New US Administration Finds Political Foundation in Creaky Culture Theory
ANGLO AMERICA, 20 Feb 2017
Prominent in the 1990s and resurrected after 9/11, academic’s predictions of a clash of civilisations have returned.
15 Feb 2017 – Twenty-five years have passed since Samuel Huntington first hypothesised a world torn asunder by clashing civilisations. After a lengthy sabbatical, the late Harvard political scientist is back in favour at the White House. President Donald Trump’s closest advisers are big fans.
As with much else, Trump is at odds with considered opinion. Most experts want Huntington’s paradigm buried in an academic graveyard. Breathe life into this baleful concept and it could become a self-fulfilling prophecy they warn.
Huntington set out his controversial thesis in a lecture to the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank based in Washington, DC, in 1992. He argued that people’s cultural identities would be the main source of conflict in the post-Cold War world. Wars would not be fought primarily for ideological or economic reasons. Instead, people would fight along the cultural cleavages that divide civilisations. Of the eight different blocs that comprised his civilisational map, he predicted the cleavage between the Islamic world and the West would be the bloodiest. “Islam’s borders are bloody,” Huntington averred, “and so are its innards.”
His lecture became a sensational essay published the following year in Foreign Affairs and later a book. No concept of global politics attracted more scholarly attention in the 1990s. Yet intellectuals were generally unimpressed. Huntington’s grand narrative was oddly bereft of actual “politics”. He elided the complex jumble of different national interests and rivalries within each of his groupings. The dynamic interplay between civilisations was ignored. His empirical evidence was shoddy (mass bloodletting in the 20th century was mostly intracultural). From one of the finest scholars of his generation, it was disappointingly thin.
Singled out for particular scorn was Huntington’s portrait of the Islamic world – of which he was plainly unfamiliar – as a monolith incurably opposed to western values. Then September 11 happened.
In the panic and fear sowed by al-Qaeda’s co-ordinated attacks on New York and Washington in 2001, Huntington’s book became a bestseller. Previously sceptical analysts came on board. Hawks in the still-young administration of President George W Bush seized on the idea that 9/11 was an extension of Muslim wars into the US, propelled by a renascent Islamic consciousness. The clash of civilisations was real, opined acclaimed author Robert Kaplan in the Atlantic Monthly, lauding Huntington for his prescience and for bravely “looking the world in the eye”.
The fervour was short-lived. The White House’s nation-building project in Iraq would affirm Bush’s healing cry after 9/11 that “Islam is peace”. And the notion that western-style democracy was inherently conflictual with Muslim societies would be dispelled.
But the internecine carnage unleashed by the US invasion proved no less contrary to Huntington’s caricature of an unvariegated Islamic world. The rift between Sunni and Shia within Islam seemed more prone to violence than any putative fault line between Islam and the West. The US subsequently doubled down on existing ties with Muslim allies as the best defence against another 9/11.
It would be left to Bush’s successor to hammer the final nail in the coffin of Huntington’s theory. Barack Obama famously refused to use the term “radical Islamic terrorism” or any variations thereof. The former president steadfastly held that such language alienated Washington’s Muslim partners in the fight against extremist groups such as al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. Their victims were, overwhelmingly, fellow Muslims. US deeds and words should not embroider depictions of the West as an enemy of Islam. That’s precisely what Huntington did. But no more.
Bannon is the former head of far-right US news site Breitbart. He’s also a catastrophist, convinced the US is in the beginning of an existential civilisational war. Everything is part of that conflict.
Alas, history had other plans. Enter Stephen K Bannon. Officially Trump’s chief strategist, insiders coyly describe him as the real president. Bannon is the former head of far-right US news site Breitbart. He’s also a catastrophist, convinced the US is in the beginning of an existential civilisational war. Everything is part of that conflict. He has predicted war with an expansionist China in the South China Sea, but his main bête noire is what he describes as “the new barbarity” – a virulent, swelling Islam that threatens to undo centuries of Judeo-Christian progress.
Bannon’s apocalyptic world-view is informed by various meta-theories. Huntington’s is the best known, though Bannon has not been explicit in championing him, unlike Michael Flynn, Trump’s most trusted adviser until he got caught out sailing too close to the Russian sun. The disgraced former National Security Adviser referenced the “clash of civilisations” in various (subsequently deleted) tweets about the US war with a “messianic movement of evil people”. Flynn also lumped China and militant Islamists into a joint anti-West conspiracy, parroting the emerging “Sino-Islamic” alliance conjectured by Huntington.
Former CIA director and commander of US operations in Afghanistan and Iraq David Petraeus warned against such rhetoric when he testified before the US Congress earlier this month. Petraeus beseeched the new administration to “remember that Islamic extremists want to portray this fight as a clash of civilisations … we must be very sensitive to actions that might give them ammunition”.
Petraeus doubtless had his successor in mind. The new CIA director, Mike Pompeo, has in the past evinced a Manichean view of the world and come close to predicting a civilisational holy war. Politics, he once exulted, is “a never-ending struggle … until the rapture”. Whether anyone in Trump’s administration is listening to Petraeus is doubtful. Their canvas is wider than anyone predicted.
Fear and National Identity
The full title of Huntington’s book is The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. It’s the second part that echoes loudest in Trump’s already infamous executive orders — his policies on Muslim immigration, the Mexican border wall, cancelling the Trans-Pacific Partnership, sabre-rattling on China and Iran and unsettling Europe.
This is not to say Huntington is a reliable guide to understanding all of Trump’s early moves. Fights with Europe are hardly a recipe for civilisational solidarity. Yet it is to the deeper assumptions underlying Huntington’s theory that hardliners in the White House seemingly turn for illumination.
Implicit in “the clash of civilisations” is the belief that conflict is natural in an anarchical world. The hardliners indisputably concur, but that premise is already within mainstream political philosophy. It becomes more noxious when read in the context of Huntington’s subsequent, and final, book, Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity.
Huntington’s treatise on the decline of white hegemony in the US is permeated by fear of the “other”. In his list of barbarians at the gate, Mexican immigrants pose the starkest challenge but essentially all non-European cultures are advancing, figuratively if not literally. Bannon and Pompeo’s suggestion that a “fifth column” of Islamist sympathisers are infiltrating the US aligns effortlessly with the temper of the book.
The arguments put forward in “The Clash” presaged Huntington’s clarion call for US renewal in Who Are We? They are of a piece in grasping his bleak vision of the future.
The world order he foresaw unravelling is under acute strain, that much is certain. The emotional lure of nation, faith and tribe – culture, in other words – has not weakened as globalists predicted.
People’s confidence in national and international institutions is lower than at any time since the Second World War. Systemic economic stresses have dented the global consensus on trade and open markets. The US’s global power and ambition are receding. Populism is rising.
But to make sense of it all, don’t reach for Huntington. The great struggles of ideas are taking place within cultures and societies — between European cosmopolitanism and US nationalism in the West, Sunni versus Shia within Islam, even between cities and states. These are clashes of imaginations. Civilisations are yesterday’s news. Or so we must hope.
By all accounts, Trump doesn’t read books. He knows nothing of diplomacy and may know nothing of the late Harvard professor. Yet they share some key assumptions about the state of our world. Spurred on by powerful advocates in Trump’s administration, Huntingtonism could become conventional wisdom.
Much rests on the better angels of US foreign policy. International law, the principles of the UN and the US’s historic commitment to global progress and stability did not vanish on Trump’s inauguration day.
They remain the best antidote to the clash of civilisations. An idea that just won’t go away.
Dr McNamee is deputy director of The Brenthurst Foundation.
DISCLAIMER: In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
One Response to “New US Administration Finds Political Foundation in Creaky Culture Theory”
Click here to go to the current weekly digest or pick another article: