Henry E. Hale

7717

CIVILIZATIONS REFRAMED TOWARDS A THEORETICAL UPGRADE FOR A STALLED PARADIGM

Relative to their perceived importance in international and domestic politics, civilizations are radically understudied by social scientists. One possible cause is that existing research on civilizations is too often based on outmoded primordialist assumptions about the nature of identity that at least partly trace back to Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” paradigm. A new theoretical framework is proposed for understanding civilizations based on important postprimordialist research, including in human psychology. This approach not only helps us understand the appeal and spread of Huntingtonian ideas, but generates fresh predictions that can be tested and developed as part of a new research program. Civilizations are widely portrayed as the grandest of all world actors, the largest human groupings short of humanity itself and the source of people’s most fundamental identities and behaviors. World leaders and terrorists alike describe them as the prime movers in global politics, and media often resort to them when interpreting everything from the September 11 attacks to China’s economic ascendance to popular prejudices against migrants. Yet despite its prominence in public discourse, the study of “civilizations” has remained largely peripheral to social science. The debate on Samuel Huntington’s seminal “clash of civilizations” thesis is an exception that proves the rule. Sparking a firestorm of public discussion across the globe, this argument was pilloried by many of the world’s leading scholars, for whom the whole concept of civilization became tainted with all the problems they found in Huntington’s work. Some initially sought to test his thesis, but the most prominent systematic attempts came up negative and such efforts have since petered out. One can still find it in some leading journals as a spicy “straw man” argument that is debunked to the benefit of the preferred argument, and in a few countries that Huntington characterized as “torn” between two civilizations the notion has framed much scholarship on their own identities and foreign policy orientations. But for the most part, the notion of civilizations remains prominent mainly in politics and mass media rather than scholarship. This article suggests that this relative stagnation of the civilizations paradigm may result from the fact that it is widely interpreted as a last bastion of primordialism. Tests have focused primarily on the primordialist parts of Huntington’s theory, and debates on civilizations’ role in world politics have been divorced from remarkable advances in research on identity over the last two decades. Negative findings from such research have tended to lead scholars to ignore the paradigm rather than attempt to rethink it. And those who continue to embrace it--typically politicians and policy analysts rather than scholars--are also those to whom primordialism tends to appeal, so they also see no need to reconsider it. Accordingly, little effort has been applied to considering whether post-primordialist understandings of identity might lead not to the outright rejection of the concept but instead to revision and new insights. This article argues that post-primordialist findings about the nature of identity would lead us to rethink the notion of civilizations and that we should go ahead and update it in order to frame a research agenda for gaining a better understanding of the role of civilizational identity in domestic and international politics. The concept is surely worthy of such an effort. For one thing, in order to produce a holistic understanding of human identity, it would seem selfevident that we must study the most macro-level identifications as well as local and mesolevel ones. Even beyond this, civilizational identity is very widely believed to be important, including by world leaders who actually make policy and practice international relations and domestic politics.5 Moreover, media in different countries often frame major events in civilizational terms, with the most prominent recent example perhaps being American media coverage of the September 11 attacks.6 Indeed, given how significant civilizations are in international political discourse and understandings, the concept would seem radically understudied by social scientists. The following pages thus examine the development of civilizations theory, focusing in particular on the Huntingtonian work that has come to shape current debates, and then show how up-to-date post-primordialist research on identity politics recasts the notion of civilization, lending it new scholarly and practical capacities for understanding domestic and international politics.
Anahtar Kelimeler:

anahtarkelime

CIVILIZATIONS REFRAMED TOWARDS A THEORETICAL UPGRADE FOR A STALLED PARADIGM

Relative to their perceived importance in international and domestic politics, civilizations are radically understudied by social scientists. One possible cause is that existing research on civilizations is too often based on outmoded primordialist assumptions about the nature of identity that at least partly trace back to Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” paradigm. A new theoretical framework is proposed for understanding civilizations based on important postprimordialist research, including in human psychology. This approach not only helps us understand the appeal and spread of Huntingtonian ideas, but generates fresh predictions that can be tested and developed as part of a new research program. Civilizations are widely portrayed as the grandest of all world actors, the largest human groupings short of humanity itself and the source of people’s most fundamental identities and behaviors. World leaders and terrorists alike describe them as the prime movers in global politics, and media often resort to them when interpreting everything from the September 11 attacks to China’s economic ascendance to popular prejudices against migrants. Yet despite its prominence in public discourse, the study of “civilizations” has remained largely peripheral to social science. The debate on Samuel Huntington’s seminal “clash of civilizations” thesis is an exception that proves the rule. Sparking a firestorm of public discussion across the globe, this argument was pilloried by many of the world’s leading scholars, for whom the whole concept of civilization became tainted with all the problems they found in Huntington’s work. Some initially sought to test his thesis, but the most prominent systematic attempts came up negative and such efforts have since petered out. One can still find it in some leading journals as a spicy “straw man” argument that is debunked to the benefit of the preferred argument, and in a few countries that Huntington characterized as “torn” between two civilizations the notion has framed much scholarship on their own identities and foreign policy orientations. But for the most part, the notion of civilizations remains prominent mainly in politics and mass media rather than scholarship. This article suggests that this relative stagnation of the civilizations paradigm may result from the fact that it is widely interpreted as a last bastion of primordialism. Tests have focused primarily on the primordialist parts of Huntington’s theory, and debates on civilizations’ role in world politics have been divorced from remarkable advances in research on identity over the last two decades. Negative findings from such research have tended to lead scholars to ignore the paradigm rather than attempt to rethink it. And those who continue to embrace it--typically politicians and policy analysts rather than scholars--are also those to whom primordialism tends to appeal, so they also see no need to reconsider it. Accordingly, little effort has been applied to considering whether post-primordialist understandings of identity might lead not to the outright rejection of the concept but instead to revision and new insights. This article argues that post-primordialist findings about the nature of identity would lead us to rethink the notion of civilizations and that we should go ahead and update it in order to frame a research agenda for gaining a better understanding of the role of civilizational identity in domestic and international politics. The concept is surely worthy of such an effort. For one thing, in order to produce a holistic understanding of human identity, it would seem selfevident that we must study the most macro-level identifications as well as local and mesolevel ones. Even beyond this, civilizational identity is very widely believed to be important, including by world leaders who actually make policy and practice international relations and domestic politics.5 Moreover, media in different countries often frame major events in civilizational terms, with the most prominent recent example perhaps being American media coverage of the September 11 attacks.6 Indeed, given how significant civilizations are in international political discourse and understandings, the concept would seem radically understudied by social scientists. The following pages thus examine the development of civilizations theory, focusing in particular on the Huntingtonian work that has come to shape current debates, and then show how up-to-date post-primordialist research on identity politics recasts the notion of civilization, lending it new scholarly and practical capacities for understanding domestic and international politics.
PDF

___

  • Abrahamian, Ervand. 2003. “The US Media, Huntington and September 11,” Third World Quarterly, v.24, no.3, pp.529-44.
  • Ajami, Fuad. 1993. “The Summoning,” Foreign Affairs, v.72, no.4, September/October.
  • Analysis of Huntington’s Thesis,” British Journal of Political Science, v.32, no.3, July, pp.415-34.
  • Anderson, Benedict. 1991. Imagined Communities, revised edition, NY: Verso.
  • Anya Peterson Royce. 1982. Ethnic Identity: Strategies of Diversity, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
  • Barth, Fredrik. 1969. “Introduction,” in Barth, ed., Ethnic Groups and Boundaries, Boston: Little, Brown and Company, pp.9-39.
  • Baumgartner, Jody C., Francia, Peter L. and Jonathan S. Morris.2008. “A Clash of Civilizations? The Influence of Religion on Public Opinion of U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East,” Political Research Quarterly, v.61, no.2, June, pp.171-9.
  • Benthall, Jonathan. 2002. “Imagined Civilizations?” Anthropology Today, v.18, no.6, December, pp.1-2.
  • Bilgrami, Akeel.2003. “The Clash within Civilizations,” Daedalus, v.132, no.3, Summer 2003, pp.88-93.
  • Braudel, Fernand.1995. A History of Civilizations (English translation by Richard Mayne published by New York: Penguin. Breznau, Kelley; Nate, A. Lykes; Jonathan Valerie and Evans. 2011. M. D. R. “A Clash of Civilizations? Preferences for Religious Political Leaders in 86 Nations,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, v.50, no.4, December, pp.671-91.
  • Brown, Rupert. 1988. Group Processes, 1st edition, Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Brown, Rupert. 2000. Group Processes, 2nd edition, Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Brubaker, Rogers Nationalism Reframed, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
  • Brubaker, Rogers. 2004. Ethnicity Without Groups, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Brubaker, Rogers; Loveman, Mara and Stamatov, Peter. 2004. “Ethnicity as Cognition,” Theory and Society, v.33, no.1, pp.31-64.
  • Cederman, Lars-Erik; Wimmer, Andreas and Min, Brian. 2010. “What Makes Ethnic Groups Rebel? New Data and New Analysis,” World Politics, v.62, no.1, pp.87-119.
  • Chandra, Kanchan. “Introduction: Constructivist Findings and Their Non-Incorporation,” APSA-CP (Newsletter in the Organized Section in Comparative Politics in the American Political Science Association), Winter 2001, pp.7-11.
  • Chandra, Kanchan. 2005. “Ethnic Parties and Democratic Stability,” Perspectives on Politics, v.3, no.2, June, pp.235-52.
  • Chandra, Kanchan. 2006. “What is Ethnicity and Does It Matter?” Annual Review of Political Science, v.9,pp.377-424.
  • Chandra, Kanchan. 2012. Constructivist Theories of Ethnic Politics New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Cox, Robert W. 2000. “Thinking about Civilizations,” Review of International Studies, v.26, December, pp.217-34.
  • Eisenstadt, S.N. 2007. “The Reconstitution of Collective Identities and Inter-Civilizational Relations in the Age of Globalization,” Canadian Journal of Sociology/Cahiers Canadiens de Sociologie, v.32, no.1, pp.113-26.
  • Eriksson, Johan and Norman, Ludvig. 2011. “Political Utilisation of Scholarly Ideas: The 'Clash of Civilisations' vs. 'Soft Power' in US Foreign Policy,” Review of International Studies, v.37, no.1, January, pp.417-36. Fearon, James D. 1999. “Why Ethnic Politics and “Pork” Tend To Go Together,” mimeo, May, 21-23.
  • Flannery, Kent V. 1972. “The Cultural Evolution of Civilizations,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, v.3, pp.399-426.
  • Fox, Jonathan. 2001. “Two Civilizations and Ethnic Conflict: Islam and the West,” Journal of Peace Research, v.38, no.4, pp.459-72.
  • Fox, Jonathan. 2002. “Ethnic Minorities and the Clash of Civilizations: A Quantitative
  • Fox, Jonathan. 2007. “The Rise of Religion and the Fall of the Civilization Paradigm as Explanations for State Conflict,” Cambridge Review of International Affairs, v.20, no.3, pp.361-82.
  • Fukuyama, Francis. 1989. “The End of History and the Last Man,” The National Interest, Summer, pp.3-18.
  • Gaertner, Lowell; Sedikides, Constantine; Vevea, Jack L. and Iuzzini, Jonathan. 2002. “The ‘I,’ the ‘We,’ and the ‘When,’” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, v.83, no.3, pp.574–91, 586.
  • Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Culture, New York: Basic Books.
  • Grim, Brian J. 2007. “Religious Persecution in Cross-National Context: Clashing Civilizations or Regulated Religious Economies?” American Sociological Review, v.72, no.4, August, pp.633-58.
  • Hale, Henry E. 2004. “Explaining Ethnicity,” Comparative Political Studies, v.37, no.4, May, pp.458-85, p.463.
  • Hale, Henry E. 2008. The Foundations of Ethnic Politics: Separatism of States and Nations in Eurasia and the World NY: Cambridge University Press.
  • Hechter, Michael. Internal Colonialism: The Celtic Fringe in British National Development, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975.
  • Henderson, Errol A. and Tucker, Richard. 2001. “Clear and Present Strangers: The Clash of Civilizations and International Conflict,” International Studies Quarterly, v.45, no.2, June, pp.317-38.
  • Hogg Michael A. and Mullin, Barbara-A. 1999. “Joining Groups to Reduce Uncertainty: Subjective Uncertainty Reduction and Group Identification,” in Dominic Abrams and Michael A. Hogg, eds., Social Identity and Social Cognition, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
  • Huntington, Samuel P. 1993. “The Clash of Civilizations?” Foreign Affairs, v.72, no.3, Summer, pp.22-49.
  • Huntington, Samuel.1990. “Collision of Civilizations” (translation by Nahum Ben David), Jerusalem: Shalem Publication.
  • Introduction: Constructivist Findings and Their Non-Incorporation,” APSA-CP (Newsletter in the Organized Section in Comparative Politics in the American Political Science Association), Winter 2001, pp.7-11.
  • Johns, Robert and Davies, Graeme A.M. 2012.“Democratic Peace or Clash of Civilizations? Target States and Support for War in Britain and the United States,” Journal of Politics, v.74, no.4, October, pp.1038- 52.
  • Katzenstein, Peter J. 2010. Civilizations in World Politics: Pluralist and Pluralist Perspectives, New York: Routledge.
  • Knight, George P.; Bernal, Martha E.; Garza, Camille A. and Cota, Marya K. 1993. “A Social Cognitive Model of the Development of Ethnic Identity and Ethnically Based Behaviors,” in Bernal and Knight, eds., Ethnic Identity: Formation and Transmission Among Hispanics and Other Minorities, New York: SUNY Press.
  • Kristin Birnir, Johanna. 2007. Ethnicity and Electoral Politics, New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kurzban, Robert; Tooby, John, and Cosmides, Leda. 2001. “Can Race Be Erased? Coalitional Computation and Social Categorization,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA (PNAS), v.98, no.26, December 18, pp.15387-92.
  • Mahbubani, Kishore. 1993. “The Dangers of Decadence: What the Rest Can Teach the West,” Foreign Affairs, v.72, no.4, September October, pp.10-14.
  • Neumayer, Eric and Plumper, Thomas. 2009. “International Terrorism and the Clash of Civilizations,” British Journal of Political Science, v.39. no.4, October, pp.711-34.
  • O’Hagan, Jacinta. 1995 “Civilisational Conflict? Looking for Cultural Enemies,” Third World Quarterly, v.16, no.1, pp.19-38.
  • Oakes, Penelope J. S.; Haslam, Alexander and Reynolds, Katherine J. 1999. “Social Categorization and Social Context: Is Stereotype Change a Matter of Information or of Meaning?” in Dominic Abrams and Michael A. Hogg, eds., Social Identity and Social Cognition Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1999 pp.55- 79.
  • Pantin, V.I. 2010. “The Political and Civilizational Self-Identity of Contemporary Russian Society in a Global Context,” Russian Social Science Review, v.51, no.1, January-February, pp.4-20.
  • Russett, Bruce M., R. Oneal, John and Cox, Michaelene. 2000. “Clash of Civilizations, or Realism and Liberalism Déjà Vu? Some Evidence,” Journal of Peace Research, v.37, no.5, September, pp.583-608.
  • Said, Edward W. 2001. “The Clash of Ignorance,” The Nation, October 22.
  • Sen, Amartya. 2008. “Violence, Identity, and Poverty,” Journal of Peace Research, v.45, no.1, January, pp.5-15.
  • Shoup Brian. 2007. Conflict and Cooperation in Multi-Ethnic States, Oxford: Routledge.
  • Smith, Tony. 1997. “Dangerous Conjecture,” Foreign Affairs, v.76, no.2, March-April, pp.163-4.
  • Stepan, Alfred; Linz, Juan J. and Yadav,. Yogendra 2011. Crafting State-Nations (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  • Tipson, Frederick S. 1997. “Culture Clash-ification: A Verse to Huntington’s Curse,” Foreign Affairs, v.76, no.2, March-April, pp.166-9.
  • Tooby, John and Cosmides, Leda. 1992. “The Psychological Foundations of Culture,” in Jerome H. Barkow, Cosmides, and Tooby, eds., The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture, New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Tsygankov, Andrei P. 2003. “The Irony of Western Ideas in a Multicultural World: Russians’ Intellectual Engagement with the ‘End of History’ and ‘Clash of Civilizations,” International Studies Review, v.5, no.1, pp.53-76.
  • Wallerstein, Immanuel.1984. The Politics of the World-Economy: The States, the Movements, and the Civilizations New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Walt, Stephen M. 1997. “Building up New Bogeymen,” Foreign Policy, no.106, Spring, pp.176-89.
  • Wimmer, Andreas. 2013. Ethnic Boundary Making (New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Yashar, Deborah J. 2007. “Resistance and Identity Politics in an Age of Globalization,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, v.610, March, pp.160-81.
  • Figure 1. Number of articles and books recorded (but not necessarily included) in the JSTOR database each year that contain the term “civilizations” in any language 1988-2012.
Medeniyet Araştırmaları Dergisi-Cover
  • ISSN: 2148-1652
  • Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 2 Sayı
  • Başlangıç: 2014
  • Yayıncı: İstanbul Medeniyet Üniversitesi
Arşiv
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

CIVIL WAR NON-ONSETS THE CASE OF JAPAN

James D. Fearon, David D. Laitin

MODERN MEDENİYET TASAVVURUNA GİRİŞ

Bedri Gencer

GEÇMİŞ VE GELECEK BOYUTUNDA İSLAM MEDENİYETİNİN TEŞEKKÜLÜNDEKİ ÂMİLLER: İLİM- AHLÂK /İLİM-AMEL

Alparslan Açıkgenç

CIVILIZATIONS REFRAMED TOWARDS A THEORETICAL UPGRADE FOR A STALLED PARADIGM

Henry E. Hale

GENEL BİLİM METODU YAKLAŞIMIYLA BİR KÜLTÜR VE MEDENİYET TEORİSİ

Yılmaz Özakpınar

OSMANLI -TÜRK AYDINININ MEDENİYET ANLAYIŞI

İbrahim Şirin