Thomas: Let me kick things off with a question: What's the first thing that pops into your head when you think about global conflicts? Is it fights over resources, economic battles, or maybe clashes of political ideologies? Well, according to Samuel Huntington, in the post-Cold War world, it's actually culture that's the real driver. Grace: <Laughs> Aha, culture, interesting. And that brings us to his book, “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order”. Huntington makes a pretty bold claim here, arguing that the main dividing lines in global politics are now all about civilizational identities—things like religion, language, and shared history, right? So we're talking about these huge cultural blocs—like the West, the Islamic world, or Confucian societies—and how they're shaping who's friends and who's not in today's world. Thomas: Exactly! And he doesn't just map out these civilizations. He digs into how globalization, demographic changes, and even old grudges are making these tensions even more obvious. And at the heart of it all is his idea that dialogue and collaboration are key to preventing conflict in this multi-civilizational world. Grace: Okay, but we're not just giving a summary here, we're gonna dive deep. Today, we’re going to unpack three big ideas from Huntington's argument. First, we'll look at how cultural identities are shaping global conflict. Why does it feel more like "us versus them" now than ever before? Thomas: Then, we’ll get into the growing influence of non-Western civilizations. Think about the rise of Confucian power or the resurgence of Islamic states. How are they changing the global power dynamic? Grace: Right, and finally, the million-dollar question: Can we actually achieve harmony in a world that seems so divided? What did Huntington suggest for bridging these cultural gaps, and what could actually work in practice? Thomas: It's a lot to cover, but it's super fascinating stuff. So get ready to explore the ever-shifting world of civilizational politics, as we dig into a world where culture is more and more at the heart of global power. Grace: Alright, let's jump right in.

Thomas: Okay, so let's dive right into Huntington's main point, shall we? He basically says that after the Cold War, the big deal isn't about which economic system is better or what political ideas everyone believes in. Instead, it's about these things called "civilizational identities." Think of them as huge groups of people who share a language, a religion, a history – all those cultural things that tie them together. Grace: Right, so what's really interesting here is how Huntington basically argues that these “civilizational” differences are way, way deeper and more permanent than, say, just political beliefs. He even goes so far as to say that the whole capitalism-versus-communism thing was just a temporary distraction compared to these much older, more fundamental divides. Thomas: Exactly. To get what he's saying, you have to change how you look at the world. Don't think of countries playing a game of chess with their different political ideas. Instead, think of giant plates – civilizations – slowly bumping and grinding against each other. And, these "fault lines"—that’s where you see clashes because of different religions, customs, and what people think is important. Grace: Whoa, hold on a second. Fault lines? That's a pretty strong image, I’ll give him that. But, I mean, haven't there always been cultural clashes? Like, think about the Crusades, or when the Ottoman Empire was pushing into Europe. Weren't those all about cultural differences, too? Thomas: That's a fair question. Huntington's point is that, yeah, cultural clashes have always been around, but in recent history, they were kind of pushed to the side by fights over political ideas – things like fascism, communism, and democracy. What's different now is that those political divides aren't as important anymore, so those older cultural differences are coming back as the main thing shaping world politics. So, he's not just saying history is repeating itself; it's a whole new way to understand what's going on. Grace: Interesting. So, if I'm hearing you right, we're basically going from countries fighting over political systems back to something more like tribes fighting, but on a massive, civilizational scale? Thomas: Precisely. And this is where it gets really interesting. Huntington doesn't just say this is happening—he tries to explain why it's happening now. He connects it to globalization. On the one hand, globalization brings people and cultures together. But, on the other hand, it makes the differences between them even bigger. So instead of everyone becoming the same, people feel the need to hold onto their unique identity even more strongly. Grace: Right, so instead of turning into that "global village" everyone was talking about, we're all kind of retreating into our own cultural corners. Does Huntington give any specific examples where we can see this happening? Thomas: One of the most powerful examples he uses is the Bosnian War in the 1990s. When Yugoslavia fell apart after the Cold War, all this ethnic and religious violence broke out in Bosnia. It wasn't about communism versus capitalism; it was about these really deep cultural fault lines between the Orthodox Serbs, the Catholic Croats, and the Bosniak Muslims. Grace: And what's really striking about that, to me, is how quickly everyone started identifying so strongly with their cultural group. I remember reading how leaders on all sides were bringing up stuff from centuries ago to justify what they were doing. Didn't Huntington also talk about how countries tend to rally around others who are culturally similar in situations like that? Thomas: Yes! He uses Bosnia as a prime example of this "kin-country rallying" idea, where countries and groups that share cultural ties support each other. For example, during the Bosnian War, you saw Turkey and Saudi Arabia siding with the Bosniak Muslims, while Orthodox countries like Russia showed support for the Serbs. It wasn't about political ideology; it was about cultural connections on a global scale. Grace: So, it's like a "my team versus your team" mentality, but on an international level. Okay, I get it. But doesn't that risk simplifying things too much? I mean, even within these civilizations, there are often disagreements, right? Like, take Islam, for example—you've got Sunni versus Shia conflicts all over the Middle East. Is Huntington just ignoring those complexities? Thomas: He does acknowledge that there are divisions within civilizations. But he argues that when there's external pressure or conflict with other civilizations, those internal disagreements often become less important. For example, he says that when Islam feels like it's being challenged culturally or politically by the West, you tend to see a broader sense of unity within the Muslim world, even if it doesn't completely erase all the internal tensions. Grace: Okay, but then what about globalization as this "amplifier" of culture? Huntington seems to be suggesting that globalization brings people closer together physically but pushes them further apart emotionally. Isn't that a bit contradictory? Thomas: It sounds that way. But Huntington’s point is more nuanced. He says that exposure to other cultures through globalization doesn’t make cultural differences disappear; it actually makes them stand out more. Like, you look at how many Mexican-Americans rallied under the Mexican flag to protest Proposition 187. It wasn't just a political thing; it was a statement about their cultural identity, separate from Western or American identity. Grace: So, instead of everyone blending together, you get people reasserting their cultural identities? That’s pretty interesting. Does Huntington connect that idea to bigger trends, like population changes in different civilizations? Thomas: Absolutely. He emphasizes that population growth in certain civilizations, especially in Muslim-majority countries, has geopolitical implications. He sees it as this cultural and demographic resurgence that’s shifting the world away from Western dominance and towards a more multipolar setup, where civilizations like the Islamic or Sinic blocs are gaining influence. Grace: And this is where the anxiety about “the West versus the Rest” “really” comes into play. Huntington warns that the West’s push for universal values—spreading liberalism, democracy, and secularism—is increasingly seen as a form of cultural imperialism by non-Western civilizations. Thomas: Exactly. And that's a central part of his argument. He doesn't just describe these changes; he warns that the West's insistence on pushing its values globally could lead to more resistance and a strengthening of civilizational identities. It's not just about politics; it's a clash over what cultures believe in. Grace: Heavy stuff, but it makes sense. Though I have to admit, part of me wonders, are we “really” doomed to keep clashing like this, or is there a way for civilizations to get along without steamrolling each other's cultures?

Thomas: That's a perfect bridge to our main topic today: the rise of non-Western civilizations. This shift from ideological to cultural conflicts “really” sets the scene for understanding global politics now. Huntington basically says that as the West's dominance fades a bit, these other civilizations are stepping up, reshaping things and redefining modernization through their own cultures. Grace: Exactly, and this builds on our last discussion by “really” looking at what civilizational identity means on the ground. We're talking about the economic boom in places like China, the population growth we're seeing in the Islamic world, and how this cultural confidence is driving these shifts. It feels like the old Western story is being completely rewritten. Thomas: Absolutely. Huntington breaks it down into three main areas: economics, demographics, and culture. Let's start with East Asia, where economic growth is key. China, especially, has become this massive economic force, but also a civilization that’s reclaiming its place in history. Their leaders have mixed rapid modernization with a “real” revival of Confucian values, which is a different model of progress that “really” challenges the West. Grace: China's a “really” interesting case. Think about the Belt and Road Initiative. On the surface, it looks like a trade and infrastructure project, but Huntington would probably say it's also a big cultural move, right? Thomas: Exactly. It’s not just about connecting countries; it's framed around these Confucian principles of harmony and collective progress. That’s what sets it apart from Western economic ideas, which can be seen – and sometimes rightly so – as exploitative or just self-serving. By focusing on mutual benefit, China is positioning itself as a leader in this multipolar world, offering an alternative to Western-style globalization. Grace: Right, that's a smart move. But what I find so interesting is that China isn't just copying Western ways. This idea that modernization has to mean Westernization is being totally challenged. You've got tech hubs like Shenzhen that can rival Silicon Valley, but China's still holding onto its cultural identity. It’s a sharp contrast to countries that felt forced to Westernize back in the colonial days. Thomas: That's a great point. Huntington argues that China's success directly challenges this Western assumption that modernization requires everyone to become culturally similar. And it's not just China; other East Asian economies like South Korea and Taiwan also show that you can modernize while keeping and even strengthening your traditional values. Grace: So, moving on, what about other non-Western civilizations, like the Islamic world? Huntington starts a very different, but equally compelling, conversation here. It's less about industrial power and more about how demographics drive cultural resurgence, right? Thomas: Exactly. Huntington talks about the "youth bulge" in many Muslim-majority countries. We're talking about societies with a huge percentage of the population under 30, which creates opportunities, but also challenges. On one hand, there’s this dynamic force pushing for social and cultural change, but on the other, if they don't get access to jobs and education, that can lead to frustration and even conflict. Grace: So, young energy turning into cultural and political assertiveness. Iran's a prime example of this, right? The 1979 revolution was about rejecting Westernization and building a state based on Islamic values. And it didn't stop there; after the revolution, they reformed education, established dress codes, and even shaped foreign policy around this idea of cultural indigenization. Thomas: Iran is definitely one of Huntington's key examples, especially for the broader Islamic world. He argues that their revolution became a blueprint for asserting cultural identity in opposition to the West. And even now, we see that resistance in policies that prioritize self-reliance – economically, politically, and culturally. He views these movements as proactive attempts to reshape global norms from a non-Western perspective, which is what's so striking about Huntington’s analysis. Grace: Which leads us to a bigger point Huntington makes: that globalization paradoxically amplifies cultural differences. Instead of creating a global melting pot, it's actually pushing civilizations to assert their unique identities even more strongly. Besides Islam and East Asia, does Huntington give other examples of this? Thomas: Yes, although those are his main focus. In Latin America, for instance, there's a growing movement to redefine modernization in terms of indigenous knowledge and heritage, not just Western models. And in India, you see efforts to integrate Hindu traditions into modernization, balancing technology with spiritual and philosophical roots. Grace: Interesting—so Huntington's thesis is as much about redefining "progress" as it is about power dynamics. But let’s come back to the implications, with all this cultural confidence and divergence, aren't we setting the stage for what Huntington calls "the West versus the Rest"? Thomas: Yes, that's central to his argument. He warns that when Western nations insist on universalizing liberal values like democracy and human rights, they risk provoking more resistance from other civilizations. To many non-Western nations, this feels like a new kind of cultural imperialism, much like colonialism in the past. Grace: Right, like the French ban on hijabs being framed as "secularism" but interpreted by many in the Islamic world as an attack on their identity. It's true that actions like that tend to deepen divides, not close them. Thomas: Exactly. Huntington argues that for harmony to be possible, the West has to move away from trying to make everyone the same and instead recognize that there are many different civilizations. It's not about assimilation, but coexistence – living side by side in a way that respects each other's values. Grace: That sounds almost utopian, though. History tells us that civilizations competing for global influence rarely just "coexist." Is Huntington being unrealistic in calling for dialogue and mutual respect? Thomas: Maybe. But here's the thing – he doesn't promise it will be easy. He makes it clear that if we don't adapt to this new reality of civilizational assertion, tensions will only escalate. He argues that recognizing each other's unique identities isn't just a nice idea; it's necessary to prevent outright conflict as these power dynamics keep shifting. Grace: A sobering thought. So, to sum it up, non-Western civilizations aren't just rising; they're changing the global landscape by redefining modernization and reclaiming the narrative of what progress even means. Meanwhile, the West has a choice: either double down on pushing its values or take Huntington's advice and engage in “real” dialogue. Now that's a clash worth paying attention to.

Thomas: As non-Western civilizations rise, the global landscape is becoming multipolar, which inevitably leads to new alliances and, well, conflicts. So, let's dive into the heart of today's discussion: strategies for coexistence in a multicivilizational world. Huntington doesn't just leave us with this idea of endless clashes. Instead, he offers a framework for managing a world defined by “really” deeply rooted cultural identities. This is where the theoretical meets the practical, offering ways to ease conflict while still respecting diversity. Grace: Okay, that's a necessary conclusion, given all the tension we've been talking about. But I'm curious, what are these strategies exactly? Are we talking grand principles, or are they more like concrete steps for leaders and policymakers? Thomas: Actually, it's a bit of both. Huntington's “really” calling for a fundamental shift in how we think: moving away from interventionist policies towards mediation, respect for each civilization's autonomy, and genuine dialogue. Let's start with mediation. He sees it as essential for coexistence. The idea is that instead of global powers just imposing their will, they should focus on helping with discussions between groups in conflict, making sure any solutions “really” fit their culture and aren't forced on them from the outside. Grace: Hmm, that sounds good in theory. But mediation can be tricky, right? What stops it from just being seen as more political maneuvering, with mediators pushing their own agendas? Did Huntington offer any examples of when this kind of mediation actually worked—or didn't? Thomas: Sure, he does. Let's start with a failure: the Yugoslav Wars in the 90s. The U.S. stepped in to help rebuild Bosnia after Yugoslavia fell apart. Sounds good, right? Restoring unity in a diverse society. But their approach was heavily influenced by Western ideas of multiculturalism, assuming that Bosnian Serbs, Croats, and Bosniaks could just coexist in a Western-style system. The problem? It completely ignored the deep historical issues and cultural tensions that were fueling the conflict. Grace: Yeah, I remember. There were peace agreements, and even some NATO intervention, but the wounds were still pretty fresh. And it sounds like instead of bringing people together, the push for reconciliation, from the outside, actually made things worse, didn't it? Thomas: Exactly. Huntington uses this as a prime example of how not to mediate conflicts. What was needed wasn't just outside solutions, but strategies that dealt with what was going on internally, civilizational dynamics. Ignoring those ethnic and religious identities tied to centuries of history turned out to be a complete disaster, tragically escalating into ethnic cleansing. Grace: That's a pretty grim case study alright. Does Huntington offer any more positive examples to balance that out? A situation where, you know, respecting civilizational autonomy actually worked? Thomas: He does. China's Belt and Road Initiative works as a modern contrast. Instead of pushing economic or political ideologies, the Belt and Road emphasizes mutual respect and integration. China frames its work as rooted in Confucian values of harmony and cooperation, which appeals to the cultural and political situations of its partners. For example, in developing nations across Africa and Asia, the initiative uses local workers and infrastructure strategies that fit those regions, instead of just using a one-size-fits-all model. Grace: Okay, so economic diplomacy with a cultural twist? That's definitely different than the "we build, you adapt" approach you often see with Western initiatives. And I guess that leads into the second point you made earlier: respecting civilizational autonomy. Tell me more about that. Thomas: Well, respecting civilizational autonomy means admitting that each civilization has the right to run its own cultural, political, and social affairs without other countries forcing them. It goes directly against the kind of unilateral actions that “really” defined much of the West's foreign policy after the Cold War. Huntington argues that treating a civilization like it's just waiting for Western norms will only make divisions deeper. Instead, policymakers need to respectfully engage with each civilization's own unique systems and traditions. Grace: Okay, fair enough. But I can see where critics would push back on this. What if respecting autonomy clashes with things that are supposed to be universal, like human rights or democracy? If respecting a culture's autonomy means ignoring, say, oppressive practices, where do we draw the line? Thomas: That's a crucial question, Grace. Huntington doesn't dismiss the fact that there's tension between universalism and cultural uniqueness. His solution is dialogue. Not forcing change, but encouraging understanding and step-by-step progress through conversations that cross civilizations. Which leads us to his third strategy: creating forums for sustained dialogue. Grace: So cross-civilizational dialogue isn't just some catchphrase, it's actual policy? How would that work in practice, though? I can't imagine civilizations with hugely different beliefs always finding common ground. Thomas: You're right. Common ground won't always be easy to find. But Huntington sees dialogue as a way to manage differences, not erase them. Take the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. International spaces like that give Muslim-majority nations a voice in global issues, while also allowing them to engage with non-Islamic countries as equals. Or look at interfaith summits that are trying to build bridges between religions. These kinds of efforts might not solve every conflict, but they reduce misunderstandings by encouraging respect and acknowledging everyone's values. Grace: OK, I get that. It's like creating a safe space – not in the "bubble" sense, but in a structured setting where issues are unpacked calmly rather than through power struggles. Has Huntington suggested how these platforms could expand, though? Could the UN, for example, play that role? Thomas: He doesn't specifically mention the UN, but he does suggest that institutions need reform to better reflect civilizational dynamics. Right now, international bodies tend to operate from a predominantly Western-liberal framework, which alienates non-Western civilizations. Reforming these structures to incorporate diverse perspectives would be a massive step forward. Grace: Alright, but I've got to ask – do we have time for this kind of reform? Given how quickly tensions escalate, like we've seen in places from Kashmir to Ukraine, can dialogue and respect catch up to reality? Thomas: That’s the urgency Huntington underscores. While reform and dialogue may take time, the alternative—escalating “us versus them” conflicts—has far greater costs. And he’s clear: this isn’t about creating utopia. It’s about pragmatic coexistence in a deeply divided world. The stakes couldn’t be higher.

Thomas: So, to recap, we've covered Huntington's core idea: that civilizational identity, more than anything else, is now what shapes global politics. Forget the old ideological fights. We talked about the rise of non-Western civilizations, how they're modernizing in their own ways, reviving their cultures, and “really” shaking up the West's long-held dominance. And finally, we looked at Huntington's ideas for how we can all get along: things like mediation, respecting each civilization's independence, and using dialogue as a way to navigate this new world. Grace: And Huntington's “really” giving us a heads-up, isn't he? A warning and a challenge rolled into one. The warning is that if we keep pushing these universalist ideals and just ignore the fact that civilizations are shifting, we're going to make the divides even worse and probably cause more conflict. And the challenge is to figure out how to live together in a way that respects the incredible diversity we have, without trying to pretend those differences don't exist. It's not about everything falling apart or about everyone becoming the same, it's about finding that balance between respect and realism in a world that seems to be breaking apart more and more. Thomas: Absolutely. I think the key takeaway is that Huntington's reminding us that understanding these cultural differences isn't just some academic exercise—it's crucial for survival in this multipolar world. The real question isn't whether civilizations will clash, but whether we can learn to navigate where they meet with humility and understanding. Grace: Exactly. Because the future of peace around the world might just depend on whether we can look beyond this "us versus them" way of thinking. Recognizing the power of talking to each other—even when it’s difficult, takes time, and isn't perfect—is so important. If civilizations are like the tectonic plates of the world, maybe it's time we stopped waiting for the next earthquake and started focusing on building bridges, what do you reckon?