The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

“People use politics not just to advance their interests but also to define their identity. We know who we are only when we know who we are not and often only when we know whom we are against.”

In the opening chapters of the book, Huntington introduces The Nature of Civilizational Identity and Conflict. Much as he describes how civilizational and cultural identity are often constructed in opposition to outsiders’ identities, he establishes his own theory in opposition to other political scientists. He defines himself against Fukuyama and Toynbee, for example, using their theories to “define [his] identity” (21).

“It assumes all states perceive their interests in the same way and act in the same way. Its simple assumption that power is all is a starting point for understanding state behavior but does not get one very far.”

Huntington justifies his critique of alternative theories, such as the inevitability of Western universalism, on pragmatic terms. The lack of nuance or predictive power in alternative theories, he suggests, undermines their utility in the world of political science. In doing so, he asserts The Limits of Ideological Paradigms in politics and political analysis.

“There were many civilizations, each of which was civilized in its own way.”

Perspective and subjectivity are an important part of Huntington’s thesis. While he suggests that he is operating on an objective level, rising above subjective criticisms of other civilizations and cultures, he concedes that subjectivity is inescapable. Not everyone will believe in the primacy or morality of Western ideals; each civilization believes itself to be “civilized in its own way” (41), even in the modern era.