This looks like an old article by Prof. Huntington that also is from his seminal book - The Clash of Civilizations.
Ignorance and bitter memories via identifications and identity-politics spring as immediate factors here. In brief: What is politics? What is religion? What do they mean by themselves and what is/are their end-objective(s) or goal(s)? Once that can be adequately answered, much of the answers are completed. I have written something that is related to the topic at hand and is found at www.johnlately.webs.com where it leads to the Freedom Network blog. Interested readers may read them. One however does feel that getting our semantics correctly (across the spectrum) over the terms that one uses and in their meanings (primarily by the actors themselves) in such contexts make for better sense, even as it lends to a better comprehension of differences. As one would find out - the answers are self-explanatory in many senses, while educating the rest of the world about and over the 'world' at play here!
May we all get educated soon enough by the actors here - and thus move away from a topic that catches our attentions so in nervousness!

The clash of civilizations.

American's the ones that believe they are part of western civilisation, they are NOT "Samuel Huntington included" they have being around from 1776, a somewhat short period of time so they Obama and the rest of the American government, do not really understand the western mind that created them, this is one of the reason why Washington behaves the way it does, kind of incivilities are common; and it is normal, western civilization has being around for more than 2000 years. in Europe Not America or New York!! 1776, is just a wink away. and 1840, is also not far away from today. education in fact is lacking most Americans do not even know were they came from and how they got there. the planet only hopes is the education and manners, civility and class of the American minds; it is indeed a clash of civilisations and is between the newly American 1766, civilisation and western European culture that is generating this clash's, something that Samuel Huntington quietly did not mention. and most of his media manipulations have no foundation of actual knowledge of the truth. The lack of capacity to fully understand the civilization that engender him, Mr: Samuel Huntington's is the logic of his writing's, nothing more than media manipulation.

1776 was a short time ago, but look at the changes since then. Do you perhaps believe that Rouse himself conceptualized the rights of man? This is a document that Europe hangs it's hat on as a guiding document of liberty. I would suggest the those who are interested read the Virginia declaration written mostly by George Mason with input by both Jefferson and Washington. I find it of interest that a document written 20 years prior to the rights of man has so must in common. We are America. some of us are educated and rude and some are just rude, but were are a diverse group. You suggest that we look to where we come from. We have reviewed our past. We are the unwashed and unwanted. We are the thieves and debtors that were cast from an old world to take our chances in a new. We were always the undesirables so why complain about us now. We are the west. We are the accumulation of every culture on the globe. East does not meet west in Istanbul, they meet at time square on a hotdog with sauerkraut. I have to say I agree with your stance on Huntington, what he knows of geography he lacks in history.

American diplomacy and its imperialistic nature is now completely based on the principles of The Clash of Civilization. The first major breakthrough was made by the Americans was the creation of Taliban in Afghanistan and labeling a new form of Islamic rule there, banning education for women and forbidding them from jobs. The second step was to form Free Syrian Army to fight against Bashar Al-Asad using the the most tactical Shia and Sunni images. The Islamic state is another group originated by the help of Saudi Arabia and America. This is because initially they got encouraging support from them. Since the emergence of Islamic State in Iraq America has been arguing for an inclusive government in Iraq letting the ISIS capture a vast region of Iraq. Here is also using the Shia and Sunni as well as Kurdish issues. America and Israel are trying to make the Kurdish leader agree for an Independent Kurdish state.
When Baghdad is trying to form an inclusive government in Iraq America is trying to supply weapons directly to Kurdistan to fight the ISIS bypassing the central government in Iraq. This is not a good attempt, I think. There might have an intention of making a powerful Kurdistan who will be able to go ahead with the process of Independence.
Now America is in very good position to play her bargaining cards making an excuse of ISIS.
This is the most dangerous time for the Middle East that it is facing at one way Egypt and Arabs appeared to be pets to America and Israel and on the other hand situation in Syria and Iraq is out of control for the lover of the Palestinians.
Therefore, my humble request for the Egyptians and the Arabs to come forward breaking your contagious sleep; and stand against your stupid rulers and make them understand what to be done today for the safety of Palestine and the people of the world.

Mr. Billah, I can say that some of your facts are accurate but to a very small degree. The American government did support the fight against Russia in Afghanistan with weapons, money and training. It was the Afghanistan's that allowed the Taliban into their dwellings and corrupted their culture. I can not comprehend how American assisted in any way the creation of an Islamic state pan Syria/Iraq. I personally would love to see an independent Kurdish state. The kurds have been at the end of the whip by Iraq Turkey and Syria for decades. I would love the peoples of Iraq and Syria to find a path to self determination and enjoy freedom of choice that existed during the time of Hammurabi though not quite under that type of doctorial form. There is nothing in the region America wants or needs. We do not want the restrictive dominate religion of the area. We do not want the cultural tendencies of lies and agreements broken by the wind. You blame us for Palestine yet it was Jordan that murdered 5000 woman and children refugees. If you state fact, state all of the facts. America has many faults. Honduras, Giana, Vietnam, the Shaw in Iran, Panama, All of these were mistakes in decision making, but they happened. These efforts were seen as Cold War initiatives to keep communism at bay. They could and should have been handled with more care and forethought. On the other side the computer you type on and the cellular phone you use today originated from the very same American Cold War initiatives. In America we do not care if you are Shia, Sunni, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, or Christian. Americans care about the freedom to choose ones own destiny. All choice comes with consequence. We are experiencing the ramifications of government choices made 30 to 50 years ago. Those of an ancient land have a choice today, carry on and lose your freedoms or confront those of extreme Islamic practices. My best wishes to you and may all your decisions bring you peace, contentment and an active mind.

Dear Mr. Scott. I just simply say that we are not against America but American policy. You said that "you love to see an independent Kurdish state. The kurds have been at the end of the whip by Iraq Turkey and Syria for decades". Then you should also have to show similar sympathy to the people of Palestine. As they are also trying to achieve their freedom; as well as get freed their land from Israeli occupation. You are doing a mistake. Taleban was not created to defeat the Russian troops in Afghanistan but it was the Mujahedin who fought against the Communist forces. Finally they were able to establish an inclusive state with a fair election and Burhanuddin Rabbani was the president. As Rabbani government was acting as yes-man to America Taleban was created initially in Pakistan and then entered Afghanistan and overthrown the Rabbani government they also Killed 40 Iranian people in Qandahar including Iranian diplomats. America was behind the scene everybody know this. But what was the next; America invaded Afghanistan with all of its mighty to overthrow the Taleban and brought back to power one of its pets Hamid Karzai. The further development you know. America now help the 21 century Pharaoh of Egypt Mr SISI on a very fragile demand by the Egyptians but it is silent when the people of Egypt nowadays chanting slogan against the present military dictator. I would also like to remind of you how American help Reza Shah to kill more than hundred thousand Iranian and injured 200 hundred thousand. In the case of our liberation war in 1971 America helped Pakistani Military ruler against our democratic right and independence.
I do not to make you bored by putting more references. Just what is going on now is not a successful diplomacy; it is a crime against humanity. The quicker the Americans learn this good for the world peace.

Mr. Billah
I agree that American policy requires intense study and reengineering. American foreign policy has leaned to either the neoconservative right or the neoliberal left. I would like to see a more centered approach. I find no fault in your history of Afghanistan until you relate upon the Taliban. It is a simple fact that Pakistan is behind the creation of the Taliban. The American CIA ran out of money for it's support of the Mujahedin and the Pakistani ISS created, and was the soul supporter, of the organization. As the ISS ran out of money to
support the Taliban, Afghan farmers were forced to plan poppies to support heroin production. Americans in general have a short attention span. In 1996 the United States was focused on the Olympics and the bombing that happened
there. Afghanistan was outside of our global mindset at the time Rabbani was ousted. We did assist the Shah to power just as we did with Hussein in Iraq, Noriega in Panama, Robertson in Giana and probably a few more that I am unaware of. We do poorly in assisting the rebuilding of governments because a majority of Americans lack an understanding in human geography. The ideal we
sought, to enable more democratic governments globally is a good ideal. The methods we used were poorly conceived. A Jewish state in Israel is the very reason religion and politics do not mix. Christian teaching informs that Israel was the home of the Jews for thousands of years. So of course we and the British agreed that it would make a fine home for Jews displaced by Russia and Germany. It was also the home of the People of the Sea, the Palatines for thousands of years. Both entities are covered in blame for the current circumstance. Both were refugees during the time of Jewish settlement and both had their hearts set on the same soil. I
would take my queue from an ancient king of the area Solomon and split Israel down the middle. Whoever throws a stone at the other side gets shot. Quite frankly I am tired of the entire conflict. Thank you for the discussion! Please include as many references as you think necessary to establish your point of view. We are all bias in our perspectives. Ibn Khaldūn ,” found that to understand the nature and causes of historical events, it is necessary to have correct information; but to be able to distinguish correct information from false it is necessary to know the nature
and causes of these events. I enjoy our discourse and think that perhaps we will both discover that the truth lies somewhere between us.

Dear Mr. Scott
You have correctly referred to Ibn Khaldūn ,” found that to understand the nature and causes of historical events, it is necessary to have correct information; but to be able to distinguish correct information from false it is necessary to know the nature and causes of these events". I fully agree with Ibn khaldun. Nevertheless, there is no point with this type of references if we do not mean it. It is time for the Americans to have a self-criticism and realise whatever they are doing either for their own interest or to help set a pet ruler in the third world countries. They should understand that the people of the contemporary world, especially in this digital world with its all sorts of development in media and information technology, envisage the factual reality and the actions have been taking by the Americans and the other European states. The scope of undermining or duplicating the fact is diminishing day by day. The military or economic monopoly will not a matter of perpetual phenomena. We might see America a weaker state by next 30 to 50 years. Uprising as well as awakening of people might take a difference shape and style after half a century from now. So it is time for all conscience people of the world to think in a rational way with wistfully intelligence and perform to resolve the crisis accordingly. Creating kangaroo or puppet government or supporting or creating a terrorist organisation to order to face another terror is not a solution of the cause. It will create further problem and one day we have to pay for this. WE are at the tip of the iceberg. Taleban, ISIS, FSA, BOKO HARAM, all are the example of these crises. Israel is another and the most dangerous element to create problem against humanity.

I agree that the Jews lived hundreds years in the land of Palestine. But I would like to remind you of the fact that they had been migrated from Egypt. Therefore, the actual living place of the Israelite [Bani Israel - as appeared in the Quran] was Egypt. So I think you will be agree that they cannot claim that the Chesham region of Nile delta is Israeli land.

We have study the meaning and effect of historical migration of human being throughout the world and the events of transmigration and the construction and deconstruction of human civilizations. The Aryans one day came to India passing the Khyber Pass and they got permanent settlement here in the subcontinent. I do not think that they claim the Pamir height as their homeland as they were migrated from there. Your American history shows another good example of developing a nation with the influx of the migration from deference places as well as countries in the world. But the original citizen of the land the red Indians lost their country.

AS you referred to Ibn Khaldun - but to be able to distinguish correct information from false it is necessary to know the nature and causes of these events - I would like to mention that what was the cause of the Jews migration from Germany and Soviet Union? It was atrocities and genocide by Hitler during the Second World War. Then why should pay the Palestinians their blood for the cause related the Europeans - Hitler. After the post war why they did not return to their original country? Why they back to Palestine?
If we consider that it was diplomacy in favour of the Jews. Then why the Americans as well as other Western powers helped Israel grab Palestinian and Arab lands making millions of Palestinians refugees?
Think now Israel emerged as a monster or dinosaur but who are the backbone of it. Who has been providing all sophisticated weapons and technologies to this illegal state.
I think you agree with me that people of the world nowadays understand well about the dubious character of American diplomacy.
The so called slogans of weapon of mass destruction, freedom, and justice everything is clear to the people. Please have a look what is going on in post Gaddafi Libya, in post Saddam Iraq, In post Rabbani Afghanistan. It was due to American deceptive plan to destabilize the Muslim capability and to disintegrate the unity among the Muslim. All goes to Israeli benefit! The Case of Syria is the last nail on the coffin. If American plan become successful then Israel will be safe for at least next 50 years. As the same fate is awaiting for the Syrian as it is going on in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya ...
All these have been happening due to American negligence to support powerful armies in those countries. America even did not supply f 16 or other minimum weapons for the Iraqi Army. They are using the weapons imported by Saddam from Russia.
It is not right place to argue such a difficult and diplomatic issue. I think for maintain the peace and tranquility in the world a well-balanced and just diplomacy we need. I hope the Americans as well as the west will understand this reality soon. As a develop country they have the responsibility. I think this makes sense.

Mr.
Billah

I again notice a well found grasp of history in your response. I though you would enjoy my reference to the historian Ibn Khaldun. If you recall he wondered extensively
in what is today Spain. I bring your attention to Spain because it is a country that has been conquered by many civilizations yet became a world power to rival
Britton. Britton itself was invaded and conquered by both Romans and Normans. The Britons later conquered Ireland, Scotland, India, Portugal, Spain and Belgium
before colonizing the Middle East, Africa and the Americas. For a time, Spain, France, England, Germany and Portugal all had colonies in what is today the United States. I can think of no country that has not been invaded at some
point in history. You are correct that the Jews were once from Egypt. They were a tribe that the Egyptians paid as mercenaries. The Egyptians invaded their lands thinking they had become too powerful and so the tribe settled in Canaan, this was some time during the Akhenaten dynasty. The Palestinians known as the Peleset, of the Mycenaean civilization are also of Egypt but settled along the Mediterranean in Phoenicia after being defeated by Ramses
III. The Palestinians are the ones that introduced grapes and olives to the region. In 900 B.C.E both the Hebrew and Palestinian peoples lived as neighbors.
Palestine had Gaza Ashkelon and Ashdod while the Hebrew tribes had Ekron, Jerusalem, Hebron, Samaria and Nazareth. It is a history that after centuries of coexistence the Palestine attacked the Hebrew shrine of Shiloh and
established garrisons throughout Hebrew and denied them technology and access to trade. It was not until 1025 B.C.E that the Hebrew were able drive the Palestine
to their original boarders. Canaan is much like Spain in that many civilizations held claim over the centuries, Palestinians
and Jews are just two of many.

I doubt America will cease looking after its own interests. What country in the world would? Actions have been taken by all of us over the centuries. In recent
post-colonial, Egypt attempted to invade Israel, Iraq and Iran have been at odds, Kurdistan and Turkey are constantly firing shots across the border. America has not been the protagonist in any of these conflicts. The Taliban,
ISIS, FSA and BOKO HARAM have not been contrived by America. This is a revolting and false notion. America desires nothing more than stability in the region. You state that we support these groups to promote Israel in the region.
Do you not know that Saudi Arabia, Jordon and even Iran sell technology and weapons to Israel through consolidated holdings in Singapore? Why is it Iran supplies both sides? Why did Saudi Arabia fail to denounce Israel in this last
conflict? America is not alone in raising puppet states, we just get caught more because we are so bad at it.

We did indeed have a hand in Libya and Egypt, but it was not to destabilize the Muslim culture as it has. The concept was to destabilize the Soviet Union. Both the Soviets and the Americans used the Middle East countries as proxies to entangle each other’s resources. From a certain perspective it worked. The Middle Eastern countries bought more weapons and sold more oil to America than it did
to the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union could no longer hold out and so collapsed under its own pressure.

China has now replaced the U.S. in both of
those categories. With the U.S. finding shell oil in the Dakotas, we have lessened our purchase. China has no oil reserves and so now buys the bulk of Mid-Eastern
oil. France by the way has out sold the U.S. in weapons to the Middle East for decades and England is responsible for drawing the current boarders in the Middle
East. You have to remember that until WWII America was an isolationist country. We seldom got involved outside our own boarders. Until 1945 we had very little
government contact with the rest of the world. We are still new and inexperienced in the field of geopolitics.

I apologize if my response seems abrasive or boorish, it has been a long day. You have given me things to think about. I never would have thought that our aim at the
Soviet Union would be considered as a thrust at the Muslim culture. To me it is like saying the donkey can fly, it is such an obvious fiction that I would never think of it. It gives me great incite to your prospective and I can only
thank you for sharing it. I hope you have a peaceful day and that you find our discourse as enlightening as I do. Not so much that you believe what I say but I hope you
believe that what I write is the truth as I see it. Again I think that the actualtruth lies between us,

Britain*

'Culture' & 'civilization' are vague, tenuous terms without enough for any individual to get a handle on, never mind manipulate. Knowing that much, the above read was a cute as hell.

Your tips seem to update my knowlegde. Thanks for sharing, I've got a big pleasure from browsing your site and articles. Keep up developing, it's a cool site.
Check my collection of holiday villas in Spain http://rent-holidayvilla.co... and get a villa with your partner to discover the Island or try a surprizing holiday at Disneyland for your son http://ideal-escapes.com/ci... in the Orlando area.

The Article was from 1993. It was written during the the Balkan Wars II.

Huntington was prescient on many fronts.

Some posters believe that the Neocons of the Bush Administration were motivated by the "Clash of Civilizations" to invade Iraq and "emancipate" the Middle East. If so, the Bush administration must have skipped many chapters.

One of Huntington's key points is that Islam does not share Western secular, democratic, free-market, and individualist values. The Bushites assumed that such Western ideals were universal in their appeal and application. Events in the Middle East have shown they are not. Our Western ideals were as dull as our swords were sharp. We easily defeated the army of Hussein; we humiliated the Iraqi people; they hate us for it; they reject our culture and our values.

The use of religions is an interesting question. It was supposed that religion served to established connections of an individual with the God, who in turn gave orientations for moral choices and set goals that were good from the moral standpoint. Religion was directed inside personalities, in other words it was a spiritual matter. Now religion may work to form social identities. I.e., the good goal is already mentally chosen when religion is referenced, and the work of religion is directed outside of personalities, it is not a spiritual matter anymore. It works to establish connections among people. I don't know to what degree it is a trend, but, for example, these words were very characteristic by one of leaders of the separatist Donbass this summer (2014): "Orthodox Christianity is our weapon". Religion was used this way in prior days as well, as far as I know, but it seems that it is only now becoming forgotten that the original and natural role of religion is very different. Maybe un-secularisation that mr. Huntington mentioned is in part due to this fact?..

There has recently been a NATO summit meeting in Wales. Main items: how to react to the Islamic threat in Iraq and Syria and the Russian threat in Ukraine and the need for every NATO signatory to meet its commitment to pay 2% of GDP to NATO.
It is our contention that these are matters for an empowered UN, not for one segment of the global population in opposition to other segments of the global population - which is simply tribalism writ large and a denial of our common humanity.
It is not a human right to be able to wage war. In fact the war which began a century ago deprived 16 million human beings of their most basic right, the right to life. Another 21 million were wounded, many of them incapacitated for life. See http://www.garrettjones.tal... and
www.futureworthhaving.co.uk

The document that helped to steer the course of the Global War on Terror, The Clash of Civilizations demonstrates a gross failure in attempting to understand the nature and cause of events. From hypothesis to forecasting why civilizations clash, Samuel Huntington leaves holes in his argument. Failed attempts at logic in the segments detailing pattern of conflict, nature of civilization and why civilizations will clash will be addressed and exposed as meritless

In an article titled The Clash of Civilizations, Huntington positions the hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in the new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. Huntington predicts that the divisions of humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural, and iterates that nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs. This reconfiguration of world order will eventually lead to a clash of civilizations that will dominate global politics. (Huntington,
1993)

There is disagreement of Huntington’s proposal that nation states shall remain the most powerful actors in world affairs. Huntington's first failed articulation is the unexplained, well-funded global terrorists, armed with modern tanks and artillery. Terrorist organizations have forced increased spending on international domestic security. (Richelson, 2008) As Arundhati Roy points out, terrorism has no country, it’s transnational, as global an enterprise as Coke, Pepsi or Nike. (Roy, 2001) The very existence of capable terrorist organizations approximating nations state negate a primary postulation of Huntington’s hypothesis.

Explaining the nature of civilization, Huntington attempts to organize his argument. He states that first, second and third world definitions are no longer relevant in terms of political and economic development but rather culture and civilization. Edward Said, a geopolitical contemporary of Huntington, feels these concepts of ideological and economical transference to cultural and civilization as a position of conflict fits with the basic paradigm of the cold war. The Clash of Civilizations is simply a reformatting
of the cold war opposition. Indeed Huntington himself provides the allusion of
a velvet curtain of culture replacing the iron curtain of ideology. In an article from The Guardian titled The Algebra of Infinite Justice, Arundhati Roy attacks the idea of ideological irrelevance as he points out that if the September 9/11 attacks were of cultural differences and American liberties, why were the targets symbols
of American economic and military might and not the statue of liberty? (Roy, 2001)

Huntington details a contemporary list of civilizations and identifies them as Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, and Slavic-orthodox,. Huntington defines a civilization as the highest cultural grouping of people and the broadest level of cultural identity people have short of that which distinguishes humans from other species. Nowhere in the Huntington definition of civilization are the concepts of identity bound to accepted indications of civilization. There is no mention of art, language, literature or geography. Huntington then reveals his deficiency in human geography and omits Persian as a civilization. Persia has long been considered a civilization apart from the
Arab and Turkic spheres and was identified by Ibn Khaldun[1] in his book titled History, Book 1 1382. As Iran and Afghanistan are Persian states that contain art, literature and science, they are still considered an independent civilization that share an Islamic culture. To group this classical civilization together with Arab and Turkic under the roof of Islam demonstrates an overwhelming misunderstanding of
Muslim culture and a bigoted form of cultural generalization.

Huntington states additional reasons for the clash that seem contradictory. Economic and social change will separate people from local identities and at the same time details a general non-western phenomena of returning to the roots of civilization. (Huntington, 1993) The fact is that a populace searching for roots will likely anneal multiple civilizations to local identities. Spain is a prime example of Huntington’s
failure to logically define this point. Said contends that civilizations “are not shut-down, sealed-off entities that have been purged of a myriad of currents and counter currents that animate human history” Said continues to state that history not only contain wars and imperial conquest but also exchange, cross-fertilization and sharing.” (Said, The Clash of Ignorance, 2014) In a previous work entitled Orientalism Reconsidered, Said demonstrates an unwillingness to believe that the basic differences in history, language, culture, tradition and religion Huntington proposes are true boundaries, but malleable intersections that ebb and flow through the centuries. (Said, 1985) This is a foreshadowing of Huntington’s alternative view and primary reasoning of why civilizations will clash.

Another issue leading to conflict by Huntington’s estimation is that cultural characteristics are less malleable and less easily compromised than political or economic. Stephen Walt identifies this sentiment as false. “For the past 2000 years or so, assorted empires, city-states, tribes and nation-states have repeatedly ignored cultural affinities in order to pursuit particular selfish interests.” (Walt, 1997) Again proof in the lack of understanding in human geography while contemplated the reasoning behind The Clash of Civilizations.

Last of the reasons cited for the impending clash of civilizations is economic regionalism. As Huntington has set China, Japan and India into separate civilizations then the regional agreements between China, Japan and India should not exist. China has outpaced the U.S. as Japans largest trading partner simply because profit per unit sold makes a difference when calculating transportation costs. (Srinivasa-Raghavan, 2005)

Huntington failed to explain the ability of terrorist forces to assume nation state rolls and displayed an awkward misunderstanding of ideology and economics. Huntington contradicts loss of local identity with pursuing roots of a civilization and affirms the desire for regional economics among civilizations. Huntington proclaims cultural is less
malleable and less easily compromised than political or economics when historical
trends prove different. In attempting to define civilization with a broad brush
by grouping cultures, Huntington failed to articulate his position. Perhaps Huntington should have studies the ancient works of Ibn Khaldūn and tried to understand the nature and cause of events.

Works Cited
Huntington, S. P. (1993). The Clash of Civilizations?
Foreign Affairs.

International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences.
(2014, 09 06). Encyclopedia.com. Retrieved from Ibn Khaldun:
http://www.encyclopedia.com...

Richelson, J. T. (2008). The U.S. Intelligence
Community. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Roy, A. (2001). The Algebra of Infinite Justice. The
Guardian.

Said, E. W. (1985). Orientalism Reconsidered. Cultural
Cratique #1, 89-107.

Said, E. W. (2014, 09 06). The Clash of Ignorance.
Retrieved from The Nation:
http://www.thenation.com/ar...

Srinivasa-Raghavan. (2005, 07 02). Economic
regionalism: The way to go. Retrieved from rediff.com:
http://www.rediff.com/money...

Walt, S. M. (1997). Building Up New Bogeymen. Foreign
Policy, 176-190.

[1] Ibn Khaldūn (1332-1406),
Khaldūn’s major contribution to the history of social thought is his new
science of culture (‘umraūn). While writing his “Introduction,” he became aware that to understand the nature and causes of historical events, it is necessary to have correct
information; but to be able to distinguish correct information from false it is necessary to know the nature and causes of these events. (International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 2014)

As for the statue of liberty, I think it (made in France, by the way, not in the USA) serves to define the American culture only in eyes of Americans. After all, it does not drink Pepsi and it does not wear jeans, and it does not own a ranch. Freedom is not an elementary notion, and it has many faces; so, such abstract concept cannot naturally serve to define a culture. The reason why it may have become for Americans something more of a sacred word than merely a tool of life (like for Europeans) may be the troubling feeling of lack of legitimacy of their own statehood, perhaps. Anyway, these are their (i.e. your) domestic issues, so the question why the terrorists did not choose the statue of liberty if the conflict had the cultural background is not well-based. In some eyes, a might of one's economy and military is a might of one's culture; this notion is very natural to appear... Such directions of thought indeed have a lot to do with "defensive self-pride" as Mr. Said puts it, only they do exist for real and inside real people, that is why their comprehension is important, in my opinion.

Still, you could not negate that, for example, the Ukrainian crisis is exactly a "clash of civilisations", meaning at the very least that it is neither ideological nor exactly economical, and that it was grossly alimented and made possible by cultural differences between "Russians" (for the lack of a better term and in a broad sense) and "Westerners" (in which category pro-Maidan activists would like to belong as well, though with questionable success), could you? Then, no political model, based on a set of aggregative abstractions (culture, economy, ideology, law, anything), can have predictive power, because the laws of nature govern people, not societies; since a human is a creative machine, the laws of one person's behaviour cannot scale to entire populations, still producing exact relations among all notions at work. That means that the value of such models is different: its value is to give a framework, a paradigm that helps to classify events as they are going on. Mr. Huntington did in fact acknowledge this in the foreword ("предисловие", the original name may have been different) to his 1996 book. He said that the test of his paradigm is not to see whether it explains all events in the global politics; it is to see whether it provides thinkers with a clear and useful lens, through which to look at the events in the world. This lens helps in the Ukrainian case, for example.

Then, because Mr. Huntington's model was intended to be intuitive rather than strict, he did not in fact give any definition of a civilisation; he only tried to explain what he includes in this notion. The basic feature of a civilisation, in his treatment, was that all cultural "aliens" to the group of people comprising a civilisation are such "aliens" in an absolute sense and with decision-making consequences. A certain kind of "alienship" entails that "aliens" are thought of and dealt with in qualitatively different ways than people "inside", and that no other "kinship" prevents from such treatment; for a German, an Italian is an "alien" as he lives in a different country, but a "kin" as he lives in the European Union. For an American, a German is a "kin" in certain ways, but a Chinese, however he may respect or not respect the latter person, is generally an alien. Then, all of his other definitions of a civilisation were nothing more than guesses that Mr. Huntington did without, apparently, giving them any active meaning; they were questions rather than statements. He made guesses in terms of aggregative abstractions, but since such abstractions are random and were developed for other tasks, I think it would be more wise to treat them with greater suspicion, as they are not exactly appropriate here. The real differences should lie, I think, in tiny differences of psychology, produced by being raised in societies with given culture (the set of all ideas that are available for consumption, either conscious or unconscious) and language (which also gives ideas on kinship of terms and on preferable or most natural ways of thinking about such terms). There is no one true way of thinking about the world and in the world, so it is only natural that some exact ways of doing this are suggested to the young person by the society rather than by nature; such differences cannot be meaningfully caught by abstractions Mr. Huntington mentioned. Nevertheless, these guesses, I think, did not diminish Mr. Huntington's main idea.

Hello Evgeniy

The Ukrainian issue is interesting only as it aligns along an ideological fissure between catholic and orthodox as Huntington points out in his book. I believe that current crisis is due more too economic realities and security perceptions than cultural traditions. I also am inclined to believe that there are tiers of reasoning so as culture and tradition do becomeinclusive in the conflict.

Tier 1 is the motivation of the political elite. Russia requires the farmland, infrastructure and a buffer zone that Ukraine provides. If the elite can gain access to these things with little cost and plausible deniability then the potential for gain is greater that the potential of loss. This then becomes the driving factor of the conflict and negates the civilization clash Huntington proposed.

Tier 2 is the more interesting point I think. I propose that the nature of most humans is not independent thought or action. Most, when unsure of an ethical motivation will follow traditional obligations or they simply follow others who seem surer of their actions. Some cultures have long practiced traditions and others relatively short (a hundred years or so). Newer traditions lack the ingrained social constructs developed over centuries. This disallows historical equivalents to be reflected in the actions of an individual or group. Will a mechanical devise be better assembled by one who is working from a single page pictogram or a manual of directions? Also take into account that most people live by planning a few months out, but fail to account for a generation forward. If this proposition is true then it would explain the mass of actors (revolutionaries) and also logically determine that they are the puppets of the Tier 1 elites.

So even if there are cultural divides across civilization boundaries the situation in the Ukraine fails to meet the loose definitions Huntington provides to support his propositions. The cause of the event is millennia old, you have what I want and I will take it if
I can. Tier 2 unknowingly enables Tier 1 in search for what they believe will be a better day and they do so without complete understanding of the foundational motivation.

Thanks for your interest in my discourse.

Hello, Scott,

I agree with the factual content in what you say about the tiers of reasoning. However, you make the difference that the tier 1 reasoning "causes" events, and the tier 2 reasoning "makes them possible" (non-literal, but I think I get your idea), yet I think that the difference behind these verbs is only stylistical, they mean the same thing. Elites could use the intentions of the population and seek to work on the space of information surrounding the people so that some intentions be more probable than other intentions, but only individual people have enough physical power to ascertain and conduct historical events, and only individual people have enough will to take or approve a violent course of action when a conflict starts or develops. Also, the elites too get upbringing in their native countries, so they also could not avoid following the tier 2 reasoning. So, these verbs are synonims, and since the tier 2 includes more people, it is more important. You say about traditions and religions, but I think that what defines a culture is neither traditions nor religion: you could take a different claimed religion and change the political formation of your country, yet, I think, you could retain the same culture if such was your will. Since culture is about people, I'd venture the guess that culture should be defined by a set of cognitive pathways that people commonly choose to follow; these pathways don't have to do anything with traditions, though of course the traditions are a result of this choice as well.

Concerning Mr. Huntington's idea in relation to Ukraine, I would first say that I saw actually two conflicts rather than one conflict (I totally discontinued following the events about a week ago, so I may miss something now). One conflict involves a military part; it is the conflict in Ukraine. The other conflict does not (and, I hope, never will): it is the conflict between Russia and the West (which some American commentators insist on calling for some reason "the entire world", though this is a different story). The two conflicts, of course, have connections, though they have no meaningful and simple connection. Now, Mr. Huntington's main idea hardly can be directly applied to the internal conflict: cultural distinctions inside Ukraine exist, but they never seemed to be so dramatic, that is to lack any uniting part. Yet, the point of such idea is not to predict events with certainty, but to provide with means to analyse events. So, first, even though the cultural distinctions were not unilaterally prevailing over similarities, they existed: some people liked what they perceived to be European ways, other people preferred to stay away from them, and this difference was supplemented, very likely, by real differences in pathways of cognition. Whatever you may say about the Russian military involvement, the conflict started when those people decided to avoid civilised (as Americans commonly put it, "democratic") ways of reaching an agreement and to turn to violence. So, even if failing to describe such events properly, Mr. Huttington's idea provides some help to understanding them: when groups of people think differently and, based on that, divide the world into aliens and kins, expect warring. Second, the idea of the Maidan side was exactly to choose the Western model of organisation of life and thought (whatever they meant by that), so, in this clash, they indeed had to represent an entire civilisation, and in this aspect Mr. Huntington's description is generally correct.

In the second conflict, Mr. Huntington's idea explains why the sanctions, imposed on Russia, did not have any peacifying effect. Hardly Americans thought that an average Russian would understand intricacies of economic development; rather, their idea may have been that Russians might understand the moral message and voice it (or threaten to voice it) on the political scene. However, three factors played a role: 1) difference of cultures: people of the two nations, following different cognitive pathways, speak different languages, and I don't just mean English and Russian; so, count mutual lack of understanding; 2) since people got used to such cultural differences, they expected and preferred to receive moral messages from "kins" rather than from "aliens"; 3) since the Soviet-style closedness is long gone, mistrust has developed to Americans (there is no contradiction here). People seldom analyse themselves, so much of what was said in response to the sanctions is irrational; yet I'd try to dig out the rational core. People feel (I think) that, like a Queen shall not judge another Queen, one nation shall not judge another nation, and the discussions shall centre on practical issues. Hard to tell whether this idea undermines the concept of the United Nations; anyway, it worked in 2003, when nobody judged the US. Americans seem to employ a different kind of thinking, namely that nations judge other nations based on reactions that are put forward by the Western civilisation (simply speaking, the West); different nations appear to follow different kinds of thinking, and this is exactly the idea behing the question why civilisation might clash, a mechanism behingd it that needs to be taken into account.

This is my thinking. I hope it makes sense to you.

Evgeniy

You have more faith in people than I. I do not believe that
the will of the populace dissuades the ruling elite from initiating actions on
their behalf. I think that the majority of the populace wish
nothing more than to follow. The populace in general do not educate themselves
about the concern of the elites until their lives become affected. The elites (having the power of the purse) are
able to broadcast their desires to the masses while the average citizen inhales
the ideals as though they are fresh mountain air. I have to consider your perspective
in more detail in order to draft a reply that your correspondence deserves. From my initial reading, I think that perhaps you
give more credit to the people than I or perhaps I am more jaded than you. I
will attempt a proper response this weekend if my studies allow. Thank you for
your continued discourse on the subject.

Scott

Hello Scott,

I think that my argument is based not really on more faith in people's goodwill and their ability to choose well-based actions (though indeed I don't believe in some natural desire to obey as a first principle driving all actions of many people), but instead on lack of faith in channels of communication among people. Even if the elites really wanted it and had all means possible that could be bought or gained for this use (use of mass media, consultation of psychologists, reputation of being the right rulers, and so on), they would not be able to transmit information in shape that conserves well enough to direct people's actions and thoughts in ways that are well defined.

There is even more than lack of communication to this question: there is also lack of will. I believe that the notion that our actions are described by complete schemes and are directed by free will is false. This notion arises because of an illusion of perception: such thoughts that have practical effects should be decided at will, or rather at what we perceive as will, but we tend to notice only such thoughts and actions that have practical effects and not pay attention to the rest. We force the practical thoughts to follow some schemes that we take as established means of thinking, but in reality our ideas don't have to follow them, and they don't when we don't succeed in forcing them to follow those schemes or when we don't even try to force them. So, that has two effects: first, the space of what can be tweaked in someone's mind is much bigger than ability of words and pictures to transmit information, i.e. this lack of will undermines the channels of communication even more; second, elites too, like all regular people, don't have to know why they do this and not do that, these choices are also influenced by their personal histories, i.e. by the local culture.

For example, someone may call the same person who does the same things a scoundrel in one mood, but a hero in another mood; even if both moods are accessible to the same person, which, because of some details of his personal history, may be not the case, he, while being in one mood, may not be even aware that so many other moods are possible, whatever he watches on the TV or gets from Internet. These mass media are just one part to his personal history, there are many more parts, but whatever influences his behaviour, the end result is usually not rational. After all, why does it have to be rational, if the backbone machine behind all thoughts and moods, the neural system, should base its work on using experience rather than reason.

People make choices because of their own inner causes; images and perceptions of powerful personalities may take part in their inner pictures of the world, but I don't think that this part is crucial for everything. Wrong leaders are deposed by populations, or even not ever passed into leadership at all. It may be noticed in life that it is nearly impossible to convince anyone of anything using words; people change their opinions mainly by themselves, if these opinions concern something that matters. If the opinions do not concern something that matters, then, of course, people may sincerely repeat opinions of those that they trust, but one would not put much weight in what does not matter anyway.

I am afraid the resulted text is too obscure for reading, but I leave it here...

I wanted to look at this because of the 2 op-eds in the NYT today by John McCain (let's go right to war with ISIS) and John Kerry (let's build a coalition to defeat terror because it worked so well in Iraq).

I wanted to go to one of the sources of this current moment, to see the best expression of this view that conflict between the West and Islam will define this century.

Wow, all I can say is, I see how we got here. First, I agree with an earlier post that the terms culture and civilization are vague and ill-defined. But let's accept that when he says the West or Islamic civilization the terms have some positive sense. His thesis then, is that it is opposition between civilizations that will define conflict. Let's test the model's predictive power:

"If civilization is what counts, however, the likelihood of violence between Ukrainians and Russians should be low. They are two Slavic, primarily Orthodox peoples who have had close relationships with each other for centuries. As of early 1993, despite all the reasons for conflict, the leaders of the two countries were effectively negotiating and defusing the issues between the two countries. While there has been serious fighting between Muslims and Christians elsewhere in the former Soviet Union and much tension and some fighting between Western and Orthodox Christians in the Baltic states, there has been virtually no violence between Russians and Ukrainians."

This is not a trivial point. He is trying to identify causal factors. What do we do with a model that is so spectacularly wrong?

His analysis does not take into account that Ukraine is split down the middle, with the eastern half largely Russian and Orthodox, the western half largely Catholic and much more western. Ukraine is currently caught in the middle of a tug-of-war between Russia and NATO. Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard helps fill in the details when he identifies Ukraine as a critical pivot point of geostrategic importance. Clash of civilizations is an important factor, but not the only factor.

In fact it does: "The most significant dividing line in Europe, as William Wallace has suggested, may well be the eastern boundary of Western Christianity in the year 1500. This line runs along what are now the boundaries between Finland and Russia and between the Baltic states and Russia, cuts through Belarus and Ukraine separating the more Catholic western Ukraine from Orthodox eastern Ukraine...."
I think the problem is rather his argument tries to identify causal factors based on unsupported generalizations about "the West."

he does reference the religious split under THE FAULT LINES BETWEEN CIVILIZATIONS. This was written in 93 and should be read along with The Clash of Ignorance by Edward Said.

In this sense, it is absolutely necessary that the EU straucture is reformed. This is why the Lisbon Treaty is so necessary (it will provide the EU with a single and -more or less- sound foreign affairs policy and a number Kissinger can call to).

www.eurodatum.com

What should the role of Europe be? EU's values and experience should be enough to be able to build bridges amongst civilisations.

Spanish Prime Minister's initiative to launch an Alliance of Civilisations constitutes a good example, and has been backed by the UN. However, internal tensions within the EU (growing islamic population + economic crisis) are putting these efforts at risk.

The EU should in any case play a key role to avoid any clash, although during the Bush era it was unable to take any leadership.

www.eurodatum.com