HOME PAGE

TODAY'S PAPER

VIDEO

MOST POPULAR

TIMES TOPICS

Log In

Register Now

Help

Search All NYTimes.com

W ORLD

U.S.

N.Y . / REGION

BUSINESS

T ECHNOLOGY

SCIENCE

HEA LTH

SPORT S

OPINION

A RT S

ST YLE

T RA V EL

JOBS

REAL ESTATE

AUTOS

Advertise on NYTimes.com

OP-ED COLUMNIST

Huntingtons Clash Revisited

By DAVID BROOKS Published: March 3, 2011

Log in to see w hat your friends are sharing on nytimes.com. Privacy Policy | Whats This?
RECOMMEND TWITT ER COMMENTS (264) SIGN IN T O E-MAIL

Log In With Facebook

Samuel Huntington was one of Americas greatest political scientists. In 1993, he published a sensational essay in Foreign Affairs called The Clash of Civilizations? The essay, which became a book, argued that the post-cold war would be marked by civilizational conflict. Human beings, Huntington wrote, are divided along cultural lines Western, Islamic, Hindu and so on. There is no universal civilization. Instead, there are these cultural blocks, each within its own distinct set of values.

Whats Popular Now

Klinsm a nn Nam ed U.S. Soccer Coach The Centrist Cop-Out

PRINT REPRINT S SHARE

Josh Haner/The New Y ork Times

David Brooks

The Islamic civilization, he wrote, is the most troublesome. People in the Arab world do not share the general suppositions of the Western world. Their primary attachment is to their religion, not to their nation-state. Their culture is inhospitable to certain liberal ideals, like pluralism, individualism and democracy. Huntington correctly foresaw that the Arab strongman regimes were fragile and were threatened by the masses of unemployed young men. He thought these regimes could fall, but he did not believe that the nations would modernize in a Western direction. Amid the tumult of regime change, the rebels would selectively borrow tools from the West, but their borrowing would be refracted through their own beliefs. They would follow their own trajectory and not become more Western.

Go to Colu m nist Page

Advertise on NYT imes.com

The Conversation
Dav id Brooks and Gail Collins talk between colum ns.
All Conversations

Get the Opinion Today E-Mail

Sign up for the highlights of the day in Opinion, sent w eekday afternoons. See Sample | Privacy Policy MOST POPULAR
E-MAILED BLOGGED SEARCHED VIEWED

Readers Comments
Readers shared their thou ghts on this article.
Read All Comments (264)

1 . Pau l Krugm an: The Centrist Cop-Out 2 . Fix es: Treating the Cau se, Not the Illness 3 . Op-Ed Contributor: Useless Stu dies, Real Harm 4 . Charting the Am erica n Debt Crisis 5. Op-Ed Contributor: The Cou gar Behind You r Tra sh Ca n 6 . Tim othy Ega n: A Madm an and His Manifesto 7 . Well: How Exercise Ca n Keep the Brain Fit 8. Art Rev iew: Faces Still Aliv e, Centuries Later 9 . Drug App Com es Free, Ads Included 1 0. Recipes for Health: Sw eet a nd Sour Eggpla nt, Tom a toes and Chickpeas
Go to Complete List

The Muslim world has bloody borders, he continued. There are wars and tensions where the Muslim world comes into conflict with other civilizations. Even if decrepit regimes fell, he suggested, there would still be a fundamental clash of civilizations between Islam and the West. The Western nations would do well to keep their distance from Muslim affairs. The more the two civilizations intermingle, the worse the tensions will be. Huntingtons thesis set off a furious debate. But with the historic changes sweeping through the Arab world, its illuminating to go back and read his argument today. In retrospect, Id say that Huntington committed the Fundamental Attribution Error. That is, he ascribed to traits qualities that are actually determined by context. He argued that people in Arab lands are intrinsically not nationalistic. He argued that they do not hunger for pluralism and democracy in the way these things are understood in the

West. But it now appears as though they were simply living in circumstances that did not allow that patriotism or those spiritual hungers to come to the surface. It now appears that people in these nations, like people in all nations, have multiple authentic selves. In some circumstances, one set of identities manifests itself, but when those circumstances change, other equally authentic identities and desires get activated. For most of the past few decades, people in Arab nations were living under regimes that rule by fear. In these circumstances, most people shared the conspiracy mongering and the political passivity that these regimes encouraged. But when the fear lessened, and the opportunity for change arose, different aspirations were energized. Over the past weeks, weve seen Arab people ferociously attached to their national identities. Weve seen them willing to risk their lives for pluralism, openness and democracy. Id say Huntington was also wrong in the way he defined culture.
ADVERTISEMENTS

Dunkin' Brands sweet debut

ALSO IN DEALBOOK

Will big banks breakup? A mixed reception for Pandora

In some ways, each of us is like every person on earth; in some ways, each of us is like the members of our culture and group; and, in some ways, each of us is unique. Huntington minimized the power of universal political values and exaggerated the influence of distinct cultural values. Its easy to see why he did this. He was arguing against global elites who sometimes refuse to acknowledge the power of culture at all. But it seems clear that many people in Arab nations do share a universal hunger for liberty. They feel the presence of universal human rights and feel insulted when they are not accorded them. Culture is important, but underneath cultural differences there are these universal aspirations for dignity, for political systems that listen to, respond to and respect the will of the people. Finally, Id say Huntington misunderstood the nature of historical change. In his book, he describes transformations that move along linear, projectable trajectories. But thats not how things work in times of tumult. Instead, one person moves a step. Then the next person moves a step. Pretty soon, millions are caught up in a contagion, activating passions they had but dimly perceived just weeks before. They get swept up in momentums that have no central authority and that, nonetheless, exercise a sweeping influence on those caught up in their tides. I write all this not to denigrate the great Huntington. He may still be proved right. The Arab world may modernize on its own separate path. But his mistakes illuminate useful truths: that all people share certain aspirations and that history is wide open. The tumult of events can transform the traits and qualities that seemed, even to great experts, etched in stone.
A version of this op-ed appeared in print on March 4, 2011, on page A27 of the New York edition.

Im agi ne h ow sty l ish you r far m can be N Y Ti m es.com /Hom e

Ads by Google

what's this?

Why Israel?
Stepp into the journey to discover Gods plan for Israel and the church

www.whyisrael.org

Connect with The New York Times on Facebook.

COMMENTS (264) SIGN IN T O E-MAIL PRINT REPRINT S

Ads by Google

what's this?

How to Convert to Islam

How to convert and become a Muslim with Live Help by chat

www.IslamReligion.com
Get Free E-mail Alerts on These Topics Islam

Hu ntington, Sam u el P Middle Ea st and North Africa Unrest (201 0- ) Arabs

INSIDE NY TIMES.COM
MOVIES OPINION T ELEVISION REAL EST ATE OPINION N.Y. / REGION

Disunion: On to Richmond! Or Not

Bull Run turned a newspaper editors belligerence into a plea for peace.
Confronting a Plagu e of Violence A Madam s New Consorts Hou se Tou r: Oliv e, N.Y. Room for Debate: Shou ld Online Sales Be Tax Free? Atheists Su e to Block Cross at 9 /1 1 Mu seu m

Home

World

U.S.

N.Y. / Region

Business

Technology

Science

Health

Sports Corrections

Opinion RSS

Arts

Style

Travel Help

Jobs Contact Us

Real Estate

Autos

Back to Top Site Map

2011 The New York Times Company

Privacy

Your Ad Choices

Terms of Service

First Look

Work for Us

Advertise