find Hier klicken Jetzt informieren PR CR0917 Cloud Drive Photos UHD TVs Learn More TDZ Mehr dazu Hier Klicken Shop Kindle AmazonMusicUnlimitedFamily AmazonMusicUnlimited Fußball longSSs17


3,7 von 5 Sternen
3,7 von 5 Sternen
Format: Taschenbuch|Ändern
Preis:8,99 €+ Kostenfreie Lieferung mit Amazon Prime

Derzeit tritt ein Problem beim Filtern der Rezensionen auf. Bitte versuchen Sie es später noch einmal.

am 3. Oktober 2012
Huntington's critics tend to comment on his book with arguments ranging from "over-simplistic", "xenophobic", "lacking of vision", "unable to understand mankind's abilities to evolve" and similar arguments. Unfortunately and to their huge dismay reality is increasingly vindicating Huntingtons's thesis of impending tensions and clashes along certain (but clearly not all) civilizational fault lines. In particular the last ten years have rather added more substance and weight to his deliberations.

The great strength of the book is actually its deliberate attempt to simplify messages and argumentative concepts in order to provide discernible trends and patterns. The impending risks and tectonic changes would otherwise be lost in a clutter of "differentiated" positions which would not lend themselves to drawing any conclusions but rather perpetuate a relativistic view.

With hindsight of 16 years passed since first publication some of the books positions would probably not be written in the same way today (e.g. identifying Japan as an independent civilization might seem overdone and born from the sense of Japanes economic dominance felt in the 80s and early 90s, but then again - watching the rising tensions between China and Japan one can see the differences in position and attitude drawn from their different histories). But that does not devalue the book's main concepts.

History has shown over and over again cataclysmic changes impacting civilizations. But most civilizational entities have nevertheless managed to persevere of centuries or millennia. Periods of relative peace have been replaced by times of upheaval and the rise and fall (and re-rise) of civilizations has been a continuous process.

The somewhat naive positions held by a certain pseudo-intellectual, westernized elite (scathingly called "Davos elite" by Huntington) of one unified global civilization as the ultimate outcome of an ongoing "westernization" of the world, has proved quite wrong. These imposed beliefs and resulting actions (or lack of action) in politics and in opinion making, have actually caused increased harm in the last twenty years. And it will cause even more trouble going forward - particularly for those parts of the world which don't draw the right conclusions and maintain in a position of denial and wishful thinking.

While we should not deride values and beliefs of other civilizations, we should nevertheless stand for and defend our own values in the face of global competition of different civilizations (and belief systems).

Otherwise we should not be surprised to see our values (e.g. freedom of speech, fruits of the enlightenment, equal rights for women and minorities, democracy, etc) being eroded or marginalized by more aggressive civilizational (and religious) concepts. Today it seems mainly the Islamic civilization which takes an increasingly antagonistic position towards the Western values and societies as well as other non-Islamic civilizations. This does not imply Islam is one monolithic block, but it also consists of a number of sects, currents and tribes which may also engage in internal conflict - but they still also share an over-arching sense of identity.
Tensions between and with other civilizations tend to flare up as the relatively short and stable global situation between the 1950s and 2000 is replaced by an increasingly multi-polar world with more power centers.

Huntington's merit has been to identify and flag these risks and trends early on and underpin them with logical reasoning and data. It may be debatable whether his position is already fully vindicated today, but it is not unlikely that the next generation will fully see and understand his clairvoyance and sense of realism (in a time when public opinion is still marked by wishful thinking and relativism).

This book is clearly worth reading for anybody who is interested in getting a specific view on the potential longer-term drivers and determinants of historic change - and also for those who may have differing views or who may later rebuff his positions.
0Kommentar| 12 Personen fanden diese Informationen hilfreich. War diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich?JaNeinMissbrauch melden
am 7. Januar 2015
Es war in den 90er Jahren, dass ich das Buch gelesen habe. Viele der Thesen erschienen pessimistisch bis zynisch. Es ist erstaunlich welche Vorhersagekraft in dem Buch steckt(e).
0Kommentar| 9 Personen fanden diese Informationen hilfreich. War diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich?JaNeinMissbrauch melden
am 28. September 1999
Huntington's clash of civilizations thesis is based entirely on false ideas. Civilizations have never been unitary or monolithic. They are divided, and conflictual. Both of the World Wars of this century started within the Western states of Europe. Islam has always had internal conflicts as well. Furthermore, religion is not the main mover of international politics. Religion tends to be subordinated to state power and interest. This has always been the case, even in the middle ages, when the Church supposedly ruled Europe and the Koran allegedly guided Moslem rulers. These facts destroy the theory completely. The only reason for its popularity is that it is simple and has been aimed at the general public. Fortunately it has been refuted in academic circles.
0Kommentar| 2 Personen fanden diese Informationen hilfreich. War diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich?JaNeinMissbrauch melden
HALL OF FAMEam 26. Juli 2005
The analysis, published 1993 by Huntington, has refocused attention after the 9/11 Islamic terrorist attacks - and there seems to be no end: Madrid (3/11/04), bombings in Istanbul (11/20/03) and now in London (7/7/05) or the ritual assassination of Dutch filmmaker and writer Theo van Gogh in Amsterdam (11/2/04). And therefore there is no end of tv-discussions how to react. The foreign policy aide to the US State Department speaks of so-called "fault-line-wars", which exist between the cultures (religions) and will give endlessly smoldering. As examples the hunter Huntington specifies among other things the Gulf War and Afghanistan. The hotspots today are on the fault lines between the religions in Chechnya, the Middle East, Tibet, Sri Lanka, and Bosnia. In Yugoslavia the Serbs where supported by Russian diplomatics while Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran and Libya provided arms to the Bosnians. Yugoslavia is an example of what happens to a country where religious factors become the means for identifying oneself. And it could develope worse: Koran-Sura 9, verse 5: "Fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them. And seize them, beleaguer them and lie in wait for them, in every stratagem [of war]." Islam teaches that Muslims must not befriend Jews and Christians. Surat Al-Maidah 5:51 says, "O ye who believe, take not the Jews or the Christians for your friends and protectors. They are but friends and protectors to each other." In the chapter about how to stop those "break-line-wars" Huntington writes: "The force along cultural break lines may stop for a while completely, but it rarely ends really." "These problems become still more complicated, if the cultures involved do not have a core state." Hierarchy-creditor finishing sentence of this important chapter: "A break line war cooks from down highly, a break line peace seeps from above down". We hope, Huntington will know with security, who at the end is "above". Another unsentimental, very tough-minded Huntington analysis: "The conflict can disappear fast and brutally, as a group extinguishes the other one." The fact that cultural difference could brought to coexistence, into an equilibrium, supported by a progressive deliberated secularization of all denominations (accompanied by a sober transformation of all too denomination-linked educating systems) - such trains of thought we unfortunately miss in this provoking sermon, mainly dominated by a military perspective...
0Kommentar| 4 Personen fanden diese Informationen hilfreich. War diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich?JaNeinMissbrauch melden
TOP 500 REZENSENTam 14. Juni 2015
Samuel Huntington, Professor für Politikwissenschaften in Harvard, begründet in seinem Werk die Hypothese eines seiner Artikel von 1993, nämlich die des kommenden Endes der westlichen Vorherrschaft, sowie des Konfliktes zwischen den großen Kulturräumen, China, Japan, Hinduismus, Islam, Westen, Lateinamerika und Afrika.
Dies begründet er damit, dass der ökonomische, sowie politisch ideologische Wettstreit überwunden scheint. Das westliche Ideal einer offenen und demokratischen Gesellschaft [Anmerk. sofern dieses wirklich jemals real existiert haben sollte und nicht nur für andere Ländern propagiert wird :-)] wird in Bedrängnis geraten. Dies soll wohl so gemeint sein, dass sich andere Kulturen entgegen aller Illusionen nicht verwestlichen lassen.
Hier habe ich mir nur die deutsche Ausgabe zugelegt, aber ich poste gewohnheitsmäßig, sowohl bei der englischen als auch deutschen Version, da ich oft beide besitze. Ich rezensiere nur wenige Bücher so detailliert, aber dieses Buch besitzt soviel wertvollen Inhalt, dass es dies wirklich wert ist.

Kapitel 1 Die neue Ära der Weltpolitk
Es werden die Folgen des Zusammenbruchs der Sowjetunion auf die künftig auftretenden Konflikte in der Geopolitik beschrieben und zum eigentlichen Thema hingeleitet.

Kapitel 2 Kulturen in Geschichte und Gegenwart
In diesem Kapitel wird Geschichte als als Geschichte von Kulturen beschrieben. Weriterhin wird ausgeführt, wie sich verschiedene Begrifflichkeiten entwickelt haben.

Kapitel 3 Eine universale Kultur
Es wird auf die These der Universalkultur eingegangen, welche ein Zusammenrücken der Menschheit und ihren Werten bekundet. Der Autor beschreibt auf mehreren Seiten warum er diese These nicht unterstützenswert findet.

Kapitel 4 Das Verblassen des Westens
Ursprüngliche Dominanz des Westens wird immer mehr in Frage gestellt werden. Insbesondere das Aufstreben von China und Indien wird als unausweichlich beschrieben.

Kapitel 5 Wirtschaft, Demographie und die Herausforderer Kulturen
Hier sieht der Autor China und den Islam als wichtigste Konkurrenten. Beide betonen eine Überlegenheit ihrer Kultur gegenüber denen des Westens.

Kapitel 6 Die kulturelle Neugestaltung der globalen Politik
Es kommt zur Abgrenzung auzfgrund von kulturellen Identitäten. Während im kalten Krieg noch relative Blockfreiheit möglich ware, ist dies nun nicht mehr möglich. Insbesondere führen Sicherheitsinteressen zu solchen Zusammenschlüssen.

Kapitel 7 Kernstaaten, konzentrische Kreise, kulturelle Ordnung
Das Blockdenken des kalten Krieges wird abgelöst von einem Kernstaaten System. Kultukreise setzen sich zusammen aus Kernstaaten, Mitgliedsstaaten und kulturell ähnlichen Staaten.

Kapitel 8 Der Westen und der Rest
Grundsätzlich sind interkulturelle Konflikten besonderen Spannungen unterworfen. Huntington sieht die großen Konflikte zwischen westlicher Arroganz, islamischer Unduldsamkeit und sinischem Autrumpfen.

Kapitel 9 Weltpolitik und Kulturkreise
Kampf der Kulturen als Stammeskonflikte im Weltmaßstab. Mit dem Zusammenbruch der Blöcke, werden aus interkulturellen Bündnissen eher kalter Friede, als dass Allianzen weiterbestehen.
Es ergeben sich Bruchlinienkonflikte an Rändern von Kulturkreisen innerhalb von Staaten, sowie Kernstaatenkonflikte zwischen Staaten unterschiedlicher Kulturen. Weiterhin ergeben sich Probleme durch relativen Einfluss in globalen Institutionen, wie IWF und WB, Rüstungsbeschränkungen für andere Staaten (Atomwaffen), Schutz von eigener Kultur in anderen Staaten, und Gebietsstreitigkeiten.

Kapitel 10 Von Transitionskriegen zu Bruchlinienkriegen
Invasionskriege, welche zu Kulturkriegen wurden. Transition deshalb, weil es zu einem Übergang zu einer Ära der ethinischen Konflikte kam. Es wird anhand der Beispiele Golfkrieg, Afghanistan-SU, Kaukasus und Yugoslawien argumentiert.

Kapitel 11 Die Dynamik von Bruchlinienkriegen
Beschreibt vermutlich sehr gut, was gerade in der Ukraine vorsichgeht. Enstehung einer "Haßdynamik" und gegenseitige Dämonisierung, man selbst sei ja der Gute. Radikalere Kräfte werden auf beiden Seiten befördert. Dies wird an etlichen Beispielen z.B. Naher Osten, Yugoslawien, Sowjetunion-Afghanistan etc. beschrieben.

Kapitel 12 Der Westen, die Kulturen, "Zivilisation"
Der Westen ist wiedersprüchlich. Eigentlich hatte man bereits in den 90ern eine Phase des Untergangs erkennen können. Dies war insbesondere durch ökonomischen und demographischen Verfall geprägt. Weiterhin kommt in der Phase des Verfalls der moralische Verfall. Darunter versteht man die Zunahme asozialen Verhaltens, wie Kriminalität, Verfall der Familie, Rückgang des Sozialkapitals, wie Engagement in Vereinen, Nachlassen der Arbeitsethik und Kult um Erfüllung eigener Wünsche, abnehmendes Interesse für Bildung und geistige Betätigung. Weiterhin spricht innergesellschaftliche Probleme, wie die Verweigerung der in Europa lebenden Muslime zur Assimilation an, welche zu einem gespaltenen Land führen, falls deren Anteil numerisch relevant werden sollten. Weiterhin argumentiert er, dass es ein gefährlicher Irrglaube ist, wenn man glaubt, dass man andere Kulturen verwestlichen könne.

Die Stärke des Buches liegt darin, dass es viele ähnliche Sachen verallgemeinert und damit in einen Kontext setzen kann. Im Vergleich zu anderen Werken ist es relativ wertneutral bzgl. der USA oder dem westlichen System, manchmal könnte dies aber noch verbessert werden. Andersweitig erhält man tiefe Einblicke in geopolitische Zusammenhänge, welche einem als interessierten Laien so noch nicht über den Weg gekommen sind.

Allerdings würde ich die Grundthese nicht zu 100% unterstützten. Die wirtschaftliche Frage, der Effizienz einer Zinswirtschaft scheint geklärt, doch die politische Systemfrage scheint alles andere als das. Dass es Autonomiebestrebungen in Lateinamerika gibt, kommt weniger von einer eigenständigen Kultur, sondern einer Abwehrreaktion gegenüber Ressourcenmissbrauch seitens der USA. Ich bezweifle auch, dass sich Afrika jemals erheben wird, da die meisten Staaten nicht mal alleine richtig funktionieren. Auch Sunniten und Schiiten werden vermutlich keinen gemeinsamen Pakt eingehen um sich gegen die anderen zu verschwören, da diese oft selbst innerhalb eines Staates zwischen Säkularisation oder relgiösem Staat hin- und hergerissen sind. China strebt zu einer kommenden Weltmacht auf und Japan bleibt vorraussichtlich in absehbarer Zeit, unfähig sich in im asiatischen Raum zu integrieren und wie von den USA durch wirtschaftliche und militärische Assoziierungsabkommen geplant, Teil des Westens. Ich sehe eigentlich auch Kontinentaleuropa nicht als Teil des Westens, aber Transatlantiker arbeiten mit Erfolg seit 30 Jahren am Gegenteil. Die Rolle Indiens scheint immer noch sehr offen. Weiterhin wurde die Integration Russlands in Europa nachhaltig verhindert.

Ich stimme mit vielem über ein, teile aber die Grundhypothese des Autors nicht, teilweise mögen sich seine Ansichten in der seit der Publikation vergangenen Zeit vermutlich auch geändert haben. Die Annahme, so wünschenswert sie auch wäre, dass sich die US Hegemonie zurückentwickelt, wird durch vertragliche Systeme, wie z.B. TTP und TTIP im wirtschaftlichen Bereich und andere vertragliche Regelungen in anderen Bereichen gekontert. Weiterhin sind die unzähligen Interventionen von Economic Hit Man und anderer Sachen zu bedenken. Dennoch beschreitet das Buch sehr viele interessante Gedankengänge, welche es rechtfertigen diesen Wälzer vollständig zu lesen und in seiner Bibliothek zu haben.

Nachtrag: Prof. Dr. Rainer Rothfuß sieht eine interessante Perspektive in der Sicht eines ecuadorianischen Botschafters, welcher sinngemäß folgendes gesagt haben soll (Youtube KenFM im Gespräch mit Rainer Rotfuß), dass dieses Buch / die Theorie dazu nur einen intellektuellen Trick darstellen soll, welcher vom eigentlichen Clash, dem zwischen dem dominanten Norden und dem unterjochten Süden, ablenken soll, indem die Kulturen gegeneinander ausgespielt werden sollen.
0Kommentar| Eine Person fand diese Informationen hilfreich. War diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich?JaNeinMissbrauch melden
am 6. Februar 2000
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.
0Kommentar| 27 Personen fanden diese Informationen hilfreich. War diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich?JaNeinMissbrauch melden
am 16. Dezember 1999
I didn't finish this book yet . But i've already the feeling that the author's point of view depends on the American position in this world .
The only superpower facing around the world rebellions against its authority . Even the most trusted allies dare today to disagree on several crucial points (WTO, NATO's future, etc.)with .
Considering the diplomatic evolution in the western world : the european will to build an Independant (read from the states) United Europe .
the western world as he like to call it, has never been so divided .
His view of the muslim world far from any unity, is also quite simplistic .
All I see in this book, is the crucial need for the USA to trust allies . The need of the states to be part of something and to lead something .
That's not a global view of the world It is a sophisticated american view of the world : "the good men led by me against the bad ones (the others)" .
0Kommentar| Eine Person fand diese Informationen hilfreich. War diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich?JaNeinMissbrauch melden
am 13. Juli 2014
Ein erhellendes Buch über die moderne Welt, die nicht mehr allein vom Eurozentrismus geprägt ist. Die Suprematie des "Westens" und die Multikulturalität der heutigen Welt tritt uns hier entgegen, ob wir sie mögen oder nicht spielt keine Rolle, sie ist zur Tatsache geworden. Lesenswert um Entwicklungen zu verstehen, die noch vor wenigen Jahrzehnten undenkbar waren und heute es für allzu viele noch undenkbar sind.
0Kommentar| Eine Person fand diese Informationen hilfreich. War diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich?JaNeinMissbrauch melden
am 24. Juli 2000
Huntington is the last member of an Old Guard of Realist who have to define the world in Us. vs. Them terms. With no more Evil Empire to keep men like him in business, he turns to a new enemy. Realism, as a theory of International Relations, cannot stand up without an enemy. Right now, it's rather difficult to find that enemy. As opposed to assuming that the world may no longer be defined in strictly Realist terms, Huntington invents an enemy. Like a man obsessed with Eugenics and Race Theory, he puts forward a claim that the cultures and traditions of the Orient are bound to be hostile toward us. There is no way that people from the East and West can live peaceably together, we are doomed to violence and struggle; pure nonesense and drivel. Huntington does not ever put forth any evidence to prove this theory. He uses rhetoric and singular anecdotes, failing, among other things, to consider how traditions and civilizations change. 500 years ago, we in the West were pretty barbaric. The Spanish started killing heretics in mass numbers, women were forced into a state of perpetual subservience, we fought over the official religion of the state in wars that led to huge casualities, then found a New World with a population we could wipe out. Any civilized society that encountered us would have surely thought 'these barbarians are hopeless.' This is by no means an attempt to categorize other societies as being where we were five hundred years ago. I'm not calling the Middle East and Asia barbaric, nor am I saying we in the West are perfect, but I am saying that relegating relations between cultures to the status of futility is absurd. Democracy and economic development change societies for the better and reduce conflict between states. States that are democractic don't go to war with each other, it doesn't matter if the two states are both Western, both Eastern, or from different cultural traditions entirely. Complex Interdependence (A theory put forth by Keohane and Nye, who know far more about International Relations today than Professor Huntington) has shown that the world is indeed becoming a smaller place and that as all regions are becoming interconnected with each other through commerce and increased communication, we are going to have to learn to live with one another and understand each other. I sincerely hope that Huntington is alone in his girding for battle, the rest of us should be looking toward greater global interconnectedness, not another Crusade.
The title of his book, "The Clash of Civilizations" actually comes from a Bernard Lewis essay. Lewis himself is a narrow minded outsider who claims to understand Islam from a Western point of view. His analysis turns the stomach as well. You know why radicals in the East love Lewis and Huntington? Because as long as these two continue to perpetuate the myth that East and West cannot resolve their differences and that they are eternally doomed to conflict, the right wing radicals abroad can continue to spew their angry rhetoric about the West. Men like Osama bin Laden read this sort of thing and use it to urge their followers on. They can claim that if we in the West really believe this stuff, then it is proof that we are girding ourselves for a battle against Islam, and they in turn, can point the finger at the enemy. Any attempts at reconciliation between the West and the East are hampered by the fact that there are people in our society who listen to these two. The struggle to understand and accept other cultures is a difficult one. It will take time. That however, does not mean we should throw up our hands and claim that tradition and society make the clash between the West and the Orient inevitable.
Huntington breaks the world up into neat little societies, completely ignoring the economic interdependence between these 'civilizations.' He ignores the progress that has already been made thanks to the globalization of the world economy and ignores the fact that we have good relations with many non Western states. He ignores the effects of democracy and the development of the economy on International Relations as well. His theory is all about xenophobia, chauvinism, and the need to define and lash out against an easily identifiable enemy. Let us hope that this book is the death throes of the old Realist regime, as opposed to the healthy war cry, Professor Huntington would have it be.
0Kommentar| 25 Personen fanden diese Informationen hilfreich. War diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich?JaNeinMissbrauch melden
am 19. Februar 2014
The Cold War ended about a quarter of a century ago. Its end ushered in a great hope for the future of humanity, a future that many had hoped would be free from wars and other devastating conflicts. The liberal Western democracy seemed to be marching triumphant, and with an exception of a few holdouts (China being the biggest and most important one) its future, and the future of the world order based on its principles, seemed assured. In the memorable phrase of Francis Fukuyama, history was over. However, various ethnic conflicts in Europe in the 1990s (primarily in former Yugoslavia) and the impact of Islamic terrorism at the beginning of the 21st century, disabused many of these sanguine notions about humanity’s future.

“The Clash of Civilizations” opened my eyes to the whole different way of looking at the World and the main geopolitical forces that shape it. Or rather, it focused my attention on the main groupings of the global powers and the way that these groupings influenced international relations. This whole approach has a lot of intuitive power, and it really manages to capture a lot of international tensions and conflicts that we have been seeing over the past couple of decades. In a way, there is nothing surprising about this. The clash of civilization has always been the main driving force behind the fundamental historical developments, and the Cold War was just (in Huntington’s view) an interlude that may prove to be an aberration in the long march of history.

I was completely new to the whole field of civilization studies and this book provided me with a lot of new material to think about. Huntington is very clear that what often passes for “universal” human values are in fact an invention of the Western civilization. Those values have only marginally been able to penetrate other civilizations, and Huntington comes across as fairly ambivalent about the whole prospect of westernizing the entire world. He is sympathetic, at least in principle, to the idea that it’s possible to have modernization without Westernization. There have been a few examples of civilizations that had managed to modernize, oftentimes at a breakneck speed, without implementing a full-scale westernization of their societies. However, most of those civilizations had also reached eventual roadblocks, and to this day I don’t know of any civilization that has been able to outperform the West in terms of long-term development.

One of the most controversial aspects of Huntington’s book has been his very critical look at the Islamic world. Unfortunately, his dire predictions about the clash(es) with the Islamic civilization have proved more than prescient, as the beginning of the twentieth century has clearly demonstrated.

Even though this book makes a very persuasive case for the general outline of the future global geopolitical groupings and tensions, I have been far less impressed with the exact prediction of how these wars start, evolve, and resolve themselves. For many of these assertions and predictions Huntington uses the war in Bosnia as the exhibit A. Huntington overemphasizes the role that Muslim nationalism and ideology played in fomenting that conflict, and presents the roots of the hostilities (much as did most of the Western media at the time) as “bottom up” and grounded in “centuries of hatred.” Nothing could be farther from the truth. I was born and raised in Bosnia, and my family and I have been “displaced” by that conflict. Huntington’s account of what happened there does not ring true in the least. Yes, there have been animosities and tensions between different religious/ethnic groups that span generations, some of which I’ve experienced firsthand, but that in and of itself was not nearly at the level that would lead to the bloodiest and most inhumane war in Europe since the end of World War II.

Another aspect in which I feel the book falls short is in its appreciation of the way that ideology will drive future conflicts. It could be argued that the conflicts that have been subsumed under the collective label “Arab Spring” (especially the ones in Egypt and Syria) have more to do with the various ideological currents (secularism vs. Islamism for instance) than with a clash of civilizations as such. Furthermore, within the West itself we are increasingly witnessing cultural splits that are profound and wide-ranging enough that we might indeed be witnessing a bona fide civilizational fissuring. Consequently, the scope and nature of the “culture wars” might progress far enough that they themselves become a major source of inter-civilizational tensions.

This is a truly remarkable book that is still relevant almost two decades after it has been first published. It is written in a very lucid and engaging style, and it was a pleasure to read. Any serious student of international relations, whether you agree with Huntington’s insights or not, ought to read this book.
0Kommentar| 3 Personen fanden diese Informationen hilfreich. War diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich?JaNeinMissbrauch melden