In Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington's vision of the future, world conflict will be shaped not by economics or ideologies, as was the case during the Cold War, but by violent confrontation between civilizations with differing religions and cultures. In his 1993 FOREIGN AFFAIRS essay, "The Clash of Civilizations?," and in a 1996 book, Huntington has argued that "fault-line wars" between civilizations could tear nations apart and eventually lead to a global war of "the West versus the rest.""In class and ideological conflicts, the key question was 'Which side are you on?' and people could and did choose sides and change sides," Huntington has written. "In conflicts between civilizations, the question is 'What are you?' That is a given that cannot be changed. And as we know, from Bosnia to the Caucasus to the Sudan, the wrong answer to that question can mean a bullet in the head. Even more than ethnicity, religion discriminates sharply and exclusively among people. A person can be half French and half Arab and simultaneously even a citizen of two countries. It is more difficult to be half Catholic and half Muslim."
Shaun Casey, assistant professor of Christian ethics at Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington, DC, says that while Huntington's clash of civilizations has been vigorously debated for a decade by foreign policy analysts and other scholars, it has been ignored for the most part by ethicists. Casey organized a discussion of Huntington's views during a recent meeting of the Society of Christian Ethics, held in Chicago from January 8 to 11.
Max L. Stackhouse, a professor of ethics at Princeton Theological Seminary, says Huntington's thesis was dismissed by foreign policy experts at first. "The notion was ridiculed in the five years prior to 9/11," says Stackhouse. But now Huntington is regarded by some around Washington as "prophetic."
Stackhouse praises Huntington for emphasizing the essential role that religion plays in the world -- something Casey says policy makers often ignore. "Policy people by training are reluctant to address religion," according to Casey, "but you can't pick up any major U.S. newspaper without confronting the profound role religion plays in shaping world conflicts."
But both Casey and Stackhouse believe Huntington overlooks the positive role religion can play in solving conflicts. "Huntington is right," Casey acknowledges. "You ignore religion at your peril in international relations. But he doesn't show religion as a force for peace."
David Little, an ethics professor at Harvard Divinity School, recently taught a Harvard course on religion and global politics with Huntington and Jessica Stern, lecturer in public policy at the Kennedy School of Government and the author of TERROR IN THE NAME OF GOD. Little says that while the terrorist attacks of September 11 seem to support Huntington's theory, there have been signs since then that escalating clashes of civilizations can be avoided.
