
The idea of the “The Clash of Civilization” started with Huntington’s article at 1993, and then his book published at 1996. During that time era, international terrorism was only breaking news once in every six months or so. El-Qeade was known by only CIA operatives not by the public. At late 1990’s, world was talking about technology and globalization. Nobody would have imagined the 9/11 type of attack. But Huntington predicted some of the chaos we are facing today. He deserves that credit for sure.
He claims that during the cold war, world had three blocks and they were free world, communist bloc, and unaligned nations. After the fall of Berlin wall, indigenization occurred and countries polarized according to their identity namely their civilizations. Eight major civilizations are introduced by Huntington as Western, Latin American, African, Islamic, Sinic (Chinese), Hindu, Orthodox, and Japanese. As it can be concluded easily that civilizations mainly based on religions.
After fall of Communist block, West emerged as dominant civilization but at the end of 20th century its power started to decline. At the same time, the wealth of other civilizations (especially Asian civilizations) started to gain more economic power. This also increased the indigenization and opposition to West. They are now proud with their identity and uniqueness.
According to his theory, civilizations will be realigned and clashed by each other continuously in order to gain absolute advantage. Next clashes will be between West and Islam. Also, he guessed at 1996, Chinese Civilization will be at Islam’s side against to West. Furthermore, he predicts that conflicts will be occurred at fault lines where civilizations (especially Islam) are met others.
In addition to this, his theory defines core states and torn states. Core states are the states that the most powerful and dominant state of particular civilization like USA for the West and China for the Sinic civilization. At this point, Huntington evaluates Islam and African civilizations which have lack of core states. That’s why Islam has difficulty to solve his conflicts with other civilizations.
Another definition by Huntington is torn countries. These countries are trying to move from one civilization to another. Turkey wants to move from Islam to West with the help of Kemalism, Mexico wants to move from Latin America to West, Russia wants to move from Orthodox to West, and finally Australia wants to move from West to Asia. The commonalities of the torn countries are elites of the country support this re-identification but public do not, also host civilization, generally West, do not willing to accept new guests.
Huntington totally refuses these moves by torn countries and suggests them to go back their own civilizations. Also, he claims that people of the non-Western civilizations wants to modernize but not westernize. He refuses universal values and globalization. According to him more interaction and trade brings more conflicts and more clashes.
I think, this is the most controversial point of the book. Because democracy and women rights are the westernization which other civilizations should reject according to Huntington. I believe that these are the universal values and applicable to all civilizations for their good. Today, conflicts at Middle East are partly caused by the lack of democracy. Also, globalization does exist and brings the countries closer and creates common interests like USA and India are experiencing today. Eating McDonalds and listening Metal music is westernization which other civilizations could reject. Also moves between civilizations are necessary and must be supported. Because, these countries like Turkey, Russia, Mexico, and Australia, can play mutual roles in intercivilized conflicts knowing and understanding both sides.
There will be always inter and/or intra civilizations conflicts but defining them as clashes of civilizations is little bit exaggeration. It can be called as “Discussion of Civilizations” But, it is not the faith of the world. Humanity can work together to solve the problems if they want to. If you like to read 100% opposite of Huntington ideas, I suggest you Thomas Friedman’s last book “The World is flat”. He is the fan of globalization. In short, Huntington theory is one of the most known international politics theory and it is valid for some points. This is another must read book and important piece of my library.
Medeniyetlerin catismasi fikri 1993 yilinda Huntington’un makalesi ile basladi ve ardindan 1996 yilinda ayni isimli kitabi yayinlandi. Sunu untmamak gerekirki, kitabin yayinlandigi zaman diliminde, uluslararasi terrorizm 6 ayda bir televizyonlarda flas haber olan bir konuydu. El-Kaide sadece CIA calisanlarinin bildigi ama kamuoyunun adini bile duymadigi bir orgutten baska bir sey degildi. 1990’larin sonunda dunya kamuoyu sadece teknolojik gelismeler ve globellesme ile mesguldu. Kimsenin aklindan 11 Eylul tipi bir saldiri gecmiyordu. Fakat, Huntington bugun yasadigimiz problemlerin bir kismini gorebilme basarisini gosterdi. Bu konuda onu takdir etmemek elde degil.
Huntington’in teorisine gore, soguk savas sirasinda dunya uc ana gruba ayrilmisti. Bunlar, sirasiyla ozgur batili ulkeler, komunist bloku ulkeleri ve tarafsiz ulkelerdi. Berlin duvarinin yikilmasindan sonra, butun ulkelerde kendi ozune donme basladi ve kendi kimliklerine (medeniyetlerine) gore yeniden gruplanmaya basladilar. Huntington bu olusum icin sekiz ana medeniyet tanimliyor, Bati Medeniyeti, Latin Amerika Medeniyeti, Islam Medeniyeti, Afrika Medeniyeti, Cin Medeniyeti, Hindu Medeniyeti, Ortadox Medeniyeti ve Japon Medeniyeti. Hemen anlasilacagi uzere medeniyetlerin ana tasi din unsuru.
Komunist sistemin cokmesinden sonra Bati medeniyeti tek super guc olarak ortaya cikti. Ancak 20th yuzyilin sonlarinda batinin gucu gerileme surecine girdi. Bu surecle birlikte ozellikle Asya’daki medeniyetlerin ekonomik olarak guc kazanmalari ve refahlarini artirmalari, bu medeniyetlerdeki ozedonusu ve batiya karsi koyma arzusunu hizlandirdi. Diger medeniyetler de kendi kimlikleri ve orijinallikleri ile gurur duymaya basladilar.
Huntington kitabinda acikladi uzere medeniyetlerin yeniden degisik sekillerde bir araya gelerek devamli olarak catisacaklarini iddia ediyor. Gelecekteki ilk catismanin ise Bati medeniyetleri ile Islam Medeniyeti arasinda olacagini ve Cin Medeniyetinin Islamin yaninda Bati’ya karsi yer alacagini varsayiyor. Catismanin meydana gelecegi yerler ise medeniyetlerin (Ozellikle Islamin) diger medeniyetler ile yan yana yasadiklari yerleri gosteriyor.
Yazar ayrica ana devletler ve bolunmus devletler tanimlamaya calisiyor. Ana devletler kendi medeniyetlerinin en guclu ve baskin devletleri, batidan Amerika Birlesik Devletleri ve Sinic Medeniyetler icin Cin gibi. Bu noktada Huntington, Islam ve Afrika medeniyetlerinin ana devleti olmadigini belirtiyor ve hatta Islam Medeniyetinin diger medeniyetler ile sorunlarini cozememesinin bir nedenini bu eksiklige bagliyor.
Bolunmus devletler ise kendi medeniyetlerinden baska bir medeniyete gecme cabasinda olan ulkeler. Bunlara ornek olarak, Turkiye Islam medeniyetinden Bati Medeniyetine Kemalist dusunce tarziyla gecmeye calisiyor. Ayni sekilde Meksika, Latin Amerika Medeniyetinden batiya, Rusya Orthodox medeniyetinden Batiya, ve Avusturalya ise Bati medeniyetinden Asya medeniyetine gecmeye calisiyorlar. Bolunmus ulkelerin ortak ozellikleri ise aydin kesimlerin bu gecisi desteklemesi ancak halkin bu konuda direnmesi ve gecis yapilan medeniyetin ki bu genellikle Bati medeniyeti, bu transferi desteklememesi.
Huntington, bu tur medeniyetler arasi gecislere kesinlikle karsi cikiyor ve her ulkenin kendi medeniyetler icinde kalmasini tavsiye ediyor. Ayrica diger medeniyetlerin (Bati disindaki) Batililasmaya karsi ciktiklarini ancak modernlesmeyi desteklediklerini dusunuyor. Evrensel degerlere inanmayan Huntington, kuresellesmeyede inanmiyor. Yazara gore daha cok ticaret ve iletisim daha fazla problem ve catismadan baska bir sey getirmeyecek.
Bence burasi kitabin ve teorinin en can alici noktasi. Cunku Demokrasi ve Kadin Haklari gibi degerler yazar tarafindan batililasma olarak algilaniyor ve diger medeniyetlerin bu degerleri reddetmesini savunuyor. Halbuki bu degerler, evrensel degerler ve her medeniyet icin gerekli olan pozitif degisimler. Bugun bile Orta Dogu’daki sorunlarinin demokrasi eksikliginden kaynaklandigi acik bir gercek. Ayrica kuresellesme inkar edilemez bir olgu ve bu sayade ulkeler ve medeniyetler yakinlasiyor ve ortak cikarlar yaratabiliyorlar. Bunun en guzel ornegi ise Amerika ile Hindistan arasinda gelisen olaylar. McDonalds’da burger yemek ve Metal muzigi dinlemek batililasma olarak algilanabilir ve diger medeniyetler tarafindan red edilebilir. Fakat evrensel degerlere her medeniyetin sahip cikmasi lazim. Ayrica medeniyetler arasindaki gecisler gerekli ve bunun diger medeniyetler tarafindan desteklenmesi lazim. Cunku bu tur ulkeler (Turkiye, Rusya, Meksika, Avusturalya) her iki tarafida anladiklari ve bildikleri icin medeniyetler arasinda arabulucu rolunu basari ile ustlenebilir.
Her zaman medeniyetlerin kendi icinde ve medeniyetler arasinda sorunlar olacaktir. Fakat bu sorunlari medniyetlerin catismasi olarak tanimlamak bana biraz abarti olarak geliyor. Belki Medeniyetlerin tartismasi demek daha dogru olacak. Her sekilde catismalar ve savaslar dunyanin kaderi degil insanlik bu sorunu isterse diger platformlarda da cozebilir. Eger yazarin dusuncesine 100% zit bir kitap ariyorsaniz, Thomas Friedman’in son kitabi “The World is Flat” (Dunya Duzdur) tavsiye ederim. Friedman tam bir kuresellesme taraftari. Sonuc olarak, Huntington’in teorisi uluslararasi politika alaninda en cok bilinen ve tartisilan teori ve bazi noktalarda gecerliligini korumakta. Mutlaka okunmasi ve kutuphanenizde bulunmasi gereken bir kitap.
Cenk Sumbas