Table of Contents
The clash of civilization is an argument that asserts that religious and cultural identities of people will be the reason behind the conflicts in the post-Cold War world. The clash of civilization theory was proposed by a political scientist Samuel P. Huntington in response to the works of his former student Francis Fukuyama in his book The End of History and the Last Man. Fukuyama in his theory argued that the historical process that had resulted in the rise of communism and feudalism had come to an end. Democracy and capitalism, the two core values of Western civilization, had overcome communism. However, Huntington in his clash of civilization theory postulates that culture and religion are the major causes of conflict in the modern world. The thesis of the current work is that theories of the clash of civilization and the end of history play an instrumental role in highlighting human differences in terms of their language, culture, and traditions.
Arguments For and Against the Theory of Clash of Civilizations
There are various arguments provided for the theory of clash of civilizations. Firstly, Huntington (2010) proposes that civilizations can clash because of their differences. He argues that the conflicting approaches are simple because civilizations have differences in history, language, culture, tradition, and religion. The major differences are resultant from the centuries of development; thus, they became an integral part of civilization. Moreover, the world is becoming increasingly smaller; and thus interactions are growing around the world. The increase in interactions intensifies the conscious of civilization and the awareness of the similarities and differences between them. Furthermore, Alkan (2014) explains that economic development and changes in social approaches have resulted to separation of people from local identities that have existed for a long time. The gap has been replaced by religion, which lays a fundamental basis for identification that has transcended country’s boundaries and united civilizations.
Additionally, the increase in economic regionalism is another argument for the theory of clash of civilization. Fletcher and Iyigun (2010) bring out the view that successful increase in regional economic development will motivate civilization consciousness. Moreover, clash of civilization will occur because the differences in culture and the characteristics of societies are not mutable in most cases. Hence, they are not easily compromised and challenging as compared to the political and economic differences. Koechler (2002) affirms that growth of civilization consciousness is further enhanced by the West. The West, being at the peak of power, makes non-westernized countries to have the desire, will, and resources to mold the world in the non-western ways.
There are also arguments against the theory of clash of civilizations. Mahdavi and Knight (2012) argue that the theory is an example of the purest invidious racism, a sort of parody of Hitlerian science directed today against Arabs and Muslims. More so, the clash of civilizations theory is viewed as a new justification for the U.S. to carry out the atrocities after the Cold War as the Soviet Union was no longer a threat to them. In essence, the Parliament of Malaysia (2013) points out that an alliance of civilization opposes to the theory with the United Nations taking up the task of dialogue between different civilizations. The phenomenon is aiming at reducing the social and cultural barriers between different civilizations.
Arguments For and Against the Theory of End of History
There are numerous arguments for the end of history theory. Fukuyama (2006) argues that in the post-Cold War period, democracy would outdo all other forms of government. The reason is the desire for peace and wellbeing, which sets nations to progress. He also argues that if a nation, regardless of being communist, desires to have greatest prosperity, it has to embrace some degree of capitalism. The proof is that the creation of wealth depends on private property hence demand for legal protection of individual rights.
Fukuyama (2006) opines that history should be seen as an evolutionary process because events happen at the end of history. He further argues that the pessimistic view of the future of humanity is warranted because people are unable to control technology. According to Fletcher and Iyigun (2010), Fukuyama also brings out the view that the end of history simply means that liberal democracy as a form of government is a final decision for all nations. He demonstrates the view that progression from liberal democracy to any other form of government cannot occur.
Nevertheless, arguments against the theory exist. To begin with, history is not over because neither democracy nor liberalism is ascendant. Mahdavi and Knight (2012) reiterate that the connection between capitalism and democracy has already been broken. The failure of capitalism has turned democracy against liberalism. Nations all over the globe are trying to practice the new system of capitalism that took over communism.
Another argument against the end of history theory is that capitalist democracies are suffering from poverty and racial tension. Koechler (2002) points out that the theory does not sufficiently address the power and force of ethnic loyalties and religious fundamentalism as hindrances to the spread of liberal democracy. A perfect example is the Islamic fundamentalism.
The New World Order and Solutions
The new world order is an explanation of the emerging totalitarian world government. Alkan (2014) suggests that the the new world order explained in conspiracy theories is the secret power elite. They have a global agenda of conspiring to rule the entire world with an authoritarian government which replaces sovereign states. The new world order is implemented gradually by the establishment of international organizations such as the United Nations, the World Bank, the World Health Organization and the International Monetary Fund. Huntington (2010) points to the view that the new world order seeks control through regulating human population by the use of family planning methods. The reduction in human population is enhanced through family planning and reproductive health, which promotes abortion, abstinence, and use of contraceptives.
According to Alkan (2014), the new world order has different aspects as it is also manifested through mass surveillance of the population. The phenomena as coding of goods using universal product codes, social security numbers, and use of biometrics for identification support the assumption. The new world order is also manifested through occultism, whereby illuminati religion is being introduced to people, who want to rule the world.
To solve the new world order, sovereign states need to introduce their own locally produced goods. People should be encouraged to buy their locally grown and manufactured goods. Moreover, Fukuyama (2006) recommends that different nations of the world should be encouraged to embrace their religions instead of the occult religion in the new world order. Freedom of religion and worship should be practiced worldwide. Governments of different nations should come up with their own local organizations to take care of regional needs such as health and currency. Independence of each government should be promoted worldwide.
In conclusion, proponents of the clash of civilization and the end of history theories provide various speculations about the future of America and the world. The arguments are based on the causes of the clash of civilizations in the modern world and the change in the system of governance. However, the two theories face a number of counterarguments because of tendency to encourage racism and to force the end of human history respectively. The new world order identifies one system of government that rules the entire world through control of growth in population, mass surveillance, and occultism. However, the issues could be effectively solved through the promotion of independent product manufacture and buying.