What do you think?
Rate this book
The Clash of Civilizations? The Debate
In 1993, Samuel P. Huntington boldly asserted in the pages of Foreign Affairs that world politics was entering a new phase, one in which cultural differences in religion, history, language, and tradition were replacing Cold War tensions and would soon become the world's fundamental points of conflict. Huntington's striking thesis elicited both criticism and praise from the media and political experts around the world. More than a decade later, "The Clash of Civilizations?" continues to be a touchstone in global politics as writers passionately debate its merits and propose counter theories of their own. This collection presents Samuel Huntington's original, seminal essay followed by critical responses published in Foreign Affairs, including the author's reply to his critics and contemporary additions to the enduring question of how to understand world conflict. In this second edition, fresh contributions make The Clash of Civilizations?: The Debate newly relevant to students of International Relations and Political Science.
134 pages, Kindle Edition
First published June 1, 1993
25 people are currently reading
564 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
March 14, 2021
I think this record of a debate between Huntington and a range of his critics helps to frame the issues we've faced since the rise of Donald Trump and the new ethno-nationalism. The critics of Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" paradigm give a host of reasonable observations. For example, Liu Binyan points out that the Chinese diaspora across countries such as Taiwan and Singapore is not really moving toward political solidarity with China out of shared loyalty to a "Confucian civilization," and China itself is a big experiment in how to mix Capitalism, Marxism, and Confucianism together. The other contributors all make similarly valid points, suggesting that our emerging webs of social, economic, and political ties cut across all "civilizational divisions."
Naturally, Huntington rejects all these criticisms, insisting that almost all major issues across the world reflect conflict between inherently different civilizations: "Wherever one turns, the world is at odds with itself. If differences in civilizations are not responsible for these conflicts, what is?" (p. 66).
To me, the most important test of Huntington's argument is how he applies it to his own nation, the USA. Here again he sees a clash of civilizations, in which his own civilization must prevail or perish. He maintains that the rise of a multi-racial, multi-cultural society poses a threat to America's values of equality, democracy, and freedom. Where minority populations protest for equal rights and opportunities, he claims they are demanding "special rights ... for blacks and other groups. Such claims run directly counter to the underlying principles that have been the basis of American political unity ..." (p. 61).
Instead of seeing society as slowly moving beyond exclusive loyalty to tribes, cultures, religions, or ethnicities, and toward a world where people selectively learn from each other and slowly develop shared values like mutual respect, Huntington insists that the future lies in a return to ethnic loyalties. He asks "Will the de-Westernization of the United States, if it occurs, also mean its de-Americanization? If it does and Americans cease to adhere to their liberal democratic and European-rooted political ideology, the United States as we have known it will cease to exist and will follow the other ideologically defined superpower [the USSR] onto the ash heap of history" (p. 62)
Standing in his nation of migrants with social and business ties across the planet, he casts the situation as an inevitable battle for survival: "What ultimately counts for people is not political ideology or economic interest. Faith and family, blood and belief, are what people identify with and what they fight and die for" (p. 67).
Naturally, Huntington rejects all these criticisms, insisting that almost all major issues across the world reflect conflict between inherently different civilizations: "Wherever one turns, the world is at odds with itself. If differences in civilizations are not responsible for these conflicts, what is?" (p. 66).
To me, the most important test of Huntington's argument is how he applies it to his own nation, the USA. Here again he sees a clash of civilizations, in which his own civilization must prevail or perish. He maintains that the rise of a multi-racial, multi-cultural society poses a threat to America's values of equality, democracy, and freedom. Where minority populations protest for equal rights and opportunities, he claims they are demanding "special rights ... for blacks and other groups. Such claims run directly counter to the underlying principles that have been the basis of American political unity ..." (p. 61).
Instead of seeing society as slowly moving beyond exclusive loyalty to tribes, cultures, religions, or ethnicities, and toward a world where people selectively learn from each other and slowly develop shared values like mutual respect, Huntington insists that the future lies in a return to ethnic loyalties. He asks "Will the de-Westernization of the United States, if it occurs, also mean its de-Americanization? If it does and Americans cease to adhere to their liberal democratic and European-rooted political ideology, the United States as we have known it will cease to exist and will follow the other ideologically defined superpower [the USSR] onto the ash heap of history" (p. 62)
Standing in his nation of migrants with social and business ties across the planet, he casts the situation as an inevitable battle for survival: "What ultimately counts for people is not political ideology or economic interest. Faith and family, blood and belief, are what people identify with and what they fight and die for" (p. 67).
July 30, 2023
"ცივილიზაციური ცნობიერება იზრდება, ცივილიზაციათა კონფლიქტი, როგორც გლობალურად გაბატონებული ფორმა, გააძევებს იდეოლოგიურ თუ სხვა საზის კონფლიქტებს. საერთაშორისო ურთიერთობები - პოლიტიკური თამაში, რომელიც ისტორიულად დასავლური ცივილიზაციის ჩარჩოებში მიმდინარეობდა, სულ უფრო და უფრო მეტად ექვემდებარება დევესტერნიზაციას და მალე ისეთ თამაშად გადაიქცევა, რომელშიც არადასავლური ცივილიზაციები არა მხოლოდ ობიექტებად, არამედ მოთამაშეებადაც მოგვევლინებიან".
December 28, 2023
Ethnocentric bullshitt
April 10, 2018
Wow, what an intriguing read.
Huntington has strong arguments, I must say. He identified that the past struggles between princes/monarchs, nations, and ideologies moved into a new phase and represented a development of history in which future conflicts will be embodied in the struggle between cultures. He also predicted that non-Western civilizations would no longer be the exploited recipients of the Western civilization but have already become additional important actors joining the West as shapers and movers of the world history. He later added an argument that the widespread Western belief in the universality of the West's values/norms/beliefs and political systems is naive and such "universal" norms will only further antagonize other civilizations (he sees the reluctance of the West to accept it since it built the international system, wrote its laws, and gave it substance in the form of "the United Nations" - this one's interesting in so many ways).
In this essay, he divided the world into some "major" civilizations (i.e. Western, Latin American, Sinic, Muslim World, Orthodox, African, "Lone countries", "Cleft Countries", etc.). A major shift of economy, military, and political power was also predicted, shifting from the West to the other civilizations of the world, most significantly to what he identifies as the two "challenger civilizations", Sinic and Islam (Huntington sees both are potential allies) - he even stated that Islam is the next enemy (David A. Welch, in his essay, Enemy Wanted: Apply Without), regarding the clash of civilizations he brought up.
Intriguing, and problematic ("bloody borders").
Huntington has strong arguments, I must say. He identified that the past struggles between princes/monarchs, nations, and ideologies moved into a new phase and represented a development of history in which future conflicts will be embodied in the struggle between cultures. He also predicted that non-Western civilizations would no longer be the exploited recipients of the Western civilization but have already become additional important actors joining the West as shapers and movers of the world history. He later added an argument that the widespread Western belief in the universality of the West's values/norms/beliefs and political systems is naive and such "universal" norms will only further antagonize other civilizations (he sees the reluctance of the West to accept it since it built the international system, wrote its laws, and gave it substance in the form of "the United Nations" - this one's interesting in so many ways).
In this essay, he divided the world into some "major" civilizations (i.e. Western, Latin American, Sinic, Muslim World, Orthodox, African, "Lone countries", "Cleft Countries", etc.). A major shift of economy, military, and political power was also predicted, shifting from the West to the other civilizations of the world, most significantly to what he identifies as the two "challenger civilizations", Sinic and Islam (Huntington sees both are potential allies) - he even stated that Islam is the next enemy (David A. Welch, in his essay, Enemy Wanted: Apply Without), regarding the clash of civilizations he brought up.
Intriguing, and problematic ("bloody borders").
March 25, 2020
Interesting book about the next clash will be among different civilizations.
September 5, 2021
I appreciate Huntington's argument, but he loses me in his response when he asserts that his essay outlines the most accurate paradigm of international relations.
August 27, 2025
A decent fast overview of the geopolitical landscape post USSR where small cultural groups not ideologies will fight it out. Like Christian Armenians vs. Azerbaijani Muslims.
He writes this during the Yugoslavia wars and points out how Iran gives weapons to Muslims to fight Christians. The area is moving away from the communist state splitting into cultural groups.
This is very well-written and clear and takes about 1 hour to read or listen to for free. Recommended as a short listen, but it feels dated. The conclusion is banal. The prediction about Ukraine and Russia never getting into war as they are similar culturally makes him look misguided. The issue is not always cultural. At times someone wants more land area or take over areas with valuable resources. In 2025 Rwanda declared war on Congo to get access to their diamond mines. If families fight over wills then armies with the same culture could fight over gold and diamonds.
Similarly the breaking apart of Soviet Union makes his theory a bit too easy to develop. He didn't predict anything new he just looked at Armenian and Yugoslavian conflicts and pretty much described what was already happening when empires broke apart and new nations were created. This is obvious as borders need to be found. Pakistan and India are also in conflict since Britain let them be. So is Israel and nations or groups demanding that from the river to the sea all will be Muslim. Hence no place for any Jews in power as Muslims want to connect the Muslim world. Shia and Sunni Islam groups are also fighting each other in the Yemen proxy war yet Sunni Pakistan supports Iran in some cases. And Russia is getting support from Iran and North Korea in their war vs. Ukraine despite Russians having way more in common with Ukrainians as Russian culture and language originates from Ukraine. Russians have their religion in common with Europe overall despite working with an atheist and Muslim nation in this war. What they have in common is a fascist state with democracies fighting them. Yet they don't need to share any regional culture. Belarus also supports Putin and they are extremely similar to Russia yet the dictatorship is really the key common factor and it's only 2 men not the population. Orban in Hungary is part of EU. Yet Orban is trying to become the totalitarian leader and hence has more in common with Russia hence supports them over democratic EU.
The article is good, but it needed more. It needs an update with modern history and more theories and explanations not just 1. Maybe the theory was groundbreaking back then? Today this feels too obvious in a way where no one even debates if it's true or not. The theory is strong yet clearly not strong enough to predict the future as no theory is. Maybe the book is better?
He writes this during the Yugoslavia wars and points out how Iran gives weapons to Muslims to fight Christians. The area is moving away from the communist state splitting into cultural groups.
This is very well-written and clear and takes about 1 hour to read or listen to for free. Recommended as a short listen, but it feels dated. The conclusion is banal. The prediction about Ukraine and Russia never getting into war as they are similar culturally makes him look misguided. The issue is not always cultural. At times someone wants more land area or take over areas with valuable resources. In 2025 Rwanda declared war on Congo to get access to their diamond mines. If families fight over wills then armies with the same culture could fight over gold and diamonds.
Similarly the breaking apart of Soviet Union makes his theory a bit too easy to develop. He didn't predict anything new he just looked at Armenian and Yugoslavian conflicts and pretty much described what was already happening when empires broke apart and new nations were created. This is obvious as borders need to be found. Pakistan and India are also in conflict since Britain let them be. So is Israel and nations or groups demanding that from the river to the sea all will be Muslim. Hence no place for any Jews in power as Muslims want to connect the Muslim world. Shia and Sunni Islam groups are also fighting each other in the Yemen proxy war yet Sunni Pakistan supports Iran in some cases. And Russia is getting support from Iran and North Korea in their war vs. Ukraine despite Russians having way more in common with Ukrainians as Russian culture and language originates from Ukraine. Russians have their religion in common with Europe overall despite working with an atheist and Muslim nation in this war. What they have in common is a fascist state with democracies fighting them. Yet they don't need to share any regional culture. Belarus also supports Putin and they are extremely similar to Russia yet the dictatorship is really the key common factor and it's only 2 men not the population. Orban in Hungary is part of EU. Yet Orban is trying to become the totalitarian leader and hence has more in common with Russia hence supports them over democratic EU.
The article is good, but it needed more. It needs an update with modern history and more theories and explanations not just 1. Maybe the theory was groundbreaking back then? Today this feels too obvious in a way where no one even debates if it's true or not. The theory is strong yet clearly not strong enough to predict the future as no theory is. Maybe the book is better?
January 20, 2020
Published in 1996, the book reflects the post Cold War ”rethink” about how the world would work following the fall of the Soviet Union. The popular use of Free World references then changed to references of “the West!” Academics began to study likely factors that would govern relationship between the ascendant West and the World’s other major civilizations after the Soviet system collapsed!
The unprecedented modernization being enjoyed by the West; economically, technically, and politically made it the envy of the world. Countries strove to match the model they saw as the example. Would they, could they achieve progress they sought without the West’s political freedom, free markets, entrepreneurship, capitalism, and western cultural principles; ie. separation of church and state, rule of law, not people, free democratic elections, etc. Would they have to change their culture to mimic the West in order to modernize?
Are Western values necessary for such progress?
The answer is still not clear, but there are examples of civilizations that are modernizing well while maintaining their culture and forms of government! Progress that allowed the writer to conclude in 1996 that progress could be somewhat independent of culture/ government type. However, since then, the West has maintained, even increased, its lead in innovation, science and capital formation,...progress!
But the question remains. Can the West maintain its uniqueness in the face of a shrinking world, more people to people contact, the ability to access new technologies from anywhere allowing fast following, and governments in other cultures funding effort to progress as a substitute for capital markets.
If not, will the haves and have-nots resort to clashes to even progress?
Will the West’s culture become tired, turn inward, become frozen by partisanship, lose cohesion because of ethnic differences, fear globalism and multiculturalism, and loose its energy, halting its progress, allowing others to catch up or surpass its success?
Will fissures like Brexit, and the US becoming self focused and insular, weaken the West in ways that fracture their leadership by eroding the trust of them by other nations and their populations.
Those questions still exist! They were Huntington’s 1996 questions at the end of his book!
Read the book to be exposed to a famous and highly capable political scientist’s exposition of the variables and possibilities! Though no firm conclusion will be possible, you will have been exposed to the possibilities and the arguments for or against them!
An important learning, even in 2019, maybe especially in 2019!
The unprecedented modernization being enjoyed by the West; economically, technically, and politically made it the envy of the world. Countries strove to match the model they saw as the example. Would they, could they achieve progress they sought without the West’s political freedom, free markets, entrepreneurship, capitalism, and western cultural principles; ie. separation of church and state, rule of law, not people, free democratic elections, etc. Would they have to change their culture to mimic the West in order to modernize?
Are Western values necessary for such progress?
The answer is still not clear, but there are examples of civilizations that are modernizing well while maintaining their culture and forms of government! Progress that allowed the writer to conclude in 1996 that progress could be somewhat independent of culture/ government type. However, since then, the West has maintained, even increased, its lead in innovation, science and capital formation,...progress!
But the question remains. Can the West maintain its uniqueness in the face of a shrinking world, more people to people contact, the ability to access new technologies from anywhere allowing fast following, and governments in other cultures funding effort to progress as a substitute for capital markets.
If not, will the haves and have-nots resort to clashes to even progress?
Will the West’s culture become tired, turn inward, become frozen by partisanship, lose cohesion because of ethnic differences, fear globalism and multiculturalism, and loose its energy, halting its progress, allowing others to catch up or surpass its success?
Will fissures like Brexit, and the US becoming self focused and insular, weaken the West in ways that fracture their leadership by eroding the trust of them by other nations and their populations.
Those questions still exist! They were Huntington’s 1996 questions at the end of his book!
Read the book to be exposed to a famous and highly capable political scientist’s exposition of the variables and possibilities! Though no firm conclusion will be possible, you will have been exposed to the possibilities and the arguments for or against them!
An important learning, even in 2019, maybe especially in 2019!
November 12, 2025
Firstly, it is unreasonable to insinuate that religion is one of the most important factor in determining a civilizational identity while attributing to Latin America its own civilizational value, excluding it (in part) from the "Western" bloc, when they share, in addition to the same religion, the same Church; and ignoring the nature of the zionist state of Israel that "belongs with" the Western civilization.
That said. Huntington overestimated not only the importance of religion in determining a civilizational identity, but also the weight of this identity in the relationship between civilizations - or the States that comprise them. The Balkans and the Baltics are an example of this, which despite having the Orthodox Church in common with countries like Russia, have been increasingly approaching and integrating with the West, its values and its organizations.
Indeed, we may be facing today a "clash of civilizations" based on cultural aspects. It's just that 1) this cultural aspects, even if related to, are not necessarily “values"; 2) religion, even if playing a major role on some civilization's culture and values, that role is not a determining factor; 3) these cultural aspects rely much more on shared experiences among nations and their prospects or its rejection - for some, anti-imperialistic feelings; for others, a desire for a global homogenization of values according to their own; and 4) this clash isn't realy a clash - anything alarming to global peace.
Since this publication, 3 decades ago, every major armed conflict (between 2 or more States), were not between these "cilivizations"/blocs, but rather between these and isolated States - in form of intervention; or, more recently, with the war in Ukraine - which futhers contradicts Huntington's prediction - between two States within a "civilization".
One of the two assertive assessments made by Huntington contradicts his own prediction: "It's the West agaisnt the rest". The other one is related to the WMD proliferation, and the West self-proclaimed authority over this matter, and which, one can argue, has little to do with cultural, much less religious, differences.
That said. Huntington overestimated not only the importance of religion in determining a civilizational identity, but also the weight of this identity in the relationship between civilizations - or the States that comprise them. The Balkans and the Baltics are an example of this, which despite having the Orthodox Church in common with countries like Russia, have been increasingly approaching and integrating with the West, its values and its organizations.
Indeed, we may be facing today a "clash of civilizations" based on cultural aspects. It's just that 1) this cultural aspects, even if related to, are not necessarily “values"; 2) religion, even if playing a major role on some civilization's culture and values, that role is not a determining factor; 3) these cultural aspects rely much more on shared experiences among nations and their prospects or its rejection - for some, anti-imperialistic feelings; for others, a desire for a global homogenization of values according to their own; and 4) this clash isn't realy a clash - anything alarming to global peace.
Since this publication, 3 decades ago, every major armed conflict (between 2 or more States), were not between these "cilivizations"/blocs, but rather between these and isolated States - in form of intervention; or, more recently, with the war in Ukraine - which futhers contradicts Huntington's prediction - between two States within a "civilization".
One of the two assertive assessments made by Huntington contradicts his own prediction: "It's the West agaisnt the rest". The other one is related to the WMD proliferation, and the West self-proclaimed authority over this matter, and which, one can argue, has little to do with cultural, much less religious, differences.
February 12, 2017
Some of his forecasts went true (Chechen War, Islamic clash with the West world), although the Russian-Ukrainian conflict proves that countries from the same civilization may fight each other due to political and economical conjunctures.
February 29, 2016
I always wondered back then. Why is the west so blind? How do they keep missing the little things we keep shouting at them, and act so perfectly as such that it has not been said at all?
This, is the answer. They have managed to put it in a box, tag nonsensical godwin's law esque phrases to it, and considered it disproved and misguided.
This book is not that great. It, like most of the other Ideologies west, misses a lot things. But, considering the infantile state of the common citizens of the west in matters pertaining to this sort of thing, this is a big leap forward, from the previous void.
Hence, 4 stars.
This, is the answer. They have managed to put it in a box, tag nonsensical godwin's law esque phrases to it, and considered it disproved and misguided.
This book is not that great. It, like most of the other Ideologies west, misses a lot things. But, considering the infantile state of the common citizens of the west in matters pertaining to this sort of thing, this is a big leap forward, from the previous void.
Hence, 4 stars.
June 15, 2021
რაღაცები გაარტყა, რაღაცები - ვერა. მაგ. რუსეთი და უკრაინა არ იჩხუბებენ, ორივე სლავური სახელმწიფოა, ცოტა მიამიტურად გამოუვიდა. თუმცა, ზოგადი ხედვა საინტერესო და სწორი მეჩვენება. პრინციპში ეს ისედაც ვიცოდით გუმანით.
April 10, 2009
I read this for school. I really enjoyed Samuel Huntington's entire essay. It brought up some really good points, although I don't ultimately agree with his thesis. Very good essay though. The debate essays brought up some very good points, and it was nice to see the other side of the issues from other scholars, though I wish they were a bit longer.
September 21, 2020
While certainly impressive for the time, Clash of Civilizations presents a simplistic, if technically prophetic, worldview. Huntington certainly got more right than he got wrong, but he verges on predicting the sunrise at times, and nuance is nowhere to be found. Recommended as a useful primer to geopolitics, but not much else.
September 9, 2025
Es la versión paper, o sea resumida, de la famosa tesis desarrollada por este autor en el libro del mismo nombre. Personalmente. Me parece que todo lo que alabara es muy de sentido común, que tiene tanta vigencia ahora como la tenía en el pasado. Muy recomendable, sobre todo si quiere ahorrarse el libro entero.
February 7, 2011
A great and inspiring collection of essays around the (in)famous thesis of Huntington from 1994. Reading it totally re-vindicated his thesis for me, read all about that on my blog at http://mauricehertog.web-log.nl
June 25, 2014
Great to revisit this seminal article analyzing international relations in the post-Cold War era. Fascinating debates back and forth from other theorists. Highly recommend this.
July 17, 2020
Covers broad topics with shallow depth.
March 9, 2023
I read this one in college. I don’t remember much about it, but I do remember that it opened my eyes to a whole new depth in thinking on political issues.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews