Global community concepts and frameworks

Globalization

In "The Clash of Civilizations," Samuel P. Huntington claims that cultural differences will be the greatest source of conflict in the 21st century world: more so than economics or political ideology. Huntington notes, "the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural." Prior to World War One, most of the culture clashes took place regionally: such as those between various European tribes. During the 20th century a new type of culture clash emerged: one that would reveal the deep chasm between East and West. Framing the world in terms of East and West indicates how important the division is in defining cultural identity. The East/West division is indeed one of the most evident and one of the most potent conflicts in the world and has been for several centuries. Ussama Makdisi, in "Anti-Americanism" in the Arab World: An Interpretation of a Brief History," points out how the rift between East and West defines global politics and informs global economic policy.

The East/West divide provides a cogent explanation for why the world is the way it is in the 21st century. However, the division of the world into East and West is simplistic and obscures many of the ways Eastern and Western civilizations have merged due to increasing economic interdependence. East/West does not account for the obvious differences between Northern and Southern hemispheres either. For example, South American nations are "Western" in many respects but share more in common with "Eastern" cultures in terms of colonial histories and economic under-development. Moreover, the division of the world into East/West overlooks the clashes within those arbitrary zones: such as between India and Pakistan or within single African nations torn apart by civil war.

In some ways, Huntington's argument does sum up why civilizations do clash and why those clashes can come to a head in military turmoil. The recent conflicts in the Balkans illustrates how culture clash does determine the face of global politics in the 21st century. For the most part unrelated to economic or political differences, the Balkan conflicts are due mainly to culture clash. Just as racism has defined domestic politics in the United States, xenophobia has defined international foreign policy throughout the world.

William Dalrymple discusses the East/West divide in a more optimistic and romantic light. Pointing out the ways Eastern cultures like that of the Mughals influenced Western cultures like that of England during the colonial period, Dalrymple shows that Eastern and Western civilizations can learn much from each other and overcome conflict with mutual respect and tolerance. On the other end of the spectrum, Ussama Makdisi assumes a more pessimistic -- possibly realistic -- standpoint. Conflict between West and East cannot be easily overcome because of the lingering legacy of colonialism and imperialism. Makdisi's analysis therefore parallels Huntington's. Both avow the importance of culture clash and both note that the most significant culture clash is between Western and Eastern civilizations. Like Makdisi, John Esposito underscores the role of September 11 in drawing out the root cause of the East/West divide. Makdisi and Esposito both agree that September 11 revealed the mutual hatred that defines the relationship between the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds. Twenty-first century history will undoubtedly be determined in large part by how East and West choose to address, resolve, or perpetuate the conflict.

Even though the Peoples of the Book stem from the same fountain of human culture in the Middle East, Jews, Christians, and Muslims have defined themselves largely by their differences. For the most part, Muslim cultures have become lumped together with "Eastern " civilizations including those as different from Islam as Hinduism and Buddhism. In Western discourse, Eastern civilizations including Islam are associated with anti-Western values whereas Jews and Christians have come to embody what Western civilization entails: social and economic progress and colonial dominion. After September 11, Islam became the West's arch-nemesis and vice-versa. Yet the clash of civilizations had begun centuries earlier: during the rise of the Ottoman Empire and its face-off with the predominantly Christian Europe.

If Huntington's argument is correct, then the clash of civilizations must transcend the East/West divide. Instead of East and West, the world's culture clashes will take place between the various cultures that comprise East and West. For instance, a cursory examination of the diversity of cultures in the Middle East proves that intra-Eastern culture clash is as significant a source of military and political conflict as the East/West culture clash. The Sunni/Shi'ite divide poignantly affects foreign relations in the Muslim world, often to a far greater degree than the divide between East and West. In this sense, Huntington is correct but limits his argument by making too many generalizations related to East vs. West.

The United States' political alliances with some but not all of the countries in the Muslim world proves that Eastern and Western civilizations share more in common than they seem on the surface. What defines one culture from another may have more to do with economic and political alliance than shared customs and values. The United States' culture differs significantly from Spain's, which differs from Sweden's. Yet all three of those nations are lumped together in with Canada, Mexico, and Brazil as part of "Western" civilization.

Dalrymple's assessment provides the most hope for the future of the world. With India and China poised to economically outshine the United States, Dalrymple's argument is also accurate. The booming economies of Eastern nations also proves that cultural differences are less important than differences in economic policy in determining the look and feel of the 21st century world. Noting that Eastern civilization and Western civilization can empower each other, Dalrymple more accurately assesses the current state of global conflict than Huntington, Esposito, or Makdisi.