In places throughout, this article1 almost appears to support some of the arguments put forward by political scientist, Samuel Huntington in his book the Clash of Civilizations. In this book Huntington proposes that after the cold war (which would be now), most major conflicts, rather than being between nations, would be between major ethnic and religious groups.
The idea of large-scale conflict between ethnic and religious groups is not unfamiliar; it dates back as far the human race itself. Still, Huntington's prophesies are a little worrying when you look at the global terrorist activity, of the last ten or so years. In retrospect, there does seem to be pattern.
Towards the end of this article, Seib starts to clearly deride some of Huntington’s theories. Stating that the last decade’s terrorist attacks are largely carried out my small numbers of people using the media to enhance the impact of their actions2. In classic terrorist fashion (I’m thinking in relation to organizations like the IRA and the ANC), the propagators this article describes commit acts that achieve more symbolic relevance than bloodshed. Their attacks are screened into the world’s living rooms as “virtual crisis”3.
Clearly, the prospect of a world ruled by racial and liberal divides seems, well, depressing. Almost a little fantastical.
One problem that I saw with this possibility was that, the way the previous two world wars have played out: there have actually been two sides involved, not a multitude of individual states. A true race war (for want of a better term) wouldn’t necessarily allow for allegiances would it?
Further reading on The Clash of Civilizations helped account for some of these loose threads. The essay Clash of Civilizations, or Realism and Liberalism Déjà vu?... by Bruce M. Russet et al., outlines the fact there are supposedly ‘core’ or dominant states within civilizations that have the ability to attract countries of similar culture and repulse those that are culturally dissimilar as a means of organizing collective security4.
The above statements could be related back to Sieb’s commentary about the small numbers involved in terrorism. Perhaps these small numbers have the potential to serve as the aforementioned cores (or affective centres): With the ability to draw in other participants and help to compress/solidify groupings?
____________________
1 Seib, Philip. The News Media and “the Clash of Civilizations.” Media and Conflict in the Twenty First Century. New York: Palgrave Macmillan (2003). 217-234.
2 Seib, 232.
3 Seib, 232.
4 Russet, Bruce M., John R. Oneal, and Michaelene Cox. “Clash of Civilizations, or Realism and Liberalism Déjà vu? Some Evidence.” Journal of Peace Research. 37.5 (2000): 583-608.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletenot sure if, as you say "the prospect of a world ruled by racial and liberal divides" is as fantastical as we would all hope. defining enemies and 'others' and drawing lines of gods and ethnicities = international political economy...?
ReplyDeleteRace is a hard thing to define. Culture is a bit easier, but that has its own problems. The idea that there were only two sides involved in World War Two, and certainly in WW1, is the fantastical thing we got sold. Every country in the war had its own agenda, and there wasn't even anything to go to war over except the pride of some sodding royals and their generals who were like them. That's the only race that ever counted. That's the only dance that ever mattered. Pussy dance. Hunger dance. Desperation dance. And those cunts send my grwat-grandfather to the Somme to watch evrybody die around them and ruin his fucking life, retard him for the rest of all time. Here's a fantasy: that ressurection of the dead to make them whole again, so maybe they don't suffer anymore, is a wholly bad thing.
ReplyDelete