Clash of Civilizations: A Lasting Legacy in the Face of Global Conflict
In a world grappling with an array of complex international conflicts, it’s essential to delve beyond surface-level political and economic explanations to grasp the deeper forces at play.
Samuel Huntington, a prominent political science professor at Eaton College and director of Harvard University’s John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies, proposed a powerful thesis in his influential work, “The Clash of Civilizations.”
Published around 1996, Huntington’s argument challenged the prevailing optimism of Francis Fukuyama’s “end of history” thesis, which predicted a world devoid of ideological strife following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Huntington, instead, argued that future conflicts would not be rooted in ideology, politics, or economics but would arise from a clash of civilizations – fundamental cultural and religious divides that have shaped human history for centuries.
He warned against viewing “civilization” as synonymous solely with Western civilization. “Thinking that “civilization” is only Western civilization is a mistake with costly consequences,” Huntington wrote. This narrow perspective not only distorts our understanding of reality but also blinds us to the cultural dynamics that drive global events. He identified nine distinct civilizations, each possessing unique histories, values, and worldviews.
Huntington’s theory, though initially controversial, remains relevant and offers a framework for comprehending the complexities of the modern world. Understanding these civilizations, their interactions, and potential for conflict becomes essential for navigating the global landscape.
This clashes of civilizations are not easily resolved, much like deeply rooted trees. “Culture, like trees, is the product of a long and specific process of germination before it becomes firmly established, resistant to adverse influences, and bears fruit. Those who want to eliminate or replace them will not uproot them out of simple voluntarism or arrogance,” Huntington emphasized.
Applying this framework to the specific case of Argentina offers a compelling lens. The term “cultural war,” often used in Argentina’s neoliberal sphere, misses the point entirely.
Those wielding the term, often dubbed “praetorian guards” signifying their self-appointed defense of Argentina’s established order, utilize it carelessly and demonstrate a blatant ignorance of historical and social processes.
Culture cannot be simply discarded or renovated like an old stage set. It cannot be imposed from above through sheer willpower. The belief that one can erect a new system overnight, replacing existing cultural norms and values with manufactured ones, is not only naive but dangerously unsustainable.
Evidence of this can be found in Argentina’s political landscape. In the wake of “anti-caste” rhetoric and promises of a radical transformation from both the left and right, the ruling party that aimed to usher in a new era ultimately came to terms with the same entrenched structures, even their most problematic aspects, such as Kirchnerism.
This reveals a stark reality: proclaimed freedom often translates into blind obedience or the threat of dismissal. Similarly, the metaphorical “chainsaw” touted by politicians to cut through outdated systems frequently ends up severing vital social programs, education, and job security for vulnerable segments of the population. The repercussions extend beyond the immediate – they impact substantial financial interests, union privileges, and the equitable distribution of resources.
In Argentina’s context, being an outsider doesn’t signify being detached from the system; rather, it involves utilizing the system with different rhetoric – often veering towards the combative and confrontational – while employing the same underlying cultural and political techniques.
