This paper examines two interconnected dimensions of Cold War and post-Cold War geopolitics. The first section analyzes how ideological competition between the United States and the Soviet Union shaped domestic gender politics, from Soviet women's public participation to American Cold War-era persecution of sexual minorities, and how Gramscian cultural hegemony was deployed — with greater success by the U.S. through consumerism and mass media. The second section critically evaluates Samuel Huntington's clash of civilizations theory and Edward Said's concept of Orientalism, assessing the strengths and weaknesses of each framework for explaining post-Cold War conflict in an increasingly globalized world.
The main characteristic of the Cold War was, first and foremost, that it was an ideological conflict between two superpowers: the United States and the Soviet Union. From that perspective, Colin Flint's statement is well-supported by many of the events that unfolded during the Cold War period. In the Soviet Union, geopolitical agency in the domestic sphere went hand in hand with the dictatorship of the Communist Party.
In the Party's view, the most direct path to winning the Cold War was complete control over society, which would allow it to manage both the country's resources and the direction in which those resources were deployed in service of Party objectives. Control was therefore extended over the home in various forms, ranging from restricting access to information to defining the roles attributed to family members.
The differences in gender politics between the United States and the Soviet Union were quite pronounced. For much of the 1950s and 1960s, the image of the American woman was that of the household manager — the individual whose care ensured that conditions at home allowed other family members to concentrate on their respective roles. The male would work and earn a salary, while children attended school.
By contrast, Communist ideology promoted a perceived equality among all members of society, including between men and women. The Communist woman's primary role was not to stay at home and care for her family, but to participate alongside her husband in the creation and support of a Communist society through productive labor. This vision was also a product of Soviet national policy, which called for a fully egalitarian society.
The active participation of women in working life and in national politics was demonstrated clearly through several Cold War-era actions. For example, the Soviet Union sent a woman into space and celebrated her achievement extensively, propagating the idea of the first woman in space as a symbol of collective progress. National politics required underlining the ideal of all members of society contributing to the common success of the group.
In the United States, gender politics played an important — though sometimes restrictive — role. During the 1950s, the intensified fear of Communist infiltration led to centralized campaigns of persecution against certain minority groups, particularly sexual minorities. Homosexuals, for instance, were considered especially vulnerable to blackmail by Communist agents and were therefore marginalized and frequently accused. Such campaigns illustrate how gender politics and national policy objectives can become deeply intertwined.
Gramsci's concept of cultural hegemony proposes cultural domination as a preliminary step toward achieving a Communist revolution in economy and society. In other words, the advent of Communism must be prepared culturally — through a culture war in which leading Communist thinkers use various communication channels to achieve a dominant voice and propagate their ideas.
In many ways, this did occur throughout the Cold War, though it was often not an explicit national party policy. In fact, Communist cultural hegemony frequently devolved into simple propaganda that few wanted to engage with. One should consider, however, Western thinkers such as Jean-Paul Sartre, who continuously promoted their Communist and Marxist orientations — most plausibly because they had never lived in the Soviet Union. Cultural hegemony might have become a more durable reality through the continued affirmation of such respected writers and intellectuals.
In the United States, cultural hegemony took a somewhat different approach and, as a result, was considerably more successful. The U.S. constructed a society that reflected American culture, based primarily on consumerism but also on adjacent components such as the film industry — a powerful vehicle for promoting cultural hegemony on a global scale — as well as the music industry and media more broadly. Because these were successful instruments of propagation to which consumers adhered voluntarily, unlike the Marxist approach, American cultural hegemony proved far more effective during the Cold War and ultimately contributed to its final outcome.
Cultural hegemony also encompassed, at least in the 1950s and 1960s, the perceived role of women in the household and in society. Films from that era, as well as advertisements, consistently promoted the image of a woman in charge of the home but largely uninvolved in other spheres of public life. In many films where a woman is portrayed as active, she appears as a rebellious figure — one who revolts against established norms and expectations.
With the end of the Cold War, which had divided nations along ideological lines between capitalism and communism, several theories emerged to fill the vacuum in descriptive and predictive thought. One of these was Samuel Huntington's clash of civilizations theory, which holds that future conflicts will be driven not by ideological, political, or economic causes, but by the clash of cultures and civilizations.
As Huntington wrote in his 1993 article in Foreign Affairs: "It is my hypothesis that 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. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations."
His theory rests on two central premises: (1) the post-Cold War period will be a conflictual one, and (2) conflict will be rooted in cultural differences. A third characteristic follows from the second — by "culture," Huntington largely means religion. The lines he draws between civilizations are essentially religious lines, as each civilization is defined by its predominant religious tradition.
This leads to one of the theory's most significant flaws: it explains many potential conflicts through a religious lens, even when those conflicts are fundamentally political or economic. For example, the supposed conflict between the Orthodox and Japanese civilizations is not a clash of civilizations in any meaningful sense. Huntington is referring to tensions between Japan and Russia, which have historically been political and economic disputes with no meaningful religious dimension.
"Western political doctrine of domination over the Orient"
"Flaws, biases, and relative merits of each theorist"
The 21st century is a complex and interconnected reality, not a simplified version of cultural interaction between civilizations. The economic and political elements can never be ignored when discussing conflicts between civilizations or the way future interactions will develop. Within a globalized world, it is far more likely that civilizations will need to work together rather than compete for overall supremacy.
You’re 55% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.