What are you reading?

[randall_flagg]

Just finished reading Samuel P. Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations”. I’d heard about it a lot, and after Imron recommended it to me somewhere in the forums I decided to give it a try.

It is a good read, with a few interesting foreign relations paradigms. I don’t necessarily agree with everything Huntington says, but he does make a few interesting points. However, there here are a few points I dislike:

First of all, I have to admit that I am very sceptical of any individual who is an expert on every country and every region on the planet. Huntington is at times prone to oversimplifications and generalizations to fit his theory.

He argues that trade has never been a guarantor for peace, sometimes intensified trade increased the potential for wars. But in today’s world we don’t just have huge trading networks, we are witnessing ever more intricately interwoven market systems in which the failure of one may produce of the failure of another. This complex and interdependent system had well started to take shape in the late 19th century, but can’t compare in scope and size to what we are seeing right now. He fails to realize this.

He is convinced that increased communication with other civilizations leads to the realization of self and clear distinction of “other”, fueling nationalism and mistrust of the OTHER. Of course, there is some truth to that! We all know that once you go to China, you are bound to feel more French, Scottish or Polish than you’ve ever felt before! But you also get to know other people, understand what motivates them and what makes them tick – and how to work together with them to achieve mutual goals.

He sees states as main, and sometimes sole international actors. To Huntington war is neither inevitable or bad . (I think in foreign policy terms this makes him a pessimist neo-realist second-image thinker). I profoundly disagree with this, especially the “second-image thinker” part. National governments are indeed important actors, after all, they control the military. But international corporations, interest groups and transnational movements have become movers and shakers in our world as well. They are hardly mentioned in his book. The more I read the more I think that my policy views, pathetic as its sounds, were shaped early on when I watched Star Trek. To me, a “world civilization” is the ultimate intermediate goal (oxymoron!) of humankind.

Although he pretends to be neutral, Huntington at times makes daring statements such as: “The futures of the United States and of the West depend upon Americans reaffirming their commitment to Western civilization. Domestically this means rejecting the divisive siren calls of multiculturalism.” Do what this what you may…I don’t like it!

The book is somewhat obsolete in that it was written pre-9/11. Granted, Huntington pretty much predicted that a 9/11 might happen. This aside, he wrote the “Clash of Civilizations” before the global economic meltdown we are witnessing right now. Who knows what might come out of this? Maybe the G20 and NATO meetings taking place this week will be a catalyst for the things Huntington describes. But, most importantly, he came up with his theory before the age of the internet. He keeps citing historical reasons and outlines trends that can be observed over centuries. He uses these age-old trends to explain what is happening right now (1990’s) and what will happen in the future. But all of this was before the internet so profoundly changed who we are. Heck, the mid-90’s were a time we still used pencils and plotting paper to draw the chart of a certain stock and made financial decision based on that!

Conclusion: A few interesting foreign policy paradigms and predictions – but many arguments are sweeping generalizations that are partly obsolete because of his underestimation of different international actors, the effect the internet has had on all actors and his underestimation of economics as a driving force.

PS. As I am listening to Obama speak to G20 reporters I am again thinking what interesting times we are living in!

[imron]

Samuel P. Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations”. I’d heard about it a lot, and after Imron recommended it to me somewhere in the forums

Errr, I did? I've never read this book

[randall_flagg]

How embarrassing! I could have sworn it was you? I search on the forums didn't reveal who recommended it to me. Sorry, Imron! Weird. Mmh, I remember talking about Chinese nationalism and then someone said "Its all in Huntington's book". Wonder who it was.

[roddy]

I'll wager it was Wushijiao.

[gato]

Wushijiao has definitely read the book, but I don't know if he's posted about it here.

Although he pretends to be neutral, Huntington at times makes daring statements such as: “The futures of the United States and of the West depend upon Americans reaffirming their commitment to Western civilization. Domestically this means rejecting the divisive siren calls of multiculturalism.” Do what this what you may…I don’t like it!

Huntington is a great writer. The fineness of his writing sometimes lets him get away with flaws in his arguments. This point on western civilization, for example, is fatally flawed because there is no one western civilization. It would make much more sense to defend liberalism (or Catholicism or Mormonism) against multiculturalism. At least then, it would be clear what you are defending.

[studentyoung]

He is convinced that increased communication with other civilizations leads to the realization of self and clear distinction of “other”, fueling nationalism and mistrust of the OTHER. Of course, there is some truth to that! We all know that once you go to China, you are bound to feel more French, Scottish or Polish than you’ve ever felt before! But you also get to know other people, understand what motivates them and what makes them tick – and how to work together with them to achieve mutual goals.

Well, perhaps Huntington’s point is for those narcissists. Don’t you think so?Hehe.

Cheers!

[Shadowdh]

I have Huntingtons book on a very large pile that I want to read (as opposed to need to read sigh) and have heard that its quite good... your review Randall makes me want to even more...

It sounds like he has realist leanings... especially in the comment "He is convinced that increased communication with other civilizations leads to the realization of self and clear distinction of “other”, fueling nationalism and mistrust of the OTHER. Of course, there is some truth to that! We all know that once you go to China, you are bound to feel more French, Scottish or Polish than you’ve ever felt before! But you also get to know other people, understand what motivates them and what makes them tick – and how to work together with them to achieve mutual goals." as it has shades of Hobbsian thought there... competition of man and nature of man type stuff...

I agree with Gatos comments re "western" civilisation... most astute...

This would be a great discussion topic... but for me it will have to wait sadly as I must get my dissertation finished... both of them... oh and study for the exams that are imminent...

[renzhe]

We all know that once you go to China, you are bound to feel more French, Scottish or Polish than you’ve ever felt before!

True.

But as soon as you return from China, you will feel more Chinese than you've ever felt before. And if you stay in China for a longer period of time, you'll find that you're gradually feeling less French, Scottish, Polish, etc.

But we might be getting off-topic here.

I'm reading Ba Jin

[wushijiao]

Yes, it was me who brought up “The Clash of Civilizations”. I think it’s especially relevant when talking about politics, especially Tibet.

I like your review randall_flagg, very interesting. I share some of the same concerns. I’ve always thought that Huntington was wrong about the idea that Mexican and Latin American immigrants couldn’t integrate with mainstream American culture (although I’m open minded enough to consider the possibility). Studies show that immigrants from Mexico generally follow the same patterns as previous immigrant waves, ie: the first generation generally doesn’t speak English and operates at the fringes of society; the second generation speaks limited or “family life” Spanish, but is generally stronger in English and overall fairly mainstreamized, and the 3rd generation is almost fully integrated.

Anyway, as to the book – “The Clash of Civilizations”, I think to some degree the book suffers from its title. I mean, no one wants to see a clash of civilizations, and so we are opposed to it from the get go. But, first, Huntngton meant for the idea to be a broad paradigm or prism through which we could attempt to view events or conflict, and if possible, to avoid conflict. (One might argue that many violent conflicts of the last 10-15 years might have been minimized if people realized the explosive power of cultural identity in politics). In any particular conflict, particular historical circumstances, interests, and details will complicate the picture and leave the general theory lacking. He compared this to the Cold War thinking, in which two main camps were searching for allies and influence worldwide, and all policymakers throughout different countries understood this basic framework. In other words, the theory has limitations that should be recognized. It’s equally important to understand competing theories as a way to analyze the world. But the crucial point is that because the world is vastly complicated, and the domestic politics of any country can get extremely complex, there is no way any human being (ie. top level policy maker, or politician) would be able to become an expert in every country. Therefore, we tend to view the world through general prisms and under general assumptions, even if we don’t consciously see our own assumptions, or worse, see how they can be culturally-based.

In the case of China, if you are a Westerner, I’d bet good money you might think like this: “China is currently an authoritarian state with many human rights abuses and lots of injustice, although the government does provide for decent economic growth and does many things fairly well. The problem is, they have the legacy of having a top-down Communist-imposed Leninist structure, and they have the legacy of a large, uneducated rural population. But, as time goes on, as the middle class grows and the Internet allows for more freedom of thought, it’s really only a matter of time before the country allows for more democratic reforms and more human rights”.

Huntington might argue (or I’m arguing, using Huntington’s thoughts as a base) that many Chinese people actually think something similar to this: “The Chinese government, and we the Chinese people, generally view our system as an extension of our 5000 years of history. Western democracy hasn’t brought great economic growth to developing countries in SE Asia, India, Latin America, and Africa, and in fact, has often times widened ethnic tensions, and increased dependence on former colonial oppressors. Human rights, although good in theory, in fact are just the West’s way of weakening the government and encouraging rebellion, and the West doesn’t have our interests at heart anyway, after all they invaded us in the Opium Wars and the Boxer Rebellion. Instituting a popular vote would almost certainly weaken Chinese rule over ethnic areas. The last 30 years shows that the government indeed has taken many effective economic measures to spur on growth (such as the complete transformation of cities or the building of dams, the restructuring of SOEs) that simply wouldn’t be allowed under a democratic system. The top leadership of the Politburo is, in fact, chosen through a fairly rigorous internal process, and our system could never produce a George W. Bush or a Chen Shubian. Blindly copying a Western liberal democracy means we’ll always be a second-rate copy of the West, and we’ll lose our soul in that process. The last 30 years have shown that we can achieve economic growth, achieve worldwide respect, and maintain our utmost independence by sticking with the system that allows us to stay Chinese and keep our traditions. ”.

Certainly, anyone who has been in China a while is familiar with those views. You may claim that they are historical distortions or half-truths, or convenient lies propagated by an elite so that they can plunder the country blind with corruption, but I’d argue that whether or not any of the above is true or not isn’t as important as assessing to what degree those views are widely held. I would say that, especially after last year, they are very widespread, even though there are quite a few “rightists” who vigorously argue for universal values, and in fact have quite a bit of influence in the commercial media and on the Internet. As important as individual rights are, for many people, especially outside of the West, group identity politics in deciding which “we” "I" belong to emotionally trumps ideas related to abstract political systems.

I think that, if one is aware of these concepts (and granted, they may not be true or may be only true in certain situations), one will be able to more insightfully understand some of the background context to certain conflicts and news events, which often are written without much contextualization.

Edited April 3, 2009 at 06:08 PM by wushijiao

[randall_flagg]

wushijiao, thank you so much for recommending the "Clash of Civilizations" to me. Like I said before, it was an interesting read and watching the G20 and NATO summit unfold this week, I can already imagine what Huntington might think of those. By the way, what are the characters for your name?

And I agree with you in that I think that some of Huntington's predictions are flat out wrong, but that doesn't mean that he hasn't put forth a valuable tool to analyze global developments -- even if actual developments are somewhat different from what he predicted. He just might be wrong for the right reasons. Also, the very fact that he wrote such an influential book might have altered the course of history, thus canceling out his predictions. But that is a bit far fetched...

Your summaries of the Chinese and Western views are excellent! It is very interesting to witness a comeback of viewing present China as continuing 5.000 years of Chinese history. Just think of all of the 孔子学院 that are opening up all over the world. And nwo close your eyes and imagine what people during the Cultural Revolution would have thought of 孔子学院s representing the NEW China! They would have been outraged. But now that's perfectly normal. A LOT has changed during the last few decades.

I’ve always thought that Huntington was wrong about the idea that Mexican and Latin American immigrants couldn’t integrate with mainstream American culture (although I’m open minded enough to consider the possibility).

The fact that Southern immigrants might be integrating into US society apart; to me the crux of the question is: Should they have to? I can't really answer this question in the affirmative OR say "no". But I think people have moved away from the "melting pot theory" toward the "salad bowl theory" a few years back. That's why I didn't like what Huntington had to say, it sounded to too WASP to my overly PC ears.

I'm reading Ba Jin

Oh my! And so should I...but I'm squeezing in: Warren I. Cohen's "America's Response to China" over the weekend.

but for me it will have to wait sadly as I must get my dissertation finished... both of them... oh and study for the exams that are imminent...

TWO dissertations? If you don't mind my asking, what are you writing about?

Huntington is a great writer. The fineness of his writing sometimes lets him get away with flaws in his arguments.

I totally agree with your point! I've seen it happen to friends and colleagues. People are

so enchanted and enamored with the beauty of the sentences they are producing that they lose sight of the meaning.

It would make much more sense to defend liberalism (or Catholicism or Mormonism) against multiculturalism.

Or atheism!

[Shadowdh]

TWO dissertations? If you don't mind my asking, what are you writing about?

I dont mind at all mate... essentially I am writing on the same topic, but one is a BA level dissertation and the other is a masters level, (yes I was foolish enough to do two different degrees at the same time, NOT recommended)... My heading (so far) is Applying International Relations Theory to the China-Tibet Historical Relationship... TBH the more I have read the more interested I have become... probably not in the way that many westerners would think however...

[wushijiao]

The fact that Southern immigrants might be integrating into US society apart; to me the crux of the question is: Should they have to? I can't really answer this question in the affirmative OR say "no". But I think people have moved away from the "melting pot theory" toward the "salad bowl theory" a few years back. That's why I didn't like what Huntington had to say, it sounded to too WASP to my overly PC ears.

I share your concerns that the "melting pot theroy", that's at bit WASPy and slighty racist even. (With that said, I unerstand Huntington's concern, but I just disagree with him on the facts).

On the other hand, Huntington's book was written almost exactly to warn Western politicians about the perils of launching adventures to promote democracy. And Huntington was in fact against the Iraq War. I think the book is also somewhat useful when looking at other issues such as: the popular press reactions to the war in Georgia, Kosovo becoming a nation, the rifts wthin the Islamic bloc (e. who will become the de facto leader...Saudia Arabia vs. Iran), Turkey's relationship with Europe...etc. Of course, that's not to say that the thoery fully explains any of these events.

Anyway, for the sake of promoting liberalism and universal values, and multi-culturalism, I always thought it be nice if the US could have an articulate, humble, culturally-sensitive, non-WASP spokesperson from outside the mainstream who put a lot of emphasis on interests, and ddn't force values on others, but wouldn't be afrad to speak out about them ether. Now we have one: 老奧！

By the way, what are the characters for your name?

五十角。It was kind of a joke name (supposed to be a Chinese version of "50 Cent", although I found out the rapper goes by the name 50分 after I registered wushijiao. I actually use 倪偉平 as my Chinese name).

[gato]

You might want to check out "American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony", one of Samuel Huntington's lesser known books. I was hanging out at the Chicago Public Library one afternoon and happened upon this book by chance. I read a few chapters and found it to be quite amazing. He has an uncanny ability to bring another perspective on things that you thought you knew very well already.

[randall_flagg]

I found out the rapper goes by the name 50分 after I registered wushijiao.

50 fen, that's even cheaper than, haha! And with the US dollar depreciating, 50 cent is going to be losing face! Haha...I know its not funny, but heck, I tried!

the rifts within the Islamic bloc (e. who will become the de facto leader...Saudi Arabia vs. Iran), Turkey's relationship with Europe.

I was thinking a lot of Huntington today when Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan first refused to accept Rassmussen because of the Mohamed Caricature incident, and then, after taking to Obama, agreed to carry the motion. I wonder what Obama offered in return? AND I wonder what Berlusconi and Erdogan talked about on the phone for about an hour, something that was important enough to disrupt the highlight of the whole "Welcome Back, France" act.

My heading (so far) is Applying International Relations Theory to the China-Tibet Historical Relationship... TBH the more I have read the more interested I have become... probably not in the way that many westerners would think however...

Well, I NEVER say anything on Tibet. I just don't know anything. Maybe I would be well in the picture after I read your thesis? Sure sounds interesting. My question is: which "international relations theory" do you mean? There is a ton of them out there.

Oh, and to stay on the topic of the thread, I've just read a great US-China relations book. Excellent read, I would recommend it to ANYONE remotely interested in the topic. Warren I. Cohen "America's Response to China". Great read! I read the 1980 edition, though, there appear to be two newer ones. Really, I can't overemphasize the quality of this book!

The most valuable thing Cohen offers is an insight into the different voices within different US administrations concerning China policy. This is especially valuable for the period between 1949 and the outbreak of the Korean War. In my ignorance, I had never realized that Truman had hoped for the Communist forces to recapture Taiwan, so that the US could end its awkward, unrealistic and counterproductive support of a long-defeated Jiang on Taiwan and focus on the task of rapprochement with the PRC.

Apart from many policy insights, there is one disturbing image that hasn't left my mind since I read about it: He quotes Stilwell, who becomes chief of staff for Jiang Jieshi as describing a dinner at T.V. Soong's where they had....wait for it...................roasted pig sphincter!! Wow! That's a new one for me, folks! Anyone ever tried it?

Renzhe, if you are reading this: I know I should be reading bajin, but I have George Bush's China diaries sitting right next to me! Let's see if I can resist!

[Shadowdh]

Well, I NEVER say anything on Tibet. I just don't know anything. Maybe I would be well in the picture after I read your thesis? Sure sounds interesting. My question is: which "international relations theory" do you mean? There is a ton of them out there.

Before I started my research I was much the same... Re the which theory... the main three, namely Realism, Liberalism and Marxism... these I would contend remain the base with others using these as their starting point... although there is some new stuff that critiques these at this point they remain the "big" three... plus my lecturer thinks its a good starting point... I am not sure how interesting my dissertation will be however... hopefully good enough to get me a decent mark...

[elizaberth]

I prefer horror novels.

[Meng Lelan]

I've been reading short stories on 小说阅读网, does anyone here read it and what do you think of it? I sort of stumbled across it while trying to figure out how to access 小说月报 online, for free, and I'm still trying to figure it out...

[querido]

New Concept Chinese for Children volume 3, lesson 3:

天上云彩真奇妙, 一天要变好几变.

云彩变成小白船, 飞得远远看不见.

云彩变成大狮子, 大风大雨马上来.

云彩变成胖娃娃, 追着太阳一起玩.

I love this language.

[Don_Horhe]

My new rice cooker's 说明书.

[yersi]

.