We live in a world in which countries invade other countries, where people living within the same nation kill one another, and where certain groups are not allowed to be who they are without being persecuted for it. Put into these crude and simple terms, it is impossible to deny that there is some sort of ongoing conflict, disagreement, miscommunication, or confusion taking place throughout the globe every single day. One could make this argument without encountering any objections, but the most important, and largely unanswered question is why? Two other crucial questions are “what are the main sources of this conflict?” and “where is it headed?” The most widely known discussions on this subject come from the early 1990’s, during the collapse of the Soviet Union, when the world was no longer divided between Communists and the rest. Two scholars, Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington, provided a way of looking at the world’s conflicts by talking about an ongoing clash of civilizations. As I will discuss in my paper, this view, while being convincing and well argued, is not the most effective or comprehensive way of looking at global interactions because it neglects to consider some very important factors.
The phrase “clash of civilizations” is taken directly from Bernard Lewis’s article “The Roots of Muslim Rage”, in which the main argument is that now that the Cold War is over, the world’s most central and dominating division is between the Western world and the Islamic religion. In his article, Lewis attempts to explain this divergence from the very beginning, saying “the struggle between these rival systems has now lasted for some fourteen centuries. It began with the advent of Islam…and has continued virtually to the present day”(Lewis, 49). The biggest flaw in using this type of argument is that it provides no accountability for the present day (including the past few decades). In this view, Islam and The West (embodied in Christianity) never had a chance because their differences exist “fundamentally”. This fails to take present day political events into account when discussing why Islam and the West cannot get along.
Samuel Huntington’s “The Clash of Civilizations” is an obvious offshoot of Lewis’s “The Roots of Muslim Rage”; the title is taken right from his article. This article sets up the true definition of the “clash of civilizations” that scholars love to discuss and challenge. Huntington uses a very similar argument to Lewis, placing particular emphasis on the conflict between Islam and the West. However, Huntington attempts to further complicate and expand his definition of the “clash” by dividing the world into 9 civilizations that are constantly in conflict with each other; some of the categories are the west, orthodox, Latin America, and Hindu, among others. This is where Huntington’s arguments really begin to lose some credibility, due to his problematic view on what constitutes civilization and culture. It is one thing to say that differences in culture and lifestyle can lead to unavoidable conflicts in the world, but it is quite another to suggest that the world is simple enough to be divided into 9 categories. He does not take into account the numerous divisions within each civilization, within each language, within each culture and so on. This reason also suggests that it is impossible for any two different cultures in the world to get along with each other; it does not take into account the people that are able to cross boundaries and assimilate into other cultures and countries happily, without conflict. Finally, Huntington neglects the other labels that a person might assign to themselves aside from cultural and racial ones. He draws lines across the world which do not really exist except in his mind. This is where the “Clash of Civilizations” argument really loses resonance with me; I think there are too many important factors that Huntington fails to acknowledge.
I look at all of these articles that we’ve read on Islam and the West as a sort of evolution of thought. Each one changed my view slightly towards the way that the world interacts with each other. Osama Bin Laden, though hard to take seriously from an American point of view, brought some important points on the clash to the discussion. His view on the world was also primitive; he sees the world as being divided between all Muslims and everyone else, whom he refers to as heretics. However, Bin Laden is effective in providing specific actions and political initiatives that have created the deep divide between Islam and the West (or specifically to him, America), which is in direct contrast to Lewis’s tendency to use the past as a base. However, Bin Laden can only take the debate so far, as he is overtly biased and one-sided, omitting the points that do not suit his needs. The most important thing that he provides is a view of the “clash” from the other side.
Benjamin Barber, writing in 1993, takes a perspective that I find much more beneficial in observing global interactions, and in turn the discord between Islam and the West. Barber, like all the others, takes on the arduous task of dividing the world, except he cuts it into two very broad groups that he doesn’t consider to be mutually exclusive. Barber calls these two groups “McWorld” and “Jihad” and he says that “the tendencies of both Jihad and McWorld are at work, both visible sometimes in the same country at the very same instant”(Barber, 4-5). Although he doesn’t directly provide a definition of either of these terms, from his article Jihad vs. McWorld we can determine that Jihad is a fundamentalist opposition to modernity, a desire to go back to the “way things were”. McWorld is essentially modernity itself, embodied in globalization, loss of concrete values, and the increasing importance of companies and markets over governments. The relationship between these two forces is best explained in Barber’s own words: “Jihad not only revolts against but abets McWorld, while McWorld not only imperils but re-creates and reinforces Jihad. They produce their contraries and need one another” (Barber, 5).
One of the greatest parts about Barber’s article is that he doesn’t rely on Islam and the West to provide examples for the dichotomy that he sets up; on the contrary, he attempts to apply these categories to the most remote parts of the world. The reason why I am so fond of this approach is that his explanation truly encompasses the two conflicting ideals in humanity that could really explain why these clashes in our world exist. It is reasonable to say that all humans have two natural and undeniable urges dwelling within them- the compelling need to move forward and improve (while also consuming) with the reluctance to let go of the past. The perfect example of this can be found when Barber talks about the “ ‘American-Jihad’ being waged by the American right”(Barber, 9). Thus, Barber’s argument looks beyond culture and other similar factors and simply looks at human beings. He does an excellent job of applying McWorld and Jihad to all parts of the world while staying away from generalizations.
So how does the media, such a huge part of our lives, fit into all of this? Since these world conflicts are playing out far from our home turf (except for 9/11 of course), the media is the channel that we experience these events through. This is significant for Americans, because the media cannot encompass all of the viewpoints in the world; this means that we see a very limited construction of what the media thinks we should see. However, it is important to point out that in our modern age, the Internet provides an alternate source of information for anyone who wants more than the American mainstream media. This has helped bring us closer than ever to these battles abroad. But, this function of media does not hold true for the whole world; examples like radio in Rwanda being used to incite violence is a good example of how media is used differently across the globe. In some places it is used as a tool for manipulation, not information.
When reading and analyzing all of these pieces on the “clash of civilization”, there are so many points-of-view that must be taken into account- everyone has their own perspective. What was important for me was that they took into account as many factors as possible, and tried to see the situation from all angles. This is not to say that Benjamin Barber provided the perfect explanation for world conflict, or that we should stop pushing boundaries and exploring this topic, but his writing really helped me to look at the world in my own way. It helped me to look beyond the “clash”.