Samuel P. Huntington doesn't like guacamole
When I first read some fragments of Samuel P. Huntington's "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order" I thought he could probably be right. Maybe the 21st century would be about civilizations rather than nation-states.
Nation-states appear to be so weak today (appear to be, not are) -everything is understood as a consequence of "globalization"- and many people seem to think that nation-states have reached a point where they're no longer valid. I, myself, believe one must keep in mind that neoliberalism often uses the suposed "weakness" of the nation-state to prove and promote, at some point, the predominance of economy over politics. The nation-state must not be underestimated: it's still a very powerful actor, without which multinationals would not be where they are (even if that's contradictory to their speech).
Getting back to Huntington, he argues in "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order" that last century's Cold War conflict (a.i. ideological conflict) will become most likely, in the post-Cold War period, a conflict along cultural differences. His book came out in 1993, and 9/11 certainly re-enforced his theory, specially apropos of the conflict between the "Islam Civilization" and the "Western Civilization".
I am in no position to criticize Huntington (Yale graduate, Harvard Ph.D. and Professor...) but I can't help it think he's making a huge mistake by trying to simplify complex realities into one big problem: "cultural differences".
Concepts such as "globalization", "identities" or "civilizations" are so abstract that it's almost dangerous. You've got to be careful, because they are a practical tool for manipulation purposes.
"Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity" came out in 2001. Huntington now identified the United States "internal enemy": the Latinamerican immigrant, particularly the Mexican immigrant.
It's much simpler (and a lot less compromising) to blame someone who doesn't belong to the own identity for profound and complex internal problems. Take Nazism for example: antisemitism was a way to address Germany's problematic situation at that moment: creating an "enemy" immediately unites everyone else who isn't a part of it. No matter what huge differences divide the newly integrated block, they still represent an "us" against a "them". It's very powerful, and so very dangerous.
Massive migrations are a present world-wide problem that needs to be resolved. However, encouraging xenophobia, racism and strengthening new sources of conflict is not the way to go about it. As much damage as undocumented immigrants might cause to their host-countries, their contribution to their economies should also be recognized. Ying-Yang, not black or white, that's life.
The Latinamerican/Mexican immigration issue is not -by far- the cause to the United States problems. Not even it's complete elimination would solve them. Come on, that's ridiculous.
Nation-states appear to be so weak today (appear to be, not are) -everything is understood as a consequence of "globalization"- and many people seem to think that nation-states have reached a point where they're no longer valid. I, myself, believe one must keep in mind that neoliberalism often uses the suposed "weakness" of the nation-state to prove and promote, at some point, the predominance of economy over politics. The nation-state must not be underestimated: it's still a very powerful actor, without which multinationals would not be where they are (even if that's contradictory to their speech).
Getting back to Huntington, he argues in "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order" that last century's Cold War conflict (a.i. ideological conflict) will become most likely, in the post-Cold War period, a conflict along cultural differences. His book came out in 1993, and 9/11 certainly re-enforced his theory, specially apropos of the conflict between the "Islam Civilization" and the "Western Civilization".
I am in no position to criticize Huntington (Yale graduate, Harvard Ph.D. and Professor...) but I can't help it think he's making a huge mistake by trying to simplify complex realities into one big problem: "cultural differences".
Concepts such as "globalization", "identities" or "civilizations" are so abstract that it's almost dangerous. You've got to be careful, because they are a practical tool for manipulation purposes.
"Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity" came out in 2001. Huntington now identified the United States "internal enemy": the Latinamerican immigrant, particularly the Mexican immigrant.
It's much simpler (and a lot less compromising) to blame someone who doesn't belong to the own identity for profound and complex internal problems. Take Nazism for example: antisemitism was a way to address Germany's problematic situation at that moment: creating an "enemy" immediately unites everyone else who isn't a part of it. No matter what huge differences divide the newly integrated block, they still represent an "us" against a "them". It's very powerful, and so very dangerous.
Massive migrations are a present world-wide problem that needs to be resolved. However, encouraging xenophobia, racism and strengthening new sources of conflict is not the way to go about it. As much damage as undocumented immigrants might cause to their host-countries, their contribution to their economies should also be recognized. Ying-Yang, not black or white, that's life.
The Latinamerican/Mexican immigration issue is not -by far- the cause to the United States problems. Not even it's complete elimination would solve them. Come on, that's ridiculous.
rocio - 19. Mar, 16:11
