Mark's Reviews > The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

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.