to the one of European Middle-Ages. The former, no matter how decayed and turned upside down, is expansive, always attempting to convert the world, by propaganda or warfare, to its own values. The latter has ceased to expand from many centuries.
In the glorious tradition of revisionist historians, Huntington prefers ideological doubletalk to historical fact. Historical fact is that, since the modern age, "Western" culture is the one attempting to destroy Muslim civilization.
It uses two methods: single it out as "backward" (imagine if we dare to use that word, more viably, to Sub-Saharan Africa) and threatening, in order to raise sustained public enmity.
The second is the strategy of the spider. The spider kills and eats larger prey than itself because its venom quite literally digests the preyed animal before it's actually eaten. In our case, our degenerate civilization preaches "tolerance", "human rights", "democracy" and "individual freedom" (!) to its hosts, then it waits for the venom to take the desired effect, which is a carbon copy of itself, different only by name. Or, in a worst case scenario, something pacified to such a level that it offers no longer any sustained resistance to the parasitic onslaught which threatens its existence. This happened to organized Christian churches and I see no reason, given the huge disparity of forces, why this won't happen to Muslims, as well.
Secondly, even if such a clash would exist, Muslims would pose no threat because they lack unity within, both on ethnic and sectarian level. Not to mention that, of course, any of such attempts to bring unity would be used by our propaganda apparatus as justification for Total Warfare against Muslims.
All in all, propaganda book of no value, summoning "facts" to keep honest people further outside the real spectrum of causes and effects which have generated the present state of events.
|
|
|
Mason (MSL quote), USA
<2007-01-10 00:00>
I read this book about 4 years ago, and nearly daily I am reminded of how clairvoyant Huntington was in the writing of this book (1996).
The book opens with a description of the role that flags played in the passage of Prop 187 in California. When Mexicans flew the Mexican flag on the streets of LA to protest 187, they virtually guaranteed passage of the proposition. Why? Because flags and other cultural symbols the power to define one group of people from another. It goes on to show how contact with various cultures shows and reinforces the idea that "we" are not like "them". This causes cultural introspection on the part of people the world over, to discover why this is so. In so doing, people the world over are rediscovering forgotten cultural and religious mores that serve to set them apart from foreigners. Flags are one example of this rediscovery.
They are also discovering ancient enemies. As an example, Mexico still smarts from losing half their territory to the U.S. in the Mexican War. This country is being subject to an invasion from the south that is justified by the Mexicans as a reconquest of these lands (though they were never settled by Mexico). Americans, ignorant of history, are finding out now, by means of increasing contact with the reconquistadores, that these Mexicans consider the American Southwest to be theirs (though Bush and many others continue to call Mexico our "friends"). This in turn leads to a backlash against Mexico and Mexicans. None of this would have happened without increasing contact with illegal aliens and the culture that they bring with them.
This process is happening in places all over the world - in Europe, America, the Middle East, etc. Culture is becoming king again, and culture is "civilizational" in nature. When these ancient civilizations and cultures start bumping up against each other, through increased trade and travel and immigration, the result is like tectonic plates of the earth clashing - something has to give.
In the 1970's, Coke wanted to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony - we won't be hearing talk like that again for a long, long time. Read this book to understand why.
|
|
|
Ilya (MSL quote), Canada
<2007-01-10 00:00>
In this book Samuel P. Huntington builds on his original article in Foreign Policy and offers an indispensible conceptual model for politics of the twentieth/twenty-first century at large. The book centers on international relations and more specifically, on the role of civilizations and 'associations by kin' in the post Cold War era. Huntington dismisses universalism and argues for accepting cultural diversity as the driving force in the political realm. Reading his work some eight years after it was published and seeing his predictions play out makes his case only so much stronger.
This is not a book on West vs 'The Rest' nor does the author assume the superiority of the former. At times, I felt, Huntington has an excessively pessimistic view of our capability to coexist peacefully (ex: his argument that trade can and has historically produced conflict). 'Digital convergence' and explosion of inter-cultural collaboration in and through outsourcing has changed our world in many ways (to the better, in my view). However, Huntington's work nonetheless remains a gem and is probably even more relevant today then it was in 1998. It is a must read for anyone. |
|
|
Micea Popa (MSL quote), USA
<2007-01-10 00:00>
Had this been a paper written by a graduate student in Political Science, it would have gotten something like a B-. Much like other reviewers have said, the book paints a cartoonish picture of, you know... foreign people, who apparently have all the negative features one could imagine, form being violent to gladly subjecting themselves to the rule of the Czar, as opposed to good ol' "Westerners" who are independent, hard-working, law-abiding, individualistic, etc, etc. He does not say it directly, but you can discern that when he says Westerners he doesn't really mean Italians or Portuguese - he means white Anglo-Saxon protestants.
Leaving aside the racist/eugenicist air that comes out of almost every page of this book (btw, what do you do with mixed race people?), I take issue mainly with the methodology of the work. If you are a student of Political Science looking for a serious discussion of a theory of international conflict you will not find it here. In a country where the Current Affairs section of bookshops is full of retarded titles like How Republicans Stole Christmas or How to Talk to A Liberal. If You Have To, Professor Huntington knows where success lies. His book fits comfortably among these these type of works but causes giggles among real academics.
When discussing the causes and mechanisms of international conflict, scholars generally employ some sort of statistical analysis, if only to confirm a qualitative discussion. There exists a database named Correlates of War on which the serious researcher can do all sorts of regression analyzes and find out whether this or that factor plays a causal role in war. Of course this bores the hell out of the typical How Republicans Stole Christmas reader, so Huntington prefers laying out arguments on the lines of (caricatural paraphrase) "Since 33% of wars involve Muslims, it is obvious that Muslims are bloody." I have not researched this matter, but from what I've heard, people have run basic regression analyzes on his theory and shattered it to pieces.
Most of the ideas he lays out are not supported even by this type of proof. For the most part, he just posits stuff. The Vietnamese are a second-hand miniature copy of the Chinese "core civilization". Romanians are some sort of Russians and they volunteered to fight along the Serbs against the Croats.(!) Of course, all of these claims are delusional and they fit the image of the ignorant American who can't point Louisiana on the map. Unfortunately, these types of people sometimes get to influence US policy and periodically get this country in all sorts of trouble. Overall, I honestly believe that George W Bush has a much better understanding of international affairs than Samuel Huntington, and that is saying something. |
|
|
|
1 2 Total 2 pages 16 items |
|
|
|
|
|
|
