The Clash of Civilizations Theory: A Tool for Imperialist Justification?

The "Clash of Civilizations" theory, presented by Samuel Huntington in 1993, has been one of the most debated and controversial theories in international relations during the post-Cold War era. According to Huntington, future conflicts will not be defined by ideological or economic differences but primarily by cultural and religious ones. He argued that civilizations, which are shaped by history, language, religion, and customs, would become the new primary units of conflict in a world where nation-states and ideologies are no longer the central points of reference in the global order.

 

Although this theory has been and continues to be popular in some circles within the academic community and politics, it has faced intense criticism from other scholars and analysts. One of the main critiques is that the "Clash of Civilizations" theory can be used as an ideological tool that justifies modern forms of imperialism and exploitation, masking the deeper economic and political causes of international conflicts.

Focusing on cultural differences may divert attention from the real causes of conflicts, such as economic inequalities, access to natural resources, and the global distribution of power. This argument emphasizes that conflicts are rarely the result of cultural differences alone but rather complex processes influenced by political, economic, social, and historical interests. For example, the wars in the Middle East, such as the invasion of Iraq in 2003, have often been portrayed as inevitable due to cultural or religious differences. Still, many analysts point out that these conflicts were more about the control of energy resources and the geopolitical strategies of great powers (Johnson, 2007; Stokes & Raphael, 2010).

Moreover, Huntington’s theory might reinforce the idea that Western civilization is the universal or superior form of culture, which must be imposed or promoted in other societies. This perception can justify cultural and political interventions, such as those in the Middle East and other regions, under the pretext of spreading democracy and freedom, which often turn out to be forms of modern imperialism (Mamdani, 2004).

The categorization of civilizations into large geographic or religious groups also ignores the internal diversity and interaction between civilizations, as well as their historical cooperation and coexistence. For example, Islamic culture is not a monolithic entity but includes a vast array of traditions and historical differences that are not considered in Huntington’s theory. Critics of Huntington’s theory also highlight the historical cooperation between different civilizations, such as the coexistence of Muslims, Christians, and Jews in Andalusia, or the long period of peaceful coexistence between Christians and Muslims in the Ottoman Empire (Said, 2001; Lewis, 1995).

According to some, this theory could also create a climate of fear and insecurity, enhancing discrimination and xenophobia. The emphasis on conflict might strengthen the perception that differences are threats, leading to increased defense spending and restrictions on individual rights and freedoms in the name of cultural protection (Brown, 2014).

Finally, the use of the "Clash of Civilizations" theory may conceal the continuation of neo-colonial practices, where developed countries maintain and reinforce the dependence and control of developing countries through economic, political, and military influence. The emphasis on cultural conflicts can act as a veil that hides these economic and political dynamics, promoting a narrative that perpetuates inequality and exploitation (Grovogui, 2002).

In this context, Huntington’s theory can be seen not only as an interpretation of international politics but also as an ideological construct that can be used to justify intervention and control under the guise of cultural defense or superiority. Rather than offering a neutral analysis of the international order, it can function as a tool serving specific political and economic interests, maintaining existing inequalities and power structures.

References

1. Brown, C. (2014). Understanding International Relations. Palgrave Macmillan.
2. Grovogui, S. (2002). Sovereigns, Quasi Sovereigns, and Africans: Race and Self-Determination in International Law. University of Minnesota Press.
3. Johnson, C. (2007). Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic. Metropolitan Books.
4. Lewis, B. (1995). The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2,000 Years. Scribner.
5. Mamdani, M. (2004). Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror. Pantheon.
6. Said, E. W. (2001). Orientalism. Penguin Books.
7. Stokes, D., & Raphael, S. (2010). Global Energy Security and American Hegemony. JHU Press.