FUTURE OF CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS

This article provides a critical analysis of Samuel Huntington's highly influential "Clash of Civilizations" thesis and assesses its future prospects as a paradigm for understanding post-Cold War international relations. It begins by summarizing the core arguments of the thesis, which posits that the fundamental source of conflict in the new world will be cultural and civilizational rather than ideological or economic. The study then provides a detailed critique of the theory, challenging its monolithic and essentialist portrayal of "civilizations," its underestimation of conflict within civilizations, and its potential to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The research examines the theory in light of major world events since its publication, including the conflicts in the Balkans and the rise of Islamist terrorism. The paper argues that while cultural identity is an important and often-neglected factor in world politics, Huntington's framework is overly simplistic and deterministic. The analysis concludes that the future of international relations is likely to be more complex than a simple clash of civilizations, involving a multi-layered interplay of state, civilizational, and global forces.

Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" thesis was one of the most widely debated and influential ideas in post-Cold War international relations. This paper offers a thorough and critical assessment of the theory and its future applicability. The first part of the study is a careful exposition of Huntington's core propositions. It explains his division of the world into several major "civilizations" (e.g., Western, Islamic, Confucian, Hindu) and his central argument that the "fault lines" between these civilizations would become the principal battle lines of the future. The core of the article is a multi-pronged critique of this paradigm. First, it challenges the very concept of civilizations as used by Huntington, arguing that he treats them as unified and internally coherent actors, ignoring their immense internal diversity, debates, and conflicts. Second, the paper critiques the theory's empirical basis, pointing to numerous examples of cooperation across civilizational lines and intense conflict within the same civilization. Third, it explores the dangerous policy implications of the thesis, suggesting that it can be used to justify a confrontational, "us-versus-them" approach to foreign policy and can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The findings suggest that while the thesis correctly identified the growing importance of cultural identity in post-Cold War politics, its overarching framework is a deeply flawed and overly pessimistic guide to the future. The paper concludes that a more nuanced approach, one that recognizes the complexity of identity and the potential for cross-cultural dialogue and cooperation, is a more accurate and constructive way to understand the world.