Conflict In The Clash Of Civilization

1730 Words7 Pages
The Clash of Civilizations is a hypothesis that people 's religious and cultural identities will be the main source of conflict in the post-Cold War world. The political scientist Samuel P. Huntington discussed this hypothesis in his Foreign Affairs article. In his essay, he is trying to make people think that the West are the dominating country and other civilizations and cultures just have to be under the power of the West because they are in conflicts with other civilizations (in Huntington’s view) as if the West is a crisis manager, although he did not literally say that but he indirectly manipulatively used terms and reasons to justify his ideas. His essay included his idea supported by 6 reasons on why civilizations will clash. Huntington…show more content…
Edward Said argued how un-original Huntington is as he used words from other authors, not to mention his vision on an unceasing clash. Bernard Lewis came up with the phrase “Clash of Civilization”, he talked about the Arabs and put it in the most unflattering way possible. He does it on purpose and he’s not so different from Huntington. Also, the cover of his book shows a lot on his perspective. He and Huntington are manipulating people through ruining Islam’s reputation. Edward Said presented "The Clash of Ignorance" as a rebuttal to Samuel Huntington’s theory of “The Clash of Civilizations”. Edward Said argues that through “The Clash of Civilizations?” Huntington recklessly confirms the performance of complex entities such as “the West” and Islam. In Myth of the “Clash of Civilization” Said is critical of Huntington for showing the concepts of civilizations and identities as closed and sealed off entities that are homogeneous. He argues that these concepts, in fact, have been open to “exchange, cross-fertilization and sharing.” According to Said: “Huntington is an ideologist, someone who wants to make "civilizations" and "identities" into what they are not: shut-down, sealed-off entities that have been purged of the myriad currents and countercurrents that animate human history, and that over centuries have made it possible for that history not only to contain wars of religion and imperial conquest but also to be one of exchange, cross-fertilization and sharing. This far less visible history is ignored in the rush to highlight the ludicrously compressed and constricted warfare that "the clash of civilizations" argues is the reality.” Those who praise Clash of Civilization do not like objective work. They define the
Open Document