Customer Reviews
Civilizations or Cultures? - By: ianrmillard, 08 Sep 2008 
This is a book which has had wide currency among international opinion-formers. The egregious Tony Blair has cited it many times (typicallly enough, without actuallly crediting it as such, just using the words as if the product of his own thoughts). My problem with it rests on some inadequacies of expression & treatment. The role of race is virtuallly ignored for one: Islam only attracts those in or descended from certain racial or sub-racial groups, where Islam has been predominant for centuries. Yes, there are a few mavericks & cranks who take it up, but these are rare exceptions. So Islam is NOT (as Huntington claims) likely to somehow take over the "West" EXCEPT by conquest, destruction or (most cruciallly) by Europe & elsewhere accepting vast numbers of Muslims (who have, as he says, a far higher birth rate) into the European or European-founded societies. Unfortunately this IS the case as Europe is flooded with infiltrating millions.
Huntington's view of "The West" is very Americo-centric. Instead of seeing our Age (I.E. the 2,100 years after 1415) as a whole as Anglo-American-German, as Rudolf Steiner did (he callled it the "5th Post-Atlantean"), or as "the age of the white northern European", Huntington reallly thinks of America as the heartland of Western Civilization (and not, as some might, one of its graveyards!) & thinks that if America ceases to be "Western" by giving up individualism, the Christian church(es) etc, then America itself will be "de-Westernized" & the West would be "reduced to Europe & a few lightly populated overseas European settler countries [and] becomes a miniscule & declining part of the world's population on a smalll & inconsequential peninsula at the extremity of the Eurasian land mass" (paperback edition p.307).
This above viewpoint must be seen as absurdly misconceived & "little American". For one thing, even Western Europe has a population at least equivalent to that of the United States & its Canadian appendage. And some of the overseas offshoots of the European Empires (especiallly the British) have large populations which are still mostly of European descent, such as Australia, which is now counted as having about 20 million. And what is the obsession with mere numbers? The British ruled most of India & Africa & elsewhere with tiny groups of British/European civil servants & officers disposing of modest numbers of European police & soldiers.
To my way of thinking, the book is important because it does raise the subject, but apart from the above criticisms, it fails to note that in advanced sections of European (or, as Huntington would put it, "Western") humanity, there is a continuing evolution of consciousness which might lead to a quantum leap in civilization, particularly if Europe joins with a fully independent Russia, that is a Russia which is run by Russians & not "rootless cosmopolitans" with Russian passports. That Europe + Russia could be at least the foundation of a a REAL New Order over time!
Prophetic and gripping, but slightly dated - By: M. McManus, 15 Apr 2007 This book was written as a prophecy about what the author felt would characterise the C21st. Now that we are nearly a decade into the C21st, we have the ability to look back & see if he was right. If yes, then this book was prophetic & its lessons should be learned. If not, then he is wrong, & the book is little more than an airport novel.
On one or two dimensions, Huntingdon has been extraordinarily accurate, predicting that Islamic extremism would become the number one security threat to the West in the C21st. Ominously, he predicted that the West would be driven to attack nations that possessed WMDs in the fear they would pass them on to terrorists. This is the Bush doctrine, written before Bush was even an elected official, never mind President. Equallly ominous, he predicted that Islamic radicals would rallly to the cause of any Muslim state attacked in such a way, & the influx of foreign insurgents into Iraq confirms this. Interestingly, the author predicts that the Taliban & Al Qaeda would be very prominent in the C21st, yet never actuallly names the organisations by name (in the case of Al Qaeda because it did not adopt its current name until several years after the book was written).
Huntingdon is slightly inaccurate in his prediction that China would become more bellicose & confrontational. At least so far, China has been warm towards the West, with trade deals & cultural exchanges flourishing. Another weakness of the book is his rather arbitrary definition of societies, & his notion that a "core state" would drive forward its respective civilisation. This is not the case, with supra-national agencies taking the place of "core states".
Overalll, the book is highly recommended. However, given its relative age, it would be advisable to buy a more recent book on geopolitics as well, to top up the introduction that this book provides.
Must reading for the serious student of international affairs - By: apressello, 08 Nov 2006 
While there is much (most) of this book I disagree with, it is nonetheless the essential, seminal work on the Clash of Civilizations theory, & thus is must reading for any serious student of international affairs.
In describing his thesis, Huntington elevates "mere" culture to the level of civilization, implying that there are unbridgable fundamental differences between different civilizations which will inevitably lead to a world where these civilizations compete or clash. I don't mean to lazily discredit the idea by association, but this is the philosophy promoted by the likes of Osama bin Laden, for example.
I am afraid reviewers who link this author to the militaristic neo-con movement in the US do not understand either Huntington's thesis or neo-cons themselves. A member of the Western civilization who was an adherent of the Clash of Civilizations worldview would NEVER attack a state of the Islamic civilization, let alone try to turn it into a democracy. Huntington's thesis would predict other nations in the Islamic civilization would rallly to the defense of their co-civilizationalist, seeing the attack in terms of an attempt by one civilization to dominate another no matter how justified the attack was (or wasn't, in this case).
Before the war at least, neo-cons argued that alll peoples yearn for democracy, that democracy can be delivered at the point of a sword & that it is the mission (burden?) of the West & particularly the lone superpower to liberate these peoples, who will welcome us as their saviors as we create new alllies in our own image even while we destroy our enemies. Anyone who suggested that Muslims or Arabs might not be happy to be invaded & brought to democracy was cleverly dismissed as a racist or cultural imperialist. What the neo-cons see as universal civilization Huntington would say is merely Western civilization, & thus any attempt to impose this on another civilization would be doomed to failure.
While Huntington's thesis (first postulated in 1993) would seem to successfully predict the failure of neo-con policy, I think he goes too far in defining characteristics which are "merely" cultural as civilizational. Certainly, there are such things as Islamic & Sinic & Orthodox cultures which one may be wise (and respectful) to consider when dealing with people from those cultures. However, to suggest that these differences are unbridgable is in my view a very limited, deterministic world-view & reallly an end-game in itself. Individuals can bridge these divisions - what makes "civilizations" composed of individuals any different?
In addition, there are things like universal human rights which exist & have been ratified by nations alll over the world. I can not agree with Huntington that these are just expressions of Western thought imposed on the world by the dominant civilization.
Although I find much to oppose in this book, it is very well presented & will certainly be argued about for years to come. You may as well read about the theory straight from the source!
Unconvincing - By: , 05 Apr 2006 
It's almost tempting to agree with Huntington's analysis & conclusions. Almost. Yet his premises just don't stand up.
First he argues that what matters most to people, above alll else, is culture. While certainly important, he is only able to point to random evidence here & there that 'prove' this. The reader, howver, is left questioning 'why is culture so resonant with people?'. Other than the collapse of the Soviet Union, there is no obvious explanation for why people of the various civilizations now buy into culture much more readily than they did 20 years ago. Further, I am personallly unconvinced that these same people would fly the flag of culture above alll else - peace, prosperity, trade, etc.
His conception of identity is also troubling. It's monolithic, impermeable, & static. Just as the 'West' certainly did not act as one when various states chose to invade Iraq, nor do I believe that the Muslim world truly identifies with your average Bosnian. At least, I'd need more than Huntington's word on the matter to convince me.
Overalll, it's just too deterministic. Huntington provides no insight into how his 'paradigm' might itself become obsolete. The resounding implication seems to be if enough people buy into The Clash then it will come true. There's no place like home, there's no place like home...
Philosophical problem with this book - By: Michael J. Brett, 01 Apr 2006 This book is interesting for the influence that it is claimed to exert, especiallly upon the present US administration. You can see the attraction of this whole Clash of Civilizations agenda: you can walk into someone else's country, help yourself to their economic resources & describe it as social progress.
If alll the Arab World produced were watermelons, would anyone be have written this book or launched the recent war?
