Thread: Huntington v. Fukuyama

Ironduke,

I have not read Huntington's book, but I did read the piece when it came out in Foreign Affairs.

At the time, it appeared that his thesis was flawed and as a consequence, I never looked into his follow on work. Perhaps I ought to.

William

Just saw this thread.

Yes I read them both back in the days.

it is interesting to view the end-of-history in the context of today's economic mess. Huntington's book seems to "age" better.

Originally Posted by Swift Sword

Ironduke,

I have not read Huntington's book, but I did read the piece when it came out in Foreign Affairs.

At the time, it appeared that his thesis was flawed and as a consequence, I never looked into his follow on work. Perhaps I ought to.

William

Regardless of whether you agree with it or not, I believe it's an extremely vital reading. I have a mixed opinion on the book, as I believe there's alot of truth in his assertions but at the same time they are not nearly as absolute as he claims.

Originally Posted by xinhui

Just saw this thread.

Yes I read them both back in the days.

it is interesting to view the end-of-history in the context of today's economic mess. Huntington's book seems to "age" better.

There's been alot of developments in the past couple of years which seem to lend some credibility to his thesis. I'll type a more detailed response later on, but it seems Russia has moved out of the category of "cleft" country and is re-asserting itself with its own values system, but at the same time it seems that most of traditionally Orthodox Eastern Europe is moving permanently out of the influence of Russia and into that of Western Europe, something which he did not foresee.

Huttington had it completely wrong about the civilisations. There are only nations and national interests. And apart from a few dead enders it has always been so. I found his obsession for Mexican immigrants and how they were so different from the wasp and could overwhelm "our civilisation" quite fascinating. Guys like him don't necessarily call for intolerance but they make the first step, that is, to segregate, making categories and separate.

Fukuyama on the other hand, if I recall correctly, rightly predicted a great future for political freedom and democracy. Russia became more democratic than the USSR, China became more tolerant and Chinese are much freer, same for Koreans, Latin Americans, East Europeans, another boost with the Internet,...But its original article was only about taking notice of the fall of the communist model and the triumph of liberal democracy (as a model). The End of History never meant to say that democratic countries wouldn't make war between each other and we would all live happily ever after under the benevolent wing of the US.

Great topic!

I haven't read The Clash of Civilizations, but did read The End of History in the early 90s. The impression I had was that Fukuyama had arrived to a conclusion - liberal democracies are the final form of human government - and then went on to explain that conclusion by using a sort of Hegelianism for dummies. There was something artificial about such explanation, and that is the main criticism I have about the book, but the fundamental thesis is still well worth of consideration.

In retrospective, is fair to say that at least some of the The Clash of Civilizations' predictions have been proven correct as in the present conflict West vs Islam, which is an indication he was on to something. I want to add: the first time I read someone predict an impending conflict between Islam and the West was Ernst Jünger in his book Der Waldgang (first edition published in 1951), Jünger was himself influenced in his concept of "Civilizations" by Oswald Spengler. Jünger didn't really explain it as a conflict of Islam versus the West, but as a reaction to the advent of the technological era within Islam, no different in essence to the reaction that has occurred in the West itself in the last few centuries.

I read the original Fukuyama article that he later made into a book. it was all the rage when I did Pol Sci back in the late 80s.

Sorry to say that even as a 19 year old I was able to tear holes in it. By far the biggest one was that I'm pretty sure it completely failed to pick the rise of Islamic Fundamentalism & the remergence of some pretty virulent forms of nationalism.

Fukuyama being the guy he is he has no doubt constructed elaborate defences to prove that he was actually right. Having been a liberal triumphalist at the end of the Cold War he then became a 'Neo-con' when that was where the power. he has since rejected that philosphy. Any bets that his next move looks a lot like the next trend in Washington? Hey, a guy has to make a living somehow.

BF,

Fukuyama being the guy he is he has no doubt constructed elaborate defences to prove that he was actually right.

no, the man was considerably (personally) embarrassed by it later- of course, like any good academic, he later tried to minimize and explain most of it away. "no one could have predicted the spanish inquisition!" )

I haven't read Huntington's book, but his FA article was weak sauce IMO. There's so much intra-civilization (Shia vs. Sunni being the most prominent one) conflict that it destroys his simplification to homogeneous/monolithic civilizations.

Originally Posted by Shek

I haven't read Huntington's book, but his FA article was weak sauce IMO. There's so much intra-civilization (Shia vs. Sunni being the most prominent one) conflict that it destroys his simplification to homogeneous/monolithic civilizations.

I haven't read either. However, your critic assumes that "Islamic" civilization(s) are defined by a literal sets of beliefs, and thus, Shia is fundamentally different from Sunni or the any other of the branches. It might be true though, that for long term historical purposes, what they share is more fundamental than the differences. And there is always the possibility of further identifications that occur not only in a religious level. Thus, it wouldn't be inadequate to talk of an identity (relative similarities inside, relative dissimilarities outside) that can be referred to as Civilization, in singular.

All I read from Huntington are short pieces, I temporarily withdraw from discussion until I actually read at least the FA article.

Originally Posted by astralis

BF,



no, the man was considerably (personally) embarrassed by it later- of course, like any good academic, he later tried to minimize and explain most of it away. "no one could have predicted the spanish inquisition!" )

Imagine

Guess those people who did point out the presence & growth of Islamic fundamentalism were clairvoyant.

Originally Posted by Castellano

I haven't read either. However, your critic assumes that "Islamic" civilization(s) are defined by a literal sets of beliefs, and thus, Shia is fundamentally different from Sunni or the any other of the branches. It might be true though, that for long term historical purposes, what they share is more fundamental than the differences. And there is always the possibility of further identifications that occur not only in a religious level. Thus, it wouldn't be inadequate to talk of an identity (relative similarities inside, relative dissimilarities outside) that can be referred to as Civilization, in singular.

All I read from Huntington are short pieces, I temporarily withdraw from discussion until I actually read at least the FA article.

My critique is of Huntington's thesis that post-Cold War, conflict was going to exist on civilization fault lines. In essence, we should see Islam acting as a monolithic bloc against the West. We shouldn't see any Shia-Sunni conflict. What is generally true over history is irrelevant (I'm not disagreeing with you - just pointing out what is pertinent vis a vis Huntington) - Huntington's proposing the model for the post-Cold War era, and so the relevant time frame to look at is only post-Cold War.

heck, we should see a "confucian" civilization centered around china pop up, surprise, neither vietnam nor korea nor taiwan are big fans of THAT idea...