Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The clash of civilizations by sam huntington summary
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The clash of civilizations by sam huntington summary
The clash of civilization and remaking of world order is written by Samuel P. Huntington in 1993; however, it was originally published in 1996 by Simon and Schuster. The author critically analyzes the behavioral conflict among countries after Second World War and concludes that the battles lines around the world will be cultural-clash in future. The main focus of his discussion revolves around the idea that states there is no more ideological, economic or outdated rivalries among countries, rather it would be a matter of cultural identity to maintain world order. He even further goes beyond to state that third world war will be fought on grounds of different cultural-conflicts. The author has divided the book into five parts to illustrate his hypothesis. Chapter 01:- Part I A World of Civilization Huntington has analyzed various theories about different socio-economic scenario and political order in first part of the book i.e. A World of Civilization. He came to find out that perhaps none of the related theories have been able to forecast the actual life after World War II. He was certain that all of these theories could not depict the reality of 20th He says that it was quite difficult for different states to have individual identity. They were not able to categories themselves in such immense cultural unification. Therefore, many of the countries went down for identity crisis that Huntington stated as: “rallying to those cultures with similar religion, language, values, and institutions, and distance themselves from those with different ones” (Huntington, 1996). He also analyzed different organizations which were formed soon after the War such as European Union. It could lead to one major development to modern civilization. Many other states which got separated from a mutual hub, started to struggle hard to attain individual identify in
...hat sometimes some ethnic groups didn’t share the same ideas with other people and that lead to fights and violence with the purpose of become the leader.
Odd Arne Westad, Director of the Cold War Studies Centre at the London School of Economics and Political Science, explains how the Cold War “shaped the world we live in today — its politics, economics, and military affairs“ (Westad, The Global Cold War, 1). Furthermore, Westad continues, “ the globalization of the Cold War during the last century created foundations” for most of the historic conflicts we see today. The Cold War, asserts Westad, centers on how the Third World policies of the two twentieth-century superpowers — the United States and the Soviet Union — escalates to antipathy and conflict that in the end helped oust one world power while challenging the other. This supplies a universal understanding on the Cold War (Westad, The Global Cold War, 1).
This was the first truly global conflict in a century that the world had plunged into since the Napoleonic wars with the invasion of Egypt. From India to Argentina had the world been swept by one single conflagration. This war that started in Europe went global because was a conflict between global empires, which locked in a fratricidal conflict with each other, are going to h...
In his book Looking Backward, Edward Bellamy gives us some insight into how his contemporaries viewed the world. He writes about the poverty, inequality and corruption of his age, while at the same time lauding the industrial innovations corporations had made. In response to the social strife and uncertainty of his time, he presents social change as peaceful.
Advances in technology and the expansion of trade have, without a doubt, improved the standard of living dramatically for peoples around the world. Globalization brings respect for law and human rights and the democratization of politics, education, and finance to developing societies, but is usually slow in doing so. It is no easy transition or permanent solution to conflict, as some overly zealous proponents would argue. In The Great Illusion, Norman Angell sees globalization as a force which results from and feeds back into the progressive change of human behavior from using physical force toward using rational, peaceful methods in order to achieve economic security and prosperity. He believes that nations will no longer wage war against one another because trade, not force, yields profit in the new global economy, and he argues that “military power is socially and economically futile” because “political and military power can in reality do nothing for trade.” While the economic interdependence of nations should prove to be a deterrent from warfare, globalization is not now, and was not a century ago, a prescription for world peace. At the turn of the twentieth century, formal colonialism was still profitable in some regions, universal free trade was not a reality, nationalism was not completely defunct, military force was necessary to protect economic investments in developing locations, and the arms race of the previous century had created the potential for an explosive war if any small spark should set the major powers off against one another. The major flaw in Angell’s argument is his refusal to acknowledge the economic advantages that colonizing powers, even after globalization has started to take shape, can actuall...
Throughout history, contact between people of different cultures has been a source of conflict. This is observed especially in the medieval and early modern periods, when worldwide exploration leading to encounters between different groups of people was occurring more frequently. For a majority of those meetings, one of the groups ended up mistreating the other, and this became a popular topic for writers and poets at the time. Depending on which group the writer belonged to, the events could have been portrayed in certain light, but a large portion of the writers did not portray the events positively, despite the fact that they had more in common with the invading groups’ backgrounds than they did with the natives.
With the shock of two destructive world wars and then the creation of the United Nations, whose aim is to preserve peace, it is unconceivable for these two nations to fight directly in order to promote their own ideology. But the US and the USSR end up to be in competition in numerous ways, particularly in technological and industrial fields. In the same time they start to spread their influence over their former allies. This phenomenon have led to the creation of a bipolar world, divided in two powerful blocs surrounded by buffer zones, and to the beginning of what we call the Cold War because of the absence of direct conflicts between the two nations.
In “Democracy’s Third Wave”, Samuel P. Huntington examines the creation of democracies during the third wave and questions whether they were part of a continuing “global democratic revolution” or simply a limited expansion only meant for countries that had already experienced democracy (Huntington, 1991). He does this through research based empirical study by tracing the series of events leading to democratization. There are both quantitative (in regards to economic growth and the amount/percentage of countries that democratized during all three waves) and qualitative (through historical evidence in regards to snowballing) research methods. Huntington’s examination is based on having democratization as his dependent variable and his five factors,
The struggle to balance our many diversities with unity and, at least some tolerance and cooperation, has been one long battle between mankind and itself. Often, it seems almost eternal, a flame that cannot be extinguished unless all its kindling is dunked in some eye-opening truth and acceptance. Today, as much as any other day in history we experience these acts against each other: as impactful as Russia and Ukraine or the conflicts between Israeli and Palestinian people or as silly as Brazil and Argentina’s famous football rivalry. More industrialized countries/societies, particularly western societies, can obtain a certain superiority complex. Ethnocentrism plays a role in this; in a large amount of cases the “inferior cultures” lacked something like stronger military forces and technological advances, or even a disadvantage caused by the local geography that was dubbed weaker than their opponents.
In 1992 within a lecture Samuel P. Huntington proposed a theory that suggests that people's cultural and religious identities will undoubtedly be the primary source of conflict in the post-Cold War world, this theory is known as the Clash of Civilizations. Therefore this essay provides a criticism of this theory, whether I agree or disagree with it and also the aspects I like or dislike about the theory as a whole.
There are many different ways that this article can be perceived. In my opinion, the argument is very convincing that Western culture is not the culture of the world. There are many cultures around the world that are highly functioning with Western influence and the author does an excellent job of incorporating examples of these societies into his argument. Countries such as Japan are experiencing what Huntington describes as cultural
Fukuyama, F. (1989). The End of History.The National Interest, Summer. Retrieved February 2, 2014, from http://www.wesjones.com/eoh.htm
In this essay I will discuss why the Third World has been the sight of most of the world's conflicts since 1945. The conflicts that have transpired have been mostly internal and not just between these countries and their neighbors. They range in wars regarding religion, liberation, rebelling, and civil wars to name a few. I will consider these conflicts and their make up in regards to countries involved in the most serious conflicts along with the impact on their infrastructures, and how these wars have been fought.
Robert D. Kaplan’s article “The Coming Anarchy," is best summarized by the following quote, which identifies the different factors that he evaluates throughout his article, “To understand the events of the next fifty years, then, one must understand environmental scarcity, cultural and racial clash, geographic destiny, and the transformation of war.” (Kaplan, 1994) This is the framework that he uses to make his supporting arguments and thus this summary will be broken down into these four main parts.
Our world is constantly changing and it requires a society that is well versed in understanding the problems deriving from culture differences and tolerance of one another’s beliefs and perceptions. We are dealing with systemic problems in education, economic, government, religion and culture differences.