Resonance of the Clash

The clash of civilizations is essentially what one could describe as the story of mankind. Although it is currently being popularized as the antagonism of west versus east, this clash has been seen in numerous facets and guises throughout history. From the Romans and their quest to expand and conquer, to the Vikings descending in their war ships, to the various world wars, man has had conflict that has its roots in differences of culture, race and thought. Thus what one sees today publicized as the fight of the Christian West against the Muslim East, is merely a modernization of what lies in history. It is all but a resonance of what is carved into the hallways of time, a shadow foretelling what is to come and a symptom of man’s ever present weakness, that of self-identity. But even as one acknowledges the resonance of the clash, one cannot entirely attempt to explain it away as being caused by difference in identity and culture, rather one must dig deeper into the political, social and economic factors in each civilization. This paper aims to highlight the resonance of the clash of civilization as well as to analyze the reasons of the clash itself.
History has proven that humanity cannot eradicate the existence of cultural or national clashes therefore one can conclude that the clash of civilizations does resonate in a historical context. No matter how complex or how convoluted the issues that gave cause to war, the roots of all conflict behind many wars have lain in ethnic, cultural or other distinguishing differences. It is the whole concept of the “other”. It is always easier for men to blame or hate for as long as they perceive that their fellow human being is different and therefore could be a threat. The other is the basis for man’s understanding of himself and is also a threat to his well being. At the Nuremberg trials, Hermann Göring, Reich Marshal, of the Nazis said “But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”( Kamalipour pg 78) These words show how little effort it takes for one to turn against another so as to defend their identity, their sovereignty or some other such misconceived possession. By fulfilling this need for security, man guarantees that the clash of civilizations is perpetuated and continues to echo in each new generation of historical events.
In light of this one can assume that the conflict between East and West comes with the sanction of the people. By so doing this enables the clash of civilizations to resonate within the citizens of either Western or Eastern countries. According to author Mahmood Mamdani nowadays people are only surprised by violence that seems senseless, unfounded or unjustified. This means that if one’s government can find a reason to explain why violence was needed whether as a means of protection, or a way to bring about progress, the world would sanction this violence as right and proper. Even worse the world will ignore the occurrence of this violence. Such a scenario would reaffirm the fact that it is because of the people that the clash of civilization resonates and it is through them that it continues to exist.
Another way in which the clash continues is in the everyday lives of people. Whether it is on T.V. shows, in the news or in casual conversation, the bad guy is almost always cast as someone from the Middle East or someone possessing such features. In its own way, the clash of civilization lives on and is carried via the channel of people’s ignorance of each other’s culture. Apart from all this, one cannot totally blame the conflict between the East and West on merely the theory of the “clash of civilizations” Though many crimes in history have been committed with the reasoning of race, bloodlines and cultural differences, one cannot entirely make these the reason why the West and the East have conflict. This would be to fall into the same line of thought as Samuel Huntington whose view is that all it takes is for one to be Islamic and the other Western for the to be conflict. According to him the fundamental differences between western and Islamic civilizations are irreconcilable and inevitable lead to conflict (Huntington 22-49) . To take Huntington at his word would be to conveniently blame all of the world’s mistakes on the issue of identity and stereotypes or some other labels people decide on.
Critics of Huntington’s assertion have argued that to think of the world in terms of a clash of civilization would be inadequate as there are always other factors to consider such as internal conditions within each civilization. Huntington himself uses reference to Bernard Lewis to base the origins of some his arguments but this shows a limited understanding of what Lewis defines as the roots of the clash of civilizations. Unlike Huntington, Bernard Lewis declares that American cultural, political and economic imperialism is mainly to blame for the conflict East-West conflict. He argues that “for a long time now there has been a rising tide of rebellion against this Western paramountcy, and a desire to reassert Muslim values and restore Muslim greatness” (Lewis 49) . Furthermore because of the US’ encroachment into the politics and economy of the Middle East it has tried to direct the governance of these countries and threatened their independence and sovereignty. So if there is a clash between the US and the Middle East then the reason can be found no further than the US’ foreign policy.
Edward Said also scathingly criticizes Huntington in his article titled “The Clash of Ignorance” in which he states that labels like "Islam" and "the West" serve only to confuse an already disorderly reality . The words of Said are truly understandable especially when one tries to pinpoint who is “Islam” or who is “the West”. In a world that is increasingly global that has immigration and inter-racial families as part of its norm, one could not truly begin to define the clash of civilizations in a definition limited to cultural identity. While states are political territories with geographic landmarks, culture is not confined to similar strictures. Just as “Islam” can be found in the US, “the West” can equally reside in the Middle East so to try to make these labels the basis of the argument of the clash of civilizations would be to take the myopic view of much broader subjects.
The clash of civilizations does exist and indeed it resonates in many circles of our society. Just as it can be traced through history, the clash continues to be seen in popular media, the way kids are tough about the clash in their respective countries as well as in the reasons behind its existence. It can be argued that the clash exists because of the fear within the citizens of both East and Western countries just as one could propose that the clash’s continuance is encouraged by the political and economic intentions of primarily Western governments. Whatever the reasons in their full scope, they just serve to pronounce the resonance of the clash.