CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS OR OF PERCEPTIONS?

A comparative approach to three leading explanations of a globalized world

Claudia Skibniewski lvarez International Relations Major University of Deusto

INDEX 1. INTRODUCTION.3 2. EXPLAINING A GLOBALIZED WORLD.4 2.1. WHY IS IT NECESSARY TO FIND A NEW GLOBAL PARADIGM4 2.2. THE TRAGEDY OF THE GREAT POWERS...5 2.3. THE END OF HISTORY AND THE LAST MAN..6 2.4. A CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS, OR OF DEFINITIONS?................................7 3. CONCLUSIONS10 4. BIBLIOGRAPHY12

1. INTRODUCTION

The main purpose of this essay is to revisit some of the most influential globalization explanations of the past 20 years and provide a personal insight in the most relevant global topics that are having an impact in the international world order. I critically selected Mearsheimer, Fukuyama and Huntington, because I consider that they provide a well-rounded impression of how different theories have tried to win the race of explaining the present globalized world and its future consequences. As unique as the human mind, all three expose that there is no right or wrong answer to this question, but different interpretations, and it is my purpose to demonstrate that the focus lies in the transformation of socio-historical paradigms, with its distinctive Schwerpunkte. These must be approached by liberating our analysis of obsolete, residual ideas that should only be taken into account as the historical background of the present situation. Also, as liquid as the world presents itself, its noteworthy that these theories had its higher importance at the time they were written, with possible prophetic allusions, as the rise of China of Mearsheimer or the 9/11 of Huntington. First I will explain why do we need an explanation of current trends, then followed by a realist theory of international relations of sceptical foundations, a positive globalizing approach of the human history, and to end, the most detailed part of my essay, which covers the Clash of Civilizations and its critics.

2. EXPLAINING A GLOBALIZED WORLD

2.1. WHY IS IT NECESSARY TO FIND A NEW WORLD PARADIGM

Globalization, as a mass phenomenon is quite recent. Although we can track social interaction across borders since the antiquity, the way this interrelations shape political decisions have become more intense in the last decades. Especially, the end of the Cold War pointed out drastic changes in how the world politics was going to be organized and how social groups would coexist in a global chessboard that it would be no longer easy to play. I am referring myself to the fact that this event, in which the tense mute conflict between the biggest superpowers of the world, the Soviet Union and the United States of America, would come to an end, provoked the end of a historical cycle1, leading to a transitional period, of yet unknown duration, in which numerous intellectuals are trying to explain rationally our future habitat. But, how can we know which of these theories are right? It seems like in times of change and uncertainty scholars and world intellectuals are participating in a race against time to come up with a solution for the apparent problematic situation. It can bee that we have to face new challenges that are affecting the whole world population, like saving the environment (which we have previously destroyed), or achieving a minimum standard of development through established objectives, as the Millenium Development Goals. What is clear is that conventional thought is begging to be reinvented. John Maynard Keynes once wrote that Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slave of some defunct economist2, which comes to mean that people tend to view the world through old assumptions and ideas that are generally taken for granted in society, and thus, slows down the progress towards a new world perception. We are living in a blurred period of time, a change in paradigm, in which time and space shrinks, social interconnectedness dominates our private and public sphere through technological advances and in which the economy seems to direct the concept of global politics.

1 2

E.H Carr, What is History?,Vintage, London, 1967, p.5. N. Wapshott, Keynes vs. Hayek, Planeta, Barcelona, 2013, p. 50.

Regarding the latter, three theorists tried to explain the driving forces of world politics after a century dominated by the tyrannical struggle3 of ideologies, which are John Mearsheimer, Francis Fukuyama, and Samuel Huntington. Each of their theories, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, The End of History and the Last Man, and The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, found devote followers that implemented them in policy making, and the same amount of haters. The complex situation they were trying to explain followed the rationality4 by which humans intend to find a sole result of a problem. Ironically, as Richard K. Betts points out, none of them stood out as winners. Fukuyamas theory was felt truest when the Iron Curtain fell, Huntingtons after the 9/11 and Mearsheimers as the rise of China becomes more and more present in the international agenda.

2.2. THE TRAGEDY OF THE GREAT POWERS

The Tragedy of the Great Powers by John Mearsheimer provides a pessimistic approach to world politics, in which the main argument defends a realist theory of international relations, which he will call offensive realism. He argues that individual Nation-States struggle for their survival, being their foreign policy based on security issues. They assume that by being the biggest, strongest power, their primacy in the international anarchical system is safeguarded. Their ultimate goal is, indeed, hegemonic control of global politics, in which no other powers are allowed. We could say that fear is the leitmotiv of these super powers, as one can never be sure of the other potencies intentions, thus resembling the Cold War atmosphere of secrecy and oppression. These actors behave like this due to the absence of a main central authority located above the States that can regulate and protect each of them from the other powers. He will differentiate between realism and liberalism, stating that the biggest debates in international relations refer to realism and liberalism. Both of these traditions take the States as central actors, but their emphasis is different. While liberals argue that the internal characteristics of the State shape their behaviour, realists rely on external
3
4

R. K. Betts, Conflict or Cooperation? Foreign Affairs, December 2010, p.69 Bett, p. 69.

circumstances like the environment, which will make them dependent of their military capacity. Following this trend, he envisages a coming nuclear age5 in which great powers seek nuclear superiority, having a destructive capacity called mutually assured destruction or MAD. Needless to say, globalization is inexistent in the political sphere of this theory6. He will say, What money is to economics, power is to international relations, implying that the system of the international order is no different today of what it was during the cold War, when the control of the World was disputed only by two powerful superpowers. He rejects any kind of governance by international institutions like the G7 or the IMF, because they would make States accept that they must reduce their power. Therefore, the Tragedy of Great Power Politics can be understood as an antiglobalization sceptic piece that argues that there is not a significant change in the historical course of global politics. And this, he illustrates with the example of the rise of China as a potential superpower that is destined to be the adversary that the United States was lacking after the fall of communist Soviet Union.

2.3. THE END OF HISTORY AND THE LAST MAN Opposed to Mearsheimers offensive realism, Fukuyamas End of History provides an optimistic homogenizing view of globalization and the future of global politics. His head start can be resumed in that of all ideologies that fought for the supremacy of the worlds dominance in the last century, only liberal democracy conquered this ultimate goal. Democracy at itself, together with its principles of liberty and equality, counts as the ultimate state of ideological evolution, the last form of government to which all societies naturally tend to resume. Some societies are closer to reaching this state, like the Europeans and North American, and other need more time to get to this state, as could be third world countries, but, all of them are or will be stuck in history, as the process approaches its ending, and this is what he identifies with the current world paradigm I commented above. This is why, for Fukuyama, History is understood as an evolutionary process, that takes into consideration the current state, needs and
5 6

J. Krieger, Globalization and State Power, Longman, New York, 2005, p. 9. Bett, p. 71.

experiences of all the people. His thought is based on acclaimed German philosophers, specifically Hegel, Marx and Nietzsche, who dont accept the evolution of society as open-ended; and his dense philosophical interpretation was for some scholars a put off factor that silenced his theory for a while. Still, what he proposed was close enough to mainstream American thinking. The homogenization of human societies through a universal consumer culture and a global market resonated as the promise of American leadership and western dominance, a line that also followed Joseph Nye with his soft power, G. John Ikenberrys global constitutionalism and Michael Doyles democratic peace theory. Apart from the accumulation of wealth, a non-material dimension configures humans; this is the struggle for recognition. It is a right of itself, because, following Hegel, what satisfies human beings is a sort of external recognition of its status and dignity, a psychological perception that leads to the feelings of anger, shame and pride7. This, extrapolated to democracy implies that irrational pride in their institutions is necessary to work out well. He is a clear defendant of international organizations as peace providers and can be count, therefore as a positive globalist8. This has, however, a dark side, as it posts the question of whether this recognition is sufficient. It appears, that it is not, regardless of political inclinations. One side would argue that liberal democracys capitalism requires an unequal division of labour, the other, that the product of the end of history would be a man without thymos, drive to excel, in definitive, he concluded that the last man would cease to be human.

2.4. CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS, OR CLASH OF DEFINITIONS?

The last of the presented theories is the one of Samuel Huntington, and later criticized by Edward Said, which I will later explain. Huntingtons thesis is based on the affirmation that future conflicts will be fought not because of ideologies or economic purposes, but of culture. Said will argue that here, the definition of culture is an ongoing contest, since there is the official culture, and the alternative or counter-culture. At first, it seems like Huntington is deeply preoccupied of the world not dividing anymore in first, second and third, but in cultures and civilizations, which is the broadest cultural entity. He identifies 7 or 8 major civilizations, ranging from the West,
7 8

Bett, p. 73. T. Hylland Eriksen, Globalization, the key concepts, Berg Publishers, 2007, p.6.

Islamic, Confucian, Japanese, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American and possibly African. By this, Said will argue that he is committing a controversy, and then it is not possible that civilizations blend and have sharp defined fault lines in which conflict will occur. But, how can focus shift from politics and economics to culture? Huntington defends that as the world is becoming a smaller place, interactions among civilizations increase, but not in a positive, optimistic sense, as Fukuyama believed, instead, hostility towards the others was increasing, being immigration and foreign trade targets of it. According to this, we could consider Huntington a sceptic of globalization. He strengthens the cultural differences of the people, of historical origin, as the major drive of global politics. And this manifests in the conflicts between the west and the rest, what makes non-western cultures actors in the geostrategic game. The peak of western primacy will have several direct consequences. For example, the indigenization of former elites educated in western values that now promotes modernization without implying Americanization9. We can deduce that he means that the concept of a universal civilization is of western invention. This causes an increased hostility towards the spread of western values, which he denounces to be dominating the international organizations, as the Security Council of the UN, in which the majority of member states have not a voice. This is another sign of Huntington not believing in globalization. Another consequence of the western supremacy can be the in country syndrome10, which implies that the basis for cooperation in case of war will solely be closeness of culture. A last central point of Huntingtons argument lies on religion. He sees traditional religion as the filling of ideology gap shaping peoples identity and which eventually leads to a revival11 of religion. When religion mixes with extreme discontented people, fundamentalist movements are born, that are mainly small violent organizations with the target of harming the West. In relation to this religious wave, we could relate to the latest Arab revolts and terrorism organizations as Al-Qaeda. Indeed, Huntington was seen as a visionary of the 9/11, and his article can be interpreted as a personal West vs. Islam issue that even attempts to include the so called Confucian civilization as partner of crime of Islam. He argues that while the West tries to

Bett, p. 69. G. Piel, The West is Best, Foreign Affairs, September/October 1993, p 57. 11 Bett, p. 73.
10

incorporate fellow civilizations as the Latin American and East Europeans through international agreements on, e. g, non-proliferation of chemical weapons, the other civilizations conspire against them building nuclear weapons. After Huntingtons thesis, we can logically see that he is indeed promoting West supremacy. Said will argue that Huntington is basing his thesis on the differences between the West and the Islamic and Confucian Civilization, instead of understanding how cultures truly work. He will see a former Cold War policy maker using its demagogical skills to camouflage the ideological western ideas he never ceased to impose. Thus, he can be seen as a polemicist crisis manager, aggressively intervening in Islamic matters, that profits from perpetuating the differences between them. Said accuses Huntington of providing strategic officers with an easy map of todays situation, instead of researching profoundly the characteristics of these blurred times. Another main point of Saids critique is that civilizations and culture is not a rigid, fixed item, as Huntington pretends. He says, Even tradition can be reinvented, and he points out to the millions of Islamic individuals living in Western societies, who feel both proud of being Islamic and a member of the western community. Is it simpler to separate than to integrate? Said insist on that the more we try to separate, the less we are trying to truly understand ourselves, then we have been predisposed to dissolve cultural barriers through the arts and humanities. This is the ultimate proof of the human desire for cooperation, which, sadly, has been maculated by the economical and political interests of the USA in Islamic territories. This includes the petrol crises in the Middle East, the persecution of terrorism in Afghanistan, and the Nazi-like apartheid of Palestinians. This last example is a self-explanation of how American politics work by the influence of the upper class Manhattan Jewish bourgeoisie, which economically bribes the government towards an ideological goal.

4. CONCLUSIONS As I have explored along this essay, the worlds current situation is far from being easy to define. There are multiple theories, from the most traditional ones, to the most uthopic. All of them have the same goal: to explain why the world is changing so rapidly and in which direction we should act to keep controlling the effects we are having on it. Globalization involves many areas of study; the economic, social, politic, cultural, ethnic and religious, among others. That is why I understand these different theories cannot be applied at fullest. Mearsheimers involves a sceptic, realist approach to world politics that reminds us that we are still facing the supremacy of the States as main actors, as the sequels of a century of total war12. Fukuyama proposes an optimistic, positive globalizing view on the benefits of international organizations and intercultural cooperation. Huntingtons deals with the always forgotten cultural part of politics and international relations, even if some of his critics expose him as the ultimate prophet of the Cold War mindset for a new audience. Me myself, I do agree with Huntington in that culture will play a fundamental role in the development of a new world order, but negate that it will mainly serve conflicts between them. Instead, I believe there is more than enough evidence of the unstoppable interconnectedness of the world population, that leads to new identity feelings, that are more tolerant and elastic. By this I mean that the focus will be on how the individual perceives culture and to which extend it adopts it. One can see herself as a world citizen as well as Christian, European and German. I fully agree with Edward Saids arguments, and then I see that what he is proposing is the kind of experiment we are doing in Europe, and this is, to be united in diversity. To maximize the benefits of cooperation while promoting the interests of a society should be the priority in these changing times. Regarding religion, I do not believe that, as Huntington proposes, fundamentalism is going to rule world politics, then I understand fundamentalism as a protest of Western oppression, that to a certain point is comprehensible. However, I see a revival of religion taking a bigger importance in our century. But not religion as a traditional value, hence a sentiment of uniting humanity with the origins of Nature and the rediscovering of ourselves, as global individuals.

12

Bett, p. 69.

10

All in all, I think Fukuyamas theory on the end of history cannot be proofed, because it denies the principal attribute of humanity, which is its creativity and undiscovered potential. If we manage to boicot ourselves as human beings through the macdonalization of society and loosing our ethos, we can expect a future similar of which Aldoux Huxley narrated in his Brave New World masterpiece. Technological domination of the human race, the regression to primitive behaviours and murder of intellectuality, all this spiced up by biotechnological natural selections and the adoption of a common psychologically induced religion based on productivity and capitalist madness. In short, the creation of a universal society of nothing. Now, it is our selfish obligation to break with old ideas and deal objectively and from a humanitarian self-respectful angle with the unknown future that awaits us.

11

5. BIBLIOGRAPHY -Betts, R.K Conflict or Cooperation? Foreign Affairs, November/December 2010. - Carr, E.H What is History?, Vintage, London, 1967. -Fukuyama F The End of History and the Last Man, Free Press, New York, 2006. -Huxley A Brave New World, Penguin, London, 2006. -Huntington, S. P, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Simon and Schuster, New York, 2011. , Clash of Civilizations? Foreign Affairs, summer 1993. -Hylland Eriksen T Globalization, the key concepts, Berg Publishers, 2007. -Krieger J Globalization and State Power, Longman, New York, 2005 -Mearscheimer J.J The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, Norton and Company, New York, 2003. - Piel G The West is Best, Foreign Affairs, September/October 1993. -Wapshott N Keynes vs. Hayek, Planeta, Barcelona, 2013.

12