In late 1996 I had the pleasure of watching Palestenian intellectual Edward Said savagely rip into Huntington and his entire "clash of civilizations" thesis (first posited in a "Foreign Affairs" article). The criticism session was a highly entertaining exercise in scholarly colleague-bashing, because Said (rather blatantly) had the gloves off, and not only trashed Huntington's work but also articulated a scathing critique of the entire beltway, foreign affairs, Washington-insider academic elite (of which Huntington is an eminent member) for its American paternalism, alarmism and triumphalism. While Huntington's thesis is hardly of a triumphalist nature, of course, it is indeed alarmist, painting a world-scale portrait of Western Civilization in decline and under attack on all fronts. But this is not the main flaw of Huntington's detailed and meticulously researched work (in which, it must be admitted, there are few serious flaws). Instead, the biggest criticism that can be made of this book is the overly simplistic (almost childishly so) nature of the "Clash" hypothesis (which Said never tired of caricaturing in mocking tones). Huntington is basically saying that "different" people cannot get along, that they will usually prefer their own "kind", and will probably always be in conflict of one sort or another. Duh. One would like to think that such cynical neo-realism would be confined to computer games such as "civilization" (an immensely entertaining means of wasting an entire evening, by the way) but apparently not. Of course, Huntington's argument is more nuanced and deep than that unjust reduction makes it out to be, but that is, I'm afraid to say, the main thrust of his book. Unfortunately, when seeing Said speak I hadn't yet read Huntington's book, so of course I laughed at the ridiculousness of the Clash thesis as portrayed by Said. Now I have read the book, however, and other than limited alarmism and over-simplification, I can safely say that Huntington's work is an impressively-researched piece of social scientific brilliance. As Huntington himself admits in his introduction, the Clash is of course an over-simplified conceptual model, but then, what conceptual models aren't over-simplified to some degree? Marxism, anyone? Huntington's thesis is parsimonious and intensely provocative, and that is exactly what the field of international relations needs at this time of widespread theoretical poverty.