Samuel Huntington misunderstood?

Amina Chaudary | Apr 30, 09 3:58pm

I am the only Muslim to whom Huntington granted a formal interview during his lifetime. My interactions with him led me to believe that what many people thought of him and his ideas – especially many people in the "Muslim world" – probably misrepresented what he actually believed. MCPX The late Samuel Huntington will probably be best known for his controversial thesis, The Clash of Civilizations, in which he set forth the idea that civilisations – as opposed to just nations – would be an important factor in shaping the future of global politics. While his thesis addressed several different civilisations, it was perhaps most famous for its assertion that "Islamic civilisation" constituted a coherent and opposing force to the Western world. I attended one of Huntington's final classes at Harvard in 2005, during which a heated class discussion took place about United States’ involvement in Iraq. Huntington argued against the Bush administration's efforts at nation-building in the Middle East – an ironic position, since many of the war's supporters cited his thesis as a rationale for "restructuring" the Muslim world. As I watched students question how his thesis was used to justify policies he now disagreed with, I wondered whether Huntington remained committed to the basic arguments of his theory so many years after they were first published. After much persistence for an interview, he agreed to meet with me at his home. I recall his warm, friendly personality but also slightly sceptical demeanour, as if he was probing to understand whether the interview would in anyway misrepresent what he had to say. I would later understand why he might have been concerned: he mentioned how often he felt his name was used to justify purposes of which he would never approve. Huntington was controversial for a reason. In Clash of Civilizations, he wrote, "Current global politics should be understood as the result of deep-seated conflicts between great cultures and religions of the world..." Huntington erected a new Iron Curtain after the fall of the Soviet Union – "several hundred miles east... separating people of Western Christianity and Muslim people." For many, this perspective created a context for that conflict. Economic, social and political issues all fell to the margin; it was the Islamic faith that drove Muslims to rise up in anger and fight. Totally wrong implication drawn Yet, during the interview Huntington struck a far more conciliatory tone. When asked to clarify the quote, Huntington answered: "The implication, which you say some people draw, is totally wrong. I don't say that the West is united. I don't suggest that. Obviously there are divisions within the West and divisions within Islam – there are different sects, different communities, different countries. So neither one is homogenous at all. But they do have things in common. People everywhere talk about Islam and the West. Presumably that has some relationship to reality, that these are entities that have some meaning, and they do. Of course the core of that reality is differences in religion." He further argued, "Western countries collaborate with Muslim countries and vice versa. I think it's a mistake, let me just repeat, to think in terms of two homogeneous sides starkly confronting each other." It is impossible to tell how much of an impact Huntington's thesis had on such events as the decision to go to war in Iraq or the execution of the so-called "war on terror" after 9/11. However, it was very clear that Huntington had little patience for the misappropriation of his ideas in policy circles. He never shied from criticising the Bush administration during his last series of lectures at Harvard. I believe that Huntington felt as misunderstood and maligned by Muslims and the rest of the world as many Muslims felt by his thesis. It was almost as if he wanted an opportunity to clarify his ideas in his own voice to the community that had associated him for so many years with the dark side of American foreign policy. He wanted a chance to define himself rather than be defined by others, something Muslims, and other communities, all around the world can understand. While not straying from his roots as a realist, Huntington introduced nuances and qualifications to his thesis during our discussion. He qualified the need for conflict, and clarified the possibility of cooperation. Perhaps he was even sympathetic to the way his thesis was used to demonise Islam in the post-Soviet era. During the interview, Huntington explained how he recognised the misappropriation of his theory into various policy circles to further their own agendas for a division between the "West" and the "Muslim world". He argued that "Western countries collaborate with Muslim countries and vice versa." An example he provided was the partnership between the United States and Pakistan in issues related to global security. I thought the highlight of the interview was the final question I asked Huntington: "What is one thing about you that most people would be surprised to know?" His response: "Well, I guess, maybe you people...no, that would be unfair about you... but a lot people tend to think I'm a dogmatic ideologue – but I'm not." In an interesting twist of fate, it turned out that Huntington and the Muslim world shared something in common: the frustrating feeling that what many people believe about them is simplistic at best, and at worst, untrue. AMINA CHAUDARY is a PhD candidate studying Muslim-Western relations at Boston University and a regular contributor to Islamica Magazine. This abridged article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission from the author. The full text can be found at Washington Post/Newsweek's Post Global.