"Commonality of Civilizations?"

The world envisaged by Huntington
(click to enlarge)

This past academic year, I became very interested in the “Clash of Civilizations” argument, which originated in 1993 when Samuel Huntington attempted to predict the changing nature of world conflict. In his controversial essay – “The Clash of Civilizations?” – Huntington contended that global politics in the post-Cold War era would be dominated by cultural conflict, and he divided the world into a handful of distinct, potentially contentious “civilizations.” According to his paradigm, the fault lines between civilizations were especially dangerous and were most likely to be the sites of major conflict. Some of the most convincing arguments in support of the thesis were that differences in civilization are fundamental, making them less mutable, and that increased interaction in today’s globalized world inevitably leads to an enhancement of “civilization consciousness.”

The other side of the debate was spearheaded by Edward Said, who insisted that such ways of thinking inaccurately portrayed the world and mobilized dangerous nationalist passions. Moreover, Said argued against the assumption that there is complete homogeneity between culture and identity, and maintained that such categorization misses what is so rich and fertile about culture.

At UPEACE, I’ve had the opportunity to consider this question in a much different context. During a typical day, I engage with individuals from at least five of Huntington’s civilizations – sometimes up to six or seven, depending on who’s around. Obviously, this is quite a change from the predominantly Irish-Catholic Stonehill College. Indeed, with so many new perspectives present at any given time, I’ve gained a much better understanding of how people think about and relate to each other. Here are some observations I’ve made:

1. Some people seem to very much believe in the “civilization” paradigm despite its obvious shortcomings.

          One woman, for example, frequently serves as a landlady for UPEACE students and has hosted Americans, Europeans, Africans, and Asians over the years. During a conversation earlier this week, we discussed her experiences with each group, and I quickly realized that she had the tendency to assign very rigid identities to all of them. Americans, she told me, had a “better” culture than Latinos and, therefore, she loved hosting them. (By “better,” she apparently meant that Americans tended to be hard-working and on time, in contrast to the very laid-back attitude of Costa Ricans.) Europeans were somewhat rude and intrusive, however, and they were extremely wasteful. Africans never wanted to pay their rent and caused big problems for anyone brave enough to host them. And, Asians, finally, were a pleasure, as they were always diligent and polite.

          Of course, such stereotyping fails to account for the huge number of tardy Americans, thrifty Europeans, respectful Africans, and lazy Asians. And it clearly allows no room for differentiating between the Alabamans and the New Yorkers, between the Ugandans and the Congolese, and between the Bengalese and the Cambodians (although even these categories dangerously collapse populations into restrictive labels).

2. If you’re not careful, it’s easy to start believing in the “civilization” paradigm.

          As much as I'd hate to believe that these labels are accurate, I found myself being somewhat persuaded by this landlady's argument. It does seem quite obvious that there are different cultures at play here. The American mindset is very different from the Costa Rican mindset; the Costa Rican mindset is very different from the Egyptian mindset; and the Egyptian mindset is very different from the Australian mindset. It's useless to pretend that this is not the case. Our personalities are very clearly influenced by the contexts in which we're raised, even if this influence allows for some variation in thought. I believe that was the point this landlady was trying to make -- not that there is uniformity within every culture. And I can't disagree with this reasoning.

          But I don't believe that this reality substantiates Huntington's claims. There is a vast difference between acknowledging the impact of cultural forces and suggesting that culture locks individuals into predictable behaviors. Failing to recognize this nuance can lead to very dangerous territory -- this is the heart of Said's argument.

3. Other, non-cultural factors have the potential to unite people, sometimes in more meaningful ways than a common heritage.

          At UPEACE, I've found myself relating to people for very different reasons. There are some who I relate to because of culture, like the Americans and the Canadians. We have much in common and seem to think about the world in a similar way. Then, there are individuals (mostly men) who I relate to because of sports. Others I relate to simply because they are nice people. And still others because we have corresponding academic interests. The point, here, is that I've formed friendships with people from virtually every corner of the world for many different reasons. Culture certainly plays a role, but it far from dictates who can share common interests. And, more importantly, culture does not appear to make "clashing" an inevitable outcome among people. Instead, I believe that cultural interaction has the potential to paint a clearer picture of the world and to improve one's critical thinking skills.

So how have these experiences affected my understanding of the "Clash of Civilizations" debate? For one, it's shown me just how different cultures can be. Before coming to UPEACE, I naively and idealistically subscribed to Said's school of thought. I had little experience with people of different cultures, but nevertheless maintained what I thought was a well-informed opinion about them. In these first few weeks here, I'm beginning to realize just how much I didn't know about the civilizations debate. I'm realizing that I thought about this issue in largely abstract terms, never having any true basis for what I was saying. Indeed, people are very different; cultures most certainly shape identities; and particular qualities are likely to clash with others. There is more to Huntington's argument than I gave him credit for.

However, none of this should mean that global conflict is bound to be dominated by the "clash of civilizations." The responsibility is on policymakers and heads of state to look for sources of commonality among their peoples. They are certainly there -- they just might not manifest themselves in the context of culture or ethnicity. Like my personal experiences, these commonalities can be based on virtually any quality (although, I will admit, some are obviously bound to be more lasting than others). Rewriting national narratives with these sentiments in mind should be an important goal in today's world. If we begin to substitute the word "clash" for "commonality," I think that Huntington's civilization paradigm can begin to be debunked. And I think that a lot of important problems can begin to be solved.