Is There Really A Clash of Civilizations? The Nature of the Present World Order after Huntington and the Explanations of Clashes within Civilizational Orbits

This paper explores and presents examples how and why Samuel Huntington’ Clash of Civilization theory’ is weak. Huntington attempts to define the political and cultural realities of the post-Cold War World. He rightfully identified that the World was changing, and that nations were no longer rigidly divided among ideological lines. The new order would be defined by differences among civilizations, particularly the West (North America and Western and Northern Europe, Orthodox Eurasia, the Muslim World and the Sinic civilizations of the Far East. He outlines the differences between the cultures, particularly the liberal and individualistic west, in contrast to the more conservative and collectivist cultures of the Muslim and Sinic world. He hypothesizes that the contrasts between cultures will fuel future conflicts and wars, as opposed to ideologies and resources. However there are many negations to Huntington’s thesis. Many of his constructed civilization blocs are not united, and some of the cultural alliances Huntington has predicted have not come into fruition. Much of the conflicts that have occurred since the 1990s have been fueled by a need to control resources and territory, rather than to assert one set of values over the other. Many nations within Huntington’s constructed cultural blocs are not always in agreement among each other (e.g. China vs. Vietnam in control over the Spratly Islands), which raises doubt of cohesion of the civilization blocs constructed in the thesis. The Muslim world is more of a spectator and a battleground between the West and an evident Sinic-Orthodox (Russian) Alliance. While it is true that the World is no longer divided into rigid ideological lines, it is implausible that the world will be divided into cultural blocs.