Democratizations, Civilizations and Xenophobia...Oh My!

Samuel P. Huntington wrote The Third Wave, The Clash of Civilizations and The Hispanic Challenge, which focus largely on the identity aspect of the three principles to solve the collective goods problem. Huntington contends that the world can be explained by examining nation’s ideologies and a few other characteristics. In one work he makes generalizations that ignore the complexities and differences of nations by dividing the world into eight groups, but later takes certain cultural variations between Mexicans and Americans and claims they will be the downfall of the US as we know it.

In the work, The Third Wave, published in 1991, Huntington delivers his explanation as to why Latin American and Asian countries embraced democracy. He presents five social and financial conditions that he deems responsible for the democratization of the regions. Huntington writes that when these aspects: questionable government legitimacy, a strong middle class, religious backing, specific external influences and the “snowball effect,” are present, a country will inevitably turn to democracy. All countries that fit this mold will inevitably become democratic? This is a dangerous generalization to make because it leaves no room for exceptions. This kind of statement can therefore be disproven with one instance that does not fit. One such case is the Arab Spring because these countries are on the path of democratization even though they lack the Christian, mainly Catholic, element Huntington deems necessary. Also, the revolutions of all of Latin American and Asian countries cannot be reduced to five common points of identity. The external pressures described are really reciprocity at work. Reciprocity is vastly different depending on the situation. It can involve rewards or threats of all levels of intensity. This is a greatly variable aspect that Huntington presents as largely the same during the third wave. Still, Huntington’s assertions cannot be dismissed as irrelevant. The five characteristics he describes as present in the cases of democratization during the wave are useful in exploring the broad themes of democratization, but are too general to form a rule about which countries will become democracies. The Third Wave’s main focus foreshadows Huntington’s future use of identity as an explanation of world conflict and a sacred notion to be protected.

A few years later Huntington wrote The Clash of Civilizations. This article breaks the world into seven or eight civilizations: Western, Latin American, Islamic, Sinic (Chinese), Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Japanese, and African. The existence of the African civilization is noted as debatable. If the African civilization does not exist, then Huntington leaves an entire continent without recognition in his theory. Huntington writes that “The most important conflicts of the future will occur along the cultural fault lines separating these civilizations from one another.” (Clash 25). Huntington suggests that identity alone is enough to keep the peace among countries. Countries in the European Union tend to not engage in war with one another in part because of their common characteristics, but also because of the reciprocity associated with the EU. They benefit from this international organization and would jeopardize those rewards by engaging in war with another country in the EU. Also, his definition of important must exclude civil wars where millions have died, because such conflicts have taken place within the possibly-existent civilization of Africa: Rwanda, the Congo, Darfur, Sierra Leone and others. Not only does Huntington's theory not anticipate war within the “African civilization,” but it also makes no reference to power issues which help explain these conflicts. There were struggles for control in these areas that had little to do with cultural difference and more to do with control interests. Huntington focuses solely on identity, which is only one side of the triangle. This idea also falls short when applied to today’s hot topic: the Arab Spring. These revolutions have taken place in both Africa and Muslim countries, some of the countries, like Egypt, can claim both titles, but the conflicts have not been international. Huntington’s “snowball effect” is definitely in play, but these conflicts cannot be divided into a clash between Muslims and Africans or anything of the sort. The Islamic civilization is only supposed to conflict with other civilizations, not within, so either Huntington is wrong or these are not important conflicts. Huntington generalizes the identity of all Muslim countries. There are significant divisions amongst the followers of Islam, what Huntington calls the Muslim civilization. Sunnis versus Shiites, Islamists versus liberals, Arabs versus non-Arabs and myriad others. How can such a divided region be grouped together as a homogenous entity? Huntington is so focused on finding the core identity of major world groups that he ignores deep cultural divides. The clash of civilizations theory also ignores overlaps among the civilizations. Where would a Nigerian Muslim that immigrated to a “western” country fit? This hypothetical man now has ties to three civilizations, so his identity is unclear. Huntington never addresses the ability of a person to belong to more than one civilization. Further, there are complexities that Huntington glazes over to come up with a theory to tackle the immense task of categorizing the peoples of the world. Huntington also tainted his theory with ethnocentricity. The section of the article, the West versus the rest, from title to finish, shows an inflated sense of “Western” importance. Huntington describes his civilization as superior to all others. He writes of the unrivaled military and economic power of the “West,” which was arguably true at the time, but he failed to acknowledge the possibility of non-”Western” countries growing to challenge the “West.” With China as an emerging economic and political power, Huntington’s assuredness in the unrivaled superiority of the “West” seems erroneous. The theory is helpful when taken without much criticism because it provides a clean, straightforward way to look at the world and predict future conflict, but it does not always work. Huntington’s civilizations encompass nations with different interests and levels of economic and political power. Such groups cannot be addressed collectively through reciprocity because they are not homogenous and have diverse desires. Therefore, one implication of this theory is that reciprocity is mostly ineffective and discrepancies in power are unimportant.

Most recently, in 2004, Huntington published an article in Foreign Policy entitled The Hispanic Challenge, sometimes referred to as José Can You See. In short, Huntington explains his theory as to how Latin, mainly Mexican, immigration to the United States, both legal and illegal, is threatening the core of the American identity. Huntington predicts that continued immigration at the current levels will dichotomize the country. Unlike with previous immigrant groups, Huntington explains, Mexicans have not assimilated into society by learning the English language and embracing “Anglo-Protestant” culture. Huntington also warns that “No other immigrant group in U.S. history has asserted or could assert a historical claim to U.S. territory. Mexicans and Mexican Americans can and do make that claim.” (Hispanic 4). It is not as though there is popular fear that Mexico hopes to annex parts of the United States; there have been no such indications. Huntington might argue that if such a war were to occur it would be along the fault line between the “West” and “Latin American” civilizations, but in reality it does not completely fit his theory. The basis for war would be territorial, not cultural. Also, Huntington’s fixation on territory seems to answer the question of possessing multiple identities that was left after the reading The Clash of Civilizations. If territorial claims are so critical, then they are the basis for identity, so a person can only have one. This then raises issues about the “Muslim civilization” because that grouping is based majorly on religion rather than territory. Huntington goes on in the article to make blatantly xenophobic statements about the threat that Mexican Americans pose to the ever-important identity of the United States: “The transformation of the United States into a country like these would not necessarily be the end of the world; it would, however, be the end of the America we have known for more than three centuries.” (referring to America becoming a country with a dichotomized culture) and “There is no Americano dream. There is only the American dream created by an Anglo-Protestant society. Mexican Americans will share in that dream and in that society only if they dream in English.” (Hispanic 8). These statements show dislike and disrespect for Mexican American immigrants based on differences in identity to the extent that I classify them as xenophobia. Though the large amount of Mexican immigrants may cause an increased Spanish usage in the United States, it is doubtful that it will destroy the core of American society. There are already areas where Spanish is often spoken, and these parts of the US have not lost their American identity or become part of Mexico. In the Clash of Civilizations Huntington does not note linguistic differences as polarizing when he creates the “African,” “Muslim” and even “Western” civilizations which encompass many languages. There is also ethnocentricity in the article, which pairs easily with the xenophobia, because Huntington implies the superiority of American culture and that it must be protected from infiltration.

It is not to be said that all of Huntington’s points are ludicrous. He just has too narrow a view, which skips over major incongruities, and a generous dose of ethnocentricity in his theories. It would be convenient if identity was the only aspect of international issues that needed recognition, but that is a naive presumption. Possibly by broadening Huntington’s theories to address power and reciprocity as well they would be more realistic and applicable to actual world issues, but for now, I’m not buying it.

It would be interesting to see if Huntington’s other works fit the same pattern of focus on identity and extreme generalization. I pointed out many instances in which Huntington was blatantly mistaken, there are likely more, but there are also instances in which his theories proved useful. His five points regarding democratization are applicable to certain countries, like the importance of the middle class in supporting a military coup in Argentina and the presence “snowball effect” during the Arab Spring. Huntington is by no means useless, but his theories should be looked at with their weaknesses considered.

Works Cited

Betts, Richard K. "Samuel P. Huntington (American Political Scientist) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia." Encyclopedia - Britannica Online Encyclopedia. Britannica Online Encyclopedia. Web. 12 Sept. 2011. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/766295/Samuel-P-Huntington>.

Huntington, Samuel P. "The Clash of Civilizations." Foreign Affairs 72.3 (1993): 22-49. Print.

Huntington, Samuel P. "The Hispanic Challenge." Foreign Policy - the Global Magazine of Economics, Politics, and Ideas. Foreign Policy, 1 Mar. 2004. Web. 12 Sept. 2011. <http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2004/03/01/the_hispanic_challenge?page=0,0>.