The posed question deals with the investigation of the use of Huntington’s myth ‘there is a clash of civilizations’ in the discourses referring to the horrible events on September 11. Hence, several different questions have to be answered, as they are: How does Huntington himself link his myth to the ‘war against terrorism’? Which parts of Huntington’s myth are used in which way and by whom? Do the users of his myth support or neglect Huntington’s original thoughts and do they exert their source deliberately or unconsciously? What do the users of Huntington’s myth and Huntington himself fail to mention, which is necessary to let the theories function? And eventually, which theory after all is the one most fitting the facts?
Answering the questions, I will argue that the myth is used over the whole discourse, concerning September 11. Interestingly, parts of Huntington’s myth are both employed by proponents and opponents of Huntington, sometimes even without recognising it. Instead of speaking of different discourses, one should more precisely say that there is only one huge discourse with different outgrowths and directions. The various arguments are closely linked. Sometimes even opponents use Huntington as their basis in different ways. Therefore, none of the posed arguments – as Huntington’s myth itself – can function and be persuasive on its own. It will be argued that, what causes the clash is not just difference – as Huntington suggests – but the vain attempt to create equality. This is the basis for all arguments with regard to September 11. However, if creating equality is the cause of the terrorist attack, it is neither the existence of different cultures, the powerful behaviour of the US nor the violent roots within the Muslim world which can account for the reason of the terrorist attacks. It is in fact the process of globalisation and the consequential disappearance of cultural power which causes the actual problem.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The discourse on the ‘war against terrorism’ and the ‘clash of civilizations’
3. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper investigates the utilization of Samuel Huntington’s "clash of civilizations" myth within the post-September 11 discourse on the "war against terrorism." The primary research aim is to analyze how various actors interpret and manipulate this myth to justify their stances, and to identify the underlying assumptions that must remain unstated for these persuasive discourses to function effectively.
- The role of Huntington’s myth in framing the post-9/11 geopolitical landscape.
- Critical analysis of how supporters and opponents employ cultural narratives.
- The impact of globalization and the failure to create economic equality as catalysts for conflict.
- An assessment of the "clash" as a symptom of power imbalances rather than inherent cultural incompatibility.
- The influence of Western foreign policy on perceptions of democracy in the Middle East.
Excerpt from the Book
1. Introduction
The posed question deals with the investigation of the use of Huntington’s myth ‘there is a clash of civilizations’ in the discourses referring to the horrible events on September 11. Hence, several different questions have to be answered, as they are: How does Huntington himself link his myth to the ‘war against terrorism’? Which parts of Huntington’s myth are used in which way and by whom? Do the users of his myth support or neglect Huntington’s original thoughts and do they exert their source deliberately or unconsciously? What do the users of Huntington’s myth and Huntington himself fail to mention, which is necessary to let the theories function? And eventually, which theory after all is the one most fitting the facts?
Answering the questions, I will argue that the myth is used over the whole discourse, concerning September 11. Interestingly, parts of Huntington’s myth are both employed by proponents and opponents of Huntington, sometimes even without recognising it. Instead of speaking of different discourses, one should more precisely say that there is only one huge discourse with different outgrowths and directions. The various arguments are closely linked. Sometimes even opponents use Huntington as their basis in different ways. Therefore, none of the posed arguments – as Huntington’s myth itself – can function and be persuasive on its own.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter defines the research scope, outlining the investigation into how Huntington's thesis is applied to the post-9/11 discourse and establishing the author's argument regarding the role of globalization.
2. The discourse on the ‘war against terrorism’ and the ‘clash of civilizations’: This section examines the practical application of Huntington’s theories by various stakeholders and explores alternative perspectives, focusing on the tension between Western policy and Islamic perspectives on democracy.
3. Conclusion: The concluding chapter synthesizes the evidence to posit that globalization and the resulting economic inequalities are the true drivers of the conflict, rather than an inevitable clash between civilizations.
Keywords
Huntington, Clash of Civilizations, War against Terrorism, September 11, Globalization, Democracy, Islamic Fundamentalism, Western Foreign Policy, Cultural Identity, Economic Inequality, Polarisation, Geopolitics.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper fundamentally explores how Samuel Huntington’s "clash of civilizations" narrative was co-opted and utilized following the September 11 attacks to frame the ensuing "war against terrorism."
What are the primary thematic areas explored?
The central themes include the manipulation of political myths, the impact of globalization on local cultures, the definition of democracy in the Middle East, and the drivers of Islamic fundamentalism versus Western influence.
What is the central research question?
The research asks how Huntington’s myth is used in post-9/11 discourse and, more importantly, what specific assumptions or arguments must remain unstated or "taken for granted" for these discourses to maintain their persuasiveness.
Which scientific methodology is employed?
The study utilizes a critical discourse analysis approach, evaluating contemporary political articles, media reports, and speeches to identify how Huntington’s theories are referenced, supported, or contested by different voices.
What is addressed in the main body of the work?
The main body examines the intersection of Huntington’s original thesis with post-9/11 political rhetoric, highlights the internal contradictions of globalized development, and analyzes how Western policy contributes to regional instability.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
The work is best defined by terms such as globalization, clash of civilizations, political myth, cultural arrogance, and economic inequality.
How does the author characterize the role of globalization in this conflict?
The author argues that globalization is not merely an integrating force but also a source of disintegration and conflict, as it fosters unrealistic economic expectations and diminishes local cultural power.
Why does the author suggest that the "clash" is not one of civilizations, but of economic status?
The author concludes that the conflict is effectively between the global "rich" and "poor," where the failed attempt to achieve equal economic status across diverse societies creates the grievances exploited by fundamentalist movements.
- Citar trabajo
- Anne Uhlhaas (Autor), 2002, How is Huntington's myth there is a clash of civilizations used in the post-September 11 discourse on the war against terrorism?, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/11520
