Testing Huntington's Clash of Civilizations Theory

Clash of Civilizations

The Russet, Oneal, and Cox model is not appropriate for assessing Huntington’s theory, as they examine primarily interstate conflicts during the Cold War period, and Huntington’s thesis pertains to the post-Cold War period (Huntington, 2000). Despite the fact that the Russet, Oneal, and Cox model has been successful in assessing interstate relations from 1945-1990, as they themselves show (Russet et al., 2000), it does not adequately inform our understanding of migratory pressures, ethnic tensions and other intersubjective forces arising during the post-Cold War period (Huntington, 2000). As such, Huntington's theory of a "clash of civilizations" must be taken into account but can only be fully appraised by use of different methodological tools than the ones employed by Russet et al - methods which focus on non-traditional elements of security and intersocietal dynamics (Huntington, 1993; 2000). It is therefore evident that Russet et al's model may provide useful insights concerning interstate conflict analysis but is inadequate as an evaluative tool for Huntington's theories.

The Russet, Oneal, and Cox model is factual in its scope and precise in its research tactics. It tracks the dynamics of war through multiple variables, including that of wealth inequality between nation states. It is clear from their analyses that when levels of national income inequality become greater than those which exist between individuals within a given country, then interstate wars are more likely to occur. In this sense, the model provides a valid insight into many Cold War conflicts. When assessing Huntington's "clash of civilizations" theory however, it becomes obvious that while economic inequality could be an underlying issue in some types of conflict, it fails to explain all instances across societies of different origins and religions. Thus one cannot definitively conclude based upon the results from the Russet, Oneal and Cox model whether Huntington's argument is accurate or invalid; as such, multifaceted solutions need to be sought in order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of contemporary unrest.

Huntington (2000) is therefore valid when he dismisses Russet, Oneal, and Cox, pointing out the flaws in their methodology. Huntington (2000) presented a compelling argument when rejecting the claims of Russet, Oneal, and Cox on their flawed methodology. Specifically, he argued that the interpretation of structural data derived from the study was incomplete, inadequately measured, and hampered by overall deficiencies in its definitions. Furthermore, it was suggested by Huntington (2000) that the methodological approach taken by Russet et al., to draw conclusions from such limited samples provided false premises for a larger general conclusion.

By failing to consider the fact that Huntington’s theory referred to a post-Cold War civilization, Russet et al. essentially missed the crux of the matter entirely. They collected data from a period altogether inappropriate to the central thesis of Huntington. They analyzed the data and showed that it would force one to reject Huntington’s hypothesis. However, Huntington’s hypothesis is not based on Cold War data. In fact, it is based on post-Cold War data. And the only way to test it is to use post-Cold War information. This could ostensibly be collected now, as more than two decades have passed since Huntington’s (2000) rebuttal of Russet et al. Doing so would essentially help to validate Huntington’s theory—but appropriate measures and variables would have to be included in the analysis, according to Huntington’s own framework of the factors that would lead to conflict in the post-Cold War multipolar world.