Fukuyama: "The Rest learns from the West. History happily ever after."
A 4 part video series on Edward Said's lecture on Samuel Huntington's essay and book on the "Clash of Civilizations," at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst (1996).
Videos posted by Youtube user mjerryson, 2008.
Quotable quotes:
1. "I think it's the age of [cultural] definitions"
2. The End of History thesis was "really the End of Fukuyama"
For a counter-argument of Fukuyama's thesis, see here.
The Civilisation Fallacy
I find that Said's critique is spot-on. Within each of Huntington's civilisational groupings (e.g. Islamic/Confucian), much 'intra-civilisation' conflict occurs. For example, the South/North Korean alignment with the USA/PRC, or the PRC/Taiwan divide, or even history of Sino-Japanese relations provide ample evidence indicating that a civilisational grouping might be Huntington's invention rather than empirical fact.
Such divides are also found in the 'Islamic World'. For one, Islamic UAE seems to enjoy good economic ties with the USA in spite of anti-American rhetoric by Iran's Khomeini et. al.. Past wars between Iran and Iraq or Iraq and Kuwait demonstrates that nations with similar cultures are far from unitary civilisations. Even in their commonalities - here being Islam - sectarian divisions are rife (e.g. Sunni vs Shi'ite sects). Indeed, this particular division was one of the casus belli for the Iran-Iraq war.
Understated Commonalities
Despite all the cultural differences that prevail after centuries of global trade and politics, one thing remains unchanged: global trade. Today, every country speaks the language of capitalism, whether explicitly or clothed in 'socialist' rhetoric (e.g. mainland China, where capitalism wears a "red dress"). Huntington and Fukuyama speak of civilisations and West-&-Rest dichotomies but, to my knowledge, skirt around the fact that we are all connected to the global economy.
Given the common currency of capitalism, Immanuel Wallerstein's "World Systems Theory" that divides nations according to their ability to exploit others or be exploited seems to be more relevant to our age. It is obvious that some countries are wealthier than others - it is why this occurs that remains controversial. The neoliberal position blames it on excessive government intervention in perfectible market dynamics, Keynesians might blame it on insufficient regulation/stimulation, while neocolonials might focus on Dependency Theory instead. These issues appear to be more salient divisors than culture, and the quest for market stability and global equality provides a common goal that transcends cultural differences.
The only problem is... who's point of view is correct? Which nations are to blame? Should the Developed world provide aid to the Developing? Should the developing world help itself out? What is the role of economic theory and, heaven forbid, will theoretical inaccuracies produce another disastrous Washington Consensus and bankrupt the developing world?
These are the issues on the news and in parliaments everywhere, including global parliaments. We do not hear Presidents, Ayatollahs and other world leaders fighting over cultural polemic very often: economic issues are the issues that global politics concerns itself with.
Terrorism might be cited as a counter-argument, but this is perpetuated by a minority rather whole nations or civilisations. I say this because a conflict of civilisations would involve open war as a more effective means of dealing destruction rather than petty acts of guerilla terror that target nations easily recover from. Indonesian moved on from the Bali bombings, the USA from the 9-11 Episode. Aside from stricter security measures, their internal political institutions and practices remain unfazed. If a clash of civilisations were to occur, these petty acts of terror are but a stone's throw against an armoured tank (think Israeli-Palestinian Intifada). A scratch on the paint job, nothing significantly debilitating in the long run.
Clash of Civilisations? Perhaps a "Clash of Economies" is a more appropriate aphorism for the 21st Century... or perhaps it's too early to tell. After all, we're just past the 1st decade of this Millennium.
Posts
