This Thesis is written to discuss the truth of Samuel P. Huntington’s thesis about the clash civilization between Islam and West. This Theorized clash civilization. Jauh sebelum Samuel Huntington menuliskan buku TheClash of Civilization. MenurutQuthb, benturanbenturan itu terjadikarena peradaban Barat yang. Download Citation on ResearchGate | BENTURAN PERADABAN DAN CARUT- MARUT POSTMODERNISME Huntington, Samuel P
|Published (Last):||9 March 2008|
|PDF File Size:||5.68 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||2.33 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The Clash of Civilizations is a hypothesis that people’s cultural and religious identities will be the primary source of conflict in the post- Cold War world.
The American political scientist Samuel P. Huntington argued that future wars would be fought not between countries, but between cultures, and that Islamic extremism would become the biggest threat to world peace.
It was proposed in a lecture  at the American Enterprise Institutewhich was then developed in a Foreign Affairs article titled “The Clash of Civilizations?
Young Islam on Trek: A Study in the Clash of Civilizations p. Huntington began his thinking by surveying the diverse theories about the nature of global politics in the post-Cold War period. Some theorists and writers argued that human rightsliberal democracyand the capitalist free market economy had become the only remaining ideological alternative for nations in the post-Cold War world. Specifically, Francis Fukuyama argued that the world had reached the ‘ end of history ‘ in a Hegelian sense.
Huntington believed that while the age of ideology had ended, the world had only reverted to a normal state of affairs characterized by cultural conflict. In his thesis, he argued that the primary axis of conflict in the future will be along cultural lines. It is to set forth descriptive hypothesis as to what the future may be like. In addition, the clash of civilizations, for Huntington, represents a development of history.
Clash of Civilizations – Wikipedia
In the past, world history was mainly about the struggles between monarchs, nations and ideologies, such as seen within Western civilization. But after the end of the Cold Warworld politics moved into a new phase, in which non-Western civilizations are no longer the exploited recipients of Western civilization but have become additional important actors joining the West to shape and move world history.
Huntington argues that the trends of global conflict after the end of the Cold War are increasingly appearing at these civilizational divisions. Wars such as those following the break up of Yugoslaviain Chechnyaand between India and Pakistan were cited as evidence of inter-civilizational conflict.
Huntington sees the West as reluctant to accept this because it built the international system, wrote its laws, and gave it substance in the form of the United Nations. Huntington identifies a major shift of economic, military, and political power from the West to the other civilizations of the world, most significantly to what he identifies as the two “challenger civilizations”, Sinic and Islam. In Huntington’s view, East Asian Sinic civilization is culturally asserting itself and its values relative to the West due to its rapid economic growth.
Specifically, he believes that China’s peraddaban are to reassert itself as the regional hegemonand that other countries in the region will ‘bandwagon’ with China due to the history of hierarchical command structures implicit ;eradaban the Confucian Sinic civilization, as opposed to the individualism and pluralism valued in the West.
Regional powers such as the two Koreas and Vietnam will benturaj to Chinese demands and become more supportive of China rather than attempting to oppose it. Huntington therefore believes that the rise of China poses one of the most significant problems and the most powerful long-term threat to the West, as Chinese cultural assertion clashes with the American desire for the lack of a regional hegemony in East Asia.
Huntington argues that the Pfradaban civilization has experienced a massive population explosion which is fueling instability both on the borders of Islam and in its interior, where fundamentalist movements are becoming increasingly popular. Manifestations of what he terms the ” Islamic Resurgence ” include the Iranian revolution and the first Gulf War.
Perhaps the most controversial statement Huntington made in the Foreign Affairs article was that “Islam has bloody borders”. Huntington believes this to be a real consequence of samusl factors, including benfuran previously mentioned Muslim youth bulge and population growth and Islamic proximity to many civilizations including Sinic, Orthodox, Western, and African.
Huntington sees Islamic civilization as a potential ally to China, both having more revisionist goals and sharing common conflicts with other civilizations, especially the West. Specifically, hkntington identifies common Chinese and Islamic interests in the areas of weapons proliferation, human rights, and democracy that conflict with those of the West, and feels that these are areas in which the two civilizations will cooperate.
Russia, Japan, and India are what Huntington terms ‘swing civilizations’ and may favor either side. Russia, for example, clashes with the many Muslim ethnic groups on its southern border such as Chechnya but—according to Huntington—cooperates with Iran to avoid further Muslim-Orthodox violence in Southern Russia, and to help continue the flow of oil.
Huntington argues that a ” Sino-Islamic hutington ” is emerging in which China will cooperate more closely with IranPakistan, and other states to augment its international position.
Huntington also argues that civilizational conflicts are “particularly prevalent between Muslims and non-Muslims”, identifying the “bloody borders” between Islamic and non-Islamic civilizations. This conflict dates back as far as the initial thrust of Islam into Europeits eventual expulsion in the Iberian reconquestthe attacks of the Ottoman Turks on Eastern Europe and Vienna, and the European imperial division of the Islamic nations in the s and s. bentruan
Clash of Civilizations
Huntington also believes that some of the factors contributing to this conflict are that both Christianity upon which Western civilization is based and Islam are:. More recent factors contributing to a Western—Islamic clash, Huntington wrote, are the Islamic Resurgence and demographic explosion in Islam, coupled with the values of Western universalism—that is, the view that all civilizations should adopt Western values—that infuriate Islamic fundamentalists.
All these historical and modern factors combined, Huntington wrote briefly in his Foreign Affairs article and in much more detail in his book, would lead to a bloody clash between the Islamic and Western civilizations. Huntington suggests that in the future the central axis of world politics tends to be the conflict between Western and non-Western civilizations, in [Stuart Hall]’s phrase, the conflict between “the West and the Rest”.
He offers three forms of general actions that non-Western civilization can epradaban in response to Western countries. In Huntington’s view, intercivilizational conflict manifests itself in two forms: Fault line conflicts are on a local level and occur between adjacent states belonging to different civilizations or within states that are home to populations from different civilizations. Core state conflicts are on a global level between the major states of different civilizations.
Core state conflicts can arise out of fault line conflicts when core states become involved. These conflicts may result from a number of causes, such as: Critics of Huntington’s ideas often extend their criticisms to traditional cultures and internal reformers who wish to modernize without adopting the values and attitudes of Western culture.
These critics [ who? Japan, China and the Four Asian Tigers have modernized in many respects while maintaining traditional or authoritarian societies which distinguish them from the West. Some of these countries have clashed with the West and some have not. Perhaps the ultimate example of non-Western modernization is Russia, the core state of the Orthodox civilization. Huntington argues that Russia is primarily a non-Western state although he seems to agree that it shares a considerable amount of cultural ancestry with the modern West.
According to Huntington, the West is distinguished from Orthodox Christian countries by its experience of the RenaissanceReformationthe Enlightenment ; by overseas colonialism rather than contiguous expansion and colonialism; and by the infusion of Classical culture through ancient Greece rather than through the continuous trajectory of the Byzantine Empire.
Huntington refers to countries that are seeking to affiliate with another civilization as “torn countries”. Turkeywhose political leadership has systematically tried to Westernize the country since the s, is his chief example. Mexico and Russia are also considered to be torn peradbaan Huntington. He also gives the example of Australia as a country torn between its Western civilizational heritage and its growing economic engagement with Asia.
According to Huntington, a torn henturan must meet three requirements to redefine its civilizational identity. Its political and economic elite must support the move. Second, the public must be willing to accept the redefinition. Third, the elites of the civilization that the torn epradaban is trying to join must accept the country.
Then, we will regain the Turkish public opinion support in one day. In an article explicitly referring to Huntington, scholar Amartya Sen argues:. Western civilization is no exception.
The practice of democracy that has won out in the modern West is largely a result of a consensus that has emerged since the Bwnturan and the Industrial Revolutionand particularly in the last century or so. To read in this a historical commitment of the West—over the millennia—to democracy, and then to contrast it with non-Western traditions treating each as monolithic would be a great mistake.
In his book Terror and LiberalismPaul Berman argues that distinct cultural boundaries do not exist in the present day. He argues there is no “Islamic civilization” nor a “Western civilization”, and that the evidence for a civilization clash is not convincing, especially when considering relationships such as that between the United States and Saudi Arabia.
In addition, he cites the fact that many Islamic extremists spent a significant amount of time living or studying in the Western world.
According to Berman, conflict arises because of philosophical beliefs various groups share or do not shareregardless of cultural or peravaban identity. Edward Said issued a response to Huntington’s thesis in his article, ” The Clash samue Ignorance “. A longtime critic of the Huntingtonian paradigm, and an outspoken proponent of Arab issues, Edward Said also argues that the clash of civilizations thesis is an example of “the purest invidious racism, a sort of parody of Hitlerian science directed today against Arabs and Muslims” p.
Noam Chomsky has criticized the concept of the clash of civilizations as just being a new justification for the United States “for any atrocities that they wanted to carry out”, which was required after the Cold War as the Soviet Union was no longer a viable threat.
Huntington’s geopolitical model, especially the structures for North Africa and Eurasia, is largely derived from the ” Intermediate Region ” geopolitical model first formulated by Dimitri Kitsikis and published in Concerning this region, Huntington departs from Kitsikis contending that a civilizational fault line exists between the two dominant yet differing religions Eastern Orthodoxy and Sunni Islamhence a dynamic of external conflict.
However, Kitsikis establishes an integrated civilization comprising these two peoples along with those belonging to the less dominant religions of Shia IslamAlevismand Judaism.
They have a set of mutual cultural, social, economic and political views and bwnturan which radically differ from those in the West and the Far East. In the Intermediate Region, therefore, one cannot speak of a civilizational clash or external conflict, but rather an internal conflict, not for cultural domination, but for political succession.
This has been successfully demonstrated by documenting the rise of Christianity from the Hellenized Roman Empirethe rise of the Islamic caliphates from the Christianized Roman Huntimgton and the rise of Ottoman rule from the Islamic caliphates and the Christianized Roman Empire.
In recent years, the theory of Dialogue Among Civilizationsa response to Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations, has become the center of some international attention. The initiative is intended to galvanize collective action across diverse societies to combat extremismto overcome cultural and social barriers between mainly the Western and predominantly Muslim worlds, and to reduce the tensions and polarization between societies which differ in religious and cultural values.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. This article contains weasel words: Such statements should be clarified or removed. Trade Policy — Economics”. Archived from the original on The Clash of Civilizations? In commemoration of Sita Ram Goel. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizationsp. I, Paris, Robert Laffont,p. Cultures in world affairs. The Globalization of World Politics.
Oxford University Press; Lechner FJ, Boli J, editors. The Global Politics of Civilizations”. International Politics, 42, pp. Testing Cultural Legacies and the Civilization Border. International Politics, 39 2pp. Clear and Present Strangers: The Clash of Civilizations and International Conflict. International Studies Quarterly, 45, pp.