Interview with Momus, Part II

Returning to Momus and the Whitney: The Clash of Civilizations



As Eremi wrote previously, we are most familiar with Momus through his livejournal. Click Opera, which he updates daily, ranges from personal entries (a description of his day or travels) to thoughtful essays that weave together philosophic and contemporary themes. Two of our personal favorites were his musings on capitalism, and his nostalgic appeal to communism (check out "Emotional Communist" and "Capitalism Hearts Death"). Resonating with our education and worldview, Click Opera always delivered interesting, quirky, or thoughtful perspectives. But we were surprised when he recently delivered an opinion on events concerning the Danish cartoons, citing none other than Samual P. Huntington.

In 1993, Hungtington published a short article titled "The Clash of Civilizations" in Foreign Affairs. "It is my hypothesis," he wrote, "that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future."

The Harvard professor was writing at a monumental moment for political theorists: the fall of the Soviet Union. The end of the Cold War era elicited various interpretations from the American perspective. For many American neoconservatives, the United States won the Cold War thanks to President Reagan's policy of liberationist interventionism. For others, such as Francis Fukuyama, the Cold War signified an inevitable collaspe of an untenable system. (Fukuyama's most recent book - "America at the Crossroads" - illustrates how these theories led to unfortunate consequences, such as the Iraq War. Bush and his neo neoconservatives took the Cold War to mean that liberalism was inherently at the core of any regime and with enough shaking, liberal democracy would be the last one standing. Hence, no exit strategy.)

However, while the end of the Cold War was treated as a reasonable justification for liberal democracy, it did not fully satisfy why political conflict still errupted across the world. Fukuyama's influencial "End of History" believed that violent political movements (e.g. jihadism) were reactionary backlashes to modernization, as set forth by Weber's theory of progressive disenchantment. (A crude summary: Weber says modernity makes the world more homogeneous, decisions more rational, and as a result, religion loses its role in society. This is difficult to handle.) Taking this one step further, Huntington believed the end of communism signaled the end of ideological differences (that is, liberal democracy won) but the rise of cultural conflict between what he designates as eight separate civilizations.

Huntington's essay recieved more responses than any other essay in Foreign Affairs, before and after. His so-called eight civilizations rest on weak argumentaion and anecdotal evidence, which is poorly supported and easily contradicted by other anecdotal evidence. He mostly believes that civilizations are ordered around religion, but as critics point out, his conception of religion reinforces a limited Western point of view. On the other hand, Huntington has often been evoked and bandied about (mostly by the right) after the events of September 11, which is relevant in terms of exploring why it occured and what to do next. Civilizational culture clashes are worth acknowledging, but upon closer inspection, Huntington's framework is limited and unstable. Both Eremi and I had been taught to read Huntington with caution and an appropriate amount of skepticism. We were curious as to why Currie, with whom we normally agree, chose to align himself with Huntington so instantaneously. Eremi originally wrote a response in 2nd Law here, but when we realized we would have the opportunity to sit down and speak with Currie, we couldn't resist asking about Huntington. In typical Momus fashion, we recieved an interesting and thoughtful response:

Eremi Amabebe: The next question is about your post on the Danish cartoons, which came as somewhat of a surprise to me. You have talked about Muslims in Europe a lot before, so I was wondering if your position changed at all after the whole cartoon row.

Nick Currie: I think Huntington is often misused by people in that debate as someone saying that because cultures are different they can’t get on with each other. And that’s not what Huntington says. As I understand him, he said cultures are different -- deal with it. The world is going to be characterized, yes, by conflict between cultures, but also by the recognition of difference. I think that one thing Huntington wants to negate or deny is the idea that there is a universal morality. Basically, he says that the US -– or the West in general –- has tended to think that its values are universal and that it can impose its values on other people. I think Huntington wants to say that that’s not the case.

Thessaly La Force: I also feel he’s been used by a lot of conservatives inside the United States. Like, for instance, for a Bush senior type of foreign policy.

NC: But the New World Order was about imposing universal, relatively liberal, values worldwide - and Huntington doesn’t endorse that at all. That’s not something you can use Huntington to support. The Neocons are using kind of the same arguments, but they are just pushing them to these absurd extremes. I don’t think you could use Huntington for either of those positions; but I don’t endorse everything Huntington says. I’m basically a culturalist; I think culture is the important unit to look at rather than say, money, or economics.

TL: I have one last question. I know you’re Scottish, and you’ve appealed to the idea of sentiment. I recently read a Richard Rorty piece on human rights where he reintroduces Hume as an idea of how we’re going to overcome cultural barriers and avoid being universalistic, but also cooperate with one another. And it sounded similar your idea of ‘good difference.’

NC: I haven’t read David Hume very closely; he was in that Scottish tradition of humanism. And I kind of see those arguments where people say, ‘Ok, there is no such thing as objective truth or universal values, but what’s wrong with having rights as the next best thing? We might as well have an idea of human rights.’I mean, I can see the argument that we might as well have something, which people could then refer to and say, ‘Bush is breaking this convention, or this right, or whatever.’ In a way, it’s like what Freud called the “small differences” thing; I would have a “small difference” conflict with people who talk about universal human rights, but if there was a war I would be on their side. Those small differences would dissolve very easily. I would say, “Ok, I don’t believe these have any objective foundation, but I will fight for them.”

EA: Back to the Clash of Civilizations. I’m just not sure if I understand you completely; you’re saying that you take Huntington to say, basically, ‘culture is relevant’?

NC: Yeah, the idea that it’s ok to talk about groups. And that it’s even ok to generalize about groups, as long as your generalizations are testable and accurate.

EA: That seems like a nice thing on a group level or an individual level. But as far as foreign policy goes—

NC: Well, it certainly would have prevented the invasion of Iraq if Bush had read Huntington and said, ‘Ok, the Middle East has a different culture from us and we have to respect that difference…’ In a way, I think it would be more acceptable than what they’ve done, if they did what the Roman Empire did. [The Romans] invaded a lot of places, but they gave citizenship to everybody they invaded. I mean, sure, you might have just become a slave or something, but a lot of the greatest Roman writers –like Martial, he was Spanish- were from places that had been invaded and annexed to the Roman Empire. So if America really believed that its values were worth spreading around the whole world, it should make everyone in Iraq an instant American citizen --

EA: Would that go over well, though?

NC: It wouldn’t, of course it wouldn’t. But you can’t just invade people and not make them citizens, yet take their natural resources and whatever else you’re in there for. You should either go the whole way and be totally an imperial power -- which really is superior and really does spread its superior values and accept people as citizens-- or you just shouldn’t do it at all. A good reason not to do it is to say, ‘Ok, we have different cultures in the world and it’s not our business to tell other people how to live.’