Read صدام الحضارات وإعادة صنع النظام العالمي by Samuel P. Huntington طلعت الشايب Online

صدام الحضارات وإعادة صنع النظام العالمي

This is the Arabic translation of Samuel P. Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations and The Remaking of World Order.Talaat Al Shayeb translated it. This translation was presented by Dr. Salah Kanshouh....

Title : صدام الحضارات وإعادة صنع النظام العالمي
Author :
Rating :
ISBN : 9775868017
Format Type : Paperback
Number of Pages : 552 Pages
Status : Available For Download
Last checked : 21 Minutes ago!

صدام الحضارات وإعادة صنع النظام العالمي Reviews

  • Huyen
    2019-03-25 19:36

    This is a masterpiece of scare mongering, not recommended for the faint of heart. Sage Huntington can make you groan inside: omg, tomorrow there will be a massive conspiracy between the democracy-hating Sinic and Islamic civilizations (whatever that means) to destroy our democracy, civilized society and freedom and push us back to the Dark Ages. Don’t you see how they’ve already started infiltrating the US government with an African Muslim communist called Obama? And hapless America will heroically fight that struggle against evil and oppression until the end of time and come out gloriously victorious. But before that, we need to fight terror, terror, terror and build more aircrafts, missiles, military bases and bomb the shit out of them if necessary. I’m sorry I can’t pass this test of valor and courage, before this apocalypse happens, I’d rather drive to Mars. A rather depressing thought. So much for the ranting. Now the serious stuff. Samuel Huntington laid out his analysis of conflicts in the Post Cold War world in his article in 1993:It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future He divides the world into 8 major “civilizations”: sinic, western, orthodox Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Japanese, Latin American, African, and basically says that in the future, when the age of ideology is over, the cultural and civilizational rifts will be the main cause of conflicts. The only way the West can survive is to get stronger both militarily and economically and ally with civilizations sympathetic to itself to fight against the rise of Islamic and Confucian countries (i.e China). This line of argument has some major flaws. First, it defines civilization as an all-encompassing and monolithic concept and ignores all the interaction and diversity within one culture. How would you define Islamic civilization? Islam of Saudi Arabia? Indonesia? Iran? Dubai? Similarly for all the rest. But more importantly, often I find this kind of confrontational mind-set rather dangerous. It takes conflicts out of context and strips them of their much wider and more complex socio-political backdrop and reduces them to over simplistic terms of “us vs. them”, “cultural differences” or “civilizational faultlines”. But I never believe in such things, I never believe that people have enough time sitting on their ass and hating another group just because their culture and religion are different. If people fight, that must be for a reason, often one group are conquered or oppressed and resist, otherwise, economic reasons such as land, exploitation or resources. Invoking jealousy or ethnic hatred to explain conflict is a chauvinistic and foolish way of looking at it. The Vietnamese did not hate the Americans because the Americans drove cars and watched tv while the Vietnamese slogged behind buffalos. The Palestinians don’t hate the Israelis because the Israelis have swimming pools and have nuclear warheads. The Afghans hated the Russians not because the Russians rode tanks and had an empire. It’s never about jealousy, all about conquest, oppression, injustice and subjugation. Aren't these legitimate things to hate? Conflicts are always about the conqueror and the dominated, about power and oppression, never so much about ideology or ethnic hatred. And if there’s an element of ethnic hatred, it often has a lot to do with the way the power structure was distorted to favour a group to oppress another during the colonial period. Need I say any more about Algeria, Kenya, Rwanda, Sudan, Lebanon, Iraq, Bosnia? But then again, don’t take my word because I might be oversimplifying things as well. I find Huntington’s idea dangerous also because it represents a primordialistic world view, in which people are inherently and inevitably different, therefore, conflicts are unavoidable. Once you talk about something grand and presumably rigid and static in this case like civilization and culture as an innate part of human nature and as causes of war, you’re heading for a dead end. If people are inherently irrational, antagonistic, confrontational, aggressive, then what’s the point in preventing war and addressing political issues underlying them? That’s it, we’re doomed. So let’s put all this in context because it’s the last thing this book would ever do. After the end of the Cold War, America came out as the sole superpower. So people started asking: ok, now the Russians are gone, why don’t we reduce our military budget and invest more in education, healthcare, aid to the third world, technology, infrastructure? Why do we need this half a trillion dollar military budget when we have massive social problems at home in this most advanced industrialized country? So America needed to invent something to replace the Russians to justify all that. Shush, it can’t be about the humongous profits for the military industrial complex, it can’t be about defending our corporate interests overseas. So voila, that must be the clash of civilization. America is perpetually at war with other rival civilizations, especially Islam. The paradigm of the West vs. the Rest never changed. Gone with the Russians, in with the Muslims. That’s why we need $500b in military spending (6 times the second largest, China, and the Pentagon squeaks) and 700 military bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, Qatar, Bahrain, Egypt, Djibouti, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel, the list goes on. After 9/11, this book rocketed in influence because now obviously, the Islamic world is waging war against America. The real civilization clash IS happening. How scary indeed. Huntington even declared: "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” and hate people “who are convinced of the universality of their culture and believe that their superior, if declining, power imposes on them the obligation to extend that culture throughout the world." But the attack led by a group with a couple of thousand members (or say, even a million, still 0.1% of total Muslim population) against a country with a population of 1/4 of the “West” is defined as a civilizational war. Very representative huh? Some of them are Saudi, er but let’s forget that for a moment because that’s our closest friend in the region, although rather nasty bastards… So yes, Huntington would easily dust off his hands and say this has nothing to do with US foreign policies in the Middle East at all. They hate us because we love freedom, democracy and we’re more civilized than them. Because this pre-renaissance backward fanatical people hate progress and are jealous of us living in our first world luxury. This rhetoric has been parroted again and again and again by Emperor Bush and his friends to justify his increasingly militant approach in the ME. Oh, there’s no limit to chauvinism and ignorance in this world. Truly, I’d be rather upset if Americans buy this lie. The idea of CoC obscures the real grievances and frustration of people in the Middle East at many decades of American dominance in the region. Let’s remind ourselves that America is great friends with the despots of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Israel, the PLO (rather a rocky friendship), the mujahedeen (who gives a shit about Islamic fundamentalism if all we cared about was to kick ass the Russians out of Afghanistan), Jordan and a long time ago, Iran and Iraq. And many other friends that torture its citizens under US auspices (politics jargon: extraordinary rendition). Could anyone still say it has nothing to do with politics at all? Finally, is it just me or anyone else that finds the idea of a respected professor writing such provocative arguments seemingly not to mitigate the problem but to aggravate it, to defend “our” superiority at all cost, rather disturbing? Is this honest and balanced historical analysis or is there a hidden agenda behind? I’m not good at conspiracy theory, but mind you, this guy’s book in the 1960s advocating stable dictatorships to achieve economic development over troublesome democracies also had great influence on US foreign policy in Africa and Asia. No wonder why America loved some dictators and overthrew a couple of trouble makers. Expert on democracy and civilization indeed. (if you’re interested listen to this brilliantly eloquent critique by Edward Said: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boBzrq... )

  • Riku Sayuj
    2019-03-29 03:00

    The Preservation of The WestorMaking America Great AgainHuntington polarized his readers, being a book the liberals would rather not believe as it implies religious and cultural differences will continue to divide humanity, and also one that the right would rather ignore, preferring Fukuyama's thesis of Capitalism as the supreme achievement of mankind, over this more accommodating world-view.Now we are far enough from the end of the Cold War to be able to judge this book more fairly. In the immediate aftermath of the cold war, strategists were looking for a "theory" that will help us understand the world in conceptual terms - the conceptual simplicity of the bipolar cold war world enticed them into believing that a new world order will be formed, which can again be explained under a new framework. Huntington probably came up with one of the most realistic models - unlike the ideologically divided world before the cold war, the post-Cold War world's inhabitants will increasingly define themselves not on ideological grounds, but on cultural (civilizational, even religious) lines and hence the new world order will be organized around the same. As this happens and various civilizations vie for 'space', inter-civilizational fault-lines will become the new sources of major conflict, especially between "West & the Rest" (primarily economically?) and between "Islam & its Neighbors" (militarily?). These two conflicts along with China's sphinx like role will define the future according to Huntington.So far so good. However, as Huntington himself says, the best test of any theory is its predictive capacity. And that is the first place where this cultural or civilizational model of world order falls short. According to Huntington, intra-civilizational conflicts are to die down fast in the post cold war world as core states of each civilization rallies its allies around its own sphere of influence - this would include China taking up its hegemonic role in Asia, the Koreas uniting, the Middle-East somehow redrawing artificial boundaries and creating a core state that can guide them (according to Huntington civilizational stability is not possible with a "core state" rallying the civilization), the South Americas either uniting to form a distinct civilization or just bandwagoning with the west, etc. But the world we see today shows us that most of the real hot zones are along intra-civilizational fault-lines - along fault-lines that are not defined so much by broad civilizational identities, but rather by narrower ethnic, historical and sometimes quite random identities. So the civilizational model might still work, but instead of the small set proposed by Huntington, we might need a much larger set of civilizations to be invoked, which would then render the theory pretty useless. The second issue is with the real core message of the book - How to protect the western civilization. Huntington is in truth issuing a clarion call to the whole of western civilization' to band together against this new post cold war world which is not exclusively west-facing anymore. Huntington faces up boldly against Fukuyama's partisan view that Capitalism is the final stage of history (extending Hegel), but falls into the same trap by implying throughout the book that the western culture is the best and is in dire need of preserving, dedicating much of the later part of the work to strategies aimed at this end.As per this thesis, as the Asian and Islamic civilizations rise into economic prominence, the new world order will also tilt towards them (not to mention the additional demographic and immigrational pressures fueling this). The only way to arrest this tilt and to avoid the tragedy of losing all the culture the west has built up and perfected is for the western countries to set aside their differences and band together, especially the United States. The book is an exhortation to the US of A to skirt any aspirations to being multi-cultural itself (and thus diluting the holy western culture), but stay pure and take up the mantle of being the core state for the western civilization (and this involves cozying up to Russia too, btw, just fyi) and thus make sure that the new multi-cultural world is still as western in culture as possible.

  • William
    2019-03-19 18:50

    "Clash of Civilizations" is an easy book to misread. Many have taken Huntington to task because he pessimistically forecasted a world of discord following the Cold War. The headlines of the past decade beg to differ. The world according to Samuel Huntington was going to reset to its multi-polar default setting, each pole being the center of a culture/religion/ethnicity that had always existed in world history. The border regions between these centers were going to be fraught with friction and conflict, just as they always have. The bipolar Cold War was the aberration, just as un-natural as a "unipolar" world following the fall of the Soviet Union. "Clash of Civilizations" is an ideal companion to Paul Kennedy's "Rise and Fall of Great Powers," but use it as a substitute for Chapter 8 in Kennedy's book. Many misread this book as well, skipping all the material just to read what Kennedy forecasted for the world post-1990. Where Kennedy got it wrong, Huntington got it right, offering an analysis based on a continuity so simple that it was easy for the sophisticated to overlook.

  • Mikey B.
    2019-04-20 02:50

    This is still a very valid book today. The author’s premise is that with the collapse of communism and the break-up of the Soviet Union, the Cold War is over and therefore we need a new paradigm in which to view our world. We are back to the basics of culture and religion.Mr. Huntington constructs a frightful world; whereas, before, there could be rationality between liberal democracy and the communist block, the room for agreement between absolutist religions in the Islamic and Western Christian worlds are fraught with problems.Russia is back to Orthodoxy and its peripheral borders are dangerous. As Mr. Huntington would say Russia has “Fault Lines” – with the Christian Catholic world in Northeast Europe, with Islam in the south and in Southeast Europe with both Islam and Christianity. The author talks at length of the emerging China and how its’ increasing power and geographical reach could lead to conflict with the West. China will become less subservient and the countries bordering it, like Japan, will need to redo their alliances.The author is also adept at changing our perspective. The U.S. saw the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan as a victory for the West against communism, but the Islamic world viewed it as a successful religious jihad against a superpower. The West – and the U.S. in particular, seems unable to relinquish its Cold War paradigm. The U.S. (and I would include Canada) feels hubristically that the rest of the World wants to be like the West. There is much danger in this universalistic mentality.The world has now become more complex with several competing powers, instead of two superpowers. With religion back in the equation, this adds an unstable emotional level when a conflict begins, or in most cases, when the conflict reasserts itself after a dormant period. I take issue with Mr. Huntington on the universality of Human Rights. There are basic Human Rights, like gender equality and the evil of torture, which many view as “sacrosanct universal principals”. Many countries today do not adhere to these values, much to the detriment and dignity of their people. It is generally the rulers of these countries who disparage Human Rights as being a “Western Concept”. As a Chinese dissident said (to paraphrase): “If you are in a jail in China you will soon be asking for your rights, without worrying about whether they were “American” or “Chinese”.This is an essential book for understanding the world and makes for illuminating reading. Many of us thought that with the end of the Cold War the world had become a safer and more humane planet – and we were all off to a better and greater way of living. As Mr. Huntington suggests the Cold War was just an ideological anomaly; we are back to fundamentals.A favourite quote about the Soviet-Afghan war: “They [Islam] beat one of the world’s two superpowers and now their working on the second.”

  • Farhan Khalid
    2019-03-29 01:42

    Hypothesis It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the futureMajor CivilizationsWestern (Christian) Civilization Comprising the United States and Canada, Western and Central Europe, Australia and OceaniaLatin America and the former member states of the Soviet Union are included, or are instead their own separate civilizations, will be an important future consideration for those regionsThe Orthodox WorldThe former Soviet Union, the former Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece and RomaniaThe Buddhist AreasBhutan, Cambodia, Laos, Mongolia, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and Thailand are identified as separate from other civilizations (but not constitute a major civilization in the sense of international affairs)The Sinic CivilizationChina, the Koreas, Singapore, Taiwan, and Vietnam. This group also includes the Chinese diaspora, especially in relation to Southeast AsiaHindu CivilizationLocated chiefly in India, Bhutan and Nepal, and culturally adhered to by the global Indian diasporaJapanConsidered as a society and civilization unique to itselfThe Muslim World The Greater Middle East (excluding Israel), Africa, Albania, Bangladesh, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, and Maldives. Considered as a possible 8th civilizationLone CountriesEthiopia and Haiti are labeled as "Lone" countriesIsraelConsidered a unique state with its own civilization (one similar to West)The Caribbean WorldFormer British colonies in the Caribbean, constitutes a distinct entityCleft CountriesBecause they contain very large groups of people identifying with separate civilizations. Examples include India ("cleft" between its Hindu majority and large Muslim minority), China, Ukraine, SudanSwing CivilizationsRussia and India are 'swing civilizations' and may favor either sideRussia, for example, clashes with the many Muslim ethnic groups on its southern border (such as Chechnya) but cooperates with Iran to avoid further Muslim-Orthodox violence in Southern RussiaSino-Islamic Connection "Sino-Islamic connection" is emerging in which China will cooperate more closely with Iran, Pakistan, and other states to augment its international positionCivilizational conflicts are "particularly prevalent between Muslims and non-Muslims", identifying the "bloody borders" between Islamic and non-Islamic civilizationsAll-or-nothing ReligionsUniversal, "all-or-nothing" religions, in the sense that it is believed by both sides that only their faith is the correct oneReligions that perceive irreligious people who violate the base principles of those religions to be furthering their own pointless aims, which leads to violent interactionsDemographic ExplosionMore recent factors contributing to a Western-Islamic clash are the Islamic Resurgence and demographic explosion in Islam, coupled with the values of Western universalismWhy Civilizations will ClashDifferences among civilizations are too basic in that civilizations are differentiated from each other by history, language, culture, tradition, and, most important, religionThese fundamental differences are the product of centuries, so they will not soon disappearThe world is becoming a smaller placeDifferences and CommonalitiesAs a result, the interactions across the world are increasing, and they intensify civilization consciousness and awareness of differences between civilizations and commonalities within civilizationsIdentity CrisisReligion has replaced this gap, which provides a basis for identity and commitment that transcends national boundaries and unites civilizationsReturn-to-the-roots Phenomenon A return-to-the-roots phenomenon is occurring among non-Western civilizationsCultural characteristics and differences are less mutable and hence less easily compromised and resolved than political and economic onesThe West versus the RestWorld politics tends to be the conflict between Western and non-Western civilizationsIsolationNon-Western countries can attempt to achieve isolation in order to preserve their own values and protect themselves from Western invasion. However, the costs of this action are high and only a few states can pursue itNon-Western countries can make an effort to balance Western power through modernizationCooperationThey can develop economic, military power and cooperate with other non-Western countries against the West while still preserving their own values and institutionsFault line conflicts Between adjacent states belonging to different civilizations or within states that are home to populations from different civilizationsCore state conflictsBetween the major states of different civilizationsModernization vs. WesternizationJapan, China and the East Asian Tigers have modernized in many respects while maintaining traditional or authoritarian societies which distinguish them from the West. Some of these countries have clashed with the West and some have notThe West is distinguished from Orthodox Christian countries by the experience of the Renaissance, Reformation, the Enlightenment, overseas colonialism rather than contiguous expansion and colonialism, and a recent re-infusion of Classical culture through ancient Greece rather than through the continuous trajectory of the Byzantine EmpireTorn countriesCountries that are seeking to affiliate with another civilization as "torn countries." Turkey, whose political leadership has systematically tried to Westernize the country since the 1920s, is his chief exampleTurkey's history, culture, and traditions are derived from Islamic civilization, but Turkey's elite, beginning with Mustafa Kemal Atatürk who took power as first President of the Republic of Turkey in 1923, imposed western institutions and dress, embraced the Latin alphabet, joined NATO, and is seeking to join the European UnionMexico, Australia and Russia are also considered to be tornRequirementIts political and economic elite must support the move. Second, the public must be willing to accept the redefinition. Third, the elites of the civilization that the torn country is trying to join must accept the countryAnyhow, no torn country has successfully redefined its civilizational identityContrast Theories(1)The world had reached the 'end of history' in a Hegelian senseHuman rights, liberal democracy, and capitalist free market economy had become the only remaining ideological alternative for nations in the post-Cold War worldThe End of History by Francis Fukuyama(2)Division of "West" and "Islam" is not as per reality Clash of civilizations thesis is an example of "the purest invidious racism, a sort of parody of Hitlerian science directed today against Arabs and MuslimsThe Clash of Ignorance by Edward Said(3)Diversity is a feature of most cultures in the world. Western civilization is no exception The practice of democracy that has won out in the modern West is largely a result of a consensus that has emerged since the Enlightenment and the Industrial RevolutionTo attribute it to the West and then to contrast it with non-Western traditions would be a great mistakeAmartya Sen

  • محمد إلهامي
    2019-04-18 02:39

    كتاب يجب أن يقرأه كل مهتم بشؤون أمته ومعاركها.. وهو كتاب قوي ومهم ومفيد.فيه تدليس كبير في أشياء كثيرة، خصوصا فيما يتعلق بمحاولته صناعة وحدة ثقافية غربية تحت قيادة أمريكية فهو يتجاوز كل الفروق ويسميها "علاقات قربى ثقافية" بينما إذا وجد أقل من هذه الفروق بين قوم يريد لهم أن يكونوا مختلفين لجعلها فورا من "عوامل التمزق" التي تستحيل معها الوحدة.عموما، جوانب تدليسه لا تهمنا كثيرا لأنها متعلقة بموقفه ورؤيته من قومه، بينما ما يهمنا هو نظرتهم إلينا وللصراع معنا.. فهو في هذا الجانب مهم للغاية.والكتاب نفسه رد على نظرية فوكوياما "نهاية التاريخ" وهي النظرية التافهة المتهافتة التي يبدو أنه كتبها وهو يعاني من أحلام اليقظة، وقد أحسن فوكوياما إذ تراجع عنها بعد ذلك.

  • Adrian
    2019-04-10 20:34

    It is over 10 years since I read Samuel Huntington's full length expansion of his classic Foreign Affairs article. This was read during my final year at university, and back then, it was fashionable amongst many to refute, or outrightly mock Professor Huntington's disturbing piece of work. The work was derided amongst my fellow students, it was frequently derieded amongst academia, it is something of a fashion statement to deride Huntington's work. Why?Could it be, perhaps, because of a deep, inbuilt feeling that we just know that he was right?In the 10+ years since I read this monumental study, I have encountered very little in current events to refute his argument. Time has vindicated Huntington, and will continue to vindicate him.Huntington identifies 9 civilizations, Western, Orthodox, Islamic, Latin American, African, Sinic, Hindu, Buddhist and Japanese.The 2 civilizations that Huntington considers to be the most potentially antagonistic toward the West are Islamic and Sinic, however, as this book was completed in 2006, various conflicts had not yet played out between the West and the Orthodox World, and this is deserving of a special place as a potential faultline civilization.Huntington considers the value systems of Sinic and Islamic culture as essentially incompatible with the West, and attempts to assimilate or reconcile Western values with these cultures is ultimately futile. Therefore, Huntington advocates a careful, cautious approach to foreign policy, wherein Western powers should try to mediate civilizational disputes, but not directly involve themselves with them.Why do I think Huntington has been vindicated? The list is not exhaustive.Firstly, attempts through that ill conceived 2003-? War in Iraq to democracize Iraq has proved a colossal failure. The Arab Spring led to an outright dead end for all countries involved except Tunisia, and Turkish membership of the EU remains a pipe dream.However, while Huntington's work was written before the full democratization of South Korea and Taiwan, we have seen little progress in China toward any kind of accountable or open system, and China has recently given Hong Kong a half-baked, managed democracy.If anything, the civilizational faultline that has become more pronounced is the Orthodox World. Russia and US relations are at the worst they have ever been since the end of the Cold War, and the continuing support of Putin's strongman leadership amongst the Russian population shows a general preference in Russia at least for strongman leadership, rather than a more pluralistic approach.The situation in Ukraine is perhaps the Western-Orthodox divide being played out within a single, fragmented state, and is in many ways the result of naive Western attempts to push Western Institutions (NATO and the EU) into the Orthodox World.A further example was the almost universal Western support (exception Spain) for the unilateral independence of Kosovo, and then the complete reverse of this foreign policy toward the Russian unification with Crimea.This is not to distract oneself with current issues. Huntington's original work was written in response to the 1991 Gulf War, and the expanded book was based on events in the 90s, such as the Yugoslav wars, Chechnya, and the very nature of Sino-Western relations.However, very little has transpired to prove Huntington wrong, and few would argue that his main policy proscription, that the West only mediate, not directly involve themselves with disputes involving other civilizations.I think the dust will never settle on the debate over Huntington's thesis, but Huntington has convinced this reader at least.

  • Mostafa
    2019-03-25 02:42

    با پایان یافتن جنگ سرد در اواخر قرن بیستم و شروع آنچه که به "نظام نوین جهانی" معروف است دو نظریه در روابط بین‌الملل مطرح شد. عده‌ای از آن به مثابهپایان تاریخیاد کردند و با نگاهی خوشبینانه به توفق نظام لیبرال دموکراسی بر سراسر کره خاکی و پایان تضادهای ایدئولوژیک اذعان داشتند و نظریه پرداز آن نیزفرانسیس فوکویامابود. عده‌ای نیز برخلاف دسته اول، و چه بسا در پاسخ به دسته اول، نگاه خوشبینانه‌ای به این موضوع نداشتند و از یک هشدار خبر میدادند. ساموئل هانتینگتوننظریه‌پرداز دسته دوم بود. دانشمند علوم سیاسی و استاد دانشگاه هاروارد با چاپ مقاله خود با نامبرخورد تمدن‌هادر نشریه فارین افیرز به تحلیل و تبیین دوران روابط غرب با سایرین پس از اتمام جنگ سرد پرداخت.وی تمدن‌های زنده جهان را به هفت یا هشت تمدن بزرگ تقسیم کرد:غربی، کنفوسیوسی، ژاپنی، اسلامی، هندو، اسلاو، ارتدوکس، آمریکای لاتینو در حاشیه هم تمدن آفریقایی وخطوط گسلمیان این تمدن‌ها را منشا درگیری‌های جهان آتی و جایگزین دولت-ملت‌ها دانست. او کانون اصلی جنگ‌های آینده را بین تمدن غرب و اتحاد دو تمدن اسلامی و کنفوسیوسی میدانست.عده‌ای به کلی نافی نظریه وی شدند و از اساس آن را رد کردند. عده‌ای بدون چون و چرا آن را پذیرفتند و عده‌ای نیز با بحث و نظر حول آن در مجامع و محافل گوناگون به تحلیل و تبیین این نظریه پرداختند. بدون شک هیچ نظریه‌ای در حوزه علوم اجتماعی نظریه‌ای جهانشمول نبوده و نخواهد بود. تفاوت و اهمیت نظریه هانتینگتون به زمان شناسی و هوشمندی او در ارائه نظریه‌اش درست در هنگام وجود یک خلا فکری و نظری در حوزه روابط بین‌الملل برمیگردد.نظریه وی که نظریه‌ایسیاست‌سازشد این روزها با رشد گروه‌های بنیادگرای اسلامی در خاورمیانه و تقابل این گروه‌ها با غرب اهمیتش بیش از پیش در افکار عمومی و محافل دانشگاهی مطرح شده است. تصمیمات مقامات آمریکایی و غربی هنوز که هنوزه مستقیم و غیرمستقیم تحت تاثیر نظریه برخورد تمدن‌ها است و از آنجایی که کشور ماایراننیز بنابر نظریه هانتینگتون، به درست یا غلط، در تمدن اسلامی دسته بندی شده این نظریه برای ما از اهمیت ویژه ای برخوردار است.درمورد کتاب: کتاب از 3 فصل تشکیل شده است فصل اولپیش درآمدی بر نظریه و معرفی شخص هانتینگتون است. فصل دومترجمه اصلی مقاله و نظریه است و نیز مصاحبه‌هایی با هانتینگتون در باب نظریه‌اش. فصل سومنیز به مقالات، نظرات و انتقادات دیگر اندیشمندان و سیاستمداران جهان از جمله برژینسکی، سیدحسین نصر، فوکویوما، تافلر، ادوارد سعید و دیگران در باب نظریه برخورد تمدن‌ها میپردازد.

  • Jan Hidders
    2019-04-10 20:49

    There is no doubt that this is a must-read if you are interested in global politics. That does not mean that I think the book is right. Quite the contrary, I think the book is dangerously oversimplifying the current situation in world politics and trying to shoe-horn world events into a seductively simple-looking world view that, although advertised as a new paradigm, looks suspiciously like the cold-war paradigm on steroids. Since the human mind often prefers such simple explanations over more complicated ones, and because they also tend to be rather convenient for power-hungry leaders and institutions, these ideas should be very critically examined.As a whole the book seems well argued and an honest attempt at analysis. However, as soon as you start talking to people that are from and/or know more about particular regions and worlds such as the Islamic world, South America or Eastern Europe, I consistently find that they confirm that Huntington severely oversimplifies or even misrepresents the situation in that particular part of the world. I don't think that is a coincidence. So I would advice everybody who plans to pick up this book, to also make sure that you read afterwards some work that critically examines this book. For an idea of what the critique consists of, you might take a quick look on YouTube for a lecture by the late Edward Said under the title "The Myth of the Clash of Civilizations".

  • Hans
    2019-03-22 23:48

    A pretty decent book. I enjoyed it and his thesis was intriguing though a little simplistic and not entirely original. We as westerners sure do have an obsession with breaking everything down into nice little neat packages so they can be better classified and studied. That is both the strength and weakness of this book. If only cultures and civilizations were so easy to just lump people together under one stereotype wow that would make the world much more predictable than it is. Alas the world is full of cultures, sub-cultures and counter-cultures within each civilization and so it is a little more complex. This also has deep implications when it comes to foreign policy, if you treat every culture as homogeneous I believe you are making a grave mistake, especially if those sub-cultures or counter-cultures could be possible allies or enemies. There are so many examples of this: Saudi Arabia - Wahhabis vs. House of Saud, both Muslim one ally other enemy. Iran: Religious right vs. Moderate to secular Iran, one hates us the other likes western culture. Iraq: Kurds -like us, Sunnis-mixed between hate and like, Shiite - Mix between like and hate. I give these examples since Huntington's thesis argues that Muslim culture is the most prone to violence and thus the most dangerous. But the list goes on and on including even the US with the basic division of conservative and liberal which is even blurry at times. I guess I don't like that Huntington is basically creating a similar myopic world view that the US had during the cold war when the world was easily divided into three camps and all the disastrous foreign policy that followed as a result. The world is not black and white. It is not meant to be so easily divided and doing so I believe is creating a dangerously false paradigm of the world.

  • Youssef Al Amri
    2019-03-29 00:30

    في عام ١٩٩٦ ألف الكاتب صامويل هانتجتون كتابه " صدام الحضارات " بعد أن أثار مقال كتبه في عام ١٩٩٣ بنفس العنوان جدلاً كبيراً، فأحب أن يناقش أفكاره بشكل أوسع بطرحه هـذا الكتاب، وكالمقال فقد أثار الكتاب جدلاً أوسع في أنحاء العالم وخاصة بعد أحداث ١١ سبتمبر. وتبدأ النسخة العربية بمقدمة المترجم والتي فند فيها أفكار الكتاب واعترض على طرحه مما جعلني أشعر بعدم الرغبة في قراءته، فكنت أتمنى لو كان المترجم قد أجل تحليله لنهاية الكتاب وترك للقاريء حرية التحليل والاستنتاج.أهم الأفكار التي طرحها صامويل هانتجتون في كتابه هي كالتالي:١- يعرف الكاتب الحضارة بأنها الكيان الثقافي الأوسع الذي يضم الجماعات الثقافية وفيها يعرّف الناس أنفسهم بالنسب، الدين، اللغة، التاريخ، القيم، العادات، والمؤسسات الاجتماعية.٢- أن الصدامات على مر التاريخ متغيرة بحسب الفئات المتصارعه فمثلا في الثورة الفرنسية كان الصراع بين الطبقات ثم تغير الصراع بين القوميات في الحربين العالميتين.٣- بعد الحربين العالميتين تحول الصدام بين الأيدلوجيتين: الماركسية الشيوعية بقيادة الإتحاد السوفيتي من جهة والليبرالية الرأسمالية بقيادة أمريكا والغرب من جهة أخرى.٤- بعد إنهيار الإتحاد السوفيتي وسقوط الشيوعية بدا وكأن الليبرالية الرأسمالية انتصرت وستكون هي المسيطرة على العالم، وذهب بعض الكتاب كفوكوياما في كتابه " نهاية التاريخ " إلى أن جميع دول العالم ستتبنى الأيدلوجية الليبرالية الرأسمالية.٥- فند هانتجتون هذا التصور وغيره وتبنى تصوراً آخر مفاده أن الصدام سيتمر وسيتحول من صدام الأيدلوجيات إلى صدام الحضارات. وستحدث الحروب على خطوط التقسيم الحضاري.٦- واعتبر أهم الحضارات التي قد يحدث بينها التصادم هي الحضارات الكبرى : الآسيوية والهندية والإسلامية والأرثوذكسية والغرب.٧- وبما أن الكاتب غربي فقد اهتم بالحضارات التي تشكل تهديدا للغرب وقد تتصادم معه وهي : الحضارة الآسيوية بقيادة الصين والحضارة الإسلامية.٨- استجابة القادة والمفكرون السياسيون في المجتمعات المختلفة للتحديث والتغريب كانت واحدة من بين ثلاث استجابات: إما رفض التحديث والتغريب أو تبنيهما معا أو تبني الأول ورفض الثاني.٩- الحضارة الآسيوية تتقدم اقتصاديا وتسعى للتفوق على الغرب في هذا المجال مما يجعلها تتحرر من سيطرة الغرب وتأثيره الحضاري ومن ثم تعود لحضارتها التي تعتقد أنها أفضل من الحضارة الغربية بسبب هذا التفوق وكذلك ستسعى إلى زيادة قوتها العسكرية والتسلح وهذا ما يجعلها تشكل مركزا جديدا للعالم.١٠- الحضارة الإسلامية تعاني من التخلف والتمزق وعدم وجود دول مركزية قوية تقودها في التحديات التي تواجهها، وتعاني من عدم وجود ديموقراطيات حقيقية، وبحسب الكاتب فالأمر يعود للثقافة الإسلامية، والغرب كذلك من مصلحته أن تبقى هذه الديكتاتوريات الصديقة خير من ظهور ديموقراطيات معادية، وتكمن خطورة الحضارة الإسلامية على الغرب في شعوبها التي تتميز بمعدلات نمو سكانية وديموغرافية عالية وهجرتها إلى الغرب وعدم اندماجها هنالك وكذلك الصحوة الإسلامية التي تجعل المسلمين يتوقون إلى التخلص من سيطرة الغرب.١١- يستشهد الكاتب على رؤيته للصدام بين الحضارات بحروب البلقان التي حدثت بين الصرب والكروات والبوسنة وكيف أن كل حضارة ساعدت إخوانها ، فالألمان الكاثوليك ساعدوا الكروات، والروس الأرثوذوكس ساعدوا الصرب، بينما بعض الدول الإسلامية مثل تركيا وإيران والسعودية ساعدت البوسنيين.١٢- يرى الكاتب أن الحضارة الغربية بلغت أوجها وأنها في طريقها للإنهيار في مواجهة الحضارة الأسيوية الصاعدة ومركزها الصين، ويرى أنه ينبغي للغرب الحفاظ على القيم الغربية وإن تقلص سيطرتها على العالم.أتمنى لكم قراءة ممتعة.

  • Mohamed IBrahim
    2019-04-13 18:40

    الثورة -كما يتم تعريفها في قاموس شامبر الموسوعي للغة الإنجليزية- هي "تغيير شامل وجذري بعيد المدى في طرق التفكير وفعل الأشياء." نعم هي كذلك، فقد ثار الناس في العالم العربي ضد الأنظمة الفاسدة والراكدة لأنهم ينشدون التغيير الشامل الجذري بعيد المدى الذي وُصف في هذا التعريف. ثاروا لأنهم شعروا بالخيانة والغدر من قبل الأنظمة السياسية التي تتراوح من ممالك وهمية إلى جمهوريات استبدادية مزورة أو ما يعرف بـ "الجمهوريات الملكية" repubchies أو Jumilikiyate"، وهو مصطلح ابتدعه الناشط المصري الليبرالي سعد الدين ابراهيم لتصوير الاختراع العبقري للحكام العرب في أنظمة الحكم الذي يقوم على المزج بين النظامين الملكي والجمهوري. هكذا ثارت شعوب العالم العربي لأنهم وجدوا أنفسهم قد تركوا خارج مضمار سباق التاريخ الإنساني. ثاروا ليخبروا الآخرين أنه لا يوجد استثناء في تطلعات الإنسان للحرية والكرامة الإنسانية.حجتي في هذا الصدد أن تفكير إدوارد سعيد عن الشرق الأوسط، الشرق القديم، يبد حقيقيا وتنبؤيا لدرجة كبيرة. حجة سعيد هي أن البشرية جمعاء تتشارك في نفس الطموح والأمل في الحرية. لقد ثبتت صحة الحرية والكرامة الإنسانية بواسطة تلك الثورات التي اخترقت الإمبراطورية الاستعمارية من موريتانيا غربا وحتى سلطنة عُمان شرقا. لقد كان اتساع وانتشار تلك الثورات هو الأمل الذي طال انتظاره بقرب حلول لحظة تاريخية بشر بها إدوارد سعيد.لعل تلك الثورات هي أحسن إهداء لإدوارد سعيد بعد مرور سبع سنوات على رحيله. إن هي إلا لحظة تاريخية دقيقة نتذكر فيها دفاع إدوارد سعيد الحماسي عن تلك المنطقة وسكانها. بدون أدنى شك، فإن هذه الأحداث العظيمة هي الأكثر عفوية وردود بليغة على وصم العرب بالشيطنة، والتشهير، والتشويه، والتحريف الذي مورس على مر التاريخ وفي وقتنا المعاصر ضد العرب والمسلمين عن طريق خطابات المستشرقين القدامى والحاليين. ما علينا إلا أن نقر بأن تلك اللحظة في التاريخ العربي سوف تجبر آخر من تبقى من المستشرقين على قيد الحياة على الاختفاء لأن السحر والجمودية في التاريخ الشرقي لم تعد صالحة لكي يتخذوا منها مادة للبحث.الاستشراق كظاهرة معرفية هو عمل غربي خالص خلق صورة غير صحيحة، اختزالية، ومشوهة عن الشرق وشعبه وترك جذورا متراكمة ثقافيا، وأكاديميا اعتمدت عليها معظم المؤسسات التي غزت العقل الغربي عن الشرق والشرقيين. ونواجه في الخطاب الاستشراقي دوما صورة عميقة الجذور تقول إن ثمة "فرقا وجوديا قائما بين الطبيعة الجوهرية للشرق والغرب، مع تفوق الغرب بشكل حاسم على نظيره الشرقي. ومن المفترض في هذا الخطاب الاستشراقي أن المجتمعات الغربية -وما يرتبط بها من ثقافات ولغات وعقليات- هي في الأساس متفوقة بطبيعتها عن تلك الشرقية على نحو ما يذهب إدوارد سعيد بقوله إن "جوهر الاستشراق هو التمييز المتأصل بين التفوق الغربي والدونية الشرقية...". كما يذهب روديارد كبلنغ في قوله المأثور "الشرق شرق، والغرب غرب، ولا يلتقيان". وفي مثل هذه الاتجاهات الدوغماتية يبقى الشرق فقيرا مجمدا وخصما أبديا للغرب، كما أن له وظائف متضاعفة في انتشارها عند قضايا الثقافة والهوية والسياسة.وبسبب تلك الاختلافات الأساسية والجوهرية بين الكتلتين، ينبغي أن يكون هناك أيضا اختلافات معرفية ترى أن هذا النوع من الأدوات المفاهيمية، والفئات العلمية، والمفاهيم الاجتماعية، ووصف الفروق الأيديولوجية والسياسية وتوظيفها من أجل فهم المجتمعات الغربية والتعامل معها لا تزال قائمة، من حيث المبدأ، وغير ذات صلة، وغير قابلة للمقارنة مع تلك الشرقية". ولعل هذا التصنيف الوحيد والمحتقن هو المرجعية الأكثر خصوبة للتحزبات والنقاشات الجدالية كتلك التي ذكرتها في وقت سابق، والتي قدمها برنارد لويس، صمويل هنتنغتون، دانيال بايبس، وريتشارد بيرل.... الخ.على نفس المنوال نجد اثنين من الأصوات الاستشراقية الحديثة التي أكدت على التصريحات المماثلة عن الاستبعاد والتمييز العنصري بين الهويتين، الغربية واللاغربية، أو الغرب في مقابل باقي العالم. وفي أحد الجدالات الاستشراقية الشهيرة نجد برنارد لويس يعلمنا أنه "في تفسير الظاهرة السياسية الإسلامية ليس دقيقا اللجوء إلى تلك اللغة التي تفرق بين ما هو يميني ويساري، تقدمي ومحافظ، وغيرها من المصطلحات الغربية... فالأمر هنا أشبه بتحليل مباراة كريكيت بواسطة مراسل بيسبول". وفي تشبيه سخيف مشابه يمضي بنا مستشرق آخر من أمثال هـ. أ. ر. غب فيقول إن تطبيق "سيكولوجية وآليات المؤسسات السياسية الغربية لحالات آسيوية أو عربية لهو أقرب إلى أفلام كرتونية للأطفال كتلك التي تنتجها والت ديزني".الموقف الثوري العربي واسع النطاق يمثل حالة من التساؤل والتشكك تجاه السلطة العتيقة التي تميز عالم ما بعد الحرب في كل من الشرق والغرب. فمن الناحية السياسية، يبدو هذا الموقف خارج نطاق التيار السائد، وأن الأغلبية الصامتة التي جلبت هذا التغيير لا يمكن التنبؤ بأفعالها. ومن هذه الآليات الداخلية التي حققت نجاحا لم يحققه جورج بوش ومستشاروه من صقور المستشرقين المتسلحين بطائرات بي 52، و إف 16، وإف 15.لكن هذه المهمة الحضارية المعاكسة لا تزال تحت التهديد إن لم تلق العناية الكافية من الرصد ويتم تطعيمها بالتفكير الحكيم والثاقب من قبل العقول الخلاقة كتلك التي كان يمتلكها مفكرون من أمثال إدوارد سعيد. وفي تلك اللحظة الفارقة في تاريخ العالم العربي، كان لدى سعيد الكثير الذي كان بوسعه أن يعلمنا إياه عن الملابسات التي سنجابهها في خضم الأحداث الجارية والمقبلة. ولعل أولى نقاط الدرس الذي كان سعيد سيقوله لنا هو أن نكسب التحدي وننجح في تلبية التزاماتنا بتحقيق تغيير حقيقيولكن ما الذي حدث ؟ نجحت التهديدات الحضارية المعاكسة فى قلب الطاولة علي حلم الثورات العربية , ولأن الجميع انشغل بما يراه أمامه دون محاولة رصد مسار الأفكار التي تنتشر , لم يكن لدينا من يهدي لنا الطريق من عقول خلاقة مثل إدوارد سعيد يقدم لنا الدراسات المعرفية الللازمة لنا فى تلك المرحلة ما زالت الهجمة الحضارية لم تنتصر تماماٌ وربما كانت أفكار هنتجتون الأقرب الي التحقق ولكن الصراع بين الجماعات الجهادية الصاعدة بشكل عالمي والحضارة الغربية ليس الصراع المباشر الذي نشهده هذه الأيام هناك الرأسمالية وهيمنتها علي العالم تصارع من اجل سد ثغراتها وعوراتها التي ظهرت ولذا فان المعركة الحضارية الاساسية هي الحرب ضد الاستهلاكية وفكرة الهيمنة التي تتيحها المقومات الاخلاقية للرأسمالية التي تتخفي تحت لباس العولمة وما زال السياق مفتوح وربما بعد عدة سنوات قد أعيد كتابة مراجعة أخري للكتاب لا أوضح فيها ان ادوارد سعيد قام بالرد علي فكرة صراع الحضارات التي طرحت هنا بل وقتها ربما سأنتصر تماماٌ لإدوارد سعيد .

  • Kamal Sabry Shaker
    2019-04-20 00:31

    تقييمى للكتاب كان من المفترض ان يكون أقل من ذلك بسبب غرور الكاتب وتعاليه المستفز بتفوق الحضارة الغربية وقيادتها للعالم بالرغم من اعترافه بأن قيادة وريادة العالم كانت وقتاً طويلاً بعيدة عن الغرب وحضارتهلكن رأيت ان المتفوق مادياً عبر التاريخ هو من يكتب التاريخ حسب رؤيته وتقديره ولذلك فليكتب كما يشاء هنتجتون ونأخذ من الكتاب ما ينفعنا ونترك ما يضرنا. يرى الكاتب ان ضعف الحضارة العربية والاسلامية وأفول وهجها يعود فى الاساس لتشرذم طوائف المسلمين وتشتت جهودهم وتفرقهم تحت أعلام وولاءات مختلفة والبعد عن القيم الاسلامية ويدلل على ذلك بكثرة الفتوحات الاسلامية ايام الامويين والعباسيين. ولكن الكاتب يشطح فى هذا الجانب ويدعى ان طوائف الاسلاميين هم الاكثر دموية على مر التاريخ وصدام الحضارة الاسلامية مع نظيراتها من الحضارات المعاصرة لها وفيما بينهم ويتناسى فى هذا الصدد قتل الملايين فى الحروب المسيحية والبوذية والصينية وغيرها.

  • Ayman Alrefai
    2019-03-23 19:38

    the English review after the Arabic.=====================================صدام الحضارات لصاموئيل هنتنغتونبعد قراءة الكتاب أجد نفسي اتساءل: (هل الكتاب من طرح فكرة صدام الحضارات، أم أن الفكرة المقررة مسبقاً هي من استلزمت وجود هذا الكتاب.)في كم تحليلي عميق واطلاع تاريخي كبير لا يمكن اغفاله مطلقاً، يقوم صموائيل هنتنغتون بعرض محاور واطراف الصراعات العالمية وبخاصة ابان الحرب الباردة وما بعدها، عارضاً بعض الخصائص الخاصة عن تلك الثقافات او الحضارات المتصارعة او المتناحرة، او حتى تلك المتحالفة والتي تسمى بالمؤثرة، مستطرداً في ابراز الجانب الثقافي والحضاري المؤثر والمتفوق على الجانب الذي يرغب في الحضارة التي ينتمي اليها، والاتهام والهجوم على تلك التي يكره، متسلحاً بشيء من النقد الذاتي الخجول لحضارته "الغرب" حتى يتسم خطابه ولو صورياً بالحيادية والموضوعية.لكنه حقيقية رغم اكباري لبعض التحاليل السياسية لبعض الاحداث ودرايته ببعض خصائص الحضارات التي تحدث عنها ، الا ان هنتنغتون يجهل عن الحضارات التي تكلم عنها وطبيعتها اكثر مما يعلم.ولكن ما حاول تاكيده هي عدة نقاط اساسية وهي الهدف الذي وجد لاجله الكتاب:1) تفوق الحضارة الغربية وعالميتها، والمحاولة المستميتة لاظهارها بانها حضارة واحدة كونية متفوقة ذات وشائج ومقومات لا يمتلكها غيرها لذا امتلكت خاصية التاثير التي يفتقدها غيرها من الحضارات.2) مرحلة الصراع القادم بعد الحرب الباردة هي بين الغرب المتفوق وبين ايديولوجيات الشرق الصاعدة والمحملة بالعداء للغرب، وبشكل خاص الصين والاسلام.3) الاعتراف بالحضارة الاسلامية على استحياء كحضارة تاريخية كانت يوما ما، ووسمها بالتطرف والاصولية والفكر المنحاز للعصبية الدينية بعيد عن كل القيم الثقافية والخلقية والحضارية.4) التركيز على وحدة العالم الغربي والغزل الكبير لاوربا للبقاء في صف الولايات المتحدة الامريكية وتحميل امريكا الواجب في الحفاظ على ترابطها الغربي اذا ارادت الاستمرار كقوة كونية.5) ان سياسة الاستعمار المباشر القديمة، واستغلال الشعوب وضربها ببعضها البعض والتي كانت تحت شعار (فرق تسد)، يجب ان ترقى وتخضع لعملية تطوير في قالب جديد يحمل شعار (صدام الحضارات) للسعي الى ضرب هذه الشعوب داخليا باثارة الاختلافات الدينية والمذهبية والفكرية، ومن ثم ضربها بجيرانها، او خلق اتحادات اقليمية ببعض الجيران لضرب الجيران الاخرين تحت وطأة الاختلافات الثقافية في مفهوم اوسع لروابط الدين والمذهب والعرق.كل ذلك في خطوة جديدة للغرب لاعادة بسط سيطرته ونفوذه باسلوب جديد وفق مقتضيات الظروف الراهنة من هبوط وانهيار لسلطته ونفوذه امام التحولات الدولية والقوى الصاعدة في الشرق، وذلك من خلال اعادة هيكلة التوزع العالمي للثقافات واعادة تشكيل خارطة العالم السياسية منعاً لنشوء حضارة سامية جديدة تضم ثقافات مختلفة في بوتقة حضارية واحدة.========================================Review of the book (Clash of civilizations - Samuel Huntington)After reading the book I find myself wondering: ( is the author put forward the idea of a clash of civilizations, or is it predetermined idea is necessitated the existence of this book.)In how analytical deep and see historic large cannot be overlooked at all, Samuel Huntington displays axes and adversaries of the global conflicts, especially during the Cold War and beyond , offering some special characteristics from those cultures or civilizations conflicting or opposing , or even those allied and called influential, and digressions to highlight the cultural and civilizational side and superior influence on which side is willing to civilization to which he belongs, and the accusation and the attack on those that hated , armed with nothing of self-criticism for his own " West " so characterized his speech, also of neutrality and objectivity.But despite real admiration for the political analysis of some events and expertise with properties of civilizations that are talked about, Huntington is unaware of civilizations and it’s nature talked about more than he knows.But the emphasis is tried several key points, namely the goal that found for him the book:1) superiority of Western civilization and its universality, and the desperate attempt to show as one civilization superior cosmic and bonds and the ingredients are not owned by other so possessed influence property that are lacking in other civilizations.2) the next phase of the conflict after the Cold War is superior between the West and emerging between the ideologies of East and loaded hostility to the West, and particularly China and Islam.3) the recognition of Islamic civilization timidly civilization was a historic day, and labeling of extremism and fundamentalism and thought of religious nervous biased away from all cultural and moral values and civilization .4) focus on the unity of the Western world and spinning big for Europe to stay in a row the United States and download duty to keep USA on the west interdependence if it wants to continue as a global power .5) that the policy of direct colonialism old , and the exploitation of peoples and hit each other , which was under the slogan ( divide and rule ) , we must live and subject to the process of development in the form of a new logo ( clash of civilizations ) to seek to hit these people internally fomenting religious differences and religious, intellectual , and then hit its neighbors, or create some regional neighbors unions to strike the other neighbors under the weight of cultural differences in a broader concept of links religion and creed and race.All this in a new step for the West to re- extend its control and influence new way according to the requirements of the current circumstances of the fall and the collapse of authority and influence in front of international changes and rising powers in the East, and through the restructuring of distribution of global cultures and reshape the map of the world political order to prevent the emergence of civilization sublime new with different cultures in the crucible of one civilization.Ayman alrefaiDoha, Qatar21/10/2012

  • Mark
    2019-03-23 01:35

    Huntington challenged my thinking on several issues:1. Culture at the macro, or "civilizational" level plays a fundamental role in global politics - including conflict. In fact, it plays a more enduring role than ideology.2. Western culture isn't necessarily destined to become universal (I admit that I believed - and still do sometimes - otherwise), in fact, Western civilization is in fact in decline based on several measures such as population, wealth, political, and military influence.3. Conflicts are less likely to be resolved when they are between civilizations that don't have a "core state." For example, Islamic culture currently lacks a "core state" and that, according to the author, will make it less likely that conflicts between elements of this culture will avoid armed conflict and when involved in armed conflict they will be less likely to resolve these conflicts.These are just three of Mr. Huntington's ideas that challenged my assumptions and my "paradigm" about the world and armed conflict. I don't think the author gives enough credit to societies that really do seem to be functioning as cultural melting pots - like the United States - or even the experience of peoples who change on a civilizational level. He doesn't address how civilizational culture changes and develops - he mainly points out it's near primacy in conflict.I was challenged by this book, therefore I loved it! The only reason I didn't give it 5 stars is that the author's premise begged some questions that he didn't address such as the one I already mentioned about how civilizations develop and change. What exactly is this process and can a civilization consciously change itself? He lifts up Kemal Attaturk's Turkey as an example of fundamental cultural shifts being nearly impossible. But, I want to know what role incremental change plays. What role in modern Hindu civilization did Western culture play? - re: the british colonization. Likewise, is Attaturk's Turkey really an example of failed civilizational realignment? or is it a positive example of incremental and fundamental reformation of a civilizational culture?I have to believe that deep cultural values can change. I do believe that in fact, western culture is superior in many ways (but by no means all ways) to more traditional cultures. Especially when it comes to equality for women and minorities, rule of law, property rights, and other fundamental western civilizational ideals. However, I now realize that my belief isn't self evident to the rest of the world and that in fact, my civilizational culture isn't destined to be adopted by the world. I thoroughly enjoyed this book because of the insights provided, the challenge to my thinking it caused, and the burning questions it begs. Certainly Huntington's views are a valuable and have some demonstrable explanatory power. Just as certainly, he isn't the final word on the subject and his insights may help us form questions, shape policies, and frame issues in ways that will help us to navigate our way in a world where Western Civilization is no longer ascendent.

  • Jacob Aitken
    2019-04-08 20:33

    should have picked up Huntingdon's work earlier. It is awesome. He argues (or at least the structure of his thought necessarily suggests such) that the utopian vision of liberal democracy (whether right or left-wing) has failed miserably and that societies will revert back to their original civilizational paradigms.By that he doesn't mean that societies will simply turn back the clock. Rather, the civilizations from which nation-states emerged have a stronger pull upon the states that some post-Enlightenment view of "democratic capitalism." In short, "people and culture" trump artificial ideology.Huntingdon lists several civilizations:Sinic/Hindu: China, Southeast Asia, and India. I realize that India could legitimately be a separate civilization (and I believe it is), but I'm listing it under China for several reasons: to keep the list from multiplying unnecessarily and because India will probably ally itself with China in the near future.Islamic: Most of the Middle East and all of northern Africa. Malaysia and Indonesia are also Islamic, but they will be subsumed under China in terms of influence. One caveat: I do not believe the Islamic civilization can be delineated the way Huntingdon portrays it.African: Subcontinent; northern Africa is distinct from area below Sudan.Western: originating from Western Christendom (post AD 800-1204), but largely trashing that heritage today. Nevertheless, maintains the skeleton of Charlemagne and Christendom, especially seen in the form of the European Union and NATO.Orthodox/Slavic: Russia is the de facto leader of this civilization, given her wealth, size, and influence. Includes eastern Ukraine, Belarus, most of the Balkans. Interestingly, I would identify much of Western Europe pre 600 AD as "Orthodox." Inheritor of Byzantium. Religious differences notwithstanding, this civilization is able to make strong ties/alliances with Middle East. Syria is 30% Orthodox anyway. Likely to form some kind of coalition with Middle Eastern countries and China to offset NATO/EU's march of mutual destruction.Latin AmericaHowever, I disagree with Huntingdon on the Middle East. I think the Middle East is in an identity crisis between Fundamentalism and Nationalism. Islamic countries like Syria and Turkey, for all of their problems, lean closer to nationalism than "jihadism." Likewise, I maintain that Iran is more nationalist than fundamentalist, though it is very much the latter, too (cf Primakov's Russia and the Arabs).Samuel Huntingdon's Clash of Civilizations. It was truly the work of a genius. Huntingdon is too pro-D.C. and very naive concerning the purity of NATO's motives, but other than that he is prescient on about every major issue (He wrote this book in 1996). Civilizations assume the reality of objective cultures, but they are not identical to culture(s). I can't remember exactly how SH defines civilization. There is an extended discussion on pp. 40-44. Frankly, I don't think his definition, if any, is really that important. His book deals more with the empirical identity and clash of civilizations, rather than objectively defining them.Civilizations have core states: states that have at least de facto leadership over smaller states in the civilization. For example, Russia is the core state of the Orthodox civilization (which includes Ukraine, Belarus, and the Balkans, though the latter are compromised by their membership in NATO; likewise, China is the core st ate of the East Asian civilization, excluding Japan).Wars between actual core states of civilizations are quite rare. However, fault line wars are quite common. These are wars/battles/century-long skirmishes between two smaller states of two different civilizations that border each other. The obvious example is the Balkans: Orthodox Serbia fought Muslim Bosnia, both of whom were at war with Catholic Croatia.While ideologies (Marxism, democratic capitalism) are nice and make academics and news pundits feel good, civilization/culture has a more primal claim upon people groups/ethnicities/states and in the absence of one ideology (say, Marxism) a nation will more likely identify with prior civilizational loyalties rather than the opposing ideology. For example, an old joke in former Soviet Union: our leaders lied to us about communism, but they told us the truth about capitalism.Pros of the book:His analysis is top-notch. We are reading a world-class scholar. Unlike 99% of elites in America, he knows that simply waving the magic wand of democratic capitalism will not make the nations swoon and willing become colonies of New York--and Huntingdon was actually attacked for making this obvious point! He calls the Islamic threat for what it is. He is notorious for his famous "The borders of Islam are bloody." I don't really know how people can objectively respond to this claim. Yeah, it might be mean and bigoted, but look at the major hot spots of the world today--what religion is causing most of the trouble? In 1996 (at the time of the writing) 49 of the world's 58 current conflicts had Islam involved. If it looks like a duck...He gives an accurate (though extremely dated) analysis of the Balkan Wars of the 1990s. Of course, a lot of his musings are moot considering NATO's bombing of civilians in Belgrade in 1999. Still, per his thesis on civilizational clash on fault lines, he does a stellar performance. Catholic Germany supported Croatia, the entire Muslim world--along with Hillary Clinton and Sean Hannity--supported the Muslim Bosniaks, and Russia supported Serbia. (he also documents American double-standards and calls them for what they are: when Muslims massacre a village and kidnap teenage girls it is because they are noble freedom fighters w. When Serbs execute 8,000 men in the 28th Bosnian Muslim infantry, it is because they are evil and genocidal. Even more strange, American conservatives who are almost 100% anti-Islam never challenge this fact and actually support Muslims). Along similar lines is the Turko-Armenian-Azeri wars of the 1990s. Armenia was an Orthodox state who was beset by Muslim Turkey and Muslim Azeribaijan. During the Cold War the Soviet leadership had Armenians serving in high-rank positions and being trained by elite special forces. When the USSR fell, the Armenian military, keeping the Motorized Rifle divisions of that region, had a fairly impressive, if small, military. Russian intervention in the 1990s kept her smaller sister Armenia from being overrun by Muslims.And these are just two examples. Huntingdon ends with a fairly interesting scenario on what WW3 will look like and how it will start. A few qualms with the book: he actually thinks NATO is preserving Western civilization and evidently he ignores the fact that his best friend, Zbignew Brzezinski advocates using the War on Terror as a way to surround Russia with missiles and bases. Ironically, Huntingdon had argued that doing so would actually make America lose the next world war, which will be a clash between a Chinese or Islamic (or both) civilization. Huntingdon didn't write many more books after this. He had a high standard of writing and actually threw away many top-notch manuscripts because they weren't good enough. Too bad, for he is definitely worth reading.

  • Rodney Harvill
    2019-04-15 00:58

    This book was written in 1996, a few years after the end of the Cold War, and introduced a world order paradigm based on conflict between civilizations (as opposed to ideologies such as capitalism vs communism). The material is obviously dated, but the author made some good points to consider.The use in the book of the break-up of Yugoslavia and the resulting civil war between Catholic Croatians, Orthodox Serbs and Islamic Bosnians got my attention. (I had spent several months in 1993 cruising up and down the Adriatic while my ship's air wing was enforcing the Bosnia no-fly zone.) The author used this as a case study in civilization clash. In general, western Europe backed the Croatians. Russia and Greece backed the Serbs, and the Islamic world backed the Bosnians. The one outlier was the U.S., which provided minimal backing to Bosnia because early news reports documenting atrocities against them aroused widespread sympathy among the general public.Mr. Huntington had provoked a firestorm of protest by documenting that the one civilization (out of Western, Orthodox, Sino, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, African and Latin American) that was clashing the most with its neighbors was Islamic. I don't believe the years since have provided any evidence to debunk his assertion.

  • Nika
    2019-04-05 19:37

    I have found that political books—especially those suffused with predictions of future world events—simply do not age well. Huntington's central thesis that the post-Cold war order will be drawn along cultural and social lines remains relevant to modern 21st century politics. But I found myself irked by many of his forecasts.For example, he predicted that Mandarin would replace English as a lingua franca for the new age. Given the enormous population of China it's not easy to see why this is a fairly unreasonable stance. Mandarin Chinese is spoken by 1.09 billion people and English is spoken by 983 million, including secondary language speakers. It has been twenty-one years since this book was written and 55% of all websites are in English, and 80-90% of papers in scientific journals are written in English. Many still believe Mandarin will become the global language at some distant point in the future, but Huntington did argue that the use of English will gradually erode as a medium across cultures. I consider this improbable. He also claimed there would be a decline in Western military spending. In inflation-adjusted dollars, U.S. military spending actually increased steadily from 1996 to 2010. In 2013, U.S. military spending decreased from $671 billion to $619 billion. This is the largest noticeable decline of U.S. military spending recorded since 1991. A military budget of $619 billion still dwarfs the spending of other countries in the world. This error is pardonable since—at the time this book was being written—U.S. military spending was indeed on a brief decline. In modern American politics few argue that the U.S. is not spending enough on military. (In my opinion, this would be a fairly absurd stance.) I believe it is very difficult to accurately predict future events based on present realities. The most pernicious element of predictive works is their frequent adoption of a framework of inevitability. To distinguish prevailing trends from persisting geopolitical structures is a demanding task.Global politics is in constant flux. Using inevitability to gauge the future world order is ultimately a weak position.

  • Aashish
    2019-04-04 18:46

    I found this book seminal in its content and coverage for three key reasons:- The book is based on an essay written in 1993, post which various editions were published 1996 through 1998 in the first go. The applicability of the ideas and the constructs of the author are valid 20 years later. In fact many of the civilizational fault lines the author covers are manifesting as is 2 decades hence. It is easy to rate or berate anthropology / sociology texts based on their analysis of historical events. Very rarely however it is possible to rate a text based on its brilliant standing to future scrutiny.- The book offers a kind of a play book to analyze global alliances, conflicts and soft and hard foreign policy positioning outside of the usually accepted political and economic impulses. Although not every global foreign event can be explained in the context of civilizations, this book helps create a good mind map of loosely and closely connected states.- Finally, the book offers the chilling possibility that modern state as a unit of organization and governance may someday be challenged and even replaced by broad groupings deriving common cause from civilizational issues. This is already playing out in the Middle East in the form of ISIS conquests and one can almost apply the arguments mentioned in the book in their entirety to this conflict.The author has put in great stress in explaining how the Islamic civilization is different from and at loggerheads with all other historical civilizations. The detailing offered covers areas like victimhood narrative, primacy of violence inherent to the religion in this case and an expansionist tendency matching with universality concept is brilliant. Several of these issues keep getting swept under the carpet in the name of political correctness in modern literature and contemporary societies. Other than calling this caliphate-sultanate duality and overlap, the author also talks about subjects like Balkanization, emergence of South Sudan, the division of Ukraine and the likely Crimean affinity to Russia triggering conflicts - all of them have played out in the last few years.The emerging alignments among the civilizations that the author describes is a great summary for the book. One can already see global political developments along those lines.There are a few disappointments too - the author has overly stressed routine events of the 90s as those which are fundamental to civilizational alignments. These are events like political statements, tactical war aids, government formations in democracies and so on. The concept of the world order being remade per civilizational lines is far broader and far reaching than these events represent. Forcing or explaining its applicability in the limited context of a few years or even a decade seems stretched. This or related points have been highlighted in the several negative reviews - though many of them came before the current Ukrainian and ISIS crises. Another area was the way the book is summarized - the author takes a Western view and analyses what Western civilization means and needs to do to survive over a period of time. This analysis in itself is fine, but the author misses the chance to end the book on a high - by describing a broader world order - possibilities and probabilities. Overall, this is a fascinating piece of work which may become increasingly relevant as the world grapples with the rise of Islamic hegemony and as the economics of the world continues to becomes increasingly Sinic. Some books, classified as great when written, lose steam over a period of time. This one seems to be traversing the reverse path.

  • Vaso
    2019-04-07 22:31

    Huntington refers to the post-Cold War era in his hypothesis that cultural differences in our international society will lead to conflict. He comments on the importance of borders among nation states and perpetuates the realist notion that cultural differences can only lead to conflict. Instead of embracing the differences that unite us, he states that some actors are bound to be more powerful, hence conflict is inevitable. When referring to the “great cultural divisions” he brings as the principal example that of religious variance. The reasoning behind his view on the current state of affairs is that fundamental cultural differences are “the product of centuries”, so they will not disappear any time soon. This statement incorrectly assumes that cultural values and traditions are innate and non-fluid. In extension, he claims that because of the rigidness of such values (that vary across different cultural groups) individuals will be less willing to shed their identity or their “civilization consciousness”. While this might be a valid point, it does not consequently account for his belief that there will be a power hierarchy, which will lead to conflict. The world does not inherently center around a constant quest for power. Moreover, Huntington creates a divide among the West and what he considers to be the non-West. The notion of “the West and the Rest” is highly imperialistic and problematic. Ultimately, he divides our entire world into two categories, with the West being the predominant one. He commits a fallacy by such generalizations and this demonstrates his distorted definition of the concept of civilization. He states that divisions are natural without showing any actual evidence for this stream of consciousness. His imperialistic viewpoint ignores institutions other than religion that shape what he considers to be cultural identity. Additionally, he portrays an anti-Islamist attitude, which is conveyed through the notion that the simple “interaction between Islam and the West” can only be viewed as a clash of civilizations, due to the alleged attachment that Muslims have to their identity .

  • David Withun
    2019-04-16 22:32

    While I don't always agree with Huntington's conclusions and opinions -- and I sometimes dispute his "facts" -- I must say that this book is an excellent introduction to the issues that we, inhabitants of the world, face as the world continues to "shrink" and members of such a great variety of civilizations and cultures are brought closer and closer together. "The other" is often more different from ourselves -- and more difficult to really understand -- than most of us would like to admit. Two features of this book that stood out to me as especially worthy of consideration were: 1. Huntington's consideration of what it is that makes Western Civilization different from the other civilizations of the world and 2. Huntington's examination of the roots of Islamic violence. In these two areas especially I think that his commentary is especially insightful and helpful. I recommend this book to all people of all civilizations as seek to live together peacefully in this complex world of ours.

  • Rashed Alzahrani
    2019-03-28 23:42

    تقييمي بشكل عام للكتاب انه ممتاز واستفادتي منه كانت كبيرة.يقسم المؤلف -بإختصار شديد- كتابه إلى خمسة أقسام رئيسية ذات تسلسل وتدرج منطقي حيث:- يبدأ بطرح تعريفات الحضارة ومكوناتها وأسس الهويات فيها ومفاهيم الصراعات الثقافية الكبرى. - ثم ينتقل إلى الحديث عن الضعف الذي سيطرأ على الثقافة الغربية في ميزان القوة العسكرية والاقتصادية والسكانية لصالح القوى الشرقية والإسلامية. - ثم الحديث عن نظام الحضارات الناشئ والتفاف الدول ذات الثقافات المتقاربة حول "دول المركز". - ثم يأتي إلى مناقشة فكرة الصدام الحضاري العالمي.- وأخيراً، يختم بجملة تلخص الهدف من الكتاب حيث يقول:‫"‬صدام الحضارات هو الخطر الأكثر تهديدا للسلام العالمي، والضمان الأكيد ضد حرب عالمية هو نظام عالمي يقوم على الحضارات"الكتاب فيه إلماحات جميلة إلي قضايا حضارية قد طال النقاش حولها كفكرة تحديث المجتمعات وعلاقتها بالتغريب ومحاولات طمس هوية الأمة ومدى نجاحها؛ وفكرة الإختلاف الداخلي بين عناصر الأمة الواحدة والتعامل مع هذا الاختلاف.الكتاب ضخم (أكثر من ٥٠٠ صفحة) لكنه فعلاً غاية في المتعة والفائدة.

  • Joe
    2019-03-29 01:43

    This is a decent book in the manner that the author covers many different aspects of interaction between different cultures and civilizations, with a lot of research and some adequate analysis. It is however, in my opinion, deeply flawed; as a lot of missing factors were neglected, either because of a lack of space or concern by the author. I would not recommend it to anyone as a primer on international relations, however for further study there are some good points to be considered. His analysis seems to be far too simplified, and as the book develops he seems to use the techniques of mass media to use certain facts presented in a specific light to create an impression.

  • Cary
    2019-04-17 02:52

    When Civilizations Clash This book is as ambitious as its full title--The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order--is long. Published in 1997, its author, Samuel Huntington, lays out what he sees as the new alignment of the world in the wake of the end of the Cold War and the sudden disappearance of the communist block as the arch-foe of the NATO countries and their allies and client states. The year was probably just enough time after the 50 years of tension to see the inklings of the new alignments coming. That the basic shape of the world today, its political blocks, its new tensions, largely conforms to Huntington's vision, owes a lot to this fact. At the same time, Huntington deserves props for the accuracy of his main prediction as well as a few subordinate ones. I read this book as part of a dive into the (non-fictional) conservative literature corpus and I would put it near the top of what I've read so far in terms of understanding where many (most?) on the US right are coming from. Culture matters The foundation of the new international political order rests on the notion that absent any larger concerns groups, up to and including nations, will tend to gather culturally. To be clear, this is an utterly uncontroversial thing to say. No social scientist would disagree with it. There are of course always exceptions, both individuals and countries--it's called a tendency for a reason.  So, while on the one hand, this is obvious to the point of banality, on the other, we often don't accept it. It's probably also fair to say that in the specific context of the immediate post-Cold War world, more than a few people had a lot trouble accepting it and its implications.  Now, just because we acknowledge this outgrowth of our innate tribalism doesn't mean we shouldn't work to bridge these cultural divides. Human cultural differences and tendency to prefer the familiar isn't going anywhere soon, so we should always be aware that this work is difficult and frustrating and no matter how many bridges get built, more will always be needed. This goes to the heart of a core conservative belief: that there are limitations on what we can achieve socially and we ought to be careful about how and how fast we try to create social change. In the more extreme forms of this we ought not to try at all; further down the scale, you find nationalist notions and, well, you don't need me to finish this extrapolation for you, do you? But regardless of where one sits on this social policy conservatism scale, you get certain corollaries, like suspicion (or stronger dislikes) of authority and big government. The New Current World Order Much of the middle part of the book is taken up by laying out the culture-based civilizations to come (as seen from 1997) and looking at the world today, Huntington was downright prescient: Western (Western Europe, the US, Canada, Australia, etc.), Asian (China and most of the far east, but NOT Japan), Islamic (countries that are majority Muslim of course), Latin (the Americas south of the US), and African (sub-Saharan Africa, basically).  One notable division of these civilizations is the presence of a core country, for example the US within Western, China within Asian. Conversely, there's no obvious core country in the Islamic civilization, at least not in the same way that China dominates and can put pressure on other Asian countries. Likewise, Latin America is in a strange situation: the obvious contender is Brazil, but its status is hampered by its linguistic isolation.  Swing States Wondering about Japan? Well, it and a couple other countries--India and Russia--are single-country civilizations. And they have particular roles to play too. If you follow US elections, think swing states, basically. After this, Huntington discusses the fault lines and conflicts that he sees arising. Again, there's nothing here that will surprise any observer from 2017, though some missed opportunities might be noted. He stresses the importance of the single-country civilizations for tipping balances of power, and astute 21st century readers will surely have noticed failure of the West and Russia to bridge their differences as a counter to Islam and/or China. (Blame goes on both sides in this, if you ask me, but such a discussion is outside the scope of this review.) Riding Two Horses Another thing he addresses are so-called conflicted countries (possibly not the word he used, I'm writing this two books after having read Clash and I'm too lazy to check). These are countries straddling two civilizations.  The best example is Turkey, teetering between the West and Islam. But another is Mexico, semi-Western and part of the NAFTA agreement, but still very Latin too. Huntington does not have much good to say about countries in this position in a world where things are aligned primarily along culture. And looking at the how things are going in Turkey today, it's hard to say he's wrong. In his estimation, the differences between Islamic and Western civilizations are too much to allow Turkey to make the jump (to say nothing of how the EU has been, shall we say, less than enthusiastic about it joining). Mexico, he conjectures, might manage it: Latin America was settled by Europeans too after all, so Mexico (and Latin America in general) should be an easier fit with the West. Doom and Gloom The end of the book is largely occupied with more conservative notions about culture and civilization. In particular, dire predictions about the fate of Western civilization and culture should it fail to remain cohesive and fail to keep at least one or two of Russian, India, and Japan as friends against Asia and to a lesser extent, Islam. He also worries that if too many Latins settle in the US, it could become a conflicted country too.  Finally, there's a full-on doomsday scenario involving North Korea, which, while the details are way off, certainly seems relevant in general today. Bottom Line So, overall, I think it's a book worth reading regardless of your politics. Certainly, the basic ideas seem to accurately reflect the world today and as such constitute a useful model for understanding it. Like all models, it has its limitations though. And of course, there's no predicting monkey wrenches: Donald Trump, for example, probably has Huntington rolling over in his grave (and indeed, anyone who accepts Huntington's argument that the West needs to hang together and cultivate swing civilizations like Japan if it wants to preserve its Westernness ought to be alarmed by Trump). Putin too might be considered one, though the West certainly did it's share to agitate Russia over the last 20 years.At least as important as its value as a way to view the world is the insight I see it giving on conservatism in the United States today. Many of the ideas in it are plain in what conservatives are concerned about and the policies they support. You may think the whole premise is BS but still gain an understanding of conservatives.Finally, I should add that its well-written and its clear Huntington (a political scientist by education and trade) is well-informed.

  • Seth
    2019-04-06 20:53

    The thesis was so simple it was as if I had always believed it but I was unfair to take credit for assuming the simplicity was something that I had synthesized prior to reading the book. Huntington, clarifies what seems so obvious. That the world clusters by civilizational boundaries. People tend to fight with or against one another based upon multiple cultural factors that make up one's civilizational heritage rather than superficial borders created by a nation state. Thus, Democracy and Communism are not the most dispositive factors to predict a conflict, rather, religion, language, and ethnicity are much more likely to inform the degree of conflict. I found the author's research on Islam's "bloody borders" to be especially fascinating. While 1/3 of the globe is Muslim, 2/3 of modern conflicts involve an Islamic side. Before reading, I believed that ideologies informed a countries liklihood to enter conflicts. Specifically, that democratic capitalist nations play nice because they trade together. Therefore, spreading an ideology of capitalism and democracy is a just policy objective for the United States and the "West". However, Huntington convinces me that it is futile and possibly immoral to impose western ideologies on other civilizations. There are multiple nuances about modernity, the western imperative of universal values, and the future of global power discussed here that are worthy of the read.

  • Syed Ahmad
    2019-04-11 22:52

    It is very interesting to read about Huntington point of view regarding the world politic post cold war. While others such as Thomas Friedman suggest that increase interaction between cultures as the transportation and communication improves would lead to a more open and universal cultures, Huntington's classic analysis argue that there is no evidence to prove such assumption, in fact it will only catalyze more conflicts. I find this analysis rather pessimist.Huntington in the book defines identity brilliantly in the book, emphasized the role of religion that shape most of peoples identity and direction in life.In regard of the westernization and modernization, I find a rather fair and plausible argument. Huntington made clear distinction between the two, I do believe the latter one can be achieve even without the former. Embracing Islam is not a statement that reject modernity, people can be modern and civilized without having to embrace western values in totality.

  • Xdyj
    2019-04-08 21:42

    Pretty well written, though imho many opinions in it might be oversimplified or overgeneralized. At least as someone growing up in the so-called "Sinic civilization", I can't imagine our future leaders to be stupid enough to ever directly challenge the west for world dominance. Finally, non-western cultures can be reformed to embrace "western" values like individual freedom and human rights, e.g. Japan and Taiwan, and within "western civilization" there are also some reactionary and totalitarian currents that seek to undermine those "western" values.

  • MarcosKtulu
    2019-04-13 21:54

    Huntington effort translates into an account the way of post cold war international relations were influenced by the re-emergence of cultural identity components in the largest mensurable unit, the civilization. His inquires are motivated in the mid 90's political phenomena, of which he has plenty of examples and case by case analysis to do. It is an entretaining experience to relieve this 22 years old picture of the world, and see that no End of history was anywhere near, and how, if any of his asssertions would prove valid in time. For example, he predicted that islam population growth rate would engage it's overwhelmingly young agers to seek governmemt reforms, similar to those seen in the arab spring. Likewise, he imagined an all vs all war happening in 2010, over a war between USA against China. Fortunatelly, despite cultural differences and interests, these two countries are still better chatacterized by cooperation than confrontation. Since adherence to a civilization depends on a great deal on people's perception of it's idientity, Huntington relies often in opinion polls and surveys done within each civilization. That is, the degree by which certain society builds an 'us' and a 'them'. Societies within the same civilizational group tend to cooperate much better with their kins than with so called aliens and outsiders from a different cultural group. Along the fault lines between different civilizations the scenario is most prone for conflict. His test case is Yugoslavia, but he also displays a notable command of 90s international affairs to quote in support of his points.

  • Eoin Evans
    2019-04-14 22:00

    I enjoyed this book and have learnt a lot from it. Some passages evoked fear with the feeling that the demise of the west is imminent. Particularly enjoyed reading about nuclear non-proliferation. Interesting points were raised about the perils of western involvement in other civilizations realms as well as the possibility for future conflicts in Crimea and the south china sea (this was written in mid 90s). Walked away with an appreciation of how western culture and beliefs are distinct and shouldn't be the universal standard that other civilizations aspire to become as they modernize. Modernize does not equal westernize. Would like an updated version with Huntington's thoughts on the middle east after the bush and obama administrations. Particularly since their policies were close to what Huntington warns against doing.

  • Parth Sangani
    2019-03-27 23:59

    Eye-Opening. Page after page of compelling data, presented in a way that is simple but not simplistic; all the more powerful with so many predictions coming true after the book was published: Rise of Hindu nationalism in India, Chinese assertion on territories with people of Chinese descent, and a whole lot more. One may not wholly agree with the some of the more fantastical scenarios projected, but it does force one to stop and question what human culture really is. Coupled with GEB, the slowest book I've read but also one which has changed me to an astonishing degree. A must read for all fans of History, Culture, Philosophy, Psychology; Humanity.