Samuel Huntington: the most ordinary of intellectual rarities
Since his death on Christmas eve, academics and amateurs alike have been debating the significance of Samuel Huntington, whose Clash of Civilizations (1996) has been a shibboleth for public intellectuals and politicians ever since its publication. In our latest edition, Eric Kaufmann, a fellow at the Belfer Centre, Harvard, argues that Huntington was an iconoclast to the core, and one whose estrangement from the elite on both sides of the political debate placed him, in fact, far closer to the “normal” of American opinion than almost any of his critics. Which doesn’t mean he was right about everything: but which can help us understand his legacy as a force for good in “arguing for a less overbearing America.”
Share
Comments
Print
Add Comment
I don’t agree with a lot of what Huntington wrote, but I admire his willingness to confront problems honestly and directly, without all the pious hypocrisy of the Right and the Left. The case of the US’s cultural center is a prime example. It is a worthy question: does a large and swift demographic change have political effect? Anyone who does polling knows that it does, at least in the short and mid term. But the pieties of the Left forbid even broaching the question. And there were the pious members of the Right who, when not binge drinking or soliciting in restrooms, would never permit examination of the assumptions of democratization (here they joined hands with the Left). Pious people prefer to move forward blindly, confident that when they step in something at least they can claim to have made their mistake out of purity of intention. Huntington kept his eyes open and asked questions that cast the lazy, moralistic assumptions of his colleagues in a harsh light — hence they ostracized rather than confronted him. Kudos to the late S. Huntington for never falling into the easy, lazy path of moral blowhardism. BTW: the list of his fiercest critics is revealing: Said, Chomsky… not an honest intellect in the bunch; agenda-pushers.
If we look at what is happened to the U.S. economy we see that Huntington was on to something in regretting the decline in core cultural values of the ‘Protestant ethic’. The world of hard- work, savings, with an eye less for the consumption of today than for the productivity of tomorrow seems to have been turned upside down in the last few decades.
On another front he was not at all wrong in seeing Islamic Civilization and its Arc of Violence confronting not only the West but also Indian Civilization, and that of the Eastern Orthodox and the Chinese. This book was an astute and in a sense revolutionary representation of the whole global picture. In a sense his introduction of the category of ‘Civilization’ as key has its parallel in the younger and no less gifted, Niall Ferguson’s concept of ‘Empire’ as heart of reading Historical development.
I discussed the ‘Clash of Civilizations’ with a political science class recently, then showed them two photographs, one of a Japanese delegation on a visit to the Nazis (even a homicidal/suicidal racist regime like that of the Nazis was capable of co-operating accross ‘civilzational’ lines) and one of Bush holding hands with the Saudi King… They got the point.
Huntington was reductionist, his ‘Clash’ an over-simplification to the point of falsification. His rule holds true if you discount the exceptions, the troubkle is that there are TOO MANY exceptions.
Yes, demographic change matters, but only in certain circumstances – Northern Ireland, Lebanon, Israel/Palestine. But what difference has demographic change (in Huntington’s sense) made in normal societies? England is now only 90% ‘English’ (in the pre 1948 sense of the word) What effect has this change had on English politics? The rise of the BNP? Comparable to the BUF back in the 1930s. EU membership and the rise of UKIP is more significant – it has little to do with demographics though…
And to say that Huntington was ‘normal’…but also an iconoclast?
“Huntington’s fears of Latino secession are surely misplaced . . .”
Why?
I’m not saying that such an eventuality is inevitable, but I don’t think that over the long haul it is impossible, either. Americans are foolish to imagine that we are somewhow immune to the divisive influence of ethnically-based political movements. We never have been, we aren’t now, and we certianly won’t be in the future.
Huntington may have died a Pariah in the eyes of some, but in those of others (like me) he died with well-founded arguments on his lips.
Western democracies are increasingly cowed by political correctness and a sense that democracy is invincible–I’ve got knews, it’s not. We are allowing undemocratic and outright illegal practices to be imported and to be implemented in a boundless number of immigrant enclaves. An example is London, England where “Sharia” courts are now being allowed to dispense “justice” to those who avail themselves of their services. No need to worry they say, these “courts” will be dealing with family issues and inheritance. Well, under that custom/law, a man is supreme over his wife, can beat her, silence her and divorce her, at his whim and on his exclusive terms. Inheritances go to the male heirs, while girls get little or nothing.
Question: In upholding such practices under the banner of culture, are the laws of England not being undermined and its democracy eroded? What about the cultures of child brides, female circumcision, honor killings, censorship etc.? Do we tolerate these as well?
In South Florida, I saw an immigrant enclave withhold a child from his father and I saw American law defied. Though immigrant by birth, I’m American by conviction and nurture and for me, my brethren in Miami might as well have been Taliban. I wrote a book about this event titled “Up Dog Street” and which now makes me a pariah too, given accusations of being anti-immigrant, which I receive from a few literary agents. An anti-immigrant immigrant? Hey, I like the sound of that tag, as much as that of pariah.
When you fight for democracy, you have to be willing to withstand intolerance, even from those who supposedly espouse tolerance. Huntington did.
I find Kaufmann’s view of Huntington trenchant and admirable, but I also share Colwell’s complaint. Huntington’s fears of a “Hispanic succession” are not “surely misplaced.” If Kaufmann disagrees with this major idea, he should argue the point. History is never “surely” anything.
“…his estrangement from the American elite”
Really? A statist intellectual, tenured at the nation’s most prestigious university, feted by the powerful, adorned with all manner of state prizes, whose name is hallowed among the conformist intelligentsia that dominates American political letters, who never in his life made an argument at all at odds with prejudices, interests and political activities of the ruling class…estranged?
Mr. Kaufmann can only dream of being so black a sheep.
It is true that Huntington’s peers (as opposed to his masters) found his work rather lacking, but it shouldn’t surprise us that genuine scholars would reel from Samuel’s “scholarship”.
After reading Eric Kaufmann’s piece, I’m moved to re-read The Soldier and The State and then move on to some of his other works.
Being in step with the “advanced” ideas of one’s own time is not a good thing if those ideas are taking your society over a cliff. I suspect that Samuel Huntington will be remembered when Noam Chomsky et al. are footnotes.
What kind reaction Huntington expressed if he alive to see Obama`s victory as a President of U.S.? His book clashes of civilization is biased book,he was bigoted.Muslim and western civilization war is not religious or cultural it is purely economical.These kind of war was fought in middle age also they were purely economical.
All war and conflict are economical but both parties color them as a religious. That you can see all over world.Hindu- Muslim conflict, Sinhali-Tamil civil war, or U.S.and Iraq clashes all are economical.
I donot think these kind of clashes will stop in far future,they part and parcel of mankind till mindkind live on this earth.
Sean Swan’s students may have, as he said, “got the point” when he discussed “a Japanese delegation on a visit to the Nazis” and “Bush holding hands with the Saudi King”; but I fear Mr Swan missed it. Throughout History there have been far worse alliances of convenience than these. Churchill’s W.W.II comment to the effect that if Hitler invaded Hell, he believed he could find it in himself to make a favorable response in passing to Satan. That might help Mr Swan get the point?
I suspect Mr Swan’s sanguine view of current British society derives largely from self-imposed restrictions on the circles within which he has moved. He also might consider whether the rise of the BNP to which he refers is (in light of the enormous deserved burden it bears due to its Nazi link) surprisingly high?
As for his inability to understand how Huntington can be seen as both normal and iconoclast, the answer isn’t all that difficult to understand. The former refers to Huntington’s unwillingness (in common with the majority of the nation’s ordinary citizens) to slavishly adopt the shibboleths of whatever the current Humpty Dumpty ‘elite’ happens to be. The latter refers to his willingness to point out how frequently those same ‘elites’ were letting their ideas of what sort of world they’d like to see out there, cause them to ignore what sort of world actually was out there.
The extent to which ideological imperatives can dominate ‘thinking’ is illustrated by Mark, who can’t even begin to understand the sense in which Huntington was a genuine iconoclast — but Mark shouldn’t worry, because I’m sure he’d be at home in many current “tertiary” courses.
The academic world could benefit from a few more Huntingtons; but in our current intellectually conservative P.C. era, they might be hard pressed, to find tenure?
The extent to which ideological paranoia can dominate “thinking” is impressively illustrated by Norman Hanscombe, whose strange fantasy of Left ascendancy inhibits him from even beginning to understand how ludicrous it is to call a celebrated supporter of state power, working from the assumption of America’s right to hegemony shared the vast majority of his colleagues, is in any sense an iconoclast–if the word has meaning. I do think Norm should worry a little, because his incredible conception of the Left is uncomfortably analogical to Nazi fantasies about the “power” of the Jews.
Churchill and Stalin demonstrate what I was saying about ‘inter-civilisational’ alliances, not the opposite. True, it was a realist ‘alliance of convenience’, but that’s the point. Real life demonstrates – and requires – a lot more ‘alliances of convenience’ than the civilisational claim allows for.
‘I suspect Mr Swan’s sanguine view of current British society derives largely from self-imposed restrictions on the circles within which he has moved’. This will have Eric Kaufmann, and anyone else who knows me, in a fit of giggles. The circles in which I move may turn out not to be the elite ones your preconceptions require. What are you, by the way, a dustman?
How is that Hubert Humphrey (who supported the Vietnam War when Huntington worked for him in 1968) was an “ultraliberal”, yet for Kauffmann, Huntington’s own support of the same war makes him a conservative?
Vito Marzullo, firstly sad to hear of your recent demise, but I’m sure you are now warmly reunited with Mayor Daly. Second please stop confusing the issue by dwelling on facts, they are, ffor the devotees of Huntington, inconvenient things
A further point re ‘alliances of convenience’; Huntington did not consider Israel part of the civilisation of the west, so how, pray tell, is US support for Israel explicable in ‘civilisational’ terms? A rather more tricky case than Churchill and Stalin (in Hutingtonian terms)
PS Mark, you made all the best points already (and better than I could have), which is why I left the supposed ‘pariah’ status of Huntington – a pillar of the estblishment, if ever there was one – alone
Just when this thing is getting interesting, someone plays the anti-semite card? I’m losing you…
Huntington was an anti-semite
No, not Huntington. The comment was about Norm’s argument.
A spirited discussion. Maybe I can shed light on the vexed question of whether SH was an insider or an outsider. Huntington’s accolades in part derived from the fact that he got on well with often liberal colleagues (ie Henry Rosovsky, who promoted him) due to his nerdy, unassuming style. He was always open to criticism. Also, the predominatly liberal academic elite in the US nevertheless is aware of the need for professionalism and inclusivity (especially at the top). So, there is an awareness that an exceptional figure like Huntington, who represents the conservative minority on campus (but majority in the country) should be included in elite institutions. This does not make Huntington a true insider: indeed, many fulminated against him and he founded his own corner of Harvard, the Olin Center for Strategic Studies. Harvard is a network of centres, and here, along with the circle around Foreign Policy and The National Interest, is where Sam found a more congenial atmosphere. Strategic studies brings together practitioners, military types and more realist-inclined scholars. For instance, Stephen Walt, who is liberal in his sympathies, is nevertheless not a mainstream multiculturalist liberal. The same holds for SH students like Fareed Zakaria or Francis Fukuyama. So maybe it is in the disjuncture between his pugnacious writing and his personable private world that we can understand how this iconoclast maintained a seat at the highest tables of ‘hostile’ institutions like academia and the Democratic party.
An ‘insider-outsider’, or perhaps an ‘outside-insider’? Which is where the English language begins to groan in protest.
The claim that International Relations is determined by billiard ball-like ‘civilizational blocks’ still doesn’t hold up, though -it’s normative, not empirical.
Shalom Freedman’s depiction and confirmation of the Islamic Civilization having an Arc of Violence is ludicrous to say the least.
To give such a summary on a civilazation that; revived greek philosophy, fathered modern medicine, gave us paper and libraries, was home to some of the greatest cities and universities known to date and introduced Europe’s dark ages to soap and hygiene; is hardly revolutionary nor a global in it’s view.
Huntington seems to dismiss the significance of civilizations, yet he makes exception to those of the Islamic and western Christendom. I think Shalom misses the significance of this stance and the respect it gives to both.
I disagree with my husband.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/10/hazel-blears-george-monbiot?commentpage=1
hubert humphrey is “ultra-liberal”? someone call 911 because the author of this piece’s brain was just stolen